ABSTRACT
We do not claim that this typology is complete. However, reference to the literature substantiates these as general patterns.
Besides the identification of different epistemologies, we can show how these epistemologies are embedded in local political practices and how they coincide with governance arrangements. The three cases demonstrate that climate change policies are institutionalised in different ways. While Frankfurt implemented an agency model in the early 1990s, Stuttgart did not accomplish any particular organisational changes and is somehow an antithesis of a post-bureaucratic organisation (Iedema 2003). In terms of organisational change and procedural provisions, Munich stands out as the PM provides for various measures for participation, decentralised implementation and networked coordination. These differences in the way climate policy is institutionalised have implications for the knowledge orders of the three cities. The actor constellation in Munich is much more diversified and network-like. As a consequence, the knowledge order can be characterised as an open and pluralistic arrangement that, as described by Hoppe, tends towards an incremental form of problem-solving and coalitions of convenience (Hoppe 2011, 132). A stable epistemic community with regard to climate change did not emerge and we observed only a minor shift of relevance induced by the climate change discourse. Besides the public declaration of ambitious goals for the use and distribution of renewable energies – within the context of the strategic urban development process – climate change and adaptation are just two issues amongst many others. Furthermore, climate change adaptation has only recently found resonance. The consideration of climate change in planning decisions is not apparent and therefore the continuous self-affirmation based on a formal epistemology of evaluation is of utmost importance. The open and decentralised governance arrangement opens many channels for participation and knowledge transfer. But this may be influenced by policy-based evidence instead of evidence-based policy.
