Urban Governance and Decision-making under Climate Change: a Critical Review of Frameworks, Methods and Tools from the Perspectives of Ecological Economics and Sustainability Science

Over the past 10-15 years, cities have emerged as clear leaders in global climate action. The wealth of frameworks, methods and tools aimed to support urban climate governance and decision-making have created a picture of progress on the topic, however, practical examples of success are limited to a limited group of forerunners. This research aims to address the gap between needs, theory and practice, by providing a critical review of the current developments from the lenses of sustainability science and ecological economics. Based on their integration, we developed ten minimum criteria for development and selection of actionable means: (1) legitimacy, salience and credibility; (2) consideration of socialecological-economic dynamics; (3) critical pluralism; (4) inclusivity; (5) equality; (6) nexus; (7) transparency; (8) usability; (9) VUCA-fi t; 10) transformative potential. The minimum criteria were used to assess 10 selected frameworks, 13 methods and 9 tools, providing decision-makers initial guidelines for making better choices. The analysis revealed that while comprehensive urban climate governance frameworks already exist, sophistication and usability of decisionsupport methods and tools require further work, while common reliance on simple means limits available opportunities. Thus, it is important to make multi-criteria, multi-objective, adaptive and robust approaches better accessible to urban decision-makers beyond the expert circles to support more effective climate action, while the suggested minimum criteria can be used to provide initial guidelines for such developments.

often remains constrained, fragmented and ineffective in regards to the magnitude and scope of the challenges faced by cities, which has led to the context where old, new and emerging frameworks, methods and tools coexist, complement each other, as well as clash and compete (Broto & Westman, 2020).
Multiple studies have addressed the development of urban climate governance from several different angles (Van Der Heijden, Patterson, Juhola & Wolfram, 2019), such as meta-reviews and systematic reviews of urban climate governance and plans (Hughes, 2015;Araos et al., 2016;Reckien et al., 2018) or integration of mitigation and adaptation (Grafakos et al., 2020). However, when it comes to the analysis of relevant frameworks, methods and tools the studies are rather scarce and limited in their scope, often focusing on general tools (Bours, McGinn & Pringle, 2014) or those tailored for a single component of urban climate governance, such as adaptation (Geneletti & Zardo, 2016), developments not tailored to urban context (Palutikof, Street & Gardiner, 2019b) or used primarily at the community level (Sharifi , 2016;Nkoana, Verbruggen & Hugé, 2018). The literature on the specifi c topic is still in its early stages, focusing on systematizing information and comparing particular tools, identifying gaps and relevant directions of research, however with only emerging critical refl ection on broader implications of using particular frameworks, methods and tools (McEvoy, van de Ven, Blind & Slinger, 2018) or their linkages and connection to broader social contexts or paradigms they operate within.
To address this discrepancy, this study focuses on the analysis of the available frameworks, methods and tools for urban climate governance and decision making from the perspectives of ecological economics and sustainability science. These two fi elds provide powerful complementary perspectives that allow looking beyond comparison of cost-effectiveness to critically review potential drawbacks and nuances of applying available developments. The key aim of the study is to achieve a better understanding of the paradigmatic and practical implications posed by different frameworks, methods and tools for better urban climate governance and decision-making and to improve the processes of developing and selecting particular frameworks, methods and tools.
Materials and methods. Theoretical lenses. This paper intersects the perspectives of two fi eldsecological economics and sustainability science, which were chosen considering their mutually enriching agendas and different lenses they provide for analysis of relevant methods and tools.
Sustainability Science represents a heterogeneous set of research programs aiming at the transdisciplinary understanding of the complex social ecological-systems and discovery of transformative and sustainable socioeconomic pathways that integrate multiple drivers, pressures and impacts across different levels and scales (Miller et al., 2014).
Ecological economics is a transdisciplinary research fi eld studying relationships between ecological and economic systems (Spash, 2020). Ecological economists underline the importance of recognizing biophysical reality while aiming to support ecosystem health and human wellbeing as preconditions and goals of economic activity. It is focused on developing economic mindsets, frameworks, methods and tools that are compatible with sustaining life on Earth and supporting genuine human fl ourishing beyond maximizing profi ts. Ecological economics provides a highly relevant counter-narrative to the neoclassical economic paradigm which dominates current discussions around climate action. Sustainability science and ecological economics have overlapping agendas, however, their distinct and unique contributions will be emphasized and effectively considered.
Key defi nitions. Urban climate governance represents a broad discursive approach to urban climate action integration, involving multiple stakeholders, areas of impact and sectors (Gordon, 2018) and integrating cross-level and cross-scale interactions regarding modes of urban mitigation and adaptation to climate change.
Decision-support frameworks, methods and tools provide opportunities to make aware and informed decisions in contexts of high complexity, where individual or group human capacities may prove limited in grasping the scope or magnitude or a particular issue. Approaches that are important for guiding urban governance and decision-making under climate change can roughly grouped into three categories (Tab. 1).
The key difference between tools and methods is that tools have a much lower focus on scientifi c rigour and more on practical relevance and applicability to real-life.
Data selection. This research was based on critical and integrative review approaches (Snyder, 2019) to assess progress made in the area of decision-support for urban climate change governance. Following the establishment of research aims, scope, theoretical lenses and key concepts, the data selection process was designed, including stages, keywords, keyword groups and criteria. An initial verifi cation search was conducted for all basic combinations to exclude keywords that didn't provide signifi cant results. The further process was as follows: 1) Initial search through Google Scholar and Google Search for groups with a combination of all in the title (each keyword combination divided by coma was searched separately) with Boolean search in title to identify both academic and policy/practice perspectives (Tab. 2). For standard Google Search (group 3), the fi rst 100 search results from each search were selected for further stages. Websites, software, tools, guides and reports by authoritative organizations were included at this stage.
2) Minimum criteria. Exclusion of publications based on minimum criteria of fi ve citations per year on average using Publish or Perish tool for groups 1 and 2. Only articles published in peer-reviewed journals were included, while books or other types of publications, as well as duplicates, were excluded.

Framework
Frameworks represent a comprehensive and often inter-or transdisciplinary approach outlining a process or a structure for urban climate governance and/or decision-making, incorporating various stages and sectors, as well as multiple methods and tools.

Method
Methods provide a way of acquiring knowledge and the analytical instrument used to help fi nd answers and solutions for urban climate challenges; grounded in a rigorous and accurate scientifi c process and theory, resembling a specifi c type of logic and featuring several well-defi ned steps. Methods can be classifi ed by disciplinary focus, degree of integration, stages of the decisionmaking process and suitability for particular types of issues.

Tool
Tools are practical and hands-on decision-support instruments tailored for policy-makers and practitioners, with focus on convenience, user-friendly features and effective communication results. Tools are often implemented in particular software, spreadsheets, web-platform or other convenient formats. 3) Initial screening. We performed screening of all search results based on fi t into at least one of the specifi c themes relevant for this study: (1) elaboration or use of particular frameworks, models, methods and tools for supporting decisions in urban climate governance; (2) frameworks, methods and tools developed within sustainability science or ecological economics or on the topic decision making under climate change more broadly when relevant for the urban climate governance and decision-making; (3) meta-reviews, systematic, semi-systematic and critical reviews of the current urban climate governance and decision making literature. The criteria were used to classify academic articles and search results within two separate databases into three categories: (a) fi rst priority (b) second priority (c) irrelevant (to be excluded). 4) Full screening. All articles from category (a) were screened in terms of their full texts and further included into the review or removed based on thematic fi t. Articles from category (b) were screened for abstracts and then full-text if the abstracts showed their fi t to one of the outlined themes. They were further either considered for review based on their relevance or excluded. The same procedure was adopted for web search results, with those from category (a) being screened based on the review of contents and functionality and results from category (b) screened based on the loading page, executive summary or description, and, if relevant, further full screening leading inclusion or exclusion. 5) Extra search. Based on the full screening of all articles and web results from category (a) extra reviews and search were performed. For articles, select articles were included using reverse snowballing, while for web results, tools were amended by search through selected platforms, including Climat-ADAPT, C40 Cities Hub, Climate Toolbox and Climate Adaptation Knowledge Exchange (CAKEX) and weADAPT. 6) Final selection of frameworks, methods and tools was made based on reviewing them for internal consistency, quality of references, originality, usability, relevance and ongoing support. This review aimed to provide a critical review on the current landscape of frameworks, methods and tools and thus, we excluded overly similar samples and those without actual value for urban climate governance and decision-making. The summary of the data selection process is provided in the graph below ( Fig. 1). Mi nimum criteria. Based on integrating perspectives of sustainability science and ecological economics a set of minimum criteria was developed for consideration when selecting relevant methods and tools for supporting urban climate governance and decision making. Based on the current frameworks, reviewed literature, critical perspectives (Hallegatte, Henriet & Corfee-Morlot, 2011;Whitehead, 2013;Vogel & Henstra, 2015;Romsdahl, Blue & Kirilenko, 2018;Frantzeskaki et al., 2019) and integration of key provisions of sustainability science (Sala, Farioli & Zamagni, 2013;Fazey et al, 2018) and ecological economics (Spash, 2020;Pirgmaier & Steinberger, 2019) it was possible to outline ten minimum criteria which decision support frameworks, methods and tools should strive to align with (Tab. 3). It should be noted that those minimum criteria are not considered to offer silver-bullet solutions, but rather identify low-regret options among available frameworks, methods and tools, which can be used across a wide range of contexts.

Google
Resu lts. Overall, 10 frameworks, 13 methods and 9 tools were selected for the critical review and analysis. They were further assessed in regards to their alignment with minimum criteria identifi ed earlier.
Each entry was assessed according to each criterion based on a full review of structure and functional possibilities, case studies. Alignment with minimum criteria was assessed based on formal descriptions, as well as analysis based on search results for at least two relevant key-words and their variations within key references. For each criterion, the entry could gain from 0 to 2 points (Tab. 4) and from 0 to 20 points overall (Tab. 5), leading to the assessment (Tab. 6).  Low level of alignment suggests that it is not recommended to use particularly entry or use only as complementary means for specifi c occasions, themes or stages without sole reliance on its results or guidance for making fi nal decisions. Combining few means with low score requires either expert decision or thorough refl ection on their complementarity.

7-13
Medium level of alignment suggests that even though the entry can serve as a helpful element of the governance and decision-making platform, it is best to combine it with other elements to ensure robust results. It may also mean dependence on the user's capacity to effectively utilize its features and thus may not serve as a universal solution for every case. 14-20 High level of alignment suggests that the entry can be effectively used as core element of the governance and decision-making platform, with other aspects added depending on its weaker points as well as context-specifi c-needs. The use of means even with the highest score will however depend on the quality of facilitation, data collection and the capacity to apply gained insights in decision-making.

Continuation of table 3
Frameworks, methods and tools that had a broad thematic scope, provided integrative perspective and were capable of guiding the full governance or decision-making process were prioritized. Examples aimed at climate aimed primarily at monitoring, data collection, risk or vulnerability assessment, monitoring and reporting were excluded from the review. This allowed us to narrow down the analysis and focus on the most relevant examples. Meanwhile, some nonintegrated examples were included if they provided a comprehensive and highly insightful perspective, structure or process. Commu nity-level examples have been mostly excluded from the review due to a focus on governance and decision-making at the city scale. Learning tools not tailored for the policy or practical applications were also not included. If a particular framework was paired with a particular tool developed together with it, only the framework was mentioned in the table, with the tool considered as its element. Some of the examples not included in the table above are however mentioned in the discussion. The fi nal list comprises entries that are either commonly used, best practices or provide new, promising perspectives.
Critical review and analysis. Fra meworks. The analysis of frameworks revealed a medium-to-high level of alignment with the outlined minimum criteria. While particular frameworks still fall behind on usability, inclusivity or integration of social-ecological and ecological-economic dynamics, half of the selected examples would comply with all minimum criteria under proper use. Despite high levels of alignment, many frameworks are both limited and strong in their unique focus and scope. The majority focus only on certain facets of urban climate governance, with the particular proliferation of adaptation and resilience frameworks.
Frameworks created with participation of C40 (RAMBOLL, 2018; C40, 2020) provide effective guidance on inclusivity, integration and transformation, being among the most user-friendly and comprehensive means available. Under the rise of practice-focused frameworks, work done by the academic community remains important, where the evaluation and planning framework for nature-based solutions (Raymond et al., 2017) supports climate choices that are aligned with ecological processes, while social-ecological systems analytical framework (Ostrom, 2009) allows considering system boundaries, spatial and temporal distribution and social dynamics among users. It also allows systematizing complex data, including urban resource fl ows, relations, productivity, infrastructure and capacities. The Decision-support structure and evaluation by Moallemi et al. (2020) is different from most of the other examples featured since it is a metaframework, dedicated to the design of the governance and decision-making process per see, and allowing to accurately outline multiple facets and stages of urban climate governance and decision-making.
A particular challenge in regards to the effective development of frameworks is the absence of databases dedicated to scientifi c collaboration on this topic, with only individual reviews, as compared to large databases of tools. Very limited refl ection and comparison of the available frameworks have been conducted to date and very often older frameworks are replaced by new ones without case studies to refl ect on their effectiveness, And while such a rapid development might be what we need at this point, it also requires new ways of analyzing the complex landscape (Lamb, Creutzig, Callaghan & Minx, 2019).
Metho ds. Common types of methods identifi ed include conceptual framing, modelling, analysis, evaluation, assessment, ranking, participation, verifi cation, visualization and experimentation, while integrative rather than partial methods have been chosen for the review.
One of the simplest and common economic evaluation methods, CBA is used for calculating the effectiveness of policies and projects under a single monetary criterion. Standard CBA provides a set of clear benefi ts, such as simple structure, speedy analysis and clear conclusions (Estrada, Botzen & Tol, 2017). However, it is prone to many drawbacks, the most common of which include strong dependence on accurate data, commodifi cation and monetization of all climate impacts, common ignorance towards distribution and highly questionable discount rates, which create challenges of possible maladaptation or delayed mitigation.
A more comprehensive standard method is costeffectiveness analysis, which allows calculating alternative ways to use available resources, provides relative ranks per unit of a particular outcome or the least-cost path for a particular goal, as well as costeffectiveness tipping points (Raucher et al., 2013). It can be used for short-term planning of particularly targeted interventions under constrained resources. Some of the benefi ts include the possibility for effective combination with sensitivity analysis and probabilistic modelling, focus on non-economic outcomes, and relative simplicity. Meanwhile, it requires low levels of risks, low complexity and signifi cant predictability of the outcomes and thus its utility in VUCA-contexts is questionable, creating the possibility of narrow framings that do not consider important positive and negative outcomes. No recognition of complex dynamics or biophysical limits, complex choice in regards to the relevant metrics and no simple way to integrate cobenefi ts constrain its effectiveness. Overall, those two simple methods are some of the most commonly used guidance for urban climate decision-making, despite being quite limited in their capabilities.
Some of the more complex methods include Real Options Analysis (ROA) and Portfolio Analysis (PA). ROA allows arranging options considering their fl exibility to future changes and viability across different time horizons. It also allows comparing consequences, benefi ts and tradeoffs, and it may be particularly relevant for a long term and complex choices, such as the development of urban adaptation infrastructure or pacing the transition to renewable energy. Clear structure, fl exibility, applicability to high-risk context, quantitative and qualitative analysis possibilities are among its strongest sides, however, a complex methodology, high resource and information demands, as well as monetization or ignorance towards non-market values limit its applications and effectiveness. It has also been criticized for a common lack of baselines and overreliance on the probability of different scenarios, which is problematic (Kwakkel, 2020). Meanwhile, PA allows combining different viable options bundles that satisfy the risk-return preferences and avoiding underperforming portfolios. Effective visualization, applicability to both monetary and non-monetary goals are some of its key features, however high demand towards expert knowledge, dependence on data and lower effectiveness under deep uncertainty make it less applicable to the context of climate change in cities, which requires more fl exible methods.
Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is one of the most systematic, transparent and inclusive methods available to date. It is used as the foundation for a wide range of urban climate governance decision-support frameworks and tools (Balouktsi, 2019). MCDA allows arranging options and making decisions based on value-or decision-trees, which incorporate weighted criteria and indicators of various types, and can include diverse stakeholder perspectives. Its variations include analytical hierarchy process (AHP), multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT), elimination and choice expressing the reality (ELECTRE), preference ranking organization method for enrichment of evaluations (PROMETHEE) and dominance based rough set approach (DRSA), among others (Cinelli, Coles & Kirwan, 2014). MCDA is also used within multiple software packages, such as DECERNS, Expert Choice, Make It Rational and Super decisions.
During the past few years, MCDA has become one of the key methods suggested for climate decisionmaking, being capable of balancing different co-benefi ts and trade-offs (Cohen et al., 2019) as well integrating with other approaches (Munaretto, Siciliano & Turvan, 2014). However, subjectivity and high demand for organizational capacity can make it hard to implement in real life (Ellen, Yager, Hanson & Bosher, 2016). Moreover, transparency and inclusivity may happen on paper but not be refl ected in the results, while for those who are embedded into the context it is often hard to identify and address discriminatory treatment of viewpoints (Bradley & Steele, 2015).
Another similar in many respects method is Multiobjective robust decision-making (MORDM), which reveals options that are robust under a wide range of possible futures and multiple goals (Lawrence et al., 2019). Instead of maximizing utility, it focuses on noregret and good-enough options, being particularly effective under deep uncertainty and applicable upon multiple temporal scales. MORDM is also specifi cally suited to deal with deep uncertainty and avoid maladaptation. However, complexity, signifi cant demand for expert knowledge and quality data, as well as subjectivity are its common drawbacks. Among other methods created to work within the contexts of complexity and uncertainty are Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways (DAPP), Multi-Scale Relational Risks & Opportunities (MS-ReRO) and Dynamic Risks and Opportunities Simulation Evaluation (D-ROSE). D-ROSE is particularly effective in scenario-planning and grasping trade-offs, MS-ReRO is tailored for multiscale assessments (Salas & Yepes, 2019) and DAPP is suited to the elaboration of future policies, defi ning prospective measures and tipping points leading to policy shifts. Despite their benefi ts, complex structure and high requirements towards expert support make them unlikely options for decisionmakers without extra training.
Many of the methods outlined above are usually coupled with models of different complexity and size. Simple integrated assessment models (IAMs) such as Dynamic Integrated model of the Climate and Economy (DICE), are widely used and mostly aim to optimize the system in terms of specifi c indicators (Balint et al., 2017). However, they have often been criticized for oversimplifying social-ecological and ecologicaleconomic interactions, adopting questionable discount rates and ignoring non-monetary aspects of wellbeing (Spash, 2013). Complex systems models that feature nonlinear system dynamics and agent-based models allowing for heterogeneous perspectives have been considered more promising in addressing modeling challenges (Lamperti et al., 2019). While some of the methods allow for participation, most of the complex methods are used by a limited number of experts in select contexts. One of the ways this challenge is being overcome is through the creation of tailored decisionsupport tools.
Tools and platforms. Tools represent a policy or practical perspective on decision-making within the context of urban climate governance. They are often based on well-recognized frameworks, methods and models, however, may modify their functional attributes or add extra analytical, decision-support or communicative elements. The most common types of tools identifi ed during this review include platforms, dedicated software, analytical tools, strictly decisionsupport tools and guidelines or manuals. A large share of the tools identifi ed relied on CBA-based approaches and monetary valuation, however, a clear shift towards more complex and considerate tools has been witnessed in the post-Paris years.
The CURB tool allows assessing multiple low-carbon options across fi ve steps: setup, inventory, context, action and results. It also allows for conducting cost and impact assessments across six sectors. OpenMORDM and Exploratory Modeling Workbench (EMW) are two similar tools for MORDM that with the fi rst one focusing on analysis (Hadka et al., 2015) and the second one on experimentation through programming via exploratory modelling (Kwakkel, 2017).
While many of the complex offer extended capabilities in return for expert knowledge, accessible platforms are starting to make their way through, covering aspects like climate justice, consumptionbased emissions and transformative perspectives. Some of the decision-making tools, such Urban Adaptations Support Tool (UAST) are actually systematic frameworks with a collection of guidelines for action, different approaches and assessment methods, providing a clear process with a large database of references but little guidance on the selection of viable tools among the wide range of options (Climate-ADAPT, 2020). Most of the other identifi ed tools, such as UKCIP Adaptation Wizard ), Urban Resilience Roadmap (weADAPT, 2017 and Coastal Climate Adaptation Decision Support (Palutikof et al., 2019) focused on providing users with a similar intuitive and simple web interface with a clear process and references to relevant resources.
Discussion. Based on the analysis of the results, it was possible to identify three general axes over which the frameworks, methods and tools aimed to support urban climate governance and decision-making have developed. The fi rst signifi es the transition from data monitoring and accumulation to action-focus (Palutikof et al., 2019a). With the increasing accessibility of data, its mere presence is becoming less signifi cant compared to the extraction of relevant insights. The second signifi cant shift is the move from simplicity and multidisciplinarity towards complexity and inter/ transdisciplinarity. It is particularly vivid in the more recent frameworks, methods and tools, featuring not simply a combination of metrics from different disciplines but opportunities to reveal and analyse important relations and interdependencies (Moallemi et al., 2020). The third important shift is movement from top-down centralized approaches to participation, and inclusivity signifi cantly featured in some of the most recent frameworks, such as C40's Climate Action Planning Framework. Such developments provide new possibilities to engage stakeholders, mitigate risks and make more informed and aware decisions.
A signifi cant challenge, however, is that many of the shifts happened much more vividly in the theoretical realm, while practical transitions are often still underway (Piggott-McKellar, McNamara, Nunn & Watson, 2019). The prevalence of scientifi c over practical focus is highly obvious, despite the fact of essentially practical necessity for climate action (Palutikof, Street & Gardiner, 2019a). Hewitson et al. (2017) suggest that available resources are often far more complex for users than perceived by their developers, while the review by Newman et al. (2017) suggests a signifi cant gap between the development of decision-support systems and their actual use. It is particularly important to consider the nonhomogeneous nature of users, which is challenging to address with tools developed from a global perspective, leading to the case that some tools may not always be considered legitimate or relevant by local users (Palutikof et al. 2019a). There are also emerging examples of effective application of complex and hybrid methods (such as the combination of ROA, MCDA and DAPP), which however requires highly supportive conditions, leadership and effective monitoring (Lawrence et al., 2019).
Despite signifi cant theoretical progress and networking, only a small share of leading cities bear the benefi ts of most up to date developments, while those with limited access to expertise are left to catch up in the increasingly complex landscape (Lamb et al., 2019). Rapid development, commercialization and tendency towards «black-box» confi guration may undermine the availability of novel tools to those who have limited capacities and are often most vulnerable towards climate change (Palutikof et al., 2019a). Developers are not interested in disclosing their methodologies with full detail, which can undermine progress, transparency and integration. Meanwhile, urban climate governance and decision making are often to a large extent determined by people who have limited knowledge about the peculiarities of effective climate mitigation or adaptation (Palutikof et al., 2019a).
One of the most signifi cant insights from the recent literature is that the choice of particular frameworks, methods and tools may lead to signifi cantly different outcomes (McEvoy et al., 2018), while the act of choosing certain method or tool itself may be highly arbitrary, even with all the fi ltering criteria on a particular platform are well-aligned. In this competitive space, where usability, comfort, access to networks and effective marketing may be far stronger factors than its analytical capacity or inclusivity, many cities may end up using simple tools leading to maladaptation, loss and damages. From an ecological economics perspective, the dominance of CBA-based tools is one of the key challenges since it leads to achieving fragmented perspectives which may limit our understanding of challenges and provide a limited view on solution pathways. The danger to settle for means that work best under current political and institutional systems by «commodifying, quantifying and pricing nature» (Spash, 2013) or «fi xing» the climate through negative emissions (Carton, 2019) are particularly signifi cant. This, however, remains a common practice in many global reports and highly-cited analyses on economic dimensions of urban action on climate change (Estrada et al., 2017).
A set of minimum criteria applied to both the development and selection of particular frameworks, methods and tools guiding urban climate governance and decision-making is suggested to address those challenges. Application of such a set of simple minimum criteria can secure against most crucial mistakes and help develop awareness of the aspects not covered by particular means and point to complementary perspectives. In the light of growing rigour of present methods, tools and frameworks, practical solutions can be developed through design thinking, participatory prototyping and engaged user-testing considering the set of suggested criteria. Outside of those minimum criteria, as important is also to develop and use metaframeworks, such as the one suggested by Moallemi et al., 2020 to arrive at particular combinations of methods and tools that work best under given factors, relevant time horizons or the range of available parameters.
Conclusion. Urban climate governance and decision-making frameworks, methods and tools are implicated into their political, academic and cultural contexts, with signifi cant impacts on both theoretical development and practical applications.
While a wealth of available means to frame and steer urban climate trajectories exist, the use of advanced applications remains limited to specifi c cases, where a clear leadership on climate action is present, while a general lack of integration is vivid. Considering the urgency and signifi cance of climate challenges, making decisions by solemn economic and at the interest of narrow stakeholder groups interested in supporting the status quo can no longer remain an option for urban governance and decision-making under climate change.
Wider accessibility of well-balanced yet more complex frameworks, methods and tools is needed to allow decision-makers to develop necessary and timely responses. Some of the emerging frameworks, methods and tools are starting to address the need for this complexity, covering such important issues as justice, refl ection, displacement and capacity for transformative change, among others. To support those positive trends, minimum criteria was elaborated within this paper and is suggested as a prospective way to both develop actionable means and make good choices in regards to the available ones.
Resear ch limitations. As the focus of this review was to integrate perspectives and critically refl ect on the developments and not to systematize or provide a historical viewpoint, mostly qualitative review and analysis were performed. Readers are welcome to use the outlined methodology, keywords and selection process to perform other types of analysis, which can help reveal other relevant trends, as well as broaden the scope of covered frameworks, methods and tools.