MSc thesis
City Resilience to Climate Change and
Sustainability
Comparing network governance and adaptive capacity of The Hague
and Rotterdam
Leiden UniversityMaster Crisis and Security Management Jarron Kaipatty, 2104245
They say “Millennials” and “Generation Z” are more aware to the dangers of global warming. Though I was not protesting at the Malieveld, sustainability has been a topic of interest as I try to live greener. This has resulted in the choice of topic for my thesis.
I would like to thank my thesis supervisor dr. J. Reijling and second reader dr. G. Landucci, who helped me from the start of writing this thesis. I appreciated the patience in this long process, the meetings and the useful insights I took from them.
As my background is in Law, performing academic research was not something I was familiar with. Quantitative and qualitative research was something I needed to learn, thereby making my journey one of highs and lows. I would like to thank the interviewees for their time, expertise and insights. I learned a lot from the conversations and gained useful experience in conducting interviews as a tool for research.
A big thanks goes to my family and partner for all their support during the writing process. Personal circumstances took the focus away from writing my thesis. Their support helped me to finish my studies.
Table of content
1. Introduction ... 6
1.1 Background on city resilience ... 6
1.2 Arup’s City Resilience Framework ... 7
1.3 Description of the Problem: The Hague and Rotterdam ... 8
1.4 Research Question ... 9
1.5 Academic Relevance ... 10
1.6 Societal Relevance ... 10
1.7 Outline of the Thesis ... 11
2. Theoretical Framework ... 12
2.1 Governance of resilience networks ... 12
2.2 Structural characteristics of a (resilience) network ... 13
2.2.1 Types of collaboration ... 14
2.2.2 Social capital and trust ... 15
2.2.3 Social learning - knowledge generation and sharing ... 16
2.2.4 Flexibility in norms and practices ... 17
2.2.5 Network governance ... 18
2.3 Conceptual model: linking adaptability with Arup’s soft “leadership & strategy” indicator ... 20
3. Research Design and Methodology ... 23
3.1. Design ... 23
3.2 Data-Collection ... 25
4.1.2 Governance shaping of the network ... 36 4.1.3 Collaboration ... 39 4.1.4 Social capital ... 42 4.1.6 Flexibility ... 45 4.1.7 Summary ... 47 4.2 Rotterdam ... 48 4.2.1 City profile ... 48
4.2.2 Governance shaping of the network ... 48
4.2.3 Collaboration ... 51
4.2.4 Social Capital ... 53
4.2.5 Social Learning ... 54
4.2.6 Flexibility ... 56
4.2.7 Summary ... 57
4.3 Comparative analyses on the effectiveness of governance ... 59
models towards resilience-building... 59
4.3.1 Network ... 59
4.3.2 Collaboration ... 60
4.3.3 Social Capital ... 61
4.3.4 Social Learning ... 62
4.3.5 Flexibility ... 64
4.4 Conclusion on answering the Research Question ... 65
5. Conclusion ... 68
5.1 Reflection on conclusion ... 68
5.2 Recommendations on policy ... 69
5.3 Limitations ... 69
5.4 Recommendations on future study ... 69
Appendix ... 83
Table: Local energy cooperative ... 83
Table: Project cooperative ... 84
1. Introduction
This thesis will investigate the network governance of city resilience and use Rotterdam and The Hague’s resilience strategy – based on the framework of Arup (2017) – as case studies. This section will begin with a brief background on the topic of city resilience, followed by a description of how the concept of city resilience is applied in this research. Subsequently, it is considered that Rotterdam and The Hague have different scores but a clear link with governance is not given. Finally, the resulting research question and sub questions are presented as well as the relevancy and the outline of the research.
1.1 Background on city resilience
Around half of the world’s population lives in cities. The public officials of the metropolitans are tasked to build a society that can protect their residents from potential crisis and disasters.
The interlinking concepts of “resilience” and “adaptability” have played an increasingly prominent role in research on how cities can protect their citizens and society. Resilience is a concept that was first related to ecological systems but after 9/11, it has been used to describe how cities and nations attempt to recover from disasters (Coaffee, 2006, p. 396). It refers to the ability to return to the normal flow of daily life with minimal disruption (Kindt, 2006, p. 6) and manifests itself in reduced failure and faster restorations (Clarke & Chenoweth, 2006; ICMA, 2006 in Kapuca et al, 2010, p. 8). City policies on resilience are to strengthen the urban system‘s capacity to change in response to shocks to the system (Zhao et al, 2013, p. 3219), considering a resilient society can cope with and recover better from disasters than a non-resilient society.
Adaptability plays an important role in becoming and staying resilient (Folke et al. 2010, p. 1), it is the capacity to influence resilience. This capacity resides in actors, social networks, and institutions (Lebel et al, 2006, p. 2; Bedi et al, 2014, p. 15). The traditional model of crisis management is a centralized bureaucratic system with a rigid hierarchical structure (Jung et al, 2008, p. 282). In this model a small number of chief key executive officials and their most intimate advisers are responsible for the majority of critical decisions (Burke & Greenstein in ‘t Hart et al 1993, p. 14). While
centralization facilitates coordination and speed, it may also hamper quality decisionmaking as it restricts group thinking and possible operational knowledge. In recent years, researchers have formulated adaptive co-management as a new governance approach that deviates from the traditional model. Adaptive co-management is a system that involves different actors and cross-scale interactions based on flexibility and creativity (Plummer, 2009, p. 2; Jung et al, 2018, p. 283).
The cities of Rotterdam and The Hague have developed a resilience strategy in order to build a strong and resilient city. The resilience strategy developed by Rotterdam and The Hague are based on the framework of Arup – a multinational consultancy firm who is supported in this project by The Rockefeller Foundation – which will be further explored below. The framework forms a tool for cities to measure and monitor their resilience. Both cities have identified energy transition and climate adaptation as important themes in their strategy. As will be outlined in 1.3, although both cities have chosen to adopt the same themes in their strategy, they score differently. This difference could be due to the management of resilience and the associated network.
1.2 Arup’s City Resilience Framework
Arup has developed a framework, the City Resilience Framework (CRF), which gives cities an instrument to measure and monitor their resilience. The framework has four dimensions based on Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs Theory” (1943) and Max-Neefs’ “Fundamental Human Needs” theory (1991): Health & Well-being, Economy & Society, Infrastructure & Environment, and leadership & strategy. Each dimension contains three goals a city should strive for in order to achieve resilience.
The first dimension relates to the health and wellbeing of citizens (Arup. 2017, p. 18). It considers the extent to which the city facilitates food, water, shelter, and the city’s ability to safeguard the health of its population and the ability of citizens to fulfil their basic needs. The goals are minimal human vulnerability, diverse livelihoods & employment, and effective safeguards to human life.
The second dimension ‘Economy and Society’ is about “how social and economic systems enable urban populations to live peacefully, and act collectively”
The third dimension is ‘Infrastructure and Environment’. This dimension relates to “the quality and robustness of infrastructure and ecosystems that protects, provide and connect us” (Arup, 2017, p. 22). The dimension evaluates the continuity of critical services in time of disturbances. Cities are ought to keep well-maintained systems that continue functioning and can withstand pressures. The goals are reduced exposure & vulnerability, effective provision of critical services, and reliable mobility & communications.
‘Leadership and Strategy’ is the fourth and also the ‘executive’ dimension of the framework. A resilient city should strive to have effective leadership and management, empowered stakeholders, and integrated development planning (Arup, 2017, p. 24). Individuals and communities should be informed in order to act accordingly in times of crises as knowledge and skills on hazards improve the ability to cope and implement risk reduction strategy (Mayunga, 2007, p. 8). In order to be ready for the future, governments should plan for the future. The goals are effective leadership & management, empowered stakeholders, and integrative development planning. The scores given by the City Resilience Index are based on a performance-based approach. In this regard, resilience is defined as a city’s ability to fulfil and sustain its core functions, by way of multiple city assets, systems and actors simultaneously. The performance of a city refers to the key functions that a city exists to fulfil, and the effectiveness with which those functions are served.
1.3 Description of the Problem: The Hague and Rotterdam
The framework by Arup refers to the previously mentioned adaptive co-management and emphasizes the importance of sound leadership that promotes “trust, unity and a shared understanding of city’s trajectory” and empowers stakeholders (Arup, 2017, p. 25). Resilience is related to the ability of stakeholders and its network to utilize available systems to deal with uncertainty and change. Without proper governance, systems cannot be used to their full effect to deal with disturbances. However, the substance of the concepts that would strengthen governance of resilience still remain under-defined. While the CRF gives instruments to measure resilience, it does not qualify what the inherent characteristics are. ‘Effective leadership and management’, ‘empowered stakeholders’, and ‘integrated development planning’ are given as indicators that have a positive effect on city resilience but are also words without
context. This raises the question what qualifies under these indicators for ‘leadership and strategy’ in Arup’s framework and what their relation is to city resilience.
The governance of resilience of Rotterdam and The Hague will be studied, as both have used Arup’s CRF, in a comparative analysis. Kellogg & Samanta (2017) developed a model for analysing the adaptive capacity of network governance. This will be used as a theoretical framework, complemented by Mantere & Vaara (2008) who have specifically studied strategies for stakeholders’ participation in this respect.
Adaptability is a major part of resilience. The two focus areas – climate adaptation and energy transition – that Rotterdam and The Hague share, specifically focuses on adaptability. The management regarding resilience, the associated network and its inherent characteristics has yet to be researched. Hence, the goal of this study is to address that gap. Therefore, the model of Kellogg & Samanta will be used to analyse the “adaptive capacity of network governance”. On that account, by applying the model to Rotterdam and The Hague you can interpret “effective leadership and management”, “empowered stakeholders”, and “integrated development planning”.
1.4 Research Question
Based on the problem stated above, this research aims to answer the following research question:
“What elements in the governance modes of the Cities Rotterdam and The Hague offer an explanation for the difference in scores in Arup’s City Resilience Framework?”
Sub questions:
1. What variables can explain cause-effects links between governance and resilience capacities?
2. How do these variables correlate in The Hague? 3. How do these variables correlate in Rotterdam?
1.5 Academic Relevance
The importance of involving city stakeholders and networks in cities for creating resilience is widely recognized (c.f. Bedi et al, 2014; Ansell & Gash, 2007, Berkes, 2017; Duit et al, 2010; Jung et al, 2017; Kapucu et al, 2010; Lebel et al, 2010). However, as mentioned before, there is a lack of theory that links resilience in cities to the governance approaches. Research challenges still exist on how networks are governed (Provan & Kennis, 2007) and the role of adaptive capacity in this context (Folke, 2006), and indicators that can be used to monitor the properties of resilience networks (Janssen et al, 2006). In an attempt to address this knowledge gap, it is important to study the network of cities and its interactions with stakeholders. What constitutes ‘sound’ leadership is unclear. What kind of network dynamics can explain these differences between the cities assuming they have a similar political system? This study will contribute to the field by conducting case analysis of two cities and their governance of resilience. The focus herein will be on the cities respective resilience network and adaptability. With the use of Kellof & Samanta, the elements of adaptability will be examined and how these elements fit in the governance network. Kellog & Samanta’s model has been used for ecological issues. However, this research will apply this tool to measure the adaptability to city resilience. Insights will be given into network models and how they are governed to determine its adaptive capacity. An explanation for occurring differences of resilience can then be found in the extent to which the components of adaptive capacity are present and how they are linked to each other and lead to decisions in the network.
1.6 Societal Relevance
In terms of societal relevance, public policy affects the entire community, thus governments play a large part in a society’s welfare. Besides man-made threats, cities also face environmental challenges. The planet is warming as humans continue to add heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. Due to the increase in temperature, ice is melting which contributes to the rise of sea levels. It will lead to the flooding and droughts of rivers and lakes and will cause the displacement of coastal societies, climate refugees, and lesser freshwater. In addition, climate change will affect food production, diseases, and the displacement of wildlife. Hence, climate change and
natural hazards are significant threats to the urban population and infrastructure and requires cities to take action.
By measuring public governance in relation to resilience, strengths and weaknesses in the management of resilience are displayed. This may help policy makers to cope better with disturbances. In addition, it identifies more favourable governance processes to build resilience. Therefore, this research will address society by proving insights into governmental discourses and the effects upon resilience.
