Self-organisation in environmental service delivery is increasingly being promoted as an alternative to centralised service delivery. This article argues that self-organised environmental service delivery must be understood in the context of legal rules, especially environmental legislation. The article’s aim is twofold: first, to understand the changing relationship between the government and citizens in self-organised service delivery, and second, to explore how self-organised environmental service delivery complies with environmental quality requirements stipulated in legislation. The empirical study focuses on wastewater management in Oosterwold, the largest Dutch urban development that experimented with self-organisation. The results show that while individual wastewater management was prioritised and implemented at scale, the applicable legal rules were not adequately considered and integrated. Consequently, the experiment led to a deterioration of water quality. The article concludes that the success or failure of self-organisation in delivering environmental services such as wastewater management critically hinges on ensuring compliance with environmental legislation.
DOCUMENT
Timeis.capital is an online platform for audio-visual research on self-organisation. It consists of interviews with people who self-organise and the 3D scans of the spaces from which they do this — project spaces, squats and living rooms. It’s aim is to collect practice-based knowledge and strategies that are produced in the ephemeral landscape of artist-run initiatives — in order to strengthen the non-institutional art world and generate new energy for self-organisation. Timeis.capital consists of a fluid collective of artists and friends.
LINK
Objective: Effective healthcare innovations are often not adopted and implemented. An implementation strategy based on facilitators and barriers for use as perceived by healthcare professionals could increase adoption rates. This study therefore aimed to identify the most relevant facilitators and barriers for use of an innovative breast cancer aftercare decision aid (PtDA) in healthcare practice. Methods: Facilitators and barriers (related to the PtDA, adopter and healthcare organisation) were assessed among breast cancer aftercare health professionals (n = 81), using the MIDI questionnaire. For each category, a backward regression analysis was performed (dependent = intention to adopt). All significant factors were then added to a final regression analysis to identify to most relevant determinants of PtDA adoption. Results: Expecting higher compatibility with daily practice and clinical guidelines, more positive outcomes of use, higher perceived relevance for the patient and increased self-efficacy were significantly associated with a higher intention to adopt. Self-efficacy and perceived patient relevance remained significant in the final model. Conclusions: Low perceived self-efficacy and patient relevance are the most important barriers for health professions to adopt a breast cancer aftercare PtDA. Practice implications: To target self-efficacy and perceived patient relevance, the implementation strategy could apply health professional peer champions.
DOCUMENT
