Moving from high-level words to local action:
governance for urban sustainability in
municipalities
Paul Fenton and Sara Gustafsson
The self-archived postprint version of this journal article is available at Linköping University Institutional Repository (DiVA):
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-142853
N.B.: When citing this work, cite the original publication.
Fenton, P., Gustafsson, S., (2017), Moving from high-level words to local action: governance for urban sustainability in municipalities, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, (26-27), 129-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.07.009
Original publication available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.07.009
Copyright: Elsevier
Moving from high-level words to local action – governance for urban
sustainability in municipalities
Paul Fenton (Corresponding author). Division of Environmental Technology & Management,
Linköping University, SE-58183 Linköping, Sweden. Tel: +46 13 285620, Email: paul.fenton@liu.se
Sara Gustafsson, Division of Environmental Technology & Management, Linköping University,
SE-58183 Linköping, Sweden.
Abstract
The Sustainable Development Goals emphasize the need for multi-level governance to stimulate actions across many levels and involving actors from multiple sectors. Cities and human settlements are critical sites for implementation of these universal objectives, indicating the need for local action that serves global and local interests. This paper reviews recent literature on this theme, illustrating challenges and opportunities influencing local action, with particular focus on municipalities. The partial implementation and limited evaluation of previous initiatives such as Local Agenda 21 are highlighted, suggesting past experiences offer insights into how the SDGs may be implemented. The review suggests research may support municipal action by illustrating how and in what ways municipalities can integrate the SDGs in strategy, policy and practice.
Keywords
Sustainable Development Goals; Local Agenda 21; multi-level governance; urban; municipalities
Introduction
By adopting 17 global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), countries of the world have signaled the need for urgent transformative action to enable sustainable development in the period up to 2030. Local action in cities and other human settlements is considered an essential part of this transformation [1].
This reiterates the call for local urban action in the antecedents to the SDGs, namely Local Agenda 21 and the Millennium Development Goals [2,3,4]. However, such initiatives were not always synchronized, monitored or evaluated in detail, meaning potential synergies, results or lessons have been missed or poorly understood [3]. The SDGs seek to integrate various
agendas into a framework for comprehensive action, yet the extent to which they will do so – and how they will do so – remains unclear.
This paper illustrates the contours of current debates concerning the SDGs and the potential influences, barriers and opportunities shaping local action for sustainable development. The paper reviews a selection of scientific journal articles published during the period 2014-2016 and addressing this theme, and offers suggestions for future research agendas. By doing so, the paper aims to make a clear and concise contribution to the literature on SDGs and sustainable development at the local level in cities and other human settlements.
Global goals, gaps, and multi-level governance
The implementation of the SDGs requires multi-level governance to stimulate action across many levels, scales and sectors [3,5]. The UN emphasize that collaboration between all countries and stakeholders is necessary in order to realize the SDGs. Governing for
sustainable development thus comprises a mix of compulsion and voluntarism, implying the need for collaborative approaches to address complex challenges [6,7].
Nevertheless, the 2030 Agenda is more explicit concerning proposed approaches at the international, national and regional levels than for the local level, despite the clear link between various SDGs and the local realm of human settlements [1,3,4].
For example, SDG Goal 11 aims for a transformation enabling inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable settlements. A range of targets, addressing the form and quality of human settlements are included, including environmental standards, cultural heritage, sustainable transportation and urban sustainability. Goal 11 proposes for example accelerating the adoption by cities and human settlements of integrated policies and plans addressing resource efficiency and climate change [1].
Goal 11 is interlinked with other SDGs that also indicate the need for municipal involvement in achieving for example food security (Goal 2), clean water and sanitation (Goal 6), economic growth (Goal 8), investment in infrastructure (Goal 9) and sustainable use of resources (e.g. Goal 12). Municipalities, as constants in their local context, may also have the possibility to act as anchor tenants enhancing actor collaboration and partnerships supporting
implementation of the SDGs (Goal 17) [1].
In such ways, the SDGs highlight key challenges at the local level and offer indications as to the role of municipal organizations in governing for sustainable development. However, a
detailed account of this role was deferred to Habitat III and the New Urban Agenda [4]. This was adopted in December 2016 and includes a range of commitments aiming for just and sustainable communities, such as provision of services, equal opportunities and
environmental protection. By emphasizing the global impacts of local environmental actions, and establishing new rules, practices and funding for transformative initiatives, the New Urban Agenda may provide a framework for local implementation of the SDGs [8].
A similar gap is evident concerning climate change. Although the consequences of human actions for the Earth System are increasing evident [9,10,11] and interdisciplinary approaches are considered essential to address the complex challenges of the emergent Anthropocene [12], the Paris Agreement of 2015 reaffirms the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, meaning not all contexts or sectors are subject to legally-binding emission reduction targets [13,14,15].
Such issues indicate tensions and gaps within the global multi-level governance framework, indicating the need for an integrated and unified response to the SDGs and climate policy [16]. Nevertheless, despite a lack of clarity concerning the precise roles and responsibilities of local actors in governing sustainable development, the importance of cities and other human settlements to the achievement of the SDGs is strongly emphasized [1,4,10,15,17].
Parnell [4:538] claims this represents acknowledgement of “what scholars and urban
representatives have long argued… that cities are now catalysts of almost every aspect of the global system”. Representatives of cities and other human settlements – typically mayors, local governments, or municipal organizations (henceforth referred to as municipalities) – thus form part of the global governance system [3]. However, the precise form of their participation in global governance varies, with different degrees of formality [3,4]. Various SDGs require implementation at the urban level and thus depend on strong engagement from local actors and institutions [18]. In some contexts, this may require additional decentralization and devolution, so that municipal powers are concomitant with responsibilities [19].
For example, in the absence of decentralizing reforms, the complexity of managing 17 inter-related SDGs may present difficulties for municipalities with capacity constraints or similar challenges [3,5]. However, past efforts to achieve decentralization appear to have failed, and nation states continue to protect their power base in global governance, despite
acknowledging the need for subsidiarity on issues such as sustainable development [19,20].
Cities and multi-level urban governance
A range of recent articles refer to vertical, horizontal (or inter-municipal) and intra-municipal levels of governing which must interact to enable transformations to emerge [21,22,23]. Horizontal governance is reflected in for example the fast-growing literature on trans-local [24,25,26,27] and trans-national networks or supranational initiatives [28,29,30].
The representativeness and impact of such networking is unclear [3]. Bansard et al. [31] suggest sub-national action to address climate change occurs in haphazard form, with
significant disparities within and between continental regions, and in terms of target-setting, implementation and monitoring.
Nevertheless, it is often claimed that national or transnational municipal networks play a dual role in horizontal and vertical governance, promoting “governance by diffusion” between municipalities and thereby contributing to intra-municipal transformations [28], whilst also representing the sum of intra-municipal and inter-municipal actions vertically into national or international debates [32].
Presenting a study of the trans-local action of three German cities, Benz et al. [24:322] suggest that municipalities consider horizontal and vertical governing to coincide “as parts of a coherent action space that… transcends the municipal boundaries”. This may not be the case in all contexts or for all questions. For example, municipal networking may on occasions be motivated by ulterior motives, such as city branding [33,34]. Indeed, some countries have also made particular efforts to export “urban sustainability” solutions [35,36].
Sustainable development is thus one of many arenas for inter-municipal competition, and part of wider processes framing the production of knowledge. This, and the extent to which policies are present or absent across contexts, forms part of the flourishing literature on policy mobilities [37,38,39]. Such literature points to a need for pluralism and reflexivity in the practice and study of governing for sustainable development and cities, particularly with issues of representation [4].
However, as the SDGs suggest the need for a universal agenda for all cities (the New Urban Agenda) [4], the global objectives of the SDGs, and the scientific thresholds to which environmental dimensions of the SDGs relate, indicate some degree of ideological and thematic convergence across contexts [10, 40, 41]. This convergence emphasizes the importance of cities, yet the fact of its assertion does not predicate acceptance of its legitimacy in all contexts, nor guarantee implementation [42].