1.7 Outline of the Thesis
This paper is structured as follows. Chapter 2 will cover the theoretical framework that deals with network governance and the structural characteristics of a resilience network. Chapter 3 will describe the integrative comparative case study design. This chapter will use the discussed literature to form variables than can explain the relationship between network governance and resilience capabilities. The general research question will be discussed in chapter 4. This chapter will discuss the two cases of The Hague and Rotterdam and will end with and comparative analyses. This thesis will end with a reflection on the results and recommendations for future policy and research.
2. Theoretical Framework
Adaptability is one of the core elements of resilience. It refers to the ability to learn and adjust responses to external drivers and internal change. Walker et al (2004) have described adaptability as the function of the social component, i.e. the collective capacity of human actors to manage resilience. This social component makes it related to governance. Governance emerges from the interactions and cooperation between the actors in a city while society’s ability to manage resilience resides in actors, social networks and institutions (Lebel et al, 2006, p. 2-4; Wakeman et al, 2017). Hence, adaptability is strongly linked to the governance of resilience networks. This chapter will discuss the governance of resilience networks and the adaptability thereof to lay the foundation to answer the first sub-question. The model developed by Kellog & Samanta (2017) on adaptive capacity of network governance is used to ultimately determine what variables can explain cause-effects links between governance and resilience capacities.
2.1 Governance of resilience networks
The traditional model of crisis management is a centralized bureaucratic system with a rigid hierarchical structure. Government agencies are key actors in this system with clearly defined objectives, division of labour, and policies and procedures (Schneider 1992, p. 238 in Jung et al, 2018, p. 282). Cities rely on administrative and organizational centralization in order to respond swiftly. Critical decisions are made by a small numbers of chief executive officials and their most intimate advisers (Burke & Greenstein in ‘Hart et al 1993, p. 14). Centralization facilitates coordination and favours speed as secrecy requires less decision makers but may hamper quality decision-making as it denies group thinking and possible operational knowledge.
A new approach came forth as a response to the traditional model. Authors (Ansell & Gash, 2012; Duit et al, 2010; Hölschet et al, 2019; Olsson et al, 2004; Plummer, 2009) have argued that conventional management approaches are not suitable for highly uncertain uncontrollable disturbances. They agree that diversity in actors increases the capacity to influence resilience. The general thought is that a big group of diverse actors can adapt better to situations due to having access to more resources and knowledge. This new model is dubbed ‘adaptive co-management’, a governance system that involves a diverse set of actors and cross-scale interactions based on
flexibility and creativity (Plummer, 2009, p. 2; Jung et al, 2018). Duit et al has named this the diversity hypothesis: “in order to govern processes of complex change, complexity in the external world must be matched by complexity in the governance system” (2010, p. 365). These complex disturbances require collective action among public, private, and non-profit actors (Johns, O’reilly, & Inwood, 2006; Waugh, 2004 in Kapucu et al. 2010, p. 8). A network that consist of large numbers of diverse semi-independent organizations will have a larger set of actions (Duit et al, 2010, p. 366) but can also face difficulties as culturally and structurally diverse organization can lack “common understanding among actors, low levels of trust, limited authority, and limited capacity to participate (NAPA, 2004 in Kapuca et al, 2010, p. 8). In addition, it can also have less viable actions due to a lack of coordination, fragmented communication, and limited stock of resources (Duit et al, 2010, p. 366)
2.2 Structural characteristics of a (resilience) network
As explained above, adaptability in the governance network is needed to form proper solutions to challenges. According to Kellog & Samanta (2018), the adaptive capacity of the network rests on a “network governance structure shaping function” that supports and integrates four elements (1) collaboration in a network between a variety of stakeholders across different scales and types of organizations (2) with sufficient levels of social capital invested (3) collective learning capacity, and (4) flexibility to reconfigure management systems in respond to uncertainty and change (see figure below). Kellog & Samanta used this model to study the watershed governance of the Chagrin River. The authors used the concept of whole networks to study environmental governance and analysed the emergence and evolution of network structure over time in terms of building adaptive capacity. They concluded that the self-organizing and evolution of governance networks build adaptive capacity for governance that leads to longer term resilience. These elements of adaptive capacity are also relevant to other settings and therefore will be used in this thesis.
Figure 1: Conceptual framework as developed by Kellog & Samanta (2018)
2.2.1 Types of collaboration
The members of a resilience network interact with each other and engage in social interaction. The literature on adaptive co-management prescribes a relationship based on shared power and responsibility “whereby priority is given to communication, perspective sharing, social learning, and negotiation“ (Berkes, 2017, p. 6). Enhanced participation through consultation facilitates debate, knowledge sharing and the legitimacy of decisions. Moreover, Ansell notes that dialogue “is at the heart of a process of building trust, mutual respect, shared understanding, and commitment to the process” (2007, p. 558). This is reflected in Arup’s model, which prescribes effective mechanisms for communities to engage with government, proactive multi-stakeholder collaboration, and effective co-ordination with other government bodies. This should be reflected in the strategy discourses these actors use. Discourses are part of the social practices that constitute strategy as they are “linguistically mediated constructions of social reality” (Mantere & Vaara, 2008, p. 2). Mantere & Vaara identified three sets of discourses that promote participation – self-actualization, dialogization, and concretization – along with three discourses that impede participation – mystification, disciplining, and technologization.
• Mystification is a process driven by visions, missions and strategy statements made by central leaders. Top managers define the strategies that other members do not question. The latter has restricted access to information and only participates in the implementation.
• Disciplining, strategizing is exclusively done by top management, whom are seen as heroes. The organization features an organizational hierarchy and command structure.
• Technologization, a strategy that encompasses the use of specific systems and technologies. Participation is impeded due to the use of these systems and technologies.
• Self-actualization, all members participate in strategizing along workshops and meetings. Individual members can give meaning to strategizing by bringing forth conflicting ideas.
• Dialogization, involves a constructive dialogue between top-down and bottom-up members. Top managers are still seen as key strategist but interact with various internal and external stakeholders.
• Concretization is a counterbalance to mystification. It has clear processes and practices that enable members to participate. Top managers are supports by other members whom are responsible for a specific.
2.2.2 Social capital and trust
The second component of the framework is social capital. A first description was given by Hanifan in 1916. He described it as “the good will, fellowship, mutual sympathy, and social intercourse among a group of individuals and families who make up a social unit” (Hanifan, 1916, p. 130). A later description was given by Putnam who defined social capital as a feature of a social organization such as networks, norms, and trust, that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit (Putnam, 1993, p. 2). In the context of resilience, it expresses the quality and quantity of social cooperation (Mayunga, 2007, p. 7). The consensus is that resilient societies score high on social as they work together to overcome problems more effectively and at a lower cost (Coffé & Geys, 2005; Davidson, 2006 in Mayunga, 2007, p. 7).
The Framework by Arup calls for decision-making and leadership to be transparent, inclusive and integrated. Effective leadership and management is based on appropriate government decision making, effective co-ordination with other
together requires coordination and leadership (Berkes, 2009, p. 1696), especially in a learning environment with continuous testing and changes (Danter et al., 2000 mentioned in Hahn et al 2006). It requires the government to play an active role in order to make network collaboration effective (Borg et al 2015, mentioned in Kellog & Samanta, 2017, p. 42).
According to Putnam (1993), voluntary associations are a source of social capital. Voluntary associations consist of individuals who have organized themselves based on consensus and the same interests. These individuals have to rely on each other to make collective action possible, which grows trusts as one’s actions have consequences for both (Kapucu, 2010, 230). Trust is built through share learning and action and helps to build and maintain the relations between the members (Kapucu, 2010, p. 229; Siisiainen, 2000, p 5). Associations have a positive influence on social interaction and cooperation as they “increase the potential cost to a defector in any individual transaction”, “foster robust norms of reciprocity”, and “facilitate communication and improve the flow of information about the trustworthiness of individuals” (Putnam, 1993, 173-74). Voluntary associations can thus be seen as socially organized groups based on mutual trust between the members (Siisiainen, 2000, p. 5).
Another aspect of associations is that they can function as information systems (Wollebaeck & Selle, 2002). The association can disseminate information about current issues and how the association relates to them. As such, these networks may serve as promoters of civic engagement (2002, p. 57). In addition, they also provide institutional links between members and the political system and serve as intermediary institutions. This improves social collaboration and democratic governance, thus making democracy more responsive and effective (2002, p. 35). Social capital as a source of community cooperation and efficacy can thus be measured by the number of non-profit organizations, voluntary associations (Mayunga, 2007, p. 7).
2.2.3 Social learning - knowledge generation and sharing
The third component forms an important part of adaptive co-management, i.e. the ability to generate and the dissemination of knowledge gained by experimentation. The ability to learn through change and uncertainty is essential to adapt to external drivers and internal change. Therefore, successful management is characterized by continuous
testing, monitoring, and adaptive responses (Hahn et al, 2006, p. 574). Responding to feedback in ways that enhance resilience requires knowledge and understanding.
Knowledge and skills on hazards improve the ability to cope, develop, and implement risk reduction strategies (Mayunga, 2007, p. 8). Hence, managers need to mobilize people and organizations with different knowledge systems to mobilize all sources of understanding (Hahn et al, 2006, p. 574). Social learning is a “process of iterative
reflection that occurs when we share our experiences, ideas and environments with others” (Keen et al, 2005 in Armitage, 2008, p. 89). Learning increases the local ability to buffer change (Folke et al. 2002 in Wilner et al, 2011, p. 2). Such a learning environment is needed for coping with complex and uncertain situations (Carpenter and Gundersion, 2001, mentioned in Olsson et al 2004, p. 76). This involves a learning process that allows us to build knowledge about problems and possible alternative actions and is linked to the ability of management to respond to feedback.According to Folke et al. (2003 mentioned in Pahl-Wostl et al, 2007, p. 7), social learning is essential in order to gain the experience needed to cope with uncertainty and change.
Governments should invest in adequate education, widespread community awareness and preparedness, and effective mechanisms for communities to engage with the government.
2.2.4 Flexibility in norms and practices
Systems should accept uncertainty, change, and enhance the adaptive capacity to deal with disturbance. It is not enough to be in tune with external drivers and dynamics (Hahn et al, 2006, p. 575). Governance requires flexibility to respond to changing conditions and feedback in a learning environment (Olsson et al, 2004). As argued by Armitage et al (2008, p. 91), the core of adaptive management involves flexible institutions that encourage reflexion and innovative responses in order to improve future actions and management plans to new understandings. Social learning can be valuable to revise governance practices. It can be used to fix errors from routines, correct errors by adjusting policies and values, and to adjust governance norms and protocols (Armitage et al, 2008, p. 88).
(mentioned in Kekezi & Klaesson, 2019, p. 7) note that innovation help to develop new products, processes, and technologies. Hence, cities that have a strong knowledge network – in the form of an agglomeration of KIBS – have a greater innovation capacity, and thus a greater capacity to improve future actions and management plans to new and improved understandings.
Van Buuren argued that flexibility can also be found in programme management. With programme management “different organisations are able to work together on a project basis” and therefore “provides opportunities for adjustment, equalisation, and the flexibility to include different sets of aims or policies” (2010 mentioned in Ward et al 2010, p. 527).
2.2.5 Network governance
The model by Kellog & Samanta was developed to understand how the structure or form of a governance network shapes the functional capacity of governance to adapt to changing conditions. These conditions and activities again reshape network governance structure in an ongoing relationship. This marks the fifth element in de model of Kellog & Samanta, i.e. network governance structure shaping.
Network governance is formed by actors in a network that collaborate on the basis of shared values, trust, solidarity, or consensus (Wollman, 2003, p. 595 in Kapuca et al, 2010, p. 7). It allows organizations to manage problems that are too big to handle for one single organization by allocating resources and coordinating and control of joint action among its members (Kapucu et al, 2010, p. 225; Provan & Kennis, 2007, p. 3). Provan & Kenis (2007) identified three types of networks: shared participant-governed network, lead organization-governed networks, and network administrative organization.
