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)

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

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

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

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

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

Barriers to transformative adaptation: Responses to flood risk in Ireland

Barriers to climate change adaptation have received increased attention in recent years as researchers and policymakers attempt to understand their complex and interdependent nature and identify strategies for overcoming them. To date however, there is a paucity of research on barriers to transformative adaptation. Using two case studies of flood risk management from Ireland we identify and characterize barriers to transformative adaptation. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders connected to proposed transformative strategies in Skibbereen, County Cork and Clontarf, County Dublin. Across both case studies, where transformative strategies failed to materialize, we highlight three significant barriers that impede transformation including: (i) social and cultural values, particularly place attachment and identity; (ii) institutional reliance on technical expertise which fails to look beyond traditional technocratic approaches and; (iii) institutional regulatory practices. Findings illustrate that where social or institutional barriers emerge, transformation may more likely succeed through a series of incremental changes. This research has practical implications for future adaptation planning as facilitating transformation through incrementalism requires flexible adaptation strategies that are responsive to changing social values over time. While focused on flood risk management, our findings have applicability for other sectors adapting to climate change

Politicizing food security governance through participation: opportunities and opposition

Since the 2007/08 food price crisis there has been a proliferation of multi-stakeholder processes (MSPs) devoted to bringing diverse perspectives together to inform and improve food security policy. While much of the literature highlights the positive contributions to be gained from an opening-up of traditionally state-led processes, there is a strong critique emerging to show that, in many instances, MSPs have de-politicizing effects. In this paper, we scrutinize MSPs in relation to de-politicization. We argue that re-building sustainable and just food systems requires alternative visions that can best be made visible through politicized policy processes. Focusing on three key conditions of politicization, we examine the UN Committee on World Food Security as a MSP where we see a process of politicization playing out through the endorsement of the ‘most-affected’ principle, which is in turn being actively contested by traditionally powerful actors. We conclude that there is a need to implement and reinforce mechanisms that deliberately politicize participation in MSPs, notably by clearly distinguishing between states and other stakeholders, as well as between categories of non-state actors.</p

Water Managers' Boundary Judgments and Adaptive Water Governance. An Analysis of the Dutch Haringvliet Sluices Case

__Abstract__ In this paper, we explore how managing actors' boundary judgments influence the adaptability of water governance. We approach this question by examining the relationship between the way water managers frame, and act in, complex water issues on the one hand and develop adaptive water governance strategies on the other. We define four categories of boundary judgments made by water managers in order to deal with the complexities in water governance issues. An in-depth case study analysis of an attempt to adjust the management of the water regime in the south-west Delta of the Netherlands is provided in order to reconstruct the water managers' boundary judgments and their impact upon governance strategies used. We found that, most of the time, the water managers involved predominantly made tight boundary judgments. These tight boundary judgments seemed to hamper the mutual learning process among a variety of stakeholders that is needed to realize adaptive water governance. We argue that wide boundary judgments enhance the chance of realizing adaptive practices and build upon exploration, learning, and connection