Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Over the past two decades, cities have emerged as central players in global climate governance. To truly grasp the intricacies of urban climate governance, one must acknowledge the dynamic interplay among governing bodies in both upward and downward, as well as inward and outward directions. This review article delves into the multifaceted nature of urban climate governance. Beyond the frequently discussed vertical and horizontal dimensions in multilevel governance literature, this review highlights the distinct dimension of contextuality within urban climate action, drawing upon the rapidly expanding literature on the spatiality of urban sustainability transitions and urban material politics. Through a critical analysis of the limitations inherent in each dimension, this review concludes by proposing pathways toward effectively orchestrating the verticality, horizontality, and contextuality of urban climate governance. This multidimensional analytical framework provides a more holistic and dialectical understanding of how global climate goals are translated, negotiated, and materialized within specific urban contexts, offering a theoretical foundation for orchestrating different governance dimensions to enhance effectiveness.

Keywords

urban climate governance verticality horizontality contextuality coordination

The urban as a focal arena for climate action

Human society is currently in the midst of a climate change era, a reality substantiated by extensive scientific research that unequivocally emphasizes the urgent requirement for decisive actions to mitigate its adverse consequences. This escalating and expanding climate crisis presents substantial challenges to global governance. In the 1970s, nations began to pay attention to the issue of climate change and put it on the agenda of international conferences, through multilateral agreements and other means to mitigate the impact of climate change. However, the decades that followed revealed the challenges of achieving collective action in a situation of anarchy. Since the Paris Agreement, there has been a shift in approaches to climate governance, moving from a top-down system with binding national targets to a bottom-up approach where each nation sets its own commitments (Ciplet and Roberts, 2017).

This transition also saw the rise of cities as influential players in global environmental governance. In the last two decades, numerous local governments, particularly in developed nations, have formulated their climate action plans, solidifying their role as essential stakeholders in climate governance (Kern and Alber, 2009). The 1992 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, hosted in Rio de Janeiro, stands out as a pivotal international event that initially acknowledged the crucial role of urban areas in the realm of sustainable development. Today, cities are universally acknowledged as the focal points where behavioral, economic, and technological initiatives for addressing climate change through adaptation and mitigation hold the greatest promise for successful implementation and scalability (IPCC, 2018).

Understanding the concept of “governance” in the context of climate change requires recognizing the networked modes of governance that involve the distribution of powers in both upward/downward and inward/outward directions (Sun and Baker, 2021). This review article offers an in-depth exploration of the research landscape of urban climate governance, encompassing three pivotal dimensions: verticality, horizontality, and contextuality. In what follows, this article first presents a historical overview of the field of urban climate governance. It proceeds to unravel the multifaceted nature of urban climate governance, addressing the vertical, horizontal, and intraurban dimensions. Subsequent sections offer critical insights, ultimately guiding the orchestration of these diverse dimensions within urban climate governance.

A historical review of the field of urban climate governance

Over the past two decades, there has been a significant surge in scholarly interest regarding urban climate governance. This growth has coincided with cities worldwide evolving into hubs of innovative and experimental governance approaches, all aimed at advancing climate action (Rosenzweig et al., 2010; van der Heijden, 2019). Since the 1970s, global climate change politics have predominantly centered around the establishment of international regimes, exemplified by the 1972 Stockholm Declaration and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. These agreements emphasize the obligation of states to decrease carbon emissions and address the challenges of climate change mitigation. Within the realm of climate governance scholarship, cities have frequently been perceived as peripheral players in environmental initiatives, often cast as passive recipients of international agreements and national policies (Haughton and Hunter, 1994).

Nevertheless, there is a growing realization that nation-states may struggle to fulfill their international obligations in addressing climate change without concurrent local efforts. This recognition is grounded in the fact that greenhouse gas emissions predominantly originate from urban centers, making local authorities the most apt entities to spearhead crucial reductions through urban planning measures (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005). By the latter half of the twentieth century, a notable trend had emerged where a majority of cities had independently undertaken actions to promote their climate agendas, driven by their indispensable capacity to do so (Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011). A burgeoning collection of arguments has arisen, advocating for both the escalation of issues to the global level and concurrently underscoring the efficacy of narrowing the focus to address concerns at the local level (Gupta, 2007).

Ever since the pivotal Brundtland Report of 1987 emphasized the significant role of local action, there has been a noteworthy focus on urban sustainability. The call for greater power decentralization was subsequently incorporated into the study of urban development (Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011). The concept of urban governance has been consistently referenced in international conferences through declarations and reports (Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011). International institutions heightened their awareness of the potential impact of cities and underscored the importance of transnational cooperation between cities and organizations.

The practices of urban climate governance in global cities

Simultaneously, numerous climate initiatives were already underway at the local level. Western cities took actions in earlier times, including three main forms of urban practices: mayors and city councils providing political direction, community and citizen initiatives taking proactive steps, and cities voluntarily collaboration through the networks (Barber, 2013). On the one hand, some proactive individual cities have committed to reducing carbon emissions in line with the international climate agreement. New York has garnered significant acclaim for its enduring expansion and sustainability strategy, PlaNYC 2030, which targets a 30% decrease in greenhouse-gas emissions compared to 2005 figures within the coming two decades (Rosenzweig et al., 2018). On the other hand, in terms of mechanism design, a dedicated climate adaptation task force is established to coordinate resource management and regulate pollutant emission activities (Patterson, 2021). Bulkeley and Kern (2006) examine the dynamics of local governing in the UK and Germany and observe four modes of governing in urban climate protection, namely self-governing, governing by authority, governing by provision, and governing through enabling. The City of Rotterdam in the Netherlands and the City of Antwerp in Belgium have integrated climate adaptation into their respective urban planning policies, which significantly increase the ability of a city to better plan for, respond to, cope with, and withstand the impacts of climate change (van der Berg, 2022). However, although hosts of attention are placed on the leading cities in Europe and North America, the practice of small and medium-sized municipalities in the Global North and cities in developing countries is equally essential to the global climate networks (Bouteligier, 2013). In China, the case of Guangzhou, Shenzhen, and Hong Kong shows that effective urban climate governance depends much on the political will of local governmental officials, the political significance of climate change issues, the legitimate authority granted to the coordinated agency, and human and financial capital (Mai and Francesch-Huidobro, 2014). For the cities in developing countries, like São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, although they are promoting climate governance through participation in transnational municipal networks, the limited municipal capacity may constrain the strong adaptation interventions (D’Almeida Martins and da Costa Ferreira, 2011).

The multidimensionality of urban climate governance

Since the 2009 conference in Copenhagen, a growing number of scholars have turned to urban action as an empirical focus to substantiate the importance of local climate governance. They intend to shift from broad recommendations to location-specific proposals on how to catalyze change at the grassroots level (Castán Broto and Westman, 2020; Gustavsson et al., 2009; Kemmerzell, 2018; Wilbanks and Kates, 1999). Different from climate governance at the international level, academic research on urban climate governance highlights its dispersed and decentralized nature. The “new localism” is a new explanation of the conceptualization between central government and local government, and the limits to local autonomy. It helps to explain the tension between increasing centralization and enhanced local democracy (Pratchett, 2004). Traditionally, scholars of new localism suggest that urban sustainability strategies often rely on the creation of exemplary projects, which serve as valuable learning experiences that can be applied within the urban context or shared between cities (Marvin and Guy, 1997). However, this approach is confined by the idea of local solutions and ignores the role and influence of policy and politics taking place outside the urban arena. Bulkeley and Betsill (2005) introduce the concept of multilevel governance into the analysis of global environmental governance. They offer a systematic and multilevel examination of climate governance, spanning global, national, and local levels (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005). This demonstrates that climate change is a “glocal” issue, operating concurrently at multiple levels and necessitating a division of responsibilities among societal actors and the adoption of initiatives within national systems (Gupta, 2007).

Urban climate governance encompasses various dimensions (Figure 1). The trend toward fragmentation, decentralization, and grassroots empowerment is highlighting an increasingly important dimension—the local level—within the complex, multi-dimensional structure that involves states, international entities, the private sector, and non-governmental organizations (Weiss, 2011). A multilevel perspective perceives climate governance as comprising two interconnected processes (Betsill and Bulkeley, 2004; Hooghe and Marks, 2003; Kern and Bulkeley, 2009; Weiss, 2011). One process underscores the existence of multiple tiers between administrative units, while the other is defined by networks formed by public and private actors across various levels of social organization (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005). Concerning urban climate governance, the former pertains to the vertical interactions within nation-states, encompassing various governance modes, such as those involving national governments, funding schemes, and authoritative governing approaches. The latter, on the other hand, involves horizontal networks connecting cities (Kern and Alber, 2009). In addition to the horizontal and vertical dimensions, urban climate governance also encompasses a local dimension. This dimension pertains to the place-based contextual factors that influence the outcomes of climate initiatives (Kern and Alber, 2009).

Figure 1.

The multidimensionality of urban climate governance.

The vertical dimension of urban climate governance

Despite operating primarily at the urban level, the urban is not “a separate and discrete scale of political authority”; instead, urban climate governance involves multiple overlapping and interconnected levels of power (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005, p. 59). When viewed from a vertical perspective, global, national, as well as regional governing entities all play a role in climate governance at the urban locale. In numerous cities, international organizations have a significant presence in climate action. Entities like the UN and World Bank serve not only as funders for many climate initiatives but also as primary sources of technology, knowledge, and information. On the other hand, global discourses of climate change might encourage political commitment at the local level by granting legitimacy to local leaders (Westman et al., 2019).

In the literature on multilevel governance, two trends can be identified regarding the dynamics between central and local governments: the bottom-up perspective and the top-down perspective (Krueger et al., 2022). The bottom-up perspective emphasizes a pluralistic stakeholder-centered approach, where local governments take the initiative in climate change adaptation planning (Bauer and Steurer, 2014; Hughes, 2015). In this approach, goals and policies developed at the local level can influence national or even global policymaking processes (Giest and Howlett, 2013). Urban climate governance is seen as a collaborative arrangement involving key external non-state actors in partnership with local government actors, recognizing the complex nature of urban climate change and the need for expertise and capacity from multiple actors (Lee and Painter, 2015). It can be seen as a process of scaling-up low-carbon urban initiatives (van Doren et al., 2018). On the other hand, the top-down perspective adopts a government-centered approach through national programs (Lee and Painter, 2015). While climate policy may not be mandatory, the central government provides support for local climate change mitigation through environmental and climate investment programs, fostering cooperation between public and private sector actors at the local level (Gustavsson et al., 2009). Schreurs (2008) acknowledges the limitations faced by local governments and emphasizes the importance of integrating national climate change policies into the various levels of government. In the Chinese context, urban climate governance is operationalized in a highly regulatory form with a coordinative leadership team from different government sectors to drive low-carbon governance experiments (Sun and Baker, 2021).

Vertical collaboration within nation-states includes various modes of governing, ranging from an enabling role of national governments to funding schemes (Kern and Alber, 2009). It entails the division of responsibilities and the allocation of tasks among different governance levels (Betsill and Bulkeley, 2007). Within this vertical collaboration, a distinct hierarchy is evident among various governance tiers, with the nation-state maintaining central authority, while local governments possess a degree of independent agency (Betsill and Bulkeley, 2006). The capacity of local governments has been a focal point of scholarly debate, particularly in terms of vertical interactions between different levels of government and their impact on local climate governance (Betsill and Bulkeley, 2007). It is discussed to what extent more local levels of government play agenda-setting roles in different political contexts (Betsill and Bulkeley, 2006). Capacity building involves developing technical and financial support and increasing managerial execution (Wang et al., 2012). Nonetheless, evidence suggests that despite the reluctance of federal administrations to address climate change, there has been a rapid growth in urban declarations of intent to tackle the issue (Gore and Robinson, 2009).

The horizontal dimension of urban climate governance

Horizontal collaboration, as delineated by Kern and Alber (2009), encompasses climate governance within metropolitan regions, city networks, and transnational networks of subnational governments. It pertains to the development of novel spheres of authority that arise from interactions between state and non-state actors (Betsill and Bulkeley, 2006). Some scholars contend that these networks signify a process of interest and norm formation among state and non-state actors operating across different scales. This process stems from the intricate relationships between various levels of government and non-state actors responsible for implementing government policies (Lipschutz and Mayer, 1996).

The late 1990s witnessed the formation of many transnational city networks dedicated to tackling climate change at the local level. Examples include the Climate Alliance, Cities for Climate Protection (CCP), and Energy-Cites. Several hundred cities have joined the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement to reduce carbon emissions in their cities below 1990 levels, in line with the Kyoto Protocol (The United States Conference of Mayors, 2005). Later in 2005, this horizontal connection of mayoral climate leadership was extended to a broader scope. C40 is a global network of nearly 100 mayors of the world’s leading cities that are united in action to confront the climate crisis. Initially, these networks were founded under the premise that the main obstacles to local climate action were related to information. Consequently, their emphasis was on generating and sharing technical information about local efforts to combat climate change, often relying on the organizational structure and funding of national or regional campaigns (Betsill and Bulkeley, 2004). With the evolution of global networks, transnational municipal networks have emerged as a novel form of governance, primarily consisting of pioneering cities. These horizontal networks exhibit three crucial characteristics: (a) member cities maintain autonomy and can opt to join or depart voluntarily; (b) they function through a system of self-governance; and (c) network decisions are directly implemented by their members (Kern and Alber, 2009).

Some scholars have concentrated on scrutinizing the influence of transnational municipal climate networks on local climate governance and have sought to conceptualize their effects. Through a comparative analysis of the mitigation goals of 327 European cities, it becomes apparent that the level of ambition displayed by cities is shaped by factors such as city size, involvement in climate networks, the blend of mitigation and adaptation efforts, as well as local motivation. Furthermore, the study reveals that a substantial proportion of cities actively pursuing carbon neutrality are affiliated with climate networks, emphasizing the significance of transnational networks in this context (Salvia et al., 2021). Contemporary research indicates that municipal networks such as the City Climate Planner (CCP) Certificate Program are effective in generating enthusiasm for novel initiatives through networking and the dissemination of best practices. National governments frequently endorse these networks to bolster local capabilities (Toly, 2008). Additionally, participants in these networks exhibit a willingness to transcend various levels and scales of governance, rendering them instrumental in shaping global environmental governance (Gustavsson et al., 2009).

Transnational networks of local governments are important for several reasons: (a) they provide financial and political resources, (b) they confer legitimacy to specific norms related to climate protection, (c) they facilitate the exchange of knowledge and information, and (d) they contribute to the development of norms concerning the characteristics and conditions of specific climate issues (Betsill and Bulkeley, 2004). Bulkeley et al. (2003) identify four avenues through which these networks exert influence: (a) disseminating knowledge; (b) lobbying higher levels of government; (c) facilitating implementation through agencies; (d) creating and promoting policy initiatives. Building on this, Busch et al. (2018) expand the understanding of impacts by highlighting the influence on internal governance processes within member municipalities. They identify the following processes: (a) enabling internal mobilization, (b) formulating emission reduction goals, (c) institutionalizing Climate Trajectories, (d) facilitating direct exchange, and (e) offering project support. Nonetheless, although transnational municipal networks play a key role in providing a platform for city-to-city learning, some authors argue that it is essential to make a clear distinction between in-depth learning and mere knowledge sharing (Haupt et al., 2020). In short, networking across municipal borders has become commonplace in urban climate governance (Gustavsson et al., 2009).

Moreover, the horizontal dimension of governance exists not solely within transnational networks but also within the state through subnational networks. The argument posits that transnational networks are not the primary form of cooperation, as many authorities continue to collaborate within specialized climate change networks at the national level rather than on an international scale (Betsill and Bulkeley, 2007). Nonetheless, subnational networks encounter three primary challenges: reframing climate change as a local issue, overcoming institutional barriers, and addressing the absence of policy changes at the state and national levels (Betsill, 2001). Consequently, the effectiveness of subnational networks varies significantly from place to place (Betsill and Bulkeley, 2006). This argument finds support in the case of Canada, where the national government grapples with challenges in implementing substantial emission reduction strategies. These challenges stem from the diverse and conflicting interests among provinces, necessitating a comprehensive approach to harmonize differing perspectives (Gore et al., 2009). Wolman and Page (2002) find that in their study of policy transfer among local authorities in Britain, there is limited learning taking place between these local governments. This limitation is attributed to the influence of national legislation and funding, which defines and constrains their actions. Betsill and Bulkeley (2006) argue that a multilevel governance perspective does not necessarily weaken the state but rather redefines the scope and scale of state activity.

The deeper horizontal connection of urban climate governance in transnational and subnational networks makes the cities nested within the hyperconnected global networks. Albeit the above advantages brought by this connectivity, such hyperconnectivity also exposes the cities to external risks, rendering them highly vulnerable to external shocks (Bai, 2024), for example, the extreme climate hazards across multiple spatial and temporal scales (Zscheischler et al., 2018). Such vulnerabilities are interconnected by environmental transformation feedback loops, economic market connections, and the movement of resources, individuals, and data (Adger et al., 2009). This global network risks due to highly interdependent calls for the paradigm shift to policy makers to design elaborate, suitable interaction rules and system architectures (Helbing, 2013). It is argued that to build networked functional resilience across cities by creating partnerships through sharing and coordinating disaster risk plans and actions (Bai et al., 2020). Geographically related cities should plan collectively to manage the compounded and emergent climate risk in anticipatory (Wolman and Page, 2002).

The intraurban dimension of urban climate governance

The multilevel perspectives of environmental governance tend to emphasize the global interconnectedness of cities and consider urban climate action as extensions of global climate governance. Nevertheless, the multilevel governance theory is increasingly criticized for the ignorance of the intimate interconnections between climate politics and urban political economies (Khan, 2013; Westman et al., 2019). More and more scholars express concerns about the significance of local particularities, which are often not sufficiently considered when transferring ideas from one context to another (Gupta et al., 2015). Although urban climate governance is shaped by forms of governance that stretch across geographical scales and beyond the boundary of the urban, inherently, it is also a process of translation of global narratives of climate change into locally specific policy responses and practices within the urban arena (Rutherford and Jaglin, 2015). Therefore, it is suggested that contextualized perspectives must be integrated into the discourse (Sapiains et al., 2021).

Greater attention to the contextuality of urban climate governance means adopting a more localized perspective on the intraurban dynamics of actors, institutions, and materialities that are embedded in specific places of climate action (Cheung and Oßenbrügge, 2020; Gailing and Moss, 2016; Hansen and Coenen, 2015; Rutherford, 2014; Rutherford and Coutard, 2014). As argued by Cheung and Oßenbrügge (2020, p. 1):

city-driven transitions should further expand from the translation of ‘global problem, local solution’, to a more local-oriented focus. The notion of locality highlights that urban energy transition is creating a special political arena with its own and self-regulated dynamics, and resulting in local solutions for both the governance mode and materiality of the urban energy system.

In many cases, the climate change narrative manifests in the urban arena as a set of issues “in a conjoined political and material sense” (Rutherford, 2020, p. 73).

On the one hand, urban climate governance is intricately molded by intracity determinants encompassing the abilities of policymakers, conflicts between different visions and interests, and difficulties in changing incumbent institutions (Huang and Broto, 2018). The contextuality of urban climate governance hence highlights the situated conditions of climate actions, drawing attention to “the crucial role of structures of power, economic interests, and political-economic coalitions that are firmly fixed in a local context” (Westman et al., 2019, p. 15). In-depth research has delved into spatially and temporally differentiated processes and transitions within specific contexts. Huang and Li (2020), for instance, show how the governance of new energy vehicles in Shenzhen has been shaped by dynamic politics between local actors, especially a strong coalition between the local government and industry players. Through a comparison of Graz and Freiburg, Rohracher and Späth (2013) argue that heterogeneous socio-technical regimes, actor constellations, and historical developments can significantly influence the transformation of energy systems toward greater sustainability. Similarly, Rocher (2017) explains how local climate change is being governed and shaped as a strategic planning issue by analyzing the case of Lyon, taking into account specific vulnerabilities, institutional structures, political dynamics, and social contexts. Moss also illustrates how the political and socioeconomic conditions of a city can shape urban energy transition and how socio-technical transitions are constructed by different actors (Moss, 2013). Additionally, scholars in the field of urban political ecology have made significant contributions to our understanding of the socio-ecological transformations that shape the production of urban economies and environments (Gandy, 2022; Grove, 2009; Rice, 2014). They employ urban political ecology perspectives to underscore the significance of the dynamic role of capital in shaping local environments and reshaping socio-material relations (Silver, 2017).

On the other hand, urban materiality manifests as a city’s socio-spatial configurations that shape the spatial patterns of economic and social activity (Bridge et al., 2013). Because effective climate action often entails a process of material translation, namely the integration of low-carbon technologies into a particular urban context (Bulkeley et al., 2014; Gandy, 2022), urban materiality might determine the compatibility of certain technologies within the urban infrastructural fabric, shaping forms of urban climate governance as well as the outcomes of low-carbon experiments (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2013). This is particularly evident for the energy sector, because energy infrastructures exhibit specific socio-materialities and territorializations and transitions of the energy system often have very visible material consequences for urban landscapes and environment (Bulkeley et al., 2014). Recognizing this, Becker et al. identify the spatial materiality of energy transitions as embodied in energy landscapes and physical infrastructures, highlighting its importance in understanding the spatial aspects of energy transitions (Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011). Taking Amman as a case study, Verdeil (2014) illustrates the necessity of conceptualizing the city as a material entity—a space of resource flows and connectivity—within the context of energy transitions. Rutherford’s analysis of energy-climate policy in Stockholm also reveals how urban energy transition is materially understood, experienced, and performed by a variety of local actors (Gailing and Moss, 2016).

The intraurban dimension of urban climate governance deals with the socioeconomic, political, and material dynamics within the territorial bounds of cities and highlights the local specificities that influence a city’s climate action. This trend responds to growing criticism regarding the excessive focus on climate actions and governing practices in well-known, “branded” cities. Simultaneously, it aligns with scholars’ calls for greater recognition of the importance of local preferences and expertise from less developed cities within the framework of transnational city networks and global climate governance (Leal and Paterson, 2023).

Critical reflections on the multiple dimensions of urban climate governance

First, a hierarchical approach to climate governance examines the distribution of competencies and authority at government levels. Compared to the traditional understanding of hierarchy, they stress the role of local authorities in pursuing an agenda of urban sustainability that goes beyond the national remit. The most debated problem and major barrier to vertical cooperation is the institutional and political constraints across multiple levels of governance (Gregorio et al., 2019). Scholarship indicates that barriers to transformational change include a lack of coordination and policy coherence across governance levels, electoral cycles, and leadership changes (Dale et al., 2018). Empirical studies have highlighted the constraints faced by sub-national actors in planning adaptation measures, primarily due to a lack of coordination at the national level. This lack of coordination often leads to limited capacity for sub-national actors to take action without sufficient support and resources from the national government (Juhola and Westerhoff, 2011). Moreover, the balance of responsibilities between the central government and local government within the hierarchy of climate governance is frequently debated in the literature. In many cases, a clear division of responsibilities and the absence of complete decentralization and devolution might lead to confusion and inadequate implementation of climate initiatives at the local level (Gupta, 2007). Some studies have observed that while central authorities initiate national climate strategies and stimulate responses at the local level, provincial governments may leverage these plans and actions to achieve their own goals (Miao and Li, 2017). Many cities are motivated by internal goals and take independent action to advance their climate agendas (Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011). For instance, in the United States, the lack of federal leadership in addressing climate change and the emphasis on local decision-making often result in decentralized approaches, leading to fragmented and uncoordinated actions that transcend jurisdictional boundaries (Homsy, 2018).

Second, a polycentric model of climate governance highlights interconnected horizontal spheres of authority governing specific matters. It emphasizes the significance of analyzing cross-cutting coalitions or “spheres” of authority. In this perspective, the focus is less on traditional government structures as the sole source of political authority, but rather on emerging forms of governance. While transnational municipal climate networks offer new potential for municipalities to expand their political influence and create more spaces for action cities (Haupt and Coppola, 2019; Leitner and Sheppard, 2002), these networks also pose challenges to existing state structures and relationships. Bansard et al. (2017) argue that transnational city networks are not yet as representative, ambitious, and transparent as they are often assumed to be. They highlight the skewness toward Global North participants and the domination of experiences from rich, industrialized, and developed countries, raising concerns about the potential reproduction of colonial knowledge production and the subsequent generalization of findings to the rest of the world (Connell, 2014). Informational and ideational flows, which are central to network dynamics, can hinder the formation of an agenda that genuinely incorporates the interests of both the Global North and South (Bouteligier, 2013; Doherty, 2006). In many cases, as their role as a new political arena is not easily defined, transnational climate networks are not merely policy delivery mechanisms but also non-governmental organizations advocating for change (Bulkeley et al., 2003). Tensions can arise between governments, networks, and citizens on various issues, such as ensuring grassroots participation in policymaking processes. On the other hand, transnational municipal networks are not devoid of power relations, which can create new inequalities and even exacerbate existing ones. The geographical distribution of cities and regions participating in transnational municipal networks worldwide, with a higher concentration in the Global North, reveals a significant gap in the current structure of urban climate governance: while historically high-emitting areas are well-represented, rapidly growing regions remain underrepresented (Bansard et al., 2017). This highly stratified core-periphery structure of cities in transnational municipal networks makes the global climate governance structure more centralized and deepens the existing inequalities around the world (Leffel et al., 2023). Such unequal power relationships are revealed in the composition of management bodies, the selection of best practices, agenda setting, and the choice of partners (Bouteligier, 2013).

Considering the democracy problem, transnational networks are subject to provisions and constraints imposed by national and regional governments, which may hinder the collective benefits they aim to achieve (Giest and Howlett, 2013). As urban networks become more densely interconnected, bottom-up city networks and their member cities might become increasingly integrated into national climate governance, potentially resulting in a loss of autonomy (Kern, 2019). The voluntary nature of these networks can lead to a lack of democratic legitimation, as their legitimacy tends to be based on achieved results rather than the inclusiveness of the decision-making process (Bulkeley et al., 2003). Overall, key challenges for horizontal coordination lie in four issues: burden-sharing within and across city networks; the suite of possible policy options they are embracing and endorsing; the role and voice of marginal cities and vulnerable urban populations; and the governance challenges related to moving from experimentation to collective global effect (Gordon and Craig, 2018).

Lastly, when a wave of localization and contextualization of climate governance makes “the local” as the primary space for developing solutions for climate change (Lawhon and Patel, 2013), an increasing number of scholars are raising questions about the extent to which this trend has weakened the presence of wider organizational and political forces (Bulkeley et al., 2018). There is a concern that concrete adaptation actions taking place in cities are quite limited and rely on only a handful of leaders, indicating a gap between rhetoric from the political ambitions of local decision-makers and the reality of local climate policy (Hughes, 2015). According to Bulkeley and Betsill (2013), it is proposed that the powers and abilities of local governments, as well as the ongoing debates that shape the understanding of urban issues, play a crucial role in influencing how the discourse of climate protection is interpreted and put into action. This process often results in the marginalization of climate protection and urban sustainability concerns. Moreover, there is a rising concern that shifting academic attention toward the localized nuances of climate governance could only generate fragmented and dispersed empirical knowledge. If the horizontal and vertical dimensions of urban climate governance open up the possibilities of scaling out or scaling up (Hamilton et al., 2014; Ostrom, 2010), the potential contributions of the intraurban dimension to wider replication or upscaling of climate governance practices appear to be a matter of uncertainty and questioning. On the one hand, because the urban climate dynamics are influenced by the interplay of economic, social, and political forces that operate across a spectrum of levels and within varying systems of governance (Broto, 2017; Cadman et al., 2017; Johnson et al., 2015; Schroeder and Bulkeley, 2009), examining the urban climate governance dynamics exclusively from an intraurban standpoint offers only a fraction of the comprehensive insights needed (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2013; Gibbs and Jonas, 2000; Gleeson and Low, 2000). On the other hand, a focus on the contextuality of urban climate governance often highlights the urban as a separate and discrete locale of political authority for climate action, which might run risks of disconnecting the urban from the broader regional, national, and global contexts, potentially consolidating a new form of climate “localism” (Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011; Marvin and Guy, 1997).

Orchestrating the verticality, horizontality, and contextuality of urban climate governance

A comprehensive review of the literature on urban climate governance shows that the field is experiencing a pattern of widening differentiation, of which one of the most important trends is the perspective of multilevel governance, with its emphasis on the connections between vertical tiers of government and horizontally organized forms of governance (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005). Nevertheless, as pointed out by Westman et al. (2019) while the emphasis on the vertical and horizontal interactions among actors highlights the diversity of voices and interests at play in the realm of climate politics, the multilevel perspective could potentially mask the underlying power dynamics on the ground. In addition to the vertical and horizontal dimensions of urban climate governance, this review draws out the contextuality of urban climate action as a distinct dimension, drawing upon the rapidly expanding literature on the spatiality of urban sustainability transitions and urban material politics that reveal the complexities of climate politics and its material expression in the urban fabric.

A critical review of each dimension of urban climate governance reaffirms the importance of coordination between different dimensions. Global climate governance is not a process of the powering drifting between sovereign states and non-state actors in an increasingly complex climate regime, but public and private authority is deeply intertwined in the new landscape of international climate cooperation (Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011). Thus, it can be seen as a process of interactions between the bottom-up and top-down dynamics, in which local policy initiatives can inform higher-level policymaking and national priorities can shape and reshape policy mixes at local governments (Huang, 2019). Case studies, such as those conducted in Canada, have shown that coordinated climate action between different levels of government, in collaboration with civil society groups and researchers, can accelerate the potential for effective climate action (Dale et al., 2020). In contrast to multilevel approaches, a polycentric approach to climate governance involves self-organization and ongoing coordination among multiple actors operating at different scales, allowing for adaptability and collective action (Dorsch and Flachsland, 2017). One of the advantages of this approach, which favors societal self-coordination within market-like governance structures, is that it may lead to learning-by-doing and subsequent horizontal diffusion or upscaling to higher climate governance levels (Ostrom, 2014; Wurzel et al., 2019; Table 1). Taking the broader context of the multilevel and polycentric approach into consideration will help scholars to explain and differentiate the actors in climate governance. An expanded sphere of stakeholders emphasizes the importance of fostering collaborative relationships and partnerships to address complex challenges effectively (Juhola and Westerhoff, 2011). A large majority of local climate plans identify procedures for coordinating with outside agencies such as businesses, other governments, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Tang et al., 2010).

Table 1.

Three key dimensions of urban climate governance.

Dimension	Core focus	Key actors	Governance logics	Reference
Verticality	Distribution of power, resources, and responsibilities across administrative levels (global, national, regional, local).	National and local governments, international organizations (e.g. UN, World Bank).	Policy transmission downward and initiative scaling upward. Centered on longitudinal flows of authority and resources.	Westman et al. (2019); Krueger et al. (2022); Hughes (2015); Bauer and Steurer (2014); Giest and Howlett (2013); Lee and Painter (2015), etc.
Horizontality	Learning, cooperation, and norm diffusion among parallel entities (city-to-city, cross-sectoral networks).	City governments, transnational municipal networks (e.g. C40), professional communities, private sector, NGOs.	Non-hierarchical coalition-building through information sharing, lesson-drawing, and joint advocacy.	Betsill and Bulkeley (2006); Lipschutz and Mayer (1996); Salvia et al. (2021); Toly (2008); Gustavsson et al. (2009); Haupt et al. (2020); Bai (2024), etc.
Contextuality	Shaping of climate action by intra-urban political economies, socio-cultural dynamics, material infrastructures, and spatial forms.	Intra-local government departments, local businesses, community organizations, residents, local knowledge, and material environment.	The process through which global climate discourses and governance models are concretized, reinterpreted, and materialized within a specific urban context.	Rutherford and Jaglin, (2015); Sapiains et al. (2021); Cheung and Oßenbrügge (2020); Gailing and Moss (2016); Rutherford (2014); Rutherford and Coutard (2014); Hansen and Coenen (2015); Huang and Broto (2018), etc.

Overall, the effectiveness of urban climate governance cannot rely on operation in single dimensions but on the orchestration between vertical, horizontal, and intraurban dimensions (Kern and Alber, 2009). Interaction between the multidimensional dynamics in multilevel systems of governance is not exclusive but overlaps and reinforces each other (Jänicke, 2015). Establishing network connections across government sectors and at different administrative levels is often essential to facilitate collaboration, coordination, and the mobilization of resources within the government (Bai et al., 2009; Leck and Simon, 2013). This means facilitating vertical and horizontal collaboration between government departments and at the same time paying attention to the place-specific particularities of the urban environment (Collier and Löfstedt, 1997).

One approach might relate to the establishment of cross-dimensional coordinating governance mechanisms and entities, which hold the capacity to bring together different actors from a variety of levels and scales. Important to such coordinators is the possession of rich knowledge and full sensitivity to the local nuances of climate actions so as to foster context-appropriate solutions (Krueger et al., 2022; Sidiki et al., 2015). Such approaches to orchestrated governance grant cities significant autonomy in shaping climate action strategies that are finely tuned to local conditions while remaining aligned with the broader regional, national, and global climate change frameworks. Recently, there has been an attempt to build a conceptual framework of urban governance configuration, contributing to combining both the spatial and scalar dimension of governance and their interactions through the lens of spatial knowledge management in cities (Baud et al., 2021). The research about the urban governance in Uppsala, the location for the Climate Protocol in Sweden, underscores the significance of the capacity of local government in coordinating resources for climate initiatives through collaborative governance (Sidiki et al., 2015). Considering the multidimensional features of urban climate governance, some propose a “sustainable urban governance framework” that integrates the principles of effective urban management, the interconnections between different aspects of sustainability, and the mechanisms of governance across various levels. This framework aims to provide a comprehensive approach that addresses the justifications at different scales, from macro to micro and across intermediate levels (Thoyyib et al., 2025). They stress the significance of understanding the interlinks of sustainability dimensions, and urban policies and governance systems must be “contextually validated, hierarchically structured, and collaboratively engaged” (Thoyyib et al., 2025, p. 14). From these limited understandings, more scholarly debates are needed to consider the multidimensionality of urban climate governance. Hosts of cases in urban climate governance remain to be investigated empirically. The orchestration of both intraurban, horizontal, and vertical dimensions of urban climate governance would enhance both the breadth and depth in terms of the influences of climate efforts (Appadurai, 2001).

Overall, this review establishes that urban climate governance is a multidimensional practice, requiring the strategic orchestration of vertical, horizontal, and contextual dimensions. Moving forward, future research should transcend isolated analyses of these dimensions to investigate their dynamic interactions. Empirical studies on underrepresented cities in the Global South and smaller municipalities hold significant potential to enrich urban climate governance research. Addressing these gaps is crucial, as it will enable the development of integrated assessment frameworks that simultaneously evaluate ecological effectiveness, social equity, and procedural fairness in multidimensional governance—key foundations for building more robust, adaptive, and just climate governance systems.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Lu Chen

Ping Huang

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biographies

Lu Chen is a PhD student at the Department of Geography and Resource Management, the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Her research focuses on urban environmental governance, green finance, and economic geography.

Ping Huang is an Associate Professor and Assistant Dean at the School of Public Policy, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and concurrently serves as Deputy Director of the Institute for International Affairs, Qianhai - a leading think tank in South China. He is an Associate Editor for Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions and Energy Research & Social Science. His research encompasses sustainability transitions, innovation studies, economic geography, and energy transition. He has authored more than 50 publications in leading academic journals, including Research Policy, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, Global Environmental Politics, and Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers.

Zhi Yin is an independent scholar who received her PhD in Human Geography from Utrecht University. Her research focuses on new marxist urban theory.

References

Adger

Eakin

Winkels

(2009) Nested and teleconnected vulnerabilities to environmental change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(3): 150–157. DOI: 10.1890/070148.

Anguelovski

Carmin

(2011) Something borrowed, everything new: Innovation and institutionalization in urban climate governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 3(3): 169–175.

Appadurai

(2001) Deep democracy: Urban governmentality and the horizon of politics. Environment and Urbanization 13(2): 23–43.

Bai

(2024) Build networked resilience across cities. Science 383: eado5304. DOI: 10.1126/science.ado5304.

Bai

Nagendra

Shi

, et al. (2020) Cities: Build networks and share plans to emerge stronger from COVID-19. Nature 584: 517–520. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-020-02459-2.

Bai

Wieczorek

Kaneko

, et al. (2009) Enabling sustainability transitions in Asia: The importance of vertical and horizontal linkages. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 76(2): 255–266.

Bansard

Pattberg

Widerberg

(2017) Cities to the rescue? Assessing the performance of transnational municipal networks in global climate governance. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 17: 229–246.

Barber

(2013) If Mayors Ruled the World: Dysfunctional Nations, Rising Cities. Yale University Press.

Baud

Jameson

Peyroux

, et al. (2021) The urban governance configuration: A conceptual framework for understanding complexity and enhancing transitions to greater sustainability in cities. Geography Compass 15(5): e12562.

10.

Bauer

Steurer

(2014) Multi-level governance of climate change adaptation through regional partnerships in Canada and England. Geoforum 51: 121–129.

11.

Betsill

(2001) Mitigating climate change in US cities: Opportunities and obstacles. Local Environment 6(4): 391–406.

12.

Betsill

Bulkeley

(2004) Transnational networks and global environmental governance: The cities for climate protection program. International Studies Quarterly 48: 471–493.

13.

Betsill

Bulkeley

(2006) Cities and the multilevel governance of global climate change. Global Governance 12(2): 141–159.

14.

Betsill

Bulkeley

(2007) Looking back and thinking ahead: A decade of cities and climate change research. Local Environment 12(5): 447–456.

15.

Bouteligier

(2013) Inequality in new global governance arrangements: The North–South divide in transnational municipal networks, innovation. The European Journal of Social Science Research 26(3): 251–267.

16.

Bridge

Bouzarovski

Bradshaw

, et al. (2013) Geographies of energy transition: Space, place and the low-carbon economy. Energy Policy 53: 331–340.

17.

Broto

(2017) Urban governance and the politics of climate change. World Development 93: 1–15.

18.

Bulkeley

Betsill

(2005) Rethinking sustainable cities: Multilevel governance and the ‘urban’ politics of climate change. Environmental Politics 14: 42–63.

19.

Bulkeley

Betsill

(2013) Revisiting the urban politics of climate change. Environmental Politics 22(1): 136–154.

20.

Bulkeley

Castan Broto

Maassen

(2014) Low-carbon transitions and the reconfiguration of urban infrastructure. Urban Studies 51(7): 1471–1486.

21.

Bulkeley

Davies

Evans

, et al. (2003) Environmental governance and transnational municipal networks in Europe. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 5(3): 235–254.

22.

Bulkeley

Kern

(2006) Local government and the governing of climate change in Germany and the UK. Urban Studies 43(2): 2237–2259.

23.

Bulkeley

Luque-Ayala

McFarlane

, et al. (2018) Enhancing urban autonomy: Towards a new political project for cities. Urban Studies 55(4): 702–719.

24.

Busch

Bendlin

Fenton

(2018) Shaping local response – The influence of transnational municipal climate networks on urban climate governance. Urban Climate 24: 221–230.

25.

Cadman

Maguire

Sampford

(2017) Governing the Climate Change Regime: Institutional Integrity and Integrity Systems. Routledge.

26.

Castán Broto

Westman

(2020) Ten years after Copenhagen: Reimagining climate change governance in urban areas. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 11(4): e643.

27.

Cheung

Oßenbrügge

(2020) Governing urban energy transitions and climate change: Actions, relations and local dependencies in Germany. Energy Research & Social Science 69: 101728.

28.

Ciplet

Roberts

(2017) Climate change and the transition to neoliberal environmental governance. Global Environmental Change 46(4): 148–156.

29.

Collier

Löfstedt

(1997) Think globally, act locally?: Local climate change and energy policies in Sweden and the UK. Global Environmental Change 7(1): 25–40.

30.

Connell

(2014) Using southern theory: Decolonizing social thought in theory, research and application. Planning Theory 13(2): 210–223.

31.

Dale

Burch

Robinson

, et al. (2018) Multilevel governance of sustainability transitions in Canada: Policy alignment, innovation, and evaluation. In: Hughes

Mason

Chu

(eds) Climate Change in Cities: Innovations in Multi-Level Governance. Springer, 343–358.

32.

Dale

Robinson

King

, et al. (2020) Meeting the climate change challenge: Local government climate action in British Columbia, Canada. Climate Policy 20(7): 866–880.

33.

D’Almeida Martins

da Costa Ferreira

(2011) Climate change action at the city level: Tales from two megacities in Brazil. Management of Environmental Quality 22(3): 344–357. DOI: 10.1108/14777831111122914.

34.

Doherty

(2006) Friends of the earth international: Negotiating a transnational identity. Environmental Politics 15(5): 860–880.

35.

Dorsch

Flachsland

(2017) A polycentric approach to global climate governance. Global Environmental Politics 17(2): 45–64.

36.

Gailing

Moss

(2016) Conceptualizing Germany’s Energy Transition: Institution, Materiality, Space. Springer Nature.

37.

Gandy

(2022) Urban political ecology: A critical reconfiguration. Progress in Human Geography 46(1): 21–43.

38.

Gibbs

Jonas

(2000) Governance and regulation in local environmental policy: The utility of a regime approach. Geoforum 31(3): 299–313.

39.

Giest

Howlett

(2013) Comparative climate change governance: Lessons from European transnational municipal network management efforts. Environmental Policy and Governance 23(6): 341–353.

40.

Gleeson

Low

(2000) Cities as consumers of the world’s environment.In: Low

Gleeson

Blander

, et al. (eds) Consuming Cities: The Urban Environment in the Global Economy After the Rio Declaration. Routledge, 1–29.

41.

Gordon

Craig

(2018) City-networks, global climate governance, and the road to 1.5°C. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 30: 35–41.

42.

Gore

Robinson

(2009) Local government response to climate change: Our last, best hope.In: Selin

VanDeveer

(eds) Changing Climates in North American Politics: Institutions, Policymaking, and Multilevel Governance. MIT Press, 137–158.

43.

Gore

Robinson

Stren

(2009) Governance and climate change: Assessing and learning from Canadian cities. In: Hoornweg

Freire

Lee

, et al. (eds) Fifth Urban Research Symposium, Cities and Climate Change: Responding to an Urgent Agenda. World Bank, 28–30.

44.

Gregorio

Leandra Fatorelli

Locatelli

, et al. (2019) Multi-level governance and power in climate change policy networks. Global Environmental Change 54: 64–77.

45.

Grove

(2009) Rethinking the nature of urban environmental politics: Security, subjectivity, and the non-human. Geoforum 40(2): 207–216.

46.

Gupta

(2007) The multi-level governance challenge of climate change. Environmental Sciences 4(3): 131–137.

47.

Gupta

Pfeffer

Ros-Tonen

, et al. (2015) An inclusive development perspective on the geographies of urban governance. In: Gupta

Pfeffer

Verrest

, et al. (eds) Geographies of Urban Governance: Advanced Theories, Methods and Practices. Springer, 217–228.

48.

Gustavsson

Elander

Lundmark

(2009) Multilevel governance, networking cities, and the geography of climate-change mitigation: Two Swedish examples. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 27(1): 59–74.

49.

Hamilton

Mayne

Parag

, et al. (2014) Scaling up local carbon action: The role of partnerships, networks and policy. Carbon Management 5(4): 463–476.

50.

Hansen

Coenen

(2015) The geography of sustainability transitions: Review, synthesis and reflections on an emergent research field. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 17: 92–109.

51.

Haughton

Hunter

(1994) Sustainable Cities. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

52.

Haupt

Chelleri

van Herk

, et al. (2020) City-to-city learning within climate city networks: Definition, significance, and challenges from a global perspective. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 12(2): 143–159.

53.

Haupt

Coppola

(2019) Climate governance in transnational municipal networks: Advancing a potential agenda for analysis and typology. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 11(2): 123–140.

54.

Helbing

(2013) Globally networked risks and how to respond. Nature 497: 51–59. DOI: 10.1038/nature12047.

55.

Homsy

(2018) Size, sustainability, and urban climate planning in a multilevel governance framework. In: Hughes

Chu

Mason

(eds) Climate Change in Cities Innovations in Multi-Level Governance. Springer, 19–38.

56.

Hooghe

Marks

(2003) Unravelling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. American Political Science Review 97(2): 233–243.

57.

Huang

(2019) The verticality of policy mixes for sustainability transitions: A case study of solar water heating in China. Research Policy 48(10): 1–22.

58.

Huang

Broto

(2018) Interdependence between urban processes and energy transitions: The Dimensions of Urban Energy Transitions (DUET) framework. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 28: 35–45.

59.

Huang

(2020) Politics of urban energy transitions: New energy vehicle (NEV) development in Shenzhen, China. Environmental Politics 29(3): 524–545.

60.

Hughes

(2015) A meta-analysis of urban climate change adaptation planning in the US. Urban Climate 14: 17–29.

61.

IPCC (2018) Global Warmingof 1.5 °C. Cambridge University Press, 616. DOI: 10.1017/9781009157940.

62.

Jänicke

(2015) Horizontal and vertical reinforcement in global climate governance. Energies 8(6): 5782–5799.

63.

Johnson

Toly

Schroeder

(2015) The Urban Climate Challenge. Routledge.

64.

Juhola

Westerhoff

(2011) Challenges of adaptation to climate change across multiple scales: A case study of network governance in two European countries. Environmental Science & Policy 14(3): 239–247.

65.

Kemmerzell

(2018) Innovations in European climate governance and their impact on local climate policy: An analysis of German major cities. In: Hughes

Chu

Mason

(eds) Climate Change in Cities Innovations in Multi-Level Governance. Springer, 39–57.

66.

Kern

(2019) Cities as leaders in EU multilevel climate governance: Embedded upscaling of local experiments in Europe. Environmental Politics 28: 125–145.

67.

Kern

Alber

(2009) Governing climate change in cities: Modes of urban climate governance in multi-level systems. In: The international conference on competitive cities and climate change, Milan, Italy, 9–10 October, 171–196. OECD.

68.

Kern

Bulkeley

(2009) Cities, Europeanization and multi-level governance: Governing climate change through transnational municipal networks. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 47(2): 309–332.

69.

Khan

(2013) What role for network governance in urban low carbon transitions? Journal of Cleaner Production 50: 133–139.

70.

Krueger

Constantino

Centeno

, et al. (2022) Governing sustainable transformations of urban social-ecological-technological systems. NPJ Urban Sustainability 2: 10.

71.

Lawhon

Patel

(2013) Scalar politics and local sustainability: Rethinking governance and justice in an era of political and environmental change. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 31(6): 1048–1062.

72.

Leal

Paterson

(2023) Transnational city networks, global political economy, and climate governance: C40 in Mexico and Lima. Review of International Political Economy 31(1): 26–46. DOI: 10.1080/09692290.2023.2167849.

73.

Leck

Simon

(2013) Fostering multiscalar collaboration and co-operation for effective governance of climate change adaptation. Urban Studies 50(6): 1221–1238.

74.

