Urban Arena Wiki:Rich description template
characterization of Governance Interventions for Sustainable & Just Cities
a) Basic characteristics and ambitions of the intervention
1. What is the name and the urban context (e.g. city/district) of the intervention? Please also indicate the geographical scale of the intervention (e.g. neighborhood, district, small/medium/ capital city, metropolitan area ...). [Example: “Brixton Energy in Brixton, London (neighborhood in capital city)”]
answer
2. What sector(s) (alias domain/ policy field) is the intervention primarily implemented in ? [e.g. housing, mobility, energy, water, health, local economy, biodiversity, CC adaptation, etc.]
answer
3. What is the intervention (i.e. situated experiment) aiming to achieve in terms of sustainability and justice? [If possible, please copy from a project website and give a reference]
answer
4. What is the interventions’ timeframe?
answer
5. By what governance mode is the intervention characterized primarily? (see distinction of three governance modes in Appendix 2)
answer
6. Why do you consider it worthwhile to study and share experiences made in the context of this governance intervention for sustainable and just cities?[1]
answer
7. In which project deliverable(s) or other documents can information be found on this situated (i.e. place specific) governance intervention?
answer
b) Additional basic characteristics, links to earlier UrbanA work
8. EU Project-context of the intervention:
- a. Has the intervention been developed or studied in the context of an (EU-funded?) project? (please name the project, its duration and include a link to the project website here).
answer
- b. According to WP3’s database of approaches, which approach(es) does the intervention best fit under? Where applicable, please indicate if the intervention is found in a project that has been explicitly mentioned in the database.
answer
- c. Have some project deliverables been coded in the context of UrbanA’s WP4?
answer
9. Problematization and priority:
- a. How exactly has inequality and exclusion been problematized (by whom) in the context of this intervention?
answer
- b. Has the achievement of justice explicitly been named as a major motivation behind the intervention?
answer
- c. Which drivers of injustice does the intervention address? (see descriptions of Drivers in Appendix 1)
| Drivers of injustice | Based on WP4 coding | Based on own assessment | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | Yes | No | |
| 1. Uneven and excluding development of existing urban space | ||||
| 2. Material and livelihood inequalities | ||||
| 3. Unaddressed consequences of urban intensification | ||||
| 4. Racialized or Ethnically Exclusionary Urbanization | ||||
| 5. Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities | ||||
| 6. Unquestioned neoclassical economics and neoliberal growth/austerity | ||||
| 7. Exclusive Access to the Benefits of Urban Sustainability Infrastructure | ||||
| 8. Uneven env. health and pollution patterns | ||||
| 9. No or tokenistic participation in/engagement with urban governance | ||||
| 10. Institutional dysfunction (scale, discipline and sectoral) | ||||
| 11. Weak(ened) civil society | ||||
c) Actor constellations
10. Who initiated the intervention?
answer
11. Who are the envisioned benefiters of the intervention? (both at a local level and higher, if applicable)
answer
12. Who else is (going to be) involved in the intervention, and what was/is their main role?
| Actor types[2] | Yes | Actor name and role[3] |
|---|---|---|
| Academic organizations | ||
| Religious organizations | ||
| Civil society organizations | ||
| Hybrid/ 3rd sector organizations | ||
| Platforms | ||
| NGOs | ||
| Social movements | ||
| Political parties | ||
| Media | ||
| Unions | ||
| Social entreprises | ||
| For profit entreprises | ||
| Local/regional government |
13. Which particular interactions among various stakeholders (stakeholder configurations) were crucial in enabling the intervention to emerge successfully? This could include direct or indirect impacts on interventions.
answer
14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?
answer
15. How are responsibilities and/or decision-making power distributed among actors?
answer
16. Exclusion:
- a. Which stakeholders or social groups were excluded (at which stages)?
answer
- b. Is there any indication why this may have happened? With what outcomes? Has anything been done to overcome such exclusions?
answer
d) Enabling conditions for the implementation of the intervention
17. What circumstances or events are reported to have triggered the intervention? (In what ways?)
answer
18. Are particular substantive (multi-level) governmental policies considered to be highly influential in the genesis and shaping of the intervention? (If easily possible, please specify the policy, the policy field and the governance level mainly addressed, and characterize it along the ‘policy typology’ of Appendix 2)
answer
19. What constitutional responsibilities and rules does the intervention build upon? In other words, what rights, powers, and/or responsibilities, does the country's constitution (in a broad sense) award municipalities, states, utilities, NGOs, citizens etc. and how does this impact the intervention?
answer
20. According to project material/and or interviews, in what ways have particularities of (local) political culture influenced the character and success of the intervention? (i.e. trust in political institutions, citizens’ will to interact with policy makers and vice versa, traditions of cooperation etc.)
answer
21. What are financial arrangements that support the intervention?
answer
22. Have any of the above conditions changed within the intervention’s timeframe, which have (significantly) influenced it in a positive or negative way?
answer
Note: Certain contexts, which provide opportunities to learn from other relevant experiences, may also be a supportive framework condition. Please see section h, questions 26 + 30 on learning context.
e) Obstacles to successful intervention implementation
23. What obstacles to implementing the intervention (both generally, and in this particular context) have been identified, relating to:
- a. Regulatory framework
answer
- b. Legitimacy
answer
- c. Public awareness
answer
- d. Finances
answer
- e. Others (please name)
answer
f) (Institutional) Work done to overcome obstacles
24. What has been done by each central actor group to overcome which particular obstacles in the way of successfully implementing the intervention? (this may include institutional Work - maintaining, disrupting, and creating new rules, applying to both formal laws/regulations and informal norms and expectations.)
| Name of obstacle | What work was/is being done to overcome this obstacle and by what actor groups? |
|---|---|
| 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. |
g) Reported outcomes
25. What are reported outcomes of the intervention? This may include economic outcomes, political outcomes, ability to reach sustainability and justice targets, etc.
add the table
h) Learning involved in establishing the intervention
Please fill in any information on social learning that has occured in this intervention (conceptualized here as “Learning context, content, and process” in line with the FOODLINKS project)[4]. Where possible, please differentiate your response into learning done by specific actor groups.
Learning context
(i.e. the configuration and social environment enabling the learning process)
26. According to the TRANSIT project’s four mechanisms for empowerment – i. funding; ii. legitimacy; iii. knowledge sharing, learning, and peer support; or iv. visibility and identity – please briefly describe the following, and indicate where the intervention has been developed or supported as part of which formal collaborations, networks or projects:
- a. any previous experiences in the same urban context (e.g. city…) that the intervention is (reportedly) building upon? This could include any relevant experiences in the same or another sector.
answer
- b. any inter-city partnerships, or transfers from experiences elsewhere that have (reportedly) been important in the emergence of this intervention?
answer
Learning content
27. Has any acquired knowledge (e.g. technical knowledge, awareness of local political procedures etc.) been reported as particularly helpful to this intervention?
- a. from previous experiences in the same urban context
answer
- b. from inter-city partnerships, or transfers from experiences elsewhere
answer
- c. from other knowledge gathering/research
answer
Learning process
28. In what ways has the intervention been adapted to specific circumstances of the targeted urban context based on the learned content reported in question 27?
answer
29. Based on your answers to question 24, how has overcoming obstacles (reportedly) contributed to the learning process?
answer
30. Please list any tools that enabled the learning process (e.g. various Knowledge Brokerage Activities from pg. 24 of FOODLINK’s Deliverable 7.1 - linked in footnote)[5] and the actors involved in using them.
answer
i) Learning involved in establishing interventions elsewhere (transferability)
31. Suggestions regarding transferability.
- a. Have any suggestions been made about a replicability, scaleability or transferability of the intervention? [e.g. in the documentation of the intervention in a project or the press? Links would be perfect]
answer
- b. Transferability to what kind of contexts has been suggested?
answer
- c. Who has made the claims?
answer
- d. What limits to transferability to broader contexts have been discussed?
answer
32. In what forms has the learning process, including stories of overcoming obstacles, been recorded for, and/or made accessible to city makers also from elsewhere?[6]
answer
33. Have any signs of collaboration, support, or inspiration already been reported between actors involved in this intervention and others that follow its example? (e.g. in “follower cities”?)
answer
j) Structural learning
34. Has the intervention influenced higher-level governance arrangements such that sustainability and justice are considered (together) in a more durable, structural way? In other words, are there any observations about more structural, long-term changes as a result of the intervention?
- For example: new programs run by local councils, new modes of citizen participation, new mediating bodies
- Is there other evidence that the project has contributed to enhancing sustainable and just governance in cities in a general sense?
answer
k) Reflections on important governance concepts
35. What other aspects of governance, that were not covered above, are important to highlight, too?
answer
36. From your perspective as a researcher, which word or phrase characterizes this governance intervention most concisely? (Please attach your name to the characterization) In other words, what is the biggest takeaway from this intervention about governance arrangements?
answer
Appendix 1: Descriptions of drivers of injustice
(from WP4)
| Drivers of injustices | Sample Descriptions |
|---|---|
| 1. Uneven and excluding development of existing urban space | Urban regeneration/revitalization: Traditional (grey) urban regeneration/revitalization; Urban regeneration done top-down; Uneven urban regeneration/revitalization/greening neglecting historically low-income/migrant neighborhoods; |
| Gentrification: Lack of affordable business or creative spaces (for young people with little economic and social capital) to start a project (Birmingham); Real estate development on green space or community gardens | |
| 2. Material and livelihood inequalities | Income inequality/low incomes: low incomes (lower than minimal wage) & high rental prices; … low wages as obstacles to achieving well being; Transport/mobility poverty; ... |
| Lack of affordable housing/real estate: Lack of affordable housing affecting access to privileged (green) neighbourhoods (Heidelberg); Lack of affordable business or creative spaces (for young people with little economic and social capital) to start a project (Birmingham); Financialisation of housing market; ... | |
| Lack of access to healthy food: Income inequality affecting access to green space for healthy food; Racial or ethnic injustices, inequalities and segregation in relation to access to green space for food cultivation; Urban expansion increases the distance in food chains (Lisbon); | |
| 3. Unaddressed consequences of urban intensification | Urban densification/expansion: Real estate development on green space or community gardens; … Urban densification and thus lack of/poor quality/insufficient (public) healthy spaces; ... Urban densification as a cause for environmental pollution and lack of space for NBS; Urban expansion unevenly increasing the need for mobility solutions; Urban densification as challenge to new sustainable buildings; |
| Lack of access to healthy food | |
| 4. Racialized or Ethnically Exclusionary Urbanization | Racial injustices and inequalities / racism: inequalities and segregation in relation to access to green space for food cultivation; Racism against refugees excludes them from cities, reducing social cohesion and the ability for a community to combat environmental injustices; Racial/ethnic inequalities/housing segregation translating in mobility injustices; ... |
| Racial/ethnic segregation: ... Segregated housing leading to unequal access to healthy and green public spaces due to majority of greening occuring in city center; | |
| Long-term/historical neglect of minority neighborhoods: Lack of access to processes of environmental assessment/invisibilisation of env health hazards (of disadvantaged groups); ... Unequal exposure to environmental health hazards in historically neglected neighborhoods; Uneven urban regeneration/revitalization/greening neglecting historically low-income/migrant neighborhoods; | |
| 5. Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities | Little or no access to (environmental) education and to knowledge on innovative solutions that can address (environmental) problems): ...Sustainability-related practices being exclusive / elite environmentalism; Lack of (access to) local/self-organized initiatives for sustainability and well being;... |
| 6. Unquestioned neoclassical economics and neoliberal growth/austerity | Privatisation and commodification of public space (including parks, other urban nature etc.) and sustainable practices |
| Neoliberal (austerity) urbanism: Urban inequality at times of austerity (spending cuts and welfare reform); ... Lack of resources (data, time, funding, man-power); Greening and NBS are not prioritized in municipal budgeting; ... | |
| Globalised markets/globalisation: Globalisation of food chains decreasing access to healthy food (all); Financialisation of housing market; strain of globalisation on local networks/'local rootedness' in communities; | |
| Growth-oriented indicators of well being/ progress (narrowly defined): … Assessment of well-being and progress based on GDP ignoring social (including gender) inequalities and environmental issues;... | |
| 7. Exclusive Access to the Benefits of Urban Sustainability Infrastructure | Lack of (access to) /poor quality/insufficient (public) green/blue spaces and other sustainability-oriented interventions/measures |
| Increased (perception of) crime/lack of safety in public/green spaces | |
| Gender inequalities | |
| Age-related inequalities: Ageing population being excluded from new urban (green) developments (accessibility, noise levels, safety); Lack of (access to) green/healthy spaces (especially for vulnerable groups e.g. children); Lack of participatory/inclusive spaces for young people ... | |
| 8. Uneven env. health and pollution patterns | Unequal exposure to health risks/hazards |
| Polluted soils/post industrial sites | |
| 9. No or tokenistic participation in/engagement with urban governance | No or tokenistic participation in neighbourhood development schemes and urban planning: … Top-down exclusive decision making processes … Multilingual societies fail to meaningfully include linguistic minorities … Lack of community organisation(s) as a barrier for meaningful participation processes;... |
| Corruption and/or mistrust in institutions: Political corruption/ organized crime (mafia); Crisis of legitimacy/increasing distance (perceived and real) between decision makers and citizens; Lack of trust towards the state and institutions; a lack of inclusive, democratic decision making procedures; | |
| 10. Institutional dysfunction (scale, discipline and sectoral) | Institutional/governance malfunctions: Lack of communication between actors/levels of government; regulatory restrictions; ... Difficulty of inclusive stakeholder involvement within normative decision making procedures (Ghent); a lack of inclusive, democratic decision making procedures; |
| Disciplinary and professional silos: (Broadly) lack of integration of disciplines and sectors in order to deliver more sustainable outcomes in water-food-energy systems for all *; Lack of integration between citizen-based projects, academic research and policy; ... Non participatory research design;... | |
| 11. Weak(ened) civil society | Low/lack of community/neighborhood organisation |
| Obstacles to (the longevity of) citizen-led/grassroots projects: Over-regularizing or criminalizing citizen-led projects; Lack of trust in informal/less known food production networks and individuals (Kiev); ... |
Appendix 2: Three modes of governance
(from NATURVATION project)
NATURVATION's NBS-Atlas distinguishes three categories of governance arrangements (dubbed "management set-ups":
- Government-led (Gov)
- Co-governance or hybrid governance (mix of responsibilities between government and non-government actors) (c/h)
- Led by non-government actors (NGO)
Alternatively or additionally, the following four modes of governing (as distinguished also by Bulkeley/Kern 2006 and Zvolska et al. 2019) could be used as a typology: Castan Broto/ Bulkeley 2013:95
- self-governing, intervening in the management of local authority operations to ‘‘lead by example’’;
- provision, greening infrastructure and consumer services provided by different authorities;
- regulations, enforcing new laws, planning regulations, building codes, etc.; and
- enabling, supporting initiatives led by other actors through information and resource provision and partnerships”
Appendix 3: Policy typology
(from NATURVATION project)
| Policy typology | Description | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Regulatory (administrative, command-and-control) | Mandatory fulfillment of certain requirements by targeted actors | Legislations, regulations, laws, directives, etc. |
| Economic (financial, market-based) | Financial (dis)incentives to trigger change by providing (new) favourable (or unfavourable) economic conditions for targeted actors | Positive incentive include subsidies, soft loans, tax allowance and procurments. Negative incentives are taxes, fees and charges. |
| Informative (educational) | They aim at providing information or knowledge to target actors in order to increase awareness and support informed decision-making accomplish or prevent social change | Information and awareness raising campaigns, informative leaflets, advertisements in different media. |
| Voluntary | Commitment and/or actions beyond legal requirements, undertaken by private actors and/or non-governmental organisations. | Voluntary actions and agreements. |
- ↑ Background to this question: Our four main criteria for selecting particular governance interventions and develop rich descriptions of them were: A) The intervention has been studied in a specific urban context (e.g. city), B) this context is located in Europe (and, preferably, the study was EU-funded), C) the intervention considers to a large extent sustainability AND justice (at least implicitly), and D) it is well-documented, ideally including assumptions or even critical reflections on enablers and barriers to implementation and on transferability (i.e. ‘de-contextualizability’). Additionally, we aimed at a diverse portfolio of domains (see Q2.) and governance modes (see Q5): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nCPcUd-COIQ1MsBjir20_F1CBbnSu6HqKH9nNLshiVQ/edit?usp=sharing.
- ↑ Actor types according to TRANSIT’s Critical Turning Point Database, http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/about-ctps-in-tsi-processes.
- ↑ If easily possible mention sources for your association of roles.
- ↑ Deliverable 7.1 Synthesis Report on results from Monitoring and Evaluation (p.14) : http://www.foodlinkscommunity.net/fileadmin/documents_organicresearch/foodlinks/publications/karner-etal-d-7-1.pdf .
- ↑ http://www.foodlinkscommunity.net/fileadmin/documents_organicresearch/foodlinks/publications/karner-etal-d-7-1.pdf .
- ↑ Feel free to include learning that has been made available through EU project documentation, intervention initiatives, or other channels. In addition to the forms in which the learning process has been shared with others, please indicate whether the learning process that’s being shared has been recorded in a self-critical/reflexive way.