Evaluation of innovative policy for Nature-based Solutions: Analysis from three European city case studies

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-5223301/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Evaluation of innovative policy for Nature-based Solutions: Analysis from three European city case studies

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5223301/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Addressing the current unprecedented climate and environmental challenges and stimulating sustainable development in our urban areas and beyond entails experimentation and innovation in policy making, instead of the siloing that has often been the status quo. Nature-based Solutions (NBS) are well suited to fostering integrated and multi-functional policy solutions to current challenges but are subject to complex governance influences. Through a comparative analysis of interview and policy workshop data in three European city case studies with differing governance structures, this paper examines the external, societal and governing influences on NBS innovation, and the governance structures from which innovation and experimentation in NBS are likely to occur—including the political side of NBS which has hitherto been relatively unexplored. The results indicate a number of important facilitating and hindering factors across the range of governing, societal and external influences, and show some association between NBS innovation and decentralized policy making. They highlight the importance of policy coherence of NBS initiatives with government policy strategy; and of the willingness by policy makers / local government officials to engage with and appeal strategically to political decision-makers regarding external policy drivers—e.g. climate adaptation and health. The data also indicates that where citizen participation and consultation were built into NBS projects, this brought both innovation and additionality—in terms of the design, quality, biodiversity, multi-functionality and co-benefits of green / blue spaces. Key differences that led to differing NBS outcomes included size and complexity of the urban area, and characteristics of the governing architecture.

climate adaptation

governance

Nature-based Solutions

policy innovation

In order to address current unprecedented climate, environmental and economic challenges, nature-based solutions (NBS) require a different approach to policy making from what has often been the status quo. Policy making often operates in sectoral silos [1]; consequently, the breaking down of these silos can be facilitated by new multi-sectoral and integrative approaches which increase the resilience of our urban areas in the face of such challenges (see [2]). In this context, innovative, adaptive policy approaches are increasingly being used by public administrations seeking to use nature as a solution in urban contexts in order to derive the full range of associated benefits (see e.g. [3]). These co-benefits potentially include increased wellbeing, liveability, biodiversity, climate change mitigation and adaptation, etc., for urban citizens; contributing to increased sustainability (see e.g. [4]). This paper aims to examine the governance structures from which such innovation and experimentation in policy approaches are more likely to occur. This article therefore aims to contribute to knowledge relating to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities. The analysis is based on 26 semi-structured interviews with practitioners conducted in 2021 and 2022 (see [5]). The interviews cover three European NBS case studies in contrasting urban areas: Paris Region (France), Aarhus (Denmark) and Velika Gorica (Croatia).

'Governance’ as a concept has been interpreted in different ways, which can foster some confusion about its meaning. Some scholars use the term as a particular mode of government (e.g. rule by self-organising networks), while others use it as a broad concept covering a range of different modes of governing (e.g. hierarchy, market, network or combinations of these) (see e.g. [6]). In this paper, we define governance as the diffuse, networked and collaborative exercise of power across multiple actors towards shared ends. Interpreted this way, it is distinct from government and governing, which implies a hierarchical command-and-control exercise of state power to achieve stated ends [7]. In this analysis, therefore, ‘governance’ involves networks, and encompasses instances where government uses instruments and techniques that steer and guide, as well as those that command and control [8]. These governance networks can involve a wide range of stakeholders including government, semi-public organizations, businesses, civil society / non-governmental organizations, local community organizations, and citizens.

The analysis draws on the concept of governing architectures [8]: p.16. This term encompasses the way that governing systems, associated structures and governing cultures (including norms, behaviors, levels of trust, etc) overlap and interact; and highlights that both structural and cultural aspects need to be considered jointly and in specific city / local government contexts when exploring NBS policy and practice.

The existing literature tends to be separated into either looking at policy innovation (the public administration literature e.g.[9] or generic NBS policy/implementation (NBS literature e.g.[10] and there is a gap in terms of bringing these two aspects together. Few research studies integrate theoretical and empirically grounded insights, or cover political influences on NBS. In addition, there has been little relevant comparative research to date, with most articles taking the form of single case studies. This paper therefore makes an important contribution to the literature by presenting a comparative, in-depth study exploring the uptake of NBS through a policy innovation lens using theoretical insights and empirical data—and bringing in the political side of NBS which is relatively unexplored.

NBS appeared as a concept towards the end of the first decade of the 2000’s, introduced by the World Bank and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). NBS is rooted in climate change mitigation and adaptation, but can be understood as an umbrella term for addressing multiple policy objectives at the same time [10]. Consequently, NBS can broadly be considered a new policy idea. New policy ideas must be processed through existing political structures and can therefore meet barriers or enablers in the ‘structural realities’ they encounter when stakeholders try to put them on the political agenda [9], by, for example, hostile stakeholders or ministries etc. With its focus on multiple interconnected benefits, NBS is a novel area of policy making that can challenge the status quo of policies and the vested interests of powerful stakeholders embedded therein; innovative policy approaches carry some element of risk to administrations and privileged policy networks. Sectoral silos may be thus very hostile (or indifferent) towards new policy ideas. Moreover, innovation carries an additional element of risk for administrations as there are more unknown elements that can increase the possibility of policy failure.

Recourse to the literature on institutions would suggest that policy-making institutions tend, though not exclusively, to avoid major changes in policy direction—with historical approaches to problems and who to engage with around them tending to dominate processes and thus limiting the scope for more innovative policy change [11, 12]. For this reason, policy change as a norm can often be seen to be incremental [13], with policy-making institutions often being disinclined to innovate. However, long periods of policy stability can be broken by appearance of new policy agendas or policy images [14], new scientific understanding and knowledge, external shocks such as economic decline, or by new strong policy networks challenging existing policy networks with new policy images [15]. We argue that NBS is a new priority on the political agenda that requires more innovative, adaptive policy approaches by public administrations seeking to use nature in urban policy contexts to derive multiple benefits for the well-being of constituents.

This paper analyses the types of factors driving NBS policy innovation and implementation with the aim of using qualitative data to create an in-depth, ‘thick’ policy analysis (see e.g.[16]) and aimed at analytical as opposed to statistical generalization (see [17]). It does so through exploring influencing factors (both theoretical and empirically observed) listed in the existing literature as well as analysing whether and how these elements play out in three European NBS case studies, namely Paris Region (France), Aarhus (Denmark) and Velika Gorica (Croatia). Because of expected differences between cases in the qualitative in-depth data collected and because context is important we have not provided tables of exactly the same elements for each case study. However, the in-depth analysis allows us to illustrate similarities and differences as well as more general patterns.

2.1 Factors facilitating or hindering policy innovation

Based on an examination of the existing literature we would suggest that there are three broad factors that disrupt incremental policy approaches to pave the way for policy innovation:

1) External factors outside the control of an administration such as problem events, scientific breakthroughs and other countries’/states’ policies;

2) Societal factors such as economic growth, shifting social/community values, public perception, interest groups, public distrust and socioeconomic components; all factors which drive disruption. Influencing these is likely to be difficult and time consuming; and

3) Governing factors such as governance structure, existence of policy networks, policy framing, collaboration in governance and political leadership; factors which can be modified but often will encounter political obstacles.

External factors:

The literature on historical institutionalism suggests that more radical policy change tends to occur due to a reaction to external shocks impacting a relevant policy sector (see [18, 12]). Such shocks facilitate more radical change because they strongly highlight and reinforce the need for a policy change in order to address the issue—i.e., they expose a lacuna or inadequacy in current approaches thus paving the way for policy innovation. A large body of literature, for example, has explored the role of climate change-related shocks and risks, often linked to the occurrence of new scientific evidence, extreme climate impacts and events such as severe floods, droughts or heatwaves [see e.g. 19]. Such events have demonstrated vulnerability to a changing climate and thus spur more innovative policy responses [20, 21, 22]. The timeframe for innovation within this context is often suggested to be limited and characterized as a ‘window of opportunity’ (see [22, 23, 24]). This situation would suggest that if innovative action is not in train shortly after the event, then the enduring policy approaches and practices will remain entrenched. Another major external factor mentioned in the literature relates to the transfer of new and innovative policy ideas from neighbouring countries, regions or municipalities, usually termed policy diffusion (see e.g. [21, 25]). This line of reasoning is based on the premise that neighbouring polities are integrated and interdependent socially, economically, environmentally and geographically and thus share similar problems. This can result in cooperation and collaborative learning, or a race to the top as neighbouring administrations see the success or failure of each other’s approaches which can lead to similar (or avoidance of) policy innovations.

Societal factors:

Strong economic growth and positive socio-economic trends are viewed as an important foundation, but not a direct driver of policy innovation [26, 21, 22]). The logic here is that innovation needs the foundation of economic stability and prosperity to occur as these conditions provide more social and economic resilience should an innovation not work as intended with associated costs on society. Short-term costs need to be balanced against longer term benefits (as is often the case with environmental issues). Public perception has also been argued to be a key factor that determines the potential for policy innovation [20, 21, 22]. Of course, public perception can be linked to external factors such as, for instance, shocks related to a severe flooding event which can shift public opinions and create demands for change. More organized interest group activity is also said to positively push for and promote policy innovation. Within the mix of public interest, more organized interest groups can represent special interests to push for change through working with public authorities or through applying external pressure to build up a societal appetite for change [22, 27]. Moreover, we would argue that interest groups can facilitate change through pursuing innovative community-level approaches from the bottom up independently of public authorities.

Governing factors:

Visionary political leadership is noted across the literature as a key condition for policy innovation [22, 26, 28]. Such leadership can help to negotiate risks associated with experimentation, broker policy change with institutions and provide financial backing and incentives. The strength of governance and leadership offers a layer of complexity because they have opposing effects. Weak or fragmented governance [22, 26, 28] can reduce policy innovation because it encounters structural obstacles [29, 30], such as multiple veto points, as is the case with the U.S. federal structure of government [22]. However, weak governance can also encourage politicians and entrepreneurial policy stakeholders to introduce new policies because they have felt sidelined in the political process [27]. There are questions over whether more or less centralized policy making has a similar level of impact on policy innovation, a key component of the governing approach. While the literature has identified the adverse effects which both of these components can impose, it has not determined in which context they either influence or limit experimentation. Broadly, those studies highlighting the importance of decentralization suggest that the flexibility that decentralized decision-making settings offer provides the space for policy innovation by local stakeholders, including ‘policy entrepreneurs’ [31, 32]. By contrast, those advocating more centralized settings suggest that the authority and accountability of the state creates conditions of stability that encourage policy innovation [33, 22, 30]. As described above, potentially, it is also important whether the decision-making (centrally or locally) is more hierarchical or more flat-structured and inclusive, which is likely to be best answered empirically (see below). The final governing factor to consider is the issue of policy failure which has been argued to be a trigger for innovation) [34, 35, 36]. Here, the logic is that failure leads to policy learning, which in turn leads to the development of more innovative policy.

3.1 Case study design and selection

This research uses a case study design [37, 28] (see) allowing us to look at city level NBS policy characteristics as well as providing insights at the operational level - the implementation of local NBS projects / initiatives (outlined in the sections below). The city case studies enable us to reflect on comparative insights across the participating cities. The case study design therefore ensures maximum comparability and compatibility of data across the individual cases (see conceptual framework in [8]. In addition to the use of interview data (see below), we have also triangulated the findings with data from three policy workshops, also carried out in the three case study sites in 2022 (see [5]) and drawn on background analysis of policy documents for the case study cities.

The city case studies were selected to include a diverse range of European regions, governing architectures (e.g. the degree of centralization), and sizes of urban area (and political / historical contexts). The criteria for case selection were as follows:

Policy institutions already engaged with NBS (or would like to);
Differing governance systems (de-/centralization etc);
Cities of different sizes; and
Different stages of adoption of NBS.

The case study selection was also influenced by practical considerations such as where the project team and partner organizations were located and considerations of access to relevant stakeholders, with partners assisting with the recruitment of participants, without which it would have been extremely difficult to carry out the research.

The case studies consist of: firstly, Paris Region, France (large sized urban area, relatively decentralized, Western European political/historical context); secondly, Aarhus, Denmark (medium size, most decentralized of the three, Northern European context); and thirdly, Velika Gorica, Croatia (small size, relatively centralized, Central European context—a formerly socialist country). Interviewees were recruited based on their involvement in case study initiatives. We developed a protocol for case study selection (see [5, 8] on NBS within each case study site. This entailed stipulations to include co-benefits, participation of stakeholders / citizens to varying types and extents; and representation of different phases of the policy cycle.

By employing a most different cases approach [37, 39], we incorporated different-sized urban municipalities with distinct cultures of governance. In this way, we are able to identify those elements relating to innovation that are consistent across the cases and therefore may be more related to the challenges posed by NBS, from those elements that differ by case and may be more related to governance systems and cultures that are specific to the studied contexts.

3.2 Case study descriptions

We provide here further information about the case studies, including about the implementation/operational level (local projects), to give additional context to the findings. The number of municipalities (and therefore the size of administrative units) varies substantially between the three countries. France 35,416 (communes – towns; with French communes now being grouped together for administrative purposes), Denmark has 98 municipalities, and Croatia 428 [40, 41, 42].

The Paris Region, France, is by far the largest European urban area among our three European cases, and the most complex, as it represents an agglomeration of 20 districts (arrondissements), subdivided into townships (cantons) and towns (communes). The City of Paris has a population of around 2.1 million [43] (2020 figure), and the greater Paris area of around 11.2 million [44] (2021 figure). Interviewees reported on a number of individual projects in Paris Region, including the Openness, Adaptation, Sensitisation, Innovation and Social Ties (OASIS) project which involved depaving / regreening of schoolyards and other public spaces (see [45]) - which had strong local government support; and various other urban NBS initiatives, some government-supported (e.g. Nature in the City). Other local initiatives led by citizens or non-governmental organizations were also included (e.g. shared gardens; Villages in the City and some associated with EU-funded projects such as Life intégré ARTISAN project and the Nature4Cities project).

