Collective climate action and networked climate governance

Abstract

Scholarship in International Relations has witnessed that the traditional concept of hierarchically organized global climate governance is joined by a network model of decentralized governance, which involves multiple actors. New actors performing networked climate governance include national governments, subnational organizations like cities, international organizations, corporations, epistemic communities, and civil society organizations. An insightful literature on networked climate governance has advanced our conceptual understanding of this empirical phenomenon. In parallel, rapidly growing research in psychology, sociology, economics, and related disciplines sheds light on factors that contribute to individuals’ willingness to engage in collective climate action. This article reviews these seemingly disparate strands of literature and aims to build bridges between them. We focus on the factors underlying individuals’ decisions to participate in local‐level climate initiatives—or grassroots organizations—including, for example, renewable energy cooperatives. Such initiatives are increasingly important parts of networked climate governance. Thus, networked governance can be understood as an opportunity structure for collective climate action, which may in turn influence citizens’ decisions to participate. Given the urgency to address climate change, this approach adds a critical novel perspective to on‐going debates about effective governance arrangements. WIREs Clim Change 2017, 8:e440. doi: 10.1002/wcc.440 This article is categorized under: Policy and Governance > Multilevel and Transnational Climate Change Governance

Learnings from Local Collaborative Transformations: Setting a Basis for a Sustainability Framework

“…The idea of 'deliberate disruption' is a reaction to the urgency of tackling sustainability issues and the need for radical and 'deep' change, e.g., [44][45][46]. Several theories have been proposed to frame the more intangible outcomes, ranging from transformative social innovation [47], social learning [48], practices theory [49], technological innovation systems [50], narratives of change [51,52], institutionalization [53], cultural change [54], networked governance [55], etc. These follow from (sometimes) opposing ontologies [56].…”

Governing Climate Change Polycentrically

“…Descriptively, it suggests that analysts should try to account for the role played by different types of rules. Second, they should be alive to the possibility that as well as maintaining order, rules may represent 'an opportunity structure' through which actors seek to effect change (Tosun and Schoenefeld, 2017). In other words, the overarching rules may be sources of change as well as continuity (i.e.…”

Promises and risks of nonstate action in climate and sustainability governance

“…Some doubt their effectiveness (e.g., Michaelowa & Michaelowa, ) or stress their dependency on state‐based forms of governance (e.g., Bulkeley et al, ; Hickmann, ), yet others assert that nonstate actions will contribute to complexity, fragmentation, and possibly undermine governance legitimacy and accountability (Kuyper, Linnér, & Schroeder, ). A growing number of studies, however, take an optimistic, if cautious, view that nonstate action could bridge governance gaps (e.g., Graichen et al, ; Hsu, Cheng, Weinfurter, Xu, & Yick, ; Hsu, Moffat, Weinfurter, & Schwartz, ; Roelfsema, Harmsen, Olivier, Hof, & Van Vuuren, ; Tosun & Schoenefeld, ). While there has been growing optimism, and emphasis on potential and positive signals, few studies look at whether, and under which circumstances, optimistic expectations can be realized.…”