No abstract

This article examines the complex relations between spatial planning and its cultural context (including the specific socio-economic patterns and related cultural norms, values, traditions and attitudes). To be able to analyze the extent to which spatial planning adapts to external pressures such as Europeanization, a "culturized planning model" with the three dimensions "planning artefacts", "planning environment" and "societal environment" is used. It can be observed that the "harmonization" of spatial planning practices can result from external pressures such as EU regulations as well as (horizontal) collective learning processes. However, "harmonization" does not necessarily result in convergence. Adaptational pressures such as Europeanization often result in the customization of existing structures, frames and policies ("planning artefacts" and "planning environment") but do not fundamentally change the underlying core cultural traits ("societal environment"). These cultural traits are quite resistant to change and help maintain a diversity of planning cultures and policies in Europe.

Urban areas account for around 50% of global solid waste generation. In the last decade, the European Union has supported numerous initiatives aiming at reducing waste generation by promoting shifts towards Circular Economy (CE) approaches. Governing this process has become imperative. This article focuses on the results of a governance analysis of six urban regions in Europe involved in the Horizon 2020 project REPAiR. By means of semi-structured interviews, document analysis and workshops with local stakeholders, for each urban area a list of governance challenges which hinder the necessary shift to circularity was drafted. In order to compare the six cases, the various challenges have been categorized using the PESTEL-O method. Results highlight a significant variation in policy contexts and the need for these to evolve by adapting stakeholders’ and policy-makers’ engagement and diffusing knowledge on CE. Common challenges among the six regions include a lack of an integrated guiding framework (both political and legal), limited awareness among citizens, and technological barriers. All these elements call for a multi-faceted governance approach able to embrace the complexity of the process and comprehensively address the various challenges to completing the shift towards circularity in cities.

No abstract

Governance of climate mitigation and adaptation has been discussed within polycentric and multi-level governance perspectives. Both perspectives on climate governance are intimately related but yet in some regards are distinctly different -as one perspective has evolved from empirical research within the United States and the other in the European Union. Within an increasingly global discourse on climate governance, there is a need in the literature to bring both discourses together. The findings are based on a systematic literature review of 42 climate governance papers published since 2000. This paper discusses how multi-level and polycentric climate governance perspectives converge and diverge along five dimensions. The five dimensions provide insights for applying a multi-level or polycentric governance perspective to empirical research.