Cities, Climate and Inequalities – The local community at the heart of the ecological transition: The impact of local, citizen-based climate initiatives in Montreal

Alexandra Nadeau, research professional (Climate Action Research Chair, INRS) and master’s degree holder in urban studies (INRS)

Introduction

In a context where the climate crisis calls for prompt action, the role of cities in implementing effective adaptation and mitigation measures is becoming increasingly recognized (Van Neste et al., 2022). At the heart of the various programs and initiatives that coexist in urban spaces, a veritable ecosystem of actors interacts and together manufactures an ecological transition on a very local scale, that of the neighbourhood or street (Aylett, 2015; Bulkeley and Castán Broto, 2012).

Given their leading role in meeting the challenges posed by climate change, local associations and citizens’ groups have devised collaborations and concrete solutions to adapt to the impacts of climate change or to realize actions with a view to the ecological transition. This paper explores the roles and objectives of these local experiments in adaptation that are set up, outside of institutional programming, by members of civil society in search of tangible change (Cloutier et al., 2018). More specifically, it focuses on the extent to which these initiatives in the urban governance of climate change might serve as a mechanism for innovative participation and citizen action. The findings of this synthesis are based on a case study of eight projects carried out in the Montreal borough of Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie.

The case study shows that these citizen experiments, whether institutionalized or informal, make it possible to 1) conduct experiments and propose ecological alternatives in the urban space, 2) create living environments by and for the population, 3) mobilize and involve citizens by anchoring themselves at the local level and creating concrete, immediate spin-offs, and 4) establish links and partnerships between civil society and municipal authorities to manage and plan the city.

State of the art of the scientific literature on the modality of action studied

To meet the challenges posed by climate change, various forms of governance can be put in place, some of them collaborative. These draw on the resources of institutional agents as well as those of members of civil society and the scientific community (Armitage et al., 2009; Aylett, 2015; Cloutier et al., 2015).

As municipal authorities have limited power to act on the climate issue, this interaction of diverse urban actors is needed to truly set the socio-ecological transition into motion (Burch et al., 2014; Wamsler, 2016). By bringing together people who might not otherwise interact, new networks are created within cities, giving rise to novel ways of governing the issue of climate change (Schroeder et al., 2013). Members of civil society thus have the opportunity to take a more active part in environment-related policies and in the adoption of mitigation or adaptation measures in the face of the climate emergency (Ross et al., 2015). Co-creation, co-production, collaborative planning, participatory governance and adaptive co-management are all terms that refer to the forms that this governance takes on an urban scale (Baird et al., 2014; Bremer, 2015). The multiplication of these models invites us to consider members of civil society as legitimate partners in the governance of climate change (Castán Broto et al., 2015).

For a number of reasons, the state and local authorities have an interest in supporting civic initiatives. Indeed, through their interventions, stakeholders can reinforce each other, providing evidence for the theories of both political ecology and ecological modernization (Mol, 2003). On the one hand, the combined strength of the state and citizen initiatives facilitates innovation in urban systems, notably by enabling municipalities to put forward more ambitious climate change policies (Aylett, 2013). On the other hand, these more horizontal partnerships between the state and civil society enable municipal authorities to increase their intervention capacities (Cloutier et al., 2018). However, it remains difficult to adequately measure the outcome of this civic participation in decision-making, interventions and, more broadly, climate governance (De Souza, 2006; Scanu, 2015; Wamsler, 2016). Indeed, their spin-offs are difficult to measure: they are multiple, diverse, poorly documented and often constitute triggers for a series of unexpected but interconnected impacts, along the lines of Deleuze and Guattari’s rhizome theory (1980). Moreover, the growing number of devices and means of citizen participation appears to constitute fragmentation and thus prove counterproductive for citizen involvement (Bherer and Breux, 2012). In addition, there is a risk that governments will delegate their responsibilities and rely on the citizen class to take action (Castán Broto et al., 2015).

From a transition management perspective, niches—spaces where practices deviate from the existing system, disrupt it and, under certain conditions, help to transform it (Gigout et al., 2021)—must be strategically managed if a society is to make a successful transition to sustainable development (Geels, 2005). The most solid and successful niches are those that result in forms of technical learning (first level) and broader critical reflection (second level) (Kemp et al., 1998). These niches are deemed capable of activating a socio-technical transition in existing systems and structures of society. From this perspective, certain citizen projects with diverse objectives (local energy production, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, exchange of practices, etc.) represent niches capable of bringing about system change. That said, if they are to have an impact, the ideas and actions behind these projects must encourage experimentation and at the same time allow for periods of trial and error. The experimentation phase, which precedes the multiplication of the niche’s effects and its stabilization through eventual institutionalization, is considered important in the transition process (Seyfang and Haxeltine, 2012).

In this framework, experimentation can be understood as actions that enable the emergence of niches, either by initiating a concrete and visible transformation on a local territory, or by participating in the evolution of established social norms (Savini and Bertolini, 2019). Conceptually, they are thus similar to niches but fall more within the theoretical framework of governance than that of transition management. Experimentation, on the other hand, is a way of temporarily testing new ideas and practices in urban spaces without affecting them irrevocably. Through practice, they challenge institutional ways of doing things and generate social and technical learning (Bulkeley et al., 2015). While these experiments have interesting potential, their ability to bring about real change remains as variable as their influence in establishing effective programs and public policies (McFadgen and Huitema, 2017; Millard-Ball, 2012). Hence, there is a need to question the role of experimentation, particularly that developed by citizen movements, as a tool for persuading local authorities and institutional players, especially from a socio-technical transition perspective.

Cases, methods and data from the original research

As part of this exploratory research, I carried out a multiple-case study in the Montreal borough of Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie (RPP) and more specifically on eight citizen ecological transition initiatives. I chose this borough because of the community dynamism and numerous citizen initiatives that have emerged there in recent years (Cournoyer-Gendron, 2014). Based on documentary research and six semi-structured interviews with key subjects (initiative leaders, local elected officials, etc.), I then analyzed the citizen initiatives as, on the one hand, experiments in climate governance (Bulkeley et al., 2015; Hoffmann, 2011), and on the other, spaces for innovation in a perspective of socio-technical transitions (Geels and Schot, 2007; Loorbach, 2007).

To select relevant initiatives, I used the framework of criteria for experiments developed by Bulkeley, Castán Broto and Edwards (2015). These criteria were that citizen initiatives: 1) had to be independent, in other words, undertaken by citizens, without affiliation to any organization or political party; 2) should seek to adapt the environment to the impacts of climate change or contribute to the local ecological transition; 3) should materialize concretely in urban space; 4) should seek to generate enthusiasm or involvement from other citizens; and 5) take place in or around the borough of Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie.

With these criteria, I selected the initiatives and recruited their participants using network sampling or the snowball principle. The eight initiatives chosen differ in the nature of their interventions, their lifespan, their relationship with institutions or other public, community or private stakeholders, and their ambition. Since these initiatives are not part of an institutional framework, with some being unofficial or even informal, they tend to be difficult to identify. I therefore selected them following introductions to their members via my personal network of contacts. I also selected initiatives based on their appearance in local media or on social networks. It should be noted that the data collection was carried out in 2017 and that some initiatives have since become formalized, diversified and organizationally more complex, leading to multiple projects, such as Solon (Audet et al., 2019), while others have come to completion, such as Ken Saro-Wiwa Memorial Park. The eight cases selected at the time corresponded to the research selection criteria.

To process the data collected, I analyzed and compared each of the selected initiatives on the basis of some twenty indicators emerging from the interviews conducted as well as the theoretical frameworks retained for the research. In a second step, I grouped these indicators into four main sections for analysis: profiles of the initiatives; their tangible impacts in relation to the climate issue; their dynamics with other citizens; and their dynamics with institutions. These indicators served as descriptive elements to draw out the meaning of the information, design categories and thematize the results, in order to draft elements for discussion and analysis in line with the key concepts of this research. However, the analysis grid did not include any indicators relating to inequalities, a notion that could be incorporated into future research.

Results

A common feature of the citizen initiatives studied is that they are rooted at a highly localized scale, that of the neighbourhood. Like the experiments studied elsewhere, the Montreal initiatives appeal to a local sense of belonging (Middlemiss and Parrish, 2010; Rogers et al., 2012). The citizen actions mobilized respond to the needs of the environment in which they are embedded, and their visibility in the local space contributes to their success. Like tactical urban planning or DIY initiatives (Lydon, 2012), their benefits are concrete and immediate—characteristics which are sought after by project managers. City residents perceive the change they are implementing, while often benefiting directly from the spin-offs of their actions, which fosters effective mobilization.

The explicit intention of these experiments is to make the living environment more pleasant, through greening interventions and by animating the space and creating a community of similar interests. While those in charge of the experiments are essentially tasked to launch ecological-environmental initiatives, they also recognize the value of mobilizing the community. The desire to set up an ecological project is thus a lever for social mobilization rather than an end in itself.

Half of the respondents expressed the intention to carry out an action of an ephemeral nature. Others, by contrast, would prefer the initiative to be long-lasting and to offer parameters that could be reproduced elsewhere. They intend to make inroads, if only minimally, on the huge issue of climate change or ecological transition. For them, reproducibility is thus a criterion for participating in a truly sustainable transition of existing systems (Grin et al., 2010). By repeating initiatives, a certain culture of experimentation can thus be forged, as the potential for reducing regime brakes in the face of change is high (Kivimaa et al., 2015).

As elsewhere, the initiatives that have emerged in Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie aim in some ways to challenge institutional urbanism and favoritism toward property ownership in the city while also promoting the ability to rapidly implement innovative projects (Certoma and Tornaghi, 2015). Thus, citizens engage in groups to intervene in urban space as a way to materialize and manifest their own existence, to affirm the place of civil society in the city and to participate in the creation of the city (Follmaan and Viehoff, 2014). The citizens’ initiatives analyzed play a role in demonstrating solutions other than traditional urban planning, and in a way reflect the changes in urban planning desired by their stakeholders.

Greening, urban agriculture and demineralization projects are associated with a strategy aimed at creating a win-win situation for all stakeholders involved (Lydon, 2012). For citizens, these initiatives generate immediate, tangible benefits in their living environments, while developing the roots of a broader transition to post-carbon cities. Local authorities, for their part, benefit insofar as the initiatives endow them with a more dynamic image of openness and innovation. Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie’s territorial marketing is also strengthened without any major effort on the part of elected representatives or their teams. Citizen initiatives in greening and urban agriculture thus represent a potential, or using the terms of transition management, a niche, for imagining, developing and planning the city differently (Certoma and Tornaghi, 2015).

At the implementation stage, initiatives often resemble isolated actions rather than coherent projects—. They tend to be spontaneous and fragmented at this early stage, and to follow the impetus of one or a few individuals. If and when the impetus persists, reflection unfolds and leads to the coordination of actions. This coordination takes place on two scales. First, during the initiative’s first season or year of existence, it is mainly the citizens who pool their resources and ideas. Then, as the initiative continues and extends over more than one season or year, the scope of the coordination expands, taking place between those responsible for the experiments and other people involved, members of civil society as well as business owners and representatives of the municipal administration (Aylett, 2013).

Although citizens’ initiatives tend to come to resemble institutions as they evolve, they do not forge the more conventional type of institutional links or partnerships with them. The nature of the partnership depends in particular on the type of space these initiatives occupy and on the vision of both the project leaders and the municipal administration. Several scenarios may then take shape. For example, in the cases under study, financial partnerships, space cohabitation relationships or space and resource co-management agreements have been established. These multi-faceted, multi-party relationships offer citizens the opportunity to enter into a variety of governance dynamics, with the aim of realizing their initiatives and maintaining them in the urban landscape. 

There are two opposing views on the relationship to be maintained with the public institution and its framework. According to some respondents, it is legitimate for civil society to intervene in urban space without obtaining prior approval from the local administration. In their view, the use of the space and knowledge of the environment suffice as a source of legitimacy. Further, compliance with the borough’s rules or orientations is not a main priority in their interventions. For other respondents, informal occupation is illegal and illegitimate. Their wish is not to impose themselves on the urban landscape but rather to transform it by respecting the rules and making them evolve. In their view, collaboration between local players is necessary to truly meet the needs of the community.

The interviews reveal that the spaces invested represent a community of citizens with a shared interest in an alternative, ecological city. However, this comes with several caveats. First, the development of this type of community can also encourage a certain insularity. Although they are intended to be inclusive, these communities are sometimes a source of exclusion, voluntarily or not. An inconsistency emerges from the desire to create initiatives for all and by all, with the hope that these spaces will mobilize and include all citizens, but only as long as they share certain traits with the group already established. This is reminiscent of the challenges encountered in the collaborative approach to urban planning, as underscored by Bacqué and Gauthier (2011). Despite the desire for diverse and broad participation, the citizens collaborating on urban projects tend to be homogeneous in their profile (in terms of gender, age, socioeconomic profile and level of education), reflecting in some ways the demographics of the borough where the project is based. In addition, greening initiatives can raise fears and impacts in terms of eco-gentrification in more disadvantaged areas (Anguelvoski, 2022). That said, during the research, subjects were not asked about equity, inclusion and diversity factors within their initiatives. It is therefore not possible to draw any conclusions in this respect.

By implementing concrete initiatives, local citizens are now emerging as full-fledged players in the urban governance of climate change. Understood as urban experiments or niches of innovation, these initiatives have the ability to influence and mobilize numerous actors in two important ways (Bulkeley et al., 2015; Smith, 2012).

First, those responsible for citizen initiatives establish their relevance as actors capable of implementing novel solutions. While some initiatives advocate direct action to bring about a change in the way the city operates, others rely more on consensual collaboration with institutions to bring about a long-term transformation in the way things are done. Second, these initiatives generate immediate, concrete and beneficial spin-offs for the communities directly or indirectly involved in their processes. This encourages citizen mobilization on an issue as elusive and complex as global warming.

Finally, these initiatives make innovative solutions visible and act as triggers to materialize other ways of doing things in urban space. In this way, they invite us to conceive of a new way of exercising citizen power through tangible collective action. That said, this work comes with several caveats. In terms of inequalities., more research should be carried out to analyze how these initiatives can unwittingly reproduce less equitable logics of power or, conversely, create dynamics of insularity that are inclusive to only certain citizens. Initiatives can also put considerable pressure on volunteers to carry out projects that would otherwise have been handled by local authorities.

In conclusion, environmental experimentation represents one form of action within a broader environmental citizen movement, anchored in principles such as collaboration, sustainability, decentralization and self-management. From a tactical diversity perspective, these citizen actions are proving to be relevant initiatives that concretely engage individuals and increase the likelihood of achieving the social-ecological transition needed in the face of the current climate crisis.

To cite this article

Nadeau, A. (2022). The local community at the heart of the ecological transition: The impact of local, citizen-based climate initiatives in Montreal. In Cities, Climate and Inequalities Collection. VRM – Villes Régions Monde. https://www.vrm.ca/la-communaute-locale-au-coeur-de-la-transition-ecologique-limpact-des-initiatives-climatiques-locales-et-citoyennes-a-montreal-2

Reference Text

Nadeau, A., Cloutier, G., Poitras, C., et Aylett, A. (2019). « Racines citoyennes : la communauté locale au cœur de la transition écologique. L’impact des initiatives climatiques locales et citoyennes à Montréal », Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 28(2), p. 16‑31.

References

Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J. J. T., Cole, H., Garcia-Lamarca, M., Triguero-Mas, M., Baró, F., Martin, N., Conesa, D., Shokry, G., Pérez del Pulgar, C., Argüelles Ramos, L., Matheney, A., Gallez, E., Oscilowicz, E., López Máñez, J., Sarzo, B., Beltrán, M. A., et Martinez Minaya, J. (2022). « Green Gentrification in European and North American Cities ». Nature Communications, 13, 3816.

Armitage, D., Plummer, R., Berkes, F., Arthur, R. I., Charles, A. T., Davidson-Hunt, I. J., Diduck, A. P., Doubleday, N. C. Johnson, D. S., Marschke, M., McConney, P., Pinkerton, E. W., et Wollenberg, E. K. (2009). « Adaptive Co-Management for Social-Ecological Complexity ». Frontiers in Ecology and the Environnement, 7(2), p. 95‑102.

Audet, R., Segers, I., et Manon, M. (2019). « Expérimenter la transition écologique dans les ruelles de Montréal : le cas du projet Nos milieux de vie! ». Lien social et Politiques, p. 224‑245.

Aylett, A. (2013). « Networked Urban Climate Governance: Neighborhood-Scale Residential Solar Energy Systems and the Example of Solarize Portland ». Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 31(5), p. 858‑875.

Aylett, A. (2015). « Institutionalizing the Urban Governance of Climate Change Adaptation: Results of an International Survey ». Urban Climate, 14(1), p. 4‑16.

Bacqué, M.-H., et Gauthier, M. (2011). « Participation, urbanisme et études urbaines ». Participations, 1(1), p. 36‑66.

Baird, J., Plummer, R., et Pickering, K. (2014). « Priming the Governance System for Climate Change Adaptation: The Application of a Social-Ecological Inventory to Engage Actors in Niagara, Canada ». Ecology and Society, 19(1).

Bherer, L., et Breux, S. (2012). « The Diversity of Public Participation Tools: Complementing or Competing With One Another? ». Canadian Journal of Political Science, 45(2), p. 379‑403.

Bremer, S. (2015, mai). The Tracks Approach to Place-Based Climate Knowledge Co-Production. Unpacking the Co-Production of Knowledge in Adaptation to Climate Change [communication]. Dans le cadre de la 2^nd European Climate Change Adaptation Conference (ECCA), Copenhague, Danemark.

Bulkeley, H., et Castán Broto, V. (2012). « Government by Experiment? Global Cities and the Governing of Climate Change ». Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(3), p. 361‑375.

Bulkeley, H., Castán Broto, V., et Edwards, G. (2015). An Urban Politics of Climate Change: Experimentation and the Governing of Socio-Technical Transitions. Routledge.

Burch, S., Shaw, A., Dale, A., et Robinson, J. (2014). « Triggering Transformative Change: A Development Path Approach to Climate Change Response in Communities ». Climate Policy, 14(4), p. 467‑487.

Castán Broto, V., Macucule, D. A., Boyd, E., Ensor, J., et Allen, C. (2015). « Building Collaborative Partnerships for Climate Change Action in Maputo, Mozambique ». Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 47(3), p. 571‑587.

Certomà, C., et Tornaghi, C. (2015). « Political Gardening. Transforming Cities and Political Agency ». Local Environnement, 20(10), p. 1123‑1131

Cloutier, G.,  Papin, M., et Bizier, C. (2018). « Do-It-Yourself (DIY) Adaptation: Civic Initiatives as Drivers to Address Climate Change at the Urban Scale ». Cities, 74.

Cloutier, G., Papin, M., et Bizier, C. (2018). « Les expérimentations de gouvernance de l’adaptation aux changements climatiques : terrains d’apprentissage de l’adaptation ». Rapport final pour Ouranos.

Cournoyer-Gendron, M. (2014). La notion de développement urbain durable : mise en œuvre et définition. Le regard des acteurs communautaires du quartier Rosemont à Montréal [mémoire de maîtrise, Université du Québec, Institut national de la recherche scientifique, Canada].

Deleuze, G., et Guattari, F. (1980). Capitalisme et Schizophrénie 2. Mille plateaux. Minuit.

De Souza, M. L. (2006). « Social Movements as “Critical Urban Planning Agents” ». City, 10(3), p. 327‑342.

Follmann, A., et Viehoff, V. (2014). « A Green Garden on Red Clay: Creating a New Urban Common as a Form of Political Gardening in Cologne, Germany ». Local Environment, 20(10), p. 1148‑1174.

Geels, F. (2005). « Processes and Patterns in Transitions and System Innovations: Refining the Co-Evolutionary Multi-Level Perspective ». Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 72, p. 681‑696.

Geels, F., et Schot, J. (2007). « Typology of Sociotechnical Transition Pathways ». Research Policy, 36(3), p. 399‑417.

Gigout, É., Mayer, J. C., et Dumez, H. (2021). « Les “niches” de transition comme espace de renégociation du système énergétique : le cas de l’autoconsommation ». Annales des Mines – Gérer et comprendre, 145, p. 3‑12.

Grin, J., Rotmans, J., et Schot, J. (2010). Transitions to Sustainable Development: New Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative Change. Routledge.

Hoffmann, M. J. (2011). Climate Governance at the Crossroads: Experimenting with a Global Response after Kyoto. Oxford University Press.

Kemp, R., Schot, J., et Hoogma, R. (1998). « Regime Shifts to Sustainability through Processes of Niche Formation: The Approach of Strategic Niche Management ». Technology Analysis and Strategic Gestion, 10(2), p. 175‑198.

Kivimaa, P., Hilden, M., Huitema, D., Jordan, A., et Newig, J. (2017). « Experiments in Climate Governance: A Systematic Review of Research on Energy and Built Environment Transitions ». Journal of Cleaner Production, 169, p. 17‑29.

Loorbach, D. (2007). Transition Management: New Mode of Governance for Sustainable Development. International Books.

Lydon, M. (2012). Tactical Urbanism Volume 1: Short-Term Action, Long-Term Change. Street Plan Collaborative.

McFadgen, B., et Huitema, D. (2018). « Experimentation at the Interface of Science and Policy: A Multi-Case Analysis of How Policy Experiments Influence Political Decision-Makers ». Policy Sciences, 51, p. 161-187.

Middlemiss, L., et Parrish, B. (2010). « Building Capacity for Low-Carbon Communities: The Role of Grassroots Initiatives ». Energy Policy, 38(12), p. 7559‑7566.

Millard-Ball, A. (2012). « Do City Climate Plans Reduce Emissions? ». Journal of Urban Economics, 71(3), p. 289‑311.

Mol, A. P. J. (2003). Globalization and Environmental Reform. The Ecological Modernization of the Global Economy. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Rogers, J., Simmons, E., Convery, I., et Weatherall, A. (2012). « What Factors Enable Community Leadership of Renewable Energy Projects? Lessons from a Woodfuel Heating Initiative ». Local Economy, 27(2), p. 209‑222.

Ross, H., Shaw, S., Rissik, D., Cliffe, N., Chapman, S., Hounsell, V., Udy, J., Trong Trinh, N., et Schoeman, J. (2015). « A Participatory Systems Approach to Understanding Climate Adaptation Needs ». Climatic Change, 129(1-2), p. 27‑42.

Savini, F., et Bertolini, L. (2019). « Urban Experimentation as a Politics of Niches ». Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 51(4), p. 831‑848.

Scanu, E. (2015). « Climate Governance in the Post-Industrial City: The Urban Side of Ecological Modernisation ». Environmental Sociology, 1(2), p. 102‑115.

Schroeder, H., Burch, S., et Rayner, S. (2013). « Novel Multisector Networks and Entrepreneurship in Urban Climate Governance ». Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 31(5), p. 761‑768.

Seyfang, G., et Haxeltine, A. (2012). « Growing Grassroots Innovations: Exploring the Role of Community-Based Initiatives in Governing Sustainable Energy Transitions ». Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(3), p. 381‑400.

Smith, A. (2012). «Civil Society in Sustainable Energy Transitions ». Dans D. Loorbach et G. Verbong (dir.), Governing the Energy Transition. Routledge.

Van Neste, S., Madénian, H., Poulin, É., Hatton-Proulx, C., El Guerrab, Z., Perras St-Jean, G., Bonneau, A., et Parent-Corriveau, A. (2022). Analyses du rapport du GIEC 2022 : la nécessaire transformation des villes face à l’urgence climatique. Chaire de recherche du Canada en action climatique urbaine, INRS.

Wamsler, C. (2016). «From Risk Governance to City-Citizen Collaboration: Capitalizing on Individual Adaptation to Climate Change ». Environmental Policy and Governance, 26(3), p. 184‑204.