Transformative Climate Governance: A Capacities Perspective to Systematise, Evaluate and Guide Climate Action [1st ed.] 9783030490393, 9783030490409

Citation preview

PALGRAVE STUDIES IN ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSFORMATION, TRANSITION AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Transformative Climate Governance A Capacities Perspective to Systematise, Evaluate and Guide Climate Action

Edited by Katharina Hölscher · Niki Frantzeskaki

Palgrave Studies in Environmental Transformation, Transition and Accountability Series Editor Beth Edmondson School of Arts Federation University VIC, Australia

The monographs and edited collections published in this series will be unified by interdisciplinary scholarship that considers and interrogates new knowledge of opportunities for sustainable human societies through environmental transformations, transitions and accountabilities. These publications will integrate theoretical debates and perspectives in the natural and social sciences with sustained and detailed analysis of local, regional and international initiatives responding to environmentally driven imperatives such as climate change, fresh water, energy resources, food security, and biodiversity. More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/15884

Katharina Hölscher · Niki Frantzeskaki Editors

Transformative Climate Governance A Capacities Perspective to Systematise, Evaluate and Guide Climate Action

Editors Katharina Hölscher Dutch Research Institute for Transitions Erasmus University Rotterdam Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland The Netherlands

Niki Frantzeskaki Dutch Research Institute for Transitions Erasmus University Rotterdam Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland The Netherlands Centre for Urban Transitions Faculty of Health, Arts and Design Swinburne University of Technology Melbourne, Australia

ISSN 2523-8183 ISSN 2523-8191  (electronic) Palgrave Studies in Environmental Transformation, Transition and Accountability ISBN 978-3-030-49039-3 ISBN 978-3-030-49040-9  (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49040-9 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover credit: Diephosi/gettyimages This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Foreword

How we innovate our governance approach to address climate change in the city of Rotterdam. Adapting to climate change and achieving resilience is not an easy journey. In Rotterdam, we now work for a decade on climate adaptation and have built an international profile on that topic. We were able to become leaders in climate adaptation because our politicians and civil servants recognised the urgency and the opportunities for making our city climate resilient, liveable, safe and equitable. We have created a good story (an impactful narrative), which does not only talk about climate change but paints a vision of a better city, a better Rotterdam. People can visit us and see ‘real things’ (‘real applications’ for dealing with climate change pressures) such as the Benthemplein water square and the Floating Pavilion. Many cities that face similar struggles call us in Rotterdam to learn about and from what we did. There are many reasons why to look at cities as key arenas for combatting climate change. The obvious one is that more than half of the world population lives in cities, by 2050 this will be more than 70%. At the same time, many challenges come together in cities. Cities are places where we feel the immediate impacts of climate change, especially considering that many cities are situated at coastlines. Cities around the globe already feel the urgency to respond to (the impacts of) climate change, and that is an important driver of climate action. For example, in the USA after New York City and New Orleans now the city of Houston faced severe destruction after super storm Harvey. These events v

vi  

FOREWORD

demonstrate how the impacts of climate change interact with many other changes like the energy transition, digitalisation and equity. It is easier for cities to act efficiently and faster than national governments for climate change and many other challenges. For example, cities are mostly responsible for spatial planning, and the majority of solutions for dealing with climate change in cities are spatial. Our experiences in Rotterdam taught us to abandon existing assumptions and working procedures when thinking about how to deal with climate change. This ties in with the main ideas presented in this book: with our efforts to tackle climate change, we innovated our approach to govern our city. These changes do not only reside inside the city government of Rotterdam, but also extended to making many new partnerships with stakeholders in our city, with our national government and with global city networks. A key starting point in Rotterdam was the paradigm shift to emphasise the opportunity we gain from water in our city rather than viewing water as our enemy that we have to fight. What we mean to say when we speak of ‘water as opportunity’ is that climate adaptation that enables us to live with water also allows us to become a better city. Water has literally a value. As a port city, we are familiar with the economic value of water. In the urban realm, water is a driver of urban quality and in turn results in increasing the value of real estate. We therefore define resilience as a broad, cross-cutting issue that combines climate adaptation with the ambition to make Rotterdam more green, liveable, equitable and healthy. And these are goals that everyone wants. This approach to climate adaptation opens up many opportunities for tackling the impacts of climate change while adding value. It reveals choices: investing money in a sewer pipe or in a new design of a public space like the water square. We now developed 400.000 m2 of green roof space that also improves the air quality of the city and mitigates flood risk. This approach has also made it possible to develop new business models for companies in Rotterdam especially to export these innovations. For example, local companies are now involved in the development of water squares in Surat, India. Additionally, Rotterdam became the hosting city for the Global Centre on Climate Adaptation. We still face many challenges in bringing our ambitious goals to realisation. A critical next step will be to mainstream our approach to climate adaptation and resilience and translate our long-term visions ­ into s­hort-term action plans. The challenge to achieve city-wide implementation is not about money: rather, it is about getting a grasp of the

FOREWORD  

vii

complexity of our urban system and to get everybody, including citizens and key stakeholders such as housing corporations, to contribute and collaborate for climate adaptation. In Rotterdam, we recognise that climate resilience is not anymore about flood risks: rather, it is about drought and heatwaves. We thus integrated heatwaves as an urgent matter in our 2019 update of the climate adaptation strategy. This also demands new knowledge, since the urban effects of heatwaves and droughts are yet not well understood. We need to better understand how to link physical measures with social challenges, or cyber resilience: even if we are able to develop the right infrastructure to become climate resilient, we have to check whether we are cyber proof. We also need to find ways to measure how climate adaptive and resilient we are to show the value and progress of our efforts. We already search for specific indicators to deal with these tradeoffs. For example, we identified 42.000 houses that are vulnerable to perennial flooding and in the coming years we aim to reduce this number. Looking beyond Rotterdam, it is inspiring to see other cities around the world work on similar challenges. Cities are growing together as a community to join forces, exchange ideas and learn from one another. More and more cities experience the value of peer-to-peer exchange, which is one of the benefits of being a member of a network like the 100 Resilient Cities. Paris visited Rotterdam to learn about our water square as an idea to combine water storage and social resilience. In turn, we are going to apply Paris’ programme to make schoolyards and schools ­climate-resilient, green and open them up to people from the district so they can go there for cooling during heatwaves. There are also many connections between Rotterdam and New York City: New York City learns about our resilient design principles for combining multiple functions. We will apply their participatory Rebuild By Design process to integrate social resilience into one of our neighbourhoods. My dream is that the knowledge institutes of the partnering cities would work together to intensify knowledge exchange, for example by exchanging students. Finding the right solutions and processes to address climate change is an ongoing challenge, not only in Rotterdam, and cities more generally, but also on national and international levels. In Rotterdam, we realised that we are essentially learning-by-doing about climate change and resilience because both issues are difficult to grasp and involves many different goals and values, and our knowledge about them is ever developing. Next to this, driving climate action on global levels requires prioritisation

viii  

FOREWORD

of climate change. So far, the cities that are active in climate action have faced some urgency like big storms or heatwaves. It is more difficult for cities to be prioritise action on climate adaptation without such urgency. To accelerate urban climate resilience, we need a balance between both bottom-up approaches and top-down regulations. Additionally, it is important to facilitate exchange of best practices and direct support for cities to develop holistic climate adaptation strategies, such as done by the Climate Adaptation Academy in Rotterdam. Knowledge development for anchoring climate adaptation in city planning, the resilience dividend and monitoring are topics that need support in the near future. As a last note but not to overlook is that we need to enable the availability and accelerate the dissemination of knowledge, including best practices, to help the vulnerable citizens of our cities as risks increase rapidly. Rotterdam, The Netherlands November 2019

Arnoud Molenaar

Arnoud Molenaar  is Chief Resilience Officer, Municipality of Rotterdam, The Netherlands and he is Affiliate Expert Cities at the Global Centre on Adaptation (GCA) in Rotterdam.

Preface

2019 was a both hopeful and disappointing year for global climate action. We saw bottom-up pressures intensifying, spearheaded by Greta Thunberg’s Fridays-For-Future movement, citizens around the globe rising voices and protests about extinction crisis, and almost 1.000 cities worldwide declaring climate emergency. The European Commission’s Green Deal marks a stepping stone that lays ground for the enforcement of the Paris Agreement, making the net-zero emissions target legally binding. In the Netherlands, the Urgenda Foundation won a court case against the Dutch Government, in which citizens established that their government has a legal duty to prevent dangerous climate change. However, in 2019, global emissions have hit an all-time high and the COP25 meeting in Madrid in December 2019 concluded with disappointing results. The negotiations backslided into a little ambitious narrative, without political agreement for taking the bold and transformative action needed to reach the Paris Agreement. Scientific results unequivocally show the dangerous paths global development is moving along, yet any action to combat climate change continues to compete not only with powerful and vested interests of the high-carbon industry, but also with entrenched values and lifestyle choices of individuals. We write this book to give a positive vision and structuring approach for governance for climate change, to shift the narrative from the apathy and stalemate to action and transformation. We aim to show that interdisciplinary science has produced approaches and evidence that can systematise, evaluate and guide the design of climate action and ix

x 

PREFACE

its governance. Our vision contrasts existing climate governance and associated lock-ins that signify the institutional resistance to change and become manifest in the inability to substantially reduce emissions and maintain human and environmental well-being on this planet. Specifically, we introduce transformative climate governance as an integrative, learning-based and inclusive governance approach that addresses climate change in synergy with long-term sustainability and resilience goals. It rests in the belief that in order to effectively address climate change, climate governance itself needs to be transformed. In other words: any attempt on climate mitigation and adaptation should be part of the quest for deep societal transformations towards sustainability and resilience. We aim to contribute to an understanding about what transformative climate governance could look like and how it can be strengthened ­vis-à-vis existing governance regimes. To this end, our central contribution is a framework of capacities for transformative climate governance. The capacities framework responds to the lack of overarching insights into how diverse governance mechanisms and conditions can be integrated within a theory of governance for transformation under climate change. Starting from the question of ‘what needs to happen’ to facilitate transformative climate governance, the framework allows to systematically investigate the dispersed climate governance landscape as a conglomerate of dynamic and systemic conditions and actor-related processes at multiple levels and in multiple settings (‘how’ and ‘by whom’ this is made to happen). In this sense, the capacities framework provides a basic frame and direction for questioning existing governance structures and practices and for developing conditions that enable governance in line with long-term sustainability and resilience goals, and in this way to replace the short-term modus operandi of existing (climate) governance. By investigating capacities for transformative climate governance at multiple scales in this book, we can respond to the following questions: What are key overarching conditions, actors and activities that facilitate governance for transformation under climate change? Given insistent climate governance lock-ins, what needs to happen in research and policy to build-up the capacities that transform climate governance and ensure the decisive implementation of systemic and integrated climate action? We zoom in on urban climate governance in Rotterdam (The Netherlands) and New York City (USA) to explain and evaluate the role of cities in delivering effective climate action. We also

PREFACE  

xi

show how the capacities framework can be used for supporting climate action at European, regional and local levels in inter- and transdisciplinary research settings that develops transition pathways in the context of high-end climate and socio-economic scenarios. The case studies show the varieties and levels at which climate governance is taking place and how capacities for transformative climate governance can be developed consistently across scales and sectors. We want to emphasise that—as the 1.5°C goal is on the brink of becoming impossible—decisive changes in climate governance need to happen quickly. Our concluding research agenda signposts promising conditions and activities for building capacities at multiple levels as well as capacity gaps and barriers that persist in (climate) governance. The main future challenge we highlight is about formalising the capacities: so far, we only see them emerging in ad hoc and informal ways. As such, the capacities are not able to counter the tendency to favour short-term wins and business-as-usual. As discussed by the contributors to this volume, ultimately, investing in the capacities means to change the cultures, types of knowledge and networks that guide decision-making and planning. Developing capacities for transformative climate governance turns attention to process in as much as outcome, including how inclusive policy and planning processes are or what they feed back to policy and process learning. In particular, it implies a more inwardly looking and reflexive approach to how to set up urban governance structures and conditions so as to allow desirable governance processes. We suggest the capacities framework as a tool to derive more in-depth and generalisable results on how and what new forms of climate governance are emerging and how effective these are. The application of the framework to different contexts and scales can yield generalisable results on activities, opportunities and challenges and thus reveal pathways for transforming (climate) governance in relation to different contextual needs, institutional conditions and resources. These case studies also illustrate the utility of the capacities framework for transdisciplinary research approaches, in combination with transition management, to co-create capacities in practice, with diverse stakeholders, and thus to shift towards more solution-oriented climate change research. This book compiles previous research on urban climate governance and transformative climate governance in Europe. The research resulting in this book has been supported by the EU FP7 project IMPRESSIONS (www.impressions-project.eu) [grant number 603416].

xii  

PREFACE

The case study in New York City was additionally supported by the Prins Bernhard Cultuurfonds, The Netherlands; the Konrad von Moltke Fund, Germany; and the Stichting Erasmus Trustfonds, The Netherlands. We want to thank our colleagues of the IMPRESSIONS project who contributed to the collective work on advancing understanding about climate and socio-economic risks and climate governance for transformation. We also thank the interviewees for both Rotterdam and New York City case studies and all participants, translators and facilitators of the three series of workshops realised during the IMPRESSIONS research project. We especially want to thank Dr. Jill Jäger for her experience, support, insight and passion to look for ambitious vision for our future. Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Katharina Hölscher Niki Frantzeskaki

Contents

Part I Towards Transformative Climate Governance: What Governance Capacities Do We Need? 1

A Transformative Perspective on Climate Change and Climate Governance 3 Katharina Hölscher and Niki Frantzeskaki

2

Capacities for Transformative Climate Governance: A Conceptual Framework 49 Katharina Hölscher

Part II Capacities for Transformative Climate Governance in Cities 3

Transforming Cities and Science for Climate Change Resilience in the Anthropocene 99 Timon McPhearson

4

Navigating Transformations Under Climate Change in Cities: Features and Lock-ins of Urban Climate Governance 113 Katharina Hölscher and Niki Frantzeskaki xiii

xiv  

CONTENTS

5

Transforming Urban Water Governance in Rotterdam, the Netherlands 163 Katharina Hölscher, Niki Frantzeskaki, and Derk Loorbach

6

Capacities for Transformative Climate Governance in New York City 205 Katharina Hölscher, Niki Frantzeskaki, Timon McPhearson, and Derk Loorbach

7

Transforming Urban (Climate) Governance: What Do We Learn from Pro-actively Experimenting Cities? 241 Katharina Hölscher

Part III Capacities for Transformative Climate Governance Under High-End Scenarios in Europe 8

Climate Governance and High-End Futures in Europe 285 Ian Holman, Pam Berry, Katharina Hölscher, and Paula A. Harrison

9

Operationalising Transition Management for Navigating High-End Climate Futures 315 Niki Frantzeskaki, Katharina Hölscher, Ian Holman, and Paula A. Harrison

10 Capacities in High-End Scenarios in Europe: An Agency Perspective 359 Simona Pedde, Katharina Hölscher, Niki Frantzeskaki, and Kasper Kok 11 Agency Capacities to Implement Transition Pathways Under High-End Scenarios 381 Katharina Hölscher, Niki Frantzeskaki, Simona Pedde, and Ian Holman

CONTENTS  

xv

Part IV  The Future of Transformative Climate Governance 12 Sustainable Climate Development: Transforming Goals into Means 419 J. David Tàbara 13 Transforming Climate Governance? Why Climate Governance Is Failing and What to Do About It 431 Derk Loorbach 14 Conclusions: Bridging and Weaving Science and Policy Knowledges for a Research Agenda to Transform Climate Governance 447 Katharina Hölscher and Niki Frantzeskaki Appendix A: T  ransformative Climate Governance Capacities in Rotterdam and New York City 477 Appendix B: S  tep-by-Step Description of the IMPRESSIONS Methodology to Co-produce Pathways Under High-End Scenarios 495 Appendix C: Visions and Pathways to Shift to Low-Carbon, Resilient and Sustainable Futures in Europe 511 Index 691

Notes

on

Contributors

Pam Berry is a Senior Research Fellow at the Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, UK. Niki Frantzeskaki is Professor and Director at Centre for Urban Transitions, Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. Paula A. Harrison is Professor of Land and Water Modelling and Principal Natural Capital Scientist at the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Lancaster, UK. Ian Holman  is Professor of Integrated Land and Water Management at Cranfield Water Science Institute, Cranfield University, UK. Katharina Hölscher is Senior Researcher at the Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Kasper Kok  is Assistant Professor at the Department of Environmental Sciences at Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Derk Loorbach is Professor and Director at the Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

xvii

xviii  

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Timon McPhearson is Director of the Urban Systems Lab and Associate Professor of Urban Ecology at The New School in New York City, USA. He is Senior Research Fellow at The Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies in Millbrook, New York, USA, and Associate Research Fellow at Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Sweden. Simona Pedde is a Post-doctoral Researcher at Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands. J. David Tàbara is an Associate Senior Researcher at the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology of the Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain, and at the Global Climate Forum, Berlin, Germany.

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Fig. 2.2 Fig. 3.1 Fig. 3.2

Fig. 5.1 Fig. 6.1

Fig. 8.1

Governance capacities: connecting ‘what’ to ‘who’ and ‘how’ (Adapted from Hölscher 2019) 56 Conceptual framework: capacities for transformative climate governance 65 Multi-hazard risk including from heat risk, coastal flood risk, and inland flood risk combined for New York City (Adapted from Depietri et al. 2018) 102 The social-ecological-technological systems (SETS) conceptual framework emphasizes the social-economic, ­ecological-biophysical, and technological-infrastructural interactions that drive systems processes and patterns in an increasingly interconnected world at local and global scales (Adapted from McPhearson et al. 2016a; Depietri and McPhearson 2017) 104 The Benthemplein water square in May 2015 (Source Private 2015) 172 Land cover and Flooding in New York City. Land cover data elaborated in 2017 by the Department of Information Technology and Telecommunication of New York City. Floodplain data refers to the 100-year floodplain used to define the currently effective Special Flood Hazard Area, mapped by the Federal Emergency Management, last updated in 2007 209 Schematic of the IMPRESSIONS approach 288

xix

xx  

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 8.2

Schematic illustration of how the scenario context constrains adaptation within the IMPRESSIONS IAP2 Fig. 8.3 Schematic illustrating the relationship between the IMPRESSIONS integrated scenarios, pathways and vision Fig. 8.4 The IMPRESSIONS vision for Europe in 2100 Fig. 8.5 Overview of the IMPRESSIONS methodological approach to the qualitative and quantitative assessments of the pathways’ efficacy in achieving the vision Fig. 8.6 Illustrative cross-sectoral interactions and competition within the IMPRESSIONS Integrated Assessment Platform 2 that lead to complex trade-offs and synergies across Europe Fig. 8.7 The European pathway to shift to sustainable lifestyles in SSP3 scenario Fig. 8.8 Spider diagrams showing, for two contrasting scenarios, the state of the vision element indicators within the scenario (blue line), after the initial pathways (red lines) and after the final pathways (green lines). A value of 100 implies the desired state of the vision element indicator is likely to be reached. The vision element labels are colour coded according to the main pathways that are likely to influence them: sustainable lifestyles pathways (Blue), sustainability pathways (Orange) and integrated resource management pathways (Purple) Fig. 9.1 The three activity cycles of the IMPRESSIONS project: the adapted Transition Management Cycle (co-creation activities performed with stakeholders), the Knowledge Translation Cycle (analytical activities performed by IMPRESSIONS’ experts) and the Knowledge Consolidation Cycle (synthesis activities performed both with stakeholders and by IMPRESSIONS’ experts) Fig. 9.2 The Transition Management Cycle (co-creation cycle) along with the inputs and outputs through the Knowledge Translation Cycle activities Fig. 9.3 Illustration of IMPRESSIONS’ backcasting steps Fig. 10.1 Conceptualisation of scenarios as context to develop mitigation and adaptation pathways to reach a desired vision in 2100. The actions to develop sustainable pathways towards the vision build from the scenario and are ­scenario-contextualised in time (Adapted from Pedde et al. 2019)

293 294 296 297

299 301

306

320 322 336

364

LIST OF FIGURES  

Fig. 10.2 Interpretation of challenges to adaptation (inequality) and mitigation (carbon intensity) of the European SSPs (Adapted from Pedde et al. 2019) Fig. 10.3 Analysis of the potential to transform society towards the sustainability vision under each Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP)-based IMPRESSIONS scenarios. The potential is the result of combining different levels of capitals and capacities in each case study in 2100. The capacities assessed are stewarding (S), unlocking (U), transformative (T) and orchestrating (O). Their position on the y-axis depends on the combined level of human and social capital (Adapted from Pedde et al. 2019) Fig. 11.1 Suite of three robust pathways across IMPRESSIONS case studies and scenarios Fig. 11.2 A perspective on agency capacity in transition pathways (Adapted from Hölscher, Chapter 2, this volume) Fig. 12.1 Aiming to achieve transformative sustainability goals requires profound transformations in the existing political, economic and socio-cultural structures and mechanisms— otherwise the means and capacities—that we currently use to attain them. Different relations between desired or existing goals and means—whether they are conventional or significantly s­ ustainability-oriented—yield different types of learning capacities and situations Fig. 13.1 Transition dynamics ‘X-curve’ (Loorbach et al. 2017) Fig. 14.1 Key research themes for developing transformative climate governance capacities Fig. B.1 The process steps to co-produce pathways in IMPRESSIONS Fig. B.2 The collection of actions in response to the socio-economic scenario SSP5 in the Hungarian case study, before clustering Fig. B.3 An example of making time-dependent strategies by putting all responses in a cluster on a timeline from today until 2100 during the IMPRESSIONS workshops #2

xxi

365

370 386 389

428 437 452 498 502 502

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Table 1.2 Table 1.3 Table 1.4 Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 2.4 Table 2.5 Table 2.6 Table 2.7 Table 5.1 Table 6.1 Table 7.1 Table 7.2 Table 7.3

Characteristics of transformations and climate change as a transformation challenge: implications for climate governance 10 Attributes of sustainability and resilience in the context of transformations 17 Climate governance features and related challenges 20 Chapters in this book 33 Overview of sustainability transitions and resilience approaches 61 Transformative climate governance functions and related governance concepts 64 Stewarding capacity 69 Unlocking capacity 72 Transformative capacity 74 Orchestrating capacity 76 Insights generated from the capacities framework 78 Capacities for sustainable and resilient water governance in Rotterdam 189 Transformative climate governance capacities (conditions and activities) in New York City 229 Transformative climate governance capacities in Rotterdam and New York City 249 Actors and actor networks enacting urban climate governance in Rotterdam and New York City 257 Shortcomings and related capacity gaps and challenges 264

xxiii

xxiv  

LIST OF TABLES

Table 8.1

Details of the exploratory climate scenarios selected for use in IMPRESSIONS in order of declining European temperature increase (adapted from Holman et al. 2017) and their linked Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP). European change in temperature (ΔT) and precipitation (ΔPr) are relative to 1961–1990 Table 8.2 IMPRESSIONS pathways and strategies across case studies and scenarios Table 9.1 Contrasting the wildcards with the IMPRESSIONS’ input scenarios to assess compatibility, applicability and redundancy Table 10.1 Interpretation of capacities to measure enabling and disabling conditions in IMPRESSIONS scenarios Table 11.1 Capacities to shift to sustainable lifestyles Table 11.2 Capacities to set up good governance systems for sustainability Table 11.3 Capacities to promote integrated and sustainable resource management Table 11.4 Key agency capacity features, conditions and activities to implement transition pathways Table A.1 Stewarding capacity in Rotterdam and New York City Table A.2 Unlocking capacity in Rotterdam and New York City Table A.3 Transformative capacity in Rotterdam and New York City Table A.4 Orchestrating capacity in Rotterdam and New York City Table B.1 Overview of stakeholder participation steps in all case studies Table B.2 Steps for assessing the efficacy of pathways in achieving the vision Table C.1 European pathways in SSP1 Table C.2 European pathways in SSP3 Table C.3 European pathways in SSP4 Table C.4 European pathways in SSP5 Table C.5 Scottish pathways in SSP1 Table C.6 Scottish pathways in SSP3 Table C.7 Scottish pathways in SSP4 Table C.8 Scottish pathways in SSP5 Table C.9 Hungarian pathways in SSP1 Table C.10 Hungarian pathways in SSP3 Table C.11 Hungarian pathways in SSP4 Table C.12 Hungarian pathways in SSP5

290 302 346 368 391 395 398 403 478 482 485 489 499 505 515 528 539 547 557 568 578 590 607 615 624 633

LIST OF TABLES  

Table C.13 Table C.14 Table C.15 Table C.16 Table C.17

Iberian pathways in SSP1 Iberian pathways in SSP3 Iberian pathways in SSP4 Iberian pathways in SSP5 Robust pathways across case studies and scenarios

xxv 648 658 663 674 680

PART I

Towards Transformative Climate Governance: What Governance Capacities Do We Need?

CHAPTER 1

A Transformative Perspective on Climate Change and Climate Governance Katharina Hölscher and Niki Frantzeskaki

1.1  Introduction Anthropogenic climate change unequivocally embodies one of humanity’s defining challenges of the twenty-first century with severe and far-reaching societal implications (IPCC 2014; Steffen et al. 2018; WBGU 2011). The Special Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlights the urgency for fast and radical changes to achieve the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C target as well as for adapting to non-revocable impacts of climate change (IPCC 2018).

K. Hölscher (*) · N. Frantzeskaki  Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] N. Frantzeskaki  Centre for Urban Transitions, Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 K. Hölscher and N. Frantzeskaki (eds.), Transformative Climate Governance, Palgrave Studies in Environmental Transformation, Transition and Accountability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49040-9_1

3

4  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

As we finalise this book and reason for a new lens and framework to shape governance actions for climate change, the COP25 meeting in Madrid in December 2019 concluded in a disappointing stalemate: no agreement on action. Specifically, COP25 in Madrid ended with no political agreement for taking the needed bold and transformative action required to rise up to the amounting challenge of climate change despite the efforts of activists like Greenpeace, Greta Thunberg’s movement Fridays-For-Future and many citizens worldwide rising voices and protests about extinction crisis, cities around the globe declaring climate emergency, as well as the pressing voices of scientists about climate emergency (see Ripple et al. 2019). This further underscored that combating climate change is a tenacious task: while climate change is a scientifically proven and societally acknowledged problem for more than three decades, global emissions are still on the rise and societies struggle to adapt to the impacts of climate change (Roberts et al. 2018). Over the past years, and in part in response to the disappointing international progress, climate governance has taken a turn to ­decentralised and multilateral relations and agreements outside of the realm of nation state commitments alone (Jordan et al. 2018; Ostrom 2014; van Asselt et al. 2018). Climate governance by now builds on an extensive international regime centred on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement’s goal of holding “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C” (UN 2015: p. 3). Around this regime, multiple subnational and non-state actors started to take climate action at international, transnational, national and subnational levels (Burch et al. 2016; Hildén et al. 2017; Wurzel et al. 2019). Especially cities have been recognised as ideally placed for responding to calls for co-shaping global urban agendas. Cities are also seen as agents of change with the potential to deliver effective climate action dealing directly with the sources of emissions while strengthening local communities and restoring urban nature (Elmqvist et al. 2018a; WBGU 2016; Castán Broto 2017). Climate change objectives have been increasingly integrated with broader policy priorities and goals, including the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). SDG 13 explicitly addresses the goal to take “urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts” (UN 2016: p. 23). and SDG 11—“the urban target”—positions resilience alongside liveability and sustainability highlighting the importance of an integrated approach to dealing also with climate change.

1  A TRANSFORMATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON CLIMATE CHANGE … 

5

However, the mechanisms and effectiveness of this type of ‘climate experimentation’ (Hoffmann 2011; van Asselt et al. 2018) are still poorly understood (Jordan et al. 2015). For example, while the Paris Agreement is widely lauded for formalising bottom-up and decentralised approaches to reducing emissions (Chan et al. 2015; Huitema et al. 2018), the pledges made by national governments are thus far insufficient to stay well below 2°C (Rogelj et al. 2016). Some scholars interpret this as a ‘lowest-common-denominator governance’, a ‘downloading of responsibility’ from nation states to private actors and a weakened differentiation in international environmental law (McGee and Steffek 2016). Van Asselt et al. (2018) conclude from an examination of the global governance architecture post-Paris that key challenges relate to a lack of clear coordination as well as metrics‚ monitoring and review of progress. In our view, these decentralised developments of mobilised new networks, agents and institutions respond to a governance deficit for climate responses at local, regional, state and global levels. Looking beyond the climate governance regime and structures across levels, it seems that climate change is still often addressed as an add-on priority. As a result, climate governance commitments and negotiations—besides producing results far too slowly—are not able to counter the negative effects of conventional policy-making and planning that perpetuate business-as-usual (e.g. investments in fossil fuels) (Maor et al. 2017). ­ Any action to address climate change is toppled by the negative impacts of globalisation, economic growth and urbanisation. In this book, we put forth a change of perspective in evaluating and even surfacing climate governance action. The emerging paradigm of climate change as a transformation challenge in scientific and policy discourses—especially post-COP21 in Paris in 2015—frames the climate debate as a much broader social, political and cultural challenge (Hermwille 2016; Gillard et al. 2016). Climate change is no longer regarded as a clear-cut environmental problem that acts as an isolated force with detached implications for societal well-being and that can be addressed by substituting technologies, or, through market mechanisms. Rather, it is conceptualised and positioned as “a collectively produced (although variable) and deeply socio-political phenomenon” (O’Brien and Selboe 2015: p. 13). As such, it is viewed as a symptom of contemporary unsustainable production and consumption processes, resource and land use, design patterns and individual values and behaviours, as well as an amplifier of existing vulnerabilities and risks caused by mal-adaptation (Tàbara et al. 2018).

6  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

Our premise is that viewing climate change as a transformation challenge has profound implications for climate governance—ultimately it even challenges what ‘climate change’ as the object to be governed actually means. On the one hand, the transformative perspective makes clear that any attempt on climate mitigation and adaptation should be part of the quest for deep societal transformations towards sustainability and resilience, which enhance and maintain social and environmental w ­ ell-being under climate change (Tàbara et al. 2018; Gillard et al. 2016; WBGU 2016). Climate governance therefore ideally supports and reinforces other sectors become more sustainable and resilient besides developing more systemic climate policies and actions that produce co-benefits for multiple priorities and goals. On the other hand, the transformative perspective draws attention to the complex dynamics, deep uncertainties, disruptions and contestations implied in the radical changes emerging from climate change and other social, economic and environmental risks and pressures (IPCC 2018; Wise et al. 2014; Kates et al. 2012). This means that transformations under climate change cannot be controlled by narrow, short-term and optimisation-oriented governance approaches (cf. Loorbach 2014). Rather, they can merely be influenced through long-term approaches that foster multi-actor, cross-sectoral and cross-scale collaborations and learning (Rink et al. 2018). Our main objective with this book is to contribute to an understanding about what the type of climate governance that addresses the need for sustainability and resilience transformations under climate change could look like, and how existing climate governance institutions, mechanisms and practices can be strengthened along these lines. To do so, we first take a step back in thinking about climate governance: Rather than looking at specific governance configurations and structures (e.g. polycentric governance), governance processes (e.g. experimentation, mainstreaming), or, governance actions (e.g. policies, policy mixes, monitoring schemes and programs) and discussing their effectiveness, we start by conceptualising transformative climate governance as an ideal-type and normative approach. This means that we derive the climate governance conditions, processes and actions that make up effective transformative climate governance by looking at the characteristics of climate change as a transformation challenge. In doing so, we can identify governance capacities to address climate change and contribute to sustainability and resilience transformations. We thus contend that

1  A TRANSFORMATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON CLIMATE CHANGE … 

7

effective climate governance lies in collective governance capacities for supporting, mobilising and dealing with societal change patterns, and for building these capacities, a transformation of climate governance is paramount. Our perspective on transformative climate governance builds on research approaches that have emerged in the last decades to understand, analyse and support societal transformations (Hölscher et al. 2018; Feola 2015; Patterson et al. 2016). Particularly, sustainability transitions and resilience approaches have come of age in studying and theorising transformative societal change and how governance and agency can support and deal with it (Loorbach et al. 2017; Olsson et al. 2014; Folke 2016). There have been constructive debates about complementarities of both approaches (Olsson et al. 2014; Smith and Stirling 2010; Patterson et al. 2016; Pereira et al. 2015; Chaffin et al. 2016), and both approaches have also started to permeate climate governance literature (Gillard et al. 2016). In climate governance, ‘transformative adaptation’ has developed as a perspective to address the growing likelihood of crossing tipping points and to address vulnerability and equity concerns (Pelling et al. 2015; O’Brien 2012; Wise et al. 2014). However, so far these debates hardly extend beyond a fairly uncritical comparison of both approaches and shy away from identifying concrete and synthesised governance implications, which would allow both better design and evaluation of climate governance. In the remainder of this introductory chapter, we first introduce our transformative perspective on climate change and formulate key implications for climate governance (Sect. 1.2). We then trace and describe the emergent features of climate governance at multiple levels including related challenges and research questions (Sect. 1.3). After outlining our key theoretical, methodological and empirical contributions to climate governance research (Sect. 1.4), we provide an outlook on the chapters enclosed in this book (Sect. 1.5).

1.2  Reframing the Problem: Climate Change as a Transformation Challenge and Governance Implications The last years have seen an increasing broadening of the climate change discourse due to the recognition that climate change drivers and vulnerabilities to impacts lie within the deep structures of our societies, and is

8  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

thus a much broader social, political and cultural challenge (Hermwille 2016; Gillard et al. 2016; WBGU 2011). The paradigm of transformations under climate change emerged mainly from scientific discourses, e.g. on planetary boundaries within which safe human development is possible (Rockström et al. 2009; Steffen et al. 2015, 2018). It is becoming increasingly acknowledged also in policy-making that achieving the Paris Agreement’s 1.5–2°C target and adapting to the impacts of climate change requires radical changes in production and consumption patterns, market structures, institutions, infrastructures, land use and individual values and behaviours (IPCC 2018; Tàbara et al. 2018; Rockström et al. 2017). The notion of transformation has been gaining ground in science and policy debates (WBGU 2011; O’Riordan and Le Quére 2013; Future Earth 2014; UNEP 2012). This is motivated by the burgeoning scientific and political consensus that business-as-usual is insufficient for keeping humanity within a safe operating space (Steffen et al. 2018). A rich research field around questions of transformations has started to emerge, combining multiple scientific disciplines, ontologies and methods (Wittmayer and Hölscher 2017; Köhler et al. 2019; Loorbach et al. 2017; Wiek et al. 2012). The concept of transformation conveys a notion of fundamental, multidimensional and radical structural change of a societal (sub-)system, including cultures, values, technologies, production, consumption, infrastructure and politics (Loorbach et al. 2017; Patterson et al. 2016; Brand 2016). It starts from the premise that complex adaptive systems are never static: rhythms of stability, collapse and renewal, driven by complex interactions and feedbacks between system elements that produce persistence, systemic uncertainties, surprise and thresholds, characterise their evolution over long-time horizons (Olsson et al. 2014; Smith and Stirling 2010; Chaffin et al. 2016). On the one hand, it helps to explain and in result, understand the various processes, interactions and dynamics shaping societal development (Hölscher et al. 2018). This enables positioning climate change in the context of transformations—i.e. how climate change is driven by existing development trends and dynamics and how climate change impacts add considerable pressure, risk and uncertainty to transformation dynamics. On the other hand, the transformation perspective provides a normative orientation for overcoming persistent sustainability problems and purposefully moving towards sustainability and resilience.

1  A TRANSFORMATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON CLIMATE CHANGE … 

9

Viewing climate change as a transformation challenge facilitates a better understanding of the complex interactions between climate change and other societal and environmental dynamics and trends, and it helps to derive implications for climate governance in the context of transformations (Table 1.1). Firstly, it helps to describe and understand what changes over the course of a transformation and which factors, processes and interactions shape that development trajectory (Transformation of what?). Secondly, the transformative perspective draws attention to the complex, cross-scale and cross-sectoral characteristics of driving forces and dynamics involved in transformations under climate change, which are long-term, produce deep uncertainties and threshold effects (How do transformation processes occur?). Finally, the endeavour to influence transformations towards sustainability and resilience provides a long-term orientation for addressing climate change in synergy with other priorities and goals related to social and environmental well-being, also highlighting the political dimension and contestation between multiple, partially competing, interests and goals (Transformation for what, and whom?). 1.2.1   Transformation of What: Climate Change Drivers and Impacts in Perspective Transformations are generally understood as a radical change of the identity of a specific system including its fundamental components and feedback mechanisms (Göpel 2014; Loorbach et al. 2017). This involves multidimensional changes in cultures, values, technologies, production and consumption patterns, politics and individual behaviours. The systemic perspective helps to describe and understand what changes over the course of a transformation and which factors/drivers, processes and interactions shape that development trajectory. It addresses questions such as: Where are transformations located? What is it that changes and to what degree, i.e. what are starting and end situations (Wittmayer and Hölscher 2017)? The definition of a specific system focus is critical when studying objects of transformation. Transformations span different sizes and scales in relation to a particular system focus—for example, in specific s­ocietal subsystems (e.g. energy, mobility, cities) or in relation to large-scale changes in whole societies at global, national or local levels and involving human and biophysical system components (Hölscher et al. 2018; Loorbach et al. 2017). The system focus has implications on the system

Radical changes of multiple societal systems (e.g. economy, energy, transport, food, health, governance) including functions, interactions and outcomes (Hölscher et al. 2018; Loorbach et al. 2017) Multi-dimensional changes of cultural, behavioural, institutions, technologies, economic, environmental and political system elements (Loorbach et al. 2017)

Complexity

Transformations are driven by the complex patterns of interactions across sectors and scales (Folke et al. 2010; Coenen et al. 2012)

b. How do transformation processes occur?

Multi-dimensional

Systemic

a. Transformation of what?

Characteristics of transformations

Climate change drivers and impacts are cross-sectoral and cross-scale, causing e.g. cross-border impacts (Fröhlich and Knieling 2013; Harrison et al. 2016)

Climate change is propelled by and affects multiple societal and social-ecological systems, including economy, agriculture, water, health and transport (IPCC 2018; Meadowcroft 2009) Climate change is propelled by and affects land-use, infrastructures, design and lifestyles (Seto et al. 2016; Meadowcroft 2009; O’Brien and Selboe 2015)

Climate change as transformation challenge

(continued)

Cross-sectoral integration: Integrate sectoral expertise needs into climate strategies and solutions and mainstream climate issues in different sectors to make them integral aspects of sectoral policies (Wamsler 2015; Fröhlich and Knieling 2013) Multi-scale: Coordination of decentralised action Coordinate and align climate mitigation and adaptation across multiple scales of governance while developing fit-to-context and fit-forpurpose solutions through polycentric networks (Fröhlich and Knieling 2013; Jordan et al. 2018; Hodson et al. 2018)

System insight: Generate system insight on the social and economic root causes driving high emissions, mal-adaptation and vulnerabilities to climate change impacts (Ürge-Vorsatz et al. 2018; Seto et al. 2016; Tàbara et al. 2018)

Systemic perspective: Position and understand climate mitigation and adaptation in relation to interactions with multiple systems and dimensions (Rink et al. 2018; Fröhlich and Knieling 2013)

Implication for climate governance

Table 1.1  Characteristics of transformations and climate change as a transformation challenge: implications for climate governance

10  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

Co-evolution leads to build-up and break-down patterns of transformation. Breakdown means that established structures, practices etc. are increasingly put under pressure for change. Build-up refers to the emergence of alternatives that might replace the dominant modus operandi in a system (cf. Loorbach 2014) High level of uncertainty about the effects and impacts of interactions, causing high levels of unpredictability and surprise (Köhler et al. 2019; Folke et al. 2010)

Co-evolution of driving forces: build-up and breakdown patterns

A lot of uncertainties girdle climate impacts, e.g. concerning the sensitivity of the climate system (how much warming will result from a certain increase of GHG concentrations), regional climate impacts and consequences for ecosystems (Meadowcroft 2009; Carter et al. 2015)

Long periods of time pass between the emission of GHGs and the impacts of a changing climate; climate change impacts have a time frame of several decades (Fröhlich and Knieling 2013; Meadowcroft 2009) Mutually reinforcing physical, economic and social constraints (e.g. long infrastructure lifetimes, institutions, behaviours, large capital costs) constrain the rate and magnitude of emissions reductions and climate adaptation (Seto et al. 2016; Meadowcroft 2009)

Transformations unfold over long time horizons—commonly over a minimum of 25 years (Loorbach 2010; Wittmayer et al. 2018)

Long time horizon

Uncertainty

Climate change as transformation challenge

Characteristics of transformations

Table 1.1  (continued)

(continued)

Flexibility and adaptation for risk management: Support and maintain self-organisation and learning to ensure the societal ability to adapt to continuous changes and risks (Fröhlich and Knieling 2013; Tanner et al. 2009)

Dismantling path-dependencies and mal-adaptation: Existing institutions, market patterns, technologies, values and behaviours that drive path-dependencies and mal-adaptation need to be strategically phased out (Kivimaa and Kern 2016; Seto et al. 2016) Space for innovation: Create space for experimentation to facilitate innovation that challenges existing assumptions and reconfigures problem solving to overcome existing path-dependencies (Wittmayer et al. 2018; Turnheim et al. 2018; Kivimaa et al. 2017)

Long-term goals for short-term action: Formulate long-term climate mitigation and adaptation goals to orient short-term incremental climate action, which anticipate future scenarios and ensure intergenerational equity (Wittmayer et al. 2018; Fröhlich and Knieling 2013; Biermann et al. 2009)

Implication for climate governance

1  A TRANSFORMATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON CLIMATE CHANGE … 

11

Transformations are highly contested because they affect different actors in different ways, touch on conflicting interests and challenge existing power structures (Avelino et al. 2017; Köhler et al. 2019; Patterson et al. 2016)

Adapted from Hölscher (2019)

Contestation

c. Transformation for what, and whom? While responsibilities for climate change are unequally distributed, climate change will impact vary across different geographical locations and different groups (Gillard et al. 2016; IPCC 2018)

Climate-related uncertainties are exacerbated by the likelihood of surprises and unexpected shocks—as illustrated by Hurricanes Sandy and Katrina—which can lead to radical discontinuities (Alberti et al. 2018; IPCC 2018)

Threshold effects

Long phases of relative stability and incremental change and rapid phases of non-linear change once critical thresholds are crossed (Jacob et al. 2015, Andraschuk and Armitage 2015)

Climate change as transformation challenge

Characteristics of transformations

Table 1.1  (continued)

Normative orientation: Co-define a shared normative orientation for sustainability and resilience in the long-term (Wittmayer et al. 2018; McPhearson et al. 2017) Good governance and co-creation: Ensure participatory and co-creative decision-making processes that are inclusive, transparent, accountable and sensitive to existing power structures, foster social justice and provide a broad variety of approaches and solutions building on discussions about the allocation of responsibilities and duties among diverse public and private actors (Rink et al. 2018)

Preparation and timing: Make use of crisis as opportunities for overcoming system inertia by immediate and effective interventions, while ensuring effective coping and incremental responses that contribute to radical change in the long-term (Wittmayer et al. 2018; Tàbara et al. 2018)

Implication for climate governance

12  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

1  A TRANSFORMATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON CLIMATE CHANGE … 

13

objects and subjects that are taken into consideration for analysing the starting and end situation of a transformation. As system boundaries are recognised as highly arbitrary, the focus on a specific system warrants ‘back-coupling’ of insights on dynamics and interactions to other systems (Wittmayer and Hölscher 2017). This systemic perspective enables positioning climate change in the context of transformations—i.e. to identify the societal root causes driving high-emission trajectories and vulnerability to climate change impacts alongside other unsustainability trends, as well as how climate change impacts add considerable pressure, risk and uncertainty to existing transformation dynamics. It draws attention to the social and economic root causes driving high-emission trajectories and vulnerabilities to climate change impacts, including individual values, human behaviours, incentive structures, institutions and economic opportunity (Gillard et al. 2016; Tàbara et al. 2018; Seto et al. 2016). For example, in urban systems current patterns of urban land use, infrastructures, transportation systems and resource consumption drive greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in cities (Sharifi and Yamagata 2015; Ürge-Vorsatz et al. 2018). Similarly, the ways cities are currently designed to undermine their ability to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Many cities are located on ­ floodplains, in dry areas or on coasts, but existing water management systems are not able to store excessive storm water, thus exacerbating flood risk (Carter et al. 2015; Romero-Lankao and Dodman 2011; Bai et al. 2018). Vulnerabilities to climate change impacts in cities result from and are reinforced by interactions between residential choices, infrastructure policies, structural inequalities and land and real estate markets (Alberti et al. 2018; Rosenzweig et al. 2015). Risks and hazards brought about by climate change (e.g. changing temperature patterns, heatwaves, drought, sea-level rise and heavy storms) will increase in severity and frequency, and they will fundamentally challenge urban infrastructures, the built environment, ecosystems and living patterns (IPCC 2014; Revi et al. 2014; Carter et al. 2015; Rosenzweig et al. 2015). The key implications from this perspective are that climate change mitigation and adaptation need to be understood in relation to the interactions within multiple systems, which requires attention to the social and economic root causes driving high emissions, ­mal-adaptation and vulnerabilities (Tàbara et al. 2018; Rink et al. 2018; Seto et al. 2016). The systemic perspective suggests problem-based and systemic approaches to addressing climate change that deploy solutions that are

14  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

fitted to specific contexts and problems (rather than scales and sectors) (Tàbara et al. 2018; Chelleri et al. 2015). In addition to this, systemic perspective also implies a balanced focus between problem dynamics and systemic solutions to address the problem to its core (see, for example, Elmqvist et al. 2018b; Lam et al. 2019). 1.2.2   How Do Transformation Processes Occur: Complexity, Uncertainty and Longevity of Drivers and Impacts Transformations are complex and uncertain processes of systemic change, but they follow specific patterns and mechanisms such as path-dependency, emergence and thresholds (Feola 2015; Hölscher et al. 2018). Such change dynamics are conditioned by the co-evolution of interdependent system elements that influence, reinforce or weaken each other (Rotmans and Loorbach 2010; Köhler et al. 2019; Folke et al. 2010). Every system is open, i.e. dynamics and interactions take place across sectors and scales (Folke et al. 2010; Coenen et al. 2012). The complexity of interactions and dynamics cause deep uncertainty and surprise and might lead to tipping points, which can threaten the survival of a system—e.g. when planetary and social boundaries are crossed (Steffen et al. 2015, 2018; Raworth 2012)—but they can also open up opportunities for overcoming lock-in and navigating desirable change (Tàbara et al. 2018). The perspective on change dynamics advocated in transformations perspective and thinking draws attention to the complex, cross-scale and cross-sectoral driving forces and dynamics involved in transformations under climate change. These are long-term and produce deep uncertainties and threshold effects. Complex and uncertain interactions and interdependencies across scales, sectors and time cannot be addressed through short-term oriented and narrow (e.g. sectoral) approaches, but require cross-sectoral and multi-scale coordination and collaboration (Fröhlich and Knieling 2013; Jordan et al. 2018; Hodson et al. 2018). In other words, besides more systemic climate action that considers these cross-sectoral and cross-scale dynamics, climate mitigation and adaptation need to be aligned alongside sector-specific perspectives on varied policy areas (Fröhlich and Knieling 2013; Wamsler 2015). A challenge for climate governance is to facilitate context-specific decision-making, in line with local needs and opportunities, and an explicit consideration of

1  A TRANSFORMATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON CLIMATE CHANGE … 

15

synergies and trade-offs across scales and sectors resulting from action in one particular locality or sector (Chelleri et al. 2015). The co-evolution patterns resulting from driving forces and impacts of the transformation dynamics highlight different types of intervention points for climate governance. Co-evolution leads to build-up and break-down patterns that are driven by the emergence of innovations, large-scale pressures and trends and internal tensions within the existing modus operandi in a system (Loorbach 2014; Geels and Schot 2007; Holling et al. 2002). In the context of transformation, governance is not so much about controlling rather than creating the conditions for mobilising, influencing and responding to these dynamics. These conditions in turn, pave the way and enable disruptive innovation and strategic phase-out of existing unsustainable path-dependencies and lock-ins driving high-emissions, unsustainability, mal-adaptation and vulnerability (Bosman et al. 2018; Loorbach et al. 2015; Kivimaa and Kern 2016). At the same time, these conditions enable and allow strengthening ­selforganisation to respond to the outcomes of transformation dynamics in terms of disturbances and uncertainty (Folke 2016; Berkes 2017). Deep uncertainties require that planners and policy officers have the ability to anticipate surprises, respond to and cope with crises, and for putting in place ‘safe-to-fail’ (rather than ‘fail-safe’) responses (Tanner et al. 2009; Fröhlich and Knieling 2013). 1.2.3   Transformation for What, and for Whom: Contestation and Co-creation of Transformations Under Climate Change Towards Sustainability and Resilience The unsustainability of current societal systems is contrasted with a collectively defined sustainability and resilience orientation for desirable transformations (Loorbach et al. 2017; Folke 2016; Raworth 2012). However, desirability depends on perceptions, values and cognition (Patterson et al. 2016). This makes transformations highly contested, because they affect different actors in different ways, touch on conflicting interests and challenge existing power structures (Avelino et al. 2019; Köhler et al. 2019). Science and policy communities have taken up sustainability and resilience as complementary key concepts for assessing transformation processes and orienting them towards desirable directions (Elmqvist et al. 2019). While there are still some ambiguities and shortcomings in how

16  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

they are defined and operationalised in practice—for instance, sustainability seems to be often narrowly interpreted as increased resource efficiency and resilience as the ability to recover from disasters—taken together both concepts capture and highlight important aspects for guiding transformations (ibid.). Sustainability and resilience are complementary concepts providing holistic, process-oriented and normative orientations for navigating transformations (Table 1.2). Sustainability is a socially negotiated, normative set of goals for achieving environmental integrity, social equity, human well-being and economic feasibility in urban systems now and in the future (O’Riordan 2009; Leach et al. 2010). However, decisions about what sustainability means in specific contexts need to stem from an understanding of the workings of these systems, which address biophysical hazards, social vulnerabilities and institutional inertia (Anderies et al. 2013; Pickett et al. 2016). Rather than seeking a set of desirable end goals, resilience keeps at its core the acceptance and management of constant change, uncertainty and surprise and focuses on the ability to evolve, adapt to and learn from change dynamics (Folke 2016; Meerow et al. 2016). Resilience thus also embodies the recognition that seeking development pathways free of crises can no longer be the goal and must be discarded as illusionary (Garschagen et al. 2018; Folke 2016). The concept particularly draws attention to the less visible roots of vulnerability, such as social, cultural, economic and political factors (Rink et al. 2018). Anderies et al. (2013) therefore define resilience as the underlying mechanisms by which sustainability operates: resilience indicates the phenomena and interactions that determine how systems can adjust to radical and surprising change, thereby facilitating or inhibiting the achievement of sustainability. While resilience is in essence a ­non-normative system property (Elmqvist et al. 2019), decisions about resilience ‘for whom, what, when, where, and why’ is a contested process touching on different motivations, power dynamics and trade-offs (Meerow et al. 2016). The normative perspective on transformations towards sustainability and resilience provides a long-term orientation for addressing climate change in synergy with other priorities and goals related to social and environmental well-being. It makes clear that climate mitigation and adaptation are no end goals in themselves. Sustainability and resilience cannot be met without explicitly recognising the adverse effects of global GHG emissions and the vulnerabilities of populations, infrastructures,

Adapted from Hölscher (2019)

Normativity

Process thinking

Sustainability encompasses interlinked social, environmental and economic goals for societal systems across sectors and scales (O’Riordan 2009; Leach et al. 2010)

Systems’ perspective

Resilience stresses the interdependencies and dynamics in societal systems across sectors and scales (Folke 2016; Chelleri et al. 2015; Meerow et al. 2016)

Resilience

Implication for sustainability and resilience transformations

Sustainability and resilience demand holistic thinking and action that relates goals to system processes and does not export negative effects to other sectors or distant places Sustainability is an on-going proAs societal systems are constantly Sustainability and resilience are cess or trajectory rather than a fixed experiencing change, resilience future-oriented concepts and state or end point (Anderies et al. draws attention to change dynamics require understanding trajectories 2013; Pickett et al. 2014) and emergent risks and disturof change and long-term impacts bances (Folke 2016; Meerow et al. 2016) Sustainability defines the comproEnacting resilience—in terms of Sustainability and resilience are mises and values of peoples and resilience “for whom, what, when, contested and context-dependent. institutions, and it has different where, and why”—is a contested They have to be socially negotimeanings in different places process touching on different ated, recognising the diversity of (Anderies et al. 2013; Wittmayer motivations, power dynamics and pathways towards sustainability and et al. 2015) trade-offs (Meerow et al. 2016) resilience

Sustainability

Attribute

Table 1.2  Attributes of sustainability and resilience in the context of transformations

1  A TRANSFORMATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON CLIMATE CHANGE … 

17

18  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

ecosystems and economic systems to the impacts of climate change (Elmqvist et al. 2019). Conversely, climate change cannot be addressed without understanding the larger context of transformation processes and how they affect sustainability and resilience. For example, climate change impacts are but one of many types of shocks and stresses that societies face, and climate change-related shocks typically occur in combination with other environmental, social and economic stresses (IPCC 2018). For example, there is a strong relationship between social stratification and vulnerability to climate change impacts in cities as economically disadvantaged groups and ethnic and racial minorities tend to live in more hazard-prone, vulnerable and crowded parts of cities (Rosenzweig et al. 2015; Reckien et al. 2017). The embedding of climate change mitigation and adaptation within the endeavour to achieve sustainability and resilience transformations opens up opportunities for creating synergies between actions to reduce GHG emissions and increase resilience while enhancing quality of life and equity. Formulating climate mitigation and adaptation goals alongside sustainability and resilience involves decisions about what should change and how to deal with trade-offs across multiple policy domains and a diverse, and sometimes contradictory and competing, bundle of goals such as air pollution, social equity and economic development (Rink et al. 2018; Fröhlich and Knieling 2013). For example, transforming a city’s energy system raises questions of affordability and acceptability (Rink et al. 2018). While responsibilities for climate change are unequally distributed, climate change impacts vary across different geographical locations and different groups, and so does the ability to adapt (Gillard et al. 2016; Castán Broto 2017). This requires critical interrogations about whose visions are being pursued, who bears costs and who is considered as vulnerable in view of climate change (Gillard et al. 2016). Critical for climate governance are therefore participatory and ­co-creative decision-making processes that are inclusive, transparent, accountable and sensitive to existing power structures, foster social justice and provide a broad variety of approaches and solutions building on discussions about the allocation of responsibilities and duties among diverse public and private actors (Rink et al. 2018; Fröhlich and Knieling 2013).

1  A TRANSFORMATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON CLIMATE CHANGE … 

19

1.3  Which Shift in Climate Governance? On a basic level, climate governance refers to the intentional actions and interventions by which diverse actors collaborate to reduce emissions (climate mitigation) and prepare for and cope with the impacts of climate change (climate adaptation) (Fröhlich and Knieling 2013; Berry et al. 2015; Bulkeley 2015). ‘Governance’ recognises the importance of diverse types of actors—next to governments also from civil society, economy, research—and their interactions, partnerships and collaborations to deliberate between contested solutions and navigate their institutional, socio-economic and political contexts (Jessop 1997; Rhodes 1997; Kooiman 1993). Governance thus is about the patterns that emerge from both the formal and informal structures, processes and rules that determine how people in societies make decisions and share power, as well as to the ways multiple actors performing acts of governance and their instruments (e.g. spatial planning, laws, communication, self-regulation) to realise societal aims (Biermann et al. 2009). By now, climate governance has been in the making for more than three decades (Jordan et al. 2018). While climate change initially has been approached as a global issue, to be negotiated by nation states, and a relatively clear-cut environmental problem, it is now recognised as a systemic, cross-sectoral and cross-scale challenge. The scale of climate governance has been decentralising from global and national levels to regional and local levels, and climate mitigation and adaptation have become explicitly linked to broader sustainability and resilience goals (Jordan et al. 2018; van Asselt et al. 2018; Hermwille 2016). We trace and describe the emergent features of climate governance at multiple levels and discuss key governance questions and challenges (Table 1.3). 1.3.1   (The Politics of) Climate Change as a Challenge for Sustainability and Resilience Approaches to understand and deal with climate change have changed substantially since scientists have first come to recognise anthropogenic climate change in the 1960s and since it entered public debates in the 1980s and, more widespread, in the 1990s (Hermwille 2016; van Asselt et al. 2018). Originally, climate change was framed and approached as a relatively clear-cut environmental problem through environmental

20  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI Table 1.3  Climate governance features and related challenges Feature of climate governance

Climate governance challenges

a. Climate governance of what? Shift from isolated focus on climate mitigation and adaptation to embedded sustainability and resilience focus

Mainstreaming climate change across sectors and scales Mobilising synergies and avoiding tradeoffs across priorities, goals and interests

b. Climate governance by whom? Proliferation of diverse actors at multiple governance levels

Suitable (mix of) governance instruments and mechanisms Defining responsibilities and roles of actors (e.g. governments vis-à-vis citizens)

c. Climate governance how? Multi-level and polycentric governance landscape Climate governance experimentation as open-ended, voluntary and bottom-up processes

Coordination and collaboration across sectors, scales and societal spheres Legitimacy, effectiveness and ‘becoming’ of climate innovation and action Monitoring, evaluation and motivating climate action

d. Climate governance for what and whom? Political contestation about conflicting interests, needs and policy priorities

Inclusive co-creation of climate governance action Politics of climate governance

policies, including information instruments (e.g. GHG inventories), planning (mitigation programmes) and market-based instruments (e.g. Emissions Trading Schemes) (Hermwille 2016). The accumulating evidence of climate impacts already unfolding started to draw increasing attention to climate adaptation in the early 2000s. Climate mitigation and adaptation were from the beginning highly debated, and it has been argued that solely focusing on reducing emissions and climate impacts will be unable to address climate change as a development issue. In addition, questions of vulnerability to climate change impacts highlight the disproportionate vulnerability of the Global South to climate impacts, while the bulk of emissions so far stems from the North (ibid.; Adger 2001; Moomaw and Papa 2012).

1  A TRANSFORMATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON CLIMATE CHANGE … 

21

The last years have seen an increasing broadening of the climate change discourse due to the recognition that climate change drivers and vulnerabilities to impacts lie within the deep structures of society, and climate mitigation and adaptation thus relate to much broader social, political and cultural challenges (Hermwille 2016; Gillard et al. 2016; WBGU 2011; O’Brien and Selboe 2015). Along these lines, it has been argued that the 1.5–2°C target and adapting to the impacts of climate change requires radical societal changes (Rockström et al. 2017; Gillard et al. 2016; Tàbara et al. 2018). In the political discourse, this positioning of climate change within the broader discourse on achieving global sustainability broader is, for example, visible in the climate-specific SDG 13 (UN 2015) and in the acknowledgement of the need for decarbonisation of the global economy by leaders of the G7 in their 2015 declaration (Hermwille 2016). The UNFCCC is not anymore only about climate change mitigation and adaptation: The Paris Agreement aims to “strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty” (UN 2015, article 2). Also on local levels climate mitigation and adaptation have become increasingly linked to broader sustainability and resilience agendas (Shaw et al. 2014). Climate change is not anymore viewed in isolation but as a cross-cutting, cross-sectoral and cross-scale issue. Climate mitigation ­ and adaptation make it possible to leverage synergies across multiple goals, interests and domains, while they may also result in trade-offs, such as between bioenergy schemes and food security (Berry et al. 2015; Bäckstrand et al. 2017). One central way forward to leverage synergies and avoid ­trade-offs has been to scrutinise the mainstreaming of climate change across sectors and scales so as to align and integrate climate change alongside sector-specific perspectives on varied policy areas (Fröhlich and Knieling 2013; Wamsler 2015; Runhaar et al. 2018). However, neither climate change nor sustainability or resilience have not been meaningfully integrated into different policy sectors and sectoral planning. This is evidenced by the varied contradicting developments and the inability of climate governance to counter the amplification effects of globalisation, economic growth and urbanisation (Jordan et al. 2018; Maor et al. 2017). In addition, much of the disagreement

22  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

lies on prioritising goals that have varied perceived costs and benefits for different groups of society (Maor et al. 2017). This is why the goals of addressing transformations under climate change have to be defined in deliberative governance processes, to ensure that trade-offs and side-effects are considered rather than overlooked (Rink et al. 2018; Bulkeley 2015). 1.3.2   Hybridisation of Climate Governance Actors Climate change has been initially viewed as main purview of nation states and global collaboration through agreements (Jordan and Huitema 2014; Wurzel et al. 2019). The UNFCCC is an international treaty adopted in 1992 to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” (UN 1992: Article 2). The Kyoto Protocol was an international treaty adopted in 1997 to extend the UNFCCC and enforce quantified emission limitation and reduction obligations (van Asselt et al. 2018). Concerns about the ability of multilateral agreements to achieve meaningful progress on climate change have reinvigorated discussions about the role of other actors next to nation states and the UNFCCC— including cities, NGOs, businesses—in governing climate change (Gordon and Johnson 2017; Hildén et al. 2017). In fact, climate governance has always been more than interstate diplomacy and international negotiations: a myriad non-state and sub-state climate activities have sprouted across the globe in direct response to the inadequate national and multilateral actions and taking multiple forms from private carbon reporting, labelling to local grassroots mobilisation for low carbon lifestyles (Jordan et al. 2015; Hoffmann 2011; Bulkeley et al. 2014). Climate adaptation has from the beginning been approached on more local levels due to the recognition that this is where climate change impacts are felt and need to be responded to (Adger et al. 2007). After former US President George W. Bush declared in 2001 that the USA would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, several bilateral climate partnerships such as the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate and the Major Economics Forum were formed (Bäckstrand et al. 2017). Particularly after the debacle at the COP in Copenhagen in 2009, where no substantive agreement was reached, there has been a ‘Cambrian explosion’ of transnational climate initiatives and experiments

1  A TRANSFORMATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON CLIMATE CHANGE … 

23

(Abbott 2017; Zelli et al. 2017; van Asselt et al. 2018). The Paris Agreement now recognises and encourages existing and new climate actions by n ­ on-state and subnational actors and formulates the need to motivate, ensure execution and take stock of non-state action (UN 2015; Bäckstrand et al. 2017; van Asselt et al. 2018; Chan et al. 2015; Hale 2015). Actors entering the climate governance landscape besides nation states are highly heterogeneous, also because they are acting at multiple levels and in different domains of climate governance (see next Sect. 1.3.3). Non-state actors involved in the UNFCCC system include environmental NGOs, activist groups, intergovernmental organisations, city networks, oil companies, consultancy and legal firms, carbon brokers, indigenous communities, trade unions, youth organisations and religious communities (Bäckstrand et al. 2018). For example, through the rise of the climate justice movement, climate activism has gained new energy and involved new social groups and networks in global climate politics (Hadden 2015, cf. Bäckstrand et al. 2018). The mobilisation for climate justice was prominent during the Copenhagen meeting, and has since then resulted in numerous climate protests, demonstrations and marches across the Global North and South in the lead up to Paris (Bäckstrand et al. 2018). The group of ‘non-state actors’ is highly heterogeneous: for example, while some businesses and NGOs demand radical change for environmentally friendly policies and technologies, others seek to rather lobby to roll back regulation (Nasiritousi 2017; cf. Bäckstrand et al. 2018). Also new institutions emerge at the global level. The Global Climate Action Agenda, which was launched at COP 22 in Marrakech, brings together private actors, local authorities, and civil society under a broad regime to boost cooperative approaches on climate change. In addition to the participation in global climate governance, diverse actors started to take climate action at subnational levels, often of their own volition, including actors from cities, regions, businesses and civil society. Local, regional and other subnational governments are increasingly important in climate governance, and there are many examples of extensive climate commitments by subnational governments—individually, through transnational associations or voluntary systems (Bulkeley 2010; Abbott et al. 2015; Nordgren et al. 2016). Private initiatives and businesses develop technological innovations and create new green markets, promote the adoption of stringent standards and propagate the adoption of voluntary agreements and self-regulation (e.g. Greenhouse

24  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

Gas Protocol, Verified Carbon Standard) (Wurzel et al. 2019; Hildén et al. 2017; Burch et al. 2016; Abbott et al. 2015). NGOs help raise public awareness, shape agendas and monitor adopted domestic policies and/or international treaties (Wurzel et al. 2019). Citizens started to act as active innovators and self-service providers (Frantzeskaki et al. 2016) and community-based organisations play a significant role in carbon reduction and community-based adaptation initiatives (Chu et al. 2017; Archer et al. 2014). Especially cities have come to differentiate themselves from the states in which they are embedded, by emphasising their commitment to action (Gordon and Johnson 2017; Hughes et al. 2017; Castán Broto 2017). Local governments often initiate, oversee and implement urban climate strategies, action and experimentation, a multifarious number of actors from local communities, businesses, transnational networks and regional and national governments contribute to delivering climate action on local levels (Bulkeley 2010; Homsey and Warner 2015). Despite the reservations about the ability of nation states and international negotiations to yield effective climate governance, the tardy progress in the transnational climate domain should not be equated with a complete disappearance of the nation state (Jordan and Huitema 2014). To put simply: climate governance is multi-levelled and needs to be ­multi-levelled, meaning that both transnational and national efforts and mechanisms are equally important and needed. Indeed, there is a high level of agreement among climate governance scholars that governmental policies—including national, regional and local government-led initiatives, are far from disappearing and remain an important part of the climate governance landscape (Jordan and Huitema 2014; Wurzel et al. 2019; Bäckstrand et al. 2017). State actors are continuously innovating climate governance by adopting policies and programmes. In Europe, for example, some of these policies pre-date the UNFCCC (Jordan and Huitema 2014; Wurzel et al. 2019). As the international policy regime shifts increasingly into a ‘pledge and review’ approach to governing climate change—which has been manifested in the Paris Agreement—the more governing by the nation state at the national level will be important (Jordan and Huitema 2014). States have access to uniquely important steering capacities, being the only actors with the necessary legitimacy and (e.g. legal, financial) resources to develop and project long-term visions, stimulate and oversee local approaches and carry forward ambitious climate programmes (Jordan

1  A TRANSFORMATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON CLIMATE CHANGE … 

25

and Huitema 2014). Nation states have an important position within multi-level climate governance, setting regulatory frameworks and policy agendas (Keskitalo et al. 2016; Hughes et al. 2017; Bulkeley and Betsill 2013). This also extends to the European Union, which has provided climate leadership through multi-level reinforcement mechanisms (Wurzel et al. 2019). 1.3.3   Polycentric Climate Governance Structures at Multiple Scales The hybridisation of actors and the decentralisation of climate ­policy-making from the transnational regime has resulted in a diffuse climate governance architecture, in which independent actors from different sectors and levels of governance work (together), often cutting across traditional jurisdictional boundaries and beyond the reach of state steering (Jordan and Huitema 2014; Bulkeley et al. 2014; Wurzel et al. 2019). Recent trends have increased this trend, as climate institutions have become more numerous and diverse, moving further away from the monocentric structure of the Kyoto Protocol era (Abbott 2017). Climate governance scholars describe the new forms of governance emerging spontaneously from bottom-up and producing more dispersed and multi-level patterns of governing as ‘polycentric’ (Ostrom 2014; Jordan et al. 2018; Cole 2015). This characterisation was in particular put forth by Elinor Ostrom, who argued in the late 2000s that more dynamic forms of climate governance were not only needed but in fact already emerging around the UNFCCC. She defines polycentric governance systems as multiple governing authorities acting at different scales, from international to local, exercising “considerable independence to make norms and rules within a specific domain” (Ostrom 2010: p. 552). According to Jordan et al. (2018: p. 10), Ostrom consciously selected the term to unify the debates around what constitutes the climate governance landscape, seeing “a need for a more holistic description of the landscape, for more analysis (to understand and explain its functioning) and better prescription (grounded in a different normative framework)”. The notion of polycentricity implies the normative assumption that polycentric systems are superior to monocentric ones, being able of enhancing “innovation, learning, adaptation, trustworthiness, levels of cooperation of participants, and the achievement of more effective, equitable, and sustainable outcomes at multiple scales” (Ostrom 2010: p. 552). The self-coordination of multiple decision-making centres allows to

26  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

move away from one-size-fits-all policies towards those that regard local contexts and knowledge (Jordan and Huitema 2014; Ostrom 2014). This increases opportunities for learning-by-doing at decentralised levels and subsequent horizontal diffusion or upscaling to higher climate governance levels (Wurzel et al. 2019; Jordan and Huitema 2014). Finally, polycentric governance should increase the resilience of climate governance: for example, as the Trump administration weakens US support for intergovernmental action, private and subnational actions may provide partial substitutes (Abbott 2017) and enable climate action and sustainability of climate as a priority in the absence of national climate policy. It is important to keep in mind that polycentric and multi-level governance systems are not the same, nor substitutional (Wurzel et al. 2019). While the multi-level governance perspective identifies different, interacting levels of governance (e.g. global, European, national, regional), it normally assumes a stronger role for governmental (i.e. state, supranational and subnational) actors (ibid.). It therefore draws more attention to governmental actors and advocates to support the creation of networks in which governmental actors play an important role. It further shows the mutual dependence between policy levels. For example, international regulatory bodies influence and at time lead and deliver urban climate action by providing legislation, incentives and resources (Hughes et al. 2017; Fuhr et al. 2018; Keskitalo et al. 2016; Bulkeley and Betsill 2013). Despite the hopes invested in polycentric climate governance, a key question is how can the aggregate sum of voluntary non-state and substate commitments and actions complement NDCs in furthering mitigation and adaptation goals alongside sustainable development (Bäckstrand et al. 2017; Abbott 2017; Jordan et al. 2018). In this vein, scholars call for a return to the true meaning of polycentric governance: polycentricity was not meant as a panacea for spontaneously emerging and concerted self-organisation that will by itself result in effective p ­roblem-solving (Jordan et al. 2018; Galaz et al. 2011). Rather, it requires careful balancing between monocentric, centralised and polycentric, decentralised forces. For example, in addition to streamlining actions across scales and sectors, polycentric governance requires ensuring good governance principles, giving voice to vulnerable actors and monitoring and evaluation (Pahl-Wostl and Knieper 2014).

1  A TRANSFORMATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON CLIMATE CHANGE … 

27

1.3.4   Experimenting with New Climate Governance Processes Emerging and dynamic actions undertaken outside the realm of multilateral treaties by multiple actors and in the spirit of trial and error have been termed as climate governance experimentation (Hoffmann 2011; van Asselt et al. 2018). Climate governance experimentation refers to both the development of new types of solutions (i.e. climate experiments) as well as the re-invention of climate governance itself in an experimental way that is more voluntary, open-ended and learning-based (Turnheim et al. 2018; Kivimaa et al. 2017). On the global arena, climate governance experimentation has been described in relation to the shift towards voluntary and decentralised climate governance approaches, which were formalised through the Paris Agreement (Hoffmann 2011; van Asselt et al. 2018; Huitema et al. 2018). The Paris Agreement does not put in place legally binding emission reductions but leaves the determination of the appropriate level of action to achieve the 1.5–2°C target to each country. This bottom-up pledge-and-review system is however nonetheless structured within a legally binding transparency framework that is coordinated by the UNFCCC (Bäckstrand et al. 2017). Van Asselt et al. (2018) diagnose climate experimentation thus as a governance system with (the need for) top-down elements. The authors argue that, ironically, while “excessive coordination may stifle experimentation […], the mere fact that (more) experiments are happening does not necessarily imply that common goals will be achieved” (van Asselt et al. 2018: p. 43). Climate governance experimentation has also gained attention as a more specific means to develop and test innovations: “In the absence of blueprints for transitions, which are currently only guided by highly ambitious goals such as those found in the Paris Climate Agreement […], experiments may provide a way forward” (Hildén et al. 2017: p. 2). Examples of climate governance experimentation from collaboration between businesses, governments and civil society are already well-document in literature, especially on urban levels (ibid.; Castàn ­ Broto and Bulkeley 2013; Kivimaa et al. 2017). Climate governance experimentation has been appraised as a fruitful means for trialling new, agile and responsive solutions in an open-ended way that allows collaborative learning between multiple actors (Castán Broto and Bulkeley 2013; Nevens et al. 2013; Evans et al. 2016; Karvonen 2018). Experimentation relates to the broader learning outcomes in terms of changed discourses,

28  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

practices, policies and institutions (Kivimaa et al. 2017; Wolfram et al. 2017). However, it is often found in empirical observations that innovations produced, or, nurtured through experimentation often remain isolated stand-alone initiatives, rendering their impact and legitimacy contested (Ansell and Bartenberger 2016; Evans 2016). Along these lines—of questions of coordination, effectiveness and legitimacy of experimentation—scientists started to address the politics underlying experimentation, as well as questions about the ‘becoming’ of individual climate experiments (Turnheim et al. 2018; Kivimaa et al. 2017). Regarding the latter, one way forward are studies about conditions that facilitate scaling, anchoring, replicating and mainstreaming novelties (Ehnert et al. 2018; den Exter et al. 2014; Raven et al. 2017). However, “[n]ot all experiments are created equal” (van Asselt et al. 2018: p. 42), and often the political dynamics and role of power underlying climate experimentation are not explicitly considered. This concerns questions about who participates in experiments, who leads them and who decides whether an experiment was a success (Chan et al. 2015; McFadgen and Huitema 2016; Jhagroe 2016), as well as questions about why experiments were created and with which underlying logic. For example, in cities experimentation seems to underpin competitive urbanism that conforms to existing neoliberal rationalities, hence protecting and extending market relations rather than fundamentally questioning them (Evans 2016; Jhagroe 2016). Along these lines, Hoffmann (2011) already noted that experiments are informed by a liberal environmental ethos, stressing the compatibility between economic growth and environmental protection. van Asselt et al. (2018: p. 43) raise the point that if “no one experiments with traditional policy instruments such as regulation, that follow a more top-down ethos, our understanding of the alternatives will be incomplete”.

1.4  Contributions of This Book: Introducing Transformative Climate Governance The central research gap this book addresses is the lack of understanding which mechanisms, conditions and actors contribute to transformative climate governance. Viewing climate change as a transformation challenge has profound implications for climate governance, making clear that climate governance needs to be much more systemic, experimental, collaborative and flexible. While climate governance has over the past

1  A TRANSFORMATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON CLIMATE CHANGE … 

29

years shifted towards a more multi-actor, polycentric and learning-based approach, many questions and challenges persist, new ones are raised, and the effectiveness of climate governance remains contested. The transformative perspective draws attention to the lack of overarching insights into how diverse governance mechanisms and conditions can be integrated within a theory of governance for transformation under climate change. Our main objectives are to contribute to understanding about first, what this type of climate governance that addresses the need for sustainability and resilience transformations under climate change could look like, and second, how existing climate governance institutions, mechanisms and practices can be strengthened along those lines. To these ends, our book is a unique contribution to climate science by bringing a transformations’ approach to climate governance. We put forth a systematic and agency-based framework of capacities for transformative climate governance as a central contribution of this book. The capacities framework can be used to analyse and assess the extent to which these capacities are developing and to support governance actors (e.g. city officers, strategists) in developing these more systematically. In addition to the conceptual contribution of the framework, the empirical applications of the framework to different sets of case studies yield in-depth insights on the development of climate governance at multiple scales in terms of the activities by which actors create new types of governance conditions, and whether these conditions signify new capacities for transformative climate governance. Next to qualitative case study analysis research, we applied the framework within transdisciplinary processes with stakeholders to co-create actionable strategies to develop the capacities. A disclaimer is that we have approached climate governance as a process resulting from specific attempts of and interactions between actors to mobilise resources and interact with their structural contexts. Our notion of transformative climate governance is normative, i.e. we believe that insights into means, activities and conditions of climate governance can improve existing forms of governance so as to better address climate change and contribute to sustainability and resilience transformations (cf. Benz et al. 2007). This is to be complemented and also scrutinised by a critical perspective on governance that questions the political struggles of climate governance (Bulkeley 2015; Castán Broto 2017; Gillard et al. 2016). For instance, Bulkeley (2015) discards the idea that climate governance can be understood by merely looking at the activities,

30  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

arrangements and structural conditions; it also requires critical engagement with questions about how climate governance is accomplished through specific modes of power. 1.4.1   A Perspective on Governance Capacity: Connecting ‘What’ to ‘Who’ and ‘How’ The central contribution of this book is a systematic and agency-centred framework that identifies capacities for transformative climate governance (Hölscher, Chapter 2, this volume). The framework provides a comprehensive and structuring approach to explain, evaluate and support the development of capacities to address climate change as a transformation challenge. It is grounded in and synthesises different theoretical perspectives and governance implications from literature on climate change and transformation. We employ the concept of governance capacity to bridge the activities of actors and the conditions that (need to) be in place for transformative climate governance. We start from an understanding of governance as “a moving process of ideological framing, institutional restructuring, political struggle and social adaptation” (Peck 2016: p. 11), which becomes manifest in the conscious creation of institutions to influence social behaviour and interaction (Kooiman 1993). Along these lines, governance capacity has been defined as an emergent property of governance systems: governance capacity is emergent through the formal and informal collaboration and learning processes between multiple governance actors and how they interact with their institutional and organisational contexts—including governmental institutions, politics and other social worlds—to solve collective problems (Innes and Booher 2003; Koop et al. 2017). Governance capacity is then “the ability of institutional relations in a social milieu to operate as a collective actor” (González and Healey 2005: p. 2056). This perspective on governance capacity and how it is evolving is agency-based: governance capacity ultimately depends on the ability of multiple actors to navigate their structural contexts by mobilising, creating and removing governance conditions. The agency-based perspective helps to explain how these capacities are made to be. In particular, in light of the problem of institutional inertia, organisational and political lock-ins regarding climate governance described above, this perspective can address questions about how structural barriers and opportunities

1  A TRANSFORMATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON CLIMATE CHANGE … 

31

can be removed, utilised or created (cf. Bettini 2013). The agency-based perspective thus makes governance capacities an “action-oriented and empowering concept” (Wolfram et al. 2017: p. 24): by connecting actor-level activities to how they contribute to building conditions for system-level change it is possible to trace what opportunities were created and used, what challenges need to be accounted for and what are capacity gaps. This enables asking questions such as whether and how urban climate governance activities create new types of conditions for transformative climate governance, what conditions are emerging and by whom are they developed. 1.4.2   Defining Capacities for Transformative Climate Governance Our framework of capacities for transformative climate governance starts from the premise that viewing climate change as a transformation challenge has profound implications for climate governance. We thus start by conceptualising transformative climate governance as an ideal-type and normative approach, or ‘governance vision’, based on which we can derive the governance conditions, processes and actions that make up effective transformative climate governance (cf. Benz et al. 2007). While transformations cannot be controlled, they can be influenced by mobilising the driving forces and dynamics characterising transformations. In other words, we posit that different types of conditions and processes (e.g. experimentation, partnerships)—i.e. different governance capacities—are needed for accomplishing distinct governance functions—in terms of change at the system level in relation to transformation dynamics. The capacities framework bridges different research approaches strands related to questions of ‘transformation governance’, i.e. governance for transformation (what kind of governance creates the conditions for transformation?), governance of transformation (governance to actively trigger and steer a transformation process) and transformation in governance (transformative change in governance regimes) (Patterson et al. 2016). The burgeoning scientific and political debate on the need for radical societal shifts towards sustainability and resilience has nourished an appetite for theorising and empirically scrutinising transformations and searching ways to support desirable transformations (Patterson et al. 2016; Wittmayer and Hölscher 2017). However, so far there is no

32  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

consistent agency-oriented theory on activities, skills and strategies of actors to establish governance for transformation. 1.4.3   Case Studies: Understanding and Supporting Capacities for Transformative Climate Governance The book shows a variety of applications for the framework to interrogate and support climate governance at multiple levels. We also show how the capacities framework can be applied in relation to different research methods. Next to qualitative case study analysis research, we applied the framework within transdisciplinary processes with stakeholders to co-create concrete and actionable strategies to develop the capacities. The first set of case studies in Part II provides an analytical perspective that applies the framework to explain how climate governance is developing in cities (namely Rotterdam in the Netherlands and New York City (NYC) in the USA), and to evaluate whether and how capacities for transformative climate governance are emerging (Hölscher et al., Chapter 5, this volume; Hölscher et al., Chapter 6, this volume; Hölscher, Chapter 7, this volume). The scale of cities has become an epicentre of scientific and policy attention for tackling climate change and sustainability problems (Elmqvist et al. 2018a; UN-Habitat 2016; WBGU 2016; Winnington et al. 2016). The choice of these two cities lies on the fact that have been on the forefront of climate adaptation action and governance, innovating their approach and systems to deal with pressing climate change impacts such as flooding and heatwaves. These chapters build on previous research (Hölscher et al. 2019a, b, c). They illustrate the utility of the framework for understanding how urban climate governance activities spur new types of capacities and enables drawing lessons on whether and how urban climate governance is transforming. The second set of case studies in Part III shows how the framework can be used for supporting climate action at European, regional and local levels in transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary research settings. In a profoundly co-creative process with stakeholders from four case studies across different scales in Europe (European continental scale, Scotland, transboundary river basin in Iberia and two Hungarian municipalities), transition pathways were formulated that develop new types of governance capacities to achieve a sustainable vision for Europe in 2100

1  A TRANSFORMATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON CLIMATE CHANGE … 

33

(Holman et al., Chapter 8, this volume; Frantzeskaki et al., Chapter 9, this volume). The case studies show the varieties and levels at which climate governance is taking place and how they can come together in concise policy frameworks across scales and sectors by building collective capacities of diverse actors under high-end scenarios (Pedde et al., Chapter 10, this volume; Hölscher et al., Chapter 11, this volume). This type of inter- and transdisciplinary research can address the need for social science knowledge in the face of climate change and for ­solution-oriented approaches on how society can change course from dangerous climate scenarios.

1.5  Outlook on the Book The book is set up in four parts (Table 1.4). Part I provides the ontological and epistemological underpinning for how we conceptualise and scrutinise climate governance. This chapter has positioned climate change within the theoretical and empirical context of transformations and has identified governance implications. Hölscher (Chapter 2, this volume) outlines in detail the framework of capacities for transformative climate governance.

Table 1.4  Chapters in this book Chapter

Focus

Part I: Towards transformative climate governance: What governance capacities do we need? Chapter 1 A transformative perspective on Positioning climate change and climate govclimate change and climate governance ernance in the context of transformations Katharina Hölscher and Niki Frantzeskaki Capacities framework for explaining, evaluChapter 2 Capacities for transformative climate ating and supporting transformative climate governance: a conceptual framework governance Katharina Hölscher Part II: Capacities for transformative climate governance in cities Chapter 3 Transforming cities and science for climate change resilience in the Anthropocene Timon McPhearson Chapter 4 Navigating transformations under climate change in cities: features and lock-ins of urban climate governance Katharina Hölscher and Niki Frantzeskaki

Positioning cities and urban (climate) governance in the context of transformations

(continued)

34  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI Table 1.4  (continued) Chapter

Focus

Chapter 5 Transforming urban water governApplication and illustration of capacities frameance in Rotterdam, the Netherlands work to urban climate governance Insights on Katharina Hölscher, Niki Frantzeskaki and how capacities for urban climate governance Derk Loorbach are developing: explaining, evaluating and supChapter 6 Capacities for transformative climate porting capacities for transformative climate governance in New York City governance in cities Katharina Hölscher, Niki Frantzeskaki, Timon McPhearson and Derk Loorbach Chapter 7 Transforming urban (climate) governance: What do we learn from pro-actively experimenting cities? Katharina Hölscher Part III: Capacities for transformative climate governance under high-end scenarios in Europe Chapter 8 Climate governance and high-end Application of capacities framework in futures in Europe co-creative inter- and transdisciplinary research Ian Holman, Pam Berry, Katharina Hölscher settings and Paula A. Harrison Analysis of potential and transition pathways Chapter 9 Operationalising Transition for multi-level climate governance capacities Management for navigating high-end futures in high-end socio-economic and climate Niki Frantzeskaki, Katharina Hölscher, Jill scenarios Jäger, Simona Pedde, Ian Holman, David Tabara Kasper Kok and Paula Harrison Chapter 10 Capacities in high-end scenarios in Europe: an agency perspective Simona Pedde, Katharina Hölscher, Niki Frantzeskaki and Kasper Kok Chapter 11 Agency capacities to implement transition pathways under high-end scenarios Katharina Hölscher, Niki Frantzeskaki, Simona Pedde and Ian Holman Part IV: The future of transformative climate governance Chapter 12 Sustainable Climate Development: transforming goals into means J. David Tàbara Chapter 13 Transforming climate governance? Why climate governance is failing and what to do about it Derk Loorbach

Perspectives on transforming climate governance

Chapter 14 Bridging and weaving science and policy knowledges: a research agenda to transform climate governance Katharina Hölscher and Niki Frantzeskaki

Reflection on key lessons and insights for transforming climate governance

1  A TRANSFORMATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON CLIMATE CHANGE … 

35

Part II positions climate governance within the context of urban transformations (McPhearson, Chapter 3, this volume; Hölscher and Frantzeskaki, Chapter 4, this volume) and presents two case studies of climate governance in Rotterdam (Hölscher et al., Chapter 5, this volume) and NYC (Hölscher et al., Chapter 6, this volume). The case studies illustrate the application of the framework to explain, evaluate and support the development of urban climate governance and to formulate recommendations about how key conditions for transformative climate governance can be created and strengthened (Hölscher, Chapter 7, this volume). Part III shows the application of the framework to develop transition pathways that build capacities for transformative climate governance. Climate governance is addressed in the context of high-end socio-economic and climate change future scenarios (Holman et al., Chapter 8‚ this volume). The scenarios and transition pathways were developed in a co-creative inter- and transdisciplinary knowledge production process drawing on transition management (Frantzeskaki et al., Chapter 9‚ this volume). The combined socio-economic and climate scenarios provide insights into the potential capacities of actors at multiple actors to address climate change (Pedde et al., Chapter 10‚ this volume). The transition pathways indicate which capacities are needed at multiple—European, national, regional and local—levels to implement the pathways and achieve desirable futures in the long-term (Hölscher et al., Chapter 11‚ this volume). Part IV presents key reflections and conclusions about the transformation of climate governance. Tàbara (Chapter 12, this volume) and Loorbach (Chapter 13‚ this volume) provide critical interrogations of current climate governance debates and of what the capacities perspective can bring to advance these. In the concluding chapter, we present a forward-looking research agenda for further understanding and strengthening the transformation of climate governance (Hölscher and Frantzeskaki, Chapter 14‚ this volume).

References Abbott, K. W. (2017). Orchestration: Strategic ordering in polycentric climate governance. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2983512. Abbott, K. W., Genschel, P., Snidal, D., & Zangl, B. (Eds.). (2015). International organizations as orchestrators. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adger, W. N. (2001). Scales of governance and environmental justice for adaptation and mitigation of climate change. Journal of International Development, 13(7), 921–931.

36  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI Adger, W. N., Agrawala, S., Mirza, M. Q., Condé, C., O’Brien, K., Pulhin, J., et al. (2007). Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity. In M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, & C. E. Hansen (Eds.), Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: Contribution of working group ii to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) (pp. 717–743). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Alberti, M., McPhearson, T., Gonzalez, A. (2018). Embracing urban complexity. In T. Elmqvist, X. Bai, N. Frantzeskaki, C. Griffith, D. Maddox, T. McPhearson, et al. (Eds.), Urban planet: Knowledge towards Sustainable cities (pp. 68–91). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Anderies, J. M., Folke, C., Walker, B., & Ostrom, E. (2013). Aligning key concepts for global change policy: Robustness, resilience, and sustainability. Ecology and Society, 18(2), 8. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05178-180208. Ansell, C., & Bartenberger, M. (2016). Varieties of experimentalism. Ecological Economics, 130, 64–73. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2475844. Archer, D., Almansi, F., DiGregorio, M., Roberts, D., Sharma, D., & Syam, D. (2014). Moving towards inclusive urban adaptation: Approaches to integrating community-based adaptation to climate change at city and national scale. Climate and Development, 6(4), 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565 529.2014.918868. Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J. M., Pel, B., Weaver, P., Dumitru, A., Haxeltine, A., et  al. (2019). Transformative social innovation and (dis)empowerment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, 195–206. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.002. Bäckstrand, K., Kuyper, J. W., Linnér, B.-O., & Lövbrand, E. (2017). Non-state actors in global climate governance: From Copenhagen to Paris and beyond. Environmental Politics, 26(4), 561–579. https://doi.org/10.1080/0964401 6.2017.1327485. Bäckstrand, K., Zelli, F., Schleifer, P. (2018). Legitimacy and Accountability in Polycentric Climate Governance. In A. Jordan, D. Huitema, H. van Asselt, J. Forster, (Eds.)‚ Governing Climate Change. Polycentricity in Action? (pp. 338–356). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bai, X., Dawson, R. J., Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Delgado, G. C., Salisu Barau, A., Dhakal, S., et al. (2018). Six research priorities for cities and climate change. Nature, 555, 23–25. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-02409-z. Benz, A., Lütz, S., Schimank, U., & Simonis, G. (2007). Einleitung. In A. Benz, S. Lütz, U. Schimank, & G. Simonis (Eds.), Handbuch governance. Theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Anwendungsfelder (pp. 9–25). Wiesbaden: VS, Verlag für Sozialwiss. Berkes, F. (2017). Environmental governance for the anthropocene? ­Social-ecological systems, resilience and collaborative learning. Sustainablity, 9, 1232. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071232.

1  A TRANSFORMATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON CLIMATE CHANGE … 

37

Berry, P. M., Brown, S., Chen, S., Kontogianni, A., Rowlands, O., Simpson, G., et al. (2015). Cross-sectoral interactions of mitigation and adaptation measures. Climatic Change, 128, 381–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10584-014-1214-0. Bettini, Y. H. (2013). Adapting institutions: Processes and instruments behind urban water transitions (PhD thesis). School of Geography and Environmental Science, Monash University, Melbourne. Biermann, F., Betsill, M. M., Gupta, J., Kanie, N., Lebel, L., Liverman, D., et al. (2009). Earth system governance: People, places and the planet. Science and Implementation Plan of the Earth System Governance Project (Earth System Governance Report 1, IHDP Report 20). Bonn: IHDP, The Earth System Governance Project. Bosman, R., Loorbach, D., Rotmans, J., & van Raak, R. (2018). Carbon ­lock-out: Leading the fossil port of Rotterdam into transition. Sustainability, 10, 2558. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072558. Brand, U. (2016). ‘Transformation’ as a new critical orthodoxy. The strategic use of the term ‘transformation’ does not prevent multiple crises. GAIA, 25(1), 23–27. Bulkeley, H. (2010). Cities and the governing of climate change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 35, 229–253. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-environ-072809-101747. Bulkeley, H. (2015). Accomplishing climate governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bulkeley, H., Andonova, L. B., Betsill, M. M., Compagnon, D., Hale, T., Hoffmann, M. J., et al. (2014). Transnational climate change governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bulkeley, H., & Betsill, M. M. (2013). Revisiting the urban politics of climate change. Environmental Politics, 22(1), 136–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/0 9644016.2013.755797. Burch, S., Andrachuk, M., Carey, D., Frantzeskaki, N., Schroeder, H., Mischkowski, N., et al. (2016). Governing and accelerating transformative entrepreneurship: Exploring the potential for small business innovation on urban sustainability transitions. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 22, 26–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.04.002. Carter, J. G., Cavan, G., Connelly, A., Guy, S., Handley, J., & Kazmierczak, A. (2015). Climate change and the city: Building capacity for urban adaptation. Progress in Planning, 95, 1–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. progress.2013.08.001. Castán Broto, V. (2017). Urban governance and the politics of climate change. World Development, 93, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. worlddev.2016.12.031. Castán Broto, V., & Bulkeley, H. (2013). A survey of urban climate change experiments in 100 cities. Global Environmental Change, 23, 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.005.

38  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI Chaffin, B. C., Garmestani, A. S., Gunderson, L. H., Benson, M. H., Angeler, D. G., Arnold, C. A., et al. (2016). Transformative environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41, 399–423. https:// doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085817. Chan, S., Falkner, R., van Asselt, H., & Goldberg, M. (2015). Strengthening non-state climate action: A progress assessment of commitments launched at the 2014 UN Climate Summit. Centre for Climate Change Economics Policy (Working Paper No. 242). Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment (Working Paper No. 216). Chelleri, L., Water, J. J., Olazabal, M., & Minucci, G. (2015). Resilience trade-offs: Addressing multiple scales and temporal aspects of urban resilience. Environment & Urbanization, 27(1), 181–198. https://doi. org/10.1177/0956247814550780. Chu, E., Anguelovski, I., & Roberts, D. (2017). Climate adaptation as strategic urbanism: Assessing opportunities and uncertainties for equity and inclusive development in cities. Cities, 60, 378–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cities.2016.10.016. Coenen, L., Benneworth, P., & Truffer, B. (2012). Toward a spatial perspective on sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 41(6), 968–979. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.014. Cole, D. (2015). Advantages of a polycentric approach to climate change policy. Nature Climate Change, 5(2), 114–118. den Exter, R., Lenhart, J., & Kern, K. (2014). Governing climate change in Dutch cities: Anchoring local climate strategies in organization, policy and practical implementation. Local Environment. https://doi.org/10.1080/135 49839.2014.892919. Ehnert, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Barnes, J., Borgström, S., Gorissen, L., Kern, F., et al. (2018). The acceleration of urban sustainability transitions: A comparison of Brighton, Budapest, Dresden, Genk, and Stockholm. Sustainability, 10(3), 612. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030612. Elmqvist, T., Bai, X., Frantzeskaki, N., Griffith, C., Maddox, D., McPhearson, T., et al. (Eds.). (2018a). Urban planet: Knowledge towards sustainable cities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Elmqvist, T., Siri, J., Andersson, E., Andersson, P., Bai, X., Das, P. K., et al. (2018b). Urban tinkering. Sustainability Science, 13(6), 1549–1564. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0611-0. Elmqvist, T., Andersson, E., Frantzeskaki, N., McPhearson, T., Olsson, P., Gaffney, O., et al. (2019). Sustainability and resilience for transformation in the urban century. Nature Sustainability, 2, 267–273. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41893-019-0250-1. Evans, J. (2016). Trials and Tribulations: Problematizing the City through/as Urban Experimentation. Geography Compass, 10(10)‚ 429–443.

1  A TRANSFORMATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON CLIMATE CHANGE … 

39

Evans, J., Karvonen, A., & Raven, R. (2016). The experimental city: New modes and prospects of urban transformation. In J. Evans, A. Karvonen, & R. Raven (Eds.), The experimental city (pp. 1–12). London: Routledge. Feola, G. (2015). Societal transformation in response to global environmental change: A review of emerging concepts. Ambio, 44(5), 376–390. Folke, C. (2016). Resilience (Republished). Ecology and Society, 21(4), 44. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09088-210444. Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 20. http://www.ecologyandsociety. org/vol15/iss4/art20/. Frantzeskaki, N., Dumitru, A., Anguelovski, I., Avelino, F., Bach, M., Best, B., et al. (2016). Elucidating the changing roles of civil society in urban sustainability transitions. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 22, 41–50. Fröhlich, J., & Knieling, J. (2013) Conceptualising climate change governance. In J. Knieling & W. Leal Filho (Eds.), Climate change governance. Climate Change Management (pp. 9–26). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Fuhr, H., Hickmann, T., & Kern, K. (2018). The role of cities in multi-level climate governance: Local climate policies and the 1.5°C target. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 30, 1–6. Future Earth. (2014). Strategic Research Agenda 2014. Priorities for a global sustainability research strategy. Future Earth—Research for global sustainability. Galaz, V., Crona, B., Österblom, H., Olsson, P., & Folke, C. (2011). Polycentric systems and interacting planetary boundaries—Emerging governance of climate change-ocean acidification-marine biodiversity. Ecological Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.012. Garschagen, M., Porter, L., Satterthwaite, D., Fraser, A., Horne, R., Nolan, M., et al. (2018). The new urban agenda: From vision to policy and action/will the new urban agenda have any positive influence on governments and international agencies?/Informality in the new urban agenda: From the aspirational policiesof integration to a politics of constructive engagement/growing up or growing despair? Prospects for multi-sector progresson city sustainability under the NUA/approaching risk and hazards in the new urban agenda: A commentary/follow-up and review of the new urban agenda. Planning Theory & Practice, 19(1), 117–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2 018.1412678. Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. W. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399–417. Gillard, R., Gouldson, A., Paavola, J., & van Alstine, J. (2016). Transformational responses to climate change: Beyond a systems perspective of social change in mitigation and adaptation. WIREs Climate Change, 7, 251–265. https://doi. org/10.1002/wcc.384.

40  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI González, S., & Healey, P. (2005). A sociological institutionalist approach to the study of innovation in governance capacity. Urban Studies, 42(11), 2055– 2069. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980500279778. Göpel, M. (2014). Navigating a new agenda: Questions and answers on paradigm shifts and transformational change. Berlin: Wuppertal Institut für Klima, Umwelt und Energy GmbH. Gordon, D. J., & Johnson, C. A. (2017). The orchestration of global urban climate governance: Conducting power in the post-Paris climate regime. Environmental Politics, 26(4), 694–714. https://doi.org/10.1080/0964401 6.2017.1320829. Hadden, J. (2015). Networks in contention: The divisive politics of climate change. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hale, T. (2016). ‘All hands on deck’: The Paris agreement and non-state climate action. Global Environmental Politics, 16(3), 12–21. Harrison, P. A., Dunford, R. W., Holman, I. P., & Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2016). Climate change impact modelling needs to include cross-sectoral interactions. Nature Climate Change, 6(9), 885–890. Hermwille, L. (2016). Climate change as transformation challenge: A new climate policy paradigm? GAIA, 25(1), 19–22. https://doi.org/10.14512/ gaia.25.1.6. Hildén, M., Jordan, A., & Huitema, D. (2017). Special issue on experimentation for climate change solutions editorial: The search for climate change and sustainability solutions—The promise and the pitfalls of experimentation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 169, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2017.09.019. Hodson, M., Evans, J., & Schliwa, G. (2018). Conditioning experimentation: The struggle for place-based discretion in shaping urban infrastructures. Environment and planning C: Politics and Space. https://doi. org/10.1177/2399654418765480. Hoffmann, M. (2011). Climate governance at the crossroads: Experimenting with a global response after Kyoto. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holling, C. S., Gunderson, L., & Peterson, G. (2002). Sustainability and panarchies. In L. H. Gunderson & C. S. Holling (Eds.), Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems (pp. 63–102). Washington DC: Island. Hölscher, K. (2019). Transforming urban climate governance: Capacities for transformative climate governance (PhD thesis). Erasmus University Rotterdam. https://repub.eur.nl/pub/118721. Hölscher, K., Frantzeskaki, N., & Loorbach, D. (2019a). Steering transformations under climate change: Capacities for transformative climate governance and the case of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Regional Environmental Change, 19(3), 791–805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1329-3.

1  A TRANSFORMATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON CLIMATE CHANGE … 

41

Hölscher, K., Frantzeskaki, N., McPhearson, T., & Loorbach, D. (2019b). Capacities for urban transformations governance and the case of New York City. Cities, 94, 186–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.05.037. Hölscher, K., Frantzeskaki, N., McPhearson, T., & Loorbach, D. (2019c). Tales of transforming cities: Transformative climate governance capacities in New York City, U.S. and Rotterdam, Netherlands. Journal of Environmental Management, 1(231), 843–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvman.2018.10.043. Hölscher, K., Wittmayer, J. M., & Loorbach, D. (2018). Transition versus transformation: What’s the difference? Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.10.007. Homsey, G., & Warner, M. (2015). Cities and sustainability: Polycentric action and multilevel governance. Urban Affairs Review, 51(1), 46–73. https://doi. org/10.1177/1078087414530545. Huitema, D., Lerum Boasson, E., & Beunen, R. (2018). Entrepreneurship in climate governance at the local and regional levels: Concepts, methods, patterns and effects. Regional Environmental Change. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10113-018-1351-1355. Hughes, S., Chu, E. K., & Mason, S. G. (Eds.). (2017). Climate change in cities: Innovations in multi-level governance. Cham: Springer. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2003). The impact of collaborative planning on governance capacity (UC Berkeley IURD Working Paper Series). https:// escholarship.org/uc/item/98k72547. IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability (IPCC Working Group II Contribution to AR5. Summary for Policymakers). Cambridge, UK and New York, USA: Cambridge University Press. IPCC. (2018). Global warming of 1.5°C. An special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Summary for Policymakers. Jacob, K., Bär, H., & Graaf, L. (2015). Was sind Transformationen? Begriffliche und theoretische Grundlagen zur Analyse von gesellschaftlichen Transformationen. Teilbericht 1 des Projektes‚ Nachhaltiges Deutschland 2030 bis 2050 – Wie wollen wir in Zukunft leben?. Texte 60/2015, Umweltbundesamt: Dessau-Roßlau. http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/ sites/default/files/medien/378/publikationen/texte_58_2015_nachhaltiges_deutschland_2030_bis_2050_teil_1_1.pdf. Accessed October 4, 2018. Jessop, B. (1997). Capitalism and its future: Remarks on regulation, government and governance. Review of International Political Economy, 4, 561–581. Jhagroe, S. (2016). Urban transition politics: How struggles for sustainability are (re)making urban places (PhD thesis). Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.

42  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI Jordan, A., & Huitema, D. (2014). Policy innovation in a changing climate: Sources, patterns and effects. Global Environmental Change 29‚ 387–394. Jordan, A. J., Huitema, D., Hildén, M., van Asselt, H., Rayner, T. J., Schoenefeld, J. J., et al. (2015). Emergence of polycentric climate governance and its future prospects. Nature Climate Change, 5, 977–982. https://doi. org/10.1038/nclimate2725. Jordan, A. J., Huitema, D., van Asselt, H., & Forster, J. (2018). Governing climate change: The promise and limits of polycentric governance. In A. Jordan, D. Huitema, H. van Asselt, & J. Forster (Eds.), Governing climate change: Polycentricity in Action? (pp. 359–383). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Karvonen, A. (2018). The city of permanent experiments? In B. Turnheim, P. Kivimaa, & F. Berkhout (Eds.), Innovating climate governance: Moving beyond experiments (pp. 201–215). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kates, R. W., Travis, W. R., & Wilbanks, T. J. (2012). Transformational adaptation when incremental adaptations to climate change are insufficient. PNAS, 109(19), 7156–7161. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1115521109. Keskitalo, E. C. H., Juhola, S., Baron, N., Fyhn, H., & Klein, J. (2016). Implementing local climate change adaptation and mitigation actions: The role of various policy instruments in a multi-level governance context. Climate, 4(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli4010007. Kivimaa, P., & Kern, F. (2016). Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 45(1), 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.008. Kivimaa, P., Hildén, M., Huitema, D., Jordan, A., & Newig, J. (2017). Experiments in climate governance—A systematic review of research on energy and built environment transitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 169, 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.027. Köhler, J., Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., et al. (2019). An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004. Kooiman, J. (1993). Modern governance: New government-society interactions. London: Sage. Koop, S. H. A., Koetsier, L., Doornhof, A., Reinstra, O., van Leeuwen, C. J., Brouwer, S., et al. (2017). Assessing the governance capacity of cities to address challenges of water, waste and climate change. Water Resources Management, 31, 3427–3443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1677-7. Lam, D. P. M., Horcea-Milcu, A. I., & Fischer, J., Peukert, D., & Lang, D. J. (2019). Three principles for co-designing sustainability intervention strategies: Experiences from Southern Transylvania. Ambio, 1–15. https://doi. org/10.1007/s13280-019-01302-x.

1  A TRANSFORMATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON CLIMATE CHANGE … 

43

Leach, M., Scoones, I., & Stirling, A. (2010). Dynamic sustainabilities: Technology, environment and social justice. New York: Earthscan. Loorbach, D. (2010). Transition management for sustainable development: A Prescriptive, Complexity-Based Governance Framework. Governance: An International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions 23(1)‚ 161– 183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2009.01471.x. Loorbach, D. (2014). To Transition! Governance panarchy in the new transformation. Inaugural Lecture, Erasmus University Rotterdam. Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N., & Avelino, F. (2017). Sustainability transitions research: Transforming science and practice for societal change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 42, 599–626. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021340. Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N., & Huffenreuter, L. R. (2015). Transition management: Taking stock from governance experimentation. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 58, 48–66. Maor, M., Tosun, J., & Jordan, A. (2017). Proportionate and disproportionate policy responses to climate change: Core concepts and empirical applications. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning. https://doi.org/10.1080/152 3908X.2017.1281730. McFadgen, B., & Huitema, D. (2016). Are all experiments created equal? A framework for analysis of the learning potential of policy experiments in environmental governance. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2016.1256808. McGee, J., & Steffek, J. (2016). The Copenhagen turn in global climate governance and the contentious history of differentiation in international law.Journal of Environmental Law, 28(1), 37–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqw003. Meadowcroft, J. (2009). Climate Change Governance. Background Paper to the 2010 World Development Report, Policy Research Working Paper 4941‚ The World Bank. Meerow, S., Newell, J. P., & Stults, M. (2016). Defining urban resilience: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 147, 38–49. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.011. Moomaw, W., & Papa, M. (2012). Creating a mutual gains climate regime through universal clean energy services. Climate Policy, 12(4), 505–520. Nasiritousi, N. (2017). Fossil fuel emitters and climate change: Unpacking the governance activities of large oil and gas companies. Environmental Politics, 26(4), 621–647. Nevens, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Gorissen, L., & Loorbach, D. (2013). Urban transition labs: Co-creating transformative action for sustainable cities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 111–122.

44  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI Nordgren, J., Stults, M., & Meerow, S. (2016). Supporting local climate change adaptation: Where we are and where we need to go. Environmental Science & Policy, 66, 344–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.05.006. O’Brien, K. (2012). Global environmental change II: From adaptation to deliberate transformation. Progress in Human Geography, 36(5), 667–676. O’Brien, K., & Selboe, E. (2015). Climate change as an adaptive challenge. In K. O’Brien & E. Selboe (Eds.), The adaptive challenge of climate change (pp. 1–23). New York City: Cambridge University Press. O’Riordan, T. (2009). Reflections on the pathways to sustainability. In N. Adger & A. Jordan (Eds.), Governing sustainability (pp. 307–328). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O’Riordan, T., & Le Quéré, C. (2013). Future Earth: A science agenda for sustainability and human prosperity. British Academy Review, 22, 30–34. Olsson, P., Galaz, V., & Boonstra, W. J. (2014). Sustainability transformations: A resilience perspective. Ecology and Society, 19(4), 1. https://doi. org/10.5751/ES-06799-190401. Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, 100(3), 641–672. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.3.641. Ostrom, E. (2014). A polycentric approach for coping with climate change. Annals of Economics and Finance, 15, 71–108. https://doi. org/10.1596/1813-9450-5095. Pahl-Wostl, C., & Knieper, C. (2014). The capacity of water governance to deal with the climate change adaptation challenge: Using fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis to distinguish between polycentric, fragmented and centralized regimes. Global Environmental Change, 29, 139–154. Patterson, J., Schulz, K., Vervoort, J., van der Hel, S., Widerberg, O., Adler, C., et al. (2016). Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards sustainability. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.001. Peck, J. (2016). Transatlantic city, part 1: Conjunctural urbanism. Urban Studies, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098016679355. Pelling, M., O’Brien, K., & Matyas, D. (2015). Adaptation and transformation. Climate Change, 2015(133), 113–127. Pereira, L., Karpouzoglou, T., Doshi, S., & Frantzeskaki, N. (2015). Organising a safe space for navigating social-ecological transformations to sustainability. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12, 6027–6044. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph12060602. Pickett, S. T. A., McGrath, B., Cadenasso, M. L., Felson, A. J. (2014). Ecological resilience and resilient cities. Building Research & Information, 42(2)‚ 143– 157‚ https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2014.850600. Pickett, S. T. A., Cadenasso, M. L., Childers, D. L., McDonnell, M. J., & Zhou, W. (2016). Evolution and future of urban ecological science: ecology in, of,

1  A TRANSFORMATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON CLIMATE CHANGE … 

45

and for the city. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability, 2(7), e01229. https:// doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1229. Raven, R., Sengers, F., Spaeth, P., Xie, L., Cheshmehzangi, A., & de Jong, M. (2017). Urban experimentation and institutional arrangements. European Planning Studies, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2017.1393047. Raworth, K. (2012). A safe and just space for humanity. Can we live within the doughnut? (Oxfam Discussion Paper). https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www. oxfam.org/files/dp-a-safe-and-just-space-for-humanity-130212-en.pdf. Revi, A., Satterthwaite, D., Aragón-Durand, F., Corfee-Morlot, J., Kiunsi, R. B., Pelling, M., et al. (2014). Towards transformative adaptation in cities: The IPCC’s fifth assessment. Environment and Urbanization, 26, 11–28. Reckien, D., Creutzig, F., Fernandez, B., Lwasa, S., Tovar-Restrepo, M., Darryn Mcevoy, D., & Satterthwaite, D. (2017). Climate change, equity and the Sustainable Development Goals: an urban perspective. Environment and Urbanization, 29(1)‚ 159–182. https://doi. org/10.1177/0956247816677778. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press. Rink, D., Kabisch, S., Koch, F., & Krellenberg, K. (2018). Exploring the extent, selected topics and governance modes of urban sustainability transformations. In S. Kabisch, F. Koch, E. Gawel, A. Haase, S. Knapp, K. Krellenberg, et al. (Eds.), Urban transformations: Sustainable urban development through resource efficiency, quality of life and resilience (pp. 3–20). Future City 10. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T. M., Barnard, P., & Moomaw, W. R. (2019). World scientists’ warning of a climate emergency. BioScience. https:// doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz088. Roberts, C., Geels, F. W., Lockwood, M., Newell, P., Schmitz, H., Turnheim, B., et al. (2018). The politics of accelerating low-carbon transitions: Towards a new research agenda. Energy Research & Social Science, 44, 304–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.06.001. Rockström, J., Gaffney, O., Rogelj, J., Meinshausen, M., Nakicenovic, N., & Schellnhuber, N. H. J. (2017). A roadmap for rapid decarbonization. Science, 355(6331), 1269–1271. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah3443. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin III, F. S., Lambin, E., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472–475. Rogelj, J., den Elzen, M., Höhne, N.‚ et al. (2016). Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C. Nature‚ 534‚ 631–639. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18307. Romero-Lankao, P., & Dodman, D. (2011). Cities in transition: Transforming urban centers from hotbeds of GHG emissions and vulnerability to

46  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI seedbeds of sustainablitiy and resilience. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3, 113–120. Rotmans, J., & Loorbach, D. (2010). Towards a better understanding of transitions and their governance: A systemic and reflexive approach. In J. Grin, J. Rotmans, & J. Schot (Eds.), Transitions to sustainable development: New directions in the study of long-term transformative change (pp. 105–222). New York and London: Routledge. Rosenzweig, C., Solecki, W., Romero-Lankao, P., Mehrotra, S. Dhakal, S., Bowman, T., & Ali Ibrahim, S. (2015). ARC3.2 Summary for city leaders—Climate change and Cities: Second assessment report of the urban climate change research network. Urban Climate Change Research Network, Columbia University. https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2015/2015_Rosenzweig_ ro02510w.pdf. Runhaar, H., Wilk, B., Persson, A., Uittenbroek, C., & Wamsler, C. (2018). Mainstreaming climate adaptation: Taking stock about “what works” from empirical research worldwide. Regional Environmental Change, 18, 1201– 1210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1259-5. Seto, K. C., David, S. J., Mitchell, R. B., Stokes, E. C., Unruh, G., & ­Ürge-Vorsatz, D. (2016). Carbon lock-in: Types, causes, and policy implications. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41, 19. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085934. Sharifi, A., & Yamagata, Y. (2015). A conceptual framework for assessment of urban energy resilience. In J. Yan, T. Shamim, S. K. Chou, & H. Li (Eds.), Clean, efficient and affordable energy for a sustainable future. Energy Procedia 75: Clean, Efficient and Affordable Energy for a Sustainable Future: The 7th International Conference on Applied Energy (ICAE2015) Elsevier: Amsterdam (Vol. 75, pp. 2904–2909). Shaw, A., Burch, S., Kristensen, F., Robinson, J., & Dale, A. (2014). Accelerating the sustainability transition: Exploring synergies between adaptation and mitigation in British Columbian communities. Global Environmental Change, 25, 41–51. Smith, A., & Stirling, A. (2010). The politics of social-ecological resilience and sustainable socio-technical transitions. Ecology and Society, 15(1), 11. Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney, O., & Ludwid, C. (2015). The trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration. The Anthropocene Review, 2(1), 81–98. Steffen, W., Rockström, J., Richardson, K., Richardson, T. M. Lenton, C. Folke, D., et al. (2018). Trajectories of the earth system in the Anthropocene. PNAS. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1810141115. Tábara, J. D., Frantzeskaki, N., Hölscher, K., Pedde, S., Lamperti, F., Christensen, J., et al. (2018). Positive tipping points in a rapidly warming world. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 31, 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.01.012.

1  A TRANSFORMATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON CLIMATE CHANGE … 

47

Tanner, T., Mitchell, T., Polack, E., & Guenther, B. (2009). Urban governance for adaptation: Assessing climate change resilience in ten asian cities (IDS Research Summary 315). Brighton: IDS. Turnheim, B., Kivimaa, P., & Berkhout, F. (2018). Beyond experiments: Innovation in climate governance. In B. Turnheim, P. Kivimaa, & F. Berkhout (Eds.), Innovating climate governance: Moving beyond experiments (pp. 1–26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. UN, United Nations. (1992). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf. UN. (2015). Paris Agreement. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_ paris_agreement.pdf. Accessed October 4, 2018. UN. (2016). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. A/Res/70/1. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf. Accessed October 4, 2018. UNEP, United Nations Environmental Program. (2012). 21 Issues for the 21st century: Result of the UNEP foresight process on emerging environmental issues (pp. 1–56). Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). http://www.unep.org/pdf/Foresight_Report-21_Issues_for_the_21st_ Century.pdf. Accessed April 2, 2014. UN-Habitat. (2016). World Cities Report 2016: Urbanization and development— Emerging Futures. UN-Habitat: Nairobi. Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Rosenzweig, C., Dawson, R. J., Sanchez Rodriguez, R. Bai, X., Barau A. S., et al. (2018). Locking in positive climate responses in cities. Nature Climate Change, 8(3), 174–177. van Asselt, H., Huitema, D., & Jordan, A. (2018). Global climate governance after Paris: Setting the scene for experimentation? In B. Turnheim, P. Kivimaa, & F. Berkhout (Eds.), Innovating Climate Governance: Moving Beyond Experiments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wamsler, C. (2015). Mainstreaming ecosystem-based adaptation: Transformation toward Sustainability in urban governance and planning. Ecology and Society, 20(2), 30. WBGU, German Advisory Council on Global Change. (2011). World in transition—A social contract for sustainability. Berlin. https://www.wbgu.de/ fileadmin/user_upload/wbgu.de/templates/dateien/veroeffentlichungen/ hauptgutachten/jg2011/wbgu_jg2011_en.pdf. Accessed October 4, 2018. WBGU. (2016). Humanity on the move: Unlocking the transformative power of cities. Berlin: WBGU. Wiek, A., Ness, B., Schweizer-Ries, P., Band, F. S., & Farioli, F. (2012). From complex systems analysis to transformational change: A comparative appraisal of sustainability science projects. Sustainability Science, 7(Supplement 1), 5–24.

48  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI Winnington, N. S., Fahrenkamp-Uppenbrink, J., & Malakoff, D. (2016). Cities are the future: Introduction to special issue Urban Planet. Science, 352(6288), 904–905. Wise, R., Fazey, I., Stafford Smith, M., Park, S., Eakin, H., Archer Van Garderen, E., et al. (2014). Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of pathways of change and response. Global Environmental Change, 28(4), 325–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.002. Wittmayer, J., & Hölscher, K. (2017). Transformationsforschung – Definitionen, Ansätze, Methoden. Bericht des AP1. Dessau-Roßlau: Umweltbundesamt. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/transformationsforschung. Accessed October 4, 2018. Wittmayer, J. M., van Steenbergen, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Bach, M. (2018). Transition Management: Guiding principles and applications. In N. Frantzeskaki, K. Hölscher, M. Bach‚ & F. Avelino (Eds.)‚ Co-creating sustainable urban futures. A primer on applying transition management in cities. Springer: Tokyo, 81–102. Wittmayer, J. M., van Steenbergen, F., Rok, A., & Roorda, C. (2015). Governing sustainability: a dialogue between Local Agenda 21 and transition management. Local Environment, 21(8), 939–955. https://doi.org/10.1080 /13549839.2015.1050658. Wolfram, M., Frantzeskaki, N., & Maschmeyer, S. (2017). Cities, systems and sustainability: Status and perspectives of research on urban transformations. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 22, 18–25. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.014. Wurzel, R. K. W., Liefferink, D., & Torney, D. (2019). Pioneers, leaders and followers in multilevel and polycentric climate governance. Environmental Politics, 28(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1522033. Zelli, F., Möller, I., & van Asselt, H. (2017). Institutional complexity and private authority in global climate governance: the cases of climate engineering, REDD+, and short-lived climate pollutants. Environmental Politics, 26(4), 669–693.

CHAPTER 2

Capacities for Transformative Climate Governance: A Conceptual Framework Katharina Hölscher

2.1  Introduction The ongoing changes of the global climate governance landscape, as well as the persistent inability to avoid high carbon futures and adapt to climate impacts, raise questions about why, how, by whom and with what effects climate governance takes place (Bulkeley 2015; Jordan et al. 2015). Over the past years, the challenges to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change have been placed within the broader context of societal transformations to sustainability and resilience (Hermwille 2016; Gillard et al. 2016). The premise in this book is that viewing climate change as a transformation challenge provides opportunities for addressing climate change in holistic and radical ways, moving beyond merely tackling climate change symptoms that is unable to address the root causes of high emissions trajectories and vulnerabilities to climate change impacts (Hölscher and Frantzeskaki, K. Hölscher (*)  Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 K. Hölscher and N. Frantzeskaki (eds.), Transformative Climate Governance, Palgrave Studies in Environmental Transformation, Transition and Accountability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49040-9_2

49

50  K. HÖLSCHER

Chapter 1, this volume). This view has profound implications on climate governance, specifically raising central questions of what this type of climate governance that addresses climate change could look like, as well as how existing and new climate governance institutions, mechanisms and practices can be strengthened along those lines. While climate governance has over the past years already shifted towards more multi-actor, polycentric and learning-based approaches, many challenges persist and the effectiveness of climate governance remains contested (ibid.). There are lively debates on what types of climate governance configurations and conditions are emerging, including debates on polycentric governance, mainstreaming of climate change across policy sectors and climate governance experimentation (van Asselt et al. 2018; Jordan et al. 2018). There is a recognition that diverse types of actors are involved in developing and implementing climate governance strategies and actions, including multiple subnational and non-state actors such as local and regional governments, community-based organisations and businesses (Burch et al. 2016; Hildén et al. 2017; Wurzel et al. 2019). However, so far these debates do not offer a comprehensive view on how these diverse actors, activities and conditions add up to addressing climate change in an effective way nor propelling sustainability and resilience transformations. In this chapter, I further define transformative climate governance and identify and operationalise capacities that underpin how diverse actors are able to develop and implement transformative climate governance. I employ the term transformative climate governance to conceptualise climate change as part of the quest for broader societal transformations to sustainability and resilience that achieve deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, facilitate adaptation to non-revocable impacts of climate change and increase social and environmental well-being within planetary boundaries (Hölscher and Frantzeskaki, Chapter 1, this volume; Hölscher 2019). Positioning climate change in the context of societal transformations draws attention to the complex dynamics, deep persistence in societal structures, cultures and practices, contestations and uncertainties involved in addressing climate change as a transformation challenge (Gillard et al. 2016; Burch et al. 2018). To fathom climate change within societal transformations underscores the need for deep structural changes to overcome the socio-economic root causes, including individual values, incentive structures, institutions and technologies, driving unsustainability and (vulnerability to) climate change impacts

2  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

51

(Tàbara et al. 2018; Seto et al. 2016; Ürge-Vorsatz et al. 2018). This makes clear that climate governance needs to converge insights on how to address risks, vulnerabilities and deep uncertainties amplified by climate change, as well as on how to overcome the structural drivers of climate change, unsustainability and mal-adaptation. I start to conceptualise transformative climate governance by looking at the characteristics and dynamics of climate change as a transformation challenge. Transformation dynamics are visible in the path-dependencies and break-down of existing regimes that fail to reduce and respond to emerging challenges and risks, the build-up of new alternatives to replace those regimes, as well as in deep uncertainties, contestation and disruption that are involved in these processes (Loorbach 2014; Patterson et al. 2016; Hölscher et al. 2018, 2019a). This enables me to define functions for transformative climate governance that respond to different transformation dynamics. Delivering a governance function means that governance activities and outputs mobilise and respond to transformation dynamics and have impacts on the system level, for example, in terms of enabling better protection from risk or creating innovations that provide radical alternatives. The transformative climate governance functions provide a systematic structure for conceptualising governance capacities that help delivering the respective functions. My main premise is that enabling transformative climate governance requires the development, and better understanding, of new governance capacities that create institutional space and facilitate those actions that can purposefully contribute to navigating such sustainability and resilience transformations under climate change (cf. Hölscher 2019). I understand governance capacity as an emergent property that is constantly mediated through the formal and informal collaboration and learning processes between multiple governance actors and how they interact with their organisational contexts (Innes and Booher 2003; González and Healey 2005). As such, governance capacity facilitates explanation and evaluation of how and whether and whose capacities for transformative climate governance are developing. Further, the understanding of governance capacities as agency-based makes it an “action-oriented and empowering concept” (Wolfram et al. 2017, p. 24): by connecting actor-level activities to how they contribute to building conditions for system-level change it is possible to trace what opportunities were created and used, what challenges need to be accounted for and what are capacity gaps.

52  K. HÖLSCHER

First, I introduce the notion of governance capacity to trace activities and emergent conditions for transformative climate governance (Sect. 2.2). Second, I review and synthesise sustainability and resilience approaches—two research approaches that have come of age in studying and theorising how governance and agency can support and deal with transformative societal change: sustainability transitions and resilience approaches (Loorbach et al. 2017; Olsson et al. 2014; Folke 2016; Patterson et al. 2016)—to position climate change and climate governance in the context of transformations and derive implications for transformative climate governance (Sect. 2.3). This enabled me to define four functions for transformative climate governance and conceptualise corresponding governance capacities (Sect. 2.4). Finally, I discuss the insights generated from the framework as well as possible applications of the framework, which are in part illustrated in this book (Sect. 2.5).

2.2  Capacities for Transformative Climate Governance: Connecting ‘What’ to ‘Who’ and ‘How’ Understanding the development of climate governance and whether it results in transformative climate governance requires new frameworks and concepts that bridge between the diverse actors and activities driving the governance shift, the institutional and organisational governance conditions that emerge as a result, as well as whether these indeed contribute to navigating transformation under climate change. The notion of governance capacities provides a learning and agency-based view on how, and by whom, urban climate governance is enacted, what conditions emerge as a result, whether these conditions mark a shift towards transformative climate governance, what capacity gaps exist, as well as how capacities can be supported. At the most general level, governance capacity refers to the effective organisation of collective action, which draws attention to the interactions among diverse governance actors who solve problems, or, complete complex tasks by collaborating (Innes and Booher 2003; Rama et al. 2009). In public administration, policy analysis and planning literatures, scholars have been introducing different concepts and understandings related to the capacity for governance in an effort to address the question of which skills, instruments and institutions help to govern in a complex society. It encompasses the individual capacity of governance actors, the organisational capacity of governance organisations and

2  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

53

institutions, and relational capacity for collaboration between individuals and organisations (Foster-Fishman et al. 2001; Innes and Booher 2003). Yet governance capacity goes beyond individual, organisational and relational capacity to describe how these manifest in the capacity of the governance system as a whole, including actors, their positions, roles and strategies, networks and coalitions, discourses, governance cultures and institutional arenas, to operate as a collective actor (Innes and Booher 2003; González and Healey 2005). Central to the idea of governance capacity is that it is an emergent property of governance systems: governance capacity is emergent through the formal and informal collaboration and learning processes between multiple governance actors and how they interact with their institutional and organisational contexts—including governmental institutions, politics and other social worlds—to solve collective problems (Innes and Booher 2003; Koop et al. 2017). This is what I call the ‘structuration perspective’ on governance capacity: this understanding shifts attention from the design of projects and policies and their impacts to the co-constitutive design of the institutional infrastructure, expressed in formal rules and structures, informal norms and practices, which determines what projects and policies emerge, and what impacts are on identities, knowledge, resources, interactions and cultural assumptions as well as material outcomes (González and Healey 2005). Central to this idea of governance capacity is collaborative learning: “learning by individuals about which of their own actions is effective, by organizations about the results of their actions, and by the larger economic and political systems in which they are embedded about how to respond creatively and adapt in the face of change, crises and simply new information” (Innes and Booher 2003, p. 8). I identify four dimensions of governance capacity that manifest in the ability of a governance system to effectively organise collective action and thus allow to trace how urban governance is changing and assess whether the new emerging forms allow for transformative climate governance: • Governance conditions: While governance actors are capable of purposive decisions, deliberate actions and strategic choices, their actions and interactions are shaped by the more or less institutionalised working arrangements (e.g. organisational settings, rules, regulations) as well as the broader socio-economic and political contexts (e.g. available resources, discourses) (Hodson et al. 2018;

54  K. HÖLSCHER

Koop et al. 2017). Governance capacity therefore requires attention to and investment in mobilising networks, organisational resources, skills, knowledge and institutions that allow actors and organisations to collaborate, to analyse, assess and act on information and to deliver joint action in practice (Foster-Fishman et al. 2001; Innes and Booher 2003; Rama et al. 2009). • Governance agency: While governance capacity has often been reduced to the institutional contexts, organisational structures and resources that enable actors to collaborate and address shared problems, governance capacity is enacted by diverse governance actors who mobilise, create and change governance conditions for collective action, thus exercising agency (cf. Koop et al. 2017). Scholars concerned with policy change have developed understandings about institutional and policy entrepreneurship (Huitema et al. 2018; Bakir and Jarvis 2017). The term institutional entrepreneurship refers to the “activities of actors who have an interest in particular institutional arrangements and who leverage resources to create new institutions, or to transform existing ones” (Maguire et al. 2004: p. 657; cf. Garud et al. 2007). The emphasis here lies on the actions of entrepreneurs: How they generate policy and institutional changes (such as in distribution of authority and information, norms and cognitive frameworks), and how they are influenced by context-dependent, dynamic interactions among interdependent structures, institutions and conditions (Bakir and Jarvis 2017; Boasson and Huitema 2017). For example, Huitema et al. (2018) identify set of strategies by which policy entrepreneurs affect water policy change, including idea development, coalition building, the detection and exploitation of windows of opportunity and network management. • Mediation processes: The combined view on governance conditions and governance agency engenders an understanding of governance capacity as “located in the collective practices through which governance relations are played out and not only in the formal rules and allocation of competences for collective action as defined by governmental laws and procedures” (González and Healey 2005, p. 2059). While individual policy or institutional entrepreneurs contribute to governance change, they do so in collectives, and the ways in which they are able to affect change depends on the institutional settings they operate in (Huitema

2  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

55

et al. 2018). This view also makes clear that governance agency is “distributed within the structures that actors themselves have created” (Garud et al. 2007: p. 961). Critical here is that agency presupposes an interactive response: it is “the temporally constructed engagement by actors of different structural environments — the ­temporal-relational contexts of action — which, through the interplay of habit, imagination, and judgment, both reproduces and transforms those structures in interactive response to the problems posed by changing historical situations” (Emirbayer and Miche 1998: p. 970). • Normativity: While governance capacity literature is primarily descriptive, it also harbours the potential for prescriptive and normative approaches (Innes and Booher 2003; González and Healey 2005; Koop et al. 2017). Governance capacity and how it is changing needs to be evaluated based on whether it allows for generating socially desirable and legitimate outcomes and whether it is likely to spread and become institutionalised in a governance system (cf. González and Healey 2005). Especially when seeking to strengthen governance capacity it is pivotal to understand what type of capacity is an effective means to achieve desired ends rather than solely looking at how governance capacity is emerging and changing. Embracing the normativity of governance capacity allows to identify which activities and conditions manifest in capacities for transformative climate governance. In summary, I employ the perspective on governance capacity as a simple conceptual frame that connects governance agency (‘who’), interactions with governance conditions (‘how’) and governance outputs and outcomes (‘what’) (Fig. 2.1). Accordingly, governance capacities are manifest in the collective abilities of actors to mobilise, create and change structural conditions, as well as the conditions that result from these activities and enable, or, disable collective action. The concept of governance capacity facilitates explanation and evaluation of how, whether and whose capacities for transformative climate governance are developing. In first instance, the concept provides a frame for conceptualisation transformative climate governance as a normative approach that builds on multiple capacities for delivering different governance (outcome) functions for navigating transformations under climate change.

56  K. HÖLSCHER

Governance capacity (who & how)

Agency

Mobilising, creating, changing

Enabling/ disabling agency

Governance conditions

Outcome (what) System of institutions, practices and principles delivering on collective problem

Fig. 2.1  Governance capacities: connecting ‘what’ to ‘who’ and ‘how’ (Adapted from Hölscher 2019)

Secondly, governance capacity helps to trace the activities by which actors create conditions for delivering these functions. Governance capacity has often been reduced to the institutional contexts, organisational structures and resources that enable actors to collaborate and address shared problems (Koop et al. 2017; Amundsen et al. 2018). However, this is unable to explain how governance capacity is made to be, and fails to address questions about how structural barriers and opportunities can be removed, utilised or created (cf. Bettini 2013). While a focus on how governance capacity is shaped by institutional and organisational forces helps to explain continuity and conformity, privileging agency emphasises how organisational processes and institutions themselves are shaped by creative entrepreneurial forces (cf. Garud et al. 2007). An agency-based perspective on governance capacity facilitates an understanding about who shapes governance priorities, why actors become active, which factors they consider when selecting strategies and how their activities relate to the emergence of governance innovations (Hodson et al. 2018; Koop et al. 2017; Rama et al. 2009). This understanding makes use of governance capacity an “action-oriented and empowering concept”, which helps “to identify requirements, design policies and devise purposive interventions” (Wolfram et al. 2017: p. 24): by connecting actor-level activities to how they contribute to building governance conditions for transformative climate governance it is possible to identify what opportunities were created and used, what challenges need to be accounted for, what are capacity gaps and how capacities can be strengthened.

2  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

57

Thirdly, governance capacities are contingent, context-dependent and relational—not an absolute—properties: they are continuously developed and adapted through the actions of diverse governance actors. Governance capacity is “inherently situated in a specific institutional space, with concrete manifestations of power and possibility, and with a particular pattern of ‘moments’ which could allow for transformational trajectories to get established” (González and Healey 2005: p. 2058). Given its broad conceptual scope, governance capacity or governance capacities in general can hardly be assessed for a governance system as a whole (González and Healey 2005; Wolfram 2016). It is characterised by the micro-politics of interactions between specific actors in particular arena embedded in the political economy of a concrete time and space, including sense of identity and place, urban narratives, spatial imaginations and geographical contexts (González and Healey 2005).