Aarhus is the second largest city in Denmark with a population in the Municipality of Aarhus) of around 355,000 [46] (2021 figure). It is of medium size for the purposes of the project’s city case studies. Interviewees reported on a range of projects involving the Municipality of Aarhus including: forestry and tree planting projects (including one with schools); water projects addressing flooding / flood risk; and health and inclusion projects involving modification / redesign of unused outdoor spaces (e.g. with disadvantaged communities and the elderly).

Velika Gorica in Croatia is the smallest city in our study, with a population of around 61,000 for the municipality; the city itself has around half this number (based on 2021 census data) [47]. It is the sixth largest city in Croatia, and has more recently attracted increasing numbers of residents because of its proximity to Zagreb, the capital city, and particularly to Zagreb airport, as well as its size and liveability / quality of life (e.g. compared to parts of Zagreb). The history of Croatia as part of former Yugoslavia—a former socialist country—has influenced its governing architecture. Interviewees were from a range of types of organizations, including local government, university departments, a school, and local NGOs. The interviews (and field visits) covered a number of projects including: restoration of river habitats / watercourses involving a local NGO (voluntary fire service); a green NGO centre of knowledge for permaculture / natural building methods & materials; an eco-schools project; a group of lakes managed for fishing and recreation by a local NGO; and a university project to build an eco-building (planning stage).

3.2 Recruitment of interviewees

This paper draws on European data from a total of 26 interviews conducted (a mixture of in-person and virtual), of which 7 relate to Velika Gorica, Croatia; 12 to the Paris Region, France; and 7 to Aarhus, Denmark, supplemented by data from three policy workshops, one in each of the three cities (see [5] for information about the composition of and recruitment of policy workshop participants). Different types of stakeholders involved in NBS policy and implementation in different roles (proximate actors, peripheral actors and outsiders—see Appendix 1)—from key stakeholder groups including government, businesses, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), small civil society organizations, consultants, etc.—were sought for the interviews in order to give a range of views of NBS policy, governance and implementation. The local project partner organizations assisted with interviewee selection based on their knowledge of key local actors associated with NBS. As well as obtaining suggestions for interviewees from partner organizational staff in each city, researchers also used an iterative process to aid with identification and recruitment of interviewees—asking interviewees for targeted suggestions of further key people to interview. In Aarhus, the interviewees comprised of local government policy-makers from the City of Aarhus administration. This is a limitation associated with the constraints of the research process in this case, and therefore future research would seek to include a greater range of stakeholders in order to deepen the research findings. In the Paris Region and in Velika Gorica, a greater mix of types of stakeholders indicated above were recruited. In addition, three of the interviewees in the Velika Gorica case studies were recruited from amongst the participants of the policy workshop (held in September 2022 in Velika Gorica) based on their knowledge/key role.

3.3 Structure, framing and analysis of interviews

Semi-structured interviews were designed using a data collection and analytical coding matrix (see [5]) developed by researchers across the three European case studies. This matrix was developed based on the literature review and on the project conceptual framework to ensure compatibility and comparability of data across the case studies. It includes various categories of interest for the project—including governing structure(s), governing style; governing actors; governing procedures; stakeholder and citizen participation; innovation and experimentation, urban sustainability challenges; urban nature in urban governing; policy learning; and policy activism; with a number of additional sub-categories. Interview questions were then compiled based on these categories and adapted to each interviewee based on their area(s) of expertise. The interviews were recorded and transcribed and then translated into English using reputable online translation software. Where possible, the transcriptions were checked against the original recording and edited as necessary by a project researcher. The data was then analysed using the analytical coding matrix. The analysis was carried out using a thematic analysis approach [48, 49], combining both deductive (based on the coding matrix and the literature) and inductive analysis. The results are presented in the following section.

This section reports the results of the analysis of the interview data relating to factors facilitating and hindering NBS policy innovation. We have summarised these factors in order to show comparative insights across the three European cities (see Tables 1–3) on NBS implementation at the operational level as well as city-level NBS policies. For each city, governance characteristics are first outlined for each case study, drawing on additional policy document analysis for the case studies. This is followed by the summary table of results covering all three case studies, and the discussion and conclusions.

4.1 Paris Region

Governance characteristics

Data from the interviews and background document analysis carried out in the Paris Region showed the governing architecture of Paris Council to be relatively decentralized, with ultimate decision-making held by the Mayor of Paris and the Deputy Mayors (particularly regarding financial support); but significant NBS-related local decision-making is devolved to the district and town (commune) levels (or associations of communes). Implementation of NBS in the Paris Region involves multiple departments, professions and agencies (as well as a range of other non-governmental stakeholders). The vast majority of interviewees highlighted that the complexity and multiple hierarchies present challenges in terms of the number of actors that need to be consulted or to agree before NBS initiatives can be implemented. Most interviewees also indicated that departments tend to be highly compartmentalized / siloed, bringing additional challenges for the cross-departmental working necessary for implementing NBS (see Table 3).

4.2 Aarhus

Governance characteristics

Data collected in interviews underlines the high level of decentralization, with autonomy for municipal government to develop local policies within the fixed framework and regulations set by national laws. The local public administrations both develop local environmental policies and administer the environmental regulations issued by national agencies within a multi-level governance structure.

Interview data in Aarhus shows that formal organization of policy making and administration means that expertise can be highly specialized and that policy making tends to be fragmented into specialized units. This can increase the compartmentalization of policy making. However, existing cross-sector procedures, projects and collaborative networks within the municipal administration were reported, which have been established in recent years to alleviate this siloing and to promote integration of urban nature across policy areas. Decision-making about urban planning and nature was reported to be strongly linked to the highest political level in the city, particularly the current political views and priorities of the Elderman (Mayor) in office and the Committee for Technical and Environmental (T&E) issues.

4.3 Velika Gorica

Governance characteristics

The interview data indicates governing to be quite centralized (especially for public services); with some decentralization of specific elements within this. City administrations were highlighted as having very significant influence over whether NBS projects get implemented. This is due to the decentralization of national policy making to city level and at the same time, centralization of policy making within the city and the hierarchical influence of the city on policy making at local level. According to our interview data, the vast majority of decisions on NBS were reported to be made by the Mayor (or by the Mayor’s office), sometimes consulting experts or being influenced by public opinion. However, whilst the city authorities technically have the decentralized political autonomy for NBS policy innovation, this is not matched by economic decentralization, with city authorities reported to often lack sufficient discretionary funds to start or support (longer term) innovative NBS projects.

4.4 Summary tables of three case studies

The following three tables (1–3), divided into external, societal and governing factors, indicate the factors facilitating and hindering NBS innovation identified in the analysis. They are presented to enable comparison across the cases. Interviewee codes (numbered interviews by case study - see Appendix 1 for further details) are provided in square brackets in the tables - Paris (P), Aarhus (A) and Velika Gorica (VG) [e.g. P12; A3; V2], supplemented by information from the policy workshops, coded as follows: Paris Region policy workshop (PPW); Aarhus policy workshop (APW); Velika Gorica policy workshop (VPW) (see [5]).

Table 1: External factors facilitating and hindering NBS innovation

√ = facilitating

X = hindering

√/X = facilitating or hindering based on circumstances/conditions

N/A = not specified in interviews or policy workshops

Case study	Paris Region	Aarhus	Velika Gorica
External factor
Increased prevalence and severity of climate change effects (e.g. extreme flooding events, heat effects)	√ (heat effects) [P10, P11, P12]	√ (flooding) [A2, A5]	√ (flooding and heat effects) [V3, VPW]
Size and complexity of urban area	X (large size brings complexity; transport infrastructure required & public land limits NBS) [P2, P3, P11, PPW]	√ (medium size; is potential for new NBS on public land) [A4, A5, APW]	√ / X (small size facilitates; but lack of publicly owned land for NBS) [V2, V3, VPW]
Traffic / liveability challenges / air pollution	√ (where reflected in public awareness & action) [P2, P9, P11, P12]]	N/A	√ (where reflected in public awareness & action) [V3, VPW]
Natural disasters (not climate related) e.g. earthquakes	N/A	N/A	X (due to higher development pressure) [V4, V5, VPW]

When we compare the findings across case studies, several different external factors emerge, with only climate change effects highlighted by interviewees as a factor across all three cities. Natural disasters not related to climate (e.g. earthquakes) were cited as a factor hindering NBS innovation in Velika Gorica only, whereas traffic and liveability challenges were cited as a facilitating factor in both Paris Region and Velika Gorica, but not in Aarhus. The size and complexity of the city was highlighted as a hindering factor in Paris Region, a facilitating factor in Aarhus, but both in Velika Gorica depending on the specific aspect concerned (e.g. availability of public land for NBS projects).

Table 2: Societal factors facilitating and hindering NBS innovation

√ = facilitating

X = hindering

√ / X = facilitating or hindering based on circumstances/conditions

N/A = not specified in interviews or policy workshops

Case study	Paris Region	Aarhus	Velika Gorica
Societal factor
Policy diffusion - use of examples / instruments from elsewhere	√ [P3, P6, P9, P10, P11, P12, P13]	√ [A1, A5]	√ (where cited; few examples) [V4, V7, VPW]
Citizen participation and consultation	√ (range of types) [P3, P5, P6, P8, P9, P10, P11, P12, PPW]	√ (range of types) [A3, A4, A6]	√ (mainly spatial planning consultations; social media) [V3, V5, VPW]
Citizen-led experimentation	√ [P2, P3, P9, P12]	N/A	N/A
Role of boundary actor / coordinating person	√ [P3, P4, P6; P8, P13]	√ [A3]	N/A
Active role of policy entrepreneurs / innovators (non-governmental)	√ [P5, P9, P12]	N/A	√ [V2, V4]
Availability of appropriate technical support / advice on what works	√ [P3, P5, P9]	√ [A1, A3, A6]	N/A
Lobbying of interest groups / service providers	√ / X (hindering where favours grey solutions) [P2, P6, P12]	N/A	N/A
Shifts in public perceptions/values (e.g. greater awareness / attention to green solutions in climate adaptation / water management etc; awareness of multiple benefits e.g. climate / health of NBS)	√ (NBS for heat & climate effects, liveability) [P2, P4, P5, P8, P10, P12, PPW]	√ (NBS for flooding / water management, climate, health and wellbeing) [A2, A4, A5, A6]	√ (NBS for heat & climate effects; liveability) [V3, V4, V7, VPW]
Trust in public authorities	N/A	√ / X (variation in trust across communities) [A2, A4, A5, A6]	X (general lack of trust) [V4, V6]
Formal association of green NGOs collaborating with local government	N/A	√ [A8]	N/A
Securing business investment	N/A	√ [A5]	N/A
Increased TV/media coverage and awareness e.g. of NBS examples implemented elsewhere	√ [P2, PPW]	√ [A2, A5, APW]	N/A
Level of resources / agency in specific area / neighbourhood (socio-economic inequalities)	N/A	√ / X (variations - facilitating where resources available; some need targeted support) [A2, A5, A6, APW]	N/A
Tradition of use of public spaces	√ [P9, P12]	√ [A1, A5, A6, APW]	√ [V1]
Tradition of citizen-organized voluntary actions at neighbourhood level (selected neighbourhoods)	√ [P9, P12]	√ [A1, A2, A5, APW]	√ [V1, V2]
Mindset of citizens about engaging with local government on NBS initiatives	√ [P12, PPW]	√ [A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, APW]	X (passive mindset) [V4, V5, VPW]

Comparing findings across case studies (see Table 2), several societal facilitating factors were shared across all three case studies, including policy diffusion, citizen participation and consultation, shifts in public perceptions/values, having a tradition of use of (green/blue) public spaces, and traditions of citizen-organized voluntary actions at neighbourhood level. Other facilitating factors shared across two case studies include the role of a boundary actor; active role of a policy entrepreneur; availability of appropriate technical support/advice; increased TV coverage/media awareness and citizens having a mindset of engaging with local government on NBS initiatives. In some instances, whether factors were hindering or facilitating was contingent on the specific conditions/context, e.g. trust in public authorities, which was reported to vary across communities (Aarhus).

Table 3: Governing factors facilitating and hindering NBS innovation

√ = facilitating

X = hindering

√ / X = facilitating or hindering based on circumstances/conditions

N/A = not specified in interviews or policy workshops

Table 3

indicates that when we compare the results across the case studies, a number of governing factors are shared across all three case studies. These can be split into two categories: 1) relating to policy, strategy and political factors: political level influence; prioritization of NBS politics and integration into strategy (policy coherence); political support for NBS policy/-ies (e.g. an internal champion); and municipality-led NBS policy innovation. 2) relating to consultation, participation and engagement of citizens/stakeholders: legislation requiring consultation; existing local government platforms for participation/consultation; government-led policy instruments aimed at encouraging citizen participation; engaging with the full range of stakeholders; and a willingness to explore multifunctional solutions balancing the needs of different users.
Case study	Paris Region	Aarhus	Velika Gorica
Governing factor
Centralization / decentralization	√ decentralized (facilitates innovation although adds complexity to decision-making) [P4, P5, P11, P12, PPW]	√ / X decentralized (facilitates innovation but adds complexity to decision-making) [A1, A4, A5]	√ / X mainly centralized, limited decentralization (limits innovation) [V2, V4]
Multi-level governance (added complexity)	√ / X [P2, P3, P5, P8, P11, P12, P13, PPW]	√ / X [A1, A2, A4, APW]	X (often leads to siloing) [V1, V2]
Political level influence	√ (where NBS issues / actors have influence) [P2, P3, P5, P11, P13, PPW]	√ (where NBS issues / actors have influence) [A1, A2, A6, A7]	√ (where NBS issues / actors have influence) [V2, V3, V4]
Limitations of the electoral cycle	X [PPW]	X [A1, A7]	X [V1, V3]
Rise of green political agenda in local government	N/A	N/A	√ [V2, V4]
Prioritization of NBS policies and integration into strategy (policy coherence)	√ (resilience strategy) [P10, P11, P12, P13]	√ [A2, A6]	√ (spatial plan) [V3, VPW]
Political support for NBS policy/-ies (e.g. internal champion)	√ [P3, P11, PPW]	√ [A1, A2, A7, APW]	√ [V2, VPW]
Municipality-led NBS policy innovation	√ [P3, P7, P9, P10, P11, P13]	√ [A1, A2, A3, A5, A6]	√ [V1, V2, VPW]
Specialization/siloing of policy areas	X [P2, P4, P6, P10, P11]	X [A1, A6, APW]	X [V1, V3]
Cross-departmental / cross-sectoral collaborative networks and procedures	√ [P3, P4, P8, P10, P11, P12, P13, PPW]	√ [A2, A3, A4, A6]	N/A (not specified except for spatial plan)
Legislation requiring consultation (e.g. planning)	√ [PPW]	√ [A4]	√ [V3, VPW]
Enforcement of legislation e.g. planning requirements – green space, eco-regulations	√ (facilitating where adequately enforced) [PPW]	√ / X (facilitating where adequately enforced; some issues identified) [A1, A2, A5]	X (serious issues identified) [V1, V3, V4, VPW]
Funding availability / constraints – including availability of longer term government and / or external support for NBS (and green NGOs)	√ / X (facilitating where available; mixture of national & external funds for NBS) [P11, P12, PPW]	√ / X (facilitating where available; mainly national / local government funding for NBS) [A1, A2, A3, A4, APW]	√ / X (facilitating where available; limited public funds and some issues – re. sustainability & patchiness) [V2, V3, V4, V6, VPW]
Adequately resourced maintenance of green/blue spaces (involving users)	X (problems with recruitment) [PPW]	√ [A2]	X (limited support for maintenance) [V3, V6]
Centralized procurement processes	√ / X (hindering where tendency to favour grey not green solutions) [P6]	N/A	X (centrally controlled, inflexible, not encouraging of NBS) [V1, V3, V4]
Local spatial planning process	√ [PPW]	√ [A2, A4, A5]	√ / X (facilitating but long delays in implementation & funding constraints)
Limitations in availability of publicly-owned land (& lack of influence on private and utility-owned land)	X [PPW]	N/A (not specified as a limitation)	X [V3, VPW]
Exploring the potential of small (under-used) urban spaces and paying attention to quality / specific design features (with input from users)	√ [P9, P12, PPW]	√ [A5, A6]	N/A
Openness / approach to risk – willingness to experiment / fail	√ [P3, P9, P10, P12]	√ [A1, A2, A3, A6]	X (few examples) [V1, V2, V4]
Development of specific technical expertise (experimentation)	√ [P2, P3, P9, P10, P12]	√ [A1, A2, A3]	N/A
Public investment in public engagement / participation (and building trust)	√ [P8, P11, PPW]	√ [A1, A2, A3, A5, A6, A8, APW]	N/A
Existing local government platforms for participation and consultation	√ [P8, P11, PPW]	√ [A2, A3, A5, A6, A8]	√ (mainly for spatial plan) [V3, VPW]
Government-led NBS policy instruments aimed at encouraging citizen participation	√ [P3, P5, P11]	√ [A2, A5, A6, A8]	√ (limited; as part of spatial planning consultations) [V3, VPW]
Engaging with the full range of stakeholders	√ [P3, P5, P8, P12]	√ [A2, A3, A5, A6]	√ (limited; as part of spatial planning consultations) [V3, VPW]
Willingness to explore multifunctional solutions balancing needs of different users	√ [P5, P11, P12]	√ [A1, A2, A3, A5, A6]	√ (where exists – few examples) [V6, VPW]
Collaboration with experts / students; citizen science (e.g. tree database)	N/A	√ [A1]	N/A

The comparative, ‘thick’ analysis of the three case studies (as per [16]) has allowed us to differentiate examples of the different types of factors (external, societal, governing) influencing NBS policy innovation, how they are influencing developments in the different contexts and whether they are facilitating and or hindering depending on the policy and implementation contexts as outlined in the key stakeholder interviews. Circumstances that affected whether factors were facilitating or hindering included the type of policy response to natural disasters; availability of public land for NBS projects; and level of enforcement of planning regulations. We provide a few overarching reflections below. Our conceptual framework in general allowed clear analysis of facilitating and hindering factors for NBS innovation. There were, however, one or two cases where factors could be seen to cut across all three categories (external, societal and governing), notably, questions of financial resources—these were amalgamated into the governing category, as ultimately they were often reliant on political decision-making at local / national government level (apart from some external funding sources).

The comparative results showed a number of facilitating factors shared across the three case studies—see Table 4 (several others were found to be in common across two of the case studies, some of which are discussed below).

Table 4

Factors facilitating NBS innovation shared across all three case studies (comparative results)
Type of factor	Description of facilitating factor shared across all three case studies
External	Increased prevalence and severity of climate change effects (e.g. extreme flooding events, heat effects)
Societal	Policy diffusion - use of examples / instruments from elsewhere
	Citizen participation and consultation
	Shifts in public perceptions/values (e.g. greater awareness / attention to green solutions in climate adaptation / water management etc; awareness of multiple benefits e.g. climate / health of NBS)
	Tradition of citizen-organized voluntary actions at neighbourhood level
Governing	Political level influence (where NBS issues / actors have influence)
	Prioritization of NBS policies and integration into strategy (policy coherence)
	Political support for NBS policy/-ies (e.g. internal champion)
	Municipality-led NBS policy innovation
	Legislation requiring consultation (e.g. planning)
	Existing local government platforms for participation and consultation
	Government-led NBS policy instruments aimed at encouraging citizen participation
	Engaging with the full range of stakeholders
	Willingness to explore multifunctional solutions balancing the needs of different users

When we compare across the case studies, in terms of external factors facilitating NBS innovation, as noted by [10], the increased prevalence and severity of climate change effects (such as extreme flooding events and heat effects) was underlined in all the case studies leading to NBS innovation through raised public awareness/shifts in values, although the particular issues highlighted varied because of differing climatic and environmental conditions. In terms of societal factors, use of examples from elsewhere (policy diffusion), citizen participation and consultation [25], having a tradition of citizen-organized voluntary actions at neighbourhood level; and shifts in public perception (e.g. around climate change effects) were all perceived as facilitating factors for NBS innovation.

Regarding governing influences, and applying the findings of [26] and [22] on climate policy to NBS, the analysis highlighted the importance of political factors in fostering NBS innovation, notably the influence of political leadership from the Mayor / Mayor’s office across all three case studies, despite differences in governing architectures and cultures and institutional logics of operation (see [50, 51]). Policy coherence with and integration into government strategy (see [52]), as well as municipality-led NBS policy innovation, and the presence of an internal champion (see e.g. [53]) were also highlighted as facilitating innovation across all the case studies. Government-led participatory policies, engagement with the full range of stakeholders and a willingness to explore multifunctional solutions were also identified as key facilitating factors for NBS innovation across all the case studies.

A few key differences were also identified. In the Paris Region there was more evidence of citizens and local NGOs developing their own NBS initiatives, based on tackling external factors and priorities such as increasing liveability of urban areas, biodiversity, health and wellbeing, and climate adaptation, without government assistance (or only later on seeking such assistance). Whereas, in Velika Gorica the barriers to local groups doing this (e.g. funding, cultural) were reported to be greater. However, further research would be beneficial on this point, ensuring data is collected from a wide range of stakeholders in all case studies to deepen the findings, particularly in relation to Aarhus. In contrast with the other case studies, the external factors in the Paris Region represented more incremental drivers (e.g. gradual increase in heat effects) rather than a sudden shock (a natural disaster).

In a similar vein to the Paris Region, the Aarhus interview data indicated that Aarhus citizens (and, in some cases, local enterprises and utility companies), in collaboration with the municipality, are playing an active role as participants in innovative NBS initiatives. Significant citizen participation and consultation as part of government and externally funded initiatives (e.g. in forestry, tree planting and water projects) was reported to be leading to innovation—particularly in terms of encouraging inclusion, creating multifunctional spaces and increasing biodiversity and quality of green / blue spaces. This was reported to also bring increased co-benefits (e.g. social, health and wellbeing). Nonetheless, it is important to note here as well that these perspectives arise mainly from municipality employees’ accounts and would benefit from further data collection to deepen the findings.

The Aarhus data suggests that local government policy makers are actively engaging with various external policy factors related to NBS—including climate adaptation (especially flooding-related), biodiversity and health and inclusion. The data indicates that extreme flooding events have had a significant effect on the policy landscape and prioritization of these issues in Aarhus, and that this can be traced through to implementation. As in the Paris Region, coherence with and integration into the government strategy were a key factor; with more of a sense that local government staff were (and had to be) skilled in noticing and appealing to shifting policy priorities and agendas in the political landscape. The data suggests that internal champions (in this case within local government) were also important drivers for innovation consistent with the literature (see e.g. [53]).

The Velika Gorica data again indicates key societal and external drivers (e.g. earthquakes in 2020 in nearby areas, including Zagreb). Interviewees cited a few examples of public participation leading to NBS innovation e.g. in green space design. In contrast with the other case studies, however, there was less recognition or attention to public participation as a driver for NBS implementation and innovation, and this could be linked to the more centralized nature of governance in the city (a possible example of policy learning / implementation in the shadow of hierarchy—see [54]). Innovation seemed also to be more constrained by funding limitations, both from government and external sources e.g. EU, at times creating dependence and / or patchy geographical implementation.

In the Municipality of Velika Gorica, the integration of NBS ideas and plans into the local spatial planning process appears to be a key governing policy driver—the data indicates that the local plan has embraced NBS but is subject to long delays and funding shortages. Another important governing factor is the enforcement of planning regulations; e.g. green space targets were reported as not being implemented in practice in new developments. External policy factors (both incremental and sudden) such as increased heat / climate effects; localized flooding and earthquakes (and subsequent recovery efforts) were highlighted as important influences. While some of these have added further impetus to NBS implementation, e.g. climate adaptation, others such as recovery from earthquakes (in Croatia) have led to a push for urban development—for building residences (flats), which is impacting negatively on NBS implementation and innovation.

Similarly to the argument in Haas (1992) in the context of international policy coordination but applying it to the NBS context, our analysis also identified a number of barriers that are hindering the uptake of NBS across the case study sites (see Table 5). The number of hindering factors reported was generally lower than reported facilitating factors across the cases, which may be a reflection of the relatively advanced nature of many of the initiatives, meaning that hindering factors have been circumvented or resolved. Notably in this respect, more hindering factors were reported for Velika Gorica, in which initiatives around NBS are at a far earlier stage of development than the other two cases.

Table 5

**Factors hindering NBS innovation shared across case studies (comparative results)**
Type of factor	Description of hindering factor shared across all three case studies
Governing	Enforcement of planning legislation or planning conditions (inadequate conditions or enforcement of e.g. for green space in new developments)
	External funding availability
	Varying perspectives amongst different levels of government creating tensions (Aarhus and Paris Region)
	Policy siloing
	Level of centralization came up as a hindering factor in two cases (Aarhus and Velika Gorica)

Comparing across the three cases the common hindering factors cited by interviewees were all in the governing category. These included issues with enforcement of planning legislation or planning conditions, e.g. inadequate conditions or enforcement of targets for green space in new developments (mentioned across all three cases but particularly in Velika Gorica); external funding availability (Aarhus and Velika Gorica) (similar to the arguments in Massey et al 2014), varying perspectives amongst different levels of government creating tensions (Aarhus and Paris Region), policy silos (all three, but particularly Paris Region and Velika Gorica) [1]. Also, the level of centralization came up as a hindering factor in two cases (Aarhus and Velika Gorica), but for different reasons. For Aarhus, the issue was that decentralization of policy making from national to local level provided a situation in which there was greater autonomy at local level in implementing NBS but uptake was more of a patchwork and not so well coordinated. On the other hand, in Velika Gorica the issue was too much political centralization at city level without appropriate decentralization of funding, providing little space for more localized bottom-up initiatives. This apparent contradiction is also found in the literature as discussed above (e.g. [22, 32]).

Other barriers were more specific to the context of the case studies. For instance, the size and complexity (geographically, politically and socially) of the Paris Region made it difficult to roll out NBS widely. In Velika Gorica, conflicting perspectives among key stakeholders (residents / citizens) were reported to make it hard to push forward NBS strategies in the municipality, such as street trees (see also [55]). In a similar but distinct vein, lobbying (e.g. from commercial contractors) was reported as hindering development of NBS initiatives in the Paris Region.

This paper has presented a comparative, in-depth study exploring the uptake of NBS through a policy innovation lens using theoretical insights and empirical data—and bringing in the political side of NBS which has hitherto been relatively unexplored. The analysis yielded a number of key factors facilitating and hindering NBS innovation occurring across the three case studies, with political factors particularly prominent. Notably, despite the differences in scale, levels of centralization, governance structures and cultures in the European cases, there was a marked similarity in terms of the influence of the political level—particularly the Mayor / Mayor’s office—in NBS decision-making and release of funds for NBS implementation. All three cases also highlighted the importance of policy coherence of NBS initiatives with government policy strategy; and of the willingness by policy makers / local government officials to engage with and appeal strategically to political decision-makers regarding external policy drivers, e.g. climate adaptation and health.

Our cases also showed key differences that led to differing NBS outcomes, such as the size and complexity of urban area, the effectiveness of enforcement of planning regulations, and the extent to which the governing architecture facilitated citizens and local NGOs developing their own NBS initiatives.

The data for the case studies (see also [24]) supports the view that in terms of yielding increased benefits (e.g. multi-functionality, greater biodiversity) of green / blue spaces and sustainability of urban areas, participation and consultation can add significant value provided they are coherent with and can be integrated into the strategic and target-oriented approach of (local) government departments. The analysis indicates that where citizen participation and consultation were built into NBS projects, this brought both innovation and additionality in terms of the design, quality, biodiversity and or multi-functionality of green / blue spaces—whether this was greening of schoolyards, redesign of under-used green spaces or river restoration. This is consistent with a recent meta-study of stakeholder participation which identified power delegation (where participants were able to influence decision-making) as the most stable predictor of strong environmental outputs [56]. The increased multi-functionality in turn was reported to bring a greater range of co-benefits for local people in terms of climate adaptation, health and wellbeing and social benefits. We note that our data collection was limited by time and practical considerations exacerbated by delays due to Covid-19 restrictions, which impacted on the ability to secure the cooperation of a range of willing stakeholders/policy makers as interviewees within the project timeframe. However, every effort was made to recruit the key stakeholders at city/local level, through knowledge of partner organisations of the local context, in order to maximise the validity of the findings.

