City to city learning and knowledge exchange for climate resilience in southern Africa

in the cities and collectively helped to identify key issues for the study cities and urban ecosys- tems, and to assess the cities’ advancement and gaps that need to be addressed in resilience planning. Altogether, the mixed methods approach of collecting data where we used multiple (> three- 3) approaches, sources and types of information including during the city exchange visits allowed triangulation and verification of trends, perceptions and assessments in order to reduce bias that emanates from single informants, methods, observers or single theory studies [58]. Prior to official engagement, participants were informed of the FRACTAL and follow-on projects through preliminary meetings and during data collection cover letters and introduc- tory statements were used to inform participants about the study. No identifiable information was collected from the participants in the surveys so that data was collected anonymously. We therefore adhered to principles and practices of ethical research which included among others, voluntary participation, informed consent, respect for people and communities, confidential- ity and anonymity. Simultaneously, desktop studies (literature review, document and policy analyses) were conducted to review policies and city developmental plans (Table 1). The collated data on the cities is unpacked in the results section of this paper. In response to the question on the usefulness of city learning in contributing to building resilience that we pose in the introduction; we conducted a comparative case study analysis. Given the disparity

in the type of data collected across the cities which was due to the limited scope of the study in undertaking an experimental design across the cities, a comparative, in-depth case study analy- sis was relevant for evaluating and comparing the condition(s) of the cities. In the comparative analysis, we focused on the cities’ advancements in their responses and adaptation to climate change, particularly for water conservation, energy, solid waste management and biodiversity protection mobilized against risks and vulnerabilities as a result of climate-induced and non- climatic factors (see Table 2 for specific purpose of visits). The case study approach is appropri- ate for analysing and synthesizing ‘similarities, differences and patterns across two or more cases. . . and understanding how the context influences the success of an intervention’ ([59] pp Table 2. Summary of key issues, city exchange visits and visit purpose. City Key issues Host city Purpose Harare • Water supply challenges • Low quality water • Poor solid waste management • Wetlands degradation • Integration of climate change into planning at city level Lusaka and Windhoek • Understand adaptation strategies • Compare risks and vulnerabilities in the water and energy sectors Lusaka • Flooding • Low quality water • Water insecurity • Poor solid waste management • Integration of climate change into planning at city level • Informal settlements Windhoek and Durban • Understand adaptive measures • Suggest recommendations for increasing awareness and adaptation capacity

• Promote sustainable use and protection of surface and ground water sources in Lusaka Durban • Flooding • Informal settlements (Hosted Lusaka delegation) • Examine LuWSI and the water security initiatives being implemented for coordination • Develop quick win projects that can be delivered in a short time frame Windhoek • Water supply challenges • Low quantity water • Rural-urban migration • Informal settlements Lusaka • Bring key city actors together • Share knowledge and experiences related to the ongoing water and climate change work in both cities https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227915.t002 City learning in southern Africa PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227915 January 24, 2020 9 / 25