Urban physical public infrastructure is a frontline defense mechanism to manage and mitigate climate-related impacts. Market instruments are often cited as possible means to spread risk and reduce financial burdens on the public sector. The authors argue that existing research tends to focus on the technical issues of instruments and neglects considering institutional dynamics that may enable or constrain local market-based financing mechanisms. In this article, three core dilemmas (values uncertainty, planning horizon, and indirect benefits) are used to analyze the responses of practitioners to a possible financing instrument. The findings indicate that the practitioner’s responses to tax increment financing were largely shaped by the adaptation dilemmas and not the characteristics of the instrument per se. By mapping the dilemmas onto whether they would recommend it, participants imposed a financial barrier on climate adaptation investments. The authors conclude that a key imperative in the design of policy instruments is to pay attention to the congruency of informal institutions at the ‘street level’ in order to be in-step with the current sociopolitical conditions. The findings also point to four key attributes that a local market-based instrument would need to be aligned and responsive to the Dutch planning and development context.

The aim of the paper is to assess the institutional (mis) fit of tax increment financing for the Dutch spatial planning financial toolkit. By applying an institutionally oriented assessment framework, we analyse the interconnectivity of Dutch municipal finance and spatial planning structures and practices. Empirical findings from the case study highlight several insights: 1) the application of tax increment financing (TIF) would be more constrained by socio-political than technical dimensions; 2) such an instrument may not achieve the policy goal of shifting financial risk away from local government given the corporatist characteristics of Dutch planning culture; and 3) despite apparent institutional space to consider alternative instruments, enduring norms tend to be resistant to change.

Based on a case study of the Stadshaven port redevelopment in Rotterdam, this paper explores whether existing spatial planning mechanisms and processes can be used to facilitate local-level investment in climate-resilient public infrastructure and/or whether new processes and mechanisms are required to encourage investment in climate adaptation. The study reveals several key findings. First, a lack of conventional funding sources or formalised regulatory framework allowed room for experimentation with existing mechanisms and flexible strategies. Second, project planners are currently ambivalent towards introducing new mechanisms as a means to overcome implementation challenges. The case provides evidence about the role of the governance process, not simply as a means of system coordination that exists in isolation from institutional norms and values, but rather as a space for innovation, which can contribute towards reducing the financial gap associated with climate adaptation.