Stefania Munaretto

Adaptive comanagement in the Venice lagoon? An analysis of current water and environmental management practices and prospects for change

Adaptive comanagement (ACM) is often suggested as a way of handling the modern challenges of environmental governance, which include uncertainty and complexity. ACM is a novel combination of the learning dimension of adaptive management and the linkage dimension of comanagement. As has been suggested, there is a need for more insight on enabling policy environments for ACM success and failure. Picking up on this agenda we provide a case study of the world famous Venice lagoon in Italy. We address the following questions: first, to what extent are four institutional prescriptions typically associated with ACM currently practiced in the Venice system? Second, to what extent is learning taking place in the Venice system? Third, how is learning related to the implementation or nonimplementation of the prescriptions of ACM in the Venice system? Our analysis is based on interviews with stakeholders, participatory observation, and archive data. This paper demonstrates that the prescriptions of ACM are hardly followed in the Venice lagoon, but some levels of cognitive learning do take place, albeit very much within established management paradigms. Normative and relational learning are much rarer and when they do occur, they seem to have a relatively opportunistic reason. We propose that in particular the low levels of collaboration, because the governance system was deliberately set up in a hierarchical and mono-centric way, and the limited possibilities for stakeholder participation are implicated in this finding because they cause low levels of social capital and an incapacity to handle disagreements and uncertainty very well.

Integrating adaptive governance and participatory multicriteria methods: a framework for climate adaptation governance

Climate adaptation is a dynamic social and institutional process where the governance dimension is receiving growing attention. Adaptive governance is an approach that promises to reduce uncertainty by improving the knowledge base for decision making. As uncertainty is an inherent feature of climate adaptation, adaptive governance seems to be a promising approach for improving climate adaptation governance. However, the adaptive governance literature has so far paid little attention to decision- making tools and methods, and the literature on the governance of adaptation is in its infancy in this regard. We argue that climate adaptation governance would benefit from systematic and yet flexible decision-making tools and methods such as participatory multicriteria methods for the evaluation of adaptation options, and that these methods can be linked to key adaptive governance principles. Moving from these premises, we propose a framework that integrates key adaptive governance features into participatory multicriteria methods for the governance of climate adaptation.

The governance of adaptation: choices, reasons, and effects. Introduction to the Special Feature

The governance of climate adaptation involves the collective efforts of multiple societal actors to address problems, or to reap the benefits, associated with impacts of climate change. Governing involves the creation of institutions, rules and organizations, and the selection of normative principles to guide problem solution and institution building. We argue that actors involved in governing climate change adaptation, as climate change governance regimes evolve, inevitably must engage in making choices, for instance on problem definitions, jurisdictional levels, on modes of governance and policy instruments, and on the timing of interventions. Yet little is known about how and why these choices are made in practice, and how such choices affect the outcomes of our efforts to govern adaptation. In this introduction we review the current state of evidence and the specific contribution of the articles published in this Special Feature, which are aimed at bringing greater clarity in these matters, and thereby informing both governance theory and practice. Collectively, the contributing papers suggest that the way issues are defined has important consequences for the support for governance interventions, and their effectiveness. The articles suggest that currently the emphasis in adaptation governance is on the local and regional levels, while underscoring the benefits of interventions and governance at higher jurisdictional levels in terms of visioning and scaling-up effective approaches. The articles suggest that there is a central role of government agencies in leading governance interventions to address spillover effects, to provide public goods, and to promote the long-term perspectives for planning. They highlight the issue of justice in the governance of adaptation showing how governance measures have wide distributional consequences, including the potential to amplify existing inequalities, access to resources, or generating new injustices through distribution of risks. For several of these findings, future research directions are suggested.

Assessing adaptive capacity of institutions to climate change : a comparative case study of the Dutch Wadden Sea and the Venice Lagoon

In this study we assess the adaptive capacity of relevant institutions for ecosystems and environmental management in two complex systems: the Dutch Wadden Sea and the Venice Lagoon. A new tool called the Adaptive Capacity Wheel (ACW) is used to diagnose strengths and weaknesses in the institutional systems in these two areas. An overview of both strengths and weaknesses leads to a better understanding of the system of governance and enhances the discussion of how it can be improved. The ACW identifies six dimensions that are relevant for the adaptive capacity of a society, according to the literature on climate adaptation and governance. They are variety, learning capacity, room for autonomous change, leadership, availability of resources, and fair governance. Then, we compare the two cases drawing attention to the physical and institutional similarities and differences that could explain the level of adaptive capacity we found. In this study, the physical and economic characteristics of the two regions proved to be quite similar, while the institutional system was very different. These two different governance systems, however, lead to a similarly low level of adaptive capacity. In theWadden, decision processes are slowed down because of a lack of authority and leadership. On the dimension of learning, the Wadden case scores positively. In Venice, lack of cooperation and accountability limit learning. Venice scores well on the autonomous ability to change. We conclude that in both cases there is a lot to be improved and that the two regions can learn from each other. Venice could, for example, improve learning with structures similar to those in theWadden, such as theWadden Academy. TheWadden area could learn from Venice about how to inform the larger public on potential flooding.

Flood Protection in Venice under Conditions of Sea-Level Rise: An Analysis of Institutional and Technical Measures

It is widely acknowledged that in times of climate change loss of coastal resources and risk for human life can be minimized by implementing adaptation strategies. Such strategies need to encompass a balanced mix of non-structural (institutional) and structural (technical) measures based on sound scientific knowledge. This article discusses measures carried out to protect the city of Venice, Italy from flooding (locally known as “high water”), and reflects on their ability to anticipate a possible acceleration of sea-level rise as induced by climate change. It is based on scientific literature, legislative and policy documents of key institutions, reports and documents of organizations working on Venice issues, newspaper articles, and interviews. Our analysis shows that the synergic action of the hydraulic defense infrastructure under construction is in principle adequate to withstand a broad range of sea-level rise scenarios for the next 100 years. However, when the goal is to use these investments effectively major changes in the existing institutional arrangements will be required in the years to come. The Venice findings point out the difficulties and yet the importance of identifying and implementing both non-structural and structural measures to adapt to climate change.

Policy experimentation: core concepts, political dynamics, governance and impacts

In the last two decades, many areas of the social sciences have embraced an ‘experimentalist turn’. It is well known for instance that experiments are a key ingredient in the emergence of behavioral economics, but they are also increasingly popular in sociology, political science, planning, and in architecture (see McDermott 2002). It seems that the potential advantages of experiments are better appreciated today than they were in the past. But the turn towards experimentalism is not without its critics. In her passionate plea for more experimentation in political science for instance, McDermott (2002: 42) observes how many political scientists are hesitant: they are more interested in large-scale multiple regression work, lack training in experimentation, do not see how experiments could fit into a broader research strategy, and alternative movements in political science (such as constructivists and postmodernists) consider that experimental work is not able to capture complexities and nuances. Representing some of these criticisms, Howe (2004) suggests