Search

Arguments for so-called citizen responsibilisation, the transfer of responsibilities for public services to citizens, are increasingly put forward in several Western-European countries. An important domain in which citizen responsibilisation is advocated is that of urban climate change adaptation. However, in practice, the advocated shift is taking place only to a limited extent. This study aims to help explain this by researching Dutch local governments' perceptions on citizens' capabilities as well as these governments' preferences regarding the tasks they want to delegate to citizens in the different stages of adaptation planning. Findings from three workshops with policy practitioners from local governments show that these practitioners have moderate trust in citizens' capabilities, but a low willingness to transfer responsibilities. Concerns of local governments include how to: (i) ensure an equal division of resources between different citizen groups/neighbourhoods; (ii) address citizens who are pursuing their own benefits more than producing a public adaptation good; (iii) address potential externalities for other citizens; (iv) guarantee a certain quality level for the public space. The study shows that local governments have an implicit awareness of different dimensions of responsibility and the tensions between them, including at least: responsibility as a task, as a legal duty, and as something for which one can be held accountable. We recommend a more explicit discussion of these dimensions in practice and a more systematic treatment of them in conceptual and in empirical studies.

Studies on stability and change in modes of environmental governance often remain implicit regarding the conceptualisation, nature and causes of stability and change. Moreover, they are selective in the addressed explanatory factors. Theorising of stability and change in modes of environmental governance could be brought to the next level by enhancing the comparability and alignment of explanatory studies. This paper aims to contribute to this effort using insights regarding the definition and explanation of change processes gained in the policy and political sciences. Based on these insights, we provide a systematic approach for conceptualising “stability” and “change” in modes of governance and introduce six categories of explanatory factors: physical circumstances, infrastructures, institutional settings, discourse, characteristics of agency and shock events. The case of Dutch flood risk governance shows the usefulness of the proposed approach. We conclude by reflecting on the approach's potential for providing richer and more nuanced explanations.

To address the increase in the amount of Waste of Electrical and Electronic Equipment in Europe (WEEE), in 2003 the European Commission issued its WEEE Directive, introducing an extended producer responsibility (EPR). While there is arguably a relationship between modes of e-waste governance and the successful handling of e-waste, the empirical evidence explaining the performance of different modes of e-waste governance is limited. We address this knowledge gap by proposing a framework for analysing and evaluating e-waste governance, inspired by literature on WEEE, reverse logistics and environmental governance. This framework distinguishes between four success conditions that are seen as indicators for the performance of e-waste governance: inclusion of all stakeholders, overall strategic collaboration, an adequate rule system and knowledge sharing/performance management. In addition, the framework distinguishes between different modes of e-waste governance which are assumed to influence the extent to which the success conditions are met. We applied the framework to the case of Dutch e-waste governance to test its usefulness and derive initial lessons and good practices from it. Our findings show that the Dutch e-waste governance arrangement is performing relatively well in terms of meeting the success conditions. We identified some concrete local (pilot) approaches that added an interactive twist to the Dutch e-waste system, which appears to be conducive to the fulfilment of success conditions. These findings suggest that a combination of ‘hard’ public-private and ‘soft’ interactive modes of governance – combining the strong points of formal rules and voluntary action taking – is desirable.

Diversification of Flood Risk Management Strategies (FRMSs) is debated both in research and practice. A comparative analysis and evaluation of diversification of FRMSs in Belgium, England, France, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden showed large inter-country differences in their approaches to diversification. In the Netherlands, Poland, France and Belgium, we see a desire to create a back-up layer of contingency. England has been diversified for 65 years, while Sweden is currently diversifying due to climate change concerns. In most countries the practical on the ground implementation of diversified strategies is lagging behind intentions as laid down in discussions and policy plans. Main drivers for diversification are: policy entrepreneurs; bottom-up initiatives by local stakeholders; a broader discursive shift towards sustainability and resilience; the presence of enforceable rules and regulations; the availability of financial resources; technical improvements; broader shifts ‘from government to governance’; and Europeanisation. Main barriers for diversification are: a lack of resources and path dependency. Floods as trigger events have been found to contribute both to stability and change, but under different circumstances. To enhance societal resilience to flooding, diversification of flood risk management strategies (FRMSs) is both necessary and important. However, each strategy must be effective in its own right and needs sufficient investment to make its implementation sensible.

Climate adaptation literature has hitherto devoted limited attention to the roles of residents. Yet their role is crucial in addressing non- or maladaptation, as their initiative or consent is often necessary to take adaptation measures in or around the house. To address this knowledge gap, this paper explores mainstream and additional roles for residents through a literature review. Mainstream roles are those roles that residents usually take, while additional roles are more specific and local in nature. The latter may, however, provide the seeds for wider change. To structure the results, we made a distinction between three forms of residents' commitment to adaptation: as (1) citizens falling under the jurisdiction of various governmental levels; (2) consumers (including home owners) in the market; and (3) civil society members/partners. While this is an established categorization in other domains of environmental governance, it has not yet been systematically applied to the adaptation domain. The paper's empirical focus regarding mainstream and additional roles is on the Dutch adaptation domains of flood risk management, stormwater management and dealing with heat stress. We found scope for additional roles for residents, especially as consumers in the market and civil society members. The findings are of significance for the global debate on residents' roles in climate adaptation and suggest that addressing all three forms of commitment may enhance the implementation of measures as well as their legitimacy, residents' awareness and societies' potential to innovate. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment