Reinventing Environmental Planning
Papers:
==Zuidema (2016): ==chapter 4 – making decentralization work
Argument 1: Complexity as Criterion
Main Idea: The effectiveness of decentralization is contingent on the complexity of the governance context.
a. Take account of interrelatedness of issues, stakeholders and
objectives by addressing their unique contextual environment
b. Focus on ‘learning our way out’ in an ongoing policy process
Limited Complexity:
Central Guidance: In straightforward situations, reliance on a coordinative model and central authority is beneficial for efficiency and
effectiveness. This aligns with
Guideline 1: Routine Implementation for Limited Complexity, where standardized procedures are applied to
predictable scenarios
Constraints: This model may limit the ability to adapt to local circumstances and pursue proactive, integrated approaches
Increased Complexity:
Local Proximity: Decentralisation allows local authorities to respond more effectively to complex, interrelated policy issues and
stakeholder interests.
Tailored Solutions: Governance approaches can be customized to local needs, enhancing adaptability and responsiveness
Argument 2: Focus on Protection
Main Idea: Decentralisation shifts from fixed goals to multiple, composite goals, impacting governance capacity.
Debatable Goals:
As decentralization occurs, fixed environmental goals become negotiable at local levels, which can lead to more integrated policy
approaches. This reflects
Guideline 2: Guarantees Against Quality Thresholds, ensuring that minimal standards are met to protect equity
However, this may reduce the governance capacity to meet singular objectives
Minimum Protection:
Maintaining minimum environmental standards may requires keeping fixed goals in certain sectors to ensure protection
Argument 3: Responding to Constraints on Local Willingness and Ability
Main Idea: Local willingness and ability to implement decentralization are constrained by various factors.
Economies of Scale:
High levels of technical expertise are often required, making decentralization challenging without central support. This connects to
Guideline 3: Correct for Economies of Scale
addressing disadvantages from losing benefits associated with larger organizational resources
External Effects:
Local initiatives may be undermined by external factors, leading to free-rider problems where some benefit without contributing
Weak Profile:
Central influence is necessary to stimulate local willingness, potentially through financial incentives, penalties, or flexible regulations
Guideline 4: Mitigate Weak Profile and External Effects,
tackling issues arising from social dilemmas where individual interests conflict with collective benefits
Argument 4: Robust Policies to Enable Dynamic Approaches
Main Idea: Decentralization increases local authorities' workloads, necessitating supportive policies.
, Workload Management:
Local authorities may struggle to manage increased responsibilities without simplified regulations and robust central policies
Implementation of Central Policies:
A well-coordinated set of central policies is essential to empower localities to respond effectively to their new tasks
. This reinforces the need for a structured approach as outlined in Guideline 1.
Advantages and Disadvantages:
While decentralization has potential benefits, awareness of its challenges is crucial. The coordinative model should remain a robust
foundation for effective implementation
==De Boer & Zuidema (2015): ==Towards an integrated energy landscape
Local Energy Initiatives: Successful local energy initiatives benefit from their connection to the local physical and socio-economic
landscape. When these initiatives are upscaled, they contribute to an integrated energy landscape, which is a multifunctional system
where energy systems are interwoven with local contexts.
Transition to Sustainable Energy:
The transition towards sustainable energy systems is complex and requires careful planning that considers both physical landscapes and
local societal dynamics.
The shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources is driven by the limited availability of fossil fuels, greenhouse gas emissions, and
geopolitical uncertainties
Challenges:
Not all locations can harvest renewable energy equally; spatial characteristics affect the feasibility of different energy sources.
Many small-scale sustainable energy initiatives operate independently and are not part of a cohesive energy network, raising the question
of how to integrate them effectively.
Transition Thinking:
The energy transition occurs at three levels:
Macro-level: Slow-changing socio-technical landscapes.
Meso-level: Dominant actor networks and institutions that guide decision-making.
Micro-level: Dynamic niches where innovative ideas and practices develop.
Successful transitions require changes across all three levels, emphasizing the importance of both vertical and horizontal interactions
among societal domains
- Learning-by-Doing: Engaging in local energy initiatives fosters learning and societal change, as
communities adapt and innovate based on their unique contexts.
Integrated Energy Landscape:
An integrated energy landscape connects energy initiatives with broader societal developments and interests.
Top-down integration without local input can lead to resistance, while inclusive processes foster acceptance.
Area-Based Planning: This approach is crucial for understanding local needs and dynamics, involving residents and stakeholders in
collaborative planning processes.
Arguments in this paper: the importance of integrating local energy initiatives
Argument 1: Projects Matched with Existing Land-Use Functions
Ease of Development: Projects that align with current land-use functions are more straightforward to implement. This reduces the
likelihood of adverse spatial consequences, which can lead to community opposition.
Societal Resistance: By integrating renewable energy projects, such as solar panels on existing buildings, into established land-use
patterns, planners can minimize resistance from local communities. This aligns with the idea that local energy initiatives should be
embedded within the physical and socio-economic landscape to facilitate smoother implementation
Argument 2: Local Initiatives Based on Complementary Interests
Analysis:
Vulnerability Reduction: Initiatives that align with local interests—such as agriculture and biomass production—are less susceptible to
societal resistance and economic fluctuations. This synergy fosters a more resilient approach to energy production.
, Economic Viability: By combining multiple societal interests, these initiatives can attract capital more easily and spread financial risks.
This reflects the importance of creating integrated energy landscapes where energy systems are part of broader socio-economic activities,
enhancing their sustainability and acceptance (biolabels)
Argument 3: Embedding Initiatives in the Local Economy
Analysis:
Societal Trust and Support: Embedding energy initiatives within the local economy fosters community trust and participation. This is
crucial for reducing NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) sentiments, as local residents are more likely to support projects that consider their
interests and involve them in decision-making processes.
Local Knowledge Utilization: Leveraging local knowledge about the landscape and its potentials enhances the effectiveness of energy
initiatives. This aligns with the concept of area-based planning, which emphasizes the importance of understanding local contexts and
engaging stakeholders in collaborative planning.
==Castan Broto ==(2017): Urban Governance and Politics of Climate Change:
Summary
Local Governance Importance: Effective climate change action requires strong local governance, as cities serve as crucial arenas for
implementing sustainable development strategies.
Integration of Actions: Urban areas can innovate and bridge national climate commitments with local needs, emphasizing the need for
tailored responses to climate challenges.
Resilience and Vulnerability: Addressing structural inequalities is essential for building resilience in urban areas, highlighting the
coevolution of urban practices and ecosystems.
Multi-Level Governance: Engaging various stakeholders through participatory governance fosters community-based adaptation and
enhances the effectiveness of local sustainability initiatives.
Transformative Potential: Cities can drive significant change by integrating adaptation and mitigation efforts, showcasing the importance
of local actions in the broader context of sustainable development.
Conclusions
Urban governance is seen as a complementary approach to traditional governance methods for climate change.
The inclusion of urban goals in Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) reflects a shift in international discourse.
Cities must navigate their unique contexts rather than adhering to a one-size-fits-all global objective, as climate change drives innovation
and local action.
Jordan et al. (2005): The Rise of New Environmental Policy Instruments (EPIs)
Definition of NEPIs: New Environmental Policy Instruments (EPIs) are innovative tools designed to enhance environmental governance.
State Involvement: Most EPIs require some level of state involvement, with few being entirely independent of government influence. The
state is losing its steering ability as control shifts:
Upwards: To regional and international organizations (e.g., the EU).
Downwards: To local governments and devolved authorities.
Outwards: To international corporations, NGOs, and semi-private entities.
Shift in Governance: There is a decreased reliance on traditional command-and-control policies, leading to greater dependence on non-
state actors for governance.
Examples of EPIs:
Market-based Instruments: Ecotaxes, subsidies, and tradable permit systems.
Eco-labels: Labels (e.g., a/b/c ratings) that help consumers make informed choices.
Environmental Management Systems (EMSs): Frameworks that encourage industries to audit their environmental impact and share
information with stakeholders.
Voluntary Agreements: Contracts aimed at reducing emissions in specific sectors (e.g., automotive industry).
==Jordan (2013): ==Still the century of ‘new’ environmental policy instruments? Exploring patterns
Mismatch in Governance: There is a notable gap between the theoretical discussion of new environmental policy instruments (EPIs) and
their practical adoption among policymakers and academics.
Decline in Adoption: From 2003 to 2013, the use of EPIs decreased, partly due to the global recession and skepticism about the
effectiveness of self-governance, highlighting a widening disconnect between theory and practice.
Role of Hierarchy: Traditional hierarchical governance structures continue to play a crucial role in facilitating the adoption of new
governance modes, potentially leading to hybrid governance approaches.
Papers:
==Zuidema (2016): ==chapter 4 – making decentralization work
Argument 1: Complexity as Criterion
Main Idea: The effectiveness of decentralization is contingent on the complexity of the governance context.
a. Take account of interrelatedness of issues, stakeholders and
objectives by addressing their unique contextual environment
b. Focus on ‘learning our way out’ in an ongoing policy process
Limited Complexity:
Central Guidance: In straightforward situations, reliance on a coordinative model and central authority is beneficial for efficiency and
effectiveness. This aligns with
Guideline 1: Routine Implementation for Limited Complexity, where standardized procedures are applied to
predictable scenarios
Constraints: This model may limit the ability to adapt to local circumstances and pursue proactive, integrated approaches
Increased Complexity:
Local Proximity: Decentralisation allows local authorities to respond more effectively to complex, interrelated policy issues and
stakeholder interests.
Tailored Solutions: Governance approaches can be customized to local needs, enhancing adaptability and responsiveness
Argument 2: Focus on Protection
Main Idea: Decentralisation shifts from fixed goals to multiple, composite goals, impacting governance capacity.
Debatable Goals:
As decentralization occurs, fixed environmental goals become negotiable at local levels, which can lead to more integrated policy
approaches. This reflects
Guideline 2: Guarantees Against Quality Thresholds, ensuring that minimal standards are met to protect equity
However, this may reduce the governance capacity to meet singular objectives
Minimum Protection:
Maintaining minimum environmental standards may requires keeping fixed goals in certain sectors to ensure protection
Argument 3: Responding to Constraints on Local Willingness and Ability
Main Idea: Local willingness and ability to implement decentralization are constrained by various factors.
Economies of Scale:
High levels of technical expertise are often required, making decentralization challenging without central support. This connects to
Guideline 3: Correct for Economies of Scale
addressing disadvantages from losing benefits associated with larger organizational resources
External Effects:
Local initiatives may be undermined by external factors, leading to free-rider problems where some benefit without contributing
Weak Profile:
Central influence is necessary to stimulate local willingness, potentially through financial incentives, penalties, or flexible regulations
Guideline 4: Mitigate Weak Profile and External Effects,
tackling issues arising from social dilemmas where individual interests conflict with collective benefits
Argument 4: Robust Policies to Enable Dynamic Approaches
Main Idea: Decentralization increases local authorities' workloads, necessitating supportive policies.
, Workload Management:
Local authorities may struggle to manage increased responsibilities without simplified regulations and robust central policies
Implementation of Central Policies:
A well-coordinated set of central policies is essential to empower localities to respond effectively to their new tasks
. This reinforces the need for a structured approach as outlined in Guideline 1.
Advantages and Disadvantages:
While decentralization has potential benefits, awareness of its challenges is crucial. The coordinative model should remain a robust
foundation for effective implementation
==De Boer & Zuidema (2015): ==Towards an integrated energy landscape
Local Energy Initiatives: Successful local energy initiatives benefit from their connection to the local physical and socio-economic
landscape. When these initiatives are upscaled, they contribute to an integrated energy landscape, which is a multifunctional system
where energy systems are interwoven with local contexts.
Transition to Sustainable Energy:
The transition towards sustainable energy systems is complex and requires careful planning that considers both physical landscapes and
local societal dynamics.
The shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources is driven by the limited availability of fossil fuels, greenhouse gas emissions, and
geopolitical uncertainties
Challenges:
Not all locations can harvest renewable energy equally; spatial characteristics affect the feasibility of different energy sources.
Many small-scale sustainable energy initiatives operate independently and are not part of a cohesive energy network, raising the question
of how to integrate them effectively.
Transition Thinking:
The energy transition occurs at three levels:
Macro-level: Slow-changing socio-technical landscapes.
Meso-level: Dominant actor networks and institutions that guide decision-making.
Micro-level: Dynamic niches where innovative ideas and practices develop.
Successful transitions require changes across all three levels, emphasizing the importance of both vertical and horizontal interactions
among societal domains
- Learning-by-Doing: Engaging in local energy initiatives fosters learning and societal change, as
communities adapt and innovate based on their unique contexts.
Integrated Energy Landscape:
An integrated energy landscape connects energy initiatives with broader societal developments and interests.
Top-down integration without local input can lead to resistance, while inclusive processes foster acceptance.
Area-Based Planning: This approach is crucial for understanding local needs and dynamics, involving residents and stakeholders in
collaborative planning processes.
Arguments in this paper: the importance of integrating local energy initiatives
Argument 1: Projects Matched with Existing Land-Use Functions
Ease of Development: Projects that align with current land-use functions are more straightforward to implement. This reduces the
likelihood of adverse spatial consequences, which can lead to community opposition.
Societal Resistance: By integrating renewable energy projects, such as solar panels on existing buildings, into established land-use
patterns, planners can minimize resistance from local communities. This aligns with the idea that local energy initiatives should be
embedded within the physical and socio-economic landscape to facilitate smoother implementation
Argument 2: Local Initiatives Based on Complementary Interests
Analysis:
Vulnerability Reduction: Initiatives that align with local interests—such as agriculture and biomass production—are less susceptible to
societal resistance and economic fluctuations. This synergy fosters a more resilient approach to energy production.
, Economic Viability: By combining multiple societal interests, these initiatives can attract capital more easily and spread financial risks.
This reflects the importance of creating integrated energy landscapes where energy systems are part of broader socio-economic activities,
enhancing their sustainability and acceptance (biolabels)
Argument 3: Embedding Initiatives in the Local Economy
Analysis:
Societal Trust and Support: Embedding energy initiatives within the local economy fosters community trust and participation. This is
crucial for reducing NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) sentiments, as local residents are more likely to support projects that consider their
interests and involve them in decision-making processes.
Local Knowledge Utilization: Leveraging local knowledge about the landscape and its potentials enhances the effectiveness of energy
initiatives. This aligns with the concept of area-based planning, which emphasizes the importance of understanding local contexts and
engaging stakeholders in collaborative planning.
==Castan Broto ==(2017): Urban Governance and Politics of Climate Change:
Summary
Local Governance Importance: Effective climate change action requires strong local governance, as cities serve as crucial arenas for
implementing sustainable development strategies.
Integration of Actions: Urban areas can innovate and bridge national climate commitments with local needs, emphasizing the need for
tailored responses to climate challenges.
Resilience and Vulnerability: Addressing structural inequalities is essential for building resilience in urban areas, highlighting the
coevolution of urban practices and ecosystems.
Multi-Level Governance: Engaging various stakeholders through participatory governance fosters community-based adaptation and
enhances the effectiveness of local sustainability initiatives.
Transformative Potential: Cities can drive significant change by integrating adaptation and mitigation efforts, showcasing the importance
of local actions in the broader context of sustainable development.
Conclusions
Urban governance is seen as a complementary approach to traditional governance methods for climate change.
The inclusion of urban goals in Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) reflects a shift in international discourse.
Cities must navigate their unique contexts rather than adhering to a one-size-fits-all global objective, as climate change drives innovation
and local action.
Jordan et al. (2005): The Rise of New Environmental Policy Instruments (EPIs)
Definition of NEPIs: New Environmental Policy Instruments (EPIs) are innovative tools designed to enhance environmental governance.
State Involvement: Most EPIs require some level of state involvement, with few being entirely independent of government influence. The
state is losing its steering ability as control shifts:
Upwards: To regional and international organizations (e.g., the EU).
Downwards: To local governments and devolved authorities.
Outwards: To international corporations, NGOs, and semi-private entities.
Shift in Governance: There is a decreased reliance on traditional command-and-control policies, leading to greater dependence on non-
state actors for governance.
Examples of EPIs:
Market-based Instruments: Ecotaxes, subsidies, and tradable permit systems.
Eco-labels: Labels (e.g., a/b/c ratings) that help consumers make informed choices.
Environmental Management Systems (EMSs): Frameworks that encourage industries to audit their environmental impact and share
information with stakeholders.
Voluntary Agreements: Contracts aimed at reducing emissions in specific sectors (e.g., automotive industry).
==Jordan (2013): ==Still the century of ‘new’ environmental policy instruments? Exploring patterns
Mismatch in Governance: There is a notable gap between the theoretical discussion of new environmental policy instruments (EPIs) and
their practical adoption among policymakers and academics.
Decline in Adoption: From 2003 to 2013, the use of EPIs decreased, partly due to the global recession and skepticism about the
effectiveness of self-governance, highlighting a widening disconnect between theory and practice.
Role of Hierarchy: Traditional hierarchical governance structures continue to play a crucial role in facilitating the adoption of new
governance modes, potentially leading to hybrid governance approaches.