Figure 2: Key predictions of effectiveness of network governance forms (Provan & Kennis 2007:37)
In a participant-governed network the network members cooperate formally or informally without a separate governance entity. In a ‘shared’ participant network, all or most members are involved in decisions and activities on equal basis. The network acts and is represented as a whole, and network members are themselves responsible for managing internal relationships, operations, and external relations. A lead organization-governed network is also participant-governed but differs from the aforementioned by being highly centralized and brokered. One individual member is responsible for the coordination of network activities, making key decisions, and network administration. The network administrative organization (NAO) differs from the other two because a separate administrative organization is established to govern the network. The NAO is not a member that provides its own services but instead acts as a network facilitator and broker. Shared governance seems to be most effective in a network with fewer than six or eight organizations (Burn, 2004; Forsyth 1999 in Kennis & Provan). A network of few members allows for face-to-face participation and full control over the network. This type of governance will be inefficient as the network grows and members will rise, thus making the network more complex and time consuming. Centralization in the form of either a lead organization or NAO will be more effective in this instance. By centralizing governance, the direct involvement of all members is no longer needed but members instead can interact with the lead organization or NAO regarding network activities. Provan & Kenis note that a network typically moves from a participant governed network to a lead organization to a NAO. Kellog & Samanta also witnessed an evolution but came to another conclusion. The
Berthol et al plead for a more nuanced dynamics among governance modes. The authors reference the work of Provan & Kennis and argue that the governance of socalled “High-Reliability Networks” (HRN) is hybrid as it moves between assertive and supportive modes. Reliability in this sense means “the ability of an organization to anticipate and contain incidents in the course of its operations, thereby maintaining its effectiveness even during crises and times of peak demand” (2017, p. 252). Governance can change between modes due to “layering” and “switching”. Layering relates to the informal process by which actors simultaneously combine features of the three governance modes to form a hybrid governance mode that works during stable periods. Switching indicates a temporary transformation to the assertive mode in which a centralized command structure takes over to address high levels of activities or crises after which it will switch back to their normal, layered form or supportive mode. According to Berthol et al, layering and switching can prevent impasses in decisionmaking and coordination and can therefore effectively address anticipation and containment.
2.3 Conceptual model: linking adaptability with Arup’s soft “leadership & strategy” indicator
The soft indicator for ‘leadership & strategy’ in Arup’s framework represents the capacity to act in the resilience network. The dimension holds that a resilient city must have effective leadership and urban management that can effectively respond to feedback and responses. Herein comes adaptability. Adaptability is the foundation of resilience. It is the ability to learn and adjust to external drivers and internal change and thus the capacity to become and stay resilient. The model by Kellog & Samanta allows us to observe adaptability: how the structure or form of a governance network shapes the functional capacity of governance to adapt to changing conditions. The model was originally developed to measure the adaptability of social ecological systems but is also applicable to other networks in the resilience field. Hence, the model forms the basis to answer the research question of this thesis: “What elements in the governance modes of the cities Rotterdam and The Hague offer an explanation for the different scores in Arup City Resilience Framework?”.
The adaptive ability resides in the many stakeholders and overarching resilience network. According to Arup this means to have an inclusive government that learns
from past experiences and empowered stakeholders by providing information and education. The model by Kellog & Samanta (2017) as explained above will be used as main theory to gain better insights in what this adaptive ability precisely means in light of the ‘leadership & strategy’ dimension of Arup’s framework. Kellog & Samanta have built on the work of Provan & Kennis (2008) on network governance and have formulated four factors that determine the adaptive capability of a network. According to the authors, the adaptive capacity of a network rests on (1) the collaboration or shared decision making among a variety of stakeholders across different scales and types of organizations, (2) sufficient levels of social capital to facilitate deep collaboration, (3) social learning created from shared and distributed knowledge learned by experimentation, (4) and flexibility to change management systems in response to shared knowledge of changing conditions and uncertainty. An explanation for differences can then be given by the presence of the four components of adaptive capacity and the network governance structure shaping function.
In addition, I will use the article by Mantere & Vaara (2008) to supplement Kellog & Samanta’s framework. Their work on strategy discourses will offer a new perspective on studying social interaction between different actors in a resilience network. The authors formulated indicated six discoursed that either impede or promote participation. This will be used to give an extra dimension to the element of ‘collaboration or shared decision making’ used in the framework of Kellog & Samanta. As adaptive co-management is all about diverse stakeholders and participation, the strategy discourses that are being used should reflect that thought.
Concluding, this chapter has explored what variables can explain cause-effects links between governance and resilience capacities. This has led to a conceptual model that consist of an analysis of the type network to which four aspects are held against to determine the adaptability of the network. The hypothesis is that a network which is built on collaboration, has sufficient levels of social capital, social learning by experimentation, and flexibility and is able to integrate those elements within a flexible governance structure shaping function is more effective and adaptable. Therefore, the network that has the ability to respond to feedback, external drivers, change and surprise should be more resilient, hence, should have a higher resilience score.
Figure 3: Conceptual framework for network structure and adaptive capacity, Kellog & Samanta (2017) modified by author for analytical purposes
3. Research Design and Methodology
3.1. DesignThis research entails an integrative comparative case study of two cities. Per Yin, case study design is “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are used” (as quoted in Zainal, 2007, p. 2). The case studies will be compared by their projects – within an approximate five-year range around the time of publishing their respective resilience strategy – that address resilience to climate change and sustainability. Using two case studies will allow a difference in governance structures and policy design. In order to answer the research question, the research comprises a within-case analysis of the underlying mechanisms in order to indicate casual mechanisms and processes (Rohlfing, 2012, p. 12). In the end, an analysis can be made of the similarities and differences between the two programmes in both cities. By comparing the underlying variables to the case studies, it is possible to see the extent to which they create more resilient cities, which answers the main research question - What elements in the governance modes of the Cities Rotterdam and The Hague offer an explanation for the difference in scores in Arup’s City Resilience Framework?
Two cases: The Hague and Rotterdam
The cities of Rotterdam and The Hague have both developed a resilience strategy based on the framework of Arup. The two cities share their “areas of action” as both point to climate change and energy transition. As shown below, Rotterdam and The Hague score differently on resilience. The output in the figure illustrates what aspects of resilience are most relevant to the city by stakeholder group and how the city is performing according to stakeholders.
Figure 4: Perception of resilience score from Rotterdam (Rotterdam, 2016, p. 34) and The Hague (Den Haag, 2018, p. 53)
The component ‘strengthen a wide range of stakeholders’ seems to be a bigger problem in The Hague. The development phase of the resilience strategy in The Hague indicated that there are many actions to promote leadership and the involvement of communities (The Hague, 2018, p. 52) although many stakeholders were of the opinion that insufficient knowledge was shared about best practices. There are many on-going projects, but it is unclear whether their impact is being evaluated and whether they lead to a more resilient city. In addition, only a small per cent of stakeholders regard the city’s work to ‘empower a broad range of stakeholders’ and to ‘promote leadership and effective management’ as an area of strength (The Hague, 2017, p. 68). This seems far less the case in Rotterdam. Rotterdam has gained international acclaim for its work on climate adaption (Hölscher et al, 2019; McPhearson, 2019; Dutch Water Sector, 2015). The President of the 100ResilientCities has stated: “Rotterdam is uniquely positioned to host the Global Centre of Excellence on Climate Adaptation and to support its mission; not only have they led the global conversation on climate adaptation, many of the cities in our global Network have turned to Rotterdam for best practices and subject
matter expertise. Cities and partners continue to reach out to them for climate adaptation guidance as the City has demonstrated an exemplary approach to building its resilience to a diverse set of challenges” (Molenaar, 2017).
3.2 Data-Collection
During the initial research phase, existing literature regarding resilience or the City Resilience Framework has been researched. The framework is the result of an extensive research project by Arup with support from the Rockerfeller Foundation. The organization conducted a six-month desk-based data analysis in conjunction with fieldwork in numerous cities in order to develop its framework. To gain insight on the specific content of city resilience, the resilience strategy of both cities has been read and analysed to gain a general picture of the resilience profile in the specific city. Furthermore, empirical data has been collected from governmental documents – policy plans and yearly reports – and other stakeholders – such as the city’s environmental centre, energy cooperatives, and the port – regarding policy to identify governance approached and elements of adaptability. By using content analysis, the type of management can be discovered.
Policy documents
The Hague’s coalition accord of 2014 reads “Trust in the Power of The Hague (in Dutch: Vertrouwen op Haagse Kracht). The ‘power’ refers to the people and entrepreneurs of the city “who want to move forward” and “want to emerge from the crisis together” (Den Haag, 2014, p. 4). The municipality makes an appeal to these frontrunners to cooperate and plan for a bright future together. The axiom is incorporated in their sustainability agenda that was released in 2015. Hence, citizens who operate initiatives or who want to “turn green” or take ownership will be supported. The sustainability agenda is based on two strategy points to realise a “needed up-scaling of sustainability” (Den Haag, 2015, p.3): the mobilisation of people, and the creation of secondary conditions. To create and support the sustainable movement in the city, investments are made that target the
citizens while simultaneously developing the network by investing in the self-sufficiency of citizens.
Rotterdam’s programme on sustainability for 2015-2018 is called “Sustainability closer by the Rotterdammer” (in Dutch: Duurzaam dichter bij de Rotterdammer), meaning Rotterdam wants to solve climate issues together with its inhabitants. The city has asked its citizens, institutions and businesses what sustainability means to them in order to form the base for the programme. The ambition is to create a green, healthy and future proof city, to have low-cost clean energy, and to have a strong and innovative economy. The programme ran along its other programme called the Rotterdam Climate Initiative that launched in 2006 with the aim of reducing C02 emissions by 50% by 2025 while promoting economic growth. It was a joint venture between stakeholders in the port and the municipality. As 85 per cent of C02 emissions is produced in the port, these actors form an important partner in the strategy process.
The Local Energy Monitor (Schwencke, 2018) was used evaluate the movement of energy cooperatives and projects in The Hague and Rotterdam. It is an annual report and analysis of the developments of civilian energy initiatives developed by Hieropgewekt, an online knowledge platform.
Interviews
In addition, interviews were held with stakeholders to gain a better understanding of organization practices and their impact. Interviews were held with:
Joris Wijsmuller: Alderman for Urban Development, Housing, Sustainability and Culture (2014 – 2018)
Anne-Marie Hitipieuw: Chief Resilience Officier The Hague Corjan Gebraad: Chief Resilience Officer Rotterdam
Maarten de Hoog DCMR (one of the founders of the
Rotterdam Climate initiative
The questions asked are related to the adaptive capacity of the network and the perception of organizational practices to draw conclusions on the ability to act in the resilience network and how such capacity can be strengthened.
3.3 Data-analyse
The previous chapter discussed the variables that the explain cause-effects links between governance and resilience capacities. These dependent variables are the four elements – collaboration, social capital, social learning, and flexibility – that determine the adaptability of the network (Kellog & Samanta, 2017) together with the ability of “layering” and “switching” (Berthol et al, 2017). This section deals with the operationalization of these six aspects of adaptability in order to analyse the two case studies.
The soft indicator for leadership & strategy’ in Arup’s framework is the capacity to act in the resilience network, to have effective leadership and urban management that can effectively respond to feedback and responses. In other words, network governance needs to be adaptable. The description of the problem illustrated that the perception of resilience of The Hague’s ‘leadership & strategy’ is lower than Rotterdam. Hence, the adaptability of the Hague will be scored as LOW and Rotterdam as HIGH.
Analysing each case study resulted in a description of how resilience is addressed and how the network is organized. The evaluation considered all information gathered during the case study exploration, as well as the information that constitutes the theoretical framework. The analysis of each element of adaptability included a description of its place within policy, how it is being addressed, and how it influences adaptability. The analysis highlights similarities and differences in the way each case study approaches resilience and illustrates where examples of good urban governance indicate a capacity for adaptability. There is no overall grade for each case study or element of adaptability, because the framework was used to view how each city encompasses the six elements of adaptability. Instead an indication of higher or lower is given in order to indicate which elements of adaptability Rotterdam or The Hague is stronger or weaker in.
This thesis mainly looked at the input – policy plans and documents etc. – and used this as grading for adaptability and resilience. This does not establish a direct causal relationship between the prevalence of elements of adaptability and the level of resilience. To establish direct causality between the two variables would require a more
followed by an increase in the level of resilience; non-spuriousness, there is no possible alternative explanation for an higher level in resilience than a greater adaptative capacity. Hence, this research will assume a positive relationship between the degree to which each case study encompasses elements of adaptability and the level of resilience.
Network governance shaping structure function:
The network governance is of hybrid nature and moves between assertive and supportive modes by virtue of “layering” and “switching”.
Indicator #1 Layering
Description Informal process by which actors
establish a hybrid governance structure that will accompany periods of stability (Berthol et al, 2017).
Basis of measurement
The network combines features from the three modes of governance as defined by Provan & Kennis (2008).
Indicator #2 Switching
Description Process in which networks temporarily switch to assertive mode (Berthol et al, 2017)
Basis of measurement
The network can temporarily enact a centralized command structure akin to hierarchy to address high levels of activities or crises.
Network Operationalization
Shared participant governed
A highly decentralized network in which network members cooperate formally or informally without a separate governance entity and most or all partners are involved in decisions and activities on an equal basis.
Lead organization A highly centralized and brokered network in which one network member is responsible for the coordination of all activities and key decisions.
Network administrative A highly centralized network that is governed by an organization that has been established to solely govern the network and does not provide any services.
Collaboration:
The interaction between organizations, stakeholders and the city.
Indicator #1 Inclusive communication and
participation between citizens and city government
Description City policies have a direct impact on the city population. There should be a robust consultation process that allows members of the general public to provide feedback on proposed plans before they are finalized.
Basis of measurement
The use of strategy discourses that promote participation – i.e. self-actualization, dialogue, or concretization – to help development and implementation of policy plans as defined by Kellog & Samanta (2018).
*Secondary metric: the use of strategy discourses that impede participation – i.e. mystification, disciplining, and technologization – as defined by Kellog & Samanta (2018)
Indicator #2 Participation from business sector in policy-making
Description Engaging multiple stakeholders in city decision-making builds cross-sector relationships, helps align different perspectives and goals to a common end, and leverages knowledge that universities, businesses, institutions and civic society can contribute to help understand and solve city problems.
Basis of measurement
Number of projects within the last year that included collaboration between city and citizens
Strategy discourse (promoting participation)
Operationalization
Self-actualization A strategy process that is open to all and leads to the emancipation of individuals. Indicators are small unit workshops, meetings and individual interpretation of implementation.
Dialogization A strategy process in which various groups are involved in decision-making. Indicators are negotiations with external an/or internal stakeholders and the integration of top-down and bottom-up approaches.
Concretization A strategy process that involves the use of concrete and transparent rules to demystify strategizing. Indicators are the continuous specification of rules and procedures and emphasizing specific rules and procedures.
Strategy discourse (Impeding participation)
Operationalization
Mystification A strategy process in which top managers use strategic statements to guide the organization. Indicators are the use of vague terms, closed workshops, and restricted access to information.
Disciplining A strategy process wherein strategizing is done by top management in a command structure. Indicators are the use of military or pedagogical terms, leaders/subordinate relationship, and restricted assed to information.
Technologization A strategy process that relies on the use of a technology chosen and used by top management. Indicators are the use of specific systems and technologies to govern activities and controlled information access.
Social capital:
A concept that reflects the quantity and quality of social cooperation. It entails the features of social organization that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit.
Indicator #1: Social organizations
Description: A city whose citizens participate in identifying solutions to problems and stresses, is more likely to be able to identify and implement successful initiatives to build resilience (Putnam, 1993).
Number of citizen cooperatives operating in the city.
* Secondary metric: amount of kPh produced
Indicator #2:
Description: Openness and transparency can help strengthen trust in the city’s leadership - a key ingredient in encouraging individuals and communities to take action during challenging times.
Basis of measurement
Percentage of non-sensitive city government documentation and data sets that are publicly available: online datasets + available published report on sustainability programme since year of publishing
Indicator #3: Strong network of community
organization
Description: A city whose citizens participate in identifying solutions to problems and stresses, is more likely to be able to identify and implement successful initiatives to build resilience.
Basis of measurement
- Percentage of people who attend events/meetings in last year. - number of visitors on sustainability centrum website
- number of Facebook likes
Social learning:
The ability to generate and the dissemination of knowledge gained by experimentation.
Indicator #1 Knowledge sharing
Description International knowledge sharing
networks allow cities to share best practice and help each other work towards common objectives.
Basis of measurement
Number of training and knowledge sharing agreements with international networks
*If The Hague and Rotterdam are both members of a network that was established after the publication of Rotterdam's strategy, then this network will also be included with Rotterdam.
Indicator #2 Knowledge generation
Description Knowledge and understanding increases the ability to buffer change and enhances resilience. Knowledge from universities and institutions can contribute to help understand and solve city problems
Basis of measurement
Number of research agreements with knowledge institutions.
*If The Hague and Rotterdam are both members of an agreement that was established after the publication of Rotterdam's strategy, then this agreement will also be included with Rotterdam.
Flexibility:
The ability to change, evolve and adapt in response to changing circumstances by the introduction of new knowledge and technologies or incorporating knowledge and
Indicator #1: Comprehensive mapping
Description: This indicator considers the depth and extent of knowledge and understanding of the physical hazards. It considers the extent to which local hazards are identified, monitored and mapped.
Basis of measurement
Years since the city's climate change strategic plan was updated.
Indicator #2: Innovation capacity
Description: There is an interaction between the presence of knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS) and the creative, adaptive and innovative capacity of employees and employers from and in companies and organizations (Corrocher & Cusmano, 2014).
Basis of measurement
Percentage of jobs in the high and medium tech industry compared to the total number of jobs.
3.4. Reliability and validity
The research will make use of different sources in order to establish a triangulation of data. Because the cases have been selected on a theory-based selection method, the generalization of the conclusion will be applicable to the entire population of CRF cases. According to Rohlfing, “A passed or failed most-likely or least-likely case study entails the generalization of the interference that the evidence was either confirming or disconfirming” (2012, p. 202). If the hypothesis is correct, the generalization that cities with an adaptive network that is build on collaboration, has sufficient levels of social capital, social learning by experimentation, and flexibility and is able to integrate those elements within a flexible governance structure shaping function should have a higher resilience rate. In other words, certain mechanisms and discourses have a positive effect
on resilience. The results of this study can thus be generalized to cities to which the CRF has not been applied to but do showcase the above-mentioned characteristics.
4.1 The Hague
This chapter will discuss the case of The Hague, which will be held against the four components of adaptive capacity: collaboration, social capital, social learning, and flexibility. To start with, a short description of the city is given. Hereinafter, the governance of the network is covered, which discusses the structure and layering of the network as well as the ability to “switch”. Subsequently, the components of adaptive capacity will be discussed. The chapter is closed with a summary.
4.1.1 City Profile
The Hague is the third biggest city of The Netherlands – behind Amsterdam and Rotterdam – and has a population of 539.1541 1. The city is also known as “The Residence” due to being the seat of the central government in The Netherlands, home to the Dutch royal family, and functions as the capital city of the province of ZuidHolland. The city is also the home of many international organizations such as the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, Europol, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism. Rightly so, the city has profiled itself as the international city of peace and justice. In addition, big organizations and multinationals such as the UN Refugee agency, UNICEF, Oxfam Novib and Shell have their headquarters in The Hague. The city can be seen as a knowledge hub thanks to several universities, all the ministries, and related institutes such as the Social and Cultural Planning Office and the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. The expertise of these places offers a unique opportunity for the municipality of The Hague for improvement, innovation and knowledge.
4.1.2 Governance shaping of the network
The section provides an overview of the different networks and actors that operate in The Hague. Hereby, attention is given to the different modes of governance and the ability to switch in order to address high level of disasters.
Governance is based on a distributed system in the city of The Hague like most in the western world. The classic relationship and strict division between citizens and government is changing as illustrated by the focus of the new coalition accord on “Haagse Kracht” and the capacity of people and society to organize. In this new system, citizens are invited to build stronger personal networks and to take more responsibility for their own and each other's resilience (Den Haag, 2018, p. 41). The new system is based on the “co-management” of the city, a system that involves different actors and cross-scale interactions. To create a ‘green future’ for The Hague, the city needs “to connect, encourage and entice individuals and groups” as they “rely on the passion, ingenuity and the enthusiasm of a lot of The Hague’s citizens” (Joris Wijsmuller in Den Haag, 2015, p. 3). The municipality wants their citizens to be active partners in their sustainable agenda and describes citizens, companies and institutions in their city as having a “lead role”. Some of these frontrunners have organised themselves in energy or neighbourhood cooperatives to make energy transition easier. They are important actors in the network as they help other residents with their transition by purchasing energy together and visiting homes to guide them in investing in sustainable energy and saving. By forming a cooperative it is “possible to streamline decision-making in a simple, clear and democratic way, with the aim of finding solutions that the residents of the neighbourhood support” (Coöperatie Duurzame Vruchtenbuurt, 2018).
Together with six other partners, the city has established the Sustainable the Hague foundation (in Dutch: Duurzaam Den Haag). This is an independent organization and an important partner in the sustainability sector with their own policy and supervisory board. Their mission is to “instigate the initiatives of residents and entrepreneurs to make The Hague sustainable. Because we strongly believe in the Haagse Kracht, in the power of people who have their own initiatives from the bottom up in society” (Duurzaam Den Haag, 2015). The municipality supports the foundation with subsidies, in the conduct of business, and aligns their activities towards residents and companies. The organization is a valued partner in the city as shown by the many assignments and from the growth of partnerships.
Network members ranges from small citizen initiatives started by residents to bigger parties like Eneco and Uniper. The municipality also coordinates itself with other
area-oriented approach to energy transition by three layers of government (i.e. the ministerial office of the interior affairs and kingdom relations, The Hague and the province of Zuid-Holland) in collaboration with various market parties, including the Police, the Council for the Judiciary, various High Councils of State and private parties such as the BAM, the Facilicom Group and Safire. The aim of the collaboration is to ensure sustainable energy supply by 2050. In addition, The Hague’s climate adaption strategy is based on the national Delta programme in which different government bodies work together based on a regional basis.
In terms of structure the network in The Hague has two important actors, i.e. the local government and Duurzaam Den Haag. The local government acts as a lead organization, naturally, the city provides its own services but also acts as a facilitator and broker to help other network members to reach their goals. Wijsmuller noted the municipality as “having a directing role involving separate initiatives”. The municipality trusts on the “Haagse Kracht” but still makes the big decisions because of the network’s infancy. Duurzaam Den Haag, on the other hand, resembles a network organization. It is a separate entity that was created by the city and six other partners to watch out for the interest of the local government network and to provide services to its members. Therefore, the network has elements of two different types of network governance and can be best described as a hybrid network.
The Hague adopted a disaster plan in order to combat the cause of a major accident or
disaster as adequately as possible, to offer assistance to victims as quickly and effectively as possible and to limit consequences as much as possible (Den Haag, 2000). The plan outlines several types of disasters including climate related disasters such as flooding, forest fire, thunderstorms, and extreme hail showers. The plan sets out the framework and the main lines for cooperation, management, leadership and coordination. The network consists of several authorities:1. Commander in Chief (Mayor) 2. Strategic level
2.1. Municipal Crisis Staff;
2.2. The Regional Policy Team (the staff of the coordinating mayor); 2.3. The Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations;
2.4. The Queen's Commissioner 3. Tactical level
4.1. the Incident Coordination Team (CTPI) with the units of the disciplines / services that occur;
4.2. support / assistance units / teams of third parties.
4.3. specific municipal action centers such as: the press center; the information center; the Central Registration and Information Offic; the Central Damage Claims Registration Office; reception center(s).
The plan illustrates the network can temporarily enact a centralized command structure to address high levels of activities or crises. In times of rest, the city operates in “supportive mode” in which management does not solely fall in the hands of the government. The city stimulates citizens and stakeholders to partake, which decentralizes power and responsibility in the city. Thereby operating on a comanagement basis.
4.1.3 Collaboration
Here, the element of collaboration is discussed, i.e. the interaction between organizations, stakeholders and the city. Cities should engage with multiple stakeholders that can provide feedback in the strategizing process to improve policy plans.
The Hague wants to create an open governance culture that is accessible and direct, in which citizens are actively engaged in their neighbourhood and have a proper voice in decision-making (Den Haag, 2014, p.5). The Chief Resilience Officer of The Hague has stated: “I think you should give a good example as city council, but I really consider leadership as empowering people in the city to play a role themselves … What we are really trying to do is to give the residents the capacity to take on that leadership themselves.” The phrase “Vertrouwen op Haagse Kracht” embodies this thought and heads the coalition accord and their programme on sustainability. It means to trust and manage the city together with the people and entrepreneurs of the city. For former city councillor Wijsmuller it entails “to be in service of the city and to give space to as many initiatives in the city and to support them”. He describes his style of leadership as activist in nature and can be explained by his background in this scene. He likes to take
