Search

Governance of societal transformations toward sustainability is needed to address the fundamental system failures responsible for environmental problems. Possible transformation pathways range from radical shifts to more incremental change. Experimentation is seen as a form of incremental change, but its actual transformative potential is debated. The transformative potential of experimentation is especially questionable for environmental problems characterizing a "creeping crisis" because this problem type is not particularly a lever for social change. Our empirical research contributes to this debate by systemically evaluating the significance (degree of change) and sufficiency (reach of change) of experiments relating to an environmental problem characterizing a creeping crisis that appears to be predominantly governed through experimentation: land subsidence in Dutch peatlands. We found that experiments have indeed proved to be significant for local regime actors because most have tested technical innovations that kept the overall land use system intact. However, experimentation was less significant in terms of reflecting the complexity of environmental problems; that would require a more diverse set of technical, social, legal, and planning experiments from which the strategy most suitable for specific landscape contexts could be determined. We also found signs of accumulation of outcomes, but whether this eventually initiates transformative change or creates a technological lock‐in can only be determined with longitudinal research. To enhance the transformative potential of experimentation, particularly as a governance approach for creeping crises, attention must be paid to actor and institutional features since they shape experiments. Hence, we conclude with design principles for transformative experimentation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hofstad et al. (2022) approach citizen engagement as part of a broader co-creation strategy in which citizens are perceived as only one of a wide range of actors relevant for collaborative governance of climate change mitigation. Uittenbroek et al. (2022) study the emerging issue of citizen responsibilisation for local climate adaptation, i.e., delegating to citizens tasks that previously belonged to predominantly local governments. However, the evolving climate policy agenda and recent emergence of different kinds of climate protests - both in favour of and opposed to current policies - suggest that citizens will demand a more central role in future climate governance. [Extracted from the article]

Environmental disasters, and especially floods, are among today's biggest sustainability challenges. The number and intensity of floods are increasing, challenging current governance approaches. Governments worldwide are looking to diversify their flood risk management and adaptation strategies, among others, by increasing resident involvement in flood risk governance. Such involvement of individuals shifts responsibilities from public to private actors. A clear understanding of the extent and implications of this shift is difficult to reach as theoretical perspectives on the concept of responsibility vary. Similarly, grounds for attributing responsibility for flood preparedness and response differ across countries. This lack of analytical and empirical clarity complicates academic and policy discourses on what it actually means to 'be responsible'. The current article systematises these different approaches to responsibility in flood risk governance. To improve current knowledge on residents' responsibilities in flood risk governance, we present a conceptual framework that distinguishes among four theoretical notions of responsibility: legal responsibility, accountability, perceived responsibility, and moral responsibility. These notions are elucidated with the help of examples of flood risk governance practices in the United States, Germany and the Netherlands. We find that the four notions are closely intertwined. In addition, this article documents divergences between what individuals perceive as their own responsibility in flood risk management and the responsibilities that governments assume. We conclude with a discussion on the tensions between perceived responsibilities and the other three notions. Explicit, transparent and open discussion on these tensions is needed to allow attribution of responsibility in flood risk governance and to reconsider residents' roles in particular. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Arguments for so‐called citizen responsibilisation, the transfer of responsibilities for public services to citizens, are increasingly put forward in several Western‐European countries. An important domain in which citizen responsibilisation is advocated is that of urban climate change adaptation. However, in practice, the advocated shift is taking place only to a limited extent. This study aims to help explain this by researching Dutch local governments' perceptions on citizens' capabilities as well as these governments' preferences regarding the tasks they want to delegate to citizens in the different stages of adaptation planning. Findings from three workshops with policy practitioners from local governments show that these practitioners have moderate trust in citizens' capabilities, but a low willingness to transfer responsibilities. Concerns of local governments include how to: (i) ensure an equal division of resources between different citizen groups/neighbourhoods; (ii) address citizens who are pursuing their own benefits more than producing a public adaptation good; (iii) address potential externalities for other citizens; (iv) guarantee a certain quality level for the public space. The study shows that local governments have an implicit awareness of different dimensions of responsibility and the tensions between them, including at least: responsibility as a task, as a legal duty, and as something for which one can be held accountable. We recommend a more explicit discussion of these dimensions in practice and a more systematic treatment of them in conceptual and in empirical studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]