Van der Heijden et al. 2018 - Original Manuscript
The Version of Record of this manuscript has been published and is available in:
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1513832
Special section: advancing the role of cities in climate
governance – promise, limits, politics
Jeroen van der Heijden a,b, James Patterson c,d, Sirkku Juhola e, Marc Wolfram f
a) School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand;
b) School of Regulation and Global Governance, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia;
c) Sustainability and Environment, Open University, Heerlen, the Netherlands;
d) Department of Environmental Policy Analysis, VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands;
e) Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland;
f) Department of Architecture, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea.
Abstract
This special section contributes to scholarly debates about the role of cities in global
climate governance, reflecting on the promise, limits, and politics of cities as agents
of change. It takes an empirically-informed approach drawing on diverse
geographical and political contexts. Overall, this special section aims to stimulate
reflection and debate about where understanding and practice needs
improvement to advance the role of cities in global climate governance. Key
questions that are addressed include: To what extent do real world experiences
confirm or challenge the high expectations of cities as agents and sites of change in
addressing global climate change as expressed in urban climate governance
literature? In what ways do internal political dynamics of cities enable or constrain
urban climate governance? How is climate governance in cities enabled and
constrained by interactions with broader governance levels? In what ways can
climate governance in cities be advanced through critical attention to the previous
issues?
Keywords: Cities; climate governance; governance experiments; multilevel
governance
1 Introduction
Over the last two decades, a burgeoning literature has emerged on the role of cities
in climate governance. This literature has identified compelling possibilities for
innovative urban climate governance through experimentation and novel forms of
agency at the city level, which hold promise for advancing global climate
governance, despite political stagnation at national and international levels (Betsill
and Bulkeley 2006; Bulkeley and Betsill 2013; Bulkeley, Castan Broto, and Edwards
2015; Evans et al. 2006; Hoffmann 2011; Rosenzweig et al. 2018; van der Heijden
2014). Yet, despite the widespread hope being invested in cities as agents and sites
of change in addressing global climate change, there remains a worrying lack of
robust evidence for their effectiveness and ability to fulfill this role (Bansard, Pattberg,
and Widerberg 2017; Bulkeley et al. 2014; Johnson 2018; van der Heijden 2017). In
similar vein, there remains a worrying lack of assessment of whether the current urban
elites involved in reshaping (local) climate change governance have a substantive
Page 1
Van der Heijden et al. 2018 - Original Manuscript
The Version of Record of this manuscript has been published and is available in:
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1513832
interest in global climate change and transformation since dominant discourses are
rather about resource security, green growth, smart cities, and so on (Hayden 2014;
Hodson and Marvin 2014).
What is urgently required is a critical reflection on the role of cities in climate
governance, particularly to increase our understanding as to whether city
involvement in global climate governance lives up to the high normative
expectations expressed. Such reflection is important for understanding how the
potential of cities as agents of change in global climate governance can be more
fully realized, not only in theoretical terms but also in terms of the day-to-day
practicalities that cities experience. This is the aim of this special section: to critically
reflect on the notion of cities as agents of change in addressing climate change.
This special section presents four papers produced in the EU COST program
(European Cooperation in Science and Technology) “Innovations in Climate
Governance” (INOGOV; www.inogov.eu). The INOGOV program aims to identify
innovative forms of policy and governance for climate change, where and how
these have emerged, and how they are diffused across time, space and different
modes and levels of governing. The program particularly seeks to build a stronger
evaluation capacity to assess the actual impacts and effects of such policy and
governance innovations. The four papers are part of an INOGOV workshop held at
the University of Amsterdam on 22 and 23 September 2016. The workshop sought to
map, explore and interrogate examples of innovative and experimental urban
climate governance across the globe.
