Climate adaptation on the crossroads of multiple boundaries. Managing boundaries in a complex programme context

References

• Abbott, A. (1995). Things of boundaries. Social Research, 62(4), 857–882.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boeije, H. (2009). Analysis in qualitative research. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Bressers, H. (2010). Governance and complexity in water management : Creating cooperation through boundary spanning strategies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Buijs, J. (2018). Capacity for complexity : Evolving connective capacities of program management in complex governance processes (PhD Thesis). Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Busscher, T. (2014). Towards a programme-oriented planning approach: Linking strategies and projects for adaptive infrastructure planning (PhD Thesis). University of Groningen, Groningen.
   Google Scholar
• Degeling, P. (1995). The significance of ‘sectors’ in calls for public health intersectoralism: An Australian perspective. Policy & Politics, 23(4), 289–301. doi: 10.1332/030557395782200518
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Derkzen, P., Bock, B., & Wiskerke, J. (2009). Integrated rural policy in context: A case study on the meaning of ‘Integration’ and the politics of ‘Sectoring’. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 11(2), 143–163. doi: 10.1080/15239080902920126
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein, C. (1992). Tinkerbells and pinups: The construction and reconstruction of gender boundaries at work. In M. Lamont & M. Fournier (Eds.), Cultivating differences: Symbolic boundaries and the making of inequality (pp. 232–256). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ernst, C., & Chrobot-Mason, D. (2010). Boundary spanning leadership: Six practices for solving problems, driving innovation, and transforming organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Herk, S., Rijke, J., Zevenbergen, C., Ashley, R., & Besseling, B. (2015). Adaptive co-management and network learning in the Room for the River programme. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58(3), 554–575. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2013.873364
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernes, T. (2003). Enabling and constraining properties of organizational boundaries. In N. Paulsen & T. Hernes (Eds.), Managing boundaries in organizations: Multiple perspectives (pp. 35–55). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Hernes, T. (2004). Studying composite boundaries: A framework of analysis. Human Relations, 57(1), 9–29. doi: 10.1177/0018726704042712
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Immink, I. (2005). Established and recent policy arrangements for river management in The Netherlands: An analysis of discourses. In B. Tress, G. Tress, G. Fry, & P. Opdam (Eds.), From landscape research to landscape planning: Aspects of integration, education and application (pp. 387–404). Berlin : Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kerosuo, H. (2006). Boundaries in action: An activity-theoretical study of development, learning and change in health care for patients with multiple and chronic illnesses (PhD thesis). Helsinki University Press, Helsinki.
   Google Scholar
• Klerkx, L., Aarts, N., & Leeuwis, C. (2010). Adaptive management in agricultural innovation systems: The interactions between innovation networks and their environment. Agricultural Systems, 103(6), 390–400. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2010.03.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klerkx, L., van Bommel, S., Bos, B., Holster, H., & Zwartkruis, J. (2012). Design process outputs as boundary objects in agricultural innovation projects: Functions and limitations. Agricultural Systems, 113(2012), 39–49. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2012.07.006
   Google Scholar
• Lamont, M., & Molnár, V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28(1) 167–195. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141107
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, L., Magellan Horth, D., & Ernst, C. (2014). Boundary spanning in action: Tactics for transforming today’s borders into tomorrow’s frontiers. Greensboro, NC: Centre for Creative Leadership.
   Google Scholar
• Lehtonen, P., & Martinsuo, M. (2009). Integrating the change program with the parent organization. International Journal of Project Management, 27(2), 154–165. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2005). The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 29(2), 335–363. doi: 10.2307/25148682
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lycett, M., Rassau, A., & Danson, J. (2004). Programme management: A critical review. International Journal of Project Management, 22(4), 289–299. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2003.06.001
   Google Scholar
• Marshall, N. (2003). Identity and difference in complex projects: Why boundaries still matter in the ‘Boundaryless’ organisation. In N. Paulsen & T. Hernes (Eds.), Managing boundaries in organizations: Multiple perspectives (pp. 35–55). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• O’Farrell, P., & Anderson, P. (2010). Sustainable multifunctional landscapes: A review to implementation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(1–2), 59–65. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2010.02.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Opdam, P., Westerink, J., Vos, C., & Vries, B. (2015). The role and evolution of boundary concepts in transdisciplinary landscape planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 16(1), 63–78. doi: 10.1080/14649357.2014.997786
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pellegrinelli, S. (2011). What’s in a name: Project or programme? International Journal of Project Management, 29(2), 232–240. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.02.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pellegrinelli, S., Partington, D., Hemingway, C., Mohdzain, Z., & Shah, M. (2007). The importance of context in programme management: An empirical review of programme practices. International Journal of Project Management, 25(1), 41–55. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.06.002
   Google Scholar
• Star, S., & Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘Translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420. doi: 10.1177/030631289019003001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thiry, M. (2004). “For DAD”: A programme management life-cycle process. International Journal of Project Management, 22(3), 245–252. doi: 10.1016/S0263-7863(03)00064-4
   Google Scholar
• Tushman, M., & Scanlan, T. (1981). Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and their antecedents. The Academy of Management Journal, 24(2), 289–305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Broekhoven, S., & Boons, F. (in review). Managing boundaries over time in integrative planning processes: A process analysis of two cases of multifunctional land use.
   Google Scholar
• Van Broekhoven, S., Boons, F., Van Buuren, A., & Teisman, G. (2015). Boundaries in action: A framework to analyse boundary actions in multifunctional land-use developments. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 33(5), 1005–1023. doi: 10.1177/0263774X15605927
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Broekhoven, S., & Vernay, A. (2018). Integrating functions for a sustainable urban system: A review of multifunctional land use and circular urban metabolism. Sustainability, 10(6), 1875. doi: 10.3390/su10061875
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Buuren, A., Buijs, J.-M., & Teisman, G. (2010). Program management and the creative art of coopetition: Dealing with potential tensions and synergies between spatial development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 28(7), 672–682. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Buuren, A., Edelenbos, J., & Klijn, E. (2010). Gebiedsontwikkeling in woelig water : over water governance bewegend tussen adaptief waterbeheer en ruimtelijke besluitvorming. Den Haag: Boom Lemma uitgevers.
   Google Scholar
• Van Buuren, A., Teisman, G., Verkerk, J., & Elderling, M. (2014). Samen verder werken aan de Delta. Rotterdam: Erasmus University.
   Google Scholar
• Westerink, J. (2016). Making a difference: Boundary management in spatial governance (PhD Thesis). Wageningen University, Wageningen.
   Google Scholar
• Westerink, J., Lagendijk, A., Dühr, S., Jagt, P., & Kempenaar, A. (2013). Contested spaces? The use of place concepts to communicate visions for peri-urban areas. European Planning Studies, 21(6), 780–800. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2012.665042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westerink, J., Opdam, P., van Rooij, S., & Steingröver, E. (2017). Landscape services as boundary concept in landscape governance: Building social capital in collaboration and adapting the landscape. Land Use Policy, 60, 408–418. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.11.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiering, M., & Immink, I. (2006). When water management meets spatial planning: A policy-arrangements perspective. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 24(3), 423–438. doi: 10.1068/c0417j
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, P. (2002). The competent boundary spanner. Public Administration, 80(1), 103–124. doi: 10.1111/1467-9299.00296
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar