Suchergebnisse

Abstract
Scholars have undertaken much conceptual development of "polycentric" climate governance (PCG). Yet, there has been limited empirical examination of whether this descriptive, analytical, and normative concept can aid climate change mitigation; it may even undermine our efforts in certain contexts. Thus this special issue examines the empirical realities of PCG. Building from a shared definition of the concept, the constitutive articles analyze an exploratory range of systems, across policy styles, governance levels, and types of actors. Here we consolidate the findings of the articles by identifying five key themes that are drawn from across the special issue, for consideration in future research. These themes are operationalization of PCG systems; voluntary action; temporality; power; and, crucially, effectiveness in mitigating climate change. Our findings provide evidence from a wide range of contexts, from which we build to propose new research streams on this topic.

Abstract
In recent years, climate governance has shifted from the global, multilateral regime to voluntary initiatives from multiple directions. Scholars frequently use a polycentric governance lens to study the complex and multijurisdictional reality. The polycentric perspective helps to grasp the new reality at a general level, but it is lacking in specificity. To fill this research gap, this article attempts to enhance the analytical power of the polycentric governance perspective by exploring four issues: the role of the state, diffusion of local action, integration of local democratic preferences, and the role of power. These issues are discussed by doing a systematic literature review of empirical polycentric governance literature regarding climate change mitigation. The results show the importance of states at the national level and provide insights into how local initiatives share and transfer knowledge, get supported by transnational networks, and secure compliance with local democratic preferences. The literature gives less insight related to power. The article concludes by developing research agendas for further cumulation of knowledge and to strengthen climate action at all levels.

AbstractPolycentric governance (PG) describes governance systems characterized by multiple, interdependent centers of decision‐making, offering an alternative to centralized governance models. PG is often assumed to be effective at helping policy actors address complex collective action problems, but burgeoning empirical literature on PG shows that it is not a panacea – PG is associated with both positive and negative governance outcomes. In this article, we ask: what do we know about why PG performs well in some cases but not in others? We start with a systematic review, synthesizing findings that provide empirical support for positive and negative features that are theorized to accompany PG. Our review reveals a critical gap in relation to our understanding of PG: the existing empirical literature largely fails to address change and evolution over time in PG systems, undermining our understanding of why PG works – or does not– across different contexts and over time. To fill this gap, we propose a "Context – Operations – Outcomes – Feedbacks" (COOF) framework that draws explicit attention to the interplay between context, operational arrangements, outcomes and identifies feedback pathways and adjustment mechanisms that drive dynamic change and evolution over time.

Many resource regimes in advanced democracies are complex rather than integrated (due to the sectoral division of labor within public administrations, the lack of transversal coordination, competition for resources, strong property rights, etc.), leading to contradictory incentives in resource management. This presentation shows how governance processes are evolving to regulate competing multifunctional water uses under climate change in Oberhasli (BE), in the Swiss Alps. Our approach combines the frameworks of Institutional Resource Regimes (IRR) and Polycentric Governance. The IRR framework stipulates that formal institutional rules – public policies and property rights – shape the leeway that is available to resource users for defining localized resource-use modalities. Polycentric governance systems are those in which political authority is dispersed amongst a range of bodies that operate in overlapping jurisdictions which are not in a hierarchical relationship to one another. Recent scholarship suggests that polycentric organization of governance has a higher capacity to deal with complex challenges arising from climate change. The project aims to analyze under which conditions polycentricity can lead to a better coordination of resource uses. We performed a detailed case study to analyze governance processes of climate change mitigation and adaptation in Switzerland. Data were collected through 22 semi-structured interviews between 2016 and 2018 and document analysis. The results show that if the number of regulations increases and if simultaneously their coherence decreases, then these constellations promotes polycentric governance. The results further show the conditions under which polycentric governance improves or not the coordination of resource uses.

Aufgrund des Klimawandels werden Schneedecke und Gletschermasse abnehmen, Niederschläge sich mehr in den Winter verschieben, und es muss mit häufigeren Sommertrockenheiten gerechnet werden. Gleichzeitig wird erwartet, dass die Nachfrage nach Wasser, insbesondere durch die Landwirtschaft, in den Sommermonaten zunehmen wird. In diesem Bericht wird aufgezeigt, welche Herausforderungen sich aus Sicht der Governance, der Ökologie, des Landschaftsschutzes und der Ökonomie für die Mehrzwecknutzung von Speichern stellen und wie diese gelöst werden können. Der Bericht zeigt, welche Herausforderungen für Wassernutzungen von Speichern in der Schweiz von besonderer Bedeutung sind: (1) Mangelnde Datengrundlage zu hydrologischen und sozio-ökonomischen Auswirkungen einer Mehrzwecknutzung; (2) Mangelndes Bewusstsein bezüglich (zukünftiger) saisonaler und regionaler Wasserknappheiten; (3) Ungenügende prozessuale und rechtliche Koordination verschiedener Nutzungen; (4) Mangelnde Strategien zum Umgang mit Wasserknappheit; (5) Mangelnde Anpassungsfähigkeit an den Klimawandel und an sozio-ökonomische Veränderungen; (6) Ungeklärte Zielkonflikte zwischen (a) Schutz- und Nutzungsinteressen und (b) zwischen Mitigation (Wasserkraft) und Anpassung (Bewässerung, Ökologie) an den Klimawandel. Folgende Ansätze im Umgang mit den Herausforderungen werden aufgezeigt: (1) Erhöhung des Bewusstseins in Bezug auf Wasserknappheiten und Erarbeitung von Datengrundlagen; (2) Umsetzung von konkreten Empfehlungen für die öffentliche Politik und Gesetze; und (3) Einhaltung von bestimmten Design-Kriterien bei partizipativen Prozessen zur Erarbeitung von Möglichkeiten einer Mehrzwecknutzung.