Participation and Integration in Climate Adaptation: Exploring the Participatory Approach and Integration of Climate Adaptation Policies

(1)

PARTICIPATION AND INTEGRATION

IN CLIMATE ADAPTATION

E

XPLORING THE PARTICIPATORY APPROACH AND INTEGRATION OF

CLIMATE ADAPTATION POLICIES

1 APRIL 2021

Master’s Thesis for the Environment and Society Studies Programme

Nijmegen School of Management

Radboud University

(2)

1

Colophon

Title: Participation and Integration in Climate Adaptation:

Exploring the Participatory Approach and Integration of Climate Adaptation Policies

Author: Sjors Hendrikson

Student number: s4607562

Submission date: April 9, 2021

University: Radboud University Nijmegen Nijmegen School of Management

Supervisor: Sietske Veenman

Internship: Witteveen+Bos

(3)

2

Preface

This master thesis is the final piece in completing my master’s degree in Environment & Society Studies, specialisation Local Environmental Change & Sustainable Cities at the Radboud University Nijmegen. After a bachelor’s degree in Human Geography, Planning & Environment, I started my Master in September 2019. This thesis is a bundling of experience, knowledge and skills gained in the previous years.

First, I want to thank my supervisor at the Radboud University, Sietske Veenman. Her help, feedback and critical view was crucial in the process of this research. Especially her patience, positive attitude and just intonation helped me to keep my confidence in finishing this thesis. In addition, I am grateful for her suggestion to take part in the Young Professional Programme of the Radboud Academy. There, I shared experiences with other young professionals about the first steps from student to professional. Moreover, I am grateful to engineering consultancy Wittteveen+Bos for giving me the opportunity to fulfil my internship and allow me to conduct my research. The internship gave me the opportunity to discover the world of consultancy in spatial development and gain my first practical experience after five years of studying theories and writing essays. In special, I want to thank my supervisors at Witteveen+Bos: Lies Huitema and Bart Schalkwijk. Together we narrowed the framework of the thesis and without their input of their knowledge, experiences and useful contacts, it was impossible to get my thesis on this level. Besides their expertise, I also want to thank them for their open and approachable attitude while dealing with Covid-19 and its strange circumstances. After several massive, yet enjoyable brainstorm sessions, we were able to find to right and topical framework for this thesis. This research takes a closer look to the added value of the participatory approach towards, and the integration of climate adaptation policies in Dutch urban municipalities. This is strengthened by the cases studies of the municipalities Zwolle, The Hague and Tilburg. In addition, I want to thank all the interviewees who were willing to talk to me about their experiences and knowledge.

Finally, I want to express my concerns and opinion about the upcoming climate crisis and current state of democracy who is not able to cope with this crisis. In the Netherlands we are heading for a society in which we must deal with the consequences of climate change, as well as a society in which controversy in climate policy is the umpteenth straw that breaks the camel’s back. A back that already was overloaded with distrust, indignation and division. Moreover, the controversy is not solely in climate policy, but also in the reality and facts in itself. Despite knowing the dangers of climate change for more than 30 years, world leaders never successfully tackled this issue. Among the years we learned as society where we stand: at the ecological limits of the earth. Also, we learned that to solve this climate crisis, a change in policy is not sufficient. We need to drastically adapt our behaviour and values. The climate crisis does not ask for change, she demands it. This compulsion stands opposite in a society where individual freedom is seen as the highest good. The climate crisis presents us a unparalleled challenge: how do we organise the radical change to a necessary sustainable society, without jeopardising the core values of our democracy? This concern reoccurred to me repeatedly conducting this research. I believe a participatory approach towards spatial planning and the changing role of the government, discussed in the research, are steps in the right direction. In the process of the research, I realised these concerns and questions motivate me to contribute to the goal of a sustainable and democratic society and hopefully my master thesis radiates this believe. Enjoy reading!

(4)

3

Summary

The call for climate adaptation is severe with the warming climate already causing profound impacts. To take lasting measures the ‘Deltaprogram’ advises Dutch municipalities an integrative and participatory approach in order to create a climate-proof environment. The Deltaprogram recommends a structure, starting with mapping vulnerabilities, followed by formulating local ambitions through a risk dialogue with all relevant actors in the specific area, and ending with the implementation of those agreements.

This research focusses on the motivations, benefits and the barriers of the participatory approach towards and the integration of climate adaptation policies. This research is relevant for organisations that are working with a participative approach in their policies and the implementation of these policies. Moreover, this research is especially interesting for organisations who are dealing with integrating climate adaptation into other policy domains. Furthermore, this research aims to contribute in the interaction between participation, integration and climate adaptation. In this way the research contributes to the complex link of social and ecological science. This is mainly conducted by using the Policy Arrangement Approach as framework. The main question in this research is: What is the added value of a participatory approach towards, and the integration of climate adaptation policies in Dutch urban municipalities? The research contained a multiple case study design with the municipalities Zwolle, The Hague and Tilburg as cases. The study includes a qualitative approach through the use of document analysis and semi-structured interviews with 14 experts and civil servants.

The added value of participation includes several aspects. First, a vast share of the property rights is in private hands. To set these stakeholder in motion, connecting to the drivers of the subject is essential through match your process with the dominant discourse and gain local knowledge in order to improve the design. . Due to the cyclical feature of the risk dialogue and the increasing presence of participation processes in spatial planning, stakeholder engagement becomes a vital aspect in the relation between government and society. Important aspects of the stakeholder engagement are expectation management and feedback. Setting a framework in the process and being clear about the gained information and knowledge is crucial in maintaining society’s faith and trust.

In the case of integrating climate adaptation, searching for win-win situations is the most valid answer to the main question. From a financial perspective, expenses can be combined and design-wise it gains overall quality. Prior to integrating climate adaptation in other domains of the municipality, it is necessary to raise the internal awareness. The cases showed a core-team is vital in creating internal awareness and sharing information with other departments. Focussing on tacking along with other transitions is vital for the policy area of climate adaptation. Crucial in this aspect is the presence of a driving transitions connected to the local or regional needs.

