Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Governing the Urban Commons: Experimentalist Governance for Resilient Climate Co-benefits Regime in Asian Megacities

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Devising a Clean Energy Strategy for Asian Cities

  • 400 Accesses

Abstract

A main challenge facing Asian and Latin American cities seeking win-win intervention toward a sustainable maximization of climate co-benefits lies in the complex governance of policy implementation. These urban commons are nested within multiple governmental levels (federal, regional, state, metropolitan, province, county, and municipal) and have diverse institutional arrangements for the provision of services and infrastructure to their population as well as for the promotion of development and a healthy environment. Further, they also have contrasting arrangements for both aggregating and processing demands (shaping patterns of collective action), delivering results (implementation), and communicating outputs to their different constituencies. Thus, the practical politics of urban climate co-benefits policy implementation is fraught with conflict and misunderstandings. These are further amplified in the urban commons by the long-term, fragmented, and uncertain nature of the co-benefits. This paper suggests that the experimentalist governance may contribute to the construction of a resilient governance framework for the implementation of policy toward climate co-benefits. The approach was originally developed to provide a resilient, self-evolving analytic routine for the design of experimentalist governance of sticky, complex, multilevel policy problems under conditions of strategic uncertainty. As it is informed by a pragmatic, practice-oriented experimentalism theory, it promotes deliberation and self-calculation in recursive relations among actors with diverse interests and views; analogously one can suggest that it may also incorporate the diverse and contradictory relations among urban commons’ governmental actors and stakeholders, as well as recipient citizens, the last critical link in the implementation phase. The wide scope of recent applications of experimentalism governance to build alternative frameworks for the promotion of policy regimes in contexts characterized by strategic uncertainty, including global and transnational climate change regimes, seem to indicate the promise of its application to the implementation of climate co-benefits policy in urban commons.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    “We model the different co-governance patterns from the perspective of the state since we assume that co-governance is only possible when the state either deliberately takes the decision to delegate certain competences to non-state actors or in cases where, at the very least, the state does not object or intervene when “citizens and corporations empower themselves and substitute for elected government” (Bénabou and Tirole 2010: 2).” Tosun et al. (2016: 7).

  2. 2.

    Distribution: What forms of governing are emerging, when, and in which sectors and/or countries? How new are they?

  3. 3.

    Initiation, origins, and invention: Why are the new forms of governing emerging and through which mechanisms are they diffusing and/or scaling up? Performance: What do they actually add up to, for example, in terms of emissions reduced? More broadly, are they filling “gaps” in the regime22 or reproducing what is already there?

  4. 4.

    Another equally dynamic strand of research focuses on the public policymaking activities of nation states, including local governments.

  5. 5.

    Further, there appears to be a conceptual confusion about what is a “local government” and an ant-endogeneity bias in the capacity of “local government” to think about and devise initiatives: “Interestingly, the proximate trigger to initiate many new transnational schemes also derives from state action, chiefly from local governments23. In their database, Hale and Roger (20XX) estimate that approximately a third were originally initiated – or ‘orchestrated’ –by state bodies and/or international organizations (for example, the World Bank) established by states” (p. 979).

  6. 6.

    Contrast with the politically naïve, Green’s (2013) mechanistic and optimistic evolutionary view that “… global climate governance is a positive-sum game where governance efforts by state and non-state actors grow simultaneously and in a mutually reinforcing manner.”

  7. 7.

    As regards to transnational governance, most scholars are still identifying potential sub-categories of motivation, including moral concerns, fear of new regulation (or the opportunity to secure first-mover advantages by shaping it), the pursuit of direct financial rewards, indirect or ‘non-climate’ benefits (for example, reputational enhancement), and the satisfaction of consumer expectations.

  8. 8.

    In the UCBA, “[i]nnovation involves the recombination of existing knowledge and there is no distinction between innovation and diffusion, and invention and imitation, as they all have potential local impacts” (Ibid.: 11).

  9. 9.

    For an in-depth analysis of them, see Jochen Markard et al. (2012).

  10. 10.

    For a recent overview, see Wieczorek et al. (2015).

  11. 11.

    Farla et al. (2012) argue that conscious strategic choices drive (limited) transitions: “changes in sociotechnical systems (established sectors as well as emerging fields) can often be traced back to strategic interventions of particular actors. Innovation and transition processes, in other words, do not just emerge from a rather unintentional interplay of actors that pursue their own narrow strategies. Instead, they may be strategically shaped by players with some kind of a “larger plan” or vision – at least to a certain extent.” This argument is nevertheless weak as it rests on a faulty assumption that rejects the possibility of cooperation among actors who necessarily pursue own narrow strategies. Perhaps aware of it, the authors moderate their assertion.

  12. 12.

    Co-production is a comprehensive model for public services that translates emerging change shifts in policymaking doctrines toward collaborative governance and policy design into a set of specific tools and methods to engage citizens into design and implementation of policies of service delivery (Bartenberger and Szesciło 2016).

  13. 13.

    This risk might be defined as the citizens’ perception that the policy process is not properly managed by the government and lacks rules of engagement, well-defined lines of accountability, and a clear perspective on reaching a final decision. We label this risk “perception of chaos” to highlight that even if the policy process is well steered and controlled by the government, it might be perceived rather differently by the public (Ibid).

  14. 14.

    Action networks bring together various actors and seek to understand how they can collaboratively generate knowledge on how to reduce urban resources and carbon intensities... [they] often create a financially or otherwise secure local environment for applying innovative technology or state-of-the art ideas of how people can interact better with buildings or cities.

  15. 15.

    A process “in which policy makers may abandon aspirations to achieve a global, consensual vision of urban futures in favor of more pragmatic approaches that enable action (Marsden et al. 2014). However, such pragmatic treatment of governance realities may represent an abandonment of transformative aspirations (Bulkeley et al. 2014a), particularly in contexts characterized by lack of governance capacity in the first place (Simon and Leck 2015).”

  16. 16.

    Governmentalities direct attention to processes of self-governing, whereby individuals attempt to regulate the behaviors of themselves and others. Castán-Broto (2017: 9).

  17. 17.

    Intermediaries play a key role in shaping actor-constellations mediating social, institutional, and technological changes in climate change transition governance Hodson and Marvin (2009).

  18. 18.

    The pluralist city power fragmentation notion calls forth authority-building (entrepreneurialism) and the market logic drive substitutes local politics for efficiency-seeking coordination forms Mossberger and Stoker (2001). “Overall, the encounter of urban regime theory with climate change governmentalities speaks of a contradiction between the impulse to control the city and the suspicion of state-led forms of control embedded in the local politics of climate change” Castán-Broto (2017: 9).

  19. 19.

    It however perpetuates the confusion with the existing experimentalism governance theoretical framework when it talks of “experimentation in global climate politics” by referring to “theories of experimental governance follow both empirical observations of what actually happens in cities – how governance is accomplished – and theorizations of transformation and change that relate governing rationalities to situated agencies” Ibid.

  20. 20.

    The foregoing discussion of experimentalism is based on Sabel (1994), Sabel and Victor (2017), Sabel and Zeitlin (2008, 2012a, b), Sabel and Simon (2011), and Overdevest and Zeitlin (2014). See also Börzel (2012), De Búrca et al. (2013), Eckert and Börzel(2012), Fossum (2012), Liebman and Sabel (2002), Ostrom et al. (2007) and Verdun (2012).

  21. 21.

    In this process the local unit shows that it considered alternatives and that it is making progress according to some joint agreed upon (also jointly revisable) measure, or that it is pursuing fair and credible adjustments if not. Further, the center offers a structure of services and inducements to promote disciplined comparisons and mutual learning among local units.

  22. 22.

    They set draconian consequences in situations parties fail to engender an alternative solution.

  23. 23.

    Kivimaa et al. (2017) findings partially converge with this argument, insofar as they adopt a looser concept of experimentation that drives sustainability transitions by creating space for innovative solutions to emerge and have a research focus on establishing a typology based on purposes of climate governance experiments. A further significant analytic goal orientation difference lies in their rather static and power vague suggestion that “real transitions toward low-carbon and climate-resilient societies will require a systematic deliberate combination of different types of experiments” (p. 17, 26).

References

  • Aldy JE (2014) The crucial role of policy surveillance in international climate policy. Clim Chang 126:279–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aligica PD (2014) Institutional diversity and political economy: the Ostroms and beyond. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 48–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Andonova LB, Betsill MM, Bulkeley H (2009) Transnational climate governance. Glob Environ Polit 9(2):52–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews RW, Entwistle TW (2013) Public service efficiency: reframing the debate. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Auld G, Mallett A, Burlica B, Nolan-Poupart F, Slater R (2014) Evaluating the effects of policy innovations: lessons from a systematic review of policies promoting low-carbon technology. Glob Environ Chang 29:444–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Backstrand K (2008) Accountability of network climate governance: the rise of transnational climate partnerships. Glob Environ Polit 8(3):74–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartenberger M, Szesciło D (2016) The benefits and risks of experimental co-production: the case of urban redesign in Vienna. Public Adm 94(2):509–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bénabou R, Tirole J (2010) Individual and corporate social responsibility. Economica 77(305):1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergek A, Jacobsson S, Carlsson B, Lindmark S, Rickne A (2008) Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: a scheme of analysis. Res Policy 37:407–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkhout F, Angel D, Wieczorek AJ (2009) Sustainability transitions in developing Asia: are alternative development pathways likely? Technol Forecast Soc Chang 76:215–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkhout F, Marcotullio P, Hanaoka T (2012) Understanding energy transitions. Sustain Sci 7:109–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biesenbender S, Tosun J (2014) Domestic politics and the diffusion of international policy innovations: how does accommodation happen? Glob Environ Chang 29:424–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Börzel TA (2012) Experimentalist governance in the EU: the emperor’s new clothes? Regul Gov 6:378–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bridges A (2016) The role of institutions in sustainable urban governance. Nat Res Forum 40:169–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulkeley H, Castán Broto V (2013) Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change. Trans Inst Br Geogr 38:361–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulkeley HA, Castán Broto VC, Edwards GA (2014a) An urban politics of climate change: experimentation and the governing of socio-technical transitions. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulkeley H, Castán Broto V, Maassen A (2014b) Low-carbon transitions and the reconfiguration of urban infrastructure. Urban Stud 51:1471–1486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulkeley H, Coenen L, Frantzeskaki N, Hartmann C, Kronsell A, Mai L, Marvin S, McCormick K, van Steenbergen F, Voytenko Palgan Y (2016) Urban living labs: governing urban sustainability transitions. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 22:13–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castán Broto V (2017) Urban governance and the politics of climate change. World Dev 93:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castán Broto V, Bulkeley H (2013a) Maintaining climate change experiments: urban political ecology and the everyday reconfiguration of urban infrastructure. Int J Urban Reg Res 37(6):1934–1948

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castán Broto V, Bulkeley H (2013b) A survey of urban climate change experiments in 100 cities. Glob Environ Chang 23:92–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalkmann H, Brannigan C (2007) Transport and climate change. Sourcebook Module 5e. GTZ, Eschborn

    Google Scholar 

  • De Burca G (2010) New governance and experimentalism. Wisconsin Law Rev 227:227–238

    Google Scholar 

  • De Búrca G, Keohane RO, Sabel CF (2013) New modes of pluralist global governance. N Y Univ J Int Law Polit 45:723–786

    Google Scholar 

  • De Búrca G, Keohane RO, Sabel CF (2014) Global experimentalist governance. Br J Polit Sci 44:477–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey J (1927) The public and its problems. Holt, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorf MC, Sabel CF (1998) A constitution of democratic experimentalism. Columbia Law Rev 98(2):267–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckert S, Börzel TA (2012) Experimentalist governance: an introduction. Regul Gov 6:371–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farla J, Markard J, Raven R, Coenen L (2012) Sustainability transitions in the making: a closer look at actors, strategies and resources. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 79:991–998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fledderus J, Brandsen T, Honingh M (2014) Restoring trust through the co-production of public services: a theoretical elaboration. Public Management Review 16:424–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fossum JE (2012) Reflections on experimentalist governance. Regul Gov 6:394–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fransen L (2013) The embeddedness of responsible business practice: exploring the interaction between national-institutional environments and corporate social responsibility. J Bus Ethics 115(2):213–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels FW (2002) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res Policy 31:1257–1274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels FW (2005) The dynamics of transitions in socio-technical systems: a multi-level analysis of the transition pathway from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles (1860–1930). Tech Anal Strat Manag 17:445–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels FW, Schot J (2007) Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Res Policy 36:399–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels FW, Schot J (2010) The dynamics of sociotechnical transitions—a socio-technical perspective. In: Grin J, Rotmans J, Schot J (eds) Transitions to sustainable development. New directions in the study of long term transformative change. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Green JF (2013) Rethinking private authority: agents and entrepreneurs in global environmental governance. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Green JF, Sterner T, Wagner GA (2014) A balance of bottom-up and top-down in linking climate policies. Nat Clim Chang 4:1064–1067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hekkert MP, Suurs RAA, RAA NSO, Kuhlmann S, Smits REHM (2007) Functions of innovation systems: a new approach for analyzing technological change. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 74:413–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hickmann T (2015) Rethinking authority in global climate governance: how transnational climate initiatives relate to the international climate regime. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hildén M (2014) Evaluation, assessment, and policy innovation: exploring the links in relation to emissions trading. Environ Polit 23:839–859

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hildén M, Jordan A, Rayner T (2014) Climate policy innovation: developing an evaluation perspective. Environ Polit 23:884–905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson M, Marvin S (2009) Cities mediating technological transitions: understanding visions, intermediation and consequences. Tech Anal Strat Manag 21:515–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hommels A, Peters P, Bijker WE (2007) Techno therapy or nurtured niches? Technology studies and the evaluation of radical innovations. Res Policy 36:1088–1099

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoogma R, Kemp R, Schot J, Truffer B (2002) Experimenting for sustainable transport. The approach of strategic Niche management. EF&N Spon, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsson S, Johnson A (2000) The diffusion of renewable energy technology: an analytical framework and key issues for research. Energy Policy 28:625–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan A, Huitema D (2014) Policy innovation in a changing climate: sources, patterns and effects. Glob Environ Chang 29:387–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan A, Huitema D, Hildén M, Van Asselt H, Rayner T, Schoenefeld J et al (2015) Emergence of a polycentric climate governance and its future prospects. Nat Clim Chang 5:977–982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp R (1994) Technology and the transition to environmental sustainability. The problem of technological regime shifts. Futures 26:1023–1046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp R, Schot J, Hoogma R (1998) Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management. Tech Anal Strat Manag 10:175–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kern F, Smith A (2008) Restructuring energy systems for sustainability? Energy transition policy in the Netherlands. Energy Policy 36:4093–4103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kivimaa P, Hilden M, Huitema D, Jordan A, Newig J (2017) Experiments in climate governance: a systematic review of research on energy and built environment transitions. J Clean Prod 169:17–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laakso S, Berg A, Annala M (2017) Dynamics of experimental governance: a meta-study of functions and uses of climate governance experiments. J Clean Prod 169:8–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lachapelle E, Paterson M (2013) Drivers of national climate policy. Clim Policy 13:547–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liebman JS, Sabel CF (2002) A public laboratory Dewey barely imagined: the emerging model of school governance and legal reform. N Y Univ Rev Law Soc Chang 28(2):183–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Loorbach D (2010) Transition management for sustainable development: a prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework. Governance 23:161–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansbridge J (2014) The role of the state in governing the commons. Environ Sci Pol 36:8–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markard J, Raven R, Truffer B (2012) Sustainability transitions: an emerging field of research and its prospects. Res Policy 41:955–967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsden G, Shire J, Ferreira A, Phillips I, Cass N (2014) Resilience and adaptation: an activity systems approach. In: Universities’ Transport Study Group, Archives. Universities’ Transport Study Group (UTSG) 46th Annual Conference, 6–8 January 2014, Newcastle University, Newcastle