2 Framing the issue
The potential for cities to act and organize in innovative ways is well-established. For
example, it has been argued that urban experimentation has the potential to
reconfigure wider governance arrangements through actions that shift relations
between actors, creating possibilities to be institutionalized on a broader scale
(Hodson and Marvin 2010; Hoffmann 2011; Sassen 2015). Other scholars have argued
that especially urban leaders from the private sector and civil society can play a key
role in creating and promoting new innovative practices (Loorbach et al. 2016;
Sassen 2015). Overall, cities are now widely viewed as having a key role in climate
governance, both within and outside of formal international diplomacy, a role which
may become even more crucial within increasingly unstable geopolitical contexts
that threaten to delay or even roll back international climate change action
(Andonova, Hale, and Roger 2017).
Yet, it is also important to recognize that cities are not divorced from the broader
multi-level governance systems and political contexts in which they are embedded
(Bulkeley and Betsill 2005, 2013; Franziska et al. 2017). Current scholarly literature
therefore partly risks over-romanticizing the potential of cities and underplaying key
challenges when it promotes cities (implicitly or explicitly) as an ideal scale for
addressing global climate change (for critiques to such over-romanticising, see
among others Davies and Imbroscio (2009); Evans, Karvonen, and Raven (2016);
Johnson (2018); Johnson, Toly, and Schroeder (2015); van der Heijden (2018b)). For
example, counter to the common implication that cities are “natural” sites for
innovative and experimental climate action in a progressive direction (Evans,
Karvonen, and Raven 2016), they may equally work in much more conservative or
Page 2
Van der Heijden et al. 2018 - Original Manuscript
The Version of Record of this manuscript has been published and is available in:
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1513832
even opposite ways (Ansell and Bartenberger 2016; Hodson and Marvin 2014). This
issue has, however, had limited attention in the urban climate governance literature.
Governing cities involves constellations of actors across multiple policy sectors and
jurisdictional levels. This is particularly true when it comes to urban climate
governance, which has come to refer to “the ways in which public, private, and civil
society actors and institutions articulate climate goals, exercise influence and
authority, and manage urban climate planning and implementation processes”
(Anguelovski and Carmin 2011, 169). Decision-making in cities occurs across diverse
policy sectors (e.g. water, energy, urban planning, and transport), which may be
fragmented and involve many other public and private actors (e.g. civil society,
small and large industry) (Agyeman and Angus 2003; Dent et al. 2016; Knieling 2016;
Luque-Ayala, Marvin, and Bulkeley 2018).
Moreover, especially larger cities usually comprise multiple municipalities within a
metropolitan region; for example, metropolitan Santiago, Chile contains 34
municipalities, all of which have their own mayors and administrations. Thus, ‘cities’
are not singular, homogenous entities that act in one particular way or another;
instead they are complex and dynamic sites of contested interests, concerns, and
powers. When considering cities as potential agents of change, it is important not to
black-box them, but to be mindful of their fragmented internal politics (Hughes 2017;
Taylor 2016).
Cities are also clearly influenced by actors and arrangements at multiple levels of
governance (e.g. state/provincial, national, and international). They can, at times,
act autonomously, but often remain dependent on higher-level authorities, nongovernmental actors, or both (Dent et al. 2016; Hughes, Chu, and Mason 2018;
Knieling 2016; van der Heijden 2018a). For example, in Australia municipalities are
products of state governments, who devolve a certain set of regulation-making
authorities to a local level, yet states remain the ultimate sources of jurisdictional
authority. The powers and boundaries of municipalities can be re-shaped by states,
and state policy and planning decisions are typically binding for municipalities
(Brenner 2004). Politically, municipalities have “soft power” to influence state-level
decision-making through mobilizing constituencies of citizens and organizational
actors. On the other hand, municipalities may benefit from robust policies and plans
at state/provincial or national governments that provide legitimacy and resources
for climate action. Hence, cities are not entirely autonomous, and can either be
hindered or benefit from activity at higher jurisdictional levels.
From a democratic perspective, there may indeed be unexpected tensions involved
with an emphasis on cities taking up new roles in climate governance (van der
Heijden 2017). Typically, cities are assumed to empower citizens and minority groups
in climate governance (e.g., Transition Towns, citizen participation in municipal plan
development). This is assumed to particularly help in achieving social sustainability,
and to balance social goals with environmental and economic ones because of the
relatively short distance between municipalities and citizens compared to other
levels of government (Evans 2011). But, at the same time, if decision-making
responsibility for large and contested societal issues is shifted to cities to ostensibly
avoid inertia and controversy at higher levels of government, it would be vital to
ensure that democratic processes are not undermined (Enright and Rossi 2018; Jayne
and Ward 2017). For example, cities may not be well equipped to handle intense
political and industrial lobbying which may descend on them, while also broader
participatory processes for citizens beyond the territory of the central municipality
Page 3
Van der Heijden et al. 2018 - Original Manuscript
The Version of Record of this manuscript has been published and is available in:
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1513832
are often not available. Paradoxically, a growing emphasis on the agency of cities
could potentially undermine their own autonomy, if increasing interest-led
contestation and manipulation hinders their previous freedom to act boldly ‘under
the radar’.
3 The papers in this special section
The papers in this special section contribute to scholarly debates about the role of
cities in global climate governance, reflecting on the promise, limits, and politics of
cities as agents of change. In sketching out the issues above, there are many
potential questions raised about the promise, limits, and politics of cities. We have
asked contributors to this special section to move beyond normative expectations
on the role of cities in global climate governance and focus on the day-to-day
practicalities experienced by real world cities. The papers make visible and critically
reflect on the role of cities in climate governance and the problems they face in
practice, thus providing new insights about the changing role of cities in global
climate governance. The contributions explore a variety of angles, and all build on
novel empirical data.
As such, this special section contributes to broader scholarly debates on polycentric
climate governance (Jordan et al. 2015) through a focus on cities as agents of
change within wider climate governance systems. More broadly, it also contributes
to emerging debates about the role of the state within the complex and the
dispersed nature of contemporary governance e.g. via devolved authority from
state/provincial or national levels to municipalities, and via multi-level interplay
between cities and higher-level jurisdictions (Bell and Hindmoor 2009; Duit, Feindt,
and Meadowcroft 2016), where urban climate governance provides a case in point.
The first paper, by Patterson and Huitema (forthcoming), looks at urban water
governance in Santiago, Chile. The case is explored to better understand institutional
innovation for adapting to climate change in urban governance. The authors argue
that adaptability in urban governance is needed to deal with the uncertainties,
dynamics, and disruptions of climate change in cities. They are particularly interested
in understanding how institutional innovation can overcome rigidity and pathdependence, and identify a lack of conceptual understanding regarding such
institutional innovation that undermines systematic scholarly investigation, as well as
innovation efforts in practice. The authors introduce a three-level heuristic for
analyzing institutional innovation: the visible changes in institutional arrangements,
the changes in underlying rules, and the relationship to broader governance
dilemmas. Their empirical analysis indicates that Santiago had to find ways to
productively link existing systems of water resource management with urban climate
change adaptation. The analysis further shows how national policies and political
power structures limit the capacity of the city in bringing about institutional
innovations in their urban governance systems to adapt to climate change. The
paper opens up new avenues for critical reflection on claims about climate
governance innovation in cities.
The second paper, by Bernardo and D’Alessandro (forthcoming), addresses the
potential impact of Sustainable Energy Action Plans (SEAPs) through a case study of
Cascina Municipality, Italy. SEAPs are plans that accurately describe measures and
activities to fulfill the commitment of the Covenant of Mayors (CoM), an international
city-to-city network where local authorities commit to reduce carbon emissions by
Page 4
Van der Heijden et al. 2018 - Original Manuscript
The Version of Record of this manuscript has been published and is available in:
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1513832
20% before 2020. The paper empirically illustrates how, and to what extent, local
plans, such as SEAPs, can be a powerful tool for achieving the high ambitions of
cityto-city network initiatives for climate governance, and provide a means to cities
and city networks to effectuate the potential they hold as agents of change. The
authors develop an urban dynamic model to analyze the social implication of the
SEAP at local community level by applying a two-stage methodology. The first stage
elaborates qualitative participatory systems mapping to grasp the critical causal
relationships and feedback processes among a selected set of variables and
indicators. The second stage applies a tailored system dynamic micro-macro model
(SD3M) to quantitatively assess the impact of policies and initiatives on the social
economic and environmental dimensions by processing data gathered from a wide
range of sources. In directly working with local politicians and administrative staff,
Bernardo and D’Alessandro (forthcoming) show that a system analysis approach can
support them to increase the effectiveness of the plan by selecting the most
effective measures, and especially by generating collective learning on the systemic
implications of the SEAP. Besides presenting theoretically relevant insights, the paper
illustrates the potential of participatory research in urban climate governance for
building the capacities required to assess transparently and respond collectively.
The third paper, by Frey and Calderon Ramirez (forthcoming), studies the
Metropolitan Region of the Aburra Valley and particularly the city of Medellin,
Colombia, as an example of multi-level climate risk governance. Cities have
increasingly been confronted with climate change related disasters. Traditional
technocratic top-down approaches have proved inadequate to face disaster risks in
urban agglomerations. As a result, expectations have risen that through novel multilevel governance arrangements, metropolitan regions could become more resilient
by joining forces across scales and sectors, and are also more capable to implement
collective adaptation strategies. Under the leadership of the city of Medellin, and
integrated in the national risk governance system of Colombia, such a governance
arrangement has been established in the Metropolitan Area of the Aburra Valley:
Red Riesgos. Applying Social Network Analysis, Frey and Calderon Ramirez
(forthcoming) identify, characterize and analyze the institutional relations within this
new governance arrangement. They demonstrate that its effectiveness depends
principally on the protagonism of local governments and on their abilities to involve
local communities and citizens, but equally to interact constantly with the higher
level authorities in the implementation process, thus putting the ‘agency of cities’
into perspective. Comparable to the paper by Bernardo and D’Alessandro
(forthcoming), this paper provides insight into how cities can practically act as
agents of change in addressing climate change.
The fourth and final paper, by van der Heijden (forthcoming), questions whether and
how city governments should be involved in the development and implementation
of voluntary urban climate governance programs. Voluntary urban climate
governance has been posed to overcome shortfalls with mandatory, top-down,
state-led government interventions to address climate change risks. It seeks a
commitment from households and the private sector to improve their climate
performance, but without the force of law. It is suggested that rather than forcing
them to act, and penalizing them for non-compliance, they need to be incentivized
to freely take action and be rewarded for doing so. City governments are highly
active in voluntary urban climate governance, and particularly in the development
and implementation of voluntary programs for urban climate action. There is little
Page 5
Van der Heijden et al. 2018 - Original Manuscript
The Version of Record of this manuscript has been published and is available in:
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1513832
evidence, however, on whether their own involvement positively affects voluntary
program performance, or not. Through a qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) of
26 voluntary programs from cities in Australia, the Netherlands and the US, van der
Heijden illustrates that the city governments have had little impact on the programs’
performance. The author argues, however, that this does not mean city governments
should simply abandon their involvement, or that they should stop using voluntary
urban climate programs. Rather, the paper points out that city governments may
wish to rethink the way in which they are involved, and identifies several possibilities
to change this.
4 Concluding remarks and outlook
The papers in this special section emphasize the need for a more critical reflection on
the role of cities in climate governance. On normative grounds, high hopes have
been expressed of the capacity of cities - and particularly city governments and
other local actors - to take climate action, where governments and other
organizations at national and international level show stagnation. The four papers in
this special section partially support, but also challenge, these hopes and
expectations building on examples from the Global North (cities in Australia, Italy, the
Netherlands, and the United States) and the Global South (cities in Chile, Columbia,
and South Africa).
As indicated by the four papers, as agents of change for global sustainability
problems, cities - and particularly city governments - are ideally suited to translate
abstract national and international requirements to local circumstances. The papers
by Frey and Calderon Ramirez (forthcoming), and Bernardo and D’Alessandro
(forthcoming), for example, stress the critical role of city governments in stimulating
local actors to become involved in climate governance and take climate action.
