Mechanisms influencing mainstreaming of adaptation in spatial development: case studies in three Dutch municipalities

Figures & data

Table 1. Overview and comparison of concepts used in adaptation literature.

Concept	Explanation in the context of this study	Knowledge type
Barriers to climate adaptation (Moser and Ekstrom 2010)	Variables indicating that actors do or do not take on responsibility or feel responsible for the mainstreaming of adaptation in urban renewal projects	Descriptive
First-tier barriers and opportunities for urban adaptation planning (Lehmann et al. 2015)
Superficially identified barriers (Biesbroek et al. 2014)
Mainstreaming drivers and barriers (Runhaar et al. 2018)
Structural elements of adaptation (Moser and Ekstrom 2010)	Variables indicating the root causes of why actors do or do not take on responsibility or feel responsible for the mainstreaming of adaptation in urban renewal projects	Explanatory
Second-tier barriers and opportunities for urban adaptation planning (Lehmann et al. 2015)
Mechanism (Biesbroek et al. 2014)	Recurring process (consisting of actors and the activity they engage in) that can be considered to account for why actors do or do not take on responsibility or feel responsible for the mainstreaming of adaptation in urban renewal projects	Explanatory
Causal mechanism (Beach and Pedersen 2013)

Table 2. Process tracing of the mechanisms hampering the mainstreaming of adaptation in the three empirical cases.

1. Observable manifestations of the ‘institutional void mechanism’ in a chain of events			Observable manifestation of Y
1.1	The urban design handbook for spatial development used by the municipality was unsuitable for innovative adaptation (Nieuwegein)	Programme managers referred to this handbook to reject adaptation measures (Nieuwegein)	No mainstreaming of adaptation in urban renewal (Utrecht, Nieuwegein)
1.2	In the absence of an administratively determined adaptation policy framework, sectoral departments were not confronted with hard agreements and enforceable adaptation goals (Utrecht)	Sectoral departments prioritized regulated tasks over unregulated adaptation ambitions (Utrecht)
1.3	The municipality had ambitions but had not prioritized any in the project requirements (Utrecht)	All decisions about which adaptation measures to include in the spatial design were made by urban designers (Utrecht)
1.4	The municipality did not specify technical aspects of adaptation (Utrecht)	Urban designers struggled with translating adaptation into elementary measures (Utrecht)
2. Observable manifestations of the ‘avoidance of administrative responsibility mechanism’ in a chain of events			Observable manifestation of Y
2.1	“Green” and “grey” departments had a siloed mentality (Utrecht)	Departments worked at cross purposes without exploring the benefits of spatial measures with multiple functions (e.g. green space, ecology and water retention) (Utrecht)	No mainstreaming of adaptation in urban renewal (Utrecht, Nieuwegein)
2.2	Sectoral departments and policy advisors lacked experience with unintended effects of adaptation measures (Utrecht)	Sectoral departments were reluctant to risk any unexpected responsibilities for maintenance (Utrecht)
2.3	Municipal departments did not consider adaptation as part of their job (Nieuwegein)	Sectoral departments were unwilling to spend their budget on adaptation measures or additional maintenance that adaptation measures require (Nieuwegein)
3. Observable manifestations of the ‘aversion to innovation mechanism’ in a chain of events			Observable manifestation of Y
3.1	Sectoral departments were familiar with business-as-usual measures for spatial development (Nieuwegein)	Sectoral departments rejected more climate-proof measures, as these deviated from existing norms and standards (Nieuwegein)	No mainstreaming of adaptation in urban renewal (Utrecht, Nieuwegein)
3.2	Policy advisors lacked experience with possible unwanted side-effects of innovative solutions (Utrecht)	Sectoral departments were unwilling to take the risks that accompany more innovative solutions (Utrecht)
3.3	The municipality received a grant from the national Delta Programme for experimentation (Houten, Nieuwegein)	Policy advisor and programme managers did not depend on the commitment or approval of sectoral departments (Houten, Nieuwegein)	Mainstreaming of innovative adaptation in urban renewal (Houten, Nieuwegein)
4. Observable manifestations of the ‘avoidance of private responsibility mechanism’ in a chain of events			Observable manifestation of Y
4.1	Citizens considered the municipality to be responsible for adaptation (Houten)	Citizens did not feel an urgent need for adaptation (Houten)	Private actors barely contributed to the mainstreaming of adaptation in urban renewal (Houten, Nieuwegein, Utrecht)
4.2	Citizens prioritized legal obligations and day-today matters (Houten, Utrecht)	Citizens did not feel an urgent need for adaptation (Houten, Utrecht)
4.3	No enforcement of the requirement not to exceed a maximum paved area in private gardens (Utrecht)	Citizens did not feel an urgent need for adaptation (Utrecht)
4.4	Citizens lacked knowledge on adaptation (Nieuwegein)	Citizens feared potential risks of measures such as green façades (Nieuwegein)
4.5	Housing corporations were unable to quantify the benefits of adaptation (Utrecht)	Housing corporations wanted to avoid higher rents (Utrecht)
4.6	The national government has no legally binding performance agreements for adaptation (Utrecht)	Housing corporations prioritized legally binding performance agreements (e.g. for climate mitigation) over adaptation (Utrecht)
4.7	Housing corporations held tenants responsible for adaptation (Utrecht)	Tenants held housing corporations responsible for adaptation (Utrecht)

Table 3. Process-tracing of the mechanisms stimulating mainstreaming of adaptation in the three municipalities.

5. Observable manifestations of the ‘window of opportunity exploitation mechanism’ in a chain of events			Observable manifestation of Y
5.1	The municipality experienced an extreme weather event (Houten)	Municipal awareness of the need for adaptation grew and the municipality decided to adapt the city hall square to climate change (Houten)	Mainstreaming of adaptation in urban renewal took place (Houten, Nieuwegein, Utrecht)
5.2	The municipality experienced an extreme weather event (Nieuwegein)	Municipal awareness of the need for adaptation grew and the municipal council provided an additional budget for adaptation (Nieuwegein)
5.3	The municipality assessed the current spatial design for planned urban renewal projects (Houten, Nieuwegein, Utrecht)	The municipality foresaw climate-related problems in the future and decided to integrate adaptation (Houten, Nieuwegein, Utrecht)
5.4	The municipality received a grant from the national Delta Programme for mainstreaming adaptation in urban renewal projects (Houten, Nieuwegein, Utrecht)	The policy advisor and programme managers were able to demonstrate the financial feasibility of some innovative adaptation measures (Houten, Nieuwegein)
6. Observable manifestations of the ‘efficient coupling mechanism’ in a chain of events			Observable manifestation of Y
6.1	The policy advisors and programme manager linked adaptation with planned urban renewal projects (Houten, Nieuwegein, Utrecht)	The policy advisor and programme managers were able to use funds from multiple sources (Houten, Nieuwegein, Utrecht)	Mainstreaming of adaptation in urban renewal took place (Houten, Nieuwegein, Utrecht)
7. Observable manifestations of the ‘policy entrepreneurship mechanism’ in a chain of events			Observable manifestation of Y
7.1	The municipality appointed policy advisors on adaptation (Utrecht, Nieuwegein)	Policy advisors actively promoted adaptation in sectoral departments (Utrecht, Nieuwegein)	Mainstreaming of adaptation in urban renewal took place (Houten, Nieuwegein, Utrecht)
7.2	The municipality appointed policy advisors on adaptation (Utrecht, Nieuwegein)	Policy advisors found and exploited policy opportunities to implement adaptation (Utrecht, Nieuwegein)
7.3	The programme manager aspired to make the municipality frontrunner in adaptation (Houten)	The programme manager found and exploited policy opportunities to implement adaptation (Houten)

Moser, S. C., and J. A. Ekstrom. 2010. “A Framework to Diagnose Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation.” Sustainability Science 107 (51): 22026–22031. doi:10.1073/pnas.1007887107/-/DCSupplemental.www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1007887107.

 Google Scholar

Lehmann, P., M. Brenck, O. Gebhardt, S. Schaller, and E. Süßbauer. 2015. “Barriers and Opportunities for Urban Adaptation Planning: Analytical Framework and Evidence from Cities in Latin America and Germany.” Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 20 (1): 75–97. doi:10.1007/s11027-013-9480-0.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Biesbroek, R., C. J. A. M. Termeer, J. E. M. Klostermann, and P. Kabat. 2014. “Rethinking Barriers to Adaptation: Mechanism-Based Explanation of Impasses in the Governance of an Innovative Adaptation Measure.” Global Environmental Change 26: 108–118. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.004.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Runhaar, H., B. Wilk, Å. Persson, C. Uittenbroek, and C. Wamsler. 2018. “Mainstreaming Climate Adaptation: Taking Stock about ‘What Works’ from Empirical Research Worldwide.” Regional Environmental Change 18 (4): 1201–1210. doi:10.1007/s10113-017-1259-5.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Beach, D, and R. B. Pedersen. 2013. Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and guidelines. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. doi:10.3998/mpub.10072208.

 Google Scholar