Goal-oriented networks and capacity building for …...82 G. Hutter: Goal-oriented networks and...

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 14, 81–94, 2014www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/14/81/2014/doi:10.5194/nhess-14-81-2014© Author(s) 2014. CC Attribution 3.0 License.

Natural Hazards and Earth System

SciencesO

pen Access

Goal-oriented networks and capacity building for natural hazards –examples in the Dresden region

G. Hutter

Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development (IOER), Dresden, Weberplatz 1, 01217 Dresden, Germany

Correspondence to:G. Hutter ([email protected])

Received: 13 February 2013 – Published in Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss.: 10 April 2013Revised: 19 November 2013 – Accepted: 22 November 2013 – Published: 14 January 2014

Abstract. Networks and networking are important for build-ing social capacities for natural hazards. However, up to now,it has been an open question which types of networks con-tribute to capacity building under certain circumstances. Thepaper focuses on the type of a goal-oriented network. Thedistinction between goal orientation and goal directedness isused to show the following: goal directedness of networksto build capacities for natural hazards involves intensive andcontinuous processes of “sensemaking” (Weick, 1995) tospecify the network goal. This process of specifying an ini-tial goal statement is important in small and large networksat the regional level. The governance form of a lead organi-zation network facilitates goal specification. The paper illus-trates these findings through evidence from two case studiesconducted in the Dresden region in Germany.

1 Introduction

Social capacity building for natural hazards involves a broadagenda that covers, for instance, issues of knowledge cre-ation and integration, strategy development, and financialresources, as well as participation and governance. Actorsfrom various societal spheres are important for social capac-ity building (e.g., actors from local communities, the politi-cal sphere, administration, research organizations). Kuhlickeet al. (2011, p. 807) characterize social capacity building as anormative concept that aims to establish a long-term “learn-ing process which is based on the cooperation and interactionof a variety of actors on different scales.”

Networks, networking, and network capacities also have aplace in an overall framework to analyze and improve capac-ity building for natural hazards (Kuhlicke et al., 2011, 2012).

Ample attention to networks, networking and network capac-ities helps to highlight thesocial aspectof “social capacitybuilding”. Networks as social structures and networking asactual processes connect people and organizations from di-verse societal spheres. Because innovative solutions to solveproblems of dealing with natural hazards often develop atthe boundaries of diverse knowledge domains (e.g., Van deVen, 2007), analyzing and improving networks may be ofspecial importance to capitalize on the potential of social ca-pacity building for natural hazards (e.g., Powell and Grodal,2005). However, up to now, it has been an open questionwhich types of networks (e.g., Diller, 2002; Powell and Gro-dal, 2005; Klijn, 2008; Raab and Kenis, 2009) contribute tosocial capacity building for natural hazards under certain cir-cumstances.

This paper starts with the assumption that networks, net-working, and network management are not inherently “good”and effective. The conditions under which certain types ofnetworks contribute to social capacity building for naturalhazards need to be specified and explained. To do this to acertain extent, the paper focuses ongoal-oriented networksof organizations(Provan and Kenis, 2007, p. 231, use theterm “goal-directed network”; see also Kilduff and Tsai,2003). The paper adopts anetwork management perspectivethat pays ample attention to the structural features of net-works and processes of network management (Klijn, 2008;see Geddes, 2008 and Sørensen and Torfing, 2005, 2007,2009, for a more macro-oriented perspective on networks).The paper argues that the specifics of goal orientation of net-work actors are crucial variables in understanding and ex-plaining the effectiveness of networks and their contributionto capacity building for natural hazards (Vlaar et al., 2006;Provan and Kenis, 2007).

Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union.

82 G. Hutter: Goal-oriented networks and capacity building for natural hazards

Networks are important for connecting actors from di-verse societal spheres. Given that actors are significantlyinfluenced by conditions in these spheres (e.g., formal in-stitutional constraints, informal ways of solving problems),it is necessary to demonstrate that network actors actuallywork together in the direction of a goal at the network level(Huxham and Vangen, 2005). Goal-orientation of networksdoes not necessarily imply and lead to the goal directednessof decisions and actions of network members. Goal direct-edness of decisions and actions is a specific achievement.Against this background, the paper asks the following ques-tion: how do network actors create goal directedness in net-works that aim to build social capacities for natural hazards?

The paper explores this question based on two case stud-ies about goal-oriented networks in the Dresden region inGermany (Hutter et al., 2011; Hutter, 2012; Hutter andBohnefeld, 2013). Both networks deal with the challenge ofadapting to climate change in cities and regions. Both ad-dress issues of dealing with natural hazards in the contextof climate change adaptation. The author of the paper wasintensively involved in establishing the two networks and inmanaging them, especially with regard to issues of long-termplanning. The paper is an attempt to reflect on these experi-ences and to propose some generalizations about the cases(Yin, 2009). In the future, the findings of the paper may feedinto more theory-oriented approaches to network develop-ment in the context of social capacity building for naturalhazards (based, for instance, on the work of Borgatti and col-leagues – Jones et al., 1997; Borgatti and Foster, 2003; Bor-gatti and Halgin, 2011).

The following two sections present the concepts to pro-vide a framework for the case studies (Yin, 2009): Sect. 2is about the concept of a “goal-oriented network”. Section 3seeks to clarify the relations between goal-oriented networksas networking episodes and continuous processes of socialcapacity building. Section 4 introduces the two examples inthe Dresden region as case studies. Section 5 shows two con-clusions.

2 Goal-oriented networks

In its most general form, the term “network” refers to a setof nodes and a set of ties that connect the nodes to someextent (in the social sciences, nodes are called network ac-tors). This general notion is used in various scientific dis-ciplines and policy contexts. The paper mainly refers tothe literature about network relations between organizations(inter-organizational network, see Borgatti and Foster, 2003;Provan and Kenis, 2007; Klijn, 2008; Raab and Kenis, 2009).Hence, the sociological literature about social networks onthe one hand and research findings about networksin orga-nizations on the other are in the background of analysis (seeVan Wijk et al., 2003 for a review).

It is important to distinguish between different types ofnetworks (Diller, 2002; Kilduff and Tsai, 2003; Powell andGrodal, 2005; Wiechmann, 2008; Raab and Kenis, 2009).This paper uses the concept of a goal-oriented network toaddress issues of network management in the context of so-cial capacity building for natural hazards. This concept hasthe following core features:

– Goal orientation at the network level:A network oforganizations declares to realize a goal that is commu-nicated to external organizations as the desired jointoutput of network actors in the future. The rationalefor establishing a network is based on the belief thatnew ties between organizations are necessary to realizethe goal. The paper focuses on a type of network withan initial goal statement that needs some specificationto be instructive for interpretations, decisions and ac-tions of network actors. Goal-oriented networks referto multiple levels of social relations (the group, theorganization, the network, see Knight, 2002; Huxhamand Vangen, 2005; Raab and Kenis, 2009).

– Collaboration between network actors:In general,networks can combine collaborative and competitiverelations (Powell, 1990). A goal-oriented network inparticular is based on the belief that collaboration be-tween network actors will lead to the realization of thenetwork goal (Huxham and Vangen, 2005; Ansell andGash, 2007).

– Formal and informal processes of network manage-ment:A goal-oriented network shows some formaliza-tion of interaction between the network actors (Anselland Gash, 2007). The term “formalization” refers toboth processes of agreeing on and codifying formalstructures, procedures, and so forth, and the output ofthis process in terms of network-specific documents(Vlaar et al., 2006). Of course, informal processes ofcommunication are also relevant for goal-oriented net-works (Ring and Van de Ven, 1994).

Provan and Kenis (2007) speak of “goal-directed net-works”. We prefer the term “goal-oriented” because it is themain question of this paper how (and to what extent) net-works of organizations develop goal directedness in the con-text of social capacity building for natural hazards.

Goal-oriented networks are characterized by a complex setof structural features, network processes, and outputs. Thereis no “grand theory” that covers all these aspects of goal-oriented networks (e.g., Provan and Sydow, 2008). We ar-gue that goal orientation in the context of capacity buildingfor natural hazards is significantly influenced by four kindsof variables: (1) processes of making sense of the networkpurpose to advance from goal orientation to goal directed-ness, (2) network size, (3) composition of network actors,and (4) network governance form.

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 14, 81–94, 2014 www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/14/81/2014/

G. Hutter: Goal-oriented networks and capacity building for natural hazards 83

Table 1.Comparing goal orientation and goal directedness of whole networks.

Goal orientation Goal directedness

Goal orientation is acore featureof a whole network; abstractgoal statements are mainly formal

Goal directedness is avariable of a whole network; specificstatements may be formal and informal

Goal statements help tojustify the existence of the network withregard to the stakes of external actors

Specific goal statements help tocoordinate and motivateactionsof network actors

Goal orientation is important for achievinglegitimacyof a wholenetwork

Goal directedness is important for achievingeffectivenessof awhole network

2.1 Goal directedness

The distinction between goal orientation and goal directed-ness is crucial to understanding this paper (see Table 1). Goalorientation means that network actors are aware of being in-volved in a network that declares to realize a goal at the levelof a whole network. Goal orientation is, as mentioned above,the rationale for establishing the network. However, this doesnot necessarily imply that the “official” goal statement is ac-tually of high relevance for interpretations, decisions and ac-tions of network actors. A network goal statement may onlybe the “façade” of a network to justify its existence in the faceof powerful external actors, like organizations that providethe network with resources. Behind this “façade”, networkactors may follow their own agendas that are only looselycoupled to the network goal, if at all (Meyer and Rowan,1977; Scott, 2008).

Goal orientation is a core network feature, whereas goaldirectedness may vary with regard to, among others, the will-ingness, capabilities, and resources of actors to make senseof a network goal. Goal directedness means that an initialnetwork goal statement is the content of intensive processesof interpretations, decisions and actions of network actors. Itencompasses at least the following two processes:

– Specification:The paper considers networks with ini-tial goal statements that are quite abstract and/or am-biguous. Goal directedness is a process that specifiesthe content of the goal statement and how networkactors interpret goal statements. “Goal-directed net-work trajectories develop aroundspecificgoals thatmembersshare.” (Kilduff and Tsai, 2003, p. 89, ital-ics added). Healey (2009, p. 449) uses the similar, butmore ambiguous term of “framing selectively” to ar-gue that goal directedness “involves a selective focus.It offers a way through the morass of issues, ideas,claims and arguments to identify one or more con-cepts, images and/or principles which are both mean-ingful and give direction.”

– Implementation:Network actors interested in goal di-rectedness are also concerned with delivering in amoreformalway what the network promised to deliver

at the outset of establishing the network. Implemen-tation means demonstrating through documented evi-dence that an initial goal statement has actually beenrealized in terms of specific network outputs, whateverthe content and (argumentative) quality of these prod-ucts may be.

We assume that making sense of the network goal throughsome specification and implementation is necessary for net-work effectiveness (Provan and Kenis, 2007). This assump-tion is in line with an interpretative approach to understand-ing and explaining networks and organizations (Aldrich andRuef, 2006, p. 43–46). An interpretative approach sees goalorientation and goal directedness, especially in the case ofnetworks with high or modest heterogeneity (Eden and Hux-ham, 2001; Huxham and Vangen, 2005), as unstable socialprocesses “constantly at risk of dissolution” (Aldrich andRuef, 2006, p. 45). Network actors face the challenge of mak-ing sense of the network goal (Weick, 1995; Vlaar et al.,2006). This social process is influenced, among others, bythe network size, the composition of the actors, and espe-cially the network governance form.

2.2 Network size

The term “network size” may refer to various features ofgoal-oriented networks. A network may grow because of newties between network members that were previously uncon-nected. Size is measured by counting the ties between net-work actors. An alternative understanding is that a networkmay increase its size due to the entry of new network mem-bers. Size is measured by counting the network actors (“num-ber of nodes”). This paper refers to the latter for understand-ing network size.

It is assumed that network size is influenced by, amongother factors, funding conditions for the establishment ofgoal-oriented networks. Network size is also influenced bythe willingness of actors to participate in a network basedon voluntary, perhaps more informal resource contributions.Furthermore, network research has shown that existing net-work relations significantly influence the emergence of newnetworks (Gulati et al., 2002).

www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/14/81/2014/ Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 14, 81–94, 2014


Why is network size important for network management?Firstly, network size can have an influence on the degreeof formalization of interactions between network members.Large networks are more involved in formalization thansmall networks. However, there are complex causal relationsbetween network size and management that will be exploredin the two case studies. Secondly, network size influenceswhat network actors and external actors expect from a net-work as appropriate output. To put it simply: large networksmay evoke high expectations of the contribution of a networkto social capacity building. However, high expectations mayalso emerge due to the high level of trust between networkactors and/or the trustworthiness and prominence of the net-work from the viewpoint of external actors. In contrast, ac-tors in small networks may have the impression that they areforced to be pragmatic about what is expected from the net-work right from the outset of networking. To generalize thisreasoning: it is important to consider the starting conditionsof a goal-oriented network (see Ansell and Gash, 2007 andSect. 3 on goal-oriented networks as networking episodeswith a start and a finish).

2.3 Heterogeneity: composition of actors

The meanings of the term “heterogeneity” may also vary.Here, the term refers to differences between network actorsthat are strongly influenced by formal and informal institu-tional conditions of these actors. The term “institution” cov-ers not only regulatory institutional constraints, but also nor-mative and cognitive–cultural institutions that are importantfor understanding why an actor interprets, decides and actslike he or she does (Scott, 2008).

The meaning of the term “network heterogeneity” is muchbroader than the heterogeneity of actors. Network hetero-geneity depends on complex conditions (see Ansell andGash, 2007), for instance, the history of network relationsand processes of agenda setting in regions (Wiechmann,2008).

Sandström and Carlsson (2008, Carlsson and Sandström,2008) argue that networks with high heterogeneity are nec-essary, but not sufficient conditions for finding innova-tive solutions in the context of natural resource manage-ment. Network actors with heterogeneous institutional back-grounds provide an equally heterogeneous pool of informa-tion, knowledge and referrals that are important for find-ing innovative solutions. Vlaar et al. (2006) argue that goal-oriented networks with high heterogeneity require intensiveand complex processes of “sensemaking” (Weick, 1995) tocapitalize on the potential of heterogeneous networks to findinnovative solutions (Van Wijk et al., 2003). These authorsagree that high heterogeneity can be both a blessing and acurse for goal-oriented networks (Benz and Fuerst, 2002).High heterogeneity may be a blessing if network actors finda way to develop a common understanding as a basis forjointly specifying and implementing the network goal. High

heterogeneity may be a curse if it prevents the network actorsfrom developing a focused common agenda that is specificenough to direct interactions.

2.4 Network governance form

A network can be understood as a form of governance that iscompared with markets and hierarchies as alternative gov-ernance arrangements (see the seminal article by Powell,1990). This paper takes a closer look at goal-oriented net-works and how they are managed based on a specific “formof network governance” (Provan and Kenis, 2007, p. 233;Raab and Kenis, 2009, p. 207, use the term “governanceforms of whole networks”). The term refers to network struc-tures that shape, firstly, who the main decision makers arewith regard to goal orientation at the network level and thatshape, secondly, how these decisions are made. Provan andKenis (2007) distinguish between three forms of networkgovernance:

– A lead organization networkis a goal-oriented net-work in which one organization shapes the interpreta-tions and decisions about the goal of the network andabout the ways to realize it. Kilduff and Tsai (2003,p. 87–110) assume that goal-oriented networks areusually led by one powerful organization with the in-ternal and external legitimacy to steer network devel-opment. In this paper, we consider further networkgovernance forms.

– A network administrative organizationis a networkthat is characterized by the establishment of anewnetwork-specific administrative unit responsible fornetwork management. All network actors have strongties with the administrative unit. Often, they contributeto establishing the financial basis of the unit.

– A network with shared governanceis a network inwhich all network actors, in principle, have the dutyand possibility to shape fundamental decisions aboutthe goal of the network as well as ways of goal spec-ification and implementation (Geddes, 2008 uses theterm “partnerships”). Provan and Kenis (2007) arguethat shared governance is effective in small networksthat require only limited professional network manage-ment competencies.

The governance form of a goal-oriented network may be dueto deliberate decisions of powerful actors at the outset of es-tablishing the network. The governance form may also de-velop in a more evolutionary way without a “mastermind”choosing the form of the network. The governance form ofa goal-oriented network is difficult to see and control be-cause the term refers to the whole network and not to theperceptions of single network actors. This may hold espe-cially for large networks. However, we follow Provan and



Table 2.Three levels of attention to analyze goal-oriented networks from a network management perspective (source: inspired by Weick andQuinn, 1999; Healey, 2007; Jones and Liechtenstein, 2008; Raab and Kenis, 2009).

Level No. 1Episodic networking

Specific episode of networking (e.g., goal-oriented networks as project networks; see case studies aboutKLIMA fit and REGKLAM)

Level No. 2Continuous networking

Continuous processes of networking in the context of existing multiple networks that are partly con-nected (e.g., regional “landscape” of governance networks)

Level No. 3Basis of networking

Basic assumptions and values of networking and networks (e.g., assumptions about time and temporal-ity of project networks)

Kenis (2007), who argue that the governance form of a net-work is crucial for goal specification and implementation andtherefore for its effectiveness.

3 Goal-oriented networks and capacity building

Networks and networking are, as mentioned in the introduc-tion, important for social capacity building for natural haz-ards (Kuhlicke et al., 2011). However, the relations betweennetworks and capacity building are complex and uncertainand may show desired as well as undesired consequences.Furthermore, there are many different ways of classifyingnetworks to understand the relations between networks andcapacity building. This raises the question of how the rela-tions between goal-oriented networks and capacity buildingare conceptualized in this paper: the relations between net-works and capacity building are conceptualized from a net-work management perspective based on the distinction be-tween episodic and continuous processes (Weick and Quinn,1999). Table 2 summarizes this conceptualization.

The following highlights three implications of this con-ceptualization with regard to the two case studies aboutKLIMA fit and REGKLAM (see below):

– Episodic networking:Networking sometimes refersto specific projects (“project network”, Windeler andSydow, 2001). Partners work together to accomplish aspecific task with fixed time limits (“project duration”)and resource constraints. Networking has a beginningand an end due to formalized agreements and obliga-tions (Vlaar et al., 2006; Ansell and Gash, 2007). Bothcase studies refer to such project networks and pro-cesses of episodic networking.

– Continuous networking: Project networks oftenemerge in the context of existing social relation-ships (Gulati et al., 2002) and seek to influencethese relationships during project realization andby delivering the project network output (Healey,2007). Both project networks in the case studieswere established to make contributions to continuousdecision-making processes in the Dresden region.Actors that are involved in KLIMAfit and REGKLAM

continue networking after these two project networkshave accomplished their tasks (e.g., by using projectnetwork results in formal processes of updating theregional plan for the Dresden region). The interfaceof episodic and continuous networking may be orga-nized by actors that participate in multiple networks.Organizing this interface can be a difficult task, forinstance, because formal processes of decision makingrelated to continuous networking are shaped throughcomplex power relations, divergent interests as wellas attempts to ensure the “democratic anchorage” ofnetworks (e.g., Benz and Fuerst, 2002; Sørensen andTorfing, 2009).

– Basis of networking:Processes of networking repro-duce basic assumptions and values that refer to “deep”societal structures and institutions (e.g., Weick, 1995;Scott, 2008; Raab and Kenis, 2009). For instance, ba-sic assumptions about time and temporality are impor-tant for analyzing the contribution of project networksto capacity building from a network management per-spective (Jones and Liechtenstein, 2008). Project net-works are based on assumptions about time as beinghomogeneous, divisible, linear, measurable, objective,and abstract (McGrath and Rotchford, 1983). Basic as-sumptions and values reduce the complexity of “pos-sible worlds” to a “realistic” set of networking op-tions that network actors are able to handle. However,in the long run, nearly everything of networking maychange, even assumptions about time and temporality(Orlikowski and Yates, 2002).

This conceptualization of three levels of networking doesnot refer to levels of “reality” or “levels of network gover-nance in the real world” (Healey, 2007). All three levels arein play during a specific episode of networking. Table 2 isa heuristic device to clarify the focus of attention. Networkactors as well as researchers may focus on a specific level ofnetworking (e.g., the level of a specific networking episode)against the background of the other levels; they may try toconsider all three levels of networking (“multi-level analy-sis”) to answer questions of capacity building for natural haz-ards.



The literature shows alternative ways of conceptualizingthe relations between networks and capacity building. Someare mainly interested in the scope of change in the contextof climate change adaptation (e.g., Pelling, 2011 considersresilience, transition, and transformation). The literature alsoshows a focus on a specific type of event to analyze capacitybuilding (e.g., Comfort et al., 2010 on “Designing resilience:preparing for extreme events”). Others analyze network ca-pacities within an overall framework of social capacity build-ing for natural hazards. They distinguish between an inter-ventionist and a participatory approach to capacity building(Kuhlicke et al., 2011).

The conceptualization summarized in Table 2 is differentto the existing literature because of its emphasis on the di-mensions of “time” and “temporality” of networking. Spe-cific episodes and continuous processes of networking aswell as basic assumptions about networks can only be iden-tified by explicating the dimension of time. This emphasison time and temporality is consistent with an understandingof social capacity building as a “normative concept that de-scribes the process of (re-) discovering, enhancing and de-veloping. . . resources and abilities. It is thus along-term, it-erative and mutual learning process which is based on thecooperation and interaction of a variety of actors on differ-ent scales.” (Kuhlicke et al., 2011, p. 807, italics added). Ca-pacity building in this understanding encompasses all threelevels of attention to processes of networking.

The focus in the case studies is on the first level of at-tention to networking. However, the studies are also used tounderstand the implications of specific networking episodesin the context of continuous processes at the regional level ofcapacity building for natural hazards.

4 Two examples of goal-oriented networks and capacitybuilding for natural hazards in the Dresden region

In the Dresden region, it is possible to observe various goal-oriented networks that seek to make a contribution to socialcapacity building for natural hazards (see Fig. 1). The follow-ing focuses on two project networks (full names of the net-works and the supporting institutions are given in the sectionon acknowledgements): firstly, the KLIMAfit network was asmall network led by regional planners and supported by theGerman Federal Government. The network deals with issuesof adapting to the impacts of climate change at regional level,especially with regard to flood risk management and torren-tial rain resulting in increased soil erosion. Secondly, there isthe REGKLAM network, a large network also funded by theGerman Federal Government. It was the goal of REGKLAMto formulate a comprehensive program for the Dresden re-gion to adapt to climate change, including issues of dealingwith natural hazards.

The author was, as mentioned in the introduction, involvedin establishing both networks. In the case of REGKLAM hewas responsible for organizing the process of program for-mulation based on concepts from planning research (e.g.,Healey, 2009; Wiechmann, 2008; Hutter and Wiechmann,2010). In the case of KLIMAfit, he was responsible for sup-porting the regional planners in implementing the networkgoal (Hutter, 2012).

