wellbeing, local spaces and environmental values. They also tend to do so in ways that acknowledge working with informality and marginalized groups rather than against them. Moreover, studies on participatory budgeting experiments have shown how such governance innovations can lead to impressive ‘inversion in priorities’, even over short periods of time. ‘Inversions’ here refer to the shifts in spending towards previously disadvantaged areas (e.g., poor neighbourhoods, informal settlements, neglected peri-urban areas) and shifts in political participation (e.g., those who were previously excluded from decision-making can now participate in decisions on spending of public resources) (Cabannes and Lipietz 2018). Similarly, the emerging trend in city-level citizens’ assemblies, set up to address diverse urban and sustainability concerns ranging from food to climate change adaptation strategies (Doherty et al. 2020), speaks to the importance of discussion and dialogue processes to foster the city as a ‘collective actor’ (Le Galès 2002), able to respond with the interest of citizens and nature in the face of growing environmental sustainability and inequality challenges.
Of course, participatory planning or participatory forms of city-making are not new approaches and are not, in and of themselves, sufficient disruptors of business-as-usual urban development approaches. In particular, these processes can be captured by dominant plans or discourses driven by powerful vested interests or well-organized stakeholders (Lipietz 2008). However, the examples above offer interesting and promising results. In particular, the ad hoc selection of participants in many citizen assemblies, coupled with careful facilitation of difficult discussions (e.g. on trade-offs related to climate change adaptation strategies) have been interesting innovations to help challenge existing power structures and create a public focus for deliberations. These are crucial for fostering open discussions where behavioural patterns (e.g. regarding individual car use, aspirations for large housing plots or other markers of success) can be confronted with their long-term and broader socio-spatial and environmental implications. Equally useful have been attempts to create opportunities for discussions that explore the full slate of environmental issues affecting city dwellers and the diverse pathways for change.
Deliberation, or open discussion, is also part of participatory budgeting experiments. The outcomes of such discussion and participation in the life of the city have been linked to immediate material transformation on the ground (e.g. the development of new cycle lanes, new lighting, new common food growing plots,), which have rekindled a sense of belonging and ownership for many who have been previously excluded from decision-making in their neighbourhoods and cities. In Seville (Spain), for example, assemblies of women, youth and migrant communities have been introduced to ensure excluded groups can overcome the structural conditions that make it difficult for them to participate in the life of the city. In other cities, approaches to improve the quality and transformative potential of participatory budgeting have included civic education on budget literacy, budget resources, the responsibilities of municipal/metropolitan governments (vis-à-vis other
36 GEO for Cities
tiers of government), or the mechanisms for improved and respectful dialogue and debate. Importantly, as in Gunirulhos (Brazil), such training has targeted participatory budgeting delegates and local government officials (UN-Habitat 2004; Molina 2011; Cabannes and Lipietz 2018).
Inclusive and participatory decision-making processes, where they have been put in practice and developed, have enabled the renewed mobilisation of diverse city inhabitants and institutions. This has transformed the structural societal forces that have placed and kept cities on inequitable and environmentally unsustainable trajectories.
2.4.2 Partnerships and Coalition-Building
Coalitions, partnerships and organized city networks have been key opportunities for moving urban sustainability and equity agendas forward, allowing cities to navigate the gaps in capacity, information, authority, and resources presented earlier. In the face of growing complexity and uncertainty, there is a need to open up solution-finding to a variety of knowledge holders and resources. Partnership-based governance, ranging from ad hoc arrangements to formal authority sharing, have arisen as part of cities’ efforts to respond to such challenges. Admittedly, such partnerships and coalitions can be difficult to establish, resource and maintain, and have presented their own political challenges. Their creation and maintenance have often been iterative and have required constant attention. Building the capacity of city governments to engage in such partnerships and lead coalition building has therefore been an important strategy for those cities that are already engaged in transformative change.
Partnerships, coalitions and city networks have been developed at a variety of scales, bringing together a diverse range of actors. At the global and regional level, city networks have worked for some time on a wide range of topics related to governance and environmental sustainability, with an increased focus on nature and climate change in the past decade. These platforms foster learning and capacity building targeted at local governments, allow cities to advocate for what they need and to influence the outcomes of international discussions. The networks also help cities to navigate these international and national fora to facilitate better connections between national governments and cities.
In 1990 ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability first established a network of large and small cities from across the globe that were committing to collective action on sustainability in the wake of the Rio Earth Summit. ICLEI has since been joined by a large variety of organizations and movements that work to provide a collective and widely diverse range of services and tools to cities. The Global Task Force, the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy (GCOM) and the nature focused CitiesWithNature initiatives are examples of networks and initiatives coming together to provide integrated and enabling platforms to inspire cities to take bold and often ground-breaking efforts towards a more sustainable shared urban future. Similarly,
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146
