Module governance
Goal: Transformation of institutions, processes, and actor constellations for blue-green urban development,
for example through the effective and legitimate organization and networking of relevant stakeholders (as well as through capacity building).
Coach: Dr. Frank Hüesker (UFZ)
The goals and potentials of the sponge city policy model are, in principle, largely undisputed among decision-makers and experts; instead, the challenge lies in implementation. This is because the paradigms of the sponge city — with coupled and decentralized infrastructures — meet centuries-old water infrastructures, including the associated municipal administrative structures. Adapting the resulting governance system (consisting of formal and informal institutions, processes, power relations, and actors), which we refer to as “Unpacking the Sewer”, entails an enormous transformation task, “comparable to the introduction of public sewerage in the 19th century” (UBA study “Goals and Policy Instruments for Climate-Resilient Sponge Cities,” p. 9).
The actors, institutions, and processes involved in the planning of BGI are numerous and operate across all political levels — from local to European and even global. Formal and informal policy frameworks set the goals, resources, and procedures, ideally ensuring legitimacy and feasibility in terms of time and effort. The actors and their interests are, on the one hand, comparable to those in traditional wastewater infrastructure policy, which has shaped municipal public services in Germany — especially in West Germany — for decades, with centralized systems and territorial monopolies. On the other hand, the decentralization of these technologies through the coupled integration of green elements has now significantly expanded the constellation of actors, the associated frameworks, institutions, processes, and objectives.
This constitutes an infrastructure transformation with an open outcome regarding what the future governance of blue-green infrastructures will look like. The result will vary depending on the local context, and it will take time before a policy model comparable to traditional municipal public services — based on territorial monopolies, comprehensive supply and disposal, and mandatory connections and usage — can emerge.
Institutionalizing a blue-green governance approach in cities requires improved framework conditions at higher political levels, which we will analyze within the scope of this module (see also the module law). Political frameworks regarding blue-green infrastructures are highly diverse, and numerous policy areas influence the design of municipal infrastructures. At the federal level, environmental policy (water, biodiversity, climate protection, etc.) and urban development policy (housing, funded planning, transport, etc.) play a central role. However, relevant policy instruments can emerge from virtually any ministry — for example, funding for “real-world laboratories” by the Federal Ministry of Research or tariff calculation regulations for municipal services, which often stem from the interior or economic ministries.
At the municipal level, a clear political commitment to urban climate adaptation and the establishment of concrete quantitative and qualitative goals are central to successful blue-green urban development. This requires the systematic collection of information as well as the targeted use of existing and newly created funding instruments. Classical instruments of urban development and planning can be adapted for this purpose. In addition, new institutions and/or processes need to be organized to effectively and legitimately bring relevant stakeholders together, and suitable measures must be initiated to build public acceptance of these new infrastructures. Here, new conflict patterns over water resources — for example, between cities and surrounding regions — must also be taken into account.
For BlueGreen City Coaching, a political science-based assessment of the status quo of blue-green governance is essential. Using social science scenario techniques, we also define the objectives and the pathways to achieve them (see also the constellation analysis by Difu). These activities are conducted in the foundational workshops.
for example through the effective and legitimate organization and networking of relevant stakeholders (as well as through capacity building).
Coach: Dr. Frank Hüesker (UFZ)
The goals and potentials of the sponge city policy model are, in principle, largely undisputed among decision-makers and experts; instead, the challenge lies in implementation. This is because the paradigms of the sponge city — with coupled and decentralized infrastructures — meet centuries-old water infrastructures, including the associated municipal administrative structures. Adapting the resulting governance system (consisting of formal and informal institutions, processes, power relations, and actors), which we refer to as “Unpacking the Sewer”, entails an enormous transformation task, “comparable to the introduction of public sewerage in the 19th century” (UBA study “Goals and Policy Instruments for Climate-Resilient Sponge Cities,” p. 9).
The actors, institutions, and processes involved in the planning of BGI are numerous and operate across all political levels — from local to European and even global. Formal and informal policy frameworks set the goals, resources, and procedures, ideally ensuring legitimacy and feasibility in terms of time and effort. The actors and their interests are, on the one hand, comparable to those in traditional wastewater infrastructure policy, which has shaped municipal public services in Germany — especially in West Germany — for decades, with centralized systems and territorial monopolies. On the other hand, the decentralization of these technologies through the coupled integration of green elements has now significantly expanded the constellation of actors, the associated frameworks, institutions, processes, and objectives.
This constitutes an infrastructure transformation with an open outcome regarding what the future governance of blue-green infrastructures will look like. The result will vary depending on the local context, and it will take time before a policy model comparable to traditional municipal public services — based on territorial monopolies, comprehensive supply and disposal, and mandatory connections and usage — can emerge.
Institutionalizing a blue-green governance approach in cities requires improved framework conditions at higher political levels, which we will analyze within the scope of this module (see also the module law). Political frameworks regarding blue-green infrastructures are highly diverse, and numerous policy areas influence the design of municipal infrastructures. At the federal level, environmental policy (water, biodiversity, climate protection, etc.) and urban development policy (housing, funded planning, transport, etc.) play a central role. However, relevant policy instruments can emerge from virtually any ministry — for example, funding for “real-world laboratories” by the Federal Ministry of Research or tariff calculation regulations for municipal services, which often stem from the interior or economic ministries.
At the municipal level, a clear political commitment to urban climate adaptation and the establishment of concrete quantitative and qualitative goals are central to successful blue-green urban development. This requires the systematic collection of information as well as the targeted use of existing and newly created funding instruments. Classical instruments of urban development and planning can be adapted for this purpose. In addition, new institutions and/or processes need to be organized to effectively and legitimately bring relevant stakeholders together, and suitable measures must be initiated to build public acceptance of these new infrastructures. Here, new conflict patterns over water resources — for example, between cities and surrounding regions — must also be taken into account.
For BlueGreen City Coaching, a political science-based assessment of the status quo of blue-green governance is essential. Using social science scenario techniques, we also define the objectives and the pathways to achieve them (see also the constellation analysis by Difu). These activities are conducted in the foundational workshops.
The toolbox then includes policy instruments developed particularly within the BMBF project “Leipziger BlauGrün”, such as the Blue-Green Fact Sheets and Blue-Green Potential Maps. Additionally, we provide insights into related research projects, studies, and concepts, including third-party tools.
Key documents: