Suchergebnisse

This volume presents empirical studies and theoretical reflections on Evolutionary Governance Theory (EGT), its most important concepts and their interrelations. As a novel theory of governance, EGT understands governance as radically evolutionary, which implies that all elements of governance are subject to evolution, that these elements co-evolve and that many of them are the product of governance itself. Through this book we learn how communities understand themselves and their environment and why they create the complex structures and processes we analyze as governance paths. Authors from different disciplines develop the EGT framework further and apply it to a wide rage networks of power, governance of agricultural resources etc. The contributors also reflect on the possibilities and limitations of steering, intervention, management and development in a world continuously in flux. It bridges the gap between more fundamental and philosophical accounts of the social sciences and applied studies, offering theoretical advancements as well as practical recommendations. Raoul Beunenis Assistant Professor of Environmental Governance at the Faculty of Management, Science Technology at the Open University, Netherlands and Visiting Researcher at the Strategic Communication Group of Wageningen University. He works on Evolutionary Governance Theory in the fields of natural resource management and spatial planning. His research explores the potentials and limitations of environmental policy and planning in the perspective of adaptive governance and sustainability.Kristof Van Asscheis Associate Professor at the University of Alberta, Visiting Associate Professor in Strategic Communication, Wageningen University, and Research Fellow at ZEF/ Center for Development Research, Bonn University. He is interested in evolution and innovation in governance, with focus areas in development, environment, spatial planning and design. His work is often comparative in nature, including a fieldwork component and theoretical reflections.Martijn Duineveldis Assistant Professor of Cultural Geography at Wageningen University. He works on Evolutionary Governance Theory in the fields of geography and urban planning. He studies the dynamics of power / knowledge and places, processes of inclusion and exclusion, object- and subject formation in Governance. He teaches on human geography, cultural geography, sustainability, landscape architecture and planning. He is active in both academic and societal debates on citizenship, planning, governance and democratization.

In this paper, we present a framework for the analysis of shock and conflict in social-ecological systems and investigate the implications of this perspective for the understanding of environmental governance, particularly its evolutionary patterns and drivers. We dwell on the distinction between shock and conflict. In mapping the relation between shock and conflict, we invoke a different potentiality for altering rigidity and flexibility in governance; different possibilities for recall, revival and trauma; and different pathways for restructuring the relation between governance, community and environment. Shock and conflict can be both productive and eroding, and for each, one can observe that productivity can be positive or negative. These different effects in governance can be analyzed in terms of object and subject creation, path creation and in terms of the dependencies recognized by evolutionary governance theory: path, inter-, goal and material dependencies. Thus, shock and conflict are mapped in their potential consequences to not only shift a path of governance, but also to transform the pattern of self-transformation in such path. Finally, we reflect on what this means for the interpretation of adaptive governance of social-ecological systems.

In this Special Issue, we interrogate and evaluate the concept of institutional work in the domain of environmental governance, by bringing together diverse papers spanning a range of substantive and theoretical approaches. The papers apply the concept of institutional work across fields of regional development, water governance, climate change adaptation, and urban planning, and disciplines of planning, sociology, political science, geography, and anthropology. As a whole, the Special Issue contributes to a growing body of literature exploring the role of agency in processes of institutional change. This has implications for environmental governance scholarship, which emphasises the role of institutions across all scales from local to global and to understanding transformations in governance systems within which institutional change plays a central role.

In this special issue, we present a number of distinct contributions to recent debates on the interlinkage between place branding with spatial planning theory and the embedded of both in governance. The idea to organise this special issue emerged from our common research interests. For us it was rather puzzling that planning and branding had not been connected in a systematic manner, either in theory or in practice. The encouragement towards this special issue occurred after a post-conference meeting in Amsterdam, The Netherlands in September 2017. As guest editors, we had been convinced of the potential of place branding as a way to make planning more sensitive to its own potential for encouraging value creation and support spatial transformation. We never considered this a way to maximizing value or to subjugate spatial planning to a capitalist system. But we did believe that spatial planning in a capitalist context would make itself very vulnerable if it was not sensitive to issues of economic value, and also sensitive to arguments and lobbying by developers, property owners, and citizens. We had a strong feeling that place branding perspectives could render planning more sensitive in this regard, and we were, to some extent, exhausted with schematic discussions of planning being seen as an opponent of free enterprise and property rights and place branding represented as the 'handmaiden of capitalism'. We believed that place branding had the potential to protect and preserve what is valuable to a community, but that it had to develop at least a greater awareness of the issues of democratic legitimacy engendered by its claims to importance. We wanted to get a deeper understanding of this problematic separation and invite authors from two sides of the divide to think about the other side. And it was not easy. The marketing roots of place branding made it hard for some authors to envision branding in the frame of governance, and in that frame to consider how it could get closer to planning. While in planning, intellectual but also administrative traditions made it hard to make connections at first. But we believe we did succeed in bringing together a group of competent and open minded authors who were willing to cross the divide and think about various possible ways to relate planning and branding. Sometimes, tough discussions were part of the game, and both contributors and guest editors had to re-examine their assumptions. We believe this happened, and we are proud of the result. This collection of papers, is certainly not the 'last word' in this debate but it is for sure a major step forward in the search for synergies between planning and branding. We assume that many possible relations are imaginable and practicable. When considering those possible synergies, one need to take into account the diversity of forms of planning and branding, as well as the diversity of situations, marked by different issues and assets. Many critiques of place branding and its former incarnation, place marketing, have focused on the bias towards economic development. This raised questions regarding the power of a small circle of experts (especially in places with a strong tourism sector), but also regarding the narrow focus of community development implied, the limited set of assets appreciated, the limited range of possible futures envisioned, or the small number of common goods articulated. The idea of spatial planning has been similarly captured, according to much of the academic literature, by narrow economic development goals, with old ambitions being routinely ditched to redefine planning as simply creating space for developers. A key argument of this special issue, one found in different forms in most of the contributions, is that effective synergies between planning and place branding requires a thorough understanding of planning and branding practices and the embedding of both in governance. This means looking beyond the labels, and beyond the self-presentations of both sets of professionals, and mapping out in detail how planning and branding really work in the given location. It also means that the actual (versus formal) position of each in broader governance configurations requires attention. Once an image of actual practices in a bigger governance system is sketched, the current impact of both planning and branding can be better understood, as can be their current relations, and some possibilities for re-configuring those relations. Furthermore, an understanding of the evolution of the governance system and its modes of self-transformation, helps to see how current forms of planning and branding might be transformed and brought into more fruitful relations. For most of the authors included in this special issue, two important concepts shared by planning and branding, are assets and narratives, with branding offering a promise to stabilize communities by creating place-based value sensitive to assets and narratives.

In this special issue, we present a number of distinct contributions to recent debates on the interlinkage between place branding with spatial planning theory and the embedded of both in governance. The idea to organise this special issue emerged from our common research interests. For us it was rather puzzling that planning and branding had not been connected in a systematic manner, either in theory or in practice. The encouragement towards this special issue occurred after a post-conference meeting in Amsterdam, The Netherlands in September 2017. As guest editors, we had been convinced of the potential of place branding as a way to make planning more sensitive to its own potential for encouraging value creation and support spatial transformation. We never considered this a way to maximizing value or to subjugate spatial planning to a capitalist system. But we did believe that spatial planning in a capitalist context would make itself very vulnerable if it was not sensitive to issues of economic value, and also sensitive to arguments and lobbying by developers, property owners, and citizens. We had a strong feeling that place branding perspectives could render planning more sensitive in this regard, and we were, to some extent, exhausted with schematic discussions of planning being seen as an opponent of free enterprise and property rights and place branding represented as the 'handmaiden of capitalism'. We believed that place branding had the potential to protect and preserve what is valuable to a community, but that it had to develop at least a greater awareness of the issues of democratic legitimacy engendered by its claims to importance. We wanted to get a deeper understanding of this problematic separation and invite authors from two sides of the divide to think about the other side. And it was not easy. The marketing roots of place branding made it hard for some authors to envision branding in the frame of governance, and in that frame to consider how it could get closer to planning. While in planning, intellectual but also administrative traditions made it hard to make connections at first. But we believe we did succeed in bringing together a group of competent and open minded authors who were willing to cross the divide and think about various possible ways to relate planning and branding. Sometimes, tough discussions were part of the game, and both contributors and guest editors had to re-examine their assumptions. We believe this happened, and we are proud of the result. This collection of papers, is certainly not the 'last word' in this debate but it is for sure a major step forward in the search for synergies between planning and branding. We assume that many possible relations are imaginable and practicable. When considering those possible synergies, one need to take into account the diversity of forms of planning and branding, as well as the diversity of situations, marked by different issues and assets. Many critiques of place branding and its former incarnation, place marketing, have focused on the bias towards economic development. This raised questions regarding the power of a small circle of experts (especially in places with a strong tourism sector), but also regarding the narrow focus of community development implied, the limited set of assets appreciated, the limited range of possible futures envisioned, or the small number of common goods articulated. The idea of spatial planning has been similarly captured, according to much of the academic literature, by narrow economic development goals, with old ambitions being routinely ditched to redefine planning as simply creating space for developers. A key argument of this special issue, one found in different forms in most of the contributions, is that effective synergies between planning and place branding requires a thorough understanding of planning and branding practices and the embedding of both in governance. This means looking beyond the labels, and beyond the self-presentations of both sets of professionals, and mapping out in detail how planning and branding really work in the given location. It also means that the actual (versus formal) position of each in broader governance configurations requires attention. Once an image of actual practices in a bigger governance system is sketched, the current impact of both planning and branding can be better understood, as can be their current relations, and some possibilities for re-configuring those relations. Furthermore, an understanding of the evolution of the governance system and its modes of self-transformation, helps to see how current forms of planning and branding might be transformed and brought into more fruitful relations. For most of the authors included in this special issue, two important concepts shared by planning and branding, are assets and narratives, with branding offering a promise to stabilize communities by creating place-based value sensitive to assets and narratives.

Steering has negative connotations nowadays in many discussions on governance, policy, politics and planning. The associations with the modernist state project linger on. At the same time, a rethinking of what is possible by means of policy and planning, what is possible through governance, which forms of change and which pursuits of common goods still make sense, in an era of cynicism about steering yet also high steering expectations, seems eminently useful. Between laissez faire and blue-print planning are many paths which can be walked. In this thematic issue, we highlight the value of evolutionary understandings of governance and of governance in society, in order to grasp which self-transformations of governance systems are more likely than others and which governance tools and ideas stand a better chance than others in a particular context. We pay particular attention to Evolutionary Governance Theory (EGT) as a perspective on governance which delineates steering options as stemming from a set of co-evolutions in governance. Understanding steering options requires, for EGT, path mapping of unique governance paths, as well as context mapping, the external contexts relevant for the mode of reproduction of the governance system in case. A rethinking of steering in governance, through the lens of EGT, can shed a light on governance for innovation, sustainability transitions, new forms of participation and self-organization. For EGT, co-evolutions and dependencies, not only limit but also shape possibilities of steering, per path and per domain of governance and policy.

Steering has negative connotations nowadays in many discussions on governance, policy, politics and planning. The associations with the modernist state project linger on. At the same time, a rethinking of what is possible by means of policy and planning, what is possible through governance, which forms of change and which pursuits of common goods still make sense, in an era of cynicism about steering yet also high steering expectations, seems eminently useful. Between laissez faire and blue-print planning are many paths which can be walked. In this thematic issue, we highlight the value of evolutionary understandings of governance and of governance in society, in order to grasp which self-transformations of governance systems are more likely than others and which governance tools and ideas stand a better chance than others in a particular context. We pay particular attention to Evolutionary Governance Theory (EGT) as a perspective on governance which delineates steering options as stemming from a set of co-evolutions in governance. Understanding steering options requires, for EGT, path mapping of unique governance paths, as well as context mapping, the external contexts relevant for the mode of reproduction of the governance system in case. A rethinking of steering in governance, through the lens of EGT, can shed a light on governance for innovation, sustainability transitions, new forms of participation and self-organization. For EGT, co-evolutions and dependencies, not only limit but also shape possibilities of steering, per path and per domain of governance and policy.

In this paper we reflect on the relationship between planning and law. We analyse the Dutch interpretation and implementation of the European Union Habitats and Birds Directives by investigating the practices of delineation of protected areas. These directives provide a legislative framework for the designation of protected sites as well as for decision making about social and economic activities that might have negative effects on the conservation objectives. The formal boundaries of the protected area can have legal, political, and economic consequences and are therefore the subject of much debate. Using Niklas Luhmann's social systems theory, we analyse the debates concerning delineation and the potential for planning to reduce tensions and balance interests. It is argued that the irreducible differences between the economic, political, and legal perspectives, in combination with the Dutch path of a legalistic interpretation of EU directives, have produced a situation in which the role of planning is reduced and new forms of planning are hard to implement.

Agri-environmental schemes have been introduced in numerous countries to combat biodiversity loss in agrarian landscapes that are important for both food production and biodiversity. The successful operation of such schemes depends strongly upon trust between actors involved, as well as trust in institutions that govern these schemes. However, the interplay between interpersonal and institutional trust in the context of collective action for agri-environmental management is not well understood. To address this question, we explore the case of agri-environmental management in the province of Drenthe (in The Netherlands), where a new policy model was implemented. This case shows how both institutional design and institutional performance critically influence trust dynamics. Under the old policy model, farmers struggled with auditing and control, which fostered mistrust and hampered collective action. Under the new model, a landscape approach, more responsibilities were delegated to farmers, and more room was created for interaction, which fostered trust both between actors and in institutions. Based on our findings, we conclude that institutional designs that reflect trust in the actors can foster interpersonal and institutional trust that, in turn, facilitates collective action. However, old arrangements can also create path dependencies that limit trust development and impede collective action for agri-environmental management.