Abstract
With their potential to effectively address multiple urban sustainability challenges, the emerging policy discourse on nature-based solutions seeks to encourage the development of multifunctional nature for sustainable and just cities. Nature-based solutions, however, are vulnerable to co-option by powerful interests in ways that limit their contribution to a broad range of sustainability goals. Reflexive governance arrangements between different types of actors, engaging in continuous and iterative processes of learning and readjustment of institutions and practices, provide a way to address this issue. However, the potential of reflexive governance in increasing commitment to sustainable and just cities, and the role of power struggles in such processes, remains underexplored. To study this question, we undertake a comparative case study analysis of nature-based solutions in Utrecht (The Netherlands), Malmö (Sweden), and Utsunomiya (Japan). These are analyzed using a framework structured around the dimensions of system analysis, goal formulation, and strategy implementation, to which we apply a justice lens. The findings demonstrate reflexive processes in each of the studied cases, but the justice dimension is not always explicitly taken into account or clearly influenced in positive ways. We unveil tensions between the ideal of sustainable and just cities and the reality of urban nature-based solution initiatives being partially dependent on the power structures they seek to influence for their continued existence. We argue against dismissing the studied cases as neoliberal projects on these grounds. Reflexive governance for sustainable and just cities entails a continuous struggle for dominance between different ideas and interests. Moreover, the battlegrounds for these struggles may look very different across sociopolitical contexts. Provided that justice considerations are continually present, reflexive governance of urban nature-based solutions is likely to contribute to more sustainable and just cities.
Highlights
In many cities, nature is under pressure as a result of urbanization, urban densification strategies, and government austerity (Dupras et al, 2015; Haaland and van den Bosch, 2015)
This is further exacerbated by factors such as limited ecological knowledge in the urban planning and development sector (Zhou et al, 2019); poor inventorying, monitoring, and assessing of existing urban nature (Haaland and van den Bosch, 2015; van der Jagt and Lawrence, 2019); and the general absence of long-term financing opportunities for bottom-up urban greening initiatives (Mattijssen et al, 2017)
We study the politics of reflexive governance in relation to the topic of urban nature-based solutions (NBSs), given the potential of this type of innovation to contribute to both sustainable and just cities
Summary
Nature is under pressure as a result of urbanization, urban densification strategies, and government austerity (Dupras et al, 2015; Haaland and van den Bosch, 2015) This is further exacerbated by factors such as limited ecological knowledge in the urban planning and development sector (Zhou et al, 2019); poor inventorying, monitoring, and assessing of existing urban nature (Haaland and van den Bosch, 2015; van der Jagt and Lawrence, 2019); and the general absence of long-term financing opportunities for bottom-up urban greening initiatives (Mattijssen et al, 2017). Whereas many technological sustainability innovations provide single benefits (e.g., less carbon emissions), urban NBSs provide a multitude of values (van der Jagt et al, 2020), including, e.g., climate change adaptation (Kabisch et al, 2017), halting unprecedented biodiversity loss (Baldock et al, 2015), improving environmental literacy and sustainable behavior (Wals and Benavot, 2017), restoration from stress and mental fatigue associated with urban lifestyles (van den Berg et al, 2007; van der Jagt et al, 2017a), tackling loneliness and a dwindling sense of community (Sullivan et al, 2004; De Vries et al, 2013), addressing segregation of different sociocultural groups (Peters et al, 2010), air and water purification (Pugh et al, 2012; Masi et al, 2018), providing opportunities for recreation and physical activity (Sugiyama et al, 2010), greening the economy (Elmqvist et al, 2015), and equitable access to healthy and sustainable food (Horst et al, 2017)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
