cities, which was identified as the main feature of
those networks by previous research (Bulkeley
et al. 2003; Andonova et al. 2009; Newig et al.
2010; Feldman 2012; Bouteligier 2013; Zeppel
2013; Fenton and Busch 2016). Given the
described urgent need to adapt to climate change,
the simple sharing of knowledge and experience
is not enough. To keep pace and cope with the
rapid changes occurring in cities nowadays
requires accelerated learning through learning
from each other (peer learning). Also for this
reason, the understanding of those learning processes through international cooperation needs to
be enhanced (Vinke-de Kruijf and Pahl Wostl
2016). Besides, Newig et al. (2010) outlined that
the effects of those transnational networks ‘on
governance-related variables such as learning
have been under-researched, leaving the question
of “do networks matter?”’
Overall, this chapter aims to critically understand the relationship between transnational city
networks and cities climate governance, unveiling which are the learning processes offered by
or leveraged from the networks. Therefore, it
analyses (i) in which forms C2CL is taking place
among member cities, (ii) as to how useful it is
perceived by the involved municipal policy
makers and (iii) to what extent the networks are
catering to the city needs, while leveraging
learning processes to become more climate resilient. These questions have been addressed
through 23 in-depth interviews with municipal
stakeholders across 16 countries, aiming to provide a global picture.
2 Understanding City-to-City
Learning
2.1 Definition, Objective
and Learning Levels
of City-to-City Learning
Academic definitions of C2CL are quite rare. For
Koop and van Leeuwen (2015) it aims at ‘improving the implementation capacities of cities
by sharing information’. Here, ‘cities are
encouraged to participate in learning alliances to
actively share knowledge and experiences on the
implementation of state-of-the-art technologies’
(Koop and van Leeuwen 2017, 412). Lundby and
Sjöberg (2013) describe it as a form of learning
where ideas, experiences and support are shared
between cities. Fisher (2014) pointed out that
C2CL is often performed within smaller projects
that prioritise C2C exchanges on a certain issue.
It seems that also in academic publications the
term is often used in a not very precise manner,
not uncommonly just as a bullet point or as part
of a listing taking for granted its meaning. It is
referred to C2CL in the fields of smart cities
(Calzada 2016; Campbell 2012), low carbon
urbanism (Thornbush 2016; Beermann 2014),
resilience (Mackee and Giggins 2015; Haigh
et al. 2014), water use (Koop and van Leeuwen
2015, 2017), intelligent transport systems
(Kolosz and Grant-Muller 2016) but also more
remote areas such as mega events in cities
(Azzali 2016) or international security (Engelke
2013).
The term C2CL was first used by Seymoar
et al. (2009) in the framework of a study that
examined the knowledge sharing processes
between cities that joined the PLUS sustainability network. Main results were ‘that local
administrators learn mainly from their peer
group’ and that ‘Networks emerge as a key
strategy for speeding the exploitation of knowledge and learning, both formally and informally,
in and between local governments’ (Seymoar
et al. 2009). In the meantime, the term C2CL was
substantially shaped by IHE Delft (Institute for
Hydrological Education) for UNISDR in the
context of disaster resilience. They see the
objective of C2CL in building.
greater institutional and human capacity required
to accelerate progress towards disaster resilience.
A distinction from other capacity building services, such as technical training, is that cities will
learn together. The promise for cities is to become
learning organizations by engaging in city learning
networks (Van Herk et al. 2016a).
UNISDR regards accelerated learning among
municipal decision makers through exchanges
(peer learning) as a key component of a cities’
response to the opportunities and challenges
City-to-City Learning Within City Networks …
225
those networks by previous research (Bulkeley
et al. 2003; Andonova et al. 2009; Newig et al.
2010; Feldman 2012; Bouteligier 2013; Zeppel
2013; Fenton and Busch 2016). Given the
described urgent need to adapt to climate change,
the simple sharing of knowledge and experience
is not enough. To keep pace and cope with the
rapid changes occurring in cities nowadays
requires accelerated learning through learning
from each other (peer learning). Also for this
reason, the understanding of those learning processes through international cooperation needs to
be enhanced (Vinke-de Kruijf and Pahl Wostl
2016). Besides, Newig et al. (2010) outlined that
the effects of those transnational networks ‘on
governance-related variables such as learning
have been under-researched, leaving the question
of “do networks matter?”’
Overall, this chapter aims to critically understand the relationship between transnational city
networks and cities climate governance, unveiling which are the learning processes offered by
or leveraged from the networks. Therefore, it
analyses (i) in which forms C2CL is taking place
among member cities, (ii) as to how useful it is
perceived by the involved municipal policy
makers and (iii) to what extent the networks are
catering to the city needs, while leveraging
learning processes to become more climate resilient. These questions have been addressed
through 23 in-depth interviews with municipal
stakeholders across 16 countries, aiming to provide a global picture.
2 Understanding City-to-City
Learning
2.1 Definition, Objective
and Learning Levels
of City-to-City Learning
Academic definitions of C2CL are quite rare. For
Koop and van Leeuwen (2015) it aims at ‘improving the implementation capacities of cities
by sharing information’. Here, ‘cities are
encouraged to participate in learning alliances to
actively share knowledge and experiences on the
implementation of state-of-the-art technologies’
(Koop and van Leeuwen 2017, 412). Lundby and
Sjöberg (2013) describe it as a form of learning
where ideas, experiences and support are shared
between cities. Fisher (2014) pointed out that
C2CL is often performed within smaller projects
that prioritise C2C exchanges on a certain issue.
It seems that also in academic publications the
term is often used in a not very precise manner,
not uncommonly just as a bullet point or as part
of a listing taking for granted its meaning. It is
referred to C2CL in the fields of smart cities
(Calzada 2016; Campbell 2012), low carbon
urbanism (Thornbush 2016; Beermann 2014),
resilience (Mackee and Giggins 2015; Haigh
et al. 2014), water use (Koop and van Leeuwen
2015, 2017), intelligent transport systems
(Kolosz and Grant-Muller 2016) but also more
remote areas such as mega events in cities
(Azzali 2016) or international security (Engelke
2013).
The term C2CL was first used by Seymoar
et al. (2009) in the framework of a study that
examined the knowledge sharing processes
between cities that joined the PLUS sustainability network. Main results were ‘that local
administrators learn mainly from their peer
group’ and that ‘Networks emerge as a key
strategy for speeding the exploitation of knowledge and learning, both formally and informally,
in and between local governments’ (Seymoar
et al. 2009). In the meantime, the term C2CL was
substantially shaped by IHE Delft (Institute for
Hydrological Education) for UNISDR in the
context of disaster resilience. They see the
objective of C2CL in building.
greater institutional and human capacity required
to accelerate progress towards disaster resilience.
A distinction from other capacity building services, such as technical training, is that cities will
learn together. The promise for cities is to become
learning organizations by engaging in city learning
networks (Van Herk et al. 2016a).
UNISDR regards accelerated learning among
municipal decision makers through exchanges
(peer learning) as a key component of a cities’
response to the opportunities and challenges
City-to-City Learning Within City Networks …
225