Search

This paper seeks to understand how co-production can become embedded as a collaborative governance practice by which city governments plan, deliver and steward nature-based solutions. To these ends, the paper analyses how policy officers manifest capacities for co-production in three European cities – Genk (Belgium), Glasgow (United Kingdom) and Poznań (Poland) – while experimenting with co-production to develop and scale nature-based solutions. Co-production capacities include conditions and activities to (1) create space for co-production, (2) safeguard inclusive and legitimate co-production, and (3) link co-production processes and results to contexts. The results demonstrate how policy officers in the three cities have mobilised and created resources, skills, institutional support and partnerships to implement diverse processes to co-produce nature-based solutions. While these conditions mark starting changes in urban governance, engaging with and embedding co-production causes tensions between the dynamic and diffuse nature of co-production and existing formal governance settings and processes. Lessons for strengthening the capacities to embed co-production as a collaborative governance practice in nature-based solutions planning, delivery and stewardship are: (1) embedding a tailor-made approach for inclusive co-production to meaningfully engage diverse actors in place-based settings, (2) embedding open-ended co-production with long-term benefits, and (3) embedding new relations and roles to sustain co-production. • Co-production requires investing in new governance capacities. • Diverse co-production processes underpin collaborative NBS governance. • No one-size-fits-all: tailor co-production to contexts, goals, target audiences. • Monitor and evaluate co-production to reveal benefits. • Invest in long-term relations and engagement to sustain co-production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The narrative of urban sustainability transformations epitomises the hope that urban governance can create the conditions to plan and govern cities in a way that they contribute to local and global sustainability and resilience. So far, urban governance is not delivering: novel governance approaches are emerging in cities worldwide, yet are unable to transform conventional policymaking and planning to allow for innovative, co-beneficial and long-term solutions and actions to emerge and institutionalise. We present a capacities framework for urban transformations governance, starting from the need to fulfil distinct output functions ('what needs to happen') for mobilising and influencing urban transformation dynamics. The framework helps to diagnose and inform urban governance for responding to disturbances (stewarding capacity), phasing-out drivers of path-dependency (unlocking capacity), creating and embedding novelties (transformative capacity) and coordinating multi-actor processes (orchestrating capacity). Our case study of climate governance in New York City exemplifies the framework's applicability and explanatory power to identify conditions and activities facilitating transformation (governance), and to reveal gaps and barriers of these vis-à-vis the existing governance regime. Our framework thereby functions as a tool to explore what new forms of urban transformation governance are emerging, how effective these are, and how to strengthen capacities. • Existing urban governance is unable to address persistent problems. • Effective governance support of transformation lies in collective capacities. • We develop a framework of four capacities for urban transformation governance (UTG). • We use the framework to explain the development of UTG capacities in New York City. • The framework enables explaining, evaluating and supporting UTG. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Climate change actions in cities worldwide are driving deep changes in urban governance. We ask whether new capacities for transformative climate governance are emerging in two cities that have experimented with urban climate governance: Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and New York City (NYC), United States. Transformative climate governance creates the conditions for developing integrated and innovative climate mitigation and adaptation policies and interventions that respond to and shape urban transformation dynamics and contribute to sustainability and resilience. The comparison of capacities for transformative climate governance in Rotterdam and NYC offers insights into the emerging features of urban climate governance vis-à-vis existing urban governance regimes: how urban climate governance is driven and delivered, what new governance conditions emerge, and whether these conditions enable transformative climate governance. In both cities, an integrated, 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. 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, these transformative 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 will be to develop rigorous institutional and organisational conditions that decisively stipulate a prioritisation of climate change across scales and sectors, provide action mandates and enable wider coordination, collaboration and learning. Highlights • Climate governance activities in cities drive deep changes in urban governance. • Transformative climate governance (TCG) supports desirable urban transformations. • Capacities for TCG manifest in new institutional, knowledge and network conditions. • Visioning, goal and knowledge integration and experimentation create TCG capacities. • Top-down institutional and organisational conditions need to be strengthened for TCG. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]