Governance and sustainable development at higher education institutions

© 2020, Springer Nature B.V. Governance issues, here interpreted as the provisions of adequate policy frameworks characterized by reliability and accountability, coupled with resources to support their implementation, are known to be the basis for the implementation of sustainable development measures. This paper discusses the influence of governance in the ways sustainability is perceived and practiced in a higher education context. Apart from due considerations to the role of governance as the basis for regulation and institutional actions and management decisions, this paper reports on an empirical study undertaken in a sample of higher education institutions. This study entailed an analysis of sustainable development policies, certification, organizational structure, budget, reports, team for sustainability, staff training, and challenges for the integration of sustainability and governance. The results suggest that even though there are different opinions and attitudes on the role of governance, it is regarded as an important component in supporting efforts by higher education institutions to include considerations on sustainable development as part of their strategies

An adaptive indicator framework for monitoring regional sustainable development: a case study of the INSURE project in Limburg, The Netherlands

Indicators by themselves tell us little about how well a system is progressing in relation to the goal of sustainability. Especially at the regional level, existing indicator frameworks do not typically permit the inclusion of relevant regionspecific information. Furthermore, they do not provide comprehensive information on overall system sustainability. The real challenge is not to identify indicators–there are hundreds of good lists–but to seek out the best way to put all of them to work. The insure project, carried out in four case-study regions in europe (including the limburg region of the netherlands), attempted to develop an adaptive indicator framework for integrated monitoring of sustainable development. During the project, it became increasingly clear that indicators are not only more meaningful when viewed within the context of the whole system, but also that science and policy play different, but complementary, roles. This article discusses the challenges and the lessons learned during the limburg project

Creating an enabling environment for accelerating condominium energy retrofitting:Case studies in Grenoble (FR) and Brussels (BE)

Energy retrofitting in condominiums involves collective decision making, the complexity of which is believed to be one of the main barriers to retrofitting projects. A strong heterogeneity among the occupants in terms of age, education, income, or occupancy status, as well as varying interests and perceptions, can make it difficult to gather people around and agree on a common project. In this paper, we present the results of two in depth case studies about condominium renovation projects that took place in Grenoble (France) and Brussels (Belgium). Those in-depth case studies investigate the elements that are needed to create an enabling environment stimulating the acceleration of energy retrofitting of condominiums, and took place within the Interreg NWE "ACE Retrofitting"project. The enabling environment surrounding a successful retrofit is shown in these case studies to be more than just providing process facilitation or a financing scheme. It takes time to put an enabling environment in place. For different locations across Europe, different enabling environments are needed. Clearly, this requires giving more attention to condominiums at the local, regional, national and European levels. Among other crucial element to look for, social acceptance is at the heart of decision-making in retrofitting projects. This study concludes with propositions and policy recommendations, at the different levels of the social-ecological model

Toward design principles for joint knowledge production projects: lessons from the deepest polder of The Netherlands

In various countries, actors try to reconcile climate science and policy through joint knowledge production (JNP). While many conceptual analyses of JNP exist, empirical studies that actually try to assess JNP processes are rare. This paper aims to fill this gap through an empirical analysis of the ‘Hotspot Zuidplaspolder’ project in which scientists, policymakers and other actors collaboratively looked for ways to ‘climate proof’ existing plans for urban development in one of the deepest polders of the Netherlands. The analysis is done by identifying and explaining the credibility and salience of the knowledge produced as well as the perceived legitimacy of the JNP process. Seven success factors derived from existing literature were used in the analysis. Stakeholders appeared to evaluate this project as positive, but the analysis shows that criteria and thresholds regarding success differ between the actors involved. We found three underlying design principles that should be followed to enhance the success of future JNP projects. First, it is necessary to organize several instances for reflection on the project processes. Second, new reward structures are needed to stimulate actors to take new initiatives and come up with creative ideas. Third, projects and programs should provide room to make mistakes and learn from them. This first set of empirical design principles for JNP is useful but should be further refined and nuanced in order to better deal with the social complexity of climate change and other wicked problems

Towards successful joint knowledge production for global change and sustainability: lessons from six Dutch adaptation projects (e-chapter)

In several Western European countries, scientists, policymakers and other actors collaborate in regional climate change adaptation projects. Such joint knowledge production is often assumed to lead to reconciliation of supply and demand for knowledge. Many conceptual analyses of joint knowledge production have been performed, yet systematic empirical assessments of the phenomenon are lacking. This chapter aims to address this gap by providing a retrospective analysis of six Dutch regional climate change adaptation projects, which were all part of two large programs, 'Climate Changes Spatial Planning' and 'Living with Water'. The analysis is based on desk research and 27 semi-structured interviews with researchers, policymakers and project funders. The chapter first explores how the success of joint knowledge production can be analyzed and, second, how differences in success can be explained. Based on the analysis, two variables are proposed clarifying the context in which a project takes place: (1) epistemological distance between participating actors; and (2) normative consensus. The chapter denominates some initial design principles for joint knowledge production. It is concluded that science-policy cooperation in regions seems to provide opportunities for transformative cross-boundary learning

Conceptualising joint knowledge production in regional climate change adaptation projects: success conditions and levers for action

Matching supply and demand for knowledge in the fields of global change and sustainability is a daunting task. Science and public policy differ in their timeframes, epistemologies, objectives, process-cycles and criteria for judging the quality of knowledge, while global change and sustainability issues involve value pluralities and large uncertainties. In literature and in practice, it is argued that joint knowledge production in projects through collaboration between (and within) science and policy serves as a means to bridge the gap between the two domains. However, an assessment framework for analysing the merits and limitations of such projects, identifying good practices and enabling adaptive management as well as social learning had not yet been developed. This paper aims to develop such a framework. We portray joint knowledge production projects as policy arrangements in which the degree of success depends on the actors involved, contents of dominant discourses, presence of rules and the availability of resources. Literature was discussed to specify these four dimensions into seven success conditions for joint knowledge production. Scholars, boundary organizations and actors in projects can use the framework for retrospective analyses of projects, providing joint knowledge production with the empirical basis it still requires. The framework can also be used for promoting reflection in action as well as for formative assessments enabling social learning

Conceptualising joint knowledge production in regional climate change adaptation projects: success conditions and levers for action

Matching supply and demand for knowledge in the fields of global change and sustainability is a daunting task. Science and public policy differ in their timeframes, epistemologies, objectives, process-cycles and criteria for judging the quality of knowledge, while global change and sustainability issues involve value pluralities and large uncertainties. In literature and in practice, it is argued that joint knowledge production in projects through collaboration between (and within) science and policy serves as a means to bridge the gap between the two domains. However, an assessment framework for analysing the merits and limitations of such projects, identifying good practices and enabling adaptive management as well as social learning had not yet been developed. This paper aims to develop such a framework. We portray joint knowledge production projects as policy arrangements in which the degree of success depends on the actors involved, contents of dominant discourses, presence of rules and the availability of resources. Literature was discussed to specify these four dimensions into seven success conditions for joint knowledge production. Scholars, boundary organizations and actors in projects can use the framework for retrospective analyses of projects, providing joint knowledge production with the empirical basis it still requires. The framework can also be used for promoting reflection in action as well as for formative assessments enabling social learning