One way to achieve more sustainable spatial development and deal with pressures on space is through integrated or multifunctional land use. Achieving effective integration, although attractive, presents governance challenges. One challenge is how to deal with boundaries. Actors from different backgrounds need to coordinate across and manage their boundaries to realise effective integration of land-use functions. We develop a framework to analyse how actors construct, maintain, challenge, and reconstruct boundaries in their (inter)actions, and we apply the framework to a case analysis of a multifunctional development. The analysis shows that, although integration seems to suggest only boundary crossing, actors also actively defend and reconstruct boundaries. We reflect on how the process of achieving effective integration is not only about overcoming boundaries but also about reconstructing and respecting joint boundary demarcations. These demarcations help to create a sense of order and clarity in terms of responsibility and accountability, and hence enable implementation.

ABSTRACT. Adaptation to climate change can be an inclusive and collective, rather than an individual effort. The choice for collective arrangements is tied to a call for solidarity. We distinguish between one-sided (assisting community members in need) and two-sided solidarity (furthering a common interest) and between voluntary and compulsory solidarity. We assess the strength of solidarity as a basis for adaptation measures in six Dutch water management case studies. Traditionally, Dutch water management is characterized by compulsory two-sided solidarity at the water board level. Since the French times, the state is involved through compulsory national solidarity contributions to avoid societal disruption by major floods. In so far as this furthers a common interest, the contributions qualify as two-sided solidarity, but if it is considered assistance to flood-prone areas, they also qualify as one-sided solidarity. Although the Delta Programme explicitly continues on this path, our case studies show that solidarity continues to play an important role in Dutch water management in the process of adapting to a changing climate, but that an undifferentiated call for solidarity will likely result in debates over who should pay what and why. Such discussions can lead to cancellation or postponement of adaptation measures, which are not considered to be in the common interest or result in an increased reliance on local solidarity.

Bijlagen.De provincies hebben sinds 2013 hun beleid voor het versterken van maatschappelijke betrokkenheid bij natuur verder ontwikkeld. In het kader van de Tweede Lerende Evaluatie van het Natuurpact is in dit onderzoek gekeken naar provinciale beleidsstrategieën voor het stimuleren van maatschappelijke betrokkenheid bij natuur. In het onderzoek zijn 8 casussen geselecteerd rondom vrijwilligers, burgerinitiatieven, zorg en recreatie in 8 provincies. In deze casussen staan beleidsprogramma's en regelingen van de provincie rondom maatschappelijke betrokkenheid centraal. Middels interviews en documentenanalyse zijn de verwachtingen die de betrokken partijen hebben voor het beleid en de doelen opgetekend. Op basis van de verwachtingen is gekeken naar de resultaten van het beleid en de ervaringen die betrokken partijen hiermee opdoen.

Cities pose environmental challenges but also offer possibilities to close material and energy loops and connect multiple societal and ecologic services. This article reviews and brings together the literature on two important new research directions that address urban sustainability by integrating functions or material flows: Circular Urban Metabolism (CUM) and Multifunctional Land Use (MLU). We focus on challenges to MLU and CUM and strategies to facilitate their realization. The review shows that although MLU and CUM differ in what they integrate, they face partly similar integration challenges. In both fields, the collaboration between actors related to particular functions (water safety, recreation), high investment costs and uncertainties about costs and benefits, and legislation that hampers integration are identified as challenges. In both fields, strategies are proposed to facilitate the collaboration between actors. However, other challenges and strategies are specific. Whilst MLU scholars mostly highlight socioeconomic aspects of realizing integration, CUM scholars focus more on technical aspects. We find limited cross-fertilization between both fields so far. To stimulate discussion and knowledge exchange, we introduce 'integration of urban functions' as a shared idea for a sustainable urban system. To find further solutions for integration challenges, we propose conceptualizing MLU or CUM initiatives as processes of change, which requires connecting across previously separate 'worlds' and changing previously established monofunctional ways of working.