The data also shows that a range of external drivers, both incremental (e.g. climate change) and sudden (e.g. extreme flooding events and earthquakes) are providing impetus to NBS implementation and innovation to varying extents and in varying directions. Therefore, our findings show that stakeholder participation and innovation / experimentation may not necessarily lead to desired outcomes where there are strong external (top-down) policy drivers.

Acknowledgements:

This project on urban nature-based solutions in Europe and China (2019-2024) has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 821016. This document reflects only the authors’ views and the EU Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. Ethics permission was obtained for this research through the University of Exeter’s standard ethics process: SSIS ethics reference 201920-097, covering issues of confidentiality, anonymity, consent and integrity of the research process.

We would particularly like to thank all interviewees for their insights, inputs and time. Furthermore, we would like to thank the anonymous reviewers of Discover Cities, our reviewer for the associated project deliverable, Ben Wheeler (ECEHH), participants at the REGREEN project meeting in Alnarp, April 2023, and previous anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments which have all positively contributed to this paper.

We would also like to thank all staff in all the partner organisations who assisted with essential tasks including recruitment of interviewees and conducting and transcribing interviews, without which this paper would not have been possible.

Data statement:

The (anonymised) data/coding that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, CP. None of the data are publicly available because they contain information that could compromise the privacy of research participants. Ethical approval for this research study was granted by University of Exeter SSIS201920-097.

More detailed analysis of the relevant data underlying the findings is available in the full project deliverable document (cited in the text) which will in due course be available online via the EU Horizon 2020 website.

Open access statement

For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.

Funding (information that explains whether and by whom the research was supported):

The [blinded for review] project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. [blinded for review]. This document reflects only the authors’ views and the Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

Conflicts of interest/Competing interests (include appropriate disclosures):

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest or competing interests with regard to this article.

Data availability (data transparency):

We are bound by the University of Exeter’s Ethics policy (see below) which prevents us from sharing raw qualitative data due to concerns around privacy, anonymity and consent. More detailed analysis of the relevant data underlying the findings is available in the full project deliverable document (cited in the text) which will in due course be available online via the EU Horizon 2020 website.

Ethics statement and informed consent

Ethics permission was obtained for this research and the ethics application approved by the University of Exeter’s Social Science and International Studies Ethics Committee process: ethics reference 201920-097. This covers issues of confidentiality, anonymity, consent and integrity of the research process. The research was carried out following the guidelines of the ethics committee listed in the ethics statement. Freely-given, informed consent (for participation and for publication) was obtained from all participants in the research in accordance with the ethics statement.

Code availability (software application or custom code):

Not Applicable.

Authors' contributions -

All authors have made a contribution in line with this journal’s Authorship principles:

CRediT statement[1]:

[Author 1 – blinded for review] – conceptualisation; methodology; investigation; formal analysis; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing.

[Author 2 – blinded for review] – analytical lead; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing; funding acquisition; conceptualisation; project administration.

[Author 3 – blinded for review] – conceptualisation; methodology; investigation; funding acquisition; formal analysis; project administration; writing – review and editing.

[Author 4 – blinded for review] – conceptualisation; methodology; project administration; writing – review and editing.

[Author 5 – blinded for review] – conceptualisation; methodology; investigation; formal analysis; writing – review and editing.

[1] Based on https://www.elsevier.com/authors/policies-and-guidelines/credit-author-statement

Peters BG. The challenge of policy coordination. Policy Design and Practice. 2018 1(1):1-11; https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2018.1437946
Kauark-Fontes B, Marchetti L, Salbitano, F. Integration of nature-based solutions (NBS) in local policy and planning toward transformative change. Evidence from Barcelona, Lisbon, and Turin. Ecology and Society. 2023 28(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14182-280225
Raymond CM., Frantzeskaki N, Kabisch N, Berry P, Breil M, Nita MR, Geneletti D, Calfapietra C. A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environmental Science & Policy. 2017 77:15-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.008
Hachem-Vermette C. Enhancing Urban Climate Resistance Through the Application of Selected Strategies and Technologies. Discover Cities. 2024 1(1), pp.1-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44327-024-00018-2
AUTHOR et al. 2024 [blinded for review]
Colebatch HK. Making sense of governance. Policy and Society. 2014 33(4):307-316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2014.10.001
AUTHORS [blinded for review] Introduction to the Governance of Sustainable Development. In [blinded for review], editors. The Handbook of Sustainable Development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2022. Ch.1.
AUTHOR et al. 2020 [blinded for review]. Deliverable N°6.1: Research protocol for the analysis of governance systems in European ULLs. [blinded for review] project output - Work Package 6 (WP6): NBS‐based governance and planning; 2020. Report available on: [blinded for review] Accessed
Haas PM. Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination.
International Organization 1992 46(1):1-35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300001442
Pauleit S, Zölch T, Hansen R, Randrup TB, Konijnendijk van den Bosch C. Nature-Based Solutions and Climate Change – Four Shades of Green. In: Kabisch N, Korn H, Stadler J, Bonn A, editors. Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas. Theory and Practice of Urban Sustainability Transitions; 2017. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56091-5_3
Schattschneider EE. The Semisovereign People. A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. Hinsdale, Illinois: the Dryden Press; 1960.
Steinmo S. Historical institutionalism. In della Porta D, Keating M, editors. Approaches and methodologies in the social sciences: A pluralist perspective; 2008:118-138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ch. 7.
Lindblom CE. Still Muddling, Not Yet Through. Public Administration Review. 1979 39(6):517-526. https://doi.org/10.2307/976178
Baumgartner FR, Jones BD. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press; 1993.
AUTHOR 2010 [blinded for review] . The Fight over Danish Nature: Explaining Policy Network Change and Policy Change. [blinded for review]
Adger WN, Brown K, Fairbrass J, Jordan A, Paavola J, Rosendo S, Seyfang G. Governance for sustainability: towards a ‘thick’ analysis of environmental decisionmaking. Environment and planning A. 2003 35(6), pp.1095-1110. https://doi.org/10.1068/a35289
Yin RK. Case study research: design and methods (Vol. 5). 2009. Sage.
Thelen K. Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science. 1999 2(1):369-404. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.369
Baig A, Atif S, Tahir A.. Urban development and the loss of natural streams leads to increased flooding. Discover Cities 2024 1(1), p.9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44327-024-00010-w
Welch S, Thompson K. The impact of federal incentives on state policy innovation. American Journal of Political Science. 1980 24(4):715-729. https://doi.org/10.2307/2110955
Massey E, Biesbroek R, Huitema D, Jordan A.. Climate policy innovation: The adoption and diffusion of adaptation policies across Europe. Global Environmental Change. 2014 29:434-443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.09.002
Karapin R. Political Opportunities for Climate Policy: California, New York, and the Federal Government. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2016. ISBN 9781107074392, hardback.
Kingdon JW. How do issues get on public agendas? In Wilson WJ, editor. Sociology and the public agenda, Sage; 1993; pp.40-50.
Martin JGC, Linnerooth-Bayer J, Scolobig A, Liu W.. Catalyzing innovation: governance enablers of nature-based solution success stories, EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-22547; 2020. https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-22547 .
Maggetti M, Gilardi F. Problems (and solutions) in the measurement of policy diffusion mechanisms. Journal of Public Policy. 2015 36(S1):87-107. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X1400035X
Pidgeon N. Public understanding of, and attitudes to, climate change: UK and international perspectives and policy. Climate Policy. 2012 12(S01):S85-S106. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2012.702982
Torfing J, Ansell C. Strengthening political leadership and policy innovation through the expansion of collaborative forms of governance. Public Management Review. 2017 19(1): 37-54. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003125457-3/strengthening-political-leadership-policy-innovation-expansion-collaborative-forms-governance-jacob-torfing-christopher-ansell
Rafaty R. Perceptions of corruption, political distrust, and the weakening of climate policy. Global Environmental Politics. 2018 18(3): 106-129. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00471
Sørensen E, Waldorff SB. Collaborative policy innovation: Problems and potential. The Innovation Journal. 2014 19(3):1. https://forskning.ruc.dk/en/publications/collaborative-policy-innovation-problems-and-potential
Mormann F. Constitutional challenges and regulatory opportunities for state climate policy innovation. Harvard Environmental Law Review. 2017 41:189-243. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/helr41&div=7&id=&page=
Zhu Y. Policy entrepreneurship, institutional constraints, and local policy innovation in China. China Review. 2013 13(2):97-122. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/250/article/524758/summary?casa_token=19ZXHMevJ5AAAAAA:vI19m3McfaL8fX8w9m-vns9jJfyjtSsdOW8llEsAAATXJ0Qbo-XNYS-mEtIrXbmfE5MdOU9Z
Shin Y. A policy entrepreneur in the information society: Shaping the interdisciplinarity of brain research in Korea. Minerva. 2018 56(2):231-257. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11024-017-9328-y
Strumpf KS. Does government decentralization increase policy innovation? Journal of Public Economic Theory. 2002 4(2):207-241. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9779.00096
Mintrom M, Norman P. Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. Policy Studies Journal. 2009 37(4):649-667. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2009.00329.x
Dunlop CA, Radaelli CM. Does policy learning meet the standards of an analytical framework of the policy process? Policy Studies Journal. 2018 46:S48-S68. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12250
Strother L. The National Flood Insurance Program: a case study in policy failure, reform, and retrenchment. Policy Studies Journal. 2018 46(2):452-480. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12189
Yin RK. Designing Single-and Multiple-Case. Improving educational management: Through research and consultancy. 1994:135-155.
Yin RK. Case study methods. In Cooper H, Camic PM., Long DL, Panter AT, Rindskopf D, Sher KJ, editors. APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological; 2012:141–155. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-009
Bozonelos D, Wendt J, Lee C, Scarffe J, Omae M, Franco J, Martin B, Veldhuis S. Case Selection (Or, How to Use Cases in Your Comparative Analysis). ASCCC Open Educational Resources Initiative (OERI); 2022. Available on: https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Political_Science_and_Civics/ Introduction_to_Comparative_Government_ and_Politics_(Bozonelos_et_al.)/02%3A_How_to_Study_Comparative _Politics-_Using_ Comparative_Methods/2.03%3A_Case_Selection_(Or_How_to_Use_Cases_in_Your_Comparative_Analysis)
OECD. 2016a. France. https://www.oecd.org/regional/regional-policy/profile-France.pdf (accessed 16.06.2023).
OECD. 2016b. Denmark. https://www.oecd.org/regional/regional-policy/profile-Denmark.pdf (accessed 16.06.2023).
EC. 2017. A comparative overview of public administration characteristics and performance in EU28. https://portal.cor.europa.eu/divisionpowers/Pages/Decentralization-Index.aspx (accessed 16.06.2023).
Population U 2023. Paris population. https://www.populationu.com/cities/paris-population (accessed 25/07/2023).
Macrotrends 2023. Paris, France Metro Area Population 1950-2023. https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/20985/paris/population (accessed 25.07.2023).
European Environment Agency (EEA) 2022. Oasis school grounds programme in Paris, France. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/who-benefits-from-nature-in/oasis-school-grounds-programme-in (accessed 25.07.2023).
AdminStat 2021. Municipality of Aarhus. Maps, analysis and statistics about the resident population. Available on: https://ugeo.urbistat.com/AdminStat/en/dk/demografia/popolazione/aarhus/20367515/4 (accessed 25.07.2023).
City Population 2021. Velika Gorica. Available on: https://citypopulation.de/en/croatia/admin/zagreb/5410__velika_gorica/ (accessed 25.07.2023).
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006 3:77. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun V, Clarke V. One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2020 18(3):328-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
AUTHORs. 2022 [blinded for review] . Urban governance and policy mixes for nature-based solutions and integrated water policy. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning [blinded for review]
AUTHOR and… 2020. [blinded for review] Embedding ecosystem services ideas into policy processes: an institutional analysis. [blinded for review]
Howlett M, Rayner J. Design principles for policy mixes: Cohesion and coherence in ‘new governance arrangements’. Policy and society. 2007 26(4):1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1449-4035(07)70118-2
Gore T. The role of policy champions and learning in implementing horizontal environmental policy integration: comparative insights from European Structural Fund Programmes in the UK. Administrative Sciences. 2014 4(3), pp.304-330. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci4030304
Dunlop CA, Radaelli CM. Systematising policy learning: From monolith to dimensions. Political Studies. 2012 61(3):599-619. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00982.x
Alvarado MR, Lovell R, Guell C, Taylor T, Fullam J, Garside R., Zandersen M, Wheeler BW.. Street trees and mental health: developing systems thinking-informed hypotheses using causal loop diagraming. Ecology and Society. 2023 28(2):1. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14013-280201
Newig J, Jager NW, Challies E, Kochskämper E. Does stakeholder participation improve environmental governance? Evidence from a meta-analysis of 305 case studies. Global Environmental Change. 2023 82:102705 (1-11). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102705

No competing interests reported.

Appendix1.docx

Download PDF

Reviewers agreed at journal
14 Nov, 2024
Reviews received at journal
13 Nov, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
13 Nov, 2024
Reviews received at journal
06 Nov, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
26 Oct, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
24 Oct, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
24 Oct, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
22 Oct, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
18 Oct, 2024
First submitted to journal
08 Oct, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Evaluation of innovative policy for Nature-based Solutions: Analysis from three European city case studies

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Innovative Governance for NBS: A Conceptual framing.

2.1 Factors facilitating or hindering policy innovation

3 Methods

3.1 Case study design and selection

3.2 Case study descriptions

3.2 Recruitment of interviewees

3.3 Structure, framing and analysis of interviews

4. Results

4.1 Paris Region

4.2 Aarhus

4.3 Velika Gorica

4.4 Summary tables of three case studies

5. Discussion

6. Conclusion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1