ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK

AUGUST 2014

Spatial Knowledge Management and Participatory Governance: Rethinking the Trajectories of Urban, Socio-economic and Environmental Change and the Politics of ‘Sustainability’ in Southern CitiesBy Elisabeth Peyroux, Dianne Scott, Isa Baud, Shaz Jameson

1

Analytic Framework

Spatial Knowledge Management and Participatory Governance:

Rethinking the Trajectories of Urban, Socio-economic and Environmental Change and the

Politics of ‘Sustainability’ in Southern Cities

By Elisabeth Peyroux, Dianne Scott, Isa Baud, Shaz Jameson

2

Table of Contents

1. TableofContents . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 3

2. Introduction. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 4

3. CaseStudySelection. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 5

4. ThePositionoftheC2SProjectinInternationalTheoreticalDebates . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 6

5. TheConfiguration:AKeyConceptinOurAnalyticalFramework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

6. The‘New’ConceptofSustainability . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 8

7. TheRoleofGovernancein‘SustainabilityTransition’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

8. GoverningfromaKnowledgePerspective:BuildingCapacitiesforKnowledgeBuilding. .. ..13

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

TableofContents

3

Introduction11

Thispaperpresents theanalytical frameworkdevelopediteratively by the research teamof the Chance2Sustain(C2S) research project2 between 2010 and July 2014, inorder to answer the main research questionwhichwasposed at the outset of the research, namely: how canspatial knowledgemanagement (SKM) and participatorygovernancecontributetosustainableurbandevelopment?Theaimofthepaperisthereforetopresentatheoreticalframework for understanding the empirical researchundertaken in the C2S project in order to make acontributiontothecurrentdebatesaboutthetransitioningofcitiesoftheSouthtomoresustainablefutures.

Toanswerthisquestion,theC2Sprojectwasdesignedtoundertakecomparativeempiricalresearchin10citiesinfourfast-growingcountriesoftheSouthtounderstandtherole of SKM and participatory processes in facing thechallenges in a number of strategic domains of urbandevelopment;thoseofeconomicgrowth,socialinequalityand vulnerability, and environmental governance. Thisdemandedthattheresearchteamlocatetheprojectanditspartsinarangeoftheoreticalframeworksatdifferentlevels, namely, the meta framework of the project,describedinthispaper;thetheoreticalandmethodologicalframesforeachdomain;andthetheoreticalframeworkforcomparativeurban.

Ineachcity,therewereresearchersfromboththeNorthandSouthworkingtogetherinthefivedomainsofeconomic

1 This document draws contributions from members of the research team as the analytical framework has been workshopped among Chance2Sustain researchers on a number of occasions (Durban: October, 2013 ; Amsterdam : February 2014; Paris : April 2014).

2 We gratefully acknowledge the funding provided by the EU 7th Framework Programme. under project no. 244828). Project Partners in this project are the European Association of Development Research and Training Germany; Amsterdam Institute of Social Science Research University of Amsterdam (The Netherlands); French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) France; School of Planning and Architecture (SPA) India; Cities for Life Forum (FORO) Peru; Centro Brasileiro de Análise e Planejamento (CEBRAP) Brazil; Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research (NIBR), Norway and the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN) South Africa. For more information on the research programme see:

http://www.chance2sustain.eu/

growth through megaprojects; social mobilisation andsocialexclusioninsub-standardsettlements;environmentalgovernancewiththefocusonwater-relatedissues;spatialknowledgemanagement; and fiscal decentralisation andparticipatory city budgeting. The development oftheoretical,conceptualandmethodologicalframeworksforthe research were developed collaboratively for eachdomaininorderthatcomparisonoftheurbanprocessesacrossthecitiescouldtakeplace.Furthermore,sincethemainaimoftheprojectistocompare citiesintermsoftheextenttowhichtheyhaveshiftedtowardsbuildingadaptivecapacityforatrajectorytowardsamoresustainablefuture,the research project adopted a relational approach tocomparing the case study cities,which accepts that thecomplex territorial histories [re]produce the humangeographyofplaceswithinanetworkofcities.Basedontheconceptofrelationalspace,itisassumedinthisprojectthatmanyurbanphenomenaarecreatedby,tiedinto,andshapesetsofconnections,whichcanbesocio-economic,political, and spatio-temporal. It is these connections,whichweconsidertobeourunitofanalysis.Thisprocessual,interpretiveapproachdrawsontherecentworkwithinthefield of comparative urban research (Ward, 2006;Robinson,2011a,2011b;McFarlane,2010;McFarlaneandRobinson,2012).

It is notwithin the scopeof this paper to expandonthesetheoreticalframeworks,butrathertofocusonthedevelopmentoftheanalyticalframeworkfortheprimarynormativeresearchquestionregardingtheroleofSKMandparticipatoryprocessesincontributingtosustainableurbandevelopment.Thisanalyticalframeworkpresentedhereisthuslocatedinthecurrentdebatesabouturbangovernance;governance for sustainability and the recent debatesaroundthenotionof‘sustainabilitytransitions’(ShoveandWalker, 2007;Meadowcroft 2011; Swilling andAnnecke,2011;Frantzeskakietal.2012;Arias-Moldonado,2013).

TheoverallframefortheChance2Sustainpaperemergedasaproductofcombinediterativeprocessesofinductiveand deductive thinking. The empirical results of theresearch revealed the importance of governanceconfigurationsinsustainableurbandevelopment,whileatthesametime,ourin-depthliteraturereviewsandinternaldiscussions of the literature related to resilience andsustainability,assemblages,governanceandsustainabilitytransitions contributed to the notion of the ‘spatialknowledgemanagementconfiguration’whichemergedas

4

Case Study Selection2

what we consider as the important concept forunderstandingSKM.Thus,thetheoreticalinsightsandtheempirical evidence were iteratively combined throughcollaborative debate and application to produce theframeworkpresentedinthispaper.Foruswhatisinterestingand important is the conceptual structure of the finalanalyticalframework,aswellastheprocessthroughwhichitwasdeveloped.

The paper commences with the rationale for theselectionofcasestudiesandcharacteristicsofthissampleof cities in section 2, followed in sections 3 to 6 by thebuildingblocksoftheanalyticalframework. Insection3,

the theoretical framing of the research question about‘sustainable urban development’ in relation to currenttheoretical literature ispresentedwhile insection4, themain concept of the framework, namely that of the‘configuration’,isdeveloped.Section5locatestheanalyticalframework in the debate around the ‘new’ concept ofsustainability, while section 6 advances the argumentcallingforanunderstandingoftheroleofgovernanceinthetransitiontosustainability.Thefinalsectionarguesthatbuilding capacities to enhance knowledge about thetransitiontosustainabilityiscriticaltounderstandingtheextenttowhichcitiesaretransitioningtosustainability.

Pop. Growth rate 2000-2005 Popgrowthrate2010-2015 Gini coefficient (country)*

Durban 2.1 1.7 63.1

CapeTown 2.6 1.7 63.1

Guaruhlos(SP) 2.9 1.4 54.7

RiodeJaneiro 1.2 0.9 54.7

Salvador 2.3 2.6 54.7

Lima 2.1 1.9 48.1

Arequipa 2.1 1.8 48.1

KalyanDombivli n.a. n.a. 33.9

Chennai 1.7 3.0 33.9

Delhi 2.7 3.1 33.9

* Figures are from 2009, 2010 (WB); figures on growth rate 2010-2015 are from World Urbanization Prospects revision 2011, and from 2000-2005 from the Revision of 2007.

Table 1: Characteristicsofcasestudycities

The Chance2Sustain project is based on a comparativeanalysisof10cities.Ouranalyticalselectionconsistedofmiddle-sized, fast growing cities from mainly BRICScountries with populations between 1-5million. Thesecitiesarefastgrowingwithrelativelylowlevelsoffundingandspending;theyhavehighproportionsofpeoplelivingbelowthepovertyline,aswellashighlevelsofinequality(HighGini coefficient in South Africa, Brazil and Peru, and

moderate in India), low levelsofbasic servicesandhighlevelsofneed.Theyarealsocharacterisedbylargeareasofsub-standardsettlements(share of the households living in informal settlements)assignificantfeaturesofthecity.

TheresultsfromC2Sshowthatthereiscurrentlyahighlyunequal exposure to risks, stresses and injustices in theurbancontext:

5

2CaseStudySelection

• Thecitiesfacedifferentlevelsofhistoricalinjusticesindifferentdomains

• Theyexperiencetheissuesofsprawlandcompactnessindevelopmentprocessesindifferentways

• Thecitieshavedifferentphysical settings, issuesofdegradation and levels of natural restoration andprotection

• Cities are facedwith an urgency to act to addressshort-term issues versus taking a long-termperspective

In addition, the cities show different institutionalarrangements linked to various formsof the scaling andrescaling of governance. There also exists in the cities

different expressions of democratic processes; and thefragilityofinstitutionsvariesthroughoutthem.

Therearetensionsbetween neoliberalpro-growthandpro-poorsocialdevelopmentpoliciesandpracticeswhichareexpressedand traded-off differently in each countrydependingonthehistorical,spatialandpoliticaleconomycontext.Inthesecondplace,ourselectionofcitieswasalsopragmatically linked to theavailabilityof capacity inourresearchnetwork.

TheaimoftheChance2Sustainprojectistocomparethe10citiesalongvariousdimensionsviatheapplicationofacomparativeapproach.

The Position of the C2S Project in International Theoretical Debates3

We locate ourselves broadly in the debates taking acritical stance towards the concept and discourses ofsustainability and sustainable development, withparticular reference to the critiquesof the sustainabledevelopment rhetoric and practices derived from theearly theoriesof sustainability (Scoones2007), currentpost-climatechangeconceptionsofsustainability(Arias-Maldonado 2013), and the call for a politicization ofsocio-environmental sustainability that supports newwaysofimaginingdifferent,alternativespossibilitiesandfutures(Swyngedouw2010).

Ourapproachtowardssustainabilityfocusesoncitiesandlocalgovernments.Itisbasedonaconceptualisationof cities as a geographical ‘plexus’ of exchange andconnection(Allenetal.1999),madeupofmanynetworksboth within the city and connecting the city locally,nationally and globally. The city also involves bringingpeople together in particular ways and according tospecificrelationsandundervaryingformsofgovernance(cf.theconceptofconfiguration).Weadoptarelationalunderstandingofcitiesthatnecessitatesanunderstandingof‘multiplespaces’thatbecomerelationallyconstructed,interlinked and superimposed within extending urbanregions’(Healey,1995,inGrahamandHealey,1999,629).This recognises that these ‘multiple space-times’ areinscribedintothecities’‘powergeometry’(Massey,1993,citedinGrahamandHealey,1999,629).

OurcontributionintheC2Sprojectrelatestotheroleofparticipatory spatial knowledge managementindirectingurban governance towards more sustainable forms ofurban development. Sustainable urban development isunderstood in this project as a locally defined andnegotiated process linking a set of interrelated social,economic and environmental goals that are aimed atreducing social inequalities, supportingmore equitablepatternsofeconomicgrowth,andgreaterenvironmentalprotection.Spatialknowledgemanagementisinterrogatedinrelationtoitsspecificelements(knowledge,spatialisedand digitized knowledge and participatory processes) inurban development. We argue that spatial knowledgemanagement (consisting of knowledge construction,exchange, contestation, anduse) is a critical domain forsupporting more sustainable urban development. Itprovidesresourcesthatenableactorstodevelopknowledgemanagementconfigurations,withcitygovernmentsasoneofthestrategicactors,toaddressthecomplexinterplayofeconomic, social and environmental processes.We alsoargue that participatory, or more broadly, interactive governance is important for sustainability as it canincorporatedifferenttypesofknowledgeandactorsacrossscale levels (i.e. hybrid arrangements), and increase thedemocratic quality of decision-making through moreinclusiveprocesses(Torfingetal,2012).

Given our interest in urban inequalities and urban‘geographies of injustice’, the contribution of spatial

6

knowledgeisseenasstrategicforthreemainreasons:first,by includingdifferent typesof knowledge fromdifferentactors and perspectives, it can reflect the priorities ofvariousurbancommunitieswiththepotentialtoempowermarginalizedgroups;second,spatialisinginformationcancontribute to a more targeted urban planning andmanagement(Baudetal2011;Martinez2009)throughtheaddedvalueof visualizing thegeographicdistributionofphenomenaandshowingtheconcentrationsofeventsortrends; third, the methodologies of producing spatialinformationandknowledgecanmakevisibleinformationontheassumptionsmadeintermsofframingtheissues,knowledgesourcesandclassificationsused.Ourapproachtakesintoconsiderationboththeenablingpotentialoftheuseofparticipatoryspatialknowledgemanagementanditslimitations and constraints, as we acknowledge thatparticipationislinkedtothenatureofsocialrelationsandthe power relations that shape the institutional andgovernancearrangements.

Wethereforeanalysetheexistingcapacitiesofvarioussets of actors in digitized-spatialised knowledge

management in order to explore their potential forimaginingandimplementingpracticesthatsupportsocio-economic and environmental change in complex urbanenvironmentsaccordingtolocallynegotiatedconceptionsofsustainability.

Withregardtothecomparativeapproachadoptedinthisresearch, we have investigated current debates incomparativeurbanismandfromthisweadoptthenotionof ‘relational comparisons’ (Ward, 2006, 2010;Watson,2009;Myers, 2011; Robinson, 2011a, 2011b; Roy 2011;ParnellandRobinson,2013).Thisapproachrecognisesthatrelationalhistoriesandgeographiesofcitiesarecriticalincomparingcities;andthatcitiesneedtobetheorisedas“open,embeddedandrelational”(Ward,2008,407).C2Sisthereforeadoptingacriticalapproachtoreveal, ‘decipher’,orunmask,the‘variegatedarticulations’andconnections“among the different spatial, political-institutional,economicandenvironmentalelements”of thetencitieswhich are all part of the ‘emergent planetary urbanconfiguration’(Harvey,1989inBrenneretal.2011,237).

The Configuration: A Key Concept in Our Analytical Framework4

We use the concept of ‘configuration’ to capture theimportant combination of elements that contribute tourbandevelopmentdecision-makingandoutcomesinthesocial,economicandenvironmentaldomainswithspecificreferencetotheknowledgesproduced,exchangedandusedintheseprocesses,whichweareanalysinginspecificurbancontexts/citiesintheSouth.Theconceptofconfigurationsrelated to spatial knowledgemanagement has emergedfromthefieldworkinourcasestudiesandwasappliedin-depthtotheissueofspatialknowledgemanagementintheWP5fieldworkreportandisdefinedbelow.

We define a spatial knowledge management configuration (SKMC)asanensembleof:

1. Discourses /framings about spatial knowledgemanagement;

2. Actor coalitions and/or networks and their powerrelations in managing spatial knowledge in workprocesses(particularlyoflocalgovernment,butnotexclusively);

3. The main processes of knowledge generation,exchange,andcontestation;

4. Spatialknowledgeplatformsandproductsproducedandutilized(ICT-GIS-basedproducts;maps)(cf.Baudetal.2013;vanBuuren2009).

Although the changes in processes, power relationsand outcomes are part of the SKMensemble,wehavekept them separate in recognizing that outcomes arealso influenced by other factors than those in theSKMconfiguration.

The concept of a configuration, as an ensemble ofdimensions,canalsobeusedmoregenerallyasananalyticaltool.Duringthe2014Chance2Sustainworkshopwecameupwiththefollowinggeneraldefinitionofurbanconfigurationasananalyticaltoolwithwhichtointerprettheknowledge-relatedresultsfromtheotherWPsacrosscities:

1. The discourses/framings concerning the domainissues;

7

4TheConfiguration:AKeyConceptinOurAnalyticalFramework

2. Theactorcoalitionsandtheirpowerrelations(relatedtoaparticulardomain–WP);

3. Themainprocesseswithin that eachdomain (WP)(economic growth through mega-projects ; socialmobilisation;environmentalgovernancerelatedtowater ; spatialknowledgemanagement ;and fiscaldecentralisationandparticipatorybudgeting);

4. The platforms (technologies), products andinfrastructure, produced for the configuration (cf.Pfeffer et al. 2013; Baud et al. 2011; van Buuren2009).

Urban spatialised knowledge management configuration (SKMC)isthemainconceptweusetostudythequestionofhowurbandevelopmentprocessescanbemademoresustainableandinclusive,bylookingatwaysinwhichspatialisedknowledgeisdrawntogether(LathamandSassen2005).Spatialknowledgesreflectastrategicset of resources, to which all stakeholders in urbangovernanceprocessescancontribute.Thequestionalsoconcernswhetherdemandsfor,andcontributionsto,suchspatialknowledgecanbecomemoreinclusive,embeddedandaproductofparticipatoryandinteractivegovernancein urban decision-making processes, and what theimplicationsofthiswouldbeformoresustainableurbandevelopmentoutcomes.

Thisquestionfitsintoabroaderdebateonhowurbanpolicy-makingprocessesarechangingfromprocessesinwhich government domains are the dominant locus ofpower to those in which networks of different actorsparticipate in governance networks, i.e. the shift to anetworksociety (BarnettandScott,2007;BaudandDeWit,2008;Castells,2000,CoaffeeandHealey,2003;Hajerand Wagenaar, 2003; Innes and Booher, 2003). Thisincludesthediscussiononhowpolicy-makingprocessesare being influenced by the rapid exchange of ideas,people, and technologies, linked through internet andotherformsofexchangeinternationallyandthefluidityof local combinations of such ‘things’ into urbanassemblages(Fairclough,2006;McFarlane,2011;McCannandWard,2011).

Our specific contribution to analysing our results asknowledgemanagementconfigurationsistheassumptionthatanalyzingspatialknowledgeproduction,exchangeandusewill provide a deeper understanding of current andemerging processes of governance and the building ofcapacities (see below) in cities and indicate how suchprocesses can contribute to more sustainable urbandevelopment outcomes.

SincethemainquestionoftheChance2Sustainprojectrelates to understanding the role spatial knowledge

The ‘New’ Concept of Sustainability5

management could play to enable cities to movetowardsamoresustainablefuture,itisthereforecriticaltointerrogatetheconceptofsustainability.Theterms‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable development’ havebeenheavilycriticizedasscientificconceptsandpolicydiscourses for their vague, poorly definedunderstandings, and their ambivalent, divergent andcontested meanings (Scoones 2007; Swyngedouw2010),aswellasthedifficultyinoperationalisingthem.Considered as an expression of the dominating“managerialismandroutinizedbureaucratisationofthe1990’s”, scholars consider that the concept ofsustainabilityhas failedtotake intoconsiderationthewiderpoliticaleconomyofdevelopment(Scoones2007,594).Thesustainabilitydiscourseisalsoseentopromoteaconservativeandreactionaryviewofthesocial-natureorder based on a consensus that prevents critical

political and democratic questions and thereforenegatesanypossibilitiesofallowingfortheexpressionof divergent or contradictory positions on possible‘environmentalfutures’underwhatSwyngedouw(2010)referstoasthe‘post-political’condition.

There has been a revival of sustainability debatesunder a different guise in the late 1990s with theacknowledgement of the failure of the ‘Bruntland’conceptofsustainabledevelopmentandofthe1992Rioagenda to fulfill their political commitments (Scoones2007).A‘new’conceptofsustainabilityhasemergedinthe context of climate change,which adopts a criticalperspective. It is this perspective that shapes ourunderstandingofsustainability.

Debatesaboutsustainabledevelopmenthavealsobeen

8

characterized by the growing use of the concept of‘resilience’, considered as a condition for sustainabledevelopment, in both the academic and practionerliteratureinthefieldsofriskmanagementandadaptationto climate change, but also increasingly in the fields ofurbanplanningandeconomicdevelopment(Pickettetal.2004; Christopherson et al. 2010;Wilkinson et al. 2010;RacoandStreet2012;Toubinetal.2012),andinrelationtoprocessesofurbantransitionsorurbantransformationsaswell(Pelling2012;Ernstonetal.2010;SatterthwaiteandDodman 2013). However, the use of the concept ofresilience remains debated, and even contested. Itstranspositionfromnaturaltosocialscienceshasraisedanumberofissuesrelatedtoitspositivistassumptionsandits ‘naturalizingpositions’ thatmay lead to thepotential“depoliticisationoftheplanningfield”(PorterandDavoudi2012,p.331,333).Thenormativedimensionofresilienceisquestionedinrelationtoitsoutcomesandpurposes,theexclusionaryimpactsofavisionofboundedsystems,andpower and politics (Davoudi 2012). Finally, scholarsunderlineitspotentialforpromotingconservativepoliticsandjustifyingparticularformsofneoliberalgovernanceorneoliberalgovernmentalitythroughtheclaimofneutrality,common-sense objectives and pragmatism (Leach 2008,Christophersonetal.2010,RacoandStreet2011,Davoudi2012,PorterandDavoudi2012,Shaw2012,Joseph2013,Welsh2013).

