aspect of intensity. Intensity is “the degree to which the regime elements urge
changes in the status quo or in current developments”. The ‘amount of change’ is
thereby measured in analogy with Newton’s ‘law of inertia’, so as the degree of
energy it takes to produce the change. In systems theory, induced changes will
typically meet negative feedback loops, weakening their impact, while in some
cases positive feedback loops creating dynamics for permanent change are also
conceivable (True et al. 1999; Bressers and Lulofs 2009). In policy studies’ terms
intensity is related to the size of the task to create new dynamics by creative
cooperation, or conflict. Consequently this urges change of conservative motivations or overcoming them by power, changing cognitions including widening of
boundary judgments regarding the issues at stake, and developing new availabilities
and combinations of resources. In other words: with more intensity the urge to use
clever adaptive strategies to deal with and change the setting of the process
increases. In terms of the five elements of governance intensity is greater in as far as
also upper levels are more deeply involved, actors that are also powerful in other
domains are more deeply involved in the relevant policy network for the issue at
stake, the issue plays a larger role in the public debate leading to a greater openness
to try to push developments away from a business-as-usual track (thus with more
ambitious goals), the instruments made available to be used include more interventionist ones, and the amount of resources made available for implementation is
larger.
In summary, the four criteria are defined by the questions that they pose:
1. Extent: are all elements in the five dimensions that are relevant for the sector or
project that is focused on taken into account?
2. Coherence: are the elements in the dimensions of governance reinforcing rather
than contradicting each other?
3. Flexibility: are multiple roads to the goals, depending on opportunities and
threats as they arise, permitted and supported?
4. Intensity: how strongly do the elements in the dimensions of governance urge
changes in the status quo or in current developments?
For each of the five dimensions of governance, the four criteria mentioned above
are specified with specific questions (Fig. 3.6) which forms a matrix of assessment
for the governance of drought and water scarcity for a region. This matrix forms the
core of the Governance Assessment Tool (GAT). Together, these questions shed
light on the degree of supportiveness or restrictiveness of the governance context
towards the implementation of policies and projects. It is important to note that the
GAT does not assess the functioning or success of an actor or a specific adaptation
plan. Rather, the GAT assesses the entire governance context, enabling reflections
on the way that this context supports or restricts the implementation of policies and
projects.
While this version is developed by the scientists of the “governance team” in the
DROP project its usability reaches far beyond drought management. In fact the tool
is applicable to a wide range of implementation projects in water management and
even beyond.
56
H. Bressers et al.
changes in the status quo or in current developments”. The ‘amount of change’ is
thereby measured in analogy with Newton’s ‘law of inertia’, so as the degree of
energy it takes to produce the change. In systems theory, induced changes will
typically meet negative feedback loops, weakening their impact, while in some
cases positive feedback loops creating dynamics for permanent change are also
conceivable (True et al. 1999; Bressers and Lulofs 2009). In policy studies’ terms
intensity is related to the size of the task to create new dynamics by creative
cooperation, or conflict. Consequently this urges change of conservative motivations or overcoming them by power, changing cognitions including widening of
boundary judgments regarding the issues at stake, and developing new availabilities
and combinations of resources. In other words: with more intensity the urge to use
clever adaptive strategies to deal with and change the setting of the process
increases. In terms of the five elements of governance intensity is greater in as far as
also upper levels are more deeply involved, actors that are also powerful in other
domains are more deeply involved in the relevant policy network for the issue at
stake, the issue plays a larger role in the public debate leading to a greater openness
to try to push developments away from a business-as-usual track (thus with more
ambitious goals), the instruments made available to be used include more interventionist ones, and the amount of resources made available for implementation is
larger.
In summary, the four criteria are defined by the questions that they pose:
1. Extent: are all elements in the five dimensions that are relevant for the sector or
project that is focused on taken into account?
2. Coherence: are the elements in the dimensions of governance reinforcing rather
than contradicting each other?
3. Flexibility: are multiple roads to the goals, depending on opportunities and
threats as they arise, permitted and supported?
4. Intensity: how strongly do the elements in the dimensions of governance urge
changes in the status quo or in current developments?
For each of the five dimensions of governance, the four criteria mentioned above
are specified with specific questions (Fig. 3.6) which forms a matrix of assessment
for the governance of drought and water scarcity for a region. This matrix forms the
core of the Governance Assessment Tool (GAT). Together, these questions shed
light on the degree of supportiveness or restrictiveness of the governance context
towards the implementation of policies and projects. It is important to note that the
GAT does not assess the functioning or success of an actor or a specific adaptation
plan. Rather, the GAT assesses the entire governance context, enabling reflections
on the way that this context supports or restricts the implementation of policies and
projects.
While this version is developed by the scientists of the “governance team” in the
DROP project its usability reaches far beyond drought management. In fact the tool
is applicable to a wide range of implementation projects in water management and
even beyond.
56
H. Bressers et al.