Check out the episode:

You can find the shownotes through this link.

---

Are you interested in urban governance accountability?

---

Our summary today works with the article titled A framework for assessing the accountability of local governance arrangements for adaptation to climate change from 2019, by Heleen Mees and Peter Driessen, published in the Journal of Environmental Planning and Management.

This is a great preparation to our next interview with Darren Murphy in episode 302 talking about the need to take responsibility and accountability while moving toward the future.

Since we are investigating the future of cities, I thought it would be interesting to see how accountability matters for the governance during climate change. This article develops a framework for assessing the accountability of interactive governance arrangements for local adaptation.

[intro music]

---

Welcome to today’s What is The Future For Cities podcast and its Research episode; my name is Fanni, and today we will introduce a research by summarising it. The episode really is just a short summary of the original investigation, and, in case it is interesting enough, I would encourage everyone to check out the whole documentation. This conversation was produced and generated with Notebook LM as two hosts dissecting the whole research.

---

[music]

Speaker 1: This time we’re going local with a look at how cities and towns are tackling climate change. Awesome. You know, we see a lot of these big international agreements and pledges and all that. Yeah. So much of the action is happening right on the ground in our neighborhoods and communities.

Speaker 2: Absolutely.

Speaker 1: So we’re gonna kind of zoom in and see what’s actually happening.

Speaker 2: Love it.

Speaker 1: But here’s the thing, though, we’re not just going to talk about the what of climate action, you know, like planting trees or building seawalls or whatever, we’re going to get into the nitty gritty of the how are these projects actually being implemented? And more importantly, how do we make sure that they’re actually accountable to the people they’re supposed to help?

Speaker 2: That’s the key question. It’s not enough to just do something. Yeah. You have to do it in a way that’s fair and equitable, and that actually benefits the community.

Speaker 1: Exactly.

Speaker 2: And that’s often overlooked, I think.

Speaker 1: Yeah, I think so, too.

Speaker 2: It’s easy to get caught up in the excitement of a new project, but we have to remember that these are people’s lives we’re talking about. Right. Their homes, their neighborhoods.

Speaker 1: Absolutely. In

Speaker 2: their futures. And to dig into this whole accountability thing, we’re going to be looking at a really fascinating case study, and it’s all about a rooftop park in Rotterdam in the Netherlands.

Speaker 1: Oh, cool. I’ve heard of that one.

Speaker 2: Have you actually seen it?

Speaker 1: I haven’t seen it in person, no, but I’ve seen pictures. It’s incredible.

Speaker 2: Yeah. They

Speaker 1: basically built this whole park on top of a dyke, a multifunctional dyke, actually.

Speaker 2: Wait, a multifunctional dyke?

Speaker 1: Yeah. It’s not just a dyke. It also has a shopping center and other stuff built into it.

Speaker 2: Wow. So it’s like a dyke, a mall and a park all rolled into one.

Speaker 1: Exactly. A pretty ingenious way to use space and make the city more resilient at the same time.

Speaker 2: I love it. Talk about multitasking. Right. But what really struck me about this project is that it took 15 years to complete. Like they started in 1998 and it wasn’t finished until 2014. That’s a long time.

Speaker 1: I can’t even imagine the number of people and organizations that must have been involved. That’s a lot of

Speaker 2: moving parts.

Speaker 1: Right. And that’s where this whole accountability thing gets really interesting. Because when you have so many different players involved, how do you make sure everyone’s voice is heard?

Speaker 2: And not just heard, but taken seriously. Right. And that their interests are actually represented in the final outcome

Speaker 1: and that the project actually benefits them in some way.

Speaker 2: Absolutely.

Speaker 1: Yeah. So it’s moving away from that traditional top down government approach where, you know, the mayor or the city council just decides what’s going to happen.

Speaker 2: It’s much more collaborative and participatory.

Speaker 1: So it’s less like a decree and more like what?

Speaker 2: More like a community effort where everyone has a stake in the outcome.

Speaker 1: Like a neighborhood association tackling a problem together.

Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly.

Speaker 1: So it’s kind of like interactive governance or something like that.

Speaker 2: Yeah, you could call it that.

Speaker 1: But that sounds way more complicated than just having the city make all the decisions.

Speaker 2: Oh, it definitely can be. But it also has the potential to be much more effective and equitable.

Speaker 1: Okay, so how did they manage this whole accountability thing in Rotterdam?

Speaker 2: Well, that’s what this article sets out to investigate.

Speaker 1: Okay.

Speaker 2: And they identified five key challenges that these kinds of collaborative arrangements often face.

Speaker 1: Okay. What’s the first one

Speaker 2: unclear responsibility. So when you have all these different groups involved, it can be really hard to figure out who’s actually in charge of what.

Speaker 1: So it’s like a game of hot potato where nobody wants to be left holding the responsibility if things go wrong.

Speaker 2: Exactly. It’s like, well, who was supposed to make sure that happened? I thought it was them. They thought it was you and so on.

Speaker 1: Then nothing gets done or it gets done poorly.

Speaker 2: Right. And nobody’s held accountable.

Speaker 1: Okay. So did the rooftop park fall into this trap?

Speaker 2: Well, interestingly, no, not entirely, at least not in the beginning. During the planning and design phases, they actually did a pretty good job of defining roles and responsibilities.

Speaker 1: Oh, really? So they started off strong.

Speaker 2: They even had this formal agreement, a covenant, that outlined who was responsible for what.

Speaker 1: Okay, so they were organized, but I have a feeling it probably wasn’t all smooth sailing from there, was it?

Speaker 2: You’re right. Things got a little bit murkier during the later stages, like the actual implementation and maintenance of the park.

Speaker 1: So the initial clarity kind of faded away as the project went on.

Speaker 2: But at least they had a good foundation to build on.

Speaker 1: Okay, so challenge number one tackled at least partially. For

Speaker 2: a while.

Speaker 1: What about the second one? What’s lurking behind door number two?

Speaker 2: This one’s all about transparency. Or rather the lack of it, the researchers call it opacity.

Speaker 1: Okay, so what does that mean in plain English?

Speaker 2: Basically, it means that things might be happening, but it’s not clear how decisions are being made or who’s making them.

Speaker 1: So it’s like a black box, stuff goes in, stuff comes out, but you have no idea what happened in between.

Speaker 2: Exactly. And that makes it really hard to hold people accountable because you don’t even know who to hold accountable.

Speaker 1: Right, because you can’t question a decision if you don’t even know how it was made.

Speaker 2: And you don’t know who made it.

Speaker 1: Okay. So how did Rotterdam fair in this transparency department?

Speaker 2: It’s actually a bit of a mixed bag. So, you know how I mentioned those rooftop park cafes earlier?

Speaker 1: Yeah. That sounded like fun.

Speaker 2: They were, there were these community meetings where people could come and chat with the project managers, get updates, ask questions, and just generally be involved in the process.

Speaker 1: Oh, so they were being proactive about engaging with the community.

Speaker 2: Exactly. And that’s a great example of transparency in action.

Speaker 1: So at least they were trying.

Speaker 2: They were. But unfortunately, that level of openness wasn’t consistent throughout the entire project.

Speaker 1: Oh, so it depended on who was in charge at the time.

Speaker 2: Yeah, pretty much.

Speaker 1: So the human factor played a role.

Speaker 2: Absolutely. And that brings us to the third challenge, which is kind of related to this whole transparency thing.

Speaker 1: Okay, hit me with it.

Speaker 2: The potential for these collaborative partnerships to become Isolated from those we elect to represent us.

Speaker 1: You mean elected officials. But isn’t that a little bit risky?

Speaker 2: It can be. I

Speaker 1: mean, aren’t we losing some important checks and balances if those officials are kind of sidelined?

Speaker 2: That’s a valid concern. And it’s a tension that this article really tries to grapple with.

Speaker 1: Yeah, like how do we balance the benefits of this collaborative governance with the need for democratic accountability? It’s

Speaker 2: a tough one. Because on the one hand, you want to empower these collaborations to come up with innovative solutions.

Speaker 1: Right.

Speaker 2: But you don’t want to do it at the expense of democratic principles.

Speaker 1: Yeah, that’s a tricky balance.

Speaker 2: It is. So in the case of this Rotterdam rooftop park, the alderman, who was responsible for sustainability, did have to approve certain major decisions.

Speaker 1: Okay, so there was some level of political oversight.

Speaker 2: There was, but the city council as a whole was pretty much left out of the loop.

Speaker 1: So not completely isolated, but maybe a little too much distance between the partnership and the elected officials.

Speaker 2: Yeah, and that kind of brings us to the fourth challenge, which is closely related to this. Limited citizen input.

Speaker 1: Ah, so even if you have all these different groups involved, there’s still a risk that some voices might not be heard.

Speaker 2: And it’s usually the voices of those who are most affected by these projects, you know, the ones who are already facing the brunt of climate change.

Speaker 1: Like low income communities, communities of color, people with disabilities.

Speaker 2: Exactly. The ones who are often left out of the decision making process.

Speaker 1: Right. And so this rooftop park, did they manage to avoid this pitfall?

Speaker 2: Well, it’s interesting, actually, because initially the project was driven by a small group of very active citizens.

Speaker 1: Okay, so it was grassroots.

Speaker 2: Yeah, very much so. But as the project grew in scope and complexity, a local NGO stepped in to represent the community as a whole.

Speaker 1: Why the switch? Did the residents just get tired of all the meetings and stuff?

Speaker 2: Partly. Some of them felt a little overwhelmed by the responsibility and they wanted to keep a bit of distance from the decision making.

Speaker 1: It’s a lot to ask of people.

Speaker 2: It is. And they felt more comfortable having the NGO act as a sort of buffer or advocate on their behalf.

Speaker 1: Okay. So they still had a voice, but it was channeled through the NGO.

Speaker 2: Exactly. But this raises an interesting question about capacity building.

Speaker 1: Yeah. Like how do you equip residents with the knowledge and skills they need to really participate in these complex projects?

Speaker 2: Cause it’s one thing to say, Oh, we want citizen input, but it’s another thing to actually. Provide the support and resources that people need to make their voices heard,

Speaker 1: right? Because not everyone has the time or the expertise to become a policy expert on top of their daily lives.

Speaker 2: Exactly. So there needs to be some kind of effort to bridge that gap.

Speaker 1: Okay, so that’s four challenges down one to go What’s the final hurdle?

Speaker 2: This one might be the most daunting especially for those of us who believe in those hard won checks and balances Oh, this sounds ominous. The fifth challenge is the lack of traditional checks and balances.

Speaker 1: Okay, so if we’re not relying so Solely on government oversight. How do we make sure that these collaborations are actually doing what they’re supposed to be doing?

Speaker 2: That’s the million dollar question, isn’t it? So in the case of this rooftop park, they relied heavily on internal controls within the city government itself.

Speaker 1: So the city was basically keeping an eye on itself,

Speaker 2: regular reporting audits, that kind of thing.

Speaker 1: So it was like a self-regulating system

Speaker 2: kind of. But what’s interesting is that there wasn’t much in the way of. Peer review or self evaluation built into the partnership agreement itself.

Speaker 1: So it seems like they leaned more on those existing government structures rather than creating new accountability mechanisms specific to this partnership.

Speaker 2: Exactly. And that raises an important question. You know, is that enough?

Speaker 1: Right. Like, do we need to come up with new tools and approaches to ensure accountability in these more collaborative models?

Speaker 2: Because these partnerships aren’t going away. In fact, I think we’re going to see more and more of them as we grapple with these complex issues like climate change.

Speaker 1: So we need to figure this accountability thing out.

Speaker 2: We do. Luckily, this article doesn’t just lay out the problems. It also provides some potential solutions.

Speaker 1: Oh, good. Because I was starting to get a little discouraged.

Speaker 2: No, no, there’s hope. They actually present a framework for actually measuring accountability in these collaborative arrangements.

Speaker 1: So how does that work?

Speaker 2: It’s based on five key mechanisms. And it’s like a checklist you can use to see how well a project is doing in terms of keeping things transparent and accountable.

Speaker 1: Five mechanisms, five challenges. I love the symmetry.

Speaker 2: Me too. It’s very satisfying. Okay, so the first mechanism is no surprise here.Clear responsibilities and mandates.

Speaker 1: Back to that hot potato of responsibility.

Speaker 2: Exactly. The more clearly you define who’s responsible for what and who has the authority to make decisions, the easier it is to hold people accountable.

Speaker 1: Makes sense. No more finger pointing or confusion.

Speaker 2: Right. So that’s number one. What about number two?

Speaker 1: Hit me with it.

Speaker 2: Transparency. We’ve already talked about this, but it’s so important. It’s worth repeating. Open communication, accessible information and clear decision making processes are absolutely essential.

Speaker 1: Got to shed some light on those decisions.

Speaker 2: Exactly. All right. Number three brings us back to that tension between collaboration and oversight. Okay. It’s political oversight. Remember how we talked about the risks of these partnerships becoming too independent? Yeah. Well, this mechanism is all about making sure that elected officials, those who are ultimately accountable to the voters, have some level of control or at least input.

Speaker 1: So we want to empower these collaborations, but not give them a free pass.

Speaker 2: Exactly. So what about number four? This one gets to the heart of what we’ve been talking about, citizen control.

Speaker 1: Okay, so making sure that residents have a real say in what happens in their communities.

Speaker 2: Yes, and not just through voting every few years, but through direct participation in these projects.

Speaker 1: So it’s not just about having a seat at the table, it’s about making sure that seat comes with real power.

Speaker 2: Exactly. And finally, number five. This one’s all about consequences, checks and sanctions. Because even with the best intentions, things can go wrong.

Speaker 1: Yeah, people make mistakes.

Speaker 2: So we need to have mechanisms in place. To identify those problems, correct course, and if necessary, hold people accountable for their actions.

Speaker 1: So it’s not enough to just hope that everyone will do the right thing.

Speaker 2: Nope, you need some teeth to back it up.

Speaker 1: Okay, so those are our five mechanisms. Clear responsibilities, transparency, political oversight, citizen control. And checks and sanctions.

Speaker 2: Exactly. And the really cool thing is that this article actually uses this framework to evaluate the Rotterdam rooftop park.

Speaker 1: Oh, wow. So they put their money where their mouth is.

Speaker 2: They did. And what they found is fascinating. Well, it turns out that it’s not a simple pass or fail.

Speaker 1: Okay,

Speaker 2: accountability is an ongoing process, and the park’s performance vary depending on the stage of the project.

Speaker 1: So like those early stages with the Covenant and the rooftop park cafes?

Speaker 2: Exactly. The researchers found that accountability was pretty high during those planning and design phases.

Speaker 1: When transparency and citizen engagement were at their peak?

Speaker 2: Right. But then when it came to the actual implementation and maintenance of the park, things started to slip a bit.

Speaker 1: Sounds like those good intentions hit a few snags along the way.

Speaker 2: They did. Transparency decreased, political oversight became less consistent, and citizen control diminished.

Speaker 1: So even with a strong start, it’s easy to let things slide if you’re not careful.

Speaker 2: It is. It’s like a garden. You can’t just plant the seeds and walk away. You have to keep tending to it if you want it to flourish.

Speaker 1: So what happened? Why did things start to unravel?

Speaker 2: The researchers pointed to a couple of key factors. One was the turnover of project managers.

Speaker 1: Ah, so the human element again.

Speaker 2: Yep. Each new manager brought their own style and priorities, and not all of them were as skilled at building relationships and communicating effectively as that first manager who organized those rooftop park cafes.

Speaker 1: So even with a great framework in place, those soft skills really do matter.

Speaker 2: They’re crucial. And the second factor was a tendency for the partnership to become more insular over time.

Speaker 1: So they kind of retreated into their own little bubble.

Speaker 2: Yeah. They’d established their internal processes and it became easier to just keep doing things the way they’d always done them rather than actively seeking outside input.

Speaker 1: So they lost that connection with the community.

Speaker 2: And that’s why those checks and sanctions are so important. If there aren’t any consequences for a decline in accountability, it’s easy to let things slide.

Speaker 1: Okay, so how did the researchers actually measure those other mechanisms, like political oversight and citizen control?

Speaker 2: Well, for political oversight, they looked at how often the project manager reported to elected officials, whether those officials had the power to approve or veto key decisions and the extent to which they were involved in the actual decision making process.

Speaker 1: So not just passive monitoring, but active engagement.

Speaker 2: Exactly. And for citizen control, they looked at things like the frequency and format of community meetings, how citizen input was gathered and incorporated into decisions, and whether there were any formal mechanisms for citizens to hold the partnership accountable.

Speaker 1: So they were looking for evidence that citizens had a genuine voice in the process, not just a token presence.

Speaker 2: Exactly. And what they found is that these mechanisms often operated at different levels of effectiveness throughout the project. Sometimes citizens had a strong voice. Other times they felt more like their input was being ignored.

Speaker 1: It wasn’t always consistent.

Speaker 2: Right, and that’s why it’s so important to have these clear frameworks and measurement tools in place. It allows us to track progress, identify areas where accountability is weak, and hopefully course correct, before things go too far off track.

Speaker 1: Right, because the goal isn’t to just point fingers or assign blame.

Speaker 2: No, it’s about Learning from these experiences and striving for better ways of doing things

Speaker 1: and ultimately creating more accountable and equitable systems. It really highlights the human element, right?

Speaker 2: It does. It’s not just about having the right systems in place.

Speaker 1: Yeah,

Speaker 2: it’s about having people who can actually make those systems work.

Speaker 1: Yeah, who can build those relationships and create that trust.

Speaker 2: Exactly. And those core values we talked about transparency, inclusivity, responsiveness. Those aren’t just buzzwords,

Speaker 1: right?

Speaker 2: They’re the foundation for building that trust and ensuring that these collaborations actually serve the community.

Speaker 1: It’s like we can come up with all these fancy frameworks and models, but ultimately it all comes down to people

Speaker 2: and relationship

Speaker 1: and whether we can trust each other to do the right thing.

Speaker 2: Absolutely. But, you know, it’s important to remember that this Rotterdam project, despite those slip ups, was ultimately considered a success.

Speaker 1: Oh yeah, that’s right.

Speaker 2: I mean, that rooftop park is there. Yeah. It’s a testament to what’s possible when. People from different backgrounds and perspectives come together to solve a problem.

Speaker 1: It’s easy to get bogged down in all the challenges and the potential pitfalls, but we have to remember that these collaborative approaches can be incredibly effective.

Speaker 2: And this research is so valuable because it helps us identify those areas where we need to be Extra careful,

Speaker 1: those pressure points where things can start to go wrong.

Speaker 2: Exactly. It’s like a roadmap guiding us towards more accountable and equitable ways of doing things.

Speaker 1: And speaking of roadmaps, I’m curious to hear what the researchers found about the role of trust in all of this. You mentioned earlier that When trust was high, things seemed to flow more smoothly.

Speaker 2: They found a strong correlation between trust and accountability.

Speaker 1: Okay.

Speaker 2: When there was a lot of trust between the project manager and the community, information flowed more freely. People were more willing to participate and hold each other accountable.

Speaker 1: It’s like that foundation of trust makes everything else easier.

Speaker 2: It does. And it wasn’t just about general goodwill or warm, fuzzy feelings. The researchers actually highlighted the importance of the project manager’s personal skills. You know, their ability to communicate. Clearly build relationships, navigate those complex political landscapes.

Speaker 1: So it’s not just about being a good person.

Speaker 2: No.

Speaker 1: It’s about having the right skills and the right temperament to actually build that trust.

Speaker 2: Exactly. And that had a huge impact on the project’s overall accountability.

Speaker 1: So it’s another reminder that the human element is so crucial.

Speaker 2: It is. We can’t just focus on designing perfect systems.

Speaker 1: Right.

Speaker 2: We also need to invest in developing those essential human qualities.

Speaker 1: So as we wrap up this deep dive, what are some key takeaways that our listeners can put into practice in their own communities?

Speaker 2: Well, first and foremost, I think it’s important to remember that accountability is everyone’s responsibility.

Speaker 1: It’s not just something we demand from other people,

Speaker 2: right? It’s something we all have a role in creating.

Speaker 1: So it’s about being active citizens, asking questions, demanding transparency, getting involved.

Speaker 2: Exactly. Yeah. And don’t be afraid to experiment. You know, we need to keep exploring new ways to ensure accountability in these collaborative governance models

Speaker 1: because there’s no one size fits all solution.

Speaker 2: It’s going to look different in every community.

Speaker 1: Right. So we have to be adaptable and creative.

Speaker 2: And most importantly, keep learning. This research gives us a great starting point, but there’s always more to discover. Absolutely.

Speaker 1: So as you go about your day, think about those accountability mechanisms we talked about. Ask yourself, how can I contribute to a more transparent and responsive approach to climate action in my own community?

Speaker 2: Because at the end of the day, accountable climate action isn’t something we just hope for. Right. It’s something we create together.

---

[music]

What is the future for cities podcast?

---