Climate Adaptation and Citizens’ Participation in Denmark: Experiences from Copenhagen

Chapter
Part of the The Urban Book Series book series (UBS)

Abstract

In a Danish perspective, climate adaptation and investments in new infrastructures for storm water management open up new possibilities for citizens’ engagement in urban spatial improvements. Climate adaptation projects are developed in a multilevel governance framework that balances cross-sectoral approaches with participation mechanisms. The chapter accounts for the Copenhagen climate adaptation case, and it explores how the city strategically meta-govern the boundaries between the expert governed large-scale water management scheme against small-scale place-based bottom-up projects in collaboration with citizens and other place-based stakeholders.

Keywords

Climate adaptation Participation Urban governance Consensus-steering Urban renewal Place-making 

References

  1. Agger, A. (2005). Demokrati og deltagelse—et borgerperspektiv på kvarterløft. Statens Byggeforskningsinstitut.Google Scholar
  2. Albrechts, L. (2005). Creativity as a drive for change. Planning Theory, 4(3), 247–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alford, J. (2013). The multiple facets of co-production: Building on the work of Elinor Ostrom. Public Management Review, 16(3), 299–316.Google Scholar
  4. Andersen, J. G., Torpe, L., & Andersen, J. (2000). Hvad folket magter. Demokrati, magt og afmagt [The powers of the people. Democracy, power and public alienation] Demokratiprojektet, Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag.Google Scholar
  5. Andersen, H. S., Vestergaard, H., & Gottschalk, G. (2001). Det danske boligmarked-udvikling i boligforsyning og boligønsker [The Danish Housing Market: Trends in Housing Supply and Housing Preferences] Copenhagen, AKF, 2001.Google Scholar
  6. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(1969), 216–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baldersheim, H., & Ståhlberg, K. (2002). From guided democracy to multi-level governance: Trends in central-local relations in the Nordic Countries. Local Government Studies, 28(3), 74–90. doi:10.1080/714004149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bhatti Y., & Møller Hansen K. (2010). Valgdeltagelsen ved kommunalvalget 17, November 2009. Beskrivende analyser af valgdeltagelsen baseret på registerdata, Københavns Universitet, Institut for Statskundskab Arbejdspapir 2010/03.Google Scholar
  9. Blanco, I., Griggs, S., & Sullivan, H. (2014). Situating the local in the neoliberalisation and transformation of urban governance. Urban Studies, 51(15), 3129–3146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christopoulos, S., Horvath, B., & Kull, M. (2012). Advancing the governance of cross-sectoral policies for sustainable development: A metagovernance perspective. Public Administration and Development, 32, 305–323.Google Scholar
  11. City of Copenhagen. (2015, October). Climate Change. Adaptation and Investment Statement. Copenhagen: City of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  12. Cloutier, G., Joerin, F., Dubois, C., Labarthe, M., Legay, C., & Viens, D. (2015). Planning adaptation based on local actors’ knowledge and participation: A climate governance experiment. Climate Policy, 15(4), 458–474. doi:10.1080/14693062.2014.937388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davies, J. S. (2011). Challenging governance theory: From networks to hegemony. Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Engberg, L. A., Bayer, S., & Tarnø, C. S. (2000). Konsensus-Styring i Kvarterløft: Kommunernes Erfaringer med Organisering af Kvarterløft [Consensus-Steering in “Neighbourhood Uplift”. Organisation of Area-Based Interventions in Local Government] (By og Byg Resultater, 002). Hoersholm: Statens Byggeforskningsinstitut.Google Scholar
  15. Engberg, L. A., & Larsen, J. N. (2010). Context-oriented meta-governance in Danish urban regeneration. Planning Theory & Practice, 11(4), 549–571.Google Scholar
  16. Ærø, T., Andersen, H. S., Gottschalk, G., Jensen, J. O., Engberg, L. A., Norvig Larsen, J., et al. (2008). Evaluering af lov om byfornyelse ogudvikling af byer. Sammenfatning [Evaluation of law on urban renewal. Summary], SBI 2008:02.Google Scholar
  17. Hajer, M., Nilsson, M., Raworth, K., Bakker, P., Berkhout, F., de Boer, Y., et al. (2015). Beyond cockpit-ism: Four insights to enhance the transformative potential of the sustainable development goals. Sustainability, 7, 1651–1660.Google Scholar
  18. Hartley, J. (2005). Innovation in governance and public services: Past and present. Public Money & Management, 25(1), 27–34. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9302.2005.00447.x.Google Scholar
  19. Haveri, A. (2015). Nordic local government: A success story, but will it last? International Journal of Public Sector Management, 28(2), 136–149.Google Scholar
  20. Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2013). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society, published online 28 March 2013.Google Scholar
  21. Hillier, J. (2002). Shadows of power: An allegory of prudence in land-use planning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Jacquier, C. (2005). On relationships between integrated policies for sustainable urban development and urban governance. In Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 96(4), 363–376.Google Scholar
  23. Jessop, B. (1998). The rise of governance and the risk of failure: The case of economic development. International Social Science Journal, 50(1), 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jensen, A., Nielsen, H. Ø., & Nielsen, M. L. (2016). Climate adaption in local governance: Institutional barriers in Danish municipalities. Aarhus University, DCE—Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, 102 pp. Scientific Report from DCE—Danish Centre for Environment and Energy No. 104. http://dce2.au.dk/pub/SR104.pdf.
  25. Kvorning Boysen, P. (2016). Empowerment and co-creation: Integrated urban renewal in Skt. Kjelds Kvarter. Master Thesis, Sustainable Cities, Aalborg University Copenhagen, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  26. Lund, D. H. (2016). Implementering af 10 klimatilpasningsplaner—aktiviteter, udfordringer og gode oplevelser. IGN Rapport Marts 2016, Institut for Geovidenskab og Naturforvaltning, Frederiksberg. 56 s. ill.Google Scholar
  27. Löfgren, K., & Ringholm, T. (2009). Introduction: New network modes of Nordic local governance. Local Government Studies, 35(5), 505–514. doi:10.1080/03003930903227337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meijer, A. (2016). Coproduction as a structural transformation of the public sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 29(6), 596–611.Google Scholar
  29. Ministry of Finance. (2012). National agreement on municipal finances. Sustainable transition and development of welfare. Ministry of Finance https://www.fm.dk/nyheder/pressemeddelelser/2012/06/aftale-om-kommunernes-oekonomi-for-2013_groen-omstilling-og-udvikling-af-velfaerd. Downloaded October 25, 2016.
  30. Moser, S. C., & Pike, C. (2015). Community engagement on adaptation: Meeting a growing capacity need. Urban Climate, 14(2015), 111–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research, 66(3), 745–757.Google Scholar
  32. Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  33. Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Nederhand, J., Bekkers, V., & Voorberg, W. (2015). Self-organization and the role of government: How and why does self-organization evolve in the shadow of hierarchy? Public Management Review, 18(7), 1063–1084. doi:10.1080/14719037.2015.1066417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Norvig Larsen, J., & Engberg, L. A. (2011). Organisational change and knowledge management in urban regeneration planning. Landinspektoeren. Tidsskrift for kortlaegning og Arealforvaltning, 46(1), 114–126.Google Scholar
  36. OECD. (2009). OECD Territorial Reviews: Copenhagen, Denmark. doi:10.1787/19900759.
  37. Pløger, J. (2004). Strife: Urban planning and agonism. Planning Theory, 3(1), 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sarzynski, A. (2015). Public participation, civic capacity, and climate change adaptation in cities. Urban Climate, 14(2015), 52–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sehested, K. (2009). Urban planners as network managers and metagovernors. Planning Theory & Practice, 10(2), 245–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sellers, J. M., & Lidström, A. (2007). Decentralization, local government, and the welfare state. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 20(4), 609–632.Google Scholar
  41. Sørensen, E. (2005). Metagovernance: The changing role of politicians in processes of democratic governance. The American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 98–114.Google Scholar
  42. Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (Eds.). (2007). Theories of democratic network governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  43. Torfing J., Sørensen E., & Røiseland A. (2016). Transforming the public sector into an arena for co-creation: Barriers, drivers, benefits, and ways forward. Administration and Society, 1–31. doi:10.1177/0095399716680057.
  44. Valkama, A.-V. A. P. (2016). Post-NPM-style service integration: Partnership-based brokerage in elderly care. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 29(7), 675–689.Google Scholar
  45. Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Tummers, L. G. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333–1357. doi:10.1080/14719037.2014.930505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zandersen, M., Jensen, A., Termansen, M., Buchholtz, G., Munter, B., Bruun, H. G., & Andersen, A. H. (2014). Ecosystem based approaches to Climate Adaptation—Urban Prospects and Barriers. Aarhus University, DCE—Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, 94 pp. Scientific Report from DCE—Danish Centre for Environment and Energy No. 83. www.dce2.au.dk/pub/SR83.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Danish Building Research InstituteAalborg University CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations