Collaborative action research for the governance of climate adaptation - foundations, conditions and pitfalls

This position paper serves as an introductory guide to designing and facilitating an action research process with stakeholders in the context of climate adaptation. Specifically, this is aimed at action researchers who are targeting at involving stakeholders and their expert knowledge in generating knowledge about their own condition and how it can be changed. The core philosophy of our research approach can be described as developing a powerful combination between practice-driven collaborative action research and theoretically-informed scientific research. Collaborative action research means that we take guidance from the hotspots as the primary source of questions, dilemmas and empirical data regarding the governance of adaptation, but also collaborate with them in testing insights and strategies, and evaluating their usefulness. The purpose is to develop effective, legitimate and resilient governance arrangements for climate adaptation. Scientific quality will be achieved by placing this co-production of knowledge in a well-founded and innovative theoretical framework, and through the involvement of the international consortium partners. This position paper provides a methodological starting point of the research program ‘Governance of Climate Adaptation’ and aims: · To clarify the theoretical foundation of collaborative action research and the underlying ontological and epistemological principles · To give an historical overview of the development of action research and its different forms · To enhance the theoretical foundation of collaborative action research in the specific context of governance of climate adaptation. · To translate the philosophy of collaborative action research into practical methods; · To give an overview of the main conditions and pitfalls for action research in complex governance settings Finally, this position paper provides three key instruminstruments developed to support Action Research in the hotspots: 1) Toolbox for AR in hotspots (chapter 6); 2) Set-up of a research design and action plan for AR in hotspots (chapter 7); 3) Quality checklist or guidance for AR in hotspots (chapter 8)

Forum-shoppen in de beleidsvorming

In besluitvormingsprocessen zijn twee vragen dominant: de effectiviteitsvraag en de passend-heidsvraag. Bij de eerste vraag gaat het om feiten, terwijl het bij de tweede vraag gaat om normen die aan beleidshandelen ten grondslag liggen. Zowel die feiten als die normen staan veelvuldig ter discussie in het besluitvormingsproces. Om consensus te bereiken worden vor-men van joint fact-finding, respectievelijk alternatieve geschillenbeslechting en interactieve beleidsvorming als remedie gezien. Dit genereert het fenomeen van forumverdichting waar-door het aantal mogelijkheden voor strategische interacties toeneemt. Daarmee worden naast feiten en normen ook besluitvormingsforums tot potentieel onderwerp van onderhandeling. Actoren zoeken een forum dat het beste aansluit bij hun belangen: zij gaan forum-shoppen

Mechanics of cooling liquids by forced evaporation in bubbles

Injecting a non-dissolvable gas into a saturated liquid results in sub-cooling of the liquid due to forced evaporation into the bubble. Previous studies assumed the rate of evaporation of liquid into the bubble to be independent of the degree of sub-cooling. In our study we quantify the bubble growth by direct observation using high speed imaging and prove that this hypothesis is not true. A phenomenological model of the bubble growth as a function of the degree of sub-cooling is developed and we find excellent agreement between the measurements and theory. This bubble cooling process is employed in cooling a liquid. By identification of all heat flows, we can well describe the cool down curve using bubble cooling. Bubble cooling provides an alternative cooling method for liquids without the use of complicated cooling techniques

Innovations in the Dutch polder: Communities of practice and the challenge of coevolution

Recently, a new initiative has entered the Dutch policy-arena of spatial planning, water management and nature preservation: the so-called Community of Practice (COP). Within such a COP actors with very different backgrounds (experts, inhabitants, officials, stakeholders) participate and try to find creative solutions for persistent political and societal problems by combining conflicting spatial functions in specific areas. From a complex adaptive systems point of view, we analyze the logic and functioning of such a COP. From the literature on complexity and innovation we can learn that staying at the edge of chaos for COPs mean that they not only have to maintain an internal process of co-evolution between the very different actors involved, but also have to maintain relations of co-evolution with their wider environment. After an in-depth case study ‘Gouwe Wiericke’ we conclude that COPs can produce innovative policy results, but reaching ‘bounded instability’ through sustainable co-evolution requires careful balancing acts between extremes

Lerend evalueren; een expeditieverslag

In 2003 hebben wij met enkele andere onderzoekers het Stimuleringsprogramma Burger en Milieubeleid van het Nederlandse Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu (VROM) geëvalueerd met behulp van een lerende evaluatieaanpak (zie Edelenbos, e.a., 2003). Dit programma moest het milieubeleid meer van, voor en door de burger maken. We hebben dit onderzoek ‘anders dan anders’ aangepakt, met name om een grotere doorwerking van de studie te bewerkstelligen. Daarom hebben we gaandeweg een ‘lerende evaluatie’ vormgegeven, die gericht was op daadwerkelijke gedragsverandering en leermomenten voor het betrokken programmateam. Tegelijk was de evaluatie klassiek, in de zin dat de politiek-bestuurlijke top en de volksvertegenwoordiging moesten kunnen beoordelen of het programma voortgezet moest worden