scholarly journals Urban Governance and Decision-making under Climate Change: a Critical Review of Frameworks, Methods and Tools from the Perspectives of Ecological Economics and Sustainability Science

Author(s):  
Vitaliy Soloviy ◽  
Ion Dubovich

Over the past 10-15 years, cities have emerged as clear leaders in global climate action. The wealth of frameworks, methods and tools aimed to support urban climate governance and decision-making have created a picture of progress on the topic, however, practical examples of success are limited to a limited group of forerunners. This research aims to address the gap between needs, theory and practice, by providing a critical review of the current developments from the lenses of sustainability science and ecological economics. Based on their integration, we developed ten minimum criteria for development and selection of actionable means: (1) legitimacy, salience and credibility; (2) consideration of social-ecological-economic dynamics; (3) critical pluralism; (4) inclusivity; (5) equality; (6) nexus; (7) transparency; (8) usability; (9) VUCA-fit; 10) transformative potential. The minimum criteria were used to assess 10 selected frameworks, 13 methods and 9 tools, providing decision-makers initial guidelines for making better choices. The analysis revealed that while comprehensive urban climate governance frameworks already exist, sophistication and usability of decision-support methods and tools require further work, while common reliance on simple means limits available opportunities. Thus, it is important to make multi-criteria, multi-objective, adaptive and robust approaches better accessible to urban decision-makers beyond the expert circles to support more effective climate action, while the suggested minimum criteria can be used to provide initial guidelines for such developments.

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 128-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Chu ◽  
Todd Schenk ◽  
James Patterson

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


2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Wolfram ◽  
Jeroen van der Heijden ◽  
Sirkku Juhola ◽  
James Patterson

Author(s):  
Audrey de Nazelle ◽  
Charlotte J. Roscoe ◽  
Aina Roca-Barcelό ◽  
Giselle Sebag ◽  
Gudrun Weinmayr ◽  
...  

Motivated by a growing recognition of the climate emergency, reflected in the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26), we outline untapped opportunities to improve health through ambitious climate actions in cities. Health is a primary reason for climate action yet is rarely integrated in urban climate plans as a policy goal. This is a missed opportunity to create sustainable alliances across sectors and groups, to engage a broad set of stakeholders, and to develop structural health promotion. In this statement, we first briefly review the literature on health co-benefits of urban climate change strategies and make the case for health-promoting climate action; we then describe barriers to integrating health in climate action. We found that the evidence-base is often insufficiently policy-relevant to be impactful. Research rarely integrates the complexity of real-world systems, including multiple and dynamic impacts of strategies, and consideration of how decision-making processes contend with competing interests and short-term electoral cycles. Due to siloed-thinking and restrictive funding opportunities, research often falls short of the type of evidence that would be most useful for decision-making, and research outputs can be cryptic to decision makers. As a way forward, we urge researchers and stakeholders to engage in co-production and systems thinking approaches. Partnering across sectors and disciplines is urgently needed so pathways to climate change mitigation and adaptation fully embrace their health-promoting potential and engage society towards the huge transformations needed. This commentary is endorsed by the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology (ISEE) and the International Society for Urban Health (ISUH) and accompanies a sister statement oriented towards stakeholders (published on the societies’ websites).


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 1085-1090
Author(s):  
Sara Hughes ◽  
Sarah Giest ◽  
Laura Tozer

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document