Why are these two goal-oriented networks chosen to an-alyze relations between networking and capacity buildingfor natural hazards? Firstly, both the KLIMAfit and REGK-LAM project networks provide documents with sufficientstatements about the goal orientation of the network. Sec-ondly, the involvement of the author in establishing andmanaging the two networks allows insights about complexvariables such as goal directedness, heterogeneity, and gov-ernance form that are difficult to obtain as an outsider ofa project network (Yin, 2009). Thirdly, the actors of bothproject networks have several years of experience and ex-pertise in dealing with natural hazards (e.g., knowledge ca-pacities with regard to river floods in the Dresden region,Kuhlicke et al., 2011, 2012). Relations between network-ing episodes and capacity building may be easier to ana-lyze, if network actors can “start” working together on thebasis of some common knowledge about natural hazards andtheir consequences (“starting conditions”, Ansell and Gash,2007).

KLIMA fit was a project network with a formally definedduration from July 2009 until April 2013. New networksemerge in the context of existing networks (Gulati et al.,2002). KLIMAfit emerged in the context of the REGKLAMproject network, which was established in July 2008 and willend in December 2013. However, the following starts withthe case study about KLIMAfit because the structural fea-tures of this network facilitate an understanding of how net-work actors create goal directedness to build capacities fornatural hazards. The section compares the two cases of goal-oriented networks to highlight some similarities and differ-ences (Dougherty, 2002; Yin, 2009).

4.1 KLIMA fit case study

The emergence of new networks is an iterative and dy-namic process. Network actors try to make sense of rela-tions between possible desired consequences of network-ing (“goals”) and the means and the resources to realizethese consequences. This assumption about network emer-gence helps one to understand why initial network goal state-ments may be rather abstract and why they need specifi-cation. Network actors assume only after several rounds ofmaking sense of the (possible) network goal that others arereliable and trustworthy. Until then, network actors prefer tocommit only to abstract goal statements that leave enoughleeway for interpretation while network relations develop



23

Figure 1: The Dresden region as defined in the REGKLAM project network. The region is an approximation to

the planning region relevant for the project network KLIMAfit (Source: Roessler et al. 2013, 127)

Fig. 1. The Dresden region as defined in the REGKLAM project network. The region is an approximation of the planning region relevant tothe KLIMAfit project network (source: Roessler et al., 2013, p. 127).

further and transaction costs become clearer (Ring and Vande Ven, 1994; Vlaar et al., 2006).

In line with this understanding of network emergence,KLIMA fit was established by representatives from the re-gional planning office based on communication with poten-tial network partners in the context of meetings of the REGK-LAM network. The possibility of applying for funding orga-nized by the German Federal Government within a programabout innovative solutions for climate change adaptation andspatial planning triggered this process of communication be-tween the potential network partners of KLIMAfit. Regionalplanners were motivated to apply as “lead partner” for thisfunding because REGKLAM does not focus on the specificissues of statutory regional planning for climate change adap-tation. Regional planners claimed “ownership” of KLIMAfitright from the beginning and were willing to make signifi-cant resource commitments, also to comply with the manydetailed procedures and requirements defined by the FederalGovernment.

4.1.1 From goal orientation to goal directedness

KLIMA fit was characterized by an intensive process of goalspecification that can be divided into three phases:

1. KLIMA fit started with a rather abstract overall goalstatement to justify networking. The network declaredto formulate a strategy that (1) leads to the “imple-mentation” of existing regional planning statementsfor climate change adaptation (as mainly defined in theexisting and legally approved regional plan) and that(2) takes non-statutory planning, especially regionalmanagement, more intensively into account. This goalstatement corresponds with the well-known argumentof planners and planning researchers that statutoryplanning is not enough to consider long-term chal-lenges with high uncertainty like climate change andthat applying a complex portfolio of instruments basedon intensive collaboration and networking is needed(e.g., Greiving, 2010; Klemme, 2011). Other parts ofthe application for funding were much more detailed



with regard to climate change adaptation and the con-ditions of the Dresden region.

2. In March 2011, KLIMAfit provided some interim re-sults defined as products: Product No. 1 included de-tailed empirical results, for instance, about climatechange at regional and sub-regional level to considerthe interests of regional managers as well as surveyresults about the relevance of existing regional plan-ning statements for local planning. Product No. 2 gavean overview of recommendations for regional plan-ning and regional management in the Dresden regionto consider climate change adaptation more system-atically in future planning processes. These recom-mendations focused on a relatively broad agenda ofplanning issues (e.g., aforestration at specific locationswithin the region, issues of soil erosion and flood riskmanagement, topics of regional management in ruralareas, implementation issues at multiple levels of strat-egy making).

3. From April 2011 to April 2013, the German Fed-eral Government continued to support KLIMAfit basedon a more selective choice of planning issues. Re-gional planners and the Federal Government agreedto focus on two issues: firstly,flood risk managementto enhance the influence of regional planning on thebuilding stock, especially with regard to extreme floodevents; secondly, dealing withsoil erosion due to tor-rential rain through a more selective process of priori-tizing the most vulnerable areas in the Dresden region.Planners expected that this would increase the likeli-hood of implementing some measures for reducing soilerosion.

In this process of goal specification, the regional plan servedas a reference pointin network communication, either tospecify the content of further processes of statutory plan-ning or to justify activities that are seen as complementary tostatutory planning. The following shows the structural con-ditions of this process of goal specification.

4.1.2 Network size

Compared to the REGKLAM network, KLIMAfit was a rel-atively small project network. The regional planning officewas the lead partner, supported by the “Leibniz Institute ofEcological Urban and Regional Development (IOER)” re-search organization in Dresden. Representatives of two andthen three regional management offices acting on behalf ofmunicipalities in rural areas in the Dresden region were alsoactors of the project network. Further network actors werethe “Saxony State Interior Ministry (SMI)” represented byan official responsible for spatial planning and a state agencythat supports the “Saxony State Ministry for Environmentand Agriculture (SMUL)” with regard to knowledge about

climate change and climate change adaptation. Retrospec-tively, it is possible to observe strong ties between theseseven organizations as network partners. Weak ties devel-oped during project network implementation to include ac-tors relevant for issues of, for instance, soil erosion, floodrisk management, and regional management on a temporarybasis in the network (e.g., representatives of municipalities,authorities responsible for forestry in the Dresden region, the“Technische Universität Dresden (TUD)”).

Due to the perceived contrast in network size betweenREGKLAM and KLIMAfit, network actors agreed at anearly stage of working together that the expected networkoutput would be pragmatically defined and much more lim-ited than in the case of REGKLAM. However, network actorscommunicated this expectation in a moreinformalway in thefirst and second phases of goal specification. This may be duepartly to the context of funding and the overall program of theGerman Federal Government on climate change and spatialplanning. Federal government as well as supporting researchorganizations and consulting firms raised a broad agenda ofplanning issues and related questions that made early “open”communication about a “selective focus” of KLIMAfit some-how difficult. In a market context, it is probably easier toagree on a “niche” at an early stage of networking when theresource basis is as limited as in the case of KLIMAfit (e.g.,less than EUR 100 000 funding by the Federal Governmentfor the whole project duration, Hutter, 2012).