(5)

4

List of figures

Figure 1: Ambitions Deltaprogram (p.7)

Figure 2: Arstein’s ladder of citizen engagement (p.12) Figure 3: Ladder of government participation (p.13) Figure 4: Operationalisation of policy arrangements (p.15)

Figure 5: The tetrahedron as symbol for the connections between the dimensions of the PAA (p.16)

Figure 6: Stakeholder engagement in the climate adaptation process (p.19)

Figure 7: Demonstrative model of vertical and horizontal integration of organisational structures and policy (p.21)

Figure 8: Conceptual framework (p.24)

Figure 9: Degree of urbanity Dutch municipalities in 2019 (p.28) Figure 10: Zwolle vulnerable to water (p.34)

Figure 11: Timeline development Resilience Strategy The Hague (p.38) Figure 12: Heath stress Tilburg 2014 (p. 40)

Figure 13: Data-driven approach municipality Tilburg (p.41) Figure 14: Illustration participation paradox (p.47)

List of tables

Table 1: Operationalisation of the Policy Arrangements Approach (p.24) Table 2: Operationalisation of the concept ‘mainstreaming’ (p.25)

(6)

5

1. Introduction

1.1 Research context

In 2017 multiple layers of the Dutch government committed to the ‘Deltaplan ruimtelijke adaptatie’ (Deltaplan spatial adaptation) in order to accelerate the process of spatial adaptation and to make the process more committal by setting goals, creating methods and monitoring the implementation (Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment & Economic affairs, 2017). To take lasting measures on local and regional levels against consequences of climate change, the ‘Deltaplan’ recommends Dutch municipalities an integrative approach towards the development of spatial adaptation and the participation of non-governmental organisations, businesses and citizens (Meijs et al., 2016; Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment & Economic affairs, 2017; Biesbroek et al., 2014). Climate adaptation in urban areas challenges municipalities through competing spatial claims, paved surfaces causing heath stress, high land prices and inadequate budgets (Molenaar & Van Buuren, 2014).

The call for climate adaptation is severe with the warming climate already causing profound impacts. Climate risks show themselves in multiple forms. From the slow and inexorable rise in sea level to the unpredictable behaviour of monsoons and the strengthening of storms, droughts and heat waves (Bapna et al., 2019; Shi, 2019). In the Netherlands climate change causes higher temperatures, dryer summers and a rising sea level. But those are only the gradually impacts. Extreme weather in the form of heat waves, hail and rainfall will increase and will cause more damage and victims (Meijs et al., 2016). To deal with these impacts, cities must identify their risks and assess their vulnerabilities; develop adaptation plans; implement, monitor and evaluate those plans; and learn from the consequences of the actions (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2014; Moser & Ekstrom, 2010).

Besides delineating the severe impacts of climate change, the Deltaprogram also introduced a method for the structured approach towards these impacts called ‘’weten, willen, werken’’, translated as ‘’knowing, wanting, working’’ (Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment & Economic affairs, 2017). To counter climate change impacts in an effective way, the Deltaprogram states that it is important to map challenges in specific areas. This has been done in the form of ‘stress tests’, where vulnerabilities to climate change in specific areas are identified and mapped (Hofland & Boon, 2019). The next step, wanting, is to formulate local ambitions through a dialogue with all relevant actors in the specific area. This ‘risk dialogue’ between governmental organisations, non-governmental organisations and individual stakeholders like citizens has a dual purpose: increasing awareness of climate change impacts and thereafter determine how to decrease the vulnerability to those impacts. The last step, working, is about the implementation of the measures arose from the risk dialogue (Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment & Economic affairs, 2017).

(8)

7

In preparation of the Deltaprogram, seven goals (see figure 1) were formulated by the involved governmental organisations like municipalities, regional water authorities, provinces and the national government. These ambitions function as guidance for governmental organisations and consist of 1) mapping vulnerabilities, 2) having risk dialogues, 3) set up an implementation agenda, 4) utilize integrative measures, 5) stimulate and facilitate other actors, 6) regulate responsibilities and 7) dealing with calamities (Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment & Economic affairs, 2017). Participation and integrative climate adaptation measures are vital parts and return in multiple ambitions set by multiple governmental organisations. Moreover, the risk dialogue seems to play a crucial part in the involvement of other actors, but also in setting the implementation agenda, finding integrative measures and stimulating other actors.

Where adaptivity can be explained as the intelligent connection between long- and short-term issues, integrality means the spatial cohesion and connection of issues and solution in different sectors (Biesbroek et al., 2014). The goals set in the ‘Deltaprogramma’ demand an active and participative attitude of society. This means the involvement of businesses, non-governmental organisations, citizens and knowledge institutions. The responsibility of this involvement of other actors lays with the local governmental organisations (Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment & Economic affairs, 2017). So, local governmental authorities are challenged to fit in climate adaptative measures in different policy domains with a participative approach.

Academic literature and publications regarding the topic local climate adaptation identify multiple challenges. Focusing on the integration and participation around climate adaptation, several key issues appear. The first specific feature is the fragmented governance system. Fragmentation refers to a lack of connection and coordination among institutions, organisations, individuals, and policies at different levels and scales (Biesbroek et al., 2011). Termeer et al. (2011, p.163) argue that ‘’because climate change potentially impacts upon a variety of physical and social systems that are heavily interconnected, the governance systems that deal with the consequences of climate change are possibly even more fragmented than their counterparts in other policy domains.’’ Climate adaptation is relevant in several domains, who differ in jurisdictional levels, policy sectors and societal systems (May et al., 2006; Biesbroek et al., 2014; Termeer et al., 2017).

Figure 1: Ambitions

Deltaprogram. Source: Ministry of

Infrastructure and Environment & Economic affairs (2017).

(9)

8

Another feature of the issues around climate adaptation is the long-term horizon and its uncertainties (Termeer et al., 2017; Biesbroek et al., 2011; Van Buuren et al., 2013). Policy and decision making in relation to climate change is knowledge intensive, but important uncertainties exist about the scale of the impacts and the effectiveness of the solutions (Arvai et al., 2006). Especially climate change knowledge with its complexity and uncertainty has an extra challenge: data is mainly gathered at a global, continental or national level. Applying this data at lower (regional and local) levels brings huge effort and multiplying uncertainties, which can lead to either overreaction or insufficient action (Termeer et al., 2017; Van Buuren, 2013). Moreover, these deep uncertainties create difficult dilemmas. Sheenan et al. (2008) argue that on the one hand it is necessary to anticipate on future developments, even if there is some uncertainty. On the other hand, there are other priorities to economic interest in the short-term. Given these features, it is interesting to see how Dutch municipalities are dealing with these challenges.

The features of issues regarding climate adaptation above give an insight what is relevant in the context of climate adaptation. But these were not the only barriers regarding climate adaptation. In chapter 2 specific challenges will be elaborated in the context of theoretical approaches to give a more complete overview. In the next sections the scientific and societal relevance will be outlined, followed by the research question.

1.2 Societal relevance

As mentioned in the introduction of the research topic above, the Deltaprogram recommends adapting to climate change to protect people’s health, security and the Dutch economy (Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment & Economic affairs, 2017). The Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) predicts that Dutch winters will become less cold and wetter, summers will become warmer and dryer, and weather events will be extremer (Ligtvoet et al., 2015). According to Ligtvoet et al. (2015), especially with current changes in society like ageing and the increasing population density within cities, the vulnerability to heat stress increases. Climate adaptation is a relevant issue for society these days. Yet are the challenges in the process towards a climate-proof society, like the examples in the section above, also relevant for nongovernmental actors?

To make our society climate-proof the burden of responsibility is mostly placed on local governments without strengthening their financial and technical capacity, which highlights the difference between cities (Shi et al., 2016). Poorer and less capable cities could be unable (1) to start with adaptive planning and (2) to engage other actors with this process. According to Shi et al. (2016, p.132) ‘’adaptation projects can entrench unequal power distribution by investing scarce public resources in areas of high economic value without giving commensurate attention to historically neglected neighbourhoods.’’ This reasoning from a social justice approach is very relevant in the process of participation and climate adaptation. Stakeholder participation decreases the chance that those in the periphery of the decision-making context are marginalised (Nordgren et al., 2016; Reed, 2008). So, this research is relevant for organisations that are working with a participative approach in their policies and the implementation of these policies. Moreover, this research is especially interesting for organisations who are dealing with integrating climate adaptation into other policy domains. Examples of those organisations are provinces, municipalities or consultancy agencies.

(10)

9 1.3 Scientific relevance

Climate change adaptation contains several characteristics to be framed as a wicked problem: complex problem, no stopping point and conflicting solutions (Perry, 2014). Climate change adaptation is a complex social-ecological problem (Ross et al., 2015; Perry, 2014). ‘’There is a need to synthesise the social and ecological, in terms of understanding impacts and planning responses,’’ states Ross et al. (2015, p.29). Climate-induced changes may have different influences in ecosystems and human communities, especially when the wide range of responses of governmental organisations, communities and individuals are considered. Developing understanding of such systems takes time and conditions can be changed by the time management scenarios are ready (Perry, 2014).

Second, there is no stopping point. It is difficult to frame an end goal in the problem of climate adaptation (Perry, 2014). Uncertainty is a key aspect in the availability of incomplete and sometimes conflicting information. Thirdly, there are no right or wrong solutions (Nordgren et al., 2016; Perry, 2014). No measures can be predicted to be fully successful. Given the range of values from different stakeholders, strategies will be evaluated differently.

Furthermore, it is an undecided debate whether climate adaptation measures should be integrated in other policy domains and strategies or whether a separate domain is necessary (Termeer et al., 2017). Positioning adaptation as a solely domain is useful for organizing attention and support and to end the institutional void around climate adaptation (Uittenbroek, 2014; Biesbroek et al., 2011). ‘’The term institutional void refers to a lack of institutions enabling, facilitating, or stimulating adaptation to climate change,’’ explains Biesbroek et al. (2011, p.5). On the other hand, integrating adaptation measures within other existing policy domains is effective in stages of decision making and implementation (Termeer et al., 2017). In this light it is the challenge to create arrangements that merge different actors, issues and sectors to realize creative climate adaptation options.

This research aims to contribute to the ongoing discussion whether climate adaptation measures should be integrated in other policy domains or if it should be a policy domain on its own by focusing on the integration of measures. Furthermore, this research is focusing on the interaction between participation, integration and climate adaptation. In this way the research contributes to the complex link of social and ecological science.

(11)

10 1.4 Research aim and questions

After stating the research problem and the societal and scientific relevance, the next step is to formulate adequate research questions. This research aims to provide insight into the role of participation and integration in the process towards a climate-adaptive living environment in Dutch urban municipalities. The explanation of the choice of urban municipalities will follow in chapter 3. This research aim results in the formulation of the following research question:

What is the added value of a participatory approach towards, and the integration of climate adaptation policies in Dutch urban municipalities?

The sub questions are distracted from the main research question so that they will contribute to answering the main research question:

- How are ambitions in climate adaptation of Dutch urban municipalities formed? - What are the benefits and barriers in a participatory approach towards climate

adaptation?

- Why are climate adaptation policies integrated in other policy domains of Dutch urban municipalities?

1.5 Thesis outline

This research has the following outline. After the introduction of the subject and its context, the next chapter, the theoretical framework, will introduce relevant theories and concepts regarding participation and integration. Furthermore, in chapter 2 the policy arrangements approach will be introduced, which serves as operationalisation later in the research. Chapter 3 will elaborate on the methodology regarding this thesis. The research strategy along with the research methods will be explained. In the fourth chapter findings and results will be discussed. First, the findings of the cases and the accessory interviews are displayed, followed by the answering of the sub questions. In the last chapter conclusions are drawn in the answering of the main research question. Moreover, the last chapter will critically reflect on the research process.

(12)

11

2. Theory

This research contains a diverse range of theoretical concepts and approaches who will be explained and discussed in this chapter: participation, social learning, policy arrangements approach, discourse and mainstreaming. The end of the chapter will elaborate on why the policy arrangements approach serves as the operationalisation of the discussed theoretical concepts.

2.1 Participation

As mentioned in the introduction, participation is a key term in the Deltaprogram. But this can be seen in a wider perspective where ‘’participation has become a key consideration in the discourses and practices of environmental policy-making’’ (Collins & Ison, 2009, p.358). Citizens are seen as empowered actors with valuable information and resources to contribute to resilient community. This also has contributed to the rise of new types of governance practices such as collaborative innovation network and citizen coproduction (Mees et al., 2019). In this perspective participation is a part of a wider development in governance.

In the rise of new governance practices the responsibilities for public goods and services takes a shift towards the citizens and away from governmental organisations and businesses. Climate change adaptation is an example of an emerging public policy field in which citizens are stimulated to take responsibility. This shift means a difference in the roles of governments: from regulating and steering towards a more co-operative, responsive government (Aylett, 2013; Bekkers et al., 2014; Mees et al., 2019). Moreover, the increased responsibility for citizens lowers barriers to the implementation of climate adaptation, such as limited resources and capacities, fragmentation and institutional uncertainty (Termeer et al., 2013; Mees et al., 2019).

In line with the increasing importance of participation the Dutch Council for Public Administration (DPCA), an independent advisory body of the Dutch government and parliament, introduced the term ‘government participation’ (ROB, 2012). This term indicates that the government participates in initiatives led by citizens or non-governmental actors who independently develop projects in order to solve policy problems (Edelenbos et al., 2017). This differs from the term ‘public participation’ in which the roles are turned around: here the citizens participate in the policymaking of the government (Bekkers et al., 2014). Along with the introduction of government participation, the DPCA also developed the ‘ladder of government participation’ (ROB, 2012). This was inspired on Arnstein’s famous ladder of citizen participation. In the next paragraph Arnstein’s theory will be elaborated, followed by the overview of the ladder of government participation.

2.1.1 Arnstein’s ladder of participation

To the question how to explain participation, Arnstein (1969, p.216) elaborates as following: ‘’Citizen participation is categorical term for citizen power. It is the redistribution of power that enables the have-not citizens, presently excluded from the political and economic processes, to be deliberately included in the future.’’ Arnstein’s definition of participation focusses on the distribution of power. Therefore, she underscores the vital difference between going through the empty ritual of participation and having a real say in the outcome of the process (Arnstein, 1969). To analyse citizen participation Arnstein illustrates her findings in the form of a ladder

(13)

12

(see figure 2). In this way she sets out different types of citizen participation based on the real power citizens have in that type of participation.

The ladder starts with the ‘illusory’ form of participation manipulation (1) and therapy (2). Arnstein warns for these forms of participation because the purpose is rather to educate citizens then give them real power. In the form of manipulation or therapy citizens are placed on rubberstamp advisory committees or are engaged in extensive activities to engineer their support. ‘’Instead of genuine citizen participation, the bottom rung of the ladder signifies the distortion of participation into a public relations vehicle by powerholders,’’ argues Arnstein (1969, p.218). This explains why these bottom two forms of citizen participation are labelled as non-participation.

The next forms of participation are labelled with degrees of tokenism, where citizens are seen as statistical abstractions to achieve the evidence of involving citizens. In this way participation remains just a window-dressing ritual. Informing (3) citizens about their rights and responsibilities is a first step towards a participative approach. However, it stays a one-way flow of communicating. Consultation (4) and placation (5) can be a legitimate step towards participation. Yet, if these forms are not amplified with other forms of participation, there is no assurance the input of citizens will be considered. The power to be heard and have a say in the process is still missing (Arnstein, 1969).

Partnership (6), delegated power (7) and citizen control (8) are according to Arnstein forms of participation where power is redistributed through negotiation between citizens and powerholders. ‘’ They agree to share planning and decision-making responsibilities through such structures as joint policy boards, planning committees and mechanisms for resolving impasses,’’ argues Arnstein (1969, p.221). In these degrees of citizen power, people have the possibility to negotiate and engage in trade-offs with powerholders or even are in control of the decision-making process. Arnstein’s ladder of participation represents the power struggle between citizens trying to move up the ladder and controlling institutions limiting their way up.

The metaphor of Arnstein’s ladder has become an enduring part of academic enquiry and policy practice as a model to critique, design, implement and evaluate participation and stakeholder engagement (Collins & Ison, 2009). However, Arnstein’s conceptualisation of participation received criticism. Tritter and McCallum (2006) review that participation is assumed to be hierarchical with citizen control as purpose of participation. An assumption that

Figure 2: Arstein’s ladder of citizen

engagement.

(14)

13

does not always align with the participants’ own reasons for engaging in decision-making processes. Arnstein’s ladder implies delegitimization of the participatory process when full citizen control has not been reached, even though citizens involved may be pleased with this other form of participation. In other words, Arnstein’s participation ladder states that roles and responsibilities only change when power is redistributed. This is a linear, hierarchical perspective of citizens engagement and it fails to capture the dynamic complex relations in a participatory process. (Collins & Ison, 2009; Tritter & McCallum, 2006; Hayward et al, 2004).

As stated before, there is a fundamental difference between citizen participation and government participation. The DPCA developed the ladder of government participation as an equivalent of Arnstein’s theory. Following Arnstein’s ladder, the ladder of government participation (see figure 3) shows different levels that identify increasing degree of participation and corresponding roles of governments in community initiatives. The level of power and authority for governments increases with each level on the ladder (ROB, 2012). Starting at the top is regulating, which explains as governments regulate interventions by the community. This means the local government initiates, coordinates and decides and is labelled as a hierarchical government. Second is (network) steering, meaning the government (co-)initiates and creates a network of public and private stakeholders. It coordinates the decision-making process where decisions are co-decided in the network (Aylett, 2013). In the middle of the spectrum the government stimulates. Thereby it actively stimulates the initiation and continuation of community initiatives. Important note here is that the initiatives coordinate and decide independently from governments. Fourth is facilitating/enabling which means initiatives are self-initiated and the government has an interest in making them happen. At the bottom with the lowest degree of power and authority for governments is letting go. Initiatives are self-initiated, self-coordinated and self-governed without the help of the government (Mees et al., 2019; Bekkers et al. 2014; Edelenbos et al., 2017; ROB, 2012).

2.1.2 Social learning

Collins & Ison (2009) jump off Arnstein’s participation ladder when it comes to understanding climate adaptation as a co-evolutionary process and argue for the social learning approach because it offers a different theoretical and practical discourse to that of taking, giving or ceding power (Collins & Ison, 2009). Social learning is a theoretical approach to adaptive planning processes that has been developed in work on natural resource management (Butler et al., 2015; Van Epp & Garside, 2019; Collins & Ison, 2009; Fisher & Dodman, 2019). Phuong et al. (2017, p.1) broadly define social learning as ‘’the process by which societal actors interact and develop

Figure 3: Ladder of government

participation. Source: ROB (2012)

(15)

14

alternative perspectives on a societal issue’’. The process of social learning needs to demonstrate that a change in understanding has taken place in the individuals involved and go further than the individual to become situated within wider social communities of practice within society and occur through social interactions and processes between actors (Reed et al., 2010). Ensor & Harvey (2015) add it is crucial for the process to be aware on how social and political context determine patterns of power, authority and accountability. In addition to this definition of what constitutes the intentional process of social learning, the potential outcomes can be characterised into three domains: cognitive (factual information), normative (norms, values and beliefs) and relational (trust, networks and relationships; Lebel, Grothmann & Siebenhüner, 2010).

The literature about social learning is diverse, but the knowledge on co-creation to develop shared ways of knowledge is a common theme (Fisher & Dodman, 2019). This common theme contains known components like a shift in power relations to bring excluded or marginalized voices into management or decision-making processes. Also, it entails experimentation and reflection of instruments to enhance the emergence of new knowledge and ways of operating. ‘’Diverse stakeholders, including communities, service providers and external experts, interact to co-evolve the social, institutional and technical components of research and development. This capacity to build new knowledge, relationships and practices in response to complex environmental challenges links social learning to climate change adaption,’’ argue Ensor & Harvey (2015, p.511). The inclusion of diverse stakeholders does remind to the risk dialogue explained in the previous chapter. Besides this corresponding feature between the risk dialogue and the process of social learning, learning is also considered especially important for navigating the uncertain and complex challenges presented to society by climate change (Cvitanovic et al., 2019; Moser & Ekstrom, 2010).

At the same time Ensor & Harvey (2015) identify barriers faced by organisations concerned with climate adaptation who wish to implement social learning approaches: the limited fit between current institutional frames, practices and incentives, and those recommended for organisations willing to integrate social learning into their core practices. ‘’First, to those who are needing to justify an investment of time and resources into approaches may demand significant changes in practice. Second, to those looking to plan actions in using social learning approaches to achieve particular desired outcomes,’’ state Ensor & Harvey (2015, p. 512). The transition of process demands a different way of thinking, one which could conflict with existing dominant courses.

At first sight multiple aspect of the social learning approach correspond with the risk dialogue that Dutch municipalities are facing; diverse range of stakeholders, the focus on a societal issue (climate adaptation), co-creation of knowledge, barriers and potential outcomes. This makes the social learning approach a relevant perspective in this research on participation and climate adaptation.

(16)

15 2.2 Policy arrangements approach

In this chapter several theoretical concepts are explained. Given the focus on the process behind climate adaptation, an institutional type of policy analysis is needed. To have a better understanding of the coherence of all the discussed theoretical concepts, the framework of the Policy Arrangement Approach (PAA) is used. The goal of the PAA is to make connections between the daily policy practices and broader structural changes in society. It combines public management insights with existing theories from sociology and political science (Lieferink, 2006). Arts & Leroy (2003, p.16) define policy arrangements as ‘’the temporary stabilisation of content and organisation of a policy domain.’’ The PAA combines administrative insights with sociological and political theories, among which the structuration theory of Giddens (1984), the policy network approach of Glasbergen and the advocacy coalition framework of Sabatier & Jenkins Smith (Lieferink, 2006). Moreover, ‘’it builds upon multi-actor policy network models, but it pays more attention than these models to: (1) institutional contexts in which policy actors must operate, (2) the substance of policy making and (3) the power relations between the policy actors involved,’’ argue Wiering & Arts (2006, p.328).

The main aim of the PAA is to understand and analyse the constantly institutionalisation of policy arrangements, as the result of the interplay between the interactions of actors participating in realising policy into practice in daily life on the one side, and processes of social and political change on the other side (Arts et al., 2006). In this way the PAA can serve as a framework to research on the one hand the interaction between actors and structures and on the other hand content and organisation in policy domains. Figure 4 illustrates the operationalisation of the concept policy arrangement. The PAA is an excellent framework for this research to analyse developments in climate adaptation policies and with it the participatory approach towards other actors from the government.

The concept policy arrangement knows two key aspects as shown in figure 4 on the previous page: substance and organisation (Arts & Leroy, 2006). Policy does simply not exist without substance (principles, objectives, measures etc.) or without organisation (departments, instruments, procedures etc.) Moreover, a time-space notion that bounds the policy arrangement is part of the definition. Policy domains are only temporary as arrangements are pressured by constant change from policy innovations on the ground or by political modernisation (Arts & Van Tatenhove, 2004).

Figure 4: Operationalisation of

policy arrangements. Source: Arts & Leroy (2006)

(17)

16

The substantial and organisational features of a policy arrangement can be further specified to four basic dimensions: actors and coalitions, power and resources, rules of the game, and policy discourses. Figure 5 shows how these dimensions of a policy arrangement are intertwined which means that any change on one of the dimensions provokes change on other dimensions. Whether it is the appearance of new actors, the breaking or making of a new coalition, it brings dynamic change in the policy arrangement. The same applies for changing power and resources, for instance by adding more money, knowledge or skills. Similarly, changes in the rules of the game can lead to alteration in the policy arrangement. A policy innovation at a higher level can mobilise change in a policy arrangement in a lower level, for example the EU and the member states. Policy innovations can also bring up new definitions of problems, solutions or approaches. In this way discourses and policy concepts are changed which tend not to bring only a change in perception, but also bring new coalitions, other resources etc. So, change can be started from each of the four dimensions and will set a chain reaction to the other dimensions (Arts et al., 2006).

The dimension actor and coalitions can be indicated as the set of policy actors in a given policy domain. Who is involved in agenda-setting, decision-making and policy implementation? Moreover, it is possible to see changes in the way these actors interact and as consequence it is possible to find emerging coalitions or oppositions (Wiering & Arts, 2006). According to Arts & Tatenhove (2004, p.342) ‘’a policy coalition consists a number of players who share resources and/or interpretations of a policy discourse, in the context of the rules of the game. As a consequence, these coalitions identify (more or less) similar policy goals, and engage in policy processes to achieve those goals.’’ With the participatory approach of the Dutch government towards climate adaptation it is interesting who will have a seat at the table during those risk dialogues.

The dimension ‘resources’ is intrinsically related to ‘power’, where power refers to the mobilisation, division and deployment of resources, and influence to who determines policy outcomes. ‘’Policymaking presupposes power, in the sense that in policy domains agents need to mobilise resources in order to be able to act and intervene. At the same time, the structural properties of the arrangement in which they are embedded (unequally) constrain or enable them in so doing,’’ state Arts & Tatenhove (2004, p.346). Focused on this research, it is the question whether the policy domain of climate adaptation has enough resources and power to implement the initiatives or is this domain waiting in line behind other policy domains?

Figure 5: The tetrahedron as

symbol for the connections between the dimensions of the PAA.

(18)

17

Rules of the game is the third dimension and consists of legislation, procedures and political culture. Legislation refers to formalisation and transposition of the policy discourse into binding law (Wiering & Arts, 2006). So, both in terms of actual rules for political and other forms of interaction, and in terms of formal procedures for pursuit of policy and decision-making (Arts et al., 2006). In addition to the distinction between substantive and organisational rules Wiering & Arts (2006) distinguish formal and informal rules. The informal rules refer to the political culture, for example the Dutch ‘polder model’.

To research the dimension rules of the game, the institutional context of climate change adaptation in the Netherlands is vital. The most important adaptation issues in the Netherlands are the dangers of sea and river floods. Other adaptation hazards like extreme heat and drought have received less attention from the government and society (Runhaar et al., 2012). The distinction between fluvial and pluvial flooding is relevant, because of the different legal responsibilities the Dutch governments have for these different climate adaptation risks (Mees et al., 2019). This legal context and the different starting point of the Dutch government influence on the one hand the roles of governments, and on the other hand responsibilities citizens can take on.

Historically the dangers of coastal and fluvial floods in the Netherlands have been dealt with through flood defences like large systems of dikes, dunes barriers, and sluices (Kaufmann, 2018). Because of its dominance, these climate risks are highly institutionalised and legally embedded. The responsibility is delegated from the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management to the regional public water authorities in relative isolation from political whims. Here, the government takes on a traditional ‘regulating’ role, which is still common for adaptation to fluvial flooding from rivers and the sea. In this area of climate adaptation there is no room for community initiatives because the Dutch government is formally responsible for the water safety of its citizens (Mees et al., 2019; Kaufmann, 2018; Hegger et al., 2016).

The responsibility for adaptation to pluvial flooding, for example extreme rainfall, lie with the municipalities and their citizens (Mees et al., 2019). Where the municipalities are responsible for the collection and drainage of rainwater on public ground, citizens are responsible for the collection of rainwater on their private property. Due to climate change, heavy rainfall events occur more frequently and therefore citizens are more called upon when it comes to adapting to the changing circumstances (Meijs et al., 2016; Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment & Economic affairs, 2017). One of the goals of the risk dialogue, determine how to decrease vulnerabilities to the changing climate impacts, shows the shared responsibility in order to create a climate resilient society. There are multiple stakeholders so a dialogue between those stakeholders is necessary. In chapter 4, multiple examples will be given of citizen adaptation initiatives.

Where the organisation in policy arrangements is distracted from actors who are embedded in the structure of rules and resources, forms policy discourses the basis of substance in policy arrangements (Arts & Leroy, 2006; Arts & Van Tatenhove, 2004). With the focus of this research on participation and integration of climate adaptation different dimensions of the PAA are discussed. Where participation is part of the policy coalition dimension, integration belongs to the policy discourse dimension of the PAA.

(19)

18

A discourse is defined as a set of ideas, concepts and narratives which give meaning to a certain phenomenon in the real world (Hajer, 1995; Dryzek, 1997). Hajer (1995, p.44) defines a policy discourse as: ‘A specific ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categorisations that are produced, reproduced and transformed in a particular set of practices and through which meaning is given to physical and social realities.’ To focus more on the policymaking, this definition concerns dominant interpretative schemes, ranging from formal policy concepts to popular story lines, by which meaning is given to a policy domain (Arts & Van Tatenhove, 2004). An example is the sustainability discourse, which includes notions of economic, ecological and social sustainability, sustainable development, a belief in the possibility to integrate economy and ecology, examples of win-win situations, etc. (Veenman et al., 2009; Wiering & Arts, 2006).

Moreover, Wiering & Arts (2006, p.329) describe and distinguish based on the work of Therborn (1980) three theoretical layers a discourse consists: ontological, normative and strategic. The first layer, ontological, deals with paradigms and world views of policy actors. Central questions in this first indicator are: How do we see reality or how do we define our problem? This discursive space is at the same time filled with normative expression, layer two. This indication contains the values at stake and the goals that are set. Here we deal with ambitions and utopias or ideals of policy actors. The third layer of discourse concerns of the route or ‘road map’ from what we see as real (the current situation) to what we see as desirable, in other words from problem to solution. Central to this indication are policy programmes of policy actors (Wiering & Arts, 2006). Especially the normative and strategic layers are vital in this research. The normative indication focusses on the ambitions set by policy actors. These ambitions will be discussed in chapter four and in the answering of the first sub question. The strategic indication of policy discourses concerns the policy programmes. This will also be addressed in chapter four and in the following chapter.

The ontological layer of the dimension policy discourse concerns policy actors and their world view and paradigms: How do we see reality and how do we define problems and solutions? To give an example, there are several perspectives on how to deal with climate change. Some actors are in favour of nature-based solutions, whereas other actors have faith in technological improvements. An important part in these questions is the concept of framing. In policy literature framing is defined as a concept used to give meaning to fundamental processes that influence the situation, from a certain perspective or reference point. The variation in frames is from high value because they represent a surplus of perspectives, insights and ways to understand what is going on. Yet, incompatible frames often form a barrier for collective decision-making: there is not only a disagreement on what to do, but also on a more fundamental level of insight in the ontological nature of the problem (Vink & Dewulf, 2015; Vink et al., 2013). When perspectives disagree in this ontological area, meanings and interpretations could end up in opposites of each other which leads to ambiguity of the problem (Dewulf et al., 2005). The policy arena forms an excellent stage for the political power struggle, where ambitions and ideals of involved policy actors are on the line (Driessen & Leroy, 2007). Is this also the case in the creation of the policy programmes regarding the climate adaptation measures? And how do municipalities deal with different ontological perspectives of other stakeholders? The ‘ontological’ indicator of the policy discourse dimension forms a vital aspect in the answering of those questions.

(20)

19 2.3 Participation and PAA

In literature about participation in climate adaptation Nordgren et al. (2016) mention this model as the basic process (see figure 6) of climate adaptation to support and track the efforts of the climate adaptation community: (1) identifying and assessing vulnerabilities/risks; (2) planning; (3) implementing strategies; (4) monitoring and evaluating; (5) revising and sharing lessons learned. Furthermore, urban adaptation planning is primarily framed as, and motivated by, the need to protect valuable assets and reduce the city’s vulnerability. Adaptation actors are similarly focused on vulnerability reduction, emphasising the reduction in exposure and sensitivity. Existing adaptation initiatives often fail to address issues related to the unequal distribution of climate impacts, pointing to equity concerns. The model illustrated in figure 6 shows multiple similarities with the method ‘knowing, wanting, working’ and the ambitions of the Deltaprogram. Both are focused on identifying risks and monitoring measures, which strengthens the argument that the engagement of stakeholders does not stop after the risk dialogue.

Besides outlining several barriers and constraints to local adaptation activities, like difficulty in understanding climate science, lack of staffing capacity, limited financial resources and lack of leadership, Nordgren et al. (2016) identify six main categories of adaptational-related needs: navigational, structural, jurisdictional/political, financial, technical and social needs. While many resources are available to support climate adaptation initiatives, practitioners struggle to find the resources that are the most useful given their specific needs (Biesbroek et al., 2011; Nordgren et al., 2016). Another navigational challenge is ensuring that the utility of existing resources is evaluated. There is no discernable way of knowing what is valuable or effective versus what is unproven and ineffective (Perry, 2014; Nordgren et al., 2016).

The structural needs represent the gap to translating existing resources and creating new resources with local practitioners. Since most practitioners are approaching adaptation on an issue-by-issue basis (e.g., heat island mitigation, stormwater management), sector-specific resources need to be available to support these initiatives. The financial challenge focuses,

Figure 6: Stakeholder engagement in the

climate adaptation process. Source: Nordgren et al. (2016).

(21)

20

while acknowledging the broader reality that more funding is needed to prepare for climate impact, on how to leverage existing funding streams as opposed and creating new ones. This challenge also contains the issue of supporting smaller communities with financial and staffing capacity so that they also could prepare for climate change (Hofland & Boon, 2019; Nordgren et al., 2016).

Technical needs identify the need for detailed information regarding the economic impacts of climate change and assistance in using that information to make a financial case for why climate action is warranted (Biesbroek et al., 2011). Moreover, it also focuses on the need for technical assistance with scenario planning, with statistical and dynamical downscaling of climate models and policy tools to help accelerate the transition from planning into action. Lastly, the social needs involve the issue around vulnerable populations and environmental justice (Nordgren et al., 2016; Shi et al., 2016).

In the introduction the risk dialogue was mentioned as a form of participation in the process of climate adaptation. According to De Vries (2019) the risk dialogue has even influence on determining who has which responsibility. On the one hand the risk dialogue will be an open and equal conversation between parties. On the other hand, the dialogue could be confronting: it has to be clear which responsibilities are for governmental organisations and for which aspects society or individuals are responsible (Lems & Vergeer, 2018). This could also be seen as a goal of the risk dialogue (De Vries, 2019).

Besides highlighting the aspect of responsibility in the risk dialogue, De Vries (2019) argues that municipalities and stakeholders should keep the conversation going. The dialogue does not stop after the implementation. Measures should be monitored and reconsidered to be able to react on extreme climate events. The dialogue should even be expanded to internal sectors of the municipality, not only with external parties (De Graaff et al., 2018). In this way other domains are infected early in the process with a climate adaptation view, which raises the internal awareness of municipalities. The risk dialogue keeps going on in a continuously process.

2.4 Integration and PAA

Governance processes that counter difficult and complex policy problems are confronted with fragmentation (Biesbroek et al., 2011). Fragmentation, as described in chapter 1, seems to make it difficult to integrate climate adaptation in other policy domains. As key aspect of the Deltaprogram, integrating climate adaptation contains two conflicting frames (Biesbroek et al., 2014; Uittenbroek et al., 2013). The first frame positions integrality as cost effective and a win-win solution, where multiple parties and sources of capital are involved. Second, integration is framed as expensive, slow and bureaucratic. Multiple parties bring more costs and slower decision-making (Biesbroek et al., 2014). Integration should not become a goal on its own. In terms of responsibility and accountability it is important to have boundaries (Termeer et al. 2017). Integration to a lower degree should not be underestimated, as these could be more feasible or appropriate for cross-cutting climate adaptation problems (Candel & Biesbroek, 2016; Gilissen et al., 2016).

(22)

21

Nunan et al. (2012) analyse integration from an organisational point of view, where they identify the following mechanisms (see figure 7): vertical integration via hierarchy or direct contact (with representatives or higher authorities) or horizontal integration via temporary arrangements such as liaison roles, task forces or more permanent arrangements such as teams, full-time integrating roles or an integrating department. Figure 7 illustrates and explains through a demonstrative example the meaning of horizontal and vertical integration. Each axis has its complications by links to external stakeholders and interest groups. The proliferation of actors, horizontally in terms of ministries and agencies each with their own agenda, and vertically in terms of different levels of decision making, in combination with links to external stakeholders result in a complicated maze of principal-agent relationships. Yet, horizontal and vertical integration of policy is needed, all the more so for a sectoral cross-cutting issue such as climate change, in the sense that policy objectives are only achieved if a wide range of separate governmental organisations incorporate and implement them (Nunan et al., 2012).

The mechanisms vertical and horizontal integration connects to the PAA dimension policy coalitions and actors due to the proliferation of the policy actors and the link with external stakeholders. Nevertheless, integration also connects with another dimension of the PAA. ‘’The more complex the issues or the higher priority given to integration, the more likely that a permanent mechanism will be used,’’ state Nunan et al. (2012, p.266). Such a permanent mechanism can be explained where those involved see their function as the main activity rather than being a provisional representative from another department. In this sense integration also connects with the policy discourse dimension of the PAA, because of its dependence of priority. With different discourses, problems and solutions are framed differently. This will be further elaborated in the next section of mainstreaming.

2.4.1 Mainstreaming

The call for improved policy integration brings us with the concept of ‘mainstreaming’. Uittenbroek et al. (2013, p.400) define mainstreaming as ‘’the integration of climate adaptation policies and measures into sectoral planning and decision-making processes.’’ Furthermore, it implies that policy-makers have to consider the impacts of climate change in their domain and

Figure 7: Demonstrative

model of vertical and horizontal integration of organisational structures and policy.

Source: Nunan et al. (2012)

(23)

22

decide on the implementation of climate adaptation measures. This leads towards a holistic approach rather than sectoral engagement.

Mainstreaming originates from the concept of Environmental Policy Integration (EPI), where decision-making around environmental issues integrates with existing policy domains (Rauken et al., 2015). In this context of the EPI, a new approach has been suggested namely the Climate Policy Integration approach (CPI; Guzman, 2016). The CPI approach is the ‘’incorporation of the aims of climate change adaptation into all stages of policymaking in other policy sectors, complemented by an attempt to aggregate expected consequences for climate adaptation into an overall evaluation of policy. In addition, a commitment to minimise contradictions between climate policies and other policies,’’ argue Mickwitz et al. (2009, p.19). The CPI also refers to the relevance of multi-level governance as a vital element to enable the integration of climate change. The multi-level governance refers to the enlarging interdependence of governments working at different levels, while governance concerns the increasing interdependence between governmental and non-governmental actors (Mickwitz et al., 2009; Aylett, 2013; Mees et al., 2019).

Where in most of the literature integration and mainstreaming are mentioned as the same concepts, Guzman (2016) argues that climate change mainstreaming and integration are not the same. The main difference between mainstreaming and integration is that integration is often achieved through checklists, while mainstreaming demands using a climate change lens to study and design mainstreaming as an end or as a process (Gupta & Van der Grijp, 2010; Guzman, 2016). Mainstreaming requires a conceptual shift from focusing on compliance with environmental standards as conditions to the result, to the identification as an objective of the development process. ‘’Mainstreaming is a political and ideological concept that moves climate change from a marginal discourse and puts it in the centre of the discussion to redesign other issues, whereas integration is a policy discourse and tool to ensure coherence between sectorial activities and hierarchical activities at centralized and decentralized levels,’’ state Gupta & Van der Grijp (2010, p.79). Integration refers much more to the inclusion of climate change into pre-existent policies as a side condition. In addition, mainstreaming concerns also involving all social actors: governments, citizens, businesses and other social organisations in the process (Gupta & Van der Grijp, 2010). This inclusion of non-governmental actors connects mainstreaming to the risk dialogue.

Waldick et al. (2015, p.38) add that the objective of mainstreaming is to ‘’prevent harmful events where possible by encouraging adaptive planning to be anticipatory rather than reactionary. In practice, mainstreaming is an ongoing requirement of planning and policy processes.’’ This objective is in line with the notion that mainstreaming helps in the consideration of (in this case) climate adaptation measures. Moreover, mainstreaming climate change has as consequence that the topic was included in new areas such as financial institutions. Mainstreaming implies a shift from financing climate activities in incremental ways, to making climate change, both in terms of opportunities and risks, a core consideration and lens through which institutions deploy capital (Guzman, 2016).

Gupta & Van der Grijp highlight that mainstreaming ‘’is a concept that brings marginal, sectorial issues into the centre of discussion, thereby attracting more political attention, economic resources and intellectual capacities’’ (2010, p.67). In this sense, the mainstreaming approach connects to the PAA dimension of policy discourse. Changing the underlying

(24)

23

assumptions and perspectives to affect the political attention and resources corresponds with the ontological indicator of the policy discourse dimension. Integration, as the inclusion of climate change into existing policies as side condition, corresponds much more with the strategic indicator of policy discourse.

Mainstreaming implies the incorporation of climate change into policy process, organisation and design of policy. In this sense integration is the first step of the mainstreaming process. To make further progress in the mainstreaming process, it requires a high level of coordination and coherence of organisations and their policies (Guzman, 2016). The thin line between integration and mainstreaming is elaborated and makes a difference between a structural or a discursive attempt in including climate change into other policy areas. Mainstreaming requires difficult re-organisations and is hard to achieve. Considered as a process, mainstreaming seems a vital concept to achieve policy objectives regarding a sectoral cross-cutting issue such as climate change adaptation.

When it comes to analysing integration as the first step of the concept mainstreaming, Kivimaa & Mickwitz (2006, p.732) state four indicators for environmental policy integration: inclusion, consistency, weighting and reporting. Inclusion means the reference in the policy process to the issue and the related risks. Consistency refers to the shared understanding of the impact and the measures among actors and policy documents. Weighting translates into the degree of priority given to the issue related to the other objectives involved. Reporting refers to strategies and specification for the implementation of adaptation, both ex ante, distribution of responsibilities and allocation of resources, and post ante, evaluating and stimulating the learning process (Kivimaa & Mickwitz, 2006; Russel et al., 2018; Uittenbroek, 2014).

2.5 Conceptual framework

This paragraph outlines the conceptual framework, where theoretical concepts are translated into dimensions and indicators. Figure 8 shows a graphical presentation of the conceptual framework and illustrates the focus of this research. Climate adaptation is not optimal in the Netherlands as described in the Deltaprogram, NAS and in chapter 1 (Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment & Economic affairs, 2017; Meijs et al., 2016). As described in the introduction chapter, key elements in the process towards this climate-proof environment are the integration and mainstreaming of climate adaptation policy and measures, and the degree of participation in the process through the risk dialogue.

The mainstreaming of climate adaptation measures in certain policy domains influence how climate-proof the environment is. In addition, an internal risk dialogue at municipalities also influences the degree of integration of climate adaptation policy in other domains. A participatory approach towards a climate-proof society is recommended by the Deltaprogram. Moreover, to what extent climate adaptation is integrated in certain policy domains influences who are involved in these risk dialogues. Besides government participation and mainstreaming, the PAA focuses on organisational dimensions like actors, resources and rules in the area of climate adaptation. In addition, the PAA also focuses on the discourses surrounding the subject. In consequence of merging the theoretical concepts discussed in this chapter and the research objectives discussed in chapter 1, figure 8 (on the next page) shows the graphical outcome.

(25)

24

To use theoretical concepts from the Policy Arrangements Approach in an empirical research, the operationalisation of the dimensions is necessary. This operationalisation of the dimensions is based on the debated theories in this chapter above and the model of Wiering & Arts (2006, see table 1). They set up several change indicators for each dimension based on which change over time can be assessed. Not all those change indicators are corresponding with those of this research, but the relevant indicators are also used in this study. These change indicators create a systematic approach in researching the institutional development in a certain period (Wiering & Arts, 2006). With this systematic approach towards analysing a policy arrangement, the validity and the reliability of this research increase.

Concept Aspect Dimension Indicator Policy arrangement Substance Discourses Paradigms

Utopias

Policy programmes Organisation Rules Legislation

Procedures Political culture Actors Actor constellation

Interaction patterns Coalitions and oppositions Resources Resource constellation Power relations Political influence

Table 1: Operationalisation of the Policy Arrangements Approach (PAA). Source: Wiering & Arts

(2006).

Figure 8: Conceptual framework. Source: own editing.

Climate-proof

environment

Policy

arrangement

Government

participation

Mainstreaming

(26)

25

In contrast of the concepts ‘policy arrangement’ and ‘mainstreaming’, the concept of ‘government participation’ is not further operationalised. Government participation elaborates on the variety of level in participation, as was illustrated in figure 3. This ladder of government participation is important to check to which extent municipalities correspond with a certain level of the ladder. In addition, the concept of ‘social learning’ is part of the dimension government participation. With the inclusion of the social learning concept, a notion of knowledge co-creation and feedback is included in the dimension of government participation. The operationalisation of the theoretical concept ‘mainstreaming’ is shown in table 2 (on the next page). As discussed, this chapter, the differentiation between mainstreaming and integration of environmental policy is the embeddedness of the subject. Where integration is about fulfilling the checklist and sees environmental concerns as a side condition, mainstreaming demands an ecological lens that moves the matter of climate change from a marginal discourse and puts in the centre of the discussion (Gupta & Van der Grijp, 2010; Guzman, 2016). The indicators inclusion, consistency, weighting and reporting are based on the Kivimaa & Mickwitz (2006, p.732).

Concept Dimension Indicator Mainstreaming Integration Inclusion

Consistency Weighting Reporting

Participation and Integration in Climate Adaptation: Exploring the Participatory Approach and Integration of Climate Adaptation Policies