How ‘just’ is hybrid governance of urban nature-based solutions?

Helen Toxopeus,Panagiota Kotsila,Marta Conde,Attila Katona,Alexander P.N Van Der Jagt,Friedemann Polzin

doi:10.1016/j.cities.2020.102839

Helen Toxopeus, Panagiota Kotsila + Show 4 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102839

Copy DOI

Abstract

Hybrid (or multi-actor) governance has been identified as a key opportunity for upscaling urban nature-based solutions (referred to as urban NBS), representing a demand-driven and cost-effective realization of urban green infrastructure. However it is unclear how such hybrid governance affects the justice outcomes of urban NBS. Through six in-depth cases of urban NBS we show that hybrid governance can lead to both improvements and deterioration of distributional, procedural and recognition justice, depending on the hybrid governance choices. By exploring the tensions between these justice impacts we formulate three main policy implications for hybrid governance settings: the need for transparent decision-making on the distribution of costs and benefits; safeguarding public control over the urban NBS and the use of scientific expertise in combination with bottom-up consultation procedures to recognize both current and future voices.

Highlights

The uptake of urban nature-based solutions (NBS) is promoted as an innovative and cost effective strategy for cities to realize urban sustainability objectives, including climate change adaptation, in the face of increased urban densification (European Commission, 2015; Faivre, Fritz, Freitas, de Boissezon, & Vandewoestijne, 2017; Kabisch et al, 2016)
The six cases we study reveals tensions in justice outcomes due to hybrid governance of urban NBS, both positive and negative
A majority of the hybrid governance projects we study are initiated as a cost-effective solution to realising NBS under conditions which lack public sector funding and/or expertise

Summary

Introduction

The uptake of urban nature-based solutions (NBS) is promoted as an innovative and cost effective strategy for cities to realize urban sustainability objectives, including climate change adaptation, in the face of increased urban densification (European Commission, 2015; Faivre, Fritz, Freitas, de Boissezon, & Vandewoestijne, 2017; Kabisch et al, 2016). NBS are defined as being solutions that ‘are inspired and supported by nature, which are cost-effective, simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help build resilience’ (European Commission, 2015). What stands out in these definitions is that NBS as a concept stresses the strategic, integrated use of natural ecosystems to support human wellbeing in a cost-effective way. It encompasses a slightly broader range of nature-based interventions than the concepts of Green Infrastructure (GI) and Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EBA), and is explicitly solution-oriented The NBS concept fits within a broader discourse on innovation and green growth as a response to environmental degradation and climate change related challenges (Fagerberg, Laestadius, & Martin, 2015) and helps provide a common language for diverse stakeholders (Dorst et al, 2019)

Methods

Results

Conclusion