Abstract
There are many normative answers on the question how to realize climate adaptation, ranging from pleas for the government to play a decisive role, to calls for refraining from action and relying upon spontaneous adaptation of both government and non-governmental actors. In this article, we present a Q methodological study, aimed at investigating the governance preferences among non-governmental actors in the Netherlands and the “narratives” they use to motivate these preferences. Our empirical results underline the fact that the question “how to organize adaptation”, is a controversial one. The results resemble the various positions in the current academic debate about the governance of adaptation, and add important insights and nuances to it. Many respondents feel that the current climate adaptation policy is too non-committal. The dominant viewpoint underscores a need for more rules and norms and the possibility to sanction organizations that do not adapt. Minority viewpoints show an urge to stimulate and support self-organization of partners, as well as a need for more action. However, financial and regulatory preconditions are needed to stimulate actors in order to see to the necessary investments. Policy-makers have to invest in mixing their policy instruments. Clearly, most nongovernmental actors are in favor of the government setting a framework with rules and norms for climate adaption. However, the viewpoints show that this is not sufficient. The government should facilitate networks, joint efforts and create the financial and regulatory preconditions to remove current barriers blocking adaptation measures.
Highlights
The increasing evidence of the various impacts of climate change urges governments to think about mitigation programs in order to reduce CO2 emissions and to formulate adaptation strategies in order to cope with the consequences
Bovaird and Löffler (2009, 8) state: “trying to define public governance seems to open Pandora’s box”. They define public governance as how an organization works with its partners, stakeholders, and networks to influence the outcomes of public policies (p. 6)
RQ3: How do these viewpoints relate to the literature on climate adaptation governance? RQ3: What lessons can we discern from the different viewpoints on climate adaptation governance? In the following paragraphs, we explore different modes of governance, based on the scholarly literature, and attempt to situate the current governance approach of the climate adaptation issue in the Netherlands
Summary
The increasing evidence of the various impacts of climate change urges governments to think about mitigation programs in order to reduce CO2 emissions and to formulate adaptation strategies in order to cope with the consequences. Many scholars claim that governance of climate change is a “wicked” (Alford and Head 2017) or even “a super wicked” (Lazarus 2008) problem This “wickedness” implies a lack of consensus about (scientific) knowledge of the (potential and impact of the) effects of climate change and about (the consequences of) solutions for the problem, it means there are highly divergent viewpoints about the strategy on how to solve the issue with the actors involved (Hulme 2009; Verweij et al 2006). A more empirical investigation of the 'governance preferences' of those subjected to government action seems to be lacking
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
