Climate change adaptation in Denmark: enhancement through collaboration and meta-governance?

The practice of settling and enacting strategic guidelines for climate adaptation in spatial planning: lessons from ten Swedish municipalities

“…Further, surveys indicate that almost 40 percent of the municipalities have established principles or guidelines to support the mainstreaming of climate adaptation in spatial planning (SKL 2011), clearly suggesting a strengthened role for climate adaptation. Similar trends are noted in Denmark (Lund et al 2012). Yet we know little of what this high degree stands for and what the process of enacting strategic guidelines look like in spatial planning practice.…”

“…At the same time the enactment that does take place in spatial planning is characterized by maintaining flexibility where concrete decisions and investments are postponed and delegated to other agents. It is clear that the aim is not precautionary retreat from risky areas but rather a combined approach of defence by solid protective measures and accommodation by stricter building codes in an attempt to create maximum short-term flexibility by allowing municipalities to accommodate risks while progressing and also increasing ongoing coastal occupancy (Moser et al 2012, Lund et al 2012Amundsen et al 2010). From the interviews it is clear that climate change is not allowed to substantially challenge ongoing urban development patterns in lowland and risky waterfront areas.…”

“…Further, while some examples can be found of structural and regulatory measures being mainstreamed into regular planning processes as in the case of Stavanger where increased minimum building distance from the sea level has been decided upon (Dannevig et al 2012: 606), studies have also suggested that mainstreaming is a dynamic process where norms are sometimes questioned and the extent of mainstreaming is constantly reconsidered in practice (Uittenbroek et al 2012). Studies have documented how municipalities despite having proposed measures like strategic guidelines and stricter codes for planning and building in an attempt to "accommodate risks" in coastal areas, as opposed to managed retreat or strict defense options (Few et al 2007;Vasey Ellis 2009;Alexander et al 2011), in practical planning still progress with previous coastal occupancy (Moser et al 2012, Wilby andKeenan 2012;Lund et al 2012). This trend towards waterfront development, evident in Sweden and in many countries worldwide the latest decades, can be linked to redistribution and concentration of population to larger cities leading to increased inter-urban competition with strong political and economic incentives.…”

“…Yet we know little of what this high degree stands for and what the process of enacting strategic guidelines look like in spatial planning practice. Recent international studies have suggested that municipalities have in fact proposed measures like guidelines and stricter codes for planning and building in an attempt to accommodate risks while still progressing ongoing land-use in risk-prone coastal zones (Moser et al 2012, Wilby andKeenan 2012;Lund et al 2012). In practice, this means that planning and building largely proceeds in risky areas despite knowledge of existing vulnerabilities, which may create path-dependent maladaptation (Barnett and O'Neill 2010).…”

Advancing the Governance of Cross‐sectoral Policies for Sustainable Development: A Metagovernance Perspective

“…In these cases, governments can assume the regulatory responsibility and accountability, and act at times as coordinators of collective action. Lund et al (2012) show how Danish municipalities adapt to climate change and how added value can be achieved by a change of governance modes. According to the authors, collaboration and metagovernance was for the aid of the municipalities, stimulated inter-municipal and cross-sectoral collaboration 24 and ultimately produced adaptation measures with added value.…”