The role of network participation in climate change mitigation: a city-level analysis

Figures & data

Table 1. Networking benefits recognised in previous literature

Networking benefit:	Definition:	Earlier references (theoretical and empirical):
Access to resources	Networking helps the city to secure funding, a workforce or other resources.	Kern and Bulkeley 2009; Andonova et al. 2009; Kern and Alber 2009; Busch et al. 2018; Haupt et al. 2019; Karhinen et al. 2021.
City branding	Networking helps the city to build its brand, e.g., as a Green City or climate actor.	Mocca 2017; Busch et al. 2018; Haupt et al. 2019.
Individual networks	Formalised networks help to create informal networks, e.g., between the experts working for the cities.	Busch et al. 2018.
Information sharing	Networks support information sharing between members.	Bulkeley et al. 2003; Kern and Bulkeley 2009; Andonova et al. 2009; Lee and van de Meene 2012; Bansard et al. 2017; Busch 2015; Busch et al. 2018; Mocca 2018; Haupt et al. 2019; Karhinen et al. 2021.
Learning and new ideas	Networking helps the cities to get inspired, develop new solutions or apply the solutions of others in their own context.	Bulkeley et al. 2003; Kern and Bulkeley 2009; Andonova et al. 2009; Lee and van de Meene 2012; Busch 2015; Busch et al. 2018; Mocca 2018; Haupt et al. 2019; Karhinen et al. 2021.
Legitimacy of action/motivation	Networking helps to build the legitimacy of climate action, e.g., among politicians, or creates motivation for taking action.	Kern and Bulkeley 2009; Lidskog and Elander 2010; Lee and Koski 2015; Busch et al. 2018; Karhinen et al. 2021.
Lobbying/city advocacy	Networks help cities to lobby for their point of view, e.g., in meetings, whether on the national or EU level, when broader frames of climate action, such as legislation, are discussed.	Bulkeley et al. 2003; Busch 2015; Busch et al. 2018.
Policy initiative creation/goal setting and monitoring	Networks create (or help to create) policy initiatives, and set (or help to set) goals for urban climate action. They require and/or offer tools for monitoring climate action.	Bulkeley et al. 2003; Kern and Alber 2009; Busch 2015; Busch et al. 2018; Rashidi and Patt 2018; Karhinen et al. 2021.

Table 2. The respondents’ work with different networks. ‘Partly’ means that the respondent told that they work with the network, but not as actively as with other networks they work with

Respondent:	International networks:	National networks:	Local networks:	Internal networks:
Helsinki 1	ICLEI, Eurocities, CovM, Energy Cities, CoM, Climate Kick	CNCL, AMC	CP	General
Helsinki 2	Climate Kick		CP	General
Helsinki 3	Climate Kick, ICLEI, Eurocities		CP	General
Helsinki 4	CovM, C40 (not as member), ICLEI, Eurocities			General
Madrid 1	C40, Eurocities, ICLEI, GoM	FEM, RECC	N/A	N/A
Madrid 4	C40, Eurocities		N/A	N/A
Madrid 5	CIVITAS		N/A	N/A
Stockholm 1	C40, Eurocities, ICLEI, Polis, CNCA	SKL	SK	Specific topics
Stockholm 2	C40, Eurocities, ICLEI (+ CDP), CNCA, CoM, CovM	FFFSI (partly)		Specific topics
Stockholm 3	Eurocities, C40	KK, FFFSI	SK	Specific topics
Stockholm 5	C40, Eurocities	KK (partly)	SK	Specific topics
Stockholm 6	C40, Eurocities, CNCA, Climate Kick (semi)	FFFSI, KK (semi)	SK	Specific topics

Abbreviations: AMC = Association of Municipalities, Climate Campaign; C40 = C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group; CNCA = Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance; CNCL = Climate Network of City Leaders; CoM = Compact of Mayors; CovM = Covenant of Mayors; CP = Climate Partners; FEM = Federación Española de Municipios y Provincias; FFFSI = Fossil Fuel Free Sweden Initiative; GoM = Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy; KK = Klimatkommunerna; RECC = Red Española de Ciudades por el Clima; SK = Stockholms Klimatpakt; SKL = Sverige Kommuner Landstill.

Table 3. Benefits cities gained from different levels of networking, where X = benefit was mentioned in connection with this level at least once; 0 = was not mentioned. The levels on the left refer to the level in which the networks operate, e.g. C40 belongs to global level while the internal climate network of City of Helsinki belongs to city level

	Branding	Goal setting	Information sharing	Learning	Lobbying & city advocate	Motivation & legitimacy	Networks of individuals	Resources & tools
Global	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
EU	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
National	0	0	X	X	X	0	X	X
Local	X	X	X	X	0	X	X	X
City	0	0	X	X	0	X	X	X

Table 4. Summary of benefits at different levels

Global level	Cooperation with similar cities Creating global (= meaningful) change Global brands and competition engaging local politicians
EU level	EU projects Influencing national legislation from the top down through the EU
National level	Influencing national legislation from the bottom up Cooperation in a similar national context Spreading information from global networks
Local level	Getting the private sector to support the climate goals Creating business opportunities from climate action
Organisation level	Breaking silos for effective climate action Putting together scarce resources

Kern K, Bulkeley H. 2009. Cities, europeanization and multi-level governance: governing climate change through transnational municipal networks. J Commun Media Stud. 47(2):309e332.

 Google Scholar

Andonova LB, Betsill MM, Bulkeley H. 2009. Transnational climate governance. Global Environ Polit. 9:52e73. doi:10.1162/glep.2009.9.2.52

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kern K, Alber G. 2009. Governing climate change in cities: modes of urban climate governance in multi-level systems. Paris: OECD Conference Proceedings.

 Google Scholar

Busch H, Bendlin L, Fenton P. 2018. Shaping local response – the influence of transnational municipal climate networks on urban climate governance. Urban Climate. 24:221e230. doi:10.1016/j.uclim.2018.03.004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Haupt W, Chelleri L, van Herk S, Zevenbergen C. 2019. City-to-city learning within climate city networks: definition, significance, and challenges from a global perspective. Int J Urban Sustain Devel. doi:10.1080/19463138.2019.1691007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Karhinen S, Peltomaa J, Riekkinen V, Saikku L. 2021. Impact of a climate network: the role of intermediaries in local level climate action. Global Env Change. 67:102225. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102225

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mocca E. 2017. City networks for sustainability in Europe: an urban level analysis. J Urban Aff. 39(5):691–710. doi:10.1080/07352166.2017.1282769.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bulkeley H, Davies A, Evans B, Gibbs D, Kern K, Theobalde K. 2003. Environmental governance and transnational municipal networks in Europe. J Environ Pol Plann. 5(3):235e254. doi:10.1080/1523908032000154179.

 Google Scholar

Lee T, van de Meene S. 2012. Who teaches and who learns? Policy learning through the C40 cities climate network. Pol Sci. 45:199e220. doi:10.1007/s11077-012-9159-5

 Google Scholar

Bansard J, Pattberg P, Widerberg O. 2017. Cities to the rescue? Assessing the performance of transnational municipal networks in global climate governance. Int Environ Agreements. 17:229e246. doi:10.1007/s10784-016-9318-9

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Busch H. 2015. Linked for action? An analysis of transnational municipal climate networks in Germany. Int J Urban Sustain Devel. 7(2):213–231. doi:10.1080/19463138.2015.1057144.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mocca E. 2018. All cities are equal, but some are more equal than others’. Policy mobility and asymmetric relations in inter-urban networks for sustainability. Int J Urban Sustain Devel. 10(2):139–153. doi:10.1080/19463138.2018.1487444.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lidskog R, Elander I. 2010. Addressing climate change democratically. Multi-level governance, transnational networks and governmental structures. Sustain Devel. 18(1):32–41. doi:10.1002/sd.395.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lee T, Koski C. 2015. Multilevel governance and urban climate change mitigation. Environ Plann C Govern Pol. 33:1501e1517. doi:10.1177/0263774X15614700

 Google Scholar

Rashidi K, Patt A. 2018. Subsistence over symbolism: the role of transnational municipal networks on cities’ climate policy innovation and adoption. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change. 23:507–523. doi:10.1007/s11027-017-9747-y

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The anonymised transcriptions of the interviews are available for research purposes upon request. Please contact the author.