Bernardo and D’Alessandro (forthcoming) further illustrate how, in collaboration with
local actors, city governments can help to achieve ambitions set by international
city-to-city networks. In turn, Frey and Calderon Ramirez (forthcoming) highlight the
critical role of the city government in accomplishing regional and national climate
governance ambitions. Yet, both papers also indicate that it asks for considerable
effort on the part of city governments to get local and higher tier actors involved,
and both papers indicate the fragile nature of the collaborations. Once
collaborations have been established, it cannot be taken for granted that they will
endure - either because local actors leave or because a new (city) government
takes a different policy course. The detailed case studies by Frey and Calderon
Ramirez (forthcoming), and Bernardo and D’Alessandro (forthcoming) thus also
underline the need for a more temporal understanding of climate governance
trajectories at city level: a good practice today may be no more tomorrow.
The papers by Patterson and Huitema (forthcoming), and van der Heijden
(forthcoming) extend these insights. Patterson and Huitema (forthcoming) question
whether and how urban climate governance innovations become institutionalized
and bring about enduring change. Their case studies illustrate climate governance
innovations occurring in urban water governance in Cape Town and Santiago, but
also question whether these innovations have brought about enduring change in the
urban governance system. Van der Heijden’s findings can be read in a similar light.
Whilst his paper identifies a range of voluntary urban climate governance programs,
it finds that only a few have resulted in enduring and large-scale change.
Page 6
Van der Heijden et al. 2018 - Original Manuscript
The Version of Record of this manuscript has been published and is available in:
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1513832
Comparable with the first two papers, these papers reflect the active roles played by
city governments and other local actors, but also the many complications faced by
them in accelerating climate action at the local level. They particularly stress the
relevance of a comparative focus on climate governance at the city level. What is a
good practice in one city will by no means yield similar results in another city. Whilst
this is, at first glance, an obvious insight, the urban climate governance literature is
still devoid of systematic comparative studies (Jayne and Ward 2017; Luque-Ayala,
Marvin, and Bulkeley 2018; Rosenzweig et al. 2018). Specifically, the van der Heijden
paper (forthcoming) indicates how a systematic comparative study not only helps to
better understand the role of cities in urban climate governance, but how it may also
help to generate hands-on lessons for city governments and other local actors to
strengthen their roles in, and impact on, urban climate action.
From a methodological perspective, the papers in this special issue have illustrated
how alternative methods and research designs help to open up new pathways for
urban climate scholarship. Patterson and Huitema (forthcoming) point to the
relevance of comparative case studies if we wish to better understand the role of
cities as agents of change in urban climate governance. Frey and Calderon Ramirez
(forthcoming) illustrate the value of Social Network Analysis (SNA), particularly to
understand the emergence of new coordination patterns in multilevel climate
governance. SNA helps them identify and discuss the various functions performed by
actors in the Metropolitan Region of the Aburra Valley, Colombia, as well as making
conjectures with other factors that affect the performance of the Red Riesgos
network. Bernardo and D’Allesandro (forthcoming) illustrate the value of
Participatory System Mapping (PSM) - the co-development of a qualitative model of
climate governance together with the policy makers and stakeholders involved. This
qualitative model informs a next step in their research, which applies a System
Dynamic Mico-Marco Model (SD3M) to assess the impact of policies and initiatives
on a range of social economic and environmental dimensions. As illustrated by the
authors, this research approach not only resulted in relevant lessons for academia
and policy in general, but has also helped policymakers and stakeholders in Cascina
Municipality, Italy. Van der Heijden illustrates the value of Qualitative Comparative
Analysis (QCA) for studying a medium set of voluntary urban climate programs. In
applying this method, van der Heijden is capable of drawing detailed lessons on the
roles of city governments in voluntary climate governance, and how their roles affect
local climate action.
Altogether, the four papers urge nuance and detention before jumping to quick
conclusions about the role of cities in global climate governance. On normative
grounds, there is much to say for (more) city involvement in climate governance:
Cities are the level closest to the citizens; it is in cities where the rubber of national
policies and international agreements hit the ground, and cities have a certain room
for manoeuvre to walk new pathways. Yet, as the four papers have illustrated, city
action is not necessarily straightforward, or likely to be a panacea for inaction at
other levels. They point to a need for rigorous, critical, and systematic studies on the
role of cities - large and small, in the Global North and South - as a priority area for
further research on global climate governance.
Page 7
Van der Heijden et al. 2018 - Original Manuscript
The Version of Record of this manuscript has been published and is available in:
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1513832
Acknowledgements
On behalf of all participants to the INOGOV workshop we wish to thank Professor Rob
Imrie (Goldsmits, University of London), Professor Kristine Kern (University of Potsdam),
and Professor Jonathan Davies (De Montfoort University) for active participation
during the workshop and for providing essential feedback to earlier versions of the
papers included in this special section. We also thank the INOGOV organisation for
support.
References
Agyeman, J., and B. Angus. 2003. “The Role of Civic Environmentalism in the Pursuit of Sustainable
Communities.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 46 (3): 345–363.
Andonova, L., T. Hale, and C. Roger. 2017. “National Policy and Transnational Governance of Climate
Change: Substitutes or Complements?” International Studies Quarterly 61 (2): 153–267.
Anguelovski, I., and J. Carmin. 2011. “Something Borrowed, Everything New: Innovation and
Institutionalization in Urban Climate Governance.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 3
(3): 169–175.
Ansell, C., and M. Bartenberger. 2016. “Varieties of Experimentatlism.” Ecological Economics 130: 64–73.
Bansard, J., P. Pattberg, and O. Widerberg. 2017. “Cities to the Rescue? Assessing the Performance of
Transnational Municipal Networks in Global Climate Governance.” International Environmental
Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 17 (2): 229–246. doi:10.1007/s10784-016-9318-9
Bell, S., and A. Hindmoor. 2009. Rethinking Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bernardo, G., and S. D’Alessandro. Forthcoming. “Societal Implications of Sustainable Energy Action
Plans: From Energy Modelling to Stakeholder Learning.” Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management.
Betsill, M., and H. Bulkeley. 2006. “Cities and the Multilevel Governance of Global Climate Change.”
Global Governance 12 (2): 141–159.
Brenner, N. 2004. New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Bulkeley, H., L. B. Andonova, M. Betsill, D. Compagnion, T. Hale, M. J. Hoffmann, P. Newell, et al. 2014.
Transnational Climate Change Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bulkeley, H., and M. Betsill. 2005. “Rethinking Sustainable Cities: Multilevel Governance and the ‘Urban’
Politics of Climate Change.” Environmental Politics 14 (1): 42–63.
Bulkeley, H., and M. Betsill. 2013. “Revisiting the Urban Politics of Climate Change.” Environmental Politics
22 (1): 136–154.
Bulkeley, H., V. Castan Broto, and G. Edwards. 2015. An Urban Politics of Climate Change:
Experimentation and the Governing of Socio-Technical Transitions. Abingdon: Routledge.
Davies, J., and D. Imbroscio. 2009. Theories of Urban Politics. London: Sage.
Dent, C., C. Bale, Z. Wadud, and H. Voss. 2016. “Cities, Energy and Climate Change Mitigation.” Cities
54: 1–3.
Duit, A., P. Feindt, and J. Meadowcroft. 2016. “Greening Leviathan: The Rise of the Environmental
State?” Environmental Politics 25 (1): 1–23.
Enright, T., and U. Rossi, eds. 2018. The Urban Political: Ambivalent Spaces of Late Neoliberalism. Cham:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Page 8
Van der Heijden et al. 2018 - Original Manuscript
The Version of Record of this manuscript has been published and is available in:
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1513832
Evans, B., M. Joas, S. Sundback, and K. Theobald. 2006. “Governing Local Sustainability.” Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management 49 (6): 849–867.
Evans, J. 2011. “Resilience, Ecology and Adaptation in the Experimental City.” Transactions of the
Institute of British Geographers 36 (2): 223–237.
Evans, J., A. Karvonen, and R. Raven, eds. 2016. The Experimental City. London: Routledge.
Franziska, E., K. Florian, B. Sara, G. Leen, M. Steffen, and E. Markus. 2017. “Urban Sustainability Transitions
in a Context of Multi-Level Governance: A Comparison of Four European States.” Environmental
Innovation and Societal Transitions 26: 101–116.
