| 1. |
- Baird, Julia, et al.
(författare)
-
Learning effects of interactive decision-making processes for climate change adaptation
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Global Environmental Change. - : Elsevier BV. - 0959-3780 .- 1872-9495. ; 27, s. 51-63
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Learning is gaining attention in relation to governance processes for contemporary environmental challenges; however, scholarship at the nexus of learning and environmental governance lacks clarity and understanding about how to define and measure learning, and the linkages between learning, social interactions, and environment. In response, this study aimed to advance and operationalize a typology of learning in an environmental governance context, and examined if a participatory decision-making process (adaptive co-management) for climate change adaptation fostered learning. Three types of learning were identified: cognitive learning, related to the acquisition of new or the structuring of existing knowledge; normative learning, which concerns a shift in viewpoints, values or paradigms, and relational learning, referring to an improved understanding of others' mindsets, enhanced trust and ability to cooperate. A robust mixed methods approach with a focus on quantitative measures including concept map analysis, social network analysis, and self-reflective questions, was designed to gauge indicators for each learning type. A participatory decision-making process for climate change adaptation was initiated with stakeholders in the Niagara region, Canada. A pseudo-control group was used to minimize external contextual influences on results. Clear empirical evidence of cognitive and relational learning was gained; however, the results from normative learning measures were inconclusive. The learning typology and measurement method operationalized in this research advances previous treatments of learning in relation to participatory decision-making processes, and supports adaptive co-management as a governance strategy that fosters learning and adaptive capacity.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Haug, Constanze, et al.
(författare)
-
Navigating the dilemmas of climate policy in Europe: evidence from policy evaluation studies
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Climatic Change. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0165-0009 .- 1573-1480. ; 101:3-4, s. 427-445
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Climate change is widely recognised as a 'wicked' policy problem. Agreeing and implementing governance responses is proving extremely difficult. Policy makers in many jurisdictions now emphasise their ambition to govern using the best available evidence. One obvious source of such evidence is the evaluations of the performance of existing policies. But to what extent do these evaluations provide insights into the difficult dilemmas that governors typically encounter? We address this question by reviewing the content of 262 evaluation studies of European climate policies in the light of six kinds of dilemma found in the governance literature. We are interested in what these studies say about the performance of European climate policies and in their capacity to inform evidence-based policy-making. We find that the evaluations do arrive at common findings: that climate change is framed as a problem of market and/or state failure; that voluntary measures tend to be ineffective; that market-based instruments tend to be regressive; that EU-level policies have driven climate policies in the latecomer EU Member States; and that lack of monitoring and weak enforcement are major obstacles to effective policy implementation. However, we also conclude that the evidence base these studies represent is surprisingly weak for such a high profile area. There is too little systematic climate policy evaluation work in the EU to support systematic evidence-based policy making. This reduces the scope for sound policy making in the short run and is a constraint to policy learning in the longer term.
|
|
| 4. |
- Hildingsson, Roger, et al.
(författare)
-
Renewable Energies: A Continuing Balancing Act?
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Climate Change Policy in the European Union: Confronting the Dilemmas of Mitigation and Adaptation?.
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 5. |
- Huitema, Dave, et al.
(författare)
-
The evaluation of climate policy: theory and emerging practice in Europe
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Policy Sciences. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0032-2687 .- 1573-0891. ; 44:2, s. 179-198
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Climate policy is a relatively young and dynamic area of public policy making. However, its development has attracted far more attention than the results it delivers in practice, which of course are the concern of policy evaluators. This article attempts to provide the first systematic cataloging of the emerging patterns of policy evaluation undertaken in different parts of the European Union. Theories of policy evaluation suggest that these evaluation practices should acknowledge the inherent complexity of climate policy making, be reflexive by questioning official policy goals, and be participatory. A meta-analysis of 259 climate policy evaluations suggests that current practice engages with some but not all of these issues. This article concludes by analyzing the implications of this finding for those in the academic and practitioner community who are keen to understand the extent to which climate policy evaluation is delivering on its promises.
|
|
| 6. |
- Huitema, Dave, et al.
(författare)
-
The governance of adaptation : choices, reasons, and effects. Introduction to the Special Feature
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Ecology and Society. - 1708-3087. ; 21:3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The governance of climate adaptation involves the collective efforts of multiple societal actors to address problems, or to reap the benefits, associated with impacts of climate change. Governing involves the creation of institutions, rules and organizations, and the selection of normative principles to guide problem solution and institution building. We argue that actors involved in governing climate change adaptation, as climate change governance regimes evolve, inevitably must engage in making choices, for instance on problem definitions, jurisdictional levels, on modes of governance and policy instruments, and on the timing of interventions. Yet little is known about how and why these choices are made in practice, and how such choices affect the outcomes of our efforts to govern adaptation. In this introduction we review the current state of evidence and the specific contribution of the articles published in this Special Feature, which are aimed at bringing greater clarity in these matters, and thereby informing both governance theory and practice. Collectively, the contributing papers suggest that the way issues are defined has important consequences for the support for governance interventions, and their effectiveness. The articles suggest that currently the emphasis in adaptation governance is on the local and regional levels, while underscoring the benefits of interventions and governance at higher jurisdictional levels in terms of visioning and scaling-up effective approaches. The articles suggest that there is a central role of government agencies in leading governance interventions to address spillover effects, to provide public goods, and to promote the long-term perspectives for planning. They highlight the issue of justice in the governance of adaptation showing how governance measures have wide distributional consequences, including the potential to amplify existing inequalities, access to resources, or generating new injustices through distribution of risks. For several of these findings, future research directions are suggested.
|
|
| 7. |
- Jager, Nicolas W., et al.
(författare)
-
Transforming European Water Governance? : Participation and River Basin Management under the EU Water Framework Directive in 13 Member States
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Water. - : MDPI AG. - 2073-4441. ; 8:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The European Union (EU) Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires EU member states to produce and implement river basin management plans, which are to be designed and updated via participatory processes that inform, consult with, and actively involve all interested stakeholders. The assumption of the European Commission is that stakeholder participation, and institutional adaptation and procedural innovation to facilitate it, are essential to the effectiveness of river basin planning and, ultimately, the environmental impact of the Directive. We analyzed official documents and the WFD literature to compare implementation of the Directive in EU member states in the initial WFD planning phase (2000-2009). Examining the development of participatory approaches to river basin management planning, we consider the extent of transformation in EU water governance over the period. Employing a mixed quantitative and qualitative approach, we map the implementation "trajectories" of 13 member states, and then provide a detailed examination of shifts in river basin planning and participation in four member states (Germany, Sweden, Poland and France) to illustrate the diversity of institutional approaches observed. We identify a general tendency towards increased, yet circumscribed, stakeholder participation in river basin management in the member states examined, alongside clear continuities in terms of their respective pre-WFD institutional and procedural arrangements. Overall, the WFD has driven a highly uneven shift to river basin-level planning among the member states, and instigated a range of efforts to institutionalize stakeholder involvement-often through the establishment of advisory groups to bring organized stakeholders into the planning process.
|
|
| 8. |
- Massey, Eric, et al.
(författare)
-
Handling adaptation governance choices in Sweden, Germany, the UK and the Netherlands
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of Water and Climate Change. - : IWA Publishing. - 2040-2244 .- 2408-9354. ; 6:1, s. 9-24
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Attention is increasing in academia towards the governance of adaptation, specifically how state and non-state actors are defining the adaptation ‘problematique’ and crafting public policies to address it. Adaptation is the ‘Adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities’. The challenge for governments is taking this rather vague concept and turning it into viable and implementable public policies. This implies that they have to make choices as to the types of polices to create, the sectors they should cover, ministerial jurisdictions and funding. This article contributes to the discussion on the adaptation governance by presenting a conceptual framework that outlines policy choices governors need to make, by applying this framework to a number of countries, and starting the debate on which choice or choices were particularly instrumental in shaping adaptation policy in particular countries as a whole. It focuses on four countries traditionally seen to be adaptation leaders: Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
|
|
| 9. |
- Patterson, James J., et al.
(författare)
-
Political feasibility of 1.5 degrees C societal transformations : the role of social justice
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. - : Elsevier BV. - 1877-3435 .- 1877-3443. ; 31, s. 1-9
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Constraining global climate change to 1.5 degrees C is commonly understood to require urgent and deep societal transformations. Yet such transformations are not always viewed as politically feasible; finding ways to enhance the political feasibility of ambitious decarbonization trajectories is needed. This paper reviews the role of social justice as an organizing principle for politically feasible 1.5 degrees C transformations. A social justice lens usefully focuses attention on first, protecting vulnerable people from climate change impacts, second, protecting people from disruptions of transformation, and finally, enhancing the process of envisioning and implementing an equitable post-carbon society. However, justice-focused arguments could also have unintended consequences, such as being deployed against climate action. Hence proactively engaging with social justice is critical in navigating 1.5 degrees C societal transformations.
|
|
| 10. |
- Plummer, Ryan, et al.
(författare)
-
Flood Governance : A multiple country comparison of stakeholder perceptions and aspirations
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Environmental Policy and Governance. - : Wiley. - 1756-932X .- 1756-9338. ; 28:2, s. 67-81
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Flooding is routinely among the most disastrous annual events worldwide with extensive impacts on human wellbeing, economies and ecosystems. Thus, how decisions are made about floods (i.e. flood governance) is extremely important and evidence shows that it is changing, with non-governmental actors (civil society and the private sector) becoming involved in new and sometimes hybrid governance arrangements. This study investigates how stakeholders perceive floods to be governed and how they believe decision-making ought to occur, with the intent of determining to what extent changing governance is evident on the ground and how well (or poorly) it aligns with desired governance arrangements. Flood governance stakeholders were surveyed in five flood-prone geographical areas from Australia, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden. The findings suggest that a reconfiguration of flood governance is underway with relatively little consensus regarding the specific arrangements and mechanisms in place during this transitionary period. Across the five cases, stakeholders indicated that they wanted flood governance to be organized at multiple levels, with strong government involvement and with diverse actor groups, and through mechanisms that match the involvement of these actors, with a lack of desirability for some specific configurations involving the private sector in particular. There was little alignment between stakeholder perceptions of governance currently in place and their desired arrangements, except for government involvement. Future research directions highlight the importance of the inclusion of stakeholder perspectives in assessing flood governance, and following the transition in flood governance over time.
|
|
| 11. |
- van Asselt, Harro, et al.
(författare)
-
International Governance: Polycentric Governing by and beyond the UNFCCC
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Governing Climate Change : Polycentricity in Action? - Polycentricity in Action?. - 9781108418126 ; , s. 29-46
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The Paris Agreement seemingly reaffirmed the central place occupied by the regime established by the UNFCCC in the international governance of climate change.Although the UNFCCC can be viewed as a form of ‘monocentric’ governance, it has become increasingly clear that the UNFCCC operates as part of a polycentric governance system. Due to the physical and socio-economic interconnections between climate change and a range of other issue areas, institutional overlaps between the climate regime and other international institutions from other domains such as trade and investment, human rights, other environmental issues (e.g. ozone depletion and biodiversity loss) and specific sectors (e.g. aviation and maritime shipping) are inevitable. In this chapter, we systematically sketch the domain of international climate change governance from the angle of polycentricity, focusing on intergovernmental multilateral institutions. We pursue two objectives: characterising this governance system as polycentric; and then discussing to what extent certain implications of this polycentricity have already materialised in this system.
|
|
| 12. |
- Zelli, Fariborz, et al.
(författare)
-
Legitimacy and Accountability in Polycentric Climate Governance
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Governing Climate Change : Polycentricity in Action? - Polycentricity in Action?. - 9781108418126
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Polycentricity is characterised by institutional fragmentation as well as a new quality of interdependence where non-state and state actors are both regulators and regulated. This complexity raises new questions for democratic governance beyond the nation state. Against this backdrop, we first develop the argument that certain legitimacy and accountability challenges are inherent to polycentricity in general, with the policy field of climate change as a prime example. We discuss these challenges for both normative and sociological legitimacy and different forms of accountability (external, internal, networked). We then illustrate an analytical research agenda on accountability and legitimacy dynamics for two sub-sets of polycentric climate governance: corporate climate action and minilateral climate clubs. For the first domain, we largely find limited normative legitimacy. Dominated by international actors and rational scientific understandings of sustainability, initiatives often exclude local discourses and critical voices. At the same time, the sociological legitimacy of private environmental governance remains fragile and in flux. Internal challenges arise as industry and civil society actors struggle over influence and policy outcomes, sometimes destabilising multi-stakeholder processes from within. External challenges include the legitimation politics surrounding creation of industry-sponsored competitor programs. Likewise, we observe a considerable lack of normative legitimacy for the early days of climate minilateralism, i.e. roughly between 2000 and the Copenhagen summit 2009. This picture only changed with a new wave of climate clubs particularly targeted to developing countries. Still, the sociological legitimacy of climate minilateralism remains low, also due to the sheer ignorance of legitimacy audiences about most of these clubs. We conclude our chapter with a short outlook on how to address legitimacy and accountability gaps in the light of the renewed role of the UNFCCC after Paris. We hold that the task should be to pragmatically identify fitting measures for every particular context of transnational climate governance.
|
|
