In Section 6.3, it is hypothesised that adaptation processes are cyclic proc- esses in which strategic planning for adaptation and the delivery of adapta- tion are influencing each other (see also Figure 6.1). Both cases confirm that the strategic planning and delivery sides of governance of adaptation do indeed mutually reinforce each other: governance for strategic planning of adaptation creates legitimacy and effective adaptation action; whilst govern- ance of delivery of adaptation influences future strategic planning through new relationships and knowledge that have been established during the im- plementation of adaptation action.
The case of river widening in the Netherlands illustrates that strategic plan- ning for adaptation can effectively lead to system wide implementation of adaptation action. More specifically, the case shows how a systems approach
towards adaptation and the organisation thereof leads to a coherent pro- gramme vision with a legitimate set of adaptation measures that are deliv- ered by means of a deliberate learning agenda to achieve the programme’s objectives. Similar to the theory of (Table 6.1), governance for strategic plan- ning of river widening focused on engaging stakeholders for the develop- ment of a legitimate, feasible and realistic set of measures and creating the boundary conditions (i.e. budget, objectives, roles) for the delivery of the measures, whilst governance of delivery of the measures focused on task setting, monitoring, facilitation, community building, anticipating and re- sponding to emerging issues (Table 6.4). Governance of delivery of the pro- gramme has been influencing future strategic planning processes through facilitation of individual projects (e.g. impact on policy and new tools and guidelines) and building communities building amongst the politicians and professionals involved. As such, it can be concluded that governance for stra- tegic planning and governance of delivery of the river widening measures are mutually reinforcing in this particular case.
The case of stormwater harvesting and reuse in Australia illustrates that, in contrast to the river widening case, the distinction between governance for strategic planning and governance of delivery of adaptation is not always clear. The aim of both elements of governance of adaptation overlaps be- cause of the experimental character of the delivery of adaptation action: experimental projects are realised to learn about the feasibility and effec- tiveness of the stormwater harvesting and reuse technology. However, de- spite the difficulty to make a clear distinction between governance for stra- tegic planning and governance of delivery of adaptation action in the storm- water case, most elements of Table 6.1 were identified in the stormwater case (Table 6.6). From the perspective of strategic planning, these experi- mental projects play an important role in exploring the available adaptation options and establish new relationships (and supporting institutional ar- rangements) to realise such new options. From the perspective of delivery of these projects, collaborative learning plays an important role to develop the schemes and overcome challenges related to the planning, design, regula- tion, operation and maintenance. As these aspects cannot be considered in isolation of each other, it can be concluded that governance for strategic planning and governance of delivery of the stormwater harvesting and reuse
schemes are mutually reinforcing in respect to realising stormwater harvest- ing and reuse schemes.
It should be noted that, in contrast to the theoretical framing of Table 6.1, the dominant focus of the strategic planning for these ‘experimental’ storm- water projects is mainly directed at the enabling and constraining factors of individual projects rather than improving the functionality of urban water systems as a whole. However, stormwater harvesting and reuse has emerged as an alternative water resource that is now considered to play an important role in the overarching vision for water sensitive cities which focuses on the functionality of the urban water system as a whole.
Table 6.7 Interactions between governance for strategic planning and delivery of adap- tation
From strategic planning to
delivery From delivery to strategic planning
Relationships Stakeholder support and/or com-
mitment for the realisation of adaptation action (NL, AUS).
Matured relationships with in- creased level of trust as a result of collaboration to jointly achieve projects (NL, AUS).
Knowledge A broad context-specific knowl-
edge base (technical, socio- political, institutional) for the im- plementation of projects (NL, AUS).
New/adapted policy, legislation and regulation based on experi- ence about overcoming practical challenges in projects (NL, AUS). Financial
resources Allocation of budgets to invest in adaptation (NL, AUS) Reconsidering and sometimes cancelling projects after over- achieving projects within a pro- gramme (NL).
Based on the presented findings of the two cases, Table 6.7 summarises the interactions through which governance for strategic planning and delivery of adaptation action are mutually reinforcing. Governance of strategic planning is effective when the conditions are created that are needed to deliver adap- tation action effectively, including stakeholder support, a broad knowledge base and an allocated investment budget for the realisation of adaptation action. Furthermore, the knowledge and relationships that are developed for the realisation of adaptation action can be beneficial for strategic planning of new adaptation actions. However, both cases demonstrate that the connec- tion from delivery to strategic planning is not straightforward. As a conse- quence of the ‘experimental’ character, planning processes for realising
stormwater harvesting and reuse schemes need to be gone through repeat- edly and any upcoming regulatory barriers need to be tackled on a scale of individual projects. This enables the establishment of tailor-made designs, but also requires repeated action to overcome hurdles in the planning proc- ess. In comparison, regulatory hurdles in the planning processes for river widening in the Netherlands were, if possible, simultaneously tackled through a centralised approach for the whole Room for the River pro- gramme. However, this has demanded significant preparation during the initiation phase of the programme (2000-2006).