For example, various studies highlight concerns about the implications of the SDGs (e.g. in ethical and material terms, [43]) and their viability, with regard to e.g. the unclear or imprecise formulation of some indicators, or an absence of data, tools or methodologies required to monitor implementation [3,42,44,45]. Several studies offer indications as to how such gaps may be filled. For example, Souza Santos and Kahn Ribeiro [7] illustrate how indicators such as CO2 emissions are used in processes of governing for sustainable urban
transportation and call for wider use of sectoral indicators when implementing the SDGs. In contrast, Hoornweg et al. [10] develop an approach using bio-physical and socio-economic indicators to monitor SDGs at the urban level, and apply their approach on several large cities. The latter approach offers a substantial contribution to literature on urban sustainability indicators, yet in both cases, the use of indicators reaffirms the challenge of balancing sectoral interests with other priorities, both within the framework for Goal 11 and with respect to inter-relationships between the 17 SDGs or, for example, with climate policy [16].
Goal 11 at the intra-municipal level
Various authors praise the inclusion of Goal 11 in the SDGs, its recognition of cities as (potentially) key drivers of sustainable development, and the apparent acceptance of the need for devolution of powers and responsibilities to the urban level [4,44]. However,
governing for sustainable development relates not just to the specific content of a strategy or agenda, but also to the orientation of processes [46]; the actors within such processes, e.g. organizations [7]; individual politicians [47] or administrators [48,49,50]; or the degree of formality of the process itself [23,44,49].
In their present form, the SDGs offer limited guidance as to how actors can reconcile their daily obligations with universal goals; in other words, the SDGs focus on serving political ends, rather than facilitating practice [3]. Wittmayer et al. [46] suggest that transformations require explicit orientation towards future targets (and in relation to scientific thresholds), even if implementation of radical agendas will almost certainly proceed in small stages.
Moreover, stakeholder participation should be encouraged in the development of
experiments promoting change [17,46,51], as there is “convincing evidence that local actors, especially but not limited to municipalities, play a key role in formulating and implementing urban responses to climate change” [17:279]. However, significant barriers to change at the intra-municipal level exist, including capacity and resources deficits, political or other interests, or the complexity of the change itself [17].
Nevertheless, based on municipal experiences with Local Agenda 21 (LA21) – for example, the experimentation with different approaches to include citizens, NGOs, academia and other stakeholders in participatory approaches to improve local policy-making – there may be reasons for cautious optimism regarding the prospects for Goal 11. Despite being a voluntary mechanism and perceived as an environmental initiative [52], LA21 led to a flurry of
experimentation in settlements around the world [3].
In a comprehensive review of journal articles assessing implementation of LA21 for the period 1992-2013, Barrutia et al. [20] conclude that LA21 has had profound impact on local
governance worldwide, although barriers – similar to those named by Lo [17] – have diluted its participatory and long-term content. At the national level, Kveton et al. [52] support the claim that municipal implementation of LA21 results in increased integration of
environmental issues across the municipal portfolio.
Conclusions
This review indicates the need to urgently clarify the roles and responsibilities of actors participating in governing for sustainable development at the local level. In cities and other human settlements, Goal 11 is likely to be the focal point of the SDG process, yet actors – and in particular, municipalities – should reflect on the interconnections between their locality, the 17 SDGs and related challenges.
The extent to which actors may contribute to implementation of the SDGs varies depending on an organization’s mission, action space, agenda and level of ambition. In many contexts, municipal organizations play a constant and central role in many fields, e.g. planning and
provision of public services. As such, municipal organizations could potentially act as coordinators for local implementation of the SDGs, supporting and enabling other actors in their efforts whilst ensuring all SDGs are addressed directly or in synergy between different approaches.
Multi-level governance may support intra-municipal action, by providing vertical support through decentralization and devolution of powers and responsibilities from nation states to municipalities, or through horizontal governance via for example trans-local and transnational networks. Such networks may help municipalities in the elaboration of practices that support efficient policy development, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and exchange.
Nevertheless, much of the responsibility for implementing the SDGs, and in particular Goal 11, falls upon local-level actors such as municipalities. It is critical that municipalities address institutional and political barriers to implementation, whilst reflecting on the experiences of past initiatives such as Local Agenda 21.
Research can do more to support municipal action by illustrating how and in what ways municipalities can rapidly integrate and align the SDGs in existing strategy, policy and practice. For example, it is important to map what different types of actor do or can be expected to do in relation the different SDGs, and to develop a structure for how efforts may be coordinated locally. More research is needed in order to understand how existing and potential
interrelations between local actors for the SDGs can be more effectively addressed. New insights on the barriers to such integration, and their implications, are required to support implementation of the SDGs and the New Urban Agenda.
Acknowledgements
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References and recommended reading
Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as: • of special interest
•• of outstanding interest
[1] United Nations: Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Resolution of the General Assembly 70/1. 2015. (http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E).
[2] Barnett C, Parnell S: Ideas, implementation and indicators: epistemologies of the post-2015 urban agenda. Environment and Urbanization 2016. DOI:10.1177/0956247815621473
[3] •• Graute U: Local Authorities Acting Globally for Sustainable Development. Regional
Studies 2016. DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2016.1161740. The author emphasizes the importance
of the local level in the operationalization of the SDGs, yet also underlines that cities are often neglected actors in processes of global governance. The article highlights the risk of repeating mistakes from past initiatives when implementing the SDGs.
[4] •• Parnell S: Defining a Global Urban Development Agenda. World Development 2016, 78:529-540. This article analyses the evolution of UN initiatives concerning the role and significance of cities and urban development. Compared to previous initiatives, the SDGs, through Goal 11, put cities in the spotlight in a new way and the article reflects on what this may mean for urban sustainable development processes.
[5] • Meuleman L, Niestroy I: Common But Differentiated Governance: A Metagovernance Approach to Make the SDGs Work. Sustainability 2015, 7(9):12295-12321. DOI:10.3390/su70912295 The authors discuss different type of governance styles and propose that metagovernance is important for the implementation of the SDGs. A step-by step model for effective SDG implementation is presented.
[6] McGranahan G, Schensul D, Singh G: Inclusive urbanization: Can the 2030 Agenda be delivered without it? Environment & Urbanization 2016, 28(1):13–34.
[7] Souza Santos A, Kahn Ribeiro, S: The role of transport indicators to the improvement of local governance in Rio de Janeiro City: A contribution for the debate on sustainable future. Case
Studies on Transport Policy 2015, (3):415–420.
[8] United Nations: New Urban Agenda. Resolution of the General Assembly 71/256. 2016. (http://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/New-Urban-Agenda-GA-Adopted-68th-Plenary-N1646655-E.pdf).
[9] Hamilton C: Getting the Anthropocene so wrong. The Anthropocene Review 2015, 2(2):102-107.
[10] • Hoornweg D, Hosseini M, Kennedy C, Behdadi A: An urban approach to planetary boundaries. Ambio 2016. DOI: 10.1007/s13280-016-0764-y This paper adapts methodology concerning “planetary boundaries” and applies it at the urban scale, with reference to the cases of Dakar, Mumbai, São Paulo, Shanghai and Toronto to illustrate different sustainability outcomes. The approach is innovative, accessible and of potential utility to researchers and practitioners alike.
[11] Waters CN, Zalasiewicz J, Summerhayes C, Barnosky AD, Poirier C, Gałuska A, Cearreta A, Edgeworth M, Ellis EC, Ellis M, et al.: The Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene. Science 2016, 351(6269).
[12] Brondizio ES, O’Brien K, Bai X, Biermann F, Steffen W, Berkhout F, Cudennec C, Lemos MC, Wolfe A, Palma-Oliveira J, et al.: Re-conceptualizing the Anthropocene: A call for collaboration.
Global Environmental Change 2016. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.02.006
[13] Bows-Larkin A: All adrift: aviation, shipping, and climate change policy. Climate Policy 2015, 15(6):681-702. DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2014.965125
[14] Jeffries E: Freeing fossil fuels. Nature Climate Change 2016, 6:125-126.
[15] UNFCCC: Adoption of the Paris Agreement, FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1. 2015. (https://unfccc.int/resource/docs /2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf).
[16] von Stechow C, Minx JC, Riahi K, Jewell J, McCollum DL, Callaghan MW, Bertram C, Luderer G, Baiocchi G: 2°C and SDGs: united they stand, divided they fall? Environmental Research
Letters 2016, 11:034022. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/034022
[17] •• Lo K: Urban carbon governance and the transition toward low carbon urbanism: review of a global phenomenon. Carbon Management 2014, 5(3):269-283. This review paper provides an excellent overview of major themes and controversies related to governance of climate change at the urban scale, and identifies five major research gaps that future studies may address.