4.1.3 Network governance form

High reliability characterized the process of working to-gether in KLIMAfit in all phases of goal specification. Therelatively high degree of formalization (relative to the net-work size) facilitated intensive communication between thenetwork actors and effective reporting mechanisms. How-ever, it would be misleading to understand KLIMAfit as anetwork with the governance form of shared governance.The regional planning office was the lead organization fromthe outset of project network development. Network actorsnever questioned the lead role of the regional planning of-fice (high internal legitimacy). The planning office controlledcommunication with the German Federal Government andpresented the main findings of the network (high external le-gitimacy). Regional planners also defined the main param-eters of the process of goal specification (e.g., the regionalplan and planning procedures as reference points for speci-fying the network goal). However, within this framework setby the planning office, network actors had significant leewayfor discussion and for working out the details of advancingregional planning and regional management. As mentionedin the introduction to this case study, the decision to establisha network as a lead organization network was to some extentdeliberate and shaped by the process of applying for fund-ing by the Federal Government. Strong leadership based onthe network governance form of a lead organization network



facilitated goal specification in KLIMAfit. We propose thatthe governance form is more important for a successful pro-cess of goal specification than the size or the heterogeneityof the network (Kilduff and Tsai, 2003).

4.1.4 Heterogeneity

A further contributing structural factor was the mod-est degree of heterogeneity of actors. The group of re-peatedly interacting individuals that represented the sevenKLIMA fit network actors shared a similar understanding ofthe strengths and weaknesses of regional planning and re-gional management. To put it simply, KLIMAfit was a smallnetwork of spatial planners and planning researchers. Actorswith a moderate or high “cognitive distance” (Nooteboom,2008, p. 616) to planning participated mainly in events orga-nized by the network (e.g., representatives of land owners,farmers, forest management, citizens). Network actors fo-cused on the question how to structure and interpret the highcomplexity and heterogeneity of contents that are relevant tobuilding capacities for natural hazards in the context of cli-mate change (e.g., assessing and dealing with uncertainty ofclimate change variables, analyzing land use changes with acomplex spectrum of evaluation criteria, discussing differentapproaches to understand and analyze flood risk related toextreme flood events).

4.1.5 Case study summary

KLIMA fit was a small project network led by the regionalplanning office in the Dresden region. Network actors createdgoal directedness through an intensive process of goal spec-ification that lasted for more than three years. Strong lead-ership shaped this process. Network actors that were con-nected through strong ties were mainly planners or planningresearchers. Joint attention of the network actors to the re-gional plan and statutory planning made it possible to find“a way through the morass of issues, ideas, claims and argu-ments” (Healey, 2009, p. 449) that are relevant for climatechange adaptation in regions. It is likely that some projectnetwork results will feed into the process of updating the ex-isting regional plan (due in four years after the publicationof the new development plan at the level of the Free State ofSaxony in August 2013).

It is too early to analyze the overall influence of KLIMAfiton social capacity building for natural hazards in the Dres-den region. However, during project network development itbecame clear that the regional planning office is able to usethe project network for effective preparation of an update ofthe regional plan, including the “hot topic” of flood risk man-agement in the Dresden region. This effective preparation ispartly due to the intensive process of goal specification. Incontrast, the following case study about the REGKLAM net-work shows that network actors may have some difficulties in

achieving goal specification to discuss priorities of capacitybuilding in the context of climate change adaptation.

4.2 REGKLAM case study

The REGKLAM project network is exceptional in atleast two aspects: firstly, the German Federal Governmentsupports the network through a grant of approximatelyEUR 11 million. Mainly research organizations in the Dres-den region use this grant to finance their activities to estab-lish and implement REGKLAM. Some organizations frompractice have a share in this large budget (e.g., the Cityof Dresden and the state agency that is responsible forsupporting the Free State of Saxony with regard to envi-ronmental and agricultural policy as well as geology, the“Sächsisches Landesamt für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft undGeologie (LfULG)”). Secondly, the Federal Governmenthas supported REGKLAM from July 2008 until Decem-ber 2013, a relatively long project duration compared tomany other state-financed research projects. It is importantto know that researchers in the Dresden region initiated theREGKLAM project network to organize the application forfunding through the Federal Government (for instance, re-searchers from the IOER, the “Technische Universität Dres-den” (TUD), and the “Technische Universität BergakademieFreiberg (TU BAF)”). REGKLAM emerged in the context ofexisting dense network relations between various researchersfrom these organizations and based on some joint projectexperiences. However, the actor composition of the wholeREGKLAM network, the planned project duration, the avail-able budget as well as the ambitious aim to develop a climatechange adaptation program for the Dresden region were newto all network actors.

4.2.1 Goal orientation and goal directedness

In its application for funding, the REGKLAM project net-work declared to realize three goals: firstly, the networkpromised to formulate an “Integrated Regional ClimateChange Adaptation Program” to make a significant contri-bution to the long-term development of the Dresden region.Secondly, the network promised to implement some projectsand measures for climate change adaptation related to theprogram. Thirdly, the network declared to consolidate ex-isting network relations in the Dresden region. The follow-ing focuses on the first goal statement of REGKLAM. Itmainly considers the contents of the process of specifyingthe network goal in a summarized form as agenda buildingto formulate the climate change adaptation program. As withKLIMA fit, it is possible to distinguish three phases of agendabuilding in the case of REGKLAM:

1. REGKLAM started, on the one hand, with a projectagenda that covered the specific topics of individual“work packages” as defined by researchers during theprocess of applying for funding at national level. The



spectrum of these topics covered projections of re-gional climate change and socio-economic changes aswell as impact assessments for settlements and openspaces, agriculture and forestry, and natural and tech-nological water systems. On the other hand, a workinggroup of high-ranking practitioners and researchersstarted to define the agenda of the climate changeadaptation program (the “Integrated Regional ClimateChange Adaptation Program” working group). Themajority of the group members showed some affinityfor planning and strategy development (e.g., regionalplanning, city planning, and strategies of business or-ganizations). The group considered the specific top-ics of the scientific work packages as well as furthertopics that were judged to be important for climatechange adaptation in the Dresden region (e.g., floodrisk management, health issues, nature conservation).As a consequence of this complex process of agendabuilding, the working group structured the contents ofthe climate change adaptation program into “strate-gic themes”. The agenda now covers issues of adapt-ing the building stock, settlement structures and openspaces as well as issues of water management, agricul-ture, forestry, economic development, and nature con-servation. Natural hazards are considered within thesethemes (e.g., issues of soil erosion due partly to tor-rential rain are considered in the strategic themes of“agriculture” and “nature conservation”).

2. The second phase was characterized by intensive pro-cesses of formalization and implementation, butnotby equally intensive processes of specification as a ba-sis for setting priorities of climate change adaptation.Formalization means that network actors agreed on thecodification of the contents of strategic themes (chal-lenges of climate change adaptation, theme-specificLeitbilder, aims and measures). They also agreed onprocedures and organizational arrangements as well asflexible resource commitments to bring the complexand detailed contents together inonedocument – thelong version of the climate change adaptation program.The final version of the program shows approximately330 pages.

3. The REGKLAM project network includes various re-search organizations and practitioners from the Dres-den region (see below). However, politicians, citizens,and representatives of organizations belonging to the“civil society” are mainly included on a limited tempo-rary basis (e.g., a workshop, a meeting). Network ac-tors were aware of this exclusive character of REGK-LAM (Hutter and Bohnefeld, 2013). Furthermore, net-work actors agreed that a program document withmore than 300 pages would be suitable only for ex-perts and officials already involved in more “technical”aspects of climate change adaptation. It also became

apparent that the draft of the program lacks a “selectivefocus” (Healey, 2009, p. 449). The primary represen-tatives of the network actors of REGKLAM decided toformulate a short version of the climate change adap-tation program. The short version was presented at alarge workshop located at the parliament of the FreeState of Saxony in Dresden in November 2012. Politi-cians from various political parties participated in thisworkshop.

In summation, the process of goal specification in REGK-LAM is relatively limited (compared to KLIMAfit). Theagenda of the program was broad at the beginning and willremain broad until the end of REGKLAM. The long andthe short versions of the climate change adaptation programcover a wide spectrum of issues that are, in principle, relevantfor long-term development in the Dresden region. However,it is difficult to discuss and identify priorities of adaptationbased on these planning outputs. In the case of REGKLAM,moving from goal orientation to goal directedness primarilyunfolded as processes of formalizing and implementing thenetwork goal. In contrast, specification in the sense of cre-ating “specific goals that members share” (Kilduff and Tsai,2003, p. 89) or in the sense of creating a “selective focus”was more in the background or absent in REGKLAM (Hut-ter and Bohnefeld, 2013). The following tries to explain thisby referring to the three structural variables of size, compo-sition, and network governance form.

4.2.2 Network size

The grant by the German Federal Government is an impor-tant indicator that REGKLAM is a large project network.As mentioned above, research organizations received most ofthe grant to finance research activities and coordinating activ-ities to realize the three main goals of REGKLAM. However,it would be misleading to understand REGKLAMonly as aresearch network. Firstly, as mentioned above, some organi-zations from practice received parts of the grant. Secondly,various organizations from the administrative and intermedi-ary as well as the private sphere participated in the projectnetwork development of REGKLAM (e.g., spatial plannersfrom different levels, representatives from ministries andstate agencies, from the chamber of commerce in Dresden).The three main goals of REGKLAM provided the rationalefor the intensive inclusion of practitioners in the decision-making organizational units of REGKLAM. Approximately100 organizations were included in REGKLAM – with vari-ous degrees of intensity and through various ways of organiz-ing the inclusion (Hutter and Bohnefeld, 2013). With regardto the observed limited goal specification of REGKLAM, thepaper proposes that large network size makes specificationdifficult through its potential influence on the degree of het-erogeneity.



4.2.3 Heterogeneity

Two features of REGKLAM are salient with regard to theheterogeneity of actors. Firstly, the project network includessome types of actors only on a limited temporary basis (e.g.,politicians) and excludes some types of actors (e.g., citizens).Secondly, the network includes some types of organizationsintensively and in a highly differentiated way according to“strategic themes” that is difficult to understand for outsiders(e.g., research organizations with researchers from variousscientific disciplines, various departments of the local ad-ministration of the City of Dresden, spatial planning at re-gional and state level, state agencies, representatives of theeconomic sector). The composition of network actors showsa bias towards organizations with “strong views” on how toanalyze the challenges, aims, and measures of climate changeadaptation, but only “weak views” on how to make legitimatedecisions to get adaptation focused on only a few issues of apolitical agenda.

Symptoms of high heterogeneity of actors within a selec-tive composition of network members can be seen in discus-sions about “integration”. Different researchers interpretedthis term very differently (e.g., integration as the rationaleof applying a specific method, integration of cause–effectrelations versus integration of aims and measures in differ-ent strategic themes of the program). Researchers and practi-tioners “naturally” also followed different understandings ofwhat integration means in REGKLAM and why it is impor-tant (see details in Hutter and Bohnefeld, 2013). Networksize and the high heterogeneity of actors jointly made anagreement between the REGKLAM actors on the process ofcontent specification in terms of a focused agenda difficult.

4.2.4 Network governance form

Furthermore, REGKLAM can be understood as a networkwith a hybrid network governance form and multiple iden-tities. Firstly, it is important to consider that all formal net-work actors (the seven organizations applying for funding,six research organizations and the City of Dresden) were au-tonomous with regard to the formal management and report-ing to the Federal Government as funding organization. Itis formally correct to say that REGKLAM wascoordinated,not led, by the IOER. Therefore, the form of a lead organi-zation form does not apply. The form of shared governanceis only applicable to parts of REGKLAM, not to the wholenetwork due to its size. Furthermore, REGKLAM did notestablish a new administrative unit for the project duration.Therefore, we conclude that REGKLAM is characterized bya hybrid network governance formwith elements that needfurther description and explanation.

Secondly, REGKLAM is a project network that connectsresearchers in and between specific work packages (net-work of researchers), and it is also agovernance network(Sørensen and Torfing, 2005, 2007, 2009) with the goal of

serving the “public purpose” by formulating a climate changeadaptation program for the Dresden region. Multiple identi-ties and related evaluation criteria are important for REGK-LAM (Provan and Sydow, 2008).

The case study about KLIMAfit points to the argumentthat strong leadership based on a lead organization networkcould have facilitated goal specification as a contributing pro-cess to creating goal directedness. However, directedness inREGKLAM was still realized to some extent due to resource-intensive processes of formalization and implementation.

4.2.5 Case study summary

REGKLAM is a large project network coordinated by the“Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Devel-opment (IOER)” research organization in Dresden. Networkactors created the limited goal directedness of the networkthrough intensive processes of formalizing the “IntegratedRegional Climate Change Adaptation Program” network out-put. However, the final documents of the program show no“selective focus” to enhance the goal directedness of the net-work. The agenda of the program covers a complex set of is-sues with only some considerations of interdependencies be-tween the issues (e.g., conflicts between measures of agricul-tural policy and measures to reduce soil erosion due partly totorrential rain). The limited extent of goal directedness cor-responds to the hybrid form of network governance and thehigh degree of heterogeneity of the network actors that is duepartly to the large size of the network. Under these circum-stances, goal specification (in its limited form) had to rely onintensive processes of developing the formal organizationalarrangements further and on informal ways of communica-tion.

The case study about REGKLAM raises the importantquestion under which conditions it is reasonable to ex-pect thatlarge project networks will makesignificantcon-tributions to social capacity building for natural hazards.Large project networks may trigger difficult questions aboutthe governance of the project network governance form(“metagovernance”, Sørensen and Torfing, 2009). Large,state-funded project networks could and perhaps should beaccompanied by high expectations with regard to the net-work output and with regard to how these networks are orga-nized through (1) metagovernance, (2) a specific governanceform and (3) effective network management strategies (Klijn,2008).

4.3 Comparison of the case studies

The case studies about KLIMAfit and REGKLAM showsome empirical evidence based on a tentative and selectivedescription and explanation of the two cases. Table 3 usesthe conceptual categories developed in previous sections forgiving an overview of the results of the two studies.



Table 3.Comparing KLIMAfit and REGKLAM from a network management perspective (state of work: November 2013).

KLIMA fit project network (July 2009–April 2013) REGKLAM project network (July 2008–December 2013)

Goal directedness through an intensive process of goal specifi-cation, formalization, and implementation

Limited goal directedness through an intensive process of for-malization and implementation

Small project network due partly to the limited grant by the Fed-eral Government

Large project network due partly to the grant by the FederalGovernment

Modest degree of heterogeneity (small network of planners andplanning researchers)

High degree of heterogeneity (but only very limited inclusion ofpoliticians. . . )

Lead organization network (regional planning office as leadingnetwork actor)

Hybrid governance form and multiple identities (network of re-searchers and governance network)

5 Conclusions

Two conclusions are drawn from the attempt in this paperto conceptualize goal-oriented networks and to interpret thefindings from two case studies about social capacity buildingfor natural hazards in the Dresden region. The first conclu-sion focuses on research about capacity building. The secondconclusion makes a suggestion how practitioners can use thefindings of this paper in networking for social capacity build-ing for natural hazards.

Firstly, effective networks that contribute to social capac-ity building for natural hazards at regional level are charac-terized by intensive collective processes of interpreting thenetwork goal. Goal statements will often refer to “tangible”network outputs (e.g., documents to prepare formal plan-ning, a program document) and only indirectly and perhapsvaguely to social capacity building for natural hazards as atransformative goal (Healey, 2007) across all levels of net-working (see Table 2). This conclusion should hold for smalland large networks with modest or high heterogeneity andfor networks with strong leadership or a more hybrid form ofnetwork governance.

This is not to say thatall goal-oriented networks in soci-ety need intensive processes of goal specification (Raab andKenis, 2009). However, the two case studies about networksin the Dresden region suggest that social capacity buildingfor natural hazardsat the regional levelrequires intensive“sensemaking” (Weick, 1995) of the network goal, in par-ticular if effectiveness is an important criterion of networkevaluation (Provan and Sydow, 2008). Sensemaking of thenetwork goal is especially important in the context of capac-ity building for natural hazards, if the network actors face asituation in which they need to make sense of high quantitiesof information in diverse knowledge contexts that are due tonetwork heterogeneity. Making sense of a network goal canbe an important way to avoid information overload (Sutcliffeand Weick, 2008).

Hence, the paper confirms the proposition of Vlaar etal. (2006) and Huxham and Vangen (2005) that network man-agement through mechanisms of incentives, coordination,

control, and evaluation needs to be complemented by at leastequally intensive efforts to make sense of the purpose ofworking together. Organizing and strategizing are both im-portant investments in network development for building ca-pacities for natural hazards (Denis et al., 2009, p. 241–245).What will vary with regard to structural network featuresare the specific patterns of making sense of the networkgoal based on case-specific formal arrangements and infor-mal ways of communication (Ring and Van de Ven, 1994;Weick, 1995; Klijn, 2008). With regard to such network va-riety, it is important to note that this paper is based on onlytwo intensive case studies. It is worthwhile considering fur-ther cases of inter-organizational networks that are relevantfor social capacity building for natural hazards. This couldbe accomplished through more ambitious comparative casestudy designs (e.g., Van de Ven, 2007; Yin, 2009) or net-work surveys (see Nooteboom, 2008). Thereby it would beinteresting to compare state-funded regional initiatives of so-cial capacity building for natural hazards (e.g., KLIMAfit,REGKLAM) with initiatives that develop under different re-source conditions (e.g., “bottom-up initiatives to deal withnatural hazards in the context of climate changewithoutsup-port by Federal Government”).

With regard to the limited empirical basis of this paper,recommendations to practitioners run the risk of being over-generalizations. This again points to the need for more com-parative case studies and network surveys. However, sec-ondly, it still seems reasonable to conclude that network prac-titioners could benefit from considering more intensively thechallenge of creating goal directednessin goal-oriented net-works. Klijn (2008, p. 133) gives an overview of networkmanagement strategies. In one dimension, there is a distinc-tion between strategies for managing interactions within agiven network on the one hand and strategies for manag-ing and changing the network structure on the other. In asecond dimension, there is a differentiation between strate-gies of activation of actors and resources, goal-achievingstrategies, and organizational arrangements. In this approach,the challenge ofcreating goal directedness as a precondi-tion for adopting goal-achieving strategies is not sufficiently



considered. Goal-orientation of networks is easily confusedwith goal directedness (see Table 1). We suggest that net-work practitioners should acknowledge the challenge of cre-ating goal directedness in networks as a management taskon its own. This task will encompass a spectrum of specificmanagement activities, for instance, using the process of for-malization to establish a network as a way to understandmore thoroughly the network partners and how they inter-pret the network goal (Vlaar et al., 2006), comparing initialgoal statements with interim results to discover interestingdeviations (Weick, 1995; Ansell and Gash, 2007), and inter-preting network outputs against the background of the initialnetwork goal statement (Provan and Sydow, 2008) to buildsocial capacities for natural hazards (Kuhlicke et al., 2012).

Acknowledgements.The paper is based on research about twogoal-oriented networks in the Dresden region: firstly, therewas the project network “Raumentwicklungsstrategie zumKlimawandel durch Untersuchungen zur Wirksamkeit des Re-gionalplanes und Integration informeller Instrumente (KLIMAfit)”(www.rpv-elbtalosterz.de). The “Bundesministerium für Verkehr,Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS)” and the “Bundesinstitut fürBau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung (BBSR)” supported KLIMAfitwithin the “Modellvorhaben der Raumordnung (MORO): Rau-mentwicklungsstrategien zum Klimawandel (KLIMA MORO)”,(www.klimamoro.de). In the first phase of KLIMA MORO, eightregions participated, while seven regions were supported in thesecond phase. Secondly, there is project network “Entwicklungund Erprobung eines Integrierten Regionalen Klimaanpas-sungsprogramms für die Modellregion Dresden (REGKLAM)”(www.regklam.de). The REGKLAM project network is financedby the “Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF)”within the program of KLIMZUG (www.klimzug.de). TheKLIMZUG program focuses on adaptation to the impacts ofclimate change in cities and regions. The BMBF supports sevenregions in Germany within this program.

Edited by: C. KuhlickeReviewed by: three anonymous referees

References

Aldrich, H. E. and Ruef, M.: Organizations Evolving, London,Thousand Oaks, 2006.

Ansell, Ch. and Gash, A.: Collaborative Governance in Theory andPractice, J. Public Admin. Res. Theor., 18, 543–571, 2007.

Benz, A. and Fuerst, D.: Policy Learning in Regional Networks,Euro. Urban Reg. Stud., 9, 21–35, 2002.

Borgatti, St. P. and Foster, P. C.: The Network Paradigm in Orga-nizational Research: A Review and Typology, J. Manage., 29,991–1013, 2003.

Borgatti, St. P. and Halgin D. S.: On Network Theory, OrganizationSci., 22, 1168–1181, 2011.

Carlsson, L. and Sandström, A.: Network Governance and the Com-mons, Int. J. Commons, 2, 33–54, 2008.

Comfort, L. K., Boin, A., and Demchak, C. C. (Eds.): DesigningResilience. Preparing for Extreme Events, Pittsburgh, 2010.

Denis, J.-L., Lamothe, L., Langley, A., Breton, M., Gervais, J., Trot-tier, L.-H., Contandriopoulos, D., and Dubois, C.-A.: The Re-ciprocal Dynamics of Organizing and Sense-making in the Im-plementation of Major Public-Sector Reforms, Canadian PublicAdministration, 52, 225–248, 2009.

Diller, Ch.: Zwischen Netzwerk und Institution, Eine Bilanz re-gionaler Kooperationen in Deutschland, Opladen, 2002.

Dougherty, D.: Grounded Theory Research Methods, edited by:Baum, J. C. Blackwell Companion to Organizations, Malden,849–866, 2002.

Eden, C. and Huxham, Ch.: The Negotiation of Purpose in Multi-organizational Collaborative Groups, J. Manage. Stud., 38, 373–391, 2001.

Geddes, M.: Inter-organizational Relationships in Local and Re-gional Development Partnerships, in: The Oxford Handbook ofInter-organizational Relations, edited by: Cropper, St., Ebers, M.,Huxham, Ch., Ring, P. S., Oxford, 203–230, 2008.

Greiving, St.: Informelle raumplanerische Ansätze zur Anpassungan den Klimawandel, SIR-Mitteilungen und Berichte, 34, 27–37,2010.

Gulati, R., Dialdin, D. A., and Wang, L.: Organizational Networks,in: Blackwell Companion to Organizations, edited by: Baum, J.C., Malden, 281–303, 2002.

Healey, P.: Urban Complexities and Spatial Strategies, Towards aRelational Planning for our Times, Milton Park, 2007.

Healey, P.: In Search of the “Strategic” in Spatial Strategy Making,Planning Theor. Practice, 10, 439–457, 2009.

Hutter, G.: Klimaanpassung im ländlichen Raum, ZielgerichteteNetzwerke am Beispiel KLIMAfit, RaumPlanung, 160, 30–34,2012.

Hutter, G. and Bohnefeld, J.: Vielfalt und Methode – Über den Um-gang mit spannungsreichen Anforderungen beim Formuliereneines Klimaanpassungsprogramms am Beispiel REGKLAM, in:Partizipation und Klimawandel – Ansprüche, Konzepte und Um-setzung, edited by: Knierim, A., Baasch, St., and Gottschick, M.,München, 151–172, 2013.

Hutter, G. and Wiechmann, Th. (Eds.): Strategische Planung, ZurRolle der Planung in der Strategieentwicklung für Städte und Re-gionen, Berlin, 2010.

Hutter, G., Bohnefeld, J., and Olfert, A.: Zielgerichtete Netzw-erke in Regionen und landespolitische Handlungsansätze – amBeispiel von REGKLAM, in: Governance in der Klimaanpas-sung – Strukturen, Prozesse, Interaktionen, edited by: Cormont,P. and Frank, S., Dortmund, 74–89, 2011.

Huxham, Ch. and Vangen, S.: Managing to Collaborate, The Theoryand Practice of Collaborative Advantage, Milton Park, 2005.

Jones, C., Hesterly, W. S., and Borgatti, St. P.: A General Theory ofNetwork Governance: Exchange Conditions and Social Mecha-nisms, Aca. Manage. Rev., 22, 911–945, 1997.

Jones, C. and Liechtenstein, B. B.: Temporary Inter-organizationalProjects. How Temporal and Social Embeddedness Enhance Co-ordination and Manage Uncertainty, in: The Oxford Handbookof Inter-organizational Relations, edited by: Cropper, St., Ebers,M., Huxham, Ch., and Ring, P. S., Oxford, 231–255, 2008.

Kilduff, M. and Tsai, W.: Social Networks and Organizations, Lon-don, 2003.

Klemme, M.: Akteure der lokalen Klimapolitik im Spannungsfeldvon Persistenzen und Eigenlogiken, in: Anpassung an den Kli-mawandel – regional umsetzen! Ansätze zur Climate Adaption


www.rpv-elbtalosterz.de

www.klimamoro.de

www.regklam.de

www.klimzug.de


Governance unter der Lupe, edited by: Frommer, B., Buchholz,F., and Böhm, H. R., München, 121–138, 2011.

Klijn, E.-H.: Policy and Implementation Networks: ManagingComplex Interactions, in: The Oxford Handbook of Inter-organizational Relations, edited by: Cropper, St., Ebers, M., Hux-ham, Ch., and Ring, P. S., Oxford, 118–146, 2008.

Knight, L.: Network Learning: Exploring Learning by Interorgani-zational Networks, Human Relations, 55, 427–454, 2002.

Kuhlicke, Ch., Steinfuehrer, A., Begg, Ch., Bianchizza, Ch., Bru-endl, M., Buchecker, M., De Marchi, B., Di Masso Tarditti, M.,Hoeppner, C., Komac, B., Lemkowe, L., Luther, J., McCarthy,S., Pellizzoni, L., Renn, O., Scolobig, A., Supramaniam, M.,Tapsell, S., Wachinger, G., Walker, G., Whittle, R., Zorn, M., andFaulkner, H.: Perspectives on social capacity building for naturalhazards: outlining an emerging field of research and practice inEurope, Environ. Sci. Policy, 14, 804–814, 2011.

Kuhlicke, Ch., Steinführer, A., Begg, Ch., and Luther, J.: To-ward More Resilient Societies in the Field of Natural Hazards:CapHaz-Nets Lessons Learnt, Leipzig/Braunschweig, 2012.

McGrath, J. E. and Rotchford, N. L.: Time and Behavior in Orga-nizations, in: Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 57–101,1983.

Meyer, J. W. and Rowan, B.: Institutionalized Organizations: For-mal Structure as Myth and Ceremony, Am. J. Sociol., 83, 340–363, 1977.

Nooteboom, B.: Learning and Innovation in Inter-organizationalRelationships, in: The Oxford Handbook of Inter-organizationalRelations, edited by: e Cropper, St., Ebers, M., Huxham, Ch., andRing, P. S., Oxford, 607–634, 2008.

Orlikowski, W. J. and Yates, J.: It’s About Time: Temporal Structur-ing in Organizations, Organization Science, 13, 684–700, 2002.

Pelling, M.: Adaptation to Climate Change. From Resilience toTransformation, London/New York, 2011.

Powell, W. W.: Neither Market Nor Hierarchy: Network Forms ofOrganization, Research on Organizational Behavior, 12, 295–336, 1990.

Powell, W. W. and Grodal, S.: Networks of Innovators, in: The Ox-ford Handbook of Innovation, edited by: Fagerberg, J., Mowery,D. C., and Nelson, R. R., Oxford, 56–85, 2005.

Provan, K. G. and Kenis, P.: Modes of Network Governance: Struc-ture, Management, and Effectiveness, J. Public Admin. Res.Theor., 18, 229–252, 2007.

Provan, K. G. and Sydow, J.: Evaluating Inter-organizational Rela-tionships, in: The Oxford Handbook of Inter-organizational Re-lations, edited by: Cropper, St., Ebers, M., Huxham, Ch., andRing, P. S., Oxford, 691–716, 2008.

Raab, J. and Kenis, P.: Heading Toward a Society of Networks: Em-pirical Developments and Theoretical Challenges, J. Manage. In-quiry, 18, 198–210, 2009.

Ring, P. S. and Van de Ven, A.: Developmental Processes of Co-operative Interorganizational Relationships, Academy Manage.Rev., 19, 90–118, 1994.

Roessler, St., Hutter, G., and Mueller, B.: Entwicklung und Er-probung eines Integrierten Regionalen Klimaanpassungspro-gramms für die Modellregion Dresden, UVP-Report, 27, 125–130, 2013.

Sandström, A. and Carlsson, L.: The Performance of Policy Net-works: The Relation between Network Structure and NetworkPerformance, Policy Studies J., 36, 497–524, 2008.

Scott, W. R.: Institutions and Organizations, Ideas and Interests, LosAngeles, 2008.

Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J.: The Democratice Anchorage of Gover-nance Networks, Scandinavian Politic. Stud., 28, 195–218, 2005.

Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J.: Theories of Democratic Network Gov-ernance, Basingstoke, 2007.

Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J.: Making Governance Networks Effec-tive and Democratic Through Metagovernance, Public Adminis-tration, 87, 234–258, 2009.

Sutcliffe, K. M. and Weick, K. E.: Information Overload Revisited,in: The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Decision Making,edited by: Hodgkinson, G. P. and Starbuck, W. H., Oxford, 56–75, 2008.

Van de Ven, A. H.: Engaged Scholarship, A Guide for Organiza-tional and Social Research, Oxford, 2007.

Van Wijk, R., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., and Volberda, H. W.: Knowl-edge and Networks, The Blackwell Handbook of OrganizationalLearning and Knowledge Management, edited by: Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M. A., Malden/Oxford, 428–453, 2003.

Vlaar, P. W. L., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., and Volberda, H. W.: Cop-ing with Problems of Understanding in Interorganizational Rela-tionships: Using Formalization as a Means to Make Sense, Orga-nization Studies, 27, 1617–1638, 2006.

Weick, K. E.: Sensemaking in Organizations, London, 1995.Weick, K. E. and Quinn, R. E.: Organizational Change and Devel-

opment, Ann. Rev. Psychol., 50, 361–386, 1999.Wiechmann, Th.: Planung und Adaptation, Strategieentwicklung in

Organisationen, Regionen und Netzwerken, Dortmund, 2008.Windeler, A. and Sydow, J.: Project Networks and Changing Indus-

try Practices – Collaborative Content Production in the GermanTelevision Industry, Organization Studies, 22, 1035–1060, 2001.

Yin, R. K.: Case Study Research, Design and Methods, ThousandOaks, 2009.


Goal-oriented networks and capacity building for …...82 G. Hutter: Goal-oriented networks and...

Documents

Transcript of Goal-oriented networks and capacity building for …...82 G. Hutter: Goal-oriented networks and...