1 Towards explanations of stability and dynamics in modes of environmental governance: a framework and examples from water governance in The Netherlands Dries L.T.Hegger, Peter P.J. Driessen, Hens A.C. Runhaar, Frank van Laerhoven Environmental Governance, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University PO Box 80115 3508 TC Utrecht The Netherlands Corresponding author: d.l.t.hegger@uu.nl ABSTRACT Various authors observe shifts in modes of environmental governance or propagate new modes of environmental governance. However, it often remains implicit what exactly constitutes such shifts and what causes them. Many explanatory studies found in literature contain weaknesses both in terms of conceptualising the explanandum and considering a correct and complete overview of potential explanatory factors. To address this gap, this paper presents a meta-framework for explaining stability and dynamics in modes of environmental governance, based on a review of recent literature from the fields of policy sciences and environmental governance. The framework provides guidance on how ‘stability’ and ‘dynamics’ in modes of environmental governance may be conceptualised and subsequently introduces five types of explanatory factors and their possible interrelationships: physical circumstances, infrastructures, structural factors, characteristics of agency and shock events. The paper uses empirical examples from Dutch water governance showing that each explanatory factor may contribute to dynamics and stability in modes of environmental governance. This finding reconfirms and further specifies our observed need for comparative and explanatory empirical studies. The paper concludes with a research agenda, specifying the next steps to be taken in this respect. 1 Introduction There is growing scientific and societal debate about shifts in modes of environmental governance (Driessen et al., 2012; Lange et al., 2013). Several authors analyse or observe such shifts (Driessen et al., 2012; Greenhalgh and Zaapagic, 2009) or proclaim them out of the wish to achieve sustainable transformations in society (Rockström et al., 2009; Van Zeijl-Rozema et al., 2008). The dominant thrust of the debate in environmental governance literature seems to be that societal actors should look for the small margins for change that might help to modulate on-going societal developments in perceived beneficial directions (Van Zeijl-Rozema et al., 2008; Zahariadis, 2007). Literature also emphasises the importance of public-private cooperation (Lemos and Agrawal, 2006; Mees et al., 2012), interactive forms of governance (Driessen et al., 2001) and stakeholder participation (Lamers et al., 2010). To be able to derive recommendations for policy design, there is both a need to analyse variations in modes of environmental governance over time (preferably sector-specific) and to explain these variations and (the absence of) shifts therein (Driessen et al., 2012). Regarding the former, important steps have been made recently (Arnouts et al., 2012, Driessen et al., 2012, Hysing, 2009, Lange et al., 2013). The cited studies present theoretical (meta)-frameworks providing a profound theoretical basis for comparative empirical assessments of stability and dynamics in modes of governance. When it comes to explanations, however, there is still some important work to be done. It is no exaggeration to say that many explanatory studies contain weaknesses both in terms of conceptualising the explanandum and considering a correct and complete overview of potential explanatory factors. For one, empirical studies that actually use the analytical frameworks referred to