The causal path CA*PR + FM*PR→ OE explains seven out of ten cases of successful opportunity exploitation, whereas seven out of the eight non-successful cases contain neither of the two conjunctions. According to our fsQCA results, six cases (Abbotts Hall, Building with Nature, Climate Resilience ltd., Pastures New, the Green City and Trent and Tame Futurescapes) had a high level of capital availability and facilitating policies and regulations, which together led to successful opportunity exploitation. Capital availability includes internal and external capital and revenues. In five of the six cases, external capital from a private Trust (e.g. Pastures New) or government grants (e.g. Building with Nature) was very important. Internal capital was important in five of the six cases. E.g. for Building with Nature, investments by the coastal engineering companies drove the initiative before the Dutch government invested as well. Market revenues were important in all cases. Two cases which were not part of the causal path offer interesting insights. Nienhuis Landscape Architects and Bureau Stroming successfully exploited opportunities despite low internal and external capital availability. These cases provide exceptions to the dominant emphasis on lack of funding as major constraint to EbA implementation (Colls et al., 2009; Naumann et al., 2011). A possible explanation for this exception is that from the start, both enterprises generated enough income (i.e. revenues) from projects they initiated. Obtaining sufficient revenues for a long-term implementation of EbA can be explored further, especially since time-scale mismatches often compromise current financial mechanisms to stimulate EbA (Ojea, 2015). For example, Wamsler (2015) showed that the temporary structures created for EbA projects financed by external funds (‘external capital’) dissolved after the financing ended and resultantly, progress slowed significantly. The temporal availability of capital for EbA projects makes this condition for success fragile, and cases that we have coded as successful might easily become less successful if a funding source disappears.
Seven successful cases confirm the significant role of – mainly environmental – facilitating policies and regulations (six from the first sufficient path and Nienhuis Landscape Architects from the second sufficient path). These include the European (Water Framework Directive, Birds and Habitats Directive, EU adaptation strategy, European Landscape Convention and the
Common Agricultural Policy), national (National Adaptation Strategies, Delta program and flood protection policies) and local level (environmental designations, consents for coastal realignment and environmental impact assessment). This observation confirms the emphasis in earlier EbA studies on the supportive function of policies at various administrative levels (Brink et al., 2016; Chong, 2014; Doswald et al., 2014). A study of Wamsler et al. (2014) comparing Swedish municipalities shows that supporting legislation for EbA is currently especially lacking at the local level because of highly regulated and inflexible local planning. Informal planning and rules are currently used to cope with this issue (Wamsler, 2015). Several of our cases (e.g. Nienhuis Landscape Architects and the Roof Doctors) show that entrepreneurs can stimulate EbA at the local level by finding innovative ways to deal with existing planning practices. Wamsler et al. (2014) also found that even without supporting legislation, the presence of strong leadership can lead to EbA. Several interviewees also stressed the restricting function of some regulations limiting the room for experimentation as well as being very time-consuming. Indeed, generally one of the most frequent barriers for implementing EbA are unsupportive legal frameworks, e.g. for environmental and building permits (Brink et al., 2016). Other constraints in regulatory structures are institutional complexity due to the multiple disciplines involved and compartmentalised funding (Lukasiewicz et al., 2016; Wamsler et al., 2016). Our analysis shows that successful opportunity exploitation could also be expected in the presence of both financial motives and facilitating policies and regulations, as in the cases of Abbotts Hall, Building with Nature and Nienhuis Landscape Architects. Whereas the first two cases also had high levels of capital availability, the latter shows that only profit motivation combined with facilitating policies and regulations was sufficient for successful opportunity exploitation.
Water Holding is a logical contradictory case in both sufficient paths, meaning that all three conditions were present, but opportunities were still not exploited. A possible explanation is the relatively early and experimental phase of the case where opportunities might be exploited at a later stage. This suggestion is confirmed by a cluster of other cases (Figure 3.2) which were still at their infancy when observed and had not (yet) scored as successful, namely CAFCA, Blue Green Global, Blue Green Dream, Green Climate Belt and Inlandshore Wieringermeer. Although our sample also contains successful early stage cases (e.g. Climate Resilience ltd.) and more mature, but unsuccessful cases (e.g. Butterfly Beef), the cluster suggests that time
73
3
3.5 Discussion
3.5.1 Reflection on conditions and cases in the sufficient paths
The causal path CA*PR + FM*PR→ OE explains seven out of ten cases of successful opportunity exploitation, whereas seven out of the eight non-successful cases contain neither of the two conjunctions. According to our fsQCA results, six cases (Abbotts Hall, Building with Nature, Climate Resilience ltd., Pastures New, the Green City and Trent and Tame Futurescapes) had a high level of capital availability and facilitating policies and regulations, which together led to successful opportunity exploitation. Capital availability includes internal and external capital and revenues. In five of the six cases, external capital from a private Trust (e.g. Pastures New) or government grants (e.g. Building with Nature) was very important. Internal capital was important in five of the six cases. E.g. for Building with Nature, investments by the coastal engineering companies drove the initiative before the Dutch government invested as well. Market revenues were important in all cases. Two cases which were not part of the causal path offer interesting insights. Nienhuis Landscape Architects and Bureau Stroming successfully exploited opportunities despite low internal and external capital availability. These cases provide exceptions to the dominant emphasis on lack of funding as major constraint to EbA implementation (Colls et al., 2009; Naumann et al., 2011). A possible explanation for this exception is that from the start, both enterprises generated enough income (i.e. revenues) from projects they initiated. Obtaining sufficient revenues for a long-term implementation of EbA can be explored further, especially since time-scale mismatches often compromise current financial mechanisms to stimulate EbA (Ojea, 2015). For example, Wamsler (2015) showed that the temporary structures created for EbA projects financed by external funds (‘external capital’) dissolved after the financing ended and resultantly, progress slowed significantly. The temporal availability of capital for EbA projects makes this condition for success fragile, and cases that we have coded as successful might easily become less successful if a funding source disappears.
Seven successful cases confirm the significant role of – mainly environmental – facilitating policies and regulations (six from the first sufficient path and Nienhuis Landscape Architects from the second sufficient path). These include the European (Water Framework Directive, Birds and Habitats Directive, EU adaptation strategy, European Landscape Convention and the
Common Agricultural Policy), national (National Adaptation Strategies, Delta program and flood protection policies) and local level (environmental designations, consents for coastal realignment and environmental impact assessment). This observation confirms the emphasis in earlier EbA studies on the supportive function of policies at various administrative levels (Brink et al., 2016; Chong, 2014; Doswald et al., 2014). A study of Wamsler et al. (2014) comparing Swedish municipalities shows that supporting legislation for EbA is currently especially lacking at the local level because of highly regulated and inflexible local planning. Informal planning and rules are currently used to cope with this issue (Wamsler, 2015). Several of our cases (e.g. Nienhuis Landscape Architects and the Roof Doctors) show that entrepreneurs can stimulate EbA at the local level by finding innovative ways to deal with existing planning practices. Wamsler et al. (2014) also found that even without supporting legislation, the presence of strong leadership can lead to EbA. Several interviewees also stressed the restricting function of some regulations limiting the room for experimentation as well as being very time-consuming. Indeed, generally one of the most frequent barriers for implementing EbA are unsupportive legal frameworks, e.g. for environmental and building permits (Brink et al., 2016). Other constraints in regulatory structures are institutional complexity due to the multiple disciplines involved and compartmentalised funding (Lukasiewicz et al., 2016; Wamsler et al., 2016). Our analysis shows that successful opportunity exploitation could also be expected in the presence of both financial motives and facilitating policies and regulations, as in the cases of Abbotts Hall, Building with Nature and Nienhuis Landscape Architects. Whereas the first two cases also had high levels of capital availability, the latter shows that only profit motivation combined with facilitating policies and regulations was sufficient for successful opportunity exploitation.
Water Holding is a logical contradictory case in both sufficient paths, meaning that all three conditions were present, but opportunities were still not exploited. A possible explanation is the relatively early and experimental phase of the case where opportunities might be exploited at a later stage. This suggestion is confirmed by a cluster of other cases (Figure 3.2) which were still at their infancy when observed and had not (yet) scored as successful, namely CAFCA, Blue Green Global, Blue Green Dream, Green Climate Belt and Inlandshore Wieringermeer. Although our sample also contains successful early stage cases (e.g. Climate Resilience ltd.) and more mature, but unsuccessful cases (e.g. Butterfly Beef), the cluster suggests that time
72
3.5 Discussion
3.5.1 Reflection on conditions and cases in the sufficient paths
The causal path CA*PR + FM*PR→ OE explains seven out of ten cases of successful opportunity exploitation, whereas seven out of the eight non-successful cases contain neither of the two conjunctions. According to our fsQCA results, six cases (Abbotts Hall, Building with Nature, Climate Resilience ltd., Pastures New, the Green City and Trent and Tame Futurescapes) had a high level of capital availability and facilitating policies and regulations, which together led to successful opportunity exploitation. Capital availability includes internal and external capital and revenues. In five of the six cases, external capital from a private Trust (e.g. Pastures New) or government grants (e.g. Building with Nature) was very important. Internal capital was important in five of the six cases. E.g. for Building with Nature, investments by the coastal engineering companies drove the initiative before the Dutch government invested as well. Market revenues were important in all cases. Two cases which were not part of the causal path offer interesting insights. Nienhuis Landscape Architects and Bureau Stroming successfully exploited opportunities despite low internal and external capital availability. These cases provide exceptions to the dominant emphasis on lack of funding as major constraint to EbA implementation (Colls et al., 2009; Naumann et al., 2011). A possible explanation for this exception is that from the start, both enterprises generated enough income (i.e. revenues) from projects they initiated. Obtaining sufficient revenues for a long-term implementation of EbA can be explored further, especially since time-scale mismatches often compromise current financial mechanisms to stimulate EbA (Ojea, 2015). For example, Wamsler (2015) showed that the temporary structures created for EbA projects financed by external funds (‘external capital’) dissolved after the financing ended and resultantly, progress slowed significantly. The temporal availability of capital for EbA projects makes this condition for success fragile, and cases that we have coded as successful might easily become less successful if a funding source disappears.
Seven successful cases confirm the significant role of – mainly environmental – facilitating policies and regulations (six from the first sufficient path and Nienhuis Landscape Architects from the second sufficient path). These include the European (Water Framework Directive, Birds and Habitats Directive, EU adaptation strategy, European Landscape Convention and the
Common Agricultural Policy), national (National Adaptation Strategies, Delta program and flood protection policies) and local level (environmental designations, consents for coastal realignment and environmental impact assessment). This observation confirms the emphasis in earlier EbA studies on the supportive function of policies at various administrative levels (Brink et al., 2016; Chong, 2014; Doswald et al., 2014). A study of Wamsler et al. (2014) comparing Swedish municipalities shows that supporting legislation for EbA is currently especially lacking at the local level because of highly regulated and inflexible local planning. Informal planning and rules are currently used to cope with this issue (Wamsler, 2015). Several of our cases (e.g. Nienhuis Landscape Architects and the Roof Doctors) show that entrepreneurs can stimulate EbA at the local level by finding innovative ways to deal with existing planning practices. Wamsler et al. (2014) also found that even without supporting legislation, the presence of strong leadership can lead to EbA. Several interviewees also stressed the restricting function of some regulations limiting the room for experimentation as well as being very time-consuming. Indeed, generally one of the most frequent barriers for implementing EbA are unsupportive legal frameworks, e.g. for environmental and building permits (Brink et al., 2016). Other constraints in regulatory structures are institutional complexity due to the multiple disciplines involved and compartmentalised funding (Lukasiewicz et al., 2016; Wamsler et al., 2016). Our analysis shows that successful opportunity exploitation could also be expected in the presence of both financial motives and facilitating policies and regulations, as in the cases of Abbotts Hall, Building with Nature and Nienhuis Landscape Architects. Whereas the first two cases also had high levels of capital availability, the latter shows that only profit motivation combined with facilitating policies and regulations was sufficient for successful opportunity exploitation.
Water Holding is a logical contradictory case in both sufficient paths, meaning that all three conditions were present, but opportunities were still not exploited. A possible explanation is the relatively early and experimental phase of the case where opportunities might be exploited at a later stage. This suggestion is confirmed by a cluster of other cases (Figure 3.2) which were still at their infancy when observed and had not (yet) scored as successful, namely CAFCA, Blue Green Global, Blue Green Dream, Green Climate Belt and Inlandshore Wieringermeer. Although our sample also contains successful early stage cases (e.g. Climate Resilience ltd.) and more mature, but unsuccessful cases (e.g. Butterfly Beef), the cluster suggests that time
73
3
3.5 Discussion
3.5.1 Reflection on conditions and cases in the sufficient paths
The causal path CA*PR + FM*PR→ OE explains seven out of ten cases of successful opportunity exploitation, whereas seven out of the eight non-successful cases contain neither of the two conjunctions. According to our fsQCA results, six cases (Abbotts Hall, Building with Nature, Climate Resilience ltd., Pastures New, the Green City and Trent and Tame Futurescapes) had a high level of capital availability and facilitating policies and regulations, which together led to successful opportunity exploitation. Capital availability includes internal and external capital and revenues. In five of the six cases, external capital from a private Trust (e.g. Pastures New) or government grants (e.g. Building with Nature) was very important. Internal capital was important in five of the six cases. E.g. for Building with Nature, investments by the coastal engineering companies drove the initiative before the Dutch government invested as well. Market revenues were important in all cases. Two cases which were not part of the causal path offer interesting insights. Nienhuis Landscape Architects and Bureau Stroming successfully exploited opportunities despite low internal and external capital availability. These cases provide exceptions to the dominant emphasis on lack of funding as major constraint to EbA implementation (Colls et al., 2009; Naumann et al., 2011). A possible explanation for this exception is that from the start, both enterprises generated enough income (i.e. revenues) from projects they initiated. Obtaining sufficient revenues for a long-term implementation of EbA can be explored further, especially since time-scale mismatches often compromise current financial mechanisms to stimulate EbA (Ojea, 2015). For example, Wamsler (2015) showed that the temporary structures created for EbA projects financed by external funds (‘external capital’) dissolved after the financing ended and resultantly, progress slowed significantly. The temporal availability of capital for EbA projects makes this condition for success fragile, and cases that we have coded as successful might easily become less successful if a funding source disappears.
Seven successful cases confirm the significant role of – mainly environmental – facilitating policies and regulations (six from the first sufficient path and Nienhuis Landscape Architects from the second sufficient path). These include the European (Water Framework Directive, Birds and Habitats Directive, EU adaptation strategy, European Landscape Convention and the
Common Agricultural Policy), national (National Adaptation Strategies, Delta program and flood protection policies) and local level (environmental designations, consents for coastal realignment and environmental impact assessment). This observation confirms the emphasis in earlier EbA studies on the supportive function of policies at various administrative levels (Brink et al., 2016; Chong, 2014; Doswald et al., 2014). A study of Wamsler et al. (2014) comparing Swedish municipalities shows that supporting legislation for EbA is currently especially lacking at the local level because of highly regulated and inflexible local planning. Informal planning and rules are currently used to cope with this issue (Wamsler, 2015). Several of our cases (e.g. Nienhuis Landscape Architects and the Roof Doctors) show that entrepreneurs can stimulate EbA at the local level by finding innovative ways to deal with existing planning practices. Wamsler et al. (2014) also found that even without supporting legislation, the presence of strong leadership can lead to EbA. Several interviewees also stressed the restricting function of some regulations limiting the room for experimentation as well as being very time-consuming. Indeed, generally one of the most frequent barriers for implementing EbA are unsupportive legal frameworks, e.g. for environmental and building permits (Brink et al., 2016). Other constraints in regulatory structures are institutional complexity due to the multiple disciplines involved and compartmentalised funding (Lukasiewicz et al., 2016; Wamsler et al., 2016). Our analysis shows that successful opportunity exploitation could also be expected in the presence of both financial motives and facilitating policies and regulations, as in the cases of Abbotts Hall, Building with Nature and Nienhuis Landscape Architects. Whereas the first two cases also had high levels of capital availability, the latter shows that only profit motivation combined with facilitating policies and regulations was sufficient for successful opportunity exploitation.
Water Holding is a logical contradictory case in both sufficient paths, meaning that all three conditions were present, but opportunities were still not exploited. A possible explanation is the relatively early and experimental phase of the case where opportunities might be exploited at a later stage. This suggestion is confirmed by a cluster of other cases (Figure 3.2) which were still at their infancy when observed and had not (yet) scored as successful, namely CAFCA, Blue Green Global, Blue Green Dream, Green Climate Belt and Inlandshore Wieringermeer. Although our sample also contains successful early stage cases (e.g. Climate Resilience ltd.) and more mature, but unsuccessful cases (e.g. Butterfly Beef), the cluster suggests that time
72
3.5 Discussion
3.5.1 Reflection on conditions and cases in the sufficient paths
The causal path CA*PR + FM*PR→ OE explains seven out of ten cases of successful opportunity exploitation, whereas seven out of the eight non-successful cases contain neither of the two conjunctions. According to our fsQCA results, six cases (Abbotts Hall, Building with Nature, Climate Resilience ltd., Pastures New, the Green City and Trent and Tame Futurescapes) had a high level of capital availability and facilitating policies and regulations, which together led to successful opportunity exploitation. Capital availability includes internal and external capital and revenues. In five of the six cases, external capital from a private Trust (e.g. Pastures New) or government grants (e.g. Building with Nature) was very important. Internal capital was important in five of the six cases. E.g. for Building with Nature, investments by the coastal engineering companies drove the initiative before the Dutch government invested as well. Market revenues were important in all cases. Two cases which were not part of the causal path offer interesting insights. Nienhuis Landscape Architects and Bureau Stroming