IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v73y2018icp29-39.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Good governance as a strategic choice in brownfield regeneration: Regional dynamics from the Czech Republic

Author

Listed:
  • Klusáček, Petr
  • Alexandrescu, Filip
  • Osman, Robert
  • Malý, Jiří
  • Kunc, Josef
  • Dvořák, Petr
  • Frantál, Bohumil
  • Havlíček, Marek
  • Krejčí, Tomáš
  • Martinát, Stanislav
  • Skokanová, Hana
  • Trojan, Jakub

Abstract

The application of principles of good governance in brownfield regeneration, for instance through improved transparency and participation of various groups of stakeholders, varies between regions and cities. In this article, we approach good governance as a strategic response of actors in the struggle for creating development opportunities on brownfield land. Good governance has been mostly seen as a normative consideration, but it is not clear why regions with lower development prospects would employ it more than better developed regions, as it recently happened in the Czech Republic. We assume that the public administration at the regional and municipal level plays an active role in divising strategies to attract investors for brownfield redevelopment. This process brings public administrations in interaction with each other and with investors, regulators and civil society groups within a society-wide brownfield redevelopment field. This field is an arena where all these different actors struggle for redeveloping their brownfield land. Regional and municipal administrations from developed regions stand to benefit from their higher economic growth potential and hence have a dominant position within the field. We identify the latter as the incumbents or “power-holders” of the national brownfield regeneration field. Less developed regions have lower attractiveness for brownfield redevelopment, which places them in a subordinate position in the field. They are so-called challengers that are likely to favor alternative strategies for their brownfields, going beyond mere economic attractiveness. By comparing differently developed regions and regional capitals in the Czech Republic, we show how some challengers use good governance, such as responsiveness, participation and transparency, as an alternative strategy to attract investors despite their economic predicament. For regional capitals, however, good governance is practiced both by highly developed and less developed cities. We draw evidence from interviews with key stakeholders and socio-economic data at the regional and municipal level in the Czech Republic. In the conclusion, we show some of the identified limitations in good governace, such as obstacles to participation, responsiveness or transparency, and how they can be recognized and overcome.

