In this article we examine the limitations of democratic governance of climate transformation in cities. Advancing the literatures on urban climate governance and climate urbanism, the article asks, how do urban governance institutions manage the variety of demands and pressures on the climate agenda? We investigate how urban governance institutions in four Scandinavian cities (Oslo, Bergen, Stockholm and Gothenburg) respond to proactive and reactive demands on their climate agenda. We find distinct differences between the institutional engagement with proactive versus reactive citizen groups. Proactive groups more effectively navigate city bureaucracies and align their agendas with those of the city, while reactive groups are less connected and therefore reliant on more confrontational tactics. We argue that urban climate governance must find ways to be more broadly inclusive of those who do not immediately support the agenda, or else risk further populist backlash and disengagement.

In this article, we unpack and compare how differently reactive protest groups and movements respond to climate-related policyimplementation and engage with public institutions to raise grievances and change the course of climate action. We argue thatas the climate agenda has become integrated into broad-based policies, such as urban densification and transport/road-tolls, arange of contestations emerges that cannot be reduced to anti-elite sentiments and climate scepticism, as often held in studiesof populism and climate politics. The article offers an analytical framework to study how such reactive protest movements andtheir leadership respond to climate-related policy implementation in several distinct areas of contestation. The approach is testedwith empirical observations from four case studies of popular protests in four Scandinavian cities. We found that the hostilityand grievances of the protesters included a mix of ideological and material/socio-economic concerns not perceived, recognisedor responded to by public institutions. Citizen action groups thus actively engaged with a diversity of public agencies and politi-cians to influence climate-related decisions and actions. We observed that these interactions and resulting effects were highlyplace-based and context-specific, and dynamic. We suggest that engaging with popular/populist climate politics needs to observechanging contextual circumstances and more firmly distinguish between responsiveness to economic, cultural recognition/identity, anti-elitist and knowledge foundations it is entangled in. This includes aspects related to the procedural functioningof public institutions and officials. Relationships are complex and multilayered. A processual and qualitative multi-case studyapproach facilitated these observations.

Megaprojects are vehicles of change and spatial products of policies from near and far. In this paper, we demonstrate how insights from the policy mobility literature can contribute to a critical analysis of the legitimization of megaprojects. Through a study of the planning of a new ‘world-class' hospital in Stockholm, we show that ideas, experiences and practices from abroad played a decisive role in legitimizing this megaproject. Policies mobilized from elsewhere were strategically used to construct, modify and (re)present a legitimizing narrative centred on the aspiration of excellence and international competitiveness. This narrative emphasized the need to transform both the spatial structure and the organization of the studied welfare institution based on political and value-based rationalities. Initial international references and ideas were adopted in an unstructured and selective manner, but proved enduring throughout the extensive planning process and were eventually consolidated into a coherent concept, effectively excluding alternative development paths. The vague notion of ‘world-class' functioned as a ‘magic concept’ that strengthened this narrative, rendering the project difficult to criticize. In conclusion, the paper emphasizes the importance of considering the temporal dimension of planning processes alongside the relational geographies of policy-mobility in megaproject analyses.

Spatial planning instruments are fundamental for the operation of spatial planning systems. In the ESPON COMPASS project over 250 spatial planning instruments at different policy levels in 32 European countries were identified. In this chapter we compare and review these planning instruments that are used to mediate competition over the use of land, to allocate rights of development, to regulate change and to promote preferred spatial and urban form. The comparative analysis highlights that there are various types of spatial planning instruments at different policy levels many of which have multiple characteristics, that is, they are expected to have multiple functions in relation to spatial development and territorial governance practices. However, there is a significant consistency in how planning systems are hierarchically structured around spatial planning instruments and how these systems are based on rational ideals. Furthermore, the results indicates that there is a clear direction towards more strategic forms of spatial planning, also among statuary planning instruments. In conclusion, our survey reveals that spatial planning instruments are expected to serve as multi-purpose tools that simultaneously provide strategic frameworks and regulate spatial development whilst they have become less visionary.

Previous research has shown that the comprehensive-integrative planning model seems to be expedient for modernising planning systems, specifically regarding the relation between spatial planning and sectoral policies. However, contemporary, and particularly comparable studies are non-existent. Based on empirical findings from a European research project our comparative analysis explores whether spatial planning in nine countries conforms to key features of this idealised planning model. Our analysis reveals discrepancies regarding how spatial planning is positioned in relation to sectoral policies across the various countries. We argue that this planning model appears rather to be in a state of dissolution than of consolidation. 

Varför lokaliserades megaprojektet Nya Karolinska Solna till Hagasta- den mitt i Stockholmsregionen? Förutsättningarna för att bygga ett nytt sjukhus på denna plats var minst sagt komplexa och har i stor utsträckning påverkat planeringen och utformningen av sjukhuset samtidigt som projektet bidragit till att förändra platsen och dess omgivning. Ett megaprojekt beskrivs ofta i termer av komplexitet, ekonomisk storlek och tidsomfång men i detta kapitel analyseras lokaliseringen och formgivningen av ett megaprojekt, dess rumsliga dimensioner och bevekelsegrunder. Megaprojekt är som Flyvbjerg (2014) poängterat inte bara uppförstorade mindre projekt utan ofta extraordinära projekt med samhällsförändrande potential. De utmanar rådande samhällsstrukturer snarare än anpassar sig till dem. Ett megaprojekt är således svårt att avgränsa och att lokalisera det i tid och rum är en komplex fråga.

Detta kapitel utgår ifrån ett utredningsuppdrag om beslutsprocesserna kring planeringen av Nya Karolinska Solna, det så kallade NKS-projektet. Detta megaprojekt syftade till att uppföra ett nytt sjukhus i den nya stadsdelen som fått namnet Hagastaden på gränsen mellan Karolinska sjukhusets område och Karolinska Institutets campus i Solna och det före detta Norra Stationsområdet i Stockholm. NKS var ett megaprojekt som inte bara handlade om att bygga ett nytt sjukhuskomplex, utan även om att omorganisera sjukvården i Stockholmsregionen. Dessutom var syftet också att främja forskning och tillväxt i regionen. Megaprojektet var en viktig del i en vision om att skapa en plats i världsklass, ett kluster för livsvetenskap integrerat i en internationellt attraktiv stadsmiljö.