How ‘just’ is hybrid governance of urban nature-based solutions?

H. Toxopeus*, P. Kotsila, M. Conde, A. Katona, A.P.N. van der Jagt, F. Polzin

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Hybrid (or multi-actor) governance has been identified as a key opportunity for upscaling urban nature-based solutions (referred to as urban NBS), representing a demand-driven and cost-effective realization of urban green infrastructure. However it is unclear how such hybrid governance affects the justice outcomes of urban NBS. Through six in-depth cases of urban NBS we show that hybrid governance can lead to both improvements and deterioration of distributional, procedural and recognition justice, depending on the hybrid governance choices. By exploring the tensions between these justice impacts we formulate three main policy implications for hybrid governance settings: the need for transparent decision-making on the distribution of costs and benefits; safeguarding public control over the urban NBS and the use of scientific expertise in combination with bottom-up consultation procedures to recognize both current and future voices.
Original languageEnglish
Article number102839
JournalCities
Volume105
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2020

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'How ‘just’ is hybrid governance of urban nature-based solutions?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this