| dc.description.abstract | This thesis applied the Mission-oriented Innovation System (MIS) framework on a case study in the Dutch built environment. It studies the mission “disconnecting 1.5 million existing homes from natural gas by 2030”, which finds it origin in the Dutch Climate Agreement and the Integral Knowledge and Innovation Agenda (IKIA). This mission falls under the overarching mission for the built environment, known as Mission B: A carbon-neutral built environment in 2050 (Taakgroep Innovatie, 2019; Klimaatakkoord, 2019).
By following the five analytical steps of the MIS framework, (1) problem-solution diagnosis, (2) structural analysis, (3) functional analysis, (4) systemic barrier analysis, and (5) reflection (planned) mission governance actions, and by giving specific focus in these steps on the mission governance structure and its influences, the following research questions was answered: “To what extent are the mission governance actions and mission governance structure adequately targeted on resolving the systemic barriers present in the Dutch Mission-oriented Innovation System of the built environment?”. A qualitative research approach was chosen, and data was collected through 30 interviews with various stakeholders involved in the studied mission, desk research of policy documents, academic literature, reports, and relevant websites, and by consulting experts within the internship organisation.
Based on the data analysis, a total of six systemic barriers and their interrelatedness with weak system functions were identified: (i) municipalities experience difficulties in fulfilling their governing role in the district-oriented approach, (ii) missing central steering on the execution of the mission, (iii) bias for technological development and innovation, (iv) fragmented character built environment sector, (v) innovations experience difficulties in scaling up, (vi) difficulty in mobilising homeowners to take sustainable measures. The assessment of the adequateness of the (planned) mission governance actions targeting the these identified barriers showed that although some barriers are addressed by mission governance actions, its effectiveness remains questionable. To improve the adequateness and effectiveness of the mission governance actions, recommendations and focus point have been proposed which should be incorporated or address in (re)designing policy. Furthermore, to minimise the effects the governance structure has on the progress of the mission, it is crucial to improve the coordination, interplay, and feedback mechanisms between the different levels (local, regional, national). | |
