**5. Discussion**

Implementation of effective landscape approaches calls for an iterative process of trial, learning, and adaptation that is designed to meet the specific socio-spatial conditions of the area [25]. Governance of informal settlements is complicated by the lack of defined landscape approaches and implementation blueprints. Academics are increasingly playing pivotal roles in leading the learning processes and facilitating actor-collaborations and multi-stakeholder engagements as was demonstrated in the CoDEC project, thereby becoming the much-needed change agents in solving some of the world's most pressing urban challenges [15,18,55,56].

#### *5.1. Landscape and Energy Policy Interventions*

In policy and planning, landscapes are often viewed as administrative territories that are geographically bound and thus subject to territorial policy and planning interventions [25,52]. This paper emphasizes the importance of widening the scope and creating actor-networks that move beyond geographical boundaries [27]. We maintain that sustainable and effective landscape governance requires the creation of networks that transcend the boundaries and connect sustainable interventions across different landscapes and different administrative areas [25,57]. For example, a river connects different areas and varied activities across different administrative territories both upstream and downstream [8]. This means that the illegal dumping of solid wastes and household refuse done on Mathare River affects Mathare residents and communities downstream who depend on the river [36]. Multi-level collaboration characterised by multi-stakeholders and multi-sector engagemen<sup>t</sup> is thus required in the governance of the Mathare landscape and others that are connected to it. Energy transition strategies also need to be driven by the same principle of multi-stakeholder collaborations across di fferent sectors and governmen<sup>t</sup> levels [17,18,58]. Through a landscape approach, stakeholders can view energy issues from a landscape perspective.

Lessons can be drawn from countries such as Chile and Brazil, where residents exchange recyclable wastes for a reduction in their electricity cost. In 2007, the 'Ecoelce' initiative was launched in Brazil. The program allowed exchange of recyclable garbage for a bonus in the electricity bill [59]. It is estimated that the program led to proper disposal of over 18,500 tons of waste in Fortaleza. The success of this program saw it replicated in Santiago and Rio de Janeiro in 2010 [59]. Initiating such a project in Mathare would help solve the challenges of waste disposal and ease the cost burden of accessing legal electricity connection. The focus will shift from just increasing access to electricity to ensuring that residents access this energy in ways that are not detrimental to the environment, natural resources, and the safety of other people within and outside the landscape [17,18]. Such projects require investment of human, technical, and financial resources from diverse stakeholders. Therefore, there is need to develop close working relationships between governmen<sup>t</sup> agencies, academics, and residents of informal settlements to allow the stakeholders to co-explore relevant issues and coproduce potential solutions [3,18].

#### *5.2. Failure of Standardised Policy Interventions*

Current landscape and policy interventions do not adequately address the land and clean energy issues in Mathare informal settlement. From the CoDEC research, the team concluded that Kenya's energy policy and regulations are highly standardised and might therefore not work for the urban informal settlement dwellers [17,18,22]. The takeaway point from this paper is that urban informality cannot be understood through standardised measurements because di fferent informal settlements raise di fferent challenges of understanding and governance. Clean energy transitions and governance of informal settlement landscapes cannot therefore be governed through blueprint or standard policy interventions [17]. Universal electrification is one example of a standardising policy that has failed to work in solving energy challenges of informal settlements. For example, in South Africa, a solar power project was established in 2011 in Enkanini informal settlement to achieve the goal of universal electrification [10]. The project improved safety through street lighting but failed to substitute the use of multi-purpose fuels such as charcoal and kerosene. A similar biogas initiative was once implemented in Mathare but failed after one year because of capacity limitation and lack of community support.

Africa leads the world in the adoption of pre-paid electricity systems that have worked well in South Africa and in Kenya [59]. However, when the pre-paid system was introduced in Mathare, the residents used it for a few months before reverting to the illegal connections that were cheaper than the pre-paid system because illegal connections are not metred. During the workshops and focus group discussions, residents attributed the initiative's failure to lack of consultation between the community, government, and utility provider. In the key informant interviews, representatives from the utility provider and regulator attributed the failure to residents' unwillingness to switch from illegal connection. Evidence of interventions working in some areas and failing in others demonstrates that community initiatives are likely to work better if they are informed by context-specific needs and experiences of residents [17,30,42,59,60].

Similarly, environmental policies implemented by the Government of Kenya to reduce deforestation and protect the environment would work better if access to alternative and safe energy in a ffected landscapes is increased. Implementation of one in the absence of the other will do little to solve the underlying problems [61]. The charcoal ban policy in Kenya was a top-level intervention implemented at the national level. Failure of top-down approaches to decision-making and policy development is increasingly becoming evident [49,62,63]. A more bottom-up approach where stakeholders are included is increasingly gaining prominence as a more appropriate mode of decision making to address the complexities of urban development [62]. Co-designing solutions with the local stakeholders ensures inclusion in decision making and increases the chances of developing integrated policies that work for the local community [64]. According to Beunen and Opdam, successful solutions are only developed in collaboration between practitioners, local communities, and researchers [65]. This marks a shift from governmen<sup>t</sup> to governance where the need to coordinate between multi-stakeholders and resources is emphasised [49]. Only then can place-based solutions be created and implemented for effective long-term change.

#### *5.3. Academics as Intermediaries of Change and Knowledge Co-Creation*

By acting as intermediaries and catalysts of change, academics facilitate co-learning and co-design of solutions among different stakeholders [18]. The term landscape approach captures and is founded on the aspiration of a transdisciplinary approach and collaborative governance [24,52,59,66,67]. A key similarity between a transdisciplinary co-design approach and a landscape governance approach is that both aim to foster cross-sector collaboration using co-creative methods that are effective, iterative, and integrative [18,50]. These approaches help actors to move from a business-as-usual model [68] and embrace more participatory co-learning approaches that aim to build a meaningful consensus between multiple stakeholders [18,69]. Translating knowledge into action that allows mitigation, adaptation, and landscape solutions in informal settlements is a challenge [66]. Overcoming this challenge calls for multi-level governance that is based on learning and knowledge co-production in concrete human-nature systems (i.e., Landscapes) [24]. Transdisciplinary research entails collaboration and knowledge co-creation between different communities of place and practice and is, therefore, an effective avenue for translating knowledge into action [10,66]. In the CoDEC research, the transdisciplinary approach was anchored on the place-based realities of residents in Mathare [17,18]. Community members exchanged ideas with policymakers on how best to deal with the issue of illegal connection and cartels' operations in the informal settlement. Such encounters are steps towards building trust, consensus, and creating positive change and sustainable transitions in informal landscapes.

Building consensus requires acknowledgment that different stakeholders often have contrasting views and competing interests [24]. In addressing the interrelations between clean energy and landscapes, Zoellner et al. regard societal acceptance as the ideal worth striving for [70]. Conflict and disagreements are problems that should be avoided. On the contrary, Leibenath and Lintz and Carvalho et al. argue that the adoption of democratic principles of contestation and competition of ideas is more important [51]. The idea here is that competing ideas are effective in exposing salient issues and enhancing strong collaborations [50,51]. In support of Leibenath and Lintz's and Carvalho et al.'s argument, we believe that a transdisciplinary co-design methodology to energy and landscape governance is a promising approach. In the CoDEC project, stakeholders gave different ideas to solve the challenges facing Mathare. These varying ideas were iterated through the University of Nairobi Living Lab to ensure that stakeholders' views were captured, and common solutions developed [71]. This led to the creation of a strong actor-network that would allow the delivery of place-based solutions [17,18]. This enhances the translation of knowledge into action that allows mitigation and adaptation measures to be implemented [15].
