Disentangling scale approaches in governance research: comparing monocentric, multilevel, and adaptive governance

The question of how to govern the multiscale problems in today’s network society is an important topic in the fields of public administration, political sciences, and environmental sciences. How scales are defined, studied, and dealt with varies substantially within and across these fields. This paper aims to reduce the existing conceptual confusion regarding scales by disentangling three representative approaches that address both governance and scaling: monocentric governance, multilevel governance, and adaptive governance. It does so by analyzing the differences in (1) underlying views on governing, (2) assumptions about scales, (3) dominant problem definitions regarding scales, and (4) preferred responses for dealing with multiple scales. Finally, this paper identifies research opportunities within and across these approaches

Do scale frames matter? Scale frame mismatches in the decision making process of a 'mega farm' in a small Dutch village

Scale issues are an increasingly important feature of complex sustainability issues, but they are mostly taken for granted in policy processes. However, the scale at which a problem is defined as well as the scale at which it should be solved are potentially contentious issues. The framing of a problem as a local, regional, or global problem is not without consequences and influences processes of inclusion and exclusion. Little is known about the ways actors frame scales and the effect of different scale frames on decision making processes. This paper addresses the questions that different scale frames actors use and what the implications of scale frames are for policy processes. It does so by analyzing the scale frames deployed by different actors on the establishment of a so-called new mixed company or mega farm and the related decision making process in a Dutch municipality. We find that actors deploy different and conflicting scale frames, leading to scale frame mismatches. We conclude that scale frame mismatches play an important role in the stagnation of the decision making proces

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)

Zorgvuldig vertrouwen!

Politieke besluitvorming over intensieve veehouderij is regelmatig onderwerp van heftige discussies. Aan de orde zijn vele en onderling conflicterende waarden, opvattingen en feiten. Dit essay analyseert een besluitvormingsproces over de vestiging van een megastal. Tijdens dit proces bleken de verschillende belevingswerelden van boeren, burgers, politici en wetenschappers te botsen

Schaken met schalen

Het doel van dit essay is om beleidsmakers, onderzoekers, ondernemers en maatschappelijke partijen gevoelig te maken voor de verschillende schaalframes (interpretaties van betrokkenen waarin zij de kwestie op een bepaalde schaal en niveau plaatsen) over de intensieve veehouderij en de gevolgen die deze hebben voor besluitvormingsprocessen

Politieke besluitvorming over het Landbouwontwikkelingsgebied Witveldweg in de Gemeente Horst aan de Maas

LOGs (landbouwontwikkelingsgebieden) maken onderdeel uit van het landelijke reconstructiebeleid. Bijzonder voor Horst aan de Maas is dat een aantal agrarische ondernemers heeft aangegeven een zogenaamd Nieuw Gemengd Bedrijf (NGB) in dit gebied te willen vestigen. Hoewel de vergunningen nog niet zijn afgegeven, heeft de goedkeuring van de gebiedsvisie tot veel commotie geleid. In de aanloop naar de besluitvorming heeft vooral de mogelijke vestiging van het NGB tot veel maatschappelijke onrust en protesten geleid. De protesten hadden vooral betrekking op mogelijke gezondheidsrisico’s van fijnstof en MRSA (de ziekenhuisbacterie), de aantasting van het karakter van het landelijk gebied door een dergelijke grootschalige onderneming, de (stank)overlast en toename van verkeer(sonveiligheid). Daarnaast zijn er ook fundamenteel ethische bezwaren tegen het op een grootschalige manier houden van diere

Farmer collectives for more effective agri-environmental schemes? An assessment framework based on the concept of ‘professionalization’

Agri-environmental schemes (AESs) have been implemented in many countries in Europe. However, there is mixed evidence about their effectiveness. Several studies in different countries suggest that AESs are more effective when designed at landscape level and implemented by groups of collaborating farmers (‘farmer collectives’). The EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has enabled groups of farmers to be applicants for and final beneficiaries of AESs subsidies for the period 2015–2020, but it is unclear what is needed for farmer collectives engaged in AESs to contribute to more agrobiodiversity. In this paper, the lens of ‘professionalization’ is used to conceptualize and operationalize the performance of farmer collectives. We have developed an assessment framework that facilitates the characterization and development of the degree of professionalization of farmer collectives. The ultimate aim is achieving ecological effectiveness of AESs by professionalization of the farmer collectives. The framework distinguishes three categories of professionalization: organizational, occupational and systemic, and provides a new lens for research on AESs. It can also be used by practitioners involved in AESs to provide insight into, and reflect upon, the performance of farmer collectives

The governance of adaptation to climate change : a collaborative action research programme to develop and test legitimate, effective and resilient governance arrangements for climate adaptation : midterm review

The Knowledge for Climate, Governance of Adaptation programme aims to integrate existing knowledge from the fields of public administration, economics, political science, spatial planning, law, environmental studies and psychology. Through close cooperation with hotspots, this programme will add new empirical evidence to test innovative theoretical propositions about the governance of climate adaptation. How this is done in the past two years, and what our plans are for the coming two years, is described in this report

How to assess the adaptive capacity of legislation and policies

Abstract: Intuitively it is clear that institutions can both enhance and hamper the adaptive capacity of a society. But what characteristics make an institution more or less helpful for development and implementation of adaptation strategies? Based on the literature, we developed an analytical framework to assess the adaptive capacity of institutions. The Adaptive Capacity Wheel consists of six dimensions: variety, learning, autonomous ability to change, leadership, legitimacy and resources. The six dimensions were operationalised into 22 criteria and were applied to formal institutions in a content analysis. We conclude that sometimes dimensions and criteria seem to contradict each other, which is not surprising, because this reflects existing paradoxes in the governance of society. We would like to discuss the analytical instrument and its possible uses with the audience of the Amsterdam Conference

Handling adaptation governance choices in Sweden, Germany, the UK and the Netherlands

This document presents an overview of climate adaptation policies in four countries: Sweden, Germany, the UK and the Netherlands. The present report presents a collection of the papers that were discussed during a workshop with the international partner