2.3  Transformative Perspectives on Climate Governance: Sustainability Transitions and Resilience Approaches The capacities framework for transformative climate governance builds on a review and synthesis of insights from two research approaches that have come of age in studying and theorising how governance and agency can support and deal with transformative societal change: sustainability transitions (Loorbach et al. 2017; Frantzeskaki et al. 2018) and resilience approaches (Olsson et al. 2014; Folke 2016; Meerow et al. 2016). Both approaches have developed from a general interest in understanding change in complex adaptive systems and have developed a distinct set of concepts, frameworks and models for deepening understanding about the role of agency and governance in supporting (or hindering) desirable transformative change (Loorbach et al. 2017; Olsson et al. 2014; Rauschmayer et al. 2015; Westley et al. 2013; Patterson et al. 2016). These scientific approaches were chosen because they provide a wealth of insights on (climate) governance and agency in the context of transformations. Their insights are both consistent and complementary. Sustainability transitions approaches focus on persistent institutional, technological and sociocultural constraints underlying shifts towards more sustainable systems of service provision and lifestyles and thus the need for fundamental changes in the way societal systems are organised and operate (e.g. physical and economic infrastructures, institutions,

58  K. HÖLSCHER

individual behaviours) (Rotmans et al. 2001; Grin et al. 2010; Markard et al. 2012; Loorbach et al. 2017). Resilience approaches root in ecology and stress the strong connection between humans and the environment in social-ecological systems and the collective capacities for enhancing the ability of such systems to respond to uncertainty and disturbance (Berkes and Folke 1998; Berkes et al. 2003; Folke 2016; Olsson et al. 2014). A more recent thread puts forth transformability as the ability to innovate and build a new type of resilience “when ecological, economic, or social (including political) conditions make the existing system untenable” (Walker et al. 2004). In this section, I first introduce sustainability and resilience approaches. I then define opportunities for synthesising both approaches into a joint perspective on transformative climate governance. 2.3.1   Sustainability Transitions Approaches Sustainability transition research developed in the late 1990s and integrates insights from complexity science, innovation studies, sociology, governance and environmental science to understand systemic change in societal (sub-)systems (e.g. economic sectors like energy and mobility, cities) and explore possibilities for influencing the speed and direction of change in these systems (Grin et al. 2010; Markard et al. 2012; Loorbach et al. 2017). The starting point of sustainability transitions research is the recognition of social, technological and institutional path-dependencies and lock-ins that create persistent sustainability problems (Rotmans et al. 2001). Sustainability transitions are defined as radical non-linear changes in the structures (e.g. market structures, infrastructures, institutions), cultures (e.g. values, expectations) and practices (e.g. production routines, individual behaviour) of a system that shifts the system from its current unsustainable state towards a sustainable one (Rotmans and Loorbach 2010; Loorbach et al. 2015). Sustainability transitions approaches include a variety of frameworks and models that help to analyse transitions as multi-phase, multi-level, multi-actor and multi-pattern processes and to identify key driving forces and supporting and hindering activities from diverse actors (Rotmans and Loorbach 2010; de Haan and Rotmans 2011; Geels and Schot 2007). The multi-level perspective (MLP) helps analysing how regime build-up and break-down co-evolve from three main driving forces: increasing societal pressure for change on the landscape level

2  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

59

(e.g. climate change, new social movements); growing internal tensions within incumbent regimes; and alternatives (e.g. technologies, lifestyles, business models); and emerging and maturing in niches (Geels and Schot 2007; Loorbach 2014). In the multi-phase model of an ideal-type transition, innovative niches grow become valid alternatives during the take-off and acceleration phases as the incumbent regime becomes destabilised, until in the stabilisation phase a new regime is established (Rotmans and Loorbach 2010). Approaches like transition management and strategic niche management were developed to provide analytical and operational tools to understand and develop niches, actors or transformative innovations at a relatively small scale (Loorbach et al. 2015; Raven et al. 2010). 2.3.2   Resilience Approaches Resilience approaches root in ecology and stress the connections between humans and the environment in social-ecological systems (Holling 1986; Folke 2016). A central premise is that human need to pro-actively and flexibly respond to continuous changes to avoid crossing thresholds detrimental to well-being (Holling and Gunderson 2002; Walker et al. 2004). Adaptive capacity and resilience are central concepts to describe, assess and strengthen the collective capacities (of e.g. individuals, communities, regions) in social-ecological systems to preserve a desirable state in the face of continuous change and uncertainty (Berkes et al. 2003; Folke 2016; Folke et al. 2005). A recent thread puts forth transformability as the ability to innovate and build a new type of resilience “when ecological, economic, or social (including political) conditions make the existing system untenable” (Walker et al. 2004; Olsson et al. 2014). Frameworks and heuristics serve to understand risks and vulnerabilities that emerge from change dynamics and social-ecological abilities to respond to disturbances (Chaffin et al. 2016; Folke 2016; Pulver et al. 2018). The adaptive cycle chronicles four phases during which a system moves between long periods of optimisation in the ‘front loop’ and short periods of crisis and lock-in leading to reorganisation and renewal in the ‘back loop’ (Holling and Gunderson 2002). While a social-ecological system is located at a particular scale and adaptive cycle, it is embedded within lower/faster as well as higher/slower cycles—i.e. adaptive cycles are nested in a panarchy across time and space (Holling et al. 2002).

60  K. HÖLSCHER

Radical changes can result from coinciding developments at different scales: there is a risk of undesirable transformations being imposed from larger scales (e.g. disease outbreak, forest fires), while desirable transformational changes can be deliberately initiated at smaller scales (Carpenter et al. 2001; Folke et al. 2010). Adaptive governance/(co-)management describe and guide multi-actor processes for responding to change, disturbances and vulnerabilities (Berkes 2017; Plummer 2013; Folke et al. 2005; Chapin et al. 2010). 2.3.3   Towards a Synthesised Perspective on Transformative Climate Governance Due to their different entry points and research foci—on facilitating radical innovation to overthrow and replace existing unsustainable regimes and on enabling adaptation to maintain existing regimes in the face of change, respectively—sustainability transitions and resilience approaches provide complementary perspectives on conceptualising and supporting climate governance in the context of sustainability and resilience transformations (Table 2.1; Chaffin et al. 2016; Patterson et al. 2016). Over the past years, there have been constructive debates about whether and how the system ontologies, concepts and frameworks of sustainability transitions and resilience approaches can enrich each other’s explanations of and governance propositions for navigating desirable system change (Olsson et al. 2014; Smith and Stirling 2010; Pereira et al. 2015; Chaffin et al. 2016). Frameworks and entry points from sustainability transitions and resilience studies have also been taken up in climate governance literature. For example, work on transformative adaptation addresses the growing likelihood of crossing tipping points due to climate impacts and aims to alter fundamental societal structures, values, behaviours and paradigms that produce vulnerability to climate change (Wilson et al. 2013; Wise et al. 2014; O’Brien 2012; Patterson et al. 2016). This approach stresses that it is insufficient for adaptation to focus only on accommodating change; it must also contest change and create new alternatives and opportunities (Pelling 2011). Resilience-related concepts such as adaptive capacity and adaptive (co-)management are employed to conceptualise flexible and responsive climate governance, but mostly on local levels (Fröhlich and Knieling 2013). Other scholars stress the need for overcoming social, institutional and technological lock-ins to shift towards low-carbon pathways (Seto et al. 2016; Rockström et al. 2017).

2  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

61

Table 2.1  Overview of sustainability transitions and resilience approaches Characteristics Origins

Sustainability transitions research

Developed in the late 1990s in the Netherlands to support the development of new national framework for environmental policy (Grin et al. 2010; Loorbach et al. 2017; Markard et al. 2012) Goals Describe and analyse historical and contemporary (sustainability) transitions in societal (sub-)systems (e.g. economic sectors like energy and mobility, cities) and exploring possibilities for influencing the speed and direction of change in these systems (Loorbach et al. 2017) Objects of change (‘What Structures (e.g. market changes over the course of a structures, infrastructures, transformation?’) institutions), cultures (e.g. values, expectations) and practices (e.g. production routines, individual behaviour) of a societal (sub-)system (Rotmans and Loorbach 2010; Loorbach et al. 2015) Change dynamics (How do Frameworks and models transformations occur?) characterise transitions as multi-phase, multi-level, multi-actor and multi-pattern processes and identify key driving forces and supporting and hindering activities from diverse actors (Rotmans and Loorbach 2010; de Haan and Rotmans 2011; Geels and Schot 2007)

Resilience research Root in ecology and stress the connections between humans and the environment in social-ecological systems (Holling 1986; Folke 2016) Describe, analyse and support social-ecological systems to avoid and deal with tipping points and navigate desirable transformations by building adaptive capacity and resilience (Folke 2016; Walker et al. 2004; Olsson et al. 2014)

Interaction between human societies (including economic, political, institutional and cultural dimensions) with environmental resources and ecosystems in social-ecological systems (Berkes 2017; Anderies et al. 2004) Frameworks and heuristics serve to understand risks and vulnerabilities that emerge from change dynamics and social and ecological abilities to respond to disturbances (Chaffin et al. 2016; Folke 2016)

(continued)

62  K. HÖLSCHER Table 2.1  (continued) Characteristics

Sustainability transitions research

Resilience research

Drivers of transformations (By whom/how are transformations supported?)

Focus on innovation processes including visioning, experimentation and coalition building, as well as the destabilisation of existing regimes to facilitate radical change (Loorbach et al. 2017; Kivimaa and Kern 2016). Governance approaches like transition management and strategic niche management provide analytical and operational tools to understand and develop niches, actors or transformative innovations at a relatively small scale (Loorbach et al. 2015; Frantzeskaki et al. 2018; Raven et al. 2010)

Adaptive capacity and resilience are concepts to describe, assess and strengthen the collective capacities (of e.g. individuals, communities, regions) in social-ecological systems to preserve a desirable state in the face of continuous change and uncertainty (Berkes et al. 2003; Folke 2016; Folke et al. 2005). Adaptive governance/(co-) management describe and guide multi-actor processes for responding to change, disturbances and vulnerabilities (Berkes 2017; Chaffin et al. 2014; Plummer 2013; Folke et al. 2005; Chapin et al. 2010)

Adapted from Hölscher (2019)

However, so far these debates still take place in parallel to each other and do not offer an integrated perspective on how to facilitate radical change for sustainability and building resilience in the face of uncertainty and risk. For example, it is not made use of the full potential of the respective contributions of transitions and resilience approaches. Due to their different entry points to understanding and intervening in system change, both approaches offer complementary insights for agency and governance of system transformation. Sustainability transitions approaches focus on persistent structural and cultural constraints underlying shifts towards more sustainable systems of service provision and lifestyles and thus on facilitating radical change (Rotmans and Loorbach 2010; Markard et al. 2012). Resilience approaches stress capacities for responding to uncertainty and disturbance (Folke 2016; Pulver et al. 2018). In the light of the question of how to transform climate governance, both approaches give complementary insights on how to overcome path-dependency and mal-adaptation on the one hand and, on the other

2  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

63

hand, how to respond to risks and uncertainty. What is needed is the operationalisation of these approaches into a joint framework that can help diagnose climate change as a systemic problem and develop integrated and innovative solutions that address the drivers, risks and opportunities of climate change in the context of transformation.

2.4  Capacities for Transformative Climate Governance: A Framework This section presents how I operationalise the individual capacities for transformative climate governance with regard to the different s­ub-functions they deliver and the activities identified in the literature by which actors build conditions to deliver these sub-functions. I identify four functions for transformative climate governance (Table 2.2), which relate to different transformation dynamics that are highlighted by sustainability transitions and resilience approaches. The functions are output-oriented, i.e. delivering a governance function means that governance activities and outputs mobilise and respond to transformation dynamics and have impacts on the system level to build and maintain sustainability and resilience, for example, in terms of enabling better protection from risk or creating innovations that provide radical alternatives. The functions provide a systematic structure for reviewing how sustainability transitions and resilience approaches conceptualise agency and for formulating agency-based propositions for transformative climate governance. The distinction in governance functions is already implicitly done by transformation researchers who, for example, identify processes and conditions for innovation and experimentation to create novelties that disrupt existing ways of thinking, doing and organising (Nevens et al. 2013; Castán Broto and Bulkeley 2013; Raven et al. 2017). Another example is the identification of governance processes and conditions that facilitate flexible and adaptive responses to emergent risks, surprises and uncertainties (Torabi et al. 2018; Boyd et al. 2014; Tanner et al. 2009). This resonates the shared assumption that different types of changes occur throughout transformation processes, which require distinct response qualities of governance. Based on the four functions for transformative climate governance, which relate to distinct transformation dynamics, I distinguish between four corresponding capacities to deliver those (Fig. 2.2).

Experimentation (Hoffmann 2011; Hildén et al. 2017); mainstreaming (den Exter et al. 2014)

Orchestration (Abbott et al. 2015; Abbott 2017); Multi-level governance and boundary spanning (Bulkeley and Betsill 2013; Dąbrowski 2017); mainstreaming (Aylett 2015; Runhaar et al. 2018; den Exter et al. 2014)

Build-up of new and sustainable alternatives

Multi-actor processes across scales, sector and time; synergies and trade-offs; contestation and goal conflicts

Transformative: creating and embedding novelties

Orchestrating: coordinating multi-actor processes

Adapted from Hölscher et al. (2019a)

Mitigation and mitigative capacity (Yohe 2001; Burch and Robinson 2007); exnovation (Hermwille 2017)

Path-dependencies and erosion of unsustainable regimes

Unlocking: recognising and dismantling unsustainable lock-ins Regime destabilisation (Geels 2014; Turnheim and Geels 2012; Kivimaa and Kern 2016); phase-out (Loorbach 2014) Niche experimentation and leadership (Raven et al. 2010; Bos et al. 2013; Loorbach et al. 2015); scaling and replicating (van den Bosch 2010) Intermediation and meta-governance (Hodson and Marvin 2010; Hodson et al. 2013; Loorbach 2014; Frantzeskaki et al. 2014)

Emergent instabil- Adaptation and adaptive capacity – ities, uncertainty (Adger et al. 2005; Brown and and surprise Westaway 2011; Gupta et al. 2010); transformative adaptation (Wise et al. 2014; Kates et al. 2012; Lonsdale et al. 2015)

Sustainability transitions

Stewarding: anticipating and responding to disturbances

Transformative climate Transformation Climate governance governance functions dynamics addressed

Polycentric governance (Galaz et al. 2011; Anderies et al. 2016)

Experimentation and leadership (Westley et al. 2013; Moore and Westley 2011; Olsson et al. 2006; Marshall et al. 2012)

Adaptive governance and adaptive capacity (Folke et al. 2002, 2005; Dietz et al. 2003; Plummer 2013); resilience (Chapin et al. 2010; Matyas and Pelling 2015; Chandler 2014; Garmestani and Benson 2013) –

Resilience

Table 2.2  Transformative climate governance functions and related governance concepts

Meta-governance (Sørensen 2006; Kooiman and Jentoft 2009; Capano et al. 2014)

–

–

–

Meta-governance

64  K. HÖLSCHER

2  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

Functions (what)

Stewarding capacity

Strengthen selforganisation

Monitoring and continuous learning

Anticipating and responding to longterm change, uncertainty and risks

Unlocking capacity

Revealing unsustainable pathdependency and maladaptation

Undermining vested interests and incentive structures

Breaking open resistance to change

Recognising and dismantling unsustainable path-dependencies and maladaptation

Enabling novelty creation

Increasing visibility of novelty

Anchoring novelty in context

Creating and embedding novelties

Strategic alignment

Mediating across scales and sectors

Creating opportunity contexts

Coordinating multiactor processes to create synergies and avoid tradeoffs

Orchestrating capacity

Generating knowledge about system dynamics

Transformative capacity

Governance capacity (who & how)

Fig. 2.2  Conceptual governance

framework:

capacities

65

for

transformative

climate

Each capacity manifests in different sets of conditions that are created by actors’ activities and that enable delivering distinct output functions for transformative climate governance. Together, the capacities enable transformative climate governance: they enable mobilising urban transformation dynamics and develop integrated and systemic climate mitigation and adaptation actions that contribute to sustainability and resilience transformations. To operationalise the capacities I reviewed sustainability transitions, resilience, climate governance and meta-governance literatures. As shown

66  K. HÖLSCHER

in Table 2.2, these literatures offer complementary concepts and insights for conceptualising and operationalising the identified capacities for transformative climate governance. I turned to meta-governance as an additional research strand, because it addresses questions related to the coordination of multiple and fragmented self-organising governance networks to facilitate goal alignment and concerted actions (Jessop 1997, 2011; Kooiman and Jentoft 2009; Sørensen 2006). ­Meta-governance literature helped to further conceptualise and operationalise orchestrating capacity. Sustainability transitions, resilience and climate governance approaches increasingly point to the need for coordinating and intermediating self-organising and polycentric governance networks and actors across scales and sectors in line with common and overarching goals (Pahl-Wostl and Knieper 2014; Hodson and Marvin 2010; Loorbach et al. 2015; Galaz et al. 2011). However, I found that their ­agency-related conceptualisations about how to ensure such coordination were still in their early stages and that meta-governance literature due to the specific focus on this provided important additional insights. 2.4.1   Stewarding Capacity: Anticipating, Protecting and Recovering from Uncertainty and Risk Stewarding means taking care of supportive social and ecological systems in an adaptive, reflexive and flexible way (Folke 2016; Chapin et al. 2010). (Unequivocal) climate impacts and resulting vulnerabilities cause short-term and long-term risks, uncertainty and surprise including sealevel rise, heavy storms and heat waves that will detrimentally affect urban and rural populations, infrastructures, consumption and production systems (e.g. agriculture, water), cascading effects and amplify existing vulnerabilities and inequalities (IPCC 2018; Carter et al. 2015). Stewarding capacity1 thus enables anticipation of and responsiveness to uncertainty and risk while exploiting opportunities beneficial for sustainability. In

1 I have opted for the term ‘stewarding’ rather than ‘adapting’ because it better signals the function—i.e. taking care of supportive social and ecological systems in an adaptive, reflexive and flexible way (cf. Folke 2016; Chapin et al. 2010)—rather than the type of change, which has caused some confusion about adaptive versus transformative capacity and incremental versus radical change (Pelling 2011; Lonsdale et al. 2015). In addition, adaptation is in climate adaptation literature often more narrowly understood in terms of adapting to climate change impacts rather than the explicitly broader understanding sought here.

2  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

67

other words, it contributes to building (existing or new) desirable resilience to flexibly respond to and recover from ongoing changes, uncertainty and emerging risks, stresses and surprises to protect critical societal and ecological values and create opportunities beneficial for sustainability and resilience. This strongly relates to resilience approaches’ notions of adaptability and adaptive governance that help governing complex systems when knowledge is incomplete and surprise is likely (Folke et al. 2005; Chapin et al. 2010; Chaffin et al. 2014). An overview of ­sub-functions and activities for stewarding capacity is given in Table 2.3. The generation of knowledge and understanding about both complex, long-term social-ecological system dynamics across scales enables the anticipation of emergent risks and uncertainties and to attune governance and management systems and development practices to societal and ecological processes and dynamics (Folke 2016; Chapin et al. 2010). Knowledge needs to account for interactions across temporal and spatial scales, organisational and institutional levels as well as (informational) uncertainty (Folke 2016; Chelleri et al. 2015). Social knowledge generation networks that are nested across scales and combine multiple knowledge systems, including scientific knowledge and tacit knowledge of local communities underpin the co-production of knowledge (Folke et al. 2005; Chaffin et al. 2016; Berkes 2017). Berkes (2017) stresses knowledge co-production as emergent dialogue, whereby the meaning and value of information is co-created among various interests and resulting in increasing levels of trust along with the ability to address complex problems. Dynamic responses to change and disturbance are the product of self-organisation between multiple actors such as local communities, government agencies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that facilitate problem-oriented and fit-for-context action and responses (Chaffin et al. 2016; Berkes 2017). As complex problems cut across multiple governance levels, the creation of multi-level, polycentric and decentralised institutions and social networks facilitates context-specific self-organisation and management approaches (Berkes 2017; Dietz et al. 2003; Lebel et al. 2006; Boyd et al. 2014). Open and simple institutions (e.g. rules-of-thumb) and clear responsibilities enable both flexible interpretations in relation to contexts’ needs and ensure cohesion and integration between administrative, legislative and regulative frameworks across scales (Koop et al. 2017; Dietz et al. 2003). Inclusive dialogue enhances awareness of risks, responsibility sharing and power balance (Koop et al. 2017; Folke et al. 2005).

68  K. HÖLSCHER

Due to the high levels of complexity and uncertainty, stewarding is not a search for one optimal solution but involves ongoing knowledge acquisition through iterative, dynamic monitoring and learning processes to reflect on and incorporate the consequences of actions and policies (Folke 2016; Berkes 2017; Chapin et al. 2010). Monitoring and continuous participatory learning are key ingredients to adapt management objectives and practices to changing situations in line with new information (Koop et al. 2017; Lebel et al. 2006). This requires to foster learning partnerships and a collective social memory for linking past experiences with present and future (Koop et al. 2017; Folke et al. 2005; Walker et al. 2009). 2.4.2   Unlocking Capacity: Recognising and Dismantling Unsustainable Path-Dependencies Unlocking refers to the flipside of innovation: the strategic destabilisation and phase-out of existing unsustainable regimes that create path-dependencies, ‘traps’ and mal-adaptation, including technological lock-ins, social values and individual behaviours, vested interests, incentive structures and markets (Loorbach 2014; David 2017; Turnheim and Geels 2012; Westley et al. 2011). Unlocking capacity is conceptualised with the motivation that for novel innovation to take off and get mainstreamed, it requires institutional and ‘social’ space that currently is occupied by unsustainable practices and systems. Hence, freeing this space requires efforts to govern unlocking and phasing out. Specifically, current high-emission and unsustainable trajectories and high levels of vulnerability to climate change impacts are caused by high levels of fossil fuel combustion, dominant land use and urbanisation patterns, animal agriculture and deforestation, and the underlying societal drivers including global capitalism and entrenched power relations (David 2017; Ürge-Vorsatz et al. 2018; Seto et al. 2016; IPCC 2018; Steffen et al. 2018). Effective mitigation and adaptation to climate change require decisive disruptions of the status quo, including user practices and expectations, technologies, business models, market structures, policies and infrastructures (Geels 2018; Meadowcroft 2009; Turnheim and Geels 2012). Unlocking capacity is manifest in the abilities of actors and the conditions that enable recognising and dismantling of the structural drivers of unsustainable path-dependencies and mal-adaptation (Table 2.4).

2  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

69

Table 2.3  Stewarding capacity Capacity sub-functions

Governance activities

Generating knowledge about system dynamics

Developing knowledge based on models of cities as dynamic social-ecological-technological systems (Bai et al. 2017; Pickett et al. 2013; McPhearson et al. 2015) Identifying long-term impacts and cross-scale teleconnections (Chelleri et al. 2015; Koop et al. 2017) Establishing cross-scale, cross-sectoral and public-private networks to integrate different forms of knowledge (e.g. from scientists, practitioners, designers, communities) (McPhearson et al. 2015; Tanner et al. 2009) Integrating long-term uncertainty, developing scenarios and identifying and communicating sources of uncertainty (Torabi et al. 2018; Lonsdale et al. 2015; Tanner et al. 2009) Ensuring knowledge and information is credible, understandable and accessible and ensuring knowledge cohesion across actors, sectors and scales (Koop et al. 2017; Tanner et al. 2009)

Strengthening self-organisation

Creating multi-level, decentralised and nested institutions and social networks to enable fit-to-context management approaches (McPhearson et al. 2015; Torabi et al. 2018; Koop et al. 2017; Tanner et al. 2009; Boyd et al. 2014; Pahl-Wostl and Knieper 2014) Creating open and simple institutions and rules (e.g. rulesof-thumb) to enable flexible interpretations, collaboration and adaptation of rules if needed (Torabi et al. 2018; Koop et al. 2017; Bettini et al. 2015) Ensuring inclusive dialogue and informal governance systems to enhance awareness of risks, responsibility sharing and power balance (Koop et al. 2017; Chu et al. 2017; Schewenius et al. 2014; Tanner et al. 2009) Incorporating long-term risks and uncertainty into management and planning approaches for redundant, diverse, modular, flexible and safe-fail urban systems (Torabi et al. 2018; Koop et al. 2017; McPhearson et al. 2015; Tanner et al. 2009) Clarifying responsibilities and authorities across scales for cohesion and integration between administrative, legislative and regulative frameworks (Koop et al. 2017; Keskitalo et al. 2016) (continued)

70  K. HÖLSCHER Table 2.3  (continued) Capacity sub-functions

Governance activities

Monitoring and continuous learning

Iteratively evaluating how the system responds to disturbances and the effects of management in line with underlying management assumptions, objectives and practices (Bettini et al. 2015; Koop et al. 2017; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2013) Fostering learning partnerships and a collective social memory of experience for linking past experiences with present and future (Torabi et al. 2018; Koop et al. 2017; Tanner et al. 2009) Recognising information gaps and creating open and public discussions on uncertainty (Bettini et al. 2015)

Adapted from Hölscher (2019)

The revelation of drivers of unsustainable path-dependencies and mal-adaptation is critical for unlocking (Bosman et al. 2018; Loorbach et al. 2015). Knowledge generation mechanisms like problem structuring, baseline measurements, transition scenarios and system analyses help to recognise institutions, technologies and behaviours that perpetuate mal-adaptation and need to be strategically phased out (Loorbach et al. 2015; Lebel et al. 2009). Foci areas to identify intervention points are the rules, technologies and actor networks that enforce stability or, when they change create instability of the regime (Kivimaa and Kern 2016). Transitions scholars also draw on transition scenarios to illustrate how existing unsustainable trajectories increase vulnerability in the future (Bosman et al. 2018). Transition scholars theorise how existing regimes can be destabilised by putting incumbents under pressure, e.g. by undermining vested interests and existing incentive structures that reduce the comparative advantage of unsustainable business-as-usual practices to alternatives (Kivimaa and Kern 2016; Edmondson et al. 2018). This involves openly challenging and questioning existing narratives and assumptions (Bettini et al. 2015; Bosman et al. 2014), withdrawing (financial, regulatory, political, etc.) support (Geels 2014; Kivimaa and Kern 2016; David 2017) and penalising unsustainable regime technologies and practices (Geels 2014; Kivimaa and Kern 2016; David 2017). To terminate existing unsustainable structures, cultures and practices, it is also necessary to deliberately divest from human and financial capitals, remove physical infrastructures

2  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

71

and break-up existing actor networks and key actors that tend to favour the status quo and hold systems in traps (David 2017; Kivimaa and Kern 2016; Chaffin et al. 2016). As is the case for innovation, the phase-out of existing structures and practices requires breaking open resistance to change to diminish societal and political support for business-as-usual and create opportunities and awareness for alternatives (Bettini et al. 2015; Bosman et al. 2014; Turnheim and Geels 2012). This involves particularly processes to unblock stagnations by confronting social and cognitive fixations with counterintuitive interventions, framing unsustainable technologies and practices as obsolete and amplifying small wins (Termeer et al. 2017; David 2017). Turnheim and Geels (2012) found in the case of anti-smoking regulation that public education activities, alliances with alternatives and the positioning of smoke concerns within broader cultural visions (e.g. of modern, clean and healthy households) supported growing anti-smoke movements. They conclude that for low-carbon transitions alarming climate scenarios may be less effective in generating public support than positive visions of low-carbon futures. 2.4.3   Transformative Capacity: Enabling, Diffusing and Embedding Radical Innovations The transforming function serves to enable the creation, diffusion and embedding of novelties (e.g. new ways of organising, producing, consuming and thinking through social, technological and governance innovations). This function is derived from the recognition in both sustainability transitions and resilience approaches that viable and sustainable alternatives are needed to replace existing unsustainable regimes and avoid possibly disastrous consequences on societal w ­ ell-being and the environment (Chaffin et al. 2016; Rotmans et al. 2001). Accordingly, transformative capacity enables creating, diffusing and embedding novelties, e.g. new ways of organising, producing, consuming and thinking through social, technological and governance innovations (Table 2.5). Transitions and resilience approaches pay much emphasis to processes that enable novelty creation, which ensures space, resources and networks for developing and testing new types of solutions, ideas, problem framings, etc. (Nevens et al. 2013; Olsson et al. 2006; Loorbach et al. 2015; Westley et al. 2013). This is facilitated by frontrunners who recognise opportunities and take up leadership for change by championing

72  K. HÖLSCHER Table 2.4  Unlocking capacity Capacity sub-functions

Governance activities

Revealing drivers of unsustainable path-dependency and mal-adaptation

Implementing baseline measurements and accounting mechanisms based on systemic and cross-scale perspectives (e.g. establishing carbon footprint, transportation patterns) to identify responsibilities for unsustainability and maladaptation (Sperling and Ramaswami 2018; Jhagroe and Frantzeskaki 2015; Loorbach et al. 2015) Devising regular accountability mechanisms and monitoring and updating strategies if required (Sperling and Ramaswami 2018) Considering transboundary spread of urban systems (e.g. energy, transportation) and key urban materials (Sperling and Ramaswami 2018)

Undermining vested interests and incentive structures

Openly challenging and questioning existing narratives and assumptions (Loorbach et al. 2015; Bettini et al. 2015; ÜrgeVorsatz et al. 2018) Withdrawing (financial, regulatory, political etc.) support for and penalising regime technologies, structures and practices (Bettini et al., 2015; Geels, 2014; Kivimaa and Kern 2016) Adjusting legal rights and responsibilities to set binding targets, create (dis)incentives and control policies (e.g. carbon and water budgets) (Kivimaa and Kern 2016; Sperling and Ramaswami 2018; Bettini et al.2015; Smith and Raven 2012) Divesting in human and financial capital by breaking up existing actor-networks and replacing key actors that underlie regime structures (Kivimaa and Kern 2016)

Breaking open resistance to change

Involving users and stakeholders in developing and modifying rules to foster public support (Sperling and Ramaswami 2018; Kivimaa and Kern 2017) Ensuring political support for change (Sperling and Ramaswami 2018; Moloney and Horne 2015; Kivimaa and Kern 2016) Providing tailored support mechanisms and right-size incentives for changing behaviours (Sperling and Ramaswami 2018; Moloney and Horne 2015) Unblocking stagnations by confronting social and cognitive fixations with counterintuitive interventions and amplifying small wins (Termeer et al. 2017)

Adapted from Hölscher (2019)

2  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

73

new narratives and mobilising social and political capital (Westley et al. 2013; Brown et al. 2013; Olsson et al. 2006). Protected and informal space (e.g. in terms of regulatory support and leeway, subsidies, research grants) for safe-to-fail experimentation ensures protection from the structural pressures of a regime and thus, critically facilitates the emergence of radical innovation (Fünfschilling and Truffer 2014; Raven et al. 2010; van Buuren and Loorbach 2009). To challenge dominant regimes, innovations need to gain traction and support (Raven et al. 2010; Westley et al. 2013; Brown et al. 2013). This is achieved by processes that form growing support networks and alliances, connect to other actors and ongoing processes and showcase innovation to increase visibility and acceptance of the innovation and encourage wider uptake (Nevens et al. 2013; Loorbach et al. 2015; Moore and Westley 2011; Ehnert et al. 2018). The importance of public engagement and social acceptance is often overlooked in technocratic government strategies that focus on techno-economic dimensions and ignore deeper changes of behaviours and consumer interest that are needed to spread an innovation such as onshore wind (Geels 2018). For an innovation to result in more enduring change, processes for novelty embedding are required that make the implications and lessons from an innovation more generalisable to translate them into existing or new structures, cultures and practices (Nevens et al. 2013; Ehnert et al. 2018). Embedding can take different forms, including the routinisation and institutionalisation of new structures, processes, positions or regulations or replicating and scaling of a specific project (Bos and Brown 2012; Raven et al. 2017). Critical processes to ensure embedding are the creation of space for learning from tested solutions and practices and developing a bricolage of ‘proof-of-concept’ elements for contextualisation, replicating and upscaling (Ehnert et al. 2018; Smith and Raven 2012; Bettini et al. 2015). 2.4.4   Orchestrating Capacity: Coordinating Multi-Actor Governance Processes Orchestrating has been discussed as a way to position climate change mitigation and adaptation within broader sustainability and resilience goals, to mainstream systemic action across policy sectors and scales, and to align, motivate and support activities of all sorts of actors (Abbott et al. 2015; Chan et al. 2015). As transformations are highly complex

74  K. HÖLSCHER Table 2.5  Transformative capacity Capacity sub-functions

Governance activities

Enabling novelty creation

Developing, testing and experimenting with new paradigms, practices, processes (Loorbach et al. 2015; Frantzeskaki et al. 2012, 2018; Castán Broto and Bulkeley 2013) Providing protected and informal co-creation spaces to nurture innovation (Raven et al. 2010; Smith and Raven 2012; Sengers and Raven 2015; Loorbach et al. 2015; Frantzeskaki et al. 2012) Supporting and creating informal and heterogeneous (shadow) networks for co-producing innovation (Loorbach et al. 2015; Sengers and Raven 2015; Raven et al. 2010; Brown et al. 2013) Flexibly interpreting or temporarily lifting administrative and regulative frameworks (Bettini et al. 2015)

Increasing visibility of novelty

Creating forging alliances and advocacy networks (Brown et al. 2013; Smith and Raven 2012; Ehnert et al. 2018) Creating internal support within an organisation through political leadership (den Exter et al. 2014; Wamsler 2015; Runhaar et al. 2018) Showcasing innovation as ways for achieving shared future visions and new narratives and linking to global discourses to generate societal and political support (Frantzeskaki et al. 2012; Brown et al. 2013; Smith and Raven 2012; Ehnert et al. 2018; Bettini et al. 2015) Showcasing (e.g. resource, social, institutional) synergies from novelty to generate support (Frantzeskaki et al. 2014; Ehnert et al. 2018)

Anchoring novelty in context

Ensuring (financial) viability for long-term implementation and replicating and upscaling (den Exter et al. 2014; Ehnert et al. 2018; Smith and Raven 2012) Establishing long-term innovation partnerships for replicating and upscaling (Ehnert et al. 2018; Smith and Raven 2012) Learning from tested solutions and practices to develop a bricolage of ‘proof-of-concept’ element and to enabling contextualisation in other contexts for replicating and upscaling (Ehnert et al. 2018; den Exter et al. 2014; Frantzeskaki et al. 2017) Routinising and institutionalising novelty by aligning organisational, institutional and operational structures and processes (‘stretch-and-transform’ and ‘fit-and-conform’) (Smith and Raven 2012; Ehnert et al. 2018; Bettini et al. 2015; Frantzeskaki et al. 2017; Wamsler 2015; den Exter et al. 2014; Runhaar et al. 2018) Developing open-minded and flexible personnel to take up lessons from innovation and overcome institutional barriers and to train practitioners to apply novelty in daily practice (Brown et al. 2013; Ehnert et al. 2018)

Adapted from Hölscher (2019)

2  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

75

and uncertain and governance of transformation is dispersed across actors and networks interacting across scales, sectors and policy priorities, there is a risk that the process falls apart over time without structured coordination that connects the emerging alternatives, ideas, people and solutions (Loorbach 2014; Chaffin et al. 2016; Hodson and Marvin 2010). In addition, the complexity emerging from the multiple actors involved in climate governance activities has resulted in polycentric and multi-level structures in which decision-making is dispersed across multiple centres of authority and no one actor can impose solutions on others (Jordan et al. 2018; Abbott 2014; Chan et al. 2015). Orchestrating capacity is manifest in the abilities of actors to coordinate multi-actor urban governance processes and foster synergies and minimise trade-offs and conflicts across scales, sectors and time (Table 2.6). The strategic alignment of the multiple actors and networks towards long-term goals for sustainability and resilience provides common reference points for concerted action and helps to move from p ­ roblem-focused to solution-oriented approaches (Hodson and Marvin 2010; Loorbach et al. 2015; Hölscher 2018). Positioning individual issues and priorities such as climate mitigation and adaptation within broader goals also serves to identify synergies and trade-offs across sectors, scales and time (Chelleri et al. 2015; McPhearson et al. 2017). Such a vision needs to be co-created to ensure that all interests are heard, increase ownership, deal with conflicts, safeguard against overlooking issues of social justice and mediate good compatibility between knowledge and different contexts (Loorbach et al. 2015; Wittmayer et al. 2014). The mediation of knowledge, resources, contacts, ideas, etc. across sectors and scales creates opportunities for collaboration and supports resource synergies, knowledge and resources dissemination, diffusion of new technologies and practices and conflicts resolutions (Frantzeskaki et al. 2014; Kivimaa 2014). Transitions and resilience scholars in this context highlight the roles of intermediaries, knowledge brokers and boundary spanners that create, mostly informal, convening spaces for face-to-face contact and collaboration networks to instigate learning processes by gathering, processing, combining and distributing knowledge (Kivimaa 2014; Gliedt et al. 2018; Smink et al. 2015). For example, Smink et al. (2015) discuss how boundary spanners enable cooperation of previously unrelated actors—biomethane producers with operators of gas network for biomethane injection in Dutch natural gas grid—that becomes necessary in the context of transformation. These roles can be taken up by diverse types of actors, including public, private, non-profit organisations

76  K. HÖLSCHER Table 2.6  Orchestrating capacity Capacity sub-functions

Governance activities

Strategic Alignment Defining a shared, long-term and integrative strategic direction and reference points for joint courses of action (Chu et al. 2017; Loorbach et al. 2015; McPhearson et al. 2017; Moloney and Horne 2015) Engaging heterogeneous actor groups to create diverse ownership over strategic direction (Loorbach et al. 2015; Frantzeskaki et al. 2014; Moloney and Horne 2015; McPhearson et al. 2017) Identify synergies and trade-offs (McPhearson et al. 2017) Linking strategic direction to on-going processes (Chan et al. 2015; Loorbach et al. 2015) Mediating across scales and sectors

Recognising, brokering and integrating resources (financial, knowledge, human etc.) and goals across scales and sectors (Frantzeskaki et al. 2014; Moore and Westley 2011; Dąbrowski 2017) Creating formal and informal convening spaces to exchange knowledge and resources, manage conflicts and seek collaboration (e.g. inter-municipal, cross-sectoral) (Hedensted Lund et al. 2012; Hodson and Marvin 2010; Hodson et al. 2013; Frantzeskaki and Kabisch 2016; Kivimaa 2014) Setting up formal and informal connection nodes, communication channels and facilitating information platforms to optimise interactions and link formal and informal processes (den Exter et al. 2014; Meijer and Rodríguez Bolívar 2016; Keskitalo 2016; Gordon and Johnson 2017)

Creating opportunity contexts

lens of transformative capacities institutional frameworks for financial incentives, regulations and institutional designs that enable synergies in line with long-term goals (Pahl-Wostl and Knieper 2014; Abbott 2017; Keskitalo et al. 2016; Gordon and Johnson 2017) Assisting actors and networks in implementing actions in line with goals (e.g. financing, guidance, technical assistance) (Abbott 2017; Gordon and Johnson 2017; Keskitalo et al. 2016) Incorporating long-term and multi-scale thinking, including considerations of social inclusivity, legitimacy and justice, into all decision-making, implementation processes and performance reviews (Chan et al. 2015; Nevens et al. 2013; Evans 2016)

Adapted from Hölscher (2019)

and research institutes that provide and distribute information, services, help to articulate expectations and visions and build social networks (Fischer and Newig 2016; Kivimaa 2014; Gliedt et al. 2018). There seems to be however also a need for more formal mediation processes, taken up, for example, by local city governments that oversee and

2  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

77

connect actions within a specific context (e.g. city) and also span across levels of governments by creating central connection nodes, supporting partnerships, clustering niches and brokering information to the policy regime (Frantzeskaki et al. 2014; Gliedt et al. 2018). The setting of (political, financial and institutional) incentives and conditions creates an opportunity context for cooperation and win-win situations in line with long-term goals (Pahl-Wostl and Knieper 2014; Abbott 2017; Fröhlich and Knieling 2013). This involves incorporating long-term and multi-scale thinking into decision-making, implementation processes and performance reviews as well as decisively clarifying costs, benefits and responsibilities at systemic levels for taking up action in alignment with the long-term goals (cf. Hodson and Marvin 2010; Loorbach 2014). This is necessary because the long-term focus of transformations is often at odds with the ways societies make decisions, which is based on addressing short-term needs and keeping costs low (Loorbach 2010; Meadowcroft 2009). Especially in the case of climate change, the economic costs of emissions reductions and preparing for future impacts must be born today while the benefits only become visible in decades (Meadowcroft 2009). Framework conditions in this sense also need to leave space for experimentation and assisting actors in implementing actions while setting clear and strict boundaries within which development can take place (Pahl-Wostl and Knieper 2014; Gordon and Johnson 2017; Abbott 2017; Folke 2016).

2.5   Framework Applications: Understanding and Supporting Capacities for Transformative Climate Governance The capacities framework provides a novel heuristic to look at climate governance as an open-ended process driven by agency and to do so in relation to the fulfilment of defined governance functions. The capacities framework can be used to analyse and assess the extent to which these capacities are developing and to support governance actors (e.g. city officers, strategists) in developing these more systematically. As will be shown in the following chapters of this book, the empirical applications of the framework to different sets of case studies yield in-depth insights on the development of climate governance at multiple scales (see also Hölscher et al. 2019a, b, c). In addition, the framework is grounded in different research strands interested in a transformation of governance.

78  K. HÖLSCHER

This makes the framework applicable and relevant to different research contexts and questions relating to ‘transformation of governance’ for ‘governance for transformation’. Table 2.7 summarises the insights that can be generated from the capacities framework. Firstly, the framework enables assessing how the Table 2.7  Insights generated from the capacities framework Contribution (1) Assessment of capacity output functions

Questions addressed

Do the capacities enable fulfilling output functions? What strategies, programmes, actions, regulations etc. exist for stewarding, unlocking, transforming and orchestrating? (2) Identification of climate What activities are being governance activities and undertaken in both cities actors to develop and implement strategies, networks, programmes, actions, knowledge etc. for stewarding, unlocking, transforming and orchestrating? Which actors engage in these activities? (3) Identification of govern- What conditions (e.g. ance conditions knowledge, networks, partnerships, resources) were created for stewarding, unlocking, transforming and orchestrating? (4) Identification of capacity What are challenges, shortgaps and challenges comings, conflicts, gaps etc. for stewarding, unlocking, transforming and orchestrating? How they come about (e.g. challenges in developing conditions)? (5) Relationships between How do the conditions and capacities activities of capacities support or hinder each other? When do different functions and capacities require more attention?

Insights Qualitative assessment and overview of how the capacity functions of transformative climate governance were fulfilled

Explanation of how, and by whom, the conditions for transformative climate governance were created

Description of conditions that support fulfilment of capacity functions and manifest in transformative climate governance capacities Description and explanation of capacity gaps and challenges for transformative climate governance

Identification of relationships between capacity conditions and activities

2  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

79

capacity output functions stewarding, unlocking, transforming and orchestrating are addressed in climate-related policy and planning practice. So far it is not possible to meticulously assess some sort of value for how the functions were fulfilled, nor to analyse the outcomes and impacts, for example, in terms of amount of renewable energy produced, emissions reduced and risks avoided. Rather, it is possible to generate a qualitative assessment and overview of how the functions of transformative climate governance were fulfilled and that could be related to capacities for transformative climate governance. Secondly, and thirdly, the framework provides an agency-based understanding of how, and by whom, climate governance is enacted and what conditions result from climate governance activities. This helps to explain the development of climate governance in terms of how the conditions manifesting in capacities for transformative climate governance were created. While the prevalent focus on institutional conditions helps to explain stability, enables and constraints, paying attention to agency emphasises how organisational processes and institutions themselves are shaped by creative entrepreneurial forces (Garud et al. 2007). From the activities, it is possible to identify different types of conditions (e.g. knowledge, resources, networks, organisational structures) that support achieving the capacity functions. By explaining and evaluating capacities for transformative climate governance the framework also makes it possible to identify capacity gaps and explain how these gaps come about. This builds on the identification of shortcomings, challenges, conflicts, etc. in fulfilling the output functions. These gaps can be related to existing, or, lacking conditions and challenges that actors experienced when engaging in different governance activities. This provides insights about gaps, barriers and challenges and how to address them. Finally, it is possible to identify the potential interrelationships between conditions and activities across capacities. This serves to identify how strengths or weaknesses in one capacity can relate to strengths or weaknesses in another capacity. So far, some level of confusion persists so far about the relationships between adaptive and transformative governance approaches, and scholars found that adaptive capacity can overshadow transformative capacity by prompting people to protect existing structures and practices even though this will cause higher costs and vulnerabilities in the long-term (Wilson et al. 2013). Rather than taking adaptation and transformation as somewhat opposite, or, contradictory

80  K. HÖLSCHER

concepts—that, for example, distinguish them based on radicality of change, both can be related to incremental and radical change—the transformative climate governance perspective brings both concepts back to their functional essence. For example, adaptation is more than protecting from risk and uncertainty and transformation extends to creating disruptive innovation and disruptions of the existing system. Both types of processes are needed to deal with urban transformations under climate change in the short-, mid- and long-term (cf. Anderies et al. 2013; Torabi et al. 2018). This book shows a variety of applications for the framework to interrogate and support climate governance at multiple levels. The empirical applications of the framework to the development of urban climate governance yield in-depth insights on the activities by which actors create new types of governance conditions, and whether these conditions signify new capacities for transformative climate governance, and whether these conditions signify new capacities for transformative climate governance (see Part II of this book). We also show how the capacities framework can be applied in relation to different research methods. Next to qualitative case study analysis research, we applied the framework within transdisciplinary processes with stakeholders to co-create concrete and actionable strategies to develop the capacities (see Part III of this book). Next to the application to different research questions, the capacities framework has the potential to support transformative research approaches, which aim to co-create concrete and actionable strategies and solutions in transdisciplinary research settings (Wittmayer and Hölscher 2017). The framework can support action-oriented research to facilitate the co-creation of governance capacities in specific contexts when it is integrated in practice-based governance frameworks such as transition management (Hölscher 2018). This type of research can address the need for social science knowledge in the face of climate change and for solution-oriented approaches on how society can change course from dangerous climate scenarios (Norgaard 2018). For example, as will be shown in Part III of this book, the framework was applied in a transdisciplinary mode to understand the available capacities in different socio-economic scenarios (Pedde et al., Chapter 10, this volume). This subsequently supported stakeholders in workshops to formulate transformation pathways to achieve long-term visions for a sustainable and resilient future (Hölscher et al., Chapter 11, this volume). The framework could also directly guide pathways development by indicating questions

2  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

81

about what types of capacities need to be developed and how this could be done (e.g. how can unsustainable practices be phased out, how can we achieve coordination and collaboration across sectors?).

2.6  Conclusions A growing number of scholars voice the urgency for a ‘transformation of governance’ to respond more radically and systemically to ongoing transformation dynamics and realise and maintain sustainability and resilience in the long-term (Patterson et al. 2016; Loorbach 2014). However, research on climate governance has so far failed to deliver detailed and systemic explanations and evaluations of the roles of actors, interactions, mechanisms and processes in partnering for bringing transformative (climate) actions to realisation. To respond to this knowledge gap, I developed a framework of capacities for transformative climate governance. The capacities framework aids an agency-based understanding of transformative climate governance, and how transformative climate governance can be supported. While governance capacities are context-dependent—i.e. they relate to specific local issues and underlying processes—investigating governance capacities aids a deeper, integrated and empirically based understanding of the most important enabling and limiting conditions that determine governance capacity as well as how conditions are created and changed (cf. Koop et al. 2017). Rather than predefining solutions, the functions and capacities for transformative climate governance are meant to provide a starting point for understanding the ongoing changes in the climate governance landscape at multiple levels and for guiding the development of conditions for transformative climate governance. The framework thus helps exploring knowledge gaps related to how decentralised and polycentric climate governance can be made to work effectively (Jordan et al. 2018; van Asselt et al. 2018), or, how innovation diffuse (Howlett 2014). As this book brings forward this perspective on ‘capacities’ in climate governance, recent research has also picked up on the concept especially in urban governance research through the lens of transformative capacities (Wolfram 2019; Glaas et al. 2019). This book aligns and connects with this research through the capacities framework showcasing not only the added value of examining and interrogating urban governance in frontrunner cities (Part II of this book), but also in applying it as a

82  K. HÖLSCHER

prescriptive framework for future action at national and regional scales (Part III of this book). Next to this, I am aware that the political dimension of (transformative) climate governance demands serious attention, including what information counts, who makes decisions, what weight is given to different priorities and who bears the costs (Gillard et al. 2016; Bulkeley 2015). I hope that the framework leaves room for exploring related questions. Paying attention to the agency of how conditions for transformative climate governance are created helps understanding who shapes climate governance and priorities, how different actors interact, which factors they consider when selecting strategies and how their activities relate to the emergence of innovations in climate governance (Hodson et al. 2018; Koch et al. 2016). As there are no blueprint solutions for transformative climate governance, guidance must be developed from case study specific evidence (Chaffin et al. 2016). The framework also provides a strategic agenda for synthesising the complementarities of sustainability transitions and resilience literatures. Both approaches have by now developed a substantial theory about transformative and adaptive agency and governance that together provide a perspective on how to address unsustainable p ­ ath-dependencies, risks of thresholds and uncertainty not only with regard to climate change.

References Abbott, K. W. (2014). Strengthening the transnational regime complex for climate change. Transnational Environmental Law, 3, 57–88. Abbott, K. W. (2017). Orchestration: Strategic ordering in polycentric climate governance. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2983512. Abbott, K. W., Genschel, P., Snidal, D., & Zangl, B. (Eds.). (2015). International organizations as orchestrators. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adger, W. N., Arnell, N. W., & Tompkins, E. L. (2005). Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Global Environmental Change, 15(2), 77–86. Amundsen, H., Hovelsrud, G. K., Aall, C., Karlsson, M., & Westskog, H. (2018). Local governments as drivers for societal transformation: Towards the 1.5°C ambition. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 31, 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.12.004. Anderies, J. M., Folke, C., Walker, B., & Ostrom, E. (2013). Aligning key concepts for global change policy: Robustness, resilience, and sustainability. Ecology and Society, 18(2), 8. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05178-180208.

2  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

83

Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2004). A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecology and Society, 9(1). Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M. A., & Schlager, E. (2016). Institutions and the performance of coupled infrastructure systems. International Journal of the Commons, 10(2), 495. Aylett, A. (2015). Institutionalizing the urban governance of climate change adaptation: Results of an international survey. Urban Climate, 14, 4–16. Bai, X., McPhearson, T., Cleugh, H., Nagendra, H., Tong, X., Zhu, T., et al. (2017). Linking urbanization and the environment: Conceptual and empirical advances. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 42(1), 215–240. Bakir, C., & Jarvis, D. S. L. (2017). Contextualising the context in policy entrepreneurship and institutional change. Policy and Society, 36(4), 465–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2017.1393589. Berkes, F. (2017). Environmental governance for the Anthropocene? ­Social-ecological systems, resilience, and collaborative learning. Sustainability, 9(7) 1232. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071232. Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2003). Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (Eds.). (1998). Linking social and ecological systems: Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bettini, Y., Brown, R., & de Haan, F. J. (2015). Exploring institutional adaptive capacity in practice: Examining water governance adaptation in Australia. Ecology and Society, 20(1), 47. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07291-200147. Bettini, Y. H. (2013). Adapting institutions: Processes and instruments behind urban water transitions (PhD thesis), School of Geography and Environmental Science, Monash University Melbourne. Boasson, E. L., & Huitema, D. (2017). Climate governance entrepreneurship: Emerging findings and a new research agenda. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 35(8), 1343–1361. https://doi. org/10.1177/2399654417730713. Bos, J. J., & Brown, R. R. (2012). Governance experimentation and factors of success in socio-technical transitions in the urban water sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(7), 1340–1353. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.04.006. Bosman, R., Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N., & Pistorius, T. (2014). Discursive regime dynamics in the Dutch energy transition. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 13, 45–59. Bosman, R., Loorbach, D., Rotmans, J., & van Raak, R. (2018). Carbon ­lock-out: Leading the fossil port of Rotterdam into transition. Sustainability, 10, 2558. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072558.

84  K. HÖLSCHER Boyd, E., Ensor, J., Castán Broto, V., & Juhola, S. (2014). Environmentalities of urban climate governance in Maputo, Mozambique. Global Environmental Change, 26, 140–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.03.012. Brown, K., & Westaway, E. (2011). Agency, capacity, and resilience to environmental change: Lessons from human development, well-being, and disasters. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 36(1), 321–342. Brown, R. R., Farrelly, M. A., & Loorbach, D. (2013). Actors working the institutions in sustainability transitions: The case of Melbourne’s stormwater management. Global Environmental Change, 23(4), 701–718. Bulkeley, H. (2015). Accomplishing climate governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bulkeley, H., & Betsill, M. M. (2013). Revisiting the urban politics of climate change. Environmental Politics, 22(1), 136–154. Burch, S., Andrachuk, M., Carey, D., Frantzeskaki, N., Schroeder, H., Mischkowski, N., et al. (2016). Governing and accelerating transformative entrepreneurship: Exploring the potential for small business innovation on urban sustainability transitions. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 22, 26–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.04.002. Burch, S., Hughes, S., Romero-Lankao, P., & Schroeder, H. (2018) Governing urban sustainability transformations: The new politics of collaboration and contestation. In T. Elmqvist, X. Bai, N. Frantzeskaki, C. Griffith, D. Maddox, T. McPhearson, et al. (Eds.), Urban Planet: Knowledge towards sustainable cities (pp. 303–326). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Burch, S., & Robinson, J. (2007). A framework for explaining the links between capacity and action in response to global climate change. Climate Policy, 7(4), 304–316. Capano, G., Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2014). Bringing governments back in: Governance and governing in comparative policy analysis. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 17(4), 311–321. Carpenter, S. R., Walker, M., Anderies, J. M., & Abel, N. (2001). From metaphor to measurement: Resilience of what to what? Ecosystems, 4, 765–781. Carter, J. G., Cavan, G., Connelly, A., Guy, S., Handley, J., & Kazmierczak, A. (2015). Climate change and the city: Building capacity for urban adaptation. Progress in Planning, 95, 1–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. progress.2013.08.001. Castán Broto, V., & Bulkeley, H. (2013). A survey of urban climate change experiments in 100 cities. Global Environmental Change, 23, 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.005. Chaffin, B. C., Garmestani, A. S., Gunderson, L. H., Benson, M. H., Angeler, D. G., Arnold, C. A., et al. (2016). Transformative environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41(1), 399–423. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085817.

2  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

85

Chaffin, B. C., Gosnell, H., & Cosens, B. A. (2014). A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: Synthesis and future directions. Ecology and Society, 19(3), 56. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06824-190356. Chan, S., Falkner, R., van Asselt, H., & Goldberg, M. (2015). Strengthening non-state climate action: A progress assessment of commitments launched at the 2014 UN Climate Summit. Centre for Climate Change Economics Policy (Working Paper No. 242). Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment (Working Paper No. 216). Chapin, F. S., III, Carpenter, S. R., Kofinas, G. P., Folke, C., Abel, N., Clark, W. C., et al. (2010). Ecosystem stewardship: Sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25(4), 241–249. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.10.008. Chelleri, L., Water, J. J., Olazabal, M., & Minucci, G. (2015). Resilience trade-offs: Addressing multiple scales and temporal aspects of urban resilience. Environment & Urbanization, 27(1), 181–198. https://doi. org/10.1177/0956247814550780. Chu, E., Anguelovski, I., & Roberts, D. (2017). Climate adaptation as strategic urbanism: Assessing opportunities and uncertainties for equity and inclusive development in cities. Cities, 60, 378–387. Dąbrowski, M. (2017). Boundary spanning for governance of climate change adaptation in cities: Insights from a Dutch urban region. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 36(5), 837–855. David, M. (2017). Moving beyond the heuristic of creative destruction: Targeting exnovation with policy mixes for energy transitions. Energy Research & Social Science, 33, 138–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.023. de Haan (Hans), J., & Rotmans, J. (2011). Patterns in transitions: Understanding complex chains of change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(1), 90–102. den Exter, R., Lenhart, J., & Kern, K. (2014). Governing climate change in Dutch cities: Anchoring local climate strategies in organisation, policy and practical implementation. Local Environment, 20(9), 1062–1080. Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 12(302), 1907–1912. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091015. Edmondson, D. L., Kern, F., & Rogge, K. S. (2018). The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions. Research Policy. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.010. Ehnert, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Barnes, J., Borgström, S., Gorissen, L., Kern, F., et al. (2018). The acceleration of urban sustainability transitions: A comparison of Brighton, Budapest, Dresden, Genk, and Stockholm. Sustainability, 10(3), 612. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030612.

86  K. HÖLSCHER Emirbayer, M., & Miche, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023. Evans, J. (2016). Trials and tribulations: Problematizing the city through/as urban experimentation. Geography Compass, 10(10), 429–443. Fischer, L.-B., & Newig, J. (2016). Importance of actors and agency in sustainability transitions: A systematic exploration of the literature. Sustainability, 8(5), 476. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8050476. Folke, C. (2016). Resilience (Republished). Ecology and Society, 21(4), 44. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09088-210444. Folke, C., Carpenter, S.R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 20. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/ vol15/iss4/art20/. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30(1), 441–473. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511. Foster-Fishman, P. G., Berkowitz, S. L., Lounsbury, D. W., Jacobson, S., & Allen, N. A. (2001). Building collaborative capacity in community coalitions: A review and integrative framework. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(2), 241–261. Frantzeskaki, N., Bach, M., Hölscher, K., & Avelino, F. (2018). Introducing sustainability transitions’ thinking in urban contexts. In N. Frantzeskaki, K. Hölscher, M. Bach, & F. Avelino (Eds.), Co-creating sustainable urban futures: A primer on applying transition management in cities (pp. 63–80). Tokyo: Springer. Frantzeskaki, N., Castàn Broto, V., Coenen, L., & Loorbach, D. (2017). Urban sustainability transitions: The dynamics and opportunities of sustainability transitions in cities. In N. Frantzeskaki, V. Castàn Broto, L. Coenen, & D. Loorbach (Eds.), Urban sustainability transitions. Routledge. Frantzeskaki, N., & Kabisch, N. (2016). Designing a knowledge c­ o-production operating space for urban environmental governance—Lessons from Rotterdam, Netherlands and Berlin, Germany. Environmental Science & Policy, 62, 90–98. Frantzeskaki, N., Loorbach, D., & Meadowcroft, J. (2012). Governing societal transitions to sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 15(1/2), 19. Frantzeskaki, N., Wittmayer, J. M., & Loorbach, D. (2014). The role of partnerships in ‘realizing’ urban sustainability in Rotterdam’s City Ports Area, the Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 406–417. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.023. Fröhlich, J., & Knieling, J. (2013). Conceptualising climate change governance. In J. Knieling & W. Leal Filho (Eds.), Climate Change Governance. Climate Change Management (pp. 9–26). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

2  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

87

Fünfschilling, L., & Truffer, L. (2014). The structuration of socio-technical regimes—Conceptual foundations from institutional theory. Research Policy, 43, 772–791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.10.010. Galaz, V., Crona, B., Österblom, H., Olsson, P., & Folke, C. (2011). Polycentric systems and interacting planetary boundaries—Emerging governance of climate change-ocean acidification-marine biodiversity. Ecological Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.012. Garmestani, A. S., & Benson, M. H. (2013). A framework for resilience-based governance of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 18(1). Garud, R., Hardy, H., & Maguire, S. (2007). Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded agency: An introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies, 28(7), 957–969. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607078958. Geels, F. W. (2014). Regime resistance against low-carbon energy transitions: Introducing politics and power in the multi-level perspective. Theory, Culture & Society, 31(5), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276414531627. Geels, F. W. (2018). Disruption and low-carbon system transformation: Progress and new challenges in socio-technical transitions research and the multi-level perspective. Energy Research & Social Science, 37, 224–231. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.10.010. Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399–417. Gillard, R., Gouldson, A., Paavola, J., & van Alstine, J. (2016). Transformational responses to climate change: Beyond a systems perspective of social change in mitigation and adaptation. WIREs Clim Change, 7, 251–265. https://doi. org/10.1002/wcc.384. Glaas, E., Hjerpe, M., Storbjork, S., Neset, T. S., Bohman, A., Muthumanickam, P., et al. (2019). Developing transformative capacity through systematic assessments and visualization of urban climate transitions. Ambio, 48, 515– 528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1109-9. Gliedt, T., Hoicka, C. E., & Jackson, N. (2018). Innovation intermediaries accelerating environmental sustainability transitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 174, 1247–1261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.054. González, S., & Healey, P. (2005). A sociological institutionalist approach to the study of innovation in governance capacity. Urban Studies, 42(11), 2055– 2069. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980500279778. Gordon, D. J., & Johnson, C. A. (2017). The orchestration of global urban climate governance: Conducting power in the post-Paris climate regime. Environmental Politics, 26(4), 694–714. https://doi.org/10.1080/0964401 6.2017.1320829. Grin, J., Rotmans, J., & Schot, J. (Eds.). (2010). Transitions to sustainable development: New directions in the study of long-term transformative change. New York and London: Routledge.

88  K. HÖLSCHER Gupta, J., Termeer, C., Klostermann, J., Meijerink, S., van den Brink, M., Jong, P., et al. (2010). The adaptive capacity wheel: A method to assess the inherent characteristics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity of society. Environmental Science & Policy, 13(6), 459–471. Hedensted Lund, D., Sehested, K., Hellesen, T., & Nellemann, V. (2012). Climate change adaptation in Denmark: Enhancement through collaboration and meta-governance? Local Environment, 17(6–7), 613–628. Hermwille, L. (2016). Climate change as transformation challenge: A new climate policy paradigm? GAIA, 25(1), 19–22. https://doi.org/10.14512/ gaia.25.1.6. Hermwille, L. (2017). En route to a just global energy transformation? The formative power of the SDGs and the Paris Agreement. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. Hildén, M., Jordan, A., & Huitema, D. (2017). Special issue on experimentation for climate change solutions editorial: The search for climate change and sustainability solutions—The promise and the pitfalls of experimentation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 169, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2017.09.019. Hodson, M., Evans, J., & Schliwa, G. (2018). Conditioning experimentation: The struggle for place-based discretion in shaping urban infrastructures. Environment and planning C: Politics and Space. https://doi. org/10.1177/2399654418765480. Hodson, M., & Marvin, S. (2010). Can cities shape socio-technical transitions and how would we know if they were? Research Policy, 39, 477–485. Hodson, M., Marvin, S., & Bulkeley, H. (2013). The intermediary organisation of low carbon cities: A comparative analysis of transitions in greater London and greater Manchester. Urban Studies, 50(7), 1403–1422. Hoffmann, M. J. (2011). Climate governance at the crossroads: Experimenting with a global response after Kyoto. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holling, C. S. (1986). The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems: Local surprise and global change. In W. C. Clark & R. E. Munn (Eds.), Sustainable development of the biosphere (pp. 292–317). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holling, C. S., & Gunderson, L. H. (2002). Resilience and adaptive cycles. In L. H. Gunderson & C. S. Holling (Eds.), Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems (pp. 25–62). Washington, DC: Island Press. Holling, C. S., Gunderson, L., & Peterson, G. (2002). Sustainability and panarchies. In L. H. Gunderson & C. S. Holling (Eds.), Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems (pp. 63–102). Washington, DC: Island Press. Hölscher, K. (2018). So what? Transition management as a transformative approach to support governance capacities in cities. In N. Frantzeskaki, K. Hölscher, M. Bach, & F. Avelino (Eds.), Co-creating sustainable urban futures: A primer on applying transition management in cities. Tokyo: Springer.

2  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

89

Hölscher, K. (2019). Transforming urban climate governance: Capacities for transformative climate governance (PhD thesis), Erasmus University Rotterdam. https://repub.eur.nl/pub/118721. Hölscher, K., Frantzeskaki, N., & Loorbach, D. (2019a). Steering transformations under climate change: Capacities for transformative climate governance and the case of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Regional Environmental Change, 19(3), 791–805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1329-3. Hölscher, K., Frantzeskaki, F., McPhearson, T., & Loorbach, D. (2019b). Capacities for urban transformations governance and the case of New York City. Cities, 94, 186–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.05.037. Hölscher, K., Frantzeskaki, F., McPhearson, T., & Loorbach, D. (2019c). Tales of transforming cities: Transformative climate governance capacities in New York City, U.S. and Rotterdam, Netherlands. Journal of Environmental Management, 1(231), 843–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.10.043. Hölscher, K., Wittmayer, J. M., & Loorbach, D. (2018). Transition versus transformation: What’s the difference? Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.10.007. Howlett, M. (2014). Why are policy innovations rare and so often negative? Blame avoidance and problem denial in climate change policy-making. Global Environmental Change, 29, 395–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2013.12.009. Huitema, D., Boasson, E. L., Beunen, R. (2018). Entrepreneurship in climate governance at the local and regional levels: Concepts, methods, patterns and effects. Regional Environmental Change. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10113-018-1351-5. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2003). The impact of collaborative planning on governance capacity (UC Berkeley IURD Working Paper Series). https:// escholarship.org/uc/item/98k72547. IPCC. (2018). Global warming of 1.5°C. An special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Summary for Policymakers. Jessop, B. (1997). Capitalism and its future: Remarks on regulation, government and governance. Review of International Political Economy, 4, 561–581. Jessop, B. (2011). Metagovernance. In M. Bevir (Ed.), The sage handbook of governance (pp. 106–123). London: Sage. Jhagroe, S., & Frantzeskaki, N. (2016). Framing a crisis: Exceptional democracy in Dutch infrastructure governance. Critical Policy Studies, 10(3), 348–364. Jordan, A. J., Huitema, D., Hildén, M., van Asselt, H., Rayner, T. J., Schoenefeld, J. J., et al. (2015). Emergence of polycentric climate governance and its future prospects. Nature Climate Change, 5, 977–982. https://doi. org/10.1038/nclimate2725.

90  K. HÖLSCHER Jordan, A., Huitema, D., van Asselt, H., & Forster, J. (2018). Governing climate change: The promise and limits of polycentric governance. In A. Jordan, D. Huitema, H. van Asselt, J. Forster (Eds.), Governing climate change: Polycentricity in action? (pp. 359–383). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kates, R. W., Travis, W. R., & Wilbanks, T. J. (2012). Transformational adaptation when incremental adaptations to climate change are insufficient. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(19), 7156–7161. Keskitalo, E., Juhola, S., Baron, N., Fyhn, H., & Klein, J. (2016). Implementing local climate change adaptation and mitigation actions: The role of various policy instruments in a multi-level governance context. Climate, 4(1), 7. Kivimaa, P. (2014). Government-affiliated intermediary organisations as actors in system-level transitions. Research Policy, 43, 1370–1380. Kivimaa, P., & Kern, F. (2016). Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 45(1), 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.008. Koch, F., Krellenberg, K., & Kabisch, S. (2016). How to achieve Urban Sustainability Transformations (UST) in real life politics? Brief for GSDR 2016 Update. Kooiman, J., & Jentoft, S. (2009). Meta-governance: Values, norms and principles, and the making of hard choices. Public Administration, 87(4), 818–836. Koop, S. H. A., Koetsier, L., Doornhof, A., Reinstra, O., van Leeuwen, C. J., Brouwer, S., et al. (2017). Assessing the governance capacity of cities to address challenges of water, waste and climate change. Water Resource Management, 31, 3427–3443. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11269-017-1677-7. Lebel, L., Anderies, J. M., Campbell, B., Folke, C., Hatfield-Dodds, S., Hughes, T. P., & Wilson, J. (2006). Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 19. http:// www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art19/. Lebel, L., Foran, T., Garden, P., & Manuta, B. J. (2009). Adaptation to climate change and social justice: Challenges for flood and disaster management in Thailand. In F. Ludwig, P. Kabiat, H. van Schaik, & M. van der Valk (Eds.), Climate change adaptation in the water sector (pp. 125–141). London: Earthscan. Lonsdale, K., Pringle, P., & Turner, B. (2015). Transformative adaptation: What it is, why it matters & what is needed. UK Climate Impacts Programme, Oxford, UK: University of Oxford. Loorbach, D. (2010). Transition management for sustainable development: A prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework. Governance: An International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions, 23(1), 161– 183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2009.01471.x.

2  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

91

Loorbach, D. (2014). To transition! Governance panarchy in the new transformation. Inaugural Lecture, Erasmus University Rotterdam. Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N., & Avelino, F. (2017). Sustainability transitions research: Transforming science and practice for societal change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 42(1), 599–626. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021340. Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N., & Huffenreuter, R. L. (2015). Transition management: Taking stock from governance experimentation. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2015(58), 48–66. Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2004). Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 657–679. Markard, J., Raven, R., & Truffer, B. (2012). Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Research Policy, 41(6), 955–967. Marshall, N. A., Park, S. E., Adger, W. N., Brown, K., & Howden, S. M. (2012). Transformational capacity and the influence of place and identity. Environmental Research Letters, 7(3), 034022. Matyas, D., & Pelling, M. (2015). Positioning resilience for 2015: The role of resistance, incremental adjustment and transformation in disaster risk management policy. Disasters, 39(s1), s1–s18. McPhearson, T., Andersson, E., Elmqvist, T., & Frantzeskaki, N. (2015). Resilience of and through urban ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 12, 152–156. McPhearson, T., Iwaniec, D., & Bai, X. (2017). Positive visions for guiding urban transformations toward sustainable futures. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 22, 33–40. Meadowcroft, J. (2009). Climate change governance. Background paper to the 2010 World Development Report (Policy Research Working Paper 4941), The World Bank. Meerow, S., Newell, J. P., & Stults, M. (2016). Defining urban resilience: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 147, 38–49. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.011. Meijer, A., & Rodríguez Bolívar, M. P. (2015). Governing the smart city: A review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 392–408. Moloney, S., & Horne, R. (2015). Low carbon urban transitioning: From local experimentation to urban transformation? Sustainability, 7(3), 2437–2453. Moore, M. L., & Westley, F. (2011). Surmountable chasms: Networks and social innovation for resilient systems. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 5. http://www. ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art5/. Nevens, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Gorissen, L., & Loorbach, D. (2013). Urban transition labs: Co-creating transformative action for sustainable cities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 111–122.

92  K. HÖLSCHER Norgaard, K. M. (2018). The sociological imagination in a time of climate change. Global and Planetary Change, 163, 171–176. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.09.018. O’Brien, K. (2012). Global environmental change II: From adaptation to deliberate transformation. Progress in Human Geography, 36(5), 667–676. Olsson, P., Galaz, V., & Boonstra, W. J. (2014). Sustainability transformations: A resilience perspective. Ecology and Society, 19(4), 1. https://doi. org/10.5751/ES-06799-190401. Olsson, P., Gunderson, L. H., Carpenter, S. R., Ryan, P., Lebel, L., Folke, C., et al. (2006). Shooting the rapids: Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 18. doi:http:// www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art18. Pahl-Wostl, C., Becker, G., Knieper, C., & Sendzimir, J. (2013). How multilevel societal learning processes facilitate transformative change: A comparative case study analysis on flood management. Ecology and Society, 18(4). Pahl-Wostl, C., & Knieper, C. (2014). The capacity of water governance to deal with the climate change adaptation challenge: Using fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis to distinguish between polycentric, fragmented and centralized regimes. Global Environmental Change, 29, 139–154. Patterson, J., Schulz, K., Vervoort, J., van der Hel, S., Widerberg, O., Adler, C., et al. (2016). Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards sustainability. Environmental Innovation and Social Transitions. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.001. Pelling, M. (2011). Adaptation to climate change: From resilience to transformation. London: Routledge. Pereira, L., Karpouzoglou, T., Doshi, S., & Frantzeskaki, N. (2015). Organising a safe space for navigating social-ecological transformations to sustainability. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12, 6027–6044. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph12060602. Pickett, S. T. A., Boone, C. G., McGrath, B. P., Cadenasso, M. L., Childers, D. L., Ogden, L. A., et al. (2013). Ecological science and transformation to the sustainable city. Cities, 32, S10–S20. Plummer, R. (2013). Can adaptive comanagement help to address the challenges of climate change adaptation? Ecology and Society, 18(4), 2. https://doi. org/10.5751/ES-05699-180402. Pulver, S., Ulibarri, N., Sobocinski, K. L., Alexander, S. M., Johnson, M. L., McCord, P. F., et al. (2018). Frontiers in socioenvironmental research: Components, connections, scale, and context. Ecology and Society, 23(3), 23. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10280-230323. Rama, D., Milano, B. J., Salas, S., & Liu, C.-H. (2009). CSR implementation: Developing the capacity for collective action. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 463–477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9737-9.

2  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

93

Rauschmayer, F., Bauler, T., & Schäpke, N. (2015). Towards a thick understanding of sustainability transitions—Linking transition management, capabilities and social practices. Ecological Economics, 109, 211–221. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.11.018. Raven, R., Sengers, F., Spaeth, P., Xie, L., Cheshmehzangi, A., & de Jong, M. (2017). Urban experimentation and institutional arrangements. European Planning Studies, 27(2), 258–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.201 7.1393047. Raven, R., van den Bosch, S., & Weterings, R. (2010). Transitions and strategic niche management: Towards a competence kit for practitioners. International Journal of Technology Management, 51(1), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1504/ IJTM.2010.033128. Rockström, J., Gaffney, O., Rogelj, J., Meinshausen, M., Nakicenovic, N., & Schellnhuber, N. H. J. (2017). A roadmap for rapid decarbonization. Science, 355(6331), 1269–1271. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah3443. Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., & van Asselt, M. (2001). More evolution than revolution: Transition management in public policy. Foresight, 3(1), 15–31. Rotmans, J., & Loorbach, D. (2010). Towards a better understanding of transitions and their governance: A systemic and reflexive approach. In J. Grin, J. Rotmans, & J. Schot (Eds.), Transitions to sustainable development: New directions in the study of long-term transformative change (pp. 105–222). New York and London: Routledge. Runhaar, H., Wilk, B., Persson, A., Uittenbroek, C., & Wamsler, C. (2018). Mainstreaming climate adaptation: Taking stock about “what works” from empirical research worldwide. Regional Environmental Change, 18(4), 1201–1210. Schewenius, M., McPhearson, T., & Elmqvist, T. (2014). Opportunities for increasing resilience and sustainability of urban social–Ecological systems: Insights from the URBES and the cities and biodiversity outlook projects. AMBIO, 43(4), 434–444. Sengers, F., & Raven, R. (2015). Toward a spatial perspective on niche development: The case of bus rapid transit. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 17, 166–182. Seto, K. C., David, S. J., Mitchell, R. B., Stokes, E. C., Unruh, G., & Ürge-Vorsatz, D. (2016). Carbon lock-in: types, causes, and policy impli­ cations. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41, 19. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085934. Smink, M., Negro, S. O., Niesten, E., & Hekkert, M. P. (2015). How mismatching institutional logics hinder niche-regime interaction and how boundary spanners intervene. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 100, 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.004.

94  K. HÖLSCHER Smith, A., & Raven, R. (2012). What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Research Policy, 7, 41. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.012. Smith, A., & Stirling, A. (2010). The politics of social-ecological resilience and sustainable socio-technical transitions. Ecology and Society, 15(1), 11. Sørensen, E. (2006). Metagovernance: The changing role of politicians in processes of democratic governance. The American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074005282584. Sperling, J. B., & Ramaswami, A. (2018). Cities and “budget-based” management of the energy-water-climate nexus: Case studies in transportation policy, infrastructure systems, and urban utility risk management. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 37(1), 91–107. Steffen W., Rockström, J., Richardson, K., Lentonet, T. M., Folke, C., & Liverman, D., et al. (2018). Trajectories of the earth system in the Anthropocene. PNAS. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1810141115. Tábara, J. D., Frantzeskaki, N., Hölscher, K., Pedde, S., Lamperti, F., Christensen, J., et al. (2018). Positive tipping points in a rapidly warming world. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 31, 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.01.012. Tanner, T., Mitchell, T., Polack, E., & Guenther, B. (2009). Urban governance for adaptation: Assessing climate change resilience in ten Asian cities (IDS Research Summary 315). Brighton: IDS. Termeer, C. J. A. M., Dewulf, A., & Biesbroek, G. R. (2017). Transformational change: Governance interventions for climate change adaptation from a continuous change perspective. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60(4), 558–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2016.1168288. Torabi, E., Dedekorkut-Howes, A., & Howes, M. (2018). Adapting or maladapting: Building resilience to climate-related disasters in coastal cities. Cities, 72, 295–309. Turnheim, B., & Geels, F. W. (2012). Regime destabilisation as the flipside of energy transitions: Lessons from the history of the British coal industry (1913–1997). Energy Policy, 50, 35–49. Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Rosenzweig, C., Dawson, R. J., Sanchez Rodriguez, R., Bai, X., Barau A. S., et al. (2018). Locking in positive climate responses in cities. Nature Climate Change, 8, 174–177. van Asselt, H., Huitema, D., & Jordan, A. (2018). Global climate governance after Paris: Setting the scene for experimentation? In B. Turnheim, P. Kivimaa, & F. Berkhout (Eds.), Innovating climate governance: Moving beyond experiments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. van Buuren, A., & Loorbach, D. (2009). Policy innovation in isolation? Conditions for policy renewal by transition arenas and pilot projects. Public Management Review, 11(3), 375–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030902798289.

2  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

95

van den Bosch, S. (2010). Transition experiments: Exploring societal changes towards sustainability. Erasmus University Rotterdam. Retrieved from http:// hdl.handle.net/1765/20714. Walker, B. H., Abel, N., Anderies, J. M., & Ryan, P. (2009). Resilience, adaptability, and transformability in the goulburn-broken catchment, Australia. Ecology and Society, 14(1). Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. P. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2), 5. Wamsler, C. (2015). Mainstreaming ecosystem-based adaptation: Transformation toward sustainability in urban governance and planning. Ecology and Society, 20(2). Westley, F., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Homer-Dixon, T., Vredenburg, H., Loorbach, D., et al. (2011). Tipping toward sustainability: Emergent pathways of transformation. Ambio, 40(7), 762–780. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13280-011-0186-9. Westley, F. R., Tjornbo, O., Schultz, L., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Crona, B., & Bodin, Ö. (2013). A theory of transformative agency in linked ­social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 18(3). https://doi. org/10.5751/es-05072-180327. Wilson, S., Pearson, L. J., Kashima, Y., Lusher, D., & Pearson, C. (2013). Separating adaptive maintenance (resilience) and transformative capacity of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 18(1), 22. https://doi. org/10.5751/ES-05100-180122. Wise, R., Fazey, I., Stafford Smith, M., Park, S., Eakin, H., Archer Van Garderen, E., et al. (2014). Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of pathways of change and response. Global Environmental Change, 28(4), 325–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.002. Wittmayer, J., & Hölscher, K. (2017). Transformationsforschung – Definitionen, Ansätze, Methoden. Bericht des AP1. Dessau-Roßlau: Umweltbundesamt. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/transformationsforschung. Accessed October 4, 2018. Wittmayer, J. M., van Steenbergen, F., Loorbach, D., Mock, M., Omann, I., & Kirner, B. (2014). Exploring the transformative potential of communities. In J. M. Wittmayer, C. Roorda, & F. van Steenbergen (Eds.), Governing urban sustainability transitions-inspiring examples. Rotterdam: DRIFT. Wolfram, M. (2016). Conceptualizing urban transformative capacity: A framework for research and policy. Cities, 51, 121–130. Wolfram, M. (2019). Learning urban energy governance for system innovation: An assessment of transformative capacity development in three South Korean cities. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 21(1), 30–45. https:// doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2018.1512051.

96  K. HÖLSCHER Wolfram, M., Frantzeskaki., N., & Maschmeyer, S. (2017). Cities, systems and sustainability: Status and perspectives of research on urban transformations. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 22, 18–25. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.014. Wurzel, R. K. W., Liefferink, D., & Torney, D. (2019). Pioneers, leaders and followers in multilevel and polycentric climate governance. Environmental Politics, 28(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1522033. Yohe, G. W. (2001). Mitigative capacity – The mirror image of adaptive capacity on the emissions side. Climatic Change, 49(3), 247–262.

PART II

Capacities for Transformative Climate Governance in Cities

CHAPTER 3

Transforming Cities and Science for Climate Change Resilience in the Anthropocene Timon McPhearson

3.1  Introduction Cities are where some of the most advanced climate action occurs, but they are also locations of some of the largest social and economic impacts of climate change. With climate change-driven extreme events rising in frequency and intensity, cities are on the front lines of needs for innovative climate adaptation and resilience efforts. Transforming cities to be flexible, adaptive, and resilient to a future that is unpredictable requires transformative governance capable of building, designing, and planning cities in ways that also recognize the challenges of governing complex urban systems. Cities are dynamic, with interacting and interdependent social-economic, ecological-biophysical, and technological infrastructure components that together generate behaviors and patterns that can be desirable, or, T. McPhearson (*)  Urban Systems Lab, The New School, New York, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY, USA Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden © The Author(s) 2020 K. Hölscher and N. Frantzeskaki (eds.), Transformative Climate Governance, Palgrave Studies in Environmental Transformation, Transition and Accountability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49040-9_3

99

100  T. McPHEARSON

undesirable. Governing this complexity, now with additional pressure of climate change, requires rethinking governance and even how we approach science in the context of urban s­ocial-ecological-technological systems (SETS) (McPhearson et al. 2016a; Markolf et al. 2018). Further, transformative climate governance must now more than ever recognize that long-term futures are uncertain, subject to non-stationarity, and therefore difficult to prepare for (Elmqvist et al. 2019).

3.2  Key Climate Risks in Cities As the toll from extreme events continues to mount, there is an urgent need for convergence of science and transformative governance in a way that can enhance the resilience of cities in the Anthropocene (Elmqvist et al. 2019; Steffen et al. 2015). Cities and urban regions are particularly at risk of climate-driven extreme events because they hold the highest concentrations of people and critical infrastructure (Bouwer 2011; Dickson et al. 2012). Rising sea levels, flooding, and heat waves, among other extreme climatic events, pose significant risks to communities and infrastructure—risks that are increasing in every part of the world. Extreme weather is already leading to record heat waves, drought, floods, and wildfires impacting cities globally. Many cities are located in low lying coastal zones and are likely to suffer from development intensification increasing the exposure of people, infrastructure and economic activity to coastal storms, and the effects of sea level rise (Neumann et al. 2015). Of course, it is not only coastal cities that are at risk. Cities around the world are more prone to suffer from extreme heat due to the combined impacts of the urban heat island, rising temperatures, and air pollution (IPCC 2015). In fact, cities already experience more than twice as much warming as non-urban regions due to the amplificatory effect of urban heat islands. Projections indicate that some of the world’s largest cities could warm by as much as 7°C by 2100 (Estrada et al. 2017). Large cities due to a dominant twentieth-century mode of urbanization and development modify the local and regional environment, changing the microclimate (e.g., by creating urban heat islands), paving over soil and altering ecosystem processes and building up infrastructure (e.g., roads, buildings, pipes, wires), which, together with projected impacts of climate change such as sea level rise, contributes to magnifying hazard impacts in coastal inhabited areas (Pelling and Blackburn 2013; McPhearson et al. 2018). Megacities (i.e., urban areas exceeding 10 million inhabitants),

3  TRANSFORMING CITIES AND SCIENCE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE … 

101

for example, are highly interconnected and vibrant centers in which enormous physical and intellectual resources are concentrated. Mainly located along waterways and coastal areas, megacities tend to be more exposed to disasters and suffer higher social and economic losses (UNDESA 2016). Earthquakes, cyclones, and flooding are major threats to these urban areas (Philippi 2016; Depietri and McPhearson 2018). Sea level rise, coupled with other environmental issues, such as urban land subsidence or coastal erosion, could trigger unprecedented environmental and social changes in many cities (Newton et al. 2012). A primary concern is how increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events will damage urban infrastructure and threaten urban residents (Bender et al. 2010). Estimates show that future economic and social costs could dwarf those incurred after recent major hurricanes, cyclones, and typhoons, such as those which occurred in the 2017 in the USA (Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria) that caused damage exceeding 260 billion US dollars (NOAA 2018). It is clear that urbanization and climate change are on a collision course. Developing governance systems that can transform cities for resilience in the face of multi-hazard risk (Fig. 3.1) must take center stage to alter urban trajectories and deliver climate adapted cities. Not only will the increasing rates of urbanization expose more urban dwellers to urban heat island and extreme temperatures, but urban land expansion is also likely to increase the exposure of urban infrastructure to floods and droughts (Güneralp et al. 2015). For example, the number of urban residents facing water shortages could increase by a factor of 5, placing 160 million residents at risk driven by the collision of urbanization and climate change (McDonald et al. 2011).

3.3  A New Urban Systems Science Traditional disciplinary scientific approaches have failed to take into account the social-ecological-technological system complexity that can produce such risks to climate change. Cities are at risk from climate change precisely because of the dense concentration of people and infrastructure and the way they interact together within the ­ecological-physical world. To advance governance means also advancing our ability to understand complex urban dynamics and develop near and longer-term term scenarios to guide decision-making. Urban science itself must advance to be transdisciplinary and systems oriented (Acuto et al. 2018; McPhearson et al. 2016b).

102  T. McPHEARSON

Fig. 3.1  Multi-hazard risk including from heat risk, coastal flood risk, and inland flood risk combined for New York City (Adapted from Depietri et al. 2018)

3  TRANSFORMING CITIES AND SCIENCE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE … 

103

Cities need to be understood as social-ecological-technological systems (SETS) (Fig. 2.2). Without a systems approach, resilient infrastructure investments may repeat mistakes of the past. For example, increasing resilience by focusing on new infrastructure investments to harden edges in coastal cities (e.g., build sea walls) may create unintended social and ecological consequences. A key challenge facing urban infrastructure systems is that they are currently relatively inflexible, rigid, and long-lasting due to a robustness-centered approach (Markolf et al. 2018; Chester and Allenby 2018). Technological innovations are the oft-touted solutions to increase the robustness of infrastructure as a resilience strategy to climate change impacts in cities. Robustness approaches often focus on hardening and strengthening infrastructure, building bigger and stronger infrastructure to withstand more intense, frequent, or longer lasting events (Kim et al. 2019). Yet fundamental challenges and uncertainties exist with a such robustness-centered approach, including (1) limits to how much stronger you can make infrastructure, (2) the significant degree of uncertainty in extreme event forecasts, and (3) the possibility that hardening against one hazard may leave the city weakened to others. Recent extreme events such as Hurricane Harvey (2017) in Houston, Texas, Hurricane Maria (2017) in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and Hurricane Sandy (2012) in New York, New York highlight these weaknesses and exposed the fundamental interdependencies within such urban SETS. In all three cases cascading failures across the cities led to displacement, billions of US$ in economic and infrastructure damage, loss of power in some cases to homes for many months, and challenged governance systems to respond, plan, and create effective resilience policies. Rethinking resilience investments means thinking about infrastructure now as fully interactive with ecological and social domains in cities (Markolf et al. 2018). A new urban systems science is beginning to emerge that is key to understanding how to protect cities and urban regions from the most severe impacts of climate-driven extreme events. This science accounts for the interdependencies among social, ecological, and technological infrastructure components of urban systems as SETS (Fig. 3.2) (Grimm et al. 2016, 2017; McPhearson et al. 2016a, b; Grabowski et al. 2017). Most traditional scientific approaches to improving resilience are siloed, with analytical efforts focused on one or two domains. Yet, as recent events have shown, extreme events can cause cascading impacts across domains. For example, flooding can simultaneously cause power and transportation disruptions, damage ecosystems, impact human health,

104  T. McPHEARSON

Fig. 3.2  The social-ecological-technological systems (SETS) conceptual framework emphasizes the social-economic, ecological-biophysical, and technological-infrastructural interactions that drive systems processes and patterns in an increasingly interconnected world at local and global scales (Adapted from McPhearson et al. 2016a; Depietri and McPhearson 2017)

and damage homes and critical infrastructure. Recent extreme events also demonstrated failures or inadequacies not just in the built infrastructure but also in resources, institutions, information, and governance systems—components of the urban SETS—to prepare for, and respond to, events of this magnitude (Eakin et al. 2018).

3  TRANSFORMING CITIES AND SCIENCE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE … 

105

An urban systems science is emerging that aims to create better understanding about urban SETS and is solution-oriented to find and assess solutions that converge across urban SETS including human-cultural-economic-governance systems (social), biophysi­ cal-ecological systems (ecological), and technological-engineered-infrastructural systems (technological). Further, co-production of knowledge is critical to both frame research questions and methods for bringing transdisciplinary science into a co-design process with stakeholders at multiple levels. Co-production and co-design are not only needed in science, but governance too: Governance and technological solutions that address only one system domain are unlikely to be resilient for urban systems in the future. Decision-makers, designers, engineers, and managers need solutions that converge across disciplines and knowledge systems.

3.4  Transforming Urban Climate Governance Addressing climate risks in cities is a critical governance challenge: Governance approaches must themselves transform to take into account the complexity of SETS and feedbacks between urban SETS and climate change impacts in cities. Addressing risks to climate change will require many levels of investment, innovation, and transformation and urban climate governance will be a key component of transforming cities for resilience. Only recently has climate change planning and policymaking in cities become formally recognized as part of the global response to climate change (Amundsen et al. 2018; van der Heijden 2018). However, cities are where the majority of climate action exists and climate governance in cities is poised to lead climate action globally (Bai et al. 2018; Elmqvist et al. 2018). Still, while urban climate governance is advancing (Hölscher et al. 2019), it is uneven with some cities leading the way and others struggling due to lack of resources, knowledge, or political will. Local governments have primarily framed climate mitigation and adaptation as opportunities for improving human wellbeing in cities (Shaw et al. 2014; Aylett 2015; den Exter et al. 2014). Even in ­cities that are leading with ambitious climate agendas, climate policy and planning initiatives often remain add-on priorities to short-term existing practices. While local governments have taken a leading role in urban climate governance, a plethora of other actors from local communities, regional and national governments, to businesses and research institutes

106  T. McPHEARSON

are generating and integrating knowledge and experimenting with actions at local scales (Bulkeley 2010; Burch et al. 2016; Moloney and Horne 2015; Hughes et al. 2017; Hölscher et al. 2019). These actors are key to bringing more inclusive transformative urban climate governance approaches forward. Perhaps the most pressing challenge for urban climate governance is to fundamentally shift the dominant divisional model that plagues efforts for transformative governance in order to upend traditional approaches and create new governance models and frameworks. A systems approach in urban governance is thwarted by the siloed structure of city government agencies, where departments that focus on public health, operate independently of parks, transportation, sustainability, and other departments. The majority of urban governance systems are still characterized by administrative and jurisdictional divisions across sectors and scales and short-sighted political cycles, resulting in policies, plans, and solutions that prioritize short-term needs over long-term resilience goals (Friend et al. 2014; Torabi et al. 2018; Wamsler 2015). This type of decision-making and planning continues to exacerbate existing ­ path-dependencies keeping cities on trajectories that challenge efforts to fundamental adapt to the current and coming climate impacts (Torabi et al., 2018; Ürge-Vorsatz et al., 2018). Further, inclusive and integrated climate governance approaches are rare and most cities trend toward actions that are subordinate to business-as-usual interests and policy and planning approaches, which ­ favor isolated, incremental, and short-term responses (Hölscher et al. 2019). While the emerging learning-based and collaborative approaches open-up new avenues for organizing urban governance for transformations, it is unclear what mechanisms will be most effective and that can allow for the emergence of alternatives to existing urban governance approaches (Elmqvist et al. 2019; Romero-Lankao et al. 2018). To accommodate the system perspective on cities and urban areas, new governance approaches are needed that link climate change to other goals, consider the interdependent nature of urban SETS, and take more collaborative and co-production approaches.

3.5  Conclusion Building resilience to climate change in cities is complicated by the need to enhance social, ecological, and infrastructure resilience simultaneously, requiring novel systemic and transdisciplinary approaches in science and

3  TRANSFORMING CITIES AND SCIENCE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE … 

107

governance that match local needs and risks and that recognize and are able to work with urban SETS complexity. This is a challenge for both science and policy, which often work in disciplinary and departmental siloes, respectively. Cities can be global leaders in building societies capable of adapting to a new climate reality, but this will lean heavily on transforming both urban science and governance approaches to facilitate systemic solutions. The challenge for strengthening urban systems science and transformative climate governance approaches that cross policy siloes will be to develop rigorous institutional and organizational conditions that make more systemic connections across disciplines, sectors, scales, and societal spheres in ways that can fundamentally build systemic resilience for cities in the face of climate-driven extreme events. The challenge is clear, but to meet it requires rethinking governance, rethinking urban science, and creating a co-creative and adaptive process where science and governance approaches can learn while experimenting. Acknowledgment   This chapter was supported by the US National Science Foundation through the Urban Resilience to Extreme Weather-Related Events Sustainability Research Network (NSF grant no. SES 1444755), as well as the US NSF Accel-Net program NATURA (grant no. 1927167), and US NSF Convergence program (grant no. 1934933). Research was also partially funded through the 2015–2016 BiodivERsA COFUND call for research proposals, with the national funders the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences, and Spatial Planning; the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency; the German Aerospace Center; the National Science Centre, the Research Council of Norway; and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. Support was also provided by the SMARTer Greener Cities project through the Nordforsk Sustainable Urban Development and Smart Cities program.

References Acuto, M., Parnell, S., & Seto, K. C. (2018). Building a global urban science. Nature Sustainability, 1(1), 2. Amundsen, H., Hovelsrud, G. K., Aall, C., Karlsson, M., & Westskog, H. (2018). Local governments as drivers for societal transformation: Towards the 1.5°C ambition. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 31, 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.12.004. Aylett, A. (2015). Institutionalizing the urban governance of climate change adaptation: Results of an international survey. Urban Climate, 14, 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2015.06.005.

108  T. McPHEARSON Bai X., Daswon, R. J., Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Delgado, G. C., Barau, A. S., Dhakal, S., et al. (2018). Six research priorities for cities and climate change. Nature Publishing Group. Bender, M. A., Knutson, T. R., Tuleya, R. E., Sirutis, J. J., Vecchi, G. A., Garner, S. T., et al. (2010). Modeled impact of anthropogenic warming on the frequency of intense Atlantic hurricanes. Science, 327, 454–458. Bouwer, L. M. (2011). Have disaster losses increased due to anthropogenic climate change? Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 92, 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1175/2010BAMS3092.1. Bulkeley, H. (2010). Cities and the governing of climate change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 35, 229–253. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-environ-072809-101747. Burch, S., Andrachuk, M., Carey, D., Frantzeskaki, N., Schroeder, H., Mischkowski, N., et al. (2016). Governing and accelerating transformative entrepreneurship: Exploring the potential for small business innovation on urban sustainability transitions. Current Opinion in Environmental Science, 22, 26–32. Chester, M. H., & Allenby, B. R. (2018). Toward adaptive infrastructure: Flexibility and agility in a non-stationarity age. Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure, 3(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2017.1416 846. Den Exter, R., Lenhart, J., & Kern, K. (2014). Governing climate change in Dutch cities: Anchoring local climate strategies in organization, policy and practical implementation. Local Environment. https://doi.org/10.1080/135 49839.2014.892919. Depietri, Y., Dahal, K., & McPhearson, T. (2018). Multi-hazard risk in a coastal megacity. Natural Hazards and Earth Systems Sciences, 18, 3363–3381. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-3363-2018. Depietri, Y., & McPhearson, T. (2017). Integrating the grey, green, and blue in cities: Nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation and risk reduction. In N. Kabisch, H. Korn, J. Stadler, & A. Bonn (Eds.), Nature-based solutions to climate change in urban areas: Linkages between science, policy, and practice (pp. 91–109). Cham: Springer. Depietri, Y., & McPhearson, T. (2018). Changing urban risk: 140 years of climatic hazards in New York City. Climatic Change, 148(1–14), 2018. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2194-2. Dickson, E., Baker, J. L., Hoornweg, D., & Asmita, T. (2012). Urban risk assessments: An approach for understanding disaster and climate risk in cities. The World Bank. Available from: http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/ book/10.1596/978-0-8213-8962-1. Accessed June 11, 2015. Eakin, H., Muñoz-Erickson, T. A., & Lemos, M. C. 2018. Critical lines of action for vulnerability and resilience research and practice: Lessons from the 2017 Hurricane season. Journal of Extreme Events, 5(02n03), 1850015.

3  TRANSFORMING CITIES AND SCIENCE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE … 

109

Elmqvist, T., Andersson, E., Frantzeskaki, N., McPhearson, T., Olsson, P., Gaffney, O., et al. (2019). Sustainability and resilience for transformation in the urban century. Nature Sustainability, 2, 267–273. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41893-019-0250-1. Elmqvist, T., Bai, X., Frantzeskaki, N., Griffith, C., Maddox, D., & McPhearson, T. (Eds.). (2018). Urban Planet: Knowledge towards sustainable cities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Estrada, F., Botzen, W. W., & Tol, R. S. (2017). A global economic assessment of city policies to reduce climate change impacts. Nature Climate Change, 7, 403. Friend, R., Jarvie, J., Orleans Reed, S., Sutarto, R., Thinphanga, P., & Canh Toan, V. (2014). Mainstreaming urban climate resilience into policy and planning; reflections from Asia. Urban Climate, 7, 6–19. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.uclim.2013.08.001. Grabowski, Z. J., Matsler, A. M., Thiel, C., McPhillips, L., Hum, R., Bradshaw, A., et al. (2017). Infrastructures as socio-eco-technical systems: Five considerations for interdisciplinary dialogue. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 23, 02517002. Grimm, N. B., Cook, E. M., Hale, R. L., & Iwaniec, D. M. (2016). A broader framing of ecosystem services in cities: Benefits and challenges of built, natural, or hybrid system function. In K. Seto, W. D. Solecki, & C. A. Griffith (Eds.), Handbook on urbanization and global environmental change. New York: Routledge. Grimm, N. B., Pickett, S. T. A., Hale, R. L., & Cadenasso, M. L. (2017). Does the ecological concept of disturbance have utility in urban social–ecological– technological systems? Ecosystem Health and Sustainability, 3(1), e01255. Güneralp, B., Güneralp, İ., & Liu, Y. (2015). Changing global patterns of urban exposure to flood and drought hazards. Global Environmental Change, 31, 217–225. Hölscher, K., Frantzeskaki, N., McPhearson, T., & Loorbach, D. (2019). Tales of transforming cities: Lessons on capacities for transformative climate governance from frontrunner cities New York City, U.S. and Rotterdam, Netherlands. Journal of Environmental Management, 231, 843–857. Hughes, S., Chu, E. K., & Mason, S. G. (Eds.). (2017). Climate change in cities: Innovations in multi-level governance. Cham: Springer. IPCC. (2015). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva, Switzerland. Kim, Y., Chester, M. V., Eisenberg, D. A., & Redman, C. L. (2019). The infrastructure trolley problem: Positioning safe-to-fail infrastructure for climate change adaptation. Earth’s Future, 7(7), 704–717. Markolf, S. A., Chester, M. V., Eisenberg, D. A., Iwaniec, D. M., Davidson, C. I., Zimmerman, R., et al. (2018). Interdependent infrastructure as linked social, ecological, and technological systems (SETS) to address lock-in and enhance resilience. Earth’s Future, 6, 1638–1659.

110  T. McPHEARSON McDonald, R. I., Green, P., Balk, D., Fekete, B. M., Revenga, C., Todd, M., et al. (2011). Urban growth, climate change, and freshwater availability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 6312–6317. McPhearson, T. M., Karki, C., Herzog, H. Santiago, Fink, L., Abbadie, P., Kremer, C. M., et al. (2018). Urban ecosystems and biodiversity. In C. Rosenzweig, W. Solecki, P. Romero-Lankao, S. Mehrotra, S. Dhakal, & Ali S. Ibrahim (Eds.), Climate change and cities: Second assessment report of the urban climate change research network (pp. 257–318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McPhearson, T., Pickett, S. T. A., Grimm, N. B., Niemelä, J., Alberti, M., Elmqvist, T., et al. (2016a). Advancing urban ecology toward a science of cities. BioScience, 66(3), 198–212. McPhearson, T., Haase, D., Kabisch, N., & Gren, Å. (2016b). Advancing understanding of the complex nature of urban systems. Ecological Indicators, 70, 566–573. Moloney, S., & Horne, R. (2015). Low carbon urban transitioning: From local experimentation to urban transformation? Sustainability, 7, 2437–2453. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7032437. Neumann, B., Vafeidis, A. T., Zimmermann, J., & Nicholls, R. J. (2015). Future coastal population growth and exposure to sea-level rise and coastal flooding—A global assessment. PLoS One, 10. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0118571. Newton, A., Carruthers, T. J., & Icely, J. (2012). The coastal syndromes and hotspots on the coast. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 96, 39–47. NOAA. (2018). Costliest U.S. tropical cyclones tables update. National Hurricane Center. https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/news/UpdatedCostliest.pdf. Pelling, M., & Blackburn, S. (Eds.). (2013). Megacities and the coast: Risk, resilience, and transformation. London and New York: Routledge and Taylor & Francis. Philippi, C. (2016). Megacities pushing the boundaries of our industry, risk trends and insurance challenges. Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty, Munich. Romero-Lankao, P., Bulkeley, H., Pelling, M., Burch, S., Gordon, D., Gupta, J., et al. (2018). Realizing urban transformative potential in a changing climate. Nature Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0264-0. Shaw, A., Burch, S., Kristensen, F., Robinson, J., & Dale, A. (2014). Accelerating the sustainability transition: Exploring synergies between adaptation and mitigation in British Columbian communities. Global Environmental Change, 25, 41–51. Steffen, W., et al. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347, 1259855. Torabi, E., Dedekorkut-Howes, A., & Howes, M. (2018). Adapting or maladapting: Building resilience to climate-related disasters in coastal cities. Cities, 72, 295–309.

3  TRANSFORMING CITIES AND SCIENCE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE … 

111

UNDESA. (2016). The world’s cities in 2016: Data booklet. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, New York, NY. Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Rosenzweig, C., Dawson, R. J., Sanchez Rodriguez, R., Bai, X., Barau, A. S., et al. (2018). Locking in positive climate responses in cities. Nature Climate Change, 8(3), 174–177. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41558-018-0100-6. Van der Heijden, J. (2018). City and subnational governance: High ambitions, innovative instruments and polycentric collaborations? In A. Jordan, D. Huitema, H. van Asselt, & J. Forster (Eds.), Governing climate change: Polycentricity in action? (pp. 81–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wamsler, C. (2015). Mainstreaming ecosystem-based adaptation: Transformation toward sustainability in urban governance and planning. Ecology and Society, 20(2), 30.

CHAPTER 4

Navigating Transformations Under Climate Change in Cities: Features and Lock-ins of Urban Climate Governance Katharina Hölscher and Niki Frantzeskaki

4.1  Introduction Climate change and cities are inextricably linked: the majority of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions stems from activities, behaviours and resource demands in cities, while urban populations, infrastructures and ecosystems (already) face severe risks as a result of climate change impacts (Carter et al. 2015; UN-Habitat 2016). Climate action in ­cities is therefore an imperative, but the drivers and impacts of climate change in cities cannot be viewed in isolation from other stresses and K. Hölscher (*) · N. Frantzeskaki  Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] N. Frantzeskaki  Centre for Urban Transitions, Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 K. Hölscher and N. Frantzeskaki (eds.), Transformative Climate Governance, Palgrave Studies in Environmental Transformation, Transition and Accountability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49040-9_4

113

114  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

pressures today’s cities face (Shaw et al. 2014; Rosenzweig et al. 2015). The ways in which services and infrastructures are currently organised and designed in cities alongside with the lifestyles of urbanites drive high-emission urban development trajectories and mal-adaptation to climate change (Koch et al. 2016; Ürge-Vorsatz et al. 2018). Against ­ this background, the notion of urban sustainability and resilience transformations underscores the urgency and opportunity in cities to achieve the profound changes in urban energy, transportation, water use, land use, consumption patterns and lifestyles needed for overcoming the structural root causes of excessive GHG emissions and vulnerability to climate-related impacts while creating stepping stones for improving ­ human and environmental well-being (Koch et al. 2016; Shaw et al. 2014; Burch et al. 2018). Over the past two decades, the scale of cities has become an epicentre of scientific and policy attention for tackling climate change and sustainability challenges (Elmqvist et al. 2018; UN-Habitat 2016; WBGU 2016; Winnington et al. 2016). In September 2015, the United Nations (UN) adopted a city-specific Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 11), which is to ‘[m]ake cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable’ (UN 2016, p. 24). The New Urban Agenda, which was adopted in Quito in October 2016 at Habitat III, targets the creation of sustainable and equitable cities by rethinking how cities are planned, managed and inhabited (UN-Habitat 2016). It symbolises the UN’s recognition of urbanisation as a permanent driver of development and expresses the ambition to harness the opportunities for living sustainable in an increasingly urban future (Parnell 2016; cf. Castán Broto 2017; Rudd et al. 2018; Garschagen et al. 2018). The concern about the role of cities and urban areas is not only derived from their recognition as both culprits and victims of high emissions, resource depletion, inequality and climate impacts such as sea-level rise and heat waves (Seto et al. 2017; UN-Habitat 2016; Ürge-Vorsatz et al. 2018). Cities provide a suitable scale for effective actions and responses that act directly at the problem sources of large consumption, GHG emissions, high waste production, inequality and localised effects of climate change (Amundsen et al. 2018; Khare et al. 2011; Alberti et al. 2018). There are ample opportunities for developing low-carbon transport and energy systems, water-sensitive infrastructure and decreasing inequality (Seto et al. 2017; van der Heijden 2018). The institutional proximity in cities makes it possible for innovations to cascade, integrating

4  NAVIGATING TRANSFORMATIONS UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE … 

115

local knowledge and needs, directly affecting individual behavioural changes and for local synergies to happen (e.g. between air quality, biodiversity, health and climate adaptation) (Frantzeskaki et al. 2018b; van der Heijden 2018; McPhearson et al. 2016a, b). City governments are able to directly contribute to low-carbon, sustainable and resilient urban systems through the way they provide and manage services and infrastructures (e.g. waste management, health care), prepare for disasters, conduct procurement, plan land use, support and connect local businesses and showcase examples of opportunities and possibilities for other actors (Amundsen et al. 2018; Tanner et al. 2009). This shows how urban areas can be sites of innovation and production of knowledge and wealth, while providing widespread access to employment, education, sanitation and modern energy (Seto et al. 2017; Wolfram and Frantzeskaki 2016). Local governments worldwide have already demonstrated how to harness opportunities for developing innovative and integrated solutions to better tend to the systemic and uncertain nature of urban transformations (Frantzeskaki et al. 2017; Castán Broto 2017; ­HuangLachmann and Lovett 2016). In doing so, they have changed planning and city-making approaches towards more open-ended, integrative and experimental modes that allow trialling of and learning from innovations and facilitate multiple benefits (Castán Broto and Bulkeley 2013; Evans et al. 2016). This governance shift is marked by a multiplication and hybridisation of actors and networks, as local governments entered into new partnerships with communities, businesses and regional and national governments to motivate, support and connect individual actions towards common, cross-cutting and long-term goals (Frantzeskaki et al. 2014; van der Heijden 2018). However, even when the approaches manifest in new practices and institutions for tackling climate change and navigating urban transformations, they are insufficient for achieving the deep structural changes that are required to achieve urban sustainability and resilience. Key barriers lie in mainstream policy and planning practices, which still tend to make decisions in sectoral silos and prioritise ‘pressing immediate’ (or short term) urban needs over long-term sustainability and resilience goals (Wamsler 2015; Friend et al. 2014; Torabi et al. 2018). For example, urban mitigation strategies prioritise easy investment in low-­hanging fruits with fast returns, which prevent holistic and systemic change (Ürge-Vorsatz et al. 2018). While the emerging learning-based, systemic

116  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

and collaborative approaches open up new possibilities for organising urban governance for transformations, their mechanisms and effectiveness are still underexamined (McCormick et al. 2013; Wolfram 2016) and whether and how they amount to transformative change is still unknown. In this chapter, we position climate change in the context of urban transformations (Sect. 4.2) and trace the emergence and development of urban climate governance vis-à-vis existing urban governance regimes and lock-ins (Sect. 4.3). In the final section (Sect. 4.4), outline how we address the knowledge gap on how to transform urban climate governance. We introduce our comparative qualitative case study approach used in Part II of this book to explain the development of climate governance in Rotterdam New York City (NYC), and to assess whether it indeed manifests in capacities for transformative climate governance.

4.2  Transformations Under Climate Change in Cities While cities may have been portrayed as static in the past, cities constantly undergo simultaneously incremental and radical changes as a result of endogenous and large-scale factors and trends (e.g. lifestyle changes, globalisation, financial crisis) (Pickett et al. 2014; McCormick et al. 2013; Seto et al. 2012). However, the changes that are currently taking place in, and by, cities, and the concerns and implications on local and global sustainability that go along with them, are unprecedented. Contemporary urbanisation processes are unparalleled: since 2008, more people live in urban than in rural areas, and urban population is expected to grow by about 75% until 2050, which brings the urban population up to 6.3 billion (UN-Habitat 2010). Urbanisation in its current form causes significant changes in land use and landcover, energy demand, biodiversity and lifestyles and raises questions about the contribution of cities to global environmental change, including climate change, biodiversity loss and resource depletion (Haase et al. 2018; Alberti et al. 2018; Elmqvist et al. 2013; Seto et al. 2017). Additionally, cities increasingly have to grapple with a variety of interrelated challenges, including pollution, waste, poverty and inequality, inadequate or ageing infrastructure, poor water quality, access to basic services, climate change, social tensions and waste generation (Haase et al. 2018; UN-Habitat 2016; Seto et al. 2017).

4  NAVIGATING TRANSFORMATIONS UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE … 

117

The notion of urban transformation facilitates a better understanding of the diverse, endogenous and exogenous driving forces of urban transformations, as well as how these forces lead to altered urban functions, new local needs and new interactions between cities and their surroundings (McCormick et al. 2013; Wolfram et al. 2017). While the term has been used differently across urban disciplines (Burch et al. 2018), urban transformations are commonly defined in relation to an understanding of cities as complex, adaptive and open systems (Box 4.1; Wolfram and Frantzeskaki 2016; McCormick et al. 2013). As such, urban transformations relate to the complex, cross-scale and cross-sectoral dynamics between multiple dimensions (e.g. social, institutional, cultural, political, economic, technological, ecological) of urban systems, as well as how these dynamics affect such systems and other systems at multiple scales (e.g. rural hinterlands, global economy) (Wolfram et al. 2017; Chelleri et al. 2015). This section establishes the need to address climate change in the context of contemporary urban transformations and thus to embed climate mitigation and adaptation within the broader ambition to achieve urban sustainability and resilience transformations.

Box 4.1: Understanding cities as complex, adaptive open systems

There is no one definition of what is ‘a city’ or what is ‘urban’ (Haase et al. 2018). Cities have many varying characteristics and are often classified in terms of administrative units with a set minimum number of inhabitants, human densities, built-up area, material and energy flows or employment proportions (Haase et al. 2018). Since the 1970s, urban studies are developing a p ­ ost-structuralist view on cities that transcends from such geographical, or other, delineations: cities are understood as ‘local nodes within multiple overlapping social, economic, ecological, political and physical networks, continuously shaping and shaped by flows of people, matter and information across scales’ (Wolfram and Frantzeskaki 2016: p. 143). Cities thus evade the prescription of immobile boundaries, but rather need to be understood based on the ‘topologies of actor networks which are becoming increasingly dynamic and varied in spatial constitution’ (Amin 2004: p. 33).

118  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

To account for this networked character of cities, urban researchers call for an integrated systems’ approach that views cities as complex social-ecological-technological systems (Alberti et al. 2018; McPhearson et al. 2017; Meerow et al. 2016; Bai et al. 2017). Social systems encompass the socio-economic, political and institutional dimensions, including variables such as personal income, culture, governance, demography, justice, education and health (Meerow et al. 2016). Natural systems refer to the natural resources and physical phenomena in a city, such as air, water, biodiversity and ecosystems (Pickett et al. 2011; McPhearson et al. 2016b). Technological systems include the manmade surroundings providing services for human activities, such as shelter, transport systems, public spaces and urban form (Meerow et al. 2016; Ramaswami et al. 2012). Actors have a central position within urban systems: diverse actors at multiple scales (e.g. household members, local and national governments, real estate developers, knowledge institutions) influence how cities are organised and consume resources (Alberti et al. 2018). This perspective draws attention to the complex and dynamic networks of interactions between social, ecological and technological elements of urban systems that shape urban development trajectories in adaptive, self-organising ways (Alberti et al. 2018; Ernstson et al. 2010). For example, urban segregation and inequality result from and are reinforced by interactions between residential choices, personal preferences, job markets, land and real estate markets and public policies (Alberti et al. 2018). Similarly, the privatisation and liberalisation of infrastructures and the diverse social interests involved in the functioning of infrastructure systems (e.g. of utilities, regulators, consumers) determine how infrastructures are built, operated and used (Hodson and Marvin 2010). Conversely, the built environment is usually characterised by a high degree of path dependency and opportunity costs; once built, dwellings exist over long periods of time (Moss 2014; Loorbach et al. 2010). Natural systems are strongly influenced by the networked material and energy flows of human resource production and consumption in cities, such as water, energy, food and waste (Meerow et al. 2016; Pickett et al. 2011).

4  NAVIGATING TRANSFORMATIONS UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE … 

119

Moreover, cities operate as open systems that are (usually) not self-sufficient, but depend on ecosystems, resources and populations from other localities (Elmqvist 2014; Chelleri et al. 2015; Seto et al. 2012). The impacts of urban activities are therefore not contained within some local geographical boundaries. This makes cities ‘entities in broader “networks” of global resources, commodities, communication, and multilevel governance’ (Meerow et al. 2016: p. 45). ‘Urban land teleconnections’ are a recent conceptual framework in land use science to describe how the linkages between urban land use change and the resources consumed by urbanites extend their influence to distant locations (e.g. on ecosystems, migration) (Seto et al. 2012). Considering the urban scale of transformations thus helps to see how current (un)sustainability concerns and the need for societal transformations are ‘inherently local and global, and indeed, come together in urban environments’ (Jhagroe 2016: p. 47).

4.2.1   Transformations in, of and by Cities We distinguish between three perspectives on urban transformations. These perspectives are closely related, but they have different implications on how to understand contemporary urban transformation processes and the relationships to climate change. These perspectives also show the complex nature of transformation as a process that can be driven by different actors, institutions or networked agency and how cities relate to it as objects or subjects to transformations. Transformation in cities: cities as places of transformations Transformation in cities refers to the interactions and change dynamics that are place-based in cities. This perspective zooms in to the ­on-the-ground processes of change, how changes are construed and the spatial and social drivers of these transformations. Specifically, transformations in cities are driven by endogenous factors and dynamics (e.g. local economic structure, geographic location, lifestyles, population structures, governance and planning) as well as large-scale processes

120  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

(e.g. national policies, globalisation, climate change) (McCormick et al. 2013; Leichenko 2011; Wolfram et al. 2017; UN-Habitat 2016). Examples of ongoing transformation dynamics and driving forces in cities include the privatisation of public services, skyrocketing housing prices, the increasing complexity and reach of urban institutions and governance, and ageing urban infrastructure (Seto et al. 2017; Haase et al. 2018; Newton et al. 2017). At the same time, in cities worldwide diverse types of social, technological and institutional innovations are emerging in response to local and global pressures, which provide potential incubators for sustainable change (Frantzeskaki et al. 2018a). Looking at cities as sites of transformations opens up questions about why transformations occur and are supported in some places and not others, which have been taken up in work on the ‘geography of transitions’ that has generated insights on how place-specific factors shape transformations (Hansen and Coenen 2015; Truffer et al. 2015; Coenen et al. 2012; Hodson et al. 2017). The idea of place-specificity facilitates sensitivity to place variety and differences for example between European, ‘global’ cities, metropolitan cities and cities in the Global South. It addresses the notion of socio-spatial embeddedness of agency as rooted in particular places, referring for example to how sense and meaning of place influence how individuals value and pursue change of places (Brink and Wamsler 2019; von Wirth et al. 2019; Clarke et al. 2018). Transformation of cities: transformation dynamics and outcomes in urban systems Transformation of cities addresses the systems’ perspective on cities and identifies and evaluates the changes of urban systems resulting from transformation dynamics in terms of new urban functions, local needs, new interactions and outcomes. This perspective takes a birds’ eye view on the way cities change, examining and mapping the patterns of change of the overlaying urban fabrics and the respective social dynamics. Transformations of cities affect an array of urban systems (e.g. economy, energy, transport, food, health care, governance) (Romero-Lankao et al. 2018b; Amundsen et al. 2018). They involve changes of dominant urban structures (e.g. infrastructures, regulations), cultures (e.g. values) and practices (e.g. mobility behaviours) (Frantzeskaki et al. 2018b; Ernst et al. 2016).

4  NAVIGATING TRANSFORMATIONS UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE … 

121

This perspective strongly focuses on the outcomes of transformation of urban (sub-)systems over time, bringing together s­ocio-technological and socio-ecological theories and frameworks. This systems’ perspective draws attention to the complex processes and feedback loops within, across and beyond urban systems and the accumulated effects on the urban system level. For example, studying social-ecological-technical infrastructure systems in cities advances understanding of urban complexity and urban structure-function relationships between green space availability, well-being, biodiversity and climate adaptation (McPhearson et al. 2016b). Similarly, urban metabolism analysis and ecosystem studies allow us to understand the behaviour of cities—such as energy and material flows, resource depletion, self-sufficiency, or, external dependency, regulating mechanisms—as human-dominated, complex social-ecological system (Bai 2016). This also addresses interactions across multiple urban systems, such as energy, water and food, and how, for instance, rapid changes in electricity systems have knock-on effects for urban mobility, district heating or housing systems (Chen and Chen 2016; Chelleri et al. 2015). The relational geography perspective puts forth a more differentiated view of urban systems, zooming in on different boroughs, districts or neighbourhood and raising questions such as how innovation and change in one location affects neighbouring locations (Wachsmuth et al. 2016). Transformation by cities: cities as agents of change at global scale The third perspective on transformation by cities draws attention to the changes taking place on global and regional levels (e.g. rural hinterlands) as a result of urbanisation and urban development. This perspective positions cities as ‘agents of change’ at global scale (Acuto 2016). On the one hand, cities can be viewed as culprits driving global high emissions, resource depletion and unsustainability. On the other hand, cities have become key loci for trialling sustainable approaches and solutions to inform the global sustainability agenda (UN-Habitat 2016; Seto et al. 2017; Bai et al. 2018). As such, this perspective looks at the power and institutional leverage cities bring in global agendas for governance of climate change and in national agendas for governance of resources and land use change next to climate challenges. This perspective provides and requires big data from cities and their resource footprints, flows and dynamics so as to draw on patterns and

122  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

pathways for change that can inform and reinforce global agendas for action. It specifically highlights how the experiences and best practices showcased in cities are knowledge to be diffused and shared, for example through transnational city networks such as the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), C40 and 100 Resilient Cities. It raises questions about how transformations travel between places and across scales: about how and why governance strategies such as experimentation, best practices or imaginaries have been taken up globally (Nagorny-Koring 2018). 4.2.2   Urban Transformations Under Climate Change Climate change alters the face of urban transformations in a dramatic way. Climate change exemplifies the unsustainability of current urban development pathways: activities and behaviours in cities are key contributors to climate change, propelling the urgency for radical and sustainable change (Satterthwaite 2008; Dodman 2009). While cities are frequently held to produce about 75–80% of global GHG emissions (Satterthwaite 2008), establishing appropriate calculation processes for estimating the emissions from cities remains challenging and depends on how the boundaries for emission accounting are being set and the approaches used (i.e. consumption-based or production-based approaches). Different scopes of emission accounting can yield very different estimations, depending on whether they for example include emissions embodied in electricity, products and services produced and imported from outside a city’s geographical boundary (Dodman 2009; Satterthwaite 2008). For example, Castán Broto (2017) criticises the lack of data disaggregation, which obscures the differentiation of emissions within cities, the urban–rural linkages that characterise land transformations and the inaccuracies inherent to carbon accounting. With this in mind, it is important to bring to our attention the social and economic root causes driving high-emission trajectories and vulnerabilities to climate change impacts in cities, including individual values, built urban structures, human behaviours, incentive structures, institutions and economic opportunity (Ürge-Vorsatz et al. 2018; Rosenzweig et al. 2015). Current patterns of urban land use, infrastructures, transportation systems and resource consumption drive GHG emissions (Sharifi and Yamagata 2015; Ürge-Vorsatz et al. 2018). Similarly, the

4  NAVIGATING TRANSFORMATIONS UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE … 

123

ways cities are currently designed undermine their ability to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Many cities are located on floodplains, in dry areas, or, on coasts, but existing water management systems are not able to store excessive storm water, thus exacerbating flood risk (Carter et al. 2015; Romero-Lankao and Dodman 2011; Bai et al. 2018). In addition, urban hazards brought about by climate change (e.g. changing temperature patterns, heat waves, drought, sea-level rise and heavy storms) will increase in severity and frequency, and they will fundamentally challenge urban infrastructures, the built environment and urban ecosystems (IPCC 2014; Revi et al. 2014; Carter et al. 2015; Rosenzweig et al. 2015). Finally, addressing climate change affects multiple other policy priorities (Koch et al. 2016). Transforming a city’s energy system raises questions of affordability and acceptability (Rink et al. 2018). There is a strong relationship between social stratification and climate vulnerability in cities as economically disadvantaged groups and ethnic and racial minorities tend to live in more hazard-prone, and crowded parts of cities (Rosenzweig et al. 2015; Reckien et al. 2017). 4.2.3   Urban Transformations Towards Sustainability and Resilience Current debates on urban transformations share the concern of how urbanisation and urban development can be navigated in a way that achieves and maintains a high level of social and environmental ­well-being in cities and reduces the negative global footprint of cities. The complex nature of social, environmental and climate challenges associated with contemporary urban transformation processes requires systemic and radical changes, especially in transport, energy, water, land use, consumption patterns and lifestyles (Ürge-Vorsatz et al. 2018; RomeroLankao et al. 2018b; Koch et al. 2016). This has spurred an interest in urban sustainability and resilience transformations that unlock new development pathways for reinventing cities to be more sustainable, inclusive, attractive, prosperous, safe and environmentally healthy (Elmqvist et al. 2018; Kabisch et al. 2018; Frantzeskaki et al. 2018b; Rudd et al. 2018; McCormick et al. 2013). Science and policy communities have taken up sustainability and resilience as complementary key concepts for assessing urban transformation processes and orienting them towards desirable directions (see also Hölscher and Frantzeskaki, Chapter 1, this volume; Pickett et al. 2014;

124  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

Simon et al. 2018; Kabisch et al. 2018). Both concepts are enshrined in the 2030 UN SDGs (UN 2016) and the New Urban Agenda (UN-Habitat 2016), and cities employ ‘urban sustainability’ and ‘urban resilience’ as frames to inform urban planning and regeneration programmes (Elmqvist et al. 2019). Rather than succumbing to a pessimistic narrative of cities, the notion of urban transformations towards sustainability and resilience emphasises the need for normative, systemic and long-term orientations for steering ongoing urban transformation processes towards desirable directions by focusing collective solution finding efforts and by guiding for short-term and mid-term actions (Loorbach et al. 2015; Koch et al. 2016). In other words, sustainability and resilience in cities can be achieved through processes of transformation (Kabisch et al. 2018). While indicating end points, urban transformations are ongoing processes without a fixed state or end point (Pickett et al. 2014; Elmqvist 2014). In addition, what ‘desirability’ means in specific contexts and how it is achieved is contested and thus needs to be socially negotiated, recognising the diversity of pathways towards a desirable city (Meerow et al. 2016; Kabisch et al. 2018). Similarly, while notions of sustainability and resilience are integrative, allowing to connect diverse objectives and searching for systemic solutions (Burch et al. 2018), this is not to veil trade-offs between sustainability and resilience. For example, in the sustainability discourse dense urban centres are desirable, however, the tight connectivity within dense urban systems (i.e. in terms of population, infrastructure, social ties, biogeochemical and economic flows) can both contribute to, or erode resilience (McPhearson et al. 2014; Elmqvist et al. 2019). Climate change mitigation and adaptation have become important prerequisites of urban sustainability and resilience transformations (Rink et al. 2018). Urban sustainability and resilience cannot be met without explicitly recognising the contribution to global GHG emissions emanating from activities in cities as well as the vulnerabilities of urban populations, infrastructures, ecosystems and economic systems to the impacts of climate change (UN-Habitat 2016). Conversely, climate change cannot be addressed without understanding the larger context of urban transformation processes and how they affect sustainability and resilience. For example, climate change impacts are but one of many types of shocks and stresses that cities face, and climate change-related shocks typically

4  NAVIGATING TRANSFORMATIONS UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE … 

125

occur in combination with other environmental, social and economic stresses (Leichenko 2011). As such, climate change mitigation and adaptation in cities intersect with multiple policy domains and a diverse, and sometimes contradictory and competing, bundle of goals such as air pollution, social equity and economic development (Koch et al. 2016; Shaw et al. 2014; Castán Broto 2017). The embedding of climate change mitigation and adaptation within the endeavour to achieve urban sustainability and resilience transformations makes clear that climate mitigation and adaptation are no end goals in themselves. Rather, it opens up opportunities for integrating mitigation and adaptation with other goals associated with societal and environmental well-being and to contribute to the radical changes needed to achieve these goals (Simon et al. 2018; Burch et al. 2018; Shaw et al. 2014). In this way, actions to reduce GHG emissions and increase resilience can also enhance quality of life and social equity while avoiding locking a city into counterproductive infrastructures and policies. For example, climate adaptation actions that aim to reduce flood risk exposure link to the protection of cultural heritage, economic development and the planning of new recreation areas (McPhearson et al. 2016b; Wamsler 2015). There is also consensus that resilience and adaptation strategies should particularly address issues of structural vulnerability, justice and equity, because both the responsibility for climate change and how climate change affects people are not equally distributed (Tanner et al. 2009; Simon et al. 2018).

4.3  Which Shift in Urban (Climate) Governance? In the past years, cities have gained a high level of visibility as key arenas for battling climate change (Rudd et al. 2018; Castán Broto 2017; Acuto et al. 2018). Governance initiatives in cities to address climate change have started to proliferate in the 1990s and often go above and beyond the ambitions set by their respective nation states (van der Heijden 2018). Local governments have taken a leading role in formulating local emissions reductions and climate adaptation goals, but also actors from local communities, businesses, research institutes, regional and national governments, amongst others, generate knowledge, experiment with innovations and self-organise service provisions (Bulkeley 2010; Hughes et al. 2017; Burch et al. 2018).

126  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

This has come to be known as urban climate governance (Bulkeley 2010; Castán Broto 2017). We use the term ‘urban climate governance’ to refer to the activities taken by a range of actors (individuals, groups, networks, organisations) who have a role in developing and implementing climate mitigation and adaptation actions in urban systems, the interactions between these actions as well as the structural contexts that influence their effectiveness and feasibility. This section reviews existing urban climate governance efforts, including their emerging features and shortcomings, as well as the lock-ins of existing urban governance systems that pose barriers to addressing climate change. As such, it details the central research challenge this book addresses: the shortcomings of urban climate governance to date are symptoms of urban governance where service delivery goals, infrastructure and governance and decision-making processes are out-of-step with contemporary problems associated with urban transformations under climate change. 4.3.1   Features of Urban Climate Governance As national progress continues to lag, cities have taken a visible role in international climate negotiations (Gordon and Johnson 2017; Acuto et al. 2017; Bulkeley et al. 2012). Climate Summits for Local Leaders were held in parallel to the Paris Conference of Parties (COP) in 2015 and to COP22 in Marrakech in 2016,1 giving local actors the opportunity to influence international climate change negotiations (van der Heijden 2018). While until recently the global climate regime focused heavily on national commitments, the Paris Agreement marks a shift towards encouraging more bottom-up, decentralised and non-state climate governance (Chan et al. 2015; van Asselt et al. 2018; Abbott 2017). The momentum at the local scale is often driven by the desire of local governments, especially individual politicians or policy officers, to address climate change and its local impacts, as well as to put pressure on climate change policies at a national level (Moloney and Horne 2015; Bulkeley 2010). Initial efforts in cities that started in the 1990s, predominantly in North America and Europe, related mainly to climate 1 At COP22 in Marrakech in 2016 it was the Climate Summit of Local and Regional Leaders.

4  NAVIGATING TRANSFORMATIONS UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE … 

127

mitigation (van der Heijden 2018; Nordgren et al. 2016; Moloney and Horne 2015; Bulkeley 2010). By now, thousands of cities worldwide and a number of joint city initiatives have pledged substantial emissions reductions, such as the C40 network2 and the Global Covenant of Mayors3 (Moloney and Horne 2015). The emissions reductions goals set by local governments often exceed the ambitions of the states in which they are embedded (Gordon and Johnson 2017; van der Heijden 2018). For example, the city of Sydney seeks to cut emissions by 70% from 2006 levels by 2030. New York City (NYC) aims to cut by 80% below 2005 levels by 2050. Both ambitions are more than double than those of their respective countries (van der Heijden 2018). A small number of so-called 100% communities cities of various European countries have set the target to become CO2-neutral (Rink et al. 2018). The current mitigation discourse centres on the concept of a ­‘low-carbon city’, which ‘pursues a step-by-step approach towards carbon neutrality, urban resilience and energy security, supporting an active green economy and stable green infrastructure’ (ICLEI 2016; cf. Simon et al. 2018). To identify sources of emissions and opportunities for reductions, many cities have created baseline GHG emissions inventories and sustainability portfolios (Simon et al. 2018). Measures to reduce municipal and residential emissions include initiatives to improve energy efficiencies in built infrastructures, encourage alternative modes of transportation and urban food production, and integrate green infrastructure into the urban landscape for carbon sequestration (Simon et al. 2018; Bulkeley 2010). This is largely achieved by the implementation of

2 The C40 Cities Leadership network is an example of a transnational city network focused on facilitating climate change action at the municipal level. Established in 2006, C40 currently includes 90 municipalities from 50 countries around the world (C40 2018; Lee 2018). With the support of steering committee cities, the C40 member cities organise conferences and workshops to promote partnerships and learning (Lee 2018). 3 The European Commission launched the Covenant of Mayors in 2008 to endorse and support local and regional governments in the implementation of sustainable energy policies. Signatories of the Covenant of Mayors voluntarily commit to increasing energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy (EU Covenant of Mayors 2008). In October 2015, the Covenant of Mayors merged with the Compact of Mayors for Climate and Energy to form the Global Covent of Mayors. So far more than 9000 cities worldwide have committed to the Global Covenant of Mayors, and thus to the goal to promote and support voluntary action to combat climate change and move to a low-carbon and resilient society (Global Covenant of Mayors 2018).

128  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

regulation especially of environmental policy, the provision of subsidies and the establishment of low-carbon infrastructure (Moloney and Horne 2015; Bulkeley 2010). The City Council of Vienna (Austria) adopted a Climate Protection Programme as a framework for its Eco-Business plan, which resulted in significant reductions in solid waste, toxic solid wastes, emissions and water use and which was also adopted in Chennai (India) and Athens (Greece) (McCarney et al. 2011). Regarding the transportation sector, the government of Mexico City has implemented an obligatory school transportation system to ensure that students take public transportation to school (ibid.). Urban climate adaptation has received more recent, yet significantly growing attention in academia and policy in response to more frequent and often more severe occurrences of extreme events, including intense rains and floods, hurricanes and storm surges, and heat waves (Simon et al. 2018; McCarney et al. 2011; Carter et al. 2015; Rosenzweig et al. 2015). Resilience has become a key lens to approach climate change adaptation, which is then often framed as ‘climate-proofing’ to protect valuable assets and reduce city’s vulnerability (Leichenko 2011; Torabi et al. 2018; Simon et al. 2018). The 100 Resilient Cities programme by the Rockefeller Foundation is a notable effort to support cities worldwide become more resilient in relation to physical, social and economic challenges and including shocks (e.g. earthquakes, floods) and stresses (e.g. high unemployment, inefficient public transport, chronic food and water shortages) (100 Resilient Cities 2018; Simon et al. 2018). The commitment of cities to resilience is manifest by the continuation of their efforts and city-to-city exchanges through the bottom-up formation of the Resilience Cities Movement in the aftermath of the 100 Resilient Cities programme. Adaptation actions include the identification and assessment of long-term risks, vulnerabilities and uncertainties, as well as generating more nuanced understandings of the drivers of these risks and vulnerabilities, for example by developing flood maps (Simon et al. 2018; Torabi et al. 2018; Tanner et al. 2009). Urban adaptation and risk mitigation responses encompass a range of approaches at multiple scales (e.g. city-wide, neighbourhood) and in relation to diverse sectors (e.g. water management, health, infrastructure, transport, land use planning) (Rosenzweig et al. 2015). Adaptation measures often include either soft or hard infrastructure changes, or a combination of both ­(Romero-Lankao et  al. 2018b; Torabi et al. 2018). For example, cool

4  NAVIGATING TRANSFORMATIONS UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE … 

129

pavements and roofs are installed, urban vegetation is increased, electricity installations in flood areas are heightened and sea walls or levees are constructed to reduce the risk of floods and heat waves (Romero-Lankao et al. 2018b; Wamsler et al. 2013). Nature-based solutions including natural wetlands restoration or river re-naturalisation become increasingly popular as more cost-efficient, multifunctional and flexible approaches than ‘hard adaptation’ (Romero-Lankao et al. 2018b; Frantzeskaki and Tillie 2014; Frantzeskaki et al. 2019; McPhearson et al. 2014). Zoning regulations and building code adaptations, which incorporate a future level of risk in planning (e.g. 1-in-100-year flood levels) are key tools for local governments to avoid high-risk areas (Torabi et al. 2018; Lonsdale et al. 2015). While climate mitigation and adaptation initially have been addressed as isolated objectives, there is an increasing emphasis of mainstreaming mitigation and adaptation into departmental decision-making and planning processes (Runhaar et al. 2018; Aylett 2015; den Exter et al. 2014). In a way it seems that climate change as a policy priority by itself is due to its systemic nature driving a change in urban governance by prompting more long-term, integrated, experimental and multi-actor approaches (Johnson et al. 2015; Castán Broto 2017). The ways in which multiple actors in cities have taken up and advanced urban climate governance signify several distinct features of urban climate governance, which affect urban governance more generally. These features are similar to those in the global climate governance landscape (see Hölscher and Frantzeskaki, Chapter 1, this volume). Hybridisation of actors and networks within polycentric urban climate governance structures While local governments often initiate, oversee and implement urban climate strategies, action and experimentation, a multifarious number of actors from local communities, businesses, transnational networks and regional and national governments contribute to delivering urban climate action (Hughes et al. 2017; Castán Broto 2017; Frantzeskaki et al. 2014; Bulkeley 2010; Homsey and Warner 2015). Citizens started to act as active innovators and self-service providers (Frantzeskaki et al. 2016), small-medium enterprises established sustainable businesses to showcase sustainability in practice (Burch et al. 2016), research-industry collaborations develop innovative technologies (Farrelly and Bos 2018) and

130  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

c­ommunity-based organisations play a significant role in carbon reduction and community-based adaptation initiatives (Cowan and Hogan 2014; Chu et al. 2017; Archer et al. 2014). Additionally, as urban climate governance is inherently multi-level, regional, national and international regulatory bodies influence and at times lead and deliver urban climate governance by providing legislation, incentives and resources (Hughes et al. 2017; Fuhr et al. 2018; Keskitalo et al. 2016; Bulkeley and Betsill 2013). The multi-actor nature of urban climate governance has resulted in a diffuse and polycentric urban climate governance architecture, which means that ‘multiple governing authorities at different scales’ exercise ‘considerable independence to make norms and rules within a specific domain’ (Ostrom 2010: p. 552). Public and private actors at local, regional, national and international scales come together in deliberate and partnership-based processes to jointly develop and implement climate action in cities (Bulkeley 2010; Homsey and Warner 2015; Frantzeskaki et al. 2017). Notable is also the proliferation of multiple forms of transnational city networks such as the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), C40 and 100 Resilient Cities. Such networks facilitate knowledge exchange and inter-city learning, foster the creation of collective goals, lobby for international attention, and enable the transplantation of innovative, sustainable and resilient policy and planning approaches (Acuto et al. 2017; Lee 2018; Mejía-Dugand et al. 2016). Integrating climate change mitigation and adaptation with sustainability and resilience goals Local governments have started to frame climate mitigation and adaptation as opportunities for enhancing liveability, economic development and well-being in cities. This is visible in the formulation of long-term and integrated climate, sustainability and resilience plans, which build on a systemic understanding of city-specific and long-term effects of climate change alongside other risks (Shaw et al. 2014; Aylett 2015). For example, in NYC Mayor Bloomberg (2002–2014) has ignited a city-wide agenda on sustainability and climate mitigation by commissioning the cross-cutting PlaNYC in 2007, which tied goals such as emissions reductions, improving air quality, managing population growth, modernising infrastructure and the city’s long-term liveability and global competitiveness (NYC 2007). When Mayor de Blasio took office in 2014, he issued

4  NAVIGATING TRANSFORMATIONS UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE … 

131

‘One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City’ (OneNYC) (NYC 2015), introducing affordable housing and social equity as top priorities for resilience and sustainability. Aylett (2015) shows based on a survey of 350 cities across five continents that most cities are integrating mitigation and adaptation into other types of long-range (e.g. sustainable development, community planning) and sectoral plans (e.g. spatial development, transportation). The integration of climate change with broader sustainability and resilience agendas facilitates the mainstreaming of climate change across policy sectors and the development of systemic climate actions (McPhearson et al. 2017; Shaw et al. 2014). Mitigation actions are often explicitly linked to environmental and social justice agendas (Castán Broto 2017; Bulkeley et al. 2013), while adaptation actions often relate to broader discourses of resilience, which highlight the systemic challenges and structural conditions that influence people’s ability to cope with climate impacts and risks (McPhearson et al. 2015; Wamsler and Brink 2014; Bartlett and Satterthwaite 2016; Pelling and Manuel-Navarrete 2011). The mainstreaming of climate mitigation and adaptation through for example their integration into on-the-ground operations and the modification of formal and informal planning procedures can ensure that local sustainability initiatives are designed to also deliver mitigation and adaptation objectives—even though mainstreaming has so far been mainly limited to policy output rather than outcome (den Exter et al. 2014; Runhaar et al. 2018). Experimenting with learning-based urban climate governance approaches for innovation, flexibility and collaboration In many instances, urban climate governance stepped away from traditional urban governance that is based on short-term and control style policy and planning approaches with limited opportunities for collaboration and participation. Local governments have created institutional space for inclusive, collaborative and learning-based approaches such as experimentation, co-creation and social innovation (Castán Broto 2017; Frantzeskaki and Kabisch 2016). For example, climate governance experimentation has been a central means for the testing of innovative and multifunctional climate solutions in out-of-mainstream governance settings that allow collaborative learning between multiple actors (Castán Broto and Bulkeley 2013; Nevens et al. 2013; Evans et al. 2016).

132  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

Experimentation has been appraised as an open-ended way for trialling new, agile and responsive solutions that translate distant sustainability targets into concrete actions, enable dealing with the significant uncertainties and complexities of climate change and urban transformations and contribute to the radical changes necessary for achieving sustainability and resilience (Castán Broto and Bulkeley 2013; Karvonen 2018). Knowledge co-creation is ‘an effort to draw on diverse knowledge’ (Wyborn 2015 p. 57). Given that in cities, knowledge about problems, needs, solutions and institutions lies in diverse actors, c­o-production has become a novel form of collaborative urban governance to address complex urban problems in an inclusive way, develop and scale innovations that address local needs, build new partnerships and mobilise and empower urban actors (Muñoz-Erickson et al. 2017; Frantzeskaki and Kabisch 2016; Frantzeskaki and Rok 2018). Such governance approaches essentially seek to facilitate social learning for making urban governance a joint process of discovery for better urban futures: they allow for new types of relationships and interactions as well as empowerment of diverse actors and the generation of innovative, multifunctional and fit-to-context solutions (von Wirth et al. 2014; Loorbach et al. 2015; Hölscher et al. 2019a). Experiments facilitate the emergence and diffusion of new technologies to direct changes in the built environment and infrastructures, but experimentation also relates to broader learning outcomes in terms of changed discourses, practices, policies and institutions (Kivimaa et al. 2017; Wolfram et al. 2017). Co-creation allows for deep participation to leverage and weave together local, expert and tacit knowledge (Frantzeskaki and Kabisch 2016; Devolder and Block 2015), as well as to account for competing value systems (Gulsrud et al. 2018). Coordinating structures for synergistic polycentric urban climate governance across scales and sectors Research shows the emergence of new governance structures and processes to facilitate cross-scale and cross-sectoral coordination, collaboration and mainstreaming of climate governance activities (Hodson et al. 2013; den Exter et al. 2014). This has become necessary because climate mitigation and adaptation do not fit neatly in existing institutional siloes and because of the increasingly polycentric urban climate governance landscape (Aylett 2015; Hughes et al.

4  NAVIGATING TRANSFORMATIONS UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE … 

133

2017). Coordination has thus started to accompany decentralised and hybrid climate governance activities to start initiatives when needed, pool resources and knowledge, and ensure monitoring (den Exter et al. 2014; Pahl-Wostl and Knieper 2014; Hodson and Marvin 2010; Frantzeskaki et al. 2014). Urban climate governance coordination is visible in diverse new governance structures, mechanisms and processes. Local governments often lead urban climate governance coordination, establishing formal and informal structures and processes to motivate, support and mainstream climate governance actions (den Exter et al. 2014; Frantzeskaki et al. 2014). Many cities have set up central bodies, such as climate and/ or sustainability offices, that centrally coordinate climate-relevant concerns, seek to anchor responsibilities for climate action across the whole municipal body and reach out to and build partnerships across governance scales and with private actors (den Exter et al. 2014; Aylett 2015). In some cities, these bodies and offices are located within environmental departments, but stronger approaches for coordination are enabled by the cross-cutting establishment of such offices (den Exter et al. 2014). Next to local governments, intermediaries facilitate coordination by creating convening spaces for face-to-face contact, articulating expectations and visions, building social networks as well as gathering, processing and brokering knowledge (Hodson et al. 2013; Kivimaa 2014; Castán Broto 2017; Gliedt et al. 2018). Urban climate governance scholars highlight intermediation as a key mechanism to align, motivate and support urban climate governance activities by mediating knowledge and resources, mainstreaming climate change, convening strategy formulation processes and building trust (Hodson and Marvin 2010; Frantzeskaki et al. 2014). Similarly, Dąbrowski (2017) analyses how multiple actors at different scales of governance engage in boundary spanning as a way to coordinate cooperation on climate adaptation across horizontal (boundaries between sectoral policies) and vertical (boundaries between levels of government) dimensions. Abbott (2017) analyse ‘orchestration’ as an indirect mode of strategic ordering in polycentric climate governance: ‘An orchestrator (O) works through like-minded intermediaries (I), catalysing their formation, encouraging and assisting them, and steering their activities through support and other incentives, to govern targets (T) in line with the orchestrator’s goals (O-I-T)’ (Abbott 2017: p. 2).

134  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

4.3.2   Urban Climate Governance Gaps Despite the proliferation of urban climate governance ambitions and activities, urban climate governance to date has failed to deliver the radical and effective actions necessary to reduce emissions and protect from climate impacts, let alone to create stepping stones for improving social and environmental well-being in the long-term (Rink et al. 2018). The amount of emissions induced in cities still goes up and many adaptation actions have no effect, or, are mal-adaptive because they actually increase risk (Lonsdale et al. 2015; Torabi et al. 2018). From a critical analysis and interrogation of the research published on urban climate change governance, we derive four governance gaps that are manifestations of the limited effectiveness of existing urban climate governance approaches and showcase where new knowledge about innovation and sustainability transitions can have impact in rethinking and shaping new governance tools and actions. We have identified the following four interrelated governance gaps and we content that the list is not finite but rather conceptualised from our understanding on urban climate governance in the context of transformations. For every one of these gaps we provide an explanation and positioning on how research on transformations can elucidate it further. Mainstreaming gap: Climate change, sustainability and resilience goals and agendas are not mainstreamed into dominant urban governance practice across scales and sectors. Climate change, sustainability and resilience goals and agendas so far remain relatively meaningless because they are not consistently and decisively translated into institutional frameworks, governance approaches, financing mechanisms and practices that change incentive structures, organisational ways of working and individual behaviours (den Exter et al. 2014; Wamsler 2015; Runhaar et al. 2018). As such, climate mitigation and adaptation remain merely add-on priorities to business-as-usual policy and planning. For example, climate change is still communicated as an additional and separate aspect rather than as a cross-cutting issue and is thus perceived as but one of many issues (Wamsler et al. 2013; Rosenzweig et al. 2015). This concerns the local governance agenda, but also national policies that do not consistently integrate climate change into national policy frameworks (Moloney and

4  NAVIGATING TRANSFORMATIONS UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE … 

135

Horne 2015). This results in a disconnect between sectoral urban policies and those focused on climate change. Climate action still frequently draws the short straw when competing with ‘pressing’ urban needs (Ürge-Vorsatz et al. 2018; Gouldson et al. 2015). Rather than inspiring systemic efforts to transform urban systems the multitude of urban climate responses can be characterised as an ad hoc and patchwork mosaic (Bulkeley et al. 2012). Additionally, even the most formidable efforts for climate mitigation, climate adaptation and sustainability are continually countered by the negative effects and externalities of other policy areas. Rather than enabling synergies between different goals, the lack of mainstreaming climate change as a cross-cutting and systemic issue results in counteractive investments. For example, continued investments in mal-adaptive infrastructure such as the development of building areas in flood-prone areas are at odds with the implementation of climate-resilient building codes, and flood zones retreat (Torabi et al. 2018; Rosenzweig et al. 2015). Incrementalism gap: Climate change mitigation and adaptation actions are developed in an incremental and technocratic way that favours short-term, reactive approaches. The shortcomings of urban climate mitigation and adaptation are also reflected in how mitigation and adaptation are framed and approached. Transformative responses that create the required shifts in energy, water, transportation, land use regimes, production and consumption practices and worldviews target the underlying drivers of resource use, emissions and vulnerability (Romero-Lankao et al. 2018b). Examples include a shift from centralised, fossil fuel-based electricity to decentralised, rooftop solar energy, or integrating disaster risk management with a pro-poor urban development agenda (ibid.). However, research on mitigation and adaptation action in cities has shown that both are often developed building on paradigms of incrementalism and technocracy, which are unable to create stepping stones for radical and systemic change but rather perpetuate path-dependency and mal-adaptation (Moloney and Horne 2015; Torabi et al. 2018; Nordgren et al. 2016). For example, approaches to mitigation are generally focusing on technical efficiency and market rationales (e.g. technical solutions to reduce energy use, financial incentives) (Moloney and Horne 2015). While people are typically targeted through information, training and

136  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

incentives, this is not able to achieve social change in for example energy use, eating or transport patterns (ibid.; Olazabal et al. 2014). As Moloney and Horne (2015: p. 2450) illustrate, ‘encouraging people in greenfield areas to reduce their car use is a waste of time if we continue to plan new suburbs with little or no alternative transport options. Likewise, reducing energy use in houses with rapidly increasing floor areas driven by the latest trends in renovations and design is also challenging’. Similarly, climate adaptation in cities is primarily framed in terms of the need to protect valuable assets and vulnerability reduction (Nordgren et al. 2016; Torabi et al. 2018). Many climate adaptation measures are ‘hard’ technological interventions (e.g. building a seawall or levy) that aim to reduce hazard exposure and vulnerability of buildings and infrastructures without accounting for and connecting with the social, cultural, economic, political and institutional characteristics of cities (Birkmann et al. 2010; Wamsler et al. 2013; McPhearson et al. 2015). Such adaptation initiatives often fail to address issues related to the unequal distribution of climate impacts (Nordgren et al. 2016; Aylett 2015; Reckien et al. 2014). Adaptation approaches often address ­climate-related impacts in the short- to midterm and are unable to manage future climate risk (Torabi et al. 2018; Lonsdale et al. 2015). For example, the incorporation of the level of acceptable risk in planning (e.g. 1 ­ -in-100-year flood level) and the upgrade of zoning regulations building codes accordingly are often inadequate for dealing with projected future climate change, incur high costs of replacement and can lock in communities in mal-adaptive pathways (Torabi et al. 2018). Innovation gap: Innovative experiments and pilot projects remain stand-alone initiatives that do not inform nor scale up to dominant policy and planning practice. Recent research has raised the question of how to move ‘beyond experimentation’ (Turnheim et al. 2018; Kivimaa et al. 2017). The aspiration to inform and acquire new ways of problem-solving implies some sort of learning about what the tested innovations bring about in the policy mix of cities (Luederitz et al. 2017; Raven et al. 2017). This concerns issues about the types of processes and practices that result from experimentation and what impacts they bring about in urban

4  NAVIGATING TRANSFORMATIONS UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE … 

137

governance. So far, innovative urban climate experiments often remain disconnected from more formalised and mainstream urban policy and planning processes, which is embodied in the ‘pilot paradox’ (van Buuren et al. 2018). This repeatedly results in stand-alone innovations that do not inform policy and planning, rendering their impact and legitimacy contested (Ansell and Bartenberger 2016; Evans 2016). Another aspect of this governance gap is the lack of integration of solution-oriented thinking in climate adaptation and mitigation practice that relates to the mainstreaming gap described earlier. The focus on reactive approaches and dominance of ‘fixes’ limits the scope of solution finding processes and diverts the learning and innovation to rather optimising existing solutions than discovering or co-creating new ones. This is prevalent in the limited impact that urban climate experiments have in framing or even informing urban governance agendas in many cities despite their proliferation over the years. The main barrier is the focus on optimising existing solutions and ‘shutting down’ disruptive ideas and solutions (Hach and Hansen 2019; Fuenfschilling et al. 2019; Kern 2019; Smedby and Quitzau 2016). This issue is also pertaining how innovation diffuses in policy agendas and how the institutional landscape of local governance relates to innovators overall (also discussed in the following governance gap). The limited knowledge about the ‘becoming’ of urban climate experiments also raises issues about their legitimacy. Urban experiments do not necessarily allow for plural participation and not all social interests have equal abilities to shape them (Hodson et al. 2018; Evans 2016; Jhagroe 2016). Current approaches to experimentation often underpin a paradigm of competitive urbanism that conforms to existing neoliberal rationalities, ‘hence protecting and extending market relations rather than fundamentally questioning them’ (Hölscher et al. 2018, p. 138). Politics gap: Urban climate mitigation and adaptation are often framed as apolitical and technical, without paying attention to underlying power structures and structural vulnerabilities. Researchers repeatedly point out that urban climate governance interventions do not sufficiently take issues of existing power relations and equity into account (Jhagroe 2016; Matyas and Pelling 2014; Chu et al. 2017). Addressing climate change in the context of urban transformations requires far-reaching societal and political choices that have

138  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

strong normative and contested content that requires profound societal deliberation (Nordgren et al. 2016; Nevens et al. 2013; Jabareen 2013). While there is a tendency within public sector authorities to treat climate change action as apolitical and technical, urban political and economic forces influence how mitigation and adaptation interventions are being framed (Chu et al. 2017; Romero-Lankao et al. 2018b). For example, cities often compete with each other to market themselves as climate-friendly city and attract investors (van der Heijden 2018). While this serves the interest to increase economic prosperity, create jobs and gain votes, it does raise the question about whether climate and sustainability ambitions are pursued decisively (ibid.). Powerful economic actors associated with the property development industry lobby state governments on planning instrument (e.g. zoning, performance regulations) and projects (Newton et al. 2017). Also, as stated above, urban climate experiments seem to generally conform to existing neoliberal rationalities, hence protecting and extending market relations rather than fundamentally questioning them (Evans 2016; Jhagroe 2016). As a result, initiatives do not address the source of the problem and they do not necessarily deliver optimal city-wide or community benefit (Newton et al. 2017). In this vein, Chu et al. (2017) conclude that climate action must explicitly consider the powerful and often entrenched political and economic interests that constrain urban equity at large. This requires an understanding of the factors that determine structural inequalities to ensure that mitigation and adaptation burdens are not placed upon those that are least able to afford them but at the same time often bear a disproportionate level of explore and risk to climate change impacts. While there has been an increased recognition for the role of the private sector and public–private partnerships, these partnerships have been accused of being anti-democratic, excluding already marginalised urban groups and reinforcing power imbalances (Tanner et al. 2009; Reckien et al. 2017). 4.3.3   Urban Governance Lock-ins These shortcomings of urban climate governance are symptoms of a deeper running problem: they are symptoms of urban governance where service delivery goals, physical infrastructure and administration and decision-making processes are out-of-step with contemporary problems and demands for integrated, long-term and flexible solutions and

4  NAVIGATING TRANSFORMATIONS UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE … 

139

responses (Frantzeskaki et al. 2018b; Bettini 2013). While urban climate governance can be found in cities worldwide, cities have different types of capacities, challenges and opportunities to address climate change and sustainability (Castán Broto 2017). A common challenge everywhere is to overcome the institutional, organisational, economic, political, technological and cultural barriers associated with existing urban governance regimes (Torabi et al. 2018; Bettini 2013). As such, the gaps of urban climate governance relate to different types of lock-ins, i.e. initial conditions that have developed inertial resistance to change, reinforce path-dependency in technical, institutional and behavioural systems. It is important to investigate and understand these lock-ins as patterns of resistance to change that inhibit innovation and competitiveness of low-carbon, sustainable and resilient alternatives (cf. Seto et al. 2016). These lock-ins are mutually reinforcing and create collective inertia (ibid.). From the critical analysis of the current literature of climate change governance from a transformations’ perspective, we conceptualise five lock-ins: (a) institutional lock-in, (b) political economy lock-in, (c) organisational lock-in, (d) technological lock-in and (e) demand-side lock-in. These lock-ins are important to position in the context of transformations as patterns of system’s behaviour that do not respond to current objectives and needs of cities. It is these lock-ins that further lock cities in undesirable states of present and future if not addressed with a transformation perspective. Our elaboration of every lock-in aims to provide that and to invite future academic and policy dialogue about their drivers and ways to steer clear from them. Institutional lock-in: siloed decision-making and jurisdictions impede horizontal and vertical coordination and collaboration necessary for addressing climate change and implementing urban climate governance (actions). The cross-cutting nature of climate change, sustainability and resilience exposes the institutional path-dependencies that have been created through the siloed and compartmentalised nature of decision-making (Romero-Lankao et al. 2018b; McCarney et al. 2011). While approaches to climate mitigation and adaptation need to be holistic and comprehensive, expertise required to address climate change and sustainability challenges is scattered across sectoral agencies, utilities and governance

140  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

scales (den Exter et al. 2014; Fröhlich and Knieling 2013). Additionally, actors across city departments, levels of government and policy sectors often have varied visions, values, interests and decision-making power (Romero-Lankao et al. 2018b). This makes it hard to mainstream and coordinate climate change action both vertically across multiple levels of governance and horizontally across the city (McCarney et al. 2011; Romero-Lankao et al. 2018b; Moloney and Horne 2015). A main barrier for horizontal inter-jurisdictional coordination across the city to address climate change in synergy with other policy priorities and goals is the historic compartmentalisation of city services into different functional sectors (e.g. water supply waste, energy, mobility, health) (Runhaar et al. 2018; Bettini 2013; Anguelovski et al. 2014). While the compartmentalisation has grown out of the sought for efficiency, it has resulted in institutional fragmentation, lack of communication and conflicts of interests across city departments (Bettini 2013; Pickett et al. 2014; Romero-Lankao and Dodman 2011). Environmental departments often have limited remit over and capacity to implement actions in key sectors like energy, transportation and water, and have to compete for resources from other planning programmes and projects ­(Romero-Lankao et  al. 2018b; Anguelovski et al. 2014; Aylett 2015). The siloed approaches are deeply engrained in organisational cultures and determine how responses are developed, designed and maintained. Intersectoral cooperation ‘goes against the grain of most government systems. Councillors and officers, usually representing specific disciplinary areas and professional groups, may want to defend their sector’s interests and compete’ (Pradad et al. 2009: p. 69, cf. Frantzeskaki 2016). If there are mainstreaming activities these are limited to the strategic policy level, but this ‘high-level-talk’ does not permeate to the daily operational work (Wamsler et al. 2013). The legal and institutional frameworks at regional, national and international scales determine the extent to which urban climate actions are legitimised, prioritised and incentivised and require vertical coordination and collaboration across governance levels (Romero-Lankao et al. 2018b; Runhaar et al. 2018; Keskitalo et al. 2016). However, regulations and laws at national and regional levels often impede local efforts to address climate change and sustainability rather than motivate and support them (Nordgren et al. 2016; Newton et al. 2017; Moloney and Horne 2015). As illustrated by Moloney and Horne (2015), in Victoria, Australia, local energy efficiency agendas conflict with state energy policy

4  NAVIGATING TRANSFORMATIONS UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE … 

141

that supports the continued growth of the fossil fuel industry. Similarly, sustainable transport policies in cities conflict with the continued support for private transport-led road construction (ibid.). Political and jurisdictional differences often interfere with a more integrative and collaborative approach to urban planning and development (Newton et al. 2017). For example, the multi-scale implications of climate change can create jurisdictional conflicts over who can or must act on a specific initiative (Rosenzweig et al. 2015). Similarly, negative consequences or externalities of structural measures (e.g. dyke systems, relocation) manifesting not only in the city but also in the surrounding urban, peri-urban and rural areas need to be discussed and made transparent (Birkmann et al. 2010). Another underlying problem is that national and regional governments are themselves often compartmentalised in multiple ministries, each having roles and responsibilities in planning (e.g. industry, housing, transport, energy, education), being unwilling to share power and resources with cities and struggling to imagine integrated, cross-sectoral decision-making and planning (Newton et al. 2017; Rudd et al. 2018). Political economy lock-in: vested political and economic interests drive a focus on short-term optimisation rather than a ­long-term strategic planning focus that climate change requires. Powerful economic, social and political actors often seek to reinforce a status quo trajectory that favours their interests (Seto et al. 2016; Castán Broto 2017). This impedes a long-term orientation towards radical change. Party politics and markets tend towards securing shortterm interests and optimisation to provide quick fixes for short-term needs (Friend et al. 2014; Shaw et al. 2014; Romero-Lankao and Dodman 2011). The short-time horizons of politicians due to political cycles make it difficult to overturn policies and institutions of any sort, for example those in favour of fossil fuels (Seto et al. 2016; Gillard et al. 2016). Decisions are often made under time pressure while institutional rules that strengthen long-term and integrative policies for climate and sustainability action are costly to change and often politically vulnerable (Seto et al. 2016; Rink et al. 2018). The prevalent and relatively undisputed governance paradigm in cities is still a ‘governance-for-growth approach’, which is ‘relatively stable, with overarching coalitions between elected counsellors and private

142  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

companies whose aim is to combine resources and competences and initiated successful growth policy’ (Rink et al. 2018: p. 15). According to this paradigm, growth will create (new) jobs, generate investment and increase welfare through trickle-down effects. In this context, urban regimes have emerged, defined as ‘informal, yet relatively stable group with access to institutional resources that enable it to have a sustained role in making governing decisions’ (Stone 1989: p. 4; cf. Rink et al. 2018). These regimes have to some extent captured the transformation idea by reproducing the economic and political status quo under the disguise of sustainability. According to Rink et al. (2018), this is exemplified by the smart city concept, which is poorly defined and mainly focus on investment in modern information and telecommunication infrastructure to generate sustainable economic development and a high quality of life but failing to commit action for achieving urban sustainability. The failure to take a long-term perspective results in solutions that address symptoms of problems rather than their root causes, reinforce investments in unsustainable lock-ins and mal-adaptation and induce higher opportunity costs in the long-term (Torabi et al. 2018; Carter et al. 2015; Romero-Lankao and Dodman 2011). As long as business-as-usual is (financially) viable, sustainable business models ­ remain thin and climate and sustainability-related actions are perceived as more expensive and remain reliant on easy investments in low-hanging fruits that do not fundamentally challenge existing behaviours and interests (Ürge-Vorsatz et al. 2018; Gouldson et al. 2015). While some mitigation activities are taken by local governments because they pay off quickly, they often decide against activities that have high upfront investment costs and long payback periods (McCarney et al. 2011). Organisational lock-in: limited experience with, resources for and knowledge about effective urban climate governance. The third lock-in refers to the limited experience with, resources for and knowledge about effective urban climate governance. Knowledge gaps concern the lack of detailed information regarding the economic and social impacts of climate change as well as the lack of assistance in using that information to make a (financial, political, etc.) case for why climate action is warranted (Nordgren et al. 2016; Romero-Lankao et al. 2018b). Limited staffing capacity is for example visible in the lack of consistent monitoring activities to review emissions reductions and

4  NAVIGATING TRANSFORMATIONS UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE … 

143

evaluating adaptation activities (Nordgren et al. 2016), and the limited time allocated to learning for moving beyond experiments. Regarding the latter, moving beyond singular experiments requires the dedication of time and resources to identify, evaluate and translate lessons from specific innovations, such as about the viability, replicability and scalability, for their broader context (Ehnert et al. 2018). Finally, while many resources are available to support local climate mitigation and adaptation initiatives, practitioners struggle to find the resources that are the most useful given the specific context and needs (Nordgren et al. 2016; Torabi et al. 2018). This organisational lock-in is driven by the ways in which knowledge is created and shared and the ways organisational capacities and resources are developed. For example, while a lot of scientific information is already available, it is not easily made accessible and translated for use (Nordgren et al. 2016; Romero-Lankao et al. 2018b). Similarly, there is limited experience for making decisions in high uncertainty contexts that is a step-up from traditional scenario planning, which are exacerbated by lack of knowledge, vagueness of climate projections and multifaceted options for action (Fröhlich and Knieling 2013). Staffing capacity is reduced by increasing budget cuts of local governments, limited time and space for learning and a high turnover of staff (Nordgren et al. 2016). Researchers also noted a trend towards a ‘projectification of funding’ (Ehnert et al. 2018), which is reinforced by governments’ focus on cost-optimisation and effectiveness. However, this does not enable moving beyond initial seeds of innovative initiative and sustain them in the longer-term, replicate or scale them (ibid.). Similarly, Simon and Leck find that the time frame for most local participatory adaptation interventions exceeds most local election and donor funding cycles, which makes it difficult to persuade elected leaders and donor agencies to buy-in and (financially) support participatory processes. Technological lock-in: long life cycles and high investment costs of existing physical infrastructure. Technological lock-in refers to the tendency to optimise incumbent technologies and infrastructures rather than to innovate novels ones, because of the uncertainty of the new technology and the high levels of upfront investment costs (Geels 2002; cf. Bettini 2013; Seto et al. 2016). Technological lock-in is in part caused by the long-life of

144  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

infrastructures and the other lock-ins that are aversive to change and long-term investments (Seto et al. 2016; Loorbach et al. 2010; Moss ­ 2014). Because of the long life times of technologies and infrastructures, technological lock-ins persist over decades, or, even centuries. Seto et al. (2016) outline how energy demand patterns are locked in through large incremental investments in long-lasting built infrastructure, which inhibit energy efficiency measures. This involves the complex mix of carbon-emitting infrastructure (e.g. existing infrastructure such as vehicles, power plants), carbon-emissions supporting infrastructure (e.g. pipelines, refineries, gas stations) and energy-demanding infrastructure (e.g. buildings, transportation infrastructure). At the same time, the old age of infrastructures such as sewage, storm water drainage and roads increase vulnerability of many coastal cities to climate change impacts and demand radical changes (Torabi et al. 2018). Demand-side lock-in: existing individual behaviours and social practices are hard to change. Climate change mitigation and adaptation require considerable changes in cultures, values and individual behaviours (Torabi et al. 2018; Creutzig et al. 2016). Seto et al. (2016) refer to behavioural lock-in driving high GHG emissions as related to behaviours, habits and norms associated with the demand for energy-related goods and services, including human travel, consumption, living and travel patterns. This includes both individual behaviours (e.g. habits, risk avoidance) and socially shared practices that emerge from standardised travelling, heating and dietary routines (e.g. through social norms or road and building infrastructures) (ibid.). Similarly, climate adaptation can be constrained by a community’s desire to live close to the water, which exacerbates the pressure to develop low-lying waterfront land (Torabi et al. 2018). Demand-side constraints are related to a low level of awareness about climate-related risks and the urgency for action (Tanner et al. 2009; Romero-Lankao and Dodman 2011; Seto et al. 2016). So far, climate mitigation and adaptation policies and interventions focus on technological solutions, casting aside social practices (e.g. energy efficiency over energy conservation and changes in energy practices, low-emission vehicles over changes in mobility habits) (Moloney and Horne 2015; Seto et al. 2016). This is also because of the little understanding about how behavioural patterns and routine change and consensus about the

4  NAVIGATING TRANSFORMATIONS UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE … 

145

opportunities and ethical use of interventions to change habits. Since habits are followed outside of conscious cognitive processing, informational and awareness raising campaigns to change attitudes underpinning transport choices might not be effective. More successful interventions comply with the habit-discontinuity hypothesis, which posits that ‘behaviors are more pliable when a context change disrupts the routine’ (Seto et al. 2016).

4.4  Conclusion: Transforming Urban Climate Governance? As shown in the review above, urban climate governance has already driven a shift in urban governance towards more integrated, systemic, experimental and multi-actor approaches, but so far it has failed to deliver the radical and effective changes necessary to reduce emissions, protect from climate impacts and improve overall sustainability (Roberts et al. 2018; Torabi et al. 2018; Castán Broto 2017). As established governance and policy-making structures are unable to support transformative changes, significant changes of urban governance have to accompany, or, even precede a radical re-direction of urban development pathways towards sustainability and resilience (McCormick et al. 2013; Romero-Lankao et al. 2018b). The emerging features of urban climate governance vis-à-vis existing urban governance regimes, gaps and ­lock-ins, thus raise multiple questions, including how and by whom urban climate governance is developed and constrained, what new governance structures, arrangements and mechanisms emerge as a result, and whether these conditions indeed enable transformative climate governance (cf. Castán Broto 2017; Hodson et al. 2018). In this book, drawing on prior research (Hölscher 2019; Hölscher et al. 2019b, c, d), we seek to explain the development of urban climate governance and to assess whether it indeed manifests in capacities for transformative climate governance. In the following chapters of the book, we apply the capacities framework (Hölscher, Chapter 2, this volume) to explain how climate governance is developing in Rotterdam in Netherlands (Hölscher et al., Chapter 5, this volume) and NYC in the USA (Hölscher et al., Chapter 6, this volume), and to evaluate whether and how capacities for transformative climate governance are emerging. The comparative case study of capacities for transformative climate

146  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

governance in Rotterdam and NYC illustrates the utility of the framework for understanding how urban climate governance activities spur new types of capacities and enables drawing lessons on whether and how urban climate governance is transforming (Hölscher, Chapter 7, this volume). We looked at the development of climate governance in Rotterdam and NYC, because both are examples of cities providing global leadership and setting a standard for climate change adaptation and mitigation with ambitious and cross-cutting climate, sustainability and resilience agendas and a portfolio of innovative solutions for climate mitigation and adaptation (Solecki et al. 2016; Forgione et al. 2016; McPhearson et al. 2014; Ernst et al. 2016; Frantzeskaki and Tillie 2014; Depietri and McPhearson 2018): • In both cities, the city governments had formulated integrated, long-term and ambitious climate mitigation, climate adaptation, sustainability and resilience goals; • Both cities are undergoing significant formal and informal institutional changes and showcase institutional innovations (e.g. the creation of new and cross-cutting sustainability and resilience offices, establishment of new types of actor networks and partnerships); • In both cities, innovative solutions have been trialled through processes of experimentation at various scales: street-level, district and city-wide; • Both cities are members of the same transnational city networks to facilitate knowledge exchange on climate mitigation and adaptation and to enable peer learning or city-to-city learning (e.g. C40, 100 Resilient Cities). This offers insights into the emerging features of urban climate governance vis-à-vis existing urban governance regimes, including how and by whom urban climate governance is driven and constrained, what governance conditions emerge as a result, and whether these conditions indeed enable transformative climate governance.

4  NAVIGATING TRANSFORMATIONS UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE … 

147

References 100 Resilient Cities. (2018). About us. https://www.100resilientcities.org Accessed October 4, 2018. Abbott, K. (2017). Orchestration: Strategic ordering in polycentric climate governance. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2983512. Acuto, M. (2016). Give cities a seat at the top table. Nature, 537(7622), 611–613. Acuto, M., Morissettte, M., & Tsouros, A. (2017). City diplomacy: Towards more strategic networking? Learning with WHO health cities. Global Policy, 8(1), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12382. Acuto, M., Parnell, S., & Seto, K. C. (2018). Building a global urban science. Nature Sustainability, 1(2–4). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-017-0013-9. Alberti, M., McPhearson, T., & Gonzalez, A. (2018). Embracing urban complexity. In T. Elmqvist, X. Bai, N. Frantzeskaki, C. Griffith, D. Maddox, T. McPhearson, S. Parnell, P. Romero-Lankao, D. Simon, & M. Watkins (Eds.), Urban Planet: Knowledge towards sustainable cities (pp. 68–91). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Amin, A. (2004). Regions unbound: Towards a new politics of place. Geografiska Annaler, Series B: Human Geography, 86(1), 33–44. Amundsen, H., Hovelsrud, G. K., Aall, C., Karlsson, M., & Westskog, H. (2018). Local governments as drivers for societal transformation: Towards the 1.5°C ambition. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 31, 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.12.004. Anguelovski, I., & Carmin, J. (2011). Something borrowed, everything new: Innovation and institutionalization in urban climate governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3(3), 169–175. Anguelovski, I., Chu, E., & Carmin, J. (2014). Variations in approaches to urban climate adaptation: Experiences and experimentation from the global South. Global Environmental Change, 27, 156–167. Ansell, C., & Bartenberger, M. (2016). Varieties of experimentalism. Ecological Economics, 130, 64–73. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2475844. Archer, D., Almansi, F., DiGregorio, M., Roberts, D., Sharma, D., & Syam, D. (2014). Moving towards inclusive urban adaptation: Approaches to integrating community-based adaptation to climate change at city and national scale. Climate and Development, 6(4), 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565 529.2014.918868. Aylett, A. (2015). Institutionalizing the urban governance of climate change adaptation: Results of an international survey. Urban Climate, 14, 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2015.06.005. Bai, X. (2016). Eight energy and material flow characteristics of urban ecosystems. Ambio, 45(7), 819–830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0785-6.

148  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI Bai, X., McPhearson, T., Cleugh, H., Nagendra, H., Tong, X., Zhu, T., et al. (2017). Linking Urbanization and the Environment: Conceptual and Empirical Advances. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 42, 215– 240. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-061128. Bai, X., Dawson, R. J., Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Delgado, G. C., Barau, A. S., Dhakal, S., et al. (2018). Six research priorities for cities and climate change. Nature, 555(7694), 23–25. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-02409-z. Bartlett, S., & Satterthwaite, D. (2016). Cities on a finite planet: Towards transformative responses to climate change. Abingdon: Routledge. Bettini, Y. H. (2013). Adapting institutions: Processes and instruments behind urban water transitions (PhD thesis). School of Geography and Environmental Science, Monash University Melbourne. Birkmann, J., Garschagen, M., Kraas, F., & Quang, N. (2010). Adaptive urban governance: New challenges for the second generation of urban adaptation strategies to climate change. Sustainability Science, 5, 185–206. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11625-010-0111-3. Brink, E., & Wamsler, C. (2019). Citizen engagement in climate adaptation surveyed: The role of values, worldviews, gender and place. Journal of Cleaner Production, 209, 1342–1353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2018.10.164. Bulkeley, H. (2010). Cities and the governing of climate change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 35, 229–253. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-environ-072809-101747. Bulkeley, H., & Betsill, M. M. (2013). Revisiting the urban politics of climate change. Environmental Politics, 22(1), 136–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/0 9644016.2013.755797. Bulkeley, H., Carmin, J., Castán Broto, V. C., Edwards, G. A., & Fuller, S. (2013). Climate justice and global cities: Mapping the emerging discourses. Global Environmental Change, 23, 914–925. Bulkeley, H., Castán Broto, V., & Edwards, G. (2012). Bringing climate change to the city: Towards low carbon urbanism? Local Environment: the International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 17, 545–551. Burch, S., Andrachuk, M., Carey, D., Frantzeskaki, N., Schroeder, H., Mischkowski, N., et al. (2016). Governing and accelerating transformative entrepreneurship: Exploring the potential for small business innovation on urban sustainability transitions. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 22, 26–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.04.002. Burch, S., Hughes, S., Romero-Lankao, P., & Schroeder, H. (2018). Governing urban sustainability transformations: The new politics of collaboration and contestation. In T. Elmqvist, X. Bai, N. Frantzeskaki, C. Griffith, D. Maddox, T. McPhearson, S. Parnell, P. Romero-Lankao, D. Simon, & M. Watkins

4  NAVIGATING TRANSFORMATIONS UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE … 

149

(Eds.), Urban Planet: Knowledge towards sustainable cities (pp. 303–326). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. C40. (2018). About. https://www.c40.org/about. Accessed October 4, 2018. Carter, J. G., Cavan, G., Connelly, A., Guy, S., Handley, J., & Kazmierczak, A. (2015). Climate change and the city: Building capacity for urban adaptation. Progress in Planning, 95, 1–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. progress.2013.08.001. Castán Broto, V. (2017). Urban governance and the politics of climate change. World Development, 93, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.12.031. Castán Broto, V., & Bulkeley, H. (2013). A survey of urban climate change experiments in 100 cities. Global Environmental Change, 23, 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.005. Chan, S., Falkner, R., van Asselt, H., & Goldberg, M. (2015). Strengthening non-state climate action: A progress assessment of commitments launched at the 2014 UN climate summit. Centre for Climate Change Economics Policy, Working Paper No. 242. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, Working Paper No. 216. Chelleri, L., Water, J. J., Olazabal, M., & Minucci, G. (2015). Resilience trade-offs: Addressing multiple scales and temporal aspects of urban resilience. Environment & Urbanization, 27(1), 181–198. https://doi. org/10.1177/0956247814550780. Chen, S., & Chen, B. (2016). Urban energy-water nexus: A network perspective. Applied Energy, 184, 905–915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. apenergy.2016.03.042. Chu, E., Anguelovski, I., & Roberts, D. (2017). Climate adaptation as strategic urbanism: Assessing opportunities and uncertainties for equity and inclusive development in cities. Cities, 60, 378–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cities.2016.10.016. Clarke, D., Murphy, C., & Lorenzoni, I. (2018). Place attachment, disruption and transformative adaptation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 55, 81–89. Coenen, L., Benneworth, P., & Truffer, B. (2012). Toward a spatial perspective on sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 41(6), 968–979. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.014. Cowan, L., & Hogan, H. (2014). From the edge of disaster: How activists and insiders can use the lessons of hurricane Sandy to make the city safer. New York City: North Star Fund. Creutzig, F., Fernandez, B., Haberl, H., Khosla, R., Mulugetta, Y., Seto, K. C. (2016). Beyond technology: Demand-side solutions to climate change mitigation. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41(1). https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085428.

150  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI Dąbrowski, M. (2017). Boundary spanning for governance of climate change adaptation in cities: Insights from a Dutch urban region. Environment and planning C: Politics and Space, 1–19. https://doi. org/10.1177/2399654417725077. Den Exter, R., Lenhart, J., & Kern, K. (2014). Governing climate change in Dutch cities: Anchoring local climate strategies in organization, policy and practical implementation. Local Environment. https://doi.org/10.1080/135 49839.2014.892919. Depietri, Y., & McPhearson, T. (2018). Changing urban risk: 140 years of climatic hazards in New York City. Climatic Change, 148, 95–108. Devolder, S., & Block, T. (2015). Transition thinking incorporated: Towards a new discussion framework on sustainable urban projects. Sustainability, 7(3), 3269–3289. Dodman, D. (2009). Blaming cities for climate change? An analysis of urban greenhouse gas emissions inventories. Environment and Urbanization, 21(1), 185–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247809103016. Ehnert, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Barnes, J., Borgström, S., Gorissen, L., Kern, F., et al. (2018). The acceleration of urban sustainability transitions: A comparison of Brighton, Budapest, Dresden, Genk, and Stockholm. Sustainability, 10(3), 612. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030612. Elmqvist, T. (2014). Urban resilience thinking. Solutions, 5(5), 26–30. Elmqvist, T., Andersson, E., Frantzeskaki, N., McPhearson, T., Olsson, P., Gaffney, O., et al. (2019). Sustainability and resilience for transformation in the urban century. Nature Sustainability, 2, 267–273. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41893-019-0250-1. Elmqvist, T., Bai, X., Frantzeskaki, N., Griffith, C., Maddox, D., McPhearson, T., et al. (Eds.). (2018). Urban Planet: Knowledge towards sustainable cities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Elmqvist, T., Fragkias, M., Goodness, J., Gueneralp, B., Marcotullio, P. J., McDonald, R. I., et al. (2013). Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: Challenges and opportunities—A global assessment. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7088-1. Ernst, L., de Graaf-Van Dinther, R. E., Peek, G. J., & Loorbach, D. (2016). Sustainable urban transformation and sustainability transitions; conceptual framework and case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 2988–2999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.136. Ernstson, H., Leeuw, S. E., van der Redman, C. L., Meffert, D. J., Davis, G., Alfsen, C., et al. (2010). Urban transitions: On urban resilience and human-dominated ecosystems. Ambio, 39, 531–545. EU Covenant of Mayors. (2008). The covenant of mayors for climate and energy. https://www.eumayors.eu/IMG/pdf/covenantofmayors_text_en.pdf. Accessed October 4, 2018.

4  NAVIGATING TRANSFORMATIONS UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE … 

151

Evans, J. (2016). Trials and tribulations: Problematizing the city through/as urban experimentation. Geography Compass, 10(10), 429–443. Evans, J., Karvonen, A., & Raven, R. (2016). The experimental city: New modes and prospects of urban transformation. In J. Evans, A. Karvonen, & R. Raven (Eds.), The experimental city (pp. 1–12). London: Routledge. Farrelly, M. A., & Bos, J. J. (2018). Broadening experimentation through research-industry collaboratives in the Australian water sector. In B. Turnheim, P. Kivimaa, & F. Berkhout (Eds.), Innovating climate governance: Moving beyond experiments (pp. 103–120). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Forgione, H. M., Pregitzer, C. C., Charlop-Powers, S., & Gunther, B. (2016). Advancing urban ecosystem governance in New York City: Shifting towards a unified perspective for conservation management. Environmental Science & Policy, 62, 127–132. Frantzeskaki, N. (2016) Urban resilience. A concept for co-creating cities of the future. Concept note Urbact, Resilient Europe. http://urbact.eu/sites/ default/files/resilient_europe_baseline_study.pdf. Accessed October 4, 2018. Frantzeskaki, N., Bach, M., Hölscher, K., & Avelino, F. (2018a). Introducing sustainability transitions’ thinking in urban contexts. In N. Frantzeskaki, K. Hölscher, M. Bach, & F. Avelino (Eds.), Co-creating sustainable urban futures: A primer on applying transition management in cities (pp. 63–80). Tokyo: Springer. Frantzeskaki, N., Bach, M., & Mguni, P. (2018b). Understanding the urban context and its challenges. In N. Frantzeskaki, K. Hölscher, M. Bach, & F. Avelino (Eds.), Co-creating sustainable urban futures: A primer on applying transition management in cities (pp. 43–62). Tokyo: Springer. Frantzeskaki, N., Castàn Broto, V., Coenen, L., & Loorbach, D. (2017). Urban sustainability transitions: The dynamics and opportunities of sustainability transitions in cities. In N. Frantzeskaki, V. Castàn Broto, L. Coenen, & D. Loorbach (Eds.), Urban Sustainability Transitions. New York: Routledge. Frantzeskaki, N., Dumitru, A., Anguelovski, I., Avelino, F., Bach, M., Best, B., et al. (2016b). Elucidating the changing roles of civil society in urban sustainability transitions. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 22, 41–50. Frantzeskaki, N., & Kabisch, N. (2016). Designing a knowledge c­ o-production operating space for urban environmental governance—Lessons from Rotterdam, Netherlands and Berlin, Germany. Environmental Science & Policy, 62, 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.010. Frantzeskaki, N., McPhearson, T., Collier, M., Kendal, D., Bulkeley, H., Dumitru, A., et al. (2019). Nature-based solutions for urban climate change adaptation: Linking the science, policy and practice communities for evidence based decision-making. BioScience, 69, 455–566. https://doi.org/10.1093/ biosci/biz042.

152  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI Frantzeskaki, N., & Rok, A. (2018). Co-producing urban sustainability transitions knowledge with community, policy and science. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 29, 47–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.08.001. Frantzeskaki, N., & Tillie, N. (2014). The Dynamics of Urban Ecosystem Governance in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Ambio, 43, 542–555. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0512-0. Frantzeskaki, N., Wittmayer, J. M., & Loorbach, D. (2014). The role of partnerships in ‘realizing’ urban sustainability in Rotterdam’s City Ports Area, The Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 406–417. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.023. Friend, R., Jarvie, J., Orleans Reed, S., Sutarto, R., Thinphanga, P., & Canh Toan, V. (2014). Mainstreaming urban climate resilience into policy and planning; reflections from Asia. Urban Climate, 7, 6–19. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.uclim.2013.08.001. Fröhlich, J., & Knieling, J. (2013). Conceptualising climate change governance. In J. Knieling & W. Leal Filho (Eds.), Climate change governance: Climate change management (pp. 9–26). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Fuenfschilling, L., Frantzeskaki, N., & Coenen, L. (2019). Urban experimentation & sustainability transitions. European Planning Studies, 27(2), 219–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1532977. Fuhr, H., Hickmann, T., & Kern, K. (2018). The role of cities in multi-level climate governance: Local climate policies and the 1.5°C target. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 30, 1–6. Garschagen, M., Porter, L., Satterthwaite, D., Fraser, A., et al. (2018). The new urban agenda: From vision to policy and action/will the new urban agenda have any positive influence on governments and international agencies?/ Informality in the new urban agenda: From the aspirational policies of integration to a politics of constructive engagement/growing up or growing despair? Prospects for multi-sector progresson city sustainability under the NUA/ Approaching risk and hazards in the new urban agenda: A ­commentary/follow-up and review of the new urban agenda. Planning Theory & Practice, 19(1), 117–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2018.1412678. Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1257–1274. Gillard, R., Gouldson, A., Paavola, J., & van Alstine, J. (2016). Transformational responses to climate change: Beyond a systems perspective of social change in mitigation and adaptation. WIREs Clim Change, 7, 251–265. https://doi. org/10.1002/wcc.384. Gliedt, T., Hoicka, C. E., & Jackson, N. (2018). Innovation intermediaries accelerating environmental sustainability transitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 174, 1247–1261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.054.

4  NAVIGATING TRANSFORMATIONS UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE … 

153

Global Covenant of Mayors. (2018). About the global covenant of mayors for climate & energy. https://www.globalcovenantofmayors.org. Accessed October 4, 2018. Gordon, D. J., & Johnson, C. A. (2017). The orchestration of global urban climate governance: Conducting power in the post-Paris climate regime. Environmental Politics, 26(4), 694–714. https://doi.org/10.1080/0964401 6.2017.1320829. Gouldson, A., Colenbrander, S., Sudmant, A., McAnulla, F., Kerr, N., Sakai, P., et al. (2015). Exploring the economic case for climate action in cities. Global Environmental Change, 35, 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2015.07.009. Gulsrud, N. M., Hertzog, K., & Shears, I. (2018). Innovative urban forestry governance in Melbourne?: Investigating “green placemaking” as a ­nature-based solution. Environmental Research, 161, 158–167. Haase, D., Güneralp, B., Dahiya, B., Bai, X., & Elmqvist, T. (2018). Global urbanization. In T. Elmqvist, X. Bai, N. Frantzeskaki, C. Griffith, D. Maddox, T. McPhearson, S. Parnell, P. Romero-Lankao, D. Simon, & M. Watkins (Eds.), Urban Planet: Knowledge towards sustainable cities (pp. 19–44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hach, S. J. M., & Hansen, T. (2019). Cities and climate change—Examining advantages and challenges of urban climate change experiments. European Planning Studies, 27(2), 282–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.20 17.1421907. Hansen, T., & Coenen, L. (2015). The geography of sustainability transitions: Review, synthesis and reflections on an emergent research field. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 17, 92–109. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.eist.2014.11.001. Hodson, M., Evans, J., & Schliwa, G. (2018). Conditioning experimentation: The struggle for place-based discretion in shaping urban infrastructures. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space. https://doi. org/10.1177/2399654418765480. Hodson, M., Geels, F., & McMeekin, A. (2017). Reconfiguring urban sustainability transitions, analysing multiplicity. Sustainability, 9(2), 299. Hodson, M., & Marvin, S. (2010). Can cities shape socio-technical transitions and how would we know if they were? Research Policy, 39, 477–485. Hodson, M., Marvin, S., & Bulkeley, H. (2013). The intermediary organisation of low carbon cities: A comparative analysis of transitions in Greater London and Greater Manchester. Urban Studies, 50, 1403–1422. Hölscher, K. (2019). Transforming urban climate governance: Capacities for transformative climate governance (PhD thesis). Erasmus University Rotterdam. https://repub.eur.nl/pub/118721.

154  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI Hölscher, K., Frantzeskaki, N., & Loorbach, D. (2018). Developing transformative and orchestrating capacities for climate governance experimentation in Rotterdam. In B. Turnheim, P. Kivimaa, & F. Berkhout (Eds.), Innovating climate governance: Moving beyond experiments (pp. 123–144). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hölscher, K., Wittmayer, J. M., Avelino, F., & Giezen, M. (2019a). Opening up the transition arena: An analysis of (dis)empowerment of civil society actors in transition management in cities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, 176–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.004. Hölscher, K., Frantzeskaki, N., & Loorbach, D. (2019b). Steering transformations under climate change: Capacities for transformative climate governance and the case of Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Regional Environmental Change, 19(3), 791–805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1329-3. Hölscher, K., Frantzeskaki, F., McPhearson, T., & Loorbach, D. (2019c). Capacities for urban transformations governance and the case of New York City. Cities, 94, 186–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.05.037. Hölscher, K., Frantzeskaki, F., McPhearson, T., & Loorbach, D. (2019d). Tales of transforming cities: Transformative climate governance capacities in New York City, U.S. and Rotterdam, Netherlands. Journal of Environmental Management, 1(231), 843–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvman.2018.10.043. Homsey, G., & Warner, M. (2015). Cities and sustainability: Polycentric action and multilevel governance. Urban Affairs Review, 51(1), 46–73. https://doi. org/10.1177/1078087414530545. Huang-Lachmann, J.-T., & Lovett, J. C. (2016). How cities prepare for climate change: Comparing Hamburg and Rotterdam. Cities, 54, 36–44. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.11.001. Hughes, S., Chu, E. K., & Mason, S. G. (Eds.). (2017). Climate change in cities: Innovations in multi-level governance. Cham: Springer. ICLEI. (2016). ICLEI’s Low-carbon city agenda. http://archive.iclei.org/index. php?id=10828. Accessed October 4, 2018. IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. IPCC Working Group II Contribution to AR5. Summary for Policymakers. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Jabareen, Y. (2013). Planning the resilient city: Concepts and strategies for coping with climate change and environmental risk. Cities, 31, 220–229. Jhagroe, S. (2016). Urban transition politics: How struggles for sustainability are (re)making urban places (PhD thesis). Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam. Johnson, C., Toly, N., & Schroeder, H. (Eds.). (2015). The urban climate challenge: Rethinking the role of cities in the global climate regime. London: Routledge.

4  NAVIGATING TRANSFORMATIONS UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE … 

155

Kabisch, S., Koch., F., Gawel, E., Haase, A., Knapp, S., Krellenberg, K., et al. (2018). Introduction: Urban transformations—Sustainable urban development through resource efficiency, quality of life, and resilience. In S. Kabisch, F. Koch, E. Gawel, A. Haase, S. Knapp, K. Krellenberg, J. Nivala, & A. Zehnsdorf (Eds.), Urban transformations—Sustainable urban development through resource efficiency, quality of life and resilience. Future City 10 (pp. xvii–xxviii). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Karvonen, A. (2018). The city of permanent experiments? In B. Turnheim, P. Kivimaa, & F. Berkhout (Eds.), Innovating climate governance: Moving beyond experiments (pp. 201–215). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kern, K. (2019). Cities as leaders in EU multilevel climate governance: Embedded upscaling of local experiments in Europe. Environmental Politics, 28(1), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1521979. Keskitalo, E. C. H., Juhola, S., Baron, N., Fyhn, H., & Klein, J. (2016). Implementing local climate change adaptation and mitigation actions: The role of various policy instruments in a multi-level governance context. Climate, 4(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli4010007. Khare, A., Beckman, T., & Crouse, N. (2011). Cities addressing climate change: Introducing a tripartite model for sustainable partnership. Sustainable Cities and Society, 1(4), 227–235. Kivimaa, P. (2014). Government-affiliated intermediary organisations as actors in system-level transitions. Research Policy, 43, 1370–1380. Kivimaa, P., Hildén, M., Huitema, D., Jordan, A., & Newig, J. (2017). Experiments in climate governance—A systematic review of research on energy and built environment transitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 169, 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.027. Koch, F., Krellenberg, K., & Kabisch, S. (2016). How to achieve urban sustainability transformations (UST) in real life politics? Brief for GSDR—2016 Update. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/961514_ Koch%20et%20al._How%20to%20achieve%20Urban%20Sustainability%20 Transformations%20(UST)%20in%20real%20life%20politics.pdf. Accessed October 4, 2018. Lee, T. (2018). Network comparison of socialization, learning and collaboration in the C40 cities climate group. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2018.1433998. Leichenko, R. (2011). Climate change and urban resilience. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3, 164–168. Lonsdale, K., Pringle, P., & Turner, B. (2015). Transformative adaptation: What it is, why it matters & what is needed. UK Climate Impacts Programme. University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N., & Huffenreuter, L. R. (2015). Transition management: Taking stock from governance experimentation. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 58, 48–66.

156  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N., & Thissen, W. (2010). Introduction to the special section: Infrastructures and transitions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77, 1195–1202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.06.001. Luederitz, C., Abson, D. J., Audet, R., & Lang, D. J. (2017). Many Pathways Toward Sustainability: Not Conflict but Co-Learning between Transition Narratives. Sustainability Science: Official Journal of the Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science, 12(3), 393–407. Matyas, D., & Pelling, M. (2014). Positioning resilience for 2015: The role of resistance, incremental adjustment and transformation in disaster risk management policy. Disasters, 39(S1), S1–S18. https://doi.org/10.1111/ disa.12107. McCarney, P., Blanco, H., Carmin, J., & Colley, M. (2011). Cities and climate change. In C. Rosenzweig, W. D. Solecki, S. A. Hammer, & S. Mehrotra (Eds.), Climate change and cities: First assessment report of the urban climate change research network (pp. 249–269). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. McCormick, K., Anderberg, S., Coenen, L., & Neij, L. (2013). Advancing sustainable urban transformation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.01.003. McPhearson, T., Andersson, E., Elmqvist, T., & Frantzeskaki, N. (2015). Resilience of and through urban ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 12, 152–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.07.012. McPhearson, T., Pickett, S. T. A., Grimm, N. B., et al. (2016a). Advancing urban ecology toward a science of cities. BioScience, 66, 198–212. https:// doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw002. McPhearson, T., Haase, D., Kabisch, N., & Gren, Å. (2016b). Advancing understanding of the complex nature of urban systems. Ecological Indicators. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. McPhearson, T., Hamstead, Z. A., & Kremer, P. (2014). Urban ecosystem services for resilience planning and management in New York City. Ambio, 43, 502–515. McPhearson, T., Iwaniec, D., & Bai, X. (2017). Positive visions for guiding urban transformations toward sustainable futures. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 22, 33–40. Meerow, S., Newell, J. P., & Stults, M. (2016). Defining urban resilience: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 147, 38–49. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.011. Mejía-Dugand, S., Kanda, W., & Hjelm, O. (2016). Analyzing international city networks for sustainability: A study of five major Swedish cities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 134(Part A), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2015.09.093.

4  NAVIGATING TRANSFORMATIONS UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE … 

157

Moloney, S., & Horne, R. (2015). Low carbon urban transitioning: From local experimentation to urban transformation? Sustainability, 7, 2437–2453. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7032437. Moss, T. (2014). Socio-technical change and the politics of urban infrastructure: Managing energy in Berlin between dictatorship and democracy. Urban Studies, 51(7), 1432–1448. Muñoz-Erickson, T., Miller, C., & Miller, T. R. (2017). How cities think: Knowledge co-production for sustainability and resilience. Forests, 8(6), 203. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8060203. Nagorny-Koring, N. C. (2018). Leading the way with examples and ideas? Governing climate change in German municipalities through best practices. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 21(1), 46–60. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/1523908X.2018.1461083. Nevens, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Gorissen, L., & Loorbach, D. (2013). Urban transition labs: Co-creating transformative action for sustainable cities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 111–122. Newton, P., Meyer, D., & Glackin, S. (2017). Becoming urban: Exploring the transformative capacity for a suburban-to-urban transition in Australia’s low-density cities. Sustainability, 9, 1718. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101718. Nordgren, J., Stults, M., & Meerow, S. (2016). Supporting local climate change adaptation: Where we are and where we need to go. Environmental Science & Policy, 66, 344–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.05.006. NYC. (2015). OneNYC. New York City, NY: NYC Office of the Mayor. NYC, City of New York. (2007). PlaNYC: A greener, greater New York. New York City, NY: NYC Office of the Mayor. Olazabal, M., De Gregorio Hurtado, S., Olazabal, E., Pietrapertosa, F., Salvia, M., Geneletti, D., et al. (2014). How are Italian and Spanish cities tackling climate change? A local comparative study. Bilbao: Basque Centre for Climate Change. Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, 100(3), 641–672. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.3.641. Pahl-Wostl, C., & Knieper, C. (2014). The capacity of water governance to deal with the climate change adaptation challenge: Using fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis to distinguish between polycentric, fragmented and centralized regimes. Global Environmental Change, 29, 139–154. Parnell, S. (2016). Defining a global urban development agenda. World Development, 78, 529–540.

158  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI Pelling, M., & Manuel-Navarrete, D. (2011). From resilience to transformation: The adaptive cycle in two Mexican urban centers. Ecology and Society, 16(2), 11. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art11/. Pickett, S. T. A., Cadenasso, M. L., Grove, J. M., Boone, C. G., Groffman, P. M., Irwin, E., et al. (2011). Urban ecological systems: Scientific foundations and a decade of progress. Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 331–362. Pickett, S. T. A., McGrath, B., Cadenasso, M. L., & Felson, A. J. (2014). Ecological resilience and resilient cities. Building Research & Information, 42(2), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2014.850600. Ramaswami, A., Chavez, A., & Chertow, M. (2012). Carbon footprinting of cities and implications for analysis of urban material and energy flows. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 16(6), 783–785. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00569.x. Raven, R., Sengers, F., Spaeth, P., Xie, L., Cheshmehzangi, A., de Jong, M. (2017). Urban experimentation and institutional arrangements. European Planning Studies, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2017.1393047. Reckien, D., Creutzig, F., Fernandez, B., Lwasa, S., Tovar-Restrepo, M., Mcevoy, D., et al. (2017). Climate change, equity and the sustainable development goals: An urban perspective. Environment and Urbanization, 29(1), 159–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247816677778. Reckien, D., Flacke, J., Dawson, R. J., Heidrich, O., Olazabal, M., Foley, A., et al. (2014). Climate change response in Europe: What’s the reality? Analysis of adaptation and mitigation plans from 200 urban areas in 11 countries. Climatic Change, 122(1–2), 331–340. Revi, A., Satterthwaite, D., Aragón-Durand, F., Corfee-Morlot, J., Kiunsi, R. B., Pelling, M., et al. (2014). Towards transformative adaptation in cities: The IPCC’s fifth assessment. Environment and Urbanization, 26, 11–28. Rink, D., Kabisch, S., Koch, F., & Krellenberg, K. (2018). Exploring the extent, selected topics and governance modes of urban sustainability transformations. In S. Kabisch, F. Koch, E. Gawel, A. Haase, S. Knapp, K. Krellenberg, J. Nivala, & A. Zehnsdorf (Eds.), Urban transformations—Sustainable urban development through resource efficiency, quality of life and resilience. Future City 10 (pp. 3–20). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Roberts, C., Geels, F. W., Lockwood, M., Newell, P., Schmitz, H., Turnheim, B., et al. (2018). The politics of accelerating low-carbon transitions: Towards a new research agenda. Energy Research & Social Science, 44, 304–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.06.001. Romero-Lankao, P., & Dodman, D. (2011). Cities in transition: Transforming urban centers from hotbeds of GHG emissions and vulnerability to seedbeds of sustainability and resilience. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3, 113–120.

4  NAVIGATING TRANSFORMATIONS UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE … 

159

Romero-Lankao, P., Bulkeley, H., Pelling, M., Burch, S., Gordon, D., Gupta, J., et al. (2018a). Realizing urban transformative potential in a changing climate. Nature Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0264-0. Romero-Lankao, P., Frantzeskaki, N., & Griffith, C. (2018b). Sustainability transformation emerging from better governance. In T. Elmqvist, X. Bai, N. Frantzeskaki, C. Griffith, D. Maddox, T. McPhearson, S. Parnell, P. ­Romero-Lankao, D. Simon, & M. Watkins (Eds.), Urban Planet: Knowledge towards sustainable cities (pp. 263–280). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rosenzweig, C., Solecki, W., Romero-Lankao, P., Mehrotra, S., Dhakal, S., Bowman, T., et al. (2015). ARC3.2 summary for city leaders—Climate change and cities: Second assessment report of the urban climate change research network. Urban Climate Change Research Network, Columbia University. https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2015/2015_Rosenzweig_ro02510w.pdf. Rudd, A., Simon, D., Cardama, M., Birch, E. L., & Revi, A. (2018). The UN, the urban sustainable development goal, and the new urban agenda. In T. Elmqvist, X. Bai, N. Frantzeskaki, C. Griffith, D. Maddox, T. McPhearson, S. Parnell, P. Romero-Lankao, D. Simon, & M. Watkins (Eds.), Urban Planet: Knowledge towards sustainable cities (pp. 180–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Runhaar, H., Wilk, B., Persson, A., Uittenbroek, C., & Wamsler, C. (2018). Mainstreaming climate adaptation: Taking stock about “what works” from empirical research worldwide. Regional Environmental Change, 18, 1201– 1210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1259-5. Satterthwaite, D. (2008). Cities’ contribution to global warming: Notes on the allocation of greenhouse gas emissions. Environment and Urbanization, 20(2), 539–549. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247808096127. Seto, K. C., David, S. J., Mitchell, R. B., Stokes, E. C., Unruh, G., & Ürge-Vorsatz, D. (2016). Carbon lock-in: types, causes, and policy impli­ cations. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41, 19. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085934. Seto, K. C., Golden, J. S., Alberti, M., & Turner, B. L. (2017). Sustainability in an urbanizing planet. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(34), 8935–8938. Seto, K. S., Reenberg, A., Boone, C. C., Fragkias, M., Haase, D., Langanke, T., et al. (2012). Teleconnections and sustainability: New conceptualizations of global urbanization and land change. PNAS, 109(20), 7687–7692. www. pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1117622109. Sharifi, A., & Yamagata, Y. (2015). A conceptual framework for assessment of urban energy resilience. In J. Yan, T. Shamim, S. K. Chou, & H. Li (Eds.), Clean, efficient and affordable energy for a sustainable future (Vol. 75, pp. 2904–2909).

160  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI Shaw, A., Burch, S., Kristensen, F., Robinson, J., & Dale, A. (2014). Accelerating the sustainability transition: Exploring synergies between adaptation and mitigation in British Columbian communities. Global Environmental Change, 25, 41–51. Simon, D., Griffith, C., & Nagendra, H. (2018). Rethinking urban sustainability and resilience. In T. Elmqvist, X. Bai, N. Frantzeskaki, C. Griffith, D. Maddox, T. McPhearson, S. Parnell, P. Romero-Lankao, D. Simon, & M. Watkins (Eds.), Urban Planet: Knowledge towards sustainable cities (pp. 149–162). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smedby, N., & Quitzau, M. B. (2016). Municipal governance and sustainability: The role of local governments in promoting transitions. Environmental Policy and Governance, 26, 323–336. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1708. Solecki, W., Rosenzweig, C., Solecki, S., Patrick, L., Horton, R., & Dorsch, M. (2016). New York, USA. In S. Bartlett & D. Satterthwaite (Eds.), Cities on a finite planet: Towards transformative responses to climate change (pp. 169– 184). Abingdon: Routledge. Stone, C. (1989). Regime politics. Kansas: Lawrence University Press. Tanner, T., Mitchell, T., Polack, E., & Guenther, B. (2009). Urban governance for adaptation: Assessing climate change resilience in ten Asian cities, IDS research summary 315. Brighton: IDS. Torabi, E., Dedekorkut-Howes, A., & Howes, M. (2018). Adapting or maladapting: Building resilience to climate-related disasters in coastal cities. Cities, 72, 295–309. Truffer, B., Murphy, J. T., & Raven, R. (2015). The geography of sustainability transitions: Contours of an emerging theme. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 17, 63–72. Turnheim, B., Kivimaa, P., & Berkhout, F. (2018). Beyond experiments: Innovation in climate governance. In B. Turnheim, P. Kivimaa, & F. Berkhout (Eds.), Innovating climate governance: Moving beyond experiments (pp. 1–26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. UN. (2016). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. A/Res/70/1. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf. Accessed October 4, 2018. UN-Habitat. (2010). State of the world’s cities 2010/2011: Bridging the urban divide. London: Earthscan. UN-Habitat. (2016). Urbanization and development. Emerging futures. World cities report 2016. Nairobi: UN-Habitat. Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Rosenzweig, C., Dawson, R.J., Sanchez Rodriguez, R. Bai, X., Barau A.S., et al. (2018). Locking in positive climate responses in cities. Nature Climate Change.

4  NAVIGATING TRANSFORMATIONS UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE … 

161

Van Asselt, H., Huitema, D., & Jordan, A. (2018). Global climate governance after Paris: Setting the scene for experimentation? In B. Turnheim, P. Kivimaa, & F. Berkhout (Eds.), Innovating climate governance: Moving beyond experiments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van Buuren, A., Vreugdenhil, H., van Popering-Verkerk, J., Ellen, G. J., van Leeuwen, C., & Breman, B. (2018). The Pilot Paradox: Exploring tensions between internal and external success factors in Dutch climate adaptation projects. In B. Turnheim, P. Kivimaa, & F. Berkhout (Eds.), Innovating climate governance: Moving beyond experiments (pp. 145–165). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van der Heijden, J. (2018). City and subnational governance: High ambitions, innovative instruments and polycentric collaborations? In A. Jordan, D. Huitema, H. van Asselt, & J. Forster (Eds.), Governing climate change: Polycentricity in action? (pp. 81–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vojnovic, I. (2014). Urban sustainability: Research, politics, policy and practice. Cities, 41, 30–44. von Wirth, T., Fuenfschilling, L., Frantzeskaki, N., & Coenen, L. (2019). Impacts of urban living labs on sustainability transitions: Mechanisms and strategies for systemic change through experimentation. European Planning Studies, 27(2), 229–257. von Wirth, T., Hayek, U. W., Kunze, A., Neuenschwander, N., Stauffacher, M., & Scholz, R. W. (2014). Identifying urban transformation dynamics: Functional use of scenario techniques to integrate knowledge from science and practice. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 89, 115–130. Wachsmuth, D., Cohen, D. A., & Angelo, H. (2016). Expand the frontiers of urban sustainability. Nature, 536, 391–393. https://doi. org/10.1038/536391a. Wamsler, C. (2015). Mainstreaming ecosystem-based adaptation: Transformation toward sustainability in urban governance and planning. Ecology and Society, 20(2), 30. Wamsler, C., & Brink, E. (2014). Moving beyond short-term coping and adaptation. Environment and Urbanization, 26, 86–111. Wamsler, C., Brink, E., & Rivera, C. (2013). Planning for climate change in urban areas: From theory to practice. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 68–81. WBGU German Advisory Council on Global Change. (2016). Humanity on the move: Unlocking the transformative power of cities. Berlin: WBGU. Winnington, N. S., Fahrenkamp-Uppenbrink, J., & Malakoff, D. (2016). Cities are the future. Introduction to special issue Urban Planet. Science, 352(6288), 904–905. Wolfram, M. (2016). Conceptualizing urban transformative capacity: A framework for research and policy. Cities, 51, 121–130.

162  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI Wolfram, M., & Frantzeskaki, N. (2016). Cities and systemic change for sustainability: Prevailing epistemologies and an emerging research agenda. Sustainability, 8, 144. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8020144. Wolfram, M., Frantzeskaki, N., & Maschmeyer, S. (2017). Cities, systems and sustainability: Status and perspectives of research on urban transformations. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 22, 18–25. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.014. Wyborn, C. (2015). Co-productive governance: A relational framework for adaptive governance. Global Environmental Change, 30, 56–67. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.10.009.

CHAPTER 5

Transforming Urban Water Governance in Rotterdam, the Netherlands Katharina Hölscher, Niki Frantzeskaki, and Derk Loorbach

5.1  Introduction The combined challenges of water and climate change in cities around the world are overwhelming. While water can represent an opportunity to carry out social, economic and ecological functions, water can become a threat when it is scarce or of poor quality or when there is too much water causing flooding (Koop et al. 2017; Romano and Akhmouch 2019; OECD 2016). Megatrends such as demographic growth, urbanisation and climate change increasingly affect water quality and quantity K. Hölscher (*) · N. Frantzeskaki · D. Loorbach  Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] D. Loorbach e-mail: [email protected] N. Frantzeskaki  Centre for Urban Transitions, Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 K. Hölscher and N. Frantzeskaki (eds.), Transformative Climate Governance, Palgrave Studies in Environmental Transformation, Transition and Accountability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49040-9_5

163

164  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

in cities. Especially delta cities will face severely increased flood risks due to climate change impacts such as sea-level rise and increased frequency and severity of heavy rains and storms (Hallegatte et al. 2013; IPCC 2018; Carter et al. 2015). Urban water crises are predominantly governance crises, because roles and responsibilities for managing and utilising water are not clearly allocated, stakeholders are not engaged, and capacities are insufficient to anticipate and tackle long-term, uncertain and complex risks (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2012; Koop et al. 2017; Romano and Akhmouch 2019). Urban water governance generally refers to the formal and informal institutions, organisational structures as well as the diverse public and private actors that influence the development and implementation of policies, legislations and solutions in relation to water resources, infrastructures and services in cities (van de Meene et al. 2011; OECD 2011). Water-related challenges are long-term, uncertain and complex. That has led cities to adapt urban water governance to integrated, inclusive and adaptive approaches that facilitate learning and innovation for sustainability and resilience (Koop et al. 2017; Rijke et al. 2013). Concepts like Integrated Adaptive Water Governance, Water Resource Management or Water Sensitive Urban Design have in common that they put forth a systemic and long-term perspective on solutions that centre on the water cycle, and integrate social, economic and environmental goals and outcomes, while engaging diverse stakeholders in d ­ ecision-making (Brown et al. 2009; Pahl-Wostl and Knieper 2014; van de Meene et al. 2011). Given the apparent mismatch between existing urban water governance and water-related challenges in cities, the transition to sustainable and resilient urban water governance is a major challenge facing cities across the globe. City governments have already developed new visions, strategies and programmes to address water challenges. Water governance systems have become more decentral and participatory, and technology and knowledge for sustainable and resilient water management are available (Pahl-Wostl and Knieper 2014; Francesch-Huidobro et al. 2017; Rijke et al. 2013). However, practical implementation remains slow. Main barriers include institutional fragmentation across sectors and scales, poor political leadership, limited regulatory environment for innovation and dominance of economic over social and environmental considerations (van de Meene et al. 2011; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2012). These barriers are manifest in historical investments in infrastructures and socio-institutional routines that prevent the adaptation of better alternatives (Brown et al. 2013).

5  TRANSFORMING URBAN WATER GOVERNANCE … 

165

There is a gap in detailed knowledge about the conditions manifest in urban water governance that contributes to sustainable and resilient cities in the long-term, as well as how to create such conditions to overcome the barriers that are entrenched in existing urban water governance regimes. For example, while adaptive water governance or water-sensitive design approaches provide important directions for strengthening urban water governance, they are not very concrete and not focused on governance activities and processes (Koop et al. 2017). The framework of transformative governance capacities (Hölscher 2019; Hölscher, Chapter 2, this volume) offers a heuristic device to facilitate a better understanding of both conditions for sustainable and resilient urban water governance, as well as how to facilitate a shift in existing urban governance to create these conditions. We therefore start from the premise that urban water governance needs to be placed in the context of urban transformations, which involve multiple and interrelated social, economic and environmental risks (e.g. climate change, urbanisation) and path-dependencies and lock-ins (e.g. existing water infrastructures and institutions) (see Hölscher and Frantzeskaki, Chapter 4, this volume). Accordingly, the transformative governance capacities underpin sustainable and resilient urban water governance that is able to address uncertain and long-term risks, path-dependencies and coordination and collaboration deficits. Applying the framework to understand the development of urban water governance provides generalisable insights into conditions and processes for sustainable and resilient urban water governance and aids understanding of specific (local) issues to ultimately give recommendations to stakeholders and shape learning alliances in and between cities. We apply the framework of transformative governance capacities to explain how, and by whom, new conditions for sustainable and resilient urban water governance are developing in Rotterdam. Rotterdam in the Netherlands faces severe water-related risks that are exacerbated by climate change. Since the mid-2000s, the city government has innovated its approach to addressing water, successively integrating water, climate change, health, well-being and economic priorities in its strategic agendas and programmes and implementing innovative and multifunctional solutions. As also briefly explained in the Foreword in this volume, Rotterdam has still many challenges to address but climate change and climate action remain a priority in the urban agenda.

166  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

Extending the work by Hölscher et al. (2019), and zooming in on the water sector, we first introduce the water governance landscape in Rotterdam (Sect. 5.2). We then present the analysis of how capacities for transformative water governance are developing in Rotterdam (Sect. 5.3). In our discussion section, we reflect on the insights that the capacities framework offers to understand the development of water governance in Rotterdam in terms of the enabling conditions, by whom and how they were created, as well as what are key opportunities and capacity gaps and barriers (Sect. 5.4). We conclude by providing a future outlook on the applicability of the framework and the implications for transforming urban water governance (Sect. 5.5).

5.2  The Water Governance Landscape in Rotterdam Rotterdam is located in the south-western part of the Netherlands, in the Rhine-Meuse Delta and at the mouth of the river New Maas (Nieuwe Meuse), and hosts one of the largest ports in the world. The port is an important economic area in the country and internationally. The city’s population of over 650,000 people encompasses 173 nationalities. As post-industrial city, and along with the seaward extension of the new port (Maasvlakte 2), parts of Rotterdam are being rezoned from industrial to residential use (Francesch-Huidobro et al. 2017). Since the mid-2000s, the city government has redeveloped its approach to manage water-related risks—reframing water as a threat towards water as an opportunity for enhancing liveability and ­well-being. The water-related activities became increasingly connected to the emerging climate change, sustainability and resilience priorities and programmes, and involving a diversity of actors across governance levels and sectors. Rotterdam has therefore shifted towards a water-sensitive urban governance approach that addresses climate change, sustainability and resilience, and which marks a new paradigm for integrating water into the early stages of urban planning (ibid.). As a result, also of its multiple high-profile pilot projects for multifunctional water solutions, the city has quickly evolved into a leading city nationally and internationally. This shift in urban water management is part of a larger transition in water governance in the Netherlands from a sectoral and technological approach towards an integrated, consensual and interactive approach (de Graaf and van der Brugge 2010; cf. Francesch-Huidobro et al. 2017).

5  TRANSFORMING URBAN WATER GOVERNANCE … 

167

The following sections summarise the water-related risks Rotterdam is likely to face in the future, the evolution of water governance approaches and the key actors involved. 5.2.1   Water and Climate Risks in Rotterdam Built mostly behind dikes, nearly 80% of Rotterdam is located below sea level (some parts by up to 6 m) (Molenaar et al. 2013). Rotterdam has therefore always been exposed to high flood risks—especially in those parts of the city that are not protected by the dike (including the former port area). Climate change effects on Rotterdam such as sea-level rise, rising river and groundwater levels, intense rainfalls and heatwaves pose threats and pressures on the city. The increasing risk and frequency of flooding may cause economic losses, overburdening of the drainage system and damage to vital infrastructures such as power stations, electricity supplies, water purification plants, ICT facilities and railways (Molenaar et al. 2013). Similarly, during extreme rainfall, the vulnerability of the drainage system becomes apparent. Peak downpours already cause disruption and damage as water floods the streets, cellars become inundated and sewer overflows discharge directly into the canals and waterways. Extensive periods of heat and drought might lead to lower river and groundwater levels threatening buildings on wooden pile foundations and causing salt intrusion. The increasing likelihood of heatwaves will be magnified by the urban heat island effect: the difference in temperature between the city centre and surrounding countryside can be as high as 8℃. The elderly and people suffering from respiratory diseases are the most vulnerable groups and there is a significant increase in mortality rates among these groups during heatwaves, partly due to heat stress, but partly to poorer air quality. Other challenges related to urban regeneration put pressure on the city and how it deals with water. The seaward movement of harbour activities (called Maasvlakte 2), including support businesses, created a need to redevelop the old city ports area (Stadshaven in Dutch) that covers an area of about 1600 hectares. Rotterdam is strongly affected by the ongoing economic crisis, which has led to severe government budget cuts and a withdrawal of public service provisions. Additionally, there is a need to address social inequalities and poor income neighbourhoods especially

168  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

in the districts of Rotterdam South. In the past, Rotterdam South was neglected by urban development plans and projects, shown signs of urban deprivation and deterioration while being simultaneously vulnerable to climate change impacts. There is not much green space in the neighbourhood beside one park and an educational garden. The quality of the housing stock is poor, which is related to the high degree of private ownership by large investors. The neglected exterior gives the neighbourhood a desolate look and the living circumstances cause social problems (Wittmayer et al. 2014). At the same time, Rotterdam is one of the greenest large cities of the Netherlands; green space covers 19.7% of the total city’s surface whereas water amounts to a 34.9% including the harbour (Gemeente Rotterdam 2011; cf. Frantzeskaki and Tillie 2014). 5.2.2   Towards Sustainable and Resilient Water Governance Water management has a long-standing tradition in Rotterdam specifically and the Netherlands generally (de Graaf and van der Brugge 2010; Francesch-Huidobro et al. 2017). Traditionally, the approach to governing water has been very engineering focused. The disastrous flood in 1953, which caused 1800 deaths, prompted the creation of the national-level Delta Commission that led major engineering works (Deltawerken), including the Maeslantkering storm surge barrier at the entrance of the Rotterdam port. In the late 1990s, a shift in political context and heightened awareness about the vulnerability to climate change led to questioning traditional engineering approaches whether raising the height of discs and/or pumping water out of low-lying areas would be effective to counteract the increased vulnerabilities. A new government commission was established (Commissie Waterbeheer 21e eeuw) that developed a water management plan for the twenty-first century, shifting towards an integrated water governance approach that addresses multiple priorities such as flood risk measures and improving ecological quality (Francesch-Huidobro et al. 2017; Wiering et al. 2017). For example, to meet the requirements of water safety and sustainable ecosystem, the national government approved the ‘Room for the River Plan’ (Planologische Kernbeslissing Ruimte voor de Rivier in Dutch, 2007) in 2007, which requires water managers to provide advice on land use developments for water issues to ensure that water (including flooding) issues are taken into account in spatial planning.

5  TRANSFORMING URBAN WATER GOVERNANCE … 

169

A main shift in how water is addressed in Rotterdam has occurred in the course of the International Architecture Biennale Rotterdam (IABR) in 2005. Water policy entrepreneurs in the city government have taken up the theme ‘The Flood’ to revisit in a cross-departmental process the fundamental challenges climate change will pose for the Rotterdam and, having been provided with sufficient space for reflection and deliberation, developed a reframing from water as threat to connecting water and adaptation to opportunities for enhancing the city’s social and economic attractiveness. The process resulted in the publication Rotterdam Water City 2035 (Rotterdam Waterstad 2035 in Dutch, de Greef 2005), which summarises the knowledge generated in an evidence-based story on the history of Rotterdam in relation to water, the current water system and both small-scale, short-term projects and long-term visions on urban design combined with climate adaptation (ibid.; RCI 2009; de Graaf and van der Brugge 2010). The developed proposal gained political and public attention and initiated a formal trajectory to renew the first water plan from the late 1990s. The initial water plan was mainly driven by the maintenance department of the city government and there have been conflicts with the city development department. The new water plan—Water Plan 2 Rotterdam (Gemeente Rotterdam 2007)—was developed in ­cross-departmental collaboration and with the three water boards, following the IABR process example, and it happened that many of the same people took up leading roles in both processes. The central ideas of Rotterdam Water City 2035—viewing water as opportunity to add value to the city and testing new multifunctional infrastructures for water retention—also served as guiding principles in the new water plan, which translated the ideas into an implementation programme linking water and spatial developments. Since then, water issues have become closely linked to climate adaptation and other policy priorities. In 2007, the Rotterdam city government, in partnership with the Rotterdam port authority, a regional environmental protection agency, and Deltalinqs (representing companies operating in the port), launched the Rotterdam Climate Initiative (RCI). The RCI focused on climate mitigation targeting to reduce CO2-emissions in Rotterdam by 50% in 2025 compared to 1990 (RCI 2007). In 2008, the Rotterdam Climate Proof (RCP) programme was launched as part of the RCI, including the goal to make Rotterdam

170  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

100% climate-proof against flooding and the urban heat island effect by 2025 (RCI 2009). This agenda-setting was borne out of a group of municipal officers who have been heavily involved in the creation of Water Plan 2 and the IABR process. Hence, RCP takes up the reframing of urban water management and climate change as contributing to the quality of the social environment in the city: while becoming climate resilient additional opportunities to enhance the attractiveness of the city in terms of living, recreation, working and investments should be realised (ibid.). The three operational objectives of the RCP are (1) Knowledge for Climate (generating, redefining and pooling knowledge and identifying new solutions), (2) action (implementing new solutions) and (3) marketing (sharing the solutions on a global scale). It is devised as ‘an active programme, designed to promote and link initiatives in the area of climate adaptation’ (RCI 2009: p. 5) and ‘also an explicit invitation to link initiatives which have not yet been included’ (ibid.). In this guise, the 2012 published Rotterdam Adaptation Strategy (RCI 2012) serves as framework to develop collaborate climate adaptation measures. The city government states its explicit role to develop the network and related support action by actively gathering and sharing information. This strategy formulated targeted experiments to test new urban space multifunctional infrastructure (e.g. water squares) to integrate urban water solutions in spatial and energy planning. Until today, water became increasingly integrated with a successively expanding focus on climate change, sustainability, liveability and resilience (Gemeente Rotterdam 2012a, 2015, 2016). The Rotterdam Resilience Strategy focuses on six themes to make the city sustainable, safe, inclusive and healthy (Lodder et al. 2016). For example, the strategy identifies critical roads and infrastructures to be protected, links water safety to cybersecurity and identifies community initiatives that could be connected to the city’s resilience efforts. The Water Sensitive Rotterdam (WSR) programme aims to further implement and mainstream this approach to resilient urban water management by developing measures to prepare the city for the impact of climate change, including increased rainfall, extreme heat and drought. Additionally, efforts have been undertaken to integrate the resilience and sustainability objectives to ongoing processes and strategies in Rotterdam, including the spatial development strategy of the city that addresses urban green planning and its regeneration challenges, such as the improvement of the inner city, the redevelopment of the City

5  TRANSFORMING URBAN WATER GOVERNANCE … 

171

Harbours and of deprived neighbourhoods. The redevelopment of the City Ports area that has been initiated by Rotterdam municipality and the Port Authorities in 2006 resulted in the vision ‘Creating on the Edge’ (Stadshavens Rotterdam 2008) that aims at enforcing the economic structure of both the harbour and the city, climate resilience and the provision of high-end living and working environments as well as social viability (van Eijndhoven et al. 2013; Frantzeskaki et al. 2014). There also have been several spatial development strategies in Rotterdam that focus especially on densification and maintenance of existing green spaces (Gemeente Rotterdam 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2012b; cf. Frantzeskaki and Tillie 2014). This integrated strategic approach was institutionalised in the city government’s cross-cutting Sustainability and Climate Adaptation Offices that coordinate climate, resilience and sustainability-related actions and seek collaborations with other city departments, other levels of government (e.g. regional water boards), businesses, community organisations and knowledge institutes to develop and share knowledge and implement projects. The city participates in transnational city networks such as the Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities (100RC) programme initiated by the Rockefeller Foundation, which supported the development of a Resilience Strategy (Lodder et al. 2016) and facilitates knowledge exchange between cities. The 100 Resilient Cities programme resulted in the appointment of a Chief Resilience Officer in 2014, who also heads the Climate Adaptation Office in the administration. The Resilience Strategy further broadens the city’s focus from climate adaptation to also include social resilience, the resilience of vital infrastructure and cybersecurity. An exceptional characteristic of ‘the Rotterdam approach’ is that actions and projects have been developed and implemented in parallel to strategy development—as such, strategic objectives could be linked to immediate examples on the ground that make the integrated approach visible in the city. Examples of multifunctional innovative solutions include the Benthemplein water square, which combines rainwater management with area development (Fig. 5.1), the multifunctional underground water storage facility at Museumplein car park and the Floating Pavilion. The Dakakkers is the first multifunctional rooftop garden in Rotterdam, combining flood protection with commercial and recreational use. The levee at Vierhaven area was expanded to include a city park and a number of new ‘tidal park’ areas are planned along the

172  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

Fig. 5.1  The Benthemplein water square in May 2015 (Source Private 2015)

rivers in the Rotterdam region. The implementation of the green strategy resulted in more than 500 hectares of new green space that is now used for recreation (Frantzeskaki and Tillie 2014). Through subsidy provision and establishing green roofs on municipal properties, Rotterdam has also achieved coverage of over 220,000 m2 of green roofs. In the Boomjeskade promenade, the impermeable pavement of the riverbank was replaced with grass creating a soft infrastructure for flood buffering and at the same time a green space for recreation. The strategy is now—as also manifest in the WSR programme—to combine measures on a small scale, promoting in particular small projects by citizens and businesses, with few ‘eye-catchers’ and effective large-scale projects operating in the background. With these practical initiatives and high-profile proof-of-concept experiments, Rotterdam city has gained international recognition. Increasingly, international delegations visit Rotterdam and scientific

5  TRANSFORMING URBAN WATER GOVERNANCE … 

173

conferences are held in the city. Due to the international profiling, the city has struck up international partnerships for knowledge exchange and businesses from the Rotterdam region have become active in Ho Chi Minh City, Jakarta, New Orleans and Sao Paolo. Indicatively, in 2015, more than 80 delegations visited Rotterdam, which increases opportunities for local businesses. 5.2.3   Key Actors in Water Governance in Rotterdam The Netherlands is a decentralised unitary state where different governmental levels share responsibilities for spatial planning and flood risk management (Dai et al. 2018). Formal responsibilities and policy instruments are based on the Water Act (Dutch National Government 2009), the Spatial Planning Act (Dutch National Government 2006) and the Environmental Management Act. A National Adaptation Strategy and a Delta Programme based on the Water Act have been adopted to develop climate adaptation policies on the national level, in close cooperation with local and regional governments. These acts and programmes provide municipalities and regional water authorities policy instruments that enable them to deal with the effects of climate change. Municipalities have a large margin of appreciation regarding the choice of policy instruments such as local regulations and permit systems as well as more informal ones such as subsidies and facilitating participatory projects (Mees et al. 2016). In Rotterdam, in particular the Climate Adaptation Office and the Chief Resilience Officer are taking a major role in (re-)developing the water governance approach in Rotterdam, linking strategic water, climate, sustainability and resilience agendas and coordinating and implementing action. Specific departments, such as the planning and infrastructure departments, are closely involved, as well as regional and national governmental bodies, business partnerships, research institutes, architectural offices and community organisations. For example, the city government’s participation in regional and national policy and knowledge programmes such as the National Delta Programme and the Knowledge for Climate research programme mediates knowledge between different public authorities and private actors. Public–private partnerships such as the RCI and the Rotterdam Center for Resilient Delta Cities promote collaboration between public and private partners in project development and to open up international opportunities for

174  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

local businesses. We highlight some of the key actors and organisations involved in water governance in Rotterdam and their prominent roles in water governance thereafter. (a) City government: Sustainability Office and Climate Adaptation Office Within the city government, different offices and departments are responsible for taking up water governance in Rotterdam. The Sustainability and Climate Adaptation Offices cut across different municipal departments. They have a limited number of mandated staff: the respective managers and their supportive staff. The project officers that are affiliated with the offices sit in different city departments, especially the Urban Development Department and work on specific themes within these departments (e.g. built environment, flood management, groundwater management). The offices are responsible for the formulation of visions, strategy development including programmes for sustainability and climate resilience as an overarching themes, as well as keeping plans updated via ensuring consideration of new scientific knowledge. Sustainability merges energy planning, air quality planning and noise regulation planning. The offices are responsible to inform and advise the Urban Development Department and other municipal departments; they also work closely with the other partners from the RCI. They engage in translocal municipal networks such as C40 and Connecting Delta Cities, 100 Resilient Cities and city-to-city partnerships for knowledge exchange. (b) Regional and national government agencies Addressing water issues in Rotterdam is not simply a local government affair as authority is distributed across different geographical scales. There is a strong tradition of consultation among different government levels and the higher levels of government have several means of intervention which they rarely make use of (Dąbrowski 2017). It is said that Dutch planning is led by municipalities using ‘informal ways of using formal rules’ (Nadin and Stead 2008: p. 42; cf. Mees and Driessen 2011). Delta Programme In the 2008 Delta Programme, the Dutch government consolidated water management on the public agenda in relation to climate change. The Delta Programme is a platform for policy implementation of the new National Water Plan of the Netherlands. Its main target is to

5  TRANSFORMING URBAN WATER GOVERNANCE … 

175

ensure safety from floods while guaranteeing the supply of freshwater. It involves and bridges national government, provinces, water authorities and municipalities and actively engages with communities and research. It consists of three regional platforms, one of which includes the city of Rotterdam (the regional programme Rijnmond Drechtsteden). This platform highlights vulnerabilities and opportunities that relate to flood risks and existing measures for flood defences. The Delta Programme has a long-term horizon (2100) and seeks for integral measures to safeguard from future climate vulnerabilities. It included the development of Delta Scenarios in 2012 based on climate scenarios of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute. Especially the Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) and the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB) drew up the scenarios together with knowledge institutes and with some collaboration of the municipalities. The flood defence measures for Rotterdam have been designed in a collaborative process between the Urban Development Office and the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment that oversees the design and implementation of the regional Delta Programme. Water boards Water boards (Waterschappen in Dutch) are regional government bodies charged with managing water barriers, waterways, water levels, water quality and sewage treatment in their respective regions. They are among the oldest forms of local government in the Netherlands. Municipalities are required to consult the water boards in the preparatory phase when they initiate spatial planning projects to take into account the consequences of spatial measures for water management. Water boards hold elections, levy taxes and function independently from other government bodies. Their structures vary, but they each have an elected general administrative body, an executive board and a chair. In Rotterdam, there are three water boards: Waterboard Hollandse Delta, Schieland en de Krimpenerwaard and Delft. Rijkswaterstaat West-Netherlands South (West-Nederland Zuid) Rijkswaterstaat is part of the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment. Its role is the design, construction, management and maintenance of the main infrastructure facilities in the Netherlands, i.e. road and waterway networks and water systems, including flood protection and prevention. It is divided into regional services; Rijkswaterdam

176  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

West-Netherlands South is responsible for implementing the policies of Rijkswaterstaat in the province of South Holland, including Rotterdam, and to collaborate with local agencies. This agency is mainly responsible for handling flood safety issues. The city of Rotterdam is only responsible when, for example, dike breaches. City Region Programme (Stadsregio) Until 2015, Rotterdam and its surrounding region formed the city region Rijnmond. The Stadsregio programme had a platform for dealing with sustainability and spatial issues. They supported the development of a regional adaptation strategy in the 15 municipalities of the region; Rotterdam being the largest one and most advanced in climate adaptation. Somebody from the engineering section of the Urban Development Department of the Rotterdam municipality was hired from Stadsregio to support the process and transfer knowledge gained in Rotterdam in climate adaptation. The Stadsregio is now discontinued to focus on the metropolitan region Rotterdam-The Hague, focusing on economic development and mobility. (c) Public–private partnerships Rotterdam has established a variety of public–private partnerships that fulfil different scopes of governance activities to develop strategies, pool resources and implement projects (Frantzeskaki et al. 2014). Rotterdam Climate Initiative (RCI) and Rotterdam Climate Proof (RCP) The RCI is a learning alliance between the Rotterdam municipality, the Port Authorities, Deltalinqs (an umbrella organisation for companies in the harbour and the surrounding area) and the DCMR Environmental Protection Agency Rijnmond. It has been founded in 2007 as a knowledge liaison to create channels for disseminating information, ideas and knowledge between the partners and to stimulate joint ­solution-seeking processes to contribute to achieving the agreed-upon target of 50% reduction in CO2 emissions in harbour and city by 2050 (in reference to 1990). In the implementation of projects, the initiative collaborates with diverse networks of local government agencies, companies, knowledge institutes and citizens. As such, the RCI has a process-oriented and tactical role on steering learning creation and knowledge mediation to create knowledge synergies and ensure integration and harmonisation of

5  TRANSFORMING URBAN WATER GOVERNANCE … 

177

actions (Frantzeskaki et al. 2014). It was one of the parties signing the earlier mentioned declaration of intent to develop the Climate Campus Rotterdam and co-financed and earmarked the floating pavilion as the first result of its RCP programme to make Rotterdam climate resilient. Knowledge for Climate Knowledge for Climate was a Dutch research programme in the field of climate change and adaptation that ran from 2007 until 2014. Partners in the foundation were knowledge institutes and universities that carried out research on eight themes (e.g. flood risk management, climate-proof cities, governance and policy tools). Research was carried out together with stakeholders in so-called hotspots; the Rotterdam region was one of these hotspots. The objectives of the research project for Rotterdam region (including the city of Rotterdam, the Port of Rotterdam and the surrounding region Rijnmond) were to make the area both ­climate-proof and attractive for living and working, with particular attention to the port, transport and housing. Focus areas included water safety, transport over water and urban development. Research has been demand driven and much efforts has been put into knowledge transfer. The research was co-financed by the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment. It resulted in additional knowledge on flood risk, climate-proofing, urban development and governance, identification of practical opportunities and new collaborations between research partners and the involved public and private stakeholders from the city. Rotterdam Centre for Resilient Delta Cities (RDC) In 2015 the Rotterdam Centre for Resilient Delta Cities (RDC) has been launched as a public–private network between the Rotterdam municipality, knowledge institutes and design and development businesses in Rotterdam to develop experiments for climate adaptation and resilient delta cities and create business opportunities for local partners. The RDC members have an extensive track record in realising innovative concepts in delta cities. The proposition is to make a gateway to climate resilience research, organise actors to implement strategies and create economic spin-off. Clean Tech Delta The Clean Tech Delta Partnership was set up in 2010 as a follow-up of the Rotterdam Climate Campus with the goal to re-invent delta

178  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

technology. The Rotterdam Climate Campus was a learning alliance between science, business, public sector and civil society established through a declaration of intent in 2008 (Ministerie VROM et al. 2008; cf. Frantzeskaki et al. 2014). With booming numbers of interested parties outside Rotterdam, the Climate Campus became Clean Tech Delta. Clean Tech Delta is a learning alliance with eleven founding fathers coming from the public sector (Delft municipality, Rotterdam municipality, Hoogheemraadschap van Delfland), the private sector (Vestia, AVR-van Gansewinkel Groep, Eneco, Arcadis) and from scientific institutes (Delft University of Technology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Hogeschool Rotterdam, TNO) (Clean Tech Delta 2011; cf. Frantzeskaki et al. 2014). In 2011, the partnership has grown to encompass a network of 40 parties and has a formalised organisational structure (Clean Tech Delta 2011). The partners work together to generate knowledge in four sectors: bio-based economy and sustainable energy, water and delta technology, infrastructures and mobility, and sustainable buildings and regional development. The underlying mission of the partnership is to put this knowledge into practice; examples include flagship projects such as ‘floating constructions’ or a ‘business platform biomass’. Four physical sites have been assigned as development locations, one of which is the Merwe-Vierhavens, part of Rotterdam City Port area. Translocal networks: C40, Connecting Delta Cities and 100 Resilient Cities To focus on the specific climate adaptation challenges of urban deltas Rotterdam has initiated the network Connecting Delta Cities as part of the C40 network to share knowledge and best practices on water management and climate adaptation. Additionally, since 2014 Rotterdam is partnering with the 100 Resilient Cities Initiative of the Rockefeller Foundation that selected frontrunning cities in climate adaptation to develop a resilience strategy. It also maintains diverse partnerships with other cities worldwide to exchange knowledge. Rotterdam Centre for Resilient Delta Cities (RDC) The RDC was established as a public–private network organisation with local businesses and knowledge institutes that pool knowledge and seek collaborations abroad for applying their experience with realising innovative solutions.

5  TRANSFORMING URBAN WATER GOVERNANCE … 

179

5.3  Capacities for Transformative Water Governance in Rotterdam We analyse how the activities by which actors in the city of Rotterdam, the Netherlands, address water in the city’s policy and planning practices created new types of conditions that manifest in capacities for sustainable and resilient water governance. We applied the framework in the following steps. Firstly, we analysed how the governance functions are addressed as a result of water governance in Rotterdam. For example, we identified what kinds of risks are recognised or overlooked, what path-dependencies are addressed, and what types of innovations are developed. Secondly, we identified the conditions resulting from the activities of actors for delivering the governance functions. This step involved theory-driven coding of the collected data to relate the identified activities to the capacity conditions of the framework (Saldana 2009). In a final step, we identified capacity gaps that relate to shortcomings of water governance outcomes in Rotterdam and insufficiently developed capacities’ levels and conditions. Appendix A shows how the empirical material was systematically analysed by applying the governance capacities framework. The case study provides a snapshot of water governance capacities in Rotterdam city. We did not intend to show how the capacities emerged over time and to determine an absolute value for the capacities’ effectiveness and levels. We rather sought to illustrate the activities that by today manifest in the capacities and to show how the capacity levels and gaps influence how water governance is practised in an empirical setting. The study starts from 2005, when the reframing of water governance has started to take shape. Different data were collected for the study: (i) between March and June 2015, 28 semi-structured interviews were conducted in person with climate governance practitioners in Rotterdam. An effort was made to ensure a mix of respondents; the interviewees included policy officers from the city government (n = 11) and regional (n = 1) and national (n = 1) governmental bodies, representatives from knowledge institutes (n = 4), local businesses and architects (n = 6), local NGOs (n = 2), community groups (n = 1) and politicians (n = 2). (ii) Desk research was performed including a press analysis and a literature review of policy documents (strategies, visions, plans on climate change from year

180  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

2005 to 2016) and scientific articles about climate and sustainability governance in Rotterdam and the Netherlands. (iii) Two of the authors were involved in different vision and strategy development processes in Rotterdam between 2012 and 2016. These processes included the redevelopment of the city harbour (Stadshaven) (Frantzeskaki et al. 2014) and the formulation of the resilience strategy (Gemeente Rotterdam 2016; Lodder et al. 2016). 5.3.1   Stewarding Capacity Stewarding capacity influences which and how disturbances are anticipated and what responses are enabled. In Rotterdam, stewarding is oriented towards water safety, accessibility, adaptive spatial development to protect from flood risks due to rising sea, groundwater and river levels as well as extreme rainfall and storms, as well as other climate change impacts such as heat. The introduction of other resilience goals connected water-related risks with improving neighbourhoods, liveability, ecological values and emergency services. Stewarding capacity has resulted in a multi-layered approach with various large-scale and small-scale solutions to mainly improve urban water retention capacity. However, key challenges include the enabling of community-based adaptation measures and the mainstreaming of adaptation into policy and planning decisions and across the multiple responsible governing authorities at national, regional and local levels. Stewarding capacity is manifest in vast knowledge about future water and climate-related risks and vulnerabilities. The knowledge is largely related to flood risk, though there is an increasing consideration of socio-economic vulnerabilities like inequality and cybersecurity. National, regional and international knowledge programmes and partnerships support knowledge generation. For example, Knowledge for Climate, a Dutch research collaboration, and the public–private National Delta Programme contributed to research on climate risks and adaptation strategies (van den Berg et al. 2013; van Veelen 2013). Knowledge was generated in form of scenarios (Ligtvoet et al. 2015), flood maps (RCI 2012) and participatory visioning processes (Frantzeskaki et al. 2014). Knowledge generation is also mandated; for example, the Province of South Holland asks municipalities to make risk assessments for inhabitants of outer-dike areas.

5  TRANSFORMING URBAN WATER GOVERNANCE … 

181

Water and flood safety are shared responsibilities across national, regional and local governmental bodies including the regional water boards, Rijkswaterstaat (the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management), the Province of South Holland and the city government. This results in efforts to integrate approaches at various levels (e.g. the city’s flood risk management approach and the National Delta Programme) and to implement both large-scale and small-scale measures. To protect Rotterdam and the surrounding region from flooding, the national and regional governments established a large-scale flood and sea-level rise defence system, including the Maeslantkering storm surge barrier, permanent sand dunes and dikes. The city government implements zoning plans and small-scale flood protection measures throughout the entire urban area, including blue-green corridors, integrating buildings with dikes and multifunctional water storage facilities. An integrated planning approach supports context-specific interventions to address climate risks and to contribute to equity, urban green and economic development simultaneously. These approaches integrate long-term and multifunctional thinking about the long-term effects of climate change, but also consider opportunities for urgent, short-term issues, which is, for example, embodied in the water squares and green roofs (Dai et al. 2018). The rationale behind this is pragmatic: there is only limited space within Rotterdam to for urban development to climate-proof the city. Partnerships and collaborations are an important condition underpinning stewarding capacity. Public–private partnerships such as the RCP or neighbourhood-based planning processes promote collaboration between public and private partners for the development and implementation of concrete projects. Pilot studies for climate-proofing are developed together with local communities, which helps to clarify problems and constraints of the local government—such as national regulation or lack of financial means—as well as to address the needs of local communities. Stewarding capacity in Rotterdam faces several shortcomings. Firstly, policies and interventions still focus mostly on water safety and on technical measures to optimise the current system. This fails to incentivise long-term and co-beneficial adaptive solutions: no direct financing is available and it is difficult to capitalise the (uncertain) benefits.

182  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

Secondly, climate-proofing is not mainstreamed and existing regulations remain inconsistent and unspecific. For example, existing guidelines on what tiles are used in residential areas block the installation of permeable tiles during road maintenance. Responsibilities for maintaining flood safety are unclear. Thirdly, responsibilities for maintaining water safety are not always clearly defined. This especially affects unembanked outer-dike areas—a legal grey zone in terms of responsibility. These areas are outside of the remit of the water boards even though they collect taxes from citizens living there, and also neither the local nor national governments are responsible. Therefore, residents and businesses are ultimately responsible for limiting their risks of water damage. Regional and local authorities do assess the security situation, provide information and support. However, inhabitants are not aware about risks, and they have limited tools or incentives for flood-proofing their homes. A key barrier remains the sharing of the financial burden for costly investments in adaptation measures. Similarly, a challenge is to foster collaboration for water- and climate-proofing the municipal district water plans. A way forward is including water in the checklist for urban development and open spaces, aligning zoning plans with the vision of the Water Plan 2 and including requirements for construction permits (Francesch-Huidobro et al. 2017). Finally, despite the recognition that tackling these challenges cannot be achieved with solely costly solutions and the ambition to develop a joint movement led by the city government together with municipal services, residents, businesses, interest groups, associations, etc. on equal footing, the city struggles to engage with communities and wider societal groups. This is illustrated by the trend of paving private gardens (resulting in sealing soil) while the goal of the city is greening for increased water storage capacity (as a flood mitigation measure). Interviewees from the city government stated as main problem their lack of experience in reaching out to local communities. 5.3.2   Unlocking Capacity Unlocking capacity determines what and how drivers of unsustainability and path-dependencies are recognised and reduced. Unlocking capacity in Rotterdam is visible in the ability to re-develop the city’s approach to managing water, particularly in moving away from perceiving water as

5  TRANSFORMING URBAN WATER GOVERNANCE … 

183

a threat and the aim to create space for living with water. This is evidenced in, for example, changing storm water management approaches, which now (seek to) put in place infrastructure to hold water and temporarily store water where it falls (Dai et al. 2018), such as through water squares. There are initiatives to change urban imperviousness, for example, by de-paving concrete surfaces. Underpinning these unlocking activities are institutional changes such as new forms of collaborations across departments and between the city government and the water boards, as well as increasing the flood risk levels that need to be considered in flood protection planning. However, overall these initiatives remain still very technically focused and are not mainstreamed, as evidenced in the above-mentioned trend to pave private gardens. Unlocking capacity seems to be particularly curtailed by institutional rigidity and limited political and societal support for changing business-as-usual, as well as the fact that the Rotterdam government shies away from putting in place more decisive regulation to mainstream climate adaptation and sustainability. Research on drivers of unsustainable urban water management helps to identify target areas for action. The Delta Scenarios, which were developed on a national level by the Dutch Environmental Assessment Agency, include socio-economic storylines on national and local levels, including population, jobs and houses. They served to trigger urgency, broaden the perspectives of decision-makers and facilitate robust ­ decision-making and investments. The knowledge generated underscored that the impacts of climate change, including sea-level rise but also changing rainfall patterns, will make it impossible to continue relying on existing drainage infrastructure. For example, due to the increased frequency of extreme precipitation events and related pluvial flooding parts of the city become more prone to inundation, and there is insufficient water storage in the context of significant land use and space constraints. As such, the knowledge was important to facilitate a change of flood protection planning, the formulation of an evacuation plan and adapt zoning plans. Similarly, emerging knowledge about problems serves to further problematise existing legal standards that regulate flood risk management. Changing planning regulation, operational standards and incentive structures are an important condition to make new practices more beneficial vis-à-vis business-as-usual. A success was the provision of incentives to property owners to invest in green roofs (Mees et al. 2013). However,

184  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

overall, the city of Rotterdam so far chose pragmatically for soft law and policies rather than legally binding rules (Dai et al. 2018), while much of the existing incentive structure still favours technical and short-term approaches to water management practice. Such soft policies are difficult to enforce with the focus on awareness raising, city branding and facilitating cooperation. In addition, they lack indicators to measure and evaluate progress, and do not specify responsibilities for achieving and enforcing targets. Generating the support of political and private actors has been critical—and continues to be challenging—for increasing opportunities to depart from business-as-usual approaches. The increasing awareness about the impacts of climate change (and the discourse on water as opportunity—also mentioned in the Foreword in this volume) has led to stronger public and private willingness to invest in climate adaptation and supports cooperative spatial planning and flood management. Key activities to motivate residents and businesses to take action on their own plot of land are online awareness campaigns, information evenings and door-to-door information leaflets that give practical examples of how to make houses and plots more waterproof. However, it is still challenging to engage landowners and residents in changing their social practices to pave their gardens. While residents are responsible for rainwater on their own plots, residents are often still unaware of their risks and responsibilities and rely on the government to be protected against flooding risks. Similarly, research on heat stress was not able to get political interest in Rotterdam as it was difficult to illustrate urgency because mortality rates could not be correlated with heat. However, the involved policy officers from the local government started to talk about ‘thermal comfort’ that more directly linked to liveability and attractiveness of the city. This helped to piggy-back low-regret heat measures on other urban development strategies and initiatives. There are several gaps in unlocking capacity that, as with the barriers to stewarding capacity, centre on the lack of mainstreaming the changing approach to water governance. This makes it difficult to decisively ­phase-out existing unsustainable practices and mal-adaptation. For example, there is still limited awareness and funding opportunities about how to integrate permeable surfaces in operational activities such as road maintenance. Most of the changes made to-date complement existing systems and practices, rather than there being an associated decline of existing urban technologies and/or drainage systems. Additionally, the complex

5  TRANSFORMING URBAN WATER GOVERNANCE … 

185

Dutch system of decentralised water governance makes it difficult to get support from the right kind of actors, to clearly define and follow-up on responsibilities and to collaborate as interests and funding streams often do not overlap. 5.3.3   Transformative Capacity Transformative capacity influences what type of new innovations are developed and how they are embedded into structures, cultures and practices. Rotterdam has become recognised as a frontrunner in integrating water management with climate change, sustainability and resilience priorities. A key success factor was the experimentation with innovative and high-profile pilot projects. In developing and implementing the new strategies and operational approaches, governance processes were innovated to enable more open-ended, hybrid and collaborative ­decision-making. However, the innovative strategies, solutions and networks still act within niches and remain disconnected from urban planning and decision-making processes. Transformative capacity is manifest in the creation of ample informal and protective spaces, in which relatively small groups of public and private actors from different governance levels come together to share knowledge and develop innovations. Because discussions were framed strategically as ‘non-official’, flexible and informal, more radical ideas and longer timeframes were possible than in usual policymaking practice. These informal spaces thus facilitated collaboration, out-of-the-box thinking and navigating existing regulatory constraints. The mobilisation of (political) momentum was also critical. In the mid-2000s, policy entrepreneurs used international momentum to reframe the city’s water management approach from ‘keeping water out’ towards ‘water as opportunity for liveability’ (de Greef 2005). This created informal spaces to formulate new strategies and develop projects. Innovative solutions like the Benthemplein water square and the floating pavilion could be developed by positioning them as proof-of-concepts to provide inspiration for a climate-proof city and to market the city as a frontrunner. The new strategic goals were mainstreamed into operational processes and innovative solutions were upscaled and replicated. For example, the Rotterdam Adaptation Strategy (RCI 2012) demonstrates prototypes of adaptive solutions. The goals were connected to ongoing strategies and processes, including the redevelopment of the old city ports

186  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

and the city’s greening strategies (Frantzeskaki et al. 2014; Frantzeskaki and Tillie 2014). Lessons-learned from implementing proof-of-concept projects support their replication and upscaling. The maintenance of the Benthemplein water square proved tedious due to its technical complexity. Other water squares were implemented with reduced complexity but building on the success principles of the Benthemplein square. The involved architecture firm plans to upscale the Benthemplein square to a climate-proof city quarter—the Zomerhofkwartier. The planning process builds on the water retention function already covered and on experiences, collaborations and financing options created during the water square process. The integration of diverse goals and the facilitation of protected, open-ended innovation processes prompted new governance structures and networks that promote and coordinate priority-setting, mainstreaming and experimentation activities. Local, regional and international partnerships were established, including the RDM Campus, 100RC and Clean Tech Delta, which support the development of innovations by providing space for continuous experimentation. While there is abundant space for experimentation, the innovative strategies, solutions and networks remain disconnected from ongoing planning and decision-making processes. There is no consistent translation of strategic objectives into action programmes. This results in limited mainstreaming of, for example, climate adaptation into institutional and legal frameworks. Learning from practical experiments to harvest lessons and feed them into strategies and agendas remains largely informal due to time constraints. The innovations often remain ­stand-alone initiatives, which are showcased internationally, rather than locally, to create business opportunities for local companies. 5.3.4   Orchestrating Capacity Orchestrating capacity enables coordinated water governance interventions in line with overarching visions for sustainability and resilience. The innovation processes in Rotterdam resulted in long-term sustainability and resilience goals that guide water governance activities. New formal and informal governance structures and networks emerged to mediate priorities, knowledge and resources across sectors and scales. However, limited outreach beyond a relatively small actor group,

5  TRANSFORMING URBAN WATER GOVERNANCE … 

187

disconnection from ongoing governance processes and unavailability of viable ­long-term financing signify orchestrating capacity gaps. Orchestrating capacity is visible in the long-term strategic direction for water, climate mitigation and adaptation, sustainability and resilience, which resonates in official policy documents, changing narratives and the ways solutions are designed and implemented. The strategies were formulated in collaborative processes including citizen surveys and cross-departmental and public–private debate to stimulate ownership. The integration of different goals helps to develop multifunctional solutions, identify trade-offs and it spurs new coalitions. For example, the programme ‘River as Tidal Park’ to strengthen the Meuse river as central, green space connects economic activity, greening, biodiversity and recreation and is implemented by the port authority, the city government and environmental organisations. To coordinate the implementation of the strategic agenda, diverse formal and informal networks and communication channels were created to integrate and mediate priorities across scales and sectors. The Rotterdam Climate Office is tasked with motivating, overseeing and coordinating planning processes across sectors. Their cross-departmental set-up makes them central nodes for knowledge exchange and pooling. The offices’ policy officers initiate and organise joint visioning processes, identify opportunities for experimentation and piggy-backing climate mitigation and adaptation initiatives, search and allocate funding sources and participate in cross-scale collaborations and international city networks. The position of the Chief Resilience Officer provides a key contact point for pooling all resilience efforts in the city. Each Climate Office’s member was placed in different city departments to ensure the office’s agenda is taken up in each department’s initiatives. Public–private partnerships support the activities of the Climate and Sustainability Offices on tactical and operational levels. Projects are implemented together with different networks consisting of local government agencies, companies, knowledge institute and citizens. The Global Centre of Excellence on Climate Adaptation and the Climate Adaptation Academy were launched in Rotterdam. These contribute to international city alignment and knowledge exchange by providing training programmes on water management, climate adaptation and resilience.

188  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

The city of Rotterdam was successful in finding several creative ways to mobilise the financing for integrated projects. For example, it was possible to shift responsibilities and budgets between the city government and water boards for the installation of the Benthemplein water square. In addition, the city received financial aid from the national government for its Climate Initiative and the 100 Resilient Cities programme. Sewage levies are another way to finance Rotterdam’s projects for the collection and processing of rainwater: replacing sewage pipes is costly; therefore, the government reserves a set amount of money to ensure the programme’s long-term efficiency (Dai et al. 2018). Orchestration capacity in Rotterdam is limited to a relatively small actor group. There is a disconnect between the more diffuse and informal resilience and sustainability networks and more formalised ­decision-making and planning processes. Different areas of responsibilities and professional profiles that are brought together through integrated strategies make it difficult to find a common language and understanding between different groups (e.g. spatial planners and urban designers in the municipalities and civil engineers in the water boards) (­Francesch-Huidobro et al. 2017). A key challenge in the light of the prevailing focus on (short-term) economic development is to ensure financing of the implementation of the strategic agendas by setting conditions for collaborative, long-term investments and determining responsibilities for carrying costs. This comes along with the increasing trend to cut public budgets while shifting responsibilities from the national to local governments. This brings uncertainty and risks in long-term future investments.

5.4  Discussion: Key Conditions for Transforming Urban Water Governance Our case study sheds light into the development towards sustainable and resilient water governance in Rotterdam. Applying the lens of the capacities framework helps to map the activities by which multiple actors create new types of governance conditions, as well as to identify persistent barriers and capacity gaps. Specifically, the analysis of the different types of governance capacities shows that diverse institutional, knowledge, network and social conditions were created to govern water in an integrated, innovative and inclusive way (Table 5.1; Appendix A). These conditions have helped to move beyond short-term, technocratic and narrow approaches to water governance. However, a key

Monitoring and continuous learning

Strengthening self-organisation for stewarding

Generating knowledge about system dynamics

Stewarding capacity

Capacity conditions

Long-term forecasting of systemic risks and uncertainties across scales Generating problem-based and context-specific knowledge in vulnerability hot spots Identifying and prioritising high-risk areas for directing investments Creating issue-specific and multi-stakeholder research programmes and partnerships for knowledge generation across scales and sectors Formalising research partnerships and networks Mandating knowledge generation to ensure access to data

(continued)

Integrating long-term, systemic risks and uncertainties into planning and management approaches Adopting problem-based, fit-to-context and no-regret planning and management approaches Providing flexible regulation and incentives to facilitate fit-to-context risk protection Clearly assigning and communicating responsibilities of actors Network condition: Multi-scale Establishing issue-specific, multi-level and cross-sectoral collaborations to and cross-sectoral networks and develop and implement projects in line with context needs Involving communities in joint and context-specific visioning, planning partnerships for risk planning and and implementation processes management Social condition: Social capital and Raising awareness about risks and response options Strengthening social networks to enable self-organised response and actor empowerment social resilience Knowledge condition: Drawing on past experience and learning about new solutions Institutional and social memory Continuously updating plans and resilience and sustainability indicators

Institutional condition: Knowledge mandates Institutional condition: Flexible, problem-based and fit-to-context planning and management approaches

Network condition: Knowledge partnerships

Knowledge condition: Long-term, systemic and context-specific knowledge about risks and uncertainties

Activities

Table 5.1  Capacities for sustainable and resilient water governance in Rotterdam

5  TRANSFORMING URBAN WATER GOVERNANCE … 

189

Enabling novelty creation

Raising awareness and providing assistance for sustainable investments and behaviour change Lobbying for political support Setting up public-private partnerships for issue-specific action Setting up support networks with key stakeholders (groups)

Setting standards for sustainable investments Providing incentives for sustainable investments Integrating sustainability into public tendering Implementing regulation to control unsustainable practices

Identifying systemic social and economic drivers of unsustainability and path-dependency Road mapping and scenario analyses to explore phase-out options Establishing public-private knowledge partnerships to identify drivers and explore phase-out options Mandating knowledge generation to ensure access to data

Activities

(continued)

Mobilising political leadership to put new and ambitious goals on the agenda Making use of momentum and opportunities for change Piggy-backing and quickly expressing potential of a new solution Forming informal ‘coalitions of the willing’ for strategic and operational innovation Involving communities in design and implementation of experiments Institutional condition: (Regulatory, Temporary lifting or avoiding existing regulations financial) space for innovation

Social condition: Leadership for creating and using opportunities for change Network condition: Multi-actor innovation networks

Network condition: Key support networks and partnerships Transformative capacity

Revealing unsustaina- Knowledge condition: Identifying ble path-dependency and exploring systemic drivers and mal-adaptation Network condition: Knowledge partnerships Institutional condition: Knowledge mandates Undermining vested Institutional condition: Support interests and incenfor sustainable business cases and tive structures investments Institutional condition: Control of unsustainable practices Breaking open resist- Social condition: Societal and politance to change ical awareness and support

Unlocking capacity

Capacity conditions

Table 5.1  (continued)

190  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

Strategic alignment

Orchestrating capacity

Anchoring novelty in context

Activities

Institutional condition: Long-term and integrated goals Social condition: Involvement of multiple actors in shared strategy formulation and visioning

(continued)

Developing long-term climate mitigation and adaptation, sustainability and resilience goals Involving multiple actors from different city departments and private organisations in strategy formulation Public outreaching and participation

Creating and advocating an inspiring innovation story Showcasing innovations as market potential for the city Creating advocacy coalitions to carry the innovation story Participating in and hosting local, regional, national and international networking, best practice and knowledge exchange events for visibility Knowledge condition: Learning Identifying proof-of-concept lessons from innovations to facilitate replifor replication and upscaling cating and embedding Identifying opportunities from innovation for upscaling Identifying bricolage of solution elements to mainstream innovations into urban planning processes and decisions Network condition: Self-sustaining Formalising operational public-private partnerships for continuous innovation networks innovation Setting up cross-sectoral networks and partnerships tasked with (embedding of) innovation in institutional structures Institutional condition: Creating open mind-set for taking up innovations in tactical agendas and Institutional space for embedding daily practices Allocating budget to developing and maintaining innovation, upscaling strategic and operational innovaand replicating tions in mainstream practice

Increasing visibility of Social condition: (Trans-)local novelty support for the innovation story Network condition: Advocacy coalitions

Capacity conditions

Table 5.1  (continued)

5  TRANSFORMING URBAN WATER GOVERNANCE … 

191

Network condition: Connection nodes for pooling climate action

Activities

Establishing central connection nodes for pooling climate efforts at multiple levels Establishing cross-departmental city offices for coordinating and knowledge brokering at multiple levels Designating theme-leads and contact persons within individual departments Identifying private and community-based activities to seek linkages Network condition: Intermediary Creating neutral co-creation spaces and knowledge partnerships to build spaces for knowledge sharing and trust for knowledge sharing and resource synergies across scales and trust building sectors Participating in international city networks Establishing cross-departmental co-creation spaces for knowledge exchange, priority alignment and trust building Knowledge condition: Pooling and Identifying opportunities, synergies and trade-offs between different integrating knowledge and resources goals across scales and sectors Creating opportunity Institutional condition: Framework Redefining responsibilities for carrying costs Creating competitions to leverage innovative, long-term and co-beneficontexts conditions and financing mechacial solutions nisms for long-term co-benefits

Mediation across scales and sectors

Capacity conditions

Table 5.1  (continued)

192  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

5  TRANSFORMING URBAN WATER GOVERNANCE … 

193

challenge is the mainstreaming of this approach into wider urban governance policies, practices and processes. In particular, while much attention has been paid to strategy development and (some) high-profile experiments, this seems to come at the cost of translating strategy into agendas and practical programmes boosting implementation. Relatedly, there is a struggle to harvest lessons learnt from projects and to upscale successful pilot projects. As the city government possesses decreasing financial means, there is a need to identify new funding opportunities and implementation partners. Cross-departmental cooperation, streamlining of sustainable and resilient water governance into municipal working and collaboration with city-wide partners are still limited. The city government seems unable to connect with community groups and citizens in developing projects, while they are regarded as part of the solutions in the face of budget cuts and limited public authority (e.g. with regards to climate-proofing private buildings and the trend to pave gardens while the goal of the city is greening for increased water storage capacity). In the following, we highlight key characteristics that manifest in the shift towards sustainable and resilient water governance in Rotterdam, which crosses multiple policy sectors and domains, involves a variety of actors and facilitates innovative solutions. For each characteristic, we also highlight the barriers and next step challenges to further advance and mainstream this approach. With this, we aim to provide practical guidance and research directions for how to support governance conditions and arrangements that enhance sustainable and resilient water governance. 5.4.1   An Integrated Approach to Water Governance Through ­LongTerm Sustainability and Resilience Goals and Agendas A key step for moving towards sustainable and resilient water governance in Rotterdam has been the reframing of ‘water as an opportunity’ for enhancing liveability, economic development and well-being. The long-term and systemic water, climate, sustainability and resilience goals provide a shared orientation for aligning priorities, motivating actors and designing co-beneficial solutions. For example, the integrated perspective on water, climate, sustainability and resilience was embedded in context-sensitive, problem-based and community-based approaches to manage risks and vulnerabilities. The integrated perspective on climate change, sustainability and resilience also facilitates the generation of

194  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

systemic knowledge on risks and drivers of unsustainability and ­path-dependency. A systems’ approach to urban water governance can reduce institutional fragmentation, while providing coordination and coherence across different policies (Romano and Akhmouch 2019). However, this strategic orientation remains relatively meaningless to the policy and planning practices in individual policy sectors when it is not consistently and decisively translated into institutional frameworks and financing mechanisms that change incentive structures and organisational ways of working (den Exter et al. 2014; Wamsler 2015). In Rotterdam, the integrated programmes and regulations still remain patches within overall city policy and planning landscape, which still perceive efforts to implement the strategic agenda as doing something extra. This makes them vulnerable to changing political priorities and economic interests. It perpetuates counteracting investments (e.g. building developments in flood-prone areas) and results in trade-offs—for example, charging stations for electric cars were set-up in a flood-prone area, increasing water-related vulnerabilities and threatening to cause power outages during floods. This is visible in challenges for stewarding and unlocking capacity in Rotterdam to mainstream and prioritise the long-term concerns. Regarding transformative capacity, the innovative climate strategies, approaches and solutions often remain isolated and stand-alone. Effectively institutionalising alternative approaches is a key challenging facing urban practitioners and policymakers (Brown et al. 2013). So far, the approach in Rotterdam is largely informal, based on ad hoc coalitions and soft governance instruments. There might be a need for devising clear and measurable legal standards and clearly assigning responsibilities across the multiple governing authorities (cf. Dai et al. 2018). Several legal policy instruments are available, such as water management plans, municipal sewerage plans, local regulations with a permit system, and building requirements (ibid.). Along these lines, Water Plan 2 has already proposed a number of actions to integrate water and climate into municipal district water plans, including the inclusion of water in checklists for urban development and open spaces, aligning the water aspects of zoning plans and including prerequisites for the construction permits and development plans (Francesch-Huidobro et al. 2017). Another idea—to deal with the lack of money—is to connect maintenance more closely with the existing project portfolio to ensure that everything is only invested in the long-term.

5  TRANSFORMING URBAN WATER GOVERNANCE … 

195

5.4.2   A Coordinated Approach to Water Governance Through Orchestration New governance structures such as the Climate and Sustainability Office have evolved on an ad hoc basis in Rotterdam that serve to coordinate the diverse governance activities concerning water, climate, sustainability and resilience—these are manifest in orchestrating capacity. Orchestration is critical for initiating, mobilising, overseeing and integrating urban (water) governance processes, decisions and investments in line with long-term, systemic and inclusive objectives and across scales and sectors. In Rotterdam, the orchestration through connection nodes and intermediary spaces ensures alignment and knowledge sharing between these partnerships and monitors action in line with the strategic vision. It helps to initiate, mobilise for and oversee a shared ­long-term and systemic agenda by co-creating and integrating policy priorities and goals, building trust, identifying priority areas, mandating action and mediating knowledge and resources across scales and sectors. Orchestration becomes necessary because integrated water governance does not fit neatly in existing institutional siloes. The local government in Rotterdam takes up key roles in coordinating climate action, having set up formal and informal cross-boundary coordination structures such as the cross-departmental resilience and sustainability offices to align, motivate and support climate action across scales and sectors in line with the strategic visions. Being positioned at the centre of horizontal and vertical integration, local governments can ensure compatibility and coherence, act as primary organiser of dialogue among policy communities, deploy a monopoly of organisational intelligence and information and balance power differentials (Frantzeskaki et al. 2014). Along these lines, the Rotterdam city government views itself as a facilitator of ­bottom-up processes. However, while the coordination processes in Rotterdam facilitate trust building, interest mediation and cooperation, they are faced with time and resource constraints visible in the limited connection to actors and networks outside of the immediate climate and sustainability domains. Orchestrating is time consuming and requires dedicated staff to establish formal and informal communication channels (e.g. i­nter-departmental working groups, intermediary spaces), cultivate trust, start initiatives when needed and pool resources and knowledge.

196  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

5.4.3   An Inclusive Approach to Water Governance Through Polycentric Partnerships and Co-creation While the local government in Rotterdam often initiates, oversees and implements urban water governance activities, a multifarious number of actors from local communities, businesses, transnational networks and regional and national governments contribute to the delivery. A diversity of cross-sectoral, cross-scale and public–private partnerships and networks, including regional and national knowledge programmes, research partnerships, research-industry collaborations and private stakeholder platforms, participate in the generation of knowledge, the formulation of strategies and agendas and the development of innovative solutions. Additionally, as urban water governance is inherently multi-level, regional, national and international regulatory bodies influence and at times, lead and deliver urban water governance by providing legislation, incentives and resources. A key challenge in Rotterdam is the engagement of local communities and private actors, despite the diverse outreaching and awareness-raising activities by the local government. As illustrated above, private actors are often not aware of their flood risks, rely on the local government to take action and even do counteracting practices such as paving their gardens. The inclusion of a wide range of societal actors is critical to take different interests into account, make complex goals like resilience understandable, ensure that top-down priorities are aligned with local needs and tap into the multiple capacities of actors to achieve the deep structural and behavioural changes required (Brown 2017; Hölscher et al. 2019). Working with citizens is considered one of the biggest future challenges in Rotterdam—especially in the light of the decreasing role and resources of the local government. The government is still struggling to develop skills and knowledge about co-creative approaches, starting from how to identify and reach out to community actors. Nonetheless, there are already positive experiences—such as in the design and implementation of the Benthemplein water square, where local communities were involved from the beginning. Another key challenge related to a collaborative approach to urban water governance in Rotterdam is the complex distribution of responsibilities across multiple levels of governance. While multi-scale governance networks and integrative planning approaches support fit-to-context solutions and flexible financing mechanisms (such as providing resources from the water boards in exchange for water safety through the water

5  TRANSFORMING URBAN WATER GOVERNANCE … 

197

square), they require a clear definition and communication of responsibilities, collaborative decision-making processes and flexible regulation to account for diverse regional and local needs. 5.4.4   An Innovation and Learning-Based Approach to Water Governance Through Experimentation A key characteristic of the ‘Rotterdam approach’ is the experimentation with innovative and high-profile pilot projects, but also the concomitant innovation at strategic levels. Experimentation has been appraised as an open-ended way for trialling new, agile and responsive solutions to deal with the significant uncertainties and complexities of climate change and urban transformations and contribute to the radical changes necessary for achieving sustainability and resilience (Bulkeley et al. 2016; Castán Broto and Bulkeley 2013; Karvonen 2018). In Rotterdam, the creation of space for experimentation by lifting regulatory requirements and providing systemic financing frameworks has allowed to test new solutions in co-creative ways. These experimentation activities were led by relatively small groups of actors from the city government, knowledge institutes and local businesses that organised mostly informally. The experiments often remain disconnected from mainstream urban governance processes, manifesting in ‘pilot paradoxes’ that embody stand-alone innovations, which do not inform policy and planning (van Buuren et al. 2018; Hölscher et al. 2018). Especially the innovated pilot projects (but also the new strategic agendas, see Sect. 5.1) largely serve to showcase innovative solutions and externally market Rotterdam as a front runner city in climate adaptation. This way of experimentation seems to underpin competitive urbanism without being connected to internal embedding processes and to systemic change. As neither experimentation nor sustainability transitions are value-free, the use of experimentation to create highly visible international showcases raises questions about the choices of where experiments are conducted, for what reasons (e.g. climate adaptation, mitigation and/or sustainability) and for whom (Evans 2016). Additionally, current trends towards a ‘projectification of funding’, which is reinforced by governments’ focus on cost-optimisation and effectiveness, does not allow moving beyond innovative initiatives (Ehnert et al. 2018). The aspiration to inform and acquire new ways of problem-solving implies some sort of learning about what the tested innovations bring about in the policy mix of cities (Luederitz et al. 2017; Raven et al.

198  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

2017). Moving ‘beyond experimentation’ requires the dedication of time to identify, evaluate and translate lessons from specific innovations, such as about the viability, replicability and scalability, for their broader context (Turnheim et al. 2018; Ehnert et al. 2018). For example, when thinking about the scaling of innovation it is important to develop a viable business case that builds on data from the pilot project: if the project reduces costs of, for example, the maintenance of the sewer system, this can be combined with green infrastructure investments as a way to improve water retention capacity and improving the quality of the city—therefore distributing the city’s financial means more smartly. This will also change the responsibilities for who is reaping benefits in the ­long-term and has to take care of maintenance. The institutionalisation of innovation partnerships like the RDM Campus in Rotterdam helps to translate lessons from experimentation and support ongoing experimentation processes.

5.5  Conclusion In this chapter, we have explored how—rather than perceiving water as a threat—it can be mobilised as an opportunity to provide multiple social, economic and ecological benefits, in the light of imminent climate change. To achieve this, we have applied the framework of transformative governance capacities to explain how, and by whom, new conditions for sustainable and resilient urban water governance are developing in Rotterdam. By applying the capacities framework, we are able to identify key characteristics that manifest in the shift towards sustainable and resilient water governance in Rotterdam. Specifically, we show the conditions that underpin an integrated, coordinated, inclusive and innovations-based approach. Together, these conditions manifest in a starting transformation of urban water governance in Rotterdam: they facilitate an approach that crosses multiple policy sectors and domains, involves a variety of actors and nurture innovative solutions. In addition, we also highlight the barriers and next step challenges to further advance this approach. A specific challenge is to mainstream the ambitious strategic goals and agendas by developing more formal and decisive regulations and policy instruments, engaging and reaching out to a wider range of actors, as well as creating learning opportunities to upscale innovative solutions.

5  TRANSFORMING URBAN WATER GOVERNANCE … 

199

Our analysis shows that the capacities framework offers a helpful device to facilitate a better understanding of both conditions for sustainable and resilient urban water governance, as well as how to facilitate a shift in existing urban governance to create these conditions. With this, we aim to provide practical guidance and research directions for how to support governance conditions and arrangements that enhance sustainable and resilient water governance.

References Brown, A. (2017). Visionaries, translators, and navigators: Facilitating institutions as critical enables of urban climate change resilience. In S. Hughes, E. K. Chu, & S. G. Mason (Eds.), Climate change in cities: Innovations in ­multi-level governance (pp. 229–253). Cham: Springer. Brown, R. R., Farrelly, M. A., & Loorbach, D. A. (2013). Actors working the institutions in sustainability transitions: The case of Melbourne’s stormwater management. Global Environmental Change, 23, 701–718. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.013. Brown, R., Keath, N., & Wong, T. (2009). Urban water management in cities: Historical, current and future regimes. Water Science and Technology, 59, 847–855. Bulkeley, H., Coenen, L., Frantzeskaki, N., Hartmann, C., Kronsell, A., Mai, L., et al. (2016). Urban living labs: Governing urban sustainability transitions. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 22, 13–17. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.02.003. Carter, J. G., Cavan, G., Connelly, A., Guy, S., Handley, J., & Kazmierczak, A. (2015). Climate change and the city: Building capacity for urban adaptation. Progress in Planning, 95, 1–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. progress.2013.08.001. Castán Broto, V., & Bulkeley, H. (2013). A survey of urban climate change experiments in 100 cities. Global Environmental Change, 23, 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.005. Clean Tech Delta. (2011). Factsheet Clean Tech Delta 2011. Rotterdam: Clean Tech Delta. Dąbrowski, M. (2017). Boundary spanning for governance of climate change adaptation in cities: Insights from a Dutch urban region. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 36, 1–19. https://doi. org/10.1177/2399654417725077. Dai, L., Wörner, R., & van Rijswick, H. F. M. W. (2018). Rainproof cities in the Netherlands: Approaches in Dutch water governance to climate-adaptive urban planning. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 34(4), 652–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2017.1372273.

200  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL. de Graaf, R., & van der Brugge, R. (2010). Transforming water infrastructure by linking water management and urban renewal in Rotterdam. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77, 1282–1291. de Greef, P. (Ed.). (2005). Rotterdam Waterstad 2035. Rotterdam: Jap Sam Books. Den Exter, R., Lenhart, J., & Kern, K. (2014). Governing climate change in Dutch cities: Anchoring local climate strategies in organization, policy and practical implementation. Local Environment. https://doi.org/10.1080/135 49839.2014.892919. Dutch National Government. (2006). Wet ruimtelijke ordening. https://wetten. overheid.nl/BWBR0020449/2016-04-14. Dutch National Government. (2009). Wet van 29 januari 2009, houdende regels met betrekking tot het beheer en gebruik van watersystemen (Dutch Water Act). https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0025458/2016-07-01. Ehnert, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Barnes, J., Borgström, S., Gorissen, L., Kern, F., et al. (2018). The acceleration of urban sustainability transitions: A comparison of Brighton, Budapest, Dresden, Genk, and Stockholm. Sustainability, 10(3), 612. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030612. Evans, J. (2016). Trials and tribulations: Problematizing the city through/as urban experimentation. Geography Compass, 10(10), 429–443. Francesch-Huidobro, M., Dąbrowski, M., Tai, Y., Chan, F., & Stead, D. (2017). Governance challenges of flood-prone delta cities: Integrating flood risk management and climate change in spatial planning. Progress in Planning, 114, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2015.11.001. Frantzeskaki, N., & Tillie, N. (2014). The dynamics of urban ecosystem governance in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Ambio, 43, 542–555. https://doi. org/10.1007/s13280-014-0512-0. Frantzeskaki, N., Wittmayer, J. M., & Loorbach, D. (2014). The role of partnerships in ‘realizing’ urban sustainability in Rotterdam’s City Ports Area, the Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 406–417. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.023. Gemeente Rotterdam. (2005). Groenplan Rotterdam. Rotterdam: Gemeente Rotterdam. Gemeente Rotterdam. (2007). Rotterdam urban vision, spatial development strategy. Rotterdam: Gemeente Rotterdam. Gemeente Rotterdam. (2008). Handboek Rotterdamse Stijl. Rotterdam: Gemeente Rotterdam. Gemeente Rotterdam. (2009). Rotterdamse Stijl, Bomenstructuurvisie. Rotterdam: Gemeente Rotterdam. Gemeente Rotterdam. (2011). Rotterdam for European green capital 2014. Rotterdam: Gemeente Rotterdam. Gemeente Rotterdam. (2012a). Programma Duurzaam, Investeren in duuzaame groei. Rotterdam: Gemeente Rotterdam.

5  TRANSFORMING URBAN WATER GOVERNANCE … 

201

Gemeente Rotterdam. (2012b). Rotterdam—People make the inner city, issued on the occasion of the 5th International Architecture Biennale Rotterdam. Rotterdam: Gemeente Rotterdam. Gemeente Rotterdam. (2015). Duurzaam dichter bij de Rotterdammer. Programma Duurzaam 2015–2018. Rotterdam: Gemeente Rotterdam. Gemeente Rotterdam. (2016). Rotterdam resilience strategy: Ready for the 21st century. http://lghttp.60358.nexcesscdn.net/8046264/images/page/-/100rc/ pdfs/strategy-resilient-rotterdam.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2016. Hallegatte, S., Green, C., Nicholls, R. J., & Corfee-Morlot, J. (2013). Future flood losses in major coastal cities. Nature Climate Change, 3(9), 802–806. Hölscher, K. (2019). Transforming urban climate governance: Capacities for transformative climate governance (PhD thesis). Erasmus University Rotterdam. https://repub.eur.nl/pub/118721. Hölscher, K., Frantzeskaki, N., & Loorbach, D. (2018). Developing transformative and orchestrating capacities for climate governance experimentation in Rotterdam. In B. Turnheim, P. Kivimaa, & F. Berkhout (Eds.), Innovating climate governance: Moving beyond experiments (pp. 123–144). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hölscher, K., Frantzeskaki, N., & Loorbach, D. (2019). Steering transformations under climate change: Capacities for transformative climate governance and the case of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Regional Environmental Change, 19 (3), 791–805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1329-3. Hölscher, K., Wittmayer, J. M., Avelino, F., & Giezen, M. (2019). Opening up the transition arena: An analysis of (dis)empowerment of civil society actors in transition management in cities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, 176-185. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.004. IPCC. (2018). Global warming of 1.5 °C: An special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Summary for Policymakers. Karvonen, A. (2018). The city of permanent experiments? In B. Turnheim, P. Kivimaa, & F. Berkhout (Eds.), Innovating climate governance: Moving beyond experiments (pp. 201–215). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Koop, S. H. A., Koetsier, L., Doornhof, A., Reinstra, O., van Leeuwen, C. J., Brouwer, S., et al. (2017). Assessing the governance capacity of cities to address challenges of water, waste and climate change. Water Resources Management, 31, 3427–3443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1677-7. Ligtvoet, W., van Oostenbrugge, K. J., Muilwijk, H., & Vonk, M. (2015). Adaptation to climate change in the Netherlands—Studying related risks and opportunities. The Hague: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/PBL-2015Adaptation-to-climage-change-1632.pdf.

202  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL. Lodder, M., Buchel, S., Frantzeskaki, N., & Loorbach, D. (2016). Richting een resilient Rotterdam. Reflecties vanuit een transitie-perspectief. Creative Commons, DRIFT. http://www.cirkelstad.nl/wp2/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/DRIFTRapport-Resilience-total_Final.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2016. Luederitz, C., Abson, D. J., Audet, R., & Lang, D. J. (2017). Many pathways toward sustainability: Not conflict but co-learning between transition narratives. Sustainability Science: Official Journal of the Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science, 12(3), 393–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11625-016-0414-0. Mees, H.-L. P., & Driessen, P. P. J. (2011). Adaptation to climate change in urban areas: Climate-greening London, Rotterdam, and Toronto. Climate Law, 2, 251–280. https://doi.org/10.3233/CL-2011-036. Mees, H., Crabbé, A., Alexander, M., Kaufmann, M., Bruzzone, S., Lévy, L., et al. (2016). Coproducing flood risk management through citizen involvement: Insights from cross-country comparison in Europe. Ecology and Society, 21, 7. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08500-210307. Mees, H. L. P., Driessen, P. P. J., Runhaar, H. A. C., & Stamatelos, J. (2013). Who governs climate adaptation? Getting green roofs for stormwater retention off the ground. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(6), 802–825. Ministerie VROM, Rotterdam Climate Initiative, Urgenda, Gemeente Rotterdam, Havenbedrijf Rotterdam, Kennis voor Klimaat. (2008). Intentieverklaring Rotterdam Climate Campus. http://www.urgenda.nl/documents/2008-05-08%20 Intentieverklaring%20Rotterdam%20Climate%20Campus.pdf. Molenaar, A., Dircke, P., & Gebraad, C. (2013). Rotterdam. In A. Molenaar, J. Aerts, P. Dircke, & M. Ikert (Eds.), Connecting delta cities: Resilient cities and climate adaptation strategies (pp. 30–51). Connecting Delta Cities: Rotterdam. Nadin, V., & Stead, D. (2008). European spatial planning systems. Social Models and Learning, 172(1), 35–42. OECD. (2011). Water governance in OECD countries: A multi-level approach. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. OECD. (2016). Water governance in cities, OECD studies on water. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Pahl-Wostl, C., & Knieper, C. (2014). The capacity of water governance to deal with the climate change adaptation challenge: Using fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis to distinguish between polycentric, fragmented and centralized regimes. Global Environmental Change, 29, 139–154. Pahl-Wostl, C., Lebel, L., Knieper, C., & Nikitina, E. (2012). From applying panaceas to mastering complexity: Toward adaptive water governance in river basins. Environmental Science & Policy, 23, 24–34. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.07.014.

5  TRANSFORMING URBAN WATER GOVERNANCE … 

203

Raven, R., Sengers, F., Spaeth, P., Xie, L., Cheshmehzangi, A., & de Jong, M. (2017). Urban experimentation and institutional arrangements. European Planning Studies, 27(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2017.1 393047. RCI. (2012). Rotterdam climate change adaptation strategy. http://www. rotterdamclimateinitiative.nl/documents/2015-en-ouder/Documenten/ 20121210_RAS_EN_lr_versie_4.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2016. RCI, Rotterdam Climate Initiative. (2009). Rotterdam climate proof: The Rotterdam challenge on water and climate adaptation. 2009 Adaptation Programme. Rotterdam. https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd= 4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjT0Z71xYXRAhXROlAKHY6eAwIQFgg4MAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rotterdamclimateinitiative.nl%2Fdocuments%2F2015-en-ouder%2FRCP%2FEnglish%2FRCP_adaptatie_eng. pdf&usg=AFQjCNFWDPhuaDUNGD_W_o3LCMxp8laeOg. Accessed 10 June 2016. Rotterdam Climate Initiative. (2007). Action programme and objectives 2007– 2010. Rotterdam: City of Rotterdam. Rijke, J., Farrelly, M., Brown, R., & Zevenbergen, C. (2013). Configuring transformative governance to enhance resilient urban water systems. Environmental Science & Policy, 25, 62–72. Romano, O., & Akhmouch, A. (2019). Water governance in cities: Current trends and future challenges. Water, 11, 500. https://doi.org/10.3390/ w11030500. Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles: Sage. Turnheim, B., Kivimaa, P., & Berkhout, F. (2018). Beyond experiments: Innovation in climate governance. In B. Turnheim, P. Kivimaa, & F. Berkhout (Eds.), Innovating climate governance: Moving beyond experiments (pp. 1–26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. van Buuren, A., Vreugdenhil, H., van Popering-Verkerk, J., Ellen, G. J., van Leeuwen, C., & Breman, B. (2018). The pilot paradox: Exploring tentions between internal and external success factors in Dutch climate adaptation projects. In B. Turnheim, P. Kivimaa, & F. Berkhout (Eds.), Innovating climate governance: Moving beyond experiments (pp. 145–165). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. van de Meene, S. J., Brown, R. R., & Farrelly, M. A. (2011). Towards understanding governance for sustainable urban water management. Global Environmental Change, 21, 1117–1127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2011.04.003. van den Berg, H., van Buuren, A., Duijn, M., van der Lee, D., Tromp, E., & van Veelen, P. (2013). Governance van lokale adaptatiestrategieen, de casus Feijenoord. Kennis voor klimaat (KvK report 103/2013).

204  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL. van Eijndhoven, J., Frantzeskaki, N., & Loorbach, D. (2013). Connecting long and short-term via envisioning in transition arenas, how envisioning connects urban development and water issues in the city of Rotterdam, the Netherlands, as Chapter 9. In J. Edelenbos, N. Bressers, & P. Scholten (Eds.), Connective Ca- pacity in Water Governance. London: Ashgate. van Veelen, P. (2013). Adaptive strategies for the unembanked area in Rotterdam (Synthesis Report. KvK report HSRR3.1 2013). Wamsler, C. (2015). Mainstreaming ecosystem-based adaptation: Transformation toward sustainability in urban governance and planning. Ecology and Society, 20(2), 30. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07489-200230. Wiering, M., Kaufman, M., Mees, H., Schellenberger, T., Ganzevoort, W., Hegger, D. L. T., et al. (2017). Varieties of flood risk governance in Europe: How do countries respond to driving forces and what explains institutional change? Global Environmental Change, 44, 15–26. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.02.006. Wittmayer, J. M., van Steenbergen, F., Loorbach, D., Mock, M., Omann, I., & Kirner, B. (2014). Exploring the transformative potential of communities. In J. M. Wittmayer, C. Roorda, & F. van Steenbergen (Eds.), Governing urban sustainability transitions–Inspiring examples. DRIFT: Rotterdam.

CHAPTER 6

Capacities for Transformative Climate Governance in New York City Katharina Hölscher, Niki Frantzeskaki, Timon McPhearson, and Derk Loorbach

6.1  Introduction In this chapter, we revisit the research done in New York City (NYC) earlier in 2015 and 2016. We do that in a period that the United States (US) Government has officially withdrawn from the Paris Agreement and a critical mass of American cities remains not only committed to climate action but declaring climate emergency. In this context, K. Hölscher (*) · N. Frantzeskaki · D. Loorbach  Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] D. Loorbach e-mail: [email protected] N. Frantzeskaki  Centre for Urban Transitions, Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 K. Hölscher and N. Frantzeskaki (eds.), Transformative Climate Governance, Palgrave Studies in Environmental Transformation, Transition and Accountability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49040-9_6

205

206  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

understanding what can move cities to decisive action for dealing with climate change impacts is paramount and timelier than ever. Despite the zealous narrative of urban opportunities for addressing global challenges such as climate change, little is known about whether and how climate action in cities is indeed living up to these expectations. So far, even the most ambitious efforts to address climate change in cities seem to be countered by the negative impacts of urbanisation, unsustainable production and consumption, pollution and inequality (Ürge-Vorsatz et al. 2018; Rink et al. 2018; Roberts et al. 2018). One way forward is to engage with new knowledge, evaluate what are the ‘policy hurdles’ or ‘policy gaps’ and invest in establishing capacities to move forward. We explore how the current activities of NYC contribute adequate means and are supported through effective institutions to deal with climate change impacts using the lens of capacities. Introducing a new lens, a new conceptual framework such as the capacities framework, allows for a new understanding of dynamics, actors and their actions and how they are mobilised and interact in making new governance systems for climate change action. This emerging research community investigates how urban phenomena and processes, patterns and pathways of transformation occur, unfold and are accelerated, casting an eye on dynamics and drivers. It is stimulated and triggered by the ‘urban’ in its local and global scale, and we find our research strongly inspired by this community. Providing research insights to cities that are on the forefront of climate action is vital so as to further understand how their actions play out for responding to climate change and for making a compelling case for continuation in investments for climate adaptation. Even in cities that are leading with ambitious climate agendas, action for climate change frequently draws the short straw when competing with ‘pressing’ urban needs and it relies on easy investments in low-hanging fruits that do not fundamentally question existing behaviours and interests (Ürge-Vorsatz

T. McPhearson  Urban Systems Lab, The New School, New York, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY, USA Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

6  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

207

et al. 2018; Gouldson et al. 2015). In the USA, recent developments of the government’s agenda for climate change have found cities o ­ perating in an ‘institutional void’ and at the same time, on the forefront of climate action that works. Think that ‘in June 2018, at the start of the hurricane season, the Department of Homeland Security diverted 10 Million dollars from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which is tasked with responding to natural disasters at home, and moved it over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to pay for migrant detention’ (Klein 2019, p. 49). Cities around the world have become key players in addressing ­climate change and pressing sustainability challenges. Diverse governance initiatives in cities to address climate change have started to proliferate in the 1990s and often go above and beyond the ambitions set by their respective nation states (van der Heijden 2018; Amundsen et al. 2018). However, there is a gap in detailed knowledge about the conditions manifest in urban climate governance that contributes to sustainable and resilient cities in the long-term, as well as how to create such conditions to overcome the barriers that are entrenched in existing urban governance systems. This chapter builds on the notion of transformative climate governance to create an understanding about urban climate governance as part of the quest for urban transformations towards sustainability and resilience (Hölscher and Frantzeskaki, Chapter 1, this volume). Transformative climate governance means that climate mitigation and adaptation are not any more isolated objectives, but integrated within the need for radical structural changes in urban systems to create and maintain environmental integrity, social equity, human well-being and economic feasibility on the long-term. This implies a fundamental change of urban governance systems to take more seriously the complex, uncertain and contested dynamics of urban transformations under climate change that unfold across scales and sectors (Rink et al. 2018; Romero-Lankao et al. 2018). Specifically, in this chapter we apply the framework of transformative governance capacities (Hölscher, Chapter 2, this volume) to explain whether and how climate governance efforts in NYC in the USA have created new governance capacities. NYC is an example of a city providing global leadership for climate change adaptation and mitigation, sustainability and resilience (Solecki et al. 2016; Forgione et al. 2016; McPhearson et al. 2014; McPhearson and Wijsman 2017; Depietri and

208  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

McPhearson 2018). Our case study approach is comprehensive: we looked at the integration of climate change mitigation and adaptation in multiple policy sectors (water, transport, energy, health, buildings, parks and recreation, environmental protection, emergency management and housing). Extending the work by Hölscher et al. (2019), we first introduce the climate governance landscape in NYC (Sect. 6.2). We then present the analysis of whether, what type and how capacities for transformative ­climate governance are developing in NYC (Sect. 6.3). In our discussion section, we reflect on the insights that the capacities framework offers to understand the development of climate governance in NYC in terms of the enabling conditions, by whom and how they were created, as well as what are key opportunities and capacity gaps and barriers (Sect. 6.4). We conclude by providing a future outlook on the applicability of the framework and the implications for transforming urban climate governance (Sect. 6.5).

6.2  The Climate Governance Landscape in New York City NYC is a delta and port city and an important global economic centre (Fig. 6.1). It is a diverse city with five boroughs, 59 community districts and hundreds of neighbourhoods, an estimated population of over 8 Million people speaking 174 different languages (Jabareen 2015). It has recently withstood the economic downturn of the late 2000s and is celebrated as one of the most sustainable cities worldwide. NYC is still among the largest greenhouse gases (GHG) emitting city and faces air pollution, scarce affordable housing, a growing population, rising income inequalities and ageing infrastructures. Climate change impacts are likely to worsen these issues and threaten well-being and liveability (Fig. 6.1). Expected climate impacts in NYC include rising sea levels, increasing severity of heavy downpours and storms, flooding, heatwaves, droughts and extreme wind events (NPCC 2015). The city has already experienced climate extremes, most notably tropical storm Irene in 2011 and Hurricane Sandy’s landfall in October 2012. Sandy caused an estimated $19 billion in damage and 43 deaths, flooded sewer systems, roads and subway stations, disrupted vital transport networks and power and water supply (NYC 2013). 6500 patients

6  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

209

Fig. 6.1  Land cover and Flooding in New York City. Land cover data elaborated in 2017 by the Department of Information Technology and Telecommunication of New York City. Floodplain data refers to the 100-year floodplain used to define the currently effective Special Flood Hazard Area, mapped by the Federal Emergency Management, last updated in 2007

were evacuated from hospitals and nursing homes, and more than one million children were unable to attend school for a week (NYC 2013; Adams-Schoen 2014a). Sandy especially underscored the vulnerability of low-income, coastal communities, which have been severely affected

210  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

while struggling with rising rents, increasing depth and delays in repairs (Cowan and Hogan 2014). Since the mid-2000s, the NYC government has successively developed and expanded its approach to address climate change, sustainability and resilience, and engaging diverse actors in the process. In the following sections, we first describe the evolution of climate governance (Sect. 6.2.1) and initiatives in NYC (Sect. 6.2.2), and then, the key actors involved (Sect. 6.2.3). 6.2.1   The Evolution of Climate Governance in New York City The city government’s approach to climate governance started with integrated climate mitigation and sustainability goals in 2007. This focus was successively expanded towards climate adaptation and broader resilience pursuits. Mayor Bloomberg (2002–2014) commissioned the ­cross-cutting sustainability and climate mitigation plan PlaNYC, which was released in 2007 and tied goals such as emissions reductions, improving air quality, managing population growth, modernising infrastructure to the city’s long-term quality and global competitiveness (NYC 2007). In response to extreme weather events, the 2011 update of PlaNYC included goals and initiatives on heat stress reduction, storm water management and infrastructure protection (NYC 2011). After Hurricane Sandy, the public–private Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency (SIRR) was convened to develop a programme for reducing the city’s vulnerability to coastal flooding and storm surge and for rebuilding communities affected by Sandy (NYC 2013). When Mayor de Blasio took office in 2014, he introduced affordable housing and social equity as top priorities in the next PlaNYC update, called OneNYC (NYC 2015). The 2007 PlaNYC 2030 plan integrates sustainability, climate change, population growth and ageing infrastructure with the city’s l­ong-term quality and global competitiveness and lays out 126 initiatives to achieve these goals, including investments green infrastructure, including energy, transport and housing and the establishment of the Mayor’s Office of Long-term Planning and Sustainability to oversee implementation. In 2011, the city updated the report with new initiatives that placed greater emphasis on climate resilience in response to changes in weather that were already taking place (NYC 2011). PlaNYC was initially based principally on emission reduction and improvements of air quality, by focusing especially on buildings, and failed to prepare the city and its

6  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

211

infrastructure for (recovering from) the disasters that could stem from climate change. For example, rather than proposing infrastructure design or development projects along the city’s vulnerable 570 miles of coastal zone, it proposes to intensify development wherever possible, in waterfront and other areas without considering the risks posed by climate change (Jabareen 2015). The main approach to climate adaptation has been on institutions: in 2008, with funding provided by the Rockefeller Foundation, Mayor Bloomberg assembled the New York City Panel on Climate Change (NPCC), which is an advisory body of climate science, legal and risk management specialists to provide projections and technical analysis of climate change risks based on scaling down IPCC’s global climate models. In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, which has revealed the city’s vulnerabilities to climate impacts such as flooding and sea level rise, in December 2012, the city convened the Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency (SIRR) as part of PlaNYC to address long-term climate change resilience. In June 2013, SIRR released ‘A Stronger, More Resilient New York’ that is based on the second NPCC (2013) and other risk assessments (NYC 2013). The plan outlines a 10-year, over $20 billion programme with 257 initiatives that seek to reduce the city’s vulnerability to coastal flooding and storm surge and to rebuild communities affected by Sandy (NYC 2013). About 80% of the plan was to go to repairing homes and streets damaged by Sandy, retrofitting hospitals and nursing homes, elevating electrical infrastructure, improving ferry and subway systems and fixing leaky drinking water systems. The rest would go to adapt and protect NYC from storm surges and flooding through an increase in sand nourishment, construction of large-scale storm surge barriers, flood-proofing basements but also insurance, better forecasting and development of special evacuation plans. The coastal protection chapter of ‘A Stronger, More Resilient New York’ reviews and rejects the ‘silver bullet’ of a massive, harbour-wide storm surge barrier, and instead proposes a broad, diverse range of discrete coastal protection measures inspired by the historic natural features that once protected the coastline throughout the city or by combinations of traditional and newly developed technologies. A focus was on ensuring that the subway, transit, sewer and water, healthcare, energy and food distribution systems would continue to function for the city’s inhabitants well into the future. When Mayor Bill de Blasio took office in New York City in 2014, he continued the sustainability and climate change legacy of his predecessor

212  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

by linking sustainability and climate resilience to his top goal of poverty reduction. In April 2014, the city committed to enhancing and expanding the resiliency and housing recovery programmes with the release of ‘One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City’, a comprehensive plan for a sustainable and resilient city that encompasses and builds on the social, economic and environmental goals and initiatives under the previous plans (NYC 2015). Improved air quality and the maintenance of the city’s world-class water system remain priorities, as does the implementation of the $20 billion shoreline resiliency plan developed after Hurricane Sandy. The resilience plan adopts the approach from the 100 Resilient Cities initiative of the Rockefeller Foundation (of which NYC is a member city), recognising the need to address acute shocks such as superstorms, blackouts, heatwaves as well as ongoing stresses including high unemployment, ageing infrastructure and growing inequality in securing the city’s growth and sustainability. OneNYC seeks to protect the city from climate change, to adapt to mitigate most climate change impacts and to enable quick recovery when defences are breached, by strengthening coastal defences, upgrading buildings, protecting infrastructure and critical services and making neighbourhoods and businesses safer and more vibrant. In addition, the 2015 One City: Built to Last programme established the city’s commitment to cut its GHG emissions 80% by 2050 focusing on reductions in buildings. 6.2.2   Climate Governance Initiatives and Actions in New York City These efforts resulted in diverse measures, including green infrastructure projects and designs, regulations (e.g. on energy efficiency in buildings) and community resilience building. The main focus of climate governance initiatives in NYC is on developing knowledge, measuring progress with stringent indicators, amending building codes, rules and regulations, implementing projects on city-owned properties, communication and committing a variety of actors in developing and implementing initiatives. Many initiatives outlined in PlaNYC and OneNYC remained the same apart from the shift from emphasising sustainability in relation to a more energy-efficient and climate-resilient city with cleaner air, renewable energy sources and water and beautiful public spaces could help the city attract wealth and business towards the benefits of sustainability and climate resilience for working families in the outer boroughs. A major

6  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

213

focus of the programmes’ GHG reduction remains on increasing the energy efficiency of the city’s built environment, which is now framed as an extension of the city-wide focus on income inequality. In the implementation processes, they collaborate with city departments, regional and national governmental bodies, knowledge institutes, businesses and community organisations. The target area for reducing GHG emissions is on buildings. The city has implemented a Greener Greater Buildings Plan (NYC 2009), Clean Heat programme, raised awareness of building owners and tenants about energy use and retrofitting through for example GreeNYC’s marketing campaigns and the launch of the Green Light New York (GLNY) education centre for building professionals. NYC also launched an ambitious suite of policies to reduce energy use in large buildings, passed regulations to phase out highly polluting fuel oil and passed the city’s Zone Green Zoning Text amendment. In 2008, the New York City Green Codes Task Force was convened to review the current building and construction codes and make recommendations on how they could be amended to promote more sustainable practices. Beyond code and law enforcement, the Department of Buildings (DOB) administers New York State’s Solar Property Tax Abatement Program and Green Roof Tax Abatement Program, which helps eligible property owners offset the cost of their photovoltaic and green roof installations. A report on the energy savings potential of retrofitting advanced lighting controls in office buildings was conducted and released in January 2013, resulting in two demonstration projects for advanced lighting systems. The Carbon Challenge seeks to encourage businesses, universities and other private organisations to cut GHG emissions. In April 2015, the city administration, HUD and the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) announced the launch of the competitive Energy Performance Contracts, a programme to reduce GHG emissions from buildings. To reduce emissions from transport and improve air quality, the administration operates now over 600 plug in electric vehicles and 153 charging station and has installed 300 miles of bike lanes. In an effort to create consumer engagement, GreeNYC developed and produced signage to alert drivers to locations of charging stations as well as bumper stickers to alert drivers to the city’s growing fleet of electric vehicles. The city is also testing electric taxis. Together with the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) and the New York City Economic Development

214  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

Corporation (NYCEDC), PlaNYC develops and maintains parks and public spaces throughout the city. DPR is now transitioning from the design and construction of green streets to retrofitting parkland to better manage storm water. Vision Zero has expanded the transportation focus on safety, health, well-being and economic prosperity (NYC 2014b). In terms of climate adaptation, the city government focuses on green infrastructure investments to improve infiltration and detention techniques. The NYC green infrastructure plan (NYC 2010) has been released as part of PlaNYC 2030 in 2010 and involves the implementation of green roofs, cool roofs and swales, cost-effective grey infrastructure and the optimisation of the existing wastewater system. In partnership with NYC Service, the city established NYC CoolRoofs, which helps building owners coat their roofs with a reflective material. Part of the infrastructure plan, in combination with the Parks and Public Space plan, is the Million Trees programme and the design of the Brooklyn Bridge Park and the Halets Coastal Defence. The Million Trees programme was a partnership between the New York Restoration Project (NYRP), a NGO and PlaNYC to plant and care for one million new trees throughout the cities’ five boroughs by 2015. In 2013, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) expanded the city system of Bluebelt wetlands in southeast Queens and constructed more than 200 bioswales. In addition, climate adaptation includes initiatives to strengthen coastal defences, fortify crucial infrastructure and make buildings more resilient by changing building codes and reaching out to building owners and tenants. The devastation of Hurricane Sandy in late 2012 has boosted the attention on climate adaptation needs in NYC and has drawn in several new funding sources and new initiatives especially for rebuilding and future protection. As part of the city’s recovery from Sandy, Build it Back, run by the Mayor’s Office of Housing Recovery Operations under PlaNYC and supported by federal funding, was established in 2013 to oversee housing recovery in NYC. Build it Back developed several programmes to provide financial or construction assistance for rebuilding of destroyed or damaged houses and cover out-of-pocket expenses for homeowners and businesses incurred because of the Storm. However, there have been delays and inefficiencies in handing out financial assistance and in a confusing application process. Under the de Blasio administration, the plan One City, Rebuilding Together (NYC 2014c) implemented critical improvements, including expedited reimbursement

6  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

215

checks and more construction starts, to the Build it Back programme and expanded economic opportunities for residents impacted by Sandy, such as the expansion of Sandy Recovery Workforce, and developing a pipeline for pre-apprenticeship programmes in the construction trades. However, the implementation of projects takes time and not all of the required funding is yet secured. While some parts of the city are now better prepared to withstand extreme events and notable progress has been made in restoring damaged beaches and boardwalks along the New Jersey shore and in the New York’s Rockaways as well as flood-proofing big office buildings in flood zones, it was especially harder for residential compared to commercial areas to recover from Sandy. Income inequality is another factor contributing to struggling recovery, and the storm had a worse impact on personal finances of low- and middle-income people. Apart from the delays in financial support provided in the Build It Back programme, many projects to rebuild and adapt the city to climate change are still in the initial stages of implementation. Bay communities like Jamaica Bay, where low- and middle-income people live, still find it much harder to recover from Sandy. They are still vulnerable to flooding and are also vulnerable from a socio-economic perspective. In contrast, in lower Manhattan, the financial district and the hospitals are back up and running. Complex rules, multiple layers of government and other stakeholders and high stakes contributed to delay and lag in helping displaced vulnerable populations to rebuild (Adams-Schoen 2014b). The Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) initiated the Rebuild-by-Design (RbD) competition to develop and implement innovative projects for rebuilding, community resilience and sustainability in the region affected by Sandy. This is resulted in three innovative projects located in NYC: the BIG U integrates green infrastructure and liveability for flood protection in Lower Manhattan, the Living Breakwaters project envisions living reefs along Staten Island’s south shore to accommodate flooding, and the Hunts Point Lifelines project in the Bronx integrates flood protection, recreation, health, local livelihood development and emergency management (RbD 2016; Grannis et al. 2016). 6.2.3   Key Actors in Climate Governance in New York City A diverse set of individual actors, organisations and networks is involved in shaping climate governance in NYC, spearheaded by the city government’s ambitious strategies and actions. While the city government

216  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

takes up a coordination role, develops long-term strategies, stimulates knowledge generation, enacts changes to regulations and implements projects. Especially the cross-cutting Mayor’s Offices of Sustainability (MOS) and Recovery and Resiliency (ORR) spearhead the city government’s efforts on climate change, resilience and sustainability. The city government works closely together with business networks (e.g. the NYC Waterfront Alliance, Urban Green Council), sets up, oversees and collaborates in cross-sectoral and cross-scale knowledge platforms and partnerships, and participates in international city networks (e.g. C40, 100 Resilient Cities [100RC]). NGOs and community organisations are mostly informally involved, engaging in knowledge development, community organising, advocacy and project implementation. There are also diverse actors and actor group that the city government does not collaborate with, yet which nevertheless engage in efforts to address climate change in the city. The following outlines the key actor (groups/organisations) with regard to governmental bodies at different scales, businesses, community groups, NGOs, research and knowledge institutes and network platforms. Given the multifarious number of actors and organisations involved in climate governance in NYC, we do not claim comprehensiveness, but focus on the main organisations included in this research. a. Local governmental bodies While the MOS and ORR spearhead the city government’s activities, multiple city departments are involved in developing plans and agendas as well. Here, we only name few of these—others include the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), the Department of Buildings (DOB), the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) and the Department of Transportation (DOT). The Mayor’s Office of Sustainability (MOS) and the Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency (ORR) The cross-cutting Mayor’s Offices of Sustainability (MOS) and Recovery and Resiliency (ORR) spearhead the city government’s efforts on climate change, resilience and sustainability. They are charged with knowledge and strategy development, fostering partnerships and enlisting

6  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

217

in and overseeing projects’ implementation. Multiple city departments contribute to the city’s overarching strategies and goals and put in place departmental sustainability and resilience offices and strategies. New York City Department of City Planning The New York City Department of City Planning revised the city’s Waterfront Revitalization Program (WRP) that is the city’s principal coastal zone management tool to include climate resilience. It proposes to use the waterways as part of a larger strategy to make the city more sustainable and resilient. Specifically, the plan proposes to use storm water management, and protection and restoration of wetlands, beaches and natural shorelines to improve the ecological health of its water bodies. The plan recognises the connection between these measures and protection of coastal neighbourhoods from flooding and storm surges. The Department of City Planning also produced two reports to help New York City, and other urban waterfront communities improve their resilience to coastal flood risks, Designing for Flood Risk and Urban Waterfront Adaptive Strategies. Designing for Flood Risk identifies design principles to guide flood-resistant construction, provides an overview of regulatory requirements for construction in flood zones under the National Flood Insurance Program, recommends changes to zoning to enable more versatile and desirable design solutions for ­flood-resistant construction. Urban Waterfront Adaptive Strategies identifies and analyses potential adaptive strategies, including interventions inland, at the shoreline and in the water. Both reports informed A Stronger, More Resilient New York. New York City Department of Emergency Management In January 2014, the NYC Department of Emergency Management, in partnership with the Department of City Planning, released the 2014 New York City Hazard Mitigation Plan (NYC 2014a) that identifies the range of hazards facing the city and strategies to reduce the effects of these hazards. b. Research institutions and partnerships New York City Panel on Climate Change (NPCC) Mayor Bloomberg set up the NYC Panel on Climate Change (NPCC) under PlaNYC to report on climate risks and adaptation needs. It

218  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

comprises academic and private sector experts in climate science, infrastructure, social science and risk management. The NPCC released a set of climate projections specific to New York City in 2009 (NPCC 2009), concluding that the city must make substantial preparations for ­climate-related changes. It also established a risk management framework for the city’s critical infrastructure throughout the extended metropolitan region under climate change (Bloomberg et al. 2010). In September 2012, the NPCC was established as an ongoing body that is by law required to meet at least twice a year to review scientific data on climate change, recommend projections for the 2020s, 2050s and 2080s within one year of the publication of the IPCC Assessment Reports, recommend a framework for stakeholders to incorporate climate change projections into their planning processes, and advise the City’s Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability on a communications strategy related to climate science. Following Hurricane Sandy, the city convened the Second New York City Panel on Climate Change (NPCC) in January 2013 to provide up-to-date scientific information and analyses on climate risks for the creation of ‘A Stronger, More Resilient New York’ (NYC 2013). Science and Resilience Institute at Jamaica Bay (SRI@JB) The Science and Resilience Institute at Jamaica Bay (SRI@JB) has been initiated in 2011 by the Mayor of New York City and the Secretary of Interior to restore and revitalise Jamaica Bay and Rockaway Park. In 2012, the City of New York and the National Park Service came together around a unified vision of Jamaica Bay as an urban park that included the integration of research from across the natural and social sciences. Part of this was commitment to a partnership with the research institutes to set up the Institute. The City University of New York leads the institute’s research consortium of academic and non-profit organisations. The SRI@ JB is aligned with the City of New York and National Park Service’s vision for a revitalised, restored Jamaica Bay. It is a research centre that performs different functions to promote the understanding of resilience in urban ecosystems and adjacent communities and engage government and community stakeholders in the translation of that knowledge towards a more resilient system. It conducts research to understand the temporal nature and robustness of the resilience of Jamaica Bay, New York Harbor, Hudson Raritan Estuary and Gateway National Recreation Area, to develop models for studying the fundamental nature of resilient systems and to determine how best to manage ecosystems to ensure

6  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

219

resilience and sustainability. Secondly, the institute provides technical assistance and guidance to the institute’s governmental partners, including the National Park Service, New York City Parks and the New York City Department of Environmental Protection. Finally, the SRI@JB serves as a node for education and knowledge dissemination on processes that affect resilience and contribute to the changes in the urban ecosystem as well as for engaging the communities of the bay. The activities of the institute are funded by, for example, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Department of the Interior’s Hurricane Sandy Mitigation Funding. c. Regional and national governmental bodies In the post-disaster responses to Sandy, the city has acted within the larger context of federal and state government programmes and policies instituted at higher territorial and jurisdictional scales in relation to the city (McArdle 2014). These include the New York State 2100 Commission’s preliminary report addressing ideas to improve the resilience of New York State’s infrastructure (NYS 2100 Commission 2013) and the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force that promotes regional coordination to infrastructure development and strategies for enhancing the ability of state and local governments to develop long-term approaches to recovery and resilience following the storm (Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force 2013). These collaborations contribute to shaping the city’s efforts both to mitigate and adapt to the impact of climate change by (1) providing financial assistance, technical expertise and crucial data, (2) approving city proposals that are linked to that assistance and (3) serving as a source of policy guidance (McArdle 2014). For example, the city has had access to federal funding including grants from the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Small Business Administration Disaster Loans and National Food Insurance Program disbursements. At the same time, the city needs to cooperate with federal and state agencies to achieve certain reforms (McArdle 2014). To implement ‘A Stronger, More Resilient New York’, the city needs assistance and funding from the US Army Corps of Engineers to implement various beach re-nourishment and floodgate repair projects, review by FEMA of flood-related building standards, and FEMA’s authorisation of a more flexible building classification in the National Flood Insurance Program (NYC 2013). To secure changes in price gouging laws and

220  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

laws regulating gasoline supply contracts, the city must call on New York State to adopt legislation. In response to Hurricane Sandy’s devastation in the Northeast United States and supported by federal funding, US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Donovan launched Rebuild-by-Design in June 2013 together with the Institute for Public Knowledge at NYU, the Municipal Art Society, the Regional Plan Association and the Van Alen Institute. The design competition sought innovative, implementable solutions to respond to the region’s most complex needs. Placing substantial collaboration between designers, researchers, community members and government officials at the heart of an iterative design process provoked a paradigm shift in the way planners and governments approach disaster response and emergency preparedness. Several of the winning designs are to be implemented in New York City. The Big U foresees the instalment of a 10-mile system of berms and other protections around Manhattan. Another winning design, Living Breakwaters, focuses on Staten Island to develop living reefs along the island’s South Shore to protect against future flooding. Hunts Point in the Bronx is another area designated for protection in the winning designs. Rebuild–by-Design seeks to keep communities connected to the implementation of the funded designs, explores changes needed in policy, regulation, and operations, and researches the best practices in developing resilience. Based on its success, Rebuild–­ byDesign has been used as a model for other processes. d. Public–private partnerships There are a variety of public–private partnerships, including regional and national knowledge programmes, research partnerships, ­research-industry collaborations and private stakeholder platforms, participate in the generation of knowledge, the formulation of strategies and agendas and the development of innovative solutions. New JerseyNew York Harbor Estuary Program (HEP) is a federally authorised programme that brings together federal, state and local agencies and citizen groups to define common goals and priorities for action around the management of the shared harbour and estuary. The NYC Green Codes Task Force brings together key actor groups (e.g. large homeowner associations) to make recommendations for the building and construction code changes. The Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance is an independent

6  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

221

organisation bringing together more than 1000 activists, businesses, foundations and civic organisations with the goal to make the region’s waterways and shoreline accessible, sustainable and resilient. Climate governance in NYC is also marked by the city’s participation in international networks such as Connecting Delta Cities, the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, 100 Resilient Cities and, most recently, the Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance that promote knowledge sharing, and identifying opportunities to accelerate best practices through collaboration. e. Non-profit and community-based organisations Non-profit and community-based organisations contribute to generating knowledge, raising awareness and criticising existing policies and business-as-usual. In NYC, there is a strong culture of community-based organisation. The role of this type of organisations was especially illustrated in NYC, where neighbourhoods with strong community organisations, such as Redhook, benefited from their substantial support in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy when local, state and federal agencies struggled with providing relief. The New York Restoration Project (NYRP) and New Yorkers for Parks are research and advocacy organisations dedicated to transforming open space into greener and more sustainable spaces. The Municipal Art Society of NYC is an advocacy organisation that mobilises support for urgent city matters—it also acts as a facilitator of community-based climate resilience processes. The NYC Environmental Justice Alliance (EJA) is a city-wide membership network linking grassroots organisations from low-income neighbourhoods and communities of colour in the struggle for environmental justice. The North Star Fund brings together a community to address social justice and by mobilising donors for justice initiatives. The fund was involved in research on the aftermath of hurricane Sandy in Redhook.

6.3  Capacities for Transformative Climate Governance in New York City In the following, we show how the capacities framework helps to understand whether and how new conditions for delivering different functions of urban transformation governance are developing. In NYC, a

222  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

long-term, systemic, collaborative and experimental approach to climate governance is emerging that crosses multiple policy sectors and domains (e.g. transport, energy, health, justice), involves multiple actors and facilitates innovative solutions. This has helped to move beyond single climate innovation programmes or solutions and to address climate mitigation and adaptation in the context of broader urban transformation processes. We call this a starting approach for transformative climate governance, which itself acts transformative, because it challenges existing governance regimes in NYC that tend to make decisions in sectoral siloes (Hölscher 2019). Different data were collected for the study (Hölscher et al. 2019). We performed desk research to review policy documents (strategies, visions and programmes from 2007 to 2017, including, e.g., NYC 2007, 2010, 2015), media articles and scientific papers about climate and sustainability governance in NYC. From October 2015 to January 2016, we conducted 38 semi-structured and in-person interviews with climate governance actors in NYC. The interviewees included policy officers from the city government (n = 12), regional (n = 4) and national (n = 2) governmental bodies, as well as representatives from knowledge institutes and partnerships (n = 7), local businesses, architects and stakeholder platforms (n = 6), NGOs and community-based organisations (n = 7). We covered different sectors: water, transport, energy, health, buildings, parks and recreation, environmental protection, emergency management and housing. The collected data was analysed in reference to the capacities framework (Hölscher, Chapter 2, this volume). We outline how each of the capacity functions—stewarding, unlocking, transforming and orchestrating—is addressed and delivered in NYC and identify the key conditions that deliver the respective function, the activities by which these have been created and capacity gaps and challenges. A detailed overview of results, including how activities were related to sub-functions and conditions, is given in Appendix A. 6.3.1   Stewarding Capacity The main stewarding objectives of climate governance policies, plans and actions in NYC are the protection and recovery of the population and infrastructure from climate impacts like flooding, storms and heatwaves while contributing to liveability, economic development and social

6  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

223

equity. The practical approach combines long-term infrastructure protection with community resilience and short-term emergency relief through participation, knowledge generation and partnerships. The NYC government revised hurricane evacuation zones, placing a greater focus on the varying angles of approach for different storms, and employs regulatory instruments, including building codes and zoning, to ensure that building and area developments take future climate impacts into account, and establishes community-planning processes. Stewarding capacity is manifest in the vast amount of knowledge about climate risks and socio-economic vulnerabilities for different issue areas (e.g. emergency planning, coastal resilience, buildings). This includes projections on long-term sea-level rise and flood safety risks, heat and health stresses and infrastructure risks. The Hazard Mitigation Plan considers how climate change may change the physical, social and economic vulnerabilities from natural and non-natural hazards including coastal storms, disease outbreak, drought, flooding and cyber threats (NYC 2014a). Diverse partnerships between actors from academia, local, regional and national governments and local communities support the generation of knowledge. The NPCC regularly reports on climate impacts and adaptation needs in NYC (NPCC 2015). NYC city departments contribute to creating knowledge on emergency planning, coastal resilience and ecosystem services. The Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) collaborates with knowledge institutes such as the Urban Field Station and Natural Areas Conservancy and local communities to monitor the social-ecological values of nature in the city (Forgione et al. 2016). The NYC government adapted the systemic, long-term and context-specific perspective on risks, vulnerabilities and uncertainty in ­ planning and management approaches to facilitate adaptive management and self-organisation. ORR coordinates and oversees the implementation of the multi-layered strategy for strengthening resilient communities and infrastructures including legislative, community support and investment actions. Different departments implement initiatives in a decentralised way. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) leads green infrastructure developments as a cost-effective tool to manage storm water while contributing social-ecological value. Community-specific strategies and community engagement gain increasing momentum to develop place-based interventions, access local knowledge and foster social resilience. The Economic Development

224  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

Corporation (EDC) facilitates neighbourhood-based visioning processes to integrate climate adaptation with community concerns. DRP engages communities in maintaining the city’s green, for example through the GreenThumb programme (Campbell et al. 2016; NYC Parks 2016). An unclear distribution of responsibilities across multiple jurisdictions and a lack of mainstreaming adaptive and long-term risk strategies constrain stewarding capacity. The former became visible in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, when local, state and federal agencies struggled with providing relief. In neighbourhoods with strong community organisations, such as in Redhook, these could fill this void (Cowan and Hogan 2014). The lack of mainstreaming and multi-scale integration results in contradictory rules and investments especially in flood-prone waterfronts where developments continue to be allowed. Effective ­ flood-zoning policies and building codes require cooperation among the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Department of Buildings and the Planning Department. 6.3.2   Unlocking Capacity Unlocking climate governance efforts in NYC focus on reducing emissions from buildings, which are responsible for over 70% of the city’s total emissions, and from transport while improving health, w ­ ell-being and economic prosperity (NYC 2014b, 2015). Unlocking outputs include changes in regulation and physical structures and awareness raising to facilitate renewable energy production, energy efficiency in buildings and sustainable and safe transport. Various knowledge input mechanisms, including emissions inventories and information disclosure mandates, help to reveal structural drivers of emissions (e.g. energy use in buildings) and relationships with other risks (e.g. health). This was critical to identify target areas for action and synergies between different issue areas and to generate political and societal support. The new building plan outlines a roadmap for making NYC’s buildings low-carbon and reducing emissions by 80% by 2050. Reporting mechanisms and partnerships facilitate reporting and data analysis. The Greener Greater Buildings Plan (GGBP) (NYC 2009) mandates owners of buildings over 50.000 ft2 to annually disclose their energy and water consumption and identify target areas for policies and cost-effective upgrades.

6  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

225

Legislative changes and incentives for behavioural changes and sustainable investments required social and political support. This could be enhanced by involving key actor groups—for example, the involvement of large homeowner associations in the development of recommendations for building code changes ensured their buy-into the GGBP requiring such changes. A remaining challenge is to facilitate energy retrofitting in buildings under 50.000 ft2, which are more heterogeneous in their ownership and energy structure—thus making the target audience of key actors less clear. Other types of awareness raising activities by MOS to achieve a wider outreach include the Retrofit Accelerator, which offers free advisory services on energy efficiency improvements. Additionally, training is provided to build the skills for using new energy technologies. The high-level political support for climate mitigation and sustainability legitimised the integration of sustainability standards into public procurement. Political lobbying and the fact that MOS directly reports to the Mayor supported the building code changes. Communicating the benefits and the availability of cost-effective alternatives help to make strong cases for changing regulation. The NYC Health Department’s data on the health benefits of reducing air pollution substantiated the DEP’s push to regulate the phase-out of high sulphur heating oil, which also reduced emissions. A central challenge for unlocking capacity in NYC is the implementation of decisive measures that challenge existing economic structures and vested interests. Existing regulations hamper more decisive action to change energy use and transport patterns. This is exacerbated by political disputes between city and state agencies that have overlapping jurisdictions. For example, the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) plan to impose congestion charges for entering the core of Manhattan was blocked by the New York State government for political reasons. 6.3.3   Transformative Capacity Transformative capacity in NYC is evident in the continuous innovation of how climate change is addressed on strategic, operational, institutional and organisational levels. Strategic goals and agendas were redefined to position climate mitigation and adaptation as opportunity for sustainable and resilience and innovative, multifunctional solutions were

226  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

implemented. The integrated goals were institutionalised through new governance structures for more open-ended and hybrid decision-making and planning. The initiative and high-level political support from the Mayors and individual departments’ Commissioners created space for formulating new strategies and testing new solution approaches like green infrastructure. Hurricane Sandy demonstrated urgency for resilience and resulted in the establishment of SIRR as a heterogeneous network to develop a resilience plan (NYC 2013). This created informal space for diverse actors to come together and share ideas and resources in open and collaborative innovation learning processes. The RbD competition pioneered a novel process design to co-develop innovative and multifunctional solutions. The competition asked for innovative projects to support long-term rebuilding, community resilience and sustainability in the Sandy-affected region. It demanded far-reaching expert and community engagement. The integrated goals were anchored in institutional and organisational practices. Action programmes on specific topics were developed to lay out new solution options in alignment with long-term strategic approaches (e.g. NYC 2010; NYC Planning 2011). In an effort to embed the integrated thinking into organisational processes, MOS and ORR and dedicated sustainability and resilience offices within city departments were established. To ensure optimal implementation of new energy reporting technologies and standards, the Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) trains building operators on energy reporting. DEP continuously explores new options for implementing and upscaling the implementation of green infrastructure, also by engaging in international knowledge exchange. However, the strategic goals and innovative solution approaches do not yet permeate city-wide planning and policy activities. Existing institutions that still dominate funding decisions constrain mainstream implementation of innovation. In moving towards the implementation phase, the RbD-projects were confronted with complex regulatory barriers and conflicting interests of local, regional and federal public agencies and private stakeholders. This could partially be eased by strategically selecting sites with less regulatory constraints (e.g. avoiding imminent domains) and fewer jurisdictions and by intensive multi-stakeholder communication.

6  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

227

6.3.4   Orchestrating Capacity Orchestrating capacity is evident in the city-wide long-term and integrated climate, sustainability and resilience goals and the formal and informal conditions and processes that were established to mediate priorities, knowledge and resources of multiple actors across sectors and scales in line with these overarching goals. These conditions support the alignment, oversight and collaboration of diverse actors and networks in line with shared, strategic and long-term goals and the development of co-beneficial climate solutions that make use of multiple synergies. A key condition for orchestrating capacity is the strategic and integrated climate, sustainability and resilience policy agenda, which facilitates strategic alignment across city-wide and departmental policy documents and ways solutions. This goal integration is achieved by co-creative agenda setting processes at multiple governance levels. MOS and ORR coordinate issue-specific cross-departmental, public–private task forces (e.g. climate adaptation, built environment) to align priorities, foster trust and spark new relationships for synergistic project implementation. Through these heterogeneous collaborations, synergies and ­ trade-offs could be identified. For example, green infrastructures could be put forth as a cost-effective way to manage storm water while contributing to social-ecological value (McPhearson et al. 2014). The collaboration of DPR and DOB in the Urban Heat Island group resulted in the requirement to plant street trees as part of building development. An identified trade-off is between restricting air conditioning to reduce emissions and the vulnerability of low-income populations having neither access to air conditioning nor green space to be protected from heatwaves. Diverse formal and informal networks, nodes and communication channels were established to integrate and mediate priorities and pool resources for implementation. MOS and ORR are central nodes with multiple tasks: facilitate strategy development, oversee and streamline implementation processes, channel information and knowledge, connect to other ongoing processes, assign responsibilities, search funding and lobby for support. They participate in cross-scale partnerships to align goals and mediate knowledge and resources across local, regional and federal levels. The Chief Resilience Officer is a key position and contact point for pooling all resilience efforts in the city by working across departments and with local communities. Similar positions have been created within individual departments to bring the agenda into the

228  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

departments. An informal cross-departmental group of sustainability and resilience ‘peers’ informally exchanges experiences. Diverse actors and partnerships support mediation efforts by acting as intermediary to facilitate knowledge exchange and trust building. The Harbor Estuary Program is a federally authorised programme that brings together federal, state and local agencies and citizen groups to define common goals and priorities for the management of the harbour estuary. Private partnerships such as the Waterfront Alliance integrate and represent the interests of business actors to the city government. Non-governmental organisations and knowledge institutes take up roles as facilitators of knowledge sharing, trust building and community engagement. The Science and Resilience Institute @ Jamaica Bay (SRI@ JB) mediates scientific and community knowledge between universities, local communities and public agencies by creating an informal space that is not politicised to share ideas and concerns, doing transdisciplinary research and introducing research results into the discussion. Delivering the orchestrating function is time demanding. Due to time, staff and resource limitations, the ability to align and reach out to the public and to mainstream the strategic perspective is hindered. Communitybased organisations such as the NYC Environmental Justice Alliance generate knowledge on climate risks and lobby for more support of vulnerable communities, but feel insufficiently engaged by the city government. Additionally, while processes like RbD experimented with new funding options, the strategic orientation is not translated into consistent longterm and multi-beneficial financing mechanisms. Establishing such mechanisms requires support from federal and state governments. For example, FEMA’s funds for post-disaster relief are still tied to rebuilding what was there before rather than ensuring protection from future risks.

6.4  Discussion: Transforming Climate Governance in New York City? We sought to understand whether and how new capacities for transformative climate governance are developed as cities like NYC experiment with urban climate governance. The analysis of the different types of governance capacities shows that diverse institutional, knowledge, network and social conditions were created in both cities to systemically address mitigation and adaptation in policy and planning (Table 6.1). In this way, in NYC an integrated,

Long-term forecasting of systemic risks and uncertainties

Integrating long-term, systemic risks and uncertainties

Social conditions

(continued)

Strengthening social networks to enable self-organised response and social resilience

Raising awareness about risks and response options

Polycentric and multi-actor net- Social capital and empowerworks across scales and sectors ment for local self-organisation

Network conditions

Creating issue-specific, multi-level and multi-stakeholder programmes and partnerships Adopting problem-based, Problem-based and context-spe- Involving communities in joint fit-to-context and no-regret cific knowledge and context-specific visioning, approaches planning and implementation processes Providing flexible regulation Continuously updating plans and incentives to facilitate fit-to- and resilience and sustainability context risk protection indicators Assigning and communicating Mandating knowledge generaresponsibilities tion to ensure access to data Science-policy-community interface

Co-production and integration of knowledge

Knowledge conditions

Fit-to-context, flexible and knowledge-based institutions Activities:

Conditions:

Stewarding capacity

Institutional conditions

Table 6.1  Transformative climate governance capacities (conditions and activities) in New York City

6  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

229

Temporary lifting or avoiding existing regulations

Activities:

Space for experimentation as governance approach

Conditions:

Transformative capacity

Identifying proof-of-concept lessons from innovations to facilitate replicating and embedding

Learning institutions for harvesting knowledge from experimentation

Social and political awareness and support for departing from business-as-usual

Social conditions

Forming informal and formal ‘coalitions of the willing’ for strategic and operational innovation

Multi-actor and inclusive innovation and advocacy networks

(continued)

Mobilising political leadership to put new and ambitious goals on the agenda

(Trans-)local support for the innovation story

Setting up public-private partRaising awareness and providing nerships for issue-specific action assistance for sustainable investments and behaviour change Setting up support networks Lobbying for political support with key stakeholders (groups) Identifying key stakeholders and groups to know whom to reach out to

Road mapping and scenario analyses to explore phase-out options Conducting regular emissions inventories Mandating knowledge generation to ensure access to data

Setting standards and providing incentives for sustainable investments Integrating sustainability into public tendering Implementing regulation to control unsustainable practices

Network conditions

Linking past, present and future Support networks with an to identify path-dependencies explicit mission for change and mal-adaptation

Knowledge conditions

Dismantling of institutional path-dependency and competitive advantage of business-as-usual Activities:

Conditions:

Unlocking capacity

Institutional conditions

Table 6.1  (continued)

230  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

Piggy-backing and quickly expressing potential of a new solution Creating and advocating an inspiring innovation story

Social conditions

Formal and informal connection channels, network brokering and intermediary spaces

Establishing central and cross-cutting connection nodes for pooling knowledge, actions and resources

Co-creation of social-technological-ecological systems knowledge

Employing a systems perspective to aggregate knowledge about drivers, risks, opportunities and challenges

Developing long-term climate mitigation and adaptation, sustainability and resilience goals

(continued)

Involving multiple actors from different city departments and private organisations in strategy formulation

Co-ownership over shared and long-term visions

Setting up cross-sectoral netShowcasing innovations as works and partnerships tasked market potential for the city with (embedding of) innovation Participating in regional, national and international networking, best practice and knowledge exchange

Involving communities in design and implementation of experiments Creating advocacy coalitions to carry the innovation story

Network conditions

Long-term nexus approach when drafting, implementing and financing (sectoral) policies and solutions Activities:

Conditions:

Orchestrating capacity

Leadership for creating and using opportunities for change

Identifying opportunities from innovation for upscaling

Creating open mind-set for taking up innovations in tactical agendas and daily practices Allocating budget to developing and maintaining innovation, upscaling and replicating Identifying bricolage of solution elements to mainstream innovations into urban planning processes and decisions

Knowledge conditions

Institutional conditions

Table 6.1  (continued)

6  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

231

Identifying opportunities, synergies and trade-offs between different goals Pooling and integrating knowledge and resources across scales and sectors

Redefining responsibilities for carrying costs

Creating competitions to leverage innovative, long-term and co-beneficial solutions

Knowledge conditions

Institutional conditions

Table 6.1  (continued)

Creating neutral co-creation spaces and knowledge partnerships to build trust for knowledge sharing

Identifying private and community-based initiatives

Designating theme-leads and contact persons

Network conditions Public outreaching and participation

Social conditions

232  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

6  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

233

experimental and inclusive approach to climate governance is emerging, which crosses multiple policy sectors and domains (e.g. transport, energy, health, justice), involves a variety of actors and facilitates innovative solutions. This has helped to move beyond single climate innovation programmes or solutions for responding to climate risks and uncertainty and phasing-out high-emission and unsustainable path-dependencies. However, NYC is currently confronted with moving beyond the initial momentum for integrated and experimental approaches to climate governance. The capacity gaps signify a lack of mainstreaming and prioritising climate-related concerns in city-wide policy and planning processes. The majority of existing incentive structures and regulations still favour short-term economic interests and investments, pre-empting co-beneficial protection from long-term risks and decisive phase-out of the root causes of emissions and sustainability. This perpetuates counteracting investments (e.g. building developments in flood-prone areas) and undermines the contribution of innovative solutions into the policy mix as they remain disconnected from mainstream policy and planning. The next-step challenge in NYC is to move beyond the initial conditions created by the formulation of a long-term and systemic strategic agenda, setting up partnerships and coalitions and the experimentation with innovative solutions. We highlight three central challenges for strengthening the capacities for transformative climate governance by moving beyond envisioning, beyond coalitions of the willing and beyond experimentation and enabling to more decisively prioritise long-term ­climate investments and actions, better fund collaboration mechanisms and improve space for (learning from) experimentation: Mainstreaming long-term and systemic visions through ‘hard’ instruments Long-term and systemic visions provide a shared orientation for aligning priorities, motivating actors and designing co-beneficial climate solutions while taking the interests of multiple, including most vulnerable actors into account (Nevens et al. 2013; McPhearson et al. 2017; Shaw et al. 2014). Systemic financing frameworks such as enabled by the RbD competition helped to develop multi-beneficial projects in NYC. However, as long as business-as-usual is (financially) viable, sustainable business models remain thin and climate-proofing is perceived as more expensive. Ultimately, tough decisions about what goals are to be prioritised need

234  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

to be made and mainstreamed into institutional frameworks at multiple levels of governance (Moloney and Horne 2015). Although urban climate governance has proliferated despite the absence of leadership at national levels (Bulkeley and Betsill 2013), the nestedness of local climate governance in institutional frameworks at regional, national and international levels requires alignment of priorities and legislation across governance levels (Dąbrowski 2017; Keskitalo et al. 2016). Extending beyond coalitions of the willing through investing in organisational skills and resources for coordination and collaboration A diversity of cross-sectoral, cross-scale and public–private partnerships and networks, including regional and national knowledge programmes, research partnerships, research-industry collaborations and private stakeholder platforms, participate in the generation of knowledge, the formulation of strategies and agendas and the development of innovative solutions in NYC. Coordination is required to accompany such decentralised and hybrid climate governance implementation to enhance cooperation between city departments and across governance scales, start initiatives when needed, pool knowledge, information and guidance and pool monitoring (den Exter et al. 2014; Pahl-Wostl and Knieper 2014). In NYC, the local government—particularly the MOS and ORR—takes up a central role as facilitator and ‘orchestrator’ of climate, sustainability and resilience action. However, while these orchestration processes facilitate trust building, interest mediation and cooperation, they are faced with time and resource constraints visible in the limited connection to actors and networks outside of the immediate climate and sustainability domains. Developing orchestrating capacity requires new types of knowledge, skills and organisational structures and resources (Brown 2017; McPhearson et al. 2017). Increasing budget cuts of local governments and particularly limited staffing capacity and a high turnover of staff exacerbate the development of new skills, processes and knowledge (Nordgren et al. 2016). Simon and Leck (2015) find that the time frame for most local participatory adaptation interventions exceeds most local election and donor funding cycles, which makes it difficult to persuade elected leaders and donor agencies to buy-in and (financially) support participatory processes.

6  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

235

Embedding learning-based governance approaches that allow to spread and institutionalise collaborative innovation In NYC, the creation of space for experimentation by lifting regulatory requirements and providing systemic financing frameworks, has allowed to test new solutions in co-creative ways. However, the experiments are still sparse and not connected to mainstream urban governance processes. This manifests in the ‘innovation gap’ (Hölscher and Frantzeskaki, Chapter 4, this volume): while opening up new political spaces for governing climate change in the city, collaborative and l­earning-based governance approaches still remain add-ons to conventional, command-and-control style and siloed governance approaches and are not sufficiently supported by organisational structures that provide space and resources for long-term follow-up and learning. A key challenge is to create space in a governance system that is oriented towards optimising efficiency. There is a need for new institutional structures and organisational ways of working that allow for learning from experimentation and co-creation, long-term collaboration and partnerships and the embedding of new roles and responsibilities (Ehnert et al. 2018).

6.5  Conclusion Our case study illustrates the explanatory power of the capacities framework to explain and qualitatively assess whether and how new types of capacities for transformative climate governance are developing in NYC, and to identify capacity gaps that restrain the full potential of this type of governance. Capacities for transformative climate governance in NYC are visible in diverse institutional, knowledge, network and social conditions that have been created to address mitigation and adaptation in a more innovative, systemic and collaborative policy and planning. Yet, while new conditions are developing—and the insights into what and how conditions are developing inform also other cities in how to move forward—evidently these need to be strengthened vis-à-vis the existing governance regime in NYC. Overall, the majority of existing incentive structures and regulations in NYC still favour short-term economic interests and investments, which pre-empts systematic and synergistic protection from long-term risks and decisive unlocking and phase-out of the root causes of emissions and unsustainability.

236  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

The perspective of the capacities framework allows us to identify several avenues forward for strengthening the sprouting governance capacities. Specifically, NYC needs to invest in more decisive legal and regulatory changes that facilitate experimentation, collaboration and prioritisation of long-term co-benefits over short-term and largely isolated and powerful economic interests. This also has important implication for the role of the local government in NYC to take up more, calling on it to take a more pro-active and formalised role in taking bold policy and planning decisions, develop partnerships and invest in organisational resources and skills for innovation, learning, communication and collaboration.

References Adams-Schoen, S. (2014a). On the waterfront: New York City’s climate change adaptation and mitigation challenge (Part 1 of 2). Environmental Law in New York, 25(4), 81–99. Adams-Schoen, S. (2014b). On the waterfront: New York City’s climate change adaptation and mitigation challenge (Part 2 of 2). Environmental Law in New York, 25(5), 101–121. Amundsen, H., Hovelsrud, G. K., Aall, C., Karlsson, M., & Westskog, H. (2018). Local governments as drivers for societal transformation: Towards the 1.5°C ambition. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 31, 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.12.004. BIG. (2016). The BIG “U”. Promoting resilience post-Sandy through innovative planning, design & programming. Rebuild by Design. Bloomberg, M. R., Sachs, J. D., & Small, G. M. (2010). Climate change adaptation in New York City: Building a risk management response. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1196(1), 1–3. Brown, A. (2017). Visionaries, translators, and navigators: Facilitating institutions as critical enables of urban climate change resilience. In S. Hughes, E. K. Chu, & S. G. Mason (Eds.), Climate change in cities: Innovations in ­multi-level governance (pp. 229–253). Cham: Springer. Bulkeley, H., & Betsill, M. M. (2013). Revisiting the urban politics of climate change. Environmental Politics, 22(1), 136–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/0 9644016.2013.755797. Campbell, L. K., Svendsen, E. S., Sonti, N. F., & Johnson, M. L. (2016). A social assessment of urban parkland: Analysing park use and meaning to inform management and resilience planning. Environmental Science & Policy, 62, 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.014.

6  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

237

Cowan, L., & Hogan, H. (2014). From the edge of disaster: How activists and insiders can use the lessons of hurricane Sandy to make the city safer. New York City: North Star Fund. Dąbrowski, M. (2017). Boundary spanning for governance of climate change adaptation in cities: Insights from a Dutch urban region. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 1–19. https://doi. org/10.1177/2399654417725077. den Exter, R., Lenhart, J., & Kern, K. (2014). Governing climate change in Dutch cities: Anchoring local climate strategies in organization, policy and practical implementation. Local Environment. https://doi.org/10.1080/135 49839.2014.892919. Depietri, Y., & McPhearson, T. (2018). Changing urban risk: 140 years of climatic hazards in New York City. Climatic Change, 148(1–2), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2194-2. Ehnert, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Barnes, J., Borgström, S., Gorissen, L., Kern, F., et al. (2018). The acceleration of urban sustainability transitions: A comparison of Brighton, Budapest, Dresden, Genk, and Stockholm. Sustainability, 10(3), 612. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030612. Forgione, H. M., Pregitzer, C. C., Charlop-Powers, S., & Gunther, B. (2016). Advancing urban ecosystem governance in New York City: Shifting towards a unified perspective for conservation management. Environmental Science & Policy, 62, 127–132. Gouldson, A., Colenbrander, S., Sudmant, A., McAnulla, F., Kerr, N., Sakai, P., et al. (2015). Exploring the economic case for climate action in cities. Global Environmental Change, 35, 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2015.07.009. Grannis, J., Arroyo, V., Hoverter, S., Goetz, M., Bennett, A., DeWeese, J., et al. (2016). Rebuilding with resilience: Lessons from the rebuild by design competition after Hurricane Sandy. Washington: Georgetown Climate Center. Hölscher, K. (2019). Transforming urban climate governance: Capacities for transformative climate governance (PhD thesis), Erasmus University Rotterdam. https://repub.eur.nl/pub/118721. Hölscher, K., Frantzeskaki, F., McPhearson, T., & Loorbach, D. (2019). Capacities for urban transformations governance and the case of New York City. Cities, 94, 186–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.05.037. Jabareen, Y. (2015). Contemporary planning of the risk city: The case of New York City. In Y. Jabareen (Ed.), The risk city: Cities countering climate change: Emerging planning theories and practices around the world (pp. 81–103). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Keskitalo, E. C. H., Juhola, S., Baron, N., Fyhn, H., & Klein, J. (2016). Implementing local climate change adaptation and mitigation actions:

238  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL. The role of various policy instruments in a multi-level governance context. Climate, 4(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli4010007. Klein, N. (2019). On fire: The burning case for a green new deal. New York: Allen Lane. McArdle, A. (2014). Lessons for New York: Comparative urban governance and the challenge of climate change. Fordham Urban Law Journal XLII, 91, 91–122. Available at SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2614819. McPhearson, T., Hamstead, Z. A., & Kremer, P. (2014). Urban ecosystem services for resilience planning and management in New York City. Ambio, 43, 502–515. McPhearson, T., Iwaniec, D., & Bai, X. (2017). Positive visions for guiding urban transformations toward sustainable futures. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 22, 33–40. McPhearson, T., & Wijsman, K. (2017). Transitioning complex urban systems: The importance of urban ecology for sustainability in New York City. In N. Frantzeskaki, V. Castán Broto, L. Coenen, & D. Loorbach (Eds.), Urban sustainability transitions. Cham: Springer. Moloney, S., & Horne, R. (2015). Low carbon urban transitioning: From local experimentation to urban transformation? Sustainability, 7, 2437–2453. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7032437. Nevens, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Gorissen, L., & Loorbach, D. (2013). Urban transition labs: Co-creating transformative action for sustainable cities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 111–122. New York City Panel on Climate Change, NPCC. (2009). Climate risk information. http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/NPCC_CRI.pdf. Accessed 19 February 2020. Nordgren, J., Stults, M., & Meerow, S. (2016). Supporting local climate change adaptation: Where we are and where we need to go. Environmental Science & Policy, 66, 344–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.05.006. NPCC, NYC Panel on Climate Change. (2013). Climate risk information 2013: Observations, climate change projections, and maps. In C. Rosenzweig & W. Solecki (Ed.), NPCC2. Prepared for use by the city of New York special initiative on rebuilding and resiliancy. New York, NY. http://www.nyc.gov/html/ planyc2030/downloads/pdf/npcc_climate_risk_information_2013_report.pdf. NPCC. (2015). Building the knowledge base for climate resiliency. New York City: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. NYC, City of New York. (2007). PlaNYC: A greener, greater New York. New York, NY: NYC Office of the Mayor. NYC. (2009). Greener Greater Buildings Plan. New York, NY: NYC Office of the Mayor. NYC. (2010). NYC green infrastructure plan: A sustainable strategy for clean waterways. New York, NY: NYC Department of Environmental Protection.

6  CAPACITIES FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

239

NYC. (2011). PlaNYC: Update April 2011. New York, NY: NYC Office of the Mayor. NYC. (2013). A Stronger, more resilient New York. New York, NY: NYC Office of the Mayor. NYC. (2014a). 2014 New York City hazard mitigation plan. New York, NY: NYC Emergency Management. NYC. (2014b). Vision zero action plan 2014. New York, NY: NYC Office of the Mayor. NYC. (2014c). One city, rebuilding together: A report on the city of New York’s response to Hurricane Sandy and the path forward. New York, NY. https://www1.nyc. gov/assets/home/downloads/pdf/reports/2014/sandy_041714.pdf. NYC. (2015). OneNYC. New York, NY: NYC Office of the Mayor. NYC Parks. (2016). GreenThumb: The largest community gardening program in the nation. http://www.greenthumbnyc.org/about.html. Accessed 31 January 2017. NYC Planning. (2011). Vision 2020: NYC comprehensive waterfront plan. New York, NY: NYC Department of City Planning. Pahl-Wostl, C., & Knieper, C. (2014). The capacity of water governance to deal with the climate change adaptation challenge: Using fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis to distinguish between polycentric, fragmented and centralized regimes. Global Environmental Change, 29, 139–154. RbD, Rebuild by Design. (2016). Hurricane Sandy design competition. http:// www.rebuildbydesign.org/our-work/sandy-projects. Rink, D., Kabisch, S., Koch, F., & Krellenberg, K. (2018). Exploring the extent, selected topics and governance modes of urban sustainability transformations. In S. Kabisch, F. Koch, E. Gawel, A. Haase, S. Knapp, K. Krellenberg, et al. (Eds.), Urban transformations: Sustainable urban development through resource efficiency, quality of life and resilience (pp. 3–20). Future City 10. Cham: Springer. Roberts, C., Geels, F. W., Lockwood, M., Newell, P., Schmitz, H., Turnheim, B., et al. (2018). The politics of accelerating low-carbon transitions: Towards a new research agenda. Energy Research & Social Science, 44, 304–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.06.001. Romero-Lankao, P., Bulkeley, H., Pelling, M., Burch, S., Gordon, D., Gupta, J., et al. (2018). Realizing urban transformative potential in a changing climate. Nature Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0264-0. Shaw, A., Burch, S., Kristensen, F., Robinson, J., & Dale, A. (2014). Accelerating the sustainability transition: Exploring synergies between adaptation and mitigation in British Columbian communities. Global Environmental Change, 25, 41–51.

240  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL. Simon, D., & Leck, H. (2015). Understanding climate adaptation and transformation challenges in African cities. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 13, 109–116. Solecki, W., Rosenzweig, C., Solecki, S., Patrick, L., Horton, R., & Dorsch, M. (2016). New York, USA. In S. Bartlett & D. Satterthwaite (Eds.), Cities on a finite planet: Towards transformative responses to climate change (pp. 169– 184). London: Routledge. Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Rosenzweig, C., Dawson, R. J., Sanchez Rodriguez, R. Bai, X., Barau A. S., et al. (2018). Locking in positive climate responses in cities. Nature Climate Change, 8, 174–175. van der Heijden, J. (2018). City and subnational governance: High ambitions, innovative instruments and polycentric collaborations? In A. Jordan, D. Huitema, H. van Asselt, & J. Forster (Eds.), Governing climate change: Polycentricity in action? (pp. 81–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

CHAPTER 7

Transforming Urban (Climate) Governance: What Do We Learn from Pro-actively Experimenting Cities? Katharina Hölscher

7.1  Introduction The notion of transformative climate governance put forth in this book responds to the call of a growing number of scholars who voice the urgency for a ‘transformation of urban governance’. This is needed to respond more decisively and systemically to ongoing transformation dynamics and realise radical change towards sustainability and resilience in the long term (Hölscher and Frantzeskaki, Chapter 1, this volume; Rink et al. 2018; WBGU 2016). Indeed, while urban climate governance

K. Hölscher (*)  Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 K. Hölscher and N. Frantzeskaki (eds.), Transformative Climate Governance, Palgrave Studies in Environmental Transformation, Transition and Accountability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49040-9_7

241

242  K. HÖLSCHER

seems to influence and change urban governance regimes, the shortcomings of urban climate governance to date can be related to the inability of existing urban governance regimes to deal with the systemic, contested and uncertain nature of urban transformations under climate change (Hölscher and Frantzeskaki, Chapter 4, this volume). The insights from Rotterdam and New York City (NYC) presented in the previous chapters (Hölscher et al., Chapter 5, this volume; Hölscher et al., Chapter 6, this volume) reveal diverse new conditions that manifest in capacities for transformative climate governance, including co-ownership over long-term and integrated strategies, long-term financing mechanisms, space for experimentation, systemic knowledge and coordination channels and spaces. At the same time, they underscore that even in cities that have become recognised internationally as frontrunners in addressing climate change, sustainability and resilience this type of integrated and experimental approaches still only takes place at the fringes of urban governance. The key message is that while urban climate governance develops towards more integrated, multi-actor and experimental approaches—and in doing so, it also drives a shift in urban governance more generally—these approaches still represent niches within the overall landscape of urban governance in both cities. In this chapter, I first present the main findings about whether and how new capacities for transformative climate governance are developing in Rotterdam and NYC, and what are capacity gaps, barriers and opportunities (Sect. 7.2). The comparison of governance capacities in both cities offers insights into the emerging features of urban climate governance vis-à-vis existing urban governance regimes, including how and by whom urban climate governance is driven and constrained, what governance conditions emerge as a result, and whether these conditions indeed enable transformative climate governance. From this, I highlight four critical lessons that resonate both the conditions that fundamentally underpin transformative climate governance and that need further attention and investment to address existing capacity gaps and achieve effective change (Sect. 7.3). I conclude with key (political) implications for developing capacities for transformative climate governance (Sect. 7.4).

7  TRANSFORMING URBAN (CLIMATE) GOVERNANCE … 

243

7.2  Are Capacities for Transformative Climate Governance Developing in Rotterdam and New York City? The vision of transformative climate governance systematically brings together the complex picture of urban (climate) governance to see which capacity exists and where, by whom this capacity has been generated, and where are capacity deficits. Although Rotterdam and NYC differ in their size, geographic location and urban challenges, there are many similarities regarding the activities and conditions that manifest in the governance capacities to develop and implement transformative climate solutions. What I could identify in particular, was that both cities show a very diffuse and dispersed climate governance picture, which is visible in the multiple individuals, organisations, task forces and committees of governing that have been the agency of capacity generation. 7.2.1   Delivery of Transformative Climate Governance in Rotterdam and New York City In Rotterdam and NYC, it is possible to see how a problem-based and systemic approach to addressing climate change is emerging. This has been especially driven by the integration of climate mitigation and adaptation within long-term sustainability and resilience goals and strategies. In both cities, this integration reflects the recognition that climate mitigation and adaptation need to be approached as opportunities for improving liveability and well-being and that they are long-term concerns, thus requiring long-term perspectives. Because of the long-term and integrated perspectives, it is possible to highlight the need for systemic and radical changes in both governance approaches and urban structures and practices, yet overall in both cities there is a challenge to move beyond the initial momentum for such changes and further anchor the approach in existing governance and planning regimes. Outputs in terms of concrete policies and interventions are manifold. Both cities are implementing a green infrastructure plan, technical measures to protect from flooding (e.g. flood walls), regulations, incentives, and awareness raising programmes to enhance risk protection and energy efficiency, among others. Rotterdam has in particular gained international recognition through its high-profile proof-of-concept

244  K. HÖLSCHER

experiments—such as the Benthemplein water square, the multifunctional underground water storage facility at Museumplein car park and the Floating Pavilion in the City Ports area—that deliver co-benefits for climate adaptation, greening, recreation, community-building and economic development. In NYC, action is undertaken on awareness raising (e.g. through the NYC Cool Neighbourhoods programme combines green infrastructure, health training and supporting low-income households), community resilience projects and regulation to adapt flood zones and building codes. The Rebuild-by-Design (RbD) competition that was initiated by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) after Hurricane Sandy has resulted in three innovative projects located in NYC: the BIG U, the Living Breakwaters project and the Hunts Point Lifelines project. It was not my aim to meticulously assess some sort of value for how the functions were fulfilled, nor to analyse the outcomes and impacts on sustainability and resilience transformations for example in terms of amount of renewable energy produced, emissions reduced and risks avoided. In addition, the results are limited to the specific types of interventions and interactions and points in time looked at in the case studies. I provide the following qualitative conclusions about the delivery of the governance functions and how they are influenced by the corresponding capacities: • Stewarding function: Stewarding influences which and how disturbances are anticipated and what responses are enabled. The main stewarding objectives of climate governance policies, plans and actions in Rotterdam and NYC are the protection and recovery of the population and infrastructure from climate impacts like flooding, storms and heatwaves while contributing to liveability, economic development and social equity. While Rotterdam and the Netherlands have a long-standing policy tradition on ensuring water safety—which is reflected in the high levels of infrastructure protection in Rotterdam—NYC combines long-term infrastructure protection with community resilience and providing short-term emergency relief. In addition, the NYC government revised hurricane evacuation zones, placing a greater focus on the varying angles of approach for different storms, and employs regulatory instruments, including building codes and zoning, to ensure that building and area developments take future climate impacts into account.

7  TRANSFORMING URBAN (CLIMATE) GOVERNANCE … 

245

Conditions for stewarding have been created by developing a vast amount of knowledge on systemic risks and uncertainties relating to flooding, storms and health, establishing integrated, long-term and multi-level planning approaches, and supporting diverse social networks. However, both cities still face severe risks, and stewarding efforts are often not thoroughly undertaken due to an unclear distribution of responsibilities and a lack of mainstreaming of integrated and long-term risk management approaches. • Unlocking function: Unlocking determines what and how drivers of unsustainability and path-dependencies are recognised and reduced. Unlocking climate governance efforts in Rotterdam and NYC focus on reducing emissions from buildings and energy while improving health, well-being and economic prosperity. Unlocking outputs include changes in regulation and physical structures and awareness raising to facilitate renewable energy production, energy efficiency in buildings and sustainable and safe transport. Conditions for unlocking manifest in the identification of and awareness raising on drivers of emissions in connection with drivers of air and noise pollution, waste and inequality, support networks with an explicit mission for change and social and political awareness and support for departing from business-as-usual. The main challenge for delivering the unlocking function relates to a lack of mainstreaming and prioritising of sustainability and climate concerns. Existing interests, incentive structures and regulations favour short-term economic interests and investments. Another key challenge in both cities is to reach out to more heterogeneous populations, for example in the case of buildings it relates to different types of ownerships and energy structures. • Transforming function: Transforming influences what type of new innovations are developed and how they are embedded into structures, cultures and practices. Transforming processes in Rotterdam and NYC are evident in the multiple strategic, operational, institutional and organisational innovations in how climate mitigation and adaptation are addressed. Strategic goals and agendas were redefined to position climate mitigation and adaptation as opportunity for sustainable and resilience and innovative, multifunctional solutions were implemented. The integrated goals were embedded in new cross-sectoral governance structures to coordinate multi-actor implementation. Despite these successes in

246  K. HÖLSCHER

innovating climate governance approaches, strategies and solutions in Rotterdam and NYC, these do not yet permeate city-wide planning and ­decision-making. In Rotterdam, innovative projects often remain stand-alone initiatives, which are showcased internationally, rather than locally, to create business opportunities for local companies. Learning from experiments remains largely ad hoc due to time constrains. While first-time innovations can benefit from lifted regulations and financial support, upscaling and replication are more constrained by existing regulations and short-term cost–benefit calculations. • Orchestrating function: Orchestrating serves to create synergies between climate governance and other policy sectors across scales in line with overarching visions for sustainability and resilience. Orchestrating in Rotterdam and NYC is evident in the city-wide long-term and integrated climate, sustainability and resilience goals and the starting streamlining and coordination of the activities of multiple actors and networks so as to contribute towards these goals across sectors and scales. Strategic visioning and alignment, partnership-building and mediation of knowledge and resources are time and resource-intensive. Despite the increasing diversity of networks, spaces and channels to coordinate and integrate systemic climate action in Rotterdam and NYC, these do not extend beyond a still relatively small group of key actors. As a result, in most governance practice climate mitigation and adaptation are still considered as ‘doing something extra’. The absence of formal conditions for collaborative financing in line with the long-term and systemic goals makes the goals vulnerable to shifting priorities and hinders piggybacking. Despite the striking similarities in how urban climate governance has been developed and advanced in Rotterdam and NYC, there are differences in what types of goals are emphasised in relation to climate mitigation and adaptation and in the types of measures that are implemented. Rather than rendering climate governance in one city more ‘effective’ or ‘successful’, both cities signify different types of approaches as well as different socioeconomic, institutional, political and cultural conditions and challenges.

7  TRANSFORMING URBAN (CLIMATE) GOVERNANCE … 

247

One key difference is that while in Rotterdam and the Netherlands flood protection is a long-standing policy priority, in NYC, Hurricane Sandy marked a turning point through which climate adaptation and resilience became recognised as key issues. On the one hand, this means that in Rotterdam a high level of human and social capital—for example in terms of knowledge about risks and technological options, institutions and regulatory authority—is available. On the other hand, in NYC the experience of a very extreme event has enabled to decidedly prioritise climate adaptation and resilience, while in Rotterdam especially among urban inhabitants’ awareness about risks has been identified as very low. Second, the types of measures to address climate change differ. In Rotterdam, there is an emphasis on the local culture ‘of doing things’, which is evident in the multiple pilot projects such as the Benthemplein water square and the Floating Pavilion—these are used to showcase new types of solutions, market Rotterdam as a frontrunner and create opportunities for local businesses abroad. In NYC, many measures include regulatory measures such as building code and zoning plan adaptations and reporting mandates. This hints at different local cultures and willingness to exercise regulatory authority. Third, the urban governance puzzle in NYC is considerably more complex than that in Rotterdam in terms of diversity of actors, organisation of the local government and multi-level governance structures. This resonates in the vast conglomerate of cross-cutting networks and partnerships in NYC and also due to the fact that NYC is a megacity. In addition, the cross-cutting approach to addressing climate change is more formally institutionalised in NYC (e.g. resilience offices in individual departments). This implies that there is a higher organisational capacity in NYC and more access to social, human and financial capital. A fourth difference relates to the political cultures in both cities and their multi-level governance contexts. The political playing field in NYC seems to be much more contested. This is, for example, visible in contestations between NYC and New York State—the latter blocked the implementation of congestion charges for entering the core of Manhattan for mainly political reasons. Similarly, until the early 2010s, the New York State government could not mention climate change as a reason to generate knowledge and formulate strategies and projects for sea-level rise and storm protection.

248  K. HÖLSCHER

7.2.2   Activities and Conditions Manifesting in Capacities for Transformative Climate Governance I have identified four different types of governance conditions that were created across all capacities (Table 7.1, see Appendix A, for examples, from Rotterdam and NYC). These conditions facilitate the enactment of the respective capacities; that is, they enable the development and implementation of problem-based and systemic climate strategies and interventions. They resemble those conditions mentioned in governance capacity literature (Hölscher, Chapter 2, this volume; Foster-Fishman et al. 2001; Rama et al. 2009), but specify the types of conditions marking a shift towards transformative climate governance, including opting for more diversity and flexibility of knowledge, networks, actors and institutions. The activities provide detailed explanations and transferable lessons of how the diverse conditions were created. • Institutional conditions: Institutional conditions (e.g. regulatory space for experimentation) influence how decisions are being made and how planning and management are conducted within each capacity. The capacities manifest in new types of institutional conditions that allow flexible, problem-based and systemic approaches. • Knowledge conditions: Knowledge conditions (e.g. ­ co-created knowledge about long-term and systemic risks) underpin decision-making and planning to facilitate context-specific and ­problem-based approaches and to facilitate ongoing learning about the effects of interventions (e.g. learning from experimentation). The capacities manifest in new types of knowledge conditions that integrate multiple perspectives (e.g. scientific and community knowledge) and take long-term and systemic perspectives to create synergies and avoid trade-offs in the long-term. • Network conditions: Network conditions (e.g. support networks that mobilise for change) create connections and partnerships between diverse types of actors for collaboration across scales, sectors and societal spheres. The capacities manifest in new and diverse types of network conditions to generate knowledge, societal support and develop and implement interventions. • Social conditions: Social conditions (e.g. co-ownership over ­long-term visions) relate to the societal awareness about, support

Strengthening self-organisation for stewarding

Generating knowledge about system dynamics

Stewarding capacity

Capacity conditions

Social condition: Social capital and actor empowerment

Network condition: Multi-scale and cross-sectoral networks and partnerships for risk planning and management

Institutional condition: Knowledge mandates Institutional condition: Flexible, problem-based and fit-to-context planning and management approaches

Network condition: Knowledge partnerships

Knowledge condition: Long-term, systemic and context-specific knowledge about risks and uncertainties

(continued)

Integrating long-term, systemic risks and uncertainties into planning and management approaches Adopting problem-based, fit-to-context and no-regret planning and management approaches Providing flexible regulation and incentives to facilitate fit-to-context risk protection Clearly assigning and communicating responsibilities of actors Establishing issue-specific, multi-level and cross-sectoral collaborations to develop and implement projects in line with context needs Involving communities in joint and context-specific visioning, planning and implementation processes Raising awareness about risks and response options Strengthening social networks to enable self-organised response and social resilience

Long-term forecasting of systemic risks and uncertainties across scales Generating problem-based and context-specific knowledge in vulnerability hot spots Identifying and prioritising high-risk areas for directing investments Creating issue-specific and multi-stakeholder research programmes and partnerships for knowledge generation across scales and sectors Formalising research partnerships and networks Mandating knowledge generation to ensure access to data

Activities

Table 7.1  Transformative climate governance capacities in Rotterdam and New York City

7  TRANSFORMING URBAN (CLIMATE) GOVERNANCE … 

249

Activities

Breaking open resistance to change

Undermining vested interests and incentive structures

Network condition: Key support networks and partnerships

Institutional condition: Control of unsustainable practices Social condition: Societal and political awareness and support

Network condition: Knowledge partnerships Institutional condition: Knowledge mandates Institutional condition: Support for sustainable business cases and investments

Revealing unsustainable Knowledge condition: Identifying and path-dependency and exploring systemic drivers mal-adaptation

(continued)

Raising awareness and providing assistance for sustainable investments and behaviour change Lobbying for political support Setting up public-private partnerships for issue-specific action Setting up support networks with key stakeholders (groups)

Setting standards for sustainable investments Providing incentives for sustainable investments Integrating sustainability into public tendering Implementing regulation to control unsustainable practices

Identifying systemic social and economic drivers of unsustainability and path-dependency Road mapping and scenario analyses to explore phase-out options Conducting regular emissions inventories Establishing public-private knowledge partnerships to identify drivers and explore phase-out options Mandating knowledge generation to ensure access to data

Monitoring and contin- Knowledge condition: Institutional and Drawing on past experience and learning about new solutions Continuously updating plans and resilience and sustainability uous learning social memory indicators Unlocking capacity

Capacity conditions

Table 7.1  (continued)

250  K. HÖLSCHER

Anchoring novelty in context

Increasing visibility of novelty

Enabling novelty creation

Transformative capacity

Capacity conditions

Activities

(continued)

Social condition: Leadership for creating Mobilising political leadership to put new and ambitious goals on and using opportunities for change the agenda Making use of momentum and opportunities for change Piggy-backing and quickly expressing potential of a new solution Network condition: Multi-actor innova- Forming informal ‘coalitions of the willing’ for strategic and tion networks operational innovation Involving communities in design and implementation of experiments Institutional condition: (Regulatory, Temporary lifting or avoiding existing regulations financial) space for innovation Social condition: (Trans-)local support Creating and advocating an inspiring innovation story Showcasing innovations as market potential for the city for the innovation story Network condition: Advocacy coalitions Creating advocacy coalitions to carry the innovation story Participating in and hosting local, regional, national and international networking, best practice and knowledge exchange events for visibility Knowledge condition: Learning for Identifying proof-of-concept lessons from innovations to facilitate replication and upscaling replicating and embedding Identifying opportunities from innovation for upscaling Identifying bricolage of solution elements to mainstream innovations into urban planning processes and decisions Network condition: Self-sustaining Formalising operational public-private partnerships for continuous innovation networks innovation Setting up cross-sectoral networks and partnerships tasked with (embedding of) innovation in institutional structures

Table 7.1  (continued)

7  TRANSFORMING URBAN (CLIMATE) GOVERNANCE … 

251

Mediation across scales and sectors

Strategic alignment

Orchestrating capacity

Capacity conditions

Institutional condition: Long-term and integrated goals Social condition: Involvement of multiple actors in shared strategy formulation and visioning Network condition: Connection nodes for pooling climate action

Institutional condition: Institutional space for embedding strategic and operational innovations in mainstream practice

Table 7.1  (continued)

(continued)

Developing long-term climate mitigation and adaptation, sustainability and resilience goals Involving multiple actors from different city departments and private organisations in strategy formulation Public outreaching and participation Establishing central connection nodes for pooling climate efforts at multiple levels Establishing cross-departmental city offices for coordinating and knowledge brokering at multiple levels Designating theme-leads and contact persons within individual departments Identifying private and community-based activities to seek linkages

Creating open mind-set for taking up innovations in tactical agendas and daily practices Allocating budget to developing and maintaining innovation, upscaling and replicating

Activities

252  K. HÖLSCHER

Activities

Network condition: Intermediary spaces Creating neutral co-creation spaces and knowledge partnerships for knowledge sharing and trust building to build trust for knowledge sharing and resource synergies across scales and sectors Participating in international city networks Establishing cross-departmental co-creation spaces for knowledge exchange, priority alignment and trust building Knowledge condition: Pooling and inte- Identifying opportunities, synergies and trade-offs between differgrating knowledge and resources across ent goals scales and sectors Institutional condition: Framework Redefining responsibilities for carrying costs conditions and financing mechanisms for Creating competitions to leverage innovative, long-term and co-beneficial solutions long-term co-benefits

Adapted from Hölscher (2019)

Creating opportunity contexts

Capacity conditions

Table 7.1  (continued)

7  TRANSFORMING URBAN (CLIMATE) GOVERNANCE … 

253

254  K. HÖLSCHER

for and ability to change behaviours and self-organise. The capacities manifest in new types of social conditions to create co-ownership and co-responsibility for addressing climate change, sustainability and resilience. While similar conditions manifest in the different capacities, they serve distinct purposes in line with the respective capacity’s functions. For example, while stewarding capacity is manifest in institutional conditions that enable fit-to-context decision-making, planning and management relating to risk and uncertainty, transformative capacity is manifest in the creation of institutional space for experimentation without being accountable to business-as-usual. Unlocking capacity is manifest in the dismantling of institutions, networks and discourses that perpetuate unsustainable path-dependency, for example by adapting institutions to reduce the competitive advantage of business-as-usual. • Stewarding capacity: In both cities, stewarding capacity is visible in initiatives and plans to protect from long-term risks and uncertainties related to flooding, storm and health as well as to improve equity and well-being. Stewarding capacity is marked by a shift towards polycentric, flexible and knowledge-based approaches that allow long-term, fit-to-context and fit-for-purpose decision-making, planning and management. In both Rotterdam and NYC, conditions for stewarding have been created by developing a vast amount of knowledge on systemic risks and uncertainties, establishing integrated, long-term and multi-level planning approaches and supporting diverse social networks. • Unlocking capacity: Unlocking capacity in Rotterdam and NYC is visible in the identification of and awareness raising on drivers of emissions in connection with drivers of air and noise pollutions, waste and inequality, and the creation of new incentives and regulations to control unsustainable practices and support alternatives. The capacity is characterised by a new view about institutional ‘sun-setting’ to phase-out and/or reduce the competitive advantage of business-as-usual. Conditions for unlocking are primarily created by phasing-out or disincentivising business-as-usual and creating support networks and strategic alliances with a clear mission for change.

7  TRANSFORMING URBAN (CLIMATE) GOVERNANCE … 

255

• Transformative capacity: Transformative capacity in Rotterdam and NYC is evident in the multiple strategic, operational, institutional and organisational innovations in how climate mitigation and adaptation are addressed. It resonates the application of experimentation as a full-fledged governance approach that does not only encompass the (continuous) innovation itself but also reflection and learning about what the innovation brings about in the policy and planning mix (e.g. for replication, scaling). Conditions for transformative capacity were created by leadership that made use of opportunities for change (e.g. Hurricane Sandy), providing (e.g. regulatory, financial) space and heterogeneous and inclusive networks for experimentation, reflection and learning and by spreading the innovation story locally, nationally and internationally to increase legitimacy of and support for the innovations and the experimental approach. • Orchestrating capacity: Orchestrating capacity is evident in both cities in the city-wide long-term and integrated climate, sustainability and resilience goals and the large variety of nested, formal and informal institutions, networks and communication channels that were established at different levels of governance to streamline and coordinate the activities of multiple actors and networks. Orchestrating capacity has emerged as a key ‘meta-capacity’ for aligning and coordinating and ensuring collaboration through systemic knowledge and perspective that is brought into other departments, sectors, etc. via formal and informal processes (e.g. institutionalising sustainability and resilience, c­ross-departmental task forces, informal spaces). Like with transformative capacity, political leadership has been a key driving force for putting the integrated view on climate, sustainability and resilience on the agenda and assigning a clear mandate and priority to these issues. While the capacities result in distinct contributions to enabling trans­ formative climate governance—in terms of enabling fulfilling different functions—there are many interactions between the capacities. In particular, transformative and orchestrating capacities have in Rotterdam and NYC emerged almost simultaneously through the creation of space and informal networks for strategic and operational innovation. The innovation of the approach to climate change, sustainability and resilience through transformative capacity has propelled new types of

256  K. HÖLSCHER

strategies, governance arrangements and institutional structures for cross-sectoral and cross-scale collaboration (orchestrating capacity). In turn, how the orchestrating function was fulfilled to coordinate climate activities and networks also affected stewarding and ­ unlocking. For example, the integrated perspective on climate, sustainability and resilience was embedded in context-sensitive, problem-based and ­community-based approaches to manage risks and vulnerabilities. It also facilitates the generation of systemic knowledge on risks and drivers of unsustainability and path-dependency. 7.2.3   Actors Enacting Transformative Climate Governance in Rotterdam and New York City The ways the governance capacities are created and enacted in Rotterdam and NYC underline the decidedly multi-actor nature of urban climate governance. While the local governments, in particular the Climate and Sustainability Offices in Rotterdam and the Mayor’s Office for Recovery and Resiliency (ORR) and the Mayor’s Office for Sustainability (MOS) in NYC, are the main actors responsible for ensuring and overseeing climate-proofing safeguarding measures, they establish and collaborate with diverse networks and partnerships to enable cross-boundary and cross-sectoral implementation. As a result, in both cities a diversity of cross-sectoral, cross-scale and public–private partnerships and networks, including regional and national knowledge programmes, research partnerships, research-industry collaborations and private stakeholder platforms, participate in the generation of knowledge, the formulation of strategies and agendas and the development of innovative solutions. Table 7.2 provides an overview of the different types of actors and actor networks enacting urban climate governance in Rotterdam and NYC. Actors from the local governments In both cases, the local governments remain the critical actor leading efforts on climate, resilience and sustainability. There is of course no such thing as ‘the’ local government as a single entity; the local government is composed of actors working in various departments and offices and political parties. Overall, the local government exercises regulatory power, provides incentives, raises awareness and coordinates the diverse innovation and implementation processes in Rotterdam and

7  TRANSFORMING URBAN (CLIMATE) GOVERNANCE … 

257

Table 7.2  Actors and actor networks enacting urban climate governance in Rotterdam and New York City Actor (network)

Examples

Local government

Sustainability and Resilience Offices Chief Resilience Officers Mayor Policy entrepreneurs

Regional and national governments

Knowledge partnerships

Activities

Initiating and agenda-setting for action on climate change, sustainability and resilience Streamlining, motivating and supporting action on climate change, sustainability and resilience Implementing regulations and incentives for risk protection and phase-out Investing in infrastructure and leading-by-example (e.g. investments in renewable energy on municipal properties) Ensuring good governance principles and inclusive decision-making Rijkswaterstad (Rotterdam) Initiating and agenda-setRegional Waterboards ting for action on climate (Rotterdam) change, sustainability and Federal Emergency resilience Management Agency Implementing regulations (FEMA) (NYC) and incentives for risk proFederal Department of tection and phase-out Housing and Urban Investing in infrastructure Development (HUD) Ensuring good governance (NYC) principles and inclusive decision-making 100 Resilient Cities Generating, integrating and Dutch Knowledge for communicating knowledge Climate research programme Sharing best practices (Rotterdam) Creating safe space for New York City Panel on knowledge exchange and Climate Change (NYC) trust building Science and Resilience Institute @ Jamaica Bay (SRI@JB) (NYC) (continued)

258  K. HÖLSCHER Table 7.2  (continued) Actor (network)

Examples

Activities

Public-private partnerships

Rotterdam Centre for Resilient Delta Cities (RDC) (Rotterdam) RDM Campus (Rotterdam); NYC Green Codes Task Force (NYC) Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency (SIRR) (NYC) New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program (HEP) (NYC) Rotterdam Milieucentrum (Rotterdam) Municipal Art Society (MAS) (NYC) Environmental Justice Alliance (EJA) (NYC) Red Hook Initiative (NYC)

Connecting diverse actors to each other and mediating interests Pooling resources and developing and implementing interventions Lobbying for political and societal support

Non-profit and community-based organisations

Generating knowledge Awareness raising Criticising and lobbying for political and societal support

Adapted from Hölscher (2019)

NYC. The initiative and high-level political support from the Mayors and, in NYC, also from individual departments’ Commissioners was critical for putting strategic and operational innovations for climate change, sustainability and resilience on the political and public agenda. Policy entrepreneurs were able to use opportunities for change—like the International Architecture Biennale in Rotterdam and hurricane Sandy in NYC—to develop climate adaptation and resilience plans. The Sustainability and Resilience Offices that were established in both cities as cross-cutting bodies are central nodes for overseeing, initiating and drafting the strategies and their implementation. They channel information and knowledge, establish connections with ongoing processes, motivate action, search for funding and lobby for support. They also participate in cross-scale partnerships and networks to align goals and mediate knowledge and resources across local, regional and national levels. In both cities, the transnational city network 100 Resilient Cities funds the formal position of a Chief Resilience Officer that is tasked with establishing a comprehensive resilience vision for minimising the

7  TRANSFORMING URBAN (CLIMATE) GOVERNANCE … 

259

impact of unforeseen events, work across departments and with the local communities. In NYC, also different departments take the lead in coordinating cross-sectoral and cross-scale action on specific topics: for example, Emergency Management Department (EMD) coordinates NYC’s disaster and emergency planning and response operations. Other city departments, including the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) and the NYC Department of Health and Mental Health’ (Health Department), contribute to creating knowledge on emergency planning, coastal resilience and ecosystem services. Actors from regional and national governments Climate governance in Rotterdam and NYC is nested within legal and institutional framework at regional and national levels, which requires alignment of priorities and legislation across governance levels. For example, in both cities water and flood safety are shared responsibilities across national, regional and local governmental bodies. In NYC, effective flood-zoning policies and building codes require cooperation among the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the NYC Department of Buildings (DOB) and the NYC Planning Department. However, national and regional policy frameworks in the Netherlands and the United States often constrain long-term climate adaptation and sustainability investments. In both cities, regional and national governments support climate governance through research programmes, regulatory frameworks and incentives. In the Netherlands, the Dutch government initiated ­multi-actor research programmes like Knowledge for Climate to generate knowledge on climate impacts in high-impact regions in the Netherlands, including Rotterdam. The Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) initiated the Rebuild-by-Design (RbD) competition to develop and implement innovative projects for rebuilding, community resilience and sustainability in the Sandy-affected region, which resulted in three innovative projects located in NYC. Actor networks and partnerships In Rotterdam and NYC, a diversity of cross-sectoral, cross-scale and public–private partnerships and networks, including regional and national knowledge programmes, research partnerships, research-industry collaborations and private stakeholder platforms, participates in the generation of knowledge, the formulation of strategies and agendas and the

260  K. HÖLSCHER

development of innovative solutions. The types of networks differ across the different capacities: for example, while stewarding capacity builds in particular on knowledge and community-based networks and partnerships, unlocking capacity manifests in particular in public–private partnerships that create support and advocacy for change. While I distinguish between knowledge and public–private partnerships, knowledge partnerships typically also (but not necessarily) involve public and private actors. However, research institutes have a key role in these partnerships as their main aim is to generate and integrate knowledge. Knowledge partnerships include collaborations and programmes that bring together actors from local, regional and national governments, academia, businesses and local communities to generate issue-specific knowledge at different scales (e.g. regional, communities). For example, the Dutch Knowledge for Climate supported knowledge generation on water safety risks in unembanked areas in Rotterdam. The NYC Panel on Climate Change (NPCC) is a collaboration of research institutes in NYC to report on climate risks and adaptation needs. The New J­erseyNew York Harbor Estuary Program (HEP) is a federally authorised programme that brings together federal, state and local agencies and ­citizen groups to define common goals and priorities for action around the management of the shared harbour and estuary. Knowledge partnerships also serve to create trust among different actors and to mediate interests by acting as the moderating actor facilitating knowledge sharing, trust building and community engagement. The Science and Resilience Institute @ Jamaica Bay (SRI@JB) in NYC mediates scientific and community knowledge between universities, local communities and public agencies by creating an informal space to share ideas and concerns, doing transdisciplinary research and introducing research results into the discussion. Public–private partnerships have diverse contributions to climate governance in Rotterdam and NYC; they serve to mediate interests between diverse actors, pool resources and develop and implement interventions, and lobby for political and societal support. In the NYC Green Codes Task Force, for example, allowing for the involvement of key actor groups (e.g. large homeowner associations) to make recommendations for the building and construction code changes was critical for the b ­uy-into the adaptation of building codes in the Greener Greater Buildings Plan (GGBP) (NYC 2009). In Rotterdam, the Floating Pavilion Partnership brought together actors from knowledge institutes, the local government,

7  TRANSFORMING URBAN (CLIMATE) GOVERNANCE … 

261

private companies and local communities to create knowledge on floating developments and implement the Floating Pavilion pilot project. Institutionalised partnerships like the RDM Campus in Rotterdam continue the development of innovations like floating constructions. Non-profit and community-based organisations Non-profit and community-based organisations contribute to generating knowledge, raising awareness and criticising existing policies and business-as-usual. Particularly in NYC there is a strong culture of ­community-based organisation, which can be explained in part by the liberal political culture that is less reliant on government’s decisions and support. The role played by this type of organisations was especially illustrated in NYC, where neighbourhoods with strong community organisations, such as Redhook, benefited from their substantial support in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy when local, state and federal agencies struggled with providing relief. Community engagement and participatory planning processes are increasingly recognised as a powerful way for ensuring local knowledge and needs are accounted for, to gain support and mobilise broader societal action. The implementation of a first water square in Rotterdam failed because there was no community support; the Benthemplein square on the other hand is successfully used as a community square because local groups co-designed it. The Rotterdam Resilience Strategy has identified community initiatives that could be connected to the city’s resilience efforts. The NYC Parks Department engages communities in maintaining the city’s green, for example through the GreenThumb programme. The RbD competition, which was initiated by HUD after hurricane Sandy and resulted in three resilience projects in NYC, demanded far-reaching expert and community engagement to ensure local support and relevance. However, despite these starting collaborations, overall community-based organisations feel insufficiently included by the local governments in Rotterdam and NYC. 7.2.4   What Are Capacity Gaps, Barriers and Opportunities for Transformative Climate Governance in Cities? The explanation and evaluation of capacities for transformative climate governance in Rotterdam and NYC indicate several barriers and gaps, but also opportunities and promising avenues for transforming urban

262  K. HÖLSCHER

(climate) governance. Overall, in both cities the capacities for transformative climate governance still represent niches within the overall governance architecture in both cities and they are not yet strong enough to achieve the bold and radical changes necessary for contributing to transformations towards sustainability and resilience. I identify the following overarching features of the approaches in both cities, which indicate opportunities for transforming urban (climate) governance: • Integrated actions to reduce emissions, adapt to climate impacts and improve overall sustainability and resilience: In both cities, actions and interventions are developed and implemented in an integrated way, which means relations between climate and other policy priorities and goals are identified to create synergies and avoid trade-offs. • Experimental approach to develop innovative, multi-functional and long-term solutions: In Rotterdam and NYC, space has been created to experiment with novel practices, approaches and solutions. This has facilitated the development and implementation of multi-functional innovations that depart from control-style policies and interventions and deliver on long-term benefits and emphasise learning. • Multi-actor involvement and coordination in defining and implementing climate mitigation, climate adaptation, sustainability and resilience goals and agendas: While in both cities actors from the respective local governments are taking a leading role in developing and implementing climate-related initiatives and projects, they establish and collaborate with diverse networks and partnerships to enable cross-boundary and cross-sectoral implementation. • New role for systemic and multifaceted knowledge for k ­ nowledgebased decision-making and planning: Decision-making and planning in both cities builds on a vast knowledge base about l­ong-term risks, uncertainty and historical, present and future drivers of unsustainability and climate change risks and vulnerabilities. The type of knowledge that is generated builds on integrating multiple perspectives (e.g. from actors across sectors and scales as well as from diverse societal spheres).

7  TRANSFORMING URBAN (CLIMATE) GOVERNANCE … 

263

• Fit-to-context and fit-for-purpose approaches to make decisions and plan in line with context and issue-specific needs: Rather than taking sectoral approaches to planning and ­decision-making, fit-tocontext and fit-for-purpose are adopted that put p ­ roblem-based and systemic approaches into practice: e.g. in specific neighbourhoods, related to specific issues (e.g. buildings) and taking cross-scale dynamics into account. Despite the successful development of more integrated, multi-actor and experimental approaches to urban climate governance in Rotterdam and NYC, there are several shortcomings with regard to their potential to deliver the output functions. These shortcomings can be related to gaps in the capacities, i.e. to missing conditions or challenges for developing and enacting upon the conditions to deliver the output function. Table 7.3 provides an overview of shortcomings of climate governance in Rotterdam and NYC and related capacity gaps and challenges. In particular, there seems to be a disconnect between the urban climate governance activities and the existing urban governance regimes in both cities. This signifies a lack of mainstreaming and prioritising ­climate-related concerns in city-wide policy and planning processes. The majority of existing incentive structures and regulations still favour ­short-term economic interests and investments, pre-empting co-beneficial protection from long-term risks and decisive phase-out of the root causes of emissions and sustainability. This perpetuates counteracting investments (e.g. building developments in flood-prone areas) and undermines the contribution of innovative solutions into the policy mix as they remain disconnected from mainstream policy and planning. This is visible in challenges for stewarding and unlocking capacity to mainstream and prioritise climate-related concerns. Regarding transformative capacity, the innovative climate strategies, approaches and solutions often remain isolated and stand-alone and do not yet permeate city-wide planning and decision-making. Actors in Rotterdam and NYC are currently confronted with moving beyond the initial momentum for integrated and experimental approaches to climate governance. The next-step challenge in Rotterdam and NYC is to move beyond the initial conditions created by the formulation of a long-term and systemic strategic agenda, setting-up partnerships and coalitions and the experimentation with innovative solutions. There is a need for strengthening institutional and organisational

264  K. HÖLSCHER Table 7.3  Shortcomings and related capacity gaps and challenges Shortcoming

Main capacity gap

Beyond visions: mainstreaming

Orchestrating capacity: Institutionalising visions into regulatory frameworks and organisational structures across sectors and scales

Beyond coalitions of the willing: outreach

Beyond experimentation: learning and uptake of innovation

Challenges

No mainstreaming of longterm climate and sustainability concerns; contradictory rules, disincentives for longterm climate action and counteracting investments and trade-offs Unclear responsibilities for stewarding, unlocking and transforming Moving beyond technological and short-term solutions (e.g. behavioural change) No space for experimentation, replication and scaling Orchestrating capacity: Low levels of awareness and Reaching out to wider actors support—climate action as and actor groups (e.g. across ‘doing something extra’ Feeling of exclusion (comdepartments, community munity-based organisations) organisations) Reaching out to heterogeneous populations (e.g. buildings with diverse energy structures) Breaking open existing actor networks Transformative capacity: Replicating and scaling of Learning from and evaluat- experiments Connecting experiments to ing experiments overarching vision Maintaining space for experimentation and replication and scaling

Adapted from Hölscher (2019) and Hölscher et al. (2019)

conditions for more decisive prioritisation of long-term climate investments and actions, better-funded collaboration mechanisms and improved space for (learning from) experimentation. In particular, this requires rethinking how orchestrating processes can be structurally supported and provided with a legitimate mandate

7  TRANSFORMING URBAN (CLIMATE) GOVERNANCE … 

265

to create long-term and integrated framework conditions that counter short-term economic interests and clarify responsibilities. Here, gaps in orchestrating capacity as a ‘meta-capacity’ to ensure alignment, coordination and mediation across the other capacities are pivotal: in Rotterdam and NYC, the dispersed climate governance structure is visible in the multiple individuals, organisations, task forces and committees of governing that have been the agency of capacity generation. Orchestrating capacity facilitates the structuring of the multiple activities and interactions between these actors. I identified several orchestrating deficits in Rotterdam and NYC, which are visible in the limited outreach and implementation of the long-term climate, sustainability and resilience agendas. The next-step challenge is to institutionalise and operationalise transformative climate (meta-)governance to decisively stipulate a prioritisation of climate change, sustainability and resilience in mainstream urban governance structures, practices and processes. However, strategic visioning and alignment, partnership-building and mediation of knowledge and resources are time and r­esource-intensive. Despite the increasing diversity of networks, spaces and channels to coordinate and integrate systemic climate action in Rotterdam and NYC, these do not extend beyond a still relatively small group of key actors. The limited mainstreaming results in trade-offs—not only between urban climate governance and business-as-usual governance and planning practice but also between resilience and sustainability goals. For example, in Rotterdam charging stations for electric cars were set up in a flood-prone area which increases vulnerability to power outages during flood events.

7.3   Lessons for Transforming Urban (Climate) Governance In this section, I reflect on my findings from the comparative case study of climate governance in Rotterdam and NYC in the light of the theoretical and empirical debates on transforming urban (climate) governance. In both cities, transformative climate governance capacities are developing, which are distinguished from existing governance regimes. However, the shortcomings and capacity gaps indicate mismatches between the conditions for transformative climate governance and existing urban governance regimes. For example, while ­ cross-cutting strategies, structures and networks (e.g. Sustainability Offices,

266  K. HÖLSCHER

c­ ross-departmental task forces) were established, these are so far not able to transcend the vast activities of the local governments in both cities. As a result, the sectoral organisation into individual departments with different priorities and planning and budgeting procedures as well as short-term political and economic interests often prevail and counteract long-term and systemic climate, sustainability and resilience efforts. The key message is that while urban climate governance develops towards more integrated, multi-actor and experimental approaches— and in doing so, it also drives a shift in urban governance more generally—these approaches still represent niches within the overall landscape of urban governance in cities. While an initial momentum has been created by envisioning long-term and integrated strategies and goals and by experimenting with novel solutions and approaches, urban climate governance efforts are not able to substantially overcome existing governance lock-ins and barriers resulting from the sectoral organisation of existing governance regimes, vested political and economic interests, short-term incentive structures and limited experience with integral and long-term decision-making restrict the effectiveness of urban climate governance. This obstructs co-beneficial protection from long-term risks and decisive phase-out of the root causes of emissions and sustainability. In addition, despite the long-term and far-reaching ambitions, actual interventions are often still incremental and technocratic and not able to create the required shifts in lifestyles, infrastructures, market patterns and institutions. This becomes visible in the challenge to instigate truly political discussions about sensitive issues such as planned retreat, stranded assets and lifestyle changes, which affect powerful economic interests (e.g. of building developers) as well as the intrinsic values and identities of local communities. The capacity gaps in Rotterdam and NYC signify a lack of mainstreaming and prioritising climate-related concerns in city-wide policy and planning processes. The majority of existing incentive structures and regulations still favour short-term economic interests and i­nvestments, pre-empting co-beneficial protection from long-term risks and ­decisive phase-out of the root causes of emissions and sustainability. This perpetuates counteracting investments (e.g. building developments in ­flood-prone areas) and undermines the contribution of innovative solutions into the policy mix as they remain disconnected from mainstream policy and planning. Additionally, mitigation and adaptation actions are still often technocratic and do not account for long-term uncertainty and

7  TRANSFORMING URBAN (CLIMATE) GOVERNANCE … 

267

behavioural change. This resonates challenges in other cities: while people are typically targeted through information, training and incentives, this is not able to achieve social change in for example energy, use, eating or transport patterns (Moloney and Horne 2015). The incorporation of the level of acceptable risk in planning (e.g. 1-in-100 year flood level) and the upgrade of zoning regulations are often insufficient for dealing with projected future climate change and can lock communities in mal-adaptive pathways (Torabi et al. 2018). The next-step challenge in Rotterdam and NYC is to move beyond the initial conditions created by the formulation of a long-term and systemic strategic agenda, setting-up partnerships and coalitions and the experimentation with innovative solutions. The governance capacities have mainly been created through informal governance processes like envisioning, experimentation, coalition building and learning. These have contributed to momentum for systemic, long-term, multi-actor and learning-based climate governance approaches. However, there is a need for strengthening institutional and organisational conditions for more decisive prioritisation of long-term climate investments and actions, better-funded collaboration mechanisms and improved space for (learning from) experimentation. This resonates findings on polycentric urban climate governance, which highlight the need for balancing monocentric, centralised and polycentric, decentralised forces (Pahl-Wostl and Knieper 2014; Gordon and Johnson 2017). In addition, these conclusions highlight the critical role of governmental actors in coordinating, motivating and mandating climate action at multiple scales (Frantzeskaki et al. 2014; Capano et al. 2015). For example, states shape polycentric governance and voluntary private commitments at local levels in both passive and active ways, including the implementation of policy instruments, mainstreaming climate change into policy sectors, facilitating diffusion of governance innovation and encouraging learning by establishing bodies with evaluative capacities (Jordan et al. 2018; Hodson et al. 2018). I highlight four critical lessons that reverberate conditions that fundamentally underpin the cities’ approaches to addressing climate change and that need further attention and investment to enable wider uptake and overcoming existing shortcomings. Overall, I suggest through these lessons that strengthening the conditions for transformative climate governance will shift urban governance regimes to take on board systemic, long-term and inclusive thinking, acting and organising. This also implies that it is gradually moved beyond climate change as a distinct policy

268  K. HÖLSCHER

priority—which is why the first lesson questions what urban ‘climate’ governance actually is, and will be in the future, when capacities for transformative climate governance are created. 7.3.1   Lesson #1: Shift from ‘Climate’ Governance Towards ­ProblemBased and Open-Ended Transformative Governance One of the starting points for developing the notion of transformative climate governance was that because climate change is a cross-cutting issue, climate mitigation and adaptation cannot be addressed as isolated and sectoral issues but need to be approached in synergy with other policy priorities and goals. The emergence and development of urban climate governance has in many cities evolved from add-on climate mitigation and adaptation strategies and policies towards integrating climate change across policy domains, sectors and scales (Aylett 2015). In Rotterdam and NYC, though climate change has been a driver of integrated policies and interventions this has rather spurred long-term ‘sustainability’ and ‘resilience’ goals and interventions beyond merely ­climate-related ones. This raises the question about what urban ‘climate’ governance is: developing the capacities for transformative climate governance implies a transformation of urban governance itself and thus developing capacities for transformative urban governance (rather than climate governance). This will eventually make urban ‘climate’ governance obsolete and highlight the synergies and trade-offs across policy domains and goals. In this way, it is truly moved beyond addressing climate change as an isolated issue: for instance, stewarding is about protecting from climate risks and uncertainty in relation to other vulnerabilities and disturbances rather than adding climate change to a checklist of ‘things to do’ in planning—the latter has not proven effective so far (den Exter et al. 2014; Aylett 2015). It enables asking different types of—very political—questions about what goals need to be integrated and prioritised in linking systemic problem definitions to long-term visions. Urban transformations will involve hard choices about long-term and short-term trade-offs, sunk costs and abandonment of revered living patterns and lifestyles. Climate mitigation and adaptation risk to impinge on other policy priorities, such as equity, for example by decreasing accessibility of energy (rising energy prices) or of living in specific neighbourhoods (e.g. gentrification through green infrastructure) (Rink et al. 2018; Elmqvist et al. 2018).

7  TRANSFORMING URBAN (CLIMATE) GOVERNANCE … 

269

7.3.2   Lesson #2: Invest in Orchestrating Capacity through Initiating, Mobilising, Overseeing and Mediating Polycentric Governance Systems Orchestrating capacity was derived from the need for encouraging, coordinating and assisting the dispersed activities of polycentric actor networks in alignment with shared long-term goals (Hölscher, Chapter 2, this volume; Hodson and Marvin 2010; Loorbach 2014; Chaffin et al. 2016). The term ‘orchestrating’ has been employed in global climate governance literature similar to meta-governance as an indirect, or soft, mode of governance (Abbott et al. 2015; Abbott 2017). Orchestration is critical for initiating, mobilising, overseeing and integrating urban (climate) governance processes, decisions and investments in line with ­long-term, systemic and inclusive objectives and across scales and sectors. In Rotterdam and NYC, orchestrating processes help to initiate, mobilise for and oversee a shared long-term and systemic agenda by co-creating and integrating policy priorities and goals, building trust, identifying priority areas, mandating action and mediating knowledge and resources across scales and sectors. However, within overall city policy and planning processes action for climate, sustainability and resilience is still perceived as doing something extra—this signifies gaps in orchestrating capacity. Orchestration needs to be decisively enforced through ‘hard’ policy instruments and regulatory frameworks, as well as investing in organisational capacity for co-creation and mediation. My conceptualisation and results imply that orchestrating can, and should, take more direct, formal and coercive forms in order to mainstream climate, sustainability and resilience across scales and sectors. A key barrier for the operationalisation and implementation of systemic and long-term action is that climate change, sustainability and resilience goals and strategies are not consistently and decisively translated into institutional frameworks, governance approaches, financing mechanisms and practices that change incentive structures, organisational ways of working and individual behaviours (den Exter et al. 2014; Wamsler 2015). The disconnect between the ambitious goals and strategies and urban governance regimes makes the strategic agenda vulnerable to changing political priorities and economic interests and perpetuates counteractive investments (Torabi et al. 2018; Rosenzweig et al. 2015). I therefore argue for strengthening orchestrating capacity in a way not only that does rely on employing soft instruments (e.g. network building,

270  K. HÖLSCHER

communication) for facilitating bottom-up self-organisation in line with common goals but that pushes for developing ‘hard’ policy instruments and frameworks. On the one hand, there is a need for strengthening the organisational capacity for co-creation and spreading a shared narrative as well as for building and mediating between multiple actor networks. This addresses the existing governance lock-ins hindering mainstreaming climate change due to a lack of staff time, lack of collaboration between siloed local government agencies and lack of government jurisdiction in key policy areas (Aylett 2015). As shown in the Rotterdam and New York City case studies, orchestrating is time-consuming and requires dedicated staff to establish formal and informal communication channels (e.g. inter-departmental working groups, intermediary spaces), cultivate trust, start initiatives when needed and pool resources and knowledge. On the other hand, the difficulty of generating funding for the implementation of systemic and long-term solutions, competing priorities and interests implies the need for consistent and decisive translation of systemic and long-term goals into overarching institutional frameworks and financing mechanisms that change incentive structures and organisational ways of working (den Exter et al. 2014; Wamsler 2015). This brings certainty to investments; for example, urban stakeholders such as utility and housing companies, landlords, tenants’ associations and consumer protection organisations are currently confronted with uncertainties and risks regarding future energy needs, security of energy supply, ­ cost-effectiveness and climate protection effects (Rink et al. 2018). Systemic financing frameworks such as enabled by the RbD competition helped to develop multi-beneficial projects in NYC, yet as long as ­ business-as-usual is (financially) viable sustainable business models remain thin and climate-proofing is perceived as more expensive. Westley et al. (2011) emphasise that such framework conditions should be open and flexible rather than resembling rigid rules and that direct and indirect incentives are more effective than scare tactics—for example, by linking renewable energy schemed to jobs or green tourism. As illustrated in Rotterdam and NYC, local governments seem to retain important roles in catalysing urban climate governance efforts, by institutionalising long-term climate and sustainability agendas, driving and motivating experimentation and investing in infrastructure (Castán Broto and Bulkeley 2013; Bulkeley 2010; Amundsen et al. 2018). Being positioned at the centre of horizontal and vertical integration, local governments can ensure compatibility and coherence, act as primary

7  TRANSFORMING URBAN (CLIMATE) GOVERNANCE … 

271

organiser of dialogue among policy communities, deploy a monopoly of organisational intelligence and information and balance power differentials (Frantzeskaki et al. 2014; Amundsen et al. 2018). Researchers have in particular highlighted the role of governance or policy entrepreneurs or policy champions, who frame climate and other concerns as policy issues and change how climate governance is accomplished (e.g. by creating new distributions of authority and information, spreading new worldviews) (Huitema et al. 2018; Romero-Lankao et al. 2018). The nestedness of local climate governance in legal and institutional framework at regional, national and international levels requires alignment of priorities and legislation across governance levels (Dąbrowski 2017; Keskitalo et al. 2016; Fuhr et al. 2018). For example, on the national level energy transformation policies represent the main instrument to implement the targets of climate policies at local levels, the German ‘Energiewende’ being probably one of the most prominent examples (Rink et al. 2018). Such policies need to ensure integration with multiple priorities and targets, for instance to secure energy supply, cost-effectiveness and accessibility (ibid.). 7.3.3   Lesson #3: Unlocking and Innovating Existing Governance Institutions and Actor Networks The lock-ins visible in existing urban governance regimes (Hölscher and Frantzeskaki, Chapter 4, this volume) counteract transformative governance approaches for systemic, long-term and innovative d ­ ecision-making and planning. As a result, most governance activities still resemble business-as-usual approaches, and more often than not favour a ‘governance-for-growth approach’ that veils the fundamental changes ­ needed for achieving urban sustainability and resilience (Rink et al. 2018). For example, any action towards sustainable energy in the port of Rotterdam premises the unabated continuation of industrial activities. This impedes measures that decisively challenge existing economic structures, interests and behaviour—business cases for sustainable energy investments remain thin and unappealing because of complex regulations, permit requirements and the need for technical expertise. This underscores how institutional and organisational rigidities are key barriers to integrated and bold governance action (Keskitalo et al. 2016; Homsey and Warner 2015). Existing urban regimes—in terms of existing urban institutions and actor networks—need to be strategically

272  K. HÖLSCHER

dismantled and innovated. This requires unlocking of existing institutions and actor networks as well as anchoring of new governance conditions for innovation, for example by breaking open existing governance networks, challenging existing assumptions and narratives and building support networks with an explicit mission for change (Kivimaa and Kern 2016; Bosman et al. 2018; Loorbach 2014). It requires an explicit reflexive attitude to question what types of actors should be involved (rather than simply involving those that ‘have always been there’) or whether something should be done simply because this is the convention and/or has been done before. Scholarship is only starting to look into processes of regime destabilisation (Kivimaa and Kern 2016; Bosman et al. 2018; Turnheim and Geels 2012) and moving beyond experimentation (Turnheim et al. 2018; Ehnert et al. 2018)—better insights into either are critical for helping understanding dismantling existing urban governance regimes and for strengthening new ones. Instructive could be recent work in sustainability transitions research on discursive regime destabilisation processes, focusing for example on how narratives or negative storylines (e.g. about dominant polluting industry, unsustainable behaviour, climate risks) promote decline (Rosenbloom 2018; Roberts and Geels 2018). Some scholars focus on disruptive ‘institutional work’ for ­de-institutionalising by undermining assumptions and beliefs about practices, disassociating moral foundations and disconnecting sanctions (Maguire and Hardy 2009; Fünfschilling and Truffer 2016; Beunen and Patterson 2016). Others emphasise the ‘need for governments to exert authority over market actors to initiate more rapid transitions through controversial measures such as phase out policies and directly intervening in markets’ (Johnstone and Newell 2018: p. 75). Overall, these works focus on phase-out policies (Geels et al. 2017; Rogge and Johnstone 2017) and political coalitions and movements (Hess 2018). While governance experimentation has received much attention as an open-ended way for trialling new, agile and responsive solutions (Bulkeley et al. 2019; Castán Broto and Bulkeley 2013; Karvonen 2018), further strengthening the capacities for transformative climate governance requires attention to processes for embedding and institutionalising innovations. Currently, researchers question whether and how urban climate governance innovations become institutionalised and bring about enduring change (Patterson and Huitema 2018; van der Heijden et al. 2019). Moving ‘beyond experimentation’ requires the dedication

7  TRANSFORMING URBAN (CLIMATE) GOVERNANCE … 

273

of time to identify, evaluate and translate lessons from specific innovations, such as about the viability, replicability and scalability, for their broader context (Turnheim et al. 2018; Ehnert et al. 2018). 7.3.4   Lesson #4: Giving Voice to Communities and Building Social Support and Strategic Alliances Urban transformations towards sustainability and resilience are about deep and radical changes in ways of thinking, doing and organising, and in ways of knowing and relating (Loorbach et al. 2017; Frantzeskaki et al. 2018). Ultimately, the effectiveness of many climate, sustainability and resilience strategies and actions depends on production and consumption patterns, including consumer choices, values and lifestyles (O’Brien 2018; den Exter et al. 2014). This requires the inclusion of a wide range of societal actors in co-defining and co-managing responsibilities to take different interests into account, make complex sets of goals like resilience understandable, ensure top-down priorities are aligned with local-level needs and tap into the multiple capacities of actors to achieve the deep structural and behavioural changes required (Brown 2017; McPhearson et al. 2017). In Rotterdam and NYC, the capacities manifest in new types of social conditions to create co-ownership and co-responsibility for addressing climate change, sustainability and resilience. Community engagement and participatory planning processes are increasingly employed to access local knowledge, gain support and foster resilient neighbourhoods. Awareness raising activities increase knowledge about risks and support for innovation and changing practices. However, despite the promise of the diversity of actors and networks, the interactions among actors and the effectiveness of their actions continue to be constrained by conflicts, organisational culture and structure and limited experience with, resources for and knowledge about devising effective participatory climate governance mechanisms (Castán Broto 2017; McPhearson et al. 2017; Brown 2017). In Rotterdam and NYC, community-based organisations feel excluded from and do not trust decision-making. In addition, mere awareness raising has so far proven ineffective in changing behaviours, because they do not address the underlying cognitive processing (Moloney and Horne 2015; Seto et al. 2016). Recent research highlights in particular the role of civil society— understood broadly as encompassing grassroots organisations, ­community-

274  K. HÖLSCHER

based organisations, advocacy groups, professional associations—in pioneering new practices and filling the void left by a changing welfare state by providing services (Frantzeskaki et al. 2018). For example, there are numerous examples of measures implemented by urban households and communities to adapt to changing environmental conditions and specific threats (e.g. innovation in water collection, shift to drought-resilient crops), but it is unclear how to scale these up and connect them with local and regional policies (Romero-Lankao et al. 2018). Strategically building alliances between local communities and local governments could ensure that local knowledge and needs are accounted for and mobilise broader societal action (Chu et al. 2017; Archer et al. 2014).

7.4  Conclusions The notion of transformative climate governance in cities epitomises the urgency and opportunity for delivering integrated and bold climate strategies and actions, which achieve the profound changes in urban systems needed to address climate change and sustainability challenges. There is a risk to give into a somewhat naïve narrative of urban opportunities for delivering effective and transformative climate action when it is unclear how these opportunities can be harnessed in meaningful and just ways and over longer time frames. By comparing the capacities for transformative climate governance in Rotterdam and NYC, I could identify institutional, knowledge, network and social conditions that were created as a result of the activities in both cities to govern climate change and that help moving towards integrated, experimental, reflexive and inclusive climate mitigation and adaptation approaches. Envisioning, long-term goal and knowledge integration, experimentation and tapping into coalitions for change help to provide the basis (including guiding principles, urgency, actor networks, innovative solutions) for transformative climate governance. However, in both cities inclusive, integrated and experimental climate governance approaches tend to be still subordinate to business-as-usual interests and policy and planning approaches, which favour isolated, incremental and short-term responses. The challenge for strengthening transformative climate governance that crosses policy siloes and is able to deal with stranded assets, difficult choices and phasing-out established interests and practices will be to develop rigorous institutional and organisational conditions that

7  TRANSFORMING URBAN (CLIMATE) GOVERNANCE … 

275

decisively stipulate a prioritisation of climate change across scales and sectors, provide action mandates and enable wider outreach and learning. There remains a tension between top-down law-enforcement on the one hand and the need to facilitate open-ended, experimental and flexible governance processes in the face of uncertainty. Likewise, top-down rule-making does not mean that it should not be based on knowledge co-production and deliberation between actors with different kinds of technical or contextual expertise. Applying the lens of governance capacities highlights the emergent character of how urban governance is enacted in a dynamic and provisional way: the mobile character of governance capacity characterises the creation of governance capacity as a learning process. This draws attention to the political dimension of capacity building. This includes questions such as how innovative climate projects are framed and narrated, whose interests are driving climate-related strategies and solutions and how the development of capacities depends on political leadership, prioritisation and political systems (Jhagroe 2016). The case studies show that the capacities emerged through—more often than not individual—governance entrepreneurship, involving a rather small group of key actors. In both cities, local communities and ­community-based organisations feel excluded from the strategy development and implementation processes that are driven by the local governments. While the local governments are assigned a critical role in driving urban climate governance, in the light of existing governance arrangements and structures the local governments need to be discussed as part of the problem (Rink et al. 2018).

References Abbott, K. W. (2017). Orchestration: Strategic ordering in polycentric climate governance. http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2983512. Abbott, K. W., Genschel, P., Snidal, D., & Zangl, B. (Eds.). (2015). International organizations as orchestrators. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Alberti, M., McPhearson, T., & Gonzalez, A. (2018). Embracing urban complexity. In T. Elmqvist, X. Bai, N. Frantzeskaki, C. Griffith, D. Maddox, T. McPhearson, S. Parnell, P. Romero-Lankao, D. Simon, & M. Watkins (Eds.), Urban planet: Knowledge towards sustainable cities (pp. 68–91). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

276  K. HÖLSCHER Amundsen, H., Hovelsrud, G. K., Aall, C., Karlsson, M., & Westskog, H. (2018). Local governments as drivers for societal transformation: Towards the 1.5°C ambition. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 31, 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.12.004. Archer, D., Almansi, F., DiGregorio, M., Roberts, D., Sharma, D., & Syam, D. (2014). Moving towards inclusive urban adaptation: Approaches to integrating community-based adaptation to climate change at city and national scale. Climate and Development, 6(4), 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565 529.2014.918868. Aylett, A. (2015). Institutionalizing the urban governance of climate change adaptation: Results of an international survey. Urban Climate, 14, 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2015.06.005. Beunen, R., & Patterson, J. J. (2016). Analysing institutional change in environmental governance: Exploring the concept of ‘institutional work’. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080 /09640568.2016.1257423. Bosman, R., Loorbach, D., Rotmans, J., & van Raak, R. (2018). Carbon ­lock-out: Leading the fossil port of Rotterdam into transition. Sustainability, 10, 2558. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072558. Brown, A. (2017). Visionaries, translators, and navigators: Facilitating institutions as critical enables of urban climate change resilience. In S. Hughes, E. K. Chu, & S. G. Mason (Eds.), Climate change in cities: Innovations in ­multi-level governance (pp. 229–253). Cham: Springer. Bulkeley, H. (2010). Cities and the governing of climate change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 35, 229–253. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-environ-072809-101747. Bulkeley, H., Marvin, S., Palgan, Y. V., McCormick, K., Breitfuss-Loidl, M., Mai, L., et al. (2019). Urban living laboratories: Conducting the experimental city? European Urban and Regional Studies, 26, 317–335. https://doi. org/10.1177/0969776418787222. Capano, G., Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2015). Bringing governments back in: Governance and governing in comparative policy analysis. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 17(4), 311–321. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2015.1031977. Castán Broto, V. (2017). Urban governance and the politics of climate change. World Development, 93, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. worlddev.2016.12.031. Castán Broto, V., & Bulkeley, H. (2013). A survey of urban climate change experiments in 100 cities. Global Environmental Change, 23, 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.005. Chaffin, B. C., Garmestani, A. S., Gunderson, L. H., Benson, M. H., Angeler, D. G., Arnold, C. A., et al. (2016). Transformative environmental

7  TRANSFORMING URBAN (CLIMATE) GOVERNANCE … 

277

governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41, 399–423. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085817. Chu, E., Anguelovski, I., & Roberts, D. (2017). Climate adaptation as strategic urbanism: Assessing opportunities and uncertainties for equity and inclusive development in cities. Cities, 60, 378–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cities.2016.10.016. Dąbrowski, M. (2017). Boundary spanning for governance of climate change adaptation in cities: Insights from a Dutch urban region. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 35, 1–19. https://doi. org/10.1177/2399654417725077. den Exter, R., Lenhart, J., & Kern, K. (2014). Governing climate change in Dutch cities: Anchoring local climate strategies in organization, policy and practical implementation. Local Environment. https://doi.org/10.1080/135 49839.2014.892919. Ehnert, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Barnes, J., Borgström, S., Gorissen, L., Kern, F., et al. (2018). The acceleration of urban sustainability transitions: A comparison of Brighton, Budapest, Dresden, Genk, and Stockholm. Sustainability, 10(3), 612. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030612. Elmqvist, T., Bai, X., Frantzeskaki, N., Griffith, C., Maddox, D., McPhearson, T., et al. (Eds.). (2018). Urban planet: Knowledge towards sustainable cities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Foster-Fishman, P. G., Berkowitz, S. L., Lounsbury, D. W., Jacobson, S., & Allen, N. A. (2001). Building collaborative capacity in community coalitions: A review and integrative framework. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(2), 241–261. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010378613583. Frantzeskaki, N., Bach, M., Hölscher, K., & Avelino, F. (2018). Introducing sustainability transitions’ thinking in urban contexts. In N. Frantzeskaki, K. Hölscher, M. Bach & F. Avelino (Eds.), Co-creating sustainable urban futures: A primer on applying transition management in cities (pp. 63–80). Tokyo: Springer. Frantzeskaki, N., Dumitru, A., Wittmayer, J. M., Avelino, F., & Moore, M.-L. (2018). To transform cities, support civil society. In T. Elmqvist, X. Bai, N. Frantzeskaki, C. Griffith, D. Maddox, T. McPhearson, S. Parnell, P. ­Romero-Lankao, D. Simon, & M. Watkins (Eds.), Urban planet: Knowledge towards sustainable cities (pp. 281–302). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frantzeskaki, N., Wittmayer, J. M., & Loorbach, D. (2014). The role of partnerships in ‘realizing’ urban sustainability in Rotterdam’s City Ports Area, the Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 406–417. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.023. Fuhr, H., Hickmann, T., & Kern, K. (2018). The role of cities in multi-level climate governance: Local climate policies and the 1.5°C target. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 30, 1–6.

278  K. HÖLSCHER Fünfschilling, L., & Truffer, B. (2016). The interplay of institutions, actors and technologies in socio-technical systems—An analysis of transformations in the Australian urban water sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2013, 298–312. Geels, F. W., Sovacool, B., Schwanen, T., & Sorrell, S. (2017). Sociotechnical transitions for deep decarbonization. Science, 357(6357), 1242–1244. Gordon, D. J., & Johnson, C. A. (2017). The orchestration of global urban climate governance: Conducting power in the post-Paris climate regime. Environmental Politics, 26(4), 694–714. https://doi.org/10.1080/0964401 6.2017.1320829. Hess, D. J. (2018). Energy democracy and social movements: A multi-coalition perspective on the politics of sustainability transitions. Energy Research & Social Science, 40, 177–189. Hodson, M., Evans, J., & Schliwa, G. (2018). Conditioning experimentation: The struggle for place-based discretion in shaping urban infrastructures. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space. https://doi. org/10.1177/2399654418765480. Hodson, M., & Marvin, S. (2010). Can cities shape socio-technical transitions and how would we know if they were? Research Policy, 39, 477–485. Hölscher, K. (2019). Transforming urban climate governance: Capacities for transformative climate governance (PhD thesis). Erasmus University Rotterdam. https://repub.eur.nl/pub/118721. Hölscher, K., Frantzeskaki, F., McPhearson, T., & Loorbach, D. (2019). Tales of transforming cities: Transformative climate governance capacities in New York City, U.S. and Rotterdam, Netherlands. Journal of Environmental Management, 1(231), 843–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvman.2018.10.043. Homsey, G., & Warner, M. (2015). Cities and sustainability: Polycentric action and multilevel governance. Urban Affairs Review, 51(1), 46–73. https://doi. org/10.1177/1078087414530545. Huitema, D., Boasson, E. L., & Beunen, R. (2018). Entrepreneurship in climate governance at the local and regional levels: Concepts, methods, patterns and effects. Regional Environmental Change. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10113-018-1351-5. Jhagroe, S. (2016). Urban transition politics: How struggles for sustainability are (re)making urban places (PhD thesis). Erasmus University Rotterdam. Johnstone, P., & Newell, P. (2018). Sustainability transitions and the state. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 27, 72–82. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.10.006. Jordan, A., Huitema, D., van Asselt, H., & Forster, J. (2018). Governing climate change: The promise and limits of polycentric governance. In A. Jordan, D. Huitema, H. van Asselt, & J. Forster (Eds.), Governing climate change: Polycentricity in action? (pp. 359–383). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

7  TRANSFORMING URBAN (CLIMATE) GOVERNANCE … 

279

Karvonen, A. (2018). The city of permanent experiments? In B. Turnheim, P. Kivimaa, & F. Berkhout (Eds.), Innovating climate governance: Moving beyond experiments (pp. 201–215). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Keskitalo, E. C. H., Juhola, S., Baron, N., Fyhn, H., & Klein, J. (2016). Implementing local climate change adaptation and mitigation actions: The role of various policy instruments in a multi-level governance context. Climate, 4(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli4010007. Kivimaa, P., & Kern, F. (2016). Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 45(1), 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.008. Loorbach, D. (2014). To transition! Governance panarchy in the new transformation. Inaugural Lecture, Erasmus University Rotterdam. Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N., & Avelino, F. (2017). Sustainability transitions research: Transforming science and practice for societal change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 42, 599–626. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021340. Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N., & Huffenreuter, L. R. (2015). Transition management: Taking stock from governance experimentation. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 58, 48–66. Maguire, S., & Hardy, C. (2009). Discourse and deinstitutionalization: The decline of DDT. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 148–178. McPhearson, T., Iwaniec, D., & Bai, X. (2017). Positive visions for guiding urban transformations toward sustainable futures. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 22, 33–40. Moloney, S., & Horne, R. (2015). Low carbon urban transitioning: From local experimentation to urban transformation? Sustainability, 7, 2437–2453. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7032437. O’Brien, K. (2018). Is the 1.5°C target possible? Exploring the three spheres of transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 31, 153– 160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.04.010. Pahl-Wostl, C., & Knieper, C. (2014). The capacity of water governance to deal with the climate change adaptation challenge: Using fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis to distinguish between polycentric, fragmented and centralized regimes. Global Environmental Change, 29, 139–154. Patterson, J. J., & Huitema, D. (2018). Institutional innovation in urban governance: The case of climate change adaptation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 62(3), 374–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/096 40568.2018.1510767. Rama, D., Milano, B. J., Salas, S., & Liu, C.-H. (2009). CSR implementation: Developing the capacity for collective action. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 463–477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9737-9. Rink, D., Kabisch, S., Koch, F., & Krellenberg, K. (2018). Exploring the extent, selected topics and governance modes of urban sustainability transformations.

280  K. HÖLSCHER In S. Kabisch, F. Koch, E. Gawel, A. Haase, S. Knapp, K. Krellenberg, J. Nivala, & A. Zehnsdorf (Eds.), Urban transformations—Sustainable urban development through resource efficiency, quality of life and resilience (pp. 3–20). Cham: Springer. Roberts, C., & Geels, F. W. (2018). Public storylines in the British transition from rail to road transport (1896–2000): Discursive struggles in the ­multi-level perspective. Science as Culture, 27(4), 513–542. Rogge, K. S., & Johnstone, P. (2017). Exploring the role of phase-out policies for low-carbon energy transitions: The case of the German Energiewende. Energy Research & Social Science, 33, 129–137. Romero-Lankao, P., Frantzeskaki, N., & Griffith, C. (2018). Sustainability transformation emerging from better governance. In T. Elmqvist, X. Bai, N. Frantzeskaki, C. Griffith, D. Maddox, T. McPhearson, S. Parnell, P. ­Romero-Lankao, D. Simon, & M. Watkins (Eds.), Urban planet: Knowledge towards sustainable cities (pp. 263–280). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rosenbloom, D. (2018). Framing low-carbon pathways: A discursive analysis of contending storylines surrounding the phase-out of coal-fired power in Ontario. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 27, 129–145. Rosenzweig, C., Solecki, W., Romero-Lankao, P., Mehrotra, S., Dhakal, S., Bowman, T., et al. (2015). ARC3.2 summary for city leaders—Climate change and cities (Second Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network). Urban Climate Change Research Network, Columbia University. https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2015/2015_Rosenzweig_ro02510w.pdf. Seto, K. C., David, S. J., Mitchell, R. B., Stokes, E. C., Unruh, G., & ­Ürge-Vorsatz, D. (2016). Carbon lock-in: Types, causes, and policy implications. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41, 19. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085934. Torabi, E., Dedekorkut-Howes, A., & Howes, M. (2018). Adapting or maladapting: Building resilience to climate-related disasters in coastal cities. Cities, 72, 295–309. Turnheim, B., & Geels, F. W. (2012). Regime destabilisation as the flipside of energy transitions: Lessons from the history of the British coal industry (1913–1997). Energy Policy, 50, 35–49. Turnheim, B., Kivimaa, P., & Berkhout, F. (2018). Beyond experiments: Innovation in climate governance. In B. Turnheim, P. Kivimaa, & F. Berkhout (Eds.), Innovating climate governance: Moving beyond experiments (pp. 1–26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. van der Heijden, J., Patterson, J. J., Juhola, S., & Wolfram, M. (2019). Introduction to special section: Advancing the role of cities in climate governance—Promise, limits, politics. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09640568. 2018.1513832.

7  TRANSFORMING URBAN (CLIMATE) GOVERNANCE … 

281

Wamsler, C. (2015). Mainstreaming ecosystem-based adaptation: Transformation toward sustainability in urban governance and planning. Ecology and Society, 20(2), 30. WBGU German Advisory Council on Global Change. (2016). Humanity on the move: Unlocking the transformative power of cities. Berlin: WBGU. Westley, F., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Homer-Dixon, T., Vredenburg, H., Loorbach, D., et al. (2011). Tipping toward sustainability: Emergent pathways of transformation. Ambio, 40(7), 762–780. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13280-011-0186-9.

PART III

Capacities for Transformative Climate Governance Under High-End Scenarios in Europe

CHAPTER 8

Climate Governance and High-End Futures in Europe Ian Holman, Pam Berry, Katharina Hölscher, and Paula A. Harrison

8.1  Introduction The adverse consequences of modern lifestyles and economies are becoming increasingly evident in the declining state of the Earth’s ­biosphere, oceans and atmosphere (Steffen et al. 2015). There has thus been a global shift in attitude towards recognising the need to move I. Holman (*)  Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK e-mail: [email protected] P. Berry  Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK K. Hölscher  Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] P. A. Harrison  UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Lancaster, UK © The Author(s) 2020 K. Hölscher and N. Frantzeskaki (eds.), Transformative Climate Governance, Palgrave Studies in Environmental Transformation, Transition and Accountability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49040-9_8

285

286  I. HOLMAN ET AL.

towards sustainability and long-term resilience of Earth systems (Folke et al. 2016). Human-induced climate change constitutes a major pressure on moving towards sustainable Earth systems. Furthermore, the consequences of climate change are likely to be unevenly distributed across regions and parts of society (Hallegatte and Rozenberg 2017; Dennig et al. 2015). Political and societal concerns about climate change led to the signing of the Paris Agreement and the specification of nationally determined contributions to mitigation by governments, which aim to hold global temperatures to below +2°C relative to pre-industrial levels (UN 2015). Limiting global increases in temperature to 1.5°C requires global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions to decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching net zero around 2050 (IPCC 2018). However, current trajectories of global emissions are not consistent with the ambition of the Paris Agreement, leading to an increasingly plausible likelihood of significantly greater levels of climate change than +2°C, which we term ‘high-end’ climate change. There is also an increasing recognition of the importance of sustainable development to societal and economic welfare, as encapsulated by the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (UN 2016). Adaptation to climate change, alongside mitigation, is thus fundamental to coping with high-end climate change, whilst also delivering the SDGs (Gomez-Echeverri 2018). Along these lines, adaption and mitigation must not be seen as an add-on, but as part of systemic transformation for resilience and sustainability that considers trade-offs and synergies between components of the global socio-ecological system (Hölscher and Frantzeskaki, Chapter 1, this volume; Tàbara et al. 2019). Achieving such large emissions reductions and avoiding disastrous tipping points associated with higher levels of warming will require rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy systems, land and the economy, and transformative changes in society’s lifestyles and behaviours. Whilst most strategic planning, including actions towards the delivery of the SDGs, have short timescales, the system lags within the ocean-atmosphere and biosphere systems require longer horizons for ­ adaptation and societal transformation. Over such longer multi-decadal to century timescales, significant structural socio-economic changes become increasing likely, which can be considered as high-end socio-economic change, and which may hinder or enable transformative changes. Such long horizons therefore entail major irreducible uncertainty due to

8  CLIMATE GOVERNANCE AND HIGH-END FUTURES IN EUROPE 

287

unknowable future societal change, associated greenhouse gas emissions and potential land-ocean-atmosphere tipping points (Cai et al. 2016). Understanding and responding to high-end—both socio-economic and climate change—scenarios of future global change therefore requires scientific and policy frameworks that explicitly address the broadening of future climate and non-climate uncertainties and allow the identification of actions that are robust in the face of this long-term uncertainty. Recent research efforts have focused on combining climate change projections through Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) with Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs), so as to recognise the interdependency of social, economic and climatic/environmental drivers of change at the planetary level. However, this research, which projects drivers of change using exploratory scenarios, does not account for normative preferences or desires, and is thus unable to provide an action-oriented perspective on how to achieve transformative change ­ (van der Voorn et al. 2017). To address this gap, the ‘pathways’ frame has been adopted within climate change adaptation research as a means of enabling research to be more decision-making-oriented (Wise et al. 2014; Haasnoot et al. 2013; Rosenbloom 2017). Pathways thinking marks a paradigmatic shift in how to address climate change within the broader social, cultural, political, economic and institutional contexts, dynamics, synergies and trade-offs and how to develop an explicit agency perspective on ‘who is the solution’. This chapter describes how the IMPRESSIONS research project investigated the impacts of, and vulnerabilities to, high-end climate and socio-economic scenarios at multiple scales in Europe. It also describes the transformative pathways that were co-developed with stakeholders to cope with, adapt to and/or mitigate undesirable impacts and exploit opportunities in order to achieve a long-term vision for a sustainable and resilient future. It concludes by reflecting on the methodological approaches adopted. The approach and results of our work contribute insights into opportunities and barriers, as well as the capacities needed for (transforming) climate governance at multiple scales in Europe.

8.2  The IMPRESSIONS Approach IMPRESSIONS was a 5-year multinational research project (2013–2018) funded by the European Commission. It aimed to advance understanding of the implications of high-end climate change, involving temperature

288  I. HOLMAN ET AL.

increases above 2°C, and to help decision-makers apply such knowledge within integrated adaptation and mitigation strategies. IMPRESSIONS developed and applied a novel inter- and transdisciplinary research methodology that integrated exploratory scenarios, simulation models, normative visions, pathways of action and c­ o-learning within multiple stakeholder workshops, whilst explicitly addressing uncertainties and strong non-linear changes associated with high-end scenarios. The approach was applied within case studies at multiple scales in Europe: European continental scale, national (Scotland), transboundary river basin (Iberia) and municipality (Hungary). For all case studies, stakeholders were objectively identified via a stakeholder mapping exercise using categories of stakeholders (e.g. different sectors, age and gender groups), ensuring a minimum quota for each category (see Gramberger et al. 2015 for more detail). The components of the IMPRESSIONS methodology (Fig. 8.1) are described in the following subsections. They contribute to answering the following five core questions: 1. Where could we be heading? The high-end scenarios provide the drivers for impacts and vulnerability and the enabling and disabling conditions for building resilience and promoting sustainability; Global SSPs Capitals & capacities EurSSPs

Impacts

Pathways

Climate scenarios (downscaled RCPs)

Models Vision

European case study

Common Vision Regional case studies

Robust Pathways

Vision

Models RegSSPs

Workshop 1

Expert judgement

Impacts

Pathways

Workshop 2&3 Stakeholders

Fig. 8.1  Schematic of the IMPRESSIONS approach

Workshop All

Solutions

8  CLIMATE GOVERNANCE AND HIGH-END FUTURES IN EUROPE 

289

2. What are the consequences if we do not act? Models integrate the consequences of the high-end climate and socio-economic changes for impacts on, and vulnerabilities of, society and the environment; 3. Where do we want to be? The vision provides normative statements that guide the development of pathways towards a desirable—sustainable and resilient—future; 4. How do we get there? Pathways provide short-, medium- and ­long-term actions clustered in sectoral, cross-sectoral and multi-actor strategies that improve specific vision elements in the context of high-end scenarios. 5. Do we get there? Analysis sought to assess whether the actions in the pathways are sufficient to achieve the vision, irrespective of the exploratory scenario context. 8.2.1   Exploratory Scenarios of Climate Change The IMPRESSIONS exploratory climate scenarios were selected from the global Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), with a focus on high-end scenarios. The aim was to portray the range of climate sensitivity in the CMIP51 archive, whilst representing changes in global mean temperature from approximately 2°C to more than 4°C above pre-industrial levels. In addition to this, only Global Climate Models (GCMs) that had previously been dynamically downscaled in CORDEX2 were selected, in order to benefit from higher resolution climate scenarios for the local, regional and European case studies. Consequently, a core set of GCM-RCMs were used throughout the project to provide consistency across scales (Table 8.1). 8.2.2   Exploratory Scenarios of Socio-Economic Change The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) provide a structured approach to exploring the uncertainty space of different s­ocio-economic futures and the challenges they present for climate mitigation and adaptation, as socio-economic factors enable or constrain the actions needed to meet climate and sustainability targets (Pedde et al. 2019a).

1 Coupled

Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (https://cmip.llnl.gov/cmip5/). Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment (http://www.cordex.org/).

2 Coordinated

290  I. HOLMAN ET AL. Table 8.1  Details of the exploratory climate scenarios selected for use in IMPRESSIONS in order of declining European temperature increase (adapted from Holman et al. 2017) and their linked Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP). European change in temperature (ΔT) and precipitation (ΔPr) are relative to 1961–1990 Emission scenario

Global Climate Model (GCM)

Regional Climate Model

GCM sensitivity

European ΔT/ΔPr

Linked SSPs

RCP8.5 RCP8.5 RCP8.5 RCP8.5 RCP4.5 RCP4.5 RCP4.5 RCP2.6 RCP2.6 RCP2.6

HadGEM2-ES CanESM2 IPSL-CM5A-MR GFDL-ESM2M HadGEM2-ES GFDL-ESM2M MPI-ESM-LR EC-Earth GFDL-ESM2M NorESM1-M

RCA4 CanRCM4 WRF RCA4 RCA4 RCA4 CCLM4 RCA4 REMO RCA4

High High High Low High Low Low Intermediate Low Low

5.4°C/5% 5.4°C/8% 4.7°C/13% 3.7°C/6% 3.0°C/3% 2.2°C/3% 2.0°C/−4% 1.4°C/4% 1.3°C/1% 1.3°C/4%

SSP3, SSP5

SSP1, SSP3, SSP4 SSP1, SSP4

The socio-economic scenarios used within all of the IMPRESSIONS case studies are based on the global Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) logic, although the methodological approach to developing case study-relevant storylines that were consistent with the overarching SSP logic differed between the case studies. In the European and Scottish case studies, their SSPs were partly derived from the earlier CLIMSAVE3 scenarios (Kok et al. 2019), whereas a participatory and iterative stakeholder process was used in Central Europe, Iberia and Hungary (Kok et al. 2015; Kok and Pedde 2016). Early in IMPRESSIONS, the decision was taken to limit the number of SSPs to be used in the participatory scenario development process to four (SSP1, SSP3, SSP4 and SSP5) which capture the low and high challenges to both mitigation and adaptation. SSP2 (Middle of the Road), which is intermediate between these four SSPs and is the most ‘moderate’ scenario, was excluded to avoid having a scenario which approximated to Business-as-Usual, a

3 Climate change Integrated assessment Methodology for cross-Sectoral Adaptation and Vulnerability in Europe project funded under the European Commission Seventh Framework Programme (www.climsave.eu).

8  CLIMATE GOVERNANCE AND HIGH-END FUTURES IN EUROPE 

291

flawed concept in the context of high-end climate change and long-term horizons. The match between global and European SSPs was decided to be ‘equivalent’, i.e. where outcomes can be directly transferred across scales (Kok et al. 2019; Zurek and Henrichs 2007), for both qualitative descriptions and some key variables. In contrast, the national to local scale SSPs were coherent according to the framework of Zurek and Henrichs (2007). For all scenarios, the qualitative descriptions include short and generic narratives and tables which summarise trends in key elements. However, quantitative values of multiple scenario variables were required for inputs to the various models used in IMPRESSIONS. Where appropriate, quantified values of key variables were provided from the global SSP database v1.0 hosted by IIASA (https://secure. iiasa.ac.at/web-apps/ene/SspDb/) and were used as model input (see Sect. 8.2.4). In addition, other key model input variables were quantified using a combination of stakeholder and expert estimates of change (Pedde et al. 2019b). The IMPRESSIONS SSPs therefore reflect contrasting, but plausible, futures for Europe to 2100: • SSP1—A high commitment to achieving sustainable development through global cooperation results in less inequality and less resource-intensive lifestyles. Awareness of environmental and economic crises puts pressure on governments to invest in renewable energy, health and education. Strong social cohesion enables communities to become more resilient to impacts and risks. Changes in behaviour, together with advances in green technologies, lead to a CO2-neutral society by 2050. • SSP3—Economic problems and increasing demand for resources lead to conflict between and within regions of Europe. The social fabric breaks down and many countries are left struggling to maintain living standards. Long-term planning becomes difficult with very little money for education, research or innovation. Eventually the EU breaks down, with new regional blocs forming in the north and south. A high-carbon intensive Europe emerges with high inequalities between and within countries. • SSP4—Global power belongs to a political and business elite. Sparked by economic crisis and extreme weather events, the EU increases commitment to find innovative solutions to climate

292  I. HOLMAN ET AL.

change, causing a shift towards a high-tech green Europe—strongly supported by large businesses. At the same time, inequalities are rising and the gap between rich and poor is widening. The elites remain in charge by suppressing the majority of the population, who are kept quiet but not happy. • SSP5—People place increasing faith in competitive markets, innovation and participatory societies to produce rapid technological progress and development of human capital. A lack of environmental concern leads to the exploitation of fossil fuels. Global markets become increasingly integrated, with interventions focused on removing institutional barriers. Economic wealth provides for strong investments in health, education and social capital. Cities sprawl and belief is strong in our ability to effectively manage social and environmental systems. However, by 2100 the environment is seriously degraded. 8.2.3   Scenario Integration The new scenario framework of RCPs and SSPs has weakened the visibility of the explicit link between societal behaviours and societal climate consequences that was evident in the previous Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (or SRES scenario) framework (Nakićenović et al. 2000), in which the emissions associated with a given ­socio-economic scenario were the inputs into the climate models. To explicitly ­re-establish this link between society and climate change, IMPRESSIONS formally linked the global radiative forcing of the RCPs (e.g. climate change) with the economic and societal behaviours of the SSPs through relative internal consistency in greenhouse gas emissions assumptions. In doing so, IMPRESSIONS created a core set of RCPSSP scenarios at multiple scales which were integrated by a range of models into impacts and vulnerabilities (Table 8.1). 8.2.4  Models A broad range of modelling tools were applied within the IMPRESSIONS case studies that cover impacts and vulnerability for urban development, agriculture, forestry, biodiversity, water resources, fluvial and coastal flooding, ecosystem services and human health. To ensure consistent application of the models across case studies, a

8  CLIMATE GOVERNANCE AND HIGH-END FUTURES IN EUROPE 

293

­ ulti-scale modelling framework was developed that was capable of m ­combining many different simulations to explore the impacts of high-end climate change on multiple sectors at different geographic scales. The framework included different model types, for example (i) a­gent-based models of the macro-economic (Lamperti et  al. 2018) and land ­use-systems (Blanco et al. 2017); (ii) physically-based river basin models (Lobanova et al. 2018); and (iii) integrated multi-sectoral m ­ eta-models (Harrison et al. 2016). The models were applied to the exploratory RCP-SSP scenarios, but also used scenario-neutral impact response surfaces (Fronzek et al. 2019) to explore the sensitivity of different sectors or systems to changes in independent climate and socio-economic variables. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to describe all of the models used, so the reader is referred to Holman et al. (2017) and Clarke et al. (2017). Within the IMPRESSIONS Integrated Assessment Platform 2 (IAP2), the SSPs provided both quantitative model inputs for simulating impacts and vulnerability, and were used to specify scenario-specific constraints on the magnitude by which model inputs could be changed to represent the implementation of adaptation options (Fig. 8.2). These

Effecveness of Acons = (Effort, Compability, Ability)

High

Compability

Low

Effort

High

Effort • Mulple acons • Mulple actors • Different approaches

Compability • Compability of responses with scenario assumpons & values Ability • Scenario-availability of necessary capitals (human, social, manufactured, financial)

Fig. 8.2  Schematic illustration of how the scenario context constrains adaptation within the IMPRESSIONS IAP2

294  I. HOLMAN ET AL.

constraints prevent an over-optimistic simulated assessment of the likely effect of adaptation responses that are incompatible with scenario values or the availability of the required (social, human, financial or manufactured) capitals. 8.2.5   Normative Visions The IMPRESSIONS project aimed to provide robust knowledge about potential solutions to high-end climate change through a new perspective—Transformative Climate Science (Tàbara et al. 2018). Instead of simply increasing awareness of a potential catastrophe, Transformative Climate Science focuses on creating a vision for the future as the main driver of transformation and positive action (Fig. 8.3). Visions engender a different way of reflecting and communicating about the future. Rather than focusing on problems and dilemmas, visions allow for creativity in articulating and narrating compelling and positive images about a faraway future and for making values, aspirations and choices within that future explicit (Wiek and Iwaniec 2014; Constanza 2000). This makes visions important tools and reference points for guiding, assessing and inspiring strategic choices and action in the short- and mid-term

VISION

Where we want to be (Vision)

Shortfall (Additional actions needed)

Vision element indicator

Where our actions take us (Pathways) Where we could be heading (Scenario - RCPn x SSPy) Now

2100

Actions What we need to do to reach Vision Pathways (Adaptation, Mitigation & Transformation)

Fig. 8.3  Schematic illustrating the relationship between the IMPRESSIONS integrated scenarios, pathways and vision

8  CLIMATE GOVERNANCE AND HIGH-END FUTURES IN EUROPE 

295

to facilitate radical and systemic change in the long-term (Pereira et al. 2018; Miller et al. 2015). The IMPRESSIONS vision process enabled stakeholders to creatively and openly express the world they want in 2100. These visions are not restricted to our response to climate change, but consider how to address broader goals for societal and environmental well-being. Articulating a vision helps decision-makers set long-term goals and develop strategies to achieve them, as well as providing targets against which progress, and success can be measured. The stakeholders’ vision provided a normative goal for the formulation of pathways (see Sect. 8.2.6), as well as the qualitative and quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of these pathways. Without such a vision, the exploratory scenarios and impact modelling provide only a non-normative, non-directional context for action, thus being unable to provide strategic directions for climate action that contributes to transformations towards sustainability and resilience in the long-term. Each of the IMPRESSIONS case studies produced a vision of ‘where we want to be in 2100’ (Fig. 8.4). Many vision elements are common across all case studies. For example, there was strong agreement on the importance of health, lifestyles and education, and all visions included vision elements on sustainable water use and/or supply. The vision provided an important end goal for developing integrated climate mitigation and adaptation actions that are connected to broader goals for sustainability and resilience. On the basis of a structured discussion with stakeholders across all case studies, a consolidated vision for Europe was developed that provided ambitious targets for future action that would require a combination of adaptation, mitigation and transformation strategies that bring changes to the current system. 8.2.6   Pathway Development and Assessment Research on strategic action for sustainability and climate change has developed the concept of pathways as a means to rethink strategic action and the process to formulate, set and implement decision-making for strategic action. This shows the shift from problem thinking to solution thinking for climate action (Rosenbloom 2017; Luederitz et al. 2017; Wise et al. 2014). In IMPRESSIONS, we view pathways as progressive and transformative courses of action to address climate change and

296  I. HOLMAN ET AL.

Fig. 8.4  The IMPRESSIONS vision for Europe in 2100

related environmental, economic and social issues in a synergistic way to achieve the vision. The adaptation, mitigation and transformation pathways in IMPRESSIONS were co-produced with stakeholders using participatory

8  CLIMATE GOVERNANCE AND HIGH-END FUTURES IN EUROPE 

297

knowledge generation processes that followed the advanced transition management approach as an overarching framework (Frantzeskaki et al. 2015; see Frantzeskaki et al., Chapter 9, this volume and Appendix B for detailed descriptions of the approach). Based on the modelled impacts of the integrated RCP-SSP scenarios, stakeholders identified actions within facilitated workshops that contributed to achieving their vision within the individual scenarios. The actions were clustered into strategies and pathways that aim to achieve specific vision elements. The pathways were subsequently enhanced in a following workshop, informed by an assessment by the IMPRESSIONS team of their effectiveness in reaching multiple elements of the vision, as well as synergies and trade-offs. This assessment of the efficacy of the actions in moving the scenario towards the vision elements was undertaken using a framework that consistently combined qualitative (expert judgement-based) and quantitative (model-based) methods for each case study (Fig. 8.5). The framework took account of the diversity of modelling approaches, different vision elements and actions (influencing governance, capitals, capacities, technology, individuals and society) across case studies. The availability of capitals to support the different types of actions (human, social, financial or manufactured) was used to provide a degree of consistency within both the qualitative and quantitative approaches.

Scenario SSP quantification

SSP text extraction

Pathways

Pathway text extraction Effort Expert assessment • State • Constraints • Model results

Vision indicator scores

Actions

Actions

Compatibility Modify model inputs Effectiveness

Actions Pathway text extraction

Pathway text extraction Expert assessment of change in Capitals

Effort Compatibility

Ability

Ability

Coping Capacity

Expert assessment

Vision indicator scores

Fig. 8.5  Overview of the IMPRESSIONS methodological approach to the qualitative and quantitative assessments of the pathways’ efficacy in achieving the vision

298  I. HOLMAN ET AL.

8.3  Results As a result of our different process steps, we were able to generate a suite of results on high-end impacts within the different SSPs and transformative mitigation and adaptation pathways that are oriented towards normative visions for sustainability and resilience in the long-term. This approach to developing pathways for climate action is notable in that it (a) generates insights into enabling conditions and barriers within different socio-­ economic scenarios; (b) enables identification of robust pathways (including actions and capacities for implementation) across multiple high-end scenarios and associated impacts; and (c) connects climate mitigation and adaptation to broader goals associated with sustainability and resilience. 8.3.1   Overview of High-End Impacts Within Socio-Economic Scenarios All IMPRESSIONS case studies have highlighted the strong i­nterconnectedness of social-environmental systems and the importance of cross-sectoral interactions under high-end climate change (Berry et al. 2017). These have been particularly centred around: (i) impacts of climatic and socio-economic changes; and (ii) trade-offs between agriculture and forestry for land; between agriculture/forestry and biodiversity for habitat availability; between agriculture and other water users (including the environment) for sustainable water resource management; and between extreme events (flooding and heat stress) and human systems (farming and heat-related deaths, respectively; see Holman et al. 2017 and Clarke et al. 2017, respectively). Figure 8.6 shows an illustrative example of the cross-sectoral interactions within the European case study, whereby high-end climatic and socio-economic changes lead to changing competition for limited land and water resources with resultant impacts on landscape and biodiversity. The scenario modelling within IMPRESSIONS that accounts for cross-sectoral interactions, synergies and trade-offs suggests that impacts and opportunities under high-end climate change will not be uniform across Europe: • SSP1—There is constrained urban expansion around major (predominantly Northwest European) cities and an increasingly (but extensively) managed agricultural landscape throughout Europe as agriculture expands (at the expense of woodland and forest) to

8  CLIMATE GOVERNANCE AND HIGH-END FUTURES IN EUROPE 

299

Changing high end climate and socio-economic condions Changing compeon for water Changing compeon for land

Urbanizaon

Changing land availability Changing demand Risk of flooding

Farming systems

Changing land cover

for food Changing land suitability

Industrial water use

Agricultural producon

Other land uses… Arable area Urban area Forest area

Nitrate losses

Irrigaon

Changing habitat availability

Changing demand for water

Changing total water use Water stress

Changing nutrient stress

Species

Changing water

Coastal habitat change

stress on habitats Changing habitat

Decreasing

availability

Lile change

Increasing

Fig. 8.6  Illustrative cross-sectoral interactions and competition within the IMPRESSIONS Integrated Assessment Platform 2 that lead to complex tradeoffs and synergies across Europe

meet food demands, leading to major changes in habitat availability. However, there is declining vulnerability to water over-exploitation in Southern Europe. • SSP3—A declining population limits urban expansion. Small changes in European land cover mask regional changes: expansion of arable agriculture across the middle of Europe, reduced livestock farming in Southern Europe, with combined climate and habitat change having serious impacts on some species. There is increasing vulnerability to water resource over-exploitation throughout Southern, Central and Eastern Europe, and to flooding across much of Europe (especially coastal areas). • SSP4—A declining population is living in increasingly urbanised areas. Major changes in the rural landscape arise due to the intensification of agriculture within a smaller overall agricultural area and an expansion of forest areas. There is also reduced vulnerability to water resource over-exploitation in Southern Europe.

300  I. HOLMAN ET AL.

• SSP5—An increasing, and increasingly wealthy, population seeking larger properties leads to increased urban sprawl throughout Europe. Arable and intensive livestock farming concentrate in Northern and Western Europe, allowing forestry to expand in the east and south. Increasing vulnerability to water over-exploitation in Southern and North-Western Europe and very large increases in flooding damages. A qualitative synthesis of land-use indicators (changes in urban area, intensive agriculture, extensive agriculture, pasture area), crop yields (wheat, barley, maize), forestry (managed and unmanaged forest area), water indicators (water availability, water exploitation index, change in people flooded, and changes in discharge and flooding for select river systems) and well-being indicators (Lyme disease risk, ecosystem services supply/demand gap, heat mortality) showed consistencies in the direction of impacts across IMPRESSIONS case studies for most indicators. However, the magnitude of impacts varies per region. Scotland generally experiences less change than the other regions, with the exception of Lyme disease risk, which increases much more strongly and crop yields, which show beneficial increases across all scenarios. In comparison, Iberia experiences more negative impacts, particularly in the water and well-being sectors. Water availability in Iberia decreases for all climate change scenarios, although water availability averaged across the whole of Europe increases. In addition, heat mortality, particularly in the population older than 75 years, is projected to increase the most in Hungary (and least in Scotland). Pedde et al. (Chapter 10, this volume) discuss how the high-end impacts within socio-economic contexts influence the capacities of actors to achieve the vision. 8.3.2   Overview of Pathways and Their Effectiveness Across case studies and scenarios, we have developed a total of 65 pathways (see Appendix C for a full overview) that address the opportunities and constraints within individual scenario (RCPxSSP) contexts, including time-dependent scenario conditions and societal thresholds, to achieve a commonly defined vision for 2100. The final pathways per case study and scenario represent bundles of strategies that are oriented towards similar vision elements (Fig. 8.7). The strategies include multiple and

8  CLIMATE GOVERNANCE AND HIGH-END FUTURES IN EUROPE 

301

Fig. 8.7  The European pathway to shift to sustainable lifestyles in SSP3 scenario

time-dependent cross-sectoral and sectoral actions, which are carried out by one or multiple actors. We identified three robust (groups of) pathways and strategies across case studies and scenarios (Table 8.2). A robust pathway is a pathway

302  I. HOLMAN ET AL. Table 8.2  IMPRESSIONS pathways and strategies across case studies and scenarios

8  CLIMATE GOVERNANCE AND HIGH-END FUTURES IN EUROPE 

303

Table 8.2 (continued)

that is present across all scenarios and case studies, i.e. it is a possible course of action in different spatial and socio-economic contexts whilst specific types of strategies and actions might diverge. A robust strategy is present across all scenarios and case studies in the robust pathways. Besides formulating concrete strategies and actions, the pathways also identify the enabling capacities that resemble actors’ abilities and institutional conditions which allow the implementation of pathways (see Hölscher et al., Chapter 11, this volume). The robust pathways are the following: • Shift to sustainable lifestyles: The pathway to shift to sustainable lifestyles advocates for a cultural change in ways of living, commuting, producing, purchasing and learning for a reflexive and sustainability-oriented society. It is transversal to multiple sectors ­

304  I. HOLMAN ET AL.

since it relates to actions about water and energy consumption, food and agriculture practices, trade approaches, production processes and (local and translocal) impacts and footprints. • Governance for sustainability: This pathway sets up transparent, collaborative, learning-based and accountable governance systems oriented towards ensuring sustainability and resilience in the ­long-term. It builds on a common, long-term and systemic orientation (vision) that can motivate and guide the activities of multiple actors across sectors and scales and disclose synergies and trade-offs across multiple policy domains and goals. This perspective strengthens collaboration and participation for sustainability through international and transboundary alliances and decentralising decision-making within multi-level structures to pay attention to local opportunities and needs. • Integrated resources management at the nexus of ­ foodwater-energy: Integrated resource management promotes shifts towards context-sensitive, multi-functional and efficient resource management (food, water, energy) for environmental protection, resource security and European self-sufficiency. It is a group of pathways that addresses diverse sectors from a holistic and problem-based perspective, including water, energy, biodiversity and land use. The pathways allow for regional, transboundary and context-sensitive management approaches within multi-level frameworks and promote new types of practices, solutions and technologies. Overall, whilst the pathways and strategies are similar across case studies, the pathways reflect the case study-specific impacts of, and vulnerabilities to, high-end climate and socio-economic change—as shown in Table 8.2. Differences reflect different sectoral foci areas and needs (e.g. drought and heat resilience in Iberia and Hungary, and environmental protection and regeneration in Europe and Scotland) as well as different entry points to the strategies. For example, whilst the European pathways and strategies generally take a European policy level perspective, the Scottish, Hungarian and Iberian strategies focus on national and regional frameworks, as well as local decision-making and resource management. In addition, whilst many pathways and strategies occur in multiple or all scenarios, they are conditioned by the respective scenario contexts, which provide different opportunities and challenges for achieving the

8  CLIMATE GOVERNANCE AND HIGH-END FUTURES IN EUROPE 

305

vision. However, those apparently ‘omitted’ pathways and strategies in Table 8.2 are largely a reflection of the inevitable time-constraints of the workshops rather than a lack of relevance in a specific case study and/or scenario. The qualitative and quantitative assessment of the efficacy of the pathways in moving the case studies towards their vision under the different scenario contexts of high-end change showed that they deliver improvements in vision elements under all scenarios, even though, in almost all cases, the vision element indicators do not reach their desired state. Figure 8.8 shows the assessment for two contrasting scenarios. In general, the pathway improvements are smallest under SSP1 (due to its more positive state within the exploratory scenario context) and greatest under SSP3 (due to the undesirable nature of many aspects of the scenario context). The developed pathways contribute towards achieving a long-term sustainability vision by means of diverse strategies and actions that build and/or use social, human, natural, manufactured and financial capitals, as well as the governance capacities needed to implement the pathways. However, the analysis of the effectiveness of the pathways in achieving the vision demonstrated that many of the vision element indicators could not reach their desired value. This arises due to a combination of the significant residual impacts of high-end climate change, systemic time lags and/or recalcitrant characteristics of the socio-economic scenarios (e.g. high levels of inequality in SSP3 and SSP4, high levels of fossil fuel combustion in SSP3 and SSP5).

8.4  Discussion and Conclusions The IMPRESSIONS project implemented an iterative participatory process of co-learning and co-development to understand and act upon the consequences of uncertain high-end climate and socio-economic change in Europe. Its multi-scale participatory process enabled the integration of diverse stakeholder perspectives into a robust consensual set of actions that could successfully transform European society at all levels towards a resilient and sustainable vision across scenario uncertainty space. In addition to producing concrete knowledge on strategies and actions and supporting decision-making, this approach also generated insights into working with normative, inter- and transdisciplinary approaches for addressing sustainability and resilience problems, combining quantitative

306  I. HOLMAN ET AL.

^^Wϭʹ ZWϰ͘ϱ

^^Wϯʹ ZWϴ͘ϱ ƵƌŽƉĞ

^ĐŽƚůĂŶĚ

/ďĞƌŝĂ

,ƵŶŐĂƌLJ

Fig. 8.8  Spider diagrams showing, for two contrasting scenarios, the state of the vision element indicators within the scenario (blue line), after the initial pathways (red lines) and after the final pathways (green lines). A value of 100 implies the desired state of the vision element indicator is likely to be reached. The vision element labels are colour coded according to the main pathways that are likely to influence them: sustainable lifestyles pathways (Blue), sustainability pathways (Orange) and integrated resource management pathways (Purple)

8  CLIMATE GOVERNANCE AND HIGH-END FUTURES IN EUROPE 

307

and qualitative methods, such as scenario narratives, modelling and stakeholder engagement. In this way, we were able to produce more robust, context-relevant and credible insights for decision-making. We reflect upon our research process and results and the lessons learnt: • Scenario integration: The integration of climate and ­socio-economic scenarios enables the positive and negative choices made by society over the coming decades to be recognised, and moves away from assuming different levels of climate change under implausible ‘business as usual’ scenarios that extrapolate the recent past without taking account of the numerous disruptive technologies, social movements or behaviours that might occur (O’Neill et al. 2017). It makes clear that society can make negative choices (e.g. moving towards SSP5 or SSP3) that make achieving sustainability more difficult. Furthermore, associating contrasting societal futures with similar greenhouse gas emissions to the same RCP scenario allows an explicit understanding of the relative importance of future socio-economic change compared to climate change. It also makes clear that the paradigm of adaptation optimisation within a predictable deterministic future is fundamentally inappropriate for designing responses under long-term high-end scenarios of irreducible uncertainty (Holman et al. 2019; Pindyck 2017). • Scenarios as constraints to adaptation: It is apparent from the brief descriptions of the SSPs that they will impose very different social, economic and governance constraints on the implementation and effectiveness of adaptation, mitigation or transformative actions (see also Pedde et al., Chapter 10, this volume). This was taken into account within the IMPRESSIONS Integrated Assessment Platform 2 and in the qualitative and quantitative assessment of the pathways. Whilst a small number of studies identified by Holman et al. (2019) allowed scenario constraints to condition adaptation over time (e.g. Brown et al. 2016; Steinbuks and Hertel 2016; Murray-Rust et al. 2014), the lack of consideration of the challenges posed by the socio-economic scenario context in most studies suggest that they are likely to overestimate both the amount of adaptation that will occur and the benefits obtained (Harrison et al. 2016; Patt et al. 2010). • A vision as a normative scenario-independent goal for responses: In their review of the treatment of adaptation within climate change impact models, focussing on land and water models,

308  I. HOLMAN ET AL.

Holman et al. (2019) found that modelled adaptation responses were commonly implemented by (1) triggers relating to underlying model assumptions (such as equilibrium of food supply and demand) rather than those of observed real-world adaptation; (2) the modeller’s subjective perception of the importance of negative changes in state variables. This highlights the difficulties in defining adaptation triggers. However, the creation and articulation of a common vision of a desirable future, agreed by a diverse, but representative group of stakeholders in each IMPRESSIONS case study, has provided an invaluable tangible goal highlighting the need, as well as opportunities, for addressing climate mitigation and adaptation in the context of transformation towards sustainability and resilience. A vision can be used by decision-makers to set long-term goals and develop strategies to achieve them and targets against which progress and success can be measured. • Pathways as both deliverers of actions and enablers of actions (changing effectiveness): High-end scenarios are associated with an implicit lack of resilience and sustainability, whilst also causing societally damaging impacts that demand change. By orienting diverse strategies and actions towards a long-term and integrated sustainability vision, the pathways enable society to deal with complexity and to create synergies by bridging across sectors and scales. Additionally, the pathways provide an explicit action perspective on who are the actors that implement the pathways and how they do so. As such, the pathways enable the derivation of robust policy recommendations on how to address climate change and support societal transformations towards sustainability and resilience in the context of different climate and socio-economic change scenarios (see also Hölscher et al., Chapter 11, this volume). The IMPRESSIONS pathways deliver beneficial change both directly, through actions acting upon impacts and vulnerabilities, and indirectly, through enhancing or enabling those actions. The novel treatment of adaptation within the IMPRESSIONS IAP2, in which the effectiveness of simulated adaptation actions can be enhanced through changes in limiting capital availability, has shown the value in utilising capital indicators as an aggregate enabler, but more attention is needed to address the importance of capacities to deliver actions. • Model-based versus expert judgement-based evaluation of pathway effectiveness: The IMPRESSSIONS project implemented a unique trans-disciplinary process to integrate qualitative

8  CLIMATE GOVERNANCE AND HIGH-END FUTURES IN EUROPE 

309

and quantitative approaches within an integrated systemic assessment of the efficacy of actions that took account of the constraints and enablers of action within both the scenarios and pathways. Nevertheless, a comparative examination of the outcomes of the qualitative and quantitative effectiveness analysis shows a bias—in particular that the qualitative (expert-based) analysis shows larger pathway benefits to the vision element indicators than the quantitative (model-based) analysis. It is likely that this at least partly originates from some combination of the following—(1) a degree of unconscious ‘worldview’ bias in the experts carrying out their assessment as to the benefits of governance and social actions; (2) the largely non-spatial assessment of the qualitative (expert-based) analysis compared to the explicitly spatial perspective of the models in which benefits in some areas were offset by unintended consequences in others. This is not intended to diminish in any way the value of incorporating assessments of changes in vision element indicators that cannot be modelled. However, it demonstrates the need for further methodological development, including (1) involving more diverse people/perspectives in qualitative assessments; (2) capturing and understanding the consequences of different worldview biases and conceptualisation; and (3) including semi-quantitative methods, such as fuzzy cognitive mapping/sys­ tem dynamics to support more transparent and systemic conceptual models. The IMPRESSIONS project has demonstrated that high-end climate and socio-economic change will be associated with large impacts and vulnerabilities that are highly spatially variable across Europe (Berry et al. 2017). These will have both adverse and beneficial consequences for people, the economy and the environment. The complexity of the propagation of consequences through the socio-ecological systems requires systems-based approaches (that integrate both quantitative and qualitative methods) if unrealistic assessments of impacts and adaptation are to be avoided. The approach we employed in IMPRESSIONS provides important insights for climate governance. The pathways contain vitally important strategies and actions to move society towards more sustainable lifestyles and low-carbon economies and to reduce the impacts and vulnerabilities associated with high-end climate and socio-economic change. These pathways support the derivation of policy recommendations on how to

310  I. HOLMAN ET AL.

address climate change and support societal transformations towards sustainability and resilience in the context of different ­socio-economic and climate change scenarios. In particular, we can derive what types of capacities are needed to navigate transformations under h ­igh-end climate and socio-economic change towards sustainability and resilience in the long-term (see Hölscher et al., Chapter 11, this volume). IMPRESSIONS also used the SSPs and pathways to explore how positive social-ecological tipping points could bring about ‘rapid sustainablisation’ through enabling the required capacities, conditions and potential policy interventions (Tàbara et al. 2018). However, the revelation from the analysis of the effectiveness of the pathways in achieving the vision within each case study demonstrates the need for urgent and immediate action on meeting the requirements of the Paris Agreement, in addition to adaptation and transformation to prepare Europe, its Member States and regions for an uncertain future. Acknowledgements    The authors would like to thank colleagues of the IMPRESSIONS project who contributed to the activities discussed in this chapter and to the many stakeholders who participated so enthusiastically within the IMPRESSIONS workshops. IMPRESSIONS was funded by the European Union`s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under Grant Agreement Number 603416.

References Berry, P. M., Betts, R. A., Harrison, P. A., & Sanchez-Arcilla, A. (Eds.). (2017). High-end climate change in Europe. Available from http://highendclimateresearch.eu/. Blanco, V., Brown, C., Holzhauer, S., Vulturius, G., & Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2017). The importance of socio-ecological system dynamics in understanding adaptation to global change in the forestry sector. Journal of Environmental Management, 196, 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvman.2017.02.066. Brown, C., Brown, K., & Rounsevell, M. (2016). A philosophical case for process-based modelling of land use change. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 2(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-016-0102-1. Cai, Y., Lenton, T. M., & Lontzek, T. S. (2016). Risk of multiple interacting tipping points should encourage rapid CO2 emission reduction. Nature Climate Change, 6, 520. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2964.

8  CLIMATE GOVERNANCE AND HIGH-END FUTURES IN EUROPE 

311

Clarke, L., Rounsevell, M., Dunn, M., Capela Lourenço, T., Tàbara, D., Pinter, L., et al. (2017). Climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability model applications in three regional to local scale case studies in Europe. EU FP7 IMPRESSIONS Project Deliverable D3C.2. Available from www.impressions-project.eu. Constanza, R. (2000). Visions of alternative (unpredictable) futures and their use in policy analysis. Conservation Ecology, 4, 5–22. Dennig, F., Budolfson, M. B., Fleurbaey, M., Siebert, A., & Socolow, R. H. (2015). Inequality, climate impacts on the future poor, and carbon prices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(52), 15827–15832. Folke, C., Biggs, R., Norström, A., Reyers, B., & Rockström, J. (2016). ­Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecology and Society, 21(3). https://doi.org/10.5751/es-08748-210341. Frantzeskaki, N., Hölscher, K., Jaeger, J., Holman, I., Tàbara. J. D., Pedde, S., et al. (2015). Advanced transition management methodology. IMPRESSIONS Deliverable D4.1. Available from www.impressions-project.eu. Fronzek, S., Carter, T., Prittioja, N., Alkemade, R., Audsley, E., Bugmann, H., et al. (2019). Determining sectoral and regional sensitivity to climate and socio-economic change in Europe using impact response surfaces. Regional Environmental Change, 19(3), 679–693. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10113-018-1421-8. Gomez-Echeverri, L. (2018). Climate and development: Enhancing impact through stronger linkages in the implementation of the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2119). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0444. Gramberger, M., Zellmer, K., Kok, K., & Metzger, M. (2015). Stakeholder Integrated Research (STIR): A new approach tested in climate change adaptation research. Climatic Change, 128, 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10584-014-1225-x. Haasnoot, M., Kwakkel, J., Walker, W., & Ter Maat, J. (2013). Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: A method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world. Global Environmental Change, 23(2), 485–498. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.006. Hallegatte, S., & Rozenberg, J. (2017). Climate change through a poverty lens. Nature Climate Change, 7(250), 250–256. Harrison. P. A., Dunford, R., Holman, I. P., & Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2016). Climate change impact modelling needs to include cross-sectoral interactions. Nature Climate Change, 6(9), 885–890. https://doi.org/10.1038/ nclimate3039.

312  I. HOLMAN ET AL. Holman, I., Audsley, E., Berry, P., Brown, C., Bugmann, H., Clarke, L., et al. (2017). Modelling climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability in Europe. IMPRESSIONS Deliverable D3B.2. Available from www.impressions-project.eu. Holman, I. P., Brown, C., Carter, T. R., Harrison, P. A., & Rounsevell, M. D. A. R. (2019). Improving the representation of adaptation in climate change impact models. Regional Environmental Change, 19, 711–721. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10113-018-1328-4. IPCC. (2018). Summary for Policymakers. In V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H. O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P. R. Shukla, et al. (Eds.), Global warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty (32 pp). Geneva, Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization. Kok, K., Pedde, S., Gramberger, M., Harrison, P. A., & Holman, I. P. (2019). New European socio-economic scenarios for climate change research: Operationalising concepts to extend the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Regional Environmental Change, 19, 643–654. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10113-018-1400-0. Kok, K., Christensen, J. H., Madsen, M. S., Pedde, S., Gramberger, M., Jaeger, J., & Carter, T. (2015). Evaluation of existing climate and socio-economic scenarios including a detailed description of the final selection. IMPRESSIONS Deliverable D2.1. Available from www.impressions-project.eu. Kok, K., & Pedde, S. (2016). IMPRESSIONS socio-economic scenarios. EU FP7 IMPRESSIONS Project Deliverable D2.2. Available from www.impressions-project.eu. Lamperti, F., Dosi, G., Napoletano, M., Roventini, A., & Sapio, A. (2018). Faraway, so close: Coupled climate and economic dynamics in an agent-based integrated assessment model. Ecological Economics, 150, 315–339. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.03.023Type. Lobanova, A., Liersch, S., Nunes, J. P., Didovets, I., Stagl, J., Huang, S., et al. (2018). Hydrological impacts of moderate and high-end climate change across European river basins. Journal of Hydrology. Regional Studies, 18, 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2018.05.003. Luederitz, C., Abson, D. J., Audet, R., & Lang, D. J. (2017). Many pathways toward sustainability: Not conflict but co-learning between transition narratives. Sustainability Science: Official Journal of the Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science, 12(3), 393–407. Miller, C. A., O’Leary, J., Graffy, E., Stechel, E. B., & Dirks, G. (2015). Narrative futures and the governance of energy transitions. Futures, 70, 65–74.

8  CLIMATE GOVERNANCE AND HIGH-END FUTURES IN EUROPE 

313

Murray-Rust, D., Brown, C., van Vliet, J., Alam, S. J., Robinson, D. T., Verburg, P. H., et al. (2014). Combining agent functional types, capitals and services to model land use dynamics. Environmental Modelling & Software, 59, 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.05.019. Nakićenović, N., Alcamo, J., Davis, G., de Vries, B., Fenhann, J., Gaffin, S. et al. (2000). Special report on emissions scenarios (A Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/ index.htm. O’Neill, B. C., Kriegler, E., Ebi, K. L., Kemp-Benedict, E., Riahi, K., Rothman, D. S., et al. (2017). The roads ahead: Narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Global Environmental Change, 42, 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.01.004. Patt, A. G., van Vuuren, D. P., Berkhout, F., Aaheim, A., Hof, A. F., Isaac, M., et al. (2010). Adaptation in integrated assessment modeling: Where do we stand? Climatic Change, 99, 383–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10584-009-9687-y. Pedde, S., Kok, K., Holman, I. P., Dunford, R., Holscher, K., Frantzeskaki, N., et al. (2019a). Advancing the use of scenarios to understand society’s capacity to achieve the 1.5 degree target. Global Environ Change, 56, 75–85. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.03.010. Pedde, S., Kok, K., Onigkeit, J., Brown, C., Holman, I., & Harrison, P. A. (2019b). Bridging uncertainty concepts across narratives and simulations in environmental scenarios. Regional Environmental Change, 19, 655–666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1338-2. Pereira, L. M., Hichert, T., Hamann, M., Preiser, R., & Biggs, R. (2018). Using futures methods to create transformative spaces: Visions of a good Anthropocene in southern Africa. Ecology and Society, 23(1), 19. https://doi. org/10.5751/ES-09907-230119. Pindyck, R. S. (2017). The use and misuse of models for climate policy. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 11(1), 100–114. https://doi. org/10.1093/reep/rew012. Rosenbloom, D. (2017). Pathways: An emerging concept for the theory and governance of low-carbon transitions. Global Environmental Change, 43(19), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.12.011. Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney, O., & Ludwig, C. (2015). The trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration. The Anthropocene Review, 2(1), 81–98. Steinbuks, J., & Hertel, T. W. (2016). Confronting the food–energy–environment trilemma: Global land use in the long run. Environmental and Resource Economics, 63(3), 545–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-014-9848-y.

314  I. HOLMAN ET AL. Tàbara, J. D., Frantzeskaki, N., Hölscher, K., Pedde, S., Kok, K., Lamperti, F., et al. (2018). Positive tipping points in a rapidly warming world. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 31, 120–129. Tàbara, D. J., Jäger, J., Mangalagiu, D., & Grasso, M. (2019). Defining transformative climate science to address high-end climate change. Regional Environmental Change. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1288-8. UN, United Nations. (2015). Paris Agreement. https://unfccc.int/sites/ default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf. Accessed October 4, 2018. UN. (2016). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. A/Res/70/1. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf. Accessed: October 4, 2018. van der Voorn, T., Quist, J., Pahl-Wostl, C., & Haasnoot, M. (2017). Envisioning robust climate change adaptation futures for coastal regions: A comparative evaluation of cases in three continents. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 22(3), 519–546. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11027-015-9686-4. Wiek, A., & Iwaniec, D. M. (2014). Quality criteria for visions and visioning in sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 9, 497–512. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11625-013-0208-6. Wise, R., Fazey, I., Stafford Smith, M., Park, S., Eakin, H., Archer Van Garderen, E., et al. (2014). Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of pathways of change and response. Global Environmental Change, 28(4), 325–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.002. Zurek, M. B., & Henrichs, T. (2007). Linking scenarios across geographical scales in international environmental assessments. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74, 1282–1295.

CHAPTER 9

Operationalising Transition Management for Navigating High-End Climate Futures Niki Frantzeskaki, Katharina Hölscher, Ian Holman, and Paula A. Harrison

9.1  Introduction Transition management is a governance experimentation methodology. It provides an organising framework for thinking and designing participatory processes that focus on transformative change and how to trigger, accelerate and plan it. Transition management has been applied to many different sectors, including energy, water, waste, food, tourism, mobility

N. Frantzeskaki (*)  Centre for Urban Transitions, Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] N. Frantzeskaki · K. Hölscher  Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands K. Hölscher  e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 K. Hölscher and N. Frantzeskaki (eds.), Transformative Climate Governance, Palgrave Studies in Environmental Transformation, Transition and Accountability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49040-9_9

315

316  N. FRANTZESKAKI ET AL.

as well as to respond to different sustainability challenges including urban regeneration (Frantzeskaki 2019), social cohesion and urban land management (Frantzeskaki et al. 2018). In these applications, it has proven a suitable method to instil systemic thinking and empowerment, reframe problems, formulate innovative visions and solutions (Hölscher et al. 2019), and develop new governance capacities (Hölscher 2018). This chapter shows that transition management is a governance methodology that is modular and open to be applicable to different contexts including contexts of extreme uncertainty that high-end scenarios represent (Holman et al., Chapter 8, this volume). From reading the recent applications of transition management in mainly transdisciplinary research (Frantzeskaki et al. 2014, 2018), we contend that there are very limited applications to climate change pressures. Our thesis is that the application of transition management in the context of high-uncertainty contexts of high-end scenarios allows the development of robust transition pathways (see Frantzeskaki et al. 2019 for the results on robust pathways). Doing so will in turn generate knowledge about what kind of capacities are needed to implement such pathways and achieve a positive vision (Hölscher et al., Chapter 11, this volume). In this chapter, we present how we have adapted transition management in order to apply it for transdisciplinary climate change governance research across Europe. As such, we present the operational form of transition management, including all the adaptations made, as a guiding and organising meta-framework for the participatory research in the IMPRESSIONS project in four case studies in Europe (Holman et al., Chapter 8, this volume). Specifically, this chapter offers insights into the methodological (hence epistemological) adaptations of transition management to apply it in the context of high-end scenarios and a critical reflection on the limitations of the methodology as well. The chapter is structured as follows: in Sect. 9.2, we present how we adapted the transition management framework to high-end ­socio-economic and climate change contexts, further advancing the methodology with climate science and resilience thinking approaches. Section 9.3 presents in detail each step of the methodology, identifying the lessons learnt from the I. Holman  Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK P. A. Harrison  The UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Lancaster, UK

9  OPERATIONALISING TRANSITION MANAGEMENT FOR NAVIGATING … 

317

application of the adapted transition management framework to the four case studies in the IMPRESSIONS project. This step-by-step approach can be seen as a prototype on how the phases and approach of transition management can be applied. Section 9.4 concludes the chapter and discusses our reflections from what we learnt through tailoring, advancing and applying transition management for the research of sustainability transitions and their governance as well as for climate change governance research.

9.2  Adapting Transition Management for High-End Socio-Economic and Climate Change Contexts The promises of transition management are rarely rigorously evaluated by drawing on empirical examples of its applications. One reason for this is the still limited empirical application of transition management. Transition management would greatly benefit from linking it to debates within other theories that are concerned with governance for sustainability, such as institutional theories, policy studies (Howlett 2014), adaptive management and resilience research fields (Olsson et al. 2014). Especially for its application as a transdisciplinary methodology for climate change governance research, transition management will benefit greatly from linking the empirical findings to the foundational propositions. We take on board these criticisms and challenges for advancing the transition management methodology while considering the scientific objectives of the IMPRESSIONS research project. IMPRESSIONS sought to investigate the impacts of, and vulnerabilities to, high-end climate and socio-economic scenarios at multiple scales in Europe and to co-develop transformative pathways to cope with, adapt to, mitigate and exploit the associated opportunities and achieve a long-term vision for a sustainable and resilient future. The approach was applied within case studies at multiple scales in Europe: European continental scale, national (Scotland), transboundary river basin (Iberia) and municipality (Hungary) (Holman et al., Chapter 8, this volume). In particular, we seek to link transition management to concepts from social-ecological systems, resilience and climate change literatures to integrate risks, surprises, thresholds and deep uncertainty into the framework. Resilience and climate change literatures help to position the framework in the context of high-end scenarios by conceptualising (radical) change in social-ecological systems, considering impacts of change and the ability of systems to respond to such. So far, transition management facilitates the development of transition pathways within a vacuum that does not

318  N. FRANTZESKAKI ET AL.

consider future scenarios. Our objective is to support the development of transition pathways that are robust in the context of diverse futures, and hence to support decision-making processes that build resilience against (possibly detrimental) impacts of climate change and other social, economic and environmental pressures, uncertainty and surprise, and shifts towards sustainable development trajectories. This is achieved by connecting socio-economic and climate scenarios to desirable future visions that depict starting points for subsequently thinking about long-term, midterm and short-term strategies and innovative solutions. Based on a literature review to integrate social-ecological and resilience perspectives and our extensive experience with applying transition management in various contexts (e.g. including the MUSIC project— Nevens et al. 2013; Nevens and Roorda 2013; Frantzeskaki and Tefrati 2016; Hölscher and Wittmayer 2018; Hölscher et al. 2016, 2018; the InContext project—Wittmayer and Schäpke 2014; Wittmayer et al. 2011, 2014; the Melbourne and Port Vila projects—Ferguson et al. 2013a, b; Poustie et al. 2016; and RESILIENT EUROPE project with 11 urban applications of transition management, Frantzeskaki 2019), we have developed an adapted process methodology architecture (see Sect. 9.3). There are three distinct issues that need consideration in the proposed adapted transition management approach compared to other applications of transition management: First, the system analysis that is usually the first process step takes a different form, given that the development of pathways is realised in reference to high-end scenarios. With IMPRESSIONS, we used the socio-economic and climate scenarios (combinations of representative concentration pathways (RCPs) and shared socio-economic pathways [SSPs]) as contexts in which transition pathways are generated in participatory settings to achieve the vision (Holman et al., Chapter 8, this volume). As such, we attempt to learn from linking the scenarios to policy-relevant knowledge in the form of transition pathways. In this way, we aim to move a step closer in learning how to incorporate the RCPxSSP scenarios into policy-making (cf. Burch and Harris 2014: p. 201; Pedde et al. 2019). Second, the actors selected for participating in the co-creating process are not necessarily frontrunners (in terms of pioneering innovative and in some cases transformative actions), but diverse knowledge holders—even though all of the selected actors represent innovative

9  OPERATIONALISING TRANSITION MANAGEMENT FOR NAVIGATING … 

319

sustainability thinkers and practitioners. The adapted transition management process aims to inspire and stimulate transformative thinking in a variety of stakeholders. Third, the researchers’ analysis of the inputs and dialogue information from the stakeholders during the workshops has been validated with surveys and questionnaires in-between the workshops. This extra step allowed for an online checkpoint of the analysis outcomes from the stakeholders, especially because consistency between pathways (the actions to navigate the contextual scenarios) and the scenario narratives (the context conditions enabling and constraining actions) was an important element in the process that the research team ensured through extra analysis and screening steps. We proposed and implemented two specific methodological adaptations: First, the adapted methodology includes a process for introducing additional nonlinearities in the co-creation process through the introduction of wildcards in the transition management approach. This step is inspired by resilience thinking. The wildcards are used to test the robustness of the pathways against additional extreme events that put the coping capacity of the system under pressure. These adaptations are depicted in the steps that we describe in Sect. 9.3 and included in the Transition Management Cycle—the co-creation cycle of the process (Fig. 9.1). Second, we developed a new analytical framework—the governance capacities’ framework (Hölscher, Chapter 2, this volume; Hölscher 2019; Frantzeskaki et al. 2015) to further analyse and hence include knowledge on agency dynamics in the transition management process. The governance capacities framework was used to: (a) assess existing strategies and actions as well as the implied strategies in the input scenarios (RCPxSSP combinations) (see Pedde et al., Chapter 10, this volume); (b) identify the institutional conditions required for the proposed strategies and pathways; (c) identify the prospective governance capacities to be established by the pathways; and (d) assist with the reflection on synergies and trade-offs between different transition pathways across sectors, scales and time (see for b, c and d Hölscher et al., Chapter 11, this volume). In the IMPRESSIONS project activities, the governance capacities’ framework is positioned in the Knowledge Translation Cycle where all the analytical activities are structured and take place (Fig. 9.1).

320  N. FRANTZESKAKI ET AL. hd/KE^ s h a ri n g

d/E' ƌĞĂƟŽŶ dƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶ WĂƚŚǁĂLJƐ

s/^/KE

'E^dd/E'

Wd,tz^

Fig. 9.1  The three activity cycles of the IMPRESSIONS project: the adapted Transition Management Cycle (co-creation activities performed with stakeholders), the Knowledge Translation Cycle (analytical activities performed by IMPRESSIONS’ experts) and the Knowledge Consolidation Cycle (synthesis activities performed both with stakeholders and by IMPRESSIONS’ experts)

9.3  Transition Management Methodology: Methods for and Lessons from the Application in High-End ­Socio-Economic and Climate Change Contexts In this section, we outline the individual process steps of the adapted transition management methodology. We first present all the steps in the Transition Management Cycle (the process architecture itself).

9  OPERATIONALISING TRANSITION MANAGEMENT FOR NAVIGATING … 

321

For each of these steps, we will elaborate on the three design elements (process, content, context) based on scholarly work from foresight science, scenario development and operational research (Bishop et al. 2007; Ringland 2010). Second, we present for each step the operationalisation for the IMPRESSIONS’ research objectives, i.e. how transition management was tailored and applied from 2014 to 2018. For the operational step-by-step description, see Appendix B. Finally, we discuss lessons learnt. The transition management methodology unfolds across three nested activity cycles of the IMPRESSIONS project (Fig. 9.1). On an operational level, the adapted Transition Management Cycle includes co-creation activities performed with stakeholders. This cycle encom­ passes four phases: orienting, agenda setting, activating and reflecting. These phases also organise the activities on the analytical and synthesising level. On an analytical level, the Knowledge Translation Cycle involves analytical activities performed by IMPRESSIONS’ experts. These pertain to analyses of inputs and outputs of the operational phases. Finally, at a synthesising level, the Knowledge Consolidation Cycle refers to synthesis activities that are performed both with stakeholders and by IMPRESSIONS’ experts. Figure 9.2 specifies the operational and analytical activities by cycle phase that work together to create distinct outputs. The orienting phase serves to create a vision. This builds on analytical level activities that provide insights into the current situation and on consolidation of the insights. The agenda setting phase serves to develop transition pathways that identify adaptation, mitigation and transformation strategies. Analytical level input includes insights into current good climate governance practices and strategies that are integral to the SSPs. The activating phase serves to identify innovative solutions for adaptation, mitigation and transformation. This activity is supported by an analysis of the conditions needed for the implementation of pathways and the identification of wildcards that serve to stress test the pathways. The reflecting phase includes the continuous evaluation and monitoring activities to ensure maximised fitness of the process design and process outcomes to the context dynamics and in this way ensure a quick take-up of the knowledge co-created for policy and society. In the case studies of the IMPRESSIONS project that this chapter builds upon, we did not realise any activities for monitoring (except the mentioned check-ins with the stakeholders’ in-between workshop);

322  N. FRANTZESKAKI ET AL.

^K>hd/KE^ sharing

d/sd/E' KZ/Ed/E' dƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶĂů sŝƐŝŽŶ ^ŽůƵƟŽŶƐ Z&>d/E' ƌĞĂƟŽŶ dƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶ WĂƚŚǁĂLJƐ

s/^/KE

'E^dd/E'

Wd,tz^

Fig. 9.2  The Transition Management Cycle (co-creation cycle) along with the inputs and outputs through the Knowledge Translation Cycle activities

hence, this phase of Transition Management Cycle is not included in this chapter. However, for reflecting and enriching results of the developed transition pathways, the team had realised a 3-day synthesis workshop in April 2018 in Tiszafüred, Hungary. In this synthesis workshop, all pathways from all case studies were presented and allowed stakeholders across all case studies to reflect on common ideas and on sharing ideas on solutions (presented in pathways). For future multi-case study research projects, we strongly suggest that the reflection and monitoring phase of transition management be considered as fundamental, especially for synthesis and scaling of results to policy and programme agendas.

9  OPERATIONALISING TRANSITION MANAGEMENT FOR NAVIGATING … 

323

In our operational implementation of the adapted transition management methodology, we have undertaken several process steps to collect input on, verify and analyse the pathways per case study. The steps involved different types of activities: collecting stakeholder input via email surveys and online questionnaires, 3 sets of facilitated stakeholder workshops (3 workshops per case study) and expert analysis. For an overview of these process steps, see Appendix B. In the following, we describe the process architecture and operationalisation for IMPRESSIONS of each phase. 9.3.1   Orienting Phase: Co-creating a Transformative Vision The orienting phase encompasses the co-creation of a transformative vision. Steps include: (a) formulating guiding principles; (b) narrating the vision or creating vision narratives; and (c) linking the vision to indicators to enable the assessment of the performance of proposed strategies and actions that constitute the transition pathways. 9.3.1.1 The Process Architecture a) Formulating guiding principles The objective of this step is to formulate a suite of principles that represent desired system outcomes for the long-term horizon. In this step of the process, core values of the participants are uncovered and negotiated in order to formulate principles that work in synergy for guiding future developments (Schultz et al. 2007; Rogers and Bazerman 2008). This step aims to stimulate thinking about long-term aspirations rather than quick and incremental fixes of the system pathologies (formulated as underlying challenges). The expected outcome of this step is a list of guiding principles that form the basis of the broader vision and that will trigger the vision-building process. Guiding principles are descriptive statements of the desired future system, its desirable operations and the services it will/may deliver. The way that the guiding principles are presented to the participants can differ based on whether the information sharing between the participants and non-participants is open or closed. An overview of the negotiated guiding principles along with a short description of their meaning can suffice to bring the envisioning process forward. However, careful presentation is needed if the guiding principles are to be communicated

324  N. FRANTZESKAKI ET AL.

or shared with non-participants or in forums and processes outside the current process (Pichert and Katsikopoulos 2008). In order to take context dynamics into account in the process design, it is suggested to: (a) search, acknowledge and present existing visioning work especially when there are participants in the envisioning process that are aware of, or have participated in, past or ongoing parallel envisioning processes; (b) take into consideration recent developments including pilot projects, emerging initiatives from communities or partnerships as well as existing (sustainability) agendas or planning programs; and (c) provide the choice to the participants to either build on existing work or start with a new perspective to build principles. b) Creating a vision The objective of this step is to create descriptions and/or images of the envisioned future system which express the agreed desires and wishes of a future society and planet in 2100. The vision comprises of vision statements that are specific narrative constructs that depict explicit desires, assumptions, beliefs and paradigms that underlie a desired future. Creating a vision can facilitate effective strategic process (or strategy planning processes) for identifying transformative action in the face of high-uncertainty contexts (Miller et al. 2015). Miller et al. (2015: p. 65) note that ‘narrative is particularly salient in the development and application of futures approaches for tackling the problem of governing complex systems change’. Miller and Iwaniec (2014) argue that visions are important in sustainability science since they provide ‘a key reference point’ for developing transition pathways. Visions are also strategically important since they can not only attract attention across multiple often unconnected stakeholders, but drive transformative thinking (Panetti et al. 2018). A successful vision captures the imagination of both participants and a broader audience and can create symbolic value in a system or organisation (Shipley 2000; Shipley and Newkirk 1999). For a vision to create social value or symbolic value in its context, it has to transcend from the group that created it and become relevant for the communities that constitute ‘the context’ (Hughes 2013). Communication of the vision from the group, or group representatives, to a broader or targeted audience is a sidestep that may enable value creation and mobilisation of networks and resources for realisation of the vision

9  OPERATIONALISING TRANSITION MANAGEMENT FOR NAVIGATING … 

325

(Hughes 2013; Tompkins et al. 2008; Frantzeskaki et al. 2014; Volkery and Ribeiro 2009). The expected outcome from this process step is a comprehensive description of a vision that outlines and synthesises different images or representations of the desired future. The overall vision can be presented as having different themes or different images. The vision can be presented in the form of storylines, artistic impressions and/or expressions (e.g. images or videos or sculptures), newspaper headlines or front pages. On tailoring the process to the context dynamics, scholarly work on envisioning and creative scenario building offers a great variety of empirical examples but limited knowledge on operational guides for tailoring. Amongst the limited and fragmented ‘good practices’ on contextualisation of envisioning processes are to: (a) consider existing narratives around change and trigger them by designed ‘crises’ scenarios/contexts within the vision (Wiek et al. 2006); (b) consider emerging ‘narratives’ or debates within the operating institutional context and relate them to the envisioning process of symbolic meaning creation to partially substantiate the emerging narratives. In this way, new meaning and new content are created for emerging concepts that already seek, or are under, policy attention (Cairns et al. 2013; Volkery and Ribeiro 2009); (c) allow for open confrontation and open searching of commonly shared values and future desires by engaging with a variety of actors, or simply allow for not-like-minded people to envision together for a successful vision (Helling 1998; Van der Helm 2009); and (d) include different knowledge representatives in the envisioning for co-creation and learning (Gidley et al. 2009). c) Linking the vision to strategic objectives The objective of this step is to generate strategic objectives that relate to, and are, operational translations of the guiding principles. The value of the strategic objectives is to enable assessment of the actions, i.e. do the actions taken bring the system closer to the vision? They ­ enable assessment of whether a vision is achieved. It is often the case that ­goal-derived objectives are organised in evaluation frameworks like the results framework from the European Commission cohesion strategy. Even though it is important in the transition management process to derive objectives from the vision, with this comes the reflection that creating a vision is not a goal in itself.

326  N. FRANTZESKAKI ET AL.

At the same time, having a suite of strategic objectives provides the means to better design short-term actions to open the route for more daring and transformative steps in the medium-term and long-term. Evaluation of the pathways against the derived strategic objectives can also allow for adaptation of the course of action on the medium-term, operating in line with an adaptive governance approach. A suite of strategic objectives needs to be formulated which are focused on the values represented in the guiding principles and the vision description (Keeney 1996a, b; Frantzeskaki and Walker 2013). Taking context dynamics into account for operationalising the vision implies that existing indicator schemes may be incorporated or partially adapted if they fit to the overall vision content. 9.3.1.2 Operationalisation: IMPRESSIONS’ Vision Co-creation The purpose of the visions in IMPRESSIONS was to serve as an ‘endpoint’ against which we could measure (mostly qualitatively, but also against selected quantitative results) the “success” of pathways. It is important to use the vision as an endpoint in order to ensure that the participatory process in developing the transition pathways is effective and is set to connect process with outcomes. The language in the final vision should include some statements that can be linked to definite outcomes, to support an assessment of whether elements of a vision are achieved or not. What distinguishes the vision from the pathways and scenarios is that the focus of the transformative vision is explicitly set to ‘where we want to be’ and not to ‘where we are heading now’ or ‘how to go there’. Within the IMPRESSIONS project, we needed visions that are customised to the case study and reflect the challenges of high-end scenarios. The (broad) vision was used as a target for the development of transition pathways—including actions and strategies—within the context of an integrated input scenario (RCPxSSP). Step 1: Reviewing past visions The preparatory phase of the vision creation involved IMPRESSIONS’ experts. Firstly, a review of global sustainability visions was undertaken, including the VISION RD4SD, Planet 2050, GEO 5, POLFREE Vision and the Great Transition. Core elements of these visions were then identified as shown in Box 9.1. This material was used during the stakeholder

9  OPERATIONALISING TRANSITION MANAGEMENT FOR NAVIGATING … 

327

workshops in each case study to stimulate stakeholders in generating their vision. At the cross-scale workshop (across case studies) towards the end of the project, the visions of the different case studies were compared to reveal common key messages about stakeholders’ visions for the future. Box 9.1: Outputs from reviewing visions: The starting IMPRESSIONS’ vision elements

A useful illustration of the different elements that commonly make up a vision is the ‘doughnut’ developed by Kate Raworth (2012).1 As Kate herself writes: ‘[the doughnut brings] social and environmental concerns together in one single image and approach. It also sets a vision for an equitable and sustainable future, but is silent on the possible pathways for getting there, and so the doughnut acts as a convening space for debating alternative pathways forward’. As such, the doughnut provides a useful starting ground for exploring the vision elements and formulating prompting vision statements. The ‘doughnut’, along with a synthesis of the GEO-5 and the Great Transition visions, was used to generate a generic set of vision statements that can serve as ‘prompts’ for engaging with stakeholders in the case study workshops. Planetary Boundaries Global warming is abating as greenhouse gas emissions return to pre-industrial levels. Ecosystems are restored and endangered species are returning, although scars remain as reminders of past heedlessness. Population stabilisation, low-meat diets and compact settlements reduce the human footprint, sparing land for nature. Food, water and energy Organic farming makes use of high inputs of knowledge and low inputs of chemicals to keep yields high and sustainable. Basic drinking water and sanitation needs of even the poorest have been met. We live in a solar economy. Solar cells, wind, modern biomass and flowing water generate power and heat buildings and direct electricity for transportation. 1 http://www.kateraworth.com/doughnut/.

328  N. FRANTZESKAKI ET AL.

Health and well-being More humans enjoy a higher quality of life for longer than ever before, without denying future generations the same possibility. The pursuit of the well-lived life turns to the quality of existence and human relationships and a harmonious relationship with nature. More humans have access to health than ever before, and access to health care is equally distributed across and within countries. Income, education and jobs A minimum guaranteed income provides a comfortable but very basic standard of living. Community spirit is reinforced by heavy reliance on locally produced products, indigenous natural resources and environmental pride. A consensus is in place at the global level with the aim to foster and sustain prosperity rather than continued economic growth at all costs, a commitment to redirect investments to green entrepreneurship and innovation. All humans have free and equal access to education. Education focuses on the development of twenty-first-century skills. Resilience Learning and mimicking nature’s resilience have helped restore ecological function in areas once considered irretrievably lost. Knowledge of nature, species and ecosystems is used as a measure and model for humanity’s greatest challenges. Most of the world’s citizens are actively engaged with humanity’s goal of living within planetary limits. Voice, social equity and gender equality Global communication networks connect the four corners of the world, and translation devices ease language barriers. A global culture of peace and mutual respect anchors social harmony. A civilisation with unprecedented freedom, tolerance and decency exists. The pursuit of meaningful and fulfilling lives is a universal right, the bonds of human solidarity have never been stronger and an ecological sensibility infuses human values. The fabric of global society is woven with diverse communities. A new way of living is galvanised by the search for a deeper basis for human happiness and fulfilment. This has been expressed through diverse cultural traditions.

9  OPERATIONALISING TRANSITION MANAGEMENT FOR NAVIGATING … 

329

Step 2: Collect stakeholder inputs for the vision Prior to the second workshop,2 each case study surveyed the stakeholders participating in the workshop and asked them to send their inputs (statements) about their vision for the case study region in 2100. The survey was simple and required 10–15 minutes of time to be completed with simply formulated questions. In the survey, we allowed participants to express their ideas freely and without restrictions. Given that we had different working languages in the IMPRESSIONS project, the survey was translated in Hungarian, Spanish and Portuguese. Step 3: Analysis of stakeholder inputs for the vision These stakeholder contributions were analysed, identifying commonalities and differences, matched with element categories of pre-existing visions (such as GEO-5 and the Great Transition) and consolidated in a common narrative before the second workshop. The generated vision narrative was organised in commonly recognised themes as a way to allow integration and adoption in existing policy agendas in the case study areas. Differences were highlighted for discussion during the workshop. Step 4: Adapt and expand towards a co-created transformative vision The second workshop series started with a short presentation on the vision statements and differences/disagreements. Participants were given the chance to adapt and expand the vision elements in order to arrive at an agreed basic vision for the rest of the process for each case study. Notes and recordings of the workshop sessions allowed the researchers to capture all vision statements and enrich the vision narrative further. In this way, the developed visions were co-created by the participants together with the IMPRESSIONS’ team of experts. The stakeholders elaborated and discussed the vision throughout the following workshop sessions, as an iterative learning and co-creation process between the identified strategies for the pathways and the vision narrative. During the second and third series of workshops, stakeholders were given the time and facilitated dialogue to think about plausible 2 In the Scottish case study, this process was slightly modified. Collecting the elements of the vision took place during the mini-Workshop in September 2015 (see also Appendix B).

330  N. FRANTZESKAKI ET AL.

actions to achieve the vision within the different scenarios. However, sometimes the deliberations in the contexts of high-end climate change were about re-thinking and re-enriching the vision with value-oriented statements rather than moving to proposing actions to achieve the vision. The vision narrative served as a ‘checking point’ for the ‘future we want’ to screen stakeholder inputs that belong to the pathways and those that further reinforce the vision narrative. 9.3.1.3 Lessons from Co-creating a Vision in IMPRESSIONS Strengths The visions were very valuable for the policy relevance of the co-creation process we held with IMPRESSIONS. The visioning process opened up thinking about desirable future that combined multiple goals for good living, justice and social and environmental well-being (see Appendix C for final visions). The visions were critical to guide the development of integrated and innovative transition pathways and governance capacities (Hölscher et al., Chapter 11, this volume). With climate change being a well-discussed policy and practice challenge in all of our European case studies, we were faced with the risk of stakeholder fatigue, especially if we were to have an open envisioning process. We thus chose to have as a starting point guiding principles derived from existing visions at global level. This was an effective ‘vision-building’ conceptualisation to build trust in the process of transition management and to show to stakeholders that prior research has been considered and synthesised in an inclusive and constructive way. Especially using the ‘Doughnut’ dimensions to organise the guiding principles as shown in Box 9.1 helped the stakeholders focus their thinking across these dimensions. At the same time, it allowed for a broader and inter-sectoral discussion about the future we want to have, making stakeholders think outside and beyond their expertise and knowledge and consider multiple sectors and topics. Following from this, we draw the lesson that using an ‘organising’ or bridging framework as a vision-building framework allows for focused, cross-sectoral yet open and inclusive co-creation of visions. Envisioning is a process of strategic foresight that can also be considered as a process enabling reflection of current practice and current knowledge and social learning about what requires change and what are non-compromisable values in this future (Wiek and Iwaniec 2014). During the workshop series in the IMPRESSIONS project, we experienced stakeholders who realised how current practices do not match their aspirations as

9  OPERATIONALISING TRANSITION MANAGEMENT FOR NAVIGATING … 

331

depicted in the vision (that they have formulated) and questioning one’s own understandings of the efficacy of existing institutions and policies. This also allowed in the last workshops to think more openly about future actions, rather than explaining past experiences and past policy failures that led to the current situation. As such, envisioning allowed for a change of the thinking in the workshops from ‘a future we may find ourselves in’ (i.e. the context scenarios) to a ‘future we want to be in’ (i.e. the vision). What we chose not to do in the IMPRESSIONS’ operationalisation of the vision was to translate/operationalise the vision into a suite of indicators and proxies (except for those that were later quantitatively modelled and qualitatively assessed in reference to the pathways, see Sect. 9.3.2, Step 4). The vision narrative and the vision elements as enriched and iteratively discussed and fine-tuned by the stakeholders remain at a meso-level of aggregation/abstraction, sufficient to provide direction for future action. The formulation of an evaluation framework for the efficacy of actions to achieve the vision requires further work. We suggest that the operationalisation of the vision should be done together with the stakeholders for two reasons: first, such operationalisation requires local embedded/contextual knowledge to formulate indicators that are policy and society relevant. Second, formulating indicators/objectives is a strategic planning task and as such it needs to relate also to existing policy and planning priorities, or new ones might need to be added. Therefore, such strategic planning requires a different forum than a co-creation forum facilitated by research. Weaknesses and Limitations From re-reading and reflecting on the vision narratives, we find that there is no explicit statement about climate change nor about ‘no climate change’ future despite the introductory discussions about the purpose of the vision to guide action in a world of high-end climate change. This is particularly surprising given that the visions were iteratively discussed and refined over the course of the project. Narrative expressions are difficult in multi-lingual contexts. In many of the case studies, we used translators to mediate the knowledge inputs between project experts (whose working language is English) and local participants (or local experts to a large extent) whose working language was not English, with the Iberian case study including three working languages in every workshop session (Portuguese, Spanish and English). It remains for future participatory research on knowledge co-production

332  N. FRANTZESKAKI ET AL.

to come with settings and methods that can navigate and be even more inclusive to not only multiple knowledges but also multiple languages. Lessons for Future Research and Future Applications A lesson learnt is that a more balanced approach in vision building from participatory and expert-laden/driven inputs is needed. In IMPRESSIONS, the envisioning process was kicked off with the expert-laden inputs from the online consultation that preceded every workshop. We could have engaged more creatively with arts, theatre and other more open methods exactly to spark imagination for high-end futures’ vision. 9.3.2   Agenda Setting Phase: Co-creating Transition Pathways Pathways are cross-sectoral progressive courses of action that connect short-term to long-term actions. More specifically, pathways consist of a bundle of strategies that progressively build up from short-term actions to long-term actions into broader transformations. Pathways are not random collections of actions but purposive courses of actions, meaning that they are target-seeking towards a long-term vision. As such, pathways (i) build, (re-)create and break down resilience as well as reduce vulnerability through mitigation, adaptation and transformation actions that address drivers and impacts of system change, and (ii) build the system’s capacities that also establish the conditions for the trajectories. This phase of the adapted transitions management methodology develops transition pathways that (i) are multi-sectoral, cross-scale and time-dependent; (ii) include short-term, medium-term and long-term ­ strategies; and (iii) include strategies and solutions which can foster synergies between adaptation, mitigation and transformation actions. The pathways were generated within the IMPRESSIONS’ stakeholder workshops that provided the initial input that was subsequently processed by the IMPRESSIONS’ expert team. Each pathway represents a course of actions that progressively build towards achieving the vision, along with a set of mechanisms and conditions which enable synergies across different pathways to be developed. In addition, the generated pathways take into account: (a) who is accountable for realising the solutions or actions in the short-term, and (b) what are the capacities that need to be established by the proposed pathways. In this way, the IMPRESSIONS’ suite of pathways did not only consider high

9  OPERATIONALISING TRANSITION MANAGEMENT FOR NAVIGATING … 

333

uncertainty and social complexity, but also agency and social structures that are largely overlooked by climate governance studies (see Wangel 2011). 9.3.2.1 The Process Architecture a) Backcasting to co-create transition pathways Participatory backcasting was used as the main approach for generating the transition pathways. The three design elements (process, content, context) for the backcasting approach are based on scholarly work from foresight science and scenario development (Ringland 2010; Robinson et al. 2011). The objective of the backcasting is to identify sets of strategies that are likely to achieve the vision. Backcasting aims to stimulate the creative capacity and innovative thinking of participants for generating future alternatives that were not thought of before in order to come up with unconventional, yet tangible, means to achieve future desires while ensuring protection of values (complying with the guiding principles) (Ringland 2010; van Vliet and Kok 2015; Beers et al. 2010; Kok et al. 2011; Robinson et al. 2011; Phdungsilp 2011). Backcasting is a normative approach in which the starting point is a desirable objective, target or vision that is used to trigger thinking on ‘which actions can enable us to achieve this vision, by reversing time?’ Backcasting progresses ‘backwards’ in time from the vision (in 2100) to actions for the short-term. It is frequently the case that the short-term actions generated by backcasting condition the viability/applicability of medium-term and long-term actions. Backcasting has been used to enable vision-led action and innovation with the aim of creating path-breaking developments as a ­counter-method to forecasting (Kok et al. 2011; Quist et al. 2011; van Vliet and Kok 2015). In this way, backcasting can help to avoid thinking of actions based only on feasibility and viability in reference to current situations and historical paths. One of the major benefits of the backcasting method is that it allows for multiple pathways to be generated to progress from the current situation to the future vision (Gordon 2015). As such, it is a suitable method for contexts of high complexity and high uncertainty in which there is no optimal pathway but a plethora of pathways and actions (van der Voorn et al. 2012).

334  N. FRANTZESKAKI ET AL.

It is also important to trigger participants to think about the build-up effect of actions: short-term proposed actions will create new ground and remove obstacles in order for medium-term proposed actions to pave the way to achieve future visions, while long-term actions build on the impacts and work of medium-term actions but can be more daring and radical. In this way, pathways are created that progressively build up transformative change to realise the vision. The output of this step is a set of pathways that bring about transformative change by connecting short-, medium- and long-term actions into a strategy continuum that paves the ground to realise the desired future vision. It is important to consider the context dynamics in terms of which conditions already exist that create an enabling or inhibiting institutional context to new pathways (Ferguson et al. 2013a). At the same time, consideration of context dynamics can be realised by identifying which pathways relate to ongoing policy programs and how they relate, or may relate, to them (Godet 2000), as well as by examining whether some pathways have been proposed before and failed (contextual grounds of stalling of past proposals that may relate to suggested pathways). b) Assessing the efficacy of pathways in achieving the vision The vision represents the stakeholders’ desired endpoint for the pathways (and also the starting point for developing the pathways). As such, it is necessary to assess qualitatively and/or quantitatively to what extent the pathways’ actions and strategies contribute to achieving the vision. Depending on the vision element and case study, this assessment of whether the proposed pathways lead to positive or negative, high or low changes may be done by expert judgement or from a comparison of appropriate modelling output indicators with qualified vision elements. 9.3.2.2 Operationalisation: IMPRESSIONS’ Pathways Co-creation a) Backcasting approach in IMPRESSIONS In the IMPRESSIONS’ stakeholder workshops, we employed backcasting in order to identify strategies and actions to achieve the visions in view of existing policies, the input scenarios (RCPs xSSPs) and the vision. The steps in the backcasting process are described below:

9  OPERATIONALISING TRANSITION MANAGEMENT FOR NAVIGATING … 

335

Step 1: Identify and analyse the adaptation and mitigation implied in the input scenario (RCPxSSP combinations) and first identification of strategies within the input scenario Socio-economic and climate developments within the scenarios cannot be viewed separately from potential actions and changes in policies that might be part of the pathways. This is particularly the case for high-end and long-term climate change and particularly in worlds such as SSP1 (which is likely to be closest to the stakeholder vision). Hence, adaptation/mitigation that is inherently happening in the input scenario (RCPxSSP combination) was first identified, resulting in a table indicating key adaptation and mitigation strategies that build mitigative and adaptive capacities across different policy areas per input scenario. This table was introduced at the second stakeholder workshop, together with the modelled climate change impacts. The stakeholders were then asked to identify additional strategies and actions which are needed to reach the vision on top of the level of adaptation/mitigation already present in the scenario. In addition, examples of good practices related to climate change adaptation and mitigation were identified from a review of literature and websites and introduced to stakeholders at the workshop to inspire the further generation of strategies and actions. This was complemented by information on the stress-testing of current policies. Within the workshop, stakeholders discussed how these existing strategies and policies would be affected by the climate and socio-economic changes in each scenario, which showed which strategies currently in place should be continued or expanded. All this information stimulated a first discussion on ‘what do we need to do, if we are to achieve our vision for 2100’. In this way, various actions were collected, which were then clustered by the stakeholders. Step 2: What are the additional strategies needed in this scenario to achieve the vision? In the second step, participants at the stakeholder workshops were facilitated to backcast from the vision to the RCPxSSP combination input scenario (Fig. 9.3). This step took place for different clusters of actions that were related to (sets of) vision elements. For each of the clusters of actions and strategies proposed in the first step, the participants identified the time-slice they believed that the strategies and actions have to begin (2020–2050/2050–2070/2070–2100). In this way, time-dependent strategies were created. Here, we started

336  N. FRANTZESKAKI ET AL.

^z^dD^h^d/E/>/dz

ĂͿĂĐŬĐĂƐƟŶŐ ĨƌŽŵƚŚĞǀŝƐŝŽŶƚŽƚŚĞZWdž^^W ƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽ͗

s/^/KE

^ƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐ ϮϬϭϲ

d/D

ϮϭϬϬ

^z^dD^h^d/E/>/dz

ďͿ&ŽƌĞĐĂƐƟŶŐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞĮƌƐƚŝĚĞŶƟĮĞĚƐƚƌĂƚĞŐLJƚŽƚŚĞǀŝƐŝŽŶƚŽĐƌĞĂƚĞƉĂƚŚǁĂLJƐ͘dŚĞ ĮŐƵƌĞƐŚŽǁƐĂŶĞdžĂŵƉůĞŽĨƚǁŽƉĂƚŚǁĂLJƐ͗ s/^/KE

^ƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐ ϮϬϭϲ

d/D

Fig. 9.3  Illustration of IMPRESSIONS’ backcasting steps

ϮϭϬϬ

9  OPERATIONALISING TRANSITION MANAGEMENT FOR NAVIGATING … 

^z^dD^h^d/E/>/dz

ĐͿ&ŽƌŵŽƐƚŽĨƚŚĞŝŶƉƵƚZWdž^^W ƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐ͕ƚŚĞŝŶƉƵƚƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐĂƌĞŶŽƚůĞĂĚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞ ǀŝƐŝŽŶ͘dŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ͕ƚŚĞƉĂƚŚǁĂLJƐŶĞĞĚƚŽĞdžƚĞŶĚƐLJƐƚĞŵ͛ƐĐĂƉĂĐŝƟĞƐĂŶĚďƵŝůĚŽŶ ƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐƚŚĂƚĂĐŚŝĞǀĞƚŚĞǀŝƐŝŽŶ͘ ͲdŚĞƌĞŝƐĂĚŝīĞƌĞŶĐĞďĞƚǁĞĞŶŝŶƉƵƚƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐĂŶĚǀŝƐŝŽŶ ͲZWdž^^W ŝŶƉƵƚƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽŝƐŶŽƚĂĐŚŝĞǀŝŶŐƚŚĞǀŝƐŝŽŶ ͲWĂƚŚǁĂLJƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐƚŚĂƚƉƌŽŐƌĞƐƐŝǀĞůLJďƵŝůĚͲƵƉƚŽ ĂĐŚŝĞǀŝŶŐƚŚĞǀŝƐŝŽŶ

ϮϬϭϲ

d/D

s/^/KE

ϮϭϬϬ

^z^dD^h^d/E/>/dz

ĚͿ/ĚĞŶƟĮĐĂƟŽŶŽĨƐLJŶĞƌŐŝĞƐĂŶĚĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƟŽŶďĞƚǁĞĞŶƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐ͘dŚĞĮŐƵƌĞƐŚŽǁƐĂŶ ĞdžĂŵƉůĞŽĨƚǁŽƉĂƚŚǁĂLJƐĂŶĚƐLJŶĞƌŐŝĞƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞĂůƐŽƐLJŶĞƌŐŝĞƐ ďĞƚǁĞĞŶƉĂƚŚǁĂLJƐ͗

s/^/KE

^ƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐ ^LJŶĞƌŐŝĞƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶƉĂƚŚǁĂLJƐ ϮϬϭϲ

Fig. 9.3  (continued)

d/D

ϮϭϬϬ

337

338  N. FRANTZESKAKI ET AL.

from the first time-stamped strategy, e.g. a strategy with a time-stamp of 2017 and followed the linked strategies across the different time-slices. This activity was used to cross-check with participants whether additional strategies need to be added besides those already identified as well as further identifying the related actions that contribute to this ‘pathway’. Next, participants identified, for each strategy, with which other strategies it relates in different time-slices. In this way, we identified, together with participants, synergies and time-dependencies of strategies across pathways in every scenario. Following this, stakeholders were asked to brainstorm and generate additional actions and actions with no time-stamp. After the brainstorming, they identified when these actions have to begin, to which existing strategy and vision elements they relate, and how they relate to the strategies already in the time-slice. After strategies have been put in the timeslices and connected with other strategies across time, we asked ‘how would each strategy be realised?’ Here, we aimed to identify specific actions and actors for each strategy, as well as the sectors involved. This was an operationalisation activity from strategies to actions. It is important to note that strategies are cross-sectoral and actions are more operational and sector-specific. Altogether, this step resulted in the proto-pathways that were developed by the research team after the workshop. Each proto-pathway consisted of different strategies and actions to reach similar vision elements. Step 3: Building on the proto-pathways to develop final pathways After workshop series 2, the IMPRESSIONS’ team analysed the input from the stakeholders to develop the draft or proto-pathways, which would be further developed during the workshop series #3. After checking the consistency of the pathways with the scenarios, any suggested changes were cross-checked in a survey with the stakeholders. This resulted in a final draft of the proto-pathways, which were then analysed in terms of synergies and trade-offs and their efficacy in achieving the vision. During the third workshop series, the proto-pathways were presented to the stakeholders within the different scenario groups. The stakeholders were then asked whether they agreed with the proto-pathways and to identify needs for additional strategies and actions. In the following sessions, the results from the pathways’ efficacy assessment and the analysis

9  OPERATIONALISING TRANSITION MANAGEMENT FOR NAVIGATING … 

339

of synergies and trade-offs were presented to the stakeholders, who were then asked to think of additional actions and identify specific actors to enrich the pathways and move closer to the vision as well as to think of transformative actions. The latter was supported by input presentations on climate mitigation and agent-based modelling and posters that showcase ‘real world’ transformative solutions. After the workshop 3 series, the additions made to the pathways were consolidated. This resulted in the final pathways. Step 4: Assessing the efficacy of pathways in achieving the vision We qualitatively and quantitatively assessed the extent to which the pathways achieve the vision using a consistent methodological framework in which scenario context and capital (human, social, financial and manufactured) availability constrain the effectiveness of the actions in moving towards the vision. A selection of vision elements and associated indicators was made for this assessment. This has been discussed in detail within Holman et al. (2017) (see also Holman et al., Chapter 8, this volume). Step 5: Identify the conditions needed for putting in place the pathways This is an analysis step that included identifying three sets of conditions that manifest in the pathways and yield additional information about their potentials, efficacy and implementation: • Institutional conditions that enable the realisation of strategies in a pathway. The institutional conditions were identified with the capacities frameworks (Hölscher, Chapter 2, this volume; Hölscher et al., Chapter 11, this volume). • Resource conditions that enable the viability of strategies in a pathway. The resource conditions were identified by the capitals framework (Pedde et al. 2019). • Relational conditions that concern the synergies and trade-offs between different strategies across pathways, across sectors and across time. The aim of identifying synergies and trade-offs was to: (i) compare what is being done now (existing actions) with the adaptation and mitigation actions/strategies proposed within the pathways (which will be operating at multiple scales and addressing

340  N. FRANTZESKAKI ET AL.

vision-related issues within multiple sectors); (ii) identify policy or societal mechanisms by which some adaptation and mitigation strategies and actions within pathways can be aligned to achieve ­co-benefits and avoid unintended consequences (either cross-sectoral or adaptation/mitigation conflicts). 9.3.2.3 Lessons from Formulating Transition Pathways Strengths Formulating transition pathways requires a system’s thinking approach to develop cross-sectoral rather than mono-sectoral pathways. Pathways as alternative methods for agenda setting (e.g. roadmapping) therefore require a long-term time horizon and orientation towards a desirable vision. Thinking of pathways also allows to reflect and realise the importance of collaboration and coordination amongst multiple stakeholders/actors that are vital for realising the pathways over the course of time. This can further support and strengthen collaborative governance arrangements as well as coalitions and partnerships for bridging resources and connecting science to policy and practice. Weaknesses and Limitations When we collected the vast inputs from the workshops, we first differentiated inputs that were reflecting and reshaping the vision to those that addressed specific actions. What we realised in the first occasion is that majority of inputs were incremental actions that remained responsive and sometimes reactive to the scenario every group was in. It took more time—especially during the third workshop—to trigger transformative thinking in the participants. It was also in the last workshop that the full suite of pathways was presented that we could instigate more ‘systems’ thinking’ in participants to think about synergies and trade-offs of pathways. The pathways that were formulated are not explicitly spatially specific, a conceptual weakness that limits the policy relevance of the pathways in the European regional case studies and makes them more relevant for recommendations for the European Union level. Even in the regional and local case studies like Hungary, the pathways were mostly defined for the national Hungarian level, or generically for the municipal level rather than for the two municipalities that were the case studies.

9  OPERATIONALISING TRANSITION MANAGEMENT FOR NAVIGATING … 

341

Another weakness is the expert-based articulation of realisation conditions and action plans, rather than a specific operational plan for their implementation from the regional case study teams. This may have required a different process design to take up a time section of the pathways and develop them further using methods like roadmaps, three horizons or other. Lessons for Future Research and Future Practice We have three key lessons for future research that takes up transition management and transition pathways as a methodology: • Ensure a constructive collaboration between research team and facilitation team. Such collaboration is essential in designing the workshops where participants will co-create the pathways. Having methods to trigger transformative thinking and systems’ thinking is very important and not to be neglected by facilitators and designers of the process of the participatory approach. Traditional facilitation methods can only bring participants to a collaborative attitude but new methods are required to progress thinking for actions in transition pathways. • Incorporate a step in the brainstorming of actions for the pathways that distinguish between different geographical scales, so as to draw pathways that are multi-scalar but, most importantly, spatially specific in the way actions are formulated. • Facilitate thinking on actions in the context of the scenarios that is transformative. In IMPRESSIONS, we employed heavy narrative approaches for explaining and imagining, and only to a limited extend visual representations of the scenarios. A more profound visual or experiential representation of the scenarios might trigger or enable enhanced transformative thinking of actions for the pathways. • Identify a working group or focus group to take up the suite of multiple pathways and identify strategic plans for realising and anchoring the co-created pathways into local and regional action plans for every case study. In this way, the good ideas and ­co-created recommendations in the form of pathways will not be lost due to the level of abstraction but will find ways to inform and influence local and regional plans and programs.

342  N. FRANTZESKAKI ET AL.

9.3.3   Activating Phase: Testing Robustness of Transition Pathways and Developing Transformative Solutions Using Wildcards Wildcards were used to introduce additional nonlinearities and trigger discussions about the robustness of the vision and pathways, as well as to stimulate thinking about transformative solutions. This served to stimulate additional transformative thinking and identification of additional strategies that might be needed to recover from the aftermath of an extreme event with very low probability but very high impact. In particular, we employed wildcards to test the robustness of pathways. The wildcards introduced additional nonlinearities that originate in social, economic, technological and infrastructural developments and affect the capacities of agency to mobilise capital in achieving the desirable sustainability vision. The complementary strategies further enriched the pathways and strengthened their robustness to additional nonlinearities. 9.3.3.1 Process Architecture Wildcards are events with very high impact and very low probability. They can be linked to early signals, they can be positive (creating windows of opportunity for a desired transformation) or negative (leading to a forced/undesired transformation), and they can be both irreversible and reversible (Saritas and Smith 2011; Wardekker et al. 2010). Wild Cards are surprising and unexpected events with low ‘perceived probability’ of occurrence but with very high impact (e.g. 2001 attack to the World Trade Centre on 9/11, major disasters in environmental or technological systems, etc.). Serendipity or the faculty of making scientific discoveries by accident is another important source of wildcards, which can be included into the unexpected surprises of human actions category. Some typical examples are the discovery of the penicillin (by Fleming), LSD (by Hofmann), dynamite (by Nobel), America (by Columbus) and Viagra (by Osterloh), to name a few. (Popper 2011)

The importance of looking at the way different capitals may be affected by extreme events is important in the context of high-end climate change. This is due to the historical evidence that societal collapses have occurred when environmental changes were combined with, and made more severe by, inappropriate institutional responses (Tainter 1990; Pelling 2011) in appropriating resources (money, infrastructure, technology, knowledge, time) and in preparing and responding to drivers and pressures of environmental change.

9  OPERATIONALISING TRANSITION MANAGEMENT FOR NAVIGATING … 

343

9.3.3.2 Operationalisation: IMPRESSIONS’ Wildcards Game The process of generating and playing wildcards in IMPRESSIONS is described below. Step 1: Reviewing existing wildcards’ databases An existing database of wildcards created from the FP7 project iKnow and grey literature of international organisations’ reports on extreme events were reviewed. The iKnow database included 440 wildcards (www.iknowfutures.eu) and our literature review from international reports resulted in 20 additional wildcards. The total of 460 wildcards were screened and 39 wildcards were selected based on the following criteria: • Wildness: the wildcard is an extreme event and/or extreme impact; that is, it has the potential to tilt or tip the system. • Cross-sectoral impact: more than one sector will be affected through the occurrence of the wildcard. The sectors that we consider include food, water, biodiversity and/or health. • Exposure: wildcards that have an acute impact or unfolding impact are equally selected. • Impact array: wildcards with local and global impacts are selected. Wildcards with very specific local impact are not selected. What we excluded: • Extreme trends: scenario-like extremes are not wildcards. • Extremes that have already occurred multiple times are not considered to be a wildcard (even if it was included in the iKnow database). Step 2: Screening of selected wildcards by IMPRESSIONS’ experts In an expert workshop in Rotterdam (October 2014), we further screened the basket of 39 wildcards. The expert participants also contributed to the descriptions of the wildcards and added new wildcards. The screening criteria that were used during the expert workshop include the following:

344  N. FRANTZESKAKI ET AL.

• Wildcards are extremes that differ from the SSPs (additional nonlinearity); • Wildcards are extremes that can relate to more than one case study (universality); • Wildcards that present a fatalistic future are excluded (e.g. nuclear world-war) because they are not serving the objective of using the wildcards in the IMPRESSIONS’ transdisciplinary research work. At the end of the expert workshop, 17 wildcards were selected. These 17 wildcards were then analysed and prepared after the workshop by adding the inputs from the experts’ workshop in the description of the wildcards and their impacts. This information was presented separately and checked in the literature. Step 3: Screening of selected wildcards by IMPRESSIONS’ experts against their impact A second expert workshop took place in January 2015 to further screen the basket of 17 wildcards to identify those that are compatible with the context and dynamics of the IMPRESSIONS’ case studies. The screening criteria proposed and used by the experts in this workshop included: • Extremes that can have an extreme impact in the case study’s context (extreme impact and extreme local impact); • Extremes that can have a leakage effect due to cross-sectoral impacts (extreme local impact and cross-sectoral impact) (escalating impact); • Extremes that can have a melting down impact: extremes with global impact via cross-sectoral linkages have also extreme local impact (extreme global impact and cross-sectoral impact) (downstream impact). At the end of the expert workshop, a basket of 10 wildcards was selected. Step 4: Grounding the selected wildcards in the literature The ten selected wildcards were further analysed and their impacts reviewed in the literature. More specifically, the descriptions of the impacts of the wildcards resulted from a literature review (grey literature and academic literature) about these extreme events. From the literature review, we concluded that the impacts that were mentioned, including any suggestions of their severity and damages, are ‘foreseen’ with reference to the current global situation. As such, the impacts are not

9  OPERATIONALISING TRANSITION MANAGEMENT FOR NAVIGATING … 

345

indicative of the high-end scenarios that we will use in IMPRESSIONS. Hence, the impacts as suggested in the literature were used to support the choice of these wildcards as events of ‘high impact’ and ‘low probability’. However, the impacts were not presented to participants in the IMPRESSIONS’ stakeholder workshops nor to experts participating in the Delphi method (see Step 6 below). The ten selected wildcards were also compared with wildcards generated from international organisations, such as the wildcards presented in the ‘Global Risks 2014’ report published by the World Economic Forum. Step 5: Screening the selected wildcards based on compatibility, applicability and redundancy across the SSPs The ten selected wildcards were contrasted with the four SSP input scenarios so as to check their compatibility (i.e. is the wildcard ‘­wild-enough’ in the scenario?) and redundancy (i.e. does the wildcard occur already in the scenario?). The results of this assessment are shown in Table 9.1. The final set of wildcards was used in the final stakeholder workshop (synthesis workshop realised in April 2018) that involved representative stakeholders from all case studies. Therefore, the wildcards needed to be applicable across all the SSP scenarios: SSP1, SSP3, SSP4 and SSP5. Based on Table 9.1, we concluded that six wildcards fulfil this criterion: • Pandemic outbreak • Worldwide vegetarianism • Artificial food production • End of ageing • Collapse of the Internet • Major volcanic eruption. Step 6: Assessing and screening the wildcards against the developed pathways to identify those with potential disruptive impact on the realisation of pathways The IMPRESSIONS’ team of experts served as a panel in assessing which wildcards can have disruptive impact on the realisation of transition pathways in the context of all scenarios. From the seven wildcards, the experts agreed that two wildcards are potentially disruptive to the pathways across all scenarios and all pathways: (a) collapse of the Internet and (b) major volcanic eruption.

346  N. FRANTZESKAKI ET AL. Table 9.1  Contrasting the wildcards with the IMPRESSIONS’ input scenarios to assess compatibility, applicability and redundancy t/>Z

^^Wϭ

^^Wϯ

^^Wϰ

^^Wϱ

;ϭͿWĂŶĚĞŵŝĐ ŽƵƚďƌĞĂŬ ;ϮͿtŽƌůĚǁŝĚĞ ǀĞŐĞƚĂƌŝĂŶŝƐŵ ;ϯͿ^ĞĐƵůĂƌ ^ƚĂŐŶĂƟŽŶ ;ϰͿEĞǁ ĞŶĞƌŐLJƐŽƵƌĐĞ ĚŝƐĐŽǀĞƌĞĚŝŶ h ;ϱͿƌĞĂŬĚŽǁŶ ŽĨƚƌĂĚĞƌŽƵƚĞƐ ;ϲͿEƵĐůĞĂƌ ĂĐĐŝĚĞŶƚ ;ϳͿƌƟĮĐŝĂů &ŽŽĚ WƌŽĚƵĐƟŽŶ ;ϴͿŶĚŽĨ ĂŐŝŶŐ ;ϵͿŽůůĂƉƐĞŽĨ ƚŚĞ/ŶƚĞƌŶĞƚ ;ϭϬͿDĂũŽƌ sŽůĐĂŶŝĐ ƌƵƉƟŽŶ

tŝůĚĐĂƌĚĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞŝŶƚŚŝƐŝŶƉƵƚƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽ tŝůĚĐĂƌĚŝŶĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞǁŝƚŚƚŚŝƐŝŶƉƵƚƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽ;ŶŽƚǁŝůĚͲĞŶŽƵŐŚĨŽƌ ƚŚŝƐƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽͿ tŝůĚĐĂƌĚƌĞĚƵŶĚĂŶƚŝŶƚŚŝƐŝŶƉƵƚƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽ;ĂůƌĞĂĚLJŽĐĐƵƌƐŝŶƚŚŝƐ ƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽͿ tŝůĚĐĂƌĚŶŽƚƌĞůĞǀĂŶƚĨŽƌƚŚŝƐŝŶƉƵƚƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽ;ƚĞĐŚŶŽůŽŐLJŽƌƐŽĐŝĂů ĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶƐŚĂǀĞĐŚĂŶŐĞĚƐŽŵƵĐŚƚŚĂƚŝƚƐŽĐĐƵƌƌĞŶĐĞŝƐƉŚĂƐĞĚŽƵƚͿ

9  OPERATIONALISING TRANSITION MANAGEMENT FOR NAVIGATING … 

347

Step 7: Developing a description for the wildcards using a metanarrative based on a synthesis of resources (grey and published literature) We drafted a description of the two wildcards using a meta-narrative perspective to describe the ‘event’ of the wildcard and the broad potential impacts it may cause. For doing that, we used resources and ‘narrative elements’ from grey and published literature that we sourced in Step 4. We include here the full description of the two wildcards as were developed and used in the IMPRESSIONS project.

Box 9.2: Wildcard #1: CAMPI FLAGREI’S VOLCANIC ­SUPERERUPTION (major volcanic eruption)

The ‘wild’ event unfolding: Campi Flegrei, a name that aptly translates as ‘burning fields’, is a supervolcano located beneath the Bay of Naples in Italy, mostly hidden under the Mediterranean Sea. The volcanic field has been the site of some extremely violent eruptions in the past—the eruption some 40,000 years ago having been one of the largest volcanic eruptions of all time. Now again, Europe’s most notorious giant is reawakening from a long slumber and builds up to another devastating eruption. Campi Flegrei starts to eject large amounts of smoke and ash into the air and causes earthquakes and tsunamis. Impacts: Millions of people across Europe and beyond are affected by Campi Flegrei’s big eruption. As the volcano is located near the very densely populated metropolitan area of Naples, the immediate impact is felt around Southern Italy. Thousands of people living near the point of the eruption die or lose their houses. In the region, the movement of magma below the volcano causes earthquakes, disrupting infrastructure, business and tourism. But the impacts of the eruption are felt far beyond Southern Italy and even Europe. Large amounts of ash spread into the high atmosphere and blacken the sky. Smoke and ash disrupt

348  N. FRANTZESKAKI ET AL.

air traffic and affect air quality in Europe for months. The ash cloud is carried as far as central Russia, some 2000 km away. Entire swathes of land are left covered in up to 20 cm of ash, disrupting flora and fauna for decades. This leads to a substantial decrease in food production in Europe, causing famines and declining economic activities. It also contributes to mass floods as the soil cannot absorb water anymore.

Box 9.3: Wildcard #2: COLLAPSE OF THE INTERNET

The ‘wild’ event unfolding: Internet is shut down. There is no communication possible via the Internet nor via landline phones. A domino effect started with critical infrastructures of a country being stopped, as they are controlled by a central system managed, monitored and guided by online services. It is not only the basic services of the country that are interrupted with businesses being affected in terms of productivity and profit but also the disruption runs across borders due to the connectivity and inter-dependency between countries in Europe, especially for the energy and transportation infrastructures. Impacts: Millions of people across Europe are affected by the collapse of the Internet. Trains that transfer goods and travellers could not operate, airports are stopped given the disrupted telecommunications creating a (transport) stalemate. Local and international businesses have been impacted by this stalemate and the delayed communication about it that is further creating loss of productivity, uncertainty and delayed transactions. At the same time, people in cities and rural areas across countries realise that the collapse of Internet means experiencing a return back in time where communication and information finding were relying on a small cycle of immediate contacts, since information and services cannot be anymore provided online. Education, health services, bank services and transportation are all interrupted, making a severe difference in long-term patients to be serviced, in the feeling of security and reliability that these different services create.

9  OPERATIONALISING TRANSITION MANAGEMENT FOR NAVIGATING … 

349

With the collapse of the Internet and police services also on disrupted information and communication, the fear of a terrorist attack in major cities and transportation hubs increased. Internet and the Internet of Things prove vital in sharing information fast between countries and within a country on threatening situations and movements for national and European security. The disrupted communications create a logistics nightmare. Food trade and distribution networks are disrupted, creating food shortages on food distribution chains, that in turn affect the availability of food in major cities.

Step 8: Playing wildcards to assess robustness of pathways and identify transformative solutions After participants were presented with the full suite of transition pathways per scenario, we presented the wildcards in a ‘game situation’. We asked the participants to think whether we will achieve the vision with the developed pathways in every scenario in the case of a specific wildcard occurring. It is a ‘what if’ game situation that we introduced participants into, using a narrative description and provocative visuals of the wildcard, in a setting where all pathways were displayed in large murals. Participants provided inputs to what additional actions are required for adapting the existing pathways to ensure ‘resilience’ and robustness to achieve the vision. Additional reflection time was allowed during the introduction and discussion of the wildcards impacts and the additional actions required to address them and deal with their ‘aftermath’. This allowed for deeper reflection on the robustness of the developed pathways as an interlinked suite of actions rather than as separate courses of actions. Next to this, it allowed to identify and operationalise transformative solutions within the existing transition pathways (Tàbara et al. 2018). 9.3.3.3 Lessons from Testing Pathways’ Robustness with Wildcards Strengths Developing wildcards with the expert team of the IMPRESSIONS project allowed a deeper reflection of the uncertainty that the high-end socio-economic and climate scenarios entailed, even for those in the

350  N. FRANTZESKAKI ET AL.

expert team that were more involved in integrating and developing the scenarios for every case study. This is considered a strength for allowing interdisciplinary thinking and collaboration in the research team. Applying the wildcards in a game situation in the synthesis workshop allowed participants to reflect and rethink the potential of the developed transition pathways to achieve the vision in the aftermath of a wildcard event—that triggered deeper reflection of the efficacy of the pathways. At this stage, it became evident that across all scenarios and all wildcards, what could sustain the developed pathways was additional support of the social capital—through activation of civil society, empowerment of communities and support of education and local governance initiatives. This was a strong reflection point that brought new discussions and new actions into the pathways for making them more resilient. Weaknesses For developing the wildcards, the interdisciplinary team went through a very rigorous process in using existing databases, checking policy reports that had information on extreme events and making a thorough search in the grey and published literature for every selected wildcard event. This process was lengthy, time and energy intense and was on the background of the co-creation process that was realised in the synthesis workshop. The limitation but also proposition for future research is to develop prototype methods or processes on generating and assessing or tailoring wildcards as a tool to introduce extreme uncertainty or nonlinearities that build and extend existing methods from foresight and futures research. Analysing the results of the wildcards gaming sessions from the synthesis workshop, it became apparent that more time was needed for the participants to delve into the dimensions of the pathways and that the analysis of the efficacy of pathways that was presented to them required more attention to fully understand the potential impacts of the wildcard events. This, however, does not delimit the significance and value of the results of the wildcards discussion with participants. For applying the wildcards in participatory settings, we found that more in-depth understanding of the implications and impacts of wildcards events would have occurred if participants were introduced to resilience thinking. Having a new lens of thinking may have enabled more transformative thinking in co-creating alternative actions and additional

9  OPERATIONALISING TRANSITION MANAGEMENT FOR NAVIGATING … 

351

actions to those already existing in the generated transition pathways. Time limitations and the risk of being confronted and faced with cognitive complexity (e.g. introducing participants to too many concepts in a short time) were also limiting factors in applying wildcards during our workshops. Lessons for Future Research and Application Our suggestions for future applications of wildcards as a methodological means to introduce additional nonlinearities and uncertainty are from them to be treated as ‘learning and reflection’ instruments in the design of co-creation processes—that will require not to embed them in the process design but rather to use them to trigger more transformative thinking, to use them for deeper policy and social learning on advancing and scaling solutions but also for formulating or strengthening deinstitutionalising actions and pathways. Different process designs of workshops, focus groups, forums, debates or other set-ups may allow for capitalising the ‘triggering effect’ that wildcards can bring in a participatory research setting between policy-community-and-science. Another suggestion considers the role of scientists and experts in general in the way additional actions and strategies were discussed to cope with the impacts and aftermath of a wildcard event. As experts can easier ‘switch’ to lateral thinking between the presented wildcard event and a similar historical or even contemporary extreme event, it is easier for them to provide tested solutions. This is not always the case with participants with lesser knowledge on ways to cope with or solutions to deal with extreme events. This requires careful facilitation and openness to a social learning discussion in the gaming session of the wildcards. In line with the above, we have two future recommendations: first, for experts and scientists involved in developing the wildcards and preparing the wildcards gaming, it will be important to try to prepare easy-to-understand material that also includes weak signals preceding ­ the presented wildcard ‘event’, to help all participants with information and with the thinking that is required to add to an existing portfolio of actions. Second, for experts and scientists participating in the co-creation process, it is important to keep in mind that when sharing their ideas for solutions or practices to also share information or knowledge they have on events with similar impact so as to provide the context information to their response to aid the co-creation with other participants.

352  N. FRANTZESKAKI ET AL.

Last but not least, we propose that serious gaming methods and tools can be employed more prominently and even guide the process design of ‘introducing extreme uncertainties to test resilience of pathways’ in transition management processes. From our experience, introducing and tooling with new methods is a way forward for transition management as a modular governance framework and especially in the context of climate futures and climate agenda formulation.

9.4  Conclusions: Implications of Transition Management Application for High-End Socio-Economic and Climate Change Contexts Practising Interdisciplinarity: Applying a transition management framework to high-end socio-economic and climate change contexts enabled and triggered a deeper interdisciplinary discussion and collaboration between sustainability transitions, sustainability science and climate science researchers over a period of 5 years. The proposed, formulated and tested adaptations of transition management that we present in this chapter were made possible due to this open and lasting collaboration. It is important as a lesson learnt to be open as a researcher to learn and adapt and even co-create scientific approaches (as transition management) in an interdisciplinary way. For doing so, it is important to ensure openness in scientific discussions, deep knowledge of methods and tools, and formulation of key research objectives to guide the interdisciplinary discovery and co-creation pathway of the research team. In the IMPRESSIONS project (that framed and made possible the research with transition management in high-end socio-economic and climate change contexts), the team of interdisciplinary researchers showcased a rich knowledge of methods, concepts, tools and a breadth of experience with them that made it possible to select and tailor methods and tools to the research objectives that transition management as the operational framework of the knowledge co-production process had to deliver upon. Transdisciplinarity for transformative climate research: From our experience and lessons learnt, we were confronted with the strengths and weaknesses of transdisciplinarity in transformative climate research settings. Amongst the strengths, we identify the policy and social learning that took place during the co-creation/co-production workshops. We also observed shifts in thinking and perspectives of the very

9  OPERATIONALISING TRANSITION MANAGEMENT FOR NAVIGATING … 

353

interdisciplinary research team towards transformative thinking when it comes to social innovation solutions or the potential of transdisciplinary methods for generating scientific actionable knowledge. To name a few weaknesses, the results generated (e.g. the efficacy of pathways to achieve the vision) were difficult to evaluate or put to test with existing impact assessment methods, given that the extent or magnitude of their impact was only possible to be assessed by experts. As Holman et al. (Chapter 8, this volume) also point out, this assessment relied on contextual and expert knowledge with a ‘positive world view’ or ‘over-achieving’ bias of pathways and their embedded solutions. In addition to this, transdisciplinarity in a multi-language and multi-cultural setting meant that the process and facilitation ‘tools’ were limited to ensure that we had an inclusive process to dialogue—that limited the ‘process innovation potential’ in introducing different methods such as theatre methods, or experiential learning methods, that could have further triggered transformative thinking with participants. Regarding all those, we still confirm that for transformative climate research, transdisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity are important and mutually benefiting for scientific discovery and especially for making climate science actionable to policy and to business. Acknowledgements    The authors would like to thank colleagues of the IMPRESSIONS project who contributed to the activities discussed in this chapter, especially Jill Jäger, Simona Pedde, David Tàbara and Kasper Kok. We also want to thank the many stakeholders who participated so enthusiastically within the IMPRESSIONS’ workshops. IMPRESSIONS was funded by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under Grant Agreement Number 603416.

References Beers, P. J., Veldkamp, A., Hermans, F., Van Apeldoorn, D., Vervoort, J. M., & Kok, K. (2010). Future sustainability and images. Futures, 42(7), 723–732. Bishop, P., Hines, A., & Collins, T. (2007). The current state of scenario development: An overview of techniques. Foresight, 9(1), 5–25. Burch, S., & Harris, S. (2014). Understanding climate change: Science, policy, and practice. Paperback. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Cairns, G., Ahmed, I., Mullet, J., & Wright, G. (2013). Scenario method and stakeholder engagement: Critical reflections on a climate change scenarios case study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80, 1–10.

354  N. FRANTZESKAKI ET AL. Ferguson, B., Brown, R., Frantzeskaki, N., de Haan, F. J., & Deletic, A. (2013a). The enabling institutional context for integrated water management: Lessons from Melbourne. Water Research, 47, 7300–7314. Ferguson, B., Frantzeskaki, N., & Brown, R. (2013b). A strategic program for transitioning to a water sensitive city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 117, 32–45. Frantzeskaki, N. (2019). Seven lessons for planning nature-based solutions in cities. Environmental Science & Policy, 93, 101–111. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.033. Frantzeskaki, N., Bach, M., Hölscher, K., & Wittmayer, J. M. (2014, August 27–29). Applications of transition management: Taking stock of 13 years of transition management and lessons for future research. 5th International Sustainability Transitions (IST) Conference, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Frantzeskaki, N., Hölscher, K., Bach, M., & Avelino, F. (Eds.). (2018). Co-creating sustainable urban futures: A primer on applying transition management in cities. Tokyo: Springer. Frantzeskaki, N., Hölscher, K., Holman, I., Pedde, S., Jaeger, J., Kok, K., et al. (2019). Transition pathways to sustainability in greater than 2 °C climate futures of Europe. Regional Environmental Change. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10113-019-01475-x. Frantzeskaki, N., Hölscher, K., Jäger, J., Holman, I., Tàbara, J. D., Pedde, S., et al. (2015). Advanced transition management methodology. EU FP7 IMPRESSIONS Project Deliverable D4.1. http://www.impressions-project. eu/getatt.php?filename=D4.1_Advanced_TM_Methodology_FINAL_14019. pdf. Frantzeskaki, N., & Tefrati, N. (2016). A transformative vision unlocks the innovative potential of Aberdeen City, UK. In D. Loorbach, J. M. Wittmayer, H. Shiroyama, J. Fujino, & S. Mizuguchi (Eds.), Governance of urban sustainability transitions. European and Asian experiences (pp. 49–68). Tokyo, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London: Springer. Frantzeskaki, N., & Walker, W. (2013). Concepts and methods of policy analysis. In W. A. H. Thissen & W. Warren (Eds.), Public policy analysis: New developments, international series in operations research and management science (pp. 261–272). Berlin: Springer. ISBN-10: 1461446015. Gidley, J. M., Fien, J., Smith, J.-A., Thomsen, D. C., & Smith, T. F. (2009). Participatory futures methods: Towards adaptability and resilience in ­climate-vulnerable communities. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19, 427–440. Godet, M. (2000). The art of scenarios and strategic planning: Tools and pitfalls. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 65(1), 3–22. Gordon, A. (2015). Implementing backcasting for conservation: Determining multiple policy pathways for retaining future targets of endangered woodlands in Sydney, Australia. Biological Conservation, 181, 182–189.

9  OPERATIONALISING TRANSITION MANAGEMENT FOR NAVIGATING … 

355

Helling, A. (1998). Collaborative visioning: Proceed with caution!: Results from evaluating Atlanta’s Vision 2020 Project. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(3), 335–349. Holman, I., Audsley, E., Berry, P., Brown, C., Bugmann, H., Clarke, L., et al. (2017). Modelling climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability in Europe. EU FP7 IMPRESSIONS Project Deliverable D3B.2. http://www. impressions-project.eu/getatt.php?filename=D3C2_Regional_CCIAV_ model_applications_FINAL_14333.pdf. Hölscher, K. (2018). So what? Transition management as a transformative approach to support governance capacities in cities. In N. Frantzeskaki, K. Hölscher, M. Bach, & F. Avelino (Eds.), Co-creating sustainable urban futures: A primer on applying transition management in cities. Tokyo: Springer. Hölscher, K. (2019). Transforming urban climate governance: Capacities for transformative climate governance. Hölscher, K., Roorda, C., & Nevens, F. (2016). Ghent: Fostering a climate for transition. In D. Loorbach, J. M. Wittmayer, H. Shiroyama, J. Fujino, & S. Mizuguchi (Eds.), Governance of urban sustainability transitions: European and Asian experiences (pp. 91–112). Tokyo, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, and London: Springer. Hölscher, K., & Wittmayer, J. (2018). A German experience: The challenges of adapting ‘ideal-type’ transition management in Ludwigsburg. In N. Frantzeskaki, K. Hölscher, M. Bach, & F. Avelino (Eds.), Co-creating sustainable urban futures: A primer on applying transition management in cities. Tokyo: Springer. Hölscher, K., Wittmayer, J. M., Avelino, F., & Giezen, M. (2019). Opening up the transition arena: An analysis of (dis)empowerment of civil society actors in transition management in cities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, 176–185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.004. Howlett, M. (2014). Why are policy innovations rare and so often negative? Blame avoidance and problem denial in climate change policy-making. Global Environmental Change, 29, 395–403. Hughes, N. (2013). Towards improving the relevance of scenarios for public policy questions: A proposed methodological framework for policy relevant low carbon scenarios. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80, 687–698. Keeney, R. L. (1996a). Value-focused thinking: Identifying decision opportunities and creating alternatives. European Journal of Operational Research, 92, 537–549. Keeney, R. L. (1996b). Value-focused thinking: A path to creative decisionmaking (Chapter 3). Cambridge, MA and London, UK: Harvard University Press. Kok, K., van Vliet, M., Bärlund, I., Dubel, A., & Sendzimir, J. (2011). Combining participative backcasting and exploratory scenario development: Experiences from the SCENES project. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78, 835–851.

356  N. FRANTZESKAKI ET AL. Meadows, H. D. (1996). Envisioning a sustainable world. In R. Costanza, O. Segura, & J. Martinez-Alier (Eds.), Getting down to earth, practical applications of ecological economics. Washington, DC: Island Press. Miller, C. A., O’Leary, J., Graffy, E., Stechel, E. B., & Dirks, G. (2015). Narrative futures and the governance of energy transitions. Futures, 70, 65–74. Nevens, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Gorissen, L., & Loorbach, D. (2013). Urban transition labs: Co-creating transformative action for sustainable cities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 111–122. Nevens, F., & Roorda, C. (2013). A climate of change: A transition approach for climate neutrality in the city of Ghent (Belgium). Sustainable Cities and Society, 10, 112–121. Olsson, P., Galaz, V., & Boonstra, W. J. (2014). Sustainability transformations: A resilience perspective. Ecology and Society, 19(4), 1. Panetti, E., Parmentola, A., Wallis, S. E., & Ferretti, M. (2018). What drives technology transitions? An integration of different approaches within transition studies. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 30(9), 993–1014. Pedde, S., Kok, K., Hölscher, K., Frantzeskaki, N., Holman, I., Dunford, R., et al. (2019). Advancing the use of scenarios to understand society’s capacity to achieve the 1.5 degree target. Global Environmental Change, 56, 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.03.010. Pelling, M. (2011). Adaptation to climate change: From resilience to transformation. London: Routledge. Phdungsilp, A. (2011). Future studies’ backcasting method used for strategic sustainable city planning. Futures, 43, 707–714. Pichert, D., & Katsikopoulos, K. V. (2008). Green defaults: Information presentation and pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 63–73. Popper, R. (2011). Metodología de la Prospectiva. Manual de Prospectiva Tecnológica. Mexico: Latin American Faculty of Social Science (FLACSO). Poustie, M., Frantzeskaki, N., & Brown, R. (2016, April). A transition scenario for leapfrogging to a sustainable urban water future in Port Vila, Vanuatu. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 105, 129–139. doi:10.1016/j. techfore.2015.12.008. Quist, J., Thissen, W., & Vergragt, P. J. (2011). The impact and spin-off of participatory backcasting: From vision to niche. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78, 883–897. Raworth, K. (2012). A safe and just space for humanity. Can we live within the doughnut? (Oxfam Discussion Paper). https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www. oxfam.org/files/dp-a-safe-and-just-space-for-humanity-130212-en.pdf. Ringland, G. (2010). The role of scenarios in strategic foresight. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(9), 1493–1498.

9  OPERATIONALISING TRANSITION MANAGEMENT FOR NAVIGATING … 

357

Robinson, J., Burch, S., Talwar, S., O’Shea, M., & Walsh, M. (2011). Envisioning sustainability: Recent progress in the use of participatory backcasting approaches for sustainability research. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78, 756–768. Rogers, T., & Bazerman, M. H. (2008). Future lock-in: Future implementation increases selection of “should” choices. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106(1), 1–20. Saritas, O., & Smith, J. E. (2011). The big picture—Trends, drivers, wildcards, weak signals. Futures, 43, 292–312. Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18, 429–434. Sheppard, S. R. J., Shaw, A., Flanders, D., Burch, S., Wiek, A., Carmichael, J., et al. (2011). Future visioning of local climate change: A framework for community engagement and planning with scenarios and visualization. Futures, 43, 400–412. Shipley, R. (2000). The origin and development of vision and visioning in planning. International Planning Studies, 5(2), 225–236. Shipley, R., & Newkirk, R. (1999). Vision and visioning in planning: What do these terms really mean? Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 26(4), 573–591. Sondeijker, S., Geurts, J., Rotmans, J., & Tukker, A. (2006). Imagining sustainability: The added value of transition scenarios in transition management. Foresight, 8(5), 15–30. Tàbara, J. D., Jäger, J., Harrison, P., Hölscher, K., Pedde, S., Grasso, M., et al. (2018). Design of transformative strategies. EU FP7 IMPRESSIONS Project Deliverable D5.4. http://www.impressions-project.eu/getatt.php?filename=D5.4_Design_Transformative_Strategies%20FINAL_14656.pdf. Tainter, J. (1990). The collapse of complex societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tompkins, E. M., Few, R., & Brown, K. (2008). Scenario-based stakeholder engagement: Incorporating stakeholders preferences into coastal planning for climate change. Journal of Environmental Management, 88(4), 1580–1592. Van der Helm, R. (2009). The vision phenomenon: Towards a theoretical underpinning of visions of the future and the process of envisioning. Futures, 41, 96–104. Van der Voorn, T., Pahl-Wostl, C., & Quist, J. (2012). Combining backcasting and adaptive management for climate adaptation in coastal regions: A methodology and a South African case study. Futures, 44, 346–364. Van Vliet, M., & Kok, K. (2015). Combining backcasting and exploratory scenarios to develop robust water strategies in face of uncertain futures. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 20, 43–74.

358  N. FRANTZESKAKI ET AL. Volkery, A., & Ribeiro, T. (2009). Scenario planning in public policy: Understanding use, impacts and the role of institutional context factors. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76, 1198–1207. Wangel, J. (2011). Exploring social structures and agency in backcasting studies for sustainable development. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78, 872–882. Wardekker, J. A., de Jong, A., Knoop, J. M., & van der Sluijs, J. P. (2010). Operationalising a resilience approach to adapting an urban delta to uncertain climate changes. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77, 987–998. Wiek, A., Binder, C., & Scholz, R. W. (2006). Functions of scenarios in transition processes. Futures, 38(7), 740–766. Wiek, A., & Iwaniec, D. (2014). Quality criteria for visions and visioning in sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 9, 497–512. Wittmayer, J., & Schäpke, N. (2014). Action, research and participation: Roles of researchers in sustainability transitions. Sustainability Science, 9, 483–496. Wittmayer, J., Van Steenbergen, F., Loorbach, D., Mock, M., Omann, I., & Kirner, B. (2014). Exploring the transformative potential of communities. In J. Wittmayer, C. Roorda, & F. Van Steenbergen (Eds.), Governing urban sustainability transitions—Inspiring examples (pp. 83–89). Rotterdam: DRIFT, Creative Commons. Wittmayer, J., van Steenbergen, F., Quist, J., Loorbach, D., & Hoogland, C. (2011). In context. The community arena: A co-creation tool for sustainable behaviour by local communities. Methodological guidelines. http://incontext-fp7.eu/sites/default/files/Methodological%20guidelines_final.pdf.

CHAPTER 10

Capacities in High-End Scenarios in Europe: An Agency Perspective Simona Pedde, Katharina Hölscher, Niki Frantzeskaki, and Kasper Kok

10.1  Introduction Global awareness of the adverse impacts of anthropogenic climate change and the urgency for a major shift towards sustainability have been formalised in the Paris Climate Agreement to limit global temperature increase to 1.5°C by 2100 (UN 2015) and the global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (UN 2016). While pathways to achieve sustainability can be diverse, all involve major transformation of energy, S. Pedde (*) · K. Kok  Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] K. Kok e-mail: [email protected] K. Hölscher · N. Frantzeskaki  Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 K. Hölscher and N. Frantzeskaki (eds.), Transformative Climate Governance, Palgrave Studies in Environmental Transformation, Transition and Accountability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49040-9_10

359

360  S. PEDDE ET AL.

water and food systems, among others, together with large-scale changes to human behaviour, markets, institutions and land-use (IPCC 2018; Rockström et al. 2017). Whether or not such transformations can be achieved depends on how human agency is collectively mobilised (Steffen et al. 2015; Tàbara et al. 2018a). The key question is whether and how human agency can develop within evolving socioeconomic contexts. To understand the interaction between human agency and its socioeconomic context, scientists can identify, combine and integrate scientific and policy tools and frameworks across different disciplines to explore future alternative contexts. Epistemologically, knowledge integration across disciplines has the potential to address uncertainties and trade-offs between short- and longterm goals because it embraces the breadth and diversity of societal actors’ stakes as well as interactions among parts of natural and social systems (Kok et al. 2007; Zurek and Henrichs 2007; Pedde 2019). For instance, socioeconomic trends and climate impact analyses can be integrated with frameworks describing abilities of actors to intervene in societal development trajectories and re-orient these towards sustainable futures in the long-term. To achieve such integration, the exploration of climate and socioeconomic future trajectories need to explicitly address uncertainties related to the capacity of actors to enable societal transformation. Scenario analysis meets the demand for an integrated approach to explore potential for future human agency by systematically structuring uncertainties with a broad range of methodologies (Alcamo and Henrichs 2008). Scenario analysis comprises a toolbox of methods rather than being a method in itself and is performed in different forms, including participatory approaches, semi-quantitative methods and mathematical models. The choice for the method depends on the goals, that is whether scenarios are designed to explore alternative futures such as analysing the unfolding consequences of strategic decisions, or defining pathways towards a desirable endpoint at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales. Assumptions in both cases could be framed as simple as extrapolating single variables or as complex as to representing causality among multiple variables (Börjeson et al. 2006; Cash et al. 2006). Importantly, scenarios increasingly combine

N. Frantzeskaki  Centre for Urban Transitions, Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

10  CAPACITIES IN HIGH-END SCENARIOS IN EUROPE … 

361

exploratory and normative aspects as part of policy-oriented analysis for a broad range of actors and stakes, and the choice of different assumptions and methods, ranging from qualitative participatory methods to integrated assessment models, is non-exclusive and can overlap with different scenario objectives (Pedde 2019; IPBES 2016). The latest IPCC-based scenario framework has the potential to be integrated with the capacity framework and enable policy-oriented a­ ctor-based analysis in that it consists of five socioeconomic scenarios (Shared Socioeconomic Pathways or SSPs) (O’Neill et al. 2015) and four emission scenarios (Representative Concentration Pathways or RCPs) (van Vuuren et al. 2011) developed in parallel to be independent yet complementary (Moss et al. 2010; van Vuuren et al. 2014; O’Neill et al. 2015). This approach is designed to explicitly facilitate the interactions among separate communities such as climate modellers, mitigation researchers and impacts, adaptation and vulnerability communities (Nakicenovic et al. 2014). While the RCPs describe the evolution of future greenhouse gas concentrations and associated climate impacts without any assumptions on mitigation actions, the design of the SSPs allows for exploration of the interaction between mitigation and adaptation challenges under an internally consistent set of underlying socioeconomic trends (O’Neill et al. 2015; O’Neill et al. 2017). For example, in the basic SSP framework, scenario assumptions on high investment in green technology and low energy demand reduce the additional effort required for climate mitigation, and assumptions on high levels of human well-being and flexible institutions may enable easier adaptation to climate change (O’Neill et al. 2017). However, so far, the SSPs have had limited utility for d ­ ecision-makers and the full link with emission pathways remains unexplored. A main shortcoming is that the scenarios miss an explicit agency perspective. Thus, while SSPs provide descriptions about future contexts, they do not make explicit statements about what actors can do to navigate these. As a result, the real potential of the SSPs to inform policymaking (and the societal transformation needed to achieve ambitious sustainability targets) is still limited, even though it is an explicit aim (Kriegler et al. 2012, 2014). Understanding the potential for societal action addresses a major shortcoming, or lock-in in the climate science community, which focuses mainly on quantitative, exploratory and problem-based rather than solution-oriented approaches (Loorbach, Chapter 13, this volume). In this chapter, we adapt and extend the work from Pedde et al. (2019) to focus on the future society’s ability to achieve sustainability transformations under high-end socioeconomic scenarios. In the

362  S. PEDDE ET AL.

IMPRESSIONS project (www.impressions-project.eu, Harrison et al. 2019), we have developed a conceptual and methodological approach to high-end scenarios, which recognise the interdependency of social, economic and ecological/climatic drivers of change at multiple levels (Holman et al., Chapter 8, this volume; Frantzeskaki et al., Chapter 9, this volume). Consistent with Holman et al. (Chapter 8, this volume) we define “high-end” as those scenarios with significant socioeconomic change enabling or challenging societal transformation. The central assumption underlying our approach is that different scenarios provide different enabling conditions and challenges for agency in the shortand long-term. To this end, we applied the framework of transformative capacities (Hölscher, Chapter 2, this volume; Hölscher 2019) to the socioeconomic scenarios to analyse the agency’s capacities present in different scenario contexts. This sheds light on what actors can do in different futures, and as such also enhances the policy relevance of scenarios as a prominent method in climate science. It further generates insights about robust agency capacities that are worth to invest in as secure pathways for achieving desirable transformations. First, we outline our methodology to develop high-end scenarios in IMPRESSIONS, based on Shared Socioeconomic Pathways or SSPs, and how we advanced and applied the capacities framework to analyse the scenarios from an agency perspective (Sect. 10.2). We then present our results in terms of the agency capacities present in the different scenarios (Sect. 10.3). In this way, we can discuss how the capacity framework facilitates the translation of the SSPs into policy-relevant scenarios by providing relevant information to decision-makers on the possible future challenges and opportunities associated with transformations (Sect. 10.4). We conclude that the framework is well suited to complement scenarios and highlight important nuances across scales to identify potential for action towards a sustainable world that would not be otherwise captured (Sect. 10.5).

10.2   Linking Shared Socioeconomic Pathways with Agency Capacities This section describes how the SSPs have been developed and extended in the IMPRESSIONS project to develop high-end socioeconomic scenarios relevant to address high-end climate change. The scenarios are framed as the potential to transform as a function of capitals—i.e. the human and social context conditions—and agency’s capacities—i.e. the

10  CAPACITIES IN HIGH-END SCENARIOS IN EUROPE … 

363

abilities of actors to mobilise, change and create the capitals—for a series of nested case studies from global to European sub-national scales. The crucial point in the framework is that the level of societal transformation required to achieve a sustainable world cannot be achieved through only one type of action, due to spillovers and trade-offs (IPCC 2018). According to this reasoning, mobilising human and social capital stocks to enable the full spectrum of actions require capacities from different societal actors. However, this combined capital-capacities framework needs to be embedded in its context. That is, the societal context (the SSP-based scenarios in the IMPRESSIONS case studies) determining which capacities and which types of action will be feasible. We describe how we have co-developed high-end socioeconomic scenarios (SSPs) in four case studies in Europe (Sect. 10.2.1) and explain the conceptualisation and the operationalisation of the link between agency’s capacities and capitals to assess the potential transformative actions in the scenarios (Sects. 10.2.2 and 10.2.3). 10.2.1   Participatory Development of SSPs for the European Region, Iberia, Hungary and Scotland In IMPRESSIONS, high-end socioeconomic scenarios have been developed for four case studies as downscaled SSPs: Europe as a whole (the 2013 EU 27 plus Switzerland and Norway); Scotland, the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) and two municipalities in Hungary. Here we name the “Eur-SSPs” high-end scenarios for Europe and the three sets high-end scenarios “local SSPs” for Scotland, Iberia and Hungary. Both Eur-SSPs and local SSPs are “scenarios” to explore and structure the analysis of “what could happen” (Börjeson et al. 2006) in the form of future socioeconomic trends onto a theoretical space in time (until 2100). All the scenarios show the distance from normative “pathways” which structure the analysis of “how could we achieve” the sustainability vision, i.e. “what do we want” (Fig. 10.1). The scenarios, therefore, define the future socioeconomic context for actors to design and implement pathways, strategies and actions towards the vision. The scenario narratives were co-developed and reviewed with various stakeholders in the case studies through a facilitated participatory process (Gramberger et al. 2015; Tàbara et al. 2018b), which integrated higher level (global and European) trends with relevant local sectoral knowledge. The European and Scottish case studies focus on the cross-sectoral

364  S. PEDDE ET AL. >Žǁ

ƵƌͲ^^Wϭ

,ŝŐŚ

ĂƌďŽŶŝŶƚĞŶƐŝƚLJ

ƵƌͲ^^Wϰ

/ŶĞƋƵĂůŝƚLJ

>Žǁ

ƵƌͲ^^Wϱ

ƵƌͲ^^Wϯ

,ŝŐŚ

Fig. 10.1  Conceptualisation of scenarios as context to develop mitigation and adaptation pathways to reach a desired vision in 2100. The actions to develop sustainable pathways towards the vision build from the scenario and are scenariocontextualised in time (Adapted from Pedde et al. 2019)

impacts of land-use and climate change, linking urbanisation, agriculture, water resources, forestry and biodiversity sectors (Kok et al. 2018; Harrison et al. 2018). Both European and Scottish case studies build from previous scenario work in the CLIMSAVE project (Harrison et al. 2015; Holman et al. 2016, 2017) and have been further developed to include the socioeconomic and climate drivers of the SSPs and RCPs (Kok et al. 2018). The Iberian and Hungarian case studies focus on the sectors and impacts that are more relevant to local societal interests. For Iberia the focus is on impacts on agro-forest systems and governance of transboundary river basins (Tàbara et al. 2018b) while for Hungary the focus is on impacts of population dynamics on urban land-use and health (Li et al. 2016, 2017, 2018).

10  CAPACITIES IN HIGH-END SCENARIOS IN EUROPE … 

365

Methodologically, the scenarios are “multiscale” (Van Ruijven et al. 2014): the participatory process ensures that scenarios are diverse enough to be relevant for and driven by stakeholders but still comparable in terms of structure and process from global to local. Overall, the scenario logic for all case study SSPs follows the global and European SSP logic, also summarised Holman et al. (Chapter 8, this volume), while allowing for specific characteristics, depending on the stakeholders’ choice of key drivers of change and their interpretation of the global and Eur-SSPs. The local and Eur-SSPs describe a range of challenges to adaptation and mitigation, which have been interpreted as varying levels of inequality and carbon intensity (Fig. 10.2). Eur-SSP1 consists of inclusive societies and Eur-SSP5 develop into relatively inclusive societies, whereas Eur-SSP3 and Eur-SSP4 are highly unequal. Eur-SSP1 and E ­ ur-SSP4 are less carbon-intensive than Eur-SSP3 and Eur-SSP5. European SSP2 was not developed as it was interpreted to converge to the average of the other scenarios and therefore was less suitable than the other SSPs for identifying alternative capacities and challenges. We refer to Kok and Pedde (2016) for the full Eur-SSPs and local SSPs. ^LJƐƚĞŵ ƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚLJ

sŝƐŝŽŶ ͞tŚĂƚ ĚŽǁĞǁĂŶƚ͟

ĐƟŽŶƐĂŶĚ^ƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐ ͞ŚŽǁĐŽƵůĚǁĞƌĞĂĐŚƚŚĞƚĂƌŐĞƚ͟

ƵƌƌĞŶƚ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽ ͞ǁŚĂƚ ĐŽƵůĚ ŚĂƉƉĞŶ͟

ƚŽĚĂLJ

ϮϭϬϬ

Fig. 10.2  Interpretation of challenges to adaptation (inequality) and mitigation (carbon intensity) of the European SSPs (Adapted from Pedde et al. 2019)

366  S. PEDDE ET AL.

The facilitated process was designed to develop scenario products in qualitative and quantitative forms which enabled the analysis in this chapter. Besides qualitative narratives describing key trends, we used a Fuzzy-set-based method to analyse qualitative and semi-quantitative variables in order to bridge qualitative and quantitative elements in the scenarios (Pedde et al. 2018). The quantitative scenarios were used as inputs to various models in IMPRESSIONS (Holman et al., Chapter 8, this volume). As part of this, the level (low-medium-high) of each type of capital was defined for each scenario in each of three time slices (2010–2040, 2041–2070 and 2071–2100). Trends for capitals, developed as part of the scenario narratives, and capacities are combined to assess the potential of society to transform towards a sustainable future. 10.2.2   Towards Understanding Agency’s Capacities in Scenarios The capacities framework presented in this book (Hölscher, Chapter 2, this volume) and its conceptual link to the IPCC-based SSPs is justified by the IPCC Special Report’s acknowledgement that: strengthened multi-level governance, institutional capacity, policy instruments, technological innovation and transfer and mobilization of finance, and changes in human behaviour and lifestyles are enabling conditions that enhance the feasibility of achieving the 1.5°C target. (IPCC 2018: p. 19).

This means that societal transformations are ultimately driven by different actors—both individuals or organisations representing different societal spheres (governments, communities, market and third sector)— who consciously or unconsciously act to change the state of human and natural systems (O’Brien 2015, 2016; Tàbara et al. 2018a, b). As these actors are embedded within societal structures (e.g. formal and informal institutions, social networks, resource distribution), their capacities are manifest in the extent to which they are able to mobilise, create and change these structures (Giddens 1979)—in terms of institutions, resources, networks, etc. In line with the capacities framework (Hölscher, Chapter 2, this volume; Hölscher 2019), we here define agency capacities as the abilities of actors in a given scenario to effectively mobilise, create and change capital stocks and societal structures (e.g. formal and informal institutions,

10  CAPACITIES IN HIGH-END SCENARIOS IN EUROPE … 

367

social networks), knowledge, beliefs and resources for developing and implementing strategies and actions (Garud et al. 2007; Boyd et al. 2014; Westley et al. 2013). The capacities framework is compatible with the design and purpose of SSP-based scenarios as implemented in global (Riahi et al. 2017) and regional (van der Zwaan et al. 2016) assessments. SSPs can address the technological and social development, as well as institutional change, behavioural change and land-use change consistent with a future sustainable world as reported in integrated assessments (Riahi et al. 2017). The agency-based perspective through the capacities framework makes clear that actors are both able to mobilise, create and change the conditions given in certain scenario contexts, while the existing conditions can, in turn, constrain or enable agency capacities to achieve sustainability transformations. We define these enabling and disabling conditions in the scenarios in terms of capitals. “Capitals” are stocks yielding benefits valued by humans (Porritt 2007). These stocks include five types of capitals: human (education, knowledge, health), social (individual relationships, societal trust, institutions and networks), manufactured (technology and infrastructure), natural (ecosystems) and financial (markets) (Jäger et al. 2015; Porritt 2007; Tinch et al. 2015). The reason to use capitals and, more specifically, the human and social capitals that underpin social transformation rather than economic and population-based indicators (already integral part of the basic SSPs) is that capitals provide a more systemic understanding, which is well suited to analyse the enabling factors and capacities in the scenarios. 10.2.3   Operationalising the Link Between Capital Stocks and Agency Capacities with Shared Socioeconomic Pathways In this section, we operationalise the four capacities identified for navigating societal transformations towards sustainability, i.e. stewarding, unlocking, transforming and orchestrating capacities (Table 10.1). Crucially, to analyse capacities in the IMPRESSIONS scenarios, we identify three levels for each capacity. These levels are fundamental to compare across SSPs and case studies. Like the conceptualisation of the capacities, this further operationalisation builds on transformation literature specifically from the sustainability transitions and resilience communities (see, e.g., Grin et al. 2010; Loorbach et al. 2017; Folke et al. 2016; Olsson et al. 2014; Rauschmayer et al. 2015; Westley et al. 2013).

•S  hared and long-term development goals between small groups •C  ollaboration limited by competition across scales and sectors •G  ood governance but no political culture

• Acceptance and support of existing institutions, values and practices • Powerful interest networks to maintain status quo Transforming (Ability to create • Low investments in and no novelties and embed them in leadership for innovation practices)

Orchestrating (Ability to coordinate multi-actor processes to maximise synergies)

Adapted from Pedde et al. (2019) and Hölscher (2019)

• No shared development goals and frameworks • Low collaboration across scales and sectors • No transparency in decision-making

• Uncoordinated counter-movements •C  ompeting interest networks along with weaker counter-networks • I nnovation and competition for specific interests

Unlocking (Ability to recognise and dismantle drivers of unsustainability and path-dependencies)

Medium • Communities of interest without collective identity • Risk-averse: Mid-term planning to control risk • Fragmented know-how (without knowledge integration)

Low

Stewarding (Ability to anticipate, • Low social cohesion protect and recover from •R  isk-numb: No desire for disturbances while exploiting long-term planning and opportunities beneficial for reactive risk management sustainability) • Coping, no reflexivity

Capacities

• Leadership for innovation • Learning from tested solutions (e.g. upscaling and replicating) • Shared and long-term development goals • Collaboration across scales and sectors • Good governance, with engaged political culture

• Strong social networks and supportive social contexts • Proactive long-term integrated planning. Risk taking and uncertainty embracing • Collective memory and learning (reflexivity, integration of knowledge) • No support for status-quo • Effective opposition networks

High

Table 10.1  Interpretation of capacities to measure enabling and disabling conditions in IMPRESSIONS scenarios

368  S. PEDDE ET AL.

10  CAPACITIES IN HIGH-END SCENARIOS IN EUROPE … 

369

In our methodology, the resulting 12 levels of capacities reported in Table 10.1 are applied to analyse the capacities in all the scenarios. Conceptually, capitals and capacities have been framed as combined and complementary to measure constraints and opportunities in any given context scenarios. In order to achieve maximum potential for actors to transform societies, high levels of both capitals and capacities are needed, as visualised in Sect. 10.3.

10.3  Mapping Capacities and Capitals onto IMPRESSIONS SSP-Based Scenarios In Fig. 10.3, we visualise the availability of capitals and capacities (according to the three levels of capacities, identified in Table 10.1, and three levels of capitals) as potential in each IMPRESSIONS scenario for actors to transform society. Letters representing each of the four capacities (S, U, T, O) are plotted on a scale of high-medium-low on the x-axis, and their position on the y-axis is determined by the combined level of human and social capital. Crucially, levels of human and social capitals tend to increase or decrease simultaneously in all scenario sets. Therefore, Fig. 10.3 does not position capitals but rather each of the four capacities in the combined capitals-capacity space, which ranges from “very low” (orange colour) to “very high” (blue colour). For example, in the Eur-SSP1 the potential for achieving the sustainability vision is “very high” as a result of “high” social and human capitals, “high” stewarding, orchestrating and transformative capacity and “medium” unlocking capacity, whereas Eur-SSP3 results in “low” potential because of overall “low” capitals, “low” stewarding and orchestrating capacity, “medium” transformative capacity and “high” unlocking capacity. The rapid transition towards sustainability in SSP1, resulting from the active participation of all types of actors (market, research, government and third sector), leads to the maintenance and further steady creation of capacities until 2100. The potential to transform is the highest across all SSPs and for all case studies. Societal and environmental awareness is generated early in the scenario, resulting in high levels of human and social capital and thus in high orchestrating, transformative and stewarding capacity. The unlocking capacity that has supported the establishment of effective counter-movements and social innovation decreases

370  S. PEDDE ET AL. SSP1

SSP4

S,T,O

SSP5 U,O

S,T

Europe

U

SSP3

S,O

U

S,U,T,O

S,T,O

Scotland

U

T

U,O S,O

U,T

S,T,O

Iberia

U

S,T,O

U

T,O

S,U

S

U,T,O

T,O

S,U

O

U

S,T,O

U

U

S,T,O

S,T

S,T,O

Hungary

U

S,T

Legend: the potential of societies to transform towards the sustainability vision capitals H medium high M low

very high

medium high

L very low low

medium

L

H

M

capacities

Fig. 10.3  Analysis of the potential to transform society towards the sustainability vision under each Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP)-based IMPRESSIONS scenarios. The potential is the result of combining different levels of capitals and capacities in each case study in 2100. The capacities assessed are stewarding (S), unlocking (U), transformative (T) and orchestrating (O). Their position on the y-axis depends on the combined level of human and social capital (Adapted from Pedde et al. 2019)

10  CAPACITIES IN HIGH-END SCENARIOS IN EUROPE … 

371

towards 2100, as the new sustainability paradigm is established and the importance of opposition networks decreases. In the Eur-SSP1, strong international cooperation and institutions, most importantly the political integration of European countries in view of shared sustainability priorities, enable the establishment of multi-level governance and an early shift towards a sustainability focus. European institutions also play a positive role in enabling a strong early push towards sustainability in the Hungarian and Iberian SSP1 (a “European social framework” in Iberia and the European Union in Hungary), in combination with bottom-up participation and municipality-level sustainability-oriented investments and governance. Only in the Scottish SSP1, the trigger towards sustainability is not directly enabled by the European Union but rather by the Scottish government. In SSP3, capacities and capitals decline in all case studies: SSP3 has “very low” or “low” potential in all case studies due to the power of “elites” coupled with conflicts and disparities. However, stewarding, unlocking and orchestrating capacity can grow as people organise themselves into communities of interest to counter the status quo, and to share resources such as food (as in the Hungarian and Scottish case studies). This provides some stability and decreases conflict, albeit with larger inequalities than at present. Unlocking capacity brings the potential for novel networks, unconstrained by top-down enforcement given the lack of leadership. The potential for a reversal of the status quo is limited by the general lack of coordination and competing interests of counter-movements. In the Eur-SSP3, the European Union collapses but “richer (ex) Member States” can still afford clean technology, clean water, energy and health services. The cause of the overall decrease of capacities is the focus on short-term governance, weak leadership and low investment for innovation. The lack of reflexivity and learning from tested solutions results in generally low stewarding, transformative and orchestrating capacities, apart from in the Scottish case study, where governance and innovation are managed by large companies. Despite generally having higher capitals than SSP3, due to more stability and economic growth, the overall potential of SSP4 is “low” or “medium” across all case studies, similar to or only slightly higher than SSP3. The reasons for this are assumptions on societal fragmentation and a combination of low capacity for local actors with higher capacity of actors at national or European level. Cohesion, collaboration and networks do exist in SSP4 within social classes (unlike the more conflictual

372  S. PEDDE ET AL.

SSP3 scenarios). Capacities and capitals are high for the elite, who adopt green technology, but low for the majority. This stratification and social exclusion limit the capitals and capacities, and thus the overall potential to transform. In Europe, Iberia and Scotland, powerful multinationals exert a stabilising influence which enables cooperation (orchestrating capacity) and innovation (transformative capacity). These capacities are however exercised in a very top-down manner due to the concentration of power, and learning is limited due to competition, political and economic power-grabbing and large-scale social exclusion. In Hungary, social networks and reflexive learning together with the existence of counter-movements until 2070 generate high stewarding and unlocking capacity, enabling communities to push for sustainability and resilience. At national level, however, the focus is on day to day survival and coping, low investments and rigid top-down maintenance of status throughout the whole scenario, de facto decreasing the potential of local actors. SSP5 shows the greatest variation of capitals and capacities between case studies: the potential ranges from “very low” to “very high”. Human and social capitals are high in Europe and Iberia but low in Scotland and Hungary. In Europe and Scotland, high stewarding and transformative capacity are available, as risk-taking and uncertainty are embraced and innovation is embedded. However, the lack of engaged political culture tends to reduce the potential in all case studies. A U-turn towards sustainability emerges in all SSP5 case studies by 2100, but this happens smoothly in Europe and Scotland whereas in Hungary and Iberia, with lower transformative potential, the transition is much more chaotic. Although all SSP5 case studies share the common traits of economic development and social equality, the effect of individualism, economic growth (linked to high resource exploitation and consumption) and environmental damage were perceived differently in different case studies. Scotland and Iberia end up with medium unlocking capacity, consistent with lack of support for the status quo and effective opposition. Because other capacities and/or capitals are limited, overall potential remains close to “medium”, except for Europe (and Scotland, to an extent) where potential is “high” due to the availability of knowledge, capitals, technology and preparedness to shift to “re-emergence of investments in renewables” when needed. In summary, these results show important differences in the way in which capacities are manifested both between case studies and between SSPs. For example, in SSP5 (and to some extent in SSP4) transformative

10  CAPACITIES IN HIGH-END SCENARIOS IN EUROPE … 

373

capacities enable large-scale deployment of high-tech solutions, whereas in SSP3 unlocking and orchestrating capacities can grow and enable low-technology community-based action and social innovation.

10.4   Lessons Learnt from Integrating Capacities in the SSP-Based IMPRESSIONS Scenarios Our approach to applying the capacities framework to socioeconomic scenarios improves the policy relevance of the scenarios, and complements the “problem focus” of existing climate science approaches with a focus on “who is the solution”. Specifically, this approach facilitated the development of robust transformation pathways by the underlying challenges and opportunities of diverse actors to achieve sustainability visions across a range of uncertainty contexts (Hölscher et al., Chapter 11, this volume), The capacities framework adapted in Table 10.1 for scenario analysis together with capitals assessment has resulted in the assessment of the potential for society to transform because of agency capacities. The assessment highlighted nuances and different potential across the same SSPs, such as the relatively low potential to transform in SSP5 in Hungary compared to relatively high potential in the European case study. The mismatches between capacity categories and assumptions behind the scenarios can be explained by the uncertainty due to (1) the interpretative nature of the capacity categories and (2) the diverging worldviews and opinions on the social challenges to sustainability. Although studies such as Rockström et al. (2017) suggest clear decadal steps to be undertaken at global level for the road to sustainability, the sub-global level shows diverging opinions because different beliefs and stakes are accounted for in order to enable the (global) action. The analysis also reveals interesting and surprising opportunities for actors. While SSP3 can be generally considered the most grim scenario, the high level of unlocking capacity offers opportunities for creating fundamentally new systems. Specifically, the analysis reveals very different possible entry points to action, including more top-down and strategic policy action in SSP4 scenarios, market-based approaches in SSP5 scenarios and collaborative and multi-level governance in SSP1 scenarios. This is evident in the differences of how the agency capacities are mobilised in the pathways, which were developed in IMPRESSIONS in a subsequent step to navigate towards the vision within these scenario contexts (Hölscher et al., Chapter 11, this volume; Frantzeskaki et al. 2019).

374  S. PEDDE ET AL.

The capitals and capacities dimensions integrated in the SSP-based IMPRESSIONS scenarios complement actor-based, participatory scenario approaches (Klein and Juhola 2014), narratives-only approaches (Nilsson et al. 2017) and fully empirical studies that cannot be directly applicable in other geographical areas or sectors (Chaudhury et al. 2013; Vervoort et al. 2014). Because the approach is systematic, it can be applied and tested in other geographical areas and sectors to increase comparability, in spite of the inevitable interpretative nature of narratives. Because of its conceptual simplicity, the approach could appeal to ­decision-makers and practitioners (Klein and Juhola 2014) and enhance the use of scenarios to explore how agency affects, and is able to affect, the future (Falardeau et al. 2019). The categories of capacities in Table 10.1 can enable impact modellers to include qualitative and quantitative information about the SSP context, beyond GDP and population-based indicators (Barrington-Leigh and Galbraith 2019). Although the match between scenarios and capital-capacities framework could be operationalised, some conceptual mismatch between the results in Fig. 10.3 and the capacities framework of Table 10.1 have emerged. The main mismatch was for stewarding capacity in SSP1 and SSP5. With low challenges to adaptation and mitigation, SSP1 implies some level of transformation towards the sustainable vision. However, the stewarding capacity inferred from analysis of the scenario did not fit perfectly in either the “medium” or “high” category in our framework (Table 10.1). This mismatch results from the normative conceptualisation of the capacities as ideal-type conditions and actor abilities, while the SSPs outline very divergent socioeconomic scenarios. We nevertheless show that the application of the framework enriches the understanding potential in scenarios, by providing overarching analytical categories.

10.5  Conclusion Our study has developed a transferable method for assessing the ability of society to achieve the societal transformation necessary to meet climate targets, which has been tested across a range of spatial scales in European case studies. The assessment of capitals and capacities in the SSPs has the potential to inform a more realistic assessment of the potential uptake and effectiveness of a range of adaptation and mitigation measures needed to decrease trade-offs towards the achievement of a sustainable vision by taking account of the diverse scenario-specific constraints and enablers.

10  CAPACITIES IN HIGH-END SCENARIOS IN EUROPE … 

375

The results at sub-global level have highlighted different potentials to achieve the vision for the same SSP across different case study areas, not only due to scale effects, but also to the normativity of the SSPs and the different beliefs and stakes of local actors that must be taken into account in order to enable change at global scale. Even in the most archetypal SSP1 and SSP3 scenarios, the capacities to enable change result in multiple possibilities to act which may lead to trade-offs or give unexpected opportunities for transformation, such as in SSP3. The case studies consistently show that the SSPs with least challenges to mitigation, SSP1 and SSP4, have very different potentials for transformation, with SSP1 having a high or very high potential whereas SSP4 is restricted to low or medium potential due to high levels of inequality. Likewise the two SSPs with highest challenges to mitigation, SSP3 and SSP5, have different potentials, with SSP5 having the highest potential in those case study versions with higher capitals and lower social inequality. This study highlights the critical role played by social and human capital, and also by agency capacity to mobilise and create these capitals despite different socioeconomic trends, for example, by investing in human and natural resources, orchestrating collaboration in alignment with long-term goals for positive change, unlocking existing unsustainable path-dependencies in behaviours, values, market patterns, institutions, etc., and developing social, technological and governance innovations. These capitals and capacities are essential to enable the rapid innovations, behavioural change and international coordination needed to achieve sustainability. Consideration of future changes in capitals and capacities alongside integrated assessment model projections could help to inform policymaking and determine the actions and strategies needed to achieve ambitious climate targets. Acknowledgements    The authors would like to thank colleagues of the IMPRESSIONS project who contributed to the activities discussed in this chapter and to the many stakeholders who participated so enthusiastically within the IMPRESSIONS workshops. IMPRESSIONS was funded by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under Grant Agreement Number 603416.

376  S. PEDDE ET AL.

References Alcamo, J., & Henrichs, T. (2008). Towards guidelines for environmental scenario analysis. Environmental Futures: The Practice of Environmental Scenario Analysis, 2, 13–35. Barrington-Leigh, C., & Galbraith, E. (2019). Feasible future global scenarios for human life evaluations. Nature Communications, 10(1), 1–8. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41467-018-08002-2. Berry, P. M., Betts, R. A., Harrison, P. A., & Sanchez-Arcilla, A. (Eds.). (2017). High-end climate change in Europe. Available from http://highendclimateresearch.eu/. Boyd, E., Ensor, J., Broto, V. C., & Juhola, S. (2014). Environmentalities of urban climate governance in Maputo, Mozambique. Global Environmental Change, 26, 140–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.03.012. Börjeson, L., Höjer, M., Dreborg, K.-H., Ekvall, T., & Finnveden, G. (2006). Scenario types and techniques: Towards a user’s guide. Futures, 38, 723–739. Cash, D. W., Adger, W. N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., et al. (2006). Scale and cross-scale dynamics: Governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society, 11, 8. Chaudhury, M., Vervoort, J., Kristjanson, P., Ericksen, P., & Ainslie, A. (2013). Participatory scenarios as a tool to link science and policy on food security under climate change in East Africa. Regional Environmental Change, 13, 389–398. Falardeau, M., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., & Bennett, E. M. (2019). A novel approach for co-producing positive scenarios that explore agency: Case study from the Canadian Arctic. Sustainability Science, 14, 205–220. Folke, C., Biggs, R., Norström, A., Reyers, B., & Rockström, J. (2016). ­Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecology and Society, 21(3). https://doi.org/10.5751/es-08748-210341. Frantzeskaki, N., Hölscher, K., Holman, I. P., Pedde, S., Jaeger, J., Kok, K., et al. (2019). Transition pathways to sustainability in greater than 2°C climate futures of Europe. Regional Environmental Change, 19, 777–789. Garud, R., Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2007). Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded agency: An introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies, 28(7), 957–969. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607078958. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press. Gramberger, M., Zellmer, K., Kok, K., & Metzger, M. (2015). Stakeholder Integrated Research (STIR): A new approach tested in climate change adaptation research. Climatic Change, 128, 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10584-014-1225-x. Grin, J., Rotmans, J., & Schot, J. (2010). Transitions to sustainable development: New directions in the study of long term transformative change. New York: Routledge.

10  CAPACITIES IN HIGH-END SCENARIOS IN EUROPE … 

377

Harrison, P. A., Dunford, R. W., Holman, I. P., Cojocaru, G., Madsen, M. S., Chen, P.-Y., et al. (2018). Differences between low-end and high-end climate change impacts in Europe across multiple sectors. Regional Environmental Change, 1–15. Harrison, P. A., Holman, I. P., & Berry, P. M. (2015). Assessing cross-sectoral climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation: An introduction to the CLIMSAVE project. Climatic Change, 128, 153–167. Harrison, P. A., Jäger, J., Frantzeskaki, N., & Berry, P. (2019). Understanding high-end climate change: From impacts to co-creating integrated and transformative solutions. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01477-9. Holman, I. P., Audsley, E., Berry, P., Brown, C., Bugmann, H., Clarke, L., Cojocaru, G., et al. (2017). Modelling climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability in Europe. IMPRESSIONS Deliverable D3B.2. Available from www.impressions-project.eu. Holman, I. P., Harrison, P. A., & Metzger, M. (2016). Cross-sectoral impacts of climate and socio-economic change in Scotland: Implications for adaptation policy. Regional Environmental Change, 1–13. Hölscher, K. (2019, September 6). Transforming urban climate governance: Capacities for transformative climate governance. Erasmus University Rotterdam. Available from http://hdl.handle.net/1765/118721. IPBES. (2016). The Methodological Assessment Report on Scenarios and Models of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. In S. Ferrier, K. N. Ninan, P. Leadley, R. Alkemade, L. A. Acosta, H. R. Akçakaya, L. Brotons, W. W. L. Cheung, V. Christensen, K. A. Harhash, J. Kabubo-Mariara, C. Lundquist, M. Obersteiner, H. M. Pereira, G. Peterson, R. Pichs-Madruga, N. Ravindranath, C. Rondinini, & B. A. Wintle (Eds.), Secretariat of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bonn, Germany. 348 pages. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3235428. IPCC. (2018). Summary for Policymakers. In V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H. O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, & T. Waterfield (Eds.), Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 32 pp. Jäger, J., Rounsevell, M. D. A., Harrison, P. A., Omann, I., Dunford, R., Kammerlander, M., et al. (2015). Assessing policy robustness of climate change adaptation measures across sectors and scenarios. Climatic Change, 128, 395–407. Klein, R. J. T., & Juhola, S. (2014). A framework for Nordic actor-oriented climate adaptation research. Environmental Science & Policy, 40, 101–115.

378  S. PEDDE ET AL. Kok, K., Biggs, R., & Zurek, M. (2007). Methods for developing multiscale participatory scenarios: Insights from southern Africa and Europe. Ecology and Society, 12(1). Retrieved July 5, 2020. Kok, K., Christensen, J. H., Madsen, M. S., Pedde, S., Gramberger, M., Jaeger, J., et al. (2015). Evaluation of existing climate and socio-economic scenarios including a detailed description of the final selection. IMPRESSIONS Deliverable D2.1. Available from www.impressions-project.eu. Kok, K., & Pedde, S. (2016). IMPRESSIONS socio-economic scenarios. EU FP7 IMPRESSIONS Project Deliverable D2.2. Available from www.impressions-project.eu. Kok, K., Pedde, S., Gramberger, M., Harrison, P. A., & Holman, I. P. (2018). New European socio-economic scenarios for climate change research: Operationalising concepts to extend the shared socio-economic pathways. Regional Environmental Change. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10113-018-1400-0. Kriegler, E., Edmonds, J., Hallegatte, S., Ebi, K., Kram, T., Riahi, K., et al. (2014). A new scenario framework for climate change research: The concept of shared climate policy assumptions. Climatic Change, 122, 401–414. Kriegler, E., O’Neill, B. C., Hallegatte, S., Kram, T., Lempert, R. J., Moss, R. H., et al. (2012). The need for and use of socio-economic scenarios for climate change analysis: A new approach based on shared socio-economic pathways. Global Environmental Change, 22, 807–822. Li, S., Juhász-Horváth, L., Harrison, P. A., Pintér, L., & Rounsevell, M. D. (2016). Population and age structure in Hungary: A residential preference and age dependency approach to disaggregate census data. Journal of Maps, 12(sup1), 560–569. Li, S., Juhász-Horváth, L., Pedde, S., Pintér, L., Rounsevell, M. D., & Harrison, P. A. (2017). Integrated modelling of urban spatial development under uncertain climate futures: A case study in Hungary. Environmental Modelling & Software, 96, 251–264. Li, S., Juhász‐Horváth, L., Trájer, A., Pintér, L., Rounsevell, M. D. A., & Harrison, P. A. (2018). Lifestyle, habitat and farmers’ risk of exposure to tick bites in an endemic area of tick‐borne diseases in Hungary. Zoonoses and Public Health, 65(1), e248–e253. Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N., & Avelino, F. (2017). Sustainability transitions research: Transforming science and practice for societal change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 42, 599–626. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021340. Moss, R. H., Edmonds, J. A., Hibbard, K. A., Manning, M. R., Rose, S. K., van Vuuren, D. P., et al. (2010). The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature, 463, 747–756.

10  CAPACITIES IN HIGH-END SCENARIOS IN EUROPE … 

379

Nakicenovic, N., Lempert, R. J., & Janetos, A. C. (2014). A framework for the development of new socio-economic scenarios for climate change research: Introductory essay. Climatic Change, 122, 351–361. Nilsson, A. E., Bay-Larsen, I., Carlsen, H., van Oort, B., Bjørkan, M., Jylhä, K., et al. (2017). Towards extended shared socio-economic pathways: A combined participatory bottom-up and top-down methodology with results from the Barents region. Global Environmental Change, 45, 124–132. Olsson, P., Galaz, V., & Boonstra, W. (2014). Sustainability transformations: A resilience perspective. Ecology and Society, 19. O’Brien, K. (2015). Political agency: The key to tackling climate change. Science, 350, 1170–1171. O’Brien, K. L. (2016). Climate change and social transformations: Is it time for a quantum leap? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7, 618–626. O’Neill, B. C., Kriegler, E., Ebi, K. L., Kemp-Benedict, E., Riahi, K., Rothman, D. S., et al. (2017). The roads ahead: Narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Global Environmental Change, 42, 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.01.004. O’Neill, B. C., Kriegler, E., Riahi, K., Ebi, K., Hallegatte, S., Carter, T., et al. (2015). A new scenario framework for climate change research: The concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Climatic Change, 122, 387–400. Pedde, S. (2019). Advancing the development and use of climate-change scenarios: A multi-scale analysis to explore socio-economic European futures. Wageningen: Wageningen University. https://doi.org/10.18174/466803. Pedde, S., Kok, K., Onigkeit, J., Brown, C., Holman, I. P., & Harrison, P. A. (2018). Bridging uncertainty concepts across narratives and simulations in environmental scenarios. Regional Environmental Change. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10113-018-1338-2. Pedde, S., Kok, K., Hölscher, K., Frantzeskaki, N., Holman, I., Dunford, R., et al. (2019). Advancing the use of scenarios to understand society’s capacity to achieve the 1.5 degree target. Global Environmental Change, 56, 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.03.010. Porritt, J. (2007). The five capitals framework, capitalism as if the world matters (pp. 137–142). London, UK: Earthscan. Rauschmayer, F., Bauler, T., & Schäpke, N. (2015). Towards a thick understanding of sustainability transitions—Linking transition management, capabilities and social practices. Ecological Economics, 109, 211–221. Riahi, K., van Vuuren, D. P., Kriegler, E., Edmonds, J., O’Neill, B. C., Fujimori, S., et al. (2017). The shared socio-economic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview. Global Environmental Change, 42, 153–168. Rockström, J., Gaffney, O., Rogelj, J., et. al. (2017). A roadmap for rapid decarbonization. Science, 355(6331).

380  S. PEDDE ET AL. Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney, O., & Ludwig, C. (2015). The trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration. The Anthropocene Review, 2(1), 81–98. Tàbara, J. D., Jäger, J., Mangalagiu, D., & Grasso, M. (2018a). Defining transformative climate science to address high-end climate change. Regional Environmental Change. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1288-8. Tàbara, J. D., Frantzeskaki, N., Hölscher, K., Pedde, S., Kok, K., Lamperti, F., et al. (2018b). Positive tipping points in a rapidly warming world. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 31, 120–129. Tinch, R., Jäger, J., Omann, I., Harrison, P. A., Wesely, J., & Dunford, R. (2015). Applying a capitals framework to measuring coping and adaptive capacity in integrated assessment models. Climatic Change, 128, 323–337. UN, United Nations. (2015). Paris Agreement. https://unfccc.int/sites/ default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf. Accessed October 4, 2018. UN, United Nations. (2016). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. A/Res/70/1. http://www.un.org/en/development/ desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_ RES_70_1_E.pdf. Accessed October 4, 2018. Van der Zwaan, B., Calvin, K. V., & Clarke, L. E. (2016). Climate mitigation in Latin America: Implications for energy and land use: Preface to the special section on the findings of the CLIMACAP-LAMP project. Energy Economics, Medium: ED; Size: pp. 495–498. Van Ruijven, B., Levy, M., Agrawal, A., Biermann, F., Birkmann, J., Carter, T., et al. (2014). Enhancing the relevance of Shared Socio-economic Pathways for climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability research. Climatic Change, 122, 481–494. Van Vuuren, D., Edmonds, J., Kainuma, M., Riahi, K., Thomson, A., Hibbard, K., et al. (2011). The representative concentration pathways: An overview. Climatic Change, 109, 5–31. Van Vuuren, D., Kriegler, E., O’Neill, B., Ebi, K., Riahi, K., Carter, T., et al. (2014). A new scenario framework for Climate Change Research: Scenario matrix architecture. Climatic Change, 122, 373–386. Vervoort, J. M., Thornton, P. K., Kristjanson, P., Förch, W., Ericksen, P. J., Kok, K., et al. (2014). Challenges to scenario-guided adaptive action on food security under climate change. Global Environmental Change, 28, 383–394. Westley, F., Tjornbo, O., Schultz, L., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Crona, B., et al. (2013). A theory of transformative agency in linked social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 18(3), 27. Zurek, M. B., & Henrichs, T. (2007). Linking scenarios across geographical scales in international environmental assessments. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74, 1282–1295.

CHAPTER 11

Agency Capacities to Implement Transition Pathways Under High-End Scenarios Katharina Hölscher, Niki Frantzeskaki, Simona Pedde, and Ian Holman

11.1  Introduction Responding to the complex challenges posed by ‘high-end’ ­socio-economic and climate scenarios (Holman et al., Chapter 8, this volume) and proactively shaping societal development trajectories requires new approaches and responses to support transformations to a sustainable and resilient future in the long-term (Tábara et al. 2018; O’Brien and Selboe 2015). So far there is limited knowledge about how such long-term and systemic solution approaches would look like in practice, how they can be strengthened and applied and how to measure their effectiveness. K. Hölscher (*) · N. Frantzeskaki  Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] N. Frantzeskaki  Centre for Urban Transitions, Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 K. Hölscher and N. Frantzeskaki (eds.), Transformative Climate Governance, Palgrave Studies in Environmental Transformation, Transition and Accountability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49040-9_11

381

382  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

The concept of ‘transition pathways’ is used in scientific and policy communities as a way to shift the focus and thinking from problems to solutions: transition pathways frame the challenge of envisioning and achieving transformative change towards a desirable—sustainable, low-carbon, just and resilient—future (Rosenbloom 2017; Wise et al. 2014; O’Brien 2018; van der Voorn et al. 2017). The pathways concept guides aspirational and integrated thinking about strategies and actions that are oriented towards long-term and normative goals (Leach et al. 2010; Turnheim et al. 2015). Transition pathways are transformative, which means that they facilitate the radical structural changes of sociocultural, institutional, political, economic, technological and ecological dimensions of societal systems that are needed to achieve the vision (Frantzeskaki et al. 2019; Nevens et al. 2013). The systemic perspective enables integrative approaches that recognise synergies and t­rade-offs between multiple policy domains and goals associated with societal well-being (McHale et al. 2015; Pelling et al. 2015). The capacities lens enables to zoom in on what type of agency is underpinning the realisation of pathways. Transition pathways do not only help to identify ‘what’ needs to be done in terms of strategies, goals and solutions, they also provide knowledge about ‘how’ to put the pathway in motion and ‘who’ is responsible for this. Transition pathways are multi-actor; that is, they are carried by and rely on the engagement of all kinds of societal actors—including governments, businesses, entrepreneurs, NGOs, associations, researchers, citizens, etc. (Hölscher et al. 2018; Fischer and Newig 2016; Ziervogel et al. 2016; Westley et al. 2013). A focus on agency capacities in transition pathways therefore helps to elucidate ‘who is the solution’ and to formulate practical recommendations: What actors can do to motivate and organise the financial resources, knowledge and expertise, support and networks needed for implementing the transition pathways? In this chapter, we present the agency capacities present in transition pathways in four case studies at different scales in Europe. This responds S. Pedde  Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] I. Holman  Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK e-mail: [email protected]

11  AGENCY CAPACITIES TO IMPLEMENT TRANSITION PATHWAYS … 

383

to the question: What capacities do we need, and how can they be strengthened, to achieve transformations towards sustainability and resilience? We identify capacities that are robust across a range of uncertain futures by looking at transition pathways that are robust across multiple socio-economic scenarios in Europe. We first introduce the IMPRESSIONS’ conceptual and methodological approach to co-producing (robust) transition pathways and capacities with stakeholders in four case studies at multiple scales in Europe (Sect. 11.2). We then present our analysis of the capacities present in the three robust transition pathways, highlighting case and ­ scenario-specific differences (Sect. 11.3). This allows us to describe and explain what types of capacities are needed to achieve sustainability and resilience transformations and to derive key conditions for strengthening these (Sect. 11.4). We conclude by reflecting on the utility of our IMPRESSIONS’ co-production approach and the application of the capacities framework for generating policy- and practice-relevant knowledge about how to steer societal transformations under climate change (Sect. 11.5).

11.2  Transition Pathways and Robust Capacities Under High-End Scenarios Within the IMPRESSIONS project (www.impressions-project.eu), the aim was to co-produce with stakeholders sets of transition pathways that address the opportunities and constraints within individual socio-economic and climate scenarios to mitigate climate change, prepare and protect societies from the impacts of climate change and support transformations towards sustainability and resilience (Holman et al., Chapter 8, this volume). We have co-developed (robust) transition pathways in four case studies at multiple scales in Europe: European continental scale, two regional case studies (Scotland and an Iberian transboundary river basin) and two Hungarian municipalities as the local case study. The pathways encompass multiple strategies and actions to achieve a long-term and desirable vision. They embody agency capacities that relate to the actors, activities and conditions that are needed to implement the pathways. This section introduces the conceptual and methodological approach for co-producing robust transition pathways (Sect. 11.2.1) and presents an overview of the transition pathways that are robust across scenarios and case studies (Sect. 11.2.2). The full methodological steps and results

384  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

(visions and pathways) are given in Appendices B and C. We then outline the agency capacity’s perspective on transition pathways and how it helps to explain how and by whom the pathways are implemented (Sect. 11.2.3). 11.2.1   Conceptual and Methodological Approach for Co-producing Robust Transition Pathways We have co-produced transition pathways in an iterative and participatory process with diverse yet representative stakeholders from the four case studies. Our approach builds on transition management as a step-wise operational framework that moves from problem definition and vision generation to strategy formulation and implementation to deal with the persistent unsustainability problems (Frantzeskaki et al., Chapter 9, this volume; Frantzeskaki et al. 2018; Loorbach 2010). Our main objectives were to generate sets of transition pathways per case study that address the opportunities and constraints within individual socio-economic and climate scenario contexts to achieve a commonly defined vision for 2100. We analysed the pathways to identify those which are robust over a broad range of plausible socio-economic and climatic conditions given the uncertainty associated with high-end scenarios. Our conceptual and methodological approach combines a vision as a normative endpoint and high-end scenarios of plausible socio-economic and climate futures and consequences to co-produce transition pathways (Holman et al., Chapter 8, this volume). In summary, our approach builds on these four key concepts and methodological building blocks: • Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) and Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and impacts from RCP-SSP combinations—plausible futures and consequences without action: For each case study, four scenarios were used as contrasting, divergent and plausible future contexts that capture the range of future uncertainty for the pathway development. The scenarios combine downscaled climate scenarios based on RCPs (van Vuuren et al. 2011) and socio-economic scenarios based on the SSPs (O’Neill et al. 2017). The high-end socio-economic scenarios describe the drivers for impacts and vulnerability and the opportunities, barriers and capacities for building resilience and promoting sustainability for distinct plausible futures (Kok et al. 2019; Pedde et al. 2019; Pedde et al., Chapter 10, this volume).

11  AGENCY CAPACITIES TO IMPLEMENT TRANSITION PATHWAYS … 

385

• Visions—normative statements about desirable futures: For each case study, scenario-independent visions were developed that guide the development of pathways towards a desirable—sustainable and resilient—future (Hölscher et al. 2017; Appendix C). Visions are about desires, aspirations and targets for the future (Meadows 1996). Visions describe a desirable (i.e. normative) future situation to inspire, guide and assess strategic choices in the short-term, ­mid-term and long-term to facilitate radical and systemic change in the long-term (Andreescu et al. 2013; Pereira et al. 2018; Miller et al. 2015; Moore et al. 2014). The visions include normative statements about long-term social, economic and environmental conditions and practices. Visions are not meant to be static but to rather give an open-ended desirable state allowing improvement through revisiting, reflecting or even reframing them. • Transition pathways—short-, medium- and long-term strategies and actions to achieve the vision: For each case study, suites of transition pathways were developed as progressive courses of action that demonstrate how to achieve (elements of) the vision in the context of high-end scenarios (Frantzeskaki et al. 2019; Hölscher et al. 2017). The use of a long-term vision as the endpoint of the pathways provides strong guidance regarding the actions that need to be taken (Luederitz et al. 2017). The final pathways per case study and scenario represent bundles of sectoral, cross-sectoral and multi-actor strategies that are oriented towards similar vision elements. The strategies include time-dependent actions, which are carried out by one or multiple actors. In this way, the pathways provide policy-relevant knowledge on which type of action can mobilise and create conditions to achieve desirable transformations and stay clear from the socio-economic traps that h ­ igh-end scenarios present. 11.2.2   Robust Transition Pathways We have generated a total of 65 pathways—bundles of strategies that are oriented towards similar vision elements and include multiple actions— across case studies and scenarios (see Appendix C for a full overview of pathways, strategies and actions). Together, the pathways provide a normative direction and proposal on which type of actions can mobilise and create conditions to respond to high-end scenarios and navigate transformations to sustainability and resilience.

386  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

The development of suites of transition pathways across multiple scenarios and case studies (Fig. 11.1) allowed us to identify robust pathways for different socio-economic, climate and spatial contexts. Robustness is critical in view of high-end scenarios that involve deep and irreducible uncertainty. We define a pathway that is plausible in achieving the same vision element(s) across all scenarios and case studies—i.e. over a broad range of plausible socio-economic, climatic and context-specific conditions—as a robust pathway for climate change and sustainability

Fig. 11.1  Suite of three robust pathways across IMPRESSIONS case studies and scenarios

11  AGENCY CAPACITIES TO IMPLEMENT TRANSITION PATHWAYS … 

387

action. Robust pathways still allow for specific types of strategies and actions to diverge in line with scenario- and case-specific differences. We identified three sets of robust pathways across the European, Scottish, Iberian and Hungarian case studies and across all scenario combinations (Fig. 11.1). These pathways are highly interrelated and reinforce each other. For example, the pathway to shift to sustainable lifestyles promotes changes in consumption and living, underpinning the integrated resource management pathway (changing demands, practices) and sustainability governance pathway (awareness for sustainability; ­decision-making capacity). • Shift to sustainable lifestyles: This pathway appears in all case studies across all SSPs and advocates for a cultural change in ways of living, commuting, purchasing and learning for a reflexive and sustainability-oriented society. It is transversal to multiple sectors: it relates to actions about water and energy consumption, food and agriculture practices, trade approaches, production processes and (local and translocal) impacts and footprints. Shifting to sustainable lifestyles addresses societal transformations at their core: how we consume, and produce material and resources we use, how we provide for basic needs like food, water, energy and accessibility, how we relate to nature and build social relationships as core aspects of sustainability and resilience. • Governance for Sustainability: This pathway sets up t­ransparent, collaborative, learning-based and accountable governance systems oriented towards ensuring sustainability and resilience in the ­long-term. It builds on a common, long-term and systemic orientation that can motivate and guide the activities of multiple actors across sectors and scales and disclose synergies and trade-offs across multiple policy domains and goals. This perspective strengthens collaboration and participation for sustainability through international and transboundary alliances and decentralises decision-making within multi-level structures to pay attention to local opportunities and needs. • Integrated resources management at the nexus of ­food-water-energy: Integrated resources management promotes shifts towards context-sensitive, multi-functional and efficient resource management (food, water, energy) for environmental protection, resource security and European self-sufficiency. It is

388  K. HÖLSCHER ET AL.

a group of pathways that addresses diverse sectors from a holistic and ­solution-oriented, problem-based perspective, including water, energy, biodiversity and land use. The pathways allow for regional, transboundary and context-sensitive management approaches within multi-level frameworks and promote new types of practices, solutions and technologies. Across case studies, differences reflect different sectoral foci and needs (e.g. drought and heat resilience in Iberia and Hungary, and environmental protection and regeneration in Europe and Scotland) as well as different entry points to the strategies. For example, while the European pathways and strategies generally take a European policy level perspective, the Scottish, Hungarian and Iberian strategies focus on national and regional frameworks as well as local decision-making and resource management. Despite these differences, we produced a suite of robust pathways that are comparable across case studies. 11.2.3   From ‘What’ to ‘Who’ and ‘How’: Agency Capacities in Transition Pathways The implementation of pathways will depend on the abilities of all societal actors to mobilise, create and change societal structures and conditions—such as formal and informal institutions, market structures, infrastructures, knowledge and social networks (Tábara et al. 2018). Therefore, understanding how to implement pathways requires the analysis of the actors and their activities to mobilise, change and create the conditions in the system, as well as the conditions that emerge as a result. The notion of agency capacities allows us to understand how diverse actors interact over time with their context conditions to make the transition pathways a reality (Fig. 11.2; cf. Hölscher, Chapter 2, this volume). Agency is ‘the temporally constructed engagement by actors of different structural environments — the temporal-relational contexts of action — which, through the interplay of habit, imagination, and judgment, both reproduces and transforms those structures in interactive response to the problems posed by changing historical situations’ (Emirbayer and Miche 1998: 970). Accordingly, agency capacities are the abilities of multiple actors to search, change and mobilise their scenario and context-specific conditions and to implement the transition pathways.

11  AGENCY CAPACITIES TO IMPLEMENT TRANSITION PATHWAYS … 

ŐĞŶĐLJĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ

ŶĂďůŝŶŐ ĚĞůŝǀĞƌLJ

;ǁŚŽΘŚŽǁͿ

ŐĞŶĐLJ ĐƚŽƌƐĂŶĚ ŶĞƚǁŽƌŬƐĂŶĚƚŚĞŝƌ ŝŶƚĞƌĂĐƚŝŽŶƐ

ĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐ͗DŽďŝůŝƐŝŶŐ͕ ĐƌĞĂƚŝŶŐ͕ĐŚĂŶŐŝŶŐ

ŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ

ŶĂďůŝŶŐͬĚŝƐĂďůŝŶŐ ĂŐĞŶĐLJ

/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶĂů ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐ &ƵŶĚĂŵĞŶƚĂůĐŚĂŶŐĞƐŝŶƐŽĐŝĞƚĂů ŐŽĂůƐĞŵĞƌŐŝŶŐĨƌŽŵŶĞǁ ƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚLJͲŽƌŝĞŶƚĞĚŵĞĂŶƐ͕ ƉĂƌĂĚŝŐŵƐĂŶĚĐĂƉĂĐŝƚŝĞƐ͘

^ŽĐŝĞƚĂůŐŽĂůƐ

EŽƚůĞĂƌŶŝŶŐ;Žƌ ƵŶůĞĂƌŶŝŶŐͿ

͚dƌĂŶƐĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶĂů /ůůƵƐŝŽŶ͛

WƵƌƐƵŝŶŐƚŚĞƐĂŵĞŐŽĂůƐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ ƐĂŵĞŵĞĂŶƐ͕ƉĂƌĂĚŝŐŵƐĂŶĚ ĐĂƉĂĐŝƚŝĞƐ;ĂhͿ͘EŽƚƚƌĂŶƐĨŽƌŵŝŶŐ ŽƌĂĚĂƉƚŝŶŐƚŽĐŚĂŶŐŝŶŐĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ

ƚƚĞŵƉƚŝŶŐƚŽƚƌĂŶƐĨŽƌŵƐŽĐŝĞƚĂů ŐŽĂůƐďƵƚƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĞƐĂŵĞ ĐŽŶǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂůŵĞĂŶƐ͕ƉĂƌĂĚŝŐŵƐ ĂŶĚĐĂƉĂĐŝƚŝĞƐ͙

/&&ZEd ;^ƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚLJ ŽƌŝĞŶƚĞĚͿ

^D ;ĐŽŶǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂůͿ

Fig. 12.1  Aiming to achieve transformative sustainability goals requires profound transformations in the existing political, economic and socio-cultural structures and mechanisms—otherwise the means and capacities—that we currently use to attain them. Different relations between desired or existing goals and means—whether they are conventional or significantly sustainability-oriented—yield different types of learning capacities and situations

Last but not least, and in terms of governance challenges and practices, underlining the need to focus on means rather than only on general goals calls for a serious consideration of all the different kinds of functions and capacities as introduced by in the previous chapters of this book5: transforming, unlocking, stewarding and orchestrating capacities. Such capacities help open new opportunity spaces for transformations and provide orientation to collective learning in order to navigate amidst the complex processes which entail the continuous shaping and re-shaping of sustainability pathways. But also the new situation demands 5 See

Hölscher, Chapter 2, this volume.

12  SUSTAINABLE CLIMATE DEVELOPMENT … 

429

adopting a humble attitude which avoids taking a ‘God-like perspective’ both in science for policy and in governance in general. In practice, improving capacities for Sustainable Climate Governance is likely to be a very messy and bumpy-ride business, full of vested interests and complications in where multiple complex systems of action interpretrate at multiple levels and timeframes. So in this long-term but urgent common journey, we can only hope to be warned, to improve our anticipatory capacities and to learn from each of the important lessons that open and frank collaborations, as those provided in this book, bring us. Acknowledgements   This chapter received funding from the Swedish Formas Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning, under the Call ‘Perspectives on the Sustainable Development Goals 2018’.

References Galafassi, D., Tàbara, J. D., & Heras, M. (2018). Restoring our senses, restoring the Earth. Fostering imaginative capacities through arts for envisioning climate transformations. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, 6(1), 69. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.330. Giner, S., & Tàbara, J. D. (1999). Cosmic piety and ecological rationality. International Sociology, 14, 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/02685809990 14001004. IPBES. (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. SPM. https://www.ipbes.net. O’Brien, K. (2016). Climate change and social transformations: Is it time for a quantum leap? WIREs Climate Change, 2016(7), 618–626. https://doi. org/10.1002/wcc.413. Pahl-Wostl, C., Tàbara, J. D., Bouwen, R., Craps, M., Dewulf, A., Mostert, E., et al. (2007). The importance of social learning and culture for sustainable resources management. Ecological Economics, 64(3), 484–495. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.007. Steffen, W., Rockström, J., Richardson, K., Lenton, T. M., Folke, C., Liverman, D., et al. (2018). Trajectories of the earth system in the Anthropocene. PNAS, 113(33), 8252–8259. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810141115. Tàbara, J. D., & Chabay, I. (2012). Coupling human information and knowledge systems with social-ecological systems change: Reframing research, education and policy for sustainability. Environmental Science & Policy, 28, 71–81. Tàbara, J. D., Frantzeskaki, N., Hölscher, K., Pedde, S., Lamperti, F., Kok, K., et al. (2018). Positive tipping points in a rapidly warming world. Current

430  J. DAVID TÀBARA Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 31, 120–129. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.01.012. Tàbara, J. D., St. Clair, A. L., & Hermansen, E. A. T. (2017). Transforming communication and knowledge production processes to address high-end climate change. Environmental Science & Policy, 70, 31–37. Tàbara, J. D., Takama, T., Mishra, M., Hermanus, L., Andrew, S. K., Diaz, P., et al. (2019). Micro-solutions to global problems: Understanding social processes to eradicate energy poverty and build climate resilient livelihoods. Climatic Change, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02448-z.

CHAPTER 13

Transforming Climate Governance? Why Climate Governance Is Failing and What to Do About It Derk Loorbach

13.1  Introduction This book explores new approaches and capacities for climate g ­ overnance to contribute to transformative change in society. In this viewpoint, I will argue that the label of ‘climate governance’ in itself is problematic. Its associated discourse and structures prevent achieving transformative changes in societal systems. Taking a socio-institutional transitions perspective (Loorbach et al. 2017), my argument is that climate governance has become part of the problem because of its primary focus on symptoms of an unsustainable economic development pathway. By emphasizing the analysis and policies to address symptoms, rather than its underlying causes, climate governance has locked-itself into a focus on climate-related emissions and impacts and how to reduce these. This approach focuses on D. Loorbach (*)  Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 K. Hölscher and N. Frantzeskaki (eds.), Transformative Climate Governance, Palgrave Studies in Environmental Transformation, Transition and Accountability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49040-9_13

431

432  D. LOORBACH

slowing down negative trends‚ instead of that it supports transformative change. In this way, climate governance fails to see emerging sustainability alternatives and desired future pathways that might lead to positive futures (Tàbara et al. 2018). Sustainability transitions research provides a starting point to develop complementary transition governance strategies that start from the promise and potential of emerging sustainability transitions in society and explores how these could be supported, accelerated and guided to constitute transitions to nature positive, carbon neutral as well as inclusive and just economies in the future (Ürge-Vorsatz et al. 2018). I will thus build upon the central idea of this book that a transformation of climate governance is needed, and I will explore this idea by focusing on the global climate governance regime: What are key leverage mechanisms for developing transformative climate governance capacities that can actually support sustainability transitions?

13.2  The Climate Governance Regime As outlined in the first chapter of this book (Hölscher and Frantzeskaki, Chapter 1, this volume), over the past decades a strong regime has been built up around climate change. This includes institutional structures, scientific processes and deep knowledge, a shared discourse and shared practices. This ‘climate governance regime’ has developed around a focus on climate mitigation as strategies to reduce or prevent (the consequences of) CO2 emissions and adaptation as strategy to prepare and cope with the impacts of climate change. It has been supported by sophisticated science-policy processes, with the IPCC at its core, that have led to the growing consensus around the human contributions to climate change and the need for policy intervention. The sequences of global meetings, scientific processes and stakeholder engagements have been quintessential in moving the global community towards the broad acknowledgement of climate change as a man-made problem. The Paris Agreement can be seen as the ultimate success in organizing scientific consensus to support political consensus and ultimately decision-making. The ‘climate governance regime’ can be characterized by, for example: – A focus on climate change as separate topic and problem to be solved (instead of as symptom of an unsustainable economy). – A dominant frame of mitigation and adaptation in which politics, power and vested interests are filtered out and everything can co-exist.

13  TRANSFORMING CLIMATE GOVERNANCE? WHY CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

433

– A policy-centric governance not taking into account all sorts of external, bottom-up alternatives, emerging alternative economies, social entrepreneurship, etc. – A rational science-policy worldview often not taking into account, let alone mobilizing, sociocultural factors like emotions, fake news, intuition, psychology, behavioural change, social movement, etc. – A process design and approaches that prioritize incremental ­short-term optimization steps that build upon the existing rather than providing stepping stones for radical change. Therefore, the cultures, structures and practices that have been built up since the UN Convention in Rio 1992 also have created their own path-dependencies and lock-ins that are increasingly problematic. The dominant focus in many ways is on quantitative and natural s­ cience-based understanding of the impact of emissions on our global climate system and developing support for policy to intervene. The natural science and quantitative or modelling-based approaches suggest objectivity and control, but fail to take into account societal complexities, ambiguities and uncertainties. For example related to dynamics of social and institutional transformation, politicisation and framing or the role of new and emerging markets. The IPCC process and its associated institutions and procedures fully focus on scientific underpinning of the link between human caused CO2 emissions and their potential negative impacts now and in the future. It is, in other words, predominantly organized around problem analysis and creating political and societal acceptance of this problem and the urgency to act that stems from this analysis. This focus fails to provide guidance on how to navigate future pathways to address this problem, specifically in the context of a desirable, normative future that will be contested and chaotic. One can argue that the Paris Agreement in many ways is the ultimate success of this approach: the scientific consensus about the nature of the problem and drivers of climate change has led to political consensus and support for policy action. But it is hardly a new observation in the scientific and institutional context that efforts to date and emission-reduction commitments by national governments are not enough to achieve the 2 degree target, let alone the 1.5 degree target (IPCC 2018, Arvai et al. 2006). Additionally, it seems questionable that countries will be able in general to achieve their commitments at all, given poor track record of countries to achieve sustainability targets. This in itself is a symptom of the described lock-in: rationally and macro-politically there is now a commitment to limit climate change, but everyday practices and business as usual persistently continue along the

434  D. LOORBACH

pathway of unsustainability. The recent COP in Madrid in 2019, the continuing increase of emissions and the hundreds of billions of dollars invested in fossil infrastructures since Paris are dire illustrations of this. It is therefore increasingly clear that transformative changes are needed to bring ambitions and desirable futures into reality, which not only applies to transformative changes in society but also relate to the way we are collectively addressing this problem through climate governance. The climate governance regime, which includes the scientific as well as the governance approaches, in many ways needs to engage with transformative change itself (Jordan et al. 2018). In recent publications such as IPPC’s special report ‘Global Warming of 1.5’ (IPCC 2018)‚ first steps are made to include more social science perspectives and create support for policies that support transformative change. This rationally seems like a logical step but in itself implies a fundamental change in how the science-policy process works and is oriented. As climate change in the real world accelerating beyond the more conservative predictions, there is a rapidly increasing public support and call for more decisive action. Climate strikes, climate court cases and support for green political parties are increasing. At the same time, resistance against change through lobby, populist politics and fake news is also on the rise. The rational and incremental science-policy approach underlying the climate governance regime is in this context increasingly problematic (Beck and Mahony 2018). While it has offered the basis for a broader societal consensus on the drivers and dangers of climate change, it does not offer much insight into how the changes necessary to achieve climate stable futures could take place. The inability to achieve rapid transformative changes to phase out fossil fuel (emissions) and shift to circular use of resources and food systems that benefit our natural environment might drive ecosystems beyond tipping points triggering accelerated and disruptive changes (Scheffer 2010; Rockstrom et al. 2009). Economic and societal pressures on our environment make such tipping points more likely to occur and efforts to remediate and soften the negative impacts seem to be insufficient to reduce those risks fundamentally. We are thus entering a period in which external real-life climate change and impacts create a context in which the support for intervention will only grow, while having policy-science processes still optimized around gaining support and formulating policy advice that historically is only implemented to a very limited degree and most likely will not produce the kind of changes intended to achieve. Transformative climate

13  TRANSFORMING CLIMATE GOVERNANCE? WHY CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

435

governance, the underlying idea in this book, therefore implies finding a radically new starting point, perspective, purpose and practice. It needs to start by addressing the root causes that produce ‘symptoms of unsustainability’ and explore how to shift to radically new ways to produce and consume and reorient (economic) development pathways towards an economy within ecological boundaries while meeting social and sustainable development goals. Sustainability transitions research has emerged over the past fifteen years as a new hybrid field of inter- and transdisciplinary research that studies the dynamics of non-linear change in complex societal systems (Grin et al. 2010). After introducing the main insights from this field I will formulate governance for sustainability transitions addressing climate change.

13.3  Sustainability Transitions Research Sustainability transitions research is a global inter- and transdisciplinary field interested in the patterns and dynamics of non-linear fundamental change in complex adaptive systems in society. It asks the question why sectors or regions periodically go through relatively turbulent periods of rapid and structural change, and what factors cause this. Of particular interest are the strategies, actions and influence of actors on these processes, either in terms of slowing down such transitions or in terms of influencing their speed and direction. Historical research looks into transitions in sectors or regions (such as from horses and carriages to automobiles, from extensive to industrial food production, from coal to natural gas in households, from neighbourhood care to clinical specialized care). Research on transition governance looks more experimentally into issues of power, the role of civil society, new business models and ways to experimentally govern desired transitions under the label of transition management (Loorbach 2010). The basic starting point in sustainability transitions research is the analysis that our current socioeconomic structures, both in developed and (in a qualitatively different way) developing countries, are locked-in and develop path-dependently. We have historically developed specific ‘regimes’ within sectors and regions: dominant cultures (values, discourses, paradigms), structures (institutions, rules, infrastructures, actor-networks, economic conditions) and practices (routines, ways of working, procedures, actions). Regimes such as centralized fossil energy systems, industrial food systems, fossil automobility and so

436  D. LOORBACH

on are inherently unsustainable: it is impossible to continue along these pathways indefinitely. This is hardly a new insight, it has been the central warning signal coming from environmentalist and environmental researchers for at least 50 years. Sustainability transitions research starts from this assessment and builds upon a number of fundamental insights as starting point for transition governance. From Optimization to Transition A key insight offered by sustainability transitions research is that when societies become aware of the negative externalities of such regimes, the initial responses will be to address these externalities and make the system ‘less bad’. Such responses are often in line with and enacted through the dominant regime: through the institutions, procedures, instruments and actors that are part of the regimes themselves. This is exactly what the effect has been of most sustainable development policies, innovation programs and ultimately also of the climate governance regime: to soften the negative external effects of unsustainable development. In optimizing the existing regime, such initiatives meant to address unsustainability have rather helped to sustain unsustainable development: by making things more efficient and less bad it is possible to continue a bit longer. But by now it is increasingly clear that this approach is not enough. Rather than optimizing the existing we need to shift more fundamentally to economic regimes that are inherently good: in balance with nature and rather than having minimal environmental impacts having a positive contribution to the environment and even regenerating biodiversity. Build-Up and Break-Down Another key insight coming from sustainability transitions research is that as societal regimes keep continuing along this pathway of optimization, inevitably diversity is reduced and the adaptive capacity of such regimes decreases. This leads to increasing vulnerability of the regime as societal pressures for change mount and more and more people start to look for alternatives. Such ‘niches’ can be technological, economic or social and represent alternative cultures, structures and practices. Such niches by definition start small and vulnerable but through processes of variation, selection and learning develop into competitive alternatives to the existing regime. Increasing societal pressure, internal tensions and crises in the regime and competitive alternatives combined could lead to

13  TRANSFORMING CLIMATE GOVERNANCE? WHY CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

437

Fig. 13.1  Transition dynamics ‘X-curve’ (Loorbach et al. 2017)

an actual transition: a structural reconfiguration of the regime towards a new dynamic equilibrium based on combinations of old and new elements. This pattern is visualized in Fig. 13.1. Transitions Come from Outside Another key insight sustainability transitions research offers is that in a context of persistent problems, which cannot be solved by improving the existing regime, there are always innovations and new practices developed by actors outside these regimes that provide possible building blocks. So rather than being initiated or steered in an existing institutional context, societal transitions are driven by a number of controllable, unmanageable, chaotic, predictable, deliberate and indirect actions. A lot of the impulses and actions influencing the speed and direction of sustainability transitions arguably develop outside incumbent regimes in so-called niches. Potentially transformative innovations include sustainable technologies, but also lifestyles, business models, discourse and visions, practices and ideas. In a context in which external societal pressures and disruptions force actors within a regime to move and create internal tensions, alternatives can mature and become increasingly attractive and powerful. If we seek to achieve rapid transitions away

438  D. LOORBACH

from perceived persistent unsustainable regimes towards new sustainable futures, the starting point should thus be to (also) strategize ‘outside-in’ and ‘from a desired future’ as opposed to ‘inside-out’ and ‘from the problems in the present’. Mind the Politics The last key insight coming from sustainability transitions research I want to mention here is that effective governance of transitions by definition needs to start from a critical starting point questioning incumbent practices, values and structures in a context of persistent problems. As transitions are regime shifts, they also are inherently political power games. While actors embedded in a regime might argue for transitions, they will often try to do everything to slow down change and prevent transitions as they have much to lose. Think about oil companies spending millions to spread doubt about climate change, car companies frustrating introduction of electric vehicles or big food companies using powers to prevent more stringent legislation. These three examples are not random: these three sectors represent the vast majority of negative environmental and climate impacts and have everything to lose in (sustainability) transitions. Transition governance therefore implies selective participation of actors pursing transitions to connect, empower, strategize and support these actors towards a broader societal movement able to shift power balance.

13.4  Climate Governance in Transition? When we apply this perspective to the global challenges of climate change and we see that science-policy responses have evolved around identifying and addressing negative effects on the atmosphere, water, air and so on by (successful) environmental legislation and technological innovation. But when considering climate change in the context of the converging global effects of unsustainable economic development pathways, including also ocean acidification, species extinction, deforestation, social inequalities and resource depletion, it is clear that these are persistent problems. Regulation does not suffice, even on a global scale, especially when it only addresses these issues in isolation, and technological innovation is only addressing the symptoms of these problems. Despite all efforts to achieve global agreements on climate change, and to align nations behind ambitious goals, even such ambitions like the

13  TRANSFORMING CLIMATE GOVERNANCE? WHY CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

439

Paris Agreement thus fall short of what is needed from a scientific point of view given that we are facing a set of interrelated global ecological, economic and social crises. In addition, we are faced with a severe implementation gap, because the existing institutional regimes are not only unable to agree on half of what is necessary on the longer term, they are also unable to achieve all these formalized policy goals. Central to the transitions perspective is the notion of path-dependency: developed routines and institutions, vested inter­ ests, anchored beliefs and all sorts of technological lock-ins complicate or even prevent desired sustainability transitions. So besides obvious and often economically driven resistance against transformative change also a lot of implicit and indirect resistance lies in established routines, practices and networks of individual actors, families, communities and firms in regime contexts. While for decades the way they worked and thought was effective and appreciated, they are gradually confronted with doubt, questions and debate. For long people can ignore such doubts, can dismiss these, can argue they are already changing or feel offended by the suggestion that they need to change first. But as destabilization occurs and alternatives start to break through inevitably alternative visions, discourse and practices will become more attractive and competitive, thereby contributing to accelerated destabilization (Turnheim and Geels 2012; Martínez Arranz 2017). Such alternatives, niches, are everywhere: new concepts and business models, breakthrough technologies, civil society initiatives, lifestyle changes, proactive governmental programs on all levels or shifts in the public debate. Both within the political and public debate as well as within the IPCC such signals of emerging sustainability transitions should be the starting point for a new climate governance vision (Hölscher et al. 2019; Ürge-Vorsatz et al. 2018). A transformative governance approach that supports the decline and phase out of unsustainable economic sectors (including production and consumption) and facilitates, guides and accelerates emergence of economies within planetary boundaries that still provide basic human needs. This would imply to shift focus partially from mitigation and adaptation to supporting, guiding and accelerating sustainability transitions to completely different ways to provide food, shelter, energy, mobility (but also health care, education, finance or governance). The question is what this means for climate governance. One can add ‘transformative’ to ‘climate governance’ to accommodate the rational aspirations for more transformative change on the long-term, but

440  D. LOORBACH

obviously this book underlines the need to dig deeper to fundamentally question and alter the approaches, strategies, instruments and capacities of climate governance. How can the institutions and processes around climate change transform to support sustainability transitions, if at all? To start exploring this question, I draw from the approach of transition governance that aims to influence the speed and direction of societal transitions towards sustainability. The approach is based upon the understanding of societal transitions as shock-wise and unpredictable processes in which established dominant cultures, structures and practices (the so-called regime) destabilize and move out-of-equilibrium. This leads to processes of systemic, transformative change, leading to a new dynamic equilibrium. Transition governance thus aligns with other new approaches (see, e.g., Pereira et al. 2018; Hölscher et al. 2018; Ürge-Vorsatz et al. 2018) that build upon understanding and anticipating transformative changes by overcoming resistance against change, empowering desired alternatives and minimalizing the impact of disruptive changes on society. This implies a form of governance that is based on an analytical understanding of the patterns and mechanisms of transitions, as well as a longer-term ambition or agenda for systemic change. Transition governance is applied in the context of so-called persistent problems: complex societal challenges for which linear and technological solutions are not sufficient and more profound, systemic changes are pursued requiring new types of research (Miller et al. 2014).

13.5  Transition Governance Addressing Climate Change Since its introduction in 2001, transition governance has evolved through experimental application in practice in a large variety of empirical domains and at different levels of scale. It starts from the premise that transitions take place because there are persistent problems: societal regimes reinforce path-dependency yet at the same time there will always be individuals that start to explore alternatives and ways to ‘lock-out’. It is thus about anticipating transformative changes that will inevitably take place in contexts facing persistent problems and then experimentally exploring pathways through which such transitions could lead to desired futures in an accelerated way. This logic is fundamentally different from a policy-logic, which focuses on managed improvement through

13  TRANSFORMING CLIMATE GOVERNANCE? WHY CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

441

incremental steps. Instead, transition governance is about embracing complexity and uncertainty in its potential to open up space for positive nearby futures that are seemingly unimaginable from a ‘regime’ perspective. It provides a perspective for any governance related to (desired) larger scale societal changes to rethink its position, role and contribution. In other words: by critically taking an outside-in-perspective, transition governance challenges the idea of rational policymaking as inherently supporting the status quo and gradual, incremental optimization. Transition governance in this light is about creating space for emerging alternatives outside of incumbent regimes and empowering these so that they can challenge, alter and replace undesired (part of) established regimes. Depending upon the change dynamics present in a given societal system (sector or spatial area) transition governance has a different orientation: 1.0: largely stable context in which frontrunners and change agents voice concerns and argue for need for change, some alternatives exist but not very visible or attractive and a shared sense of urgency within the regime is absent. This characterized the climate (governance) regime in its early days trying to establish position. 2.0: there are signs of crises, alternative narratives of change are emerging, small groups of citizens, entrepreneurs, policymakers adopt new practices and discourses, and leadership within a regime context is proactively creating space for experimentation and transformation. This seems to be the phase we are in, with increasing sense of urgency and rational policy commitment, increasing external pressures and a growing push for transformative change. 3.0: alternatives are breaking through and new market structures and routines develop, institutions are delegitimized, tensions and (political or social) crises surface, resistance to change mounts and uncertainty about next steps is high. In some cases, we see the early signs of entering this phase with some countries pushing forward (the EU’s recent Green Deal for example) while others undermine even incremental consensus (like the USA and Australia). At the same time, mass mobilization, the renewables boom, commitments from business and financial institutes and court rulings like the recent Urgenda case in the Netherlands are early symptoms of institutional ruptures. 4.0: the is broad agreement about direction of change, phase-out of old elements, practices and technologies is happening, new institutions are developing and social and behavioural changes, including norm

442  D. LOORBACH

changes lead to stabilization of a new normal. Ideally, we would enter this phase in the coming decade seeing large scale behavioural change, fossil phase-out, shifts to agro-ecology and so on. The common thread in all these phases is that transition governance focuses on engaging actors that already work on sustainable alternatives or are intrinsically motivated or interested to pursue these. It then takes the increasing destabilization and future transition as a given and formulates a radical desired direction (from a public value and sustainability point of view) as direction, to then experimentally empower, connect and diffuse alternatives towards mainstreaming. It has been applied across geographical scales and domains to introduce new transformative mindsets, coalitions, experiments and agendas. The approach in general seeks to bring in a more positive orientation towards longer-term societal change and a willingness to move away from business as usual in a process of experimentation and learning-by-doing. In our current context of increasing destabilization and emergence of alternatives, transition governance proposes to develop so-called governance mixes. Developing such a governance mix starts by identifying and translating guiding sustainability principles for a specific context. Guiding sustainability principles are often generic: within planetary boundaries, zero-emission, regenerative, inclusive, just, equitable and affordable. But these need to be translated into the given context, be it a place (city, region, area) or societal system (energy, food, mobility). By mapping dynamics across the transition x-curve (see Fig. 13.1), positive seeds for the desired direction can be identified as building blocks for the governance mix, consisting of: – Build-up strategies that create networks and programs of emerging transformative innovations and develop insights into the conditions needed for discussion and scaling as well as the institutional barriers preventing this. – Transform strategies that incrementally innovate and adapt institutional and structural conditions to accommodate for the emerging alternatives and gradually close off space for undesirable practices. – Phase-out strategies that identify phase-out periods for unsustainable practices and structures and support the phase-out by creating just transition funds, legal frameworks and exit strategies.

13  TRANSFORMING CLIMATE GOVERNANCE? WHY CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

443

13.6  Concluding Remarks: Transforming Climate Governance? One of the pitfalls of current climate governance is that it emphasizes negative scenarios and a reactive response to deal with negative impacts. Even mitigation strategies to some extent do ignore the causes and existing societal regimes and propose innovations that reduce emissions or negative impacts rather than support transformative shifts towards zero-emission options. While by now solutions like carbon capture, co-firing, hydrogen and chemical recycling that can be seen as ­path-dependent optimization are inevitable, there is a much higher need to put more resources, political will and public support behind governance for a positive future. By now climate change, biodiversity and sustainability have become issues in many policy domains and have led to new engagement and space for entrepreneurial policymakers. The challenge for transforming climate governance is to open up the ‘field’ to see all actors working to support sustainability transitions—across all sectors, governance levels and societal spheres—as part of ‘transformative climate governance’. To this end I especially see a potential to introduce and embed more qualitative, action-oriented research into the IPCC. It could help to open up the climate governance regime to alternative futures and ways of knowing, but also to explore new ways to support actors outside the climate governance regime (in society) that are actually taking desirable actions outside of institutionalized and politicized contexts. But it would also imply the need to develop complementary structures outside the IPCC and climate governance regime that have a more outside-in orientation. For example, supporting transdisciplinary platforms that work with local sustainability processes, share lessons, ideas and practices that can then be synthesized and translated to the global level. And that would then vice versa help to reorient global support schemes to empower and guide local actions.

References Arvai, J., Bridge, G., Dolsak, N., Franzese, R., Koontz, T., Luginbuhl, A., et al. (2006). Adaptive management of the global climate problem: Bridging the gap between climate research and climate policy. Climatic Change, 78(1), 217–225. Beck, S., & Mahony, M. (2018). The politics of anticipation: The IPCC and the negative emissions technologies experience. Global Sustainability, 1, 1–8.

444  D. LOORBACH Grin, J., Rotmans, J., Schot, J., With, I. C., Loorbach, D., & Geels, F. W. (2010). Transitions to sustainable development: New directions in the study of long term transformative change. New York: Routledge. Hölscher, K., Frantzeskaki, N., & Loorbach, D. (2018). Steering transformations under climate change: Capacities for transformative climate governance and the case of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Regional Environmental Change, 19, 791–805. Hölscher, K., Frantzeskaki, N., Mcphearson, T., & Loorbach, D. (2019). Tales of transforming cities: Transformative climate governance capacities in New York City, U.S. and Rotterdam, Netherlands. Journal of Environmental Management, 231, 843–857. IPCC. (2018). Summary for policymakers. In V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, & J. Skea, & P. R. Shukla et al. (Eds.), Global warming of 1.5°C (An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty) (32 pp). Geneva, Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization. Jordan, A., Huitema, D., Van Asselt, H., & Forster, J. (2018). Governing climate change: Polycentricity in action? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Loorbach, D. (2010). Transition management for sustainable development: A prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework. Governance, 23(1), 161–183. Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N., & Avelino, F. (2017). Sustainability transitions research: Transforming science and practice for societal change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 42(1), 599–626. Martínez Arranz, A. (2017). Lessons from the past for sustainability transitions? A meta-analysis of socio-technical studies. Global Environmental Change, 44, 125–143. Miller, T. R., Wiek, A., Sarewitz, D., Robinson, J., Olsson, L., Kriebel, D., et al. (2014). The future of sustainability science: A solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustainability Science, 9(2), 239–246. Pereira, L., Bennett, E., Biggs, R., Peterson, G., Mcphearson, T., Norström, A., et al. (2018). Seeds of the future in the present: Exploring pathways for navigating towards “good” Anthropocenes. In T. Elmqvist, X. Bai, N. Frantzeskaki, C. Griffith, D. Maddox, T. McPhearson et al. (Eds.), Urban planet: Knowledge towards sustainable cities (pp. 327–350). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781316647554. Rockstrom, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472–475.

13  TRANSFORMING CLIMATE GOVERNANCE? WHY CLIMATE GOVERNANCE … 

445

Scheffer, M. (2010). Complex systems: Foreseeing tipping points. Nature, 467(7314), 411–412. Tàbara, J. D., Frantzeskaki, N., Hölscher, K., Pedde, S., Kok, K., Lamperti, F., et al. (2018). Positive tipping points in a rapidly warming world. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 31, 120–129. Turnheim, B., & Geels, F. W. (2012). Regime destabilisation as the flipside of energy transitions: Lessons from the history of the British coal industry (1913–1997). Energy Policy, 50, 35–49. Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Rosenzweig, C., Dawson, R. J., Rodriguez, R. S., Bai, X., Barau, A. S., et al. (2018). Locking in positive climate responses in cities. Nature Climate Change, 8(3), 174.

CHAPTER 14

Conclusions: Bridging and Weaving Science and Policy Knowledges for a Research Agenda to Transform Climate Governance Katharina Hölscher and Niki Frantzeskaki

14.1  Introduction Climate change is a global challenge, requiring decisive global responses, which are yet to materialise. The science is clear, shouting out the dangerous paths global development is moving along (IPBES 2019; WEF 2019; WWF 2018; Hsiang et al. 2017). The report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the 1.5°C target—in our view, the most important IPCC report so far—showed

K. Hölscher (*) · N. Frantzeskaki  Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] N. Frantzeskaki  Centre for Urban Transitions, Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 K. Hölscher and N. Frantzeskaki (eds.), Transformative Climate Governance, Palgrave Studies in Environmental Transformation, Transition and Accountability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49040-9_14

447

448  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

that even holding the increase of global temperature to 2°C would mean catastrophe. 1.5°C would still mean disastrous impacts but is what we must absolutely aim for (IPCC 2018). This urgency contrasts with what is happening in practice: while climate change is on the political agenda for more than three decades, global emissions have hit an all-time high in 2019, exceeding the previous record set in 2018 (Scientific Advisory Group of the UN Climate Action Summit 2019; UNEP 2019; Global Carbon Project 2019). At the same time, research and collaboration between researchers, practitioners and policymakers have produced evidence on solutions that are effective in dealing with climate change. Even on this front, scaling and mainstreaming of those solutions is limited and not able to transform deep structures and embedded practices at global and national levels. Activists and global civil society movements and networks have proliferated the last decade with awakening messages of hope that alternative lifestyles are possible and liveable. However, despite all these parallel developments, it seems that action to deal with climate change is stalled and in cases denied. The question we addressed in this book is how to surface and implement effective action on climate change. The main problem is that action to address climate change is hindered by existing governance lock-ins: governance systems generally tend to prioritise the shortterm over the long-term, and mostly economic and powerful interests over diverse social and environmental ones (Hölscher and Frantzeskaki, Chapter 1, this volume; Biermann et al. 2012; Loorbach 2014). This is also manifest in the way the climate governance regime has developed and how climate governance continues to compete with conventional ­decision-making processes and interests (Loorbach, Chapter 13, this volume). The Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) must roughly triple to meet the 2°C limit and increase fivefold to align with the 1.5°C limit (UNEP 2019). COP25 in Madrid in December 2019 has shown again the tenacious institutional resistance to transform societal systems and that any action to combat climate change continues to compete with the powerful interests of the high-carbon industry. These governance lock-ins also transpire through to local levels: as shown in the case studies on urban climate governance presented in this book, even so-called frontrunner cities struggle to bring their ambitious goals to realisation (Hölscher, Chapter 7, this volume).

14  CONCLUSIONS: BRIDGING AND WEAVING SCIENCE AND POLICY … 

449

Our starting point was that effective climate governance requires the development of new types of capacities for transformative climate governance. Transformative climate governance refers to an ideal-type and normative approach, or ‘governance vision’, that makes climate governance part of the quest for deep societal transformations towards sustainability and resilience: transformative climate governance addresses the underlying root causes driving emissions and vulnerability to impacts, also yielding multiple benefits for contributing to and maintaining sustainable and resilient social-ecological systems in the long-term. We introduced capacities for transformative climate governance as a new governance framework to address the lack of understanding mechanisms, conditions and effectiveness of climate governance (Hölscher, Chapter 2, this volume). Our proposal comes with the understanding that policy and solutions design require a meso-level perspective that helps to systematise actions of multiple actors and their outcomes (occurring at the micro-level of governance) at a higher level of aggregation (meso-level) and provides strategic insight for designing and guiding governance systems to deal with climate pressures in an integrative and coordinated way (informing the macro-level of governance). Starting from the question of ‘what needs to happen’ to facilitate transformative climate action, the aim of the framework is to aid a deeper understanding of climate governance as a conglomerate of dynamic and systemic conditions and actor-related processes that are continuously evolving and changing (‘how, and by whom, this is made to happen’). In this final chapter, we consolidate what the capacities framework brings for guiding and evaluating transformative climate governance and outline a future research agenda for advancing knowledge and practice on transforming climate governance. By investigating climate governance approaches at multiple scales in this book, we can respond to the following questions: • What are key overarching conditions, actors and activities that facilitate governance for transformation under climate change? • Given insistent climate governance lock-ins, what needs to happen in research and policy to build up the capacities that transform climate governance and ensure the decisive implementation of systemic and integrated climate action?

450  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

We formulate key themes for each governance capacity for advancing the transformation of climate governance based on emerging and promising governance conditions that were found in the case studies of this book (Sect. 14.2). We discuss these in the context of contemporary climate governance phenomena, capacity gaps and lock-ins and highlight the governance institutions, modes, processes, skills and networks that need to be better understood and strengthened to facilitate transformative climate governance. In the final section, we reflect on the contributions of the capacities framework and the urgent next steps for avoiding and adapting to dangerous climate change and enhancing human and environmental well-being (Sect. 14.3).

14.2  A Research Agenda for Transforming (Climate) Governance What insights can be gained from using the capacities framework for the question of how to transform climate governance, and what would such transformed climate governance look like? In this section, we take on board the insights offered by the case studies presented in this book to formulate a forward-looking research agenda related to emerging and promising climate governance conditions as well as capacity gaps and lock-ins. The case studies on Rotterdam and New York City (NYC)—presented in the second part of this book—generate knowledge about how cities have pro-actively experimented with and thus shifted towards a more systemic, inclusive and innovative approach to address climate change (Hölscher et al., Chapter 5, this volume; Hölscher et al. Chapter 6, this volume, Hölscher, Chapter 7, this volume). The third part of this book presents case studies of how capacities for climate governance that are robust to different socio-economic and climate scenarios can be successively built up through pathways at multiple scales in Europe (Holman et al. Chapter 8, this volume; Pedde et al., Chapter 10, this volume; Hölscher et al., Chapter 11, this volume). The contributions by McPhearson (Chapter 3, this volume), Tàbara (Chapter 12, this volume) and Loorbach (Chapter 13, this volume) offer additional insights into lock-ins, barriers and opportunities for transforming climate governance. The most insightful lesson is that climate governance is not anymore (only) about climate change. In Rotterdam and NYC, over time climate change by itself has driven integrated sustainability and resilience

14  CONCLUSIONS: BRIDGING AND WEAVING SCIENCE AND POLICY … 

451

agendas, policies and interventions. Goals and agendas for sustainability and resilience—as also visible in the IMPRESSIONS visions and pathways for Europe in 2100 (Hölscher et al., Chapter 11, this volume; Appendix C)—give new narratives and orientations for what is important in the long-term, enable to start from systemic socio-economic, institutional and environmental problems and promote collaboration for synergies to create stepping stones for transformative change. This approach is also enshrined in the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and efforts to exploit synergies between goals to generate co-benefits (Sachs et al. 2019; Nilsson et al. 2016). Similarly, the European Commission’s Green New Deal in 2019 links the overarching goal to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 with the ambitions to foster a circular and just economy, waste reduction, biodiversity protection and climate adaptation (European Commission 2019). But the problem is not the lack of visions and ambitions. We learn from the analysis of climate governance in Rotterdam and NYC that even though both cities are generally considered frontrunners in addressing climate change, sustainability and resilience, clearly the novel capacities for transformative climate governance still represent niches within the overall governance set-up (Hölscher, Chapter 7, this volume). The majority of existing governance approaches, incentive structures and regulations continue to favour short-term economic and political interests, perpetuating counteracting investments (e.g. building developments in flood-prone areas). These lock-ins are reverberated in contemporary global climate governance. COP25 marked another failure in international climate negotiations, illustrating the challenge to oblige nation states to move from ambitious climate targets to implementation and to overcome the powerful interests of the fossil industry. Despite ambitious goals, the phase-out of coal from the global energy mix is too slow, extractive economies are being far more protected and in cases even subsidised, too many forests are still being destroyed, subsidies for fossil fuels are continued despite their distorting effect on the market, heavy industry is not progressing towards more energy efficiency and agriculture practice still uses harmful and carbon-intensive practices (World Resource Institute 2019). Therefore, the next step challenge is to move beyond the initial conditions for a new type of governance that were created by the formulation of long-term and systemic strategic goals and agendas, cross-cutting partnerships and experimentation with innovative solutions. From the

452  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI Stewarding capacity

Unlocking capacity

Transformative capacity

i. Co-production of systemic & solution oriented knowledge

i. Formulate & implement destabilisation policy

i. Institutionalise (learning from) experimentation

New modes for knowledge production across policyscience-society interfaces

Mandate, incentivise and guide sustainability practices, technologies, behaviours etc.

Create space for developing, testing & learning from innovations

ii. Community empowerment & community partnerships

ii. Bring positive sustainability values into culture, education & media

ii. Foster collaborative learning

Invest in and mediate community assets, partnerships and movements

iii. Establish multi-level governance networks & flexible institutions Decentral cross-boundary & cross-sectoral partnerships for local autonomy

Re-focus human development on reflexivity & empathy

iii. Open up governance networks to link ëwinnersí & neutralise ëlosersí Involve sustainability-oriented actors in key (policy) networks and support groups that will be negatively affected

Institutionalising new partnerships for collaboration

Orchestrating capacity i. Shared goals & enforceable metrics Translate shared goals into overarching frameworks and systems for monitoring, reporting and evaluating progress ii. Organisational resources, structures & skills for orchestration Invest in organisational conditions to motivate and oversee progress, channel information and knowledge, connect actors and initiatives

iii. Reflexive learning to learn from & adapt innovations

iii. Good governance principles and re-politicisation

New approaches and learning for embracing uncertain starting points and results

Openly embracing and confronting difficult ethical choices

Fig. 14.1  Key research themes for developing transformative climate governance capacities

perspective of the capacities framework, we signpost key themes as agenda for future research for advancing the transformation of (climate) governance (Fig. 14.1). The key challenge is to strengthen those conditions that allow to decisively prioritise long-term and integrated planning, align budgeting practices and procedures, mobilise broad alliances and partnerships, and to continuously learn and adapt to new knowledge and experimentation. 14.2.1   Stewarding Capacity: Empowerment and Learning to Adjust to, Cope with and Shape Change Stewarding capacity enables the anticipation of and responsiveness to uncertainty and risk while also considering underlying socio-economic vulnerabilities and exploiting opportunities beneficial for sustainability. Stewarding for resilience means taking care of and strengthening desirable system structures and functions in an adaptive, reflexive and flexible way (Folke 2016; Chapin et al. 2010). We identify three key themes for advancing stewarding capacity, building on the emerging conditions in the case studies, but also identified shortcomings and capacity gaps. The case studies show how stewarding

14  CONCLUSIONS: BRIDGING AND WEAVING SCIENCE AND POLICY … 

453

capacity becomes manifest in fit-to-context and self-organisation approaches at multiple scales building on knowledge about systemic risks and uncertainties, decentralised and integrated decision-making, and community empowerment and resilience. Co-production of systemic and solution-oriented knowledge Traditional science production models—which also the IPCC has long relied on—fail to inform decision-making particularly when it comes to complex problems that require balancing scientific information, local needs and values (Djenontin and Meadow 2018). Making research more solution-oriented requires new research approaches for opening up and ensuring the engagement of multiple kinds of stakeholders in knowledge generation processes at the science-policy-society interface. In addition, the challenge is to implement an integrated approach to understanding, and consecutively addressing climate change and other social and environmental sustainability issues that are cross-sectoral and transboundary (Tàbara et al. 2018; McPhearson et al. 2016). For example, exploiting synergies between multiple SDGs requires analyses that map out interdependencies between SDG outcomes such as on food, biosphere and water, human capacity and demography (Horan 2019). Similarly, McPhearson (Chapter 3, this volume) calls for a new urban systems science that accounts for the social-ecological-technological complexity producing risks to climate change. This requires inter- and transdisciplinary research approaches. Knowledge co-production is a mode of transdisciplinary research, involving multiple producers with the aim to jointly define not only societal and global issues at stake but also solutions and to result in altered social behaviours and societal arrangements to improve sustainability outcomes (Kates et al. 2001; Montana 2019). The co-production of problem definitions and solutions allows to integrate contextual and different societal needs, opens up trade-offs and contestations, fosters ­evidence-based policy and planning and promotes social learning (Tàbara et al. 2018). In the case studies in this book, the knowledge is generated through diverse co-production processes and learning partnerships that bring together interdisciplinary scientific knowledge, expert knowledge of planners and tacit knowledge of local communities. Research partnerships and programmes like Knowledge for Climate in the Netherlands

454  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

and the NYC Panel on Climate Change (NPCC) in NYC reported on climate risks and adaptation needs (van den Berg et al. 2013; van Veelen 2013; NPCC 2015). Looking at the global scale of knowledge production on climate change, as a powerful actor in climate politics, the IPCC started to move from the problem-oriented attribution of causes and detection of impacts to weaving contestable choices for climate futures into the elaboration of alternative pathways (Beck and Mahony 2017). This requires new modes of solution-oriented scientific assessment and ­science-policy-society dialogue to systematically consider political context and implications (ibid.; Loorbach, Chapter 13, this volume; Nordström et al. 2019). By creating co-production spaces for solution-oriented assessment of different pathways of societal transformation, the IPCC can play a key role in facilitating dialogue about policy alternatives, social values, and political and social implications (Beck and Mahony 2017). Following and building upon knowledge co-production, action-oriented research and citizen science are promising avenues for research about alternative futures and ways of knowledge, as well as for engaging actors in knowledge generation. Community empowerment and community partnerships Community empowerment underpins the abilities of local communities to self-organise and respond to and shape change. It is closely linked to fostering community capacity, i.e. the ability of communities to develop and engage community resources to achieve community objectives (Magis 2010). Empowering communities and developing community capacity means investing in community assets (e.g. natural, financial resources, infrastructure, human capital, health services), healthy human agency, community networks and institutions and social cohesion (ibid.). This is realised both at local level, with engaging in co-production spaces between researchers and communities (Frantzeskaki and Rok 2018) and by establishing community movements and movement-networks, around the globe like Transition Towns, GAIA, and the like. These community empowerment networks and initiatives indicate that getting community and community’s intelligence and inventiveness on board is critical for localising solutions to deal with climate change and broader sustainability and for sourcing new solutions and approaches that steer clear or even make new institutional processes happen.

14  CONCLUSIONS: BRIDGING AND WEAVING SCIENCE AND POLICY … 

455

All case studies place strong emphasis on community empowerment to enhance local resilience. Community engagement and participatory planning processes are increasingly employed to access local knowledge, gain support and foster resilient neighbourhoods. In both cities, non-profit and community-based organisations contribute to generating knowledge, raising awareness and criticising existing policies and ­ business-as-usual (Hölscher, Chapter 7, this volume). The NYC Department of Parks and Recreation actively engages communities in maintaining the city’s green, for example through the GreenThumb programme (Campbell et al. 2016; NYC Parks 2016). The pathways strengthen local and regional community networks by promoting shared values (e.g. solidarity, inclusiveness, sustainability) and supporting local market creation (e.g. through governmental incentives for family-based agriculture and local energy cooperatives) (Hölscher et al., Chapter 11, this volume). Strategically building alliances between local communities and local governments ensures that local knowledge and needs are accounted for and helps to mobilise broader societal action (O’Brien 2018; Chu et al. 2017; Archer et al. 2014). Challenges include different languages and lack of trust and knowledge about participatory processes, and scholars raise issues about the recognition of local communities’ interests and abilities to intervene in partnerships, limited experience with, resources for and knowledge about devising effective participatory climate governance mechanisms (Castán Broto et al. 2015; Castán Broto 2017; McPhearson et al. 2017; Brown 2017). A first step is to identify community initiatives that could be connected to the city’s resilience efforts—as done in the Rotterdam Resilience Strategy. Intermediaries like SRI@JB in NYC can also facilitate communication and collaboration between communities and local governments. Establish multi-level governance networks and flexible institutions for fit-to-context self-organisation Facilitating fit-to-context approaches requires flexible institutions and multi-level governance networks that develop responses in line with overarching goals and different (systemic) needs simultaneously. This supports decentralised self-organisation for integrated action and responses at the most suitable scale while ensuring cohesion and integration between administrative, legislative and regulative frameworks across scales (Dietz et al. 2003; Garmestani and Benson 2013; Berkes 2017).

456  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

The local governments in Rotterdam and NYC collaborate with diverse networks and partnerships to enable cross-boundary and cross-sectoral implementation to ensure joint implementation of water and flood safety, which are shared responsibilities across national, regional and local governmental bodies. Both cities adapted flood zones and building codes in line with the generated knowledge about place-based conditions (e.g. on building, regional and neighbour­ hood level). The European pathways facilitate local- and regional-level resource management and land-use planning approaches in line with overarching and integrated European frameworks for self-sufficiency to tend to context-specific opportunities and needs and to mobilise synergies and avoid or mitigate trade-offs between different sectors and policy goals. Responsibilities are assigned across European, national, regional and local decision-making levels to coordinate integrated resource management at these multiple levels. An important question is still about how to combine and integrate institutions, networks and rules at multiple scales to allow self-organisation on local levels (Pahl-Wostl and Knieper 2014; Keskitalo et al. 2016). Besides multi-level institutions and cross-sectoral partnerships, important activities to make such collaboration work are inclusive dialogue to enhance awareness of risks and responsibility sharing, as well as clearly identifying roles and responsibilities across different governance institutions. Boundary spanning has been discussed as an important activity to support collaboration across multiple scales (Dąbrowski 2017). 14.2.2   Unlocking Capacity: Managing Institutional Decline and ‘Sun-Setting’ of Business-as-Usual Unlocking capacity is the abilities of actors to recognise and dismantle structural drivers of unsustainable path-dependencies and ­mal-adaptation, and thus decisively disrupt the status quo. Important is to recognise that such drivers are deeply ‘locked-in’ in regulations, technologies, power relations, interests, actor networks, values, beliefs and behaviours (Kivimaa and Kern 2016; Seto et al. 2016). ‘Unlocking’ resonates notions of regime destabilisation: it is about the decisive phaseout of existing institutions, technologies, power relations, actor networks and values that perpetuate unsustainable development pathways (Bosman et al. 2018; Kivimaa and Kern 2016).

14  CONCLUSIONS: BRIDGING AND WEAVING SCIENCE AND POLICY … 

457

We identify three key themes for advancing institutional decline to structurally dismantle the drivers of high emission and unsustainable development trajectories. In the case studies, unlocking capacity is visible in the creation of new support networks and strategic alliances with an explicit mission for change, new regulatory systems that control and penalise unsustainable practices, and societal awareness about sustainable lifestyles. However, in Rotterdam and NYC, institutional resistance continues to be visible in ongoing governance approaches and activities that still favour a ‘governance-for-growth approach’. This is also visible in shortcomings of global climate governance and continuing strategic efforts by incumbents to resist, co-opt, or, slow down transformative pathways. Institutional decline means to address these institutional lock-ins head-on, yet so far, though political and societal efforts targeting decline are gaining traction, these are still fragmented and require more concerted and far-reaching efforts (Loorbach, Chapter 13, this volume). Formulate and implement destabilisation policy Institutional decline requires deliberate phase out policies, which profoundly pressure existing regimes and dismantle institutional ­path-dependency that reinforces the competitive advantage of businessas-usual vis-à-vis sustainable alternatives. This includes disincentivising or banning incumbent technologies (e.g. carbon pricing, product bans), breaking open resource flows and diminishing resources (e.g. fossil fuel divestment, ending subsidies), and weakening actor networks and access to decision-makers (Kivimaa and Kern 2016; Geels et al. 2017; Rogge and Johnstone 2017). Such policies require governments to exert authority ‘through controversial measures such as phase out policies and directly intervening in markets’ (Johnstone and Newell 2018, p. 75). The pathways emphasise the role of governmental actors to put in place and enforce strong regulations, taxes and incentives that mandate and incentivise sustainable technologies and lifestyles (Hölscher et al., Chapter 11, this volume). For example, in the Iberian pathways an annual carbon budget is established and carbon taxes based on real carbon costs are introduced and water taxes and tariffs are enforced for sustainable water use. Similarly, the local governments in Rotterdam and NYC introduce incentives, regulations and procurement standards to promote investments in renewable energy production, energy efficiency in buildings and sustainable transport (Hölscher, Chapter 7, this volume).

458  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

A key challenge for destabilisation policies will be to address political questions and challenges: deliberate destabilisation also comes with potential injustices and undesirable effects, might become political minefields and seedbeds for populism, and certainty requires supporting the groups that will be affected (Bernstein and Hoffmann 2018). The European Green Deal foresees a carbon border tax and demands production standards to stop creating unnecessary waste, thereby also supporting the redistribution of the political and economic power of the polluting elite (European Commission 2019). The ambition is based on the EU’s decision to pay the high costs of early adoption: the Green Deal will come with substantial costs and in foreign policy, the approach risks confrontation with traditional allies and trading partners that do not share the same ambition. Bring positive sustainability values into culture, education and media to foster a generation shift of sustainability-minded population We need profound changes in the way we as humans interpret and act upon the world, shift societal expectations about appropriate behaviour and strengthen collective capacities for institutionalising tolerance, respect and sustainability learning (Tàbara, Chapter 12, this volume; Bernstein and Hoffmann 2018). So far, climate and sustainability policies tend to solely focus on technological solutions (or as many critics call them, technological fixes), casting aside social practices (e.g. energy efficiency over energy conservation and changes in energy practices, low-emission vehicles over changes in mobility habits) (Moloney and Horne 2015; Seto et al. 2016). This is also because of the little understanding about how behaviors and routines change, as well as limited consensus about the opportunities and ethical use of interventions to change habits. There is a low level of awareness or recognition about the need for everybody to take up action themselves. The development of positive visions and agency for change is an important motivator for behavioural change. Positive visions call for an open examination and problematisation of deeply ingrained cultural assumptions, social constructs and beliefs that are dominant and resistant to change, as well as the practical disruptions associated with ending specific unsustainable behaviours and the multiple societal benefits (Tàbara, Chapter 12, this volume). One of the key robust transformation

14  CONCLUSIONS: BRIDGING AND WEAVING SCIENCE AND POLICY … 

459

pathways developed in the IMPRESSIONS project foresees the establishment of sustainability-oriented education systems—illustrating the importance of investing in societal reflexive capacities to make conscious and informed choices (Hölscher et al., Chapter 11, this volume; Appendix C). Arts and arts-based research can support the discovery of new sustainability realities (Galafassi et al. 2018, cf. Tàbara, Chapter 12, this volume). The importance of engaging not only the minds but also the hearts of people can become the catalyst in mobilising the masses needed for a transformation to take off. Fostering widespread societal awareness requires clear communication and messaging across all media channels. The Fridays for Future movement spearheaded by Greta Thunberg provides an important impetus for increasing such awareness. It also shows that basic institutions like education need to be re-calibrated into creating integrative knowledge and the skills needed for taking action and being informed and empathetic for contemporary problems and situations. However, it also illustrates the necessity to build individual and collective capacities for untangling true from fake claims and thus to avoid misguiding and confusing stories. For decades, the fossil fuel industry has invested in strategic misinformation campaigns to confuse people about the negative impacts of fossil fuels, or to co-opt the transformative power of the sustainability discourse. Open up governance networks to link ‘winners’, neutralise ‘losers’ and avoid exclusion and polarisation Decision-making needs to be opened up to all sorts of actors working to support desirable transformations (Loorbach, Chapter 13, this volume). Often, key regime actors are those who maintain close relationships to governments, which is a major source of lock-in (Kivimaa and Kern 2016). Building coalitions with ‘frontrunners’ and perhaps ultimately the winners of sustainability transformations (e.g. renewable energy companies) is not about excluding regime actors at all costs. Rather, it is about empowering actors who have an interest in climate mitigation, adaptation and sustainability to spur the emergence and strengthening of economic and political coalitions that support desired transformations (Bernstein and Hoffmann 2018). Breaking open established actor networks can be promoted by balancing involvement of incumbents in policy advisory councils with niche actors, or forming new organisations or networks to take on specific tasks

460  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

(Kivimaa and Kern 2016). This may involve a conscious choice about whom to put in key positions, as well as replacing existing skills and knowledge (ibid.). In this vein, Chu et al. (2017) conclude that climate action must explicitly consider the powerful and often entrenched political and economic interests that constrain equity at large. 14.2.3   Transformative Capacity: New Governance Processes for Experimentation and Learning to Scale Innovations Transformative capacity is about trialling, diffusing and embedding innovation, including new ways of organising, producing, consuming and thinking, to transform established institutions, infrastructures, behaviours, economies, etc. (Loorbach et al. 2015; Kivimaa et al. 2017; Westley et al. 2011). Experimentation has been framed as a new governance approach that is voluntary, open-ended and learning-based (Turnheim et al. 2018; Kivimaa et al. 2017). As such, climate governance experimentation might be means for trialling new, agile and responsive solutions in an open-ended way that allows collaborative learning between multiple actors (Hildén et al. 2017). We identify three key themes for developing the institutional and organisational space and skills needed for experimentation with innovations, but also for learning from these to diffuse and embed them in mainstream structures, cultures and practices. Investing in transformative capacity primarily highlights the need to change governance processes: from controlling change in the short-term and with pre-defined problems and solutions towards facilitating social learning. This also implies developing new skills of governance actors, for example to engage in co-creation and facilitate reflexive learning. Institutionalise experimentation to create space for continuous learning and innovation in policy, planning and governance Climate governance experimentation marks a re-invention of climate governance itself in an experimental way that is more voluntary, open-ended and learning-based (Turnheim et al. 2018; Kivimaa et al. ­ 2017). As such, experimentation resonates a stepping-away from traditional urban governance that aims to control change with limited opportunity for innovation (Karvonen 2018; Kivimaa et al. 2017; Turnheim et al. 2018). The creation of space (e.g. in terms of regulatory support

14  CONCLUSIONS: BRIDGING AND WEAVING SCIENCE AND POLICY … 

461

and leeway, subsidies, research grants) ensures that resources, skills and regulatory flexibility are available to develop and test innovations. The large-scale implementation of innovations that were developed needs additional institutional and organisational support: appropriate funding, knowledge sharing platforms, political and social support, enabling regulatory frameworks and space to generate knowledge about benefits and how to connect innovations to diverse contexts. Current trends towards a ‘projectification of funding’, which is reinforced by governments’ focus on cost-optimisation and effectiveness, do not allow moving beyond innovative initiatives (Ehnert et al. 2018). However, experimentation is not an end-goal in itself. On the global arena, climate governance experimentation is described in relation to the shift towards voluntary and decentralised climate governance approaches (Hoffmann 2011; van Asselt et al. 2018). However, ‘excessive coordination may stifle experimentation […], the mere fact that (more) experiments are happening does not necessarily imply that common goals will be achieved’ (van Asselt et al. 2018, p. 43). This implies that governance experimentation should not be left ‘free-floating’, but be aligned with explicit sustainability goals and as such experimentation also requires top-down guidance and support. Foster collaborative learning through co-creation Innovation and scaling requires collaboration, not only for materialising the solution itself but also to harvest knowledge about what it means for, and how it needs to be adapted to different contexts. Co-creation allows for deep participation to leverage and weave together local, expert and tacit knowledge, to account for competing value systems, and ultimately to address complex problems in an inclusive way (Frantzeskaki and Kabisch 2016; Devolder and Block 2015; Gulsrud et al. 2018). The integration of diverse perspectives fosters deeper relationships and empowers joined-up service delivery by professionals and citizens (Voorberg et al. 2014; Hölscher et al. 2019a; Frantzeskaki and Kabisch 2016). The case studies establish collaborative learning partnerships for (ongoing) experimentation in various ways. The Rebuild by Design competition that was initiated by the US Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) after Hurricane Sandy pioneered a novel process design to co-develop innovative, fit-to-context and integrative resilience solutions in the Sandy-affected region, including NYC

462  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

(RbD 2016). Institutionalised partnerships like the RDM Campus in Rotterdam continue the development of innovations like floating constructions. The pathways establish public–private partnerships and think tanks at global, national, regional and local to develop and spread innovations, exchange best practices and promote technology transfer. However, co-creation is not yet very common—especially not on the global climate governance arena—and co-creation processes depend on the time, efforts and skills of those generating and weaving together diverse knowledges (Tengö et al. 2017; Brown 2017). For example, it is important to develop communication skills to engage citizens and citizen groups in order to co-produce narratives, understandings and contextualised problem framings. Setting the scene for co-creation also requires institutional leadership that recognises knowledge gaps and creates organisational space and alliances, especially because co-creation requires more time than conventional planning processes and implies more ­open-ended results. Reflexive learning to learn from and adapt innovations Experimentation requires new modes of problem handling to find and deploy solutions to yet-to-be-solved problems, as well as dealing with uncertainty about risks, impacts, cause-and-effect and distributional effects now and in the future. When experimenting, it is not possible to aim at rigidly and pre-set outcomes and related indicators so that the process can allow for the emergence of innovations. In addition, continuous reflection is needed about how an innovation relates to its contexts and whether solution-finding efforts indeed. The scaling of innovations requires the dedication of time to identify, evaluate and translate lessons from specific innovations, such as about the viability, replicability and scalability, for their broader context (Turnheim et al. 2018; Ehnert et al. 2018). Harvesting knowledge from experimentation was a challenge in Rotterdam and NYC, as learning from tested solutions and the development of a bricolage of ‘proof-of-concept’ elements for replication and upscaling requires additional space and time. In NYC, knowledge about climate risks has been translated into Climate Resiliency Guidelines that give non-mandatory guidance for those involved in designing and renovating buildings about how to deal with flood, heat and sea-level rise. Nurturing an inclusive and reflexive learning culture helps to depart from traditional problem solving that seeks to eliminate uncertainty

14  CONCLUSIONS: BRIDGING AND WEAVING SCIENCE AND POLICY … 

463

and reduce complexity. Reflexive learning is about taking complexity as a starting point, meaning that there are no clear and pre-defined solutions—not at least because also understandings of what the problem is in the first place remain ambiguous and will change (Voß and Kemp 2015). Novel methods like reflexive monitoring help decision-makers and governance actors to take up a reflexive mind-set and embrace deep uncertainty, complexity and incomplete knowledge and thus the need for continuous learning and adaptation of how progress towards sustainability is sought in situ and real time (Beers and van Mierlo 2017). 14.2.4   Orchestrating Capacity: ‘Top-Down’ and ‘Good Governance’ Coordination for ‘Bottom-Up’ Self-Organisation Orchestrating capacity refers to the abilities to coordinate m ­ ulti-actor processes and foster synergies and minimise trade-offs and conflicts across scales, sectors and time. The notion of ‘orchestrating’ has been introduced in response to the increasingly distributed and polycentric nature of climate governance activities at different scales and in different sectors, which requires encouragement, coordination and assistance (Abbott 2017). It is closely tied to the concept of meta-governance (Jessop 1997; Kooiman and Jentoft 2009; Sørensen 2006), and thus describes an indirect, soft mode of governance when top-down control is not possible. We identify three themes for developing stronger orchestrating mechanisms for active oversight and authority to motivate, support, enforce and monitor widespread action on achieving climate mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development goals. There is a risk that activities in polycentric systems are mismatching and insufficient resulting in progress that is too slow and unambitious (Bäckstrand et al. 2018; van Asselt et al. 2018). The voluntary pledge-and-review system is unable to substantially enforce the already too unambitious NDCs. The examples of Rotterdam and NYC in this book further illustrate the gaps and barriers in what cities are able to achieve resulting from lacking top-down coordination resulting (Hölscher, Chapter 7, this volume; Hölscher et al. 2019b). Although orchestrating is generally employed without mandatory control (Abbott and Hale 2014; Abbott 2018), we argue in our case studies that it needs to be complemented by regulatory governance.

464  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

Shared goals and enforceable metrics and rules for monitoring, reporting and evaluating progress Overarching visions and strategies, for example the Resilience Strategy in Rotterdam (Gemeente Rotterdam 2016), ‘One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City’ (OneNYC) (NYC 2015) and long-term visions for Europe in 2100 (Appendix C) orient the delivery of co-beneficial solutions and motivate actors. The IMPRESSIONS case studies illustrate how such visions can be nested across multiple scales: the pathways take European visions as a starting point while still allowing for regional diversity, and they set overarching framework conditions and enforcement standards at international and national scales while allowing local diversity. The Paris Agreement gives an overall direction—i.e. keeping global temperature increase to a maximum of 2°C, achieving emission neutrality between 2050 and 2100 and adapting to the impacts of climate change. This direction gives a clear signal that decarbonisation must be considered when making long-term investments. However, such visions and goals need to be translated into new regulations and funding mechanisms in a way that mainstreams them into every sectors’ and actors’ activity. Only if decisively implemented and enforced will such rules bring certainty to investments. In this vein, scholars argue that governmental actors and international organisations like the UNFCCC should take more active action to provide direction and orchestration (Bäckstrand et al. 2018; Okereke 2018). Given the multiple governance scales in polycentric systems, international law is not the only source of overarching rules. Other examples include national framework laws that are better justiciable (Jordan et al. 2018)—as evidenced by the recent Urgenda Foundation court case against the Dutch Government heard by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, in which citizens established that their government has a legal duty to prevent dangerous climate change. The European Green Deal is an example of further enforcement of the Paris Agreement: it makes global goals more concrete and the net-zero target legally binding (European Commission 2019). In addition, effective systems for monitoring, reporting and evaluation of the existence and performance of policies and measures need to be put in place to ensure progress on the shared goals, such as emissions levels and estimated reductions, potential cross-border impacts and ancillary benefits. This also increases transparency, legitimacy, learning and trust,

14  CONCLUSIONS: BRIDGING AND WEAVING SCIENCE AND POLICY … 

465

as well as reduces uncertainty, incentives to deviate from a commitment and political contestations (Aldy 2018; van Asselt et al. 2018). Current monitoring, reporting, peer review and evaluation mechanisms—e.g. of those provided by the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement, as well as the SDG targets—are faced with challenges relating to the choice of methods and metrics, political sensitivity of the process, data availability and lacking institutional capacity (van Asselt et al. 2018; Aldy 2018). Only few of the dispersed and new climate governance forms are well monitored—this risks to render for example transnational city networks ‘mere talking shops’ (Jordan et al. 2018, p. 371). Effective systems for monitoring and evaluation can be institutionalised in international agreements and are at best undertaken at different levels of governance and multiple, independent efforts by national governments, businesses, civil society, academics, amongst others, that feed into a more centralised monitoring regime (Aldy 2018; van Asselt et al. 2018). Build organisational resources, structures and skills for orchestration Orchestrating mechanisms facilitate shared alignment, ensure and oversee progress and impacts, build partnerships and mediate knowledge, resources and interests. Orchestrators could encourage experimentation and systematic learning, incentivise and support state and ­non-state actors to design and implement policies and interventions, define parameters to maintain comparability and coordinate interventions to limit gaps and overlaps, disclose results and involve experts where necessary (Abbott 2018). They can also provide trainings and resources to build partnering capacity and activity of diverse actors, establish platforms to identify and match partners, invest in convening infrastructure, and employ professional representatives for unrepresented or d ­ ifficult-to-represent groups (e.g. future generations, nature) (Horan 2019). In Rotterdam and NYC, the city governments Sustainability and Climate Adaptation Offices and Chief Resilience Officers resemble orchestrators that ensure and oversee progress and impacts of climate initiatives, develop visions and new partnerships and collect and distribute knowledge. They channel information and knowledge, establish connections with ongoing processes, motivate action, search for funding and lobby for support. They also participate in cross-scale partnerships and networks to align goals and mediate knowledge and resources across local, regional and national levels.

466  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

However, orchestration is time and resource-intensive, and requires communication skills and trust-building. Abbott (2018) finds that climate orchestration falls short in producing governance arrangements that meet agreed climate goals and pose accountability problems. In Rotterdam and NYC, despite the increasing diversity of networks, spaces and channels to coordinate and integrate systemic climate action in Rotterdam and NYC, these do not extend beyond a still relatively small group of key actors. Strengthening orchestration requires increased authority and legitimacy, focal institutional position, possession of or ability to mobilise sufficient resources, dedicated staff time, long-term mandates and formal nodes and channels. Intermediary partnerships can support orchestration by linking actors to each other and sharing and mediating knowledge and resources— intermediaries often act as or in collaboration with orchestrators (Castán Broto et al. 2015). For example, at the multilateral level, the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership, founded in 2020 at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, facilitates multiple decarbonisation initiatives in multiple places in the Global South by providing resources, mentorship, investor matchmaking and parameters to follow (Bernstein and Hoffmann 2018). On the local level, the Science and Resilience Institute @ Jamaica Bay (SRI@JB) in NYC mediates scientific and community knowledge between universities, local communities and public agencies by creating an informal space to share ideas and concerns, doing transdisciplinary research and introducing research results into the discussion. Good governance principles and re-politicisation While transformative climate governance can be considered as generally consensus-oriented towards sustainability and resilience, transformations under climate change involve far-reaching societal and political choices that have strong normative and contested content. They will inevitably involve trade-offs and losers—for example, trade-offs between different priorities and goals and losers in terms of who is most affected by climate change vis-à-vis most able to adapt (Okereke 2018; Bulkeley 2015; Gillard et al. 2016). Trade-offs and conflicts also arise in relation to incumbent actors, who benefit from the status quo. Openly embracing and confronting difficult ethical choices is a necessity from the beginning of any decision-making or assessment

14  CONCLUSIONS: BRIDGING AND WEAVING SCIENCE AND POLICY … 

467

process—involving policies, research, and also business or individual behavioural decisions (Tàbara, Chapter 12, this volume). So far, there is a tendency within public sector authorities to treat climate change action as apolitical and technical, which does not only hide important decisions that must be made but also risks that political and economic forces continue to influence how interventions are being designed and framed (Chu et al. 2017; Romero-Lankao et al. 2018; Simon and Leck 2015). It is important to stimulate societal discourse about what sustainability and resilience mean—for whom, in which contexts, and when—and also recognising the diversity of pathways towards sustainability and resilience. This also means to allow conflict and diverging opinions to surface, and to ask questions about what, and whose goals need to be prioritised, to make hard choices about long-term and short-term trade-offs, to accept sunk costs and to find ways to accommodate losers. Given the hybridisation of actors in transformative climate governance, ‘good’ transformative climate governance requires rethinking what this means in terms of what roles and responsibilities are attributed to what types of actors. For example, scholars have criticised the ­re-organisation of what were considered governments’ task vis-à-vis civil society and businesses, how this is legitimised and who can be held accountable (Castán Broto 2017; Avelino and Wittmayer 2017). Increasing community self-organisation and market self-regulation might also veil the need for getting public actors to take ownership and employ hard instruments (Okereke 2018; Bäckstrand et al. 2018; Sabel and Victor 2017). Bäckstrand et al. (2018) discuss the accountability and legitimacy issues related to the increasing polycentricity of climate governance: climate governance often tends to be non-transparent and exclusive in providing closed venues for coalition building, trust and bargaining between powerful elites from government, market and civil society (ibid.; Hale 2016). While there has been an increased recognition for the role of the private sector and public–private partnerships, these partnerships have been accused of being anti-democratic, excluding already marginalised groups and reinforcing power imbalances (Reckien et al. 2017).

14.3  Conclusions We started this book with the premise that climate governance needs to be transformed, and that this could be achieved by fostering understanding about how capacities for transformative climate governance

468  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI

are emerging and can be strengthened. Transformative climate governance is our normative vision for an integrated, learning-based and inclusive governance approach that addresses climate change in synergy with sustainability and resilience goals. The vision contrasts existing climate governance that signifies the institutional resistance to change and is manifest in the inability to substantially reduce emissions and maintain human and environmental well-being on this planet. The agency-based capacities perspective on transformative climate governance provides a novel heuristic to systematically explain, evaluate and support the transformation of climate governance. Climate governance is still devoid of systematic comparative studies, which reveal good practices, or what is a good practice on one context but not in another. Rather than predefining solutions, the capacities provide a starting point for understanding the ongoing changes in the climate governance landscape at multiple levels, and for guiding the development of conditions for transformative climate governance. How actors navigate their existing contexts is what manifests in the capacities for transformative climate governance, thus giving a pro-active rendition of what and who is needed to enact the transformation of (climate) governance. In this sense, the capacities framework provides a basic frame and direction for questioning existing governance structures and practices and for developing conditions that enable governance in line with long-term sustainability and resilience goals, and in this way to replace the short-term modus operandi of existing (climate) governance. We suggest the capacities framework as a tool to derive more in-depth and generalisable results on how and what new forms of climate governance are emerging and how effective these are. The capacities will be context-dependent, emergent and can hardly be assessed for governance systems as a whole. Nonetheless, investigating the capacities aids a deeper, integrated and empirically based understanding of the most important enabling and limiting conditions for transforming climate governance as well as how conditions are created and changed. The case studies also illustrate the utility of the capacities framework for transdisciplinary research approaches, in combination with transition management, to co-create capacities in practice, with diverse stakeholders, and thus to shift towards more solution-oriented climate change research. As the 1.5°C goal is on the brink of becoming impossible, decisive changes in climate governance need to happen quickly. Our concluding research agenda signposts promising conditions and activities for

14  CONCLUSIONS: BRIDGING AND WEAVING SCIENCE AND POLICY … 

469

building capacities at multiple levels and overcoming capacity gaps and barriers that persist in (climate) governance. The research agenda turns attention to the governance institutions, modes, processes, skills and networks that need to be better understood and strengthened to facilitate transformative climate governance. The main challenge we highlight is to formalise the new governance capacities. While new capacities are emerging at multiple scales of climate governance, so far they are not institutionalised and recognised in mainstream governance practice. This renders them unable to provide continuity to counter the tendency to favour short-term wins and business-as-usual. Our research agenda seeks to highlight those insti­ tutional and organisational conditions that allow to decisively prioritise l­ong-term and integrated planning, align budgeting practices and procedures, mobilise broad alliances and partnerships for behavioural change, and to continuously learn and adapt to new knowledge and experimentation.

References Abbott, K. W. (2017). Orchestration: Strategic ordering in polycentric climate governance. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.2983512. Abbott, K. W. (2018). Orchestration: Strategic ordering in polycentric governance. In A. Jordan, D. Huitema, H. van Asselt, & J. Forster (Eds.), Governing climate change: Polycentricity in action? (pp. 188–209). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Abbott, K., & Hale, T. (2014). Orchestrating global solution networks: A guide for organisational entrepreneurs. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 9, 195–212. Aldy, J. E. (2018). Policy surveillance: Its role in monitoring, reporting, evaluating and learning. In A. Jordan, D. Huitema, H. van Asselt, & J. Forster (Eds.), Governing climate change: Polycentricity in action? (pp. 210–227). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Archer, D., Almansi, F., DiGregorio, M., Roberts, D., Sharma, D., & Syam, D. (2014). Moving towards inclusive urban adaptation: Approaches to integrating community-based adaptation to climate change at city and national scale. Climate and Development, 6(4), 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565 529.2014.918868. Avelino, F., & Wittmayer, J. M. (2017). Interlude: A multi-actor perspective on urban sustainability transitions. In N. Frantzeskaki, V. Castàn Broto, L. Coenen, & D. Loorbach (Eds.), Urban sustainability transitions. New York: Routledge.

470  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI Bäckstrand, K., Zelli, F., & Schleifer, P. (2018). Legitimacy and accountability in polycentric climate governance. In A. Jordan, D. Huitema, H. van Asselt, & J. Forster (Eds.), Governing climate change: Polycentricity in action? (pp. 338–356). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beck, S., & Mahony, M. (2017). The IPCC and the politics of anticipation. Nature Climate Change, 7, 311–313. Beers, P. J., & van Mierlo, B. (2017). Reflexivity and learning in system innovation processes. Sociologia Ruralis, 57(3), 415–436. https://doi. org/10.1111/soru.12179. Berkes, F. (2017). Environmental governance for the Anthropocene? ­Social-ecological systems, resilience and collaborative learning. Sustainability, 9, 1232. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071232. Bernstein, S., & Hoffmann, M. (2018) Decarbonisation: The politics of transformation. In A. Jordan, D. Huitema, H. van Asselt, & J. Forster (Eds.), Governing climate change: Polycentricity in action? (pp. 248–265). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biermann, F., Abbott, K., Andresen, S., Bäckstrand, K., Bernstein, S., Betsill, M. M., et al. (2012). Transforming governance and institutions for global sustainability: Key insights from the earth system governance project. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4(1), 51–60. Bosman, R., Loorbach, D., Rotmans, J., & van Raak, R. (2018). Carbon ­lock-out: Leading the fossil port of Rotterdam into transition. Sustainability, 10, 2558. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072558. Brown, A. (2017). Visionaries, translators, and navigators: Facilitating institutions as critical enables of urban climate change resilience. In S. Hughes, E. K. Chu, & S. G. Mason (Eds.), Climate change in cities: Innovations in ­multi-level governance (pp. 229–253). Cham: Springer. Bulkeley, H. (2015). Accomplishing climate governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Campbell, L. K., Svendsen, E. S., Sonti, N. F., & Johnson, M. L. (2016). A social assessment of urban parkland: Analysing park use and meaning to inform management and resilience planning. Environmental Science & Policy, 62, 34–44. Castán Broto, V. (2017). Urban governance and the politics of climate change. World Development, 93, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. worlddev.2016.12.031. Castán Broto, V., Macucule, D. A., Boyd, E., Ensor, J., & Allen, C. (2015). Building collaborative partnerships for climate change action in Maputo, Mozambique. Environment and Planning a: Economy and Space, 47(3), 571– 587. https://doi.org/10.1068/a140070p.

14  CONCLUSIONS: BRIDGING AND WEAVING SCIENCE AND POLICY … 

471

Chapin, S. F., III, Carpenter, S. R., Kofinas, G. P., et al. (2010). Ecosystem stewardship: Sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25(4), 241–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tree.2009.10.008. Chu, E., Anguelovski, I., & Roberts, D. (2017). Climate adaptation as strategic urbanism: Assessing opportunities and uncertainties for equity and inclusive development in cities. Cities, 60, 378–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cities.2016.10.016. Dąbrowski, M. (2017). Boundary spanning for governance of climate change adaptation in cities: Insights from a Dutch urban region. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 1–19. https://doi. org/10.1177/2399654417725077. Devolder, S., & Block, T. (2015). Transition thinking incorporated: Towards a new discussion framework on sustainable urban projects. Sustainability, 7(3), 3269–3289. Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 12(302), 1907–1912. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091015. Djenontin, I. N. S., & Meadow, A. M. (2018). The art of co-production of knowledge in environmental sciences and management: Lessons from international practice. Environmental Management, 61, 885–903. https://doi. org/10.1007/s00267-018-1028-3. Ehnert, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Barnes, J., Borgström, S., Gorissen, L., Kern, F., et al. (2018). The acceleration of urban sustainability transitions: A comparison of Brighton, Budapest, Dresden, Genk, and Stockholm. Sustainability, 10(3), 612. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030612. European Commission. (2019). The European Green Deal. COM(2019) 640 final. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/european-green-deal-communication_en.pdf. Accessed 20 December 2019. Folke, C. (2016). Resilience (Republished). Ecology and Society, 21(4), 44. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09088-210444. Frantzeskaki, N., & Kabisch, N. (2016). Designing a knowledge c­ o-production operating space for urban environmental governance—Lessons from Rotterdam, Netherlands and Berlin, Germany. Environmental Science & Policy, 62, 90–98. Frantzeskaki, N., & Rok, A. (2018). Co-producing urban sustainability transitions knowledge with community, policy and science. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 29, 47–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. eist.2018.08.001. Galafassi, D., Tàbara, J. D., & Heras, M. (2018). Restoring our senses, restoring the Earth: Fostering imaginative capacities through arts for envisioning climate transformations. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, 6(1), 69. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.330.

472  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI Garmestani, A. S., & Benson, M. H. (2013). A framework for resilience-based governance of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 18(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05180-180109. Geels, F. W., Sovacool, B., Schwanen, T., & Sorrell, S. (2017). Sociotechnical transitions for deep decarbonization. Science, 357(6357), 1242–1244. Gemeente Rotterdam. (2016). Rotterdam resilience strategy. Ready for the 21st century. http://lghttp.60358.nexcesscdn.net/8046264/images/page/-/100rc/ pdfs/strategy-resilient-rotterdam.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2016. Gillard, R., Gouldson, A., Paavola, J., & van Alstine, J. (2016). Transformational responses to climate change: Beyond a systems perspective of social change in mitigation and adaptation. WIREs Clim Change, 7, 251–265. https://doi. org/10.1002/wcc.384. Global Carbon Project. (2019). Carbon budget and trends 2019. [www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget] published on 4 December 2019, along with any other original peer-reviewed papers and data sources as appropriate. Gulsrud, N. M., Hertzog, K., & Shears, I. (2018). Innovative urban forestry governance in Melbourne?: Investigating “green placemaking” as a ­nature-based solution. Environmental Research, 161, 158–167. Hale, T. (2016). ‘All hands on deck’: The Paris agreement and non-state climate action. Global Environmental Politics, 16(3), 12–21. Hildén, M., Jordan, A., & Huitema, D. (2017). Special issue on experimentation for climate change solutions editorial: The search for climate change and sustainability solutions—The promise and the pitfalls of experimentation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 169, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2017.09.019. Hoffmann, M. (2011). Climate governance at the crossroads: Experimenting with a global response after Kyoto. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hölscher, K., Wittmayer, J. M., Avelino, F., & Giezen, M. (2019a). Opening up the transition arena: An analysis of (dis)empowerment of civil society actors in transition management in cities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, 176–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.004. Hölscher, K., Frantzeskaki, F., McPhearson, T., & Loorbach, D. (2019b). Tales of transforming cities: Transformative climate governance capacities in New York City, U.S. and Rotterdam, Netherlands. Journal of Environmental Management, 1(231), 843–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvman.2018.10.043. Horan, D. (2019). A new approach to partnerships for SDG transformations. Sustainability, 11, 4947. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184947. Hsiang, S., Kopp, R., Jina, A., Rising, J., Delgado, M., Mohan, S., et al. (2017). Estimating economic damage from climate change in the United States. Science, 356, 1362–1369.

14  CONCLUSIONS: BRIDGING AND WEAVING SCIENCE AND POLICY … 

473

IPBES, Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. (2019). 2019 global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. A Summary for Policy Makers. Available at https://www.ipbes.net/ news/Media-Release-Global-Assessment. Accessed on 15 May 2019. IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2018). Global warming of 1.5 °C. An special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Summary for Policymakers. Jessop, B. (1997). Capitalism and its future: Remarks on regulation, government and governance. Review of International Political Economy, 4, 561–581. Johnstone, P., & Newell, P. (2018). Sustainability transitions and the state. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 27, 72–82. Jordan, A., Huitema, D., van Asselt, H., & Forster, J. (2018). Governing climate change: The promise and limits of polycentric governance. In A. Jordan, D. Huitema, H. van Asselt, & J. Forster (Eds.), Governing climate change: Polycentricity in action? (pp. 359–383). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Karvonen, A. (2018). The city of permanent experiments? In B. Turnheim, P. Kivimaa, & F. Berkhout (Eds.), Innovating climate governance: Moving beyond experiments (pp. 201–215). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kates, R. W., Clark, W. C., Corell, R., Hall, J. M., Jaeger, C. C., et al. (2001). Sustainability science. Science, 292(5517), 641–642. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.1059386. Keskitalo, E. C. H., Juhola, S., Baron, N., Fyhn, H., & Klein, J. (2016). Implementing local climate change adaptation and mitigation actions: The role of various policy instruments in a multi-level governance context. Climate, 4(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli4010007. Kivimaa, P., Hildén, M., Huitema, D., Jordan, A., & Newig, J. (2017). Experiments in climate governance—A systematic review of research on energy and built environment transitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 169, 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.027. Kivimaa, P., & Kern, F. (2016). Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 45(1), 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.008. Kooiman, J., & Jentoft, S. (2009). Meta-Governance: Values, norms and principles, and the making of hard choices. Public Administration, 87(4), 818–836. Loorbach, D. (2014). To transition! Governance panarchy in the new transformation. Inaugural Lecture, Erasmus University Rotterdam.

474  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N., & Huffenreuter, L. R. (2015). Transition management: Taking stock from governance experimentation. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 58, 48–66. Magis, K. (2010). Community resilience: An indicator of social sustainability. Society and Natural Resources, 23(5), 401–416. https://doi. org/10.1080/08941920903305674. McPhearson, T., Haase, D., Kabisch, N., & Gren, Å. (2016). Advancing understanding of the complex nature of urban systems. Ecological Indicators, 70, 566–573. McPhearson, T., Iwaniec, D., & Bai, X. (2017). Positive visions for guiding urban transformations toward sustainable futures. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 22, 33–40. Moloney, S., & Horne, R. (2015). Low carbon urban transitioning: From local experimentation to urban transformation? Sustainability, 7, 2437–2453. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7032437. Montana, J. (2019). Co-production in action: Perceiving power in the organisational dimensions of a global biodiversity expert process. Sustainability Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00669-w. Nilsson, M., Griggs, D., & Visbeck, M. (2016). Policy: Map the Interactions between sustainable development goals. Nature, 534, 320–322. Nordström, A. V., Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M. F., et al. (2019). Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature Sustainability. https:// doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2. NPCC, Nyc Panel on Climate Change. (2015). Building the knowledge base for climate resiliency. New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. NYC. (2015). OneNYC. New York, NY: NYC Office of the Mayor. NYC Parks. (2016). GreenThumb: The largest community gardening program in the nation. http://www.greenthumbnyc.org/about.html. Accessed 31 January 2017. O’Brien, K. (2018). Is the 1.5 C target possible? Exploring the three spheres of transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 31, 153– 160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.04.010. Okereke, C. (2018). Equity and justice in polycentric climate governance. In A. Jordan, D. Huitema, H. van Asselt, & J. Forster (Eds.), Governing climate change: Polycentricity in action? (pp. 320–337). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pahl-Wostl, C., & Knieper, C. (2014). The capacity of water governance to deal with the climate change adaptation challenge: Using fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis to distinguish between polycentric, fragmented and centralized regimes. Global Environmental Change, 29, 139–154. RbD, Rebuild by Design. (2016). Hurricane Sandy Design Competition. http://www.rebuildbydesign.org/our-work/sandy-projects.

14  CONCLUSIONS: BRIDGING AND WEAVING SCIENCE AND POLICY … 

475

Reckien, D., Creutzig, F., Fernandez, B., Lwasa, S., Tovar-Restrepo, M., Mcevoy, D., et al. (2017). Climate change, equity and the sustainable development goals: An urban perspective. Environment and Urbanization, 29(1), 159–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247816677778. Rogge, K. S., & Johnstone, P. (2017). Exploring the role of phase-out policies for low-carbon energy transitions: The case of the German Energiewende. Energy Research & Social Science, 33(November), 129–137. Romero-Lankao, P., Bulkeley, H., Pelling, M., Burch, S., Gordon, D., Gupta, J., et al. (2018). Realizing urban transformative potential in a changing climate. Nature Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0264-0. Sabel, C., & Victor, D. (2017). Governing global problems under uncertainty: Making bottom-up climate policy work. Climatic Change, 144(1), 15–27. Sachs, J. D., Schmidt-Traub, G., Mazzucato, M., Messner, D., Nakicenovic, N., & Rockström, J. (2019). Six transformations to achieve the sustainable development goals. Nature Sustainability, 2, 805–814. Scientific Advisory Group of the UN Climate Action Summit. (2019). United In Science. High-level synthesis report of latest climate science information convened by the Science Advisory Group of the UN Climate Action Summit 2019. Available at public.wmo.int/en/resources/united_in_science. Seto, K. C., David, S. J., Mitchell, R. B., Stokes, E. C., Unruh, G., & ­Ürge-Vorsatz, D. (2016). Carbon lock-in: Types, causes, and policy implications. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41, 19. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085934. Simon, D., & Leck, H. (2015). Understanding climate adaptation and transformation challenges in African cities. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 13, 109–116. Sørensen, E. (2006). Metagovernance. The changing role of politicians in processes of democratic governance. American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074005282584. Tàbara, J. D., Jäger, J., Mangalagiu, D., & Grasso, M. (2018). Defining transformative climate science in the context of high-end climate change. Regional Environmental Change, 19(3), 807–818. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10113-018-1288-8. Tengö, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P., Raymond, C. M., Spierenburg, M., Danielsen, F., et al. (2017). Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond— Lessons learned for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, 17–25. Turnheim, B., Kivimaa, P., & Berkhout, F. (2018). Beyond experiments: Innovation in climate governance. In B. Turnheim, P. Kivimaa, & F. Berkhout (Eds.), Innovating climate governance: Moving beyond experiments (pp. 1–26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

476  K. HÖLSCHER AND N. FRANTZESKAKI UNEP, United Nations Environment Programme. (2019). Emissions gap report 2019. Available at: https://www.unenvironment.org/interactive/ emissions-gap-report/2019/. Van Asselt, H., Huitema, D., & Jordan, A. (2018). Global climate governance after Paris: Setting the scene for experimentation? In B. Turnheim, P. Kivimaa, F. Berkhout (Eds.), Innovating climate governance: Moving beyond experiments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. van den Berg, H., van Buuren, A., Duijn, M., van der Lee, D., Tromp, E., & van Veelen, P. (2013). Governance van lokale adaptatiestrategieen, de casus Feijenoord (Kennis voor klimaat. KvK report 103/2013). van Veelen, P. (2013). Adaptive strategies for the unembanked area in Rotterdam (Synthesis report. KvK report HSRR3.1 2013). Voß, J. P., & Kemp, R. (2015). Sustainability and reflexive governance: Introduction. Technische Universität Berlin. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781 847200266.00009. Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Tummers, L. G. (2014). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333–1357. https://doi.org/10. 1080/14719037.2014.930505. WEF, World Economic Forum. (2019). Global risks report—2019 (14th ed.). Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum. Available at: http://www3. weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risks_Report_2019.pdf. Westley, F., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Homer-Dixon, T., Vredenburg, H., Loorbach, D., et al. (2011). Tipping toward sustainability: Emergent pathways of transformation. Ambio, 40(7), 762–780. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13280-011-0186-9. World Resource Institute. (2019). Executive summary: Tracking progress of the 2020 climate turning point. Available at: https://wriorg. s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2020-tur ning-point-pr ogr ess_0. pdf?_ga=2.238049856.1177937018.1548173095-511820498.1538994158. WWF, Worldwide Fund for Nature. (2018). Living planet report—2018: Aiming higher. In M. Grooten, R. E. A. Almond (Eds.). WWF, Gland, Switzerland. Available at: https://www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/files/2018-10/LPR2018_ Full%20Report.pdf.

Appendix A: Transformative Climate Governance Capacities in Rotterdam and New York City

A.1 Stewarding capacity in Rotterdam and New York City See Table A.1. A.2 Unlocking capacity in Rotterdam and New York City See Table A.2. A.3 Transformative capacity in Rotterdam and New York City See Table A.3. A.4 Orchestrating capacity in Rotterdam and New York City See Table A.4.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. Hölscher and N. Frantzeskaki (eds.), Transformative Climate Governance, Palgrave Studies in Environmental Transformation, Transition and Accountability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49040-9

477

Activities

Network condition: Knowledge partnerships

Knowledge condition: Long-term, systemic and context-specific knowledge about risks and uncertainties

Creating issue-specific and multi-stakeholder research programmes and partnerships for knowledge generation across scales and sectors Formalising research partnerships and networks

Identifying and prioritising high-risk areas for directing investments

Generating problem-based and context-specific knowledge in vulnerability hot spots

Long-term forecasting of systemic risks and uncertainties across scales

Generating knowledge about system dynamics

Capacity conditions The Hazard Mitigation Plan considers how climate change may change the physical, social and economic vulnerabilities from natural and non-natural hazards including coastal storms, disease outbreak, drought, flooding and cyber threats (NYC 2014a)

Examples NYC

Rotterdam Climate Proof was established as part of the Rotterdam Climate Initiative (RCI) to develop knowledge about climate risks and adaptation strategies

Mayor Bloomberg established the NYC Panel on Climate Change (NPCC) as a formal collaboration between researchers from local universities to report on climate risks and adaptation needs

The Science and Resilience Institute at Jamaica Bay (SRI@JB) collects and aggregates knowledge on resilience in Jamaica Bay from universities, local communities and public agencies by doing transdisciplinary research and introducing research results into the discussion The Resilience Strategy identifies critical OneNYC identifies the initiative to study a model for infrastructures such as hospital roads that social empowerment zones, which aim to increase resirequire special protection in case of floods and dents’ resiliency in under-resourced neighbourhoods by emergencies (Gemeente Rotterdam 2016) targeting funds and capacity-building support to critical local service providers in these areas The Dutch Knowledge for Climate research NYC Parks and Recreation Department collaborates programme (2007–2014) brought together with knowledge institutes such as the Urban Field knowledge institutes and policy stakeholders Station and Natural Areas Conservancy as well as local to research flood risks, climate proofing and communities to monitor the social and ecological values adaptation strategies in high-impact regions of nature in the city (Forgione et al. 2016) including Rotterdam

The flood safety assessments for the Rotterdam Adaptation Strategy (RCI 2012) make risk forecasts on flood safety in relation to adaptive transport, urban water system, heat stress. The forecasts look at the region instead of focusing solely on the city, to take the whole flood system into account The Dutch Knowledge for Climate research programme supported knowledge generation on water safety risks in unembanked areas in Rotterdam

Examples Rotterdam

Table A.1  Stewarding capacity in Rotterdam and New York City

478  APPENDIX A: TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE CAPACITIES …

Mandating knowledge generation to ensure access to data

Institutional condition: Knowledge mandates

Institutional condition: Flexible, problem-based and fit-to-context planning and management approaches

Providing flexible regulation and incentives to facilitate fit-to-context risk protection

Integrating long-term, systemic risks and uncertainties into planning and management approaches Adopting problem-based, fit-tocontext and no-regret planning and management approaches

Strengthening self-organisation for stewarding

Activities

Capacity conditions

Table A.1  (continued)

The Department of Planning’s Resilient Neighborhoods studies engage ten communities across the five boroughs to derive recommendations for adaptive land use planning based on a range of coastal hazards and climate change projections. This will include updates to local land use regulations and citywide zoning to promote resiliency investments in buildings and infrastructure The Department of Planning implemented the Flood Text to encourage flood-resilient building construction throughout designated floodplains by removing regulatory barriers that hinder or prevent the reconstruction of storm-damaged properties and enabling new and existing buildings to comply with higher flood elevations issued by FEMA

The Dutch Room for the River programme provides funding and sets up collaboration to give the river more room to be able to manage higher water levels in the long-term. In Rotterdam, a project develops the Meuse river as a tidal park to connect multiple goals (e.g. greening, biodiversity, recreation, economic activity) The Rotterdam city government recommends to dry-proof and flood-proof buildings, e.g. by not building water-vulnerable infrastructure in ground floors

(continued)

The city government integrated climate change projections into emergency management and preparedness

To make NYC eligible for FEMA funding, the Emergency Management Department (EMD) coordinates the elaboration of the cross-departmental Hazard Mitigation Plan on reducing risks from, for instance, coastal erosion and storms, extreme temperatures, flooding and cyber threats (NYC 2014a)

Examples NYC

The flood risk management approach identifies acceptable risks levels and multiple adaptation steps over time

The province of South Holland demands regional and local authorities to assess water safety risks in unembanked areas and the need for additional protective measures. It developed a risk application guide to support municipalities

Examples Rotterdam

APPENDIX A: TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE CAPACITIES

…  479

Network condition: Multi-scale and cross-sectoral networks and partnerships for risk planning and management

Capacity conditions

Funded by the Dutch Room for the River programme, a project develops the Meuse river as a tidal park to connect multiple goals (e.g. greening, biodiversity, recreation, economic activity). It is implemented by the port authority, the city government and environmental organisations Actors from the city government’s water management department set up together with knowledge institutes action-oriented research consisting of workshops, interviews and a societal cost benefit analysis to determine suitable adaptation strategies and governance arrangements in different neighbourhoods of Rotterdam (Noordereiland and Kop van Feijenoord)

Regional and local authorities assess the safety situation in outer-dike areas and the need for additional protective measures. The province of South Holland developed a risk application guide that supports municipalities in determining water safety risks

Clearly assigning and communicating responsibilities of actors

Establishing issue-specific, multi-level and cross-sectoral collaborations to develop and implement projects in line with context needs Involving communities in joint and context-specific visioning, planning and implementation processes

Examples Rotterdam

Activities

Table A.1  (continued)

The NYC Parks and Recreation Department (DPR) encourages stewardship of local communities and citizens. The Young Street Tree Pruning project continues with 10,000 trees pruned in 2014. In 2014, DPR led 85 small scale stewardship workshops throughout the year as well as spring and fall stewardship days and planting events

To implement the NYC Special Initiative on Recovery and Resilience’s (SIRR) plan, the city needs assistance and funding from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to implement various beach renourishment and floodgate repair projects, review by FEMA of flood-related building standards, and FEMA’s authorization of a more flexible building classification in the National Flood Insurance Program (NYC 2013) The NYC Departments of Environmental Protection and Parks and Recreation collaborate to implement and maintain green infrastructure projects together with the Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency

Examples NYC

480  APPENDIX A: TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE CAPACITIES …

Raising awareness about risks and response options

Social condition: Social capital and actor empowerment

Examples Rotterdam

Continuously updat– ing plans and resilience and sustainability indicators

Knowledge condition: Drawing on past expe- The adaptive strategy is based on different Institutional and rience and learning adaptation pathways that involve multiple social memory about new solutions adaptation steps over time. They show co-benefits and robustness in the long-term, while requiring short-term and mid-term adaptation in line with new knowledge

The province of South Holland obliges local governments to inform inhabitants of unembanked areas about their flood risks. However, inhabitants are responsible for their flood safety, but they have limited awareness due to lack of information Strengthening social The Rotterdam Milieucentrum supports networks to enable awareness raising and provides information self-organised response about protection options and social resilience Monitoring and continuous learning

Activities

Capacity conditions

Table A.1  (continued)

The updated NPCC report (2015) covers new topics including public health, with a focus on extreme heat events. These additions were made following new available knowledge about health risks from climate change. As a result, protection from acute and chronic heat was prioritised and an urban heat island working group was set up The Hazard Mitigation Plan is considered a living document that will be updated every five years (NYC 2014a). OneNYC reports in detail about the progress on diverse indicators and measures

The Redhook Initiative is a community organisation that supported recovery from Hurricane Sandy (Cowan and Hogan 2014)

To ensure that citizens understand their flood risk and flood insurance purchase requirements, it is frequently conducting outreach meetings and developing public education campaign materials, including advertisements on public transportation, radio and community events

Examples NYC APPENDIX A: TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE CAPACITIES

…  481

Examples Rotterdam

Establishing public-private knowledge partnerships to identify drivers and explore phase-out options

Mandating knowledge generation to ensure access to data

Institutional condition: Knowledge mandates

Conducting regular emissions inventories

Road mapping and scenario analyses to explore phase-out options

Identifying systemic social and economic drivers of unsustainability and path-dependency

Network condition: Knowledge partnerships

Knowledge condition: Identifying and exploring systemic drivers

The Sustainability Strategy (Gemeente Rotterdam 2015) connects emissions reductions to energy production and efficiency, mobility, air and noise pollution, waste and economic development to reveal common drivers of unsustainability and synergies CO2-Roadmapping is used to reveal the contributions of (combinations of) diverse measures to reduce transport emissions in Rotterdam The sustainability monitoring reports disclose the emissions from different sectors in Rotterdam, such as mobility, port and buildings The energy cooperative Blijstrom researched together with different partners from the city government, 21 homeowner associations and TU Eindhoven how one building block can become energy neutral –

Revealing unsustainable path-dependency and mal-adaptation

Capacity conditions Activities

Table A.2  Unlocking capacity in Rotterdam and New York City

The plan ‘One city: built to last’ (NYC 2015b) presents a roadmap that presents different ways to reduce emissions from buildings by 80% by 2050 The city government releases annual inventories of GHG emissions to identify emissions sources and how savings could be achieved The NYC Green Codes Task Force brought together multiple public and private actors to make recommendations for the building and construction code changes in the Greener Greater Buildings Plan (GGBP) The GGBP (NYC 2009) mandates benchmarking on building energy and water consumption and energy audits to generate insights on and monitor the carbon intensity of buildings and identify target areas for policies and cost-effective upgrades

The NYC Health Department’s data on the health benefits of reducing air pollution substantiated the DEP’s push to regulate the phase-out of high sulphur heating oil, which also reduced emissions

Examples NYC

482  APPENDIX A: TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE CAPACITIES …

Examples Rotterdam

Institutional condition: Control of unsustainable practices

Institutional condition: Support for sustainable business cases and investments

The city government initiated CityLab010 as a public-private platform to create new collaborations and work out concrete actions for contributing to sustainability and to support the search for funding sources The city government invested in zero emissions buildings and solar panels on public properties

Providing incentives for sustainable investments

Implementing regulation The city council passed a ban of old to control unsustainable vehicles from entering the city centre practices to reduce air and noise pollution and dis-incentivise the use of more fossil-intensive cars

Integrating sustainability into public tendering

The Green Award certificate has been introduced for inland vessels and in 2013 500 ships had obtained this certificate

Setting standards for sustainable investments

Undermining vested interests and incentive structures

Capacity conditions Activities

Table A.2  (continued)

(continued)

The NYC Department of Citywide Administrative Services integrates sustainability and renewable energy into public tenders to invest in zero emissions buildings The NYC Department of Buildings passed regulations to phase out highly polluting fuel oil and passed the city’s Zone Green Zoning Text amendment

The NYC Department of Buildings (DOB) plans to implement ambitious performance standards for new construction that cost-effectively achieve highly efficient buildings, looking to Passive House, carbon neutral, or “zero net energy” strategies to inform the standards The Carbon Challenge seeks to encourage businesses, universities and other private organisations to cut GHG emissions

Examples NYC

APPENDIX A: TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE CAPACITIES

…  483

Network condition: Key support networks and partnerships

Social condition: Societal and political awareness and support

Setting up support networks with key stakeholders (groups)

Setting up public-private partnerships for issue-specific action

Lobbying for political support

Raising awareness and providing assistance for sustainable investments and behaviour change

Breaking open resistance to change

Capacity conditions Activities

Table A.2  (continued) Examples NYC

The Energy Atlas enables residents to GreeNYC’s marketing campaigns and find out whether their roof is suitable for the launch of the Green Light New York solar panels (GLNY) education centre for building professionals raised awareness of building owners and tenants about energy use and retrofitting The city council supported the plans of The Mayor’s Office of Sustainability’s the Sustainability Office and impledirect link to the Mayor and the city counmented the ban of old vehicles from the cil was important to lobby for political city centre support and achieve building code changes The energy cooperative Blijstrom To implement the efficiency changes reaches out to the houseowner assoin buildings, the Mayor’s Office of ciations to obtain support for energy Sustainability reaches out to and collabefficiency investments by holding orates with homeowner associations as evening courses on how to become important partners energy neutral The public-private Rotterdam Climate To update and gain support for the Initiative (RCI) streamlines, supports Waterfront Plan (NYC Planning 2011), and encourages initiatives for energy the Planning Department collaborated conservation, sustainable energy and with the NYC Waterfront Alliance, which CO2-capture brings together more than 800 activists, businesses, NGOs and civil society organisations

Examples Rotterdam

484  APPENDIX A: TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE CAPACITIES …

Activities

Network condition: Multi-actor innovation networks

Social condition: Leadership for creating and using opportunities for change

Involving communities in design and implementation of experiments

Forming informal ‘coalitions of the willing’ for strategic and operational innovation

Piggy-backing and quickly expressing potential of a new solution

Making use of momentum and opportunities for change

Mobilising political leadership to put new and ambitious goals on the agenda

Enabling novelty creation

Capacity conditions In 2007, the Mayor of Rotterdam put climate mitigation and sustainability on the agenda as a result of international momentum and the C40 membership. The goal to reduce CO2-emissions in Rotterdam by 50% in 2025 compared to 1990 was formulated Water policy entrepreneurs from the city government used the International Architecture Biennale in Rotterdam in 2005 to create space for an informal, cross-departmental process to push the climate agenda forward. This resulted in the launch of the Rotterdam Climate Proof programme The architecture company that develops the climate-proof Zomerhofkwartier turned a small plot into a rain garden to quickly express the idea of a rain garden they want to build in a public parking area To redevelop the old city ports (Stadshavens in Dutch) area an informal visioning process was organised that invited heterogeneous actors and allowed out-of-the-box thinking. New operational partnerships were set up, e.g. to implement the floating pavilion Local communities were involved in the design of the Benthemplein water square—this ensured support for the implementation and for the utilisation of the square also as a community space

Examples Rotterdam

Table A.3  Transformative capacity in Rotterdam and New York City

(continued)

SIRR brings together multiple public and private actors to develop a programme for reducing the city’s vulnerability to coastal flooding and storm surge and for rebuilding communities affected by Sandy (NYC 2013). This facilitated knowledge exchange and trust building The Rebuild by Design competition demanded far-reaching expert and community engagement to access local knowledge, identify local needs, gain support and ease conflicts

The NYC Department of Transport’s Commissioner proactively put sustainability on the department’s operating agenda, set up a NYC Sustainability Office and pushed for sustainable transport projects Hurricane Sandy provided the opportunity for the Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency, politicians, city departments, NGOs and community organisations to push for a more ambitious climate agenda. The Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Recovery (SIRR) was established to develop a resilience plan (NYC 2013) The NYC Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) explores potentials for integrating green infrastructure projects into sewer maintenance work

Examples NYC APPENDIX A: TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE CAPACITIES

…  485

Temporary lifting or avoiding existing regulations

Institutional condition: (Regulatory, financial) space for innovation

Network condition: Advocacy coalitions

During the implementation of the floating pavilion regulatory constraints emerged, because it was unclear which regulations would apply for example for fire safety. The explicit positioning of the project as a pilot helped to create space for navigating regulations

Examples Rotterdam

Participating in and hosting local, regional, national and international networking, best practice and knowledge exchange events for visibility

Creating advocacy coalitions to carry the innovation story

The Rotterdam Centre for Resilient Delta Cities (RDC) was established as a public-private network organisation with local businesses that seek collaborations abroad for applying their experience with realising innovative solutions The Global Centre of Excellence on Climate Adaptation and the Climate Adaptation Academy were launched in Rotterdam. These contribute to international city alignment and knowledge exchange

The Rotterdam Adaptation Strategy (RCI 2012) tells an inspiring and visually appealing story about climate adaptation options in Rotterdam and invites initiatives to connects to it Showcasing innovations The Climate Adaptation Office presents its as market potential for innovative solutions (e.g. Floating Pavilion, the city Benthemplein water square) as a unique tourist attraction

Social condition: Creating and advo(Trans-)local support cating an inspiring for the innovation story innovation story

Increasing visibility of novelty

Activities

Capacity conditions

Table A.3  (continued)

The ‘Highline’, a greened old train track in West Manhattan, is an example of re-use of space for recreation, green space that transforms abandoned and disused space into high value public space and has generated billions in tax revenue and become a tourist attraction The NYC Cool Neighborhoods Programme (NYC 2017) has a buddy system for heat preparedness as a way to build coalitions in communities for social cohesion and networking that is intended to save lives of most vulnerable during heat waves Many climate change information and debate events are held in NYC. Actors from the NYC government participate in international climate adaptation conferences to share its work

Various actors from the city government (actively promote the city’s overarching sustainability and resilience visions

The leaders of the Living Breakwaters Rebuild by Design project strategically selected sites with less regulatory constraints (e.g. avoiding imminent domains) and fewer jurisdictions and intensively communicated with multiple stakeholders to mediate interest conflicts

Examples NYC

486  APPENDIX A: TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE CAPACITIES …

Activities

Identifying bricolage of solution elements to mainstream innovations into urban planning processes and decisions Network condition: Formalising operational Self-sustaining innova- public-private partnertion networks ships for continuous innovation

Identifying opportunities from innovation for upscaling

Knowledge condition: Identifying proofLearning for replicaof-concept lessons tion and upscaling from innovations to facilitate replicating and embedding

Anchoring novelty in context

Capacity conditions

Table A.3  (continued)

The RDM Campus is a learning alliance between different public bodies, private sector partners and scientific institutes to test innovative solutions and ideas in practice

The Rotterdam Adaptation Strategy (Gemeente Rotterdam 2012) includes prototypes for proofof-concept solutions

The architecture firm De Urbanisten that implemented the Benthemplein water square builds on the water retention function covered by the square and the developed network to develop a climate-proof city quarter, the Zomerhofkwartier, in the area

The experiences from the Benthemplein water square were taken up in future applications by identifying success principles while making sure that there is no one-size-fits-all solution

Examples Rotterdam

(continued)

Cross-departmental and public-private task forces on specific topics (e.g. heat island) are tasked with generating knowledge, integrating goals and developing innovative projects

The Rebuild by Design competition resulted in the establishment of a working group within the Federal Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to oversee and reflect on the process. The team did extensive studies on challenges (e.g. policies, cooperation, coordination) and translated lessons into follow-up competitions The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) reflects on lessons from green infrastructure projects and engages in inter-city knowledge exchange to identify strategies for upscaling and replicating green infrastructure across NYC. Recent NYC Stormwater Resiliency 2018 research programme builds on past lessons to develop recommendations for future investments at citywide scales for flood resiliency (NYC DEP 2018) The Green Infrastructure Plan operationalises green infrastructure approaches to be implemented in NYC

Examples NYC APPENDIX A: TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE CAPACITIES

…  487

Institutional condition: Institutional space for embedding strategic and operational innovations in mainstream practice

Capacity conditions The creation of the Rotterdam Climate Initiative and the Climate and Sustainability Offices in Rotterdam enables to integrate strategies and solutions across sectors and scales

Setting up cross-sectoral networks and partnerships tasked with (embedding of) innovation in institutional structures Creating open mind-set for taking up innovations in tactical agendas and daily practices Allocating budget to developing and maintaining innovation, upscaling and replicating De Urbanisten, the architecture company that planned the Benthemplein water square, sought funding for upscaling the square to a climate-proof city quarter by piggy-backing on on-going road maintenance work and negotiating responsibilities for carrying costs for water safety (e.g. with the water boards)

Examples Rotterdam

Activities

Table A.3  (continued)

The Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) Commissioner established a Resilience Office to formulate a green infrastructure plan and implement infrastructure projects for flood protection while showcasing the importance of green space for health, air quality and recreation The Department of City-wide Administrative Service (DCAS) provides training to building operators on energy reporting to ensure that the data is correct The Department of Environmental Protection has as water utility its own funding to implement green infrastructure projects

Examples NYC

488  APPENDIX A: TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE CAPACITIES …

Involving multiple actors from different city departments and private organisations in strategy formulation

Social condition: Involvement of multiple actors in shared strategy formulation and visioning

Public outreaching and participation

Developing long-term climate mitigation and adaptation, sustainability and resilience goals

Activities

Institutional condition: Long-term and integrated goals

Strategic alignment

Capacity conditions The integrated climate change, sustainability and resilience plans in Rotterdam (e.g. Gemeente Rotterdam 2015, 2016) provide official overarching frameworks for aligning priorities and projects in the city towards long-term and systemic goals In the context of the IABR in 2005, space was created for cross-departmental reflection to develop a reframing from water as threat to connecting water and adaptation to opportunities. This initiated a formal trajectory to renew the first water plan from the late 1990s that has been mainly driven by the maintenance department of the city administration and there have been conflicts with the city development department The Sustainability Strategy (Gemeente Rotterdam 2015) involved public outreaching

Examples Rotterdam

Table A.4  Orchestrating capacity in Rotterdam and New York City

(continued)

OneNYC involved public outreaching and Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resilience (ORR) has engaged in multiple public outreach and workshops to seek participation and in traditionally underrepresented neighborhoods of the city

The integrated climate change, sustainability and resilience plans in NYC at city-wide and departmental levels (e.g. NYC 2007, 2010, 2015a) provide official overarching frameworks for aligning priorities and projects in the city towards long-term and systemic goals OneNYC was formulated building on a collaborative process involving actors from multiple city departments and private organisations

Examples NYC

APPENDIX A: TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE CAPACITIES

…  489

Activities

Network condition: Connection nodes for pooling climate action

The Rotterdam Resilience Strategy has identified community initiatives that could be connected to the city’s resilience efforts (Lodder et al. 2016)

Identifying private and community-based activities to seek linkages

Designating themeleads and contact persons within individual departments

The Chief Resilience Officer is a key contact point for pooling all resilience efforts in the city; it was created through the participation in 100 Resilient Cities The Sustainability and Climate Adaptation Offices facilitate strategy development, oversee and streamline implementation processes, channel information and knowledge, establish connections to other on-going processes, assign responsibilities and search funding for implementation and lobbying for support Each Climate Office’s member is placed in different city departments to ensure the Office’s agenda is taken up in each department’s initiatives

Examples Rotterdam

Establishing central connection nodes for pooling climate efforts at multiple levels Establishing cross-departmental city offices for coordinating and knowledge brokering at multiple levels

Mediating across scales and sectors

Capacity conditions

Table A.4  (continued)

The NYC Emergency Management Department (EMD) coordinates NYC’s disaster and emergency planning and response operations involving a variety of city departments The city government develops a comprehensive, interactive web-based platform to map community organisations and activities, identify gaps and duplication of efforts, as well as opportunities for integrating existing community-based and government initiatives

The Chief Resilience Officer is a key contact point for pooling all resilience efforts in the city; it was created through the participation in 100 Resilient Cities The Mayor’s Offices of Sustainability (MOS) and Recovery and Resilience (ORR) facilitate strategy development, oversee and streamline implementation processes, channel information and knowledge, establish connections to other on-going processes, assign responsibilities and search funding for implementation and lobbying for support

Examples NYC

490  APPENDIX A: TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE CAPACITIES …

Creating neutral co-creation spaces and knowledge partnerships to build trust for knowledge sharing and resource synergies across scales and sectors

Network condition: Intermediary spaces for knowledge sharing and trust building

To develop visions and concrete solutions for the re-development of the old city ports area, a co-creative transition management process was set up that brought together a variety of actors (Frantzeskaki et al. 2014)

Examples Rotterdam

Examples NYC

(continued)

The Science and Resilience Institute at Jamaica Bay (SRI@JB) in NYC mediates scientific and community knowledge between universities, local communities and public agencies by creating an informal space that is not politicised to share ideas and concerns, doing transdisciplinary research and introducing research results into the discussion Establishing cross-de- The participation in the Rockefeller Cross-departmental, public-private task partmental co-creation Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities forces take up specific themes such as spaces for knowledge programme supported the development water, buildings and heat island. Different exchange, priority of a resilience strategy and facilitates departments take the lead in developing alignment and trust knowledge exchange between cities and implementing the formulated initiabuilding tives. For example, the NYC Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) takes up the lead on green infrastructure investments and collaborates with the Parks and Recreation Department (DPR) Knowledge condition: Identifying opportuThe identification of co-benefits between The discussions in the Urban Heat Island Pooling and intenities, synergies and climate adaptation and health enables to task force revealed trade-offs between grating knowledge trade-offs between piggy-back no-regret solutions for deal- restricting air conditioning to reduce and resources across different goals ing with the urban heat island effect emissions and the vulnerability of especially scales and sectors low-income populations against heat waves

Activities

Capacity conditions

Table A.4  (continued) APPENDIX A: TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE CAPACITIES

…  491

Activities

Institutional condi- Redefining respontion: Framework con- sibilities for carrying ditions and financing costs mechanisms for longterm co-benefits Creating competitions to leverage innovative, long-term and co-beneficial solutions

Creating opportunity contexts

Capacity conditions

Table A.4  (continued)

The Benthemheim water square received funding from the water boards although it was a city project, because the project took care of the water boards’ responsibility to ensure water retention capacity

Examples Rotterdam

In the implementation of the Rebuild by Design projects, multiple responsibilities and jurisdictions need to be considered and it is debated, who will carry costs when there are multiple benefits The Rebuild by Design competition piloted a new process framework for developing innovative and co-beneficial solutions. The competition asked for innovative projects to support long-term rebuilding, community resilience and sustainability in the Sandy-affected region. The US Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provided partial funding to the winning proposals

Examples NYC

492  APPENDIX A: TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE CAPACITIES …

APPENDIX A: TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE GOVERNANCE CAPACITIES

…  493

References Cowan, L., & Hogan, H. (2014). From the edge of disaster: How activists and insiders can use the lessons of hurricane Sandy to make the city safer. New York, NY: North Star Fund. Forgione, H. M., Pregitzer, C. C., Charlop-Powers, S., & Gunther, B. (2016). Advancing urban ecosystem governance in New York City: Shifting towards a unified perspective for conservation management. Environmental Science & Policy, 62, 127–132. Frantzeskaki, N., Wittmayer, J. M., & Loorbach, D. (2014). The role of partnerships in ‘realizing’ urban sustainability in Rotterdam’s City Ports Area, the Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 406–417. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.023. Gemeente Rotterdam. (2015). Duurzaam dichter bij de Rotterdammer. Programma Duurzaam 2015–2018. Rotterdam: Gemeente Rotterdam. Gemeente Rotterdam. (2016). Rotterdam resilience strategy: Ready for the 21st century. http://lghttp.60358.nexcesscdn.net/8046264/images/page//100rc/pdfs/strategy-resilient-rotterdam.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2016. Lodder, M., Buchel, S., Frantzeskaki, N., & Loorbach, D. (2016). Richting een resilient Rotterdam. Reflecties vanuit een t­ransitie-perspectief. Creative Commons, DRIFT. http://www.cirkelstad.nl/wp2/wp-content/ uploads/2016/07/DRIFT-Rapport-Resilience-total_Final.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2016. NYC. (2009). Greener Greater Buildings Plan. New York, NY: NYC Office of the Mayor. NYC. (2010). NYC Green Infrastructure Plan: A sustainable strategy for clean waterways. New York, NY: NYC Department of Environmental Protection. NYC. (2013). A stronger, more resilient New York. New York, NY: NYC Office of the Mayor. NYC. (2014a). 2014 New York City Hazard Mitigation Plan. New York, NY: NYC Emergency Management. NYC. (2014b). Vision Zero Action Plan 2014. New York, NY: NYC Office of the Mayor. NYC. (2015a). OneNYC. New York, NY: NYC Office of the Mayor. NYC. (2015b). One city: Built to last. New York, NY: NYC Office of the Mayor. NYC, City of New York. (2007). PlaNYC: A greener, greater New York. New York, NY: NYC Office of the Mayor. RCI. (2012). Rotterdam climate change adaptation strategy. http:// w w w. r o t t e r d a m c l i m a t e i n i t i a t i v e . n l / d o c u m e n t s / 2 0 1 5 - e n - o u d e r / Documenten/20121210_RAS_EN_lr_versie_4.pdf.

Appendix B: Step-by-Step Description of the IMPRESSIONS Methodology to Co-produce Pathways Under ­High-End Scenarios

B.1 Introduction The integrated adaptation, mitigation and transformation pathways in IMPRESSIONS were created through a participatory knowledge generation processes that followed the adapted transition management approach as an overarching framework (Frantzeskaki et al. 2015, 2019; Chapter 9, this volume). The transition management methodology has been introduced as a new approach to deal with the persistent unsustainability problems that societies face today (Rotmans et al. 2001; Loorbach 2007; Loorbach et al. 2015; Frantzeskaki et al. 2012, 2018). It supports consideration of how long-term, transformative change towards a sustainable and resilient future can be enabled. The transition management methodology has been adapted in IMPRESSIONS to consider high-end socio-economic and climate scenarios as follows (Frantzeskaki et al., Chapter 9, this volume): • Pathways are formulated using moderated backcasting to a future contextual scenario (different Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and matched Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs)) instead of backcasting to the current situation or projections from the current situation to the future; © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. Hölscher and N. Frantzeskaki (eds.), Transformative Climate Governance, Palgrave Studies in Environmental Transformation, Transition and Accountability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49040-9

495

496  APPENDIX B: STEP-BY-STEP DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPRESSIONS …

• Pathways include sectoral and cross-sectoral strategies that respond to achieving the same scenario-independent vision element(s); • Information inputs during the identification of actions included results from stress-testing existing EU policies for their fitness and performance in different context scenarios (Carlsen et al. 2017) and simulated impacts and vulnerabilities associated with the contextual scenarios (Holman et al. 2017; Clarke et al. 2017); • Robust pathways have been identified across scenarios per case study as a result of a comparative analysis across scenarios. The objective of this guide is to demonstrate how the development of pathways may be used to help achieve a long-term vision, or specific elements of that vision, through the creation and implementation of intermediate actions and strategies. The approach employed in IMPRESSIONS to create pathways was an iterative, participatory process combining work by the research team and input from stakeholders. This allowed creativity in discovering and formulating actions and solutions for responding to complex problems with high degrees of uncertainty, such as climate change.

B.2 Definition and Set-Up of Transition Pathways In summary, we understand pathways as the following: • Pathways demonstrate how to achieve a long-term vision, or specific vision elements, through intermediate strategies and actions. • Pathways allow creativity in discovering and formulating actions and solutions for responding to complex problems with high degrees of uncertainty like climate change. • Pathways guide and mobilise future action by multiple actors and can be cross-sectoral. We adopted a hierarchy of these terms, such that pathways are made up of strategies, which are in turn composed of actions: • Pathway: pattern of change unfolding over time that is comprised of a bundle of strategies that are oriented towards the same vision or vision element(s).

APPENDIX B: STEP-BY-STEP DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPRESSIONS …

  497

• Strategy: consists of bundles of actions. Strategies can be p ­ rimarily people-based, nature-based, market-based or technology-based, depending on what type of resources or capitals they (largely) require to realise actions towards the vision. • Action: refers to operational activities that are carried out by one or multiple actors. Actions may occur over short- to long-term time scales and are usually time-dependent in their position along the strategy.

B.3 Description of the IMPRESSIONS’ Approach ­­Step-by-Step Following the adapted transition management methodology, we have undertaken several process steps to collect input on, verify and analyse the pathways per case study (Fig. B.1). The steps involved different types of activities: collecting stakeholder input via email surveys and online questionnaires (green), facilitated stakeholder workshops (blue) and expert analysis (red). The process was designed to enable the development of consistent pathways that address the opportunities and constraints of given socio-economic and climate scenarios and that work to achieve a ­long-term vision. Analytical work in the later stages of the process was used to assess the pathways in terms of their robustness, efficacy and synergies and trade-offs. Integrating the knowledge of stakeholders enables the development of pathways to be context-relevant, serving to inform policy decisions and actions with clear recognition of stakeholder views. In the following, we outline the various steps and associated activities, as well as how they have been implemented in different case studies. Table B.1 provides an overview of the case study-specific stakeholder participation steps. All workshops lasted two to three days, during which dialogue between stakeholders and experts from the IMPRESSIONS team was professionally facilitated. For all case studies, stakeholders were objectively identified via a stakeholder mapping exercise using categories of stakeholders (e.g. different sectors, age and gender groups), ensuring a minimum quota for each category. Step (a): Stakeholder workshop #1 The first step included the development of socio-economic scenarios for each case study—responding to the question ‘where might we be?’

ŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨ ŝŶƉƵƚĨŽƌƐŽĐŝŽͲ ĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ ƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐ

•

•

•

;ď͘ϭͿsŝƐŝŽŶ ƐƵƌǀĞLJΎΎ

ƌĂĨƚŝŶŐ ƐŽĐŝŽͲ ĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ ƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐ ĐƚŽƌĂŶĚ ĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ ĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐŽĨ ƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐ ƌĂĨƚŝŶŐƚŚĞ ǀŝƐŝŽŶ

;ďͿŶĂůLJƐŝƐ͗ ƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐΘ ǀŝƐŝŽŶ

•

•

• ŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶŽĨ ĐŽŵƉŝůĞĚǀŝƐŝŽŶ ŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨ ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐ dŝŵĞͲ ĚĞƉĞŶĚĞŶƚ ƉĂƚŚǁĂLJƐ

;ĐͿ^ƚĂŬĞŚŽůĚĞƌ ǁŽƌŬƐŚŽƉϮ

•

•

•

•

•

;Ě͘ϭͿ ^ƵƌǀĞLJΎΎΎ

ƌĂĨƚŝŶŐ ƉĂƚŚǁĂLJƐ ŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶĐLJ ĐŚĞĐŬ ƌŽƐƐͲ ƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽ ĐŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶ ^LJŶĞƌŐŝĞƐΘ ƚƌĂĚĞͲŽĨĨƐ ĨĨŝĐĂĐLJ

;ĚͿŶĂůLJƐŝƐ͗ ƉƌŽƚŽͲ ƉĂƚŚǁĂLJƐ

Fig. B.1  The process steps to co-produce pathways in IMPRESSIONS

ΎEŽƚŝŶƵƌŽƉĞĂŶĐĂƐĞƐƚƵĚLJ͕ŵŝŶŝͲ ǁŽƌŬƐŚŽƉŝŶ^ĐŽƚůĂŶĚ ΎΎDŝŶŝͲǁŽƌŬƐŚŽƉŝŶ,ƵŶŐĂƌLJĂŶĚ^ĐŽƚůĂŶĚ ΎΎΎDŝŶŝͲǁŽƌŬƐŚŽƉŝŶ,ƵŶŐĂƌLJ

•

;ĂͿ^ƚĂŬĞŚŽůĚĞƌ ǁŽƌŬƐŚŽƉϭΎ

•

• • ZĞǀŝĞǁŽĨǀŝƐŝŽŶ ŶƌŝĐŚŵĞŶƚŽĨ ƉĂƚŚǁĂLJƐ ZŽďƵƐƚ ƉĂƚŚǁĂLJƐ

;ĞͿ^ƚĂŬĞŚŽůĚĞƌ ǁŽƌŬƐŚŽƉϯ

•

•

• •

ĨĨŝĐĂĐLJ ^LJŶĞƌŐŝĞƐΘ ƚƌĂĚĞͲŽĨĨƐ ĂƉĂĐŝƚŝĞƐ ĐƌĞĂƚĞĚŝŶ ƚŚĞƉĂƚŚǁĂLJƐ WŽůŝĐLJ ŝŵƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ

;ĨͿŶĂůLJƐŝƐ͗ ĨŝŶĂůƉĂƚŚǁĂLJƐ

498  APPENDIX B: STEP-BY-STEP DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPRESSIONS …

APPENDIX B: STEP-BY-STEP DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPRESSIONS …

  499

Table B.1  Overview of stakeholder participation steps in all case studies Europe Stakeholder workshop #1 (a)

Vision survey (b.1)

Stakeholder workshop #2 (c) Survey (d.1)

Stakeholder workshop #3 (e)

Scotland

Hungary

–

MiniJune 2015 (27 workshop stakeholders) September 2015 (17 stakeholders) January 2016 – Mini-workshop (19 responses) in February/ March 2016 (45 stakeholders) February April June 2016 (24 2016 (23 2016 (22 stakeholders) stakeholders) stakeholders) January 2017 March 2017 Mini-workshop in (15 responses) (6 responses) December 2016 (10 stakeholders) Survey March 2017 (7 responses) May 2017 (17 June May 2017 (30 stakeholders) 2017 (12 stakeholders) stakeholders)

Iberia June 2015 (17 stakeholders)

June 2016 (16 responses: 9 from Portuguese, 7 from Spanish stakeholders) September 2016 (23 stakeholders: 10 Portuguese and 13 Spanish stakeholders) June 2017 (13 responses: 7 from Portuguese and 6 from Spanish stakeholders) September 2017 (16 stakeholders: 9 Portuguese and 7 Spanish stakeholders)

During the first series of workshops in 2015 in Iberia and Hungary, stakeholders developed ‘their own scenarios while contextualising them within a set of higher-level existing SSPs (either European or global)’ (Kok and Pedde 2016: p. 8). For the European and Scottish case studies, pre-existing scenarios developed by stakeholders during the CLIMSAVE project (Gramberger et al. 2015; Kok et al. 2015) were used as the foundation for drafting the SSPs (Kok and Pedde 2016). For the Scottish case study, a mini-workshop was organised instead of a full workshop to increase legitimacy and buy-in of stakeholders for three scenarios (SSP1, SSP3 and SSP4) and to develop ‘from scratch’ the Scottish version of SSP5. For further information on the design and methodology of this step, see Kok and Pedde (2016). Step (b): Analysis: scenarios and vision After the workshops, IMPRESSIONS experts drafted the storylines for each SSP per case study (Kok and Pedde 2016). This step was supported

500  APPENDIX B: STEP-BY-STEP DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPRESSIONS …

by a survey (in Hungary by a mini-workshop) to increase buy-in from the stakeholders. The survey was important as an additional step in the process to keep the ideas and narrative that the stakeholders contributed ‘alive’ and recent, and to ensure that there is continuation in the social learning that occurs during participatory processes. For the analysis of the scenarios, we used a new framework that was developed during the IMPRESSIONS research project running time: the capacities framework (Hölscher 2019; Hölscher et al. 2019a, b). The analysis using the capacities framework had as objective to identify the key actors and the actor-related abilities and institutional conditions in the scenarios. In this way, the analysis reveals which are the underlying opportunities and challenges for developing and implementing pathways to achieve the vision (Pedde et al., Chapter 10, this volume). Additionally, this step included an email survey (in European and Iberia) or mini-workshop (in Hungary and Scotland) to ask the stakeholders in each case study about their vision for the future. The stakeholders were asked to state important elements of the ‘world that they want’—responding to the question ‘where do we want to be in 2100?’ It was important that the stakeholders could express their ideas freely; however, they were informed about identified core vision elements (Frantzeskaki et al. 2015) to provide generic guidance. After collecting the stakeholder input on the vision, the stakeholder contributions were sorted according to the core vision elements (e.g. planetary boundaries, health and well-being, see Frantzeskaki et al. 2015). This helped to structure the input and to identify possible disagreements and missing elements (compared with the core elements). The contradictions and missing elements were noted so that they could be discussed with the stakeholders during workshop #2. Two main outputs were produced to present the vision to the stakeholders at workshop #2. First, a narrative was created for the vision themes by making a text version out of the bullet points from the stakeholders. Second, a shorter version of the vision was produced to be printed as a poster that could support the discussions about pathways to achieve the vision in workshop #2. Step (c): Stakeholder workshop #2 The main objective of the IMPRESSIONS workshop #2 series was to have the stakeholders identify responses per scenario that would contribute to achieving their vision, to group these responses into clusters that

APPENDIX B: STEP-BY-STEP DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPRESSIONS …

  501

benefit similar vision element(s) and to put the responses on a timeline from today until 2100 to develop time-dependent strategies. First, the vision was presented to the stakeholders and discussed. It was ensured that everyone agreed with the narrative and that requests for additional elements or changes to the text were included. During the presentation of the vision narrative, we explicitly pointed to contradictory statements found during the analysis so as to allow for stakeholders to clarify and come to a common vision statement. The discussions proven constructive in the sense that the deeper values and beliefs of what the future should hold and look like came to surface through the narrative statements. As vision development is a profoundly iterative process, further additions and comments on the vision could be made during the whole duration of the workshop. The vision, as a narrative and as a visual, was presented also in the following workshops allowing for further adaptations. The stakeholders identified responses per scenario to achieve the vision based on (i) the revised SSP narratives that were presented as part of the ‘integrated scenario context’ together with climate change scenarios (Sloth Madson et al. 2016; Kok and Pedde 2016), (ii) the modelled climate change impacts (Clarke et al. 2017 for the results from the Scottish, Iberian and Hungarian case studies; Holman et al. 2017 and Tinch et al. 2017 for the European case study) and (iii) the stress-testing of current policies (Carlson et al. 2017). These inputs provided the full context for identifying responses under specific high-end scenarios. The responses were collected on post-its (Fig. B.2). All responses were clustered into different stakeholder-defined categories. Some of these categories were selected for the development of strategies. The strategies were developed by taking all the responses (written on post-its) in one cluster and putting them on a timeline from today until 2100, i.e. by time-stamping the responses (see Fig. B.3). This resulted in an initial two to three time-dependent stakeholder strategies per scenario per case study. Step (d): Analysis: proto-pathways After workshop #2, the IMPRESSIONS team analysed the input from the stakeholders to develop the draft or proto-pathways, which would be further developed during the workshop series #3. After checking the consistency of the pathways with the scenarios, the suggested changes were cross-checked in a survey with the stakeholders. This resulted in a

502  APPENDIX B: STEP-BY-STEP DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPRESSIONS …

Fig. B.2  The collection of actions in response to the socio-economic scenario SSP5 in the Hungarian case study, before clustering

Fig. B.3  An example of making time-dependent strategies by putting all responses in a cluster on a timeline from today until 2100 during the IMPRESSIONS ­workshops #2

APPENDIX B: STEP-BY-STEP DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPRESSIONS …

  503

final draft of the proto-pathways, which were then analysed in terms of synergies and trade-offs, their efficacy in achieving the vision and dominant pathways across scenarios. d.1 Drafting the pathways To draft the first version of the proto-pathways, the IMPRESSIONS teams analysed the responses collected at workshop #2. The method followed for drafting the proto-pathways is the objective-driven inquiry method from operations’ research (Raiffa 1968). We applied this method in the following steps: • We screened the responses and sorted out those that referred to either vision statements or additions to the scenario storylines. We included them in revising the vision and scenarios and did not consider them in formulating the pathways. The screening of the responses was performed using the narrative matching analysis method. • We started with the clusters of responses that were rolled out in the three time slices (today–2040; 2041–2070; 2071–2100) by the stakeholders (= stakeholder strategies, see Figure 2). For these stakeholder strategies, we identified the vision element(s) they aim to achieve. • Following the rationale developed by the stakeholders in the stakeholder strategies and as noted down in the notes from the workshops, the IMPRESSIONS team placed the other clusters of responses (that were not time-stamped by the stakeholders during workshop #2) along the three time slices and identified which vision element(s) they aim to achieve. This resulted in a number of strategies, with each strategy including time-stamped responses and addressing one (or more) vision element(s). • Strategies that aim to achieve the same vision element(s) were clustered together as a pathway. • For every strategy, we identified whether the actions are people-based, nature-based, technology-based or market-based. ­ People-based actions seek to build or use social and human capital, nature-based actions build or use natural capital, technology-based actions build or use manufactured capital and market-based actions address financial capital. • For every pathway, we identified whether they are mitigation, adaptation and/or transformation pathways. Mitigation pathways include strategies and actions to reduce emissions and drivers of unsustainability. Adaptation pathways include strategies and actions

504  APPENDIX B: STEP-BY-STEP DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPRESSIONS …

to adapt and cope with climate change and other negative social and environmental impacts. Transformation pathways include strategies and actions to fundamentally change structures, cultures and practices of societal systems towards sustainability and resilience. d.2 Consistency check of pathways with the scenarios (and survey) For every strategy, we checked the consistency of actions with the scenario narratives and identified which actions and strategies needed to be changed (deleted/moved into different time slices). To verify the recommended changes with the stakeholders, we conducted a survey that asked all participating stakeholders for their input (Table B.1). The survey was distributed over email to all stakeholders participating in the workshop #2 series. In Hungary, the survey was preceded by a mini-workshop during which stakeholders discussed and revised the pathways. Based on the survey results, we revised the pathways to improve their consistency with the scenarios. This resulted in the final proto-pathways that were subsequently presented and discussed during workshop #3. The survey also asked the stakeholders to verify the revisions of the visions that were implemented by the IMPRESSIONS research team following the discussions during the workshop #2 series. The input collected during the workshop was first analysed by the research team. In this process, the notes from the workshop discussions were critically assessed with regard to what and how this input added to and/ or changed the initial version of the vision. Based on the revisions and survey results, the vision narratives and posters were adapted for the subsequent analysis steps (e.g. analysis of efficacy of pathways) and the presentation at the workshop #3 series. d.3 Cross-scenario comparison The pathways were compared across scenarios. This was done by comparing the vision elements and sectors addressed in the pathways across scenarios. It resulted in an overview of similar pathways, themes and sectors addressed across scenarios, robust pathways across scenarios and core topics in each case study. It also revealed differences across scenarios, for example in how specific themes are addressed in different ways. d.4 Analysing the efficacy of the pathways in achieving the vision We qualitatively and quantitatively assessed the extent to which the pathways achieve the vision using a consistent methodological framework in which

APPENDIX B: STEP-BY-STEP DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPRESSIONS …

  505

scenario context and capital (human, social, financial and manufactured) availability constrain the effectiveness of the actions in moving towards the vision. This has been discussed in detail within Holman et al. (2017). Table B.2 provides an overview of the different steps that were employed to analyse the pathways’ efficacy in achieving the vision. A selection of vision elements and associated indicators was made for this assessment. The assessment of whether pathways achieve some vision elements can be made using models. The assessment for other elements is made qualitatively by the IMPRESSIONS team. The assessment was visualised using spider diagrams that indicate the (quantitative and qualitative) change in the value of the vision indicators in reference to the baseline and the vision for (i) the scenario storylines and (ii) the pathways for the three time slices. d.5 Identification of synergies and trade-offs Synergies were identified based on the comparative analysis of the pathways across scenarios within each case study. The analysis revealed a Table B.2  Steps for assessing the efficacy of pathways in achieving the vision Step

Quantitative Track

1. Setting vision targets

The vision elements were classified according to whether they are likely to either necessitate adaptation, mitigation and/or transformation to achieve them A sub-set of vision elements was identified for the analysis (related SDGs and SDG indicators were used to identify key elements within the vision) For each vision element that can be related to a model indicator, expert judgement was used to derive a quantified value or threshold which would demonstrate whether the vision element has been achieved

2. Assessing each RCPSSP scenario against vision elements

Climate change impact models were run to assess whether a scenario achieves the target value of the quantitative vision element by 2100

Qualitative Track

For each vision element that cannot be related to a model indicator, an additional qualitative description of the vision element was added (through expert judgement) to help characterise whether it has been achieved Expert judgement, taking account of the scenario narrative, constraints and available RCPxSSP model results, were used to assess whether the desired status of the qualitative vision elements are met by 2100

(continued)

506  APPENDIX B: STEP-BY-STEP DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPRESSIONS … Table B.2  (continued) Step

Quantitative Track

Qualitative Track

3. Assessing the pathways for a given RCP-SSP scenario

Looking across all pathways, actions were identified within each time period that would affect, either individually or in aggregate, model inputs in a particular direction (increase/decrease) For example, actions of “Invest in agricultural and water innovation to improve productivity” and “Invest in innovation in food production for food security” might lead to increases in model input values set for ‘irrigation efficiency’, ‘agricultural mechanisation’ and ‘yield improvement’ and also might decrease ‘fertiliser use’

Looking across all pathways, actions were identified within each time period that would affect, either individually or in aggregate, each qualitative vision element Looking across all pathways, actions within each time period were identified that would affect, either individually or in aggregate, availability of human, social, financial and manufactured capitals. Expert judgement was used to assess change in capital availability Expert judgement was used to assess whether the actions are likely to move the status of the vision element closer to the desired status by 2100, taking account of the availability of relevant capitals

4. Analyse outcomes

Looking across all pathways, actions within each time period were identified that would affect, either individually or in aggregate, availability of human, social, financial and manufactured capitals. Expert judgement was used to assess change in capital availability Model input values were changed to represent the maximum amount of change that is credible within the scenario context, taking account of modified capital (human, social, financial and manufactured) availability and other scenario constraints The model(s) were run to assess whether the target value is achieved for each modelled vision element by 2100 The ability of the pathways to achieve the vision by 2100 for a given RCPxSSP scenario was evaluated, considering: • The quantitative and qualitative analysis of vision elements; • Synergies and trade-offs identified during the analysis; • Key vision elements that appear not to be met through the actions within the current pathways

Adapted from Holman et al. (2017)

APPENDIX B: STEP-BY-STEP DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPRESSIONS …

  507

pattern of interlinked pathways, of which one or two pathways in each case study represent ‘conditional’ pathways; that is, these pathways put in place the key conditions for developing and implementing the other pathways. We identified trade-offs between pathways, strategies and actions in every scenario based on experts’ input during an IMPRESSIONS meeting in November 2016, the notes from the stakeholders’ discussion in workshop #2 and the analysis of the pathways’ efficacy in achieving the vision. Overall, the trade-offs give indications of the need to identify additional actions to avoid or alleviate the (potential) trade-off—rather than suggesting strategies and actions that do not work by definition. Step (e): Stakeholder workshop #3 The main objective of the IMPRESSIONS workshop #3 series was to enrich the pathways to improve their efficacy in achieving the vision, avoid trade-offs and think of concrete transformative solutions that are ‘game-changing’ the course of pathways for moving towards the vision. A particular focus was on discussing the need, and proposed actions, for transformational change and identifying robust pathway elements across scenarios. During the workshop, the revised vision and the scenario storylines were presented to the stakeholders to familiarise them with the scenario logics. The proto-pathways were presented to the stakeholders within the different scenario groups. The stakeholders were then asked whether they agree with the proto-pathways and to identify needs for additional strategies and actions. In the following sessions, the results from the pathways’ efficacy assessment and the analysis of synergies and t­rade-offs were presented to the stakeholders, who were then asked to think of additional actions and identify specific actors to enrich the pathways and move closer to the vision as well as to think of transformative actions. Due to time constraints, these additional actions were focussed on those vision elements that were distant from achieving the desired vision as well as those that were of most interest to the stakeholders in a given scenario. The latter was supported by input presentations on climate mitigation and agent-based modelling (see Lamperti et al. 2016) and posters that showcase ‘real world’ transformative solutions. Following this, the stakeholders worked across scenarios to identify key enabling conditions and robust pathway elements and specify concrete transformative actions.

508  APPENDIX B: STEP-BY-STEP DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPRESSIONS …

Step (f): Analysis: final pathways After the IMPRESSIONS workshop #3 series, the additions made to the pathways were consolidated and the analyses of pathways (steps d.3 to d.5) were updated by repeating steps 3 and 4 in Table B.2. Additionally, the key actors and actor-related abilities and institutional conditions put in place in the pathways were identified following the agency capacities framework (Frantzeskaki et al. 2015). This resulted in the final pathways, including the analysis of their efficacy in achieving the vision, synergies and trade-offs as well as the governance capacities that are built up and required for implementing the pathways (Appendix C; Hölscher et al. 2017; Frantzeskaki et al. 2019).

References Carlsen, H., Jäger, J., & Juhasz-Horvath, L. (2017). Assessment of current policies and strategies using stress-testing methods (EU FP7 IMPRESSIONS Project Deliverable D5.3). Clarke, L., Rounsevell, M., Dunn, M., Capela Lourenço, T., Tàbara, D., Pinter, L., et al. (2017). Regional/Local scale CCIAV applications (EU FP7 IMPRESSIONS Project Deliverable D3C.2). Frantzeskaki, N., Hölscher, K., Bach, M., & Avelino, F. (Eds.). (2018). Co-creating sustainable urban futures: A primer on applying transition management in cities. Tokyo: Springer. Frantzeskaki, N., Hölscher, K., Holman, I. P., Pedde, S., Jaeger, J., Kok, K., et al. (2019). Transition pathways to sustainability in greater than 2°C climate futures of Europe. Regional Environmental Change. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10113-019-01475-x. Frantzeskaki, N., Hölscher, K., Jäger, J., Holman, I., Tàbara, J. D., Pedde, S., et al. (2015). Advanced transition management methodology (EU FP7 IMPRESSIONS Project Deliverable D4.1). Frantzeskaki, N., Loorbach, D., & Meadowcroft, J. (2012). Governing societal transitions to sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 15(1–2), 19–36. Gramberger, M., Zellmer, K., Kok, K., & Metzger, M. (2015). Stakeholder Integrated Research (STIR): A new approach tested in climate change adaptation research. Climatic Change, 128, 201–214. Holman, I., Audsley, E., Berry, P., Brown, C., Bugmann, H., Clarke, L., et al. (2017). Modelling climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability in Europe (EU FP7 IMPRESSIONS Project Deliverable D3B.2).

APPENDIX B: STEP-BY-STEP DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPRESSIONS …

  509

Hölscher, K. (2019). Transforming urban climate governance: Capacities for transformative climate governance (PhD thesis). Erasmus University Rotterdam. https://repub.eur.nl/pub/118721. Hölscher, K., Frantzeskaki, N., Holman, I., Pedde, S., J­uhasz-Horvath, L., Clarke, E., et al. (2017). Adaptation and mitigation pathways, and synergy mechanisms between them, for the case studies (EU FP7 IMPRESSIONS Project Deliverable D4.2). Hölscher, K., Frantzeskaki, N., & Loorbach, D. (2019a). Steering transformations under climate change: capacities for transformative climate governance and the case of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Regional Environmental Change, 19(3), 791–805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1329-3. Hölscher, K, Frantzeskaki, N., McPhearson, T., & Loorbach, D. (2019b). Capacities for urban transformations governance and the case of New York City. Cities, 94, 186–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.05.037. Hölscher, K, Frantzeskaki, N., McPhearson, T., & Loorbach, D. (2019b). Capacities for urban transformations governance and the case of New York City. Cities, 94, 186–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.05.037. Kok, K., & Pedde, S. (2016). IMPRESSIONS socio-economic scenarios (EU FP7 IMPRESSIONS Project Deliverable D2.2). Kok, K., Sendzimir, J., Bärlund, I., Flörke, M., Gramberger, M., Zellmer, K., et al. (2015). European participatory scenario development: Strengthening the link between stories and models. Climatic Change, 128(3–4), 187–200. Lamperti, F., Dosi, G., Mandel, A., Napoletano, M., Roventini, A., & Sapio, A. (2016). A new family of agent-based models and their application to high-end scenarios (EU FP7 IMPRESSIONS Project Deliverable D5.2). Loorbach, D. (2007). Transition management: New mode of governance for sustainable development (PhD thesis). Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam. Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N., & Huffenreuter, L. R. (2015). Transition management: Taking stock from governance experimentation. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 58, 48–66. Raiffa, H. (1968). Decision analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., & van Asselt, M. (2001). Emerald article: More evolution than revolution: Transition management in public policy. Foresight, 3(1), 15–31. Sloth Madsen, M., Fox Maule, C., Hesselberg Christensen, J., Fronzek, S., & Carter, T. (2016). IMPRESSIONS climate scenarios (EU FP7 IMPRESSIONS Project Deliverable D2.3). Tinch, R., Jäger, J., Omann, I., Harrison, P.A., Wesely, J., & Dunford, R. (2015). Applying a capitals framework to measuring coping and adaptive capacity in integrated assessment models. Climatic Change, 128, 323–337.

Appendix C: Visions and Pathways to Shift to Low-Carbon, Resilient and Sustainable Futures in Europe

C.1 Visions and Pathways for Europe C.1.1 European Vision Narrative Health, Well-being and Sustainable Lifestyles All European citizens enjoy a high quality of life that does not compromise the future of generations to come. They are healthy and live long. Money is spent on prevention of illness and diseases rather than on hospitals. Everybody has access to advanced health services regardless of their income. Sustainable and healthy living patterns, which are common, include high-energy efficiency housing, low waste generation, use of sustainable (public) means of transportation, sustainable energy consumption and the practice of urban agriculture. Many Europeans live in high-density, medium-sized cities that use a minimum of space with a maximum of liveability and access to cultural highlights, near to open space and green, but also near to jobs, education and public transport. Outside these dense areas are large spaces for agriculture, nature, water buffering, productive open space and

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. Hölscher and N. Frantzeskaki (eds.), Transformative Climate Governance, Palgrave Studies in Environmental Transformation, Transition and Accountability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49040-9

511

512  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

recreation. People live in strongly networked, small-scale, self-sufficient communities based on social equity and cooperation. Producing food and energy is an important part of their activities. Jobs, Income and Education Europeans work fewer hours than they did in 2015 and they volunteer and share jobs more. Many jobs are generated within the community and linked with achieving self-sufficiency. Basic human needs (e.g. clean water, healthy nutritious food, decent shelter, free basic education) are met, and all communities have access to the goods and assets that facilitate the pursuit and achievement of human rights and well-being. A solidarity system transfers resources between younger and older generations. Citizens have advanced and affordable education (on all levels). Research aims to advocate, communicate and practice a more holistic approach towards solving major scientific and societal challenges. Voice, social Equity and Gender Equality There is true equity among citizens and societies, and the gaps between the wealthy and the less-well-to-do groups in each country are lower than in 2016. Wealth is duly distributed, globally and regionally. Poverty is eradicated. Global (economic) equity and fair chances for previously lesser developed countries mean that the desire of people to leave their own country to seek asylum and shelter in Europe is low. Governance Given the networked community-based living, new modes of governance and European integration deal with the increasing interconnectedness of the problems across the globe. There are active mechanisms to counteract the concentration of wealth and power that come from automation and technological advancement in a free market. Society is based on democratic values that include all people. All levels of civil society participate in decisions on technical and social innovations. Policy-making in any field is based on scientific evidence (e.g. scientific and finance data), integrated risk assessments and is the result of collaborations between scientists, engineers, governments, policy makers and other stakeholders. Regional and Global Relationships Europe is a strong, peaceful and cohesive continent allowing for national and regional diversity. There is strong awareness and recognition among

APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   513

citizens and societies of the advantages that this strength and cohesiveness offers. Countries and regions (within Europe and beyond) have strong functional incentives to prioritise collective goals over individual ones. This includes binding bilateral and multilateral agreements and strong political accountability that avoid externalising negative consequences from unsustainable practices. Europe is unified in the face of internal and external challenges (e.g. climate change, migration). The regions are strongly interconnected, each with its own identity. Neighbouring regions are integrated to respond to economic, environmental and social challenges (i.e. ageing, migration, economic development, cross-border pollution). Thus, Europe exerts a positive and stabilising impact on its neighbouring regions. The citizens are positive about Europe, which is an exemplar to the rest of the world. Environment All environmental systems providing support to human societies and other forms of life maintain their integrity and capacity to regulate basic matter, energy and ecological cycles, through a balance in preserving and using ecosystem services. Biodiversity is not declining and chemical, biological and other (e.g. solid waste) pollution is almost non-existent in water, air and soil. Atmospheric pollution has been cut by 95% compared to the level of 2010. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is stabilised at 450 ppm CO2 eq. The population and economy respect the planetary boundaries. Resources are used efficiently based on a closed-loop perspective. Political, financial and individual motives are guided by the protection of Europe’s (and the world’s) natural resources and environment, as well as cultural heritage. Sustainability is embedded as a fundamental investment criterion in all economic planning, including agriculture, manufacturing, finance and energy. Europeans have an open society, in which the major strength is the normative power exercised through standard setting, protection of environment and human health and inclusive innovation. Food, Water and Energy Energy is produced and consumed in the most intelligent, sustainable, non-polluting ways with no environmental impact and with zero CO2 emissions. Europe is energy self-sufficient, with a high dependence on renewable energy sources, free from any dependence on fossil fuels. As a world leader in the field, Europe exports renewable energy technologies

514  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

to other countries. Historical buildings are retrofitted, and new buildings are built according to minimum energy performance requirements. Terrestrial transport systems are powered primarily by electricity and hydrogen. Sustainable agriculture and fisheries provide food security for all. Europeans are more attentive to the quality of their food rather than the quantity. Innovative technologies are used to produce food and recover and reuse water at reasonable prices, while respecting the environment and human health. Quality agricultural clusters satisfy the needs of communities at local and global levels. Deep aquifers and fossil water are no longer exploited. Potable water is provided through closed-loop systems. Storm water management, bio-remediation, biologically driven desalination and rainwater harvesting support the sustainable use of water. Resilience Society is well prepared to adapt to the consequences of climate change in a flexible manner: it ensures the appropriate level of protection/resilience of our coasts and river banks with respect to flooding. It uses the forces of nature in harmony with both nature and stakeholder and societal interests. Europe acts pre-emptively and strives to prevent crises; it stays unified in the face of internal and external challenges. Technological advances help people react and reorganise rapidly in the case of major disruptions. Economies can rebuild swiftly, and extreme losses are not carried by individuals but collectively. People are rarely permanently displaced. Europeans impacted by climate change (be it financially, physically or mentally) are provided with assistance. Systems and plans for disaster risks are widely available and also applied for cultural heritage. There is a highly advanced dataset for environmental risk assessment, constructed through knowledge sharing and emergent data that is available to policy makers and the public. This influences zoning, city planning and policy decisions to maximise the number of risks that can be avoided or reduced. Resilient cities and resilient communities’ behaviours are widespread. C.1.2 European Pathways See Tables C.1, C.2, C.3, and C.4.

Strategies

Strategy A.1.1: Induce and trigger behavioural changes to sustainable lifestyles

Pathway

Pathway A.1 Shift to sustainable lifestyles

* Enhance societal awareness on benefits of a sustainable lifestyle * Reduce biofuel consumption * Reduce energy consumption * Promote energy savings by increasing energy efficiency * Reduce car dependency by increasing public transport, biking, car sharing options * E-mobility * Democratisation and liberalisation of energy sector * Efficient energy storage and smart-grids

* Control demand > supply-based > link local farmers to companies with catering and IT platform * Use less! Save energy, recycle

* Reduce water and food waste— capacity building, change behaviours along the food chain

2015–2040

Actions

Table C.1  European pathways in SSP1

* Incentivise people at the local level as well as implement top-down regulation. Establish strong democratised system * Develop local communities which are happy with self-sufficient lifestyles * Promote ownership of lifestyle choice at local level * Incentivise greater willingness to compromise from all levels by social and economic change

2040–2070

2070–2100

(continued)

‘health, well-being and sustainable lifestyles’, ‘jobs, income and education’, ‘voice, social equity and gender equality’

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   515

Pathway

Strategy A.1.2: Support well-being focus for equity and social capital development

Strategies

Table C.1  (continued)

* Increase safety

* Invest in human wellbeing

* Local energy production and consumptions with solar roofs * Energy producing cars * Battery management * Shift to diets with less animal protein > replace with vegetal proteins * Sustainable housing * Sustainable biogas production from farm residues and catch crops * Focus on wellbeing—develop wider indicators of well-being

2015–2040

Actions 2070–2100

* Restructure financial system * Introduce to get more money in pubincentives lic hands/Redistribution for families of fiscal policies to increase to live in equity > who creates the village by money? > fourth pillar of investing in the power—monetary infrastruc* Invest in cultural developtures and ment and leisure green jobs * Implement mechanisms to cope with population growth link birth control or enhanced level of general education

2040–2070

Vision elements addressed

516  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

Strategy A.1.3: Establish new education models

Strategies

Table C.1  (continued)

* Undertake capacity building actions to raise awareness of the potentials and effects of action

* Educate in order to reduce pollution

* Encourage reflexive society to include new governance vision

* Good stories, good practices—media

* Provide unconditional basic income/voluntary wage supported

* Cleaning actions * New Deal 2.0 with public works and cleaning parks and help older people * Invest in education—strategic education and continuous education

2070–2100

* Invest in psycho-social edu- * Make availcation, trauma reduction, able human emotional and social health enhanceto improve human and ment social well-being technology * Undertake capacity building for all for policy-makers to raise awareness of their role and the potential of their actions * Work more with young people; actions to get them prepared and maintain momentum * Implement new work scheme: people for 5 years in public sector/5 years in private sector * Foster engaged and educated civil society

2040–2070

2015–2040

Actions

(continued)

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   517

Strategies

Strategy B.1.1: Set up and experiment with open governance models

Pathway

Pathway B.1 Establish open governance for sustainability

Table C.1  (continued)

* Sabbatical for all and education experiences

* Add sustainability to civil classes > exemplary schools, administration etc. * Green/eco-social public procurement at local level * Education in farming and agronomy in primary school and communities * Invest more in exchanges (e.g. Erasmus for older, and Erasmus for younger) * Change agronomy training to support new mentality towards less machinery, more labour, more sustainable production * Mosaic curriculums, project based learning, community embedded learning processes * Strengthen EU-citizen connection, reinforce EU democracy * Enhance subsidiary principle— define different levels of governance * Enforce civil society outside EU through trade and customs agreements that are beneficial * Implement civil society engagement activities

* Change decision-making system—more transparency * Incentivise communities and research

* A shift from institutional to more personal financing in education

2040–2070

2015–2040

Actions 2070–2100

‘governance’, ‘regional and global interrelationships’, ‘voice, social equity and ­gender equality’

Vision elements addressed

518  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Strategies

Strategy C.1.1: Strengthen and scale over time CAP in Europe

Pathway

Pathway C.1 Mainstream sustainable agriculture

Table C.1  (continued)

* Significantly expand CAP with food price support and significant environmental conditionality

* Develop new governance technology: massive research and application * Set up participatory Budget * Support agricultural practices of food exporters to maintain environmental standards

* Hold European elections * Set urban agriculture target in CAP—Urban agriculture—measures to promote it. Production targets from urban agriculture. Part of urban planning policy * Promote organic farming

* Enhanced civil society actions in context of massive changes in production sector (industry 4.0, Artificial Intelligence) * Involve society more in decisions taken by government * Build European identity and governance * Reduce pollution ­(multi-level agreements)

* Strengthen participation civil society in decision-making

* Establish more participative processes for sharing decisions across levels (bottom-up) * Set up governance experiments

2040–2070

2015–2040

Actions

* Use of improved and locally adapted crop varieties

2070–2100

(continued)

‘food, water and energy’, ‘environment’, ‘resilience’

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   519

Pathway

Strategies

Table C.1  (continued)

2040–2070

* Make implementation of greening CAP measures more systematic, less voluntary, obligatory - Leg-crop action recycling, agrofor- * Promote land use system estry and tillage in Southern Europe that moves away from intensive agriculture and focuses on more extensive forestry * Research on models and options * New legislation to promote for agro-ecological and agroeconbioeconomy forests omy approaches * Tax for unused land * Forests as integral part of * A CAP pillar that incentivises bioeconomy with federal and rewards environmental and cooperation of bioeconomy socio-economic services to be forests 100% EU financed * Community supported agriculture with cooperatives, crowd funding and platforms * Develop permaculture (the farm as a system) * Land reform EU wide * Civil society organisation lending land (terre de Lien)

* Support climate friendly farming

2015–2040

Actions 2070–2100

Vision elements addressed

520  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

Strategy C.1.3: Invest in sustainable agriculture technology and technology transfers

Strategy C.1.2: Support market introduction and diffusion of sustainable agriculture technologies and products

Strategies

Table C.1  (continued)

2040–2070

2070–2100

* Support agricultural practices * Increased food imports/ * Set up of food exporters to maintain exports—free market cooperative environmental standards > local type of markets and standards companies * Provide incentives for market * Support agricultural products development in agriculture > local in other countries to help markets and standards maintain the qualities we look for and help build up domestic production systems * Farm income support and agricul- * Avoid monopolistic market tural protection. Common market solutions –> see to that there organisation are several available options * Transfer innovative technologies * Support innovation transfer * Innovate in (selective) to third countries technologies * Sell innovative technologies * Innovate in irrigation to address * Invest in agriculture innova* Invest in technologies potable tion also for water to improve to help improve energy water productivity efficiency also in developing scarcity (bio countries remediation) * Government’s support for technology and innovation—incentives * Invest in innovation in food production for food security. Could be compatible with artificial food

2015–2040

Actions

(continued)

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   521

Strategy D.1.1: Promote nature protection with stronger * Integrate ocean resource environmental * Implement policy on invasive species in an international political planning (hand-in-hand policy environment with Treaties and with integrated land use political agreements planning) * Rezone and protect species with special habitats * Taxes based on environmental impact to fund bonuses for green activities and products

2040–2070

* Bio-economy—regional production—forestry and new products, new industrial production * Enlarge other renewables * Promote energy efficiency * Implement laws to improve energy use * Regulate for more energy efficient products, housing, etc. * Implement forest protection pol- * Increase protection of speicy and laws to plant new ones cies that require specialised habitats

2015–2040

Pathway D.1 Strengthen environmental policy

Actions

Strategies

Pathway

Table C.1  (continued)

* Promote connectivity and manage full territory to host natural assets * Control migration to promote diversity > not clear how to realise this

2070–2100

‘environment’, ‘resilience’, ‘food, water, and energy’

Vision elements addressed

522  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions

Strategy D.1.3: Advance integrated land use planning with ecosystem services framework

* Further implement ecosystem restoration (including ferrets?) * Strong steps to maintain biodiversity * New financial standards on agreed indicators integrate in business account

* Reforestation

* Invest in conservation networks (biodiversity, ecosystem services)

2040–2070

* Integrate land-use rules (covering nature and agriculture) * Increase number of check dams * Implement land-use planto enhance infiltration and reduce ning reform to utilise ecowater level (to ‘reduce’ flood risks) system services sustainably * Base land-use (e.g. conversion to arable land) on mapping and assessment of ecosystem services

* Introduce different models of agroforestry all over Europe * Modify the traditional land use planning classification

Strategy * Assist species that have special D.1.2: needs and habitats, e.g. wetlands Promote species, that are not related to nature protecagricultural * Expand and protect Natura 2000 tion and resnetwork toration with mainstreaming * Expand biodiversity outside Natura 2000 areas nature-based solutions * Enhance appreciation of non-material ecosystem services * Invest in nature protection

Strategies

Table C.1  (continued)

* Adapt protected areas if climate change modifies habitat types

2070–2100

(continued)

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   523

Pathway

Strategy D.1.4: Adopt a holistic approach to water management

Strategies

Table C.1  (continued)

* Reduce artificial land (e.g. agro-ecological agriculture)

* Enhance storm water management and water retention—specific focus in urban areas * Renature rivers and reconnect with flood plain

2015–2040

Actions 2070–2100

* Improve water transfer infrastructures, networks and interconnections * Enlarge water re-use and recycling

* Green infrastructure measures obligatory for planning and investors with a tax if delay

* Reduce urban sprawl * Develop alternative forms of carbon sequestration included as part of integrated land use planning * Maintain permanent grassland (not rotational grassland, usually less intensive/productive for sheep, tend to have more biodiversity and soil C). Pressures are that you would plough it and convert to rotational grassland or arable * Extensive farming for grazing areas to have better meat and sustainable meat * Establish Water Union * Move water

2040–2070

Vision elements addressed

524  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Strategies

Strategy E.1.1: Strengthen and implement EU’s global vision and will

Pathway

Pathway E.1 Position Europe as a global leader for sustainability

Table C.1  (continued)

* Use crises with visionary leaders * Develop supra-national that help trigger new way of goals thinking including agreement of global leaders to move to sustainable pathway

* Build governance capacities worldwide * Implement stronger EU solidary mechanisms

* Improve wastewater treatment

* Mainstream green and blue technologies and infrastructures in cities and in flood plains * Create incentives and enhance awareness of resource use of treated waste water in e.g. householders, for cleaning and washing * Improve soil infiltration * Enhance water use efficiency in built environment * Introduce code for green spaces and infrastructure managed by communities * Try to enhance holistic approaches to enable sustainable build environment * Return to UN, World Bank etc. * Focus on SDGs

2040–2070

2015–2040

Actions

* World governance * Establish truly global cooperation to achieve sustainability * Support other countries outside Europe to help them cope with growing EU autarky in agriculture

2070–2100

(continued)

‘regional and global interrelationships’, ‘governance’, ‘resilience’

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   525

Pathway

Strategies

Table C.1  (continued)

* Monitor negative effects on environment and on other sectors (energy, water)

2070–2100

* Implement climate action plans in all countries that financial support has been provide already for climate strategy formulation * Develop clear EU-wide sus- * Achieve tainability vision and more SDGs globally effective communication * Make more funds available through EU research policy * Inspire electorate through visionary leaders *B  uild trust internationally (after crises period) to create global collaborative system * Global superpowers collectively agree to move in this direction

2040–2070

* Worldwide public movements and * Advance European cooperNGOs (as mechanisms to trigger ation to make sustainability actions) available for all

2015–2040

Actions

Vision elements addressed

526  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

Strategy E.1.2: Build resilience and prepare for extreme unexpected events

Strategies

Table C.1  (continued)

2040–2070

* Increase know-how and prepared- * Be open to adapt and react ness to deal with weather extremes to unexpected and resilience * Build capacity to be prepared to * Prepare for black swell unexpected events events; preparedness, * Avoid further growth in coastal increase know-how to deal and river settlements with extremes * Create incentives to avoid people to settle in flood-prone areas (e.g. subsidies, move away) * Compulsory building codes for flood resilient houses * Invest in preventing damages due to climate change (desertification, biodiversity loss, etc.) * Introduce preventive measures

2015–2040

Actions 2070–2100

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   527

Strategy A.3.1: Foster social cohesion and support

Pathway A.3 Shift to sustainable lifestyles

Strategy A.3.2: Integrate awareness raising on solidarity and sustainability in education

Strategies

Pathway

Turn around fragmentation by enhancing sense of solidarity

Social measures to support unemployed people (revenue and training)

Strongly invest in education and social services

Further the awareness of risks for all that loss of social cohesion implies Raise awareness on ethical issues related to growing inequality

Invest in capacity building and education at all levels Develop bottom-up education (missionaries, village schools) Run “alternative schools” through social movements to enhance lifestyles

NGO activities (TI and Greenpeace) Build a strong social support pressuring local governments system Strengthen local initiatives— to live with less Create transparency for social cohesion

Use migration for solidarity and cultural diversity

2040–2070

Pro-active action needed already in this time slice

2015–2040

Actions

Table C.2  European pathways in SSP3

Visionary leaders collaborate Encourage more social responsibility on resilience and climate change issues Engage the rich bubble in social programs to provide opportunities to address problems i.e. poverty

2070–2100

‘health, well-being and sustainable lifestyles’, ‘jobs, income and education’, ‘voice, social equity and gender equality’

Vision elements addressed

528  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

Strategies

Table C.2  (continued)

Use social counter-movement, engage poor people— educate, networking, support entrepreneurship Enhance education for all groups of society to counter fragmentation Provide info campaigns for basic knowledge

Reorganize and improve education

Develop awareness and communication tools (zoos and reserves) for education and visibility Provide for strong media to offer examples of the effects of pollution Give everyone access to high quality education Raise awareness of positive actions/ successes Invest in international (educational) exchanges and languages Education, publicity, policy coordination on solidarity, values, rule of law, respect Invest in science and sustainability education platforms—agro-­ science—communicate sharing

Provide education for all levels to all groups

2040–2070

2015–2040

Actions 2070–2100

(continued)

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   529

Pathway

Strategy A.3.3: Incentivise sustainable and equitable lifestyles

Strategies

Table C.2  (continued)

Basic need—free ration Build equitable tax structure across Europe for big business Invest in communication technologies to enable collaborations Tax on biggest users Affordability mechanisms or social tariffs locally organized Support sharing economy (using ICT, social media—Communication) Improve self-sufficient communities—build social capital through virtual communities around topics

Pursue unilateral trade liberalisation and antitrust policy to restore growth Put in place strong economic and environmental regulation Establish higher taxes on water use in drier areas

Provide tax incentives for healthy lifestyles

2015–2040

Actions

Pursue market efficient measures to tackle inequality—payments to increase equality and opportunity

Re-establish economic co-dependence and co-operations in regions Increase social protection; cover food, water, healthcare, housing Diversify economic activities

2040–2070

2070–2100

Vision elements addressed

530  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Strategies

Strategy B.3.1: Establish decentralised, community-based governance

Pathway

Pathway B.3 Establish local and community-­ based governance for sustainability

Table C.2  (continued)

2040–2070

Develop circular economies and strong social networks

Protect role of experts in decision-making processes

Stimulate strong, fair legal system to Maintain strong national counter clustering of power states and conflict resolution Protect fundamental human rights Stimulate regional communication and trade Ensure pluriform media landscape Establish small “labs” approach to governance

Establish multilateral defence agreements

Reaffirm personal privacy

Increase ambition of climate change mitigation Now to avoid worst case Strengthen democratic inclusiveness Strengthen civil society and and transparency community building

2015–2040

Actions

Strengthen and open communication infrastructure for citizens Develop successful, semi-autonomous local communities Networkbased society (economy + culture)

2070–2100

(continued)

‘governance’, ‘regional and global interrelationships’, ‘voice, social equity and gender equality’

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   531

Pathway

Strategies

Table C.2  (continued)

Encourage volunteering especially of the +60s (Potential trade off-Taking away € and influence of younger generation) Knowledge exchange on best practice

Exchanging best practice for regional governance (knowledge sharing)

Enhance number of diplomatic channels for international conflict resolution and regional conflict resolution between EU members Reinforce market-supporting institutions to ensure economic prosperity Utilize migration to advance new ideas and strengthen governance Create rules for integrating European policies with national/ regional/local development and urban plans Increase resilience of institutions and adaptability after EU Ensure cooperation survives the collapse of EU, so technological development and investments continue Encourage more private R&D Local community continue to fund R&I and its application

Stimulate innovative start-ups and entrepreneurship Experiment with non-fuel-intensive solutions

Create awareness that economic fragmentation means living with less Enable alternative economies and barter Increase integration of migrants—proactive de-escalation of violence

2040–2070

2015–2040

Actions 2070–2100

Vision elements addressed

532  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions 2040–2070

Devolve—Implementation of policy innovation Experiment and pilot actions/ policies Strengthen local institutions already here Facilitate ownership of issue at local level Strategy Maintain cultural heritage through Collectivise energy B.3.2: creative and proactive approaches Develop infra- (e.g. privatize) Encourage start-ups and structure for a Invest in urban planning in water entrepreneurship local network retention systems economy TechnologyInvest in water management techEnsure there is minimum based nology and knowledge sharing accessibility of commercial level land for SMEs to maintain diversity Increase innovation partnerships for Adapt local building codes water, resources Transboundary water boards for Ensure infrastructure exists governing and exchange, also to allow network economy among students to exist: Trade—ports, rail airports Invest in telecommunication infraBuild water harvesting structure and development by EU infrastructure

Strategies

Table C.2  (continued)

Rich groups expand investments in clean tech and innovation and aim to become the driving force vs corrupted organisations

2070–2100

(continued)

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   533

Strategy C.3.1: Strengthen policies and build skills for local organic agriculture

Pathway C.3 Mainstream sustainable agriculture

Nature-based

Strategies

Pathway

Table C.2  (continued)

Research into vegetarian or nondairy diets Push for sustainable agriculture rather than organic (only) Identify and protect ecological corridoes and increase natural protected areas Investment support to sustainable intensification

Provide local education and skills network Provide incentives for environmentally friendly local agriculture

Set land aside and incentivise forestry and nature-based ­solutions for flood management Put in place integrated farm management Take unmanaged forests into account

Take agricultural decisions locally—Restart from local, rural and organic agriculture Increase greenhouse farming

Encourage local entrepreneurship

Adapt waste water infrastructure -> more expensive

Start-ups for meat alternatives Invest in R&D for resource efficiency Fund/incentivise innovation e.g. subsidy, tax (governments) Integrate different policies (agriculture, water, environment, biodiversity) Share knowledge on agriculture and land-use

2040–2070

2015–2040

Actions

Here more organic?

2070–2100

‘food, water and energy’, ‘environment’, ‘resilience’

Vision elements addressed

534  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

Strategy C.3.2: Regenerate ecosystem services in cities and rural areas to build resilience

Strategies

Table C.2  (continued)

2040–2070

Invest in nature-based solutions against extreme weather (set example) Position nature as cultural heritage

Inform about management practice on extensive land-use to increase biodiversity

Increase extensive grazing

Establish an EU framework to use EU Bioenergy potential in temperate zones Meat substitutes (soya etc.) as cheaper alternatives Promote bio-refineries to mitigate climate change—provide jobs, foster agriculture, stimulate local economies Bio-economy focus locally—biomass use (what about pollutants?) Cities—combined with open space “Hinterland” to take care of Use brownfield sites for local food production Create more green areas in cities Develop local networks for and coastal areas circular economy

2015–2040

Actions

Force the rich to invest in environment

2070–2100

(continued)

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   535

Nature-based

Strategies 2015–2040

Actions

Increase nature reserves-> eco-tourism Put in place nature reserves (Create safe havens for endogenous species (animals)) Improve waste management Capitalise on habitat preservation (tourism, medicinal) Implement resource management and regulation Invest large-scale in R&D to reduce resource dependency Develop guidelines for designing integrated landscape plan with eco-tourism Make set-aside “profitable” (e.g. by identifying monetary value of ecosystem services) Pathway D.3 Strategy Incentivise against self-fuelling Set up an inte- D.3.1: investment risks and ratchet effects grated water Strengthen in flood areas Include flood initiatives as a quanmanagement physical and system social resilience tified externality in infrastructure investment to protect from flooding

Pathway

Table C.2  (continued)

2070–2100

Use flood protection to Promote ‘Resilience’, increase habitats/biodiversity living in house ‘food, water e.g. wetlands boats and energy’ Organise recreational activities so rivers are preserved and taken care of

Establish a recreation and biodiversity link Reuse resources, swapping/ exchange of goods

2040–2070

Vision elements addressed

536  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

Discourage living in areas with high flooding risk and high vulnerability ->urban planning Stimulate migration to less flood prone areas

2015–2040

Actions

Combine river-flow interventions with clearance of rivers to make more effective actions Build/reinforce dyke system Build + invest in sewer systems and absorption of rain Contain urban sprawl—Compacting cities Water canals Infrastructure protection Avoid socializing “unnecessary” private costs e.g. flooding Strategy D.3.2: Position universal access to clean Implement drinking water as a precondition for water saving social stability and avoiding unrest Develop water transportation sysmeasures to ensure universal tem from north to south Europe access to high quality water

Nature-based

Strategies

Table C.2  (continued)

Household rain harvesting for specific uses

Low-key water-harvesting (from floods) in South

Incentivise forestry and natural solutions to flood management

Set land aside for flood management

2040–2070

2070–2100

(continued)

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   537

Pathway

Nature-based

Strategies

Table C.2  (continued)

Incentivise tech and innovation solution to reduce water demand Link CAP with WFD objectives: less water-intensive crops have financial incentives Reduce demand through R&D incl. wastewater for crops Policy to induce water tech savings Use waste water

2015–2040

Actions 2040–2070

2070–2100

Vision elements addressed

538  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Strategy A.4.1: Develop value-based education and incentives for sustainable lifestyles

Pathway A.4 Shift to sustainable lifestyles

People-based

Strategies

Pathway

* Set-up process-oriented society based on learning and monitoring

* Promote efficient use of resources

* Strengthen education for all people (invest)

2015–2040

Actions

Table C.3  European pathways in SSP4

* Raise awareness for responsible water consumption * Educate the elite to foster philanthropy and spending for the societal good (e.g. health, education, charity) * Educate about the master plan results * Provide training to communities to execute the masterplan

* Implement education and awareness campaigns for waste reduction (e.g. packaging, food) * Promote intercultural understanding to allow people to live together with a mind-set for a peaceful existence * Promote low consumption (of resources, food etc.)

2040–2070 * Control food and health for all: Planned society lifestyle—you control food, what you eat, you need to exercise

2070–2100

(continued)

‘health, well-being and sustainable lifestyles’, ‘jobs, income and education’, ‘voice, social equity and gender equality’

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   539

Pathway B.4 Establish multi-level process-based governance for sustainability and European self-sufficiency

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions

Strategy * Strengthen federalism B.4.1: *S  trengthen institutions to deal Strengthen with shocks and stabilise cross-sectoral and cross-scale governance institutions

People-based

Strategy A.4.2: Re-distribute resources to meet basic needs

Strategies

Table C.3  (continued)

* Provide minimum wage for everybody * Ensure insurance for financial/­social protection

2070–2100

* Invest excess profits in societal profits (foundations) * Provide jobs from producing solar panels * Subsidised social services * Lower tax for poorer people * Invest in public health * Ensure supply chains for re-distribution of food between regions * Create a committee of elite * Implement for governance strong * Develop a master plan of regulation of small ‘ecosystems’ for land everything and people with centralised control of infrastructure

* Provide tax incentives for charity

* Tend to the basic needs of the masses

2040–2070

‘governance’, ‘regional and global interrelationships’, ‘voice, social equity and gender equality’

Vision elements addressed

540  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

Strategy B.4.2: Establish international collaboration and markets

People-based

Strategies

Table C.3  (continued)

* Create elite university (with international exchange) to include young people in the elite * Create cross-EU network for elite to spread the same idea across Europe * Set up data-based and ­evidence-based governance * Plan for a combination of European mass basic food production and local sustainable production * Prevent import of food to the EU to promote autonomy of the EU

2015–2040

Actions 2070–2100

* Establish partnerships with * Expand market developing countries within leadership and outside EU to use for globally to resources; investment in enhance infrastructure and aid sustainability globally * Formulate regulation to * Advance ecoestablish a single energy nomic growth market in Europe includin less developed ing distribution of energy countries and infrastructure enlarge markets

*S  et up monitoring system of the evidence from the implementation of the masterplan

* Increase institutional checks and balances

2040–2070

(continued)

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   541

Pathway D.4 Strengthen environmental policy for ‘small ecosystems’

Pathway

Nature-based

Strategy D.4.1: Strengthen biodiversity protection

Market-based

Strategies

Table C.3  (continued)

2040–2070

2070–2100

* Invest in international property as major source of wealth and political stability * Export massively (technology) * Invest in external countries to keep a flow of resources from abroad (e.g. water, energy) * Invest in biodiversity protection * Maintain and establish new * Set up biodiand protection of wildlife zones/protected areas that versity banks are good surrounding for (like seed animals and provide space banks) for leisure (e.g. natural parks) * Decrease physical barriers and larger corridors to create zones where species can flexibly move and adapt * Increase local food production to provide good quality food to elite and masses

2015–2040

Actions

‘environment’, ‘food, water and energy’, ‘resilience’

Vision elements addressed

542  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

Nature-based

Strategy D.4.2: Implement land-use and planning in harmony with nature

Strategies

Table C.3  (continued)

* Develop a stratified topdown land-use strategy in alignment with masterplan

2040–2070

* Promote efficient use of land by * Develop central strategic encouraging low consumption plans for the continent and consciousness—how to use based on knowledge about the land in the best way areas that are prone to flooding * Reforestation in Southern Spain * Move cities to not interfere with ecosystems and biodiversity

* Create more green and less hard structures/surfaces

2015–2040

Actions

* Geographical and climate-based specialism—in areas of drought avoid a lot of cities, in others efficient agriculture etc. * Establish massive zones for water production and recycling * Decrease infrastructure that is strategically positioned: ports, airports, in-between cities—in relation to efficient food production

2070–2100

(continued)

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   543

Strategies

Strategy E.4.1: Improve water efficiency and decrease water use

Pathway

Pathway E.4 Establish a circular economy with green energy technologies

Table C.3  (continued)

2040–2070

* Produce food commodities for the European governance network

* Use recycled water—not necessarily for human consumption (e.g. treating water and waste water from post-production processes)

* Use forests for defence from flooding and recreate wetlands * Produce food in forests: mushrooms, berries * Develop de-salination to create more fresh water sources

* Use forests flexibly

* Set up local sustainable food * Assign zones for flooding production with parks to also create new jobs at the European level also considering regional and local contexts

2015–2040

Actions

* Transport water e.g. from Northern Spain (Pyrenees) to the South * Regulate water consumption through water quotas

* Privately owned land is managed and cleaned by the people living on the land

2070–2100

‘food, water and energy’, ‘environment’, ‘resilience’

Vision elements addressed

544  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions

* Protect European energy markets to avoid/decrease fracking and import of fuels

* Invest in R&D for improving quality of food and food technologies

Strategy * Replace conventional power E.4.2: stations that have reached the Strengthen end of their life cycle with Europe’s marrenewable power stations * Implement early warning ket position systems for extreme weather in developing events that protect technology, and applying energy provision green energy technologies (stakeholder strategy) Technology* Move from local to regional based energy provision and generation

Nature-based

Strategies

Table C.3  (continued)

* Massive investment in green energy and technology * Develop intelligent systems for storage capacity (e.g. huge pumped hydro plants)

2070–2100

* Move towards global European energy grids— implementation of cross-border connections

* Make all public buildings * Massive energy energy efficient (e.g. govproduction in ernment buildings, schools, Southern Spain universities) * Expand renewable energy and energy efficiency (wind, solar, hydro)

* Electrify transport to make transport systems more energy efficient

* Look for water rich areas outside of Europe * Establish EU as leader in technologies

2040–2070

(continued)

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   545

Pathway

Strategies

Table C.3  (continued)

2040–2070 * Use of nuclear energy, fossil fuels and coal with carbon capture and storage to ensure reliable energy supply * Use waste to create energy * Improve access to green energy for all—make it a mass product * Use unmanaged forests land for biomass production but avoid conflict between biomass and food production * Invest in second, third, fourth generation biomass * Build wind farms on newly available land * Shift towards energy systems that require low cooling * Invest in technologies to increase production of sustainable food

2015–2040 * Promote development of virtual energy grids for green energy distribution at regional levels

Actions 2070–2100

Vision elements addressed

546  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

2070–2100

Strategy A.5.1: * Employ agriculture as lever * Source public Foster consumer for environmental awareness and private awareness for investments agriculture for innovation * Create demand for susproducts and tainable healthy products practices and good communication marketing of them People-based * Introduce circular economy principles * Communication on labels by producers and shops * Labelling reflections—good practices for sustainability * Food import and textile Strategy A.5.2: * Invest in education for * Promote that schools run * Link education Invest in nature to create a mind-set environmental awareness to technolenvironmental for nature programs for kids ogy-based education & solutions * Educate young people to * Geo-engineering to mitigate research achieve higher sustainability CC impacts on hotspots in agricultural production People-based * Educate people about * Invest in bio-based econecosystem services including omy research and other monetary values of ES technologies (who: private investments)

2040–2070

Pathway A.5 Shift to sustainable lifestyles

2015–2040

Actions

Strategies

Pathway

Table C.4  European pathways in SSP5

(continued)

‘health, well-being and sustainable lifestyles’, ‘jobs, income and education’, ‘voice, social equity and gender equality’

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   547

Pathway B.5 Establish participatory governance for sustainability

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions 2040–2070

* Strengthen the education on value of nature and biodiversity Strategy B.5.1: * Guarantee that satisfaction * Change the indicators of Invest in human of basic human needs are not prosperity to include human development to subject to the market (food, development meet basic needs water, housing) * Labelling standards People-based * Introduce circular economy principles (manufactured capital) Strategy B.5.2: * Increase government particBuild capacity ipation and society involvefor participatory ment in economic, social and governance environmental programs * Support of full cost concept and pricing of ecosystem services People-based * Develop capacity building actions to raise awareness and fully understand the power of decisions to connect and concretely achieve results (knowledge brokerage)

Strategies

Table C.4  (continued)

2070–2100

‘governance’, ‘regional and global interrelationships’, ‘voice, social equity and gender equality’

Vision elements addressed

548  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway C.5 Mainstream sustainable agriculture

Pathway

People-based

Strategy B.5.3: Foster Political Alliances (geopolitical alliances) People-based Strategy C.5.1: Design an integrated and organic agricultural system

Strategies

Table C.4  (continued)

* Increase agriculture sector awareness on land degradation e.g. profit losses * Increase share of organic farming

* Increase participation of decision-making to research and knowledge processes * Temporary lift regulation to promote innovation in agriculture production * Create economically driven cross-border alliances with USA, Russia, Eastern EU, and China

2015–2040

Actions

* Design an EU programme and informed national integrated land planning * Restructure administrative and institutional system for managing the process to facilitate communication and collaboration across sectors * Introduce enabling policies for citizens’ actions for environmental restoration

* Design a new integrated EU agriculture directive

2040–2070

2070–2100

(continued)

‘food, water and energy’, ‘environment’, ‘resilience’

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   549

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions

Strategy C.5.2: * Employ SME-instrument Increase food for family-owned agriculture security and (who: EU) rural agriculture * Subsidy program to support family-owned agriculture (who: EU) Market-based Strategy C.5.3: * Incorporate cost of degraIncorporate ecodation of land in agriculture systems’ services products * Introduce carbon taxes in agriculture life cycle Market-based * Regulate to create an environmental market (eco-market) Strategy C.5.4: * Removal of CAP subsidies Scale the CAP policy

Strategies

Table C.4  (continued)

2070–2100

* Incorporate food measures in the CAP

* Achieve a multifunctional environmental friendly agriculture sector

* Introduce full cost * Incorporate pricing of degradation in payment for agriculture ecosystem * Identify relevant policies for services of disaster management agriculture

* Achieve a transition of agriculture sector to a family-based free market sector

* Create consistent integrated European policies to counter environmental degradation * Put price on degradation (2050-2060) * Introduce irrigation water management technologies

2040–2070

Vision elements addressed

550  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

Market-based

Strategies

Table C.4  (continued)

* Reduce extent of monocultures

* Revise of CAP measures

* Shift agriculture to rain-fed compatible areas * Continue integrated farm management and organic agriculture (scale over time CAP measure) * Preserve cultural landscape for business and market exploitation/use (scale over time CAP measure and adapt it to the SSP5 scenario context conditions) * Introduce incentives for good practices in agriculture

* Redevelop extensive agriculture to support land management

2040–2070

2015–2040

Actions

* Position Europe as a global leader in environmental friendly agriculture * Introduce assessment of global footprint of agriculture

2070–2100

(continued)

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   551

Strategy D.5.2: Work with nature to build resilience

Technologybased

Strategy D.5.1: * Make electric power less Implement intefreshwater intensive grated adaptive management of water resources across Europe

* Invest in effective and efficient water technologies * Strong awareness campaign about water * Manage the water cycle EU-wide >> (Revised EU Water Framework Directive) * Incorporate flood risk reduction into catchment management * Implement land management to reduce risks of extreme events > not only on extreme events

* Adapt and reinforce control measures for water quality and water pollution

2015–2040

Pathway D.5 Establish European integrated water management system

Actions

Strategies

Pathway

Table C.4  (continued)

2070–2100

* Work with nature in flood protection

* Buy-in of business sector of * Manage adaptive water management availability of approaches good quality of drinking water across Europe in view of climate change * Manage availability of agriculture products * Manage navigation on rivers

2040–2070

‘food, water and energy’, ‘environment’, ‘resilience’

Vision elements addressed

552  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway E.5 Create markets of ecosystem services

Pathway

Nature-based

Move from habitats to ecosystem services and create nature-based markets that account for

Strategy E.5.1:

Nature-based

Strategies

Table C.4  (continued)

2040–2070

* Introduce higher taxes for fossil fuels

* Change fiscal system

* Create nature parks with high value to attract tourism

* Include/integrate value of ecosystem services in economic decisions to select what can work in management for land * Revisit the Natura 2000 cases

* Stress failure of markets to address (L-T) externalities in a proactive way * Set up funds to deal with climate impacts

* Capitalise on ecosystem services to improve quality of life

* Use unmanaged land for habitats as far as possible

* Give space to the rivers programs in Europe * Land-use change in support of water storage in river beds * Invest heavily in restoring * Develop safe havens for ecosystems and their services endangered species (that have also a market creation result)

2015–2040

Actions

* Think of new ways to preserve high value wetlands and mountains * Introduce higher values of ecosystem services

2070–2100

(continued)

‘environment’, ‘resilience’, ‘food, water and energy’

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   553

Pathway

Strategy E.5.2: Invest in technology-based solutions for improving environmental quality and creating new markets Technologybased

Strategies

Table C.4  (continued)

* Develop mixed system to protect environment * Use economic power to invest in alternative energy technologies

* Develop biobased economy (around 2050)

* Invest in robust function of utilities

2040–2070

* Employ technology to reduce HC dependency * Drive technologies to achieve higher energy and water efficiency

2015–2040

Actions 2070–2100

Vision elements addressed

554  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   555

C.2 Visions and Pathways for SCOTLAND C.2.1 Scottish Vision Narrative Jobs, Equality and Lifestyles Scotland in 2100 is a country of equality: equality of gender, race, sexuality, age, (dis)ability and faith. Gender equality applies to the family, the workforce, aspirations, overcoming unconscious biases, state spending and political prioritisation. There is equality of opportunity to access the economy, and future generations are also treated equally in all decisions made that affect the future. The population of Scotland is maintained at a sustainable level with communities living in low-density areas with diversity and local equality. There is full employment in Scotland in 2100 and everyone wants to work. Work allows people to fulfil their (social) potential. The working week has been reduced to 4 days, allowing people more time to make other contributions to society and connect better with nature. Individuals and communities engage with arts and culture and are creative. In an inclusive society where everyone thrives, basic human rights are respected and people fulfil their potential. Access to justice is ensured, and people enjoy personal and environmental security. Sustainable Economy All people have an income adequate to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy personal safety and freedom. The focus of the economy is on producing and consuming what is important in life. In many areas in Scotland, local currencies contribute to a sustainable economy. Health and Education There is free access to education and health services, allowing all people to develop their talents and make fully informed, democratic decisions. Health expenditure focuses on health not illness. Interdisciplinary education, research and innovation are valued by society. As a result, the population understands and can make decisions on conflicts and ­trade-offs and has the capacity to think ahead.

556  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Governance With an enhanced process of participatory government, all people are empowered to take part in all levels of decision-making. All are properly and fully informed about issues they are taking a decision on. Communication within and between communities is adaptive to the needs of the people. Fair democratic governance is characterised by proportional representation and the opportunity to make frequent input to decisions. In Scotland, we appreciate the influx of immigration and understand that we are part of a global community. Local governments are responsible for building productive relationships with the international community. Our economy has a global focus and businesses trade globally. Scotland is active in promoting and helping other countries to achieve their positive visions. Resources and the Environment Scotland has a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy with less than 1% of energy derived from fossil fuels. Everybody can enjoy a green environment. The low-carbon economy is supported by smarter physical mobility and better virtual “mobility”. Energy is produced locally and owned by communities. Knowledge technology contributes to the low-carbon economy of Scotland. There is space for essential environmental services (flood control/pollution reduction/biodiversity) in every catchment. People appreciate the environment and live a valuable life in balance with nature. With equitable land ownership, land use is driven by public choices and priorities and not by NIMBYism or the market. A better spread of public services allows people to choose between rural and urban living. People are able to explore the countryside, and tourism is maintained in geographically isolated areas. Nature is well integrated into all cities providing better living spaces. New species have become emblems of Scotland. Food, Water and Energy Scotland has food security while being a low-carbon economy. Food is produced sustainably with a low-carbon footprint. Water use for agriculture is responsible and less energy intensive. C.2.2 Scottish Pathways See Tables C.5, C.6, C.7, and C.8.

Strategy A.1.1: - Reduce water wastage by improvWater—Shift to ing water infrastructure and water sensitive responsible water use - Reduce leakage, increase SUDs infrastructure (sustainable urban drainage), individual action

Pathway A.1.: Invest in sustainable low-carbon systems of service and commodities provision

2040–2070

2070–2100

- Ensure water trade remains congruent with responsible water use - Use increased precipitation for community hydropower including micro hydropower schemes * Technology- - Harvest water without impacting - Move all households from based the environment floodplains to reinstate natural flood defences Strategy A.1.2: - Promote technological solutions to - Enforce technology policy Food—Deal fix food security gap to focus on adaptation to with food secu- - Increase demand for food where is climate impacts (flooding, a technological innovation to limit rity with new droughts, food security) impacts on biodiversity technological innovations * Technology- Foster R&D into agriculture within based disused/underused buildings (e.g. indoor agriculture, use carparks) Strategy A.1.3: - Develop climate friendly inten- Wet woodland, alder - Change the Agriculture— sive agriculture (e.g. forest, und willow riparian perception of Shift to sustain- farming, gardening, agriculture vegetation to reduce farmers able agriculture (farming forest multi-buyer pollution and increase cropping—permaculture) biodiversity around intensive agriculture

2015–2040

Actions

Strategies

Pathway

Table C.5  Scottish pathways in SSP1

(continued)

Resources and the environment; food, water and energy

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   557

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions 2040–2070

- Shift to sustainable agriculture with - widespread use of sewage varieties of crops and land-uses sludge as fertiliser to within intensification—Introduce reduce nitrate pollution ecosystem based approach for agriculture * Nature-based - Increase water storage in winter - Reduce production of red and in the west for using it in the meat and dairy, pricing summer for intense agriculture— regulation to discourage Increase productivity consumption, and to reduce non CO2 gases - Develop national plan for land use - Worms for compost from to maximise effective food producfood waste to reduce tion in longer term nitrate pollution - Foster urban agriculture to help preserve natural landscape (including brownfields, roofs, walls) - Establish allotments within urban environments (reconsider values of parks, public golf courses) Strategy A.1.4: - Invest in low-carbon mobility - Invest in smart mobility Mobility— infrastructure to connect urban and to ensure connectedness Invest in rural areas of place - Support infrastructure updates and - Develop low-carbon and shifting to development in local communities low-cost public transport low-carbon to reverse migration to cities around the country that is infrastructures government funded for mobility

Strategies

Table C.5  (continued)

2070–2100

Vision elements addressed

558  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions 2040–2070

* Market-based - Free integrated transport system (people can have their own car but pay—high carbon tax, or you can use communal car, other transport); balance time + mode Strategy A.1.5: - Local power generation and local - Cities form alliances with Energy— networks connected to adequate regions to ensure security Support a national smart grid of energy supply regional energy - Create a government programme to support a regional energy supply supply and and local energy generation local energy generation * Technology- - Put in place a government program based that finds representative who could control local energy and local energy groups - Create the conditions to ensure that government has the oversight of a national grid that enables local control of energy mix - Support for community-owned energy generation through loans, grants and incentives - Invest in/capture power regeneration from breaking trains

Strategies

Table C.5  (continued)

2070–2100

(continued)

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   559

Strategies

Strategy B.1.1: Invest in research and innovation for low-carbon technologies * Technologybased

Pathway

Pathway B.1: Invest in low-carbon technologies and economies

Table C.5  (continued)

2040–2070

- Cap all landfill to capture methane and other GHGs and use for productive energy - Expansion of local heat from e.g. sewers, landfill (networks) - Retrofit grants for ground and air source heat pumps (active and passive solar, insulation etc.) - Use all waste for heat and power production (including agricultural and forestry waste) - Local biogas generation for local heat and/or injection into grid - Invest in technology and innova- Develop CCS for treetion for low-carbon economy and based biofuels as carbon future sink and energy source - Invest in action research for equality between communities in view of low-carbon developments -R  &D—Circular economy principles and effective use of waste (energy?) - R&D for CSS—Scotland takes forward UK’s abandoned CCS project - Energy efficiency measures implemented in homes, businesses, industry

2015–2040

Actions 2070–2100

Sustainable economy; Resources and the environment; Food, water and energy

Vision elements addressed

560  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway C.1: Foster communities’ resilience

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions 2040–2070

- R&D to remove pollutants from sewage to enable widespread use of sewage sludge as fertiliser to reduce N fertiliser and use metals for batteries, electronics, etc.—circular economy - R&D research around soil nitrates and alternative circular economy ideas Strategy C.1.1: - Identify where it would add value - Up-scale place-based Put in place a to have multi-level governance bottom up initiatives new multi-level and partnership approach governance approach for social equity and shared responsibility - Strengthen local democracy with - Fund subsidiary devolua learning by doing approach in tion adequately schools and with citizen juries

Strategies

Table C.5  (continued)

- Sustain a functioning multi-level governance system that is effective in reduction of poverty and homelessness - Encourage people who immigrate to Scotland to participate in local decision making

2070–2100

(continued)

Jobs, equality and lifestyles; health and education; governance

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   561

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions

- Establishment of place-based initiatives with communities and decision makers - Reinforce community councils - Introduce localised certification schemes Strategy C.1.2: - Promote and consider societal Support comvalues and faith munity engagement and empowerment

- Support local community action with buy outs - Empower community connectors (people who work with and connect communities)

* People-based - Support education to empower young people to expect a say and make decisions now and in future

Strategies

Table C.5  (continued)

2070–2100

- Increase governmental - Strengthen regulation in limiting big existing links multinational corporawith developtions to allow community ing world/ businesses to be successful other countries

- Provide resources to community planning partnerships to engage with all stakeholders - Harness peoples’ skills to enable civic participation - Support and sustain multi-level partnership arrangements (NHS, flood risk management, community planning)

2040–2070

Vision elements addressed

562  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

- Support community busi- - Support a nesses and community shift in giving enterprises to generate children local employment responsibilities in schools and learning the consequences of decisions - Move to time banking instead of money earning—all time valued equally with universal time income

- Create a professional dialogue with trained facilitators with the communities

2070–2100

2040–2070

2015–2040

Actions

- Support community waste reduction through group projects—food and objects passed on, recycled etc., grants, repair workshops - Increase accessibility of local seasonal food through local government support of farmers markets/ allotment owners - Implement universal income

* People-based - Put in place national conversations and inverness conversations

Strategies

Table C.5  (continued)

(continued)

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   563

Pathway 2040–2070

2070–2100

- Mainstream environmen- - Support that tal education by crosscutlearning outting across silos as a norm comes of educaby stakeholders tion are geared towards social and creative competences - Put artists to play an active role to - Foster a creative, brave help society imagine the future and mind-set away from relibe creative ance and steady income, to reimagine the future * People-based - Support education on civil engagement - Make environmental education key part of schools so that people make informed choices on lifestyle and elected representatives in government—include diet and agricultural impacts and waste (food) - Introduce a value-based learning to change education system and its priorities - Reskilling on cooking and avoiding food waste (local courses, schools, at all levels of education) - Educated population reduces food waste from consumers

2015–2040

Actions

Strategy C.1.3: - Introduce crowd-sources research Sustain lifelong and information learning

Strategies

Table C.5  (continued) Vision elements addressed

564  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway D.1: Scotland open to the world

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions

* People-based

- Fund a scholarship for championing native plants (and animals) to replace imported equivalents Strategy D.1.1: - Consider Scotland’s place in a Promote global biodiversity system—reinScotland as a troduction and planning for at risk regional and species in the long-term global connected leader

Strategies

Table C.5  (continued)

2070–2100

(continued)

- Invest equally in Governance rural and urban communities in the region - Set the example to other - Support digital countries in the world on connectivity global collaboration across communities to drive local economy and global collaborations - Create better relation- Ensure that ships between Scotland Scotland is and England—other parts strong enough of UK to respond to terrorist attacks, piracy and theft - Support cross boundary agreements of what the priorities are like climate ready Clyde and Climate Agreement at global level

- Strengthen international collaborations

2040–2070

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   565

Strategy E.1.4: - Put in place natural capital Introduce accounting for co-operations/ taxation, business - Enhance environmental tax for standards and impactful activities—Introduce tax regulation for credits for positive environmental environmental contributions protection * People-based - Review and realign all policies an 5yearly basis ongoing throughout - Relaxation of building restrictions on historic buildings to favour environmental performance

- New build regulations covering ground and air source heat pumps, active and passive solar, passive cooling, insulation etc. - Increase carbon tax to effective level

2015–2040

Pathway E.1: Introduce policy for strong environmental protection

Actions

Strategies

Pathway

Table C.5  (continued)

- Increase collaboration with other countries earlier through sharing expertise - Strengthen environmental protection legislative framework in Scotland - Introduce scheme of incentives for consumers towards good environmental practice - Introduce social marketing of products and services - Adopt a flexible approach to land-use planning for species change to improve adaptability to inevitable habitat change - Develop new building standards to FORCE improved environmental standards - Local government works to ensure all Scots have open or wooded recreational space within 10 min walk

2040–2070

2070–2100

Resources and the environment

Governance

Vision elements addressed

566  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

Strategies

Table C.5  (continued)

2040–2070

- Switch subsidies from fossil fuels to - Every Scot lives within green energy 5 min walk of a tree big enough to hug - Introduce regulations - Implement fully flexible and agile working policies - Develop national plan for land use and regulation to support effective local energy systems and grid - Growing trees for furniture construction as long-term carbon storage - Encourage more household-level solar PV and solar heat - Develop new building standards to encourage improved environmental standards - Combine recreational land with biodiversity habitat through local authority policy change - Implement penalties and taxes to encourage biodiversity and sustainable forestry

2015–2040

Actions 2070–2100

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   567

Strategies 2015–2040

Actions 2040–2070

Pathway Strategy A.3.1: - Establish natural - Offer employment to A.3: Ensure Set up natural playgrounds for the have-nots as foresters and sustainable protection areas rich—in remote areas estate wardens management (repopulation of the of natural glens and islands also resources and marine for sport-­ ecosystems fishing, swimming with dolphins etc) * Nature-based - Sell off protected areas - Allow have-nots to shoot to multinationals but the food is for the haves - Offer deer forests as services Strategy A.3.2: - Develop aquaculture— Foster ecosysbiomass of fish for food - Multinationals invest in tem services cheap labour to ensure for resource water for themselves provision * Nature-based - Identify and use water export opportunities for multinationals Develop eco-tourism to provide income/employment for have-nots

Pathway

Table C.6  Scottish pathways in SSP3

- Create awards ­(competition=) for protected areas owned by the multinationals

2070–2100

Resources and the environment; Food, water and energy

Vision elements addressed

568  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

Strategy A.3.3: Coordinate resources among multinationals to protect natural capital * Nature-based

Strategies

Table C.6  (continued)

2015–2040

Actions

Establish peatland restoration (low tech) paid by rich for carbon storage and water management

2040–2070

- Long-term view to benefit multinationals + Have nots - Set up Scottish business council for sustainable naturalcapital - Set up coordination mechanism between corporations on issues such as invasive species pollination - Develop ecosystem service assessments tools for multinationals (skewed) economically motivated - Coordinate land use strategies within a group of multinationals

- Establish ‘resource government’

2070–2100

(continued)

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   569

Strategies

Strategy B.3.1: Move towards community-­ based food growing * People-based

Pathway

Pathway B.3: Promote a shift towards community-­ based and local economies

Table C.6  (continued)

- Community food growing—urban

- Local community grabs land

2015–2040

Actions 2070–2100

- Multinationals spend cash on infrastructure Afforestation for carbon storage (philanthropy CSR) Volunteer monitoring of multinationals use of natural resources Use ag waste and whisky waste for bioenergy (multinationals) Multinational champions for iconic species invest in actions for osprey, wildcat, golden eagle - Have-nots band together - Community acts to for community owned demand community benagriculture—communities efit, shared equity, % share of interest for growing, of profits building etc. - Grow own food to tackle - Seed sharing networks food shortages. to promote new varieties of crops adaptable to new climates e.g. from Scandinavia

2040–2070

Sustainable economy; Resources and the environment; Food, water and energy

Vision elements addressed

570  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

Strategies

Table C.6  (continued)

2040–2070

2070–2100

- Development of non-fiLocal advice networks for nancial goods and services new crops/farming techskills/schemes. niques to take advantage of climate change opportunities - Local advice net- Encourage have-nots to works for sustainable farm the land—smallholdagriculture solutions in ings, dachas peer to peer advice and smallholdings - More venison diet - Community land buy-out - Poultry/rabbit Alternative food sources: production locally seaweed, algae, mushreplacing beef rooms, quinoa, mussels Agroforestry, vertical farming, aquaponics, ->reduce land demand for food Plant trees to give shade for salmon Afforestation : food, energy and carbon storage Utilise abandoned land for community growing to reduce food vulnerability Use sustainable agriculture to improve biodiversity

- Community kitchen prepares climate friendly meals

2015–2040

Actions

(continued)

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   571

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions 2040–2070

Strategy B.3.3: Develop self-regulation to protect nature and people * Market-based

- Develop bartering on local scale to include alternative currencies (for skills development E3.1) - Secure funding through philanthropy for food banks + schools

2070–2100

Set up machinery rings and tool banks/libraries Provide capital for community low carbon energy schemes (philanthropy from estates to improve workforce resilience + self-financing) - Provide information to - Haves provide cheap land - Establish multinationals multinationals on risks rent (crofts) for have-nots association to coordinate to economic benefits management of resources from natural capital from unsustainable practices - New taxation of multi- - Companies invest in - Awards system for estates nationals—carbon tax; health of workers & eduland sales/building cation etc - Monopolies commis- Companies invest in - Strong coordination on sion regulates market resources local and multinational commission levels

Strategy B.3.2: Set up local credit union - Promote sharing econPromote a local omy, goods and services and sharing economy * Market-based - Establish local trading systems

Strategies

Table C.6  (continued) Vision elements addressed

572  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

Strategies

Table C.6  (continued)

Apply natural capital accounting protocol (multinationals)

- Information transparency on working conditions Ban trawling within 3 m of coast (food for have-nots)

- Multinationals agree standard to regulate/ manage use of resources (self-regulating) - Implement self-regulated standards for estates/ playgrounds - Have-nots offer services for estate management on condition they share in game/timber

- Multi-nationals develop CSR programmes for market advantage

- Coordinate resource provision by multinationals

- New corporations provide Organize work force into services unions

- Develop regulatory framework to protect natural resources management - Standards for estate area management— legally underpinned - Conduct awareness campaign on consequences of labour/resource overexploitation - Provide tax breaks for philanthropy

2070–2100

2040–2070

2015–2040

Actions

(continued)

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   573

Strategy C.3.1: Skills development for the have-nots

Pathway C.3: Provide education, tools and social services to local communities

* People-based

Strategies

Pathway

Table C.6  (continued)

2040–2070

2070–2100

Set up peer to peer advice network for sustainable agriculture solutions Make load management plans to prevent use of flood plains for housing Support social enterprise - Educate in skills useful for - Empower the have-nots— and self-sufficiency eduworld ahead—skills and localized democracies cation from early on sufficiency - Foster immigration/ exchange to enable communities of poor people to learn subsistence farming skills from people in other EU countries and from other immigrants - Have-nots organize with similar in other countries - Share skills among the have-nots - Implement education programmes to build community conscience - Have-nots develop skills training within communities of interest

2015–2040

Actions

Jobs, equality and lifestyles; Health and education; Sustainable economy

Vision elements addressed

574  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

Strategy C.3.2: Provide social and health services

Strategies

Table C.6  (continued)

2015–2040

Actions 2070–2100

- Provide education on food “barriers” e.g. persuade people to like insects - Educate in advocacy and negotiation skills to build political capital—more equality - Persuade Haves to move to remote (expensive to keep) locations (new skills for the have-nots) - Use time credits (see B 3.2) for childcare and education - Provide education on traditional ways of preserving - Provide education on food from the sea - Firms provide benefits - Incentivise philanthropy to workforce (health, for social services education) - Implement land sales tax - Use 4 day week encourage as a percentage of price to haves to provide services support social fund for have-nots on 5th day

2040–2070

(continued)

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   575

Pathway

* Technologybased

Strategy C.3.3: Invest in the development of practical and low-tech skills and tools

* Market-based

Strategies

Table C.6  (continued)

2070–2100

- Manage seasonal and locational water Provide incentives/low tech solutions/microfinance for measures to reduce nitrate runoff i.e. hedges, soil testing, anaerobic digesters for waste

- Encourage off grid water management and tools

- Offer tax incentives for - Use corporation tax (CO2 firms to improve employee tax) to provide for health in society health and education - Conduct deals with the corporations to fund staff family health and education - Develop low tech water - Rainwater harvesting for quality assessment have-nots techniques/tools

2040–2070

Establish Green Investment Bank for companies to invest in low carbon communities to access finance for local energy (and/or Credit Union) Support micro-hydro, - Work with the have nots small-scale solar and to innovate low carbon wind solutions Use natural insulation (sheep, wool etc.) Support transition to low carbon economy—incentives and competitive advantage

2015–2040

Actions

Vision elements addressed

576  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

Strategy C.3.4: Foster philanthropy for nature and people * People-based

Strategies

Table C.6  (continued)

2015–2040

Actions 2040–2070

- Raise awareness about resource efficiency (water/ energy) –> benefits of efficiency (economic/ environment) - Show links, opportunities, threats of use of natural capital - Develop a vision and plan for a future world (with buy-in!) - Foster philanthropy for biodiversity. Buy up estates and restore ecosystems. (wild and remote therefore no conflict with food (trade-off with playgrounds) Bring in bison?

- Educate multinationals and haves to be benign dictators in the interest of succession/longevity

2070–2100

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   577

2070–2100

Strategy A.4.1: - Promote canal net- Private companies - Take a ‘people- and place’ Develop work (flood mandevelop infrastructure for approach to planning in integrated agement measures): their own needs (without rural areas to allow infrainfrastructure development for low government)—build structure in rural areas to solutions on carbon transport soluregional framework but cope with immigration macro and tions for heavy goods location-specific to promicro scales transport vide infrastructure * Technology- - Land conservations - Support the development - Coordinate policy for based and visualisation of infrastructure based on maintenance and manageevents: Independent commoditised resources ment of major infrastrucindividuals organise via (e.g. water) and build ture (hydro schemes social media, internet, connectivity in remote and reservoirs for water academics, interested regions export) parties—to create awareness for land - Set up informed - Ensure equal water - Invest in dialogue on strategic quality across Scotland ­hydro-schemes—make options for land use for good public health -> infrastructure (hydro and mitigation with responsible water use schemes and reservoirs) land for water export requires national coordinated policy for maintenance and management

2040–2070

Pathway A.4: The elite creates space for ecosystems through integrated infrastructure solutions and land management

2015–2040

Actions

Strategies

Pathway

Table C.7  Scottish pathways in SSP4

Resources and the environment; Food, water and energy

Vision elements addressed

578  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions

Strategy A.4.2: - Local government creImplement ates designated areas, ecosystem-­ e.g. biosphere reserve, based land nature, in hope of management attracting investment that builds climate change resilience * Nature-based - Implement coordinated, networked monitoring stations to mitigate the climate change impacts (e.g. increased fertiliser use) - Scotland’s rich acquire land as status symbol or investment - Assign land also for urban food growing

Strategies

Table C.7  (continued)

- Set up carbon credit scheme for forestry to make it more viable - Protect from flooding: put in hard infrastructure - Develop natural flood defence mechanisms - Conduct on-going official land management data set - Monitor around mining areas/controls on industries

- Set up solar farms on unmanaged land

- Develop recreation and tourism on unmanaged land

2040–2070 - Large landowners (the rich) implement ecosystems approach

2070–2100

(continued)

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   579

Pathway B.4: Shift towards a resilient, low-carbon economy

Pathway

- Include natural resources in circular economy—technological solutions - Develop bio tech opportunities to protect nature resource from pests and diseases, invasive species—smart water metering - Development of community schemes based on bio-based materials for urban centres - New food sources, e.g. micro-proteins and insects

2015–2040

Actions 2040–2070

- Showcase technical solutions

- Promote Scotland as a technical test area for flooding solutions—maximise high rain benefit - Develop SUDs and technology to alleviate flood risk

Vision elements addressed

Sustainable economy; Resources and the environ- Logic of progress towards ment; Food, self-interest of companies water and to provide basic infraenergy structure for employees and citizens by returning profit into community

2070–2100 - Develop technology to allow flexible urban-rural living

- High-tech approach to agriculture and nutrient application and low waste - Soil stabilisation (and reduction of nitrate loss) - Strengthen mechanisms to re-invest in Scotland Strategy B.4.2: - Implement fiscal levers - Invest in energy and - EU enforces philanthropy Promote to encourage private water etc. as commodity low-carbon industry trade tariffs, reservoirs exclusivity taxation, interest rates * Market-based - Develop Scottish low - Investment in infrastruc- - Legislate tax incentives carbon brand and ture facilitates commodity to support on-going metrics delivery philanthropy

Strategy B.4.1: Boost technology development and use * Technologybased

Strategies

Table C.7  (continued)

580  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

Strategies

Table C.7  (continued)

2040–2070

2070–2100

- Build/invest in natural - Set up the financial - Benign companies procapital, e.g. whisky, system to support private vide decent conditions to salmon philanthropy—the rich look after poor people, have some association promote environmental with the national vision, and social sustainability proud to be a rich Scot, and justice (e.g. Whisky moral responsibility, and and salmon)—because recognise they need a natural capital and brand healthy workforce reliance - Start water com- Compartmentalise land - Develop national inframoditisation (part of pockets, one company structure projects to branding of natural owning an entire/massive employ people funded capital) flood catchment area—to through EU and private get responsible manenterprises, using tax agement in a piecemeal incentives—big loans—to manner support employment - Invest in energy - On-going commodifica- Improve conditions of infrastructure (about tion of data: Develop data workforce—health care 2025) gathering and analysis (to and pay account for commercial value)—from private companies as academia and public declines (e.g. Google climate analysis data and selling scenarios)

2015–2040

Actions

(continued)

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   581

Pathway C.4: Promote ­flexible urban-rural living that builds on cohesion and local, sustainable economies

Pathway 2040–2070 - Private companies invest in their business assets and communities to improve conditions - Implement social capital accounting

2015–2040 - Support R&D for low-carbon energy

Actions

- Co-operative fair trade whisky

2070–2100

- Account natural capital to assess how well natural capital is being managed - Corporate self-regulation - Reduce taxes to incentivise private R&D (after to continue to protect the Scottish ­independence)/ environment Devo max - Implement land - I nvest funds from ‘exports’ reform bill 2100 into funds for population plus ‘energy’ profits to develop local communities - Supplier of last resort Strategy C.4.1: - Communities invest - Promote local economy - Establish social-­ Strengthen in community-owned democratic networks at community-­ resources community level to utilise based land social media, technology, management data, non-violent way and community cohesion

Strategies

Table C.7  (continued)

Jobs, equality and lifestyles; Health and education; Sustainable economies

Vision elements addressed

582  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

- Private companies sponsor local communities (philanthropy)—‘pseudo-laird’

- Communities commonly respond to storms and extreme events, this leads to social cohesion and communities

- Set up community improvement schemes

2040–2070

2015–2040

Actions

* People-based - Facilitate local pride—i.e. also sense you get from independence and devolution, national and local (equity, social cohesion)—enables greater interventions at community level— also links to good education, economic growth

Strategies

Table C.7  (continued)

- Develop (virtual, social) ‘clan network’/social movement at community level that lobby the EU to intervene/provide support—people with like-minded outlooks, not necessarily in the same geographical area, also through communication technology/social media etc.; virtual protest - Organise dissent, disruption, direct action, occupation, hacking

2070–2100

(continued)

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   583

Pathway

Strategies

Table C.7  (continued)

- NGO/civil society highlight the dangers of decreasing welfare spending

- Establish macro areas of regional influence

- Increase the role of civic society

2070–2100

- Build physical infrastructure for social media (e.g. internet) - Regions reach out to EU: - Conduct a social cohesion regional partnerships at monitor rural or urban levels for sharing of best practices (RURAL) and financial support (URBAN), e.g. Edinburgh and Berlin pact - Local governments looks - Build links with other to wider regional EU regions across the EU examples when splits to inform development happen and there is no opportunities in their support (2060s-2070s) regions - Unofficial economy/ - Increase of ad hoc combartering, black market munity councils, micro (when networks start to democracies form)—sharing economy also (dark economy: unlicensed, untaxed, unofficial)

2040–2070

2015–2040

Actions

Vision elements addressed

584  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions

Strategy C.4.2: - State sponPromote rural sors ­community community ­buy-outs—state development encourages communities to buy land from land owners—focus on unmanaged land

Strategies

Table C.7  (continued)

- Develop alternatives to welfare spending, e.g. care in community using 4-day work week

- Promote community-owned energy—use land for new low carbon solutions, e.g. solar farms = income for rural communities - Local communities get income from looking after habitats and forests, to conserve carbon stocks - Increase local democracy and participation by giving responsibility to local communities for local place-making and environmental quality - Localise systems, e.g. food, governance, economy, services - Support community farming - Corporate community reinvestment obligation via non-tax channels - Share best practice in sustainable farming through social media in other global communities

- Set up some social democratic organisations according to John Lewis model, foster roles of cooperatives

- Establish inter-community voluntary mechanisms

2070–2100

2040–2070

(continued)

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   585

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions 2040–2070

- Set up community - Implement community carbon credits—EUspecific education proled (late 2020s)—that jects: for land managehelps the infrastrucment, e.g. to support ture investment at sustainable energy local level and energy production, agriculture, infrastructure (e.g. provision of technology local energy schemes, local land management) and supports self-sufficiency of communities also in terms of energy (community creates capital) * People-based - Communities sell - Take up multiple jobs—I carbon credits to am a farmer, plumber, companies to offset taxi driver, etc. the companies’ footprint—synergies with local brand development - Invest in land-based - Train farmers to enable policies to give people them best to manage access to land, new soil and waste/water crofting commission resource, e.g. knowledge on water flows

Strategies

Table C.7  (continued)

- Rural communities build tourism business and increase prosperity

2070–2100

Vision elements addressed

586  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

- Community entrepreneurs develop local energy solutions

2015–2040

Actions 2040–2070

2070–2100

- Set up job leasing for unskilled jobs: multiple skilled individuals might share jobs—or one person who is contractually employed to do something and then leases out the job Strategy C.4.3: - Create urban green - Promote shared roof - Focus on green cities, Promote urban spaces for food resilgardens more of a relationship with community ience (state sponsored) environment to increase development life expectancy –> community gardens in ghettos, vegetable growing * Nature-based - Vertical farms - Provision of high tech manufacturing, getting investments to build a factory, communication systems, IT - Local community food - Develop green cities, growing urban gardening, roof gardens - Part of a global approach to bottom-up energy solutions

Strategies

Table C.7  (continued)

(continued)

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   587

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions

- Provide education free for all

2040–2070

- Focus education on self-sufficiency and social enterprise * People-based - New skill development - Get successful businesses programmes to invest (incentivise) invest in education to get enough qualified people/ workforce - Promote social inno- Improve knowledge and vation research and skills about healthy eating development, e.g. in through schools and community volunteer community education mechanisms—how do we get people to support themselves, self-reliance - Encourage alterna- Skills given to population tives use arts and = feeding into energy culture and faith-based solutions systems

Strategy C.4.4: - Educate for social Establish new values and in social education conscience (by 2030), models for self-­ skill-based education organisation and knowledge - Increase spend in and new skill education development

Strategies

Table C.7  (continued)

- NGOs fill void of ineffective governments to help communicate the importance of the environment

2070–2100

Vision elements addressed

588  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway D.4: Strengthen Scotland’s ‘brand’ nationally and internationally

Pathway

* Market-based

Strategy D.4.2: Brand Scotland internationally

* People-based

Strategy D.4.1: Foster international cooperation

Strategies

Table C.7  (continued)

2040–2070

2070–2100

Vision elements addressed

- Use social media and - Next generation of MOOCs for new forms 3D-printing and new of communication to production and manufacinfluence learning, skills turing (e.g. hole in the sharing, manufacturing wall technology) - Promote sharing economy - Implement valuedriven approach to sharing—based on intrinsic motivation - Set up different types - Maintain diplomatic ties - Report to the EU which Governance of think tanks (interna- with other nations by has a greater power to act tional, regional, elite, using multi-millionaires as local etc.) supported advocates for the nation by rich individuals - Increase international collaboration (driven by individuals) - Brand Scotland— - Foster eco-tourism to continue to promote incentivise management natural capital—attract of the natural environglobal markets ment and encourage appreciation of nature - Showcase Scotland— knowledge export—EU and globally - Foster whisky philanthropy for industry PR reasons

2015–2040

Actions

APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   589

Strategy A.5.1: Planning and land use management with nature-based solutions * Nature-based

Pathway A.5: Establish new planning and land use management program

Strategy A.5.2: Change land ownership * Market-based

Strategies

Pathway

- Increase community ownership of land and other assets

- Nationalise private estates and land early

- Use wealth to replant forests and improve resilience of environment

- Invest in urban green space and sustainable urban development solutions

Non-traditional fish species for consumption

- Introduce a mass tree planting programme

2015–2040

Actions

Table C.8  Scottish pathways in SSP5

2070–2100

- Crowd funding for tree planting - Wild land trust for donations of unwanted land

- Develop green cities to - Support more investaddress pockets of conment on resilience of cern like environment and environment detract from destruction and exploitation of rural areas - Biodiversity—improving - Create wildlife corland management strateridors going though gies (land sparing) intensive farming land - Take advantage of carbon - Pursue integrated land sequestration potential of use (could lead to tree planting program greater appreciation and existence and cultural value of nature) - Carbon market develops

2040–2070

Resources and the environment; Food, water and energy

Vision elements addressed

590  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

- Build inland water recreation parks to replace coasts

- Make accessible heritage sites with high speed transport options

* Market-based

- Innovation and R&D - Mealworm farms in policy on SEC to develop every town biomass to CCS schemes using non-managed land - Invest in GENE and Seed banks early to allow recovery - Population is encouraged - 2080s when species or choses to use unmannumbers increase, aged land for recreation unmanaged land can be used for wildlife tours, appreciate and connect with nature - Use unmanaged land -B  oost of tourism marfor wilderness tours to ket by the availability appreciate and connect of biodiversity, variawith nature tion, increasing interest in Scottish population

- Technological solutions and innovation focus on transport links to allow high levels of mobility

- Invest in green cities and smart mobility to deal with environmental problems

2070–2100

- NGOs and private research funding ensures renewable tech is ready and affordable when wanted

2040–2070

Technology advance to avoid nitrogen runoff (nitrogen inhibitors etc)

2015–2040

Actions

Strategy A.5.4: Invest in tourism and recreation market/ industry

Strategy A.5.3: Invest in technological innovation to eco-modernise urban and rural areas * Technologybased

Strategies

Table C.8  (continued)

(continued)

Vision elements addressed

APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   591

Pathway

Strategy A.5.5: Deploy market-based solutions for peripheral connectivity * Market-based Strategy A.5.6: Resource mapping and data collection

Strategies

Table C.8  (continued)

- Support/Fund academic research for exploitation

- Grants and incentives to increase population in island communities

- Develop of water sports interest and facilities (due to warming oceans)

- Use new technology

- Put emphasis of mapping of resources exploitation shifts to include environmental concerns

- Invest and promote - I ncrease in leisure and Scottish safaris for huntrecreation activities ing and putting a price on that creates a return to the environment intrinsic value of nature - Policy support for making - Create wild life parks Scotland an eco-tourism that become a station destination opportunity with camping - Encourage participation and interest in water sports (results in concern of the environment) - Invest in transport from islands

- Promote and support tourism in heritage sites

2070–2100

2040–2070

2015–2040

Actions

Vision elements addressed

592  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

* Technologybased

Strategies

Table C.8  (continued)

- Using the models/ develop GIS tools to enable maximum exploitation of resources rather than assessment of resources - Utilise more localised map based ecosystems assessments to inform funding decisions - Improve our monitoring of raw water to understand quality impacts - Invest in further monitoring of wastewater catchments to understand climate impacts

2015–2040

Actions 2070–2100

- Establish a mechanism for - Data mapping highearly warning of resource lights environmental exploitation (from data problems collection to use/exploitation to assessment) - Introduce governmen- Reassessment of datatal zoning for planning sets to inform policy to exploitation of resources address environmental concerns - Assessment of costs of - Fund solution-focused impacts from technoloresearch (research is gies and exploitation seen as an investment) - Valuation of more - Shift from sole non-monetary resources exploitation of fossil and ecosystem services fuels to also exploit wind as a resource - Support/Fund academic - Introduce/implement research for environmenpolicy to clean up tal reasons environment - Data collection and mapping to ensure that 2010= baseline situation does not happen again

2040–2070

(continued)

Vision elements addressed

APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   593

- Invest in new technologies to achieve full employment

- Encourage full employment by investing in re-training

Strategy B.5.1: Invest in technological innovation to ensure full employment

* Technologybased

- Technology policy to invest in bio-materials and high value income generation - Facilitate a step-change to mechanized and intense farming (measure adapted from land use strategy that is suggested to be included in strategy) - SEC funding for fusion development - Profit-driven (food) waste management

2015–2040

Pathway B.5: Create new job opportunities and lifestyles with nature and low-carbon technologies

Actions

Strategies

Pathway

Table C.8  (continued)

- Develop education and innovation in biotech, based in urban universities to achieve an educated population and full employment

- Ensure free knowledge transfer of new technology including energy efficiency technology

2040–2070

- Scotland develops fusion technology (incl. small scale plants) - Tax natural beef - > cultured meat

- Invest in water innovation education to encourage development of high-tech solutions to water treatment challenges in degraded environment - Technology solutions (e.g. insulating smart meters to reduce energy consumptions

2070–2100

Sustainable economy; Resources and the environment; Food, water and energy

Vision elements addressed

594  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Strategy C.5.1: Support local empowerment

Pathway C.5: Support local community empowerment for sustainability

Strategy C.5.2: Invest in environmental education

* People-based

Strategies

Pathway

Table C.8  (continued)

- Local rural communities raise concerns in order to make government responsive - Clantons are given responsibility power for sustainable place-making framework for government - Government framework to require energy, water and food trading - Clantons are given opportunities to develop local energy renewable schemes - Educate on critical thinking to make Clantons work - Put in place environmental education programs by government

2015–2040

Actions 2070–2100

- ESD promotes the neces- - Invest in environmental sity for resource efficiency education in schools to and a long term governensure that all citizens ance of resources have a basic understanding of environmental issues (this action continues from “- Put in place environmental education programs by government”)

- Reopen of power station - Invest in community to focus on growth of enterprises for low-carlocal economy. Burning bon low-food miles and fossil fuels etc low carbon technology - Available land for new areas - Clantons start to find of urban development built the environment of around shared resources interest because of (recreation shops) champions - SEC decentralizes energy production to Clantons and manages trading

2040–2070

(continued)

Jobs, equality and lifestyles; Health and education

Vision elements addressed

APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   595

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions 2040–2070

2070–2100

- Ensure education includes - Make David - Improve connection knowledge about environ- Attenborough’s docuand communication of mental impacts mentaries compulsory TV Scotland’s environment viewing and its importance - Connect and communicate with people who live in rural areas about vulnerabilities Strategy C.5.3: - NGOs use biodiver- NGOs raise general - Government pick-up Raise awareness sity changes to engage interest in biodiversity by community/clanton about environpopulations harnessing the experience decarbonisations mental issues of new species within cities - Local community - (international) NGOs - Health-driven changes and apprecia­knowledge (to increase need to push for environin food habits tion of nature social capital and techment to become focus nology) environmental earlier than the tipping issues prevail environment point (of the scenario) especially the children * People-based - NGOs and community - Direct action and lobgroups encourage envibying by grassroots eco-­ ronmental engagement at centric organisations a local scale - NGO community pushes - Clantons pick-up comfor awareness when an munity decarbonisation. environmental tipping Focus of Clantons (compoint happens pared to government) is on implementation

* People-based

Strategies

Table C.8  (continued) Vision elements addressed

596  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Strategy D.5.1: Strengthen global relations * People-based

Pathway D.5: Foster strong regional economy and global presence of Scotland

Strategy D.5.2: Regulate imports and support global trade relations

Strategies

Pathway

Table C.8  (continued)

- Encourage communities to engage with nature, environmental education - Encourage investment to renewables

- Incentivize charity giving to environmental causes

- Remain in EU as part of connecting with global community

Set up agreements with countries and conglomerates we import from to ensure supplies are resilient

-S  cottish government takes active part in global organizations related to lowcarbon technology transfer - Scottish government puts forth a carrot-and-stick legislations on corporations to tackle environmental damage - Promote trading of biodiversity and non-managed land as a global resource for carbon storage

- Increase energy regulation earlier - Enhanced devolution: UK - Selling technology to the becomes federal world

- Exploit emergence of Clantons to encourage community energy

2040–2070

2015–2040

Actions

- Scotland sells fusion technology to the world for profit

2070–2100

(continued)

Governance

Vision elements addressed

APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   597

Pathway E.5: Valorise the market potential of water

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions

Strategy E.5.2: Employ technology-based solutions to exploit natural resources as commodities

* Nature-based

- National and local water systems ensure continuity of supply for human use including maintenance of green space in urban areas

- Make trade deals and technology exports as recompense for failure to meet climate agreements

2040–2070

- Consider to exploit water to increase income further with water exports - Study how to maximize potential for water as a commodity to renewable energy and shared to other parts of the world - Invest in and develop - Technology to store (and national water grid to transport) renewable ensure services to conenergy more efficiently sumers and energy for pumping is abundant

- Investment in health, housing, education and society is done on global scale to connect with global community Strategy E.5.1: - Development of upland Capitalise on water sources to feed water as a margrowing populations in ketable resource Inverness and Aberdeen

* Market-based

Strategies

Table C.8  (continued)

- Hi-tech interconnectivity of water sources to ensure adequate supply to populations (especially urban)

2070–2100

Food, water and energy

Vision elements addressed

598  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

Strategy E.5.3: Invest in technological innovation to ensure flood protection * Technologybased

* Technologybased

Strategies

Table C.8  (continued)

2040–2070

2070–2100

- Technology policy on water efficient homes

- Support rain water harvesting in order to reduce carbon emissions for water irrigation and responsible water use - Develop soft engineering solutions to water problems driven by low cost of upland land and high cost of urban property - Development of hightech, low-input treatment to increase profit/reduce cost of water treatment - Adaptation investment to - Develop technology to - High-tech solutions address increased flooding allow marginal land on prevent flooding and and pollution islands to be maximized keeps population at risk low

2015–2040

Actions

(continued)

Vision elements addressed

APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   599

* People-based

Strategy F.5.2: Introduce environmental regulation

Strategy F.5.1: - Government institutes Planning and and funds independent land use manenvironmental advices to agement with advise on long term envinew governance ronmental challenges approaches * People-based - National planning framework to prevent NIMBYism of local planning - Planning laws to protect urban population reduce development on flood plains and keep effects of flooding low

- Availability of land for energy tech

2040–2070

- Develop regional land use frameworks for rural areas - Promote increasingly integrated land use - Regulation of companies’ - Biodiversity policy focus activities in the natural on long-term wild land resources because of reserves conflicts between them (litigation—impacts on bottom lines) - Implement waste management regulations - Increase the power of the environmental regulation

2015–2040

Pathway F.5: Environmental policy as a positive return-of-investment action

Actions

Strategies

Pathway

Table C.8  (continued)

2070–2100

Governance; Resources and the environment

Vision elements addressed

600  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

Strategy F.5.3: Introduce taxation and funding schemes for environmental benefiting investments * Market-based

Strategies

Table C.8  (continued)

- Polluter pays taxation

2040–2070 - Incentive specifically targeting low-carbon

2070–2100

- Sovereign wealth fund like - Referendum allows - Scottish government Norway to Community dividend cut from SEC invests in SEC finance to address environmental in repairing environdegradation mental damage - Environmental taxation - Take into account the - Guaranteed income for locally by Clantons environmental perforeveryone as in Finland mance of technology so as to incorporate the costs of teach-solutions to investment decisions - Use the state profit to invest in community energy

- Invest in bigger reserves for restoration on contingency fund (Cash In = Cash out principle in practice)

2015–2040

Actions

Vision elements addressed

APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   601

602  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

C.3 Visions and Pathways for Hungary C.3.1 Hungarian Vision Narrative Governance and Institutions The legal foundation of governance and institutions is stable and secure. Decision-making is based on broad social consensus. The management of energy, water and healthcare is not profit-oriented; ­sustainability-oriented systems have been developed. With strong and participatory local governance, there are many local civil initiatives. Indeed, the Szekszárd Climate Circle (Szekszárdi Klímakör—a local green NGO) is now celebrating its 100th anniversary. Representatives of NGOs are present in local governments and ensure balanced participatory decision-making. There is direct communication between communities and local government. Elected municipal leaders are accountable and can be called back based on a referendum called at the request of 10% of the population and decision-making on major developments requires strong civil society participation. Citizens and communities, including young generations, are responsible. The level of individual responsibility is high, and majority instead of minority interests are prioritised. Political leaders can be held to account. There is an extensive twinning programme with other municipalities abroad. Hungary is member of an EU alliance, which advocates the principle of subsidiarity (decisions on local issues made locally). The EU has been reformed and responds more directly to European community’s needs and challenges. National participation and representation of interests is present with equal weight in the work of the EU. Community Life, Social Relations and Values Community and local cultural life are strong, also in urban areas, and supported by direct communication between people, as well as by the free dissemination of community knowledge and best practices. Those in the younger generations who move away temporarily to work or study find it both attractive and possible to return. As a result, cities and rural communities retain their population. Due to strong family ties and dedicated civil society organisations, support for youth and the elderly is strong and public safety is maintained. Living in safe

APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   603

communities, families and nature are connected and there is an awareness of the importance of values and morals. Morals and the ethics of sustainability play an important role within communities and interest in low quality, manipulative, mass consumption promoting media is minimal. Money is not considered to be the exclusive and only measure of value and success. Society successfully handles differences and diversity. Health, Education and Well-Being Active and healthy lifestyles and the virtues of a sustainable level of population are promoted through all levels of education from kindergarten to adult education. There is widespread availability of sports facilities and child-friendly programmes. Every settlement has a swimming pool, sports and community hall. The population has access to a sustainable healthcare system, social services and widespread mental health programmes. Hungary has top hospitals that are modern, together with health centres that concentrate on sustaining health and prevention. There is a comprehensive basic healthcare system readily available for everyone through family physicians. Positive, long-term and systems thinking are embedded in formal and informal education and characterise the mentality of the people. Education also strengthens holistic thinking for children/pupils to recognise early on that everything is interrelated at local, regional, European and global levels as well as between people and ecosystems. There is widespread access to natural, traditional medicine that limits the need for hospital treatment. Excellent schools and informal institutions provide environmental and health education, as well as education based on traditions, personal and collective responsibility, increasing creativity and problem-solving ability. Children have good examples to follow. Education creates capacity in people and strengthens their ability to be creative and to use their own brain. Vocational, practice-oriented training provides skills necessary for both traditional and modern (but sustainable) aspects of life and older people pass on knowledge to the younger generation. Society appreciates different—modern as well as traditional— forms of knowledge and concentrates on acquiring skills that contribute to society and sustain the vision for sustainable communities. As a result, each of our actions has a meaningful impact.

604  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Economy and Employment Using modern and highly eco-efficient technologies, the economy is sustainable and preserves values in both urban and rural areas and also provides meaningful local employment. In this society, meaningful employment opportunities will be available for all, including those with limited skills and lower education. An advanced social security system ensures that social inequity is at an acceptable level. The level of corporate social responsibility is high. There is an increase in higher ­value-added products. Sustainable tourism (mostly domestic, nature-oriented) industry is booming. In line with the principle of subsidiarity, very significant taxation authority and policy-making powers are vested with local government. Corruption is minimal. The total number of employed almost equals the total working-age population. Part-time work, telecommuting and job sharing are available everywhere. The value of working in the physical trades is respected. Most people are employed in local food production, family farms and SMEs. The value of production is not measured in GDP, with a representation of full life cycle costs. Environment Protection of the environment and climate is a priority under the conditions of a changing climate and dynamic ecological challenges. Industrial emissions of air pollutants are near zero. Trees are planted wherever possible both in urban and in rural areas, and species resistant to climate change are used. The urban environment is clean, healthy and continuously improving and cities are climate-adapted. There is a balanced urban fabric with a lot of green areas and sustainable urban services where people live in harmony with the environment. Urbanisation is kept under control, and there is a harmonious relation between urban and rural communities. The distribution of the population is based on the carrying capacity of the areas where people live. People in cities are in direct contact with their surrounding ecosystems and support conservation. Rural lifestyles are attractive to people; many move to the countryside and engage in family farming. There are subsidies and support for sustainable environmental management.

APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   605

Material consumption has been reduced through the use of technologies that produce little or no waste and through changes towards sustainable lifestyles. There is no overconsumption and travel with high ecological footprint is limited to what’s essential as people are aware it is counterproductive to personal comfort and well-being. There is no promotion of overconsumption through advertising. All of the little waste that is generated is collected and recycled. Wood and paper are used for packaging in minimal amounts, and the use of wood composite materials is prevalent, as well as the use of wood in construction. Nature conservation is active and based on awareness, not restrictions. Energy, Built Environment and Transport The energy supply is environmentally friendly and sustainable, relying at least 60% on renewables (solar, geothermal, wind, wood). Biomass is composted, and the energy produced is used at the local level for supporting local production. Municipal energy consumption is lower than it was in 2016, with attention paid to energy efficiency of public lighting, buildings, appliances and transportation. Energy supply is decentralised, where feasible, local power plants provide heat where necessary to communities. Energy efficiency has been increased in all walks of life. Old houses have been renovated, rather than demolished, and have been retrofitted with modern insulation and heating systems. Due to energy efficiency measures, less energy is required and this can be to a large extent covered by renewables. Some new buildings can produce rather than consume energy but all modern buildings are at least s­elf-sufficient with respect to energy supply. Institutional awareness of the issues surrounding energy consumption, production and security is high. As a result, Hungary has total energy independence. Industry invests in renewable energy as a matter of routine. Energy storage is highly efficient, which further increases the feasibility of solar and wind energy production. Small-scale and community-based energy systems are constructed, and energy is sold on the open market. Transport is environmentally friendly and energy efficient. This is achieved through an emphasis on walking, cycling, water transport and electric vehicles, as well as through technological developments. There is a dense and well-used network of sidewalks, pedestrian-only areas and bike lanes in both urban and rural areas. Freight transport is also

606  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

environmental friendly and energy efficient and rationalised due to higher demand for local products that come with shorter supply chains. Former parking lots now serve as community gardens. Everybody pays attention to green space and natural cooling. There is also a dense public transport system, entirely run on renewables and widely used. Transportrelated CO2 emissions are much lower than in 2016. Food and Water Sustainable food production includes large-scale organic farming and self-sufficiency based on kitchen gardens. Consumption of locally produced organic food is a priority, and urban inhabitants are able to produce a large part of what they need. The way food is produced does not have negative effects on people. With diverse land ownership that effectively prevents the establishment of large private holdings, decisions on land use and land conversion for agriculture are taken carefully. Given favourable climatic conditions for viticulture, the quality of wine is excellent and Szekszárd is the primary wine-producing region in Hungary. Health-centred water management involves the use of ­micro-reservoirs, new irrigation systems, full use of rainwater, effective drainage of excess surface water and protection of natural water bodies. Floodplains regain their ecosystem functions, and traditional management systems have been re-established in a modern form. There are water reservoirs and irrigation canals by the Sió and the Danube rivers. Water management is responsible and focused on water retention. The value of rainwater collection and storage is obvious for people and communities. Soil quality is excellent; soil is rich in organic matter and minerals due to enhanced soil protection measures and appropriate crop production. There is an ample supply of clean healthy drinking water. Sewage is managed in a closed cycle and cannot enter surface water flows. C.3.2 Hungarian Pathways See Tables C.9, C.10, C.11, and C.12.

Strategy A.1.1: - Introduce incentives to people Introduce to use grey water water sensitive management

Pathway A.1: Advance to a water sensitive infrastructure system

- Use grey water in households

2040–2070

- Reform construction regula- Amend local regulations tions: Rainwater collection and on water grey water reuse are required for all new house construction or renovation - Inform every citizen of his/her - Support regional ecological footprint, including self-governance water and energy footprint - Regulate protection of water resources - Strengthen local regulations

* People-based - Introduce economic incentives - Support cooperato decrease the use of water tion on water among resources micro-regions - Put in place a full-cycle water - Put in place a hydrology monitoring system IT system

2015–2040

Actions

Strategies

Pathway

Table C.9  Hungarian pathways in SSP1

- Devolve regulatory power to local government (local government, local regulation) - Establish utility government at regional level - Represent environmental objectives in the budget, payment for environmental damage - Support water economy that is built on local resources

2070–2100

(continued)

Food and water; Environment; Governance and institutions

Vision elements addressed

APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   607

Pathway

Strategies

Table C.9  (continued)

- Provide incentives for green economy - Install an information system with electronic signature to monitor the water use - Authorities supervise the protection of water resources - Ensure that local health services are coupled with the recreational use of water - Formulate guide of good practices - Introduce new construction principles and new construction materials and technologies - Raise the price of irrigation water to motivate people to water savings - Strengthen collaboration of local governments with civil society organisations - Increase the water retention capacity of the soil

2015–2040

Actions 2040–2070

2070–2100

Vision elements addressed

608  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions

Strategy A.1.3: - Create employment in recreaExtend to an tion related uses of water integrated water management system * Technology- - Develop strategies for the new based water management system based on professional foundations - Stop underground mining to protect groundwater - Remediate water pollution sources - Switch to technologies with lower water demand - Install infrastructure to separate grey water - Install infrastructure for local water collection

Strategy A.1.2: - Monitor quality and quantity Set up a water of water system monitoring system * People-based - Ensure local social services of the water system

Strategies

Table C.9  (continued)

- Rainwater to be managed by residents - Implement energy storage technology

- Use hydropower to support water system

- Put in place civil control in implementation of water infrastructures - Reuse sewage water

- Ensure a civic control of the water use system

2040–2070

- Maintain utility system of water

- Decrease drinking water consumption

- Ensure adequate budget for infrastructure maintenance that is part of the city structure and budget

2070–2100

(continued)

Vision elements addressed

APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   609

Strategy B.1.1: Strengthen the role of government and national policy including a strong welfare system * People-based - Encourage state leadership

- Develop and present municipal and regional strategies

2040–2070

- Motivate state subventions - Introduce rules on all fields of - Establish good internalife (strong policy) tional relationships while maintaining national positions - Secure the sovereignty of the - Strengthen international country relations - Allocate large share of GDP to - Develop common stratdisadvantaged regions egies with neighbouring countries

- Install public water taps - Increase water retention in urban surfaces - Use plants that resist drought - Use soil in a conscious way to protect surface waters - Motivate waste reduction - Introduce birth control

2015–2040

Pathway B.1: Strengthen the role of government and participatory democracy

Actions

Strategies

Pathway

Table C.9  (continued)

- Set up a virtual Governance general assembly and that supports partic- institutions ipatory democracy, transparency and integrates disadvantaged people

2070–2100

Vision elements addressed

610  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway C.1: Shift to healthy lifestyles

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions 2040–2070

- Mandate reporting on - provide energy loan the actions done for the among countries community - Ensure better insight into the concrete tasks of the government (transparency) - Enable online voting - Make reporting mandatory and transparent - Incentivise the community to vote by providing a holiday for the voting day - Put in place polities to increase populations - Provide tax exemptions when saving energy - Modify framework curricula - Enhance local decision-making Strategy - Set examples on healthy life- Stimulate professional C.1.1: Support styles for young generation consultations about suseducation and tainable lifestyles communication about sustainable lifestyles

Strategies

Table C.9  (continued)

2070–2100

(continued)

Health, education and well-being; Community life, social relations and values

Vision elements addressed

APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   611

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions

- Support arts to have a bigger role - Support culture and development of arts as part of education for healthy lifestyles

- Include health issues in basic education

2040–2070

- Increase awareness about healthy choices (health conscious life) - Provide information and education on lifestyle change - Introduce natural healing methods and less medications - Improve communication - Form local interest groups - Educate about sustainable, eco-conscious farming Strategy C.1.2: - Introduce health screening - Increase natural and less Support health programs synthetic ingredients technologies * Technology- - Introduce new medications and based new technologies for health

* People-based - Sustain a continuous communication and awareness campaign of good practices - Put a higher value on homeland studies - Communicate today’s values and past mistakes in education and media

Strategies

Table C.9  (continued)

2070–2100

Vision elements addressed

612  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Strategies 2015–2040

Actions 2040–2070

2070–2100

- Support community facilities for healthy lifestyles—e.g. community gym, swimming pool - Create modern public transport system - Set up community transport - Support electrical vehicles Pathway D.1: Strategy D.1.1: - Change pavements in cities - Support brownfield - Online give permisMake cities Improve urban investments sion to buildings green and environment which produce thermally green energy - Create public cooling comfortable * Technology- - Increase green areas in cities based with more parks and urban centres greening - Create ventilation corridors - Implement carbon capin cities ture technologies - Introduce shading - Increase the use of timer/ technologies wood as a raw material - Design/install natural shading - Use renewable energy in in cities natural cooling centres - Promote eco-thermal energy - Provide urban cooling spaces based on naturebased solutions - Implement new building - Only permit passive technology houses

Pathway

Table C.9  (continued)

(continued)

Energy, built environment and transport; Health, education and well-being

Vision elements addressed

APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   613

Pathway

Strategies

Table C.9  (continued)

- Move towards smart city development

- Increase localised energy production that is decentralised (e.g. local heat plants) - Construct wild farms - Implement plants that are resistant to extreme weather conditions, for animal and human consumption - Refurbish residential buildings to become energy efficient

2040–2070

2015–2040

Actions 2070–2100

Vision elements addressed

614  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

- Adopt a comprehensive water management plan - Implement 3–5 year action plan: store winter precipitation, build reservoirs, develop irrigation * Technology- - Implement 3–5 year based action plan on improving soil quality (manure, green fertilizer) - Utilize fallow lands

Pathway A.3 Adapt resource management to climate change

Pet Bottles- Use of resources, environmental tax

- Manage irrigation

- Secure water resources protection - Establish Lake Balaton as an interest of national economy, state priority for increased protection - Create rainwater storage

2015–2040

Actions

Strategies

Pathway

Table C.10  Hungarian pathways in SSP3

2070–2100

- Improve water retention capacity of the soil - Water drainage on agricultural lands (erosion control) - Retention and storage of runoff in settlements, irrigation of parks

- Build water reservoirs, canals - Increase the capacity of reservoirs - Store precipitation in winter

- Develop drainage systems - Initiatives at the local government level - Regulate local water - Apply water saving techextraction nologies (in households, agriculture, awareness raising) - Cultivation link to water - Implement “water is life” approach communication program

2040–2070

(continued)

Food and water; Environment; Governance and institutions

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   615

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions 2040–2070

2070–2100

Grey water systems for households (high costs of maintenance?) Compost toilets Strategy A.3.2: - Cultivation perpendicular - Switch to drought-resist- - Change land use practices Adapt agriculto slopes, build drainage ant crops and livestock on arable land ture to climate ditches - Reduce large-scale, - Make crops more resistant - Grow drought resistant change industrial farming through plant breeding crops * Nature-based - Increase the use of crop - Switch land use: move - Develop self-sufficient residues as green manure from arable land to forest, farms meadow and pasture - Protect the soil for agri- Switch to new cultivation cultural production methods - Increase organic matter - Increase forest cover content in the soil (manure, compost) Recycling, reuse, avoid - Promoting production waste without chemicals - Shift to plant-based diet - Change land use patterns by increasing afforestation - Promote planting of fruit trees - Afforestation of steep slopes

Strategies

Table C.10  (continued) Vision elements addressed

616  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

- Increase redistribution of goods by the state

* People-based - Adopt climate strategy and yearly action plan for municipalities - Define and monitor sustainability rules—for countries, corporations, individuals - Use state control actions e.g. on farmers - Strengthen penalties against corruption - Simplify decision-making processes - Ensure transparency in decision-making - Involve professionals into decision-making - Ensure strong environmental protection with strict standards

- Provide better public services

- Promote cooperation instead of segregation - Decrease corruption

2040–2070

Strategy B.3.1: - Implement building Make strong regulations environmental - Ensure equality between leaders and those who regulation and really have control policy

2015–2040

Pathway B.3: Strengthen the role of the government to facilitate environmental protection and collaboration

Actions

Strategies

Pathway

Table C.10  (continued)

- Introduce environmental taxes

- Introduce tighter control

2070–2100

(continued)

Governance and institutions

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   617

Pathway

- Stabilize democracy, transparency of decision-making - Masses of educated people as counter-balance - Stop urbanization - Promote cooperation of the Visegrad countries

2015–2040

Actions

- Education supporting local participation - Civil initiatives

- Strengthen international cooperation through contracts * People-based - Build relationships between countries on new foundations Strategy B.3.3: - Pressure for science Strengthen education and local civil society innovation organizations - High quality education and solidarity * People-based - Balanced media

Strategy B3.2: Foster international cooperation

Strategies

Table C.10  (continued)

- Implement conflict management - Integrate migrants

- Support civil society organisations - Strengthen local communities - Restore trust between people - Strengthen local sustainability/ self-sufficiency

- Create equality

- Increase social solidarity

- Get rid of urban ghettoes

2070–2100

- Strengthen civil society organisations

- Set up bilateral agreements with neighbouring countries - Watch and adopt global good practices at the regional level

2040–2070

Vision elements addressed

618  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

2040–2070

Pathway C.3: Shift to healthy lifestyles

2015–2040

- Encourage people to - Promote human relations, build own communities cooperation, relation e.g. streets, common between communities interests Improve security (people, - Support local products food) and services Local systems (water, energy) Motivate to be part of group. Motivate to stay “Handball team” Eco-Tourism—civil groups develop local projects Obligation to vote: introduce locally Charities in rural areas - Promote rural infrastructure development - Provide subsidies for people to buy rural properties Strategy - Improve protection - Provide a healthy enviC.3.1.: Protect against UV radiation and ronment (humidity, irripeople’s health shading technologies gation, families, municipal governments)

Actions

Strategies

Pathway

Table C.10  (continued)

- Realize the program of the health plan

- Strengthen local patriotism - Take care of generational roots

- Control out-migration

- Strengthen equal relationships

2070–2100

(continued)

Health, education and well-being; Community life, social relations and values

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   619

Pathway

- Provide family-level healthcare

2015–2040

Actions 2040–2070

- Health development plan for 2040–2070, with implementation plan * People-based - Develop a health plan for - Provide incentives to peothis time slice (including ple for healthy nutrition mental health) (media, more favourable prices) - Improve health awareness - Support movement of raising plan—protection people from cities to the against heat stress countryside - Keep the living environ- - Provide a health network ment clean, infection to deal with heat stress, control developing special care - Make clothes of natural - Promote of healthy eating materials - Integrate health screen- Improve the shading ing, prevention in the technologies of buildings framework of basic healthcare - Provide effective commu- - Develop green roof nication for heat alerts buildings - Bicycle paths and remote - Reduce tick-borne threats through pest control working (home office); public transport - Gradually increase urban green areas

Strategies

Table C.10  (continued)

- Gradually prepare the health care system to deal with heat stress - Develop emergency management and contingency planning

conscious protection against heat stress

- Strengthen the population’s

2070–2100

Vision elements addressed

620  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

Strategy C.3.2: Provide environmentally and socially conscious education and awareness-­ raising * People-based

Strategies

Table C.10  (continued)

- Decrease consumption - Increase water retention capacity (education, awareness raising) - Make sustainability lectures compulsory in primary and high schools Role models—being cool and taking responsibility

- Create a knowledge base (publicity) - Provide environmentally conscious education (education system) - Raise awareness and information about migration - Foster dialogue between civil organizations and government - Maintain a skilled workforce—Improve wages, benefits, and conditions

2015–2040

Actions 2070–2100

- Promote acceptance of diversity between people by being more aware of the differences

- Educate about individual responsibility

- Learn self-sufficiency

- Institutions for special - Promote energy savings needs, develop education through media - Maintain environmentally conscious education

2040–2070

(continued)

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   621

Strategies 2015–2040

Actions 2040–2070

Make all consumers aware of energy efficiency Pathway Strategy D3.1: Focus on biggest housePublic investment in techD.3 Shift to Develop hold energy use: Transport nology: solar panels Households to buy green energy green energy energy—efficient alternatives equipment * Technology- Introduction of new based energy sources New technologies (development and implementation) Regulate for long-life machines with low consumption

Pathway

Table C.10  (continued)

- Support local solar energy production - Promote development of local biomass energy production - Implement low waste/ reuse policy - Promote the use technologies with lower energy requirement - Make use of climate change benefits through tourism - Support renewables - Promote solar and green energy - Replace nuclear energy - Look for new energy sources - Measures to improve energy efficiency

2070–2100

Energy, built environment and transport; Environment

Vision elements addressed

622  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions

Strategy - Energy price—savings D.3.2: Provide incentives to shift towards sustainable technologies * Market-based - I mplement tender system to support climate adaptation

Strategies

Table C.10  (continued)

2040–2070 - Create incentives through the price of construction materials to use green construction technologies

2070–2100

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   623

Strategy A.4.1: * Support effective water Protect water governance and use water for hydropower * Increase the capacity of surface water reservoirs/ cisterns * Technology- * Coordinate the operation based of dams and sluices (Sió canal—Danube) * Recycle grey water

A.4 Advance to a water sensitive infrastructure system

2070–2100

* Develop surfaces that absorb water

* Introduce realistic prices * Set up water guard for products (e.g. energy, service to protect water, integrate environinfrastructure, water mental costs) quantity and quality * Develop surface canal system

2040–2070

* Link water reservoirs and energy production * Rainwater collection and * Improve irrigation sysstorage (micro-reservoirs, tems and irrigation water urban water management) storage * Set up toilets with zero * Make 1ha water reservoir water usage to be used by per 100 ha arable land households (toilets that destroy all by-products— not even compost) * Create wells for toilets * Preserve the quality and washing on houseof recreational surface hold level waters * Exploit existing opportu- * Do not put too many nities for hydropower by water reservoirs (plan on using dams and rivers regional level)

2015–2040

Actions

Strategies

Pathway

Table C.11  Hungarian pathways in SSP4

Food and water; Environment; Governance and institutions

Vision elements addressed

624  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

B.4 Strengthen accountable decision-making and participatory regional to local planning

Pathway

* People-based

Strategy A.4.2: Promote gardening and climate-proof cultivation * Nature-based Strategy B.4.1: Support democracy and social capital

Strategies

Table C.11  (continued)

* Bring water to the right spot (plan on regional level) * Put in place legislation on detention of drinking water in the Carpathian basin * Grow edible plants wherever possible * Introduce chemical tick control

* Use water circulating in channel system to produce energy

* Support religious communities

Vision elements addressed

(continued)

* Effective communica- Governance tion of tangible results and institutions

2070–2100

* Strengthen independent communication channels and freedom of the press * Stop, control and punish * Strong measures to corruption reduce corruption

* Introduce heat-tolerant plants that are easily maintained * Support home gardens * Elite formulates strategies * Regulate multinational for climate and socio-­ companies and prevent economic impacts, in the profits from leaving the interest of accessing EU country subsidies * Adopt EU laws and * Definition and enforceregulation ment of responsibilities

* Establish parks

2040–2070

2015–2040

Actions

APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   625

Pathway

Strategies

Table C.11  (continued)

2040–2070

2070–2100

* Modify voting law in * Set up support system order to strengthen so the rich help the democracy poor - Strong rules and ‘carved * Change the tax law, in stone’ implementation restructuring of the tax of sustainability processes system, progressive taxes * Strengthen law * Develop new social enforcement contract—access to basic goods (e.g. land redistribution) * Renew social and commu- * Implement stricter nity relationships environmental rules and strong monitoring systems * Strengthen local govern- * Re-distribute power and ments and local decisions money to local organisations, strengthen local governance * Strengthen and support * Undertake objective civil society review processes * Ensure transparent public * Improve direct accountadministration ability and legitimacy— ruling not dominating * Strengthen self-organisation * Provide subsidies for renewables and recycling

- Guarantees for sustainability

2015–2040

Actions

Vision elements addressed

626  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Strategies

* People-based

C.4 Shift to Strategy C.4.1: healthy lifestyles & access to education Provide education and training that nurture social values

Pathway

Table C.11  (continued)

* Provide education resulting in a skilled workforce * Restructure education— need for useful knowledge * Improve burial practices, ability to mourn * Revive traditional lifestyles in a modern form (e.g., air drying of fruits and vegetables, hoeing, composting)

* Spread meat-conscious diet (decreasing consumption of meat and animal products) and eco-conscious nutrition * Nurture human and community values, emphasize morals in education

* Restart public schools

2015–2040

Actions 2070–2100

* Make participation measurable * Society-wide nutrition * Promote social reform: Reducing meat solidarity and sugar consumption, vegetable based diets * Consumption that helps * Promote social meet vital needs—no cooperation over-consumption, improve existing rather than invent new products * Promote education and * Support NGOs information on health hazards, e.g. to prevent heat impacts * Improve physical fitness and heat tolerance *A  cknowledge traditions and values in communities * Use biological tick control and treatment * Teach self-sufficient food production

2040–2070

(continued)

Health, education and well-being; Community life, social relations and values

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   627

Pathway

Strategies

Table C.11  (continued)

- Bottom-up and self-­ provided education in communities

* Establish an alternative education system that is independent and free * Promote voluntary engagements (e.g. of youth) - Spread of traditional treatment methods (e.g. in health care, herbs, methods) - Teaching of traditional healthcare

* Promote energy savings on individual levels

* Improve social responsibility and motivation of the elite to help the poor * Strengthen church institutions

* Promote energy savings through law (individual, companies etc.)

* Develop skills for new technological development and research—e.g. on green energy, cold fusion * Create partnerships between local communities * Tailor education to include region-specific needs and knowledge * Change mindsets for local sustainable energy production

2040–2070

2015–2040

Actions 2070–2100

Vision elements addressed

628  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

* People-based

Strategy D.4.1: * Regulate restoration after Promote local sudden storms community * Consume local products development

2040–2070

* Promote gardening instead of industrial agriculture * Support local community development * Produce local products * Support local agriculture * Local trade * Food self-provision * Set up new waste manage- * Shelterbelts between ment to collect waste fields to reduce dust * Provide subsidies for solar * Foster local markets panels on houses * Re-use waste in construc- * Land Distribution in tion materials support of self-sufficiency of the poor * Change the attitude of * Support bottom-up service providers: solar movements so locals energy feeds back into the take part in decielectric grid sion-making and local community-planning * Promote food self-sufficiency on local levels but with regional exchange

2015–2040

D.4 Promote rural development and local economies

Actions

Strategies

Pathway

Table C.11  (continued)

2070–2100

(continued)

Economy and employment; Food and water Energy, built environment and transport

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   629

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions 2040–2070

* Nature-based * Local food production is organised at the country level

* Use of biomass for soil quality improvement * Make use of the biomass on arable lands * Make a forest registry for forest maintenance

* Introduce afforestation

* Increase employment in agriculture

Strategy D.4.2: * Increase the fertility of * Plant heat-resistant Shift to sustainsoil, use biodegradables plants able and comand provide nutrients munity-based for the soil—do not use agriculture and ­biodegradables for energy * Process locally produced * Seed production forestry food locally

Strategies

Table C.11  (continued)

* Introduce new species in agriculture, change species * Invest in effective ­agricultural technologies (avoid overexploitation of arable land) * Produce different crops * Prevent the abuse or theft of cropland

* Make forest management more effective (owner)* Cultivate of herbs

2070–2100

Vision elements addressed

630  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Strategies

* Technologybased

Pathway E.4: Strategy E.4.1: Move towards Move towards green cities green urban development

Pathway

Table C.11  (continued)

2040–2070

* Decrease urban population and promote rural development

* Reduce urban development on the southern shore of Lake Balaton * Separate handling of rain water and sewage

* Reduce paved surfaces

* Reduce motorisation— promote walking and cycling * Increase urban cross-ventilation

* Develop water retention systems * Communicate best practices

* Support the creation of production cooperatives and community supported agriculture* Include reforestation in forest management— extra forestation in surfaces not covered today * Promote green roofs, roof * Urban reforestation— gardens, green walls plant fruit trees in the city

2015–2040

Actions

* Use natural cooling systems to counteract microclimates (vaporization, greening the surfaces, open urban water surfaces)

2070–2100

(continued)

Energy, built environment and transport; Health, education and well-being

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   631

Pathway

Strategies

Table C.11  (continued)

* Modify building regulation to promote high-rise buildings and green buildings * Make streets smaller and set up green boulevards

* Store runoff from paved urban surfaces

* Put electrical cables underground to create more space for green * Promote high buildings to safe space and use the space for green

* Provide air-conditioned resting areas—using renewables!

* Make compulsory rain water cisterns in residential buildings proportionate to their size * Innovate cooling technologies

2040–2070

2015–2040

Actions 2070–2100

Vision elements addressed

632  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Strategy A.5.1: - Train water management Water— professionals Development water management * Technology- - Strengthen flood control based organizations

Pathway A.5: Advance water and energy infrastructure systems

- Develop irrigation systems and technologies - Government support for development plans and technologies

- Develop international cooperation related to water - Develop monitoring systems

2015–2040

Actions

Strategies

Pathway

Table C.12  Hungarian pathways in SSP5

- Manage international water conflicts - Ensure continuous development of reservoir capacity - Increase water holding capacity of the soil Support the development of early warning systems

- Sustain watershed management

- Develop individual and community rainwater storage

(continued)

Willow cultivation in Food and flood areas (Mitigation) water; Environment; Governance and institutions - Promote community water supply systems

2070–2100

- Invest in technological solutions for water management such as sewage and grey water treatment - Increase irrigated areas and - Introduce local irrigamore efficient water use tion systems

- Start programs to retain water management professionals

2040–2070

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   633

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions

- Support water saving solutions - Develop water treatment technologies

Strategy A.5.2: - Tech development Introduce according to the needs water sensitive of soil and plant types solutions (Mitigation) for integrated water management * Technology- - Build water reservoirs based

Strategies

Table C.12  (continued)

2070–2100

- Create multifunctional rainwater storage (e.g. fisheries, recreational use)

- Introduce floodplain farm- - Value every drop of ing in some areas water (water protection even with the use of the police if needed) - Reuse greywater

Construct reservoir systems to deal with flash floods Manage flood crests—development of flood protection technologies - Monitor the state of the environment (for pollution and damage prevention) Using rivers and waterways for transport - Flood area cultivation, - Irrigation system and decrease in river control, reservoirs maintenance forestation is given priority in budgeting

2040–2070

Vision elements addressed

634  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

- Develop water saving technologies and irrigation systems - Collect rainwater in settlements - Set programs to reduce household chemical use to enable greywater use for irrigation

- Start reservoir reconstructions - Collection, use and reuse of run-off - Utilise canals and old channels of mill races

2040–2070

2015–2040

Actions

- Promote the production of diverse plant, fruit and vegetables products

- Development of shading and UV protection technologies in horticulture

- Reconstructions old drainage channels Strategy - Selection and breeding of - Support and develop the A.5.3: Support drought resistant plants breeding of heat tolerant agrarian plant species environmental - Support afforestation - Promote climate adaptive management of areas unsuitable for and multifunctional farming agriculture * Nature-based - Loosening the soil for - Increase financing for the carbon absorption melioration of arable land

Strategies

Table C.12  (continued)

- Breed plant species that are fit for the climate in this time period - Wide dissemination of drought-resistant plant species - Strengthen local production and self-sufficiency - Establish small scale production communities

2070–2100

(continued)

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   635

Pathway

Strategies

Table C.12  (continued)

2040–2070

- Support the use of native - Support multifunctional plant species in increasing (adaptive) landuse and green cover agriculture (e.g., pasture in drought, water retention and drainage area during floods) - Loosening EU regula- Agricultural use of sewage tion on disposing sewage (Resp: authority, gov. local water and paddle authority, agricultural businesses) - Cultivation of industrial - Forestation in the Bakoni areas, covering mining region (Resp: gov, local waste with paddle authority, forestry) - Supporting home gardens - Home composting with seeds and seedlings (Resp: citizens, civil society and local authority) - Measures to increase the soil's water retention capacity (e.g. deep cultivation, manure use, permanent cover, contour farming, terracing)

2015–2040

Actions

- Best Home Garden Award (Local Authority)

- Local food production/processing (Responsible: civic society, local communities, chambers)

- Spread of backyard livestock farming

- Green soil protection measures

- Strengthen barter trading

- Spread manual and animal power labour

2070–2100

Vision elements addressed

636  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Strategies 2015–2040

Actions

Strategy B.5.2: - Rediscover local treasures Empower and beauties communities -S  trengthen a social netand foster work as a social base for multi-sector stronger communities partnerships

- Involve the younger generation and women in decision making

Pathway B.5: Strategy B.5.1: - Direct democracy­(conStrengthening trolling the gov) - Introduce social governance communication and social * People-based - Support access to the solidarity internet, international and local information systems - Strengthen intergenerational communication

Pathway

Table C.12  (continued)

- Change the role of media in (environmental and social) awareness raising - Change the media - Ensure that more organizations participating in heat management - Reward social responsibility

- Teach social tolerance towards people of special needs - E-voting

- Ensure means for direct democracy are available - Travelling together (Tolerance) - Strong NGOs, more transparency

2040–2070

- Support voluntary forms of cooperation and partnerships - Strengthen local communities and production of local products

- Recultivated land as agricultural areas (Resp: agr businesses, gov authority) - Create new social icons and examples - Eliminate social inequalities - Sustain direct democracy

2070–2100

(continued)

Governance and institutions

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   637

Pathway C.5: Create new education and health systems

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions

- Telecar schedule

2040–2070

- Education for people with special needs so that they can be integrated into the economy - New public transport - Broaden of education vehicle) (mitigation) towards new skills, competencies and professions - Emphasize environmental - S  upport creativity in educaconsciousness and health tion and practice with and in education through lifelong learning - Integrate migrants into - Educate of farmers training programs about new methods and approaches

* People-based - Introduce project-based education

Strategy C.5.1: - Reform the education - Using own bioenergy Revolutionise system to be inclusive and (sport) education to accessible across all social prepare future classes - Introduce new - Provide education that generations approaches to education pays special attention to for new talented children markets and professions

* People based

Strategies

Table C.12  (continued)

- Rediscover community as a value through sport and culture - Strengthen local edu- Health, cation (village and city education and schools) well-being; Community - Cut back the training life, social of overeducated but relations and unemployable people values when there is an acute shortage of qualified tradesmen

2070–2100

Vision elements addressed

638  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions 2070–2100

- Support the development of education

- Support lifelong learning - Engage civil society in education for sustainability - School bus - Develop community survival mechanisms

2040–2070

- Balanced intergenerational relationships, mentally mature society - Trainings for the - Integrate migrants into the - Support a holistic unemployed education system approach Agricultural training, prac- - Primacy of health-con- Promote conscious tical (responsible: chamber, scious approach in environmental universities) education protection - Rethink pedagogical - Knowledge and acceptance - Reduce programs, reformulating of nature’s rules overconsumption values - Teach deeper interlink- Strengthen IT education - Introduce education ages between health and for self-sufficiency the environment - Boost environmental - Introduce health care and - Integrate natural protection education healthy lifestyles education healthcare into education programs

Strategy C.5.2: - Prestige of teachers and Support new more men in education education system * People-based - e-learning, remote education (universities, chamber)

Strategies

Table C.12  (continued)

(continued)

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   639

Pathway

- Document and integrate traditional knowledge and traditional trades into the education system Disseminate individual and small community-­ scale climate protection technologies - Establish heated/ cooled public spaces using renewable energy

- Lobbying—wealthy, PR (social relations), support for civil society

- Develop sunscreen cosmetics - Support greening programs in cities to create cooling zones

- Ensure natural ventilation of cities to maintain natural cooling (review city planning, open up wind tunnels) - Incentivise climate friendly construction - Passive/active houses

- Afforestation and natural shading

- Create even more climate controlled facilities

- Increase awareness of community values

- Train environmental educators

- Provide professional challenges for education, full career pathways

2070–2100

2040–2070

2015–2040

Actions

Strategy C.5.3: - Support the cooling of Put in place a public facilities heat management system - Establish heat alarm system and strengthened communication * Technology- - Teach UV radiation based protection

Strategies

Table C.12  (continued) Vision elements addressed

640  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway 2040–2070 - Green wall roof

2015–2040 - Ensure availability of climate controlled public facilities on hot days

Actions

- Make use of architectural options and regulations in climate protection - Shading/insulation of buildings Strategy C.5.4: - Invest in healthcare R&D - Build up monitoring Invest in systems for new diseases, health research create database and healthcare technology * People-based - Invest in improving and - Train general practitioners developing health care to recognize new diseases - Invest in gene technology R&D - Improve health care for the most vulnerable - Prepare for infectious diseases and epidemics Strategy - Incentivise meaningful - Widen social employment C.5.5: Change jobs and occupations for employment everyone - Change of working hours - Invest in public services laws and due to robotization, and ICT education practices spread of part time work

Strategies

Table C.12  (continued)

- Strengthen community self-determination (subsidiarity)

- Widespread cultivation of herbs - Give priority to prevention

- Strengthen the use of traditional medicine

2070–2100

(continued)

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   641

Pathway D.5: Support green energy transition

Pathway

- Make mandatory investment of profit in the production of renewables

Strategy A.5.1: - Support increasing the Energy— efficiency of fossil energy Support green use energy with policy and regulation * Technology- - Support residential energy - Introduce government based efficiency programs support for increasing the efficiency of fossil energy use

- Company bus (mitigation)

- Increase school time

- Reconsider international conventions aimed at the reduction of GHG emissions

2040–2070 - Regulate internet technologies in the interest of meaningful job opportunities - Regulate automation in the interest of controlling unemployment - Regulate of multinational companies to promote employment - Support electrification of transport

2015–2040

Actions

* People-based - Reduce of working hours

Strategies

Table C.12  (continued)

- Explosive, self-funded growth of residential and community-based renewable energy systems - Make short supply chains, promotion of local products

- Distribute energy to various sectors (as per their need)

2070–2100

Energy, built environment and transport; Environment

Vision elements addressed

642  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

Strategies

Table C.12  (continued)

2040–2070

2070–2100

- Strengthen the regulatory - Continue residential - Develop of small-scale activity of the state (via energy efficiency programs supply systems short- and long-term plans) Tech Development to - Self-fund residential - Support community decrease fuel consumption renewable energy farming, continuous strengthening of self-sufficiency - Support renewable Water efficient industry energy pilot programs of ­university research institutions

2015–2040

Actions

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   643

644  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

C.4 Visions and Pathways for Iberia C.4.1 Iberian Vision Narrative Health, Well-Being and Sustainable Lifestyles In 2100, people in Iberia engage in new lifestyles that fit in more sustainable ways with the special characteristics of the territory. There is access to safe food, education and health for all. In general, people care more about health and also make sure that the elderly, the children and the disabled are supported and have suitable living conditions and social protection. Abandonment and the deterioration of rural areas have been reduced. Rural and close-to-nature lifestyles coexist with those relying on cutting-edge technologies. Welfare and access to public services of all inhabitants are ensured. Community activities are valued. Protecting the Environment Natural resources, such as water, soil, biodiversity and air, are managed sustainably and strictly protected. Their protection and management are incorporated into all policies. Environmental violations are punished severely in economic, criminal and political terms. Only companies that act with strict environmental and social responsibility standards have a place in the economy, since those who do not comply with standards pay a great price in terms of their reputation and are rejected by consumers, most of whom are very concerned about environmental and social issues. All economic activity is carbon neutral. There is a focus on mitigation strategies in the industrial, agricultural and productive economy and support for environmental recovery. Production is decoupled from emissions, waste and discharges. The use of suitable technologies supports environmental protection and decreases resource use. Sustainable Urban Planning and Land Use Cities are smaller than in 2016, reducing emissions and making them less dependent on transport. Furthermore, they are energy ­self-sufficient, based on the development of circular economy models, eliminating waste production and improving air quality. Urban planning applies sustainability criteria. Land use management and planning promote the socio-economic sustainability of the region and equal opportunities between different areas (including urban and rural areas as well as coastal and inland areas). The urban and non-urban areas dedicated to private

APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   645

transportation are smaller than they were, providing more space for social activities. Humans live in harmony with nature, and millennia-old sustainable land uses such as agroforestry systems (e.g. montado, dehesa) are respected, maintained and improved. A sustainable and Local Economy The sustainable economy is based on a balanced use of Iberian natural resources with minimum impact on natural ecosystems and waste production as well as maximum reuse, recycling and recirculation of materials. With more green industries and less dependence on tourism, business models are adapted to the specific conditions of Iberia. Integrated technological innovations and income are used to solve problems like water shortages, forest loss and food insecurity. Food, Water and Energy Everybody enjoys safe food and Iberia has food security. The production and consumption of meat has been reduced substantially, leading to a sharp decline in livestock and crops dedicated to animal feed. The consumption of local, seasonal and organic products is prioritised. Public policies support more sustainable and natural agriculture, which is less dependent on fertilisers, pesticides and pharmaceuticals, to ensure a healthy diet for the population and provide greater protection of forests, taking advantage of the carbon sink function that agriculture and forests provide. This creates environmentally positive synergistic effects. With 100% renewable energy, a distributed network of energy production and consumption and no more investment in fossil fuels, Iberia has a low-carbon economy. Housing construction fulfils standards that make it possible to achieve practically zero energy consumption. Transport is 100% electrical. With no dependence on external energy supply, Iberia is the major (solar) energy producer for Northern European countries. With clean rivers, lakes and reservoirs, re-naturalised water bodies and reinstatement of water canals in urban areas, all citizens have full access to clean and safe water. Integrated Iberian water management ensures a balanced use of water for urban supply, agriculture, forestry and energy production and has reduced conflicts between different water users. Improved methods and technology for water use and irrigation support the harmonisation of economic development with the environment.

646  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Income, Education and Jobs The flexible education system supports the development of carbon-neutral technology and professional activities which are also ­ resilient from a climate point of view. Rich cultural activities promoting diversity and tolerance are included in all schools and at all levels. With guaranteed access to education, more people can benefit from it and therefore education becomes a pillar of social welfare. This economy also supports the generation of large revenues and many jobs. Technological development creates meaningful jobs. There is full employment, a fair income distribution including reasonable salary differences leading to a smaller difference between rich and poor than existed in 2016. Men and women are paid and treated equally. Integrated investment in education and research supports the finding of innovative, sustainable solutions for a sharing economy based on a balanced exploitation of Iberian natural resources. This further fosters a new welfare model that is centred on well-being and social welfare and decouples development from economic growth. This investment also supports technological advances that foster solutions for essential sectors such as agriculture, industry and tourism, thus creating profits that are fairly distributed and new jobs. Resilience All cities have adaptation plans and have implemented strategies to combat climate change. Improved water management helps to mitigate extreme events, such as droughts and floods. Integrated adaptive management deals with environmental challenges in an assertive sustainable way, with multiple mechanisms able to respond quickly to changing weather and extreme events (droughts, floods, heatwaves, etc.). Governance Portugal and Spain are united with coordinated Iberian governmental institutions. Iberia also has a highly politically engaged society, which understands the global societal challenges and is able to give their opinions, which are heard and taken into account. Iberia is a coherent, diverse, developed and peaceful territory, where different cultural and regional identities are respected and accommodated. Human rights,

APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   647

human well-being and opportunities are universal. Society and economy advance together and are based on strategically defined sectors, good leadership and adaptive management. Migration flows within Iberia are common and do not create conflict but are integrated into society. Public participation and involvement are mandatory at all levels of decision-making, where thinking about sustainable long-term as well as short-term sustained options is the rule. Laws are just and everyone is subjected to them, rich or poor, powerful or not. The government is strong and enforces environmental and social laws. The government promotes the open participation of multiple agents to ensure good governance without being subject to the will of any particular vested interest groups. Public and private planning and management are transparent and democratic, but also flexible. Policies developed using a participatory approach include those related to the sustainable management of Iberian river basins and inclusive immigration policies to balance the endogenous population decline. The role and authority of environmental policy is balanced with the fair involvement and authority of the other sectoral policies. Cooperation and Identity Iberia supports greater global cooperation and fosters solidarity, with respect for human rights and social development of peoples. Communities maintain distinct identities based on the interaction with their own and neighbouring environments. People are tolerant and broad-minded, sharing knowledge and information and exchanging experiences. Support is provided to those in need and refugees are welcomed. C.4.2 Iberian Pathways See Tables C.13, C.14, C.15, and C.16.

C.5 Robust Pathways Across Case Studies and Scenarios See Table C.17.

Strategy A.1.1: - Eliminate illegal water use Implement new water regulations and governance to ensure good water for everyone * People-based - Control  of the ecological flows

Pathway A.1: Support integrated water management

- Open transfer North Europe- Iberia

2070–2100

- Mandatory laws on per capita water consumption - Introduce programs for - Increase of monitoring and adapting water availability environmental water (administered) flow regimes - Improve and promote aquifer recharge. Less evaporation -assure ecological flow

- Promote closed cycle of water

- Implement (MTD) better technologies to purify water

2040–2070

- Control and evaluate underground water (by the state) - Close Transvase Tajo-Segura - Develop a remote moni- Integrated water mantoring system for irrigation agement between the and illegal water use two countries - Close and sustainable - Efficient irrigation water water transfers between management Iberian rivers - Better public participation - Rainwater harvesting for to irrigation land planning non-potable uses

- Adapt every treatment system to reduce river pollution

2015–2040

Actions

Strategies

Pathway

Table C.13  Iberian pathways in SSP1

Food, water and energy; Governance; Resilience

Vision elements addressed

648  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions

- Iberian body for international river basins - Require a water saving plan by firms by 2030 - Establish water controls in all irrigated lands - Program for establishing complete regimes of environmental water flows - Program of efficient management of water purification - Integral management of water in every basin - Renovate urban supply system Strategy A.1.2: - Introduce measures to Introduce water direct and control rivers taxes and fiscal funded by TRH (water measures for water resources tax) * Market-based - Reduce taxes for firms who save water - Introduce fiscal incentives for all water resources - Introduce tax and fiscal exemption

Strategies

Table C.13  (continued)

- Significant increase of water taxes

- Optimise water taxes

- Foster self-production at family level (water and energy)

2040–2070

2070–2100

(continued)

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   649

Strategy B.1.1: Change food systems and diets * People-based

Pathway B.1: Shift to sustainable lifestyles

- Introduce efficient norms for “Urban water harvesting” - World trade changes for a fair trade. Combat inequities - Do not waste of ugly fruit

2015–2040

Actions

- Mainstream vegetarian diet

2040–2070

- Reduce consumption of meat and other animal products - Guarantee the overall food security and sovereignty - School has to educate children to secure and healthy food Strategy B.1.2: - Improve technology and - Sustain access to Establish sustainahuman skills education bility education * People based - Foster people to education - Refocus education on and entrepreneurship sustainability and not competition

Strategies

Pathway

Table C.13  (continued)

- Support more training, more information to achieve zero unemployment

- Ensure a stable education system

2070–2100

Health, well-being and sustainable lifestyles; Income, education and jobs

Vision elements addressed

650  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

Strategies

Table C.13  (continued)

- Change the entire education system (corrected from “integrate”) - Introduce adult education - Educate people to save water - Introduce changes in intellectual property - Promote more education on social issues - Change the integrate education system - Improve technology and human skills - Foster people to education and Entrepreneurship - Introduce adult education - Invest in research

- Promote more education on social issues

- Social revolution on - Support more trainenvironmental concerns ing, more informarelates to political change tion to achieve zero unemployment - Refocus education on - Ensure a stable sustainability and not on education system competition - Sustain access to education

- Invest in research

2070–2100

2040–2070

2015–2040

Actions

(continued)

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   651

Pathway C.1: Move to more sustainable agriculture

Pathway

Strategy C.1.1: Support ecosystem- responsive agriculture * Nature-based

Strategy B.1.3.: Shift to local and sustainable markets * Market-based

Strategies

Table C.13  (continued)

- Adapt the crops to new conditions - Introduce improved, appropriate crop rotations - Introduce new species (crops and animal) for new climate conditions - Change to natural, organic fertilizers

New models of market at the local level - Promote job sharing - Shift to ecological agriculture and cattle raising

- Provide more information for consumers on products’ origin and their impacts - Adjust the production to the demand Local currency and time banks

2015–2040

Actions

- Change land-use

- Create gene-banks to preserve biodiversity - Exploit regimes adapted to natural resources

- Change in cultivations

- Improve efficiency of the extensive systems

2040–2070

2070–2100

Food, water and energy; Protecting the environment; Resilience

Vision elements addressed

652  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway 2040–2070 - Implement technology to make crops less climate affected: vertical rural cultures, hydroponic, energy and water sufficiency

2015–2040 - Cultivate bush upland (arbustivos secano)

Actions 2070–2100

- Recover of autochthonous woods - Abolish GMO products - Mainstream drip system agriculture Strategy C.1.2: - Incentivise ecological - Give more importance to - Integrate environMarket measures agriculture the II pillar of CAP mental externalities for efficient agriculinto food and ture management clothing prices * Market-based - Change CAP at European - Improve the measures - Produce only Level for an efficient use of according to the fertilizers capacity of the ecosystem - Improve the quality of - Support studies to - Support consumpgrazing establish with the highest tion of ecologaccuracy possible the ical agricultural value of each ecosystem products service (valorize ecosystem services)

Strategies

Table C.13  (continued)

(continued)

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   653

Pathway

Strategy C.1.3: Change management system of agriculture * People-based

Strategies

Table C.13  (continued)

- Soil sensoring technology for an efficient irrigation

- Incentivize the population to consume organic agricultural productions and renewable energy - Enforce sustainability principles in pillar I (more action, less talking)

2070–2100

- Change the CAP to shift water intensive crops to Northern Europe - Create a market of biodi- - Import water and versity banks food and export energy to North of Europe. - Fix population to territory - Effective management - Improve water of the territory (e.g. management restricted areas) between the two countries - Regulate the for-profit - Create integrated sector and environmental CAP policies - Educate farmers to rural - Guarantee efficient development mechanisms of perms management - Achieve/Maintain social cohesion and agricultural activity through CAP - Engage with key actors for agro-environmental policy governance

2040–2070

2015–2040

Actions

Vision elements addressed

654  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Strategy D.1.1: - Shut down nuclear central Divest from environmental harmful energy and shift to clean energy * Technology-based - T  urn carbon energy into a zero-emissions energy

- Decrease environmental footprint

2040–2070

- Decrease energy consumption through better technologies - Find other technological - Ensure that technology alternatives to the producis adapted to the existing tion of hydric energy resources - Enforce renewables implementation - Make cities energetically self-sufficient - Put PV on buildings in cities Strategy D.1.2: - Incentivise renewables - Introduce life-cycle Shift to low-carbon assessment (LCA) => practices for energy products, services * People-based - Enforce renewables - Unleash the green implementation indicator variables (move from GDP) - Reduce need for daily commute—New forms of work

2015–2040

Pathway D.1: Shift to a low carbon economy

Actions

Strategies

Pathway

Table C.13  (continued)

- Create and develop cheap renewable energy solutions for agriculture water (desalinisation)

2070–2100

(continued)

Food, water and energy; Sustainable and local economies

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   655

Pathway E: Strengthen sustainability practice, policy and governance in everyday life

Pathway

Strategy E.1.1: Advance policy and governance processes for sustainability * People-based

Strategy D.1.3: Introduce market incentives for the shift to low-­ carbon energy * Market-based

Strategies

Table C.13  (continued)

2040–2070

- Participate to Forum at any level of decision making, from schools to Parliament

- Market incentives for green practices - Provide economic incentives directed to applied technologies - Differentiate sustainable business

- Simplify bureaucracy - Ensure full transparency - Increase the public participation in the planning - Decentralize political power, structures, cities

- Introduce carbon tax based on real carbon costs - Introduce market incentives to green energy (ex. Transport) - Introduce carbon taxing on tourism (e.g. Balearics islands) - Better prices and tax reduction to encourage efficiency - Adapt policies to the specific condition of the region

- Establish an annual carbon - Provide market or tax budget incentives to change practices

2015–2040

Actions 2070–2100

Governance; Cooperation and identity

Vision elements addressed

656  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

Strategy E.1.3: Conserve Iberian biodiversity

Strategy E.1.2: Inclusive and just economic development * Market-based

Strategies

Table C.13  (continued)

- Increase biodiversity integration in sectorial policies

- Preserve Iberian Biodiversity

- Introduce progressive taxation and more welfare

- Forbid planned obsolescence - Support public budget participation - Put in place more programs on adaptation - Harmonise social and economic development - Support redistribution of income

2015–2040

Actions

- Change development metrics - Nurture start-ups with business friendly attitudes - Prevent huge mergers in agroindustry (less biodiversity then)

- Strengthen collaboration with developing countries

2040–2070

2070–2100

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   657

Strategies

Strategy A.3.1: Implement regulation for ecological protection and water quality improvements * People-based

Pathway

Pathway A.3: Move towards integrated and sustainable ecosystem management - Introduce eco-label for water use efficiency - Introduce corrective measures for restoration - Improve biodiversity protection - Enforce existing policies on water availability increase - Programme for water storage + water efficiency + reuse (Include addressing social acceptance and funding; Include role of local level) - Reduce environmental standards for water quality (i.e. lake, river) for maximum water quantity - Provide incentives for payments for ecosystem Services e.g. forests - Provide incentives for improving houses, transport etc (energy efficiency)

- Improve water quality

- Establish minimum water quality protection scheme

2015–2040

Actions

Table C.14  Iberian pathways in SSP3

- Conduct continuous review of operation rules considering resources and demands - Boost water reuse—even for drinking (direct potable reuse) - Change water uses, change reservoir operations

2040–2070

2070–2100

Food, water and energy; Governance; Resilience

Vision elements addressed

658  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway B.3: Shift to sustainable lifestyles

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions

- Implement strict energy measures

Strategy A.3.2: - Invest in energy technology: Develop green Solar, Wind and bioenergy technologies for eco- - Develop technological solutions for water reuse and desalination system conservation * Technology-based - Technology development (greening) for adaptation - Invest in renewable energies - Invest in water-saving technology Strategy B.3.1: - Subdivide into social educations; Promote education environmental education and and information for Lifestyle adaptation sustainable lifestyles - Educate for local solidarity with respect to population and cultures * People-based - Implement intercultural ­education/peace education - Implement education through technology - Promote social education

Strategies

Table C.14  (continued)

- Raise awareness for more efficient water reuse - Promote social development and cohesion through education - Show to people that a regional fragmentation is detrimental to solve global change problems

- Promote different diet (sheep, fish, insects) - Reduce food waste

- Promote regional self-sufficiency

2040–2070

2070–2100

(continued)

Health, well-being and sustainable lifestyles; Income, education and jobs

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   659

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions 2040–2070

- Adapt to the availability of - Boost green education resources programmes - Promote self-sufficiency (energy, food, mobility) - Role models for lifestyle, reduced water consumption - Peer recognition - Cultivate influencers (civil society) - NGOs showing best practices re local markets - Skills training - Increase awareness of teachers - Virtual realities/augmented reality to raise awareness - Improve thermal insulation—renovate houses (leads to more jobs) - Provide incentives for mobility solutions away from the private car –(leads to more jobs) - Introduce alternative non-animal proteins (water and land saving) Strategy B.3.2: - Starting in families and local Ensure protection shops of social and human - Integration of older people rights

Strategies

Table C.14  (continued)

2070–2100

Vision elements addressed

660  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway C.3: Move towards water efficient agriculture

Pathway

* Nature-based

Strategy C.3.1: Increase water efficiency and quality in agriculture

* People-based

Strategies

Table C.14  (continued)

2040–2070

- Social volunteering (non-formal education system) - Implement social policy - Improve solidarity (social and economic) - Strengthen democracy and participation - Eradicate political corruption - Boosting the culture of dialogue and political tolerance - Promote social and religious integration - Raise social awareness towards integration through social networks - Adapt crops and high value/ - Increase efficient irridryland agriculture gation (but at the same time restrict area used for irrigated agriculture) - Combine irrigation and renewa- - Increase desalination ble energy for more efficient use of water - Implement ecological restora- Build dams tion programmes

2015–2040

Actions 2070–2100

(continued)

Food, water and energy; Protecting the environment; Resilience

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   661

Strategies

Strategy D.3.1: Foster local and circular economies * Market-based

Pathway

Pathway D.3: Develop rural and urban areas and boost local economies

Table C.14  (continued)

- Change criteria on land uses and forestry - Implement land use management by farm scale

- Improve soil conservation

- Promote regional rural development - Inclusive local market development - Local markets production, waste, water, energy and services - Rural development linked to circular economy and biodiversity economy and bio-economy, e.g. cork sector

- Set up energy-driven water allocation - Increase water storage - Avoid increasing impermeability - Reforestation of degraded areas - Drought-resistant species - Promote agro-forestry - Promote a balance between - Promote local economy and rural and urban areas local job creation

2040–2070

2015–2040

Actions 2070–2100

Food, water and energy; Sustainable and local economies

Vision elements addressed

662  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Strategy A.4.2: Set up and maintain trans-regional and integrated governance systems on water

Strategy A.4.1: - To guarantee wastewater Implement treatment (urban and ­infrastructure industrial uses) and technologies to maintain and improve the integrity of all water bodies * Technology-based - Pump back water to reservoirs when there is excess of energy - Increase recirculated water

Pathway A.4: Protect water resources through trans-regional collaboration

- Sign the Toledo Protocol between Spain and Portugal to have water

2015–2040

Actions

Strategies

Pathway

Table C.15  Iberian pathways in SSP4

- Improve water management in irrigation projects

2070–2100

- Develop river restoration - R  estore river areas strategy at start of river basin - Increase desalination - Assure water desalinated for most population near coast - Improve water infrastructure to reduce water loss - Improve technologies for recirculated water - Periodic review of - Implement measwhether water tariffs ures to ensure are according with good relationships development between both countries

- Improve water policies

- Adapt to effects of climate change (sea level rise)

2040–2070

(continued)

Food, water and energy; Governance; Resilience

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   663

Pathway

* People-based

Strategies

Table C.15  (continued)

2040–2070

- Include an objective for the use of the soil—land use directive - We advance in updat- Set up common agencies ing cycles to renew the for water (Portugal and protocol in 2030—secSpain) ond review: to impose new tariffs/taxation on water—water taxation - Regionalise partially the - Public administration management of the Tagus makes river basin plans river basin using the to regulate uses (urban; model of the Great Lakes industrial; agriculture) in North America (transboundary, e.g. in Iberia Extremadura, Andalusia, etc.) - Review the Albufeira protocol: has it been amended by the government of Portugal and Spain in 2017 but not implemented—model the Toledo Protocol on the Albufeira and implement it rigorously

2015–2040

Actions 2070–2100

Vision elements addressed

664  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions 2040–2070

- Close the Tagus-Segura water transfer Strategy A.4.3: - Monitor water flows in - Ear-mark water quotas Implement regularivers to ensure sustaina(prices) for use in basin, tion and monitorble flow rivers, water ing to protect water - E-flow monitoring by realquality and quantity time summer and winter - Implement plans for efficient water use - Progressive water pricing - Implement sanction for (water pricing includes illegal wells costs of wastewater cleaning; real price of water) (who: public administration, owners, users/how: public agencies) - Measure ecological flows - Conduct inspection in each moment, instantaneous flows - Regulate the rich to reduce loss of water in system (e.g. agriculture) - Implement conservation - Progressive tariffs for policies for natural areas water uses and amounts to protect water resources

Strategies

Table C.15  (continued)

- Strengthen sustainable water policies

2070–2100

(continued)

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   665

Strategy C.4.1: Promote sustainable and organic agriculture in synergy with rural development

- Use of the crops adapted to the climate—to less precipitation and high temperatures

- Increase carbon sinks/ absorption—carbon fixing

- Improve management of infrastructure to keep in good condition - Enforce the real price of water - Educate people on intergenerational solidarity and to think more about the medium and long-term - Educate on health food behaviours

Pathway C.4: Foster organic agriculture that ensures food quality and quantity for all

2040–2070

Strategy B.4.1: - Transmit traditional Educate on sustainknowledge in education ability values and system behaviour * People-based - Inform people about environmental problems and develop environmental consciousness - Implement strategy for - Increase education for immigration education emission reduction - Implement taxation for hyper-caloric food Strategy B.4.2: - Guarantee access to basic - Implement equality Ensure social equity services policies * People-based

2015–2040

Pathway B.4: Promote sustainable lifestyles and values

Actions

Strategies

Pathway

Table C.15  (continued)

- Implement social universal income for all

- Improve salaries

2070–2100

Food, water and energy

Health, well-being and sustainable lifestyles; Income, education and jobs

Vision elements addressed

666  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

* Nature-based

Strategies

Table C.15  (continued)

- Produce biogas with effluents from cattle grazing - Implement sustainable forestry (including livestock) - Ensure that agricultural sequences go over 6 years so they do not coincide with the hydrologic sequences - Keep livestock in the mountains to avoid forest fires and regulate the vegetation - Limit the pressure/density of livestock intensity in Iberia - Stop burning old grass etc., to incorporate biomass, e.g. creating compost (incorporation on the soil) - Protection natural space - Increase compost of the rest of farm materials

2015–2040

Actions

- Ensure that livestock pressure is adequate to the soil/context

- Promote rural areas through agriculture and tourism

- Improve grazing

- Produce high good quality food

2040–2070

2070–2100

(continued)

Protecting the environment; Resilience

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   667

Pathway

Strategies

Table C.15  (continued)

2040–2070

- Form/use organic materials in the soil/ground of forests - Adapt forestry techniques - Reduce the areas of forest for evapotranspiration and forest consumption during drought - Fight against foreign invasive alien species (e.g. plants, fish) - Promote sustainable - Avoid soil degradation and farming activities (e.g. erosion by conservation crops, livestock) agriculture and forestry - Shift to/recover local/ - Create terraces to avoid traditional crop species soil erosion and fix soil - Shift to less water demanding crops - Shift soil uses to conserve soil (e.g. agricultural practices promote good soil conservation) - Reduce carbon footprint of agriculture - Reduce forest fires - Reforestation

- Adaptation of agriculture to water resources

2015–2040

Actions 2070–2100

Vision elements addressed

668  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

* People-based

Strategy C.4.2: Promote sustainable agriculture regulations

Strategies

Table C.15  (continued)

- Implement forestry politics

- Restore ecosystems/ corridors to improve water quality by filtering pollutants - Manage the soil after a forest fire to prevent erosion and pollution - Implement conservation agriculture—you do not work the land, no labour - Provide funding to farmers to adapt crop species (public administration, funding, subsidies from national governments and EU)

2015–2040

Actions

- Manage the production of the agricultural stock to avoid having excessive stocks of food that are unsellable - Implement programme of rural development

- Manage food distribution—also how to manage excessive stocks of food (to reduce food waste)

2040–2070

2070–2100

(continued)

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   669

Strategies

- Provide education and training in the rural environment—in the techniques of how to work the land, links to modernisation and new equipment, irrigation techniques—new technological solutions - Provide subsidies for ecological agriculture

- Ban fertilisers

- Penalties for burning waste from agriculture - Payment schemes for ecosystem services (e.g. vegetation and water quality, compensate farmers) - Increase water efficiency - Eliminate/substitute in agriculture fossil fuels by renewables in agricultural practices

2040–2070

2015–2040

Actions 2070–2100

Strategy C.4.3: Innovate technologies for sustainable agriculture * Technology-based - Innovate technologies for agriculture Pathway D.4: Strategy D.4.1: - Improve self-sufficient - Implement low carbon - Implement self-sufEstablish a Invest in green energy (solar) production ficient green energy low-carbon technologies economy pow- * Technology-based - Produce and use renewa- - Establish interconnection ble energies of energy Europe and ered by 100% North Africa renewables

Pathway

Table C.15  (continued)

Food, water and energy; Sustainable and local economies

Vision elements addressed

670  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

Strategy D.4.2: Foster a diversified local economy * Market-based

Strategies

Table C.15  (continued)

2040–2070

2070–2100

- Increase safety/security of - Make implementation of electricity system (intergreen energy compulsory connecting goes up) - Phase out nuclear (zero nuclear) - Improve renewable energies, maintain or decrease nuclear - Support low carbon production processes - Support for green technologies - Foster renewable energies in agriculture (e.g. machinery, irrigation, transport, processing) - Diversify economic activi- - Unlink development - Implement circular ties of rural world from consumption from economy natural goods - Establish local markets - Increase VAT (e.g. food imports) - Form cooperatives - Promote local production and consumption

2015–2040

Actions

(continued)

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   671

Pathway E.4: Promote a sustainable and democratic governance system

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions 2040–2070

2070–2100

Vision elements addressed

- Promote local economic activity based on local resources, e.g. food production and traditional activities - Promote sustainable tourism in Iberia as one way to reduce unemployment - Promote local industry in wood products - Incentives for biofuels from forests Strategy E.4.1: - Promote women in deci- - Implement legislation for - Put justice to work Governance; Ensure basic service sion-making positions responsible consumption— (the courts of law) Cooperation provisions through controlling e.g. eating and identity accountable and fair big steaks, buying too governance many clothes, doing this through raising prices of the products * People-based - Put in place more partici- - Help NGOs patory governance - Promote social collabora- - Establish participation and cooperation tive democracy— from elite to citizens

Strategies

Table C.15  (continued)

672  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

Strategies

Table C.15  (continued)

2015–2040

Actions 2070–2100

- Demand changes through local population movements, NGOs - Integrate cultural - Support rural heritage women - Foster social enterprises - Change the tax sys(worker owned companies) tem to re-distribute profits to have-nots - Engage in political activism - Cooperate outside the system—get out of the grid (informally)

- Foster networking of people

2040–2070

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   673

Strategy A.5.1: - Improve wastewater treatment - Introduce efficiency Improve water solutions management infrastructure and technology * Technology- - I ntroduce subsidies to water based efficiency measures - Investment on water efficiency technologies - Risk analysis for whole industry chain + life cycle - Reutilization of water (100%) - Cost-effective desalinization in the Atlantic with renewable energy - Real-time water resources monitoring & measures (WFD) - Real (actual) monitoring of water quality Strategy A.5.2: - Make water metering compul- - Draw regulation on sory for farmers water use and sealing Develop soil regulation to protect water quality and quantity * People-based - Suspend Tagus-Segura transfer

2040–2070

Pathway A.5: Support integrated water management

2015–2040

Actions

Strategies

Pathway

Table C.16  Iberian pathways in SSP5

2070–2100

Food, water and energy; Governance; Resilience

Vision elements addressed

674  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Strategies 2015–2040

Actions

- Build capacity for water efficiency

- Support cultural change towards sustainable lifestyles - Mandatory food sufficiency (controversial) - Learn to live well with “less” (because less resources)

- Work with media to improve environment communication - Make water awareness campaigns

2070–2100

- Invest in social sciences—tools for change

2040–2070

Change distribution of working - Set up climate change hours Transnational food awareness campaigns revolution—fair trade obligatory environmental evaluation

Food change in consumption and production

- Regulations for housing to save water (appliances) - Give water authorities real power for a given watershed (in WFD) - Integrated River Basin Management addressing uses (energy/food), environment, climate with rules for minimum approach Pathway B.5: Strategy B.5.1: Societal change of perception Promote Introduce sustainable environmental lifestyles education * People-based Revolutionize way of working

Pathway

Table C.16  (continued)

(continued)

Health, well-­ being and ­sustainable lifestyles Income, education and jobs

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   675

Strategy C.5.1: - Foster permanent crops Adapt agricul(less water intense) ture to water availability * Nature-based - Change summer crops to ­winter crops (less irrigation) - reforestation with native species - biodiversity + forest management - ecosystem based adaptation

- Support applied research

- Change energy policy

- Relocate irrigated agriculture in Northwestern Iberia? - Adapt water use to resources - transformation of agriculture - cultivate where there is rainfall - Focus CAP on innovation and adaptation measures to climate change

- Reform the education system - Make lifestyle change campaigns - Make campaigns to reduce meat consumption - Reduce irrigation surface

2040–2070

2015–2040

Pathway C.5 Move towards water efficient agriculture

Actions

Strategies

Pathway

Table C.16  (continued)

- Promote local renewable energies (auto-sufficiency)

2070–2100

Food, water and energy; Protecting the environment; Resilience

Vision elements addressed

676  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

- Collaboration + co-creation of strategies for territorial organization

- Integrate environment in all policies and make environmental protection a priority - Resources rationing policies (continued)

- Transfer compeGovernance; tences to EU or UN Cooperation and identity

- agroecology in small fields - Manage recovery of land: agro-forestry system “montado/ dehesa”, humid areas - Improve network of protected areas (ecological connectivity) - Create programs that cities are not the only development sites

- Engage in global integrated environmental decision-making

2070–2100

Vision elements addressed

2040–2070

Strategy D.5.1: - Introduce rules and pracStrengthen tical guidelines for CAP environmental implementation policies and governance * People-based - Reinforce the EBA with incen- - Introduce regulation tives, sanctions and guidelines on marine use for oil exploitation

2015–2040

Pathway D.5: Promote strong environmental governance

Actions

Strategies

Pathway

Table C.16  (continued)

APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   677

Pathway 2015–2040

Actions 2040–2070

- effectiveness of organization of use of territory - Improve efficiency in transport, energy, housing Strategy D.5.2: - Establish a CAP governance - Create a culture Put in place an scheme with close monitoring of measuring (e.g. environmental measuring individmonitoring ual consumption in system agriculture) * Technology- - Use mid-term climate forecasts - Ensure that decision based to support Spain-Portugal making is supported by agreements (WFD) science - Stricter follow-up of invest- Support international ments (e.g. performance of knowledge sharing waste water projects) mechanisms - knowledge transfer (policy-science business Strategy D.5.3: - Stop subsidies where groundImplement water is exploited environmental taxes * Market-based - Internalization of externalities and environmental costs in financial accounting

Strategies

Table C.16  (continued)

2070–2100

Vision elements addressed

678  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Pathway

Strategies

Table C.16  (continued)

- Promote small companies - Enable tax buying, tax trashing, promote re-use (2nd hand sale) - Promote communities with residue recycle - Change economic indicators

2015–2040

Actions 2040–2070

2070–2100

Vision elements addressed APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   679

Europe

Robust strategies and actions

Establish new education models for sustainability and solidarity (SSP1, SSP3, SSP4, SSP5)

Developing wellbeing indicators; enhance solidarity, social support and philanthropy

Support well-being focus for equity and social capital development (SSP1, SSP3, SSP4, SSP5)

Regulation, incentives and awareness raising for sustainable behaviours

Induce and trigger behavPromote shift towards sustain- ioural changes to sustainable able lifestyles lifestyles (SSP1, SSP3, SSP4, SSP5)

Sustainable lifestyles

Robust pathways

Firms provide health and education benefits to workforce; foster philanthropy for nature and people Establish new education models for sustainability and solidarity (SSP1; SSP3; SSP4; SSP5)

Iberia

Induce and trigger behavioural changes to sustainable and healthy lifestyles (SSP1; SSP3; SSP4; SSP5) Incentives and awareness raising about environmental problems and healthy and sustainable food and reducing food waste Strategy protection of human rights and inclusive and just economic development (SSP1; SSP3; SSP4) Incentivise meaningful Redistribute income jobs; change working through progressive taxhours ation, nurture start-ups; universal income Establish new education Establish new education models for sustainability models for sustainability and solidarity (SSP1; and solidarity (SSP1; SSP3; SSP4; SSP5) SSP3; SSP5)

Hungary

Induce and trigger behavioural Induce and trigger changes to sustainable and behavioural changes to healthy lifestyles (SSP5) sustainable and healthy lifestyles (SSP1; SSP3; SSP4; SSP5) Communication, Awareness campaigns; NGOs awareness campaigns use biodiversity changes to engage populations and encour- on healthy and susage engagement locally; NGOs tainable lifestyles and push for political change practices; reward social responsibility Provide social and health Change employment services (SSP3) laws and practices (SSP5)

Scotland

Table C.17  Robust pathways across case studies and scenarios

680  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Robust pathways

Empower civil society and local communities

Strengthen community-based governance (SSP1; SSP3)

Hungary

Set up new health systems (SSP1; SSP3; SSP5) Introduce health screening programmes, new and traditional medication, support community facilities for healthy lifestyles; heat management system; health technologies

Provide environmentally and socially conscious education; practical skills for self-sufficiency; education accessible for all Empower local communities Empower local commuand economies (SSP1; SSP3; nities and economies SSP4; SSP5) (SSP3; SSP4; SSP5) Supporting local economies and Empower local commucommunity businesses; promote nities and civil society local sharing, trading and organisations; strengthen bartering systems; capital for social network; promote community low-carbon energy local products and trade schemes; local democracies

Scotland

Including reflexivity, sustaina- Integrating art, civil engagebility, practical skills development and practical skills into ment and social cohesion in education for life-long learning education

Europe

Robust strategies and actions

Table C.17  (continued)

(continued)

Integrate social values, practical skills and sustainable practices into education, ensure access to education Empower local communities and economies (SSP3; SSP4) Improve solidarity and cohesion, foster social networks; local currency and time banks; diversified local markets linked to circular economy (e.g. cork sector)

Iberia

APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   681

Europe

Robust strategies and actions

Set up and experiment with learning-based governance models (SSP1; SSP4)

Strengthen and stabilise cross-sectoral multi-level governance institutions and collaboration (SSP1; SSP4) Create strong institutions and networks for multi-level governance collaboration

Ensure democratic inclusiveness and transparency; increase (capacity for) participation in decision-making; integrate research into decision-making

Foster good governance with Good governance systems for high levels of participation sustainability and transparency (SSP1; SSP3; SSP5)

Sustainability governance

Robust pathways

Table C.17  (continued)

Develop multi-level governance and partnerships; regional interconnectivity of local places with national oversight

Put in place a new multi-level governance approach (SSP1)

Scotland Strengthen the role of government and national policy including a strong welfare system (SSP1; SSP3; SSP4; SSP5) Introduce strong topdown environmental and social policies and support cooperation, participation and transparency; decrease corruption; capacity building for participation

Hungary

Ensure transparent, participatory governance at all scales, simplify bureaucracy

Ensure basic service provisions through accountable and fair governance (SSP1; SSP4)

Iberia

682  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Europe

Robust strategies and actions Scotland

Integrated and sustainable water management

Implement adaptive and integrated water management across Europe (SSP5)

Manage water nationally as a marketable resource (SSP5)

Governance experimentation; evidence- and learning-based governance Global sustaina- Strengthen and implement Promote Scotland as a bility leadership EU’s global vision for sustain- regional and global connected ability (SSP1) leader for sustainability (SSP1; SSP4; SSP5) Motivating for a global vision Showcase Scotland’s natural for sustainability, setting up capital; strengthening interinternational commitments and national and cross-boundary partnerships and supporting agreements and partnerships; other countries outside Europe trade Scotland’s capitals Establish international collab- Foster international cooperaoration and markets (SSP4; tion (SSP4; SSP5) SSP5) Expand European sustainable Set up different types of think market leadership globally; tanks at multiple levels; maintain create economically-driven diplomatic ties with other nations; cross-border alliances set up agreements with countries to ensure resilient supplies Integrated resource management

Robust pathways

Table C.17  (continued)

Iberia

(continued)

Introduce water-sensiImplement new water tive management (SSP1; governance to ensure SSP3; SSP4; SSP5) good water for everyone (SSP1; SSP3; SSP4; SSP5)

Foster international cooperation and knowledge exchange (SSP3) Build new partnerships and cross-boundary agreements; watch and adopt global good practices at regional levels

Hungary

APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   683

Robust pathways Iberia

Integrated management on water, energy and food (e.g. integrated river basin management); eliminate illegal water use, water taxes and pricing; incentives for water savings; balance water quality and quantity Shift to water sensitive infraShift to water sensitive infraShift to holistic water Shift to holistic water structure for water efficiency structure for water efficiency infrastructures for water infrastructures for water and adaptation (SSP1; SSP3; and adaptation (SSP1; SSP5) efficiency and adaptaefficiency and adaptation SSP4; SSP5) tion (SSP1; SSP3; SSP4; (SSP1; SSP4; SSP5) SSP5) Nature-based solutions (e.g. Improving natural drainage Develop (green) infraWater efficiency technolriver re-naturalisation; urban systems to reduce leakage and structure and technoloogies, green infrastrucgreen), new technologies for harvest water; improve natural gies for water saving and ture and nature-based water efficiency (e.g. desalina- high-tech solutions for flood re-use (e.g. urban water solutions (e.g. river restotion); local integrated infradefence; national water grid to retention, reuse sewage ration, desalination) structures for water protection provide water and energy for water; rainwater col(e.g. household rain harvesting; pumping lection); restore natural water transportation networks flood defences across Europe) Build resilience and prepare for extreme events (SSP1)

Develop water exports; national Regulations, incenwater grid for oversight on tives and information water for water saving and re-use with strong local and regional authority (e.g. water price; water guards)

Regulation, awareness raising and technological innovation on water efficiency and use; manage water cycle EU-wide (revised EU WFD)

Hungary

Scotland

Europe

Robust strategies and actions

Table C.17  (continued)

684  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Sustainable agriculture

Robust pathways

Adapt and scale the CAP to support multi-functional and integrated agriculture (SSP1; SSP5)

Creating institutional capacity (e.g. building codes, know-how) for building resilience and introducing prevention

Europe

Robust strategies and actions

Table C.17  (continued)

Scotland

Iberia

(continued)

Set up water monitoring Set up water monitoring system (SSP1; SSP5) system (SSP1; SSP4; SSP5) Monitoring and civic Control and monitor control of water quality ecological flows and elimand quantity; adequate inate illegal water use maintenance Set up trans-boundary and problem-based governance institutions and partnerships (SSP4) Set up common transboundary and regional agencies between Portugal and Spain Develop regulatory frameworks for sustainable and climate-resilient agriculture (SSP1; SSP4; SSP5)

Hungary

APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   685

Robust pathways Scotland

Hungary

Integrate environmental externalities; regulation, incentives and bans for sustainable agriculture (e.g. fertiliser ban)

Iberia

Shift to organic and Shift to organic and climate-adaptive farming climate-adaptive farming practices (SSP3; SSP5) practices (SSP1; SSP4; SSP5) Organic and climate-friendly Developing climate-friendly, Promote climate adaptive Organic and climate-refarming practices; education ecosystem-based agriculture with and multi-functional silient agriculture (new and knowledge sharing on varieties of crops and land-uses agriculture (e.g. drought crops, organic fertilisers, environmentally friendly farm- (e.g. urban agriculture, use of resistant plants, pasture drip system); reforestation ing practices sewage sludge as fertiliser) in drought) Support local communiSupport local communiSupport local commuty-based agriculture and rural ty-based agriculture and rural nity-based agriculture development (SSP1; SSP3; development (SSP3) and rural development SSP5) (SSP4; SSP5) Incentivising and standardisCommunities develop own food Strengthening local ing sustainable and local food growing; knowledge sharing production (e.g. home markets; SME-instrument and through local advice networks gardens) and green space subsidies for family-owned agriculture; education and knowledge sharing on environmentally friendly, local agriculture

Adapt CAP to shift agriculture to context-sensitive and organic approaches; national integrated land planning; incorporate cost of environmental degradation; carbon taxes Shift to organic and cliShift to organic and climate-adaptive farming pracmate-adaptive farming practices (SSP1; SSP3; SSP5) tices (SSP1)

Europe

Robust strategies and actions

Table C.17  (continued)

686  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Low-carbon economies

Robust pathways

Innovate sustainable agriculture technology (SSP1)

Fostering R&D for innovation in agriculture (e.g. indoor agriculture); urban agriculture

Innovate sustainable agriculture technology and technology transfers (SSP1; SSP5)

Investing and selling innovative technologies for bio-economy, sustainable energy, energy efficiency and irrigation Develop local and regional smart energy within European energy grid (SSP4; SSP5) Promote (technological innovation for) local and regional sustainable energy generation and provision based on smart systems and storage capacity and within European energy grid Shift to regional energy supply and local sustainable energy generation (SSP1; SSP4) Incentives for local sustainable energy generation (e.g. community-owned energy generation, solar insulation) connected to regional and national smart grids; R&D for circular and low-carbon economy (e.g. CCS, energy efficiency), bio-tech and bio-based materials, new food sources, sustainable energy Establish mobility infrastructures for low-carbon mobility and peripheral connectivity (SSP1; SSP5)

Scotland

Europe

Robust strategies and actions

Table C.17  (continued)

Shift to sustainable energy technologies (SSP3; SSP5) Tender system to support climate adaptation; develop and make mandatory technologies for sustainable energy, energy efficiency in households and transport

Hungary

(continued)

Regulations and incentives for green energy; carbon tax and annual carbon budget; tax reduction for green energy

Innovate sustainable agriculture technology for water efficiency (SSP3; SSP4) Develop technologies to increase water efficiency and green energy in agriculture Shift to green technologies (SSP1; SSP4)

Iberia

APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   687

Integrated environmental planning

Robust pathways Hungary

Mainstream nature protection into policy frameworks and economic activity (SSP3)

Scotland Invest in smart, low-carbon mobility and free integrated transport systems to improve urban-rural connectivity Mainstream nature protection into policy frameworks and economic activity (SSP1; SSP3; SSP4; SSP5)

Iberia

Mainstream nature protection into policy frameworks and economic activity (SSP1; SSP5) Legislation and taxes for forest Incentives, regulation and Environmental taxes and Integrate and internalise protection, invasive species, standards to support internalise control of environmental biodiversity into sectoral rezoning for species and nature nature in economic activities; protection policies and market protection; introduce values of natural capital accounting for activities; incentives, ecosystem services businesses; coordination mechsanctions and guideanisms between corporations; lines for ecosystem-based promote eco-tourism management Enable integrated and ecoEnable people-and-place system-based land-use and approach to land-use and infrastructure planning (SSP1; infrastructure planning (SSP4; SSP4) SSP5) EU-wide land reform for con- Take people-and-place approach text-sensitive land-use, urban to low-carbon infrastructure agriculture planning; national and regional planning framework for integrated land-use; increase community ownership of land

Mainstream nature protection into policy frameworks and economic activity (SSP1; SSP5)

Europe

Robust strategies and actions

Table C.17  (continued)

688  APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON …

Green and comfortable cities

Robust pathways

Protect and restore nature with mainstreaming naturebased solutions and conservation networks (SSP3; SSP4; SSP5) Create biosphere and nature reserves to protect nature and develop natural flood defence; nature-based solutions, reforestation and biodiversity (e.g. wildlife corridors); eco-tourism Map and valorise natural resources (SSP5)

Protect and restore nature with mainstreaming naturebased solutions and conservation networks (SSP1; SSP3; SSP4; SSP5) Expanding Natura 2000 conservation networks; biodiversity corridors; restore ecosystems and reforestation

Support/fund academic resource; developing tools and maps for ecosystems assessment and early warning

Scotland

Europe

Robust strategies and actions

Table C.17  (continued)

Promote green urban development for climate adaptation (SSP1; SSP4) Develop green infrastructure and natural cooling systems, roof gardens; reduce paved surfaces for water retention and heat protection

Hungary

Put in place an environmental monitoring system (SSP5) Set up monitoring and use climate forecasts for agreements; international knowledge sharing and transfer

Iberia

APPENDIX C: VISIONS AND PATHWAYS TO SHIFT TO LOW-CARBON

…   689

Index

A Adaptation, 6, 7, 13, 14, 16, 18–22, 24–26, 30, 32, 50, 60, 65, 68, 73, 75, 79, 80, 99, 105, 115, 117, 121, 124–126, 128–139, 143, 144, 146, 164, 169–171, 173, 174, 176–178, 180, 182– 187, 197, 206–208, 210, 211, 214, 217, 222–225, 227, 228, 234, 235, 243–247, 255, 258– 260, 266, 268, 274, 286–290, 293–296, 298, 307–310, 316, 319, 321, 326, 332, 335, 339, 340, 352, 361, 365, 374, 397, 408, 432, 439, 451, 454, 459, 463, 465, 495, 501, 503, 646 Adaptive capacity, 59, 60, 79, 436 Adaptive governance, 60, 67, 326, 396 Agency, 7, 29–32, 51, 52, 54–57, 62, 63, 66, 77, 79, 81, 82, 119, 120, 169, 175, 176, 183, 207, 243, 265, 287, 319, 333, 342,

360–363, 366, 367, 373–375, 382–384, 388, 389, 391, 401, 402, 407, 409, 411, 454, 458, 468, 508 Anthropocene, 100 B Biosphere, 285, 286, 421, 424, 453 C Capacity, 31, 51–53, 55, 56, 65, 79, 140, 142, 143, 166, 179, 180, 182, 188, 193, 198, 208, 222, 233–235, 242, 243, 247, 248, 254, 263, 265, 266, 269, 270, 275, 319, 333, 360–362, 367, 371, 373, 375, 384, 387, 393, 394, 450, 452–454, 465, 469, 513, 555, 603, 604 Capitals, 70, 73, 247, 292, 294, 297, 305, 308, 339, 342, 350, 362,

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. Hölscher and N. Frantzeskaki (eds.), Transformative Climate Governance, Palgrave Studies in Environmental Transformation, Transition and Accountability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49040-9

691

692  Index 363, 366, 367, 369, 371–375, 394, 400, 402, 421, 454, 497, 503, 505 Chief Resilience Officer, 171, 173, 187, 227, 258, 465 Cities, 4, 9, 13, 18, 22–24, 28, 32, 58, 81, 99–101, 103, 105–107, 113, 114, 116–139, 141, 146, 163–165, 168, 171, 173, 174, 177, 178, 188, 197, 205–208, 212, 214, 216, 221, 228, 235, 242, 243, 245–247, 254–256, 258, 259, 262, 263, 265–268, 274, 275, 292, 298, 348, 349, 448, 450, 451, 455, 456, 463, 511, 514, 556, 602, 604, 644, 646 Climate change, 3–9, 13, 14, 16, 18–24, 28–33, 35, 49–52, 55, 59, 60, 63, 68, 73, 77, 80, 82, 99– 101, 103, 105, 106, 113–117, 119–126, 128–142, 144, 146, 163–170, 173, 174, 177, 179– 181, 183–185, 193, 197, 198, 206–208, 210–212, 215, 216, 218, 219, 223, 225, 235, 242, 243, 247, 254, 255, 258, 260, 262, 265, 267–270, 273–275, 286, 287, 291–295, 298, 300, 305, 307, 308, 310, 316–318, 330, 331, 335, 342, 352, 359, 361, 362, 364, 383, 386, 389, 421, 422, 427, 432–435, 438, 440, 443, 447, 448, 450, 451, 453, 454, 464, 466–468, 501, 504, 513, 514, 604, 646 Climate governance, 4–7, 9, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21–33, 35, 49–52, 60, 62, 65, 66, 75, 77, 79–82, 106, 116, 126, 129, 131–133, 145, 146, 179, 207, 208, 210, 212, 215, 216, 221, 222, 224, 233,

234, 243–246, 259, 260, 263, 265, 267–269, 271, 273, 274, 287, 309, 321, 333, 408, 409, 429, 431, 432, 434, 436, 439, 440, 443, 448–451, 455, 457, 460–463, 465, 467–469 Climate science, 29, 211, 218, 316, 352, 353, 361, 362, 373, 402 Coastal cities, 100, 103, 144 Complexity, 14, 58, 68, 75, 100, 101, 105, 107, 120, 121, 132, 186, 197, 308, 309, 333, 351, 402, 425, 433, 441, 453, 463 Conditions, 6, 15, 28–31, 35, 50–52, 54–56, 58, 59, 63, 65, 68, 77, 79–82, 107, 131, 139, 145, 146, 165, 166, 179, 181, 183, 188, 193, 198, 199, 207, 208, 221, 222, 227, 228, 233, 235, 242, 243, 245, 246, 248, 254, 255, 263–265, 267, 270, 272–274, 288, 300, 303, 307, 310, 319, 321, 332–334, 339, 341, 362, 367, 374, 383–386, 388–394, 396, 397, 400–402, 406, 408, 409, 411, 421, 422, 425, 435, 442, 449–452, 456, 464, 468, 469, 500, 507, 508, 604, 606, 644, 645 Coordination, 14, 25, 27, 28, 66, 75, 81, 132, 133, 140, 165, 194, 195, 216, 219, 234, 242, 246, 265, 340, 371, 396, 408, 409, 461, 463 Co-production, 67, 105, 106, 132, 275, 331, 352, 383, 453, 454 Cross-scale, 6, 9, 14, 19, 21, 117, 132, 187, 196, 216, 227, 234, 256, 258, 259, 263, 327, 332, 396, 465 Cross-sectoral, 6, 9, 14, 19, 21, 117, 132, 141, 196, 216, 234, 245,

Index

256, 259, 262, 289, 298, 301, 330, 332, 338, 340, 343, 344, 363, 385, 396, 400, 453, 456, 496 Cultural transformations, 420, 422 D De-capitalist society, 421 E Enabling conditions and barriers, 298 Experimentation, 5, 6, 24, 27, 28, 31, 50, 63, 73, 77, 122, 129, 131, 132, 136, 137, 146, 185–187, 197, 198, 233, 235, 236, 242, 248, 254, 255, 263, 264, 267, 270, 272, 274, 315, 389, 394, 401, 408, 441, 442, 451, 452, 460–462, 465, 469 Exploratory scenarios, 287–289, 295, 305 F Fake sustainabilities, 426 G Global warming, 327, 422, 434 Governance, 4–7, 15, 19, 22, 24–27, 29–33, 35, 50–58, 60, 62, 63, 66, 67, 71, 75, 77–82, 99–101, 103–107, 115, 116, 118–122, 125, 126, 129, 131–134, 137–141, 145, 146, 164–166, 176, 177, 179, 180, 185–188, 193–197, 199, 206, 207, 221, 222, 226, 227, 234, 235, 241–248, 255, 256, 259, 262, 263, 265–272, 275, 297,

  693

304, 307, 309, 315–317, 340, 350, 352, 364, 371, 373, 375, 387, 390, 393, 394, 396, 402, 408, 409, 411, 420–426, 428, 429, 433–436, 438–443, 448, 449, 451, 452, 456, 457, 460, 463–466, 468, 469, 512, 556, 602, 647 Governance capacity, 6, 7, 30–32, 51–57, 80, 81, 165, 179, 188, 198, 207, 228, 236, 242, 243, 248, 256, 267, 275, 305, 316, 319, 330, 450, 469, 508 Greenhouse gas emissions, 13, 49, 50, 113, 287, 292, 307, 327 H High-end, 35, 171, 286, 287, 289, 291, 293, 294, 298, 300, 304, 305, 309, 310, 316, 317, 330–332, 335, 342, 349, 352, 361–363, 381, 384, 389, 495 High-end scenarios, 33, 288, 289, 298, 307, 308, 316–318, 326, 345, 362, 363, 384–386, 389, 402, 501 Human Information and Knowledge Systems (HIKS), 420, 425 Hurricane Sandy, 103, 208, 210–212, 214, 218–221, 224, 226, 244, 247, 255, 258, 261, 461 I Impacts, 3–5, 7, 8, 13, 15, 18–22, 28, 32, 49–51, 53, 60, 63, 66, 68, 77, 79, 99, 100, 103, 105, 106, 113, 114, 119, 122–124, 126, 131, 134, 136–138, 142, 144, 145, 164, 168, 170, 180, 183, 184, 206, 208, 211, 212, 215,

694  Index 219, 222, 223, 244, 259, 287– 289, 291–293, 295, 297–300, 304, 305, 307–309, 317, 318, 332, 334, 335, 342–345, 347, 349–351, 353, 359–361, 364, 374, 383, 384, 387, 389, 396, 408, 411, 424, 425, 431–434, 436, 438, 440, 443, 448, 449, 454, 459, 462, 464, 465, 496, 501, 504, 513, 603, 645 IMPRESSIONS, 287–298, 300, 305, 307–310, 316–319, 321, 323, 325, 326, 329–332, 334, 338, 341, 343–345, 347, 349, 352, 353, 362, 363, 366, 367, 369, 373–375, 383, 411, 451, 459, 464, 495–497, 499–501, 503–505, 507, 508 Innovation, 15, 23, 25, 27, 28, 51, 56, 58–60, 63, 68, 71, 73, 80–82, 103, 105, 114, 115, 120, 121, 125, 131, 132, 134, 136, 137, 139, 143, 146, 164, 179, 185, 186, 197, 198, 222, 225, 226, 233, 235, 236, 245, 246, 255, 256, 258, 261, 262, 267, 272–274, 291, 292, 328, 333, 353, 369, 371–373, 375, 389, 390, 393, 397, 401, 407, 408, 410, 411, 436–438, 442, 443, 460–462, 512, 513, 555, 645 Integrated Assessment Platform 2 (IAP2), 293, 307, 308 Interdisciplinary, 32, 350, 352, 353, 453, 555 L Learning, 6, 25–27, 29, 30, 51–53, 68, 73, 75, 106, 115, 127, 130–132, 136, 137, 143, 146, 164, 165, 176, 178, 186, 197,

198, 226, 233, 235, 236, 246, 248, 255, 262, 264, 267, 275, 303, 304, 318, 325, 328–330, 351–353, 371, 372, 387, 390, 391, 393, 396, 402, 407, 408, 411, 422, 427, 428, 436, 442, 453, 458, 460–465, 468, 500 Lifestyles, 22, 57, 59, 62, 114, 116, 119, 123, 266, 268, 273, 285, 286, 291, 295, 303, 309, 387, 389, 391–393, 402, 406, 407, 410, 437, 439, 448, 457, 603–605, 644 Local, 4, 5, 9, 14, 19, 21–26, 32, 35, 50, 60, 67, 76, 81, 100, 105, 106, 115–120, 122, 125–127, 129–134, 137, 140, 142, 143, 165, 173–184, 186–188, 194–197, 206, 215, 219–224, 226–228, 234, 236, 246, 247, 256, 258–262, 266, 267, 270, 271, 273–275, 289, 291, 304, 331, 340, 341, 343, 344, 348, 350, 363–365, 371, 372, 375, 383, 387, 388, 390, 392–394, 396, 397, 400–402, 406–411, 421, 427, 443, 448, 453–457, 461, 462, 464–466, 514, 555, 556, 602–606, 645 Lock-in, 14, 15, 30, 58–60, 68, 116, 126, 136, 139, 142–144, 165, 266, 270, 271, 361, 433, 439, 448–451, 457, 459 Long-term, 6, 9, 14, 16, 24, 35, 66, 67, 75, 77, 79–81, 100, 106, 115, 124, 128–130, 134, 138, 141, 142, 144, 146, 164, 165, 169, 175, 181, 186–188, 193– 195, 198, 207, 210, 211, 216, 218, 219, 222–224, 226–228, 233, 235, 236, 241–246, 248, 254, 255, 259, 262–271, 274,

Index

286, 287, 289, 291, 295, 298, 304, 305, 307, 308, 310, 317, 318, 323, 326, 332, 334, 335, 340, 348, 360, 362, 375, 381– 383, 385, 387, 390, 394, 396, 402, 406, 407, 429, 439, 448, 449, 451, 452, 464, 466–469, 495–497, 603, 647 Low-carbon, 22, 60, 71, 114, 115, 127, 128, 139, 224, 309, 382, 400, 401, 556, 645 M Mediation, 76, 176, 195, 228, 234, 246, 265, 269 Mitigation, 6, 13, 14, 16, 18–21, 26, 65, 68, 73, 75, 105, 115, 117, 124–132, 134, 135, 137–139, 142–144, 146, 169, 182, 187, 197, 207, 208, 210, 217, 219, 222, 223, 225, 228, 235, 243, 245, 246, 255, 266, 268, 274, 286, 288–290, 295, 296, 298, 307, 308, 321, 332, 335, 339, 340, 361, 365, 374, 375, 432, 439, 443, 459, 463, 495, 503, 507, 644 Multi-level, 25, 26, 58, 67, 75, 130, 196, 245, 247, 254, 304, 371, 373, 387, 388, 390, 396, 397, 400, 401, 409, 455, 456 Municipality, 32, 127, 171, 173–178, 180, 188, 288, 317, 340, 363, 371, 383, 602 N Nature-based solutions, 129, 397, 401 New York City (NYC), 32, 35, 116, 127, 130, 131, 145, 146, 205–226, 228, 233–236,

  695

242–248, 254–256, 258–263, 265–270, 273, 274, 450, 451, 453, 455–457, 461–466 O Orchestrating capacity, 66, 75, 186, 187, 195, 227, 234, 255, 256, 265, 269, 369, 371, 372, 394, 396, 463 Orchestration, 133, 188, 195, 234, 269, 394, 464, 466 P Paris Agreement, 3–5, 8, 21, 23, 24, 27, 126, 205, 286, 310, 406, 407, 411, 432, 433, 439, 464, 465 Partnership, 19, 22, 31, 68, 77, 115, 130, 132, 133, 138, 146, 169, 173, 174, 176–178, 180, 181, 186, 187, 195, 196, 198, 214, 216–218, 220, 222–224, 227, 228, 233–236, 246–248, 256, 258–263, 267, 324, 340, 390, 396, 397, 400–402, 408–410, 451–453, 455, 456, 461, 462, 465–467, 469 Path-dependency, 14, 15, 51, 58, 62, 68, 82, 106, 135, 139, 165, 179, 182, 194, 233, 245, 254, 256, 375, 389, 433, 439, 440, 456, 457 Pathways, 16, 32, 35, 60, 80, 122–124, 136, 145, 206, 267, 287–289, 295–298, 300, 301, 303–305, 307–310, 316–319, 321–324, 326, 327, 329–335, 338–342, 345, 349–353, 359, 360, 362, 363, 373, 382–391, 393, 394, 396, 397, 399–402,

696  Index 406–411, 428, 432, 433, 435, 436, 438, 440, 450, 451, 454–457, 459, 462, 464, 467, 495–497, 500, 501, 503–505, 507, 508 Planetary boundaries, 8, 50, 439, 442, 500, 513 Polycentric governance, 6, 25, 26, 50, 66, 267, 409 Polycentricity, 25, 26, 467 R Regime, 4, 23–25, 31, 51, 58–60, 68, 70, 71, 73, 77, 116, 126, 135, 139, 142, 145, 146, 165, 222, 235, 242, 243, 263, 265–267, 269, 271, 272, 389, 432, 434–441, 443, 457, 459, 465 Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), 287, 289, 292, 318, 334, 361, 364, 384, 495 Resilience, 4, 6–9, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 26, 29, 31, 49, 50, 52, 57–60, 62, 63, 65–67, 71, 73, 75, 82, 99, 100, 103, 106, 115, 123– 125, 128, 130–132, 134, 139, 145, 146, 164, 166, 170, 171, 173, 177, 178, 180, 185–188, 193, 195, 197, 207, 210, 212, 216–219, 221, 223, 226, 227, 234, 241–247, 254–256, 258, 259, 261, 262, 265, 266, 268, 269, 271, 273, 286, 288, 295, 298, 304, 305, 308, 310, 316–319, 328, 332, 349, 350, 352, 367, 372, 383–385, 387, 388, 392, 394, 396, 402, 406, 411, 449–453, 455, 461, 464, 466–468, 504, 514 Robustness, 103, 218, 319, 342, 349, 386, 497

Rotterdam, 32, 35, 116, 145, 146, 165–188, 193–198, 242–247, 254–256, 258–263, 265–271, 273, 274, 343, 450, 451, 455, 457, 462, 464, 466 S Scenarios, 33, 35, 70, 71, 80, 101, 175, 180, 183, 287, 289–293, 297, 298, 300, 301, 303–305, 307–310, 317–319, 325, 326, 330, 331, 334, 335, 338, 341, 345, 349, 350, 360–363, 365–367, 369, 372–375, 381, 383–386, 390, 393, 394, 397, 399, 409, 425, 443, 450, 495– 497, 499–501, 503–505, 507 Science, 8, 15, 33, 58, 80, 100, 101, 103, 105–107, 119, 123, 178, 218, 260, 321, 324, 333, 340, 351, 352, 407, 419, 420, 424–427, 429, 432–434, 438, 447, 453, 454, 466 Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs), 287, 289–293, 297, 298, 300, 307, 310, 318, 319, 321, 326, 334, 335, 344, 345, 361–367, 369, 372–375, 384, 387, 495, 499, 501 Simulation models, 288 Social-ecological, 58, 59, 67, 121, 223, 227, 310, 317, 318, 420, 424–426, 449 Social-ecological-technological systems (SETS), 100, 103–107, 118 Stewarding capacity, 66, 180, 181, 184, 223, 224, 254, 260, 369, 374, 394, 400, 452 Sustainability, 4, 6–9, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 26, 29, 31, 32, 49–52, 57, 58, 60, 62, 63, 65–67, 71,

Index

73, 75, 81, 82, 106, 114–117, 123–125, 127, 129–135, 138–140, 142, 145, 146, 164, 166, 170, 171, 173, 174, 176, 180, 183, 185–188, 193, 195, 197, 207, 210–212, 215, 216, 218, 219, 222, 225–228, 233, 234, 241–244, 246, 255, 256, 258, 259, 262, 263, 265, 266, 268–274, 286, 288, 289, 295, 298, 303–305, 307, 308, 310, 316, 317, 319, 324, 326, 342, 352, 359, 361, 367, 369, 371– 373, 375, 383–387, 390, 392, 394, 396, 402, 406, 409–411, 419–423, 425–428, 432, 433, 435–440, 442, 443, 449–455, 458, 459, 461, 463, 465–468, 504, 513, 603, 644 Sustainability transformation, 361, 367, 424–426, 459 Sustainable Climate Development, 420, 427 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), 4, 21, 114, 286, 359, 406, 427, 435, 451, 453, 463, 465 System, 8, 9, 13–16, 18, 22, 23, 25–27, 30–32, 51, 53, 55, 57–60, 62, 63, 66–68, 70, 71, 80, 99, 101, 103–107, 114, 115, 117, 118, 120, 121, 123, 124, 126, 128, 132, 135, 139–141, 164, 167, 169, 173, 175, 181, 184, 194, 198, 206–208, 211–214, 218, 220, 235, 274, 275, 286, 293, 295, 298, 300, 304, 309, 317–319, 323–325, 332, 340, 341, 343, 348, 360, 364, 366, 373, 382, 387–390, 392–394, 397, 401, 407, 409, 420–422,

  697

424–426, 431, 433–436, 441, 442, 448, 449, 452, 453, 457, 459, 461, 463–465, 468, 504, 512–514, 602–606, 645, 646 T Tipping points, 7, 14, 60, 286, 287, 310, 421, 434 Transdisciplinary, 29, 32, 33, 35, 80, 101, 105, 106, 228, 260, 288, 305, 316, 317, 344, 353, 408, 435, 443, 453, 466, 468 Transformation, 5–9, 13–16, 18, 22, 28–31, 33, 35, 49–52, 55, 57, 60, 62, 63, 65, 73, 75, 77–81, 105, 106, 114–117, 119–126, 132, 134, 137, 139, 142, 165, 197, 198, 206, 207, 221, 222, 241, 242, 244, 262, 268, 271, 273, 286, 294–296, 308, 310, 321, 332, 342, 359–363, 366, 367, 373–375, 381, 383, 385, 387, 389, 402, 419, 420, 422–426, 428, 432, 441, 449, 450, 452, 454, 458, 459, 466, 468, 495, 503, 504 Transformative capacity, 71, 79, 185, 194, 225, 254, 255, 263, 369, 372, 460 Transformative climate governance, 6, 7, 29–33, 35, 50–53, 55–58, 63, 65, 66, 79–82, 100, 107, 116, 145, 146, 207, 208, 222, 228, 233, 235, 241–243, 248, 255, 261, 262, 265, 267, 268, 272, 274, 432, 434, 443, 449–451, 466–469 Transformative Climate Science, 294 Transition, 7, 27, 32, 35, 52, 57–60, 62, 63, 65, 66, 70, 71, 75,

698  Index 82, 120, 134, 164, 166, 197, 272, 286, 316–319, 321–324, 326, 327, 329, 330, 332, 333, 340, 341, 345, 349–352, 367, 369, 372, 382–386, 388–391, 408, 410, 411, 420, 431, 432, 435–443, 454 Transition management, 35, 59, 80, 297, 315–323, 325, 330, 341, 352, 384, 435, 468, 495, 497 U United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 4, 21–25, 27, 464, 465 Unlocking capacity, 68, 182–184, 194, 225, 254, 260, 263, 369, 371–373, 393, 456, 457 Urban climate governance, 31, 32, 35, 52, 80, 105, 106, 116, 126, 129–134, 137–139, 142, 145, 146, 207, 208, 228, 234, 241, 242, 246, 256, 263, 265–268, 270, 272, 275, 448 Urban resilience, 124, 127

V Vision, 18, 24, 31, 32, 71, 75, 76, 80, 133, 140, 164, 169, 171, 174, 179, 180, 182, 186, 195, 214, 218, 222, 233, 243, 246, 248, 258, 268, 287–289, 294–298, 300, 304, 305, 308–310, 316– 318, 321, 323–327, 329–335, 338–340, 342, 349, 350, 353, 363, 369, 373–375, 382–386, 389, 390, 396, 400, 402, 406, 409, 437, 439, 449, 451, 458, 464, 465, 468, 496, 497, 500, 501, 503–505, 507, 508, 556, 603 Vulnerabilities, 5, 7, 13, 16, 21, 49, 51, 59, 60, 66, 79, 122, 124, 128, 168, 175, 180, 193, 194, 211, 223, 256, 262, 268, 287, 289, 292, 304, 308, 309, 317, 411, 452, 496 W Water governance, 164–168, 173, 174, 179, 184–186, 188, 193–196, 198, 199