5. Conceptual framework: an institutional perspective for analysing climate neutrality efforts
This chapter outlines the conceptual framework employed in the Nordic Climate Neutral Cities project for analysing Nordic cities’ climate neutrality efforts through a multilevel governance perspective.
Multilevel governance
Multilevel governance (MLG) is a relevant framework for analysing how regulatory roles and decentralisation influence urban climate policy. The framework underlines the importance of vertical and horizontal governance dimensions in understanding the challenges and opportunities that cities, which are the focus of this report, may encounter on their pathways towards climate neutrality.
MLG is a concept that describes the articulation and distribution of decision-making authority across different levels of government – local, regional, national and supra-national – and its interaction with non-governmental actors (Kazepov, 2010). This approach emphasises coordination and collaboration across various layers of governance and stakeholders and has become increasingly significant in addressing complex policy challenges such as sustainability and climate change, where no single entity can act effectively in isolation (Hickmann, 2021). MLG operates along two key dimensions: horizontal governance and vertical governance.
- Horizontal governance refers to coordination and interaction among actors operating at the same governance level. For instance, municipalities within a region, ministries within a national government or organisations within a specific sector collaborate to address common challenges. This type of governance relies on fostering networks, partnerships and cooperative strategies that enable entities to pool resources, exchange knowledge and jointly implement solutions (Polk, 2011). In practice, horizontal governance can be observed in cooperation across different municipal sectors, as exemplified by initiatives such as the aforementioned C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, where cities collaborate on shared climate goals, exchange best practices and develop common strategies to address global warming. Similarly, regions might coordinate on transport systems or cross-border environmental concerns (Hickmann, 2021). However, horizontal governance is not without challenges. Competing interests, power imbalances and siloed approaches marked by poor inter-sectoral coordination can lead to inefficiencies in decision-making.
- Vertical governance, by contrast, focuses on the interactions between different governance levels – local, regional, national and supra-national. It concerns the alignment of policies, resources and strategies across those scales. For example, translating broad goals like the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into actionable plans requires cooperation across governance levels (Bouwma et al., 2015).
One of the primary mechanisms of vertical governance is the transfer of resources, expertise and regulations from higher levels to lower ones. For instance, national governments may set regulatory frameworks for environmental protection while providing funding and technical support to local governments to implement sustainability initiatives (Olsson et al., 2019). At the same time, regional authorities can act as intermediaries, adapting national policies to local contexts and conveying local needs and challenges to higher governance levels (Trygg & Wenander, 2022).
Nevertheless, vertical governance also presents challenges. Misalignment between governance levels, bureaucratic inefficiencies and limited local policy capacity can create obstacles to effective implementation. For example, local governments often struggle with insufficient resources or autonomy, making it difficult to meet national or international policy objectives (Bouwma et al., 2015).
As explained in the previous chapter, land use, buildings and construction, and transport and mobility are important spatial planning sectors for achieving climate neutrality as they are significant sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Therefore, as illustrated in Figure 1, multilevel governance challenges and opportunities of Nordic cities will be emphasised in relation to these sectors in the empirical analysis of local cases (see Chapter 7).
Created by the authors
Policy and institutional capacity for climate neutrality
Cities are key players in addressing the challenges related to climate change and curbing GHG emissions. One of the reasons is that local governments have wide-ranging responsibility for land use planning, which, as previously explained, plays a crucial role in achieving climate neutrality goals. Notwithstanding the relevance of MLG relations and negotiations, it is also crucial to acknowledge that the extent to which local governments can mitigate climate change effectively depends heavily on their institutional and policy capacity (Figure 2). In this section, these crucial concepts and their components are explored.
Policy capacity pertains to the ability (and political will) to respond to and manage current social and environmental challenges through decision-making, planning and implementation processes. According to Cucca and Ranci (2022), three main aspects characterising local autonomy within MLG settings can be identified:
- Political will refers to the commitment and determination of political leaders or institutions to pursue, support and implement specific policies, reforms or actions. It signifies their readiness to allocate resources, take risks and prioritise efforts to achieve desired outcomes.
- Financial dependence of local authorities on the state refers to the level and nature of public funding provided by central governments and the degree of central limitations imposed on sub-national financing and expenditures. This dependence exists on a spectrum, ranging from contexts where local authorities benefit from strong central financial support to those where resources are predominantly locally sourced, with minimal state funding.
- The degree of regulatory autonomy granted to local or regional authorities reflects the extent to which urban or regional policy is governed by national regulations or direct political decisions. This autonomy is shaped by specific legal frameworks and the degree of central oversight in policy implementation.
As far as institutional capacity is concerned, within the literature on collaborative planning, Healey (2020) defined three dimensions:
- Knowledge resources are types of knowledge used by planners and practitioners centred around what should be done, why it should be done and how it should be done in a specific planning context such as a municipality (Trygg & Wenander, 2022). With reference to sustainability and climate neutrality, knowledge resources can refer to the awareness among planners – and other relevant key actors working on climate neutrality strategies – of the complexity of such strategies and their possible implications. That encompasses both multi-dimensional aspects – i.e. social, environmental and economic sustainability – and multilevel aspects from a governance perspective (Polk, 2011).
- Relational resources refer to the social networks linking various actors (at different scales and in different sectors of society) and how those actors build up mutual levels of trust in the given networks (Polk, 2011). Additionally, this dimension highlights where power to drive change is located and possibly obstructed. In relation to climate neutrality, as noted by Wretling & Balfors, 2021, it is important to take into account the function of governance networks for interacting with various stakeholders. This is also reflected in the literature on climate planning and governance, as there has been a rise in both the number of authorities participating in municipal networks for local climate governance – chiefly transnational networks such as Covenant of Mayors and Cities for Climate Protection – and the research interest of such networks. According to Gustavsson et al.(2009), municipal networks “have the potential to function as vital channels for the dissemination of information, best practice and knowledge and thereby speed up the process of capacity building, not least at the local level”. Kern and Alber (2009) emphasise that, despite the attention given to transnational municipal networks, horizontal and vertical collaboration is particularly crucial within metropolitan regions. They argue that effective mitigation efforts must go beyond municipal boundaries, especially when it comes to urban form and planning. This highlights the potentially significant role municipal networks can play at regional and sub-regional levels.
- Mobilisation capacity describes how knowledge and relational resources are used to challenge power structures and facilitate change processes (Polk, 2011). Mobilisation capacities capture both the structural pre-conditions for action and individual stakeholders’ capacities to develop learning, trust and action space. Being able to mobilise knowledge and networks is tied to the capacity to challenge and change the current direction. In summary, institutional capacity allows us to analyse whether local actors have, and can mobilise, the resources they need to plan for sustainable development.
| ||
|
Building on the conceptual framework outlined in this chapter and illustrated in Figure 2, we applied it to develop our case study analysis and guide interpretation of our data. In the next chapters, we will illustrate how, using a multilevel governance perspective, we examined both policy and institutional capacity of selected Nordic cities across the three spatial planning sectors: land use, buildings and construction, and transport and mobility.