Abstract

Innovative policy measures often imply institutional adjustments. Whether such adjustments are accomplished often depends upon the presence of institutional entrepreneurship: actors who take responsibility to initiate the necessary actions to redesign existing institutional practices. The question arises under which conditions can institutional entrepreneurship be developed? And, what might be the cause of lacking institutional entrepreneurship?In this article, the latter question is examined through in-depth collaborative research project for exploring alternative, adaptive flood risk strategies for flood proofing the unembanked area of the north-end of the city district Feijenoord in Rotterdam. Due to climate change, these areas are increasingly vulnerable to flooding. The traditional, institutionalized solution of raising the ground level before initiating new spatial developments does not suffice in the long term. Therefore, the city government explored alternative strategies for more adaptive ways of dealing with flood risks. Together with representatives of key stakeholders in the area, two key strategies for the unembanked areas were elaborated. These strategies have significant implications for the distribution of costs, risks and responsibilities and necessitate alternative governance architectures that exceed the current institutional structures.During the research project, it became clear that the developed alternative strategies fundamentally differed from the current institutional system. Thus, institutional redesign was necessary. This proved to be virtually impossible, especially because none of the involved actors was willing nor capable of undertaking entrepreneurial activities to start such redesign. This observation led us to further investigate into the causes and the consequences of the absent entrepreneurship.

Highlights

  • The policy field of climate adaptation is relatively new

  • The question arises under which conditions can institutional entrepreneurship be developed? And, what might be the cause of lacking institutional entrepreneurship? In this article, the latter question is examined through in-depth collaborative research project for exploring alternative, adaptive flood risk strategies for flood proofing the unembanked area of the north-end of the city district Feijenoord in Rotterdam

  • The study underlying this paper was part of the national Knowledge for Climate Research Program that ran from 2007 to 2014 and co-financed by the Dutch ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment. It builds further on a number of preceding studies that were partially conducted within this national research program. These studies examined the institutional landscape of policy-making for unembanked urban areas in the Netherlands and Rotterdam in specific (Batterbee et al, 2010; Van der Lee, 2013) and potential technical and spatial flood proofing measures that are deemed feasible in the designated case study area (Nabielek-Kronberger, Doepel, & Stone, 2012; Van Vliet, 2012; Van Vliet & Aerts, 2014; Veerbeek et al, 2010)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The policy field of climate adaptation is relatively new. in the 1970s some scholars (Bolin, 1970; Keeling et al, 1976) addressed the influence of greenhouse gas on the global climate, it took almost another decennium before the topic entered the policy. This article is based upon an in-depth collaborative research and builds on previous studies about the institutional context and potential technical and/or spatial measures for flood-proofing the area (Kokx & Spit, 2012; Van Buuren et al, 2014; Van Veelen, 2013). Both components constitute the institutional redesign challenge that was put before representatives of the main actors in the designated area

Institutions and institutional change
Institutional entrepreneurship as process of alliancing
Research design: collaborative case study research and data collection
Data collection
Participants
Case study description: the unembanked areas in Rotterdam
Analysis of the current institutional regime
Specifications of the desired situation and the subsequent design space
Tackling the design challenge: two alternative strategies
The institutional gap and the entrepreneurial deadlock
Explaining the consequences for institutional entrepreneurship
Conclusions
Findings
Notes on the contributors

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 call

Disclaimer: 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.