Analyzing the Role of Polycentric Governance in Institutional Innovations: Insights from Urban Climate Governance in India

Abstract

In the face of climate change, urban governance systems must adapt to uncertainties and emerging pressures. Polycentric governance, characterized by multiple decision-making centers at different scales, enables coordination across levels and provides flexibility, which allows for experimentation and context-specific action, catalyzing institutional innovations in cities. These innovations involve creating new structures and modifying existing ones to help cities better withstand and adapt to the impacts of climate change. There are plenty of studies on this issue in developed country context, but such studies in the context of developing countries are lacking, especially in India. This article aims to explore the influence of polycentric governance on institutional innovations, thereby offering insights on how it contributes to transformative urban governance in India, characterized by (1) stewarding capacity, (2) unlocking capacity, (3) transformative capacity, and (4) orchestrating capacity. The research findings suggest that polycentric governance increases diversity and autonomy in decision-making centers across levels, which can enable more innovation or flexibility, leading to improving governance capacity to respond to changing circumstances, but these developments are still in nascent stage and further research is needed to assess the long-term sustainability of these capacities. The findings not only contribute to governance research and provide insights for policymaking, but also contribute to the broader discourse on urban resilience and sustainable development aligning with SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities) and SDG 17 (partnerships for the goals) globally, especially in the Global South.

1. Introduction

Climate change is a global problem that impacts both socioeconomic and natural systems [1]. Cities serve as the economic growth epicenters and are responsible for 70% of global GHG emissions, contributing two-thirds of global energy consumption [2]. The escalating frequency and intensity of extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, heatwaves, and forest fires significantly disrupt fundamental urban elements, including essential services, infrastructure, housing, health, and human livelihood within cities [3]. In the Global South, these risks manifest in situations characterized by considerable pre-existing socioeconomic inequalities and differing vulnerabilities [4]. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) acknowledge that city-level climate actions are essential for limiting global temperature rise to below the 1.5 °C target set by the 2015 Paris Agreement [5]. However, the imperative for urban governance systems lies in their capacity to adapt strategically to confront and mitigate the continually evolving uncertainties and multifaceted pressures engendered by the consequences of climate change [6]. Achieving these goals requires an integrated approach, considering social, economic, and environmental aspects, with active participation from all stakeholders [7].

Considering these challenges, both academicians and professionals are interested in investigating the potential of polycentric governance as an effective approach to managing cities amid the complexities of climate change [8]. A polycentric governance approach to climate change management refers to a system involving multiple decision-making centers at different scales (local, national, and global) and various actors (government, private sector, and civil society) interacting and collaborating to address common problems [8,9]. Polycentric governance can significantly augment the efficacy and sustainability of climate change policies tailored to urban settings by fostering collaborations and experimentation [10]. Polycentric governance, characterized by adaptability and flexibility, facilitates context-specific innovations. This approach advocates collaborative actions involving a spectrum of state and non-state entities, emphasizing the interactions among the diverse stakeholders involved [9]. These interactions are crucial, as they facilitate the exchange of knowledge, resources, and strategies, essential for developing robust governance capacities.

However, the existing literature predominantly concentrates on polycentricism within urban governance innovations in developed countries [11]. There is a need for research endeavors to actively engage and capture the institutional innovation landscape budding in urban governance within developing countries, especially as the Global South increasingly becomes the core center of urbanization. India, as the world’s most populous country and one of the fastest-growing economies, exemplifies this trend and holds significant implications for global climate change strategies. There is a notable trend of polycentricism, where diverse actors across sectors and administrative levels converge to experiment with innovative mechanisms [12].

This research explores elements of polycentric governance that foster innovations in urban climate governance in response to emerging challenges. The study aims to address the following key questions: How does polycentric governance influence institutional innovations within urban climate governance in India? What impact do institutional innovations, fostered by polycentric governance, have on the overall governance capacity to tackle urban climate challenges in Indian cities? To answer these, we will be looking at the specified governance capacity parameters, which are (1) stewarding capacity; (2) unlocking capacity, (3) transformative capacity, and (4) orchestrating capacity [13] (refer to Section 3.2 and Section 5.2).

This research contributes to theory by establishing linkages among various bodies in the literature, specifically addressing the dynamic evolution of urban governance, polycentricism, institutional innovation, and governance capacity. It endeavors to illustrate the role of polycentric elements within urban climate governance evolution, emphasizing their role in driving institutional innovation and contributing to governance capacity. The theoretical insights will be useful in highlighting the importance of institutional innovation considering the dynamic nature of climate change, which policymakers can leverage by fostering collaboration among diverse stakeholders, enabling multiple decision-making centers to operate effectively across various scales, and encouraging innovation and experimentation within urban governance processes. The research contribution is in synergy with Sustainable Development Goals 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), providing valuable implications for policymakers and practitioners focused on urban climate resilience.

The paper is organized as follows: the Introduction Section is followed by Section 2, which reviews the state of the art on governance capacity, polycentric governance, and institutional innovations. The methodology, covering research design, analytical framework, and data analysis, is presented next in Section 3, followed by the Results in Section 4 and discussion in Section 5, ending with the Conclusion Section.

2. Innovations in Urban Climate Governance—A Review

2.1. Governance Capacity

Urban governance is evolving to address the challenges posed by climate change. However, the core challenges in advancing transformative climate governance within cities are rooted in the necessity to cultivate the essential conditions for evolving institutional, organizational, and governance capacity [8]. The efficacy of governance is contingent upon the contextual intricacies and the interplay among stakeholders that impact collaborative problem-solving. In the context of climate change, governance capacity can be conceptualized as a set of requisite conditions necessary to propel the advancement of robust solutions [9]. Transformative climate governance can be defined as the “processes involving interaction and decision-making, where diverse actors work collaboratively to tackle climate mitigation and adaptation, with the deliberate aim of guiding societies towards low-carbon, resilient, and sustainable objectives” [8]. The framework for transformative climate governance capacities delineates four distinct capacity categories. These include (1) stewarding capacity, which involves generating and reinforcing system knowledge, self-organization, and continuous learning; (2) unlocking capacity, focused on revealing and dismantling existing structures, challenging vested interests, and overcoming resistance to change; (3) transformative capacity, encompassing the creation, incorporation, and highlighting of innovations; and (4) orchestrating capacity, dedicated to establishing strategic alignment through coordinating multi-actor processes across scales and sectors and shaping opportunity contexts [13]. These governance capacity parameters advocate for advancing the climate governance landscape by embracing more experimental, multi-scale, and cross-sectoral approaches. The aim is to identify and comprehend the specific conditions that enhance the capacity of urban actors to guide development towards sustainability and resilience.

2.2. Polycentric Governance and Institutional Innovation

Urban governance system encompasses the framework and processes through which cities are managed and governed [14]. Traditionally, urban governance has followed established norms and practices that may not be adequate or well-suited to the rapidly changing climate reality [15]. There is a need for transformative change in urban governance systems with a significant focus on institutions, and the mechanisms by which institutions can innovate to tackle emerging risks and pressures arising due to climate change [16].

Institutions need to adjust and transform in response to climate change impacts [17], encompassing both formal policies and informal agreements among the involved stakeholders [18]. Institutional Innovation is a crucial aspect for urban climate governance, as institutions must be capable of being receptive to new knowledge, prepared for risks and uncertainties, and looking for novel coordinated actions for climate change mitigation and adaptation [19]. Institutional innovations serve as catalysts for cultivating resilient institutions capable of navigating the complexities of an evolving world by integrating new insights, uncertainties, risks, and societal goals as the effects of climate change become more pronounced [20]. It involves the development and implementation of innovative strategies, policies, and practices that enable institutions to thrive in a rapidly changing environment [21]. For this research, we delineate institutional innovation as (1) changes in policy and governance frameworks and policy instruments for implementation (e.g., city-level climate action plan); (2) setting up new organizations to overlook climate adaptation and mitigation goals (creation of new climate change department or platform to coordinate climate action); and (3) novel coordination approaches (e.g., partnerships, knowledge exchange, and participatory forms) [19].

The role of polycentric governance in facilitating institutional innovations has received increased attention lately [22]. The reason for this could be attributed to polycentric governance system’s inherent nature of allowing for multiple nodes of authority to act independently and devise solutions [9]. Originally, this governance approach focused on public goods, common pool resources, and collective action dilemmas [23,24]. Polycentric governance involves a decentralized and multi-level approach where decision-making authority is distributed across various centers that organize themselves to collaboratively address a common problem [25]. In the context of climate governance, this approach emphasizes on flexibility and context-specific actions, ensures redundancy, and fosters adaptability and collaboration among diverse stakeholders [26]. This governance approach provides greater scope for innovation and support in scaling up solutions and enhancing institutional resilience [27]. This form of governance goes beyond formal government to include other actors, leading to a meta-polycentric order, which facilitates the creation and sharing of essential knowledge and incentives required to effectively address climate change [28]. From the perspective of multi-level governance, the evolution of urban climate governance occurs “at the intersection of horizontally networked structures of authority and vertically distributed responsibilities across various segments of the state.” This intricate interplay aligns with the principles of polycentric governance, emphasizing the coexistence of multiple centers of decision-making and authority within a broader governance framework [29]. Therefore, there is a need to further explore urban climate governance and understand the dynamics through the lens of polycentricity [30].

In urban climate governance, scholars have examined aspects such as policy innovation, experimentation, and the concept of urban laboratories [31,32]. These elements entail purposeful endeavors aimed at reconfiguring urban governance systems, i.e., institutional innovation, to enhance their ability to address issues stemming from climate change. Institutional innovation in urban climate governance pertains to alterations in both the formal and informal governing systems [33]. This may encompass changes in policy and legal frameworks that shape the process of decision-making, modifications in policy instruments for execution and modifications in coordination arrangements among various actors to set new goals and objectives, and working collaboratively to achieve them [6]. The existing literature indicates that institutional innovation in an urban governance system operates across various levels of governance and sectors, and involves coordinated action across multiple levels of governance (municipal, state/provincial, and national) and multiple sectors [16]. This approach underscores the alignment of urban climate governance evolution with the principles of polycentric climate governance, placing a strong emphasis on “Learning effects”, “demonstration effects”, and “adaptive management” when confronted with intricate challenges [34]. The following section will discuss several global examples that illustrate these concepts in practice.

2.3. Institutional Innovations in Urban Climate Governance—A Global Context

In the realm of urban climate governance, cities globally are adopting various innovative institutional strategies to improve their resilience and sustainability [35]. This section offers an overview of such innovations, under two different categories: learning-by-doing approach and collaboration and networked governance. These examples demonstrate how different cities are attempting to address the challenges of climate change through innovative governance structures and practices [36].

Learning-by-doing approach: In case of adaptation actions, lack of availability of a universal framework prompts cities to focus on the “learning-by-doing” approach, embracing an experimental method, learning through practical implementation [37]. One such example is the adaptation planning procedures implemented in Bergrivier, Drakenstein, and Eden Municipalities, located in South Africa’s Western Cape Province. Acknowledging the necessity of assisting municipalities in adapting to climate change, the Western Cape Government launched the Climate Change Municipal Support Programme, a new experimental program that followed the “learning-by-doing” approach and led to significant variations in the outcomes of each municipality’s adaptation planning process, catering to needs and vulnerability concerns. It was observed that for obtaining the required support and resources, it is important to mainstream climate change in the planning document. The success of the program was attributed to the presence of collaborative partnerships and relationships among stakeholders, including those external to the municipalities, and strong political will and leadership from within the municipality [38].

Collaboration and networked governance involving intra-organizational and inter-municipal collaborations are another form of institutional innovation that have the potential of unveiling innovative policy responses to climate change [39]. We observe two instances of collaborative efforts addressing climate change in Victoria, Australia, focusing on intra-municipal and inter-municipal levels. One instance emphasizes collaboration within local administration in Greater Geelong, where collaboration served as a facilitator for creating more cohesive plans for adapting to climate change. The second involves a regional collaboration in metropolitan Melbourne, where multiple municipalities collaborate with non-governmental partners to advance both climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts. We also observe collaboration among multiple municipalities to form “Climate Change Alliances.” These alliances are centered around the belief that building local capacities to respond to climate change requires networks and partnerships. They empower their member councils to embed climate change considerations throughout their organizations, enhancing the councils’ ability to support their communities in effectively addressing climate change [40]. Sweden’s Viable Cities Programme serves as a strategic national innovation program centered on enabling the shift towards climate-neutral and sustainable urban areas. Within this initiative, “Viable Cities” spearheads the planning and establishment of “Climate-Centric Cities” with a group of municipalities in Sweden [41].

2.4. Urban Climate Governance—A Case of India

Considering the escalating risks posed by climate-related challenges and the looming climate crisis, urban governance in India is evolving gradually to recognize the critical need to build urban resilience. This prioritization aims to mitigate economic losses and promote sustainable urban development [42].

The initiation of India’s climate policy discourse began with the launch of the National Climate Change Action Plan (NAPCC) in 2008 by the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change (MoEFCC). It includes eight national missions related to solar energy, enhanced energy efficiency, sustainable habitat, water, sustaining Himalayan ecosystems, green India, strategic knowledge for climate change, and sustainable agriculture [43]. Following this development, states and union territories in India have developed and implemented their climate strategies through State Action Plans on Climate Change (SAPCCs) under the guidance of MoEFCC, which align with the NAPCC. These plans specifically address local priorities and vulnerabilities unique to each region [44]. Although the initial climate policy did not formally recognize cities as distinct actors, missions such as solar energy, enhanced energy efficiency, sustainable habitat, and water management were highly relevant and crucial for urban areas.

There are multiple challenges associated with NAPCC and SAPCCs, noting their lack of detailed climate scenarios and inadequately designed sectoral policies in energy, environment, sanitation, and transport [45]. This underscores a significant policy gap in climate action planning at the city level in India, highlighting need for more robust, scientifically informed city climate action plans and policies. In this context, we observe various policy interventions across the governance levels targeted at reducing emissions, supporting adaptation, and developing resilience. Currently, urban climate policy discourse in India is characterized by a hybrid multi-level governance framework that combines elements of both top-down and bottom-up approaches [46], as detailed in Table 1. This framework integrates directives and resources from higher levels of government while allowing for significant autonomy and initiative at the local or regional level. It tends to achieve a balance between centralized guidance and support with decentralized decision-making and innovation, enhancing collaboration and cooperation among different levels of governance for effective policy implementation and problem-solving [47].

The national government launched various programs and strategies aimed at enhancing climate action at the city level, addressing emerging challenges, and promoting urban sustainability. These initiatives include the Climate Centre for Cities, Solar Cities Mission, Nagar Van Scheme, National Clean Air Programme, and Smart Cities Mission [48]. Additionally, several states and union territories, including Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Puducherry, and Sikkim, have established dedicated climate change departments or cells focused on climate-related issues. Furthermore, some states have created new organizations such as the Climate Council in Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu Green Company, which are specifically tasked with overseeing climate change activities and implementation projects [46]. Urban governance in India appears to be experimenting with institutional methods previously discussed under institutional innovations to address issues related to funding constraints and capacity-building needs at the local level, fostering collaborations among different stakeholders [49]. Some cities have established dedicated climate cells or departments within their administrative structure as part of Climate Change Action Plans (CAPs). These specialized units focus on devising and implementing climate-resilient policies, coordinating various departments, and collaborating with external stakeholders. Local civil society groups, boundary organizations such as city climate networks, and research institutions play pivotal roles in aiding cities in these efforts [50]. Innovative financing mechanisms are gaining traction, with cities exploring avenues such as green bonds, carbon trading, and impact investments to finance climate-resilient infrastructure and sustainable development projects [51]. Cities in India are increasingly recognizing the benefits of joining city climate networks as a strategic approach to facilitate knowledge exchange, collaboration, and collective action among cities facing similar climate-related challenges. For instance, cities in India are actively engaging in networks like the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group and ICLEI—Local Governments for Sustainability. These networks provide access to a wealth of knowledge, best practices, and resources shared by peers globally, enabling them to learn from successful initiatives implemented in other urban settings [48].

Table 1. Policy interventions in urban climate governance in India considered for this study.

Policy Intervention	Governance Approach
Smart Cities Mission (SCM) [52]	Top-down
Integrated Command and Control Centre (ICCC) [53]	Top-down
The Climate Centre for Cities (C-Cube) [54]	Top-down
City Investments to Innovate, Integrate and Sustain (CITIIS) [55]	Mixed
India Forum for Nature-Based Solutions (IFNBS) [56]	Top-down
Climate Accelerator Program—Maharashtra [57]	Mixed
Mumbai Climate Action Plan (MCAP) [58]	Bottom-up
Chennai Climate Action Plan (CCAP) [59]	Mixed
Bengaluru Climate Action and Resilience Plan (BCAP) [60]	Bottom-up
Climate Change and Environment Action Plan of Ahmedabad (CCEPA) [61]	Bottom-up

Table 1. Policy interventions in urban climate governance in India considered for this study.

Policy Intervention	Governance Approach
Smart Cities Mission (SCM) [52]	Top-down
Integrated Command and Control Centre (ICCC) [53]	Top-down
The Climate Centre for Cities (C-Cube) [54]	Top-down
City Investments to Innovate, Integrate and Sustain (CITIIS) [55]	Mixed
India Forum for Nature-Based Solutions (IFNBS) [56]	Top-down
Climate Accelerator Program—Maharashtra [57]	Mixed
Mumbai Climate Action Plan (MCAP) [58]	Bottom-up
Chennai Climate Action Plan (CCAP) [59]	Mixed
Bengaluru Climate Action and Resilience Plan (BCAP) [60]	Bottom-up
Climate Change and Environment Action Plan of Ahmedabad (CCEPA) [61]	Bottom-up

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Design

This study employs a qualitative research design [62] to explore the dynamic evolution of urban climate governance in India, focusing on institutional innovations. This study utilizes transformative change theory and actor network theory to develop a framework that provides a structured approach to identify and analyze the role of polycentric governance in institutional innovations and their impact on governance capacity in urban climate governance systems (refer to Section 3.2).

For this study, an exploratory research approach was employed and a comprehensive analysis of 25 government reports, policy documents, and the secondary literature was carried out to identify select initiatives (mentioned in Table 1) in urban climate governance in India. The selection criteria included significance of intervention in addressing urban climate challenges and its innovative approach. The identified initiatives were categorized into three thematic areas of institutional innovations, as mentioned in Section 2.2. This is summarized in

Table 2. Institutional innovations in urban climate governance in India *.

Thematic Areas of Institutional Innovation	Policy Interventions
Changes in policy and governance frameworks, and instruments for implementation	Smart Cities Mission (SCM) City Investments to Innovate, Integrate and Sustain (CITIIS) Mumbai Climate Action Plan (MCAP) Chennai Climate Action Plan (CCAP) Bengaluru Climate Action and Resilience Plan (BCAP) Climate Change and Environment Action Plan of Ahmedabad (CCEPA). Climate Accelerator Program—Maharashtra
Setting up new organizations	The Climate Centre for Cities (C-Cube) Integrated Command and Control Centre (ICCC) India Forum for Nature-Based Solutions The MCAP also spells out an institutional mechanism in the form of a “Climate Cell” to coordinate the implementation and monitoring
Coordination arrangements	Partnerships, collaborations, and networks Knowledge exchange platforms

* Policy interventions derived from Table 1.

, which serves as the basis for the subsequent analysis.

The analysis of empirical climate policy interventions in India, as detailed in Table 2, was conducted based on a comprehensive framework (Figure 1).

3.2. Analytical Framework

The paradigm of transformative change theory promotes cooperation and coordination across various local actors, including the public, private, civil society, and transnational organizations [63]. Transformative change theory also emphasizes on learning and experimentation, which enables local governments to try out different approaches and reflect on them to evaluate their own procedures [64]. Actor–network theory (ANT) is a theoretical framework used to understand the complex interactions between human and non-human actors (technology, knowledge availability, social, economic, and political factors) or entities in shaping social phenomena and organizing systems [65]. In the context of urban climate governance, actor networks can be conceived as the myriad actors or entities involved in decision-making and implementation processes related to climate change governance. Transformative change theory can help understand the mechanisms and drivers behind the interventions, detailed in Table 2, while actor–network theory provides insights into how various actors interact and shape these changes. These two theories capture the elements of polycentric governance pertaining to flexibility, experimentation and learning, and the networked nature of polycentric governance. The subsequent step is to analyze the impact of institutional innovation on the governance capacity, specifically stewarding capacity, unlocking capacity, transformative capacity, and orchestrating capacity.

3.3. Data Collection and Analysis

The data collection for this study is focused on secondary data sourced from policy documents and official websites related to climate policy interventions in urban governance across India, as listed in Table 1. The collection process involves a systematic approach to gather all relevant documents, ensuring comprehensive coverage of the interventions across different governance levels.

This study utilizes qualitative data analysis techniques, such as content analysis and thematic analysis, to examine policy interventions in India, as detailed in Table 1. Content analysis is a quantitative research method widely used for categorizing textual data to identify patterns, themes, or concepts within content [66]. Thematic analysis is a method for identifying, analyzing, and reporting themes (patterns) within qualitative data [67]. The analysis is conducted to identify and map the key themes based on the framework (Figure 1). The results of this analysis are summarized in

Table 3. Analysis of urban climate governance.

Policy Interventions	Drivers of Innovation	Process of Change	Barriers	Actors Involved	Interactions	Network Formation
Smart Cities Mission (SCM) [52]	Need to address urban challenges through efficient, sustainable, and technology-driven solutions. Improve quality of life and economic opportunities. Develop resilience to future challenges.	Transform cities into more livable, resilient, and inclusive spaces.	Capacity constraints, basic infrastructure deficits.	Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Smart City Advisory Forum, civil society, academic institutions, and citizens	Characterized by collaborative efforts, coordination among different levels of government and stakeholders. Competition among participating cities (Climate SMART Cities Assessment Framework).	The mission fosters the creation and maintenance of networks among cities, experts, and organizations to share best practices, innovations, and learnings to scale successful interventions.
Integrated Command and Control Centers (ICCCs) [53]	Need for smarter urban governance, integration of multiple streams of data for better management. Improve emergency response mechanisms.	Integrating various urban systems into a centralized platform, developing the information and communication technology infrastructure, operationalizing the centers for day-to-day city management and emergency responses.	Lack of skilled personal to operate and manage integrated data, financial resources needed for the initial setup and maintenance expenses, especially for smaller cities.	Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs	Facilitate knowledge sharing, resource pooling, and collective problem-solving.	Networks are formed between technology partners, city departments, emergency services.
The Climate Center for Cities (C-Cube) [54]	Urban challenges, increasing climate risks.	Strengthening capacities, synergizing, and scaling up climate actions, fostering partnerships, capacity building, policy, and planning toolkit development.	Inadequate data, lack of consensus among various stakeholders, securing adequate funding.	Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, National Institute of Urban affairs	Collaborative multi-stakeholder approach to enhance understanding, implementation, monitoring, and management of climate-related initiatives across Indian cities.	Building a community of stakeholders for urban climate resilience and to incorporate climate action within existing and future investments towards physical, social, and environmental services.
City Investments to Innovate, Integrate, and Sustain (CITIIS) [55]	Urbanization challenges, need of aligning with the Smart Cities Mission to improve urban infrastructure and governance.	Facilitating the adoption of successful innovations across cities and regions. Drive investments through select projects.	Long term sustainability of the projects can be a challenge.	Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, French Development Agency (Agence Francaise de Developpment), the European Union, and the National Institute of Urban Affairs	Partnering with the state government and state urban development department for capacity-building. Amplifying impact through international partnerships, monitoring and evaluation, and technology integration.	Establishing channels for continuous learning and adaptation among urban practitioners and policymakers and facilitating financial and technical support.
India Forum for Nature-Based Solutions (IFNBS) [56]	The need to find sustainable ways to mitigate climate change challenges while benefiting ecosystems and vulnerable communities.	Identifying and implementing nature-based solutions, scaling up these initiatives, and integrating them into urban planning and policy.	Mechanisms to monitor and evaluate the impact—essential to justify investment. Viability of nature-based solutions with increasing extreme weather risks.	NIUA, Climate Centre for cities, WRI India, GiZ India, India Climate Collaborative, The Nature Conservancy, WWF India, and Wetlands International	Building trust among partners and with the public to support and sustain nature-based solutions.	The forum represents a network of actors, mobilized and maintained to share knowledge, resources, and best practices. This network will need to be dynamic and adaptable, capable of bringing in new partners and evolving with the challenges it faces.
Climate Accelerator Program—Maharashtra [57]	Objective to align state with India’s net zero goal by 2070.	Developing concrete plans, projects, financing; decarbonization roadmap, strategic support, capacity-building, an innovative financing facilities in Maharashtra. The government of Maharashtra intends to fast-track the climate action agenda in 43 AMRUT cities.	Lack of vulnerability and capacity assessment for each city.	Government of Maharashtra Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, WRI India, C40 Cities, Bloomberg Philanthropies, India Climate Collaborative (ICC), Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF), and SED Fund	Mentorship, training, demonstration projects.	Creation of a platform through this program by the state government for all the cities in Maharashtra.
Mumbai Climate Action Plan (MCAP) [58]	Mumbai’s vulnerability to climate change, including major challenges such as rising temperatures and extreme rainfall events leading to massive flooding. Aim to make Mumbai a net-zero and climate-resilient city by 2050. Various recent extreme weather disasters in Maharashtra, such as Cyclone Tauktae and urban floods.	Strengthening existing environment department, updating greenhouse gas emissions inventory and climate and air pollution risks and vulnerability assessment every two years. Reviewing and revising the plan every five years.	Ensuring cooperative action and coordination across the departments can be challenge.	Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, Tourism and Protocol, Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), development partners (C40 Cities, WRI)	Inclusive approach involving various stakeholders. BMC association with the C40 Network helped in providing the roadmap. WRI India provide expertise in climate science, sustainable urban planning, policy analysis, stakeholder engagement.	Including government departments, research organizations, resident forums, and international development agencies, to ensure the plan benefits all residents equitably.
Chennai Climate Action Plan (CCAP) [59]	Urbanization, increased effects of climate change. Align targets to the Paris Agreement, Climate neutrality in Chennai by 2050 Developed with support from Urban Management center, Ahmedabad, and C40 Cities.	Mitigation and adaptation strategies, public engagement.	Action plan requires domain knowledge of multidisciplinary experts, which is lacking in the implementing bodies.	Greater Chennai Corporation, C40 Cities, Urban Management Center	Involves coordination among Greater Chennai Corporation, C40 climate cities network and research organizations to have evidence-based policy targets. Alignment with district Climate Change Mission and monitoring based on the National government’s urban sanitation and cleanliness survey (Swachha Sarvekshan) show synergy across the levels of governance.	Department of climate change initiatives (DCCI) established as a coordinating platform for all the stakeholders involved to implement the objectives of the action plan.
Bengaluru Climate Action and Resilience Plan (BCAP) [60]	Challenges such as urban heat, flooding, thunderstorms, lightning, and air pollution, which necessitate targeted action plans. Commitment to the C40 Cities network. Association of WRI India as knowledge partner—focused on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and building healthy, equitable, and resilient communities.	The process involves setting up of Climate Action Cell for enabling stakeholder coordination and resources needed to implement the BCAP.	Availability of adequate funding and staff available with the Climate Action Cell. Political and administrative support it receives.	Bangalore Municipal Corporation, Urban Development Department, Government of Karnataka, WRI India, C40 Cities, Cities4Forests	BCAP is multi-sectoral collaborative effort, drawing participation from various departments of the Government of Karnataka, civil society, and the private sector.	Network of subnational and non-state actors with city climate network like C40.
Climate Change and Environment Action Plan of Ahmedabad (CCEPA) [61]	Vulnerabilities to extreme whether events. Need to harmonize local actions with national climate goals, emphasizing holistic policy adjustments. The CCEAP aims to complement the SAPCC.	The rationale behind this action plan is to follow a bottom-up approach to climate-proof development priorities for the district.	Alignment of the recommendations of action plan in coherence with existing policies and regulations.	Vasudha Foundation, Climate Change Department Gujarat, Ecological Education and Research Foundation, Forests and Environment Department, Government of Gujarat, Shakti Sustainable Energy Foundation	The coordinating partners with their unique capabilities—research and knowledge, financial support, implementation role work in synergy.	Network of subnational and non-state actors across various levels of governance.

and are further discussed in the Results and Discussion Section of this document. This analysis follows policy document analysis [68] that considers a cautious, focused re-reading and review of the policy documents.

Table 3 provides a detailed map of the interventions, offering insights into multifaceted aspects such as drivers of innovation, processes of change, barriers encountered, involved actors, and the dynamics of their interactions and network formation.

4. Results

This section presents three types of institutional innovation observed in urban climate governance in India: (1) changes in policy and governance frameworks and instruments for implementation, (2) setting up new organizations, and (3) coordination arrangements.

4.1. Changes in Policy and Governance Frameworks and Instruments for Implementation

Adaptability and gradual adjustment in response to emerging challenges is evident in India’s Urban climate governance. The SCM was launched by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs in 2015 to promote sustainable and inclusive urban development. As the program was implemented, there have been gradual refinements, with the launch of subsidiary programs like the CITIIS program in 2018. CITIIS was launched by MoHUA in partnership with the French Development Agency (Agence Française de Développement) and European Union to provide technological support and additional funding support to select smart cities emphasizing innovation and scalability of successful projects. Subsequently, supporting agencies like ICCCs and C-Cube were established to enhance the impact of the SCM.

The SCM catalyzed a pivotal phase in urban climate action by encouraging cities to implement and test diverse climate strategies and active engagement. This initiative fostered a culture of experimentation and iterative learning within urban centers, with various city-level voluntary climate action plans: MCAP, CCAP, BCAP, CCEPA, and Climate Accelerator Program—Maharashtra. Although the efficacy and impact of these initiatives remain a topic of discussion, they have undeniably accelerated the discourse on climate within the urban governance framework. There are three main types of facilitators for changes in policy and governance framework, as observed in Table 3. These are (1) policy interventions by the national government for orchestrating the city actions, (2) interventions by the state government to coordinate the cities within their jurisdiction, and (3) voluntary climate policy interventions by cities.

4.2. Setting Up New Organizations

As policies evolve or new policies are formalized, the need for coordinating centers that can guide the implementation of the policies becomes crucial. The formation of new organizations is fostered by increased risk and thus demand for coordinating centers for the emerging policies. We observe examples from the analysis presented in Table 3: NIUA established C-Cube to create synergy across all climate actions undertaken by Indian cities and work with a range of stakeholders to focus on building capacities of cities to understand, implement, and monitor. The platform thrives to incorporate climate action within existing and future social, physical, and environmental services to ensure sustainable development. Another example is that of the IFNBS, with its goal to catalyze widespread adoption and scaling of urban nature-based solutions (NbS) across India. It seeks to integrate urban ecosystem-based services and NbS knowledge to guide policy formulation, shaping development plans and guiding project interventions across India’s urban landscape. Bangalore Climate Action Cell, established to implement the objectives of the BCAP, aims to enable stakeholder coordination and resources needed. Its role is to help the city agencies turn actions into implementable and bankable projects in collaboration with all partners. It also envisions to ensure that the city is on track to achieve the goals and targets set under the BCAP across all seven sectors in coordination with all stakeholder agencies.

4.3. Coordination Arrangements

Effectively addressing climate change demands coordination arrangements to develop new patterns and processes of engagement, financing, and collaboration. If we look at the examples listed in Table 3, we observe two types of coordination arrangements—vertical coordination across different levels and horizontal coordination among various actors at the same level. Vertical coordination ensures coherence and synergy from national to local scale while horizontal coordination brings together diverse actors at the same governance level. The India Forum for Nature-Based Solutions exemplifies a collaborative approach by engaging a diverse network of actors across multiple governance levels, including national actor NIUA C-Cube; transnational actors including the Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs and the Government of United Kingdom and Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative; and non-state entities such as WRI India, GiZ India, India Climate Collaborative, the Nature Conservancy, WWF India, Wetlands International, and the Caterpillar Foundation.

5. Discussion

In this section, the following are examined: Section 5.1—Role of Polycentric governance in facilitating Institutional innovations; Section 5.2—Impact of Institutional Innovation on Governance Capacity Limitations; and Section 5.3—Limitations and Future Research Agenda.

5.1. Role of Polycentric Governance in Facilitating Institutional Innovations

Changes in policy and governance frameworks and instruments for implementation are crucial to exhibit greater resilience and adaptability to changing conditions and facilitate dynamic adjustments over time [69]. “Experimentation” and the “learning by doing approach” is a crucial aspect of polycentric governance associated with climate response. This approach allows for cities to tailor their strategies according to their unique contexts and circumstances by setting policy goals through climate action plans [70]. However, there was no uniform methodology or mechanism followed; each city adopted a unique approach guided by city leadership, collaborative associations with external organizations (e.g., research organizations, city climate networks), and the resources available. The SCM laid the premises for developing city-level adaptation, mitigation, and resilience measures, involving decision-making centers to act and develop solutions at multiple nodes, following a polycentric approach. We observe cities in other developing countries following similar approach; for instance, cities in Brazil are increasingly adopting experimental method and reinforcing the legal and institutional structures for multi-level climate governance challenges. Addressing carbon lock-in policies is crucial to sustainability transitions [70].

Polycentric governance encompasses context-specific transient actions with low entry and exit costs, enabling interventions to emerge when necessary and fade once objectives are met [71]. Organizations like C-Cube, IFNBS, and Bangalore Climate Action Cell ensure climate goals and strategy are taken forward for sustained actions. Such organizations act as coordination centers, provide technical advice, and follow-up on reporting. These climate-specific agencies attempt to supplement the lack of climate knowledge among professionals in existing institutions. They influence overall governance capacity, but there is a need for monitoring their progress and assessing their actual impact. Future research to determine if they are truly driving meaningful change to ensure that these initiatives are not only well intentioned but also effective in delivering tangible outcomes is necessary.

Polycentric governance advocates for collaborations by bringing together multiple actors and stakeholders to address complex policy issues. The network of actors from different arenas coordinates and interacts to enhance overall capacity by mobilizing resources, sharing knowledge and best practices, and devising effective solutions. Enhancing coordination and collaboration promotes social and anticipatory learning and action, crucial elements for establishing and maintaining institutional resilience [71]. Research on a local government collaboration network for risk management in Mexico City revealed networks operate both vertically with higher-level government authorities and international organizations and horizontally with neighboring local governments, local communities, and civil society organizations to mobilize resources [72]. The India Forum for Nature-Based Solutions serves as an interesting and illustrative example, demonstrating that collaboration (vertically and horizontally) and co-creation processes within urban governance to pool resources from different stakeholders.

5.2. Impact of Institutional Innovation on Governance Capacity

This section examines the impact of institutional innovation on the urban governance framework, which is reflected across four key capacities as follows and summarized in

Table 4. Institutional innovations and impact on governance capacities.

Institutional Innovation	Stewarding Capacity	Unlocking Capacity	Transformative Capacity	Orchestrating Capacity
Changes in policy and governance frameworks and instruments for implementation	Policy instruments contribute to assessment of vulnerabilities and help in developing an understanding regarding current and future climate risks.	Help identify the unsustainable pathways Evolving policies help bring in the alternative low carbon pathways.	Progressive policy changes promote systemic shifts and incentivize sustainable practices.	Policy instruments promoting synergies and minimize trade-off. Adaptation actions with mitigation as benefits, synergies between the SDGs.
Setting up new organizations	Helps establish information and communication channels for management of policy instruments and emergency responses.	Not applicable.	Act as interface for the science policy integrations and involvement of academic advisory is crucial, help transform the implementation to be more climate sensitive.	Act as central node and facilitate coordination among diverse actors by acting as central nodes for collaboration and communication, organizing networks and platforms.
Coordination arrangements	Not applicable.	Encourage collaboration with societal actors like academic, citizens, civil society organizations, private sector.	Not applicable.	Multi-actor network helps in the pooling together of resources, knowledge, technology, and financial capacity.

.

5.2.1. Stewarding Capacity

Stewarding capacity refers to actors’ capability to anticipate, foresee, safeguard against, and rebound from challenges while also utilizing the available sustainable development opportunities [73]. This capacity is pivotal in urban governance systems, especially as cities navigate climate change challenges. In this context, climate action plans (CAPs) are instrumental, as they help cities with a guided roadmap to reduce emissions, adapt, and develop resilience. CAPs also facilitate assessment of vulnerabilities and thus help in developing an understanding regarding current and future climate risks. Additionally, they facilitate the generation of sector-specific emissions data, which can help policymakers to access significant carbon footprint contributors and strategize targeted actions. Another notable example that impacts stewarding capacity is the establishment of ICCCs as an extension to the SCM by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs. An ICCC aims to develop a unified system that can monitor, manage, and integrate the functioning of various urban services and infrastructure. The objective is to monitor environmental parameters such as air quality, temperature, and water levels, contributing to better environmental management and sustainability efforts and enabling quicker responses and coordination among various agencies. It aims to institutionalize the learnings pertaining to immediate emergency response to urban challenges as well as long-term sustainability of city management. However, the scarcity of specialized workforce skills in data analytics, systems integration, and emergency management are key challenges that need to be considered to fulfil the objectives of establishing ICCCs.

5.2.2. Unlocking Capacity

Unlocking capacity involves revealing and dismantling unsustainable path dependencies in existing structures that undermine vested interests. Since adhering to business as usual is no longer a viable option, cities must possess a significant level of unlocking capacity [74]. City climate action plans involve making a vulnerability profile of the city and can act as a medium for identifying and highlighting the current practices that contribute to vulnerabilities and helping recognize unsustainable path dependencies. Various city-level CAPs aim to bridge crucial element of inclusivity and equity, which were often overlooked in the urbanization discourse. CCAP and MCAP consider the disproportionate impact of climate change on the vulnerable communities. The involvement of local civil society organizations and research think tanks can be credited for bringing in the inclusivity perspective [75]. While the discussion around equitable distribution of resources and vulnerability is gaining momentum, it is crucial to scrutinize their on-ground implementation. This examination is essential to ensure that these are not mere theoretical concepts confined to policy documents but are actively implemented to make practical difference. In this context, the CITIIS program tends to unlock the potential for cities to embrace new, environmentally sustainable economic models by offering financial and technical assistance for up to 18 smart cities, focusing on projects that promote a circular economy, with an emphasis on integrated waste management. The aim is to develop infrastructure and services that are sustainable, reduce waste, and efficiently use resources [76]. A critical obstacle in fostering systemic change is the lack of political will to advance and allocate resources towards systemic transformations. Research organizations, civil society organizations, and city networks can exert pressure for political support and have evidence- and research-based alternatives for low-carbon pathways.

5.2.3. Transformative Capacity

Transformative capacity refers to the capability of individuals or groups to innovate and integrate these innovations into existing structures, practices, and narratives. In urban climate governance, institutional innovations utilize a variety of initiatives and instruments that encourage and assist cities in fostering innovation, enhancing the visibility of new ideas, and embedding these innovations within specific contexts [13]. The conception of the CITIIS program can be regarded as an initiative to contribute to transformative capacity. The objective of this program is to promote innovative sustainable solutions and projects at the city and state level by also focusing on integrating these innovations into the institutional framework and ensure their long-term sustainability. Climate action plans enable cities to anticipate and prepare for future challenges and opportunities for transformative change. This proactive stance allows for cities to be more agile and responsive in their climate governance efforts, adapting to new information and emerging trends to steer development towards sustainability and resilience [77]. Enhancing transformative capacity hinges significantly on integrating climate considerations into the development and planning processes, an area requiring increased focus from policymakers and urban planners.

5.2.4. Orchestrating Capacity

Orchestrating capacity refers to the capability of individuals or groups to effectively coordinate efforts involving multiple stakeholders. This involves enhancing collaboration and synergy while reducing conflicts and trade-offs across different levels and areas of operation [78]. Illustrations of such strategic orchestrations are evident in the conception of the C-Cube and ICCCs, which act as platforms for strategic planning and policy formulation among myriad actors and sectors in propelling collaborative action. These endeavors exemplify the orchestration of diverse stakeholders across multi-level governance frameworks to enhance urban climate resilience and sustainability. Through intensified collaborative engagement with sectors such as academia, the private sector, and citizens, cities can identify, facilitate, and incorporate resources extending beyond municipal confines. However, a disconnect between actors, levels, and sectors and the short-term funding structure can create tension in enabling collaboration [79].

5.3. Limitations and Future Research Agenda

This study highlights the role of polycentric governance in facilitating institutional innovations and the subsequent impact on governance capacity. Certain limitations should be acknowledged, and the future research agenda should focus on addressing the same. First, the policy interventions examined are relatively recent, and their long-term outcomes have yet to fully emerge. Future research should focus on longitudinal studies that monitor both short-term outcomes and long-term impacts. Secondly, this study is qualitative, making it difficult to quantify the impact of institutional innovations in a measurable way. Future research should analyze reporting and monitoring aspects under these interventions to access tangible outcomes. Developing a deeper understanding of contextual dimensions that shape synergies or trade-offs of urban climate responses with the SDG targets will allow for policymakers to better design and implement initiatives.

6. Conclusions

This study underscores the critical need for institutions to evolve and adopt resilient and responsive strategies to effectively address the unprecedented challenges posed by climate change. The existing literature largely focuses on polycentricism in urban governance innovations in developed countries, much less on developing counties.

This research puts forth a conceptual framework to access the role of polycentric governance in fostering institutional innovations, and the subsequent impact on governance capacity within urban climate governance in India. First, this research analyses empirical cases of policy interventions in urban governance and categorize them into three types of innovations in institutions: (1) changes in policy and governance frameworks and instruments for implementation, (2) establishment of new organizations, and (3) coordination arrangements. Subsequently, this research assesses how the evolving institutions impact governance capacities, namely, stewarding, unlocking, transformative, and orchestrating capacities.

The institutional innovations in urban climate governance in India have contributed to governance capacity. First, changes in policy and governance frameworks and instrument impact stewarding, unlocking, transformative, and orchestrating capacities by assessing vulnerabilities and understanding current and future climate risks. Calibration of policies according to evolving challenges can suggest how to minimize trade-offs, promote synergies, and align adaptation actions with mitigation benefits, contributing to the achievement of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and facilitating integration into national policy frameworks. Second, the establishment of new organizations influence stewarding, transformative, and orchestrating capacities. By managing policy instruments and emergency responses, they act as communication channels and help bridge gap between policy planning and implementation. The organizations serve as an interface for integrating science and policy by having active consultations with research organizations and experts to ensure climate-sensitive development. Third, coordination arrangements impact unlocking and orchestrating capacities by facilitating collaboration among diverse set of actors such as academia, citizens, civil society organizations, transnational organizations, funding agencies. These multi-actor networks enable the pooling of resources—knowledge, technology, and financial capacity—thereby improving the overall effectiveness of urban climate governance. However, several challenges remain unaddressed, and additional challenges may emerge in the future.

The main limitation of this study is that many of the policy interventions examined, especially city-level climate action plans, are recent, making it difficult to assess their outcomes and actual on-ground impact. The long-term effects and sustainability of institutional innovations require longitudinal studies, which are beyond the scope of the current analysis. Also, the pace of urbanization is a concern, as it may outpace innovations in urban climate governance, leading to gap between policy development and implementation. Future research should prioritize longitudinal studies to evaluate immediate outcomes and the long-term impacts of the evolving urban governance framework. It is crucial for policymakers to acknowledge this while focusing on emerging urban centers. As this study explores urban governance and its evolution in India, another research study could beneficially examine similar developments in other developing countries to broaden our understanding of this context.

In conclusion, this research contributes to the academic discussion on the role of polycentric governance in institutional innovations in urban governance. It provides insights for policymakers striving to enhance the adaptive and transformative capacities of cities. Future studies can extend these insights to other contexts and challenges in urban governance.