the cities’ role and responsibility in coping with
these challenges. Responding to the challenges,
and seizing the opportunities, is placing new and
complex demands on municipal decision makers.
Furthermore, it requires a more integrated
approach (Nexus Approach, see e.g. Kurian and
Ardakanian 2015), for instance through mainstreaming policies and investments. Climate
change adaptation is not a sector of its own but
applies to a wide range of domains (e.g. transport
and infrastructure, flood protection, institutional
capacity) and is critically linked to a complex
system of interlinked resources. As outlined by
the UNU Institute for Integrated Management of
Material Fluxes and of Resources (UNUFLORES) applying a Nexus Approach means
that “instead of just looking at individual components, the functioning, productivity, and
management of a complex system is taken into
consideration” (UNU-FLORES nd). Therefore,
integrated resources management, adopting
nexus thinking should be instrumental to cope
with virtually all aspects of global change (Hettiarachchi and Ardakanian 2016). Indeed, during
the 2017 Dresden Nexus Conference (DNC) case
studies from Dresden, Prague, Brno and Pilsen
could demonstrate the urgent need and success of
nexus-oriented approaches in climate change
adaptation planning (see Dresden Nexus Conference 2017).
One promising way to meet and coordinate
those more and more complex needs is the
engagement of key municipal policymakers in
peer learning exchanges. The window of opportunity to respond to climate change is limited,
and the financial means of cities are often
restricted. For that reason, there is neither enough
time nor are there sufficient resources for extensive (isolated) trial and error responses. The
emphasis on accelerated learning stems from the
insight that combined processes of peer learning
and learning from experiments and full-scale
pilots will be crucial. Increasingly, these knowledge and experience sharing and learning processes are referred to as city-to-city learning
(C2CL) (Seymoar et al 2009; van Herk et al.
2016a; Lundby and Sjöberg 2013; Koop and van
Leeuwen 2017). C2CL exchanges are
increasingly being promoted and facilitated by
several transnational climate city network initiatives on which this chapter focuses. Against a
background of nation states struggling to deal
with major global issues, such as climate change,
cities are increasingly positioning themselves as
alternative global actors and problem solvers
(Barber 2013; Sassen 2013). The emergence of
transnational networks in which cities join together globally are one of the expressions that
clearly reflect this shift. Transnational city networks, such as the C40 Climate Leadership
Group, Local Governments for Sustainability
(ICLEI), 100 Resilient Cities (100RCN) or the
Making Cities Resilient Campaign of the United
Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction
(UNISDR) and many others, offer an avenue for
cities that are building resilience and to achieve
the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This relates in particular to
the goals number eleven (Sustainable cities and
communities) and thirteen (Climate action) (see
UN nd). Given the interrelatedness of SDGs, it
has been argued that similar to addressing challenges posed by global change (see above), an
integrated approach is required to achieve SDGs
(Hülsmann and Ardakanian 2018). Above all, the
contribution of these C2CL networks can be seen
by connecting cities to each other and to potential
sources of funds and knowledge (van Herk et al.
2016b).
The steadily growing number of transnational
city networks, the high number of cities joining
them globally and their potential significance for
tackling climate change stands in a certain contradiction to the rather little research that has
been conducted on them. Generally, a more
careful analysis of those networks is urgently
required (Bouteligier 2013; Lee 2013; Gordon
and Acuto 2015; Gordon 2016). Furthermore, it
needs to be better understood why municipalities
decided to join them and what they expected
from the membership (Gore 2010; Niederhafner
2013).
Particular attention is paid to an underexplored but not less important feature of
transnational city networks: The sharing of
knowledge and experiences among member
224
W. Haupt et al.
these challenges. Responding to the challenges,
and seizing the opportunities, is placing new and
complex demands on municipal decision makers.
Furthermore, it requires a more integrated
approach (Nexus Approach, see e.g. Kurian and
Ardakanian 2015), for instance through mainstreaming policies and investments. Climate
change adaptation is not a sector of its own but
applies to a wide range of domains (e.g. transport
and infrastructure, flood protection, institutional
capacity) and is critically linked to a complex
system of interlinked resources. As outlined by
the UNU Institute for Integrated Management of
Material Fluxes and of Resources (UNUFLORES) applying a Nexus Approach means
that “instead of just looking at individual components, the functioning, productivity, and
management of a complex system is taken into
consideration” (UNU-FLORES nd). Therefore,
integrated resources management, adopting
nexus thinking should be instrumental to cope
with virtually all aspects of global change (Hettiarachchi and Ardakanian 2016). Indeed, during
the 2017 Dresden Nexus Conference (DNC) case
studies from Dresden, Prague, Brno and Pilsen
could demonstrate the urgent need and success of
nexus-oriented approaches in climate change
adaptation planning (see Dresden Nexus Conference 2017).
One promising way to meet and coordinate
those more and more complex needs is the
engagement of key municipal policymakers in
peer learning exchanges. The window of opportunity to respond to climate change is limited,
and the financial means of cities are often
restricted. For that reason, there is neither enough
time nor are there sufficient resources for extensive (isolated) trial and error responses. The
emphasis on accelerated learning stems from the
insight that combined processes of peer learning
and learning from experiments and full-scale
pilots will be crucial. Increasingly, these knowledge and experience sharing and learning processes are referred to as city-to-city learning
(C2CL) (Seymoar et al 2009; van Herk et al.
2016a; Lundby and Sjöberg 2013; Koop and van
Leeuwen 2017). C2CL exchanges are
increasingly being promoted and facilitated by
several transnational climate city network initiatives on which this chapter focuses. Against a
background of nation states struggling to deal
with major global issues, such as climate change,
cities are increasingly positioning themselves as
alternative global actors and problem solvers
(Barber 2013; Sassen 2013). The emergence of
transnational networks in which cities join together globally are one of the expressions that
clearly reflect this shift. Transnational city networks, such as the C40 Climate Leadership
Group, Local Governments for Sustainability
(ICLEI), 100 Resilient Cities (100RCN) or the
Making Cities Resilient Campaign of the United
Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction
(UNISDR) and many others, offer an avenue for
cities that are building resilience and to achieve
the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This relates in particular to
the goals number eleven (Sustainable cities and
communities) and thirteen (Climate action) (see
UN nd). Given the interrelatedness of SDGs, it
has been argued that similar to addressing challenges posed by global change (see above), an
integrated approach is required to achieve SDGs
(Hülsmann and Ardakanian 2018). Above all, the
contribution of these C2CL networks can be seen
by connecting cities to each other and to potential
sources of funds and knowledge (van Herk et al.
2016b).
The steadily growing number of transnational
city networks, the high number of cities joining
them globally and their potential significance for
tackling climate change stands in a certain contradiction to the rather little research that has
been conducted on them. Generally, a more
careful analysis of those networks is urgently
required (Bouteligier 2013; Lee 2013; Gordon
and Acuto 2015; Gordon 2016). Furthermore, it
needs to be better understood why municipalities
decided to join them and what they expected
from the membership (Gore 2010; Niederhafner
2013).
Particular attention is paid to an underexplored but not less important feature of
transnational city networks: The sharing of
knowledge and experiences among member
224
W. Haupt et al.