Roles on the road to resilience : a case-study of the Providence sea-port system

(1)

Roles on the road to resilience

A case-study of the Providence sea-port system

Master thesis

Koen Pierens -10148094 Supervised by: Dr. Kourula

(2)

2

Preliminary

On the outset of this thesis, I want to express my gratitude to those who have aided me in this process. I wish to thank Dr. Becker of the University of Rhode Island for providing the data used for this thesis. Additionally my gratitude goes out to my supervisor Dr. Kourula, for providing me with council, direction and enthusiasm throughout the development of this thesis. Lastly, I wish to thank my sister Manon for aiding me in the graphic development of the presented model.

Statement of originality

This document is written by Student Koen Pierens who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

3

Abstract

In this thesis, I utilize the concept of resilience to observe adaptation to climate change. While there are previous studies on what resilience should contain, there is little work on how it should be developed. To develop a better understanding of how to implement this concept, network and role theory are used. Networks are collections of actors and the ties that connect them, and a common approach to deal with challenges larger than a single organizations. Roles are the different contributions that actors make to the whole along with the building blocks on which the different contribution are built. Together, the different roles ensure the functioning of a network. A single case study focusing on the organizations in a port-system, these concepts are linked and observed in practice. Through qualitative analysis on interviews with 23 participants in the Providence, Rhode Island on the eastern seaboard of the US, the roles of Rule-setter, Networker, Knowledge expert, Planner, Coordinator, Responder,

Recoverer and Owner are uncovered, along with the sub-roles of Facilitator and Sponsor. The implications of the case study to academics, policy makers and managers are discussed and lines of future research are suggested.

1 Introduction

The changing of the climate system is an occurring issue, with risks for human and natural systems across the world (IPCC, 2014). In some regions specifically, a rise in temperature, an increase in the intensity of precipitation, and the rising of the sea level at an accelerated pace have been measured and are predicted to continue (KNMI, 2014). Some even state that we are facing a variety of unpredictable and potentially catastrophic environmental problems (Levin, Barrett, Aniyar, Baumol, Bliss, Bolin, Dasgupta, Ehrlich, Folke and Gren, 1998). In the face of increased risks due to climate change, such as those posed by e.g. floods, wildfires, lack of

(6)

6 access to drinking water, the breaking down of infrastructural networks and services, it is important that societies somehow adapt to this changing climate (IPCC, 2014). One concept often used in social sciences and policy to counter such global threats, is resilience

(MacKinnon and Derickson, 2013). Resilience is a term that originally comes from ecological literature to describe how much external pressure a system can absorb and still recover

(Holling, 1973; Pimm, 1984; Arrow, Bollin, Costanzem, Dasgupta, Folke, Holling, Jansson, Levin, Mäler and Perrings, 1995). While there is a lot of discussion on the exact qualities of a resilient community, four general categories that are present in most classifications are physical, social, economic, and institutional resilience (Shaw and IEDM Team, 2009). Although the exact properties of resilience in communities are under debate, most authors seem to agree that engagement and cooperation of a multitude of actors is critical to developing resilience (Campos and Zapata, 2012; Brown, Dayal and Rumbaitis Del Rio, 2012; Tyler and Moench, 2012; Anguelovski, Chu and Carmin, 2014; Arup, 2014). This leads to network theory. Networks are collections of actors connected through ties (Borgatti and Foster, 2003). It is an approach to organization often turned to when issues are faced that are too large or complex for one actor (Provan and Lemaire, 2012), and has received large amounts of academic attention in recent years (Borgatti and Foster, 2003). In contrast with our understanding of resource management and building dyadical strategic alliances (Provan and Lemaire, 2012), knowledge on network development is still limited (Ahuja, Soda and Wadhwa, 2012), as there are only some very general guidelines and theories on when network cooperation is appropriate (Provan and Lemaire, 2012). One of the underlying factors that limits knowledge on this topic is that actors are mostly treated as black boxes in network studies (Phelps, Heidl and Wadhwa, 2012). This hinders understanding of how and why certain actors cooperate with each other. To open this black box, the concept of roles is used. An actor’s role within a network is the contribution that it provides to the whole. This is

(7)

7 determined by the actor’s motivations, resources, and position with regard to other actors (Peterman, Kourula & Levitt, 2014). Roles are a relatively new concept and understanding roles, and the different contributions that actors make to their networks, is a vital step in developing knowledge and a practical approach on how problems that span organizational boundaries can be dealt with. It is therefore paramount that a better understanding of roles in whole networks is developed (Provan & Lemaire, 2012). Especially since society is evermore connected across industries and geographical areas, the amount of challenges that require such an approach is increasing. Climate change and its consequences are a problem that requires an extensive approach across various organizations. This means that unless a better

understanding of collaboration across organizations, networks, and roles is developed, the damages to society could be immense. These concepts are used to look at empirical data and to observe how resilience is developed in practice through collaboration in a network. This addition to the resilience literature is needed to aid implementation efforts, as identifying the social practices and relevant actors is the crucial next step in developing an approach do build resilience (Ernstson, van der Leeuw, Redman, Meffert, Davis, Alfsen and Elmgvist 2010). Additionally, the analysis of the different roles and ties will help progress knowledge on networks as it will provide better understanding of how and why actors cooperate. For these reasons, the main question that I have strived to answer in this thesis is: What roles do

different actors play in the enhancement of resilience?

2 Literature review

In this chapter, the earlier mentioned areas of resilience, resilience in urban development, cooperation, networks and roles are discussed. This is done to get a clear understanding of how far academic development on these topics has come, which is the starting point of the current study.

(8)

8

2.1 Resilience

One approach to adapt to the changing climate is to create resilience within the societies and communities. Resilience is originally an ecological concept and allows us to study the relative persistence of different states of systems (Perrings, 1998). One variant of resilience is

concerned with how able a system is to recover after an impact (Pimm, 1984). In the other stream, resilience is described as the amount of external pressures a system can absorb before it is forced to move to a different equilibrium (Holling, 1973; Arrow et al. 1995). So in simple terms, the two variants of resilience on the literature are bouncing back and resisting. In both variants however, resilience is a variable of how stable a system is when subject to shocks from the environment (Perrings, 1998). Within this line of thought and when confronted with shocks, it is the persistence of relationships that should be focused on rather than the

consistency of behaviour (Holling, 1973). The resilience approach is more systems oriented and takes a more dynamic view than approaches about responding to specific stimuli ( Adger, 2000; Nelson, Adger and Brown, 2007; Gibbs, 2009).

As global threats in economic, environmental and political areas were identified, resilience has increasingly been used in social sciences and public pol icy (MacKinnon and Derickson, 2013). This transition has taken place even though there is still considerably ambiguity with regard to the exact definition, contents, measurements, and consequences of resilience (Martin and Sunley, 2014). Building on the initial work by Holling (1973),

Gunderson (2000) introduces and examines the concept of adaptive capacity, w hich are those resources and processes that have an impact on the amount of resilience found in a system (Olsson and Folke, 2001; Brooks, 2003; Berkhout, Hertin and Gann, 2006). These often act like buffers against specific shocks, or external impacts in general. Adaptive capacities are seen as a core element of resilient systems (Nelson et al., 2007), and are dependent on social capital, institutions, and resources and their distribution (Tompkins and Adger, 2004).

(9)

9 Gunderson (2000) describes three strategies to deal with external shocks: doing nothing and waiting it out, actively manage the system to move back to the desired stability, and accept the change and adapt the new system. The more adaptive capacity is built, the more robust the resilience of the system, and the less probable the need to accept a new system of

relationships. In order to facilitate this, learning and engagement are key components to ensure the ability to renew and be versatile (Gunderson, 2000). Similar properties are found in the literature which argues that learning, self-organizing and the ability to retain structure and function are the main elements to be resilient (Carpenter, Walker, Anderies and Abel, 2001; Trosper, 2002; Nelson et al. 2007, Gibbs, 2009). Beyond these key properties, Adger (2000) identifies a number of proxies to examine social resilience and dependence on certain natural resources. Steady economic growth and a stable division of income can be indicators that the community does not depend on a small amount of natural resources and are therefore resilient to some extent. However, it is important to note that despite the popularity of the term, there are writers that object against the use of the term resilience until further specification and clarification has been provided (MacKinnon and Derickson, 2013; Martin and Sunley, 2014). MacKinnon and Derickson (2013) provide a critique of the use of resilience based on three main arguments. Their first argument is that the ecological concept of resilience is

conservative when applied to the social dimension. It refers to the stability of a system in its current state, which gives it a political charge in favor of the status quo. Secondly, they argue that the definition of resilience is determined by state agencies and field experts, which would lead to top-down strategies that are also in favor of inequality and the status quo. The final argument put forward is that resilience is often connected to a spatial zoning. Such division leads to certain communities receiving all the responsibility, without the power (MacKinnon and Derickson, 2013). However, while the concept of resilience might not be perfect, there is no widespread alternative currently available.

(10)

10

2.2 Resilience in urban development

Campos and Zapata (2012) apply the term resilience to urban development, and find that resilience should be thought of as an ongoing Recoverer process facilitated by so called action nets of organizations and movements. Resilience has been witnessed to be the successor of ecological modernization, shifting the focus from low-carbon business opportunities to the ability to deal with impacts (Antrobus, 2011). Although some argue that it is mainly a political shift to offer a term with more positive connotations (McEvoy, Fünfgeld and Bosomworth, 2013). In another case study on urban development, Brown, Dayal and Rumbaitis del Rio (2012) study how Asian cities build resilience against shocks due to environmental change. Here, they define resilience as the ability to respond to shifting circumstances while functioning at an appropriate level, and point to the importance of urban governance, engaging diverse actor groups, learning, and building capacities to engage with uncertainty. Especially this last point seems in line with the adaptive capacity introduced by Gunderson (2000). Furthermore, da Silva, Kernaghan and Luque (2012) state that city resilience needs to deal with three types of hazards: direct impacts, indirect effects through loss of resources and networks, existing vulnerability that limits adaptive capacity. It is also pointed out in the literature that resilience should not be just about bouncing back, as some of its theoretical origins would suggest, but that it’s also about cultivating preparedness and looking for opportunities through change (Davoudi, Brooks and Mehmood, 2013). Four categories of resilience are identified in the literature, these are physical, social, economic, and institutional resilience (Shaw and IEDM Team, 2009).

Ten major areas to focus on in the development of city resilience are identified by Brown et al. (2012). The first is climate sensitive land use and urban planning, which contains taking environmental changes into account when designing how to use land. The second is

(11)

11 other organizations need to coordinate and combine efforts in order to produce results. The third is the specific development of drainage, flood, and solid waste management systems. The fourth measure is to develop water demand and conservation systems. These latter two are responses to the predicted variability in rainfall patterns (IPCC, 2014). The fifth area indicated by Brown et al. (2012) are warning systems and emergency management which are a response to natural disasters. The changing climate also poses changing health risks, and building responsive systems to deal with them is vital. Providing shelter and robust transport are also identified as crucial. Creating stronger services to manage ecosystems, and

diversifying climate-affected livelihoods are also pointed out. Lastly, educations and building awareness to enable capacity building amongst the populace is deemed vital. Berkes and Ross (2012) argue that a systems approach is appropriate, especially where the social -economical system is relevant. However they also state that resilience should be broader than impacts from the natural environment, and thus include social factors like a positive outlook, social networks, values and beliefs and people-place relationships. Arup (2014) has defined resilience as the ability of a system to function in such a way that the people within it can survive and prosper, even if they are subject to severe shocks or other influences. In cooperation with the Rockefeller foundation, Arup (2014) has created a framework for resilient systems. In this case, the systems described are cities. These systems make sure that they are reflective and open to new information, are robust in the anticipation of potential failures, create a redundancy of capacity, maintain flexibility, show a general resourcefulness, have a large degree of inclusion and engagement, and show integration and alignment

between city systems. These qualities are applied across the four categories of leadership and strategy, health and wellbeing, infrastructure and environment, and economy and society (Arup, 2014).

(12)

12 Tompkins and Adger (2004) offer a more general approach by concluding that to build resilience, a community must lower dependence on natural resources, increase engagement, and learn to prevent being tied to specific response paths. A similar approach is taken by Folke, Carpenter, Elmgvist, Gunderson, Holling and Walker (2002) who argue that policy must focus on becoming more open and learning-oriented in order to better integrate social and natural ecosystems, which is here called active adaptive management. Adger, Hughes, Folke, Carpenter and Rockstrom (2005) focus on coastal regions and make an analogy to natural ecosystems, they find that spreading risks through portfolio management and multilevel social initiatives and cooperation will be the key to dealing with shocks. Another factor added by the literature is that people need to learn to live with change and uncertainty (Berkes, 2007). Related to the portfolio management-analogy and the importance of diversity (Leichenko, 2011), we find one of the barriers to the development of resilience. There is a trade-off between resilience in the long term, and performance due to specialization in the short term (Perrings. 2006). This needs to be taken into account when considering subtopics such as engagement and motivation.

Tanner, Mitchell, Polack and Guenther (2009) offer a governance assessment framework which exists of five categories. These categories are responsiveness and flexibility, decentralization and autonomy, participation and inclusion, accountability and transparency, and experience and support. A similar approach is taken by da Silva et al. (2012) and they find that resilient cities are and develop: flexibility, redundancy,

resourcefulness, safe failure, responsiveness, capacity to learn, and being conscious of the dependency on local ecosystems.

Martin and Sunley (2014) argue that there are numerous different studies observing the antecedents of resilience, looking through various lenses and coming up with other

(13)

13 structure, financial arrangements, labor market conditions, governance arrangements, and agency and decision-making seem to contain most of the found predictors for resilience (Martin and Sunley, 2014). Jabareen (2013) also addresses the large amount of general and vague proposed solutions, and responds with a framework that focusses more on the process of planning for resilience. This framework exists of four iterative concepts. The first part is vulnerability analysis, in which the various risks are identified. The second concept is urban governance which describes decision making processes, these should be integrative,

collaborative and open. The third part of the framework is prevention, which is the next phase in building resilience after analysis has taken place and decisions have been made on the relevance of hazards and the corresponding strategy. Finally, planning for the future needs to be uncertainty-oriented. Jabareen (2013) admits that such a systematic framework is yet to be tested as the means are still lacking.

Additionally, as the application of resilience to community development makes it partly a human product, social processes such as social learning and social memory, mental models and knowledge integration, scenario building, leadership, social networks, and organizational change and inertia are recognized in the process of creating resilience (Folke, 2006). Even more so, Campanella (2008) argues that resourceful and resilient citizens are the main antecedents of city resilience, and that their involvement is key.

It becomes apparent that there are large number of authors who offer their views on what we should be looking at for developing theories. However, three categories become apparent. First, there are authors who present the broad areas in which development for resilience can and should take place. Second, there are those who describe the process of developing resilience. Thirdly, there are authors who present lists of qualities that resilient systems possess, which can then be used to evaluate the results of resilience building.

(14)

Table 1

Overview of resilience literature streams

General areas Process theories System properties Shaw and IEDM Team (2009) da Silva et al. (2012) Brown et al. (2012) Arup (2014) Davoudi et al. (2013) Arup (2014)

Martin and Sunley (2014) Folke et al. (2005) Tanner et al. (2009) Folke (2006) Folke et al. (2002) Campanella (2008)

Jabareen (2013)

This table divides the authors of treated resilience articles in three categories. The first category consists of the authors who mention the different general areas in which investment and development must take place in order to enhance resilience. Their views are integrated in Table 2. The second category consists of the authors who study the process rather than the actual content. Their ideas are combined in Tab le 3. The third category shows the authors who listed qualities or properties of systems that are resilient. Since this lies beyond the focus of this thesis, these will not be treated further.

(15)

15

Table 2

General areas for resilience

development

General areas

Shaw and IEDM Team

(2009) Arup (2014) Martin and Sunley (2014) Folke (2006) Decision-making processes Institutional Strategy and leadership Governance arrangements

Agency and

decision-making

Social and humanitary aid Social Health and wellbeing

Various social processes Economical and financial Economical Economy and society Labor market conditions

Financial arrangements

Industrial and business

structure

Physical Physical

Infrastructure and

(16)

16 This figure shows the articles that present general areas in which resilience is built. The four categories by Shaw and IEDM Team (2009) overlap the other models to a large extent.

(17)

17

Table 3

Process models of

resilience

Phase name da Silva et al. (2012)

Davoudi et al. (2013)

Folke et al.

(2005) Folke et al. (2002) Jabareen (2013) Knowledge management Risk management Vulnerability assessment Policy

Open and learning-oriented policy

Urban governance Implementation and

preparation Improve existing vulnerability

Cultivating preparedness

Social initiatives

Integrate social and natural

ecosystems Prevention

Direct response Direct impacts

Recovery and new directions

Indirect effects through loss of resources and networks

Looking for

opportunities

Planning for future needs

(18)

As Table 2 shows, there are differences in emphasis put forward by different authors. However, the four categories presented by Shaw and IEDM Team (2009) seem to cover the areas described by others. Table 3 presents the process models of resilience. This table differs in structure as to represent a timeline. When the different models are integrated, five phases become apparent. The first phase is that of assessing vulnerabilities and managing the risk. The main emphasis is on gathering the knowledge to prepare for development. The second phase concerns the actual decision making-process. Phase three is the most popular phase in the literature and contains initiatives to proactively prepare for impacts. After this stage comes the need to deal with direct damages when emergencies occur. When the smoke has cleared, the model enters stage five which concerns recovery from structural damage and looking towards the future. Lists of various qualities are presented by other authors which serve mainly to evaluate the resiliency of systems. As the emphasis of this thesis is on the roles in developing resilience rather than specific activities, the general areas of Table 2 and the process of Table 3 will be mostly used.

As can be seen from the wide range of characteristics and courses of action under the umbrella of resilience, there is still discussion regarding the bounds of the term resilience, and it is at a risk to lose its value by becoming an umbrella term (Klein, Nicholls and Thomalla, 2003, MacKinnon and Derickson, 2013; Martin and Sunley, 2014). This is also emphasized by Gibbs (2009) who argues that until there is consensus on performance measures of resilience, it is an ineffective basis for management. While others argue that it is especially the malleability of resilience that gives it its power with regard to policy-making (Leichenko, 2011; Turner, 2013). However, despite the amount of different models and proposed

solutions, there is little empirical evaluation of most of the proposed methods and policies, and policy is still focused on those measures that have additional benefits and on mitigation rather than adaptation (Bulkely, 2010). This effects of resilience are not yet known as it is still

(19)

19 an emerging field, and the behaviour of cities and climate changes is hard to project (da Silva et al., 2012). Also, Evans (2011) argues that the ‘place’-dimension is inescapable. This makes it a difficult task to propose a generally valid, yet concrete framework for adaptation. Despite this lacking knowledge, the resilience construct is important as it help to evaluate hazards holistically, puts the focus on the ability to deal with hazards, and helps to look forwards and find options for future situations (Berkes, 2007).

After seeing in what direction development should move, another concern is how and by whom this should be implemented. Such insight is given by Tyler and Moench (2012), who identify the three generalizable elements of city resilience: agents, systems, and

institution. Needed characteristics of the elements are mentioned; e.g. actors should have high learning and organizing capacity, systems should have high flexibility and spare capacity, and institutions should spread information and have transparent decision making. The focus of Tyler and Moench (2012) is however on the cooperation between these entities. The actors are best at identifying actions, systems at prioritizing and designing the implementations, and institutions at implementing them. This process is strengthened by shared learning. While it can differentiate which party is the initial driver, continued and thorough adaptation requires participation from various actors, departmental engagement and political leadership

(Anguelovski et al., 2014). Also, Ernstson et al. (2010) suggest that identifying the social practices, the relevant and able actors, and the arenas on different levels are key questions in the future of resilience research, suggesting that there is still a lot of work to be done on whom should instigate the resilience-process.

2.3 Resilience through cooperation

Much of the recent literature on resilience concerns some type of cooperation. Campos and Zapata (2012) describe resilience as a process that is facilitated by so-called action nets of

(20)

20 organizations which can be seen as networks of actors that collectively respond to the

situation in order to protect the functioning of the system. Brown et al. (2012) stress that institutions need to combine and cooperate their efforts with other organizations in order to get results. Tyler and Moench (2012) focus their study on the cooperation between actors, systems, and institutions. Anguelovski et al. (2014) argue that in order for adaptation to succeed, involvement of various actors is required. The vision sketched by Arup (2014) also consists of a multitude of actors, cooperating to create a resilient system. It therefore seems no less than necessary to examine the literature on cooperation and strategic alliances to find out why cooperation might be needed and how it should be executed.

Networks and alliances are a midway between markets and hierarchies, which allows for a stable relationship without a complete take over (Thorelli, 1986). In an attempt to explain why organizations form alliances and networks, Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven (1996) argue that the traditional answer of transaction costs is not sufficient. Instead, organizations are argued to form alliances when they are forced to do so because of a lack of resources, and are able to do so because of strong social positions and connections. This combination of necessity and opportunity then drives them to seek help from other organizations.

Advancing the resource-line of reasoning, Tsang (1998) argues that there are five possible motives for organizations to form alliances. The first is the creation of rents from possessing a resource or combination of resources. The second is to enable the expansion of resource usage, the utilizing of formerly idle resources. Third is the diversification of resource usage, which mitigates the amount of risk. The fourth reason is to imitate the resource(s) owned by the strategic partner. The last motive is to dispose of resources no longer needed by the organization. So in short, Tsang (1998) makes the addition that next to gaining (access to) resources, organizations might also engage in alliances to better utilize resources they already possess. Das and Teng (2000) venture further down this road by claiming that strategic

(21)

21 alliances are aimed at obtaining or making better use of strategic resources. Additionally, the type of cooperation and the performance of the alliance are argued to depend on the alignment of resources (Das and Teng, 2000). Grant and Baden-Fuller (2004) take the resource-based view as their basis, and argue that it needs to be adapted to fit in the knowledge economy. They say that because an integrated solution often requires a multitude of knowledge types while knowledge development requires specialization, alliances are necessary to collect the needed knowledge and combine different angles. Phelps et al. (2012) review the literature on knowledge and networks and argue that the networks of actors with which one is connected influences the efficiency and efficacy with which knowledge can be created, accessed, applied and transferred.

In this vision, it is not so much ownership of the resource that matters, but access to it, which is somewhat contrasting to the rent and imitation motives put forward by (Tsang, 1998). This difference might be explained by the fact that Grant and Baden-Fuller (2004) consider knowledge, rather than resources in general.

2.4 Networks and roles

Next to the resource-perspective, Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven (1996) also mentioned the importance of the social position that an organization and its members possess. Burt (1976) even goes so far as to say that our identity is defined by our relations with other actors. This notion holds similarity to the network-perspective. Gulati (1999) looks at alliances from this perspective and states that the amount of resources in the network of the organization, and the capability of the organization to form alliances are the two main predictors of alliance

forming. Thorelli (1986) adds that there needs to be an overlap in the domain or mission of the actors in order for them to be compatible, and Gulati and Gargiulo (1999) argue that information from current allies about possible new entrants is perceived as valuable, and thus

(22)

22 the network builds up through connections. Zaheer, Gulati and Nohria (2000) take the

network-perspective even further and argue that strategic networks are a concept that could change the way we think about e.g. industry structure, positioning, and the concept of inimitable firm resources. Borgatti and Foster (2003) review the literature on networks, and define networks as a collection of actors whom are connected through a set of ties. While there are many different manifestations of actor sets and ties, the authors make a fourfold classification of network research. The four directions of network research are structural social capital, access to resources, contagion, and environmental shaping. These categories suggest that most network research is focused on its outcomes. Although networks have received significant attention from academics (Borgatti and Foster, 2003). There is still little we know about the development of networks. Ahuja et al. (2012) highlight this gap in the literature, and create a model which serves as an introduction to studying network dynamics. They argue that any network goes through a similar process in which micro-foundations such as opportunity and inertia, and micro-dynamics such as brokerage and homophily lead to network-seeking behavior. These behaviors then change the structure or architecture of the network, which triggers new micro processes, causing the process to start over again. Ahuja et al. (2012) however also state that while their framework serves as a starting-point, there is to date not enough longitudinal data on networks to provide empirical foundations. An important distinction between networks is that of egocentric versus whole networks (Provan & Lemaire, 2012). Egocentric networks are the result of one organization entering collaborations with other actors in a dyadic way. This happens for instance when an ego enters an alliance with an alter to gain access to a specific resource. Whole networks on the other hand are built around a specific goal or task that is too large or complex for any one actor (Provan & Lemaire, 2012). Whole networks have received far less academic attention than egocentric networks. One specific manifestation of a network is a meta-organization. This occurs when actors

(23)

23 whom are legally autonomous closely cooperate towards a common goal. In such a case the actors, which can entail entire organizations, effectively behave as one organization despite their legal independence (Gulati, Puranam and Tushman, 2012). These meta-organizations are shaped by the goals of an architect, although no formal authority is used to direct other actors. One benefit of these informal ties is that they are found to be better suited for knowledge creation and access than formal relations (Phelps et al. 2012) Meta-organizations exist when the benefits of co-specialization are larger than the costs of transaction between actors (Gulati et al., 2012). This point is also implied by Phelps et al. (2012) who notice conflicting findings on the link between the amount and intensity of network ties and innovation. They argue that the cost of maintaining and increasing the number of network relationships can outweigh the benefits of knowledge creation. Gulati et al. (2012) describe that meta-organizations differ along two dimensions. The first dimension is the openness of membership, the second dimension is the degree to which there are multiple tiers of membership. The differences between tiers manifest in informal authority and benefits.

After having read that there are various possible benefits of cooperating with other organizations, it is important to recognize that there is no one way of having an alliance. Das and Teng (2000) touch this subject as they discuss how different types of resources lead to different types of collaboration. The type of resources leads or should lead to either a contract or equity-based alliance, while the similarity of the resources determines the manner in which cooperation takes place. Kourula and Halme (2008) describe a similar subject for the case of collaboration between businesses and non-governmental organizations (NGO’s). They classify collaborations between the two into three categories: philanthropy, corporate

responsibility (CR) integration, and CR innovation. In philanthropy, CR-activities are largely disconnected from the firm’s business and involves spending the resources of the organization on nature, society, or certain parts of it. When CR integration occurs, the firm takes it one

(24)

24 step further and incorporates responsibility to actors in the way it does business. CR

innovation is the third type and involves using CR as a source of business innovation. However, when dealing with an issue as large as adapting society to the changing climate, it is likely that cooperation will occur in the form of a network, with various

organizations. When there is cooperation in networks, organizations take on specific roles to facilitate collaboration. Whilst studying energy conservation in commercial buildings ,

Peterman et al. (2014) observe such a network. In particular, they study the different roles that a government can play in these networks, of which four are identified. The commissioner develops rules for the others in the network. The interpreter analyses and processes data, and spreads it throughout the network to promote standardization. The marketer tries to ensure that outcomes of the network are accepted by the broad public. The user shows the

possibilities by demonstrating new technologies and concepts. What role an organization plays depends on the motives to participate, the other actors within the network and their relative positions, and the resources the organization brings to the table (Peterman et al., 2014). Bertels, Hoffman and DeJordy (2014) study how organizations that challenge current institutions to reach a certain goal, so-called challenger movements, differ in their methods. They found four distinct roles, based on the identity and social position within the network. The first is the portal, which are at the center of hub and spoke systems and mainly realize change through connecting other actors and engaging with institutions. The portal

organization serves a similar role as a liaison within organizations and networks, and serve a similar function of bridging and connecting different groups and actors (Schwartz and Jacobson, 1977). This line of thinking also receives support from boundary spanning theory, which suggest that depending on the amount of relevant information in the environment, organizations and systems will create boundary spanning roles to harvest that information and to provide external representation (Aldrich & Herker, 1977). Another related concept is that

(25)

25 of brokerage. Vasi (2011) describes brokerage as a third actor through which information, communication and (dis)agreement are spread between two parties. The categorization of Gould and Fernandez (1989) is used to identify five different types of brokerage, based on to what groups the different actors belong.

Coordinators are similarly connected but focus on a certain type of actor and a certain specific cause. They also act as brokers of information. Members are central in the network but are mainly concerned with their own specific issue. The last role identified by Bertels et al. (2014) is that of the satellites, which are disconnected from the main network either

because they are too hardline in their ideas or unable to connect. Also, they make a distinction between indirect and direct work, in which direct work is concerned with the issue at hand and indirect work is about building up the network and capabilities.

So what is witnessed is that there are a lot of different types of roles and positions based on the type of network and dynamics. In all cases however, the position had a

significant relationship with the functioning and other characteristics of the actor. Stevenson and Greenberg (2000) support this line of thinking as they conclude that the social position in networks severely influences the use and success of strategies. According to Burt (1976), social position is determined by the social distance between actors, as one’s position is relative to that of the rest. He also argues that an actor’s position vis a vis another can be judged in two ways: one can look to similarities within the dyad, or look at the pair as part of a larger network and study the similarity of their relations with others (Burt, 1976). Getting insight into the different positions is crucial for social network analysis and structur al theory, and although the concept of position has been applied in many different structure studies, there is no consensus on the definition of the concept (Borgatti and Everett, 1992). Thorelli (1986) defines the position as “a location of power to create and/or influence networks” (p. 40) and depends on the domain of the actor, its position in other networks, and its power

(26)

26 compared to other actors in the network of interest. It is apparent that as a network or

systems-approach is necessary to evaluate and create resilience, a crucial step in this process is to understand the different roles that are played in order to create resilience. Therefore the research question that I have strived to answer is: What roles do different actors play in the

enhancement of resilience?

3 Method

3.1 Design and sample description

Because of the importance of the context, as the natural environment is a major theme, a case study is appropriate (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). In this thesis I studied the case of the sea-port of Providence, Rhode Island in the United States of America. This case has been chosen as a typical sea-port cluster, as there is an expectation of increasing environmental stress and the region has previously dealt with environmental impact. Additionally, it is one of the cases on which data was available from Dr. Becker of the University of Rhode Island. However, it is recognized that port systems operate differently. The study is principally explorative in nature, as sources are used to find general information about a so far unknown subject (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill; 2012).

This thesis is an abductive study, in which theories originate from a combination of patterns in the data with previously obtained ideas to gain traction on the findings

(Timmermans and Tavory, 2012). Because the focus lies on exploring the consequences of the contexts and the specific situation, a case study design is appropriate (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). As is typical for such studies, qualitative methods are used.

Within the case system, respondents have been selected with the use of snowball sampling, which is appropriate when it is difficult to identify members of the population

(27)

27 (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). This is the case as there is a large amount of actors that are

affiliated with the port. This process has been continued until saturation was achieved, meaning that the sample was deemed complete when no new names were added to the list.

This process led to a sample containing 23 participants who were interviewed in 2010 and 2011. The organizations at which the participants worked can be found in Table 4.

Following the model and categories presented in Becker and Caldwell (2015), the participants have been categorized in internal port actors, federal public policy actors, state public policy actors, local public policy actors, community group actors, external

economic/contractual/private actors and academic actors.

As mentioned, the data was acquired by Dr. Austin Becker of the University of Rhode Island. Access to his data has been negotiated and assured.

3.2 Description of instruments and procedures

The data within this set has been obtained through the use of semi-structured interviews. Semi structured interviews are used to create space for expression of ideas (Cairns, Ahmed, Mullett & Wright, 2013). This method is appropriate when the researcher is unsure of the answers, which calls for a degree of flexibility in the interview (Saunders & Lewis, 2012), as is the case.

(28)

28

Table 4

Interviewed actors and categorization

Internal port actors Waterson Terminal Services Economic/contractual/private firms Affiliated Insurance Managers

Moran Shipping Agency

Promet Marine Services

Community Save the Bay

Academic Brown University

University of Rhode Island

Public policy (Federal) National Flood Insurance Program

Public policy (State) Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council

Rhode Island Statewide Planning

Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management

Rhode Island Department of Administration

Rhode Island State Senate

Public policy (local) Providence Department of Planning and Development

Providence Emergency Management Agency

Providence Fire Department

These interviews were conducted individually as much as possible, although in some cases, two or three people attended the interviews. The questionnaire was designed by dr.

(29)

29 Becker, who used Moser and Eckstrom (2010) as a template. The interview consists of six sections:

- Background on institutions and informants (5 minutes) - Impacts of storm events (5”)

- Establishing how the informant thinks about storm planning and strategies that have already been implemented (10”)

- Establish where they are in the storm planning process and how they think about the future (potential strategies) (20”)

- Process description and associated barriers (understanding the barriers and impediments) (15”)

- Establish how they relate storm planning to climate change (5”) The interviews were all transcribed.

3.3 Data analysis

The transcripts were coded with the use of NVivo. Because the thesis is mainly exploratory, and to preserve the richness of information about the case system, abductive coding has been applied. Abductive reasoning is using information to create an imaginative understanding of the studied data, this serves as traction for better understanding the data in the study

(Timmermans and Tavory, 2012). In this process, I have focused on the role building blocks of resources, motives and network relations as identified by Peterman et al. (2014). The first stage of coding was dedicated to identify these building blocks in the case system. To exemplify, the transcript section “We do. We do work with the communities in fact we we have over the past I’d say close to 6 months now we’ve started a pilot project looking at sea level rise issues in one community and part of that is to it’s a risk vulnerability analysis with a mapping effort to look at the extent of different sea level rise scenarios” was coded as

(30)

30 ‘Looking at climate change scenario’s with communities’. It however became apparent that most participants preferred to answer in terms of their organization’s activities vis a vis the system, which is arguably a consequence or product of their roles. This stage consisted of two rounds, the first round was dedicated to getting familiar with the data and the format, and to identify topics to which special attention needed to be paid. An example of this is the found emphasis placed by participants on activities and behaviors. Round two consisted of line by line analysis of role elements in order to find patterns.

In addition to participants describing the organizations they work for, testimonies about other actors have also been looked at, one such example is: “Our [Responder] has their

own hurricane preparedness plan, for the impact of an imminent hurricane. They would convene a meeting of all the actors and ley out the plans as what would happen at a

particular stage as the morning is wrapped up. Depending on the severity.” which has been

coded as ‘the coast guard directs the aftermath of the hurricane (with regard to ships)’. Therefore, the second step mainly consisted of collecting the statements made about each actor in the system. This resulted in categories for each actor which contained statements about their resources, networks, and activities by both their own spokespeople and those of other actors.

When this process was finalized I looked at the statements within the categories to find patterns both within and across categories, and looked at the literature to make sense of these as is typical in abductive studies. Additionally, some of the respondents directly stated how their organizations contributed to the port system with regard to dealing with impacts. The combination of these patterns, ideas from the literature, and direct statements lead to the development of the roles. More information on linked theory and on the roles themselves can be found in the results section.

(31)

31 So for example, the statement “So the team really has to take a larger systems, longer

term systems perspective. In terms of its planning. We try essentially identify and incorporate it into a single document. The overall policies and actions identified for the most part already by agency and other types of strategic planning into a single document. Refine them, try to link them, synthesize them a little bit, to come up with a coherent overall statement across these.” was coded as ‘the team integrates agency plans into a coherent whole’ which later

were linked to the role behaviors of ‘Planner’ and ‘Coordinator’ roles. So in short, the data analysis existed of a number of steps:

1) Using the literature and transcripts to identify interesting areas of information 2) Categorizing the relevant information per actor

3) Combining patterns in the transcripts and in the literature to define roles in developing resilience

The various combinations of role behaviors and network connections have been used to create a graphic overview of the Providence port-network, which is presented in the role interaction section in the results chapter.

3.4 Strengths and limitations

The advantages of using a pre-made dataset is that there is a large amount of data available, which is transcribed in good quality. The downside is that the data were not acquired with the exact same purpose, although it contains information about strategy and networks which qualifies the data as useful. In combination with the respondents being identified as relevant actors by others in the network, this provides the needed validity. Ensuring reliability is difficult in the case of semi-structured interviews. However, the detailed template,

consistency of one professional interviewer and careful recording and transcription ensure that all possible precautions are taken. Generalisability is difficult with such complex systems and

(32)

32 will be addressed with due care. One decision that is made with generalisability in mind is to focus on roles and their related behaviour, rather than the positions and boundaries of the organizations. While the organizations and their interactions are different in any system, I believe that the necessary roles to address resilience will have a higher degree of

generalisability. The strengths and limitations of the study rather than those of the method, are reviewed in the conclusion section.

4 Results

In this section, I present the findings from the transcript analysis on the topic of roles. As mentioned before, I have looked for the building elements of resources, motives and network relations as identified by Peterman et al. (2014). It however became apparent in the first round of coding that the participants mainly answered by describing their activities, and saw their own roles in terms of the behaviors they executed within the system. The result of this is while network relations, resources, and motives have been incorporated into the classification of roles in the second stage of coding, there is also a heavy influence of activities and

behaviors. Arguably, the activities and behaviors are not so much an element, but a

consequence of the role. Nevertheless, they can and have been used to identify and classify them. For a more detailed description of the coding process, and a description of the sample organizations, I refer you to the method chapter. This chapter is shaped according to the following structure: first, the Providence port-system is shortly described. Second, the individual roles will be described along with the organizations that were found to play this role, and the evidence from the interview transcripts. Then, combinations of roles ar e discussed. Finally, a graphic overview of the roles in the Providence sea-port system is presented. The evidence has been anonymized to provide privacy to the participants. In order to do this, any names have been replace by the relevant role in that segment.

(33)

33

4.1 The Providence port-system

This section will serve to give a picture of the port system of which the participant

organizations listed in Table 4 are a part. The information used in this section comes from Becker, Matson, Fischer and Mastrandrea (2014) as they have used and thus described the same case. As can be seen in Figure 1, Providence is located in Rhode Island, as part of the eastern coastline of the United States.

Figure 1. Providence on the US eastern seaboard

At the time the data was obtained, the Port of Providence supplied much of Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut with petroleum products and bulk import and export. This supports many other organizations such as rail service, trucking companies, ship repair facilities and manufacturing companies. Additionally, the Port sat at the head of Narragansett Bay, which provides breeding grounds for regional marine life. The full port takes up

(34)

34 Over 2400 jobs were attributed to port activities in that same year. For this case study, the entire port area was included. This area is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. The Providence port area (Becker et al., 2014)

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) considers Providence as the “Achilles heel of the Northeast” due to its position above the bay, just as New Orleans was considered the Achilles heel of its area before Katrina. Rhode Island has suffered from hurricanes on nine occasions since 1900. The shape and orientation of the Narragansett Bay combined with its

(35)

35 close distance to the Atlantic hurricane zone, create high susceptibility to storm surges. In addition, there is a hurricane barrier in place to protect the low-lying region north of the port, which effectively redirects surges right into the port so that the impact on the port itself is even larger. In the period that the interviews were performed Rhode Island was in the process of developing new adaptation plans, which confirms the relevance of both the subject and the case.

4.2 Roles

This section will describe the role classifications as found in the interviews. Along with the description per role, the relevant organizations will be provided along with evidence from the transcript to provide legitimacy and insight into the coding process. To preserve the privacy of the participants, any names in the evidence have been replaced by their respective roles within the example. The order in which the roles are presented is meaningless, their relative positions are shown in Figure 3.

4.2.1 Rule-setter

The first role is that of the Rule-setter. Rule-setters hold authority over other actors and set the rules with regard to land use, construction and so on. They often enforce these with

inspections. They are motivated by democratic mandate in the case of public policy Rule-setters, or by maximizing profits in the case of insurers. The organizations which were found to have a role as Rule-setter are listed in table 5. Rule-setters are closely connected to Owners as they are the main executers of the rules, and to Planners whom influence policy guidelines for the long term. A sub-role of the Rule-setter is the Sponsor. This sub-role occurs when a Rule-setter provides the funds or capacity for other actors. The crucial difference between a sub-role and a ‘regular’ role is that a sub-role always occurs within that role, and that its

(36)

36 execution is dependent on the actor having the main role. So to exemplify, not all the Rule-setters acted as Sponsors so it is not just a behaviour that comes with the Rule-setter role, but all the Sponsors were in fact Rule-setters. While not every authoritary actor has to give funds in order to exert this power, the ability to sponsor other actors is linked to a power position. This means that being a Sponsor is a separate part within the larger whole of the Rule-setter role that cannot exist outside of this larger role. And thus it classifies as a sub-role.

Table 5

Actors with a role as Rule-setter

Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council Rhode Island Statewide planning

Rhode Island State Senate

National Flood Insurance Program

Providence Department of Planning and Development Affiliated Insurance managers

Exemplary findings that contributed to the development of the Rule-setter and Sponsor roles follow. The short descriptions after the quotes are derived from the used abductive coding.

“Right. Could you expand that so that [Rule-setter] can do a survey of the whole property and basically point to things and say either you’re using this or it’s out of here? Or you need to have a plan to evacuate this piece of equipment?

Yeah I mean I think potentially that’s something that could be done, if we were to bring a policy into the program with respect to you know hurricane preparedness for example, port facilities, yeah that’s something that I think could be added in to the program, right now.” –

(37)

37 This fragment shows that the actor has the authoritative power to create rules by which they are allowed to inspect and enforce resilience measures. This is also a sign that the rule-setting and executive branches of power are intertwined in this case.

“But then through the comprehensive planning legislation we’re going to push

that requirement down to municipalities, to require them at a minimum, step one, identify what they have at risk under these three scenarios, and then to subsequently push them towards identifying what those adaptation measures are going to be for those. That’s really the biggest thing we’re doing.” – Rule-setter is forcing municipalities to run risk assessments

and identify adaptation measures.

Here we see that this particular actor is more powerful than local governments. The actor is using its authority to force the municipalities to go through the cycle of identifying risks and countering measures.

“A: Right. Do you feel like there are sufficient resources now to look at some of these issues? And to try to develop options or facilitate the process of developing options? B: I’m pretty sure [Planner] itself does not. We are in such a dire budget situation. A: Right. B: I think you know the more I think of it I think it’s more up to the [Sponsor] to sort of kick our butts and give us the money to start planning.” – Planner does not have the needed resources,

but needs them from Sponsor to jumpstart the planning process.

This fragment shows an example of the Sponsor sub-role. What happens is an actor, here a Planner, does not have the needed funds to perform its task. It requests the support of a certain Rule-setter which then assumes the sub-role of Sponsor in order to facilitate the actor to perform.

(38)

38 4.2.2 Networker

Networkers are actors who connect other parties in order to share information or to allow them to cooperate. Networkers often work with various types of actors and attempt to use this engagement to reach their goals. Within the role of networker, no authoritative power is used to enforce cooperation. They are either motivated by democratic mandates to host conferences and meetings, or by profit as they are sometimes hired by third parties. The found Networker-role shares a lot of similarities with the portal-Networker-role as described by Bertels et al. (2014). The actors with a networker-role are presented in Table 6.

Table 6

Actors with a role as Networker

Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency

Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation Providence Emergency Management Agency

Providence Department of Planning and Development Moran Shipping Agencies

Save the Bay (2nd) Coast Guard

Note: 2nd means that the actor wasn't directly interviewed

Some contributing interview sections along with their coding are:

“We do. We do work with the communities in fact we we have over the past I’d say close to 6 months now we’ve started a pilot project looking at sea level rise issues in one community and part of that is to it’s a risk vulnerability analysis with a mapping effort to look at the extent of different sea level rise scenarios but also another layer on top of that is storm surge

(39)

39

from a major event…. Yeah you know this is going to be a big education effort outreach to the communities and you know working not only with the emergency management agency but also with like the port authority in Providence.” – Networker is looking at climate scenarios

with communities and cooperating with various actors.

Here, the actor states that it has started a pilot project in which it uses expert information to engage different communities and educate them. The actor uses its relationships to use knowledge from the Knowledge expert to stimulate engagement of specialized agencies, authorities and communities.

“We do a lot of inter-agency networking ‘cause some agencies have a specific tunnel vision on what their little piece of the world is. Where I’m more concerned with not just one specific sector, but the 18, all the sectors and they might not necessarily be present in the port but they’re impacted by the port such as the energy sector.” – Networker is combining the

perspectives of various agencies.

This piece of transcript shows how a networker engages agencies to disable the tunnel vision that is occurring. The Networker attempts to connect the agencies from the 18 different sectors so that they are inclined to look at the larger picture rather than to just take their own responsibilities into regard.

“So for us the bulk of our efforts and preparedness is to ensure that we have a documented procedure in order to help people actors from the government to commercial shippers to the terminals understand the status of what’s going on, you know if a particular facility was flooded then we would be one of the first to know that because of the relationships that we have and we would make that information available as appropriate.” – Networker

uses relationships to keep actors connected and informed in case of emergencies.

Here, there is a Networker that has specialized on spreading information. It uses its relationships to ensure immediate access to information about what is going on, and then

(40)

40 passes that information to any actors that need to know about it. This shows that while all Networkers specialize in facilitating communication between other actors, there is differ ence in the reasons behind that communications.

4.2.3 Knowledge expert

Knowledge experts try to obtain better information about and understanding of a certain topic. They then communicate this knowledge directly or with the help of a networker, after which it can be used for, for example, long term planning and legislation. They are often academic institutions, or public actors who directly work in the field of expertise. Actors that play the role of Knowledge expert are presented in Table 7.

Table 7

Actors with a role as Knowledge expert

Rhode Island Statewide planning

Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management Save the Bay

University of Rhode Island Brown University

Providence Emergency Management Agency

An example of contributing interview sections along with their coding is:

“Well we did ask for, we did ask the director of [Knowledge expert] to give us input for comprehensive plan, including the existing hazard mitigation plan and anything we may not have, you know, gleaned just from knowing about it.” – Knowledge expert consults

(41)

41 The above is an example of how a Knowledge expert uses its expertise to influence and facilitate Rule-setters. This knowledge is used to inform scenario analysis on which countering measures and response plans are based.

“Beyond. Municipalities, non-profits, and state and federal governments. On

identifying vulnerabilities and mainstreaming adaptation into their programs.” – Knowledge

expert helps various actors identify vulnerabilities.

Here, the Knowledge expert takes a more proactive stance. It uses its expertise to unveil the risks and vulnerabilities in the hope that other actors will start including adaptation as a main ingredient in their actions.

“[Planner] has been way way ahead of the curve here in terms of recognizing this as a problem and then getting this implemented, right? So we went through this exercise, I worked with them on [Knowledge expert] did most of the the lions share on sea level rise, and [Knowledge expert] and I did some other support in terms of storm surge, but they’ve been way ahead in terms of storm surge, saying here are the levels you can look at, and you’re looking at planning.” – Knowledge expert is cooperation with Planner in calculating

scenarios.

This is a transcript section that exemplifies the cooperation between Planners and Knowledge experts. What is seen here is that knowledge experts use their capabilities to provide advanced input for the planners. This helps the planners to develop more accurate future scenarios, which in turn facilitates the development of better mitigation plans and other efforts.

4.2.4 Planner

Planners are actors who incorporate the knowledge of the knowledge experts to create an image of future needs. Then they use this information to devise long term plans in which they try to match the envisioned needs of the future. They are mostly governmental institutions as

(42)

42 this facilitates their strong link with the Rule-setters through whom they influence policy. The other strong connection is that with the Knowledge experts which provide them with an important input on which to base the image of the future and its needs. The actors which play a role as planner are shown in Table 8.

Table 8

Actors with a role as Planner

Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council Rhode Island Statewide planning

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management Providence Department of Planning and Development

Examples of interview sections, along with their coding, that contributed to defining the Planner role are:

“Our agency, while we don’t get deeply involved in those kinds of details with emergency planning and response, we are more interested in sort of the long term big picture vision relative to storm impact, and what we can do to prepare the immediate coastal shoreline what policies we should have in place to address major hurricanes as well as the implications for sea level rise.” – Planner is looking at the long-term big picture with regard to climate

change.

The important element of the previous section is that the Planner contrasts itself with actors that are looking at emergency response. The Planner stresses that it is looking at the long-term and the overall picture so that it can identify the policies that Rule-setters need to develop in order to enhance resilience.

(43)

43

“I think so. I think so. I mean that is that’s supposed to be the overarching guidance and then each of the municipal plans are supposed to be in accordance with that, and I you know how they work together is not quite my thing. But that’s you know I think it this way you have that driver.” – Planner has created an overarching plan to provide guidance.

This fragment exemplifies the relation between the Rule-setters and Planners, by illustrating how the Planner creates a long term plan that provides ‘overarching guidance’. This is then followed by Rule-setters who translate the plan into concrete policies.

“And oddly enough I went through them, and I realized that a lot of things I’ve done is planning for climate change even though I don’t think of it in that context, more like planning for environmentally sound practices. But what I end up finding is that almost everyone that was speaking was talking about flood vulnerability.” – Planner tries to develop practices to

prepare for environmental change

Here the planner takes on a bit more concrete approach though translating its long term plans into environmentally sound practices. The actor recognizes that this is part of overall long-term planning for climate change.

4.2.5 Coordinator

Coordinators try to integrate the plans and practices of different actors into a coherent whole. Coordinators often have a certain degree of authority within their field to enforce the

cooperation of other actors. Often Coordinators will also perform role behaviour of the type they are integrating. Although inductively built up, the found Coordinator role shares a lot of resemblance to the coordinator as defined by Bertels et al. (2014). The actors which play a role as Coordinator are shown in Table 9.

Roles on the road to resilience : a case-study of the Providence sea-port system