Speaker
Description
Infrastructure networks face significant challenges due to climate change (Tavasszy et al., 2016). Road networks, in particular, are vulnerable to extreme weather events, potentially leading to disruptions such as flooding or subsidence, especially when multiple climate drivers interact and amplify each other (KNMI, 2023). Despite road infrastructure being recognized as critical infrastructure (OECD, 2019), climate adaptation in this sector remains underexplored (Tavasszy et al., 2016). By contrast, the water infrastructure sector in flood-prone European countries has prioritized climate adaptation on political and policy agendas, shifting towards integrated flood risk management (Restemeyer et al., 2024).
Although road and water infrastructure sectors are often managed by the same authorities (e.g. the Netherlands), cross-sectoral learning remains limited and difficult (Arts et al., 2016). These difficulties can potentially be explained due to differences in the policy paradigm in which both sectors operate. Hall (1993) described a policy paradigm as an interpretive framework of ideas that enables or constrains the way in which policy problems are perceived and how they should be governed, how policy goals are formulated and which policy instruments are used for attaining the formulated goals. Within this definition four interrelated components of policy paradigms can be found: an interpretive framework, policy objectives, an instrument logic and the role of governance institutions (Kern et al., 2014).
This study is focused on the interpretive frameworks of both the water and road infrastructure sector. Based on Hall’s (1993) conception of policy paradigms, we define the interpretive framework as a set of ideas and perspectives through which policymakers perceive, define, and address policy problems. This framework influences the selection of policy goals, the preferred instruments for attaining these goals and the role employed by governance institutions. Therefore, it enables and constrains the policy choices made within a prevailing policy paradigm (Hall, 1993; Capano and Howlett, 2024).
The aim of this study is to analyse the ideas, values and perspectives that shape the different climate adaptation discourses of water and road infrastructure providers in the Netherlands and to deepen our understanding of what constitutes an interpretive framework as part of policy paradigms. We deliberately focus on the Netherlands as both water and road infrastructure has received international acclaim and are considered advanced (Arts et al., 2016; OECD, 2014; WEF, 2019; Zevenbergen et al., 2013). To this end, we will employ a Q-methodology consisting of several steps (Busscher et al., 2022). First, we analyse policy documents from both the water and road infrastructure sector and select a series of statements. Second, we develop a matrix accommodating the statements using a 7 point Likert scale. After that, we conduct interviews with professionals from both sectors to fill out the Q-sort by letting respondents prioritize the statements. Finally, we analyse the data using Ken-Q-analysis software.
The expected outcomes of this Q-methodology analysis will provide insights into the different discourses or interpretive frameworks on climate adaptation within the water and road infrastructure sectors. By identifying distinct groups based on shared viewpoints, the study will reveal clusters of professionals who align with particular discourses. These groups may differ in their perceptions of climate risks, preferred adaptation strategies and the role of governance institutions in implementing adaptation measures. The findings will contribute to a more nuanced understanding of policy paradigms and highlight potential barriers and opportunities for cross-sectoral learning. Additionally, the study is expected to inform policymakers about the diversity of adaptation discourses within infrastructure sectors, offering pathways for fostering collaboration and integrating perspectives across policy domains. Ultimately, this research will deepen our understanding of the different discourses and interpretive frameworks guiding the transition to climate adaptive infrastructure networks.
References
Arts, J., Filarski, R., Jeekel, H. & Toussaint, B. (eds.) (2016). Builders and Planners – A history of land-use and infrastructure planning in the Netherlands, Eburon, Delft.
Busscher, T., Joustra, G., Wesselo, G. & Verweij, S. (2022). Complexiteit in Projecten van Rijkswaterstaat: Een analyse van perspectieven in beleid en praktijk. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Capano, G. & Howlett, M. (2024). Calibration and specification in policy practice: Micro-dimensions of policy design. Policy Design and Practice, 27(2), 115-128.
Hall, P.A. (1993). Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275-296.
Kern, F., Kuzemko, C., & Mitchell, C. (2014). Measuring and explaining policy paradigm change: the case of UK energy policy. Policy & Politics, 42(4), 513-530.
KNMI. (2023). KNMI National Climate Scenarios 2023 for the Netherlands. Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: De Bilt.
OECD. (2019). Good Governance for Critical Infrastructure Resilience. OECD Reviews of Risk Management Policies, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Tavasszy, L., Bollinger, L.A., & Dijkema, G.P. (2016). Special issue on Climate adaptation of infrastructure networks. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 16(1).
Zevenbergen, C., Rijke, J., Herk, S.van, Ludy, J. & Ashley, R. (2013). Room for the River: International Relevance. Water Governance, 2013(2).
| Keywords | Policy Paradigms; Climate Adaptation; Q-methodology |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | Yes |
