Search

Despite adopting a mainstreaming approach to spatial adaptation, few cities actually implement it. Why this is so is disputed, as the implementation stage has been under-researched. Inspired by the "mechanism-based" strand, this paper analyses three implementation projects in the Netherlands. Mechanisms are generalizable patterns yielding more plausible explanations for phenomena than "superficial" barriers or drivers. We found one overarching mechanism: the "institutional void" – an absence of policy frameworks with clear norms and agreements on adaptation. It led to three hampering mechanisms (avoidance of administrative responsibility, aversion to innovation and avoidance of private responsibility) and three stimulating mechanisms (window of opportunity exploitation, efficient coupling and policy entrepreneurship). We demonstrate that, although hampering mechanisms constrain the solution space for mainstreaming adaptation, the stimulating mechanisms prove that room remains for committed actors to use the limited available space efficiently. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Citizens' initiatives for climate action are actively encouraged by governments to enhance the resilience of communities to climate change. This increased responsibilisation of citizens has implications for the roles of governments. The degree of government involvement does not necessarily decline, but government roles may need to shift: from a regulating and steering government towards a more collaborative and responsive government that enables and facilitates community initiatives that are self‐governed by citizens. However, we lack a conceptual understanding of such new government roles, as well as empirical insights into how local governments participate in citizens' initiatives and how they take up such new roles. In this paper, a "ladder of government participation" is introduced, which is used to explore the roles of local governments in citizens' initiatives for climate change adaptation in the Netherlands. The results show that local governments are slowly but gradually shifting towards more networking, stimulating, and facilitating roles. Key concerns of local practitioners are (a) a lack of flexibility and support of their own municipal organisation to facilitate citizens' initiatives, (b) uncertainty about the continuity of citizens' initiatives over time, and (c) a potential increase of inequity among citizen groups resulting from facilitating citizens' initiatives. An important finding is that the roles of local governments tend to be flexible, in that they can move from one role to the other over time for one and the same citizens' initiative depending on its stage of development, as well as take up several roles simultaneously for different citizens' initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]