Book contents
- Innovating Climate Governance
- Innovating Climate Governance
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- 1 Beyond Experiments
- 2 Global Climate Governance after Paris
- Part I Experiments
- Part II Beyond Experiments
- 7 Developing Transformative and Orchestrating Capacities for Climate Governance Experimentation in Rotterdam
- 8 The Pilot Paradox
- 9 Policy Pilots for Climate Adaptation in Indian Agriculture
- 10 Evaluating Climate Governance Experiments
- 11 The City of Permanent Experiments?
- 12 Experiments and Beyond
- Index
- References
8 - The Pilot Paradox
Exploring Tensions between Internal and External Success Factors in Dutch Climate Adaptation Projects
from Part II - Beyond Experiments
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 March 2018
Book contents
- Innovating Climate Governance
- Innovating Climate Governance
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- 1 Beyond Experiments
- 2 Global Climate Governance after Paris
- Part I Experiments
- Part II Beyond Experiments
- 7 Developing Transformative and Orchestrating Capacities for Climate Governance Experimentation in Rotterdam
- 8 The Pilot Paradox
- 9 Policy Pilots for Climate Adaptation in Indian Agriculture
- 10 Evaluating Climate Governance Experiments
- 11 The City of Permanent Experiments?
- 12 Experiments and Beyond
- Index
- References
Summary
Local sustainability experimentation is a topical issue, as cities and rural municipalities are increasingly taking the initiative in leading on climate action, whereas national governments and technology proponents are more and more conceiving of such initiatives as experiments. There is limited understanding of exactly what such experiments aim to achieve: what they are testing and how success or failure in such experiments is evaluated. We examine two emblematic Finnish local experiments: Kalasatama in Helsinki, a national pilot project in renewable energy and smart grid technology, and the Carbon-Neutral Municipalities programme engaging small and medium-sized municipalities in experimentation with solutions for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Through these examples, we reflect on the problem of evaluating local sustainability experiments and the lessons that can be drawn from them for climate governance.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Innovating Climate GovernanceMoving Beyond Experiments, pp. 145 - 165Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Banks, G. (February 2009). Evidence-based policy making: What is it? How do we get it? How do we get it? ANU Public Lecture Series, presented by ANZSOG, Canberra.Google Scholar
Berkhout, F., Verbong, G., Wieczorek, A. J., Raven, R., Lebel, L., and Bai, X. (2010). Sustainability experiments in Asia: Innovations shaping alternative development pathways? Environmental Science & Policy, 13(4), 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boer, H., and During, W. E. (2001). Innovation, what innovation? A comparison between product, process and organisational innovation. International Journal of Technology Management, 22(1–3), 83–107.Google Scholar
Bos, J. J., Brown, R. R., and Farrelly, M. A. (2013). A design framework for creating social learning situations. Global Environmental Change, 23(2), 398–412.Google Scholar
Breman, B. C., de Groot, M., Ottow, B., and Rip, W. (2014). Monitoren doe je samen. De meerwaarde van participatieve monitoring. H2O Online, 20 (6), 1–9.Google Scholar
Coenen, L., Raven, R., and Verbong, G. (2010). Local niche experimentation in energy transitions: A theoretical and empirical exploration of proximity advantages and disadvantages. Technology in Society, 32(4), 295–302.Google Scholar
Dagerskog, L., Savadogo, K., Hamadou, K., and Vodounhessi, A. (2016). Productive sanitation in Burkina Faso and Niger – going beyond projects? Paper presented at the 5th International Dry Toilet Conference, Tampere, Finland, 19 August 2015–22 August 2015.Google Scholar
De Moor, K., Berte, K., De Marez, L., Joseph, W., Deryckere, T., and Martens, L. (2010). User-driven innovation? Challenges of user involvement in future technology analysis. Science and Public Policy, 37(1), 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellen, G. J., and Ottow, B. T. (2012). Maatschappelijke aspecten van flexibel peilbeheer. Utrecht: Deltares.Google Scholar
Eshuis, J., and van Buuren, A. (2014). Innovations in water governance: The importance of time. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 80(2), 401–420.Google Scholar
Fatimah, Y. A., Raven, R. P., and Arora, S. (2015). Scripts in transition: Protective spaces of Indonesian biofuel villages. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 99, 1–13.Google Scholar
Franke, N., and Von Hippel, E. (2003). Satisfying heterogeneous user needs via innovation toolkits: The case of Apache security software. Research Policy, 32(7), 1199–1215.Google Scholar
Freude am Fluss (2007). Freude am Fluss. An Innovative Approach to River Management. Beuningen, the Netherlands: Drukkerij Libertas.Google Scholar
Gearheart, R. A., Klopp, F., and Allen, G. (1989). Constructed free surface wetlands to treat and receive wastewater: Pilot project to full scale. In Hammer, D. A. (ed.), Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers, 121–138.Google Scholar
Hargadon, A. B., and Douglas, Y. (2001). When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3), 476–501.Google Scholar
Hoogma, R., Kemp, R., Schot, J., and Truffer, B. (2002). Experimenting for Sustainable Transport: The Approach of Strategic Niche Management. London: Spon Press.Google Scholar
Hoppe, R. (2009). Scientific advice and public policy: Expert advisers’ and policymakers’ discourses on boundary work. Poiesis & Praxis, 6(3–4), 235–263.Google Scholar
Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715–728.Google Scholar
Ingram, J., Maye, D., Kirwan, J., Curry, N., and Kubinakova, K. (2015). Interactions between niche and regime: An analysis of learning and innovation networks for sustainable agriculture across Europe. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 21(1), 55–71.Google Scholar
Kemp, R., and Rotmans, J. (2009). Transitioning policy: Co-production of a new strategic framework for energy innovation policy in the Netherlands. Policy Sciences, 42(4), 303–322.Google Scholar
Kivimaa, P., Hildén, M., Huitema, D., Jordan, A., and Newig, J. (2017). Experiments in climate governance: A systematic review of research on energy and built environment transitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 169, 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knudsen, J. N., Jensen, J. N., Vilhelmsen, P. J., and Biede, O. (2009). Experience with CO2 capture from coal flue gas in pilot-scale: Testing of different amine solvents. Energy Procedia, 1(1), 783–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kylefors, K., Andreas, L., and Lagerkvist, A. (2003). A comparison of small-scale, pilot-scale and large-scale tests for predicting leaching behaviour of landfilled wastes. Waste Management, 23(1), 45–59.Google Scholar
Kuindersma, W., and Breman, B. C. (2014). Leren van landbouw op peil. Evaluatie van een experiment met zelfsturing in het waterbeheer. Alterra report 2512.Google Scholar
Lettl, C. (2007). User involvement competence for radical innovation. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 24(1), 53–75.Google Scholar
May, P. J., and Jochim, A. E. (2013). Policy regime perspectives: Policies, politics, and governing. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 426–452.Google Scholar
Muro, M., and Jeffrey, P. (2008). A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51(3), 325–344.Google Scholar
Muro, M., and Jeffrey, P. (2012). Time to talk? How the structure of dialog processes shapes stakeholder learning in participatory water resources management. Ecology and Society, 17(1), 3.Google Scholar
Nair, S., and Howlett, M. (2015). Scaling up of policy experiments and pilots: A qualitative comparative analysis and lessons for the water sector. Water Resources Management, 29(14), 4945–4961. doi: 10.1007/s11269-015-1081-0.Google Scholar
Nutley, S., Davies, H., and Walter, I. (2002). Evidence based policy and practice: Cross sector lessons from the UK. Working Paper, 9. London: ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice, University of London.Google Scholar
Nutley, S. M., Davies, H. T., and Smith, P. C. (2000). What Works? Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in Public Services. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Peters, B. W. E., Kater, E., and Geerling, G. W. (2006). Cyclisch beheer in uiterwaarden: Natuur en veiligheid in de praktijk. Nijmegen: Centrum voor Water en Samenleving, Radboud Universiteit.Google Scholar
Rotmans, J., and Loorbach, D. (2009). Complexity and transition management. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 13(2), 184–196.Google Scholar
Sanderson, I. (2002). Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Administration, 80(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Schusler, T. M., Decker, D. J., and Pfeffer, M. J. (2003). Social learning for collaborative natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources, 16(4), 309–326.Google Scholar
Smink, M., Negro, S. O., Niesten, E., and Hekkert, M. P. (2015). How mismatching institutional logics hinder niche–regime interaction and how boundary spanners intervene. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 100, 225–237.Google Scholar
Smith, A., Kern, F., Raven, R., and Verhees, B. (2014). Spaces for sustainable innovation: Solar photovoltaic electricity in the UK. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 81, 115–130.Google Scholar
Smith, A., and Raven, R. (2012). What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Research Policy, 41(6), 1025–1036.Google Scholar
Sørensen, E., and Torfing, J. (2012). Introduction: Collaborative innovation in the public sector. Innovation Journal, 17(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
Van Buuren, A., Keessen, A. M., Van Leeuwen, C., Eshuis, J., and Ellen, G. J. (2015a). Implementation arrangements for climate adaptation in the Netherlands: Characteristics and underlying mechanisms of adaptive governance. Ecology and Society, 20(4), 11.Google Scholar
Van Buuren, M. W., Ellen, G. J., van Leeuwen, C., and van Popering-Verkerk, J. (2015b). Die het water deert die het water keer: overstromingsrisicobeheer als maatschappelijke gebiedsopgave, opbrengsten en lessen uit de pilots meerlaagsveiligheid. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Van Buuren, M. W., and Loorbach, D. (2009). Policy innovation in isolation? Conditions for policy renewal by transition arenas and pilot projects. Public Management Review, 11(3), 375–392.Google Scholar
Van den Bosch, S. J. M. (2010). Transition experiments: Exploring societal changes towards sustainability. PhD thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Van Popering-Verkerk, J., and van Buuren, M.W. (2017). Developing collaborative capacity in pilot projects: Lessons from three Dutch flood risk management experiments. Journal of Cleaner Production, 169, 225–233.Google Scholar
Vinke-de Kruijf, J., Kuks, S. M. M., and Augustijn, D. C. M. (2015). Governance in support of integrated flood risk management? The case of Romania. Journal of Environmental Development, 16, 104–118.Google Scholar
Vreugdenhil, H., Slinger, J., Thissen, W., and Ker Rault, P. (2010). Pilot projects in water management. Ecology and Society, 15(3), 13.Google Scholar
Vreugdenhil, H., Taljaard, S., and Slinger, J. H. (2012). Pilot projects and their diffusion: A case study of integrated coastal management in South Africa. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 15(1–2), 148–172.Google Scholar
Vreugdenhil, H. S. I. (2010). Pilot projects in water management: Practicing change and changing practice. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
Williams, P. (2002). The competent boundary spanner. Public Administration, 80(1), 103–124.Google Scholar
- 7
- Cited by