Abstract
Sustainability discourses influence the practices of urban climate action by establishing objectives and ways of doing things. Key concepts such as ‘risk’, ‘resilience’ and ‘efficiency’ have been central in the history of sustainability discourses, but their influence has changed over time. The use of these terms is analysed in policy narratives of urban climate action, exploring how they are deployed in policy and practice. A document database (n = 463) was analysed to show how the terms have evolved from their application in specific contexts to a more open interpretation in which different forms of environmental action are linked to development. Interviews with practitioners (n = 100) were analysed to reveal the influence of these narratives and how they organise action in urban environments. Three tensions emerge from the mobilisations of hegemonic discourses in practice: the contradiction between facilitating harmonised approaches across locations while at the same time scaling up action; the contradiction between implementing action in place and providing frameworks of action that can be evaluated at the global scale; and the challenge between identifying sources of leadership and accepting the increasing importance of multiple actors in local climate action. These tensions open opportunities to disrupt climate change adaptation discourses.
Policy relevance
The history of the formation of environmental discourses has shaped climate policy at a fundamental level. These discourses contain embedded assumptions and reasoning that relate to their history and contextualisation rather than with absolute truths that inform them. Understanding the formation of these discourses may be necessary to identify the biases inherent to urban environmental practitioners’ discourses and to understand their effectiveness and operation. A better understanding of these discourses supports policymakers in shaping responses to environmental challenges and finding new narratives to inform sustainable futures. Improved knowledge has been created by focusing on the tensions that emerge from policy documents and practitioner interviews.