Citizens' initiatives for climate action are actively encouraged by governments to enhance the resilience of communities to climate change. This increased responsibilisation of citizens has implications for the roles of governments. The degree of government involvement does not necessarily decline, but government roles may need to shift: from a regulating and steering government towards a more collaborative and responsive government that enables and facilitates community initiatives that are self‐governed by citizens. However, we lack a conceptual understanding of such new government roles, as well as empirical insights into how local governments participate in citizens' initiatives and how they take up such new roles. In this paper, a “ladder of government participation” is introduced, which is used to explore the roles of local governments in citizens' initiatives for climate change adaptation in the Netherlands. The results show that local governments are slowly but gradually shifting towards more networking, stimulating, and facilitating roles. Key concerns of local practitioners are (a) a lack of flexibility and support of their own municipal organisation to facilitate citizens' initiatives, (b) uncertainty about the continuity of citizens' initiatives over time, and (c) a potential increase of inequity among citizen groups resulting from facilitating citizens' initiatives. An important finding is that the roles of local governments tend to be flexible, in that they can move from one role to the other over time for one and the same citizens' initiative depending on its stage of development, as well as take up several roles simultaneously for different citizens' initiatives.

The planning and implementation of climate adaptation measures requires the participation of citizens. The design of public participation is often determined by local government. Yet, it remains largely unclear to what extent there is deliberate design of participation efforts and which objectives are served with the designs put into practice. This article reviews three cases of adaptation planning in the Netherlands, using a theory-derived framework that links the design of public participation with nine different objectives that participation could have. These case studies illustrate that participants did not depart from an explicitly formulated and agreed-upon objective, leading to a design of the participatory process that was highly contingent. The findings suggest that a more systematic and deliberate approach, in which both the objectives and the design of public participation are communicated explicitly, and are discussed by participants, increases the chance that the objectives are met.

Climate change is associated with various risks, such as flooding and heat stress. So far, most research has concentrated on the identification and quantification of these risks as well as the development of adaptation measures. Yet much less is known about how planners actually perceive and deal with climate change, and why. This paper focuses on the governance of two climate change-related risks in urban areas in the Netherlands, namely heat stress and flooding from rainfall and rivers. Heat stress hardly seems to be perceived as an urgent problem, mainly because there is no clear ‘problem owner’. Because municipalities are responsible for rain and sewage water management and partly for river flooding, increased flood risk is more often recognised as a (potential) problem. Despite the rather low sense of urgency regarding these two climate change-induced risks, urban planners are, or envisage, investing in more open water and public green areas. Heat stress and flood risks from rainfall are not the reasons per se, but primarily act as additional arguments to legitimise these measures, which should contribute to sustainable urban development in general. Our analysis suggests a gap between the perceived urgency of proactive adaptation to climate change by scientists and the perceptions of planners. Climate science research could enhance its contribution to urban planning by providing conceivable projections of climate change impacts as well as by developing adaptation measures that serve multiple purposes and strategies to successfully implement these.

Although in practice the division of responsibilities in adaptation to climate change is often not explicitly decided upon, governments appear to be primary actors in adaptation planning. However, literature suggests that the governance of adaptation requires roles for both public and private actors so that responsibilities can be shared and all of society's resources can be fully exploited. Active involvement of all societal actors might overcome problems of inefficiency and raise the legitimacy of adaptation action. This article presents a framework that enables the characterization and explanation of existing governance arrangements in terms of responsibility divisions among public and/or private actors, and that facilitates the search for alternative responsibility divisions and their associated advantages and disadvantages. The framework is illustrated with an example of a governance arrangement for green roofs as an adaptation measure for storm water retention in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. The merit of the framework is that it promotes the conscious deliberation of considerations in the public–private divide, taking into account some specific challenges to the governance of climate adaptation. It may, therefore, support well-informed decisions on responsibility divisions in climate adaptation by local governments.

The division of responsibilities between public and private actors has become a key governance issue for adaptation to climate change in urban areas. This paper offers a systematic, comparative analysis of three empirical studies which analysed how and why responsibilities were divided between public and private actors for the governance of local urban climate adaptation. For 20 governance arrangements in European and North-American cities, the divisions of responsibilities and the underlying rationales of actors for those divisions were analysed and compared. Data were gathered through content analysis of over 100 policy documents, 97 in-depth interviews and 2 multi-stakeholder workshops. The comparative analysis reveals that local public authorities are the key actors, as they bear the majority of responsibilities for climate proofing their cities. In this stage of policy emergence, local authorities are clearly in the driving seat. It is envisaged that local public authorities need to more actively engage the different private actors such as citizens, civil society and businesses through governance networks along with the maturation of the policy field and the expected acceleration of climate impacts in the coming decades.