Environmental Policy and Governance最新文献

This paper investigates how governance structures and policy approaches influence transition pathways in three major oil and gas producing regions: Esbjerg (Denmark), Taranaki (New Zealand), and Aberdeen (Scotland). The methods employ a comparative case study framework and draw on a literature review, document analysis and interviews with key experts in government, industry, civil society, and academia in each country. The results demonstrate significant differences in transition outcomes: Esbjerg presents a durable and adaptive transition, underpinned by broad political consensus, stable policies, and strong public-private partnerships that have enabled economic diversification and cultivated community support, particularly through offshore wind development. Aberdeen exhibits institutional innovation and targeted funding; however, it faces challenges in policy durability due to political cycles and local skepticism. Taranaki's more top-down approach reveals risks associated with abrupt, less inclusive policy shifts, which have fueled resistance and increased the likelihood of policy reversals. The conclusions highlight that successful oil and gas transitions require inclusive governance, stable and credible policy signals, a clear economic rationale for change, and early coalition-building among governments, industry, and communities. These findings emphasize the necessity of robust institutional design and place-based, economically grounded strategies to achieve just and effective decarbonization in oil and gas-dependent regions.

The loss of biodiversity presents one of the most pressing societal challenges of our time. Insects play a crucial role for biodiversity in terms of ecosystem services and food provision. Although insects receive increasing public and academic attention, the development of policy mixes for insect conservation remains challenging. In Germany, insects crawled onto the political agenda in 2019 with the release of the national action programme for insect conservation. We use this empirical case to analyse the agenda-setting process of the emerging policy mix for insect conservation. We combine an actor-centred understanding of the policy process along the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) with the policy mix concept for transitions, focusing on policy mix elements. Our contribution is twofold: First, we apply the policy mix concept for transitions to a new (low-tech) empirical case (insect conservation policy in Germany), thereby further concretising the concept for empirical analysis. Second, we use insights from policy process theories, the MSF in particular, to unpack the policy process focusing on two key actor concepts (the policy entrepreneur and the problem broker). We find that streams do not unfold arbitrarily, but that the three streams are interdependent, with different actor roles playing a crucial role in shaping the coupling of streams.

The loss of biodiversity presents one of the most pressing societal challenges of our time. Insects play a crucial role for biodiversity in terms of ecosystem services and food provision. Although insects receive increasing public and academic attention, the development of policy mixes for insect conservation remains challenging. In Germany, insects crawled onto the political agenda in 2019 with the release of the national action programme for insect conservation. We use this empirical case to analyse the agenda-setting process of the emerging policy mix for insect conservation. We combine an actor-centred understanding of the policy process along the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) with the policy mix concept for transitions, focusing on policy mix elements. Our contribution is twofold: First, we apply the policy mix concept for transitions to a new (low-tech) empirical case (insect conservation policy in Germany), thereby further concretising the concept for empirical analysis. Second, we use insights from policy process theories, the MSF in particular, to unpack the policy process focusing on two key actor concepts (the policy entrepreneur and the problem broker). We find that streams do not unfold arbitrarily, but that the three streams are interdependent, with different actor roles playing a crucial role in shaping the coupling of streams.

How the organisational dimension of public policy influences climate change anticipation is a critical, yet underexplored, question. This is especially so at the local scale where many climate-related interests are brokered. In this article, we argue that any analysis of the influence of de-centralised organisations on climate change anticipation must be carried out in conjunction with analysis of how climate change problems are being framed by local actors in the first place. We illustrate this with the case of the Charente River basin and its coastal zone in southwest France. We show how, during a European research project, coastal and rural stakeholders (public/private) re-defined the implications of climate change for their numerous interdependencies over water (quality, quantity). Rather than continuing to respond to climate change effects through negative inter-sector and inter-spatial competitions and conflicts, they chose instead to re-frame the problem as one of a shared vulnerability, symbolised by the notion of a ‘land–sea continuum’. However, when it came to governing economic activities from the perspective of the land–sea continuum, our research uncovered deep de-centralised organisational shortcomings across several domains hindering the kind of policy transformation desired by stakeholders. Not due to an absence of ‘land–sea’ committees per se, limitations stemmed from their representational, jurisdictional and scalar practices. These treated the governance of land–sea interdependencies as a coordination, rather than political, problem, perpetuating coastal-rural inequalities, and ultimately favouring ‘land’ over ‘sea’ interests. Focusing attention on organisational dynamics thus helps identify otherwise hidden impediments to transforming decision-making anticipating climate change.

How the organisational dimension of public policy influences climate change anticipation is a critical, yet underexplored, question. This is especially so at the local scale where many climate-related interests are brokered. In this article, we argue that any analysis of the influence of de-centralised organisations on climate change anticipation must be carried out in conjunction with analysis of how climate change problems are being framed by local actors in the first place. We illustrate this with the case of the Charente River basin and its coastal zone in southwest France. We show how, during a European research project, coastal and rural stakeholders (public/private) re-defined the implications of climate change for their numerous interdependencies over water (quality, quantity). Rather than continuing to respond to climate change effects through negative inter-sector and inter-spatial competitions and conflicts, they chose instead to re-frame the problem as one of a shared vulnerability, symbolised by the notion of a ‘land–sea continuum’. However, when it came to governing economic activities from the perspective of the land–sea continuum, our research uncovered deep de-centralised organisational shortcomings across several domains hindering the kind of policy transformation desired by stakeholders. Not due to an absence of ‘land–sea’ committees per se, limitations stemmed from their representational, jurisdictional and scalar practices. These treated the governance of land–sea interdependencies as a coordination, rather than political, problem, perpetuating coastal-rural inequalities, and ultimately favouring ‘land’ over ‘sea’ interests. Focusing attention on organisational dynamics thus helps identify otherwise hidden impediments to transforming decision-making anticipating climate change.

Over the last two decades, collaborative approaches to forest governance have become commonplace, valued for their potential to reduce conflict and increase equity and democracy. Despite growing application, little research has explored collaboration on state forestland management within the United States. The state scale is a particularly interesting arena for investigation as limited federal regulation of state land in the US leaves ample room for difference between cases. Furthermore, while the importance of power in collaboration is widely accepted, few empirical studies examine the role of power dynamics in the collaborative governance of natural resources. We conducted a comparative case study of two advisory groups guiding state land decision-making to understand the extent to which power was distributed through their establishment and deliberative processes. While overall results support established theoretical frameworks describing power sources, we found evidence for three sources of power unaccounted for previously. We describe these as the resource of broad perspective, trust via predictability, and the power of veto. We also note the compounding effects of power evident in our cases and posit that implementing power sharing may be easier when the stakes are low. Finally, we highlight that collaborative governance processes do not always develop power for a broad range of impacted parties—a finding that holds important implications for the longevity of power developed through collaborative processes and the advantage of these initiatives.

Over the last two decades, collaborative approaches to forest governance have become commonplace, valued for their potential to reduce conflict and increase equity and democracy. Despite growing application, little research has explored collaboration on state forestland management within the United States. The state scale is a particularly interesting arena for investigation as limited federal regulation of state land in the US leaves ample room for difference between cases. Furthermore, while the importance of power in collaboration is widely accepted, few empirical studies examine the role of power dynamics in the collaborative governance of natural resources. We conducted a comparative case study of two advisory groups guiding state land decision-making to understand the extent to which power was distributed through their establishment and deliberative processes. While overall results support established theoretical frameworks describing power sources, we found evidence for three sources of power unaccounted for previously. We describe these as the resource of broad perspective, trust via predictability, and the power of veto. We also note the compounding effects of power evident in our cases and posit that implementing power sharing may be easier when the stakes are low. Finally, we highlight that collaborative governance processes do not always develop power for a broad range of impacted parties—a finding that holds important implications for the longevity of power developed through collaborative processes and the advantage of these initiatives.