[18] Slack L: The post-2015 Global Agenda - a role for local government. Commonwealth Journal
of Local Governance 2015, 16/17. DOI: 10.5130/cjlg.v0i0.4483
[19] UN-Habitat: Urbanization and Development: Emerging Futures. World Cities Report 2016. Nairobi: UN-Habitat, 2016.
[20] • Barrutia JM, Echebarria C, Paredes MR, Hartmann P: From Rio to Rio+20: twenty years of participatory, long term oriented and monitored local planning? Journal of Cleaner
Production 2015, 106:594-607. The authors review scientific journal articles on Local Agenda
21 published during the period 1992-2013. They illustrate gaps between the theory and practice of Local Agenda 21 and suggest causes, foremost among which are top-down approaches and limited decentralization.
[21] Debrie J, Raimbault N: The port–city relationships in two European inland ports: A geographical perspective on urban governance. Cities 2016, 50:180-187.
[22] Haarstad H: Where are urban energy transitions governed? Conceptualizing the complex governance arrangements for low-carbon mobility in Europe. Cities 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2015.10.013
[23] Stead D: Key research themes on governance and sustainable urban mobility. International
Journal of Sustainable Transportation 2016, 10(1):40-48.
[24] Benz A, Kemmerzell J, Knodt M, Tews A: The trans-local dimension of local climate policy. Sustaining and transforming local knowledge orders through trans-local action in three German cities. Urban Research & Practice 2015, 8(3):319-335.
[25] Gordon DJ, Lament for a network? Cities and networked climate governance in Canada.
Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 2016, 34: 529-545.
[26] Lee T, Koski C: Multilevel governance and urban climate change mitigation. Environment
and Planning C: Government and Policy 2015, 33:1501-1517.
[27] Moloney S, Fünfgeld H: Emergent processes of adaptive capacity building: Local government climate change alliances and networks in Melbourne. Urban Climate 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.uclim.2015.06.009
[28] • Hakelberg L: Governance by Diffusion: Transnational Municipal Networks and the Spread of Local Climate Strategies in Europe. Global Environmental Politics 2014, 14(1):107-129. The paper presents a longitudinal study of European Transnational Municipal Networks (TMNs) and their importance for climate governance. The authors conclude that an important function of TMNs is diffusion of policy innovation, however they are often seen as fora for forerunners and face challenges in including and addressing municipalities that are less active in combating climate change.
[29] • Mejía-Dugand S, Kanda W, Hjelm O: Analyzing international city networks for sustainability: a study of five major Swedish cities. Journal of Cleaner Production 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.093. This review considers how Swedish municipalities’ participation in city networks may contribute to diffusion of environmental technology, with focus on municipal utility companies. According to the paper, cities prefer to participate in networks with a broad scope, i.e. not just focusing on environmental sustainability and such participation brings benefits in terms of information and legitimacy. However, not all technology diffusion barriers are resolved through network participation.
[30] • Pablo-Romero MdP, Sánchez-Braza A, González-Limón JM: Covenant of Mayors: Reasons for Being an Environmentally and Energy Friendly Municipality. Review of Policy Research 2015, 32(5):576-599. The authors analyze motivations behind Spanish municipalities’ participation in the EU’s Covenant of Mayors (CM), and why some municipalities do not sign up. The paper concludes that large cities with a considerable percentage of renewable resources and high levels of environmental stress are more likely to sign up for CM. Furthermore, cities that have high unemployment and debts also sign up to CM to a higher degree than others, indicating the CM could be seen as a driver to cut costs and improve the city’s conditions.
[31] Bansard JS, Pattberg PH, Widerberg O: Cities to the rescue? Assessing the performance of transnational municipal networks in global climate governance. International Environmental
Agreements 2016. DOI: 10.1007/s10784-016-9318-9
[32] • Fünfgeld H: Facilitating local climate change adaptation through transnational municipal networks. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2014, 12:67-73. This paper reviews studies on the role of transnational municipal networks (TMNs) for climate change mitigation. It gives examples of different types of such networks and their scope, goals and functions. The author concludes that there is limited understanding of the influence and impact of TMNs on environmental performance, but that TMNs could play an important role in local adaptation of international climate policies.
[33] Andersson I: ‘Green cities’ going greener? Local environmental policy-making and place branding in the ‘Greenest City in Europe’. European Planning Studies 2016, 24(6):1197-1215. [34] Busch H, Anderberg S: Green Attraction - Transnational Municipal Climate Networks and Green City Branding. Journal of Management and Sustainability 2015, 5(4):1-16.
[35] Hult A: The circulation of Swedish urban sustainability practices: to China and back.
[36] Mejía-Dugand S: The Evolution of Sweden’s Urban Sustainability Marketing Tool: A Comparative Study of Two Major International Events. Journal of Urban Technology 2016. DOI: 10.1080/10630732.2015.1102422
[37] Baker T, Temenos C: Urban Policy Mobilities Research: Introduction to a Debate.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 2015, 39(4):824-827.
[38] McCann E, Ward D: Thinking through dualisms in urban policy mobilities. International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research 2015, 39(4):828-830.
[39] • Trapenberg Frick K, Weinzimmer D, Waddell P. The politics of sustainable development opposition: State legislative efforts to stop the United Nation’s Agenda 21 in the United States.Urban Studies 2015, Vol. 52(2) 209–232. By examining the anti-Local Agenda 21 backlash in the USA, the authors illustrate how “anti-policy diffusion” is a topic worthy of closer study (and is likely to be relevant for the SDGs in some contexts).
[40] Davidson K, Gleeson B: The sustainability of an entrepreneurial city? International Planning
Studies 2014, 19:173–91.
[41] Harris A, Moore S: Convergence and divergence in conceptualising and planning the sustainable city: an introduction. Area 2015, 47(2):106-109.
[42] Simon D, Arfvidsson H, Anand G, Bazaz A, Fenna G, Foster K, Jain G, Hansson S, Marix Evans L, Moodley N, et al.: Developing and testing the Urban Sustainable Development Goal’s targets and indicators – a five-city study. Environment & Urbanization 2015, 28(1):49–63.
[43] • Kopnina, H: The victims of unsustainability: a challenge to sustainable development goals. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 2016, 23(2):113-121. This paper offers a critical perspective questioning the SDGs and their eco-modernistic perspective. The author presents several arguments that point at the importance of having a less anthropocentric approach to sustainability management.
[44] Arfvidsson H, Simon D, Oloko M, Moodley N: Engaging with and measuring informality in the proposed Urban Sustainable Development Goal. African Geographical Review 2016. DOI: 10.1080/19376812.2015.1130636
[45] Lu Y, Nakicenovic N, Visbeck M, Stevance A-S: Five priorities for the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Nature 2015, 520:432-433.
[46] •• Wittmayer JM, van Steenbergen F, Rok A, Roorda C: Governing sustainability: a dialogue between Local Agenda 21 and transition management. Local Environment 2015, DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2015.1050658. The authors provide an interesting contribution to theory by contrasting Local Agenda 21 with the transition management approach. Their structured analytical method may prove useful for other scholars, whilst their conclusions – that radical orientations, with incremental steps are necessary for sustainability transitions – are of relevance to communities around the world.
[47] Hjerpe M, Storbjörk S, Alberth J: “There is nothing political in it”: triggers of local political leaders' engagement in climate adaptation. Local Environment 2015, 20(8):855-873.
[48] Hysing E, Olsson J, Dahl V: A radical public administration? Green radicalism and policy influence among local environmental officials in Sweden. Environmental Politics 2016, 25(3):535-552.
[49] Leck, H, Roberts D: What lies beneath: understanding the invisible aspects of municipal climate change governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 13:61–67. [50] Wang X, Van Wart M, Lebredo N: Sustainability Leadership in a Local Government Context.
Public Performance & Management Review 2014, 37(3):339-364.
[51] den Exter R, Lenhart J, Kern K: Governing climate change in Dutch cities: anchoring local climate strategies in organisation, policy and practical implementation. Local Environment 2015, 20(9):1062-1080.
[52] Kveton V, Louda J, Slavik J, Pelucha M: Contribution of Local Agenda 21 to Practical Implementation of Sustainable Development: The Case of the Czech Republic. European Planning Studies, 22(3): 515-536.