The‘newconceptofsustainability’hasemergedintheAnthropocene,anewepochinwhichitisdeclaredthatonespecies (humanbeings)hasbecome thedriving forceofchange(Biermanetal.2012;LorimerandDriessen,2013).Thisconceptisalsoaresponsetotheeconomicuncertaintiesandsocio-economicissuesthathaveemergedinthepost-2008 recession period which are referred to as the‘polycrisis’ (Swilling and Annecke 2012). The recession,whichhasresultedindeepeningpovertycoupledwiththeimpactsofclimatechangehavecreatedan‘unsustainablemodernity’ (Swilling andAnnecke 2012). They thereforeproposethatwith“thebreakupoftheneoliberalorthodoxy…[thishas]createdaspaceforinnovationandcreativity(ibid,94).Thishasledtotheemergenceofmanycontext-related‘experiments’intheareaofgovernance(BulkeleyandShroeder2011;Braun2014;BulkeleyandCastanBroto2012;WakemanandBraun2014).

Thereisahoweversomecontinuitywiththetraditionalconceptionofsustainabledevelopment.The‘new’conceptofsustainabilityretainsthenormsandvaluesoftheconceptof sustainable development and therefore accords greatimportance to the “over-arching, symbolic role–of

aspirations, visions and normative commitments–thatremains so politically potent” (Scoones 2007, p. 594).Furthermore,the‘new’conceptofsustainabilityproposesconceptualising current realities as a set of intersectingecological,economicandsocio-politicaldomainswithlocaland global dimensions. It stresses the interconnections,intersections and entanglements between environmentanddevelopment(human,economicandsocialprocesses),and the overlaps and interdependencies among thesedomains.Itcallsfortheadoptionofamulti-scalar and long-termperspectivetounderstandlocalandglobaldimensions.

However, this new approach to sustainability differsfrom the conventional conception in several ways. Itchallenges themodernist understanding ofNature as asingle domain separate from society/economy (Arias-Maldonado2013).FollowingSwyngedouw(2010),criticalapproaches to current discourses and practices ofsustainability also deconstruct the concept of nature byarguingthatthereisa“nosingleNature(p.202)“butratheragreatvarietyofdistinctandoftenradicallydifferent(ifnotantagonistic)natures”.Thereisagreaterrecognitionofthecomplexandchangingenvironmentaldynamicsimpactinghumanlifeandthereforethenon-lineardynamicsofthehuman-natural system3. Different paths and patterns ofsustainabilitiesarenegotiatedinspecificurbancontexts:itis“ageneral,pluralistic,openprinciplethatallowsformanydifferent solutions to be democratically discussed andacted on (Arias-Maldonado 2013, 430). It is a concepttherefore that emphasizes the democratic processes atplay. The new concept of sustainability critiques themismatchbetweenthoseinterventionsoractions,whichare needed, and the current governance structures (seesectionongovernancebelow).

We therefore understand sustainability from aconstructivistperspectiveasalong-termmulti-dimensionalandmulti-scalarprocessdrivenbysociallynegotiatedandpotentially contested or antagonistic visions, goals andvalues.Weconsiderthatquestionsofsustainabilitymustbearticulatedwithkeypoliticalquestionsaboutwho(orwhat)gainsfrompracticesandpoliciesimplementedunderthe label of ‘sustainability’, who benefits from or areexcludedfromthem,andwhatarrangementsandstrategiescanbe conducive toenhance thedemocratic contentofdecision-makinglinkedtosustainabilitypolicies(ShoveandWalker2007;Swyngedouw2010).Ourunderstandingpaysparticularattentiontocontextualdifferences.

3 See the ‘panarchy model’ in Welsh, 2014.

9

5The‘New’ConceptofSustainability

Inthisresearchproject,weseepolicymakingincreasinglytakingplacethroughnetworksofactorswhoare“relativelystablesetsofindependent,butoperationallyautonomousandnegotiatingactors,focusedonjointproblemsolving”(Hajer 2005, 241). Such organisational interaction isnecessary to solve problems of urban sustainabledevelopment,characterisedbycomplexity,uncertaintyoftrajectories, and a variety of stresses.We recognize thenecessityof focusingon thecombinations of issues thatgovernancenetworksdoordonot include ingoverning,and the extent to which spaces for more deliberativeprocesses are created and utilised ; as well as whatknowledge and information is constructed in them toinform decision-making processes (from expert tocommunity-based),andhowreflexivesuchprocessesare.

A first question is the extent to which governmentsrecogniseandworkwithotheractors.Thishasstimulateddebatearoundconceptsofdemocracyandcitizenship,ascontemporarypolicy-makingarenasandpublicparticipationapproaches are critiqued for a lack of representation indecision-making(InnesandBooher2004;McEwan2005).This literature has also stimulated discussion on thestrengthofemergingformsofcitizenshipbuiltupwithinsocial movements and civil society organizations toempowertheirmembersandengagewithstateinstitutions(e.g.Holston2008;ScottandBarnett,2009).Inourwork,weareinterestedintheactorsdrivingtransitionprocesses,andtheextenttowhichcollectiveagencyisbuiltup,basedontherulesofengagementwithinandaroundsuchspacesgoverninghowactorsengagewitheachother,andthesetsof recognised legitimate knowledge framing discourseswithinthem.

Conceptualising how power is dispersed throughoutmulti-scalar governance arrangements requires arecognitionof thecomplexensembleofpower relationswhichcreatehybridarrangements.Assemblageisaconceptthat helps to grasp non-linearity without reducing thegroupingtoitscomponentparts,andcanbedefinedasafluid arrangement of different clusters of ideas, actorcoalitions,spaces,materialsandtheirrelationships.Itistheveryprocessualnatureoftherelationshipsbetweentheseelementsthatdefinetheassemblage(DeleuzeandGuattari1987;Delanda 2006).However, rather than simply thickdescription, the assemblage perspective requires ananalysis of howpower relations are produced (Brenner2011). In doing so, it opens up new avenues for socio-

spatialinquiryonthestrengthofemergingformsandthecontinualshiftingofrelationsacrossspace,time,scaleandboundaries (McFarlane 2011) whilst remaining firmlyanchoredinlocallynegotiatedarrangements.

Forurbangovernance,theassemblageconceptallowsadeeperunderstandingofhow‘packages’areputtogetherthroughinteraction.WiththeriseoftheInternetandglobalcommunications,ideas,knowledgesandpoliciesaremobileandcanbedrawnintoassemblagesacrossboundaries,andthuschangingthedynamicsoflocalgovernance(McCannand Ward 2011). Knowledge creation, sourcing, andtransformationaremulti-scalarandmulti-spatialprocessesthatcanuncoverdifferentnuancesofinclusionorexclusionfornegotiatingnewsustainabilities.Thequestion isthenhowtheseknowledgeconfigurationsareputtogetherfromlocal and global sources and the implications of suchprocessesforgovernance.

However,theassemblageperspectiveisalmosttoofluid.Particularly in thecontextof theglobalSouth, thereareenduringsocio-politicalandeconomicfeatureswhichbringsomestabilitytomulti-scalargovernancearrangements.Inthis sense, configurations of governance can beconceptualisedasthemidwaypointbetweenthestabilityofregimeandthefluidityofassemblagetheory(Baudetal.2013). Configuration, as a concept, allows an analyticalopenness to the emergence of power relations fromcomplexinteractionswithuncertaindirections,particularlywithnewissueschangingall thetime,butalso indicatesthat such assemblages have a staying power over time(pathdependency).

Having discussed how knowledge is embedded inepistemiccommunitiesandurbandevelopmentprocesses,tworecenttransformationsinconstructingknowledgearenoted;namely,theexplosionofdigitizationofdataandthe‘spatialization’ofknowledge.Thediscussiononwhatthespatialisationofinformationandknowledgecontributestoknowledge-buildingisattwolevels;firsttheaddedvalueofvisualizingthegeographicconcentrationsofeventsortrends,alsoreferredtoasgeographic governance.Thisisparticularlystrategic,givenourinterestinurbaninequalitiesandurban‘geographiesofinjustice’andwhatspatializinginformationcancontributetomoretargetedurbanplanningandmanagement (Baudetal2011;Martinez2009).Thesecondlevelofdiscussiononthespatialisationdiscussionconcerns the methodologies of producing spatial

The Role of Governance in ‘Sustainability Transition’6

10

informationandknowledge,whichcanbothmakevisibleor hide information according to the choices made inframing issues,utilisingknowledge sourcesanddecidinguponwhichclassificationsareused.Therefore,wehaveaninterest inthesetofdigitisedandspatialisedknowledgebuilding processes, which build capacity for reflexivelearning,andaredesignedtomakecitiesmoresustainableastheiroutcome.

Processes towards more sustainable forms ofdevelopment,whateverdefinitionhasbeenadopted,areoftenframedintermsof‘transition’–broadlydefinedas“a substantial change andmovement fromone state toanother” (Shove andWalker 2007, 763). The emergingfields of ‘transition studies’ or ‘sustainability transitions’providearichtheoreticaldiscussiononsustainabilityandgovernance(Markardetal.2012;FrantzeskakiandLoorbach2012).Whileweadoptadifferentperspectiveintermsofour epistemological position, object of analysis andapproaches,we share a number of positions that haverecently emergedaspart of the critiques in these fields(ShoveandWalker2007,Meadowcroft2011),particularlyaroundissuesofagency,powerandpoliticsandgovernance.

Theliteratureon‘transition’,whichisrootedintraditionsof systems thinking, has experienced a surge of interestlatelyandanumberofapproacheshavedeveloped,notablyinthestudyofsocio-technicalorsocio-ecologicalsystems,innovation and technology (Markard et al. 2012). Theseapproaches to transition, which combine concepts andapproaches from evolutionary economics, science andtechnology studies, structuration theory and neo-institutional theory,mostly deal with function-orientedsystemsand infrastructures, theprovision and supplyofresources, often analysed using a sectoral approach(energy,water,mobility,transportation).Theseapproachesare based on a systemic, co-evolutionary approach totechnical,socialandenvironmentalchangeframedintermsof the assumptions of complex systems and mutualadaptation(ShoveandWalker2007).Thecentralconceptsrelated to this literature include ‘regime’4, ‘regimeshift’,‘niche’ and ‘landscape’ in relation to a multi-levelperspective (Markard et al. 2012).More recently, somestrands of this literature have focused on sustainabilitytransitionsatregionaland localscales (Spiraetal.2014;Egermannetal.2014),andmorespecificallyoncitiesand

4 Socio-technical regimes are defined as relatively stable configurations of institutions, techniques and artefacts, as well as rules, practices and networks that determine the ‘normal’ development and use of technologies (Rip and Kemp 1998). Regimes fulfil socially valued functions, which they also help to constitute (Geels,2002a,b ; Smith et al. 2005, 1493).

urban settings (Bulkeley and Castan Broto 2013). Thisstrand of literature on ‘sustainability transitions’acknowledges that governance plays a particular role intransition(Smithetal.2005).

Within this literature ‘sustainability transitions’ aredefinedas“long-term,multi-dimensionalandfundamentaltransformationprocessesthroughwhichestablishedsocio-technical systems shift to more sustainable modes ofproductionandconsumption”(Markardetal.2012,956).A system is here defined as a network of actors andinstitutions,materialartifactsandknowledge.Elementsofthe system are inter-related and interdependent.Sustainabilityisunderstoodinrelationtotheuse,supplyand sufficiency of resources, as well as in relation topollution, risks, infrastructure renewal and extension.When addressed more broadly, transition approachesconceptualisesustainabledevelopmentas“anopen-endedprocessofsocietalchangethatentailsvaluesofecologicalintegrityandprotection,andintergenerationaljusticeandresponsibility” (Frantzeskaki and Loorbach 2012, 32).Transition assumes the following: far-reaching changes;differentdimensions;abroadrangeofactors;andimpactson related societal domains (living, housing, working,planning,andpolicymaking).

Inthatregard,‘transitionstowardssustainability’differfrom other historical transitions in that they are ‘goal-oriented’ or ‘purposive’, that is, they seek to addressspecificproblems,theyrequirechangesineconomicandpoliticalframeconditions(inordertoallowinnovationstotakeplaceandreplaceexistingsystems)aswellasstrategicreorientationofactors,whichdefendexistingsystemsandregimes (Geels 2011, p. 25). As a result, theoreticalapproaches must address both the multi-dimensionalnatureoftransitionsandthedynamicsofstructuralchange(ibid.). Sincewehavenotsystematically investigated theinterventions in the domains from the outset of theresearch,apartfromWP4,aninductive approachisadoptedinunderstandingthetransitionstosustainability.

The field of ‘transition studies’ has been recentlysubjectedtoanumberofcritiques(ShoveandWalker2007;Geels 2011;Meadowcroft 2011): scholars point to theinsufficient emphasis on the role of agency andinterventions;onpoliticsandpowerrelations;aswellastheneglectofculturalanddemandsideaspects.Theyalsoargue that research in transition studies has failed toacknowledge the limitations of thinking that deliberatetransitionmanagement can be possible and potentiallyeffective(ShoverandWalker2007).Transitionapproachesare also criticised for not taking into consideration theinfluence of political contexts; not questioning thedemocratic legitimacy of governance designs; for

11

6TheRoleofGovernancein‘SustainabilityTransition’

overlookingthepotentialtomarginalizeparticularinterestsandsocialgroups;andforhavingan implicitnormativity(VoßandBornemann2011,2).

Another critique is that adaptive and transitionmanagementtakesthe‘politicsof learning’ insufficientlyintoconsideration.Theconceptionoflearningbuildson“anidealisedimageofcognitivelearningthatassumesunbiasedobserversofsystemicchanges,open-mindedconsiderationof options, unequivocal interpretations of results fromexperimentations”;itoverlooks“thepossibilityofstrategicactors to shape or even to manipulate (…) experienceagainstthebackgroundoftheirownbeliefsandinterests”(VoßandBornemann2011,p.13).ThemainargumentofVoßandBornemann(2011,2)isthatknowledgeproductionandpoliticsarecloselyintertwined;theyarguefortheneedtoconsiderpoliticsasa‘constitutiveelementofreflexivegovernance’and“toreflectcarefullyonhowitmayplayoutin specificdesigns forparticipatoryexperimentationandlearning”.Theauthorsseektodevelopadequateproceduralarrangementsinordertoaddresstheseissues.

There have been some refinements of transitionapproachesovertime,inparticulartointegrateissuesofagency,politicsandpower,andthegeographicalandspatialdimensionsoftransition(Markardetal.2012).Scholarsinthe fields of transition studies propose a refinement ofexisting definitions of governancewith an emphasis onpolitics(Markardetal.2012),andonexperimentationandlearning(VoßandBornemann2011;BulkeleyandCastanBroto 2013). This goes alongwith a call for integratingcomplementaryapproachesfromotherdisciplines,suchasorganisationalandsociologicalstudiesinordertoreworktheunderstandingofagencyandeconomicandinstitutionalgeography in order tomore explicitly conceptualise thegeographical dimension of transition processes. There isalsoacallforsupportingastrongernormativeorientationintransitionprocess(Markardetal.2012).

A number of scholars have acknowledged thatgovernance needs to be reconceptualised in order torespond to challenges linked to the governing of‘sustainability transitions’ (Smithetal.2005; Lebeletal.2006;VoßandBornemann2011;FrantzeskakiandLoorbach2012;BulkeleyandCastanBroto2013):

• The“tensionsbetweentheopen-endedanduncertainprocessofsustainabilitytransitionsandtheambitionforgoverningsuchprocess”(FrantzeskakietLoorbach2012,21)needtobeconsidered.

• Thereisaneedfor“jointeffortstostreamsocietiestowards sustainable development” but “what isdefined as sustainability at any given moment is

inherentlyambiguous,contestedanduncertain,andtherefore inherently challenged and changing. Thesustainabilityvalues(environmentalintegrity,societalcohesion,welfareandintergenerationaljustice)mustbesafeguardedandremainadaptable,thusopen,tofutureneeds”(ibid.,p.21).

• According to Frantzeskaki and Loorbach (2012, 21),dealingwithcomplexrisksanduncertaintiesrequires“adifferentsetofguidingprinciplesinthecontextofsustainability transitions. Transitions cannot begovernedinalinearmannerwithsimpleobjectivesandtargetsfollowingregularimplementationsmodels”.

Also engaging into a discussion on changing formsofgovernanceingoverningsocietaltransitionstosustainability,Frantzeskakietal.(2012)putforwardanumberofprinciplesthatwouldbenecessarytofollow:employingparticipatoryanddeliberativeformsofgovernance;formulatinganopenagenda;integratingdifferentinterests;ensuringinclusionand active involvement of multiple actors and co-construction of pathways (p. 24); and committing tofundamentalvaluesofsocialcohesionandequity.

‘Reflexivegovernance’,inparticular,hasattractedmuchattention for its potential to take into consideration thecomplexity of problems at hand aswell as amulti-levelstakeholder perspective (Shove and Walker 2007). Itacknowledges that there are different ways of framingproblems, different and sometimes convergent interestsandstrategiesatplay,andthatgoalsareambivalent(VoßandBornemann2011).Butreflexivegovernancehasalsosomelimitations(ShoveandWalker2007,767):howcanmanagersadjusttoconstantchangeinenvironmentalandsocialconditions(cf.thecircuitsoffeedback,monitoring,action and reaction)? What are the institutions andmechanisms through which goals and policies can berevised?Whatshouldbemonitored?Howcanmanagersidentifysignsofchangeoftrajectories?Mostimportantly,howcanweensurethatnewideasandtechniquesarenotincorporated‘intopoliticalbusiness-as-usual’?

In their analysis of the governing of climate change,Bulkeley and Castan Broto (2013, 363) also challengetraditionalconceptionsofgovernmentandgovernanceonthebasisthaturbanresponsestoclimatechanges‘exceedgovernance’.Theirapproach,whichislocatedinthestudyofsocio-technicalregimetransformation(withtheuseofconcepts such as ‘niches’ and ‘experiments’), builds onFoucault’s governmentality approach and the notion of‘assemblage’,whichpaysparticularattentiontotheshapingofconductsandsubjects.

Authors,whopositionthemselvesinperspectivesotherthan ‘transitionmanagement’, also challenge traditional

12

viewsandaccountofgovernanceandfocusratheronthe‘governmentofurbanlife’orthegovernmentofeverydaylife in response to climate change. They emphasize theneed to rethink governance as ad hoc, provisional anddecentered(WakefieldandBraun2014;Braun2014).

There has also been a shift from thinking aboutgovernance as ‘participatory’ to that of ‘interactivegovernance’ (Torfing et al. 2012; Pfeffer et al. 2013).Although inclusion, co-design andmanagement are the

focus of both approaches, the interactive governanceapproachfocusesexplicitlyonhowpowerisexercisedingovernance processes, acknowledging actor-basedattributional and relational power (through hybridinstitutional arrangements). Although governmentsmayutilizeparticipationandformsof interactivegovernance,thewaysinwhichit is institutionalized,anditsrulesandperformance,set limitsontheextentof influencewhichnetworkscanbringtobearonpolicyandstrategy(HajerandWagenaar,2004).

Governing from a Knowledge Perspective: Building Capacities for Knowledge Building7

Insummary,theC2Sprojectfocusesongoverning from a knowledge perspective as the main cross-cuttingquestions of the research. We therefore apply theconceptofaknowledge configurationtopartlyexaminetheuseofknowledgeingovernance(acrossthedomains).Theprojecthasdevelopedananalytical framework for understanding the knowledge configurations relatedtothe processes of governance that aim at addressingissues of social inequality, economic inequality andenvironmentalandclimateprotection.Theconfiguration istherefore ourwaytoencapsulateallelementstoassessparticulargovernancearrangementsandtransitions,andissues where urban development decision-making istakingplaceacrossthedomains.