Suggested Citation

  • Klusáček, Petr & Alexandrescu, Filip & Osman, Robert & Malý, Jiří & Kunc, Josef & Dvořák, Petr & Frantál, Bohumil & Havlíček, Marek & Krejčí, Tomáš & Martinát, Stanislav & Skokanová, Hana & Trojan, Ja, 2018. "Good governance as a strategic choice in brownfield regeneration: Regional dynamics from the Czech Republic," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 29-39.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:73:y:2018:i:c:p:29-39
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.01.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837717311158
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.01.007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Biermann, Frank & Gupta, Aarti, 2011. "Accountability and legitimacy in earth system governance: A research framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1856-1864, September.
    2. Stojanovska, M. & Miovska, M. & Jovanovska, J. & Stojanovski, V., 2014. "The process of forest management plans preparation in the Republic of Macedonia: Does it comprise governance principles of participation, transparency and accountability?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 51-56.
    3. Linn, Joshua, 2013. "The effect of voluntary brownfields programs on nearby property values: Evidence from Illinois," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 1-18.
    4. Nastran, Mojca & Regina, Helena, 2016. "Advancing urban ecosystem governance in Ljubljana," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 123-126.
    5. Biermann, Frank & Gupta, Aarti, 2011. "Accountability and legitimacy: An analytical challenge for earth system governance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1854-1855, September.
    6. Petr Klusáček & Tomáš Krejčí & Stanislav Martinát & Josef Kunc & Robert Osman & Bohumil Frantál, 2013. "Regeneration of agricultural brownfields in the Czech Republic - Case study of the South Moravian Region," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 61(2), pages 549-561.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ahmad, Naveed & Zhu, Yuming & Ullah, Zia & Iqbal, Muzaffar & Hussain, Kramat & Ahmed, Rahil Irfan, 2021. "Sustainable solutions to facilitate brownfield redevelopment projects in emerging countries – Pakistani scenario," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    2. Kamila Turečková & Jan Nevima & Jaroslav Škrabal & Stanislav Martinát, 2018. "Uncovering Patterns of Location of Brownfields to Facilitate Their Regeneration: Some Remarks from the Czech Republic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, June.
    3. Robert Krzysztofik & Oimahmad Rahmonov & Iwona Kantor-Pietraga & Weronika Dragan, 2022. "The Perception of Urban Forests in Post-Mining Areas: A Case Study of Sosnowiec-Poland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-26, March.
    4. Iwona Kantor-Pietraga & Robert Krzysztofik & Maksymilian Solarski, 2023. "Planning Recreation around Water Bodies in Two Hard Coal Post-Mining Areas in Southern Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-25, July.
    5. Klusáček, Petr & Navrátil, Josef & Martinát, Stanislav & Krejčí, Tomáš & Golubchikov, Oleg & Pícha, Kamil & Škrabal, Jaroslav & Osman, Robert, 2021. "Planning for the future of derelict farm premises: From abandonment to regeneration?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    6. Ghadiri, Mohaddese & Sarrafi, Mozaffar, 2022. "Integrating support groups, an effective approach to regenerate historic neighborhoods of Iran Case study: Oudlajan Neighborhood, Tehran," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    7. Lea Rebernik & Barbara Vojvodíková & Barbara Lampič, 2023. "Brownfield Data and Database Management—The Key to Address Land Recycling," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, January.
    8. Lin Jiang & Yani Lai & Ke Chen & Xiao Tang, 2022. "What Drives Urban Village Redevelopment in China? A Survey of Literature Based on Web of Science Core Collection Database," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-16, April.
    9. Petr Klusáček & Klára Charvátová & Josef Navrátil & Tomáš Krejčí & Stanislav Martinát, 2021. "Regeneration of Post-Agricultural Brownfield for Social Care Needs in Rural Community: Is There Any Transferable Experience?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-18, December.
    10. Petr Klusáček & Stanislav Martinát & Klára Charvátová & Josef Navrátil, 2022. "Transforming the Use of Agricultural Premises under Urbanization Pressures: A Story from a Second-Tier Post-Socialist City," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, June.
    11. Shiyi Yi & Xiaonuo Li & Weiping Chen, 2023. "A Classification System for the Sustainable Management of Contaminated Sites Coupled with Risk Identification and Value Accounting," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-13, January.
    12. Iwona Kantor-Pietraga & Aleksandra Zdyrko & Jakub Bednarczyk, 2021. "Semi-Natural Areas on Post-Mining Brownfields as an Opportunity to Strengthen the Attractiveness of a Small Town. An Example of Radzionków in Southern Poland," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-18, July.
    13. Ines Grigorescu & Cristina Dumitrică & Monica Dumitrașcu & Bianca Mitrică & Costin Dumitrașcu, 2021. "Urban Development and the (Re)use of the Communist-Built Industrial and Agricultural Sites after 1990. The Showcase of Bucharest–Ilfov Development Region," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-21, October.
    14. František Petrovič & František Murgaš & Roman Králik, 2021. "Happiness in Czechia during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-16, September.
    15. Ahmad, Naveed & Zhu, Yuming & Hongli, Lin & Karamat, Jawad & Waqas, Muhammad & Taskheer Mumtaz, Syed Muhammad, 2020. "Mapping the obstacles to brownfield redevelopment adoption in developing economies: Pakistani Perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    16. Josef Navrátil & Petr Klusáček & Stanislav Martinát & Petr Dvořák, 2021. "Emergence of Centralized (Collective) and Decentralized (Individual) Environmentally Friendly Solutions during the Regeneration of a Residential Building in a Post-Socialist City," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-21, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Subhan Mollick, Abdus & Khalilur Rahman, Md. & Nabiul Islam Khan, Md. & Nazmus Sadath, Md., 2018. "Evaluation of good governance in a participatory forestry program: A case study in Madhupur Sal forests of Bangladesh," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 123-137.
    2. Duncan Weaver, 2018. "The Aarhus convention and process cosmopolitanism," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 199-213, April.
    3. Nasiritousi, Naghmeh & Hjerpe, Mattias & Buhr, Katarina, 2014. "Pluralising climate change solutions? Views held and voiced by participants at the international climate change negotiations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 177-184.
    4. Schouten, Greetje & Leroy, Pieter & Glasbergen, Pieter, 2012. "On the deliberative capacity of private multi-stakeholder governance: The Roundtables on Responsible Soy and Sustainable Palm Oil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 42-50.
    5. Teresa Kramarz & Susan Park, 2016. "Accountability in Global Environmental Governance: A Meaningful Tool for Action?," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 16(2), pages 1-21, May.
    6. Cathrin Zengerling, 2019. "Governing the City of Flows: How Urban Metabolism Approaches May Strengthen Accountability in Strategic Planning," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(1), pages 187-199.
    7. Adelaide Glover & Heike Schroeder, 2017. "Legitimacy in REDD+ governance in Indonesia," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 695-708, October.
    8. Karlijn Muiderman & Aarti Gupta & Joost Vervoort & Frank Biermann, 2020. "Four approaches to anticipatory climate governance: Different conceptions of the future and implications for the present," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(6), November.
    9. Rosendal, G. Kristin & Schei, Peter Johan, 2014. "How may REDD+ affect the practical, legal and institutional framework for ‘Payment for ecosystem services’ in Costa Rica?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 75-82.
    10. Jan Fagerberg & Staffan Laestadius & Ben R. Martin, 2016. "The Triple Challenge for Europe: The Economy, Climate Change, and Governance," Challenge, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(3), pages 178-204, May.
    11. Philipp Pattberg & Cille Kaiser & Oscar Widerberg & Johannes Stripple, 2022. "20 Years of global climate change governance research: taking stock and moving forward," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 295-315, June.
    12. Neli Aparecida de Mello-Théry & Eduardo de Lima Caldas & Beatriz M. Funatsu & Damien Arvor & Vincent Dubreuil, 2020. "Climate Change and Public Policies in the Brazilian Amazon State of Mato Grosso: Perceptions and Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-20, June.
    13. Manjana Milkoreit & Kate Haapala, 2019. "The global stocktake: design lessons for a new review and ambition mechanism in the international climate regime," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 89-106, February.
    14. Carole-Anne Sénit & Frank Biermann & Agni Kalfagianni, 2017. "The Representativeness of Global Deliberation: A Critical Assessment of Civil Society Consultations for Sustainable Development," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 8(1), pages 62-72, February.
    15. de Boon, Auvikki & Sandström, Camilla & Rose, David Christian, 2022. "Perceived legitimacy of agricultural transitions and implications for governance. Lessons learned from England’s post-Brexit agricultural transition," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    16. Park, Mi Sun & Lee, Hyowon, 2019. "Accountability and reciprocal interests of bilateral forest cooperation under the global forest regime," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 32-44.
    17. Catacora-Vargas, Georgina & Tambutti, Marcia & Alvarado, Víctor & Rankovic, Aleksandar, 2022. "Governance approaches and practices in Latin America and the Caribbean for transformative change for biodiversity," Documentos de Proyectos 48542, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    18. Marin-Burgos, Victoria & Clancy, Joy S. & Lovett, Jon C., 2015. "Contesting legitimacy of voluntary sustainability certification schemes: Valuation languages and power asymmetries in the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil in Colombia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 303-313.
    19. Pickering, Jonathan & Jotzo, Frank & Wood, Peter J., 2015. "Splitting the difference: can limited coordination achieve a fair distribution of the global climate financing effort?," Working Papers 249508, Australian National University, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy.
    20. Michelle Scobie, 2018. "Accountability in climate change governance and Caribbean SIDS," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 769-787, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:73:y:2018:i:c:p:29-39. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.