Frey, K. and D. R. Calderon Ramirez. Forthcoming. “Multi-Level Network Governance of Disaster Risks:
The Case of the Metropolitan Region of the Aburra Valley (Medellin, Colombia).” Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management. doi:10.1080/09640568.2018.1470968
Hayden, A. 2014. When Green Growth Is Not Enough: Climate Change, Ecological Modernization, and
Sufficiency. Quebec: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Hodson, M., and S. Marvin. 2010. “Can Cities Shape Socio-Technical Transitions and How Would We
Know If They Were?” Research Policy 39 (4): 477–485.
Hodson, M., and S. Marvin. 2014. After Sustainable Cities? Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.
Hoffmann, M. 2011. Climate Governance at the Crossroads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hughes, S. 2017. “The Politics of Urban Climate Change Policy: Toward a Research Agenda.” Urban
Affairs Review 53 (2): 362–380. 8 J. van der Heijden et al.
Hughes, S., E. Chu, and S. Mason, eds. 2018. Climate Change in Cities: Innovations in Multi-Level
Governance. Cham: Springer.
Jayne, M., and K. Ward, eds. 2017. Urban Theory: New Critical Perspectives. London: Routledge.
Johnson, C. 2018. The Power of Cities in Global Climate Politics: Saviours, Supplicants or Agents of
Change? London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Johnson, C., Toly, N., and Schroeder, H., eds. 2015. The Urban Climate Challenge. Abingdon: Routledge.
Jordan, A. J., D. Huitema, M. Hild en, H. van Asselt, T. J. Rayner, J. J. Schoenefeld, J. Tosun, J. Forster,
and E. L. Boasson. 2015. “Emergence of Polycentric Climate Governance and Its Future Prospects.”
Nature Climate Change 5 (11): 977–982.
Knieling, J., ed. 2016. Climate Adaptation in Cities and Regions. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Loorbach, D., J. Wittmayer, H. Shiroyama, J. Fujina, and S. Mizuguchi, eds. 2016. Governance of Urban
Sustainability Transitions. Tokyo: Springer.
Luque-Ayala, A., S. Marvin, and H. Bulkeley, eds. 2018. Rethinking Urban Transitions. London: Routledge.
Patterson, J. J., and D. Huitema. Forthcoming. “Institutional Innovation in Urban Governance: The Case
of Climate Change Adaptation.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management.
Rosenzweig, C., W. Solecki, P. Romero-Lankao, S. Mehrotra, S. Dhakal, and S. Ali Ibrahim. 2018. Climate
Change and Cities: Second Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sassen, S. 2015. Bringing Cities into the Global Climate Framework. In The Urban Climate Challenge,
edited by C. Johnson, N. Toly, and H. Schroeder, 24–36. London: Routledge.
Taylor, A. 2016. “Institutional Inertia in a Changing Climate: Climate Adaptation Planning in Cape Town.”
International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management 8 (2): 194–211.
van der Heijden, J. 2014. Governance for Urban Sustainability and Resilience: Responding to Climate
Change and the Relevance of the Built Environment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
van der Heijden, J. 2017. Innovations in Urban Climate Governance: Voluntary Programs for Low Carbon
Buildings and Cities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van der Heijden, J. 2018a. “Cities and Sub-National Governance: High Ambitions, Innovative Instruments
and Polycentric Collaborations.” In Policentricity in Action, edited by A. Jordan, and D. Huitema,
81–96. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Page 9
Van der Heijden et al. 2018 - Original Manuscript
The Version of Record of this manuscript has been published and is available in:
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1513832
van der Heijden, J. 2018b. “The Limits of Voluntary Programs for Low-Carbon Buildings for Staying under
1.5 C.” COSUST 30: 59–66.
van der Heijden, J. Forthcoming. “Voluntary Urban Climate Programmes: Should City Governments Be
Involved and, If So, How?” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management.
doi:10.1080/09640568.2017.1406344
Page 10
Van der Heijden et al. 2018 - Original Manuscript
The Version of Record of this manuscript has been published and is available in:
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1513832
Page 11