A crucial challenge for the coordination of horizontal policy programs—those designed to tackle crosscutting issues—is how to motivate government organizations to contribute to such programs. Hence, it is crucial to study how practitioners in implementing organizations view and appreciate the coordination of such programs. Assisted by Q‐methodology, this inductive study reveals three significantly different “images”: central frame setting, networking via boundary spanners, and coordination beyond window dressing. Most surprisingly, different images show up among respondents within the same organizations and horizontal programs. The authors find that the images reflect elements of the literature: the resistance to hierarchical central control, the need for local differentiation and increased incentives, and a collaboration‐oriented culture. Most importantly, practitioners of implementing organizations perceive top‐down mechanisms as ineffective to achieve coordination and ask for adaptive arrangements, involvement, and deliberative processes when designing coordination arrangements and during the collaboration.

Both theory and practice increasingly argue that creating green infrastructure in order to make cities climate-proof requires joint public service delivery across the green infrastructure’s lifecycle. Accordingly, citizen participation in each green infrastructure project stage is required, but the type of participation may differ. So far, limited research has been conducted to detangle how participation in green infrastructure projects is operationalised along the different project stages. This article, therefore, presents a comparative case study of nine European green infrastructure projects, in which we aim to determine: (1) how participatory ambitions may differ across green infrastructure project phases; and (2) which instruments are used to realise the participatory ambitions for each phase and whether these instruments differ across stages. The cases demonstrate different participation ambitions and means in the three project phases distinguished in this article (i.e., design, delivery, and maintenance). The design and maintenance stages resulted in high participation ambitions using organisational instruments (e.g., living labs, partnerships with community groups) and market-based instruments (e.g., open calls). In the delivery phase, participation ambitions decreased significantly in our cases, relying on legal instruments (e.g., statutory consultation) and communicative instruments (e.g., community events). Altogether, our exploratory study helps to define participation across the green infrastructure lifecycle: Early stages focus on creating shared commitment that legitimises the green infrastructure, while later stages are also driven by instrumental motives (lowering management costs). Although theory argues for profound participation in the delivery stage as well, our cases show the contrary. Future research can assess this discrepancy.

Many public issues require collaboration between governments, private actors, NGOs, civic organizations, and individual organizations. Initiating such a collaboration is challenging, but sustaining such a partnership can be even more difficult. This paper aims to explore what types of collaborative governance structures (CGSs) are found in urban gardens that have continued to exist over the years and that have been discontinued. In order to do this, we analysed 14 urban gardens in the Netherlands as striking examples of CGSs. By applying Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (FsQCA), we were able to unravel plausible explanations for gardens that (did not) stand the test of time. The analysis shows that financial independence, strong institutionalization, and having a small core group of volunteers is the most important configuration for the durability of an urban garden. Even though some gardens were meant to be temporary, this structure made them durable. Two urban gardens ^– envisioned to be temporal ^– did not develop an institutional design or financial independence, which led to their discontinuation.

There are many normative answers on the question how to realize climate adaptation, ranging from pleas for the government to play a decisive role, to calls for refraining from action and relying upon spontaneous adaptation of both government and non-governmental actors. In this article, we present a Q methodological study, aimed at investigating the governance preferences among non-governmental actors in the Netherlands and the “narratives” they use to motivate these preferences. Our empirical results underline the fact that the question “how to organize adaptation”, is a controversial one. The results resemble the various positions in the current academic debate about the governance of adaptation, and add important insights and nuances to it. Many respondents feel that the current climate adaptation policy is too non-committal. The dominant viewpoint underscores a need for more rules and norms and the possibility to sanction organizations that do not adapt. Minority viewpoints show an urge to stimulate and support self-organization of partners, as well as a need for more action. However, financial and regulatory preconditions are needed to stimulate actors in order to see to the necessary investments. Policy-makers have to invest in mixing their policy instruments. Clearly, most nongovernmental actors are in favor of the government setting a framework with rules and norms for climate adaption. However, the viewpoints show that this is not sufficient. The government should facilitate networks, joint efforts and create the financial and regulatory preconditions to remove current barriers blocking adaptation measures.

The extent to which public organizations contribute to crosscutting policy programs is a question of organizational commitment, resource allocation, and monitoring. In this paper, we triangulate survey and interview data to study the explanatory power of organizational factors to understand the extent of organizational adaptation to crosscutting policy programs. In line with the hypotheses, the organizational task, culture, and the portfolio minister’s level of control seem to explain the extent of adaptation. Policy development as a task has a positive effect on organizational adaptation. However, this effect disappears if we add cultural variables. The second model indicates that a customer-oriented culture has a negative effect on organizational adaptation, and an innovation-oriented culture has a positive one. The portfolio minister’s level of control has a strong positive effect on organizational adaptation. Apparently, incentives are needed to hold organizations accountable and provide them clear direction regarding their contribution to crosscutting objectives.

In the Netherlands, dealing with the risk of flooding in the face of the current climate change requires a governance approach that is less based upon the long-standing tradition of prevention and protection, and more oriented toward ideas of resilience and adaptivity. Such an approach is assumed to be more resilient compared to static approaches and better equipped to deal with the indeterminate character of a problem like flood risk. This article presents the Dutch attempt to introduce a more polycentric and adaptive governance approach in flood management, called multilayered safety (MLS). We studied this approach via interviews and an extensive document study, and analyzed the institutions governing the issue using the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework of Elinor Ostrom. For years, the issue was in the hands of a small network of actors, mainly occupied by water experts and governed by a strong lead organization and permanent bodies. While introducing a new, more adaptive policy concept the government encountered both resistance and inability within the existing policy regime. This article shows that the issue of flood safety was successfully ‘tamed’ for decades. Adopting a more adaptive and polycentric approach necessitates ‘untaming’ the issue of flood safety.