12.6 Conclusion: Highlighting the Main Issues
and Their Prospects
In an attempt to synthesize the broad variation observed across the drought and
nature policy context, the interplay of actors can be analyzed and summarized using
the three components of the contextual interaction theory, based on their motivations, cognitions and resources. Here, the motivation, cognitions and resource of
actors in the nature context are explored to analyze cross-cutting opportunities and
challenges for the drought policy context.
12.6.1 Motivation
Motivation refers to the goals and values, external pressure, and orientations that
drive the actor in a specific way. Among nature and conservation actors, the context
of water scarcity and drought produces highly varied motivations. In many cases,
the motivation of nature conservation stakeholders is triggered to a large extent by
their own goals and values. On the whole, both nature organizations and farmers are
aware of the implications of water scarcity and drought on nature areas, such as the
loss of flora and fauna in river systems, algae blooms and crop failures. Such
external pressures on a global environmental change scale serve as a primary
internal motivator among these actors.
In addition, external governance pressures, such as the requirements set forth by
the Natura 2000 regulations provide a strong impetus to implement measures to
combat drought. Regulations, incentives and communications play a large role in
motivating action among stakeholders. The EU Directives in particular have created
pressures on relevant stakeholders (e.g. water boards) to devise collaborative
solutions to address water scarcity and drought. Despite such top-down pressures,
large regional disparities in resources and water use create cascading pressures at
the local level. Lack of resources tends to motivate local led initiatives to develop
their own innovative tools for drought-related problems.
Despite strong economic interests, governance pressures can override them
depending on the strength of the regulation. For example, in the case of Somerset,
motivated actors from nature conservation organizations, including the Royal
Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and the Somerset Wildlife Trust (SWT),
developed long-term visions for transforming the landscape from human-centred to
exclusively for nature by restoring open grassland landscapes. In the face of strong
economic interests, the benefits of a more resilient and robust landscape in the face
of extreme weather outweighed competing pressures. Such harmonization of initially competing motivations is at the heart of sustainable and integrative land and
water management as well as coping with extreme weather events, including
drought and flood (Robins 2014).
242
H. Bressers and U. Stein
and Their Prospects
In an attempt to synthesize the broad variation observed across the drought and
nature policy context, the interplay of actors can be analyzed and summarized using
the three components of the contextual interaction theory, based on their motivations, cognitions and resources. Here, the motivation, cognitions and resource of
actors in the nature context are explored to analyze cross-cutting opportunities and
challenges for the drought policy context.
12.6.1 Motivation
Motivation refers to the goals and values, external pressure, and orientations that
drive the actor in a specific way. Among nature and conservation actors, the context
of water scarcity and drought produces highly varied motivations. In many cases,
the motivation of nature conservation stakeholders is triggered to a large extent by
their own goals and values. On the whole, both nature organizations and farmers are
aware of the implications of water scarcity and drought on nature areas, such as the
loss of flora and fauna in river systems, algae blooms and crop failures. Such
external pressures on a global environmental change scale serve as a primary
internal motivator among these actors.
In addition, external governance pressures, such as the requirements set forth by
the Natura 2000 regulations provide a strong impetus to implement measures to
combat drought. Regulations, incentives and communications play a large role in
motivating action among stakeholders. The EU Directives in particular have created
pressures on relevant stakeholders (e.g. water boards) to devise collaborative
solutions to address water scarcity and drought. Despite such top-down pressures,
large regional disparities in resources and water use create cascading pressures at
the local level. Lack of resources tends to motivate local led initiatives to develop
their own innovative tools for drought-related problems.
Despite strong economic interests, governance pressures can override them
depending on the strength of the regulation. For example, in the case of Somerset,
motivated actors from nature conservation organizations, including the Royal
Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and the Somerset Wildlife Trust (SWT),
developed long-term visions for transforming the landscape from human-centred to
exclusively for nature by restoring open grassland landscapes. In the face of strong
economic interests, the benefits of a more resilient and robust landscape in the face
of extreme weather outweighed competing pressures. Such harmonization of initially competing motivations is at the heart of sustainable and integrative land and
water management as well as coping with extreme weather events, including
drought and flood (Robins 2014).
242
H. Bressers and U. Stein