The role of goal-setting in urban climate governance

Hofstad, Hege; Millstein, Marianne; Tønnesen, Anders; Vedeld, Trond; Hansen, Karsten Bruun

doi:10.1016/j.esg.2020.100088

Cited by 22 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, in line with recent research, we suggest that climate goal‐setting deserves greater attention in urban climate governance research (Hofstad et al, 2021; van der Heijden, 2018). The goal‐setting and the operationalization and integration of clear, yet narrow CO 2 reduction goals into a coherent policy framework by the municipal leadership proved to be an essential instrument for motivating and triggering innovation in institutions, instruments and socio‐technical experimentations within as well as outside the municipal sphere of authority.…”

Section: Implications Of Empirical Findings For Theory and Policysupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Climate goal‐setting indicates what the organization wish to attain, usually within a specified period of time (Latham & Locke, 2006, p. 332). Goal‐setting and how it relates to the institutionalization of climate policies in cities is an important, albeit overlooked, political phenomenon in the city climate governance literature (Hofstad, Tønnessen, Millstein, Vedeld, & Hansen, 2021). Goal‐oriented courses of action (goal‐setting) to deal with a complex or significant public problem is, however, a central performance proficiency dimension of any public policy and governance strategy.…”

Section: Analytical Framework: a Polycentric And Multilevel Approach To Urban Climate Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Goal‐oriented courses of action (goal‐setting) to deal with a complex or significant public problem is, however, a central performance proficiency dimension of any public policy and governance strategy. Moving beyond the public administration scholarship's preoccupation with how public leaders, through goal‐setting, succeed in motivating internal employees to act, in studies of urban climate governance, the climate goals need to constitute tools that intrigue and motivate the actions of an array of both internal and external actors (Hofstad et al, 2021).…”

Section: Analytical Framework: a Polycentric And Multilevel Approach To Urban Climate Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The following quote by one of the key political architects of the climate regime underlines the integrative effects of the goals:

We needed to have a clear climate goal that could not be manipulated (…) create a governance system that avoids fragmentation (…) and incorporates climate measures into the entire management of the municipality. (Position politician A) Compared to many other European cities (Reckien et al, 2014; van der Heijden, 2019), Oslo's climate goals seem to be sufficiently clear to make the goals hard to escape or obscure, while providing for efficient and predictable approaches for relevant and concerned stakeholders (Hofstad et al, 2021). Oslo's latest Climate 2030 strategy and adopted goals are explicit about why and how there is a need to involve an array of relevant and concerned actors and enable both interactive and self‐governing arrangements (City of Oslo, 2018, p. 48, 2020c; Hanssen & Hofstad, 2020; Hofstad & Vedeld, 2020).…”

Section: Findings: the ‘Oslo Climate Governance Approach’mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Polycentric urban climate governance: Creating synergies between integrative and interactive governance in Oslo

Vedeld¹,

Hofstad²,

Hilde³

et al. 2021

Env Pol Gov

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cities have emerged as important agents and sites in climate governance interventions, experimentations and networks. Drawing upon two strains of climate governance and collaborative governance literature, respectively, this article adopts a polycentric approach to the analysis of Oslo's urban climate governance. It unpacks the relationships between urban leadership, climate goal‐setting and institutional design, and reveals how these variables condition the employment of a combination of integrative and interactive governing instruments that foster both self‐governance and co‐creation in climate responses. The article argues that broad and long‐term political support facilitates the adoption of ambitious climate goals, utilization of regulatory powers, and the design and operations of innovative hybrid mixes of integrative and interactive governing instruments. The hybrid combination of instruments is what provides the basis for synergistic, predictable and dynamic forms of self‐governance and co‐created linkages among public and private ‘units’ within the wider urban climate governance ecosystem. Trans‐local and transnational networks play an important role in building such capacities for urban climate governance. Local processes of co‐creation and networked experimentations are ‘scaling up’ to change policies at city, national and international levels. The empirical observations from Oslo have implication for theories of polycentric urban climate governance and for the promise and limitations of co‐creation in the climate arena. The analysis draws upon qualitative interviews with close to 50 public and private stakeholders and policy document studies.

show abstract

Section: Implications Of Empirical Findings For Theory and Policysupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Analytical Framework: a Polycentric And Multilevel Approach To Urban Climate Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Analytical Framework: a Polycentric And Multilevel Approach To Urban Climate Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The following quote by one of the key political architects of the climate regime underlines the integrative effects of the goals:

Section: Findings: the ‘Oslo Climate Governance Approach’mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Polycentric urban climate governance: Creating synergies between integrative and interactive governance in Oslo

Vedeld¹,

Hofstad²,

Hilde³

et al. 2021

Env Pol Gov

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We define co‐creation as processes in which public and/or private actors attempt to solve a shared public problem or task by exchanging different kinds of resources serving to co‐initiate, co‐design and/or co‐implement visions, strategies, policies, regulatory frameworks or technological solutions (Hofstad et al, 2021; Torfing et al, 2016; Vedeld et al, 2021). As such, it is concerned with the design and leadership of interactional processes and networks and the systematic engagement of all kinds of relevant and concerned public and private actors in the initiation and implementation of shared goals, innovative strategies, and co‐created projects.…”

Section: Co‐creation Within Urban Climate Governance: An Analytical F...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Designing and leading collaborative urban climate governance: Comparative experiences of co‐creation from Copenhagen and Oslo

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article has a twofold aim. First, inspired by collaborative governance theory, the article develops an analytical framework built around three ideal co‐creation strategies utilized by city governments for building capacity and addressing urban climate solutions. Second, this co‐creation framework is applied to a comparative case study of climate governance in two climate‐ambitious Scandinavian cities, Copenhagen and Oslo, to illustrate the role of co‐creation as an approach and tool for urban climate governance. The comparative analysis reveals how the two cities navigate differently within a polycentric ecosystem of actors depending on a variety of contextual factors and whether climate responses are geared mainly towards assembling and aligning public, private business or citizen actors, respectively, for collaborative efforts. The findings suggest that both cities combine two ideal co‐creation strategies, a whole of government strategy with an externally focused stakeholder strategy, while neither of the cities has adopted a full‐fledged externally focused civil society co‐creation strategy. The findings have implications for co‐creation theory and urban climate leadership. In both cities, the benefits of co‐creation are found to depend on support from both conducive institutional design and new forms of public leadership. Over time, leadership has started to congeal into a distinctive type of co‐creational leadership based on both hands‐on and hands‐off tools and instruments in climate responses. The findings suggest that a co‐creation approach benefits the debate on citizen participation in climate governance as it brings a nuanced understanding of the multiple roles that citizens can play in relation to both public and private services and business actors; as residents, consumers, climate agents, as well as voters with rights and responsibilities who can provide the city leadership with legitimacy but also oppose climate action.

show abstract

Copenhagen CO₂ neutrality in 2025? A polycentric analysis of urban climate governance in Copenhagen 2006–2020

Hansen

Agger

2022

Env Pol Gov

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2009, the City of Copenhagen declared its objective to become the first CO 2 -neutral city in the world by 2025 by practicing a collaborative climate governance approach. However, a 2020 status reported a further need for decarbonisation of at least 33% to reach this target. By applying a synthesised polycentric conceptsupplemented by participatory climate governance studies-we analyse the deficient results of collaborative climate governance in Copenhagen 2006-2020. The empirical analysis reveals an altered political prioritisation of climate issues in 2010 and, as a crucial aspect of that, an inadequate mobilisation of civic society actors and waning departmental collaboration. We conclude that, since 2010, Copenhagen has mainly applied a rather monocentric governance approach and relied on technological innovation instead of behavioural change via civic society mobilisation, which does not promote sufficient carbon mitigation processes to reach carbon neutrality in 2025.Finally, we discuss what the synthesised polycentric concept adds to the debate about bold urban climate governance and how it could be further developed. Empirically, we draw on document analysis and interviews with 32 key actors in Copenhagen.

show abstract

The role of goal-setting in urban climate governance

Cited by 22 publications

References 28 publications

Polycentric urban climate governance: Creating synergies between integrative and interactive governance in Oslo

Polycentric urban climate governance: Creating synergies between integrative and interactive governance in Oslo

Designing and leading collaborative urban climate governance: Comparative experiences of co‐creation from Copenhagen and Oslo

Copenhagen CO₂ neutrality in 2025? A polycentric analysis of urban climate governance in Copenhagen 2006–2020

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

The role of goal-setting in urban climate governance

Cited by 22 publications

References 28 publications

Polycentric urban climate governance: Creating synergies between integrative and interactive governance in Oslo

Polycentric urban climate governance: Creating synergies between integrative and interactive governance in Oslo

Designing and leading collaborative urban climate governance: Comparative experiences of co‐creation from Copenhagen and Oslo

Copenhagen CO2 neutrality in 2025? A polycentric analysis of urban climate governance in Copenhagen 2006–2020

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Copenhagen CO₂ neutrality in 2025? A polycentric analysis of urban climate governance in Copenhagen 2006–2020