. 2016. Path-dependency and policy learning in the Dutch delta: toward more resilient flood risk management in the Netherlands? Ecology and Society 21 (4) ABSTRACT. Dutch flood management policy was for a long time dominated by a protection-oriented approach. However, in the last 10 years a more risk-oriented approach has gained ground, denoted by the introduction of the concept of multilayered safety in 2009 in the National Water Plan. Since then, the dominant policy coalition focusing on resistance has found itself competing with a growing community that emphasizes the importance of resilience. In this paper we analyze the process of policy learning in Dutch flood risk management toward a more resilient paradigm, and the resulting outcomes in terms of regime change and stability. To understand the actual degree of change we unpack the mechanisms of path dependency characterizing the current flood policy regime and how they influence the impact of policy learning in terms of regime change. We conclude that specific mechanisms of path dependency, for example, the existing power asymmetries between competing coalitions and the intricate complexity of flood policies, prevent institutional change, but cannot prevent ideas about resilience slowly gaining more impact.
12The management of environmental pollution has changed considerably since the growth of 13 environmental awareness in the late sixties. The general increased environmental concern and 14 involvement of stakeholders in today's environmental issues may enhance the need to consider risk in a 15 much broader social context rather than just as an estimate of ecological hazard. Risk perception and the 16 constructs and images of risks held by stakeholders and society are important items to address in the 17 management of environmental projects, including the management of contaminated sediments. 18 2 Here we present a retrospective case study that evaluates factors affecting stakeholder risk perception 19 of contaminated sediment disposal that occurred during a remediation project in Oslo harbour, Norway. 20The choice to dispose dredged contaminated sediments in a confined aquatic disposal (CAD) site rather 21 than at a land disposal site has received a lot of societal attention, attracted large media coverage and 22 caused many public discussions. A mixed method approach is used to investigate how risk perceptive 23 affective factors (PAF), socio-demographic aspects and participatory aspects have influenced the various 24 stakeholders' preferences for the two different disposal options. 25Risk perceptive factors such as transparency in the decision making process and controllability of the 26 disposal options have been identified as important for risk perception. The results of the study also 27 supports the view that there is no sharp distinction in risk perception between experts and other parties 28 and emphasizes the importance of addressing risk perceptive affective factors in similar environmental 29 decision making processes. Indeed, PAFs such as transparency, openness and information are 30 fundamental to address in sensitive environmental decisions, such as sediment disposal alternatives, in 31 order to progress to more technical questions such as the controllability and safety. 32
Introduction Management options for large-scale contaminated sediment remediation projects can be challenging with regard to competing stakeholder interests. This has become apparent during the Oslofjord sediment remediation project (2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)) which caused considerable public discussion. Background To learn from this project, the 'Sediment and society' project was initiated to develop a collaborative approach that will incorporate local and scientific knowledge in order to achieve mutual gains, win-win outcomes for the stakeholders, in the management of contaminated marine sediments. Method development The project focuses on two Norwegian harbours: Oslo Harbour and Bergen Harbour. The Oslo Harbour case has been analysed ex-post, using elements of risk governance: participation, communication, information/ knowledge and risk perception. The Bergen Harbour case is focused on the establishment of a citizens' jury as well as a stakeholder panel in Bergen Harbour. Preliminary results and observations Thus far, the results suggest three important commonalities or challenges for stakeholder involvement: (1) how to include people who have important management information and local knowledge, but not much influence in the decision-making process; (2) how to secure resources to ensure participation and (3) how to engage and motivate stakeholders to participate early in the sediment remediation planning process.
In delta areas, flood protection structures and large-scale land reclamation are preferential water management strategies to cultivate soft delta soils. Over the past decades, river embankments, upstream dams, land reclamation, and groundwater use have intensified, and increasingly contribute to subsidence. In addition, the influence of institutions implementing these strategies has strengthened as they have acquired technical skills, knowledge, and vast financial resources. Sinking deltas are therefore trapped in a dual lock-in as dominating technology and institutions act as constraints to moving into a more long-term sustainable direction. Nine factors for the lock-in are introduced and illustrated for delta regions in Asia, Europe, and the US. To gain a better understanding of what researchers and practitioners can do to address the dual lock-in, a practical case is presented of Gouda, a Dutch subsiding city in search of more sustainable strategies and institutions. The paper ends with three steps to change the configuration of a dual lock-in: (1) getting to know the lock-in; (2) temporarily bypassing it; and (3) constituting a new, more sustainable lock-in. These steps should be further investigated in action-oriented research programmes with local experts, and targeted to policy processes and human behaviour in the sinking deltas.
ABSTRACT. Adaptation to climate change is a rapidly emerging policy domain. Over the last decade we have witnessed many attempts to enhance the climate robustness of agriculture, urban development, water systems, and nature to an increase in flood and drought risks due to a higher variability in rainfall patterns and sea level rise. In the vulnerable Dutch delta, regional authorities have developed adaptation measures that deal with flood risk, the availability of fresh water, subsidence, and salt water intrusion. In view of all the uncertainties that surround climate change, scientists emphasize that it should be possible to make changes when conditions change or insights evolve. The concept of adaptive governance has been introduced to facilitate the process of climate adaptation. Adaptive governance requires the availability of governance arrangements that facilitate adaptiveness by being flexible to enable adjustment. Although flexible arrangements for adaptation to climate change make sense from an adaptive governance perspective, from a more bureaucratic, political, and legal perspective, there might be good reasons to make arrangements as solid and robust as possible. In this article we answer the question to what extent the arrangements used to implement various adaptation measures are really adaptive and what mechanisms play a role in obstructing the accomplishment of adaptive arrangements. By analyzing and comparing nine adaptation cases, dealing with different climate issues, and the arrangements used to implement them from both a governance and a legal perspective, we are able to get more detailed insight into the main characteristics of the selected arrangements, their degree of adaptiveness, and the main hampering mechanisms for the creation or functioning of adaptive arrangements.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.