Previous research has identified factors affecting local government (LG) adoption of Local Agenda 21 (LA21). The objective of this research is to propose a measurement model and test it in the case of a specific region, the Basque Country. Research results show that the embrace of LA21 by LGs is explained by internal characteristics of LG and factors associated with LG environment, which is fostered, fundamentally, by higher levels of government that can create connected or networking processes. The most relevant external factors are associated with a concept under-emphasised in previous sustainable development literature: cocreation. We propose that, to achieve generalised diffusion of LA21-type tools, we should emphasise cocreation in networks instead of networks in general. The measurement model used in this research could be used in other contexts as a means of confirming or refuting our results and offer politicians a guide for achieving a more generalised and robust diffusion of LA21 processes. This research contributes to LA21 and innovation-adoption literatures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdolfssonS, 2000, “Local Agenda 21 in practice—a Swedish example”Sustainable Development8 (4) 201–214
2.
AdolfssonS, 2002, “Local Agenda 21 in four Swedish municipalities: a tool towards sustainability?”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management45219–244
3.
ARE, 2005National Promotion of Local Agenda 21 in EuropeFederal Office for Spatial Development (ARE), Bern
4.
BarrutiaJ MAguadoIEchebarriaC, 2007, “Networking for Local Agenda 21 implementation: learning from experiences with Udaltalde and Udalsarea in the Basque autonomous community”Geoforum3833–48
5.
BellMEvansD M, 1997, “Greening ‘the heart of England’—redemptive science, citizenship, and ‘symbol of hope for the nation’”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space15257–279
6.
BerkesF, 2009, “Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning”Journal of Environmental Management901692–1702
BurgessJHarrisonC MFiliusP, 1998, “Environmental communication and the cultural politics of environmental citizenship”Environment and Planning A301445–1460
9.
CarterNNunes Da SilvaFMagalhaesF, 2000, “Local Agenda 21: progress in Portugal”European Urban and Regional Studies7181–186
10.
CoenenF, 2009, “Local Agenda 21: ‘meaningful and effective’ participation?”, in Public Participation and Better Environmental Decisions Ed. CoenenF (Springer, Dordrecht) pp 165–182
11.
CohenW MLevinthalD A, 1990, “Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation”Administrative Science Quarterly35 (1) 128–152
12.
ConcharM PZinkhanG MPetersCOlavarrietaS, 2004, “An integrated framework for the conceptualization of consumers' perceived-risk processing”Academy of Marketing Science32418–437
13.
CourseyDNorrisD F, 2008, “Models of e-government: are they correct? An empirical assessment”Public Administration Review68523–536
14.
DamanpourFSchneiderM, 2008, “Characteristics of innovation and innovation adoption in public organizations: assessing the role of managers”Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory19495–522
15.
Di MaggioP JPowellW W, 1991, “The iron cage revisted: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality”, in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis Eds PowellW WDi MaggioP J (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL) pp 63–82
16.
EchebarriaCBarrutiaJ MAguadoI, 2004, “Local Agenda 21: progress in Spain”European Urban and Regional Studies11 (3) 273–281
17.
EchebarriaCBarrutiaJ MAguadoI, 2009, “The ISC framework: modelling drivers for the degree of Local Agenda 21 implantation in Western Europe”Environment and Planning A41980–995
18.
EckerbergKDahlgrenK, 2007, “Project or process? Fifteen years experience with Local Agenda 21 in Sweden”Ekonomiaz64130–149
19.
EckerbergKCoenenFLaffertyW M, 1999, “The Status of LA21 in Europe: a comparative overview”, in Implementing LA21 in Europe: New Initiatives for Sustainable Communities Ed. LaffertyW M (ProSus, Oslo) pp 241–261
FidélisTPiresS M, 2009, “Surrender or resistance to the implementation of Local Agenda 21 in Portugal: the challenges of local governance for sustainable development”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management52497–518
22.
FrelsJ KShervaniTSrivastavaR K, 2003, “The integrated networks model: explaining resource allocations in network markets”Journal of Marketing67 (January) 29–45
23.
FudgeCRoweJ, 2001, “Ecological modernisation as a framework for sustainable development: a case study in Sweden”Environment and Planning A331527–1546
24.
Gram-HanssenK, 2000, “Local Agenda 21: traditional gemeinschaft or late-modern subpolitics?”Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning2225–235
25.
GranovetterM S, 1973, “The strength of weak ties”American Journal of Sociology781360–1380
26.
HairJ FBlackW CBabinB JAndersonR E, 2010Multivariate Data Analysis7th edition, (Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ)
27.
HeskettJ LJonesT OLovemanG WSasserE WSchlesingerL A, 1994, “Putting the service–profit chain to work”Harvard Business Review72164–174
28.
JoasMEvansBTheobaldK, 2007, “Local Agenda 21 in Europe—the second phase of ecological modernisation in local government”Ekonomiaz6492–111
29.
JunK-NWeareC, 2010, “Institutional motivations in the adoption of innovations: the case of e-government”Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory advance online access, doi:10.1093/jopart/muq020
30.
KatzM LShapiroC, 1985, “Network externalities, competition, and compatibility”American Economic Review75424–440
31.
KazanaVKazaklisA, 2009, “Exploring quality of life concerns in the context of sustainable rural development at the local level: a Greek case study”Regional Environmental Change9209–219
32.
KernKLöffelsendT, 2004, “Sustainable development in the Baltic Sea region. Governance beyond the nation state”Local Environment9451–467
33.
KernKKollCSchophausM, 2007, “The diffusion of Local Agenda 21 in Germany: comparing the German federal states”Environmental Politics16604–624
KruegerRAgyemanJ, 2005, “Sustainability schizophrenia or actually existing sustainabilities? Toward a broader understanding of the politics and promise of local sustainability in the US”Geoforum36410–417
36.
LamS YShankarVErramilliM KMurthyB, 2004, “Customer value, satisfaction, loyalty, and switching costs: an illustration from business-to-business service context”Academy of Marketing Science Journal32293–311
37.
LarrueCEmelianoffCDi PietroFHélandL, 2001, “France. LA21: a new tool for sustainable policies?”, in Sustainable Communities in Europe Ed. LaffertyW M (Earthscan, London) pp 180–205
38.
LichtensteinD RNetemeyerR GBurtonS, 1990, “Distinguishing coupon proneness from value consciousness: an acquisition-transaction utility theory perspective”Journal of Marketing54 (July) 54–67
39.
MarksG, 1993, “Structural policy and multi-level governance in the EC”, in The State of the European Community: The Maastricht Debate and Beyond Eds CafrunyARosenthalG (Lynne Rienner, Boulder, CO) pp 391–411
40.
MorganR MHuntS D, 1994, “The commitment–trust theory of relationship marketing”Journal of Marketing58 (3) 20–38
41.
NunnallyJ C, 1978Psychometric Theory2nd edition (McGraw-Hill, New York)
42.
NurosisM, 1993SPSS: Statistical Data AnalysisSPSS Inc., New York
43.
OliverR L, 1993, “Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction”Journal of Consumer Research20451–466
44.
PrahaladC KRamaswamyV, 2004, “Co-creating unique value with customers”Strategy and Leadership32 (3) 4–9
45.
RusselDJordanA, 2009, “Joining up or pulling apart? The use of appraisal to coordinate policy making for sustainable development”Environment and Planning A411201–1216
46.
SancassianiW, 2005, “Local Agenda 21 in Italy: an effective governance tool for facilitating local communities' participation and promoting capacity building for sustainability”Local Environment10 (2) 189–200
47.
ScottJ, 1991Social Network Analysis (Sage, Newbury Park, CA)
48.
WalkerR M, 2006, “Innovation type and diffusion: an empirical analysis of local government”Public Administration84311–335
49.
WalkerR M, 2008, “An empirical evaluation of innovation types and organizational and environmental characteristics: towards a configuration framework”Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory18591–615
50.
YangC, 2005, “Multilevel governance in the cross-boundary region of Hong Kong–Pearl River Delta, China”Environment and Planning A372147–2168