Lee

Painter

(2015) Comprehensive local climate policy: The role of urban governance. Urban Climate 14: 566–577.

75.

Leffel

Derudder

Acuto

, et al. (2023) Not so polycentric: The stratified structure & national drivers of transnational municipal networks. Cities 143: 104597.

76.

Leitner

Sheppard

(2002) The city is dead, long live the network: Harnessing networks for a neoliberal era. Antipode 34(3): 495–518.

77.

Lipschutz

Mayer

(1996) Global Civil Society and Global Environmental Governance: The Politics of Nature from Place to Planet. State University of New York Press.

78.

Mai

Francesch-Huidobro

(2014) Climate Change Governance in Chinese Cities. Routledge.

79.

Marvin

Guy

(1997) Creating myths rather than sustainability: The transition fallacies of the new localism. Local Environment 2: 311–318.

80.

Miao

Y-wV

(2017) Local climate governance under the shadow of hierarchy: Evidence from China’s Yangtze River Delta. Urban Policy and Research 35(3): 298–311.

81.

Moss

(2013) Socio-technical change and the politics of urban infrastructure: Managing energy in Berlin between dictatorship and democracy. Urban Studies 51(7): 1432–1448.

82.

Ostrom

(2010) A multi-scale approach to coping with climate change and other collective action problems. Solutions Journal 1(2): 27–36.

83.

Ostrom

(2014) A polycentric approach for coping with climate change. Annals of Economics and Finance 15(1): 97–134.

84.

Patterson

(2021) More than planning: Diversity and drivers of institutional adaptation under climate change in 96 major cities. Global Environmental Change 68: 102279.

85.

Pratchett

(2004) Local autonomy, local democracy and the ‘new localism’. Political Studies 52(2): 358–375. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2004.00484.x.

86.

Rice

(2014) An urban political ecology of climate change governance. Geography Compass 8(6): 381–394.

87.

Rocher

(2017) Governing metropolitan climate-energy transition: A study of Lyon’s strategic planning. Urban Studies 54(5): 1–16.

88.

Rohracher

Späth

(2013) The interplay of urban energy policy and socio-technical transitions: The eco-cities of Graz and Freiburg in retrospect. Urban Studies 7: 1415–1431.

89.

Rosenzweig

Solecki

Hammer

, et al. (2010) Cities lead the way in climate–change action. Nature 467(7318): 909–911. DOI: 10.1038/467909a.

90.

Rosenzweig

Solecki

Romero-Lankao

, et al. (2018) Climate Change and Cities: Second Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network. Cambridge University Press.

91.

Rutherford

(2014) The vicissitudes of energy and climate policy in Stockholm: Politics, materiality and transition. Urban Studies 51(7): 1449–1470.

92.

Rutherford

(2020). Redeploying Urban Infrastructure: The Politics of Urban Socio-Technical Futures. Springer International Publishing. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-17887-1.

93.

Rutherford

Coutard

(2014) Urban energy transitions: Places, processes and politics of socio-technical change. Urban Studies 51(7): 1353–1377.

94.

Rutherford

Jaglin

(2015) Introduction to the special issue-urban energy governance: Local actions, capacities and politics. Energy Policy 78: 173–178.

95.

Salvia

Reckien

Pietrapertosa

, et al. (2021) Will climate mitigation ambitions lead to carbon neutrality? An analysis of the local-level plans of 327 cities in the EU. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 135(1): 110253.

96.

Sapiains

Ibarra

Jiménez

, et al. (2021) Exploring the contours of climate governance: An interdisciplinary systematic literature review from a southern perspective. Environmental Policy and Governance 31(1): 46–59.

97.

Schreurs

(2008) From the bottom up: Local and subnational climate change politics. The Journal of Environment & Development 17(4): 343–355.

98.

Schroeder

Bulkeley

(2009) Global cities and the governance of climate change: What is the role of law in cities? Fordham Urban Law Review 36(2): 313–359.

99.

Sidiki

Carboni

Koski

, et al. (2015) How policy rules shape the structure and performance of collaborative governance arrangements. Public Administrative Review 75(4): 536–547.

100.

Silver

(2017) The climate crisis, carbon capital and urbanisation: An urban political ecology of low-carbon restructuring in Mbale. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 49(7): 1453–1703.

101.

Sun

Baker

(2021) Multilevel governance framework for low-carbon development in urban China: A case study of Hongqiao Business District, Shanghai. Cities 119(8): 103405.

102.

Tang

Brody

Quinn

, et al. (2010) Moving from agenda to action: Evaluating local climate change action plans. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 53(1): 41–62.

103.

The United States Conference of Mayors (2005) Mayors Climate Protection Center. Available at: https://www.usmayors.org/programs/mayors-climate-protection-center/ (accessed 5 June 2024).

104.

Thoyyib

Islam

KMB

Guha

(2025) Exploring sustainable urban governance: Evolving dynamics, transitions, and ambiguities. Journal of Urban Affairs 47(9): 3279–3301.

105.

Toly

(2008) Transnational municipal networks in climate politics: From global governance to global politics. Globalizations 5(3): 341–356.

106.

van der Berg

(2022) Climate adaptation planning for resilient and sustainable cities: Perspectives from the city of Rotterdam (Netherlands) and the city of Antwerp (Belgium). European Journal of Risk Regulation 14(3): 564–582. DOI: 10.1017/err.2022.17.

107.

van der Heijden

(2019) Studying urban climate governance: Where to begin, what to look for, and how to make a meaningful contribution to scholarship and practice. Earth System Governance 1: 100005.

108.

van Doren

Driessen

Runhaar

, et al. (2018) Scaling-up low-carbon urban initiatives: Towards a better understanding. Urban Studies 55(1): 175–194.

109.

Verdeil

(2014) The contested energy future of Amman, Jordan: Between promises of alternative energies and a nuclear venture. Urban Studies 51(7): 1520–1536.

110.

Wang

Hawkins

Lebredo

, et al. (2012) Capacity to sustain sustainability: A study of US cities. Public Administration Review 72(6): 841–853.

111.

Weiss

(2011) International law in a kaleidoscopic world. Asian Journal of International Law 1: 21–32.

112.

Westman

Broto

Huang

(2019) Revisiting multi-level governance theory: Politics and innovation in the urban climate transition in Rizhao, China. Political Geography 70: 14–23.

113.

Wilbanks

Kates

(1999) Global change in local places: How scale matters. Climatic Change 43(3): 601–629.

114.

Wolman

Page

(2002) Policy transfer among local governments: An information–theory approach. Governance 15(4): 577–501.

115.

Wurzel

Liefferink

Torney

(2019) Pioneers, leaders and followers in multilevel and polycentric climate governance. Environmental Politics 28: 1–21.

116.

Zscheischler

Westra

van den Hurk

, et al. (2018) Future climate risk from compound events. Nature Climate Change 8: 469–477. DOI: 10.1038/s41558-018-0156-3.