Andi Zhuang, Arie Stoffelen, Erik Meijles, Peter Groote
Geoparks aim to conserve areas of geological significance and achieve sustainable endogenous regional development via geotourism. The management of geoparks requires the involvement of all relevant stakeholders and authorities. However, the strategies when establishing geoparks are often based on the visions of scientists and policymakers. Other stakeholders, such as local residents, often have relatively limited opportunities to become involved in the identification and communication of geoheritage values. Yet, across different social contexts, people's attitudes toward heritage may manifest differently. This adds to the complexity of building cohesive partnerships among stakeholders with the common goal of sustainable development. With a qualitative study of Zhangjiajie UNESCO Global Geopark in China, which has attracted considerable attention due to the conflicts between tourism development and heritage conservation, we aim to understand how the concept of geoheritage is institutionalized in the management of the geopark. Data were collected through interviews with government officials at different levels and various local tourism practitioners, supplemented by a policy document analysis. Results show that geoheritage management in Zhangjiajie Geopark lacked dynamism and inclusivity. The reason was the presence of dissonant understandings among various authorities regarding what constitutes geoheritage. These dissonant understandings were not negotiated strategically because of the embedding of the geopark in a highly convoluted multi‐level governance system related to natural resource management and tourism. The findings underscore that geoheritage research should shift away from an objectivist understanding of geoheritage. Perceiving geoheritage as a power‐loaded construct transforms our comprehension of geopark management dynamics.
{"title":"The complex governance of protected areas: Insights from geoheritage and geopark management in China","authors":"Andi Zhuang, Arie Stoffelen, Erik Meijles, Peter Groote","doi":"10.1002/eet.2118","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2118","url":null,"abstract":"Geoparks aim to conserve areas of geological significance and achieve sustainable endogenous regional development via geotourism. The management of geoparks requires the involvement of all relevant stakeholders and authorities. However, the strategies when establishing geoparks are often based on the visions of scientists and policymakers. Other stakeholders, such as local residents, often have relatively limited opportunities to become involved in the identification and communication of geoheritage values. Yet, across different social contexts, people's attitudes toward heritage may manifest differently. This adds to the complexity of building cohesive partnerships among stakeholders with the common goal of sustainable development. With a qualitative study of Zhangjiajie UNESCO Global Geopark in China, which has attracted considerable attention due to the conflicts between tourism development and heritage conservation, we aim to understand how the concept of geoheritage is institutionalized in the management of the geopark. Data were collected through interviews with government officials at different levels and various local tourism practitioners, supplemented by a policy document analysis. Results show that geoheritage management in Zhangjiajie Geopark lacked dynamism and inclusivity. The reason was the presence of dissonant understandings among various authorities regarding what constitutes geoheritage. These dissonant understandings were not negotiated strategically because of the embedding of the geopark in a highly convoluted multi‐level governance system related to natural resource management and tourism. The findings underscore that geoheritage research should shift away from an objectivist understanding of geoheritage. Perceiving geoheritage as a power‐loaded construct transforms our comprehension of geopark management dynamics.","PeriodicalId":47396,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Policy and Governance","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141343524","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The unsustainability of production and consumption patterns and the socio‐technical systems in the energy, mobility, water, and solid waste sectors highlights the need for sustainability transitions. However, the transition management perspective indicates that these transformations cannot be managed in the traditional hierarchical sense. Therefore, new modes of governance are required to deal with the complexity and nature of sustainability issues. This study seeks to elucidate these matters by bringing the literature on sustainability transitions, transition management, and governance modes closer to each other, generating a better understanding of governance in transitions. In addition to the theoretical discussion on the linked concepts, this study also contributes by presenting and characterizing five modes of governance that can facilitate the paths to transformation. They are participatory, collaborative, multilevel, smart, and network governance. These modes of governance differ according to the actors involved and the nature of their interactions and encompass different political processes, institutional structures, and policy content. The assumption is that the modes of governance addressed, which distance themselves from conventional approaches based on top‐down control, can favor transition initiatives that promote transformative processes toward a more resilient and sustainable society. However, the inherent embeddedness of the public service is recognized, which requires transitions in governance itself through institutional adaptations and changes in the role of actors and public officials.
{"title":"Modes of governance for sustainability transitions: Conceptual definitions","authors":"Flavia Massuga, Sérgio Luís Dias Doliveira, Marli Kuasoski, Simone Soares Mangoni","doi":"10.1002/eet.2115","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2115","url":null,"abstract":"The unsustainability of production and consumption patterns and the socio‐technical systems in the energy, mobility, water, and solid waste sectors highlights the need for sustainability transitions. However, the transition management perspective indicates that these transformations cannot be managed in the traditional hierarchical sense. Therefore, new modes of governance are required to deal with the complexity and nature of sustainability issues. This study seeks to elucidate these matters by bringing the literature on sustainability transitions, transition management, and governance modes closer to each other, generating a better understanding of governance in transitions. In addition to the theoretical discussion on the linked concepts, this study also contributes by presenting and characterizing five modes of governance that can facilitate the paths to transformation. They are participatory, collaborative, multilevel, smart, and network governance. These modes of governance differ according to the actors involved and the nature of their interactions and encompass different political processes, institutional structures, and policy content. The assumption is that the modes of governance addressed, which distance themselves from conventional approaches based on top‐down control, can favor transition initiatives that promote transformative processes toward a more resilient and sustainable society. However, the inherent embeddedness of the public service is recognized, which requires transitions in governance itself through institutional adaptations and changes in the role of actors and public officials.","PeriodicalId":47396,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Policy and Governance","volume":" 39","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141373755","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Cyrus, P. (2023). Communication and urban air quality governance in Germany: Discursive framing by selected national environmental NGOs and the Automotive Industry Association (VDA) and its potential impacts. Environmental Policy and Governance, 33(5), 561–576. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2050.
Correspondence details for this article should have been:
Philipp Cyrus, Department of Economics, SOAS, University of London, London, UK.
Email: [email protected].
Cyrus, P. (2023).德国的交流与城市空气质量治理：选定的国家非政府环保组织和汽车工业协会（VDA）的话语框架及其潜在影响。Environmental Policy and Governance, 33(5), 561-576. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2050.Correspondence 本文详细信息应为：Philipp Cyrus, Department of Economics, SOAS, University of London, London, UK.Email：[email protected].
{"title":"Correction to ‘Communication and urban air quality governance in Germany: Discursive framing by selected national environmental NGOs and the Automotive Industry Association (VDA) and its potential impacts’","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/eet.2107","DOIUrl":"10.1002/eet.2107","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Cyrus, P. (2023). Communication and urban air quality governance in Germany: Discursive framing by selected national environmental NGOs and the Automotive Industry Association (VDA) and its potential impacts. <i>Environmental Policy and Governance</i>, <i>33</i>(5), 561–576. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2050.</p><p>Correspondence details for this article should have been:</p><p>Philipp Cyrus, Department of Economics, SOAS, University of London, London, UK.</p><p>Email: <span>[email protected]</span>.</p>","PeriodicalId":47396,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Policy and Governance","volume":"34 3","pages":"336"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eet.2107","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140938161","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The management of protected areas has been recognised as a particularly complex policy field, with many interacting actors and frequent conflicts. How policies survive potential or actual conflict is a matter of policy sustainability; policy manipulation can modify the roles and perceptions of policy actors to achieve outcomes closer to the desired ones—at least, desired by the enacting coalitions. The article investigates the governance reform of protected areas in Lombardy, Italy, focusing on the dynamics of policy sustainability amidst conflict and opposition. It examines how the Lombardy Region's 2016 reform aimed to consolidate the management of protected areas under the umbrella of regional park authorities. Despite the reform's ultimate goals appeared unquestioned, it encountered significant resistance from local administrations. The analysis focused on the context features (pre‐existence of local cooperation agreements, and salience of the protected area), and mechanisms (reputation, and loss aversion) in place at local level. Their combination appears able to explain the varied outcomes of the reform, ranging from failure to partial success.