    Google Scholar 

  • Matschoss K, Heiskanen E (2017) Making it experimental in several ways: the work of intermediaries in raising the ambition level in local climate initiatives. J Clean Prod 169:85–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mossberger K, Stoker G (2001) The evolution of urban regime theory: the challenge of conceptualization. Urban Aff Rev 36:810–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newel P, Bulkeley H, Turner K, Shaw C, Caney S, Shove E, Pidgeon N (2015) Governance traps in climate change politics: re-framing the debate in terms of responsibilities and rights. WIREs Clim Chang 6:535–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (2005) Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (2010) Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Glob Environ Chang 20:550–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (2014) A polycentric approach for coping with climate change. Ann Econ Financ 15:71–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E, Janssen MA, Anderies JM (2007) Going beyond panaceas. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:15176–15178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Overdevest C, Zeitlin J (2014) Assembling an experimentalist regime: transnational governance interactions in the forest sector. Regul Gov 8:22–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puppim de Oliveira JA (2013) Learning how to align climate, environmental and development objectives: lessons from the implementation of climate cobenefits initiatives in urban Asia. J Clean Prod 58:7–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Puppim de Oliveira JA, Doll CNH (2017) Introduction. In: Doll CNH, Puppim de Oliveira JA (eds) Urbanization and climate co-benefits: implementation of win-win interventions in cities. Routledge, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Rangoni B (2017) Regulation after agentification: hierarchy and uncertainty in the case of energy. TARN Working Paper 9, May, 20 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Raven R, Geels FW (2010) Socio-cognitive evolution in niche development: comparative analysis of biogas development in Denmark and The Netherlands (1973–2004). Technovation 30:87–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner S (2010) How to eat an elephant: a bottom-up approach to climate policy. Clim Policy 10:615–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner S, Caine M (2014) The Hartwell approach to climate policy. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rotmans J, Kemp R, van Asselt M (2001) More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. Foresight 3:15–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabel CF (1994) Learning by monitoring: the institutions of economic development. In: Smelser NJ, Swedberg R (eds) Handbook of economic sociology. Princeton University Press/Russell Sage Foundation, Princeton/New York, pp 137–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabel CF, Zeitlin J (eds) (2010) Experimentalist governance in the European Union: towards a new architecture. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabel CF (2012) Dewey, democracy, and democratic experimentalism. Contemp Pragmatism 9(2):35–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabel CF, Simon WH (2011) Minimalism and experimentalism in the administrative state. Georgetown Law Rev 100:53–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabel CF, Victor DG (2017) Governing global problems under uncertainty: making bottom-up climate policy work. Clim Chang 144:15–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabel CF, Zeitlin J (2008) Learning from difference: the new architecture of experimentalist governance in the EU. Eur Law J 14(3):271–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabel CF, Zeitlin J (2012a) Experimentalist governance. In: Levi-Faur D (ed) The Oxford handbook of governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 169–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabel CF, Zeitlin J (2012b) Experimentalism in the EU: common ground and persistent differences. Regul Gov 6:410–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schot J, Geels FW (2008) Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Tech Anal Strat Manag 20:537–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuitmaker TJ (2012) Identifying and unravelling persistent problems. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 79:1021–1031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sengers F, Raven R (2015) Toward a spatial perspective on niche development: the case of Bus Rapid Transit. Environ Innov Soc Trans 17:166–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sengers F, Wieczorek AJ, Raven R (2016) Experimenting for sustainability transitions: a systematic literature review. Technol Forecast Soc Chang, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.031

  • Smith A (2007) Translating sustainabilities between green niches and sociotechnical regimes. Tech Anal Strat Manag 19:427–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith A, Stirling A, Berkhout F (2005) The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Res Policy 34:1491–1510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith A, Voß J-P, Grin G (2010) Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: the allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Res Policy 39:435–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon D, Leck H (2015) Understanding climate adaptation and transformation challenges in African cities. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 13:109–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens JC, Wilson EJ, Peterson TR (2008) Socio-political evaluation of energy deployment (SPEED): an integrated research framework analyzing energy technology deployment. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 75:1224–1246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steurer R (2013) Disentangling governance: a synoptic view of regulation by government business and civil society. Policy Sci 46(4):387–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart RB, Oppenheimer M, Rudyk B (2013) A new strategy for global climate protection. Clim Chang 120:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Termeer C, Dewulf A, Breeman G (2013) Governance of wicked climate adaptation problems. In: Knieling J, Filho WL (eds) Climate change governance. Springer, Berlin, pp 27–93

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tosun L, Koos S, Shore J (2016) Co-governing common goods: interaction patterns of private and public actors. Polit Soc 35(1):1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bosch S, Rotmans J (2010) Deepening, broadening and scaling up a framework for steering transition experiments. Knowledge centre for sustainable system innovations and transitions, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Heijden J (2014) Experimentation in policy design. Policy Sci 47:249–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Heijden J (2016) Experimental governance for low-carbon buildings and cities: value and limits of local action networks. Cities 53:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verdun A (2012) Experimentalist governance in the European Union: a commentary. Regul Gov 6:385–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voß J, Simons A (2014) Instrument constituencies and the supply side of policy innovation: the social life of emissions trading. Environ Polit 23:735–754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wieczorek A, Raven R, Berkhout F (2015) Transnational linkages in sustainability experiments: a typology and the case of solar photovoltaic energy in India. Environ Innov Soc Trans 17:149–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IUPERJ, Candido Mendes University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Antonio José Junqueira Botelho

Authors
  1. Antonio José Junqueira Botelho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio José Junqueira Botelho .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Interdisciplinary Graduate School of Engineering Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan

    Hooman Farzaneh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Botelho, A.J.J. (2019). Governing the Urban Commons: Experimentalist Governance for Resilient Climate Co-benefits Regime in Asian Megacities. In: Farzaneh, H. (eds) Devising a Clean Energy Strategy for Asian Cities. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0782-9_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation