sustainability

Article
Cultural Heritage, Sustainable Development, and Climate
Policy: Comparing the UNESCO World Heritage Cities of
Potsdam and Bern
Kristine Kern 1,2, * , Janne Irmisch 1 , Colette Odermatt 3 , Wolfgang Haupt 1 and Ingrid Kissling-Näf 3

1 Research Department Institutional Change and Regional Public Goods, Leibniz Institute for Research on
Society and Space (IRS), 15537 Erkner, Germany; [email protected] (J.I.);
[email protected] (W.H.)
2 Faculty of Social Sciences, Business and Economics, Åbo Akademi University (ÅAU), 20500 Turku, Finland
3 Institute Sustainable Business, Bern University of Applied Sciences (BFH), 3005 Bern, Switzerland;
[email protected] (C.O.); [email protected] (I.K.-N.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Developing sustainable, carbon-neutral, and climate-resilient districts seems to be particu-

larly challenging with respect to historic city centers. However, barriers posed by legal requirements
for historical buildings are counterbalanced by opportunities because historic cities have not under-
gone urban modernization and did not embrace the concept of functional cities, which nowadays
impedes urban sustainability transformations. Thus, this paper focuses on the relationship between
cultural heritage, urban sustainable development, and climate policy. We study continuity and





 change in the mid-sized UNESCO World Heritage cities Potsdam (Germany) and Bern (Switzerland).
These matching forerunner cities share many characteristics, which enables them to transfer policies
Citation: Kern, K.; Irmisch, J.;
and jointly create new solutions for common problems. We find that national context matters, but
Odermatt, C.; Haupt, W.;
Kissling-Näf, I. Cultural Heritage,
we also identify functional equivalents like referenda and active citizen participation. Despite many
Sustainable Development, and similarities, Potsdam is ahead of Bern with respect to the institutionalization and integration of
Climate Policy: Comparing the climate mitigation and adaptation. The comparative analysis (interviews and document analysis)
UNESCO World Heritage Cities of identifies innovations that can be transferred between the two cities (e.g., Potsdam’s integrative
Potsdam and Bern. Sustainability 2021, climate policy or Bern’s efforts to become a role model for stakeholders and citizens). Moreover, the
13, 9131. https://doi.org/10.3390/ challenge to coordinate heritage management and climate governance offers chances for cooperation
su13169131 between matching cities like Bern and Potsdam.

Academic Editor: Colin Michael Hall Keywords: climate policy; sustainable development; governance; UNESCO World Heritage; (urban)
heritage management; historical cities; forerunner cities; matching cities; city of Potsdam; city of Bern
Received: 12 July 2021
Accepted: 11 August 2021
Published: 15 August 2021

1. Introduction
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
Climate change has become an important topic in urban politics and affects many
published maps and institutional affil- policy areas [1]. Therefore, new approaches are needed in the areas of climate mitigation as
iations. well as climate adaptation [2]. Many local experiments focus on new neighborhoods but
also on the regeneration of existing neighborhoods [3]. Developing sustainable, carbon-
neutral, and climate-resilient districts seems to be most challenging with respect to historic
city centers, which are strongly affected by air pollution and climate change.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Thus, this paper focuses on cities with historic city centers, in particular mid-sized
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
cities with statuses as UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Interest in these types of cities has
This article is an open access article
focused primarily on their cultural heritage and options to preserve it. Although research
distributed under the terms and suggests that status as a UNESCO World Heritage city may be a good basis for sustainable
conditions of the Creative Commons urban development [4–6], the relationship between a city’s world heritage status and
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// its performance in the area of climate policy has not yet been studied. UNESCO World
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ Heritage cities are of special interest here because their experiences are highly relevant to
4.0/). other cities. We assume that institutional and policy innovations, which work in UNESCO

Sustainability 2021, 13, 9131. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169131 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 9131 2 of 19

World Heritage cities, may work in many other cities with historic city centers as well,
especially if the whole inner city is under monument protection.
There are different perspectives when it comes to the effects of the UNESCO World
Heritage label and heritage preservation on a city’s options for sustainable urban develop-
ment and climate policy. Most often negative aspects are emphasized due to problems in
increasing the energy efficiency and climate resilience of protected historical buildings. In
contrast to new buildings, it is far more challenging to reduce CO2 emissions of protected
historical buildings, not to mention city districts made up of such buildings. However,
from a wider perspective, protected historical city centers have not undergone urban
modernization. After the Second World War, and particularly in the late 1960s and 1970s,
urban planners embraced the idea of creating functional cities. Thus, they transformed
compact cities into cities that were built around cars and not around people. From this
perspective historical city centers are rather an asset for creating “cities for people” [7]
because historically cities were built as compact and car-free cities.
Thus, this explorative paper concentrates on the relationship between status as a UN-
ESCO World Heritage city, urban sustainable development, and climate policy (adaptation
and mitigation) in mid-sized cities. We ask in particular how a city’s world heritage status
affects urban climate governance. Does this status imply barriers or does it offer chances to
develop successful climate policies?
While research on urban climate governance has concentrated mainly on large cities,
mid-sized cities such as Bern and Potsdam are still highly understudied [2,3,8]. Contrary
to bigger cities, the development of smaller cities is strongly affected by their historical and
cultural heritage because it shapes the identity of the whole city. Bern and Potsdam were
chosen as case-studies because these mid-sized forerunner cities share many characteristics
(e.g., with respect to size, history, and economy). Thus, we regard them as “matching cities”
for transferring ideas, policies, and institutional arrangements, exchanging knowledge,
and learning from each other. Matching cities have the capabilities to jointly create new
ideas and solve common problems. This approach goes beyond the common idea that best
practice can be transferred between cities, even if national framework conditions differ
considerably. We argue that such transfers are most promising between matching cities.
This is relevant not only for researchers but also for practitioners because the comparison
of matching cities provides a basis for policy recommendations.
Section 2 links the literature on urban heritage management, sustainable urban de-
velopment, and urban climate governance. The selection of the two case studies and the
methodological approach are outlined in Section 3. Subsequently, the empirical findings
are presented in Section 4, followed by the discussion and conclusions (Section 5).

2. Exploring Urban World Heritage Management and Climate Governance

2.1. Managing World Heritage in Cities
Dealing with cultural heritage in an urban context has for a long time been shaped
by the central conflict between continuity and change [9]. However, as the pressures on
cities and their cultural heritage increase, e.g., through urbanization or over-tourism, a new
field of action has emerged at the interface of historic preservation, heritage management,
and urban planning [10–12]. The aim of urban heritage management is to establish a more
“holistic and integrated management that is part of a larger socioeconomic development
framework” [10] (p 22). Taking up these trends, since 2011, UNESCO has promoted the
approach of the “historic urban landscape” (HUL), replacing the perception of urban
cultural heritage as isolated physical objects and as a visual category [13,14]. This change
of paradigm in the UNESCO discourse gave another boost to urban heritage management,
which addresses not only UNESCO World Heritage cities, but urban cultural heritage in
general [10].
As urban heritage management originates in heritage theory rather than in urban
planning, the initial perspective focuses on the cultural heritage surrounded by urban
space [13]. More recently, heritage management has been transferred from heritage theory
Sustainability 2021, 13, 9131 3 of 19

to urban planning [15] by placing “the spectrum of urban heritage within the mainstream of
urban planning policy and practice” [16] (p. 240). The urban studies perspective perceives
the city as an organism, embracing elements of cultural heritage. However, a general
research gap on world heritage cities can be noted compared to the rich body of literature
on “regular”, uninhabited world heritage sites [17], and they require special management
instruments due to their complex legal situation and the high significance of urban heritage
for a city’s identity [18].
In research, special attention is given to the synergies between heritage and sustain-
able urban development [6]. Published since 2011, the Journal of Cultural Heritage and
Sustainable Development assembles diverse theoretical and empirical approaches to elabo-
rate the potential of cultural heritage for (urban) sustainable development [17]. Hence, the
scholarly debate takes up the sustainable development goals (SDGs) of the United Nations.
Indeed, SDG 11—“sustainable cities and communities”—broaches the issue of integrating
sustainability and heritage. This is specified in SDG 11.4: “strengthen efforts to protect and
safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage” [19].
By applying the HUL approach, the UNESCO title is commonly regarded as a tool and
a positive factor for holistic urban sustainable development [20]. For instance, the authors
of a study on St. Petersburg, Stralsund, and Wismar found that world heritage status
results in positive impacts on local quality of life, cities’ identities, and their attractiveness
as residential areas [21]. Additionally, the local economy is stimulated and the cities
gain attractiveness as business locations, as is also promoted by the World Bank [22].
However, in practice, the HUL approach has not been implemented sufficiently in world
heritage cities. Thus, heritage cannot fully unfold its positive effects on sustainable urban
development. This is proven by the frequent conflicts between conservation instruments
and local policies, which are rarely addressed in heritage theory [9,17]. A comprehensive
and critical examination of the urban world heritage status and its special implications
for sustainable urban development is still pending. Initial insights have been provided in
Manz’s study on Quedlinburg (1999) [23], whereas Bigio (2015) discussed links between
world heritage and local climate policy in Edinburgh [24].
Moreover, there is a considerable research gap on the governance of world heritage
cities. Research has concentrated on conservation instruments and strategic documents, in
particular management plans [25] and buffer zones [26], while planning processes have
received little attention. This might derive from the fact that most urban world heritage
sites are managed by a network of actors, pursuing a management plan [10,17,27,28].
Responsibilities are distributed among various actors in the city administration that do not
communicate cross-sectionally and thus execute their assignments in isolation [18]. The
offices for historical preservation or heritage specialists often take a key position. They
implement conservation measures and enforce heritage protection acts, but they do not
actively participate in planning processes. Only a few heritage coordination units exist,
and they typically focus on conservation issues, marketing, tourism management, and
visitor information, e.g., in Wismar, Stralsund, Regensburg, and Bamberg [17].
Existing case studies on world heritage cities address aspects like conservation policies
and tools, urban redevelopment, and quality of life [23,27–31]. Veldpaus (2015) provides a
taxonomy-based policy analysis tool, which is used for a case study on Amsterdam [10].
However, there is still a lack of systematic and comparative studies of world heritage
cities, in particular on the question of how heritage interests are taken into consideration in
planning processes and strategic development.
Concerning the integration of heritage management in sustainable urban develop-
ment, cities with historic centers face similar problems as UNESCO World Heritage cities.
Therefore, research findings on urban cultural heritage without UNESCO status but under
monument protection could be combined with the knowledge gained about world heritage
cities in order to detect synergies for urban sustainable development and improve the
preconditions for successful urban climate policies.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 9131 4 of 19

2.2. Governing Climate Change in Matching Forerunner Cities

Cities with historic centers face a multitude of challenges, particularly the integration
of heritage management and urban climate governance, which require cross-sectoral
thinking and actions. The concept of sustainability represents a bridgehead between
heritage management and climate governance at the local level. Cities are increasingly
regarded as key actors in governing climate change [32,33].
In the 1990s, forerunner cities started to tackle the issue of climate change by devel-
oping strategies, formulating emission reduction targets, and joining transnational net-
works [34–36]. Climate policy forerunners usually show high capacities for action [3,8,37,38],
including
• A growing and young population with above-average education and skills [3,39–42];
• A sound economy, low unemployment rates, and a high number of jobs in the service
and the green tech industries [39–42];
• Political and administrative support for climate action—ideally from the mayor—and
political influence of green parties [38,41,43];
• A supportive and broadly diversified research environment [42,44,45];
• A strong and active civil society, especially environmental groups [3,37–39,43].
In cities that have managed to become forerunners, local climate policy ambitions
and actions are often driven by individual actors within the city administration [46]. The
literature refers to these actors as “policy entrepreneurs” [47,48]. They are characterized
by the ability to identify the “right” moment to take action and open a policy window.
Policy entrepreneurs dedicate large amounts of time and energy to promoting their topic,
which is necessary to put and keep a topic on the political agenda [47,48]. Although climate
action does not necessarily need to be triggered by top-level political leadership, policy
entrepreneurs depend on supportive or at least tolerant policy-makers [49]. Institutional-
ization ensures continuity even if policy entrepreneurs are absent, e.g., when they change
jobs or retire.
Another key factor for forceful local climate governance and, eventually, for a city
to become a forerunner is posed by the organizational conditions that facilitate the devel-
opment and implementation of relevant policies. In the past, this has mainly concerned
climate mitigation [50], but in recent years climate adaptation has become an equivalent pil-
lar of climate action [51]. Nevertheless, in many cities the integration of climate mitigation
and adaptation is still in its early stages [52]. In this context, Kern et al. (2021) distinguish
three models of integration [53]:
• Full integration model (concentration of tasks in one strategy or city department);
• Pillarized integration model (tasks are distributed over several strategies or city
departments);
• Project-based integration model (tasks are integrated at the operational level only).
Our study focuses on matching forerunner cities because we assume that policy trans-
fers between cities are most promising if the cities share many characteristics and match
with respect to population size, history, economy, etc. We distinguish three dimensions of
matching cities: First, we start from a comparative approach and study the climate policies
of matching cities, including, for example, their ambitions, strategies, and institutional
capacities. By taking the strengths and weaknesses of matching cities in climate policy into
account, we can assess the similarities and differences between them. Second, we study the
transfer potential between matching cities, based on the results of the comparative analysis.
Here, we focus on already existing policies in matching cities and assume that they provide
an excellent basis for exchanging knowledge and transferring policies and institutional
arrangements. Third, we expect that matching cities have the capabilities to jointly create
new ideas and develop innovative policies, which help to cope with new and emerging
problems [53].
Sustainability 2021, 13, 9131 5 of 19

3. Case Selection and Methodological Approach

There are more than 470 UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Europe (2019), most of
them stand-alone buildings or building complexes such as cathedrals, monasteries, and
palaces. In these cases, the UNESCO World Heritage status is usually limited to a certain
territory in the city, often surrounded by buildings legally protected as historic monuments.
However, there are 92 UNESCO World Heritage Sites (including Potsdam and Bern) that
cover larger parts of cities, particularly historic city centers and parklands (see Table 1). We
assume that those large-scale heritage sites have a stronger impact on city development
than stand-alone sites.

Table 1. UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Europe covering larger parts of cities.

More than 1,000,000 500,000 to 1,000,000 250,000 to 500,000

Inhabitants (7) Inhabitants (7) Inhabitants (11)
Austria: Graz
Austria: Vienna Italy: Naples
Estonia: Tallinn
Czech Republic: Prague Latvia: Riga
France: Bordeaux, Strasbourg
Italy: Rome Lithuania: Vilnius
Italy: Florence, Venice, Verona
Poland: Warsaw Poland: Cracow
Norway: Bergen
Russia: Saint Petersburg Russia: Yaroslavl
Russia: Veliky Novgorod
Turkey: Istanbul Ukraine: Lviv
Spain: Córdoba
United Kingdom: London/Greenwich United Kingdom: Edinburgh
United Kingdom: Liverpool
100,000 to 250,000 50,000 to 100,000 Less than 50,000
Inhabitants (19) Inhabitants (16) Inhabitants (32)
Albania: Berat, Gijrokastra
Bulgaria: Nessebar
Croatia: Dubrovnik, Trogir
Czech Republic: Český Krumlov, Kutná
Austria: Salzburg
Hora, Telč, Třebíč
Belgium: Bruges
France: Arles, Avignon France: Carcassonne
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Mostar
Germany: Bamberg, Goslar, Stralsund, Finland: Rauma
Croatia: Split
Weimar Germany: Quedlinburg, Wismar
France: Le Havre
Greece: Rhodos Greece: Korfu, Patmos
Italy: Ferrara, Syracuse, Vicenza
Italy: Siena Italy: Ivrea, Mantova, Pienza, Sabbioneta,
Germany: Lübeck, Potsdam, Regensburg
Poland: Zamość San Gimignano, Urbino
Luxembourg: Luxembourg
Portugal: Évora Malta: Valletta
Poland: Toruń
Spain: Ávila, Cáceres, Cuenca, Segovia, Norway: Røros
Portugal: Guimarães, Porto
Toledo Portugal: Angra do Heroísmo, Elvas
Spain: Granada, Salamanca, San Cristóbal
United Kingdom: Bath Romania: Sighis, oara
de La Laguna
San Marino: San Marino
Switzerland: Bern
Slovakia: Bardejov, Levoča, Spišské
Podhradie
Spain: Santiago de Compostela
Sweden: Visby

Bern and Potsdam can be considered matching cities because they share many charac-
teristics (see Table 2). However, they are not identical twins, i.e., they differ with respect to
their performance in policy areas that are relevant for climate governance (such as energy,
transport, and green space). This enables them to exchange their knowledge and experi-
ences, learn from each other, and transfer their ideas, policies, and institutional innovations
on a bilateral basis. Moreover, they have the potential to jointly develop new approaches
for common challenges and problems.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 9131 6 of 19

Table 2. City profiles of Bern and Potsdam.

City Bern Potsdam

• 1191: City of Bern is founded
• 993: First mentioned in historical documents
• 1300–1555: Expansive territorial policy; Bern becomes
• 17th century: Rise to the status of a Prussian garrison
the largest city-state north of the Alps; golden age ends
and residence town after the Potsdam Edict of
around 1800
Toleration (1685) and the settling of Huguenots
• 1803: Kanton and city of Bern reorganize themselves as
• Second World War: Heavy destruction
independent authorities; responsibilities and assets
• 1952–1990: Administrative headquarters of the
separated
History, heritage, Potsdam district in the German Democratic Republic
• 1848: Central federal authorities of the newly founded
and culture • Since 1990 (German reunification): Capital of the
Swiss Confederation placed in Bern (de facto capital)
federal state of Brandenburg (Land Brandenburg)
• Around 1850: Industrialization starts
• 1990: Large parts of the city’s cultural landscape are
• From 1950: Economic boom leads to an increased influx
designated as UNESCO World Heritage Sites;
of workers from abroad and the construction of
extension in 1992 and 1999
high-rise residential areas
• Since 1999: Restoration of the city center and the
• 1983: Old Town is designated as a UNESCO World
historic cityscape
Heritage Site
• Located in the agglomeration of Berlin (around 4.5
• Located in the Swiss “Mittelland” region
Location and million inhabitants)
• Capital of the canton of Bern (Kanton Bern) and capital
significance • Capital of the federal state of Brandenburg (Land
of Switzerland
Brandenburg)
• 143,000 inhabitants, 2771 inhabitants/km2 (2019) • 180,503 inhabitants, 956 inhabitants/km2 (2020)
• Increase in population of 7.6% between 1990 and 2019; • Increase in population of 9.2% between 1990 and
Population forecast for 2050: 159,648 inhabitants 2019; forecast for 2035: 220,100 inhabitants
• Average age: city of Bern—40.7 (2019); canton of • Average age: Potsdam—42.4 (2020);
Bern—43.0 (2018); Switzerland—42.6 (2019) Brandenburg—47.2 (2019); Germany—44.5 (2019)
• Services comprise the most important sector;
manufacturing and raw materials are only of minor
• Services comprise the most important sector;
importance
manufacturing and raw materials are only of minor
• More than 90% of all employees work in small or
importance
medium-sized enterprises
• Bern is home to companies of above-average size
Economy • Focus on medium-sized enterprises and creative
compared to the rest of Switzerland
industries; media and IT; life science and health
• Center of the economic region Bern-Mittelland
economics; tourism and congresses; science and
• Unemployment rates (2020): city of Bern—2.6%; canton
research
of Bern—2.5%; Switzerland—3.1%
• Unemployment rates (2020): Potsdam—5.7%;
Brandenburg—6.2%; Germany—5.9%
• City council of Bern is dominated by social democratic • City council of Potsdam is dominated by left-green
and green parties (so-called RotGrünMitte (RGM)) since parties since 1990
Politics 1992 • Brandenburg is governed by a coalition of social
• Canton of Bern is dominated by conservative parties democrats, conservatives, and greens
• Five universities
• Three public universities
• More than 40 non-university research institutions
• Several non-university research institutions, e.g.,
• Several institutions of international importance for
Federal Institute for Metrology (METAS)
climate and sustainability research:
• Several institutions relevant for climate and
sustainability research: # Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact
Research (Potsdam-Institut für
# Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research
Research Klimafolgenforschung (PIK))
(OCCR)
environment # Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies
# Centre for Development and Environment
(IASS)
(CDE)
# German Research Centre for Geosciences
# Wyss Academy for Nature
(Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum (GFZ))
# BFH Centre Energy Storage, BFH Institute
Sustainable Business • Approximately 10,000 researchers and 25,000
students; 62,000 virtual students at Hasso Plattner
• Approximately 30,000 students
Institute (HPI)
• Strong and active civil society • Strong and active civil society
• Informal collaboration between local government and • Fridays for Future influenced the council decision to
Civil society civil society (e.g., Fridays for Future) declare climate emergency in 2019
• Forms of direct democracy (referendums, popular • Two representatives of Fridays for Future as
votes) guests/observers in the climate council (Klimarat)

From a methodological point of view, the analysis of matching cities requires a com-
parative approach, which provides a basis for assessing the transfer potential of already
existing and tested policy innovations. Moreover, the comparison can also help to identify
unsolved problems in both cities. We assume that collaboration between matching cities is
Sustainability 2021, 13, 9131 7 of 19

a tool to develop new solutions that can be applied successfully in both cities (and other
matching cities). Our study focuses primarily on the comparative analysis of Potsdam and
Bern, but we also draw some conclusions with regard to the potential for the transfer of
existing policies and chances for the development of solutions for unsolved problems.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 20
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW Both cities place a high value on preserving their historical cityscape. Therefore, 8 of 20 both
host large-scale ensembles and monuments on their territory that are recognized as UNESCO
World Heritage Sites. The medieval city center of Bern was added to the UNESCO World
site, via telephone
Heritage or video
list in 1983. conferencing).
Potsdam’s The guideline
and Berlin’s Prussianquestions particularly
gardens addressed
and palaces were awarded
site, via telephone or video conferencing). The guideline questions particularly addressed
the
the following
same status issues:
in 1990. Besides the significance of the UNESCO World Heritage, Bern
the following issues:
•
and Relevance of climate issues in local politics, economy, and society;
• Potsdam
Relevanceshare other
of climate characteristics
issues (seeeconomy,
in local politics, Figures 1andandsociety;
2). They are mid-sized cities of
•
roughlyKey actors
the same in local climate
population action;
size located in advanced democracies in Central Europe. Both
• Key actors in local climate action;
• Key events that enhanced or hindered local climate action;
•
are university cities with a strong and diversified
Key events that enhanced or hindered local climate action;research environment and an economy that
• Development of climate policy (mitigation and adaptation);
•
is dominated by service industries. Furthermore, both cities have acquired the reputation of
Development of climate policy (mitigation and adaptation);
• Integration and mainstreaming of climate policies; and
•
being Integration
forerunners andinmainstreaming
climate governance of climate policies;
within and
their
• Relevance of the UNESCO World Heritage status for countries [54] (see Table 2).
climate policy.
• Relevance of the UNESCO World Heritage status for climate policy.

Figure 1. City of Bern.

Figure CityofofBern.
1. City
Figure 1. Bern.

Figure 2. City of Potsdam.

Figure 2.
Figure 2. City
CityofofPotsdam.
Potsdam.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 9131 8 of 19

Our two case studies are strongly explorative since the relationship between a city’s
world heritage status and its performance in the area of climate policy has not yet been
studied by other researchers. While theoretical contributions do exist for local climate
governance and urban heritage management separately, our paper combines these two
literature streams. Therefore, we cannot draw on an existing overarching theoretical
background. Nevertheless, our empirical findings provide a theoretical starting point
for future research on the nexus between climate governance and heritage management
in cities.
The empirical work in Bern and Potsdam mainly included expert interviews with
local key actors (e.g., city staff, policy-makers) and analysis of key policy documents (e.g.,
mitigation and adaptation strategies, urban development concepts, heritage protection
acts) (see data availability statement). Furthermore, we studied supplementary sources,
including additional municipal reports and strategies on various topics, such as protocols
of city council meetings and reports of local service providers. Overall, 20 semi-structured
and guided expert interviews were carried out between July 2017 and March 2021 (on-site,
via telephone or video conferencing). The guideline questions particularly addressed the
following issues:
• Relevance of climate issues in local politics, economy, and society;
• Key actors in local climate action;
• Key events that enhanced or hindered local climate action;
• Development of climate policy (mitigation and adaptation);
• Integration and mainstreaming of climate policies; and
• Relevance of the UNESCO World Heritage status for climate policy.

4. Findings—Comparing Bern and Potsdam

4.1. Climate Policy Pathways
In the 1990s, Bern and Potsdam had already started to tackle climate change on their
territories. Both cities have delivered mitigation and adaptation strategies and received
awards for their activities (see Table 3). A common feature of both cities is that their
governments have been dominated by red-green majorities for the last three decades. In
Bern, the city council (Stadtrat) and government (Gemeinderat) have been in the hands of
red-green-middle parties since 1992. Red and left-wing parties have held the majority in
Potsdam’s city council (Stadtverordnetenversammlung) since 1990, and all mayors have
been social democrats (see Table 2). This continuity seems to be a favorable precondition
for the cities’ progressive climate policies.
Potsdam committed itself to climate mitigation in 1995 by joining the Climate Alliance
(Klimabündnis), a transnational city network founded in 1990/1991 [35]. Today, this
network has around 1800 members in 27 European countries (including around 540 German
and 20 Swiss local authorities) and aims at climate neutrality by 2050. Bern only became a
member of this network in 2004, but, in 1998, the city was awarded the label “energy city”
(Energiestadt), a certification system for Swiss cities (Energiestadt Schweiz) that started
around the same time (1991) as the Climate Alliance and has become very popular among
Swiss cities since then (with 636 participants today). Thus, membership in the Climate
Alliance and certification as energy city (Energiestadt) can be regarded as functional
equivalents.
Even though the term “climate” was first mentioned in the heading of a political strat-
egy in 2015, Bern started its climate-relevant activities only a few years later than Potsdam
(see Table 3). Climate mitigation has been addressed as a sub-topic of sustainability since
around 2005 (see interview 3) and framed as energy policy, the focus on energy issues being
a common trend in local climate policy in the 1990s [55]. Today, both cities show a similar
level of annual emissions per capita (around 4.5 tons) and are regarded as forerunners for
climate policy within their regions and countries (see interviews 5, 7, 10, and 19).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 9131 9 of 19

Table 3. Climate policy milestones in Bern and Potsdam.

Bern Potsdam
• 1992: Foundation of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact
– Research (Potsdam-Institut für Klimafolgenforschung (PIK))
• 1995: Replacement of the coal-fired power plant with a
gas-fired power plant
• 1998: Awarded the label “energy city” (Energiestadt • 1995: Entry into the Climate Alliance
Schweiz certification system) • 1996/1999: City council decision to develop the Local Agenda
21 (LA21)
• 1999: First climate report
• 2000: City council decision to develop the LA21
• 2004: Entry into the Climate Alliance –

• 2005: Large parts of the Old Town flooded by the river

Aare • 2007: City council passes a resolution to reduce CO2 emissions
• 2006: Energy strategy 2006–2015 (Energiestrategie) by 20% compared to 2005 by 2020
• 2006: Foundation of a climate platform in the economy • 2008: Establishment of a Climate Coordination Office
(Klimaplattform der Wirtschaft) within the LA21 (Koordinierungsstelle Klimaschutz) within the city
framework administration
• 2007/2009: Foundation of the Oeschger Centre for • 2008: Establishment of a municipal climate council (Klimarat)
Climate Research (OCCR) and the Centre for (advisory committee)
Development and Environment (CDE)
• 2010: Awarded the label “energy city gold”
(Energiestadt Gold); renewed in 2019 • 2010: Integrated climate strategy (Integriertes
• 2010: Municipal utility company (Energie Wasser Bern Klimaschutzkonzept)
(ewb)) supposed to only produce, buy, and sell • 2014: Winner of a national climate action award for
electricity from renewable sources by 2039 municipalities (Wettbewerb Klimaaktive Kommune)
• 2014: Master energy plan 2035 (Richtplan Energie)
• 2015: Energy and climate strategy 2016–2025 (Energie-
• 2015: Climate adaptation strategy (Klimaanpassungskonzept)
und Klimastrategie)
• 2017: Climate mitigation strategy aiming at climate neutrality
• 2019: Foundation of the Wyss Academy for Nature
by 2050 (Masterplan 100% Klimaschutz)
• 2019: Declaration of “climate emergency”; resolution
• 2019: Declaration of “climate emergency”
to reduce CO2 emissions to 1 ton/capita by 2035
• 2021: Framework strategy for sustainable development
(Rahmenstrategie Nachhaltige Entwicklung) and • 2021: Preparation of a city climate map (Stadtklimakarte)
climate strategy (Klimareglement) in preparation

In Potsdam, mitigation activities gained traction with the foundation of the Climate
Coordination Office (Koordinierungsstelle Klimaschutz) in 2008 and the release of the first
mitigation strategy in 2010 (see interviews 7, 10, and 17). Nevertheless, empirical research
indicates that both cities started relevant activities earlier than they adopted climate policies,
mainly in the field of environmental and energy policy (see interviews 1, 5, 7, and 17).
Despite the increasingly common practice of integrating climate adaptation into
climate policy [51–53], Bern is still prioritizing mitigation and seems delayed with regard
to climate adaptation (see interviews 1 and 5). Potsdam pursues a more balanced approach
and started to integrate adaptation into its climate activities around 2010, publishing an
adaptation strategy in 2015. Besides, Potsdam’s Climate Coordination Office is staffed with
personnel specialized in both climate mitigation and adaptation (see interview 18). In Bern,
adaptation was officially enshrined in the master energy plan in 2014 only (see interviews
1 and 5).

4.2. Path Dependencies

The current status of climate policy in Bern and Potsdam is shaped by path depen-
dencies, which have substantially influenced the long-term development of climate policy
in both cities and will most likely affect future development as well. As “green cities
Sustainability 2021, 13, 9131 10 of 19

by water” (Potsdam’s official urban development vision.), both cities reveal favorable
starting conditions for sustainable urban (re)development (see interviews 1 and 5). Long
before sustainability and, later on, climate topics emerged, Bern’s historic city center was
designed as a sustainable place (e.g., car-free city center, pedestrian areas) and has not
been affected by the urban modernization and car-friendly urban development that has
occurred since the middle of the 20th century. Moreover, the Danish architect Jan Gehl,
who popularized the “cities for people” approach, advised Bern in 2016/2017 on the use of
public space and public life. He confirmed that the old town of Bern is ideal for pedestrians,
as everything is within walking distance and many shops, offices, and service providers lie
next to each other. As the shares of cycling and public transport are also very high, Gehl
concluded that Bern’s historic city center is strong in sustainable mobility [56]. In Potsdam,
the large parklands and gardens, primarily designated for recreation, significantly increase
the quality of life and already contributed to adaptation long before adaptation strategies
or measures were adopted (see interviews 8, 11, and 19).
Both cities do not show negative lock-in effects due to the absence of emission-
generating industries and car-friendly urban structures [57,58]. Moreover, our case studies
did not reveal any significant path dependencies that hinder local climate action. In
Potsdam, the municipal housing association ProPotsdam is highly committed to climate
activities. Substantial progress in redeveloping urban neighborhoods in a climate-friendly
way has already been made in the garden city Drewitz (see interview 17). The experiences
gained there now serve as a model for other projects, like the redevelopment of the former
barracks of Krampnitz (interviews 8, 9, and 15).
Not surprisingly, UNESCO World Heritage status, with its high symbolic value, also
affects local climate governance in both cities. In Potsdam, the World Heritage Site consists
of park landscapes and (groupings of) historical buildings, mainly palaces. The historic site
and its buffer zone cover more than 28% of the city’s territory. Additionally, the heritage
protection act of the federal state of Brandenburg (Brandenburgisches Denkmalschutzge-
setz) covers the baroque Old Town. However, Potsdam’s whole cityscape is still shaped by
the legacies of Second World War destruction and socialist urban planning during GDR
times (e.g., the removal of Prussian architecture, construction of large housing estates).
In contrast to Potsdam, Bern’s old town covers only 1.7% of the city’s territory. Hence,
it is not a priority area for realizing climate policies (see interviews 1, 2, 5, and 6). Urban
green spaces are not part of the World Heritage Site in Bern, which has proven to be
beneficial in Potsdam for synergies between the World Heritage Site and climate adaptation.
These differences may explain why Potsdam faces more permanent and stronger conflicts
about urban development (historicizing vs. modern development) than Bern, where the
urban structure is not contested as much (see interview 19).
Bern’s medieval structure has remained largely unchanged and the urban develop-
ment is characterized by a high degree of continuity. The Old Town is not considered an
unsustainable neighborhood since it was constructed from local materials in a long-lasting
way and, for instance, allows infiltration through the paving (see interview 4). Besides pre-
serving the city core and its traditional building fabric—which is by definition understood
as a step towards sustainability—mitigation measures have also been implemented in the
Old Town (e.g., district heating in parts of the Old Town, electronic mobility; see interviews
1 and 5). As severe conflicts between world heritage and climate activities in Bern were not
mentioned by the interviewees, our findings suggest that political and administrative actors
have accepted the conditions of the world heritage and operate within this framework.
Both cities demonstrate that the historic urban structures, the protected areas, and the
cities’ identities constitute significant path dependencies regarding climate policy. World
heritage often takes a central role in the urban vision and city branding (see interviews 8, 9,
and 19). Thus, it forms one of a city’s “highest assets” that must be protected in order to
preserve the city’s identity and ensure its function as an economic resource.
Like Potsdam, many cities struggle with conflicts between continuity and change
regarding cultural heritage in an urban context. This central conflict is widely discussed
Sustainability 2021, 13, 9131 11 of 19

in heritage theory as well as urban studies [9,10]. Through urban heritage management
approaches and single instruments like management plans many cities try to bridge this
gap [13,25]. However, such an approach has not yet been fully implemented in Potsdam
and Bern. For instance, both cities have not yet developed management plans for their
World Heritage Sites. While Bern is currently preparing a plan upon the request of UNESCO
(see interview 4), in Potsdam no such efforts have been made.
From a climate governance perspective, world heritage is often considered as a brake
on sustainability and climate policies. For example, in Potsdam, monument conservation
requirements prohibit the installation of solar panels on protected and even on unprotected
buildings—if they cross visual axes and thus impair the view on protected monuments.
Also, the irrigation of the historic parks requires large amounts of water, which is becoming
scarce due to increasing droughts and population growth. Nevertheless, the Foundation
for Prussian Palaces and Gardens (Stiftung Preussische Schlösser und Gärten (SPSG)) is
committed to mitigation and adaptation: it has developed strategies for irrigating the
gardens sustainably and energetically renovated many historical buildings. Moreover,
adaptation is driven by the SPSG’s vision to preserve the parks for future generations (see
interviews 18 and 19).
Nonetheless, this rather narrow perspective on sustainability disregards the fact that
world heritage can slow down sustainable urban development and local climate policy in
numerous ways. World heritage mainly inhibits climate action because of unsustainable
conservation instruments or heritage protection legislation, which do not allow solar panels,
energetic renovation, or the reconstruction of roads for the benefit of sustainable mobility.

4.3. Integration and Coordination

Both cities are comparatively well-equipped in terms of personnel responsible for
climate activities, which is a typical characteristic of climate forerunners [3,8,37,38]. How-
ever, in Bern and Potsdam, climate mitigation and adaption, on the one hand, and heritage
management, on the other, are handled differently with regard to the degree of institution-
alization, as well as the degree of integration and coordination between them.
In Bern, the responsibilities for mitigation and adaptation are distributed over various
directorates (Direktionen) of the city administration, led by the Office for Environmental
Protection (Amt für Umweltschutz (AfU)) (see interviews 1, 3, and 6). Climate activities are
coordinated through various channels such as the AfU, the directorate for Safety, Environ-
ment, and Energy (Direktion für Sicherheit, Umwelt und Energie (SUE)), the city council,
the municipal utility company (Energie Wasser Bern (ewb)), and the climate platform of the
economy (Klimaplattform der Wirtschaft) (see interview 1). Although there is still a lack of
integration of climate policy, and especially coordination of adaptation policies between
different directorates, in Bern, most interviewees did not advocate the establishment of a
coordinating unit—except the interviewees from the ewb, which currently seems to carry
out a major part of the coordination tasks (see interviews 1, 5, and 6). However, an informal
administrative coordination board is currently being set up (see interview 1).
In Potsdam, management for mitigation and adaptation lies primarily with the Cli-
mate Coordination Office, which cooperates with relevant offices (Ämter) on a project
basis. Furthermore, Potsdam’s most recent climate strategy combines both mitigation
and adaptation. Even though their integration has hardly been studied so far, there is
empirical evidence that institutional integration of mitigation and adaptation could be
advantageous [52]. Beyond this internal integration, the climate council (Klimarat) and the
city–science climate partnership (Klimapartnerschaft Stadt und Wissenschaft) facilitate the
integration of climate policies outside the municipal administration (see Section 4.5).
Altogether, mitigation and adaptation are more integrated in Potsdam, which seems
to follow a “full integration model”, while Bern’s climate policy shows many characteristics
of a “project-based integration model“ [53]. The institutional integration of mitigation
and adaptation in Potsdam and the fact that Bern is lagging behind might be a result of
diverging funding practices. In Germany, national programs offer options for funding cli-
Sustainability 2021, 13, 9131 12 of 19

mate managers and support the development of mitigation and adaptation strategies. This
might explain the popularity of integrated approaches in Germany (e.g., the establishment
of climate coordination offices). No such funding is available in Switzerland and, thus,
integrated approaches are less common and climate coordination offices rarely exist.
Though project-related coordination of climate policy exists in both cities, there is still
a lack of institutionalized coordination regarding world heritage (see interview 17). This
might be explained by the fact that the responsibility for world heritage management in
Bern and Potsdam mainly lies with the offices for historical preservation, which tradition-
ally do not take a proactive role in urban development but concentrate on conservation
issues. Furthermore, in Potsdam, additional offices at the municipal and federal-state levels
need to be involved because the world heritage zone includes territories located outside
the city borders (see interviews 7 and 18). In both cities no coordination units exist that
act independently from the offices for historical preservation. Instead, world heritage is
governed by a network of stakeholders [10,27].
Our findings confirm previous studies that revealed that climate policy has been
neglected by urban heritage management, while more attention being given to the synergies
between heritage and sustainable urban development [4,6,21,59]. This might be a reason for
the weak integration and the missing links between world heritage and climate activities.

4.4. Key Actors and Key Events

Our empirical results illustrate that Bern’s and Potsdam’s urban development and
climate policy pathways have been substantially influenced by a few key actors and key
events, as well as the interplay between them. In both cities, climate action received steady
support from local politicians who have pressed for climate action and the development
of strategies (see interviews 2, 7, 10, 18, and 19). This was crucial for putting and keeping
climate change on the agenda and confirms previous research findings that have high-
lighted the importance of political support for local climate action [38,41,43]. Additionally,
in Potsdam, decisive support came from the social-democratic city mayor who decided
to replace an old high-emission coal-fired power plant with a gas-fired one in 1995 (see
interviews 10 and 19, Table 3). Although this decision was not driven by the motivation to
decarbonize the city but rather to reduce air pollution, it reduced Potsdam’s CO2 emissions
considerably.
Besides political actors, municipal staff also proved to be of major importance for local
climate action in both cities. One of the main reasons for the dynamic development of
climate and energy policy in both cities has been the continuous and dedicated engagement
of long-time employees, who have formed and maintained networks within and beyond
the city administration (see interviews 5 and 6). This has enabled them to develop strategies
and establish connections between different departments.
In Bern, this helped the city administration to build up the image of a role model in
pioneering sustainability and climate policies. Thus, Bern’s energy and climate strategy
includes detailed goals for the city administration itself (e.g., energy-efficient new buildings,
electrification of the municipal vehicle fleet). This confirms that policy entrepreneurs such
as municipal staff can become key driving forces of (local) policy change [47,49].
In Potsdam, the urgency of responding to threats posed by climate change and the
willingness to protect world heritage made Potsdam’s Director of Gardens (Gartendirektor)
a rather progressive actor in local climate governance (see interview 18). In contrast to
Bern’s historic city center, Potsdam’s parks and some of its buildings are endangered by
the impacts of climate change. Rising temperatures and prolonged periods of drought
cause significant damage to trees and plants, as well as moisture damage to historical
buildings. As counteracting measures are energy-intensive, their energy efficiency need to
be improved. However, the severe challenges posed by climate change to the conservation
of world heritage can be observed all over the globe [24].
In addition, municipal utilities and service companies are essential for the success of
climate activities in both cities. The leading managers of these companies have constantly
Sustainability 2021, 13, 9131 13 of 19

supported the city administrations in Bern and Potsdam from the outset (see interviews
5, 17, and 19). They have committed themselves to the municipal climate strategies and
targets and have integrated energy and climate measures into their everyday activities (see
interviews 1, 5, 12, 13, 16, and 17). This applies to the energy and water sector (Energie
Wasser Potsdam (EWP); Energie Wasser Bern (ewb)), to public transport (Verkehrsbetrieb in
Potsdam (ViP); BernMobil), and, in Potsdam, also to public housing company (ProPotsdam).
This confirms that cities that still own utilities and service companies and have abstained
from privatization are in a much better position to implement their climate and energy
strategies [53].
With regard to key events that had a major influence on the cities’ urban development
and climate policy pathways, the interviews revealed marked differences between Bern
and Potsdam. Asked about key events, the interviewees in Potsdam identified events not
directly connected to the formulation of local climate policies. These events were (i) the
award as UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1990; (ii) the establishment of the Potsdam
Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in 1991; and (iii) the already mentioned shift
from coal to gas in 1995 (see interviews 7, 10, 17, 18, and 19). In contrast, in Bern the
interviewees exclusively referred to the adoption of relevant strategies such as the master
energy plan 2035 (2014) (see interviews 1 and 5), while the world heritage status was
hardly mentioned. Despite these differences, in both cities there is no indication that the
development of climate policies was triggered by extreme weather events.

4.5. Cooperation with Research Insitutions and Civil Society

Researchers from the PIK have significantly contributed to the development of Pots-
dam’s mitigation (2010, 2017) and adaption strategies (2015). Furthermore, city–science
interactions include a transdisciplinary research project on urban climate resilience led by
the University of Potsdam and collaboration between the local utility company and the Ger-
man Research Centre for Geosciences (GFZ) to explore the potential of using geothermal
energy. Moreover, a climate partnership between the city of Potsdam and local research
institutes (Klimapartnerschaft Stadt und Wissenschaft) was established in 2018 (see in-
terview 18). The partnership aims at facilitating collaboration between actors from city
government and various research institutes located in Potsdam. In contrast, city–science
interactions in Bern are mainly restricted to single projects (see interview 1). Examples
include the collaboration of two local universities and the AfU with three cities in Chile,
and the adaptation project “climate balconies” (Klimabalkone) guided by the University of
Bern, which aims at increasing biodiversity and improving the microclimate in Bern (see
interviews 1, 5).
This emphasizes that city–science collaboration varies considerably, even though both
cities have strong and diversified research environments, which constitutes another typical
characteristic of climate forerunners [42,44,45]. The interviews showed that the potential
for city–science cooperation has been utilized to a much greater degree in Potsdam than in
Bern. They showed that mutual interest in partnerships is essential for the establishment
of successful collaborations and requires active outreach from both sides (see interviews
17 and 18). This was the case in Potsdam, which led to the first steps towards an insti-
tutionalized city–science partnership, while in Bern there seems to be a lack of ambition
in cooperating beyond single projects. This may be explained by the fact that Potsdam
promotes itself as a city of science, while Bern, despite its existing research landscape,
places little value on these resources. Moreover, the foundation of the PIK in 1992 and its
strong leadership shaped Potsdam’s climate policy from the outset.
Similar to the city–science cooperation, Potsdam involves civil society more actively
and in a more structured way in climate policy discussions than Bern. While Potsdam’s
strong and active civil society is pushing for climate action and is involved in discussions
and planning processes (e.g., guest status of Fridays for Future in the climate council),
Bern’s administration collaborates rather informally with civil society actors (e.g., with
Fridays for Future) (see interviews 1, 5, and 19). However, Swiss citizens can express their
Sustainability 2021, 13, 9131 14 of 19

opinions through public votes and referenda and are therefore actively involved in the
political process.
Although there are generally much fewer conflicts about the urban structure in Bern
than in Potsdam, two examples illustrate how civil society in Bern influences decision-
making on climate-relevant issues and actively influences climate policy measures. First,
the planning process for the new tramline from Bern to Ostermundigen has been underway
since 2014, with various failed and accepted proposals at the municipal and cantonal
levels, including popular votes, and even a complaint to the federal court (see interview
2). Second, Bern’s government wants to reduce the public parking slots in the city center
by half in favor of climate mitigation, whereas many citizens strongly oppose these plans.
This conflict is not restricted to the existing parking spaces in the historic center but rather
is an ongoing conflict, which also affects discussions about the parking spaces for new
buildings outside the city center.
Contrary to Bern, Potsdam’s climate policy was not influenced and shaped by refer-
enda. In German cities, practices of direct democracy are less common than in Swiss cities,
where referenda and decisions about public investments determine the political process.
Nevertheless, in recent years various successful referenda (e.g., on bike infrastructure
in Berlin and Rostock) have gained public attention and been imitated nationwide [53].
Despite the differing participation structures, it can be concluded that both cities have an
active civil society, especially with respect to environmental concerns, which is a typical
characteristic of forerunners [3,37–39,43].

4.6. Urban–Regional Relations

Another common feature of Potsdam and Bern is their progressive role in develop-
ing innovative climate policies while being surrounded by less ambitious regions and
neighboring municipalities. However, differences do exist between the governments of the
federal state of Brandenburg and the canton of Bern. In Bern, the cantonal government is
composed of several conservative parties, while Brandenburg is traditionally governed by a
coalition led by the social democrats. However, due to the close connections between them
and the coal industry, Brandenburg’s social democrats are not known for their innovative
climate and energy policy (see interviews 10, 17, and 19).
The city of Bern is more dependent on the canton of Bern than Potsdam on the federal
state of Brandenburg. As an example, the narrow rejection of a cantonal energy law limited
the financial security for Bern’s district heating network because there is no legal obligation
for the neighboring municipalities to connect to the city’s heating network (see interviews
5 and 6). Moreover, when the city of Bern plans to purchase new public transport vehicles,
the financing is handled by the canton, which usually opts for the cheapest solution and
has thus delayed the complete electrification of Bern’s public transport fleet (see interviews
1, 2, and 5). In addition, the decision-making process for the new tramline shows that the
neighboring municipalities are also important for Bern’s climate policy. Similarly, empirical
research indicates a lack of cooperation between the city of Potsdam and the surrounding
county (Landkreis) Potsdam-Mittelmark and its municipalities.
Although Potsdam is less slowed down by the federal state of Brandenburg, it shows
greater dependence on national funding. Indeed, many German municipalities strongly
depend on national funding for the development and implementation of their climate
policies [54]. This concerns, in particular, funding programs for mitigation and adaptation
projects, climate strategies, and additional staff (see interviews 7, 17, and 19). Conversely,
in Bern, there is far less funding for climate activities from the regional (cantonal) or the
national governments available. This lack of reinforcing measures and support from upper
levels of government leads to lower expectations with respect to regional and national
assistance. This seems to be one reason why Bern acts more autonomously.
The experiences of both cities demonstrate that mid-sized cities can become forerun-
ners in climate governance even if they are not substantially supported by the surrounding
region. These are encouraging findings for local policy-makers in other cities since they
Sustainability 2021, 13, 9131 15 of 19

suggest that cities can autonomously and successfully develop their own approaches if
they have the ambitions and capacities to do so. Our results imply that a combination
of factors—including the urban structure and cityscape as well as institutional precondi-
tions, such as political continuity and municipal ownership of utility companies—creates a
favorable local environment for climate policies.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

Our study shows that cities with historic city centers, such as Potsdam and Bern, can
become climate policy forerunners despite barriers to climate mitigation and adaptation
policies. Such negative effects on climate policies exist, but the conservation of historic city
centers also has advantages because they were designed before the car was invented. Thus,
we see a lock-in effect, which has prevented the transformation of historical cities into
(modern) car cities. Today, the urban design of historic cities is beneficial for the envisioned
transformation into climate-neutral and climate-resilient cities.
The comparison of both cities shows more similarities than differences. Both cities are
governed by red-green governments with active politicians and administrators serving
as policy entrepreneurs. Another common trait is the ownership of public utilities, i.e.,
the energy and transport sectors did not undergo privatization. Thus, both cities have
considerable influence on policy areas that are most important for the reduction of CO2
emissions. Our results confirm our own research findings that have previously shown that
cities that own local energy and transport companies are in a better position to develop
successful climate policies than cities with privatized public services [53]. As this aspect
has been neglected in the literature, future studies on forerunners cities in climate policy
should take these findings in account.
Although national differences exist, there are functional equivalents of the political
and administrative institutions in Germany and Switzerland. While referenda are a highly
institutionalized form of citizen participation in Bern, this form of direct democracy is not
as important in Potsdam. In contrast to other German cities (such as Berlin or Rostock),
referenda have not played an essential role in Potsdam’s energy and climate policy. How-
ever, citizen engagement has been high in Potsdam and initiatives such as the Fridays
for Future movement have influenced climate policy and stimulated policy-makers to
declare a “climate emergency”. Functional equivalents can also be found with respect to
the membership in city networks such as the Climate Alliance (in the case of Potsdam) and
participation in certification schemes such as the “energy city” (Energiestadt) label (in the
case of Bern).
The main difference between Potsdam and Bern seems to be the framing of climate
policy. While in Bern sustainable development and energy policy are strongly emphasized,
the debate in Potsdam has focused on climate policy from the outset. Due to national
funding, climate policy in Potsdam is more advanced than in Bern and characterized by a
higher degree of institutionalization and integration of climate mitigation and adaptation.
Moreover, in Potsdam, synergies between world heritage and climate activities are boosted
by the fact that the world heritage area and the buffer zone cover large parts of the city
territory, including parks. Bern, where green spaces are not protected by the UNESCO
status, does not benefit from this unique feature.
As Bern and Potsdam share many characteristics, but nonetheless show top perfor-
mances in different areas, these matching cities can learn from each other with regard to
energy and climate policies. For the city of Bern, our empirical findings support three
recommendations: First, the city could introduce a more institutionalized, formalized,
and integrative approach to climate mitigation and adaptation. Second, Bern could set
up an external advisory committee for climate issues, which would support both the
administration and the council. Third, Bern could improve its performance by institu-
tionalizing the cooperation with its local research institutes and thus benefit from these
underutilized capacities. Vice versa, Potsdam could learn from Bern in two areas: First,
the city administration could intensify its efforts to become a role model for stakeholders
Sustainability 2021, 13, 9131 16 of 19

and citizens alike, e.g., by setting a deadline for making its own facilities climate-neutral
and climate-resilient. Second, Potsdam could participate in voluntary certification schemes.
Although the “energy city” (Energiestadt) label is restricted to cities in Switzerland and
Liechtenstein, German cities have the option to join similar certification schemes (European
Energy Award, European Climate Adaptation Award).
Furthermore, both cities could jointly search for institutional and procedural inno-
vations that improve the coordination of heritage management, sustainable urban devel-
opment, and climate policy (e.g., by setting up management plans or coordination units).
Although this debate is still in its infancy, it could be taken up by matching cities such as
Potsdam and Bern because they face the same challenges and have the potential to jointly
develop appropriate solutions to mitigate these shortcomings. Such efforts are facilitated if
matching cities share not only material but also non-material forms of cultural heritage,
such as the same language.
From a wider perspective, our case studies show that cities with historic centers
can become forerunners or even leaders in climate policy. Therefore, Potsdam and Bern
could serve as examples not only for other world heritage cities but also for many other
cities with historical city centers. Despite the barriers posed by legal requirements for
historical monuments, or by UNESCO World Heritage Site status, this urban set-up offers
opportunities because such cities have not undergone urban modernization and did not
embrace ideas such as the concept of functional cities, which nowadays impedes the
development of sustainable cities.
Moreover, the case studies on Bern and Potsdam show the trade-offs between continu-
ity and change in the urban fabric. In contrast to Bern, debates on urban planning around
the UNESCO World Heritage Sites are very common in Potsdam. We assume that such de-
bates, which require new approaches, can be traced back to disruptive events in Potsdam’s
history, in particular destruction during the Second World War and German reunification
in 1990. While the Second World War resulted in a void of the built environment, German
reunification left an institutional void because political and administrative institutions of
the GDR disappeared and had to be replaced by democratic institutions. Although such
disruptive events may have destructive effects in the short run, they seem to open new
opportunities in the long run, not only for directly affected cities like Potsdam but also for
matching cities like Bern, which can learn from Potsdam’s experiences.

Author Contributions: All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material prepa-
ration, data collection, and analysis were performed by all authors. All authors conducted interviews
and wrote different sections of the first draft of the manuscript (Section 1 written by K.K.; Section 2.1
by J.I.; Section 2.2 by W.H. and K.K.; Section 3 by W.H., J.I., and C.O.; Section 4 by C.O. and I.K.-N.
(for Bern) as well as J.I. and W.H. (for Potsdam); Section 5 by K.K.). All authors commented on
various versions of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the
manuscript.
Funding: This study was partially funded by the research project “Urban resilience against extreme
weather events–typologies and transfer of adaptation strategies in small metropolises and medium-
sized cities” (ExTrass), funded by Germany’s Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF),
grant numbers: FKZ 01LR1709B and FKZ 01LR1709B1).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all interviewees involved in
the study.
Data Availability Statement: Restrictions apply to the availability of the interview recordings and
transcripts because we granted all interviewees confidentiality and anonymity. A list of all interviews
(affiliations of interviewees, date of interview) can be obtained from the authors upon request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors certify that they have no conflict of interest or competing interests.
I.K.-N. is a city councilor in Bern but contributed in her function as a researcher in the area of resource
economics at BFH.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 9131 17 of 19

References
1. Bulkeley, H.; Castán Broto, V.; Edwards, G.A.S. An Urban Politics of Climate Change: Experimentation and the Governing of Socio-
Technical Transitions; Routledge: London, UK, 2015; ISBN 9781138791107.
2. Haupt, W. How Do Local Policy Makers Learn about Climate Change Adaptation Policies? Examining Study Visits as an
Instrument of Policy Learning in the European Union. Urban Aff. Rev. 2020. [CrossRef]
3. Kern, K. Cities as leaders in EU multilevel climate governance: Embedded upscaling of local experiments in Europe. Environ.
Politics 2019, 28, 125–145. [CrossRef]
4. Nijkamp, P.; Riganti, P. Assessing cultural heritage benefits for urban sustainable development. IJSTM 2008, 10, 29–38. [CrossRef]
5. Rydin, Y. Governing for Sustainable Urban Development, 1st ed.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2010; ISBN 9781844078189.
6. van Oers, R.; Pereira Roders, A. Historic cities as model of sustainability. J. Cult. Her. Man. Sust. Dev. 2012, 2, 4–14. [CrossRef]
7. Gehl, J. Cities for People; Island Press: Covelo, WA, USA; London, UK, 2010; ISBN 9781597269841.
8. Haupt, W.; Chelleri, L.; van Herk, S.; Zevenbergen, C. City-to-city learning within climate city networks: Definition, significance,
and challenges from a global perspective. Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev. 2020, 12, 143–159. [CrossRef]
9. Schmitt, T.M.; Schweitzer, A. Welterbe oder Stadtentwicklung in Gefahr? Zu deutschen Debatten und zur global-lokalen
Governanz von UNESCO-Welterbestätten am Beispiel des Kölner Doms. Ber. Zur Dtsch. Landeskd. 2007, 81, 329–352.
10. Veldpaus, L. Historic Urban Landscapes: Framing the Integration of Urban and Heritage Planning in Multilevel Governance; Eindhoven
University of Technology: Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2015; ISBN 9789038639161.
11. García-Hernández, M.; De La Calle-Vaquero, M.; Yubero, C. Cultural Heritage and Urban Tourism: Historic City Centres under
Pressure. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1346. [CrossRef]
12. Trumpp, T. Urban Cultural Heritage Governance: Understanding the Interlinkages of Imagination, Regulation and Implementation in
Delhi, India; Franz Steiner: Stuttgart, Germany, 2019; ISBN 9783515123389.
13. Bandarin, F.; van Oers, R. The Historic Urban Landscape: Managing Heritage in an Urban Century, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons:
Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; ISBN 9780470655740.
14. Rey-Pérez, J.; Pereira Roders, A.R. Historic urban landscape. J. Cult. Her. Man. Sust. Dev. 2020, 10, 233–258. [CrossRef]
15. Haas, T.; Olsson, K. Emergent Urbanism & Beyond: Times of Transformation and Paradigm Shifts with a Twist on Heritage
Urbanism. WJSSR 2020, 7, 1. [CrossRef]
16. Ripp, M.; Rodwell, D. The Geography of Urban Heritage. Hist. Environ. Policy Pract. 2015, 6, 240–276. [CrossRef]
17. Irmisch, J.L. Kulturerbe Autofrei–Alternative Mobilitätskonzepte als Strategien für Zukunftsfähige Weltkulturerbe-Städte: Eine
Fallstudie am Beispiel Eines Autofreien Welterbes in Bamberg. Master’s Thesis, Universität Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany,
2020.
18. Ripp, M.; Rodwell, D. The governance of urban heritage. Hist. Environ. Policy Pract. 2016, 7, 81–108. [CrossRef]
19. United Nations. The 17 Goals. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed on 8 June 2021).
20. Veldpaus, L.; Pereira Roders, A.R. Historic Urban Landscape Approach as a Tool for Sustainable Urban Heritage Management. In
Culture in Sustainability: Towards a Transdisciplinary Approach; Asikainen, S., Brites, C., Plebańczyk, K., Rogač Mijatović, L., Soini,
K., Eds.; Jyväskylän Yliopisto: Jyvaskyla, Finland, 2017; pp. 61–73.
21. Neugebauer, C.S. Ansätze Perspektivischer Stadtentwicklung Durch Inwertsetzung des UNESCO-Weltkulturerbestatus, Untersucht in
Städten Peripherer und Metropoler Räume: Dissertation zur Erlangung des Akademischen Grades Doktoringenieur (Dr.-Ing.) Vorgelegt an
Der Technischen Universität Dresden; Fakultät für Architektur: Dresden, Germany, 2013.
22. Ebbe, K. Infrastructure and Heritage Conservation: Opportunities for Urban Revitalization and Economic Development. Available
online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/10260 (accessed on 8 June 2021).
23. Manz, K. Quedlinburg: Auswirkungen des Status als UNESCO-Weltkulturerbe auf die Stadtentwicklung. Eur. Reg. 1999, 7,
14–22.
24. Bigio, A.G. Historic Cities and Climate Change. In Reconnecting the City: The Historic Urban Landscape Approach and the Future of
Urban Heritage; Bandarin, F., van Oers, R., Eds.; Wiley Blackwell: Chichester, UK, 2015; ISBN 1118383982.
25. Ripp, M.; Rodwell, D. Governance in UNESCO World Heritage Sites: Reframing the Role of Management Plans as a Tool to
Improve Community Engagement. In Aspects of Management Planning for Cultural World Heritage Sites: Principles, Approaches and
Practices; Makuvaza, S., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Germany, 2017; pp. 241–253, ISBN 978-3-319-69856-4.
26. Machat, C. Weltkulturerbe und Umgebungsschutz–Ausweisung von Pufferzonen. In Weltkulturerbe Deutschland: Präventive
Konservierung und Erhaltungsperspektiven; internationale Fachtagung des Deutschen Nationalkomitees von ICOMOS, der Hochschule
für Angewandte Wissenschaft und Kunst Hildesheim, Holzminden, Göttingen und der Diözese Hildesheim in Zusammenarbeit mit der
Evangelisch-Lutherischen Landeskirche Hannovers, Hildesheim, 23–25 November 2006, 1. Aufl.; Schädler-Saub, U., Ed.; Schnell &
Steiner: Regensburg, Germany, 2008; pp. 148–155, ISBN 9783795421373.
27. Ripp, M.; Eidenschink, U.; Milz, C. Strategies, policies and tools for an integrated World Heritage management approach. Facilities
2011, 29, 286–302. [CrossRef]
28. Organization of World Heritage Cities; City of Lyon; UNESCO World Heritage Centre; France UNESCO Convention; Council of
Europe; The Getty Conservation Institute; ICOMOS. Developing Historic Cities. Keys for Understanding and Taking Action:
A Compilation of Case Studies on the Conservation and Management of Historic Cities. Analysis Section. Book of Case
Studies. Available online: https://www.ovpm.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/historic-cities-in-development-keys-for-
understanding-and-taking-action.pdf (accessed on 8 June 2021).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 9131 18 of 19

29. De Alvarenga Pereira Costa, S.; Barci Castriota, L.; Salgado, M. The World Heritage site of Ouro Preto. Facilities 2011, 29, 339–351.
[CrossRef]
30. Fornet Gil, P. Twenty-five years of transformations in the historic center of Havana. Facilities 2011, 29, 303–312. [CrossRef]
31. Pons, A.; Pereira Roders, A.R.; Turner, M. The sustainability of management practices in the Old City of Salamanca. Facilities
2011, 29, 326–338. [CrossRef]
32. Acuto, M. Global Cities, Governance and Diplomacy: The Urban Link, First Issued in Paperback; Routledge Taylor & Francis Group:
London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2013; ISBN 9781138221703.
33. Gordon, D. Cities on the World Stage: The Politics of Global Urban Climate Governance; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK;
New York, NY, USA; Port Melbourne, Australia; New Delhi, India; Singapore, 2020; ISBN 9781108125888.
34. Bulkeley, H. Cities and the Governing of Climate Change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2010, 35, 229–253. [CrossRef]
35. Kern, K.; Bulkeley, H. Cities, Europeanization and Multi-level Governance: Governing Climate Change through Transnational
Municipal Networks. JCMS J. Common Mark. Stud. 2009, 47, 309–332. [CrossRef]
36. Busch, H.; Bendlin, L.; Fenton, P. Shaping local response—The influence of transnational municipal climate networks on urban
climate governance. Urban Clim. 2018, 24, 221–230. [CrossRef]
37. Sharp, E.B.; Daley, D.M.; Lynch, M.S. Understanding Local Adoption and Implementation of Climate Change Mitigation Policy.
Urban Aff. Rev. 2011, 47, 433–457. [CrossRef]
38. Homsy, G.C. Unlikely pioneers: Creative climate change policymaking in smaller U.S. cities. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2018, 8, 121–131.
[CrossRef]
39. Zahran, S.; Brody, S.D.; Vedlitz, A.; Grover, H.; Miller, C. Vulnerability and Capacity: Explaining Local Commitment to Climate-
Change Policy. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 2008, 26, 544–562. [CrossRef]
40. Krause, R.M. Policy Innovation, Intergovernmental Relations, and the Adoption of Climate Protection Initiatives by U.S. Cities. J.
Urban Aff. 2011, 33, 45–60. [CrossRef]
41. Bedsworth, L.W.; Hanak, E. Climate policy at the local level: Insights from California. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2013, 23, 664–677.
[CrossRef]
42. Kern, K. Von Vorreitern und Nachzüglern: Die Rolle von Städten und Gemeinden in der Klimapolitik. In Leidenschaft und
Augenmaß: Sozialwissenschaftliche Perspektiven auf Entwicklung, Verwaltung, Umwelt und Klima, 1. Auflage; Hickmann, T., Lederer,
M., Fuhr, H., Eds.; Nomos: Baden-Baden, Germany, 2020; pp. 195–206, ISBN 9783845294292.
43. Hoppe, T.; van der Vegt, A.; Stegmaier, P. Presenting a Framework to Analyze Local Climate Policy and Action in Small and
Medium-Sized Cities. Sustainability 2016, 8, 847. [CrossRef]
44. Eckersley, P.M. Power and Capacity in Urban Climate Governance: Germany and England Compared; Peter Lang: Oxford, UK, 2018;
ISBN 9781787079533.
45. Withycombe Keeler, L.; Beaudoin, F.; Lerner, A.; John, B.; Beecroft, R.; Tamm, K.; Wiek, A.; Lang, D. Transferring Sustainability
Solutions across Contexts through City–University Partnerships. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2966. [CrossRef]
46. Pitt, D.; Congreve, A. Collaborative approaches to local climate change and clean energy initiatives in the USA and England.
Local Environ. 2017, 22, 1124–1141. [CrossRef]
47. Kingdon, J.W. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies; Little Brown and Co: Boston, MA, USA, 1984; ISBN 0316493910.
48. Mintrom, M. Policy Entrepreneurs and Dynamic Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2019; ISBN 9781108605946.
49. Young, R.F. The greening of Chicago: Environmental leaders and organisational learning in the transition toward a sustainable
metropolitan region. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2010, 53, 1051–1068. [CrossRef]
50. Bulkeley, H.; Jordan, A. Transnational environmental governance: New findings and emerging research agendas. Environ. Plan. C
Gov. Policy 2012, 30, 556–570. [CrossRef]
51. Grafakos, S.; Trigg, K.; Landauer, M.; Chelleri, L.; Dhakal, S. Analytical framework to evaluate the level of integration of climate
adaptation and mitigation in cities. Clim. Chang. 2019, 154, 87–106. [CrossRef]
52. Göpfert, C.; Wamsler, C.; Lang, W. Enhancing structures for joint climate change mitigation and adaptation action in city
administrations—Empirical insights and practical implications. City Environ. Interact. 2020, 8, 100052:1–100052:11. [CrossRef]
53. Kern, K.; Grönholm, S.; Haupt, W.; Hopman, L.; Kettunen, P. Matching Forerunner Cities: Assessing Turku’s Climate Policy
in Comparison with Malmö, Groningen and Rostock (2021). RESEARCH REPORTS 01/2021, Turku. 2021. Available online:
https://www.turku.fi/sites/default/files/atoms/files/kto-tutkimusraportteja_1-2021.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2021).
54. Otto, A.; Kern, K.; Haupt, W.; Eckersley, P.; Thieken, A. Ranking local climate policy: Assessing the mitigation and adaptation
activities of 104 German cities. Clim. Chang. 2021, 167, 1–23.
55. Kern, K.; Niederhafner, S.; Rechlin, S.; Wagner, J. Kommunaler Klimaschutz in Deutschland–Handlungsoptionen, Entwicklung
und Perspektiven. Discussion Papers/Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, Forschungsschwerpunkt Zivil ge
sellschaft, Konflikte und Demokratie, Abteilung Zivilgesellschaft und Transnationale Netzwerke 2005-101, Berlin. 2005.
Available online: https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/19672/ssoar-2005-kern_et_al-kommunaler_
klimaschutz_in_deutschland_-.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y&lnkname=ssoar-2005-kern_et_al-kommunaler_klimaschutz_
in_deutschland_-.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2021).
56. Gehl, J. Bern: Eine Altstadt für Alle: Public Space & Public Life Studie. Available online: https://www.bern.ch/themen/
mobilitat-und-verkehr/gesamtverkehr/strategien-und-konzepte/fussgaengerfreundliche-innenstadt (accessed on 1 June 2021).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 9131 19 of 19

57. Hommels, A. Studying Obduracy in the City: Toward a Productive Fusion between Technology Studies and Urban Studies. Sci.
Technol. Hum. Values 2005, 30, 323–351. [CrossRef]
58. Engler, H. Social movement and the failure of car-friendly city projects: East and West Berlin (1970s and 1980s). J. Transp. Hist.
2020, 41, 353–380. [CrossRef]
59. Neugebauer, C.S. Visions of Liveable Cities? Der UNESCO-Weltkulturerbestatus als Potenzial für nachhaltige Stadtentwicklung.
In REAL CORP 2010: Cities for everyone: Liveable, Health, Prosperous: Proceedings of 15th International Conference on Urban Planning,
Regional Development and Information Society = Beiträge zur 15. Internationalen Konferenz zu Stadtplanung, Regionalentwicklung und
Informationsgesellschaft; Schrenk, M., Popovich, V., Zeile, P., Eds.; CORP, Competence Center of Urban and Regional Planning:
Schwechat-Rannersdorf, Austria, 2010; pp. 1347–1352, ISBN 9783950213997.