{"title":"Context‐related mechanisms of policy sustainability: Governance reform of the protected areas in Lombardy","authors":"Erica Melloni, Federico Cuomo, Giancarlo Vecchi","doi":"10.1002/eet.2106","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2106","url":null,"abstract":"The management of protected areas has been recognised as a particularly complex policy field, with many interacting actors and frequent conflicts. How policies survive potential or actual conflict is a matter of policy sustainability; policy manipulation can modify the roles and perceptions of policy actors to achieve outcomes closer to the desired ones—at least, desired by the enacting coalitions. The article investigates the governance reform of protected areas in Lombardy, Italy, focusing on the dynamics of policy sustainability amidst conflict and opposition. It examines how the Lombardy Region's 2016 reform aimed to consolidate the management of protected areas under the umbrella of regional park authorities. Despite the reform's ultimate goals appeared unquestioned, it encountered significant resistance from local administrations. The analysis focused on the context features (pre‐existence of local cooperation agreements, and salience of the protected area), and mechanisms (reputation, and loss aversion) in place at local level. Their combination appears able to explain the varied outcomes of the reform, ranging from failure to partial success.","PeriodicalId":47396,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Policy and Governance","volume":"39 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140667266","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In regional planning, and more specifically transport corridor development, sustainability is often overshadowed by economic ambitions and prospects. This contribution explores how the governance of corridor development processes can enhance sustainability. It presents findings from the planning process for the Gilimanuk–Denpasar–Padang Bai (GDP) Corridor in Bali, Indonesia. The analysis is guided by a theoretical framework that builds on literature on regional development, corridor development, sustainability and governance. Using process tracing, the analysis investigates the influence of five governance factors on the process of sustainable corridor development and its outcomes, notably the presence of a sustainability vision, the governance mode, the actor constellation, the available knowledge, and the institutional setting. Whereas literature on sustainable corridors suggests that governance structures and corridor management are needed, this contribution analysis how and under what conditions these structures in practice contribute to sustainable outcomes. The findings show how the original economic focus of the corridor gradually evolved into a more sustainable one, although not all potentials were realized. These illustrate that sustainable corridors require governance of interaction processes, involving a dynamic and contextualized constellation of governance factors, that co‐evolves during the planning process. Despite that the GDP corridor gradually developed into a more sustainable direction, the presence of a sustainability rather than an economic focus from the onset would have increased the potentials of realizing sustainability ambitions.
{"title":"Governing sustainable corridor development: A case study of the Gilimanuk–Denpasar–Padang Bai corridor in Indonesia","authors":"Gitasanti Djais, Jan Fransen, J. Koppenjan","doi":"10.1002/eet.2104","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2104","url":null,"abstract":"In regional planning, and more specifically transport corridor development, sustainability is often overshadowed by economic ambitions and prospects. This contribution explores how the governance of corridor development processes can enhance sustainability. It presents findings from the planning process for the Gilimanuk–Denpasar–Padang Bai (GDP) Corridor in Bali, Indonesia. The analysis is guided by a theoretical framework that builds on literature on regional development, corridor development, sustainability and governance. Using process tracing, the analysis investigates the influence of five governance factors on the process of sustainable corridor development and its outcomes, notably the presence of a sustainability vision, the governance mode, the actor constellation, the available knowledge, and the institutional setting. Whereas literature on sustainable corridors suggests that governance structures and corridor management are needed, this contribution analysis how and under what conditions these structures in practice contribute to sustainable outcomes. The findings show how the original economic focus of the corridor gradually evolved into a more sustainable one, although not all potentials were realized. These illustrate that sustainable corridors require governance of interaction processes, involving a dynamic and contextualized constellation of governance factors, that co‐evolves during the planning process. Despite that the GDP corridor gradually developed into a more sustainable direction, the presence of a sustainability rather than an economic focus from the onset would have increased the potentials of realizing sustainability ambitions.","PeriodicalId":47396,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Policy and Governance","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140718040","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Research on international bureaucracies, such as treaty secretariats, has predominantly focused on broadening our understanding of their role, function, and influence within their respective regulatory domains. However, the potential for treaty secretariats to manage situations of institutional overlap by coordinating with other agencies across policy areas has remained understudied. This article offers new empirical and theoretical insights for studying collective agency and coordination mechanisms in instances of institutional interaction within hybrid regime complexes. Specifically, it investigates how the treaty secretariats of the Rio Conventions under the United Nations employ joint interplay management as a means to improve institutional coherence within the climate change, biodiversity loss, and desertification nexus. Collectively, the public agencies aim to advance knowledge and discourse, influence norm‐building processes and regulation, or build capacity and support the joint implementation of policy objectives addressing the interlinked environmental problems. They do this by interacting with various actors across governance levels, including national governments, transnational initiatives, private actors, or civil society. By tracing the process linking joint activities with effects of such interactions, this qualitative case study makes a conceptual contribution by extrapolating a mechanistic theory for joint interplay management. The article demonstrates that treaty secretariats have to contend with challenges of resource allocation, diverging mandates, leadership priorities, and the degree of politicization and timing which frequently intervene stages of strategizing and executing joint activities. The results highlight that joint interplay management can be most impactful when secretariats employ orchestration practices through joint outreach and advocacy to advance coherent institutional responses to interdependent environmental problems.
{"title":"Managers of complex change? How United Nations treaty secretariats jointly govern institutional interplay in global environmental governance","authors":"Joshua Philipp Elsässer","doi":"10.1002/eet.2105","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2105","url":null,"abstract":"Research on international bureaucracies, such as treaty secretariats, has predominantly focused on broadening our understanding of their role, function, and influence within their respective regulatory domains. However, the potential for treaty secretariats to manage situations of institutional overlap by coordinating with other agencies across policy areas has remained understudied. This article offers new empirical and theoretical insights for studying collective agency and coordination mechanisms in instances of institutional interaction within hybrid regime complexes. Specifically, it investigates how the treaty secretariats of the Rio Conventions under the United Nations employ joint interplay management as a means to improve institutional coherence within the climate change, biodiversity loss, and desertification nexus. Collectively, the public agencies aim to advance knowledge and discourse, influence norm‐building processes and regulation, or build capacity and support the joint implementation of policy objectives addressing the interlinked environmental problems. They do this by interacting with various actors across governance levels, including national governments, transnational initiatives, private actors, or civil society. By tracing the process linking joint activities with effects of such interactions, this qualitative case study makes a conceptual contribution by extrapolating a mechanistic theory for joint interplay management. The article demonstrates that treaty secretariats have to contend with challenges of resource allocation, diverging mandates, leadership priorities, and the degree of politicization and timing which frequently intervene stages of strategizing and executing joint activities. The results highlight that joint interplay management can be most impactful when secretariats employ orchestration practices through joint outreach and advocacy to advance coherent institutional responses to interdependent environmental problems.","PeriodicalId":47396,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Policy and Governance","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140599809","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Biodiversity offsetting is considered to be an innovative policy instrument to balance land use changes with conservation priorities. Although advocates have pushed to establish biodiversity offset markets for over 20 years and critics have contested the social and ecological implications of such policy innovations, in practice, offsetting schemes have been difficult to set up, replicate, and sustain over time. Observing the underperformance of biodiversity offsetting, we argue that a critical analysis is urgently needed. We identify a need to analyze offsetting in relation to other features of biodiversity governance rather than focus on the merits and flaws of offsetting as a standalone policy instrument. Using a set‐theoretic model, we consider how different institutional arrangements determine if and when biodiversity offsetting produces positive environmental outcomes. We find that offsetting adds to biodiversity governance only when three thorny challenges are met—muscular enforcement of environmental regulations, rigorous impact management aligned with the mitigation hierarchy, and the existence of evidence‐based and cost‐effective platforms for offsetting. Short of these conditions, outcomes are either uncertain or outright harmful to biodiversity. Reflecting more broadly on the prospects of institutionalizing offsetting mechanisms for protecting biodiversity, we conclude a need to recenter attention toward the supportive role of the state in facilitating effective policy innovations.
{"title":"Evaluating offsetting as a component of biodiversity governance","authors":"Ritwick Ghosh, Steven A. Wolf","doi":"10.1002/eet.2103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2103","url":null,"abstract":"Biodiversity offsetting is considered to be an innovative policy instrument to balance land use changes with conservation priorities. Although advocates have pushed to establish biodiversity offset markets for over 20 years and critics have contested the social and ecological implications of such policy innovations, in practice, offsetting schemes have been difficult to set up, replicate, and sustain over time. Observing the underperformance of biodiversity offsetting, we argue that a critical analysis is urgently needed. We identify a need to analyze offsetting in relation to other features of biodiversity governance rather than focus on the merits and flaws of offsetting as a standalone policy instrument. Using a set‐theoretic model, we consider how different institutional arrangements determine if and when biodiversity offsetting produces positive environmental outcomes. We find that offsetting adds to biodiversity governance only when three thorny challenges are met—muscular enforcement of environmental regulations, rigorous impact management aligned with the mitigation hierarchy, and the existence of evidence‐based and cost‐effective platforms for offsetting. Short of these conditions, outcomes are either uncertain or outright harmful to biodiversity. Reflecting more broadly on the prospects of institutionalizing offsetting mechanisms for protecting biodiversity, we conclude a need to recenter attention toward the supportive role of the state in facilitating effective policy innovations.","PeriodicalId":47396,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Policy and Governance","volume":"100 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140370487","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Multistakeholder co‐management is no blueprint for smooth and accepted environmental policy implementation. Parallel processes of cooperation and conflict rather shape co‐managing processes, which is the focus of this article. Combining the analysis of narratives, identities, and relational structure through means of social network analysis builds the conceptual and methodological foundation for this case study to explore a perpetual conflict between actors involved in co‐designing the management plans for a local Natura 2000 forest. Two opposing narratives are identified as competing over power and competency in discussions about the management plans for the Natura 2000 forest. Negative characterization frames and antagonizing with the other side fuels an “us versus them” mentality among the actors in the co‐management process and over time, a culture of conflict has become institutionalized. Interactions between the actors from the case study seemingly build on a complex, iterative pattern of disputes that is barely breakable and reversible into cooperative attitudes. Surprisingly, this culture of conflict does not resonate with the relational structure between actors in the case study as descriptive social network analysis shows. This case represents an intriguing puzzle pointing to an incongruence between relational and discursive mechanisms underlying cooperation‐conflict dynamics in multistakeholder co‐management, which is relevant for future examinations of cooperation and conflict in social network analyses. The results are discussed in light of power dynamics and concluded with an outlook to conflict research.
多方利益相关者的共同管理并不是顺利实施环境政策并获得认可的蓝图。合作与冲突并行的过程反而会形成共同管理过程，这也是本文的重点。通过社会网络分析，结合对叙事、身份和关系结构的分析，为本案例研究奠定了概念和方法论基础，以探讨参与共同设计当地 Natura 2000 森林管理计划的参与者之间的长期冲突。在有关 Natura 2000 森林管理计划的讨论中，发现了两种对立的叙述方式，它们在权力和能力方面相互竞争。负面的定性框架和与另一方的对立助长了共同管理过程中参与者的 "我们与他们 "心态，随着时间的推移，冲突文化已经制度化。案例研究中的参与者之间的互动似乎建立在一种复杂、反复的争端模式之上，这种模式几乎无法打破，也无法逆转为合作态度。令人惊讶的是，正如描述性社会网络分析所显示的那样，这种冲突文化并没有与案例研究中参与者之间的关系结构产生共鸣。本案例是一个耐人寻味的谜题，它揭示了多方利益相关者共同管理中合作与冲突动态背后的关系机制与话语机制之间的不协调，这与未来在社会网络分析中对合作与冲突的研究息息相关。研究结果将从权力动态的角度进行讨论，最后对冲突研究进行展望。
{"title":"“Us versus them” mentalities in co‐managing a Natura 2000 forest: Narratives, identities, and a culture of conflict","authors":"Larissa Koch","doi":"10.1002/eet.2102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2102","url":null,"abstract":"Multistakeholder co‐management is no blueprint for smooth and accepted environmental policy implementation. Parallel processes of cooperation and conflict rather shape co‐managing processes, which is the focus of this article. Combining the analysis of narratives, identities, and relational structure through means of social network analysis builds the conceptual and methodological foundation for this case study to explore a perpetual conflict between actors involved in co‐designing the management plans for a local Natura 2000 forest. Two opposing narratives are identified as competing over power and competency in discussions about the management plans for the Natura 2000 forest. Negative characterization frames and antagonizing with the other side fuels an “us versus them” mentality among the actors in the co‐management process and over time, a culture of conflict has become institutionalized. Interactions between the actors from the case study seemingly build on a complex, iterative pattern of disputes that is barely breakable and reversible into cooperative attitudes. Surprisingly, this culture of conflict does not resonate with the relational structure between actors in the case study as descriptive social network analysis shows. This case represents an intriguing puzzle pointing to an incongruence between relational and discursive mechanisms underlying cooperation‐conflict dynamics in multistakeholder co‐management, which is relevant for future examinations of cooperation and conflict in social network analyses. The results are discussed in light of power dynamics and concluded with an outlook to conflict research.","PeriodicalId":47396,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Policy and Governance","volume":"105 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140224881","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper examines the development of urban transport political agendas in three Nordic capital cities, Helsinki, Oslo, and Stockholm, that strive towards urban sustainability. Utilising the Multiple Streams framework as a basis for analysis, an overview of local problems, policy solutions, and politics that have characterised transport systems and the related policy development processes over time is constructed. The attention is then drawn towards the points in time where the streams connect, and policy windows occur, to detect formative changes and their enablers towards sustainability. The data consists of 18 semi‐structured expert interviews, conducted amongst municipal policymakers and planners. The results reveal several policy windows that have transformed the local transport systems towards sustainability and an increasingly people‐oriented approach. The relevance of global climate change awareness, international planning trends for liveability and cycling, public pressure, individual political decisions, and establishment of modal hierarchy is evident across the case cities, while car traffic regulation is politically challenging and addressed through very different means at very different times. The findings of this paper outline diverse ways for advancing sustainability in local policy development but also detect methods for politically halting the process.
{"title":"Towards sustainable urban transport—Political agenda formation and policy windows in Helsinki, Oslo, and Stockholm","authors":"Linda E. Karjalainen","doi":"10.1002/eet.2100","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2100","url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the development of urban transport political agendas in three Nordic capital cities, Helsinki, Oslo, and Stockholm, that strive towards urban sustainability. Utilising the Multiple Streams framework as a basis for analysis, an overview of local problems, policy solutions, and politics that have characterised transport systems and the related policy development processes over time is constructed. The attention is then drawn towards the points in time where the streams connect, and policy windows occur, to detect formative changes and their enablers towards sustainability. The data consists of 18 semi‐structured expert interviews, conducted amongst municipal policymakers and planners. The results reveal several policy windows that have transformed the local transport systems towards sustainability and an increasingly people‐oriented approach. The relevance of global climate change awareness, international planning trends for liveability and cycling, public pressure, individual political decisions, and establishment of modal hierarchy is evident across the case cities, while car traffic regulation is politically challenging and addressed through very different means at very different times. The findings of this paper outline diverse ways for advancing sustainability in local policy development but also detect methods for politically halting the process.","PeriodicalId":47396,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Policy and Governance","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140167664","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jeremy Graham Carter, Andrew Karvonen, Amanda Winter
Natural flood management is emerging as a viable way to leverage ecological services to manage flooding. Stakeholders are progressively positioning natural flood management at the scale of river catchments to encourage a move beyond localised and opportunistic actions towards more strategic and cost‐effective flood risk management responses. This reflects a broader turn towards nature‐based solutions, acknowledgement of the climate change adaptation imperative, and recognition that natural flood management can achieve multiple socio‐economic and biophysical co‐benefits. A particular set of issues connected to the specific characteristics of natural flood management are influencing attempts to move towards the catchment scale. This paper identifies evidence, funding and governance as key to understanding the challenges facing natural flood management in this context, with these issues providing a focus for the identification of strategies to move towards catchment scale outcomes. A case study exploring the Irwell catchment in Northwest England provides empirical insights on these themes and identifies approaches that can support the transition towards catchment scale natural flood management. This paper calls for wider implementation of experimental approaches in this field focused on multi‐faceted evaluation, blended financing and strategic intermediaries to help overcome overarching evidence, funding and governance challenges to making this transition.
{"title":"Towards Catchment Scale Natural Flood Management: Developing evidence, funding and governance approaches","authors":"Jeremy Graham Carter, Andrew Karvonen, Amanda Winter","doi":"10.1002/eet.2101","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2101","url":null,"abstract":"Natural flood management is emerging as a viable way to leverage ecological services to manage flooding. Stakeholders are progressively positioning natural flood management at the scale of river catchments to encourage a move beyond localised and opportunistic actions towards more strategic and cost‐effective flood risk management responses. This reflects a broader turn towards nature‐based solutions, acknowledgement of the climate change adaptation imperative, and recognition that natural flood management can achieve multiple socio‐economic and biophysical co‐benefits. A particular set of issues connected to the specific characteristics of natural flood management are influencing attempts to move towards the catchment scale. This paper identifies evidence, funding and governance as key to understanding the challenges facing natural flood management in this context, with these issues providing a focus for the identification of strategies to move towards catchment scale outcomes. A case study exploring the Irwell catchment in Northwest England provides empirical insights on these themes and identifies approaches that can support the transition towards catchment scale natural flood management. This paper calls for wider implementation of experimental approaches in this field focused on multi‐faceted evaluation, blended financing and strategic intermediaries to help overcome overarching evidence, funding and governance challenges to making this transition.","PeriodicalId":47396,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Policy and Governance","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140156342","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：