Building actor-centric transformative capacity through city-university partnerships

Abstract

Cities worldwide are rising to the challenge of sustainable development, calling for large-scale and fast-paced transformations towards sustainability. Urban sustainability challenges are now being reframed as a lack of capacity of individuals and organizations to carry out such socio-technical transformations. This article expands on transformative capacity literature by elucidating the concept of actor-centric transformative capacity. It focuses on the unique role city-university partnerships (CUPs) can play in catalyzing and supporting effective urban sustainability transformations. Two case studies on CUPs in Portland, Oregon and Tempe, Arizona are used to identify determinants of actor-centric transformative capacity, their role in the transformative capacity of urban systems, and how they are built through CUPs. The article concludes with strategies for building effective CUPs capable of building actor-centric transformative capacity among university actors and city administrators.

Introduction

Revived pursuits towards sustainability in cities around the world respond to a lack of leadership by national governments and threats at their doorsteps (Withycombe Keeler et al. 2017). The UN-Habitat “World Cities Report 2016” (UN Habitat 2016) opens with a slew of challenges cities encounter around the world (p. 1): “Persistent urban issues […] include urban growth, changes in family patterns, growing number of urban residents living in slums and informal settlements, and the challenge of providing urban services. […] Emerging urban issues include climate change, exclusion and rising inequality, rising insecurity and upsurge in international migration.” The concluding statement reads: “The current model of urbanization is unsustainable in many respects” (ibid.). While these challenges have been well documented over the past 20 years, similarly well documented are calls for a “new urban agenda” that should “promote cities and human settlements that are environmentally sustainable, resilient, socially inclusive, safe and violence-free and economically productive” (ibid.).

Paradoxically, cities are also hailed as hubs of innovation (West 2017). Their density, culture, geography, and planning make them drivers of economic growth, technological development, and idea generation (Ernstson et al. 2010; Broto and Bulkeley 2013; Komninos 2013). In the age of “smart cities,” however, there are challenges to translating innovation into sustainability transformation. In fact, many of the factors that drive innovation in cities may exacerbate sustainability problems unless appropriately harnessed (Ernstson et al. 2010). The underlying governance practices and capacities in cities, particularly as they pertain to new and increasingly complex challenges, have been identified as core components of the problem (Phares 2009; Bulkeley 2010; Smith and Wiek 2012; Wolfram et al. 2016).

Sustainability-oriented universities and researchers have been keen to partner with city administrations in an effort to incubate sustainability transformation (Nevens et al. 2013; Trencher et al. 2014). This orientation has been critiqued as lacking reflexivity as universities themselves struggle to realize the vision of the twenty-first century university or the New American University (Thaman 2002; Tapscott and Williams 2010; Crow and Dabars 2015). Nevertheless, partnerships between cities (i.e., city administrations) and universities can provide opportunities for learning on both sides. This learning may be key to leveraging the capabilities of cities and universities in service of sustainability transformation in urban systems (Trencher et al. 2014; Withycombe Keeler et al. in review). In particular, the observation that large-scale and fast-paced transformations towards sustainability may be necessary to avoid significant long-term harm to people and the environment, has led to calls for “transformative capacity” in urban systems, institutions, and individuals (Marshall et al. 2012; Wolfram 2016). While city governments are a logical and powerful locust for transformative capacity, universities can also be powerful drivers of sustainability transformation (Trencher et al. 2013). Advancing transformation “may in turn require transformations in organizational methodology, major investments in capacity, and the development of new skills and ways of working” (Pelling et al. 2015, p. 123). This means that city-university partnerships (CUPs) for sustainability are uniquely positioned to build the transformative capacity to catalyze, support, and sustain such change.

Transformative capacity enables actors and organizations to initialize, facilitate, implement, or contribute to transformations towards sustainability (Wolfram et al. 2016). Building upon the framework developed by Wolfram (2016), we explore transformative capacity from an actor-centric perspective. Thereby, we focus on municipal administrators and university actors collaborating in efforts to transform urban systems towards sustainability. An actor-centric conceptualization of transformative capacity centers on individuals and organizations contributing to urban sustainability transformation, including sustainability visioning, exploration, planning, implementing pilot projects and action strategies, as well as monitoring and evaluation (Loorbach 2007; Nevens et al. 2013). Sustainability-oriented CUPs offer an opportunity to systematically develop and sustain projects that build transformative capacity in city administrations and at universities in order to affect change in urban systems (Trencher et al. 2014; Miller et al. 2015; Withycombe Keeler et al. 2016; Allen et al. 2017) (Table 1).

Table 1.

Determinants of actor-centric transformative capacity within CUPs: Examples from ASU-Tempe CUP and PSU-Portland CUP

Actor-centric transformative capacity	PSU—Portland	ASU—Tempe
Confidence	Provided the space to integrate data from multiple bureaus Created a stakeholder group that supported this approach and created momentum for working together	City admin “practice” designing transformation strategies City admin have existing efforts reframed in terms of sustainability and resilience Researchers see impact of their research on sustainability efforts in city
Competence	Focus on building competence at integrating resiliency data set across multiple bureaus Uncovered bureau-specific cultures and norms that drive decision-making and constraints	Focus on building key competencies in sustainability in city admin. Deepened university applied strategic and systems thinking competence
Commitment	40 city actors committed to multiple interviews and then to spend 2 full days in a workshop A subsection of this group played a key role in the development of the synthesis report and now serve on the resilience advisory committee	Over project period, sustainability manager position transition to sustainability director position
Power	Uncovering the power of the university to facilitate transformation efforts	Elevation of the office of sustainability to a department of sustainability with a director-level head

This article examines two case studies of CUPs in contrasting cities and distinct universities: Arizona State University (ASU) and the City of Tempe vs. Portland State University (PSU) and the City of Portland. These CUPs have been collaborating since 2017 on the CapaCities project, which is a network of five CUPs funded by the Global Consortium for Sustainability Outcomes (https://sustainabilityoutcomes.org), and focuses on transformative capacity building. The other CUPs are at Leuphana University and Lüneburg, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology and Karlsruhe, and the National Autonomous University of Mexico and Mexico City. In each of the CUPs, university actors work with city administrators to understand the urban systems in need of sustainability transformation as well as the governance arrangements and challenges that enable and constrain transformation. The partnerships were established with the explicit goal of increasing the capacity of the cities to transform, and grew to focus on the transformative capacity of the city administrators themselves.

The case studies are used to

• i.define key determinants of actor-centric transformative capacity possessed by individuals and organizations that can enable transformation towards sustainability in urban systems;
• ii.describe the unique role that CUPs can have in urban sustainability transformation via transformative capacity building.

The article adds to the growing literature on transformative capacity by defining determinants of actor-centric transformative capacity. These determinants are not exhaustive; they are defined through the lens of CUPs and focus solely on university and city actors while clearly there are other actor groups that are essential to urban sustainability transformations. However, these unique and growing partnerships are explicitly attempting to contribute to urban sustainability transformation and they are expanding in frequency and intensity of collaboration (Trencher et al. 2014). As cities seek partnerships with universities to further their sustainability efforts, and universities seek out cities in which to conduct real-world experiments, there is a need to identify how to design mutually beneficial partnerships that can yield sustainability outcomes. Transdisciplinary sustainability science has commented on the structure of transdisciplinary research approaches capable of yielding both societal and scientific outcomes (Lang et al. 2012), but less attention has been paid to the partnership itself and the critical role it plays in structuring and resourcing effective sustainability transformations and sustaining them over time.

Actor-centric transformative capacity through city-university partnerships: Case studies

The following case studies of ASU and Tempe vs. PSU and Portland take the view of each CUP as a combined entity which can be the target of actor-centric transformative capacity-building efforts. Yet, a heavier emphasis is often placed on city administrators because they make decisions that alter urban system functioning.

Case study: City of Portland and Portland State University

The city of Portland has a long-standing commitment to sustainability, being one of the first cities in North America to draft a climate action plan and leaders in the development of bike and public transit infrastructure. Portland State University (PSU) also has a strong commitment to sustainability, such as making sustainability a campus-wide learning outcome, establishing a cross-college institute for coordinating interdisciplinary research and student engagement with partners (Institute for Sustainable Solutions), and establishing of a plan for carbon neutrality by 2050. Both city and university have high capacity for implementing sustainability programs, plans, and policies, and also have a history of collaborating across the city-university divide (Withycombe Keeler et al. 2018).

The goals of the Portland-PSU CUP project are to uncover cross-department interdependencies in the face of major city disasters and then to identify interventions (plans, policies, investments) that can increase the resilience of the city’s infrastructures. The project began with a discovery phase, where the team interviewed multiple bureaus to understand current resilience planning and implementation needs. The second phase (two workshops) focused on increasing the cross-departmental collaboration in face of a climate disaster (500-year flood) and a seismic disaster (9.0 magnitude earthquake). PSU convened the inter-departmental process and also provided staff and student time to support intra-departmental resilience planning capacity so that all departments came to the workshops having executed initial planning activities. The workshops uncovered a series of immediate opportunities for cross-bureau planning and implementation to increase the resilience of the infrastructure systems. These actions were taken immediately, in some cases with the support of PSU. In addition, PSU collaborated with city stakeholders to develop a synthesis report that was immediately used for advocacy and also as a work plan for a newly formed resiliency advisory group made up of key stakeholders from across the participating bureaus. This new advisory group is convened by PSU and has the support of staff and numerous interns to support planning and implementation efforts.

Case study 2: City of Tempe and Arizona State University (ASU)

The City of Tempe has a vested interest in sustainability because of its vulnerable location in the desert southwest of the United States. It is home to 170 000 residents and swells to 240 000 during the daytime as students, faculty, and staff travel into Arizona State University (ASU), the largest public university in the United States, and employees commute to the many office buildings recently developed along Tempe Town Lake. Increasing temperatures in Arizona, drought in neighboring states with shared surface water, shifts in residents’ attitudes about climate change, and ASU developing the first sustainability degree-granting program in the United States are all factors that have contributed to increased interest in urban sustainability among Tempe city administrators and elected officials. In 2014, the city council established a Sustainability Commission and in 2016 agreed to conduct a carbon inventory and create the city’s first climate action plan. The administration hired a sustainability manager in 2016 to develop and oversee the implementation of sustainability plans, policies, and projects across city departments. This momentum is closely related to the city’s relationship with ASU, which is home to the Julie Ann Wrigley Global Institute of Sustainability and claims some 300+ sustainability scientists and scholars among its ranks.

The ASU-Tempe CUP is spearheaded by Tempe’s sustainability manager and professors in ASU’s School for the Future of Innovation in Society and School of Sustainability. Initially, Tempe received a $10 000 seed grant from the National League of Cities to do a project around urban resilience. Tempe sought assistance from ASU in utilizing the funds and the partnership began. It became clear that an underlying challenge to developing and implementing sustainability and resilience projects, let alone larger transformations, was sustainability literacy among the city administration. Similarly, collaborations with ASU were seen as yielding more scientific than real-world outcomes. There was a need for both sides to build their sustainability competence—on the city side this was focused on systems, values, and futures thinking and on the ASU side, strategic thinking (Wiek et al. 2011; Withycombe Keeler et al. 2017). The GCSO-funded collaboration has sought, since January 2017, to develop an organizational culture of sustainability and a shared sustainability language in the city. It also supported building the university’s capacity to engage in a sustained collaboration with the city to yield transformational outcomes. The CUP began with a series of workshops that targeted city department heads and project leads. It developed and applied capacity-building games to convey sustainability ways of thinking, facilitate inter-departmental collaboration, help the city set transformational sustainability goals, and identify pathways to achieving them (Wiek et al. 2011; Withycombe Keeler et al. 2017). As a result of these workshops, ASU is collaborating with Tempe on developing the climate action plan and associated pilot projects, and ASU researchers were consulted by the deputy city manager to help the city structure a new office of sustainability that will have a sustainability director as its head.

Determinants of actor-centric transformative capacity enabled through city-university partnerships

Transformations are significant changes in the structure and function of systems (e.g., food, water, transit, energy) towards sustainability. In the context of city administrations, transformative capacity is the city’s ability to plan and implement transformation strategies for climate protection, public transit, renewable energies, a local food system, a robust regional economy, health provision, and so forth. While this definition attributes this capacity to individuals and collectives, contextual factors need to be considered, too, including “relevant economic, technical, institutional and social conditions” (Agterbosch et al. 2009, p. 394). When individuals and organizations possess transformative capacity, they are capable of contributing to what Wolfram (2016) identifies as “transformative leadership” and “empowered and autonomous communities of practice.” By developing the transformative capacity of particular people and groups, the transformative capacity of an urban system can be influenced, depending on who is the target of capacity building and their relationship to and influence within the system (Avelino and Rotmans 2011). The actor-centric notion of transformative capacity has been adopted in some fields, prominently in climate change adaptation (Marshall et al. 2012).

Actor-centric transformative capacity implies a complex of capacities that enable individuals and collectives to “make transformations happen.” In observing the different demands of the case studies and the solutions they were trying to develop and drawing on different capacity concepts (e.g., Smith et al. 2005; Smit and Wandel 2006; Bos and Brown 2012; Wiek and Kay 2015; Wyborn 2015; Wiek 2017), we have identified four determinants of actor-centric transformative capacity: competence, confidence, commitment, and power. Below, we use the case studies to define and ground these determinants with an eye towards guiding other CUP partners in developing actor-centric transformative capacity.

Competence is the knowledge, cognitive, and practical skills which are necessary to successfully initiate, facilitate, implement, or contribute to transformations towards sustainability (Wiek et al. 2011). A key component of actor-centric transformative capacity is not only the ability to plan and explore, but to implement sustainability strategies and transform urban areas towards sustainability. In examining the PSU-Portland CUP case, the project required coordination across multiple parts of the government on a topic area (resilience planning) that was ripe with activity. Therefore, it was critical to build the team’s strategic and futures thinking competence so the team could effectively navigate the goals and activities of the existing projects and then to develop a new project that was value-added. To do so required the development of new organizational forms (see above) and also the development of new ways of thinking as it relates to project development. The project also provided a platform for cross-bureau learning and collaboration, increasing the competence of stakeholders to integrate with the priorities, planning processes, and cultures of other bureaus. Competence is the focus of the ASU-Tempe CUP. There was a need in the city to develop a base-level sustainability and resilience competence to serve as the foundation to future transformational change. In the second workshop, the focus was on normative and strategic competence. City administrators were newly utilizing goal-oriented strategic planning, implemented by the Office of Strategic Management and Diversity, but they were not setting ambitious sustainability goals. The collaboration, during this second phase, focused on communicating about transformational sustainability goals and linking them with current city activities.

Confidence is closely related to the psychological concept of self-efficacy (Bandura 1977). It is a belief in oneself and ones own abilities, combined with an attitude that allows one to pursue an action based on basic dispositions (e.g., self-esteem), previous experience, and support from others. For the PSU—Portland CUP, there was existing confidence in the team because of the past successes with implementing sustainability initiatives; however, the team had some doubts related to their capacity to knit together a cohesive project that involved over 40 stakeholders and multiple bureaus. The CUP held consistent meetings to review data, discuss strategy, and design next steps. Over time, the team built a strong foundation of trust and authenticity, which provided confidence to execute the complex tasks ahead. Confidence was an emergent target of the ASU—Tempe collaboration. There were setbacks during the project period that undermined the confidence of city staff and some elected leaders to pursue sustainability transformation efforts. In particular, citizens voiced dissatisfaction with a project which removed a vehicle travel lane and replaced it with bike lanes on a major north–south road in the city—so much so that removal of the bike lanes is planned. In moving from capacity-building workshops to planning, future actions are based on the strengths of the city and current sustainability efforts. This builds confidence in city staff to carry out actions towards sustainability utilizing the climate action plan.

The next determinant is willingness to pursue transformations. While competence refers to professionals being able to implement, and confidence to believing one is capable of contributing to transformation, willingness indicates commitment to undertake the effort required to implement sustainability solution strategies. In the PSU-Portland CUP, there was a commitment to support inter-departmental collaboration, which requires significant time allocation from the parties involved and also an agreement to work in an emergent process together. This was not a traditional “action group” or “committee” that would normally be made up of representatives from all involved parties and serve to drive a specific process and set of outcomes. The group was committed to an emergent process of data gathering, analysis, and testing in order to land on a specific intervention. In the ASU-Tempe CUP, commitment was demonstrated on behalf of the city administration when the decision was made to create a Department of Sustainability. The city is utilizing the CUP to help design the new department.

The last determinant refers to the power to support transformations. Here, we refer to financial and temporal resources as well as authority and social capital (network, allies) that can be leveraged to advance sustainability transformations. In the PSU-Portland CUP, this project helped uncover the critical role that a university can play in a change-management process within the city. The success of the project also helped build critical political and social capital for the team that was advancing the project. This shift in awareness of the university’s role and support for the project team has opened up a series of new opportunities for the project as it goes into phase 2. In the ASU-Tempe CUP, major shifts in power are exemplified by concrete actions the city will take to facilitate transformation in the energy system listed in the climate action plan and the effort to elevate sustainability program to a department. The CUP helped the sustainability manager deliver on sustainability plans and projects and by increasing the sustainability literacy of the organization it was widely recognized that sustainability was essential to operations.

The unique role of CUPs in transformative capacity building

To build transformational capacity in CUPs, the university actor must go beyond the knowledge provision paradigm and establish collaborations capable of building key determinants of transformative capacity. As cities seek out universities as potential partners in building transformative capacity, and universities look to cities to have a real-world impact, both parties are redefining themselves. In examining the cases of the PSU-Portland CUP vs. the ASU-Tempe, the university partners come into focus. Where the city administrator was the primary target for transformational capacity building, there are transformations necessary in the university partner to make such capacity building possible. From analyzing the case studies, we distinguish six ways that universities become strong partners for city administrations and contribute to urban transformation (Trencher et al. 2014; Allen et al. 2017; Wiek et al. 2017). In Table 2, we link these partnership features with the key determinants of actor-centric transformative:

1. Providing labor Universities often engage with city administrations through internships or courses for their students. These experiences create professional opportunities for students and provide support to city departments with limited financial resources or for augmenting efforts. For example, a student is placed in a city authority, under the co-supervision of a university faculty member, to support a city in developing a strategic plan for creating a local food economy. For transformative capacity, this means that university-supported labor can help cities build their competence by filling gaps in knowledge and skills; and build their commitment by allowing cities to continue work on important plans or projects even when a city cannot dedicate personnel resources or make an immediate financial investment.

2. Providing feedback City administrations with a track record in planning and implementing sustainability solutions often consult with universities for validating their plans (through modeling) or outcomes (through evaluation). For example, a team of faculty provides feedback on a sustainability policy that was drafted within a city department. Based on these results, the policy could more quickly move through the internal review process. In this way, pairing city and university expertise builds city confidence by allowing for ideas at various stages of development to be tested to ensure they can have the intended effect.

3. Providing input City administrations with little experience in implementing sustainability solutions tend to consult universities at an early stage, with a general objective in mind, but little experience or expertise in how to develop and realize an action plan. For example, a team of faculty and students works with the city to develop an evidence-supported climate action plan. The university team could identify, assess, and gather public input on actions that will go into the plan. For transformative capacity, this input augments city competence, providing the knowledge necessary for successful, evidence-based action and can galvanize the necessary power behind proposals.

4. Conducting collaborative solution-oriented research Such research would be in-depth studies on issues such as heat island mitigation or addressing homelessness. In such cases, there is a clear need for policy development and implementation, but also a need for solution-oriented research in order to effectively inform policy development and implementation. For transformative capacity, this also augments city competence, providing the scientific evidence necessary for staff and elected officials to select effective solutions.

5. Facilitating inter-departmental collaboration At times, universities serve as facilitators of collaborative efforts across city administration. These efforts are most promising if there is a pre-existing commitment to inter-departmental collaboration but they are essential when no such culture exists. For example, a university institute convenes multiple departments to set cross-departmental goals and funding priorities for expanding bike infrastructure in the city. By facilitating inter-departmental collaboration city competence is built.

6. Facilitating capacity-building processes In some CUPs, direct capacity-building and training sessions are offered by university staff, ranging from technical training (e.g., GIS mapping) to building process capacities (e.g., community engagement). For example, universities provide bespoke capacity-building training that tailors evidenced-based models to the existing capacity of the city and the demands of the transformation. Directly building transformative capacity is a process that tackles city competence, confidence, and commitment, cultivating each aspect as needed to enable the development and implementation of plans, projects, and policies that lead to transformation.

Table 2.

How key determinants of actor-centric transformative capacity have been built through city-university partnerships between Arizona State University and Tempe, AZ and Portland State University and Portland, OR

	Confidence	Competence	Commitment	Power
Labor	PSU: helped the parks department develop priority infrastructure maps which were considered sound ASU: secured a grant for an expert in food-water-energy nexus to work with city staff	PSU: conducted interviews and workshops that enhanced understanding of constraints and opportunities in the different bureaus ASU: conducted workshops with city staff to build sustainability competence	PSU: engaged with city staff on resilience planning, which has helped build a case for increased staffing for resiliency planning within bureaus ASU: worked on urban and food forestry for Tempe; the city recently hired an urban forester	ASU: helped finance a 2-year sustainability manager position at the city which was then converted to a director position and fully funded by the city
Feedback	ASU: worked with city staff to vet inputs to the Climate Action Plan	ASU: worked on solution transfer projects to adapt food and energy solutions from other places to Tempe	ASU: conducted public engagements together with city staff on key sustainability issues, demonstrating where public support lies	ASU: attended important debates and took positions in opposition to proposals from other political actors
Input	ASU: worked with city staff on pilot projects to demonstrate viability of sustainability solutions	ASU: worked with city staff on heat mapping to address inequality and heat stress	ASU: served on city commissions and provided expert input on sustainability	PSU: partnered on resilient infrastructure report and supporting presentations to leadership ASU: testified before council on sustainability measures
Solution-oriented research	ASU: conducted studies on future climate actions for the city	ASU: conducted capacity-building workshops on developing urban sustainability solutions	PSU: signed partnership agreement that ensures both university and city commit staff resources to collaborative research	ASU: helped sustainability commission develop evaluative criteria for new infrastructure projects.
Inter-departmental collaboration	ASU: demonstrated the value of each city departments’ contributions to sustainability problem solving	ASU: built sustainability competence in staff across the city administration	PSU: facilitated integrated resiliency planning which created connections across bureaus and deepened understanding of constraints and opportunities in different bureaus	PSU: played the role of a neutral convener and integrator, which lessens/removes existing tensions across bureaus
Capacity building	ASU: facilitated capacity building that focused on leveraging internal assets for sustainability	PSU: facilitated capacity-building workshops for understanding opportunities and constraints facing bureaus working on resilience planning ASU: facilitated workshops to build city staff’s sustainability competence	PSU: led workshops that were successful and are now being replicated for other city topics ASU: facilitated regular capacity-building efforts to kept sustainability a priority	ASU: worked with department heads to change organizational culture around sustainability

These activities can work individually to build determinants of transformative capacity, but they also can and need to work in concert with each other to build transformative capacity in its entirety. For example, an internship with a city department helps the city conceptualize how they will approach a sustainability solution (e.g., a policy for a new building energy code)—developing competence. This, in turn, opens them up to a need for inter-departmental convening to identify the implementation pathway for the policy. Building inter-departmental collaboration that yields policy change is evidence of confidence built relative to sustainability solutions. Table 2 uses the two case studies to demonstrate how the unique CUP attributes built determinants of transformative capacity. For many of the determinants, there are examples from both PSU and ASU partnerships, for some there are only examples from one. Table 3 extrapolates from Table 2 and provides a general set of mechanisms for building transformative capacity through CUPs.

Table 3.

How the unique features of CUPs build important determinants of actor-centric transformative capacity

	Confidence	Competence	Commitment	Power
Labor	Creates the time and space so that staff can be come more accustomed to the change being pursued	Provides capacity for staff training or to take on new projects that grow competencies	Assigning human resources to the project shows that there is organizational commitment	Provides necessary support to capitalize on financial responses
Feedback	Gives staff backing that allows them to improve their case and move it forward	Feedback on effectiveness of efforts. Insights from projects implemented elsewhere	Positive reinforcement for efforts and external validation of contested proposals	Can be used to break political battles
Input	Provides substantiation for internal proposals or actions that might be contested	Provides information and models that can help move a complex problem forward	Input and enthusiasm for sustainability projects at the outset	Provides sustainability expertise to those with power to take decisions
Solution-oriented research	Develops interventions that build certainty	Transformational capacity building as a research agenda	Long-term partnerships can sustain commitment on both sides, city and university	The support of external experts can help city staff deliver on sustainability projects
Inter-departmental collaboration	Provides a knowledgable resource that can execute integration work	Provides a support mechanism for staff to grow their competency in inter-departmental collaboration	Creates a community around sustainability transformation	Removes issues from on part of the city and creates a new space for dialogue
Capacity building	Provides “safe spaces” for testing strategies	Develops increased scope of understanding among team members	Continuous capacity building keeps sustainability efforts on the agenda	Builds sustainability capacity among those with power

From the specific experiences of ASU and PSU, we derive generic recommendations for utilizing CUPs to build key determinants of actor-centric transformative capacity. These generic recommendations are summarized in Table 3.

Conclusions

Urban transformations are critical for long-term sustainability of societies around the world. Universities and city administrations are two stable institutions that can play a role in envisioning and implementing these transformations. This article argues that there is a gap in the capacity to advance urban transformations that can be filled, in part, through the development of effective CUPs. The article proposes competence, confidence, commitment, and power as important determinants of transformational capacity, with an explicit focus on city actors as implementors and university actors as supporting agents. In addition, we present a set of resources that university’s can provide to help advance sustainability transformations, noting that these resources can be stacked to advance actor-centric transformative capacity-building efforts.

Because of the significant activity surrounding CUPs, we have decided to focus on these two actors (city administration and universities), but further research should be done to explore how actor-centric transformative capacity could apply to civil society organizations, businesses, publics, and others.

In developing CUPs with a focus on building actor-centric transformative capacity, a balance must be struck between the time and energy needed to develop an effective partnership with that needed to scope, and implement activities focused on specific transformation projects. These two strategies (partnership management and transformation projects) provide positive feedbacks to each other, with healthy partnerships driving the effective design of interventions and successful interventions strengthening the CUP. Transformations take time and developing effective partnership practices support the creation of stability and strength that will help the CUPs endure hard times and embrace innovative approaches to accelerate change. Ultimately, actor-centric transformative capacity should feedback into the transformative capacity of the organizations, whose stability is necessary for seeing transformations through.

Biographies

Lauren Withycombe Keeler

is an assistant research professor in the School for the Future of Innovation in Society at Arizona State University and a Senior Sustainability Scientist at the Julie Ann Wrigley Global Institute of Sustainability. Her work focuses on the future, how it is conceived, contested and constructed, and how better futures are brought into being through transdisciplinary sustainability science, capacity building, and education. She co-developed the concept of the study and co-wrote the article with FB and AW.

Fletcher Beaudoin

is the Associate Director of the Institute for Sustainable Solutions at Portland State University. He manages the city-university partnership on sustainability facilitating interest, energy and expertise of students, faculty and staff in support of the City and Country’s climate action plan. He co-developed the concept of actor-centric transformative capacity and co-wrote the article with LWK and AW.

Arnim Wiek

is an associate professor in the School of Sustainability at Arizona State University. He is also a guest professor in the Center for Global Sustainability and Cultural Transformation at Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Germany. He works on evidence-supported sustainability solutions in collaboration with government, businesses, non-profit organizations, community groups, and the public. He co-developed the concept for the study and co-wrote the article together with LWK and FB.

Beatrice John

is a research associate in the Institute of Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research and the Faculty of Sustainability at Leuphana University Lüneburg, Germany. Her work focuses on pretesting urban climate actions with city administration to strengthen their implementation in real-world laboratories (research project “Bridging the Great Divide”). She contributed to the conceptualization of actor-centric transformative capacity and experiences from the city-university partnership in Lüneburg.

Amy M. Lerner

is an assistant research professor in the National Laboratory for Sustainability Science, in the Ecology Institute of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). She co-developed the concept for the study and conducted research as a part of the CapaCities project in Mexico City.

Richard Beecroft

contributed to the conceptualization of city-university partnerships for transformative capacity building.

Kaidi Tamm

contributed to the research implementing transformative capacity building approaches through city-university partnerships.

Andreas Seebacher

is an associated researcher at the Institute for Technology Assessment and System Analysis (ITAS) at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) and a co-project leader of the projects Urban Transition Lab 131 and Karlsruhe Transformation Center for Sustainable Futures and Cultural Change (KAT). His fields of work include sustainable city development within the ITAS research area sustainability and environment with the key topic urban areas and global change. He co-developed the conceptual foundations of the study.

Daniel J. Lang

is professor in Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research at the Faculty of Sustainability at Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Germany. He co-developed the conceptual foundation of the study and contributed experiences from the city-university partnership in Lüneburg.

Braden Kay

is the Director of Sustainability for the City of Tempe, Arizona. He holds a PhD in Sustainability from Arizona State University. He collaborates with researchers on capacity building for sustainability and resilience in an effort to produce sustainable outcomes in Tempe. He was a collaborating city partner on the study.

Nigel Forrest

is a post-doctoral associate at Leuphana University and Arizona State University. His expertise is in solution-oriented transformational sustainable research, particularly applied to sustainable local food economies and enterprises. He contributed to the conceptualization of actor-centric transformative capacity.