Governingthepresentandthetransitiontothefuturemeanslookingatbuilding capacitiesforreflexivelearning(basedon knowledgebuildingprocesses) to achieve adifferent relationship between environment anddevelopment(withtheemphasisontheroleofhumanendeavour).Thebuildingofcapacitieswouldbedesignedtomakecitiesmoresustainableasanoutcome.Thus,weaskthequestionofwhatcapacitieshavebeenbuiltup,and embedded in specific arrangements, that allowcities to develop practices that support urban, socio-economicandenvironmentalchangeaccordingtolocallynegotiated conceptions of sustainability? It is alsoimportantthereforetoask:whatarethearrangementsthatmightpreventthis fromhappening,andwhatarethe limitationsandconstraints thatcitiesare facing indevelopingsuchpractices?

Wethereforeexaminewhatcapacitiesareevidentinthegoverning processes (inWP2, 3, 4, 5, 6).What are thecapacitiesthathaveemergedandareemergingtoachieveadifferentrelationshipincontrastwith‘businessasusual’(the dominance of the economic growth)? The centralquestion thatneeds tobeaddressedwhendealingwithcapacityisthefollowing:capacity of what/who, for what/whom, and with what effects?

Inouranalyticalframeworktheconceptof‘capacity’isconceptualisedinrelationtothenotionof‘configurations’and in close connection with knowledge production,exchange,contestationanduse.Itislinkedtotwocentralaspects of our analysis: our approach to governance(inclusive,participative,reflexive,interactive)andthelong-term goals of sustainability or the transition towards sustainability addressed at the urban and more global level.Inourunderstanding,building capacities meansbuildingdifferenttypesofknowledgeasourmainfocus,accessingresources in a generic way, considering inclusion andexclusionofactorsandknowledge,whiletakingstructuralconstraintsintoconsideration.

Inconclusion,wedonottakeauniversalisingapproachbut rather propose that configurations need to becontextualised and can have locally produced pluralisticoutcomes related to cross-scale uncertainties andcomplexities.Theseknowledgemanagementconfigurationsneedtobeanlaysedovertimewithinactorcoalitionsandprocesses,whichmayhavespatial-temporalandcontextualdynamics with spill-over effects across boundaries andscales (open sustainability); orwithin locally negotiatedprocesses(pluralisticvisionsofsustainability).

13

7GoverningfromaKnowledgePerspective:BuildingCapacitiesforKnowledgeBuilding

Allen, J.,Massey, D., Pile, S. (Eds.) 1998.City Worlds. Taylor andFrancis,London.

Arias-Maldonado, M. 2013. Rethinking sustainability in theAnthropocene.Environmental Politics,22,3,428-446.

Baud,I.S.A.,K.Pfeffer,J.Sydenstricker-Neto,D.Scott.2011.Developing Participatory ‘Spatial’ Knowledge models in metropolitan governance networks for sustainable development. Literature Review,March,WorkingPaper,EUprogrammeChance2Sustain.

Baud,I.S.A.,Scott,D.,Pfeffer,K.,Sydenstricker-Neto,J.andDenis,D.2013.Spatialknowledgemanagementinurbanlocalgovernment:emerging issues in ICT-GIS-based systems in India, Brazil, SouthAfrica, and Peru, Paper presented at the NAERUS Conference,Enschede,Netherlands,12-14September2013.

BiermanF.etal.2012.NavigatingtheAnthropocene:improvingearthsystemgovernance.Science,335,1306-1307.

Braun,B.2014.Anewurbandispositif?Governinglifeinanageofclimatechange.Environment and Planning D: Society and Space,32,49–64.

Brenner,N.,Madden,D.J.,Wachsmuth,D.2011.Assemblageurbanismandthechallengesofcriticalurbantheory,analysisofurbantrends,culture,theory,policy,action.City, 15,2,225-240.

Bulkeley,H.andShroeder,H.2011.Beyondstate/non-statedivides:Cites and the governingof climate change.European Journal of International Relations,18,4,743-766.

Bulkeley H., Castan Broto, V. 2013. Government by experiment?Globalcitiesandthegoverningofclimatechange.Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,38,3,361-375.

Christopherson S., Michie J., Tyler P. 2010. Regional resilience:theoretical and empirical perspectives, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society,3,3-10.

Egermann, M., Kern, F., Durrant R., Frantzeskaki, N., Spira, F.,Neumann,H.M.2014.AconceptualframeworktoinvestigatelocalsustainabilitytransitioninitiativesinEuropeancity-regions.PaperpresentedattheSecondWorkshop“Howtogovernfundamentalsustainabilitytransitionprocesses?”oftheRSAResearchNetworkon “Governing the Sustainability Transition”, 10-11 July 2014,UniversityofSt.Gallen,Switzerland.

Davoudi, S. 2011. The legacy of positivism and the emergence ofinterpretivetraditionofspatialplanning.Regional Studies,46,4,429-441.

Davoudi, S. 2012. Resilience: A bridging concept or a dead end?Planning Theory and Practice,13,2,299-333.

Ernstson,H.,vanderLeeuwS.E.,RedmanC.L.,MeffertD.J.,DavisG.P.,AlfsenC.,T.Elmqvist2010.Urbantransitions:Onurbanresilienceandhuman-dominatedecosystems.Ambio,39,8,531-545.

Evans, J. P. 2011. Resilience, ecology and adaptation in theexperimentalcity.Transactions of the Journal of British Geographers,NS,36,223-237.

Fairclough,N.2006.Criticaldiscourseanalysis, in(Ed.)Hartwig,M.Dictionary of Critical Realism,Routledge,London.

Frantzeskaki, N., Loorbach, D., Meadowcroft, J. 2012. Governingtransitions to sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Development,15,(½),19-36.

Geels, F. 2002a. Understanding the Dynamics of Technological Transitions.TwenteUniversityPress,Enschede.

Geels, F. 2002b. Technological transitions as evolutionaryreconfigurationprocesses:amulti-levelperspectiveandcasestudy.Research Policy,31,8-9,1257-1274.

Geels, F.W. 2011. The multi-level perspective on sustainabilitytransitions: responses to seven criticisms. Environmental Innovations and Societal Transitions,1,1,24-40.

Graham,S.,Healey,P.1999.Relationalconceptsofspaceandplace:issuesforplanningtheoryandPractice.European Planning Studies,7,5,623-646.

Joseph J. 2013. Resilience as embedded neoliberalism: agovernmentality approach. International Policies, Practices and Discourses,1,1,38-52.

Latham,R.,Sassen,S.2005.Electronicmarketsandactivistnetworks, In (Eds.) Latham, R. and Sassen, S, Digital Formations: IT and New Architectures in the Global Realm.PrincetonUniversityPress,NewJersey,USA.

LeachM. (ed.), 2008.Re-framing Resilience: A Symposium Report,STEPS (Social, Technological and Environmental Pathways toSustainability)CentreInstituteofDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofSussex.

Lorimer J. and Driessen, C. 2013.Wild experiments at theOostvaardersplassen: rethinking environmentalism in theAnthropocene.Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,39,2,169-181.

Markard,J.,Raven,B.,Truffer,B.2012.Sustainabilitytransitions:anemergingfieldofresearchanditsprospects.Research Policy,41,955-967.

McFarlane, C., Robinson, J. 2012. Introduction: Experiments incomparativeurbanism.Urban Geography,33,2,765-773.

McFarlane, C., 2010.. The comparative city: knowledge, learning,urbanism.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,34,4,725-42.

Martínez,J.A.2009.TheuseofGISandindicatorstomonitorintra–urban inequalities: a case study in Rosario, Argentina.Habitat International: A Journal for the Study of Human Settlements,33,4,387-396.

Meadowcroft, J. 2011. Engagingwith the politics of sustainabilitytransitions.Environmental Innovations and Societal Transitions,1,1,70-75.

Myers,G.2011.African Cities: Alternative Visions of Urban Theory and Practice.ZedBooks,London.

Parnell,S.Robinson,J.2013.(Re)theorisingcitiesfromtheglobalSouth:lookingbeyondneoliberalism.Urban Geography,33,4,593-617.

Pfeffer,K.,Baud,I.S.A.,Denis,E.,Scott,D.andSydenstricker-Neto,J.2013. Participatory spatial knowledge management tools:empowerment and upscaling or exclusion? Information, Communication and Society,16,2,258-285.

Pickett S.T.A., Cadenasso M.L., Grove J.M. 2004. Resilient cities:meaning,models, andmetaphor for integrating the ecological,socio-economic, and planning realms. Landscape and Urban Planning,69,369–384.

References

14

PorterL.,DavoudiS.2012.Thepoliticsofresilienceforplanning:acautionarynote.Planning Theory and Practice,13,2,329-333.

RacoM., Street E. 2012.Development in London andHong Kong:resilience planning, economic change and the politics of post-recession.Urban Studies,49,5,1065-1087.

Rip, A., Kemp, R. 1998. Technological change. In (Eds.) Rayner, S.,Malone,E.,Human Choices and Climate Change, Vol. II.BattellePress,Columbus,Ohio,327-399.

Robinson,J.2011a.Comparisons:colonialorcosmopolitan?Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography,32,125-140.

Robinson,J.2011b,Citiesinaworldofcities:thecomparativegesture.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,35,1,1-23.

Roy, A. 2011. Slumdog cities: rethinking subaltern urbanism.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35, 2,223-38.

Satterthwaite, D., Dodman D. 2013. Towards resilience andtransformation forcitieswithina finiteplanet.Environment and Urbanization,25,2,291-298.

Scoones, I. 2007. Sustainability.Development in Practice, 17, 4-5,589-596.

Shove, E., Walker G. 2007. CAUTION! Transition ahead: politics,practice,andsustainabletransitionmanagement.Environment and Planning A,39,4,763-770.

ShawK.2012.‘Reframing’resilience:challengesforplanningtheoryandpractice,Planning Theory and Practice,13,2,308-312.

Smith,A.,Stirling,A.,Berkhout,F.2005.Thegovernanceofsustainablesocio-technicaltransitions.Research Policy,34,1491-1510.

Spira,F.,Frantzeskaki,N.,Loorbach,D.2014.Ananalyticalframeworktounderstandthescalingoftransitioninitiatives.PaperpresentedattheSecondWorkshop“Howtogovernfundamentalsustainabilitytransitionprocesses?”oftheRSAResearchNetworkon“Governingthe Sustainability Transition”, 10-11 July 2014,University of St.Gallen,Switzerland.

Swilling, M., Annecke, E. 2012. Just Transitions: Explorations of Sustainability in an Unfair World. Juta, Cape Town and UnitedNationsUniversityPress,Tokyo.

Swyndedouw, E. 2010. ‘Impossible sustainability’ and the post-politicalcondition.In(Eds.),Cerreta,M.,Concilio,G.,Monno,V.,Making Strategies in Spatial Planning: Knowledge and Values,SpringerScienceandBusinessMedia,Verlag,185-205.

Torfing, J., Peters, G., Pierre, J., Sorensen, E. 2012. Interactive Governance, Advancing the Paradigm. OxfordUniversity Press,Oxford.

Toubin,M., Lhomme, S.,Diab, Y., Serre,D., Laganier, R. (2012). Larésilienceurbaine:unnouveauconceptopérationnelvecteurdedurabilité urbaine ?Développement Durable et Territoires, 3, 1,1-15.

vanBuuren,M.W.2009.KnowledgeforGovernance,GovernanceofKnowledge: Inclusive KnowledgeManagement in CollaborativeGovernanceProcesses.International Public Management Journal,12,2,208-235.

Voß, J., Bornemann, B. 2011. The politics of reflexive governance:Challenges for designing adaptive management and transitionmanagement.Ecology and Society16(2):9. [online]URL:http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art9/

WakefieldS.,BraunB.2014.Governingtheresilientcity.Environment and Planning D: Society and Space,32,1,4-11.

Ward, K. 2006. ‘Policies inmotion’:Urbanmanagement and staterestructuring:Thetrans-localexperiencesofBusinessImprovementDistricts.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,30,1,54-75.

Ward,K.2008.Editorial–Towardsacomparative(re)turninurbanstudies?Somereflections.Urban Geography,29,405-410.

Ward, K. 2010. Towards a relational comparative approach to thestudyofcities.Progress in Human Geography,34,4,471-487.

Watson,V.2009.SeeingfromtheSouth:Reformingurbanplanningontheglobe’scentralurbanissues.Urban Studies,46,11,2259-2275.

Welsh,M.2014.Resilienceandresponsibility:governinguncertaintyinacomplexworld.The Geographical Journal180,1,15-26.

WilkinsonC.,PorterL.,ColdingJ.2010.Metropolitanplanningandresiliencethinking:apractitioner’sperspective.Critical Planning,17,25-44.

15

References

EUROPEAN COMMISSIONEuropean Research Area

Funded underSocio-economic

Sciences & Humanities

Kaiser-Friedrich-Strasse11D-53113BonnTel.:(+49)228.2618101info@chance2sustain.euwww.eadi.orgwww.chance2sustain.eu

Chance2Sustain examineshowgovernmentsandcitizensincitieswithdifferingpatterns of economic growth and socio-spatial inequality make use ofparticipatory(orintegrated)spatialknowledgemanagementtodirecturbangovernancetowardsmoresustainabledevelopment.Consortium partners:EuropeanAssociationofDevelopmentResearchandTraining Institutes(EADI,Germany),Governancefor InclusiveDevelopment(GID) at the Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research (AISSR-UvA,Netherlands),CentreNationalde laRechercheScientifique(CNRS,France),CentroBrasileirodeAnáliseePlanejamento(CEBRAP,Brazil),Cities forLifeForum(FORO,Peru),Norwegian Institute forUrbanandRegionalResearch(NIBR,Norway),SchoolofPlanningandArchitecture(SPA,India),UniversityofKwaZulu-Natal(UKZN,SouthAfrica)