earth system science chair integrated water management group
TRANSCRIPT
Earth System Science Chair Integrated Water Management group
“Unveiling rules-in-use in eco-engineering projects”
Andrea Juarez 860319413070
MSc. Climate Studies Supervisors: dr. ir. Erik van Slobbe Earth System Science Group Wageningen University MSc. Debora de Block Earth System Science Group Wageningen University
March 2013
2
Table of Contents Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 4
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
1 Summary .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 5
2 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 6
2.1 Background .............................................................................................................................................................................. 7 2.2 Problem statement ............................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.3 Purpose of the study ............................................................................................................................................................ 7
3 Theoretical framework .................................................................................................................................................................. 9
4 Research Questions ...................................................................................................................................................................... 13
5 Methodology .................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
5.1 Case study .............................................................................................................................................................................. 14 5.2 Data collection techniques ............................................................................................................................................. 15
5.2.1 Primary data collection ......................................................................................................................................... 15 5.2.2 Secondary data collection .................................................................................................................................... 15
5.3 Data Process ......................................................................................................................................................................... 16 5.4 Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
5.4.1 Rules in-use analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 16 5.4.2 Traditional versus eco-engineering approach rules in-use analysis ................................................ 16
6 Results ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 17
6.1 ‘Rambla del Poyo’ in Valencia, Spain ......................................................................................................................... 17 6.1.1 Actors ............................................................................................................................................................................ 18 6.1.2 Action situations ....................................................................................................................................................... 19
6.2 The ‘Noordwaard’ Polder................................................................................................................................................ 26 6.2.1 Actors ............................................................................................................................................................................ 26 6.2.2 Action situations ....................................................................................................................................................... 28
7 Analysis .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 37
7.1 ‘Rambla del Poyo’: Rules in-use ................................................................................................................................... 37 7.1.1 Boundary rules .......................................................................................................................................................... 37 7.1.2 Position rules ............................................................................................................................................................. 39 7.1.3 Choice rules ................................................................................................................................................................ 41 7.1.4 Information rules ..................................................................................................................................................... 42 7.1.5 Payoff rules ................................................................................................................................................................. 43
7.2 The ‘Noordwaard’ Polder: Rules in-use .................................................................................................................... 44 7.2.1 Boundary rules .......................................................................................................................................................... 44 7.2.2 Position rules ............................................................................................................................................................. 44 7.2.3 Choice rules ................................................................................................................................................................ 47 7.2.4 Information rules ..................................................................................................................................................... 48 7.2.5 Payoff rules ................................................................................................................................................................. 49
7.3 Rules in-use and eco-engineering approaches: perspectives from case studies ................................... 50 7.3.1 Rules in-use influencing interaction and outcomes in eco-engineering and vice versa........... 50 7.3.2 Traditional versus eco-engineering approaches: lessons learned ..................................................... 55 7.3.3 Rules in-use in eco-engineering and the SESs framework .................................................................... 56
8 Discussion ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 57
8.1 Rules in-use and eco-engineering ............................................................................................................................... 57 8.1.1 The complexity of the rules in-use in eco-engineering ........................................................................... 57 8.1.2 The new and changed rules in-use compared to traditional approaches ....................................... 57 8.1.3 Comparing the ‘Rambla del Poyo’ and ‘Noordwaard’ governance systems ................................... 58
8.2 Application of the IAD and SESs framework .......................................................................................................... 58 8.2.1 Challenges when facing different action situations and levels of rules in-use ............................. 58
3
8.2.2 The usefulness of the IAD and SESs frameworks in Eco-engineering .............................................. 59 8.2.3 Underpinning the IAD and SESs frameworks .............................................................................................. 59
8.3 Methods and techniques ................................................................................................................................................. 60 8.3.1 Criteria for selection of case studies and key actors interviews ......................................................... 60 8.3.2 Data processing methods ..................................................................................................................................... 61
9 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 62
9.1 Related to the research questions............................................................................................................................... 62 9.2 Rules in-use and eco-engineering ............................................................................................................................... 63 9.3 Related to the SESs and IAD framework and eco-engineering ...................................................................... 63 9.4 Related to research methods ........................................................................................................................................ 63
10 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................................................... 64
10.1 Key points for future research .................................................................................................................................. 64 10.2 Related to the methods and techniques ................................................................................................................ 64 10.3 Future development of eco-engineering .............................................................................................................. 65
11 References...................................................................................................................................................................................... 66
12Annexes ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 69
4
List of Figures Figure 1. A multitier framework for analysing SESs. Source: E. Ostrom (2007b) ....................................................... 9
Figure 2. The IAD framework in the background and the inner-workings of an action situation in the
foreground. The rules influencing the action situation’s component parts are listed around its
boundary Source: (Mincey et al., 2013) ......................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 3. The linkages amongst levels of rules-in-use and decision/action situations. Source: G. Cowie & S.
Borrett (2005) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 4. Geographical location of the ‘Rambla del Poyo’ Basin. Source: Camarasa et al. (2011) .................... 17
Figure 5. Timeline of relevant events leading to eco-engineering projects in ‘Rambla del Poyo’. .................... 20
Figure 6. Location of eco-engineering projects in the ‘Rambla del Poyo’. Source: modified from BOE
(2012). .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 7. Geographical location of the 'Noordwaard' polder. Source: van den Brink (2009) . ........................... 26
Figure 8. Timeline of relevant events leading to the eco-engineering project in the ‘Noordwaard’ Polder. 29
Figure 9. Overview of PKB procedure and EIA for the Room for the River Programme. Source: Middelkamp
(2011). .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 10. Landscape Plan for depoldering (eco-engineering) the ‘Noordwaard’. Source: modified from
Ruimte voor de Rivier (2009). ........................................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 11. Rules in-use influencing components of action situations at constitutional, collective-choice and
even operational level leading to eco-engineering projects in ‘Rambla del Poyo’...................................... 38
Figure 12. Map of actors and their relations leading to eco-engineering in ‘Rambla del Poyo’. Both formal
and informal relations are represented by dashed lines; continuous lines represent only formal
relations. ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 13. Rules in-use influencing components of action situations at constitutional, collective-choice and
operational level for depoldering the ‘Noordwaard’. .............................................................................................. 45
Figure 14. Map of actors and their relations leading to eco-engineering in ‘Noordwaard’ Polder. Both
formal and informal relations are represented by dashed lines; continuous lines represent only
formal relations. ....................................................................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 15. Rules in-use influencing interactions and outcomes in eco-engineering and vice versa. ............... 51
Figure 16. Facilitated process approach for ‘Rambla del Poyo’. ....................................................................................... 52
Figure 17. Facilitated process approach for ‘Noordwaard Polder’. ................................................................................. 53
List of Tables Table 1. Second-tier variables in framework for analysing SESs. Source: E. Ostrom (2007b) .............................. 9 Table 2. Types of rules influencing action arenas. Source: Ostrom (2007a) and Polski & Ostrom (1999) ... 12 Table 3. List of actors relevant in the process leading to eco-engineering projects in ‘Rambla del Poyo’.
Source: BOE (2012); interviews; newspaper articles. ............................................................................................. 18 Table 4. Description of proposed solutions: eco-engineering projects in ‘Rambla del Poyo’ basin. Source:
AMINSA (2006). ........................................................................................................................................................................ 23 Table 5. List of actors relevant in the process leading to the eco-engineering project in ‘Noordwaard’
Polder. Source: Middelkamp (2011); Huisman et al., (2004); Paassen et al., (2011); Schut et al., (2010); interviews. .................................................................................................................................................................. 27
Table 6. Lessons learned from eco-engineering approaches versus traditional approaches.............................. 55
5
1 Summary This research aimed to analyse the rules in-use influencing eco-engineering approaches and vice versa.
The term eco-engineering was used to refer to projects in flood risk management, that included the use of
natural resources to increase structure functionality or to create structures (DELTARES, 2009).
Furthermore, projects that considered multiple objectives, different designs and decision-making
processes compared to traditional approaches. Rules in-use have been described as values defining
human strategies and behaviours, when a group of actors interact to produce different outcomes (Hess &
Ostrom, 2005; Polski & Ostrom, 1999). Rules in-use may formally be described in the form of a law, policy
or procedure; or may emerge informally as norms, operating practices, strategies or habits (Polski &
Ostrom, 1999). In addition, rules in-use constitute variables of governance system (Ostrom, 2007a, 2009).
To analyse the mutual influence of rules in-use and eco-engineering approaches, two case studies were
selected: the ‘Rambla del Poyo’ in Valencia, Spain, and the ‘Noordwaard’ Polder in the Netherlands. For the
first case the consented eco-engineering projects consisted of afforestation activities to increase local
water retention; green-ways to collect and conduct storm water run-off; and the restoration of floodplains
to accommodate water after high peak events. For the second case the final eco-engineering project
consisted of depoldering the area, in order to convert it into a multifunctional space with different
flooding frequencies. The methods to develop the research consisted of semi-structured interviews to key
actors and literature reviews. To process the collected data the approach was to construct a timeline of
relevant events. The developments of a timeline of events for each study case facilitated the identification
of action situations, were interactions and outcomes were produced. Once particular action situations
were identified the rules in-use were identified and analysed. This was done by using Ostrom’s Ostrom
(2009) Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Based on this framework the rules in-use
depending on the types of action situations they related to, were identified as boundary, position, choice,
information or payoff rules. In addition, rules in-use were also identified as constitutional, collective-
choice or operational.
The main results and analysis evidenced the complexity of the governance systems in both case studies. A
polycentric type of governance characterized both cases. This means that different actors, at different
levels and from different sectors interacted to produce particular outcomes. This polycentric condition led
to the findings of different action situations, therefore, different types of rules in-use. Furthermore, to
identify rules in-use at different levels (constitutional, collective-choice and operational). The action
situations found consisted of the prescription and application of national and regional policies and
regulations (constitutional level). Action situations and consequently rules in-use found at the collective-
choice and operational levels, consisted mainly of informal lobbying, conflict resolution, and information
activities between project developers and local actors.
Both case studies evidenced that eco-engineering projects were triggered by the influence of new
regulations and policies at the constitutional level (i.e. EU Directives and regional flood safety policies). At
collective-choice and operational levels, new or changed boundary, position, and choice rules were found
influencing actors’ networks. In addition, actors’ perceptions of roles and their level of participation.
Furthermore, such were found influencing informal procedures (facilitated processes). Informational type
of rules influenced a strategic learning between concerning actors and the use of multiple discourses. For
both case studies the mutual influence of rules in-use and eco-engineering approaches resulted from
distinctive interactions. Such interactions were characterized by a top and bottom-up interchange
between actors, a distributed decision-making and the establishment of strategic alliances. As a result the
outcomes produced consisted of projects characterized by their integral design, their technical and
governance innovation, the provision of ecosystem services, and overall by enabling an integrated and
multifunctional flood risk management in the respective areas.
6
2 Introduction Flooding is a frequent, widespread and increasing natural hazard in many regions (Levy, Gopalakrishnan,
& Lin, 2005). Climate change and increasing sea levels are expected to augment the intensity and
frequency of flood related risks around the world (IPCC, 2007). In densely populated areas where flooding
is perceived undesirable, defences are considered indispensable and traditionally have consisted of hard
structures such as dikes, breakwaters, or dams (van Slobbe et al., 2012). In the light of current social, legal
and economic concerns, the overall effectiveness and resilience of these approaches have been questioned
(Levy et al., 2005). The need for innovative and sustainable solutions, with measures that offer
possibilities to enhance ecosystem functioning, has led to the development of new approaches (Borsje et
al., 2011).
New approaches in flood defence with an ecosystem basis have been referred to as ‘Eco-engineering’,
‘Building with Nature (BwN)’ or ‘Room for the River’ (Mitsch & Jørgensen, 2003; van Slobbe et al., 2012).
In general, it can be stated that such approaches consist of an integrated understanding of elements in
both the social and ecological systems. They comprise a chosen vision given the ecological and flood
protection possibilities and preferences, and a design plan for their realization given the particular
governance context where they are to be implemented. In Europe there is already knowledge and
experience with the implementation of such approaches (BwN, 2012; EcoShape, 2011; EU, 2011). Still
most of them need further efforts in addressing and socializing their potential (Naumann et al., 2011). In
the case of successful initiatives new opportunities can be identified or even motivate their development
in other regions. But also better understandings of such new approaches can evidence if indeed they
represent effective solutions in the ways they addressed both the social and ecological systems.
In this thesis report an analysis is presented of the mutual influence of rules in-use and eco-engineering
approaches. Rules in-use can be understood as ‘the values defining the behaviour of actors when they
interact to produce different outcomes’ (Polski & Ostrom, 1999). Therefore, analysing how rules in-use
influenced the interactions and outcomes in eco-engineering approaches and vice versa, provided with a
better understanding of their governance system, but also on how these new approaches unfolded. Two
case studies were analysed in which the technical design, objectives and the actors’ roles to develop
engineering projects, represented paradigm shifts compared to traditional approaches in flood defence
management.
The first case analysed was the ‘Rambla del Poyo’ in Valencia, Spain. Natural water retention areas, green-
ways and floodplains restoration constituted the final consented eco-engineering projects. The second
case analysed was the ‘Noordwaard’ Polder in the Netherlands. For this case the final eco-engineering
project was to create spaces with different flooding frequencies to accommodate water after high peak
events. First an identification of the action situations was developed. This in order to identify the ‘values’
(rules in-use) influencing such situations based on Ostrom’s (2009) Institutional Analysis and
Development Framework. The analysis of the rules in-use evidenced how the rules influenced interactions
and outcomes in eco-engineering approaches and vice versa. Such rules in-use were found to be common
in principle but with different values in both study cases. In addition, that based on the case studies such
rules in-use represented mainly the differences compared to traditional approaches and can be
considered as lessons learned from the governance systems.
7
2.1 Background In Europe examples of BwN or eco-engineering can be found in the United Kingdom with the managed
realignment approach. This approach consists of a cost-effective response aimed to create intertidal
habitats against increasing wave activity and sea-level rise (French, 2006; Turner, Burgess, Hadley,
Coombes, & Jackson, 2007). In the Netherlands new approaches have been institutionalized in flood
defence polices with projects such as ‘living with water’ and ‘increasing the resilience of our flood
defences’(van Slobbe et al., 2012). Another example can be found in Spain where initiatives to improve
local infiltration in urban areas, are being considered as local retention measures against flooding
(Francés, García-Bartual, Ortiz, Salazar, & Miralles, 2008). Different assessments (e.g. ecological, technical,
economic) of these new approaches in flood defence have been made (Francés et al., 2008; French, 2006;
Turner et al., 2007). But other types of assessments (e.g. outcomes and lessons learned) for example of
eco-engineering type of projects can also be found in the literature (EU, 2011). These have evidenced the
importance of accounting both the natural and social systems, when assessing BwN or eco-engineering
approaches.
Berkes & Folke (1998) have appointed the term socio-ecological systems (SESs) to analyse the integrated
concept of humans and nature. By framing two BwN projects in The Netherlands as SESs, van Slobbe et al.,
(2012), evaluated their resilience, social learning and the use of ecosystem services. Following this scope
the analysis allowed an exploration of the subsystems relevant to the BwN approach. The ‘natural system’
composed by the hydro-morphological processes (i.e., sedimentation, erosion) and the ecological
processes (i.e., food webs). The ‘engineering system’ composed by the human interventions influencing
the natural system (i.e., dams, reclamation projects), and the ‘societal system’ composed by the informal
and formal institutions operating in the projects (i.e., laws, stakeholder involvement, networks, practices).
(van Slobbe et al., 2012)
Particularly, the governance system in BwN approaches has been assessed in projects located in the
Netherlands. These have focussed in analysing stakeholders’ networks, regulatory and knowledge
contexts, and their realization frameworks. Thus, preliminary overviews and lessons learned with respect
to the governance elements embedded in such initiatives have been outlined (Wiki 2012).
2.2 Problem statement
There is still a need to learn about initiatives following eco-engineering approaches with regards to their
management, governance and monitoring activities. Better understandings and assessments of such new
approaches are needed to facilitate their future implementation or even identify niches for innovations.
(Apitz, Elliott, Fountain, & Galloway, 2006; van Slobbe et al., 2012; Waltner-Toews & Kay, 2005)
As relevant as it is to understand how these initiatives operate, it is important to know what were the
processes that facilitated their development. Therefore, there is still room and a growing interest from
scholars, policymakers and project developers, to learn about the governance systems in particular with
regards to the policies, strategies, or the norms used in eco-engineering approaches.
2.3 Purpose of the study The main purpose of the research was to analyse how rules in-use influenced interactions and outcomes
in eco-engineering approaches and vice versa. The specific objectives were to define the action situations
that led to eco-engineering projects in the selected case studies. Also, to identify the main actors involved
and the rules in-use. Furthermore, to compare rules in-use in eco-engineering approaches to the
traditional approaches.
8
Another purpose of this research was to contribute in exploring the use of Ostrom’s (2007b) multitier
framework for analysing socio-ecological systems, and Ostrom’s (2009) Institutional Analysis and
Development (IAD) framework. Especially by applying it to eco-engineering projects in the field of flood
management. The framework has traditionally been used to analyse socio-ecological systems, in which
there is clearly a distinguished ‘common pool resource’ (Ostrom, 2007b). Some examples are found in the
fields of forest management, agriculture (grazing and crops production), and in the water sector but
mainly related to irrigation systems, fisheries and pollution of water bodies (Janssen, Anderies, & Ostrom,
2007; Ostrom, 2007b, 2009; Ostrom & Cox, 2010).
The holistic representation of both the social and ecological systems, with the set of variables and their
sub-variables proposed to analyse them (Ostrom, 2007b, 2009), provided sufficient grounds for this
framework to be suitable in the attempt to understand the complexity of eco-engineering projects.
Therefore, with the application of the SESs and IAD frameworks and by analysing specifically the rules in-
use, this research contributed in providing insights about the governance system of eco-engineering
initiatives. Also in providing with new scopes in how to apply such frameworks and also assess such new
approaches.
9
3 Theoretical framework Ostrom (2007b) provides a nested framework to diagnose SESs, in order to achieve more coherent and
cumulative understandings of a system. The framework conceptually decomposes SESs into higher tier
levels with defined inter-linkages and boundaries (Figure 1). The variables of these higher tier levels are
the resource system (i.e. forest, fishery, lake, grazing area), the governance system (i.e. network
structures, rules), resource units (i.e. trees, fish, water, fodder), and the users of that system (Ostrom,
2009). These are related to action arenas where interactions take place that in turn produce outcomes and
feedbacks to the system (Ostrom, 2007b, 2009).
Figure 1. A multitier framework for analysing SESs. Source: E. Ostrom (2007b)
According to this framework each of these levels can further be partitioned into second tier levels (Table
1) which can relatively be considered as separate and independent subsystems (Ostrom, 2007b). This
level of variables allows exploration of parts of the system and are the ones directly conditioning action
arenas (Ostrom, 2009). A third aspect of the framework highlights the condition of ‘non-decomposability’
and ‘non-linearity’ of SESs, denoting that regardless the partitioning of different tier levels, the variables
across scales still interconnect and affect each other’s performance (Ostrom, 2007b).
Table 1. Second-tier variables in framework for analysing SESs. Source: E. Ostrom (2007b)
10
The application of Ostrom’s framework in new flood management approaches for example, will imply that
subject to a particular context the resource system (e.g. flood prone area), resource units (e.g. space for
flood protection), governance system (e.g. flood safety policies, polycentric networks, rules in-use), and
involved users (e.g. government bodies, project developers, organized groups, farmers, residents), have
led to particular interactions and outcomes (e.g. eco-engineering projects) that in turn produce feedbacks
in both the social and ecological systems. Thus, particular variables from the highest and second level tiers
in the system can be analysed to depict how these influence action arenas operating in the system.
An action arena is composed of an action situation and involved actors, but for simplification motives only
the produced interactions and outcomes are depicted in the SESs framework (Ostrom, 2011). A key part of
this framework is the identification of an action situation (Figure 2) and by looking at its internal
components the researcher can specify how actors are being analysed (Ostrom, 2011). The internal
components of an action situation consist of actors in positions that decide amongst diverse actions; based
on the information and control they possess about how actions are related to potential outcomes with the
costs and benefits assigned, respectively (Ostrom, Gardner, & Walker, 2006).
Based on the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework the internal structure of an action
situation is conditioned by the external variables such as the biophysical conditions, attributes of the
community and the rules in-use (Ostrom, 2011). This representation (Figure 2) was considered in this
research, since the main purpose was to study the mutual influence of rules in-use and action arenas.
Notwithstanding, while the framework for diagnosing SESs considers rules in-use (constitutional,
collective-choice and operational rules) as second tier variables of the governance system, the IAD
framework provides the basis to analyse in more detail the action arenas and the influences of the rules
in-use.
Figure 2. The IAD framework in the background and the inner-workings of an action situation in the
foreground. The rules influencing the action situation’s component parts are listed around its boundary
Source: (Mincey et al., 2013)
11
In previous sections the term rules in-use has been defined as ‘the values defining the behaviour of actors
when they interact to produce different outcomes’ (Polski & Ostrom, 1999). However, the term can also be
understood as the ‘shared normative understandings about what a participant in a position must, must not,
or may do in a particular action situation’ (Hess & Ostrom, 2005). Rules in-use are those usually known,
enforced and create opportunities and constrains for those involved. They are frequently nested and can
be crafted at three levels: operational, collective choice, and constitutional (Hess & Ostrom, 2005; Polski &
Ostrom, 1999). Each of these three levels of rules incorporates arrangements and situations (
Figure 3) where choices are made and actions are taken (Cowie & Borrett, 2005). Therefore, they are
useful to explain policy or decision-making situations, interactions and outcomes (Polski & Ostrom, 1999).
At the operational level rules determine actions, patterns of interactions, and outcomes in the physical
world. Collective-choice rules determine who is eligible to participate and how rules at the operation level
should be governed. Similarly, rules at the constitutional level determine the crafting of rule sets but
instead at the collective choice level. Although higher levels bound lower levels of decision situations,
rules at the operation level are the ones directly affecting action situations where the outcomes of the
resource use are generated. Furthermore, such outcomes may in turn feedback situations at different
levels, or within specific level feedbacks may also influence situations and arrangements (Figure 3).
(Cowie & Borrett, 2005; Polski & Ostrom, 1999).
Figure 3. The linkages amongst levels of rules-in-use and decision/action situations. Source: G. Cowie & S. Borrett (2005)
Furthermore, Ostrom (2007a) has stated that in the effort to bring some order to the different rules that
one could analyse, these have been clustered into seven broad types depending on the action situation and
its internal components they relate to. Such types of rules may influence action situations present at any of
the three already mentioned levels and have been referred as: boundary, position, choice, aggregation,
information, payoff, and scope rules (Table 2; Figure 2).
12
Table 2. Types of rules influencing action arenas. Source: Ostrom (2007a) and Polski & Ostrom (1999)
Type of rule Definition
Boundary Rules that determine which participants can enter or leave (under what conditions)
a particular situation. These are also known as the exit and entry rules by specifying
who is eligible to participate and how they do so.
Position Rules that create the positions that participants hold. Such rules specify the number
and type of participants who hold each position.
Choice Rules that assign action sets to the positions filed by the participants. In other words
the possible actions a participant can choose to perform given the position it holds.
Aggregation Rules that affect the level of control that individual participants exercise at a linkage
within or across situations. These rules basically determine how decisions are
lobbied and made in an action situation.
Information Rules concerning the level of information available to participants about actions and
between actions and outcomes linkages. They refer to the amount and type of
information accessible to participants.
Payoff Rules that affect the benefits and costs assigned to participants in light of the
outcomes achieved.
Scope Rules that affect which outcomes may, must, or must not be affected within a
situation
13
4 Research Questions
General research question:
How do rules in-use influence interactions and outcomes in eco-engineering approaches and vice
versa?
Based on the SESs framework there are different external variables (i.e. users, resource units, governance
system and the resource system) that could influence and become influenced in return by projects
developed under an eco-engineering approach. This general question therefore defines the specific values
that were analysed in this research. In this case these constituted the ‘rules in-use’ in eco-engineering
projects. Based on the SESs and IAD frameworks the question also takes into account the ‘context’ (action
arenas: interactions and outcomes) and the feedbacks between both rules in-use and eco-engineering
approaches.
Specific research questions:
What are the main events and processes (action situations) leading to eco-engineering initiatives?
Based on the SESs and IAD frameworks one should first define which are the action situations (e.g.
prescription and application of policies, monitoring and enforcing, lobbying, conflict resolution and
information sharing activities) and the levels that are going to be the subject of analysis.
Who are the actors involved in these action situations?
Again based on the SESs and IAD frameworks, to look at action situations consequently one should also
analyze the actors that are participating.
What boundary, position, choice, information or payoff rules were applied in these action
situations?
When performing an institutional analysis the values embedded in the different procedures, norms,
regulations and strategies, can be of different domains or be affecting different action situations and their
internal components. Thus, the IAD framework provides with a classification of such rules in order to
facilitate their analysis and achieve a better understanding of how these relate to the action situations
being studied.
What are differences between rules in-use in traditional versus eco-engineering approaches?
By looking at the different interactions and outcomes, actors and rules in-use in eco-engineering projects
an analysis can be made over new or changed rules compared to traditional approaches in flood defense
management.
14
5 Methodology In this section the methods used to develop the research are presented. The first step consisted of defining
the criteria for the case study selection. Then the methods used to collect and process the information and
the frameworks and structure considered for the analysis.
5.1 Case study
The case study is a research strategy which focuses on understanding the dynamics or interventions
present within particular settings (Eisenhardt, 1989). This research strategy typically combines data
collection methods such as literature reviews, interviews, focus groups, questionnaires and observations
(Eisenhardt, 1989; Hartley, 2004). Case studies can be used to provide description, generate theory or to
illustrate the theoretical issues being studied (Eisenhardt, 1989). In addition, depending on the purpose of
the research the case study design can also be mainly descriptive (i.e. describe interventions in real-life
settings), explanatory (i.e. explain casual links in real-life interventions), exploratory (i.e. evaluate
interventions with no clear set of outcomes) or comparative (i.e. multiple cases with similar or contrasting
results based on a theory) (Baxter & Jack, 2008). Therefore, this research approach was selected to
analyse the rules in-use and eco-engineering approaches. It was considered suitable since the main
interest was lo learn from particular settings and theories, where the analysis of the interventions or
dynamics between the social and natural systems came from real-life contexts. Furthermore, in this
research the comparative case study design was chosen to be both explanatory and comparative, as
lessons learned were drawn from the analysis and two cases were selected. In order to define which
particular cases were going to be addressed the following criteria was defined:
- Eco-engineering examples within the European context
- Eco-engineering examples in which their devising process comprised new objectives and
procedures
- Eco-engineering examples in which the devised project has been officially consented
- Eco-engineering examples from which literature was available and accessible
The first criteria came from developing the research within the boundaries of the Project ‘Working with
Nature, ecosystem engineering in coastal and river engineering1’ which placed its focus on European
countries. Project partners in the Netherlands and in Spain were key in narrowing the scope to these two
particular countries for the selection of cases. This allowed a familiarization with the background of the
potential regions of study and later on the introduction to actors and other sources of information when
performing the interviews and analysis. Following the other two criteria the ‘Rambla del Poyo’ in Valencia,
Spain, and the ‘Noordwaard’ Polder in The Netherlands came to be the selected study cases.
It is worth mentioning that what could be perceived as differences between the cases according to their
stage (approval, implementation) and scale (regional, local), such factors were not accounted for their
selection. The main principle relied in focusing on the processes themselves, which led to consented
projects under an eco-engineering approach. This was also due to considering as a premise that the
governance contexts between the two study cases are different. Therefore, institutions, procedures and
rules leading to eco-engineering projects were expected to be different (operating at different levels or
even scales).
1 The Project ‘Working with nature, ecosystem engineering in coastal and river engineering’ was funded by the Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) (created by the European Institute of Innovation and Technology). Its main objective: ‘to define eco-engineering products and services and to map and create business opportunities for eco-engineering-working with nature- approaches along rivers and coasts in Europe as green adaptation method’. It was developed by the following project partners: Imperial College, UK; ARCADIS, DELTARES, and Wageningen University, The Netherlands; and the Technical University of Valencia, Spain.
15
5.2 Data collection techniques
5.2.1 Primary data collection
First-hand information consists of data originally collected for the purpose of the research (M. Schut,
2012). Stakeholder’s analysis methods have been seen as ‘a way of generating information on relevant
actors to understand their behaviour, interests, agendas, and influence on decision-making processes’ (Reed
et al., 2009). In addition, ‘interviewing is one of the most used data collection techniques within the case
study approach’(M. Schut, 2012). Therefore, for this research a stakeholder’s analysis method was used for
the primary data collection. The selected method consisted of performing key informant interviews in
both case studies (Annex 1 and Annex 2). This allowed the identification of the different actors and the
collection of their insights for a multi-perspective understanding of the issue at stake, based on the actors’
views with respect to the strategies, choices and the roles they played. Key informant interviews were also
performed to construct the process that unfolded and to validate the information gathered between
interviews and literature reviews.
In order to select the key informants a preliminary list of involved actors was made in collaboration with
experts acquainted with the study cases. The principle was to include representatives of actors from the
different groups (e.g. project developers, government, local authorities, farmers, etc.). As the collection of
information unfolded other actors were identified (snowball sampling). A semi-structured interview
format was also chosen since a guideline of questions was developed (Annex 4); but by using this
technique enough flexibility was allowed to engage in a more dynamic interaction with the interviewees.
For example, specific and particular inputs could be elaborated in more detail; the tone could be moulded
according to the position of the interviewee; or the interviewee could be guided based on the storyline
relevant for the research, but still discuss about new inputs considered relevant. The interviews
performed were not recorded but notes taken were transcribed.
As previously mentioned the snowball sampling was also used as other interviews became possible as a
result of recommendations and contacts provided by the initial key interviewed actors. This technique
proved to be a good strategy when performing the data collection activities. By referring to the person
that identified the new or potential interviewee, this built a kind of ‘trust’ facilitating the access, openness
and sometimes the sharing of other sources of information (e.g. reports, documents, etc.). It is worth
mentioning that in the attempt of arranging personal meetings to perform the interviews, although
personal meetings couldn’t be arranged, general information was still provided by performing then ‘phone
call interviews’ (Annex 3). More broadly insights of such actors during the process were collected but still
became useful and thus considered.
5.2.2 Secondary data collection
Ideally in performing this type of research, insights from each group of actors combined with a
representative sample, provide a better and balanced representation of their understandings and insights
in relation to the process. In order to have a better insight of the other relevant actors, supporting
methods for data collection were considered. These consisted of the use of secondary sources of
information consisting mainly of: newspaper articles and blogs, scientific papers, thesis, legislation and
legislative procedures, studies on alternative proposals, technical and official government reports,
brochures and factsheets, plans and maps, power point presentations, etc. This literature review aided the
construction of the cases and was also used to triangulate and validate data from the interviews and
between these different sources. Interviewees provided most of these supporting sources of information,
but others were found using web academic finders.
16
5.3 Data Process
To process the information collected particular categories were identified in which the data could be
grouped. These consisted in identifying and classifying the information which could be associated with the
context previous to the eco-engineering projects, the process for devising the projects, describing the
projects, and input data that could be directly linked for the analysis of the rules in-use. Once the
information was organized the next step consisted in constructing a timeline of critical events. This in
order to depict which constituted the main actions situations in both case studies leading to the e final
consented eco-engineering projects. Thus, the values (rules in-use) around such critical events could be
particularly identified and analysed in the next stages.
5.4 Analysis
In general the data collected from both primary and secondary sources was analyzed following the
‘grounded research approach’. This analytical method was used as it enables the researcher to adapt when
collected data follows and interactive process, and the researcher becomes more grounded to the
information as the case study unfolds (Marc Schut, Leeuwis, & van Paassen, 2010).
5.4.1 Rules in-use analysis
The IAD framework was used for the rules in-use analysis in both case studies. Since actions situations
were being analysed, the seven types of rules that relate to such situations were used to classify the
identified values and strategies. Also, since the processes leading to eco-engineering projects were
analysed, rules were found operating at different levels (constitutional, collective-choice and operational)
and affecting different actions situations at different moments. However, for representation motives these
were all grouped and simultaneously presented following the same outline of the framework. This choice
was made as it is not clear based on the works done with the framework, how to represent schematically
such information when an institutional change analysis is being performed (considering different levels
and types of rules across time). Nevertheless, such distinction was made and properly described. Although
the research focused in the governance system in particular to the rules in-use, considering the aspect of
non-decomposability of Ostrom’s (2007) framework, the resource system, units and users (actors) were
also addressed to aid the analysis. However, these were not elaborated into detail, but still were included
since after all eco-engineering approaches in this research are being framed as SESs.
5.4.2 Traditional versus eco-engineering approach rules in-use analysis
By identifying the process that unfolded and the rules in-use in eco-engineering approaches, this made it
possible to also analyse which of these rules influenced or became influenced in return. To develop this
analysis the approach consisted in distinguishing the grounds in which identified new and changed rules
were influencing action situations, consequently interactions and outcomes and vice versa. This in order
to draw general understandings (lessons learned) and then compared them to the traditional approaches.
Since considering as a premise that the governance systems between the two case studies were different,
mainly contrasting results were expected. As it turned out common denominators where found.
Therefore, by considering the common denominators from both case studies a general comparison
between the new (eco-engineering) and traditional approaches was made, but the description of the
values composing the common denominators according to each case was also included.
17
6 Results
In chapter 3 it was mentioned that action arenas are composed of action situations and the actors involved
(Ostrom, 2011). Action situations are defined as “the social spaces where individuals interact, exchange
goods and services, engage in appropriation and provision of activities, solve problems, or fight.”... “In field
settings, it is hard to tell where one situation ends and another begins” (Ostrom et al., 2006).
When looking at the rules in-use influencing these ‘social spaces’, it is necessary to understand first what
are these situations and what are their main attributes. Therefore, in this chapter the actors involved and
the action situations that were analysed as part of this research are presented. For both the case studies
these constitute in general the prescription and application of national and regional policies and
regulations, but also information sharing, deliberation processes, conflict-resolution, investment and
lobbying activities. Such action situations led to particular interactions and outcomes (eco-engineering
projects). Since actions arenas are described in this section, the actors who became involved are also
presented.
In this research the term eco-engineering refers to ‘the use of engineering solutions, which improve
traditional structures using natural resources to increase the structure functionality, or the use of natural
materials (flora and fauna) to create structures’ (DELTARES, 2009). But also to refer to projects, solutions
or alternatives, in which safety against floods played a central role, and additional values (environmental,
recreational, and economical) also took a central core in their design.
6.1 ‘Rambla del Poyo’ in Valencia, Spain
The ‘Rambla del Poyo’ basin located in the East coast of Spain, is an example of a Mediterranean
ephemeral stream system (Camarasa et al., 2011; Francés et al., 2008). Mediterranean ‘ramblas’ and
‘barrancos’ are known as relatively small basins (several hundred km2) with steep slopes, wide valleys,
scarce vegetation and poorly
developed soils (Camarasa et al.,
2011; Camarasa & Tilford, 2002).
Despite remaining dry for most of the
year, these systems react over
intense, heavy and irregularly
distributed rain (Camarasa et al.,
2011). Thus, become subject to rapid
and unpredictable flash floods
(Camarasa & Segura, 2001). The
‘Rambla del Poyo’ is characterized by
a semiarid climate and has an area of
380km2 (Francés et al., 2008). It
comprises the region south of
Valencia city between the Turia and
Jucar rivers, which drains into the
‘Albufera’ coastal lagoon (Figure 4)
(Camarasa et al., 2011; Camarasa &
Tilford, 2002; Francés et al., 2008). It
is composed by three main
tributaries: the ‘Barranco Grande’,
the ‘Barranco de la Cueva Morica’
and the ‘Rambla de Gallo-Chiva’
(Camarasa & Tilford, 2002).Fure 4
Figure 4. Geographical location of the ‘Rambla del Poyo’ Basin.
Source: Camarasa et al. (2011).
18
6.1.1 Actors
There were several actors who became involved as result of the new approach (eco-engineering projects)
in the ‘Rambla del Poyo’. These in general consisted of various governmental units, 32 municipalities, the
Technical University of Valencia, a number of environmental groups, the platform ‘Per un Barranc Viu’
(For a Living Ravine), consultancy groups, and the European Commission, Directorate-General of
Environment as an international body (Table 3).
Table 3. List of actors relevant in the process leading to eco-engineering projects in ‘Rambla del Poyo’. Source: BOE (2012); interviews; newspaper articles.
Government Units Municipalities -Ministry of Natural, Rural and Marine Environment: General administrative institution, with its competent bodies at a regional level (see others). Its functional attribution is to monitor and evaluate activities related to water resources, biodiversity, protection of natural and marine environments, amongst others. Also, to ensure that required procedures, regulations, objectives and standards are met. -Hydrological Confederation of Jucar: Regional autonomous body, under the Ministry of Natural, Rural and Marine Environment. It is the governmental manager of all the hydraulic and hydrological initiatives that take place in the area. -Others: -Generalitat Valenciana (Provincial Authority) -General Directorate of Biodiversity (Ministry of Environment) -General Directorate of Environmental Management (Counselling of Territory and Housing, Generalitat Valenciana) -General Directorate of Environmental Quality (Counselling of Territory and Housing, Generalitat Valenciana) -General Directorate of Spatial Planning (Counselling of Territory and Housing, Generalitat Valenciana) -General Directorate of Public Works (Counselling of Infrastructure and Transport, Generalitat Valenciana) -General Directorate of Fishing and Alimentation (Generalitat Valenciana) -General Directorate of Landscape and Territory (Generalitat Valenciana) -Environmental Evaluation Area of the Autonomy Secretary of Territory and Environment (Generalitat Valenciana) -General Directorate of Railways (Ministry of Development) -Counselling of Tourism, Culture and Sports (Generalitat Valenciana)
The 32 municipalities located within the basin or next to the flood prone areas. These are the basic units of governmental authority, with the principal attribution to ensure and protect the local territory and people’s interests, amongst others. -Municipality of Alaquás -Municipality of Aldaia -Municipality of Alfafar -Municipality of Benetússer
-Municipality of Chiva -Municipality of Loriguilla
-Municipality of Manisses
-Municipality of Massanassa
-Municipality of Paiporta -Municipality of Picanya -Municipality of Quart de Poblet
-Municipality of Siete Aguas
-Municipality of Xirivella -Municipality of Cheste -Municipality of Alabal -Municipality of Alborache
-Municipality of Beniparrell -Municipality of Buñol -Municipality of Catarroja -Municipality of Gestalgar -Municipality of Godelleta -Municipality of Mislata -Municipality of Monserrat -Municipality of Montroy -Municipality Picassent -Municipality of Riba-Roja de Turia
-Municipality of Sedavi -Municipality of Silla -Municipality of Torrent -Municiapility of Turis -Municipality of Valencia -Municipality of Vilamarxant
Universities Environmental groups -The Polytechnic University of Valencia (PUV): Educational and research institute, in this case a knowledge provider in the field of Hydraulics.
Organized groups that represent the environmental interests and engage in activities related to the conservation, maintenance and protection of the natural heritage in the area. -Ecologists in Action-Agro -ADENA -SEO -Study Group and Defense of the Environment ‘Rocandell’ -ENEBRO-Environmental Group of Chiva-Ege -Ecologists in Action-Alicante -Ecologic Group ‘L’Aber-ea’ -Friends of Wetlands of South Alicante Association - ‘Xúquer’ -Coordinador in Defense of the Forests
Platforms Consultancies -‘Per un Barranc Viu’ (For a Living Ravine): Organized platform of local actors in reaction to the first project developed (1991-1995). The principal function was to manifest and express their concerns over the environmental impacts of the first proposed projects in the area (1991-1995).
Civil engineering companies that offer expertise in designing and implementing projects in the field of Hydrology and Hydraulics, amongst others. -AMINSA -TYPSA
International Bodies Directorate-General for the Environment: Part of the European Commission that supervises Member States on their correct application of the EU Environmental Law.
19
6.1.2 Action situations
The final consented eco-engineering projects in the case of ‘Rambla del Poyo’, resulted from a process that
unfolded over the years, and was triggered by different levels of action situations and levels of rules
(constitutional and collective-choice). These particular action situations have consisted in the prescription
and application of national and regional policies and regulations (constitutional level), and in the
monitoring and enforcing of these activities in a formal context (collective-choice level). But actions at the
collective-choice level also included informal lobbying, conflict resolution and information processes with
local actors.
Despite actions situations in these case were found mainly at the collective-choice level, in a way these
became also influenced from the expected operational action situations that they seek to define. In
particular when the potential actors at operational levels were somehow included in the definition of
rules for the projects. In order to provide with a general overview about these processes, a timeline of
events with the identified key elements of these actions was elaborated (Figure 5). In this figure shaded
circles indicate where particular actions (formal and informal) became interrelated.
Relevant events and initial flood defence actions in ‘Rambla del Poyo’
Over the last few decades the ‘Rambla del Poyo’ basin has been subject to an increased human occupation
and land use change, that has led to a pattern of flood risk highly dependent on exposure (Camarasa et al.,
2011). Flooding problems in the area have led to the canalization of final branches of the rivers, but risks
have persisted as urban expansion continues (Camarasa et al., 2011) and new environmental and social
concerns emerge (AMINSA, 2006). Records of extreme floods in the ‘Rambla del Poyo’ date back to 1949,
1957 and 1983 (Segura, Sanjaume, & Meyer, 1985). The event of 1949 mainly affected the community of
‘Chiva’ and was aggravated by demolition and waste materials which after the Civil War, were dumped
into the ravine and hindered the free flow of water (Segura et al., 1985). The event of 1957 although didn’t
cause severe damages within the basin, was also mentioned by interviewed actors as the most relevant,
because it coincided with the rise of the Turia River that caused the ‘Great Flood of Valencia City’
(Camarasa et al., 2011; Segura et al., 1985). This led to the Turia River’s diversion to the south where it
now occupies part of the ‘Rambla del Poyo’s plains (Camarasa et al., 2011).
The event of 1983 is relevant since it affected different areas and sectors along the basin. Most
importantly, because it outlined the implications of urban infrastructure located in natural drains and the
lack of adequate channels, which have increased the risks to floods (Segura et al., 1985). Up until this point
the state of actions against floods in the area have been almost exclusively structural engineering
solutions (PATRICOVA, 2002). Nonetheless, it was around this decade that relevant efforts emerged at a
regional and national level, to promote non-structural, management, political, and legal initiatives towards
flood defence [i.e. the 2508/1975 Decree about intervention measures in floodplains for a return period of
500 years, the Automatic System of Hydrological Information (SAIH) finalized in 1990 for Júcar Basin, the
National Hydrological Plan approved in 1992, and the Planning Guideline of Civil Protection against Flood
Risk approved in 1995 (Berga, 1993; PATRICOVA, 2002)].
Despite these efforts were gaining momentum, other extreme events were recorded in 1988, 1989, 1998,
and most recently in 2000 (with a peak flow of 500m3/s) (AMINSA, 2006; Francés et al., 2008). The
political momentum and reactive responses taken during these years can be outlined then, as the point in
time where initial steps influenced and started to pave the path towards new approaches. The interviewee
from AMINSA Consultancy, who stressed that changes in the traditional approaches paved their way
around this time, also supported this argument.
20
Figure 5. Timeline of relevant events leading to eco-engineering projects in ‘Rambla del Poyo’.
21
Moving from a traditional civil-engineering approach to an eco-engineering approach
When looking particularly to the first initiative preceding the eco-engineering projects in the area, this can
be referred to a process initiated in 1991 by ‘Confederación Hidrográfica del Júcar’ (Hydrological
Confederation of Júcar -HCJ-). This consisted of a study for the artificial restitution of about 42 km
channels along the basin, which basically followed a traditional engineering approach (AMINSA, 2006).
The proposed solutions from this project became official in 1995, but the Environmental Impact
Declaration (EID), issued in 1996 by the ‘Generalitat Valenciana’ (Provincial Authority), conditionally
approved its realization (AMINSA, 2006; TYPSA, 2009a). This declaration required the evaluation mainly
of other environmental studies and complementary documentation (AMINSA, 2006). Despite these
conditions, the bidding process for developing the original proposal of Phase I of the project continued in
1998, and the requests of the 1996’s EID were only presented to the competent authorities until 2000
(AMINSA, 2006). Although these requirements were met, in 1999 the European Commission (DG of
Environment) published a complaint, of a possible misapplication by the Spanish Authorities of the EU
Birds and Habitats Directives (TYPSA, 2009b). The response submitted to this accusation was based on
the amends presented in 2000, which the European Commission considered insufficient (AMINSA, 2006).
Therefore, in late 2000 the Provincial Authority commissioned a new EID requiring a new series of
conditions applicable for Phase I and the rest of the project (AMINSA, 2006; TYPSA, 2009a). Given this in
2001 the General Directorate of Hydraulic Works and Water Quality of the Ministry of Environment called
for new approaches. It also authorized the drafting of a new project named: Environmental suitability and
drainage of Poyo Basin to the Albufera (Valencia) (TYPSA, 2009b). The Dictatorate in addition stated that
this project should be submitted to a new EID, except for Phase I for which amends were made and
approved (AMINSA, 2006; TYPSA, 2009a). This then led to a process where the flooding problems in the
basin started to be discussed between actors and relevant institutions, resulting in the exploration of
possible solutions that can best contribute to an integrated flood management, while complying with the
new required environmental objectives (AMINSA, 2006). This process was also highlighted by the
interviewee from AMINSA and by one of the interviewees from the Polytechnic University of Valencia
(PUV). As a result of these informal discussions and dialogues that were held between key actors, a study
that contained the different possible solutions was published in 2005 (TYPSA, 2009b). After this the HCJ
decided to invest more efforts that could assist in the selection of the best alternatives (AMINSA, 2006;
TYPSA, 2009a).
Interviewees from AMINSA and TYPSA Consultancy, the PUV and from the HCJ, mentioned that to explore
which could then be the most viable solutions, the first approach was to evaluate them from a technical
point of view. Therefore, the hydraulic functioning of the watershed was studied according to the possible
alternatives which were: retaining water in the landscape via afforestation, micro-ponds, and micro-
reservoirs, the establishment of green-ways and the restoration of floodplains. The behaviour and
response of these alternatives in different locations and scenarios (events for a period of return of 100,
300 and 500 years) was quantified both separately and together, with the use of the latest hydraulic
models available at that time: RAINGEN stochastic model, TETIS model, and the SOBEK RURAL model
(AMINSA, 2006).
According to the interviewees of AMINSA and HCJ based on this analysis, which was closely developed by
AMINSA and the Polytechnic University of Valencia, but supervised and monitored by HCJ, the solutions
were again shared with relevant actors of the area to receive feedbacks but also to consider local interests.
During this second round of informal dialogues and information sharing, the potential actors that would
be affected with the implementation of the alternatives were reached. This became an initiative of HCJ
accompanied by AMINSA, in which based on the interviewees (AMINSA and HCJ), consisted of targeted
individual and group meetings.
22
The motivation was to create a communication channel where the concerned actors and the authorities
could manifest particular interests, express their posture in relation to the projects, but also bargain and
concede over the benefits and costs. Based on the AMINSA’s interviewee the principle for the authority
(HCJ) to promote these actions was to further define the best solutions now considering the parameters of
land use and the property rights. Additionally, to have feedbacks over the alternatives to discard those
that represented most controversy and low acceptance, or to even consider other options. These actions
were managed strategically focusing mainly on those municipalities in which their territorial boundaries
were going to be affected, held political power, or manifested conflicting positions towards the
development of the projects. The same principle was applied for the environmental groups, focusing in
those who were seeking after the environmental quality of the area. The interviewee from AMINSA also
pointed out that these meetings and presentations were held on an irregular basis and were led by the
HCJ.
Notwithstanding, the interviewed government officials and consultancies’ engineers highlighted these
interactions at different moments throughout the planning process, as one of the most relevant steps
taken compared to traditional approaches. This because it allowed during an early stage the participation
of different actors in order to reach for consented actions, thus facilitating the subsequent stages. On the
other hand based on other sources of information (newspaper articles and blogs) to collect insights from
the other stakeholders, it can be stated that certain local actors also engaged in relevant actions that in a
way influenced the devising of the final eco-engineering projects. These consisted of the creation of a local
Platform called ‘Per un Barranc Viu’ (For a Living Ravine) to manifest the local concerns in relation to the
environmental impacts of the 1995’s project. In addition, it was found that the environmental group of
Ecologists in Action-Agro were responsible in taking their complaints to the EU DG of Environment.
Continuing with the process, once the solutions were concretized in 2006 (AMINSA, 2006), the efforts to
perform the official informative process and final drafting of the project took place from 2007 to 2009
(TYPSA, 2009b). This process was led by another consultancy, TYPSA, but still monitored by the HCJ.
Based on the interviews, stakeholders where again strategically reached, following the same principles, to
discuss the set of alternatives and their complementary studies (i.e. social, economic and environmental).
But also, to hold dialogues on the basis of received official allegations or requested clarifications. After this
process a favourable EID was issued in 2012, making the alternative of ‘solutions for a period of return of
100-500 years and without flow transfer between the Pozalet and Poyo ravines’ the officially consented
choice (BOE, 2012).
The consented eco-engineering projects
Since the request for a new project in 2000, clear objectives were defined in response to comply mainly
with the environmental and flood safety polices and regulation both at a regional and national level.
Therefore, these can be called out as the main drivers with regard to the process, which were also
mentioned by all interviewees. So the defined objectives were: ‘i) virtually eliminate the impact of flooding
in urban areas up to a return period of 5002 years, ii) promote hydraulic planning so that future impacts of
land use change and runoff diversion are reduced, iii) protect the Albufera National Park against clogging
processes and ecosystem degradation, iv) and to restore environmentally the river systems and create
ecological corridors, while promoting a territorial integration through the planned activities’ (AMINSA,
2006). Nonetheless, interviewees from the government and consultancies also mentioned that the range
of possible alternatives were also evaluated and prioritized based on economic terms, and minimum land
expropriation and occupation.
2 Return period of 500 years in this case is a term used to refer to the average time frame for a high peak flow to display at least in one occasion (PATRICOVA, 2002).
23
The approved set of solutions or eco-engineering projects (Table 4 and Figure 6) consists of a group of
measures to perform upstream, middle-stream and downstream the basin. It includes the construction of
green-ways between the Pozalet, Poyo and Gallego Ravines, with the criteria of rural areas having a level
of protection up to 100 years (TYPSA, 2009a). Therefore, in the Pozalet Ravine a green way should be
constructed for a peak discharge of 240m3/s (based on a return period of 500 years), with a restored
floodplain in the Municipality of Aldaia (TYPSA, 2009a). In the Poyo and Gallego Ravines green-ways are
proposed for a level of protection of 1,000m3/s, allowing room for extreme peaks to overflow, in order to
prevent a downstream flow not greater of 1,200m3/s (TYPSA, 2009a). This is viable since even for a
return period of 500 years, the total downstream flow could reach up to 1,500m3/s, a value that is still
compatible with the current capacity of the ravine (TYPSA, 2009a). In addition, the Poyo-Turia green-way
was also suggested for a flow up to 700m3/s, to meet the flow capacity of 800m3/s that continues its
course into the Albufera Lake (TYPSA, 2009a).
Based on the interviews, these actions are yet to be implemented once public funds are allocated.
However, it is relevant to mention that Phase I of the initial project started in 2001 with works finalized in
2005. These consisted of returning the channel downstream the basin between the Albufera Lake and the
Municipality of Paiporta to a capacity of about 800m3/s (TYPSA, 2009b). But also other measures
discussed as part of the process have been implemented (2005-2008). This have consisted of the
reforestation of 755 hectares upstream the basin, as a stabilization measure to improve water retention,
reduce soil erosion, improve the ecological conditions, and prevent forest fires through management
practices (BOE, 2012; TYPSA, 2009c).
Table 4. Description of proposed solutions: eco-engineering projects in ‘Rambla del Poyo’ basin. Source: AMINSA (2006).
Eco-engineering alternative Description
Afforestation Activities of afforestation in areas upstream the basin without
vegetation and potentially high erosion levels. This solution aims to
stabilize soils acting on run-off coefficients, in order to reduce peak
flows and sediment transportation downstream, while enhancing
the environmental quality.
Micro-ponds and Micro-
reservoir3
Activities upstream concerning the creation of a lamination area,
with sufficient capacity to hold natural run-off, thus reducing peak
discharges downstream the basin.
Green-way Activities concerning the conditioning of areas to collect and
conduct storm water run-off, characterized by a natural vegetation
cover, and also functioning as recreational spaces.
Floodplain restoration Activities concerning the creation of green zones that will be
allowed to flood after peak flows but will remain dry otherwise.
These areas will hold natural vegetation associated with riverine
ecosystems.
3 These alternatives were discarded in the final consent.
24
Figure 6. Location of eco-engineering projects in the ‘Rambla del Poyo’. Source: modified from BOE (2012).
25
Costs and benefits associated with the eco-engineering projects
In the previous sections it was mentioned that in a way costs and benefits associated with the alternatives
were discussed among the concerned actors. In this section this aspect is further elaborated. Interviewees
from government and consultancies mentioned that there was one particular strategy used to aid the
socialization of alternatives with other actors. This was taken from the guidelines provided by the regional
action plan, PATRICOVA, in which the concept of ‘units of impact’ is introduced. A unit of impact is defined
by the spatial combination of risk and vulnerabilities; where the calculated cost of one unit was estimated
in 2 euros average for annual damage. The principle was to estimate the total of current units of impact at
a municipal level and in the area in general (16,086,254 units). This to have an estimation of the total costs
(32 million euros/year) if measures were not implemented. Also to depict which municipalities pose the
greatest impacts and costs, highlighting as such the Municipality of Aldaia, Xirivella, and Quart de Poblet in
the top three. An estimation was also made in relation to the effect the alternatives will have in reducing
the units of impacts, to support even more these propositions. In relation to other estimation of costs
considered or evaluated in the process, these basically consisted of the costs of land to be expropriated by
the implementation of the projects (18,223,478 euros), the costs of materials and works (221,433,058
euros) which add up to a total of 239,656, 536 euros (TYPSA, 2009b).
On the other hand, according to the interviews, the main benefit was mainly attributed to the provision of
flood safety in the area. This was seconded by the estimation in a way of the saved costs if measures are
implemented which are stated to reduce in total the units of impact. Other mentioned benefits were that
with the process, steps in building a more integrated water management was initiated since it allowed for
a more comprehensive hydrographical planning. Environmental benefits are also expected once the
projects are implemented such as the protection of the Albufera Lake from sediments, the functional
recovery of ecosystems and riverbanks, and the gains associated with the creation of biological corridors
that will result from the green-ways. Other benefits include the creation of recreational areas for public
use, and the construction of bike lanes and pedestrian sideways to connect inhabitants from neighbouring
settlements. Concrete estimations of such benefits were not performed.
Parallel influential initiatives
The ideas to move from traditional civil engineering to new approaches were also influenced by new
policies and regulations that became official in parallel to the previously described process. These were
mentioned by interviewees from the PUV. The most relevant is the Territorial Action Plan on Flood
Hazard Prevention in the Valencian Community (PATRICOVA) published in 2002. The PATRICOVA was
one of the management tools developed according to the 6/1989 Law of Spatial planning in the Valencian
Community, which provided the principles and recommendations of actions under a quantified evaluation
of flood risk impacts (return period of 100 to 500 years), and proposed a set of requirements to achieve
their maximum reduction, amongst other features (PATRICOVA, 2002).
The Hydrological Plan of Júcar includes the actions already taken in the area according to Phase I, but it is
also relevant as it became a regional tool that reinforced the general guidelines and objectives projects
should meet in terms of safety and environmental concerns (TYPSA, 2009b). Other important policies
mentioned that are related with the process were also the EU Floods Directive (2007), the Spatial
Planning and Landscape Protection Law, published in 2004, and the 2006 Valencian Community
Landscape Regulation. In addition, the Water Programme created to prevent siltation and ensure the
quality of inputs to the Albufera Lake, but also to promote upstream reforestations and to develop flood
control measures in the area.
26
6.2 The ‘Noordwaard’ Polder
The ‘Noordwaard’ is an agricultural polder of 2,050 hectares (Figure 7), established in the Biesbosch tidal
system south west of Werkendam in the Netherlands (Pleijte, Schut, & During, 2011; Marc Schut et al.,
2010). The term polder in the Netherlands is used to refer to the low-lying areas, which by the use of
pumps, canals or flood defences (embankments or dikes), were reclaimed from either the sea or rivers
(Marc Schut et al., 2010; Stijnen, Kanning, Jonkman, & Kok, 2013). Before the current conditions the area
was characterized by consisting of a fine network of creeks in the higher alluvial parts (Rijsdorp, Adegeest,
de Kuijer, de Koning, & Gaastra, 2006). Former creeks are still visible however, due to the presence of
small dikes and differences in the terrain heights (Middelkamp, 2011). Livestock and farming became only
possible in the area after the broader creeks were cut off and the flows of water interrupted, with the
embankments of the surrounding rivers, the establishment of dikes, and the stepwise location of polders
(Rijsdorp et al., 2006).
The ‘Noordwaard’ is specifically located between the rivers banks of the ‘Nieuwe Merwede’ in the north
and the ‘Bergsche Maas’ in the south, both part of the Rhine river Delta (Huisman, van de Rotten, Sanders,
Yan, & Xia, 2004; Marc Schut et al., 2010). In 2005 there were a total of 200 inhabitants, 49 houses and 26
farms (RWS, 2009). The farms
were diverse consisting of arable,
dairy, horse and even mixtures
between dairy and arable
designated lands (Middelkamp,
2011). Based on Schut et al.,
(2010) the National Park
Biesbosch also borders the
south-west part of the polder.
This area declared a Natura 2000
site consists of willow woods and
wide creeks (Middelkamp, 2011).
In 2008 a project to convert 600
hectares of the polder’s
agricultural land to nature was
completed. This deserves special
mention as it resulted in the
promise made by the Brabant
Province to the farmers, of not to
expropriate anymore land in the
near future (Marc Schut et al.,
2010). However, as it will be
explained in the following
sections, the final consented eco-
engineering project (part of the
Room for the River) included
such measures.
6.2.1 Actors
The same as with the previous case, there were several actors who became involved in the process that
led to the particular final consented eco-engineering project for this area. These in general constituted
governmental units, local authorities, universities, several platforms, local farmers and inhabitants,
amongst others (Table 5).
Figure 7. Geographical location of the ‘Noordwaard’ polder.
Source: van den Brink (2009).
27
Table 5. List of actors relevant in the process leading to the eco-engineering project in ‘Noordwaard’ Polder. Source: Middelkamp (2011); Huisman et al., (2004); Paassen et al., (2011); Schut et al., (2010); interviews.
Government Units Regional and Local Authorities -Dutch Government: The parliament is responsible of supervising the plan for room for the river projects while the Cabinet makes the final decision (PKB). -Ministry of Transport and Water Management (V&M): Policy makers and implementers of initiatives in the field of flood protection. Other relevant ministries: -Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) -Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries (LNV) -‘Rijkswaterstaat’ South-Holland: This is the Dutch Directorate of General Transport, Public Works and Water Management (RWS). They are the managers of the Dutch river systems and responsible for the definition of the expected water levels. Supervisors of the Project Group ‘Ruimte voor de Rivieren’. -‘Ruimte voor de Rivieren’ (Room for the Rivers): Project group that includes the designers of the sustainable and safe solutions (eco-engineering projects) that should meet with the required or established objectives. Composed also by the ‘Bureau Benedenrivieren’ (Bureau Lower River Region) and the ‘Bureau Bonenrivieren’ (Bureau upper River Region).
-Water Board Rivierenland: Developers of the master plan for the area. Supervisors of the safety of the dykes amongst other attributions. -Hoogheemraadschap: responsible for the flood defence system. Other relevant authorities: -Province of Noord-Brabant -Municipality of Werkendam
Universities Environmental groups -TU Delft University: The hydraulic engineering and water management group assisted in the process by generating alternative projects based on natural, hydraulic, socio-cultural, legal and economic criteria. -Wageningen University: Scientists became involved and performed a research through the university’s ‘science-shop’ funds. Alternative solutions were developed based on a qualitative landscape ecological system analysis with an strategic insight of the democratic procedures.
Environmental groups: pressure groups fighting for the conservation of the environment.
Organized groups, Boards and Platforms Citizens -‘Bewonersvereninging Bandijk’ (Residents Association): Platform composed by the residents of the area. This group is known to have agreed to the proposal presented by the Rijkswaterstaat. -‘Klankbordgroep’ Noordwaard (Advisory Board): Established board with representatives of entrepreneurs, residents, nature groups, recreation and the ZLTO. The board is responsible to provide with advise, support and feedbacks over the interests and results in relation to the realization of the project. -Platform ‘Behoud Noordwaard’ (Platform Save the Noordward): Group of farmers and inhabitants opposing the plans of the Rijkswatersaat. Advised by the Faculty of Hydraulic Engineering of Delft University and Wageningen University. -Southern Netherlands Farmers’ Organization (ZLTO): Organization of farmers to provide with knowledge and support for the collective interests and concerns.
-Farmers: Farmers living in the polder whose land are affected by the proposals of the Rijkswaterstaat. Main growing products: potatoes, beets, grains, vegetables and grass seed. -Public companies (drinking water and electricity company) -Association for inland shipping -Residents
Other Advisory Bodies - Investigation and Verification Office of the Senate (Research and Verification Commission): Commission that advises and supports the Dutch government through research and by assessing research offered to the government.
28
6.2.2 Action situations
As previously mentioned in the particular case of the ‘Noordwaard’ the final consented solution was
depoldering. This will turn the area into a multifunctional space with differential flooding frequencies to
ensure the safety in the surroundings (RWS, 2009). To reach such solution a process of several years
influenced by different levels of action situations influenced by particular rules in-use (constitutional,
collective-choice and operational) preceded. The same as in the ‘Rambla del Poyo’ case, during the process
both formal and informal actions were engaged. The process consisted of the prescription and application
of national policies and rules, and there was clearly a participation of actors to be involved at the
operational level, in action situations where rules in the collective-choice level were being defined (Figure
8). The same as in the previous case, shaded circles denote formal and informal actions that became
intertwined during the process.
Relevant floods events and initial procedures
The Dutch are widely known for their long history in water management and flood control strategies
(Klijn, van Buuren, & van Rooij, 2004). However, the 1953 flood event in the southwest of the Netherlands
is relevant, as it influenced significantly the way water is currently dealt in the country (Marc Schut et al.,
2010). After this flooding event the Delta Committee was installed (Gerritsen, 2005). With the generation
of The Delta Plan, hydrological measures were suggested and a normative protection system based on
flood risk was established (Gerritsen, 2005; Klijn et al., 2004; Marc Schut et al., 2010).
Despite these settings, the water periods of 1993 and 1995 questioned the flood protection measures
against high peak discharges in the Rhine and Meuse (Klijn et al., 2004; Marc Schut et al., 2010). It is not a
surprise why interviewed actors also recall these particular events, as over 250,000 people were
evacuated when water levels flowed in areas with or close to human settlements (Marc Schut et al., 2010).
These events showed that dyke’s stability in polders could not be guaranteed based on the current
discharge design (15,000m3/s for once every 1,250 years); also that such events translated in great
economic losses (Huisman et al., 2004; Klijn et al., 2004; Marc Schut et al., 2010). Interviewees and the
literature highlight these moments as a turning point in the Dutch flood control strategies. It was
mentioned that it triggered the political momentum to readdress the subject but under new approaches
and considerations.
So after the 1995’s flood peak event, the normative discharge of the Rhine River was intensified and
extended to include climate change scenarios (Klijn et al., 2004). This led to a change from the discharge
regime of 15,000m3/s (with a probability of 1/1,250 years) at the Lobith, to new water discharge
capacities of 16,000 m3/s (2015-2050) to 18,000 m3/s in the long term (2050-2100) (Klijn et al., 2004;
Marc Schut et al., 2010). But in order to cope with the higher discharge norms, rising the dykes was not
considered a feasible choice. This because houses in the country were built already in or near dykes. Also
because if water levels are to surpass higher dykes, this can result in increased flow velocities that can
cause more damage. (Huisman et al., 2004)
Therefore, these contexts led to the creation of a new Policy by the Dutch Ministry of Public Works and
Transport, aiming to explore how to meet the new safety levels (Huisman et al., 2004; Middelkamp, 2011).
This was how the ‘Ruimte voor de Rivier’ (Room for the River) concept was introduced. Between this time
the Commission Water Policy for the 21st century (Commission WB21) published a study, where in
addition of recommending strengthening of the dykes, the government should explore spatial measures to
allocate water while increasing the spatial quality of the rivers’ area (Marc Schut et al., 2010). Also, that
such measures should include during the planning the integration of the general public to create
awareness and support (Marc Schut et al., 2010). This is important to mention as in outlined what would
become latter the main guidelines for developing the Room for the River Programme and the devising of
the eco-engineering project for the ‘Noordwaard’ polder.
29
Figure 8. Timeline of relevant events leading to the eco-engineering project in the ‘Noordwaard’ Polder.
30
From vertical to horizontal solutions: making it happen
The concept of Room for the River in itself represented a paradigm shift by moving from vertical
protection measures (dykes) to horizontal solutions (create space for water). In order to make it a reality
a ‘Planologische KernBeslissing’ (PKB) or Spatial Planning Key Decision procedure was organized to
ensure a decentralized policy process (Middelkamp, 2011; Schielen, 2006; Marc Schut et al., 2010). This
procedure was highlighted by one interviewee and in the literature of consisting of formal actions
mandated by law where four steps can be identified: 1) the government publishes a set of coherent
measures (proposal), 2) a consultation process is developed to gather formal reactions of the public, 3) a
publication of adapted plans is elaborated which then leads to the development of the official Cabinet’s
point of view, 4) and based on this proposition the Parliament and Senate discusses and approves the
plans, resulting in a final formal government decision (Middelkamp, 2011; Schielen, 2006; Marc Schut et
al., 2010).
But it was also found in the literature and one interviewee mentioned the connection of developing in
parallel an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (Middelkamp, 2011; Marc Schut et al., 2010). This
procedure (Figure 9) was also consulted formally with the general public and the outcomes presented to
the Parliament for final approval (Middelkamp, 2011). It can be stated that this particular process is
comparable in a way to the processes developed during the latter stage in the case of the ‘Rambla del
Poyo’, when the proposals from the regional authorities were also put to test through formal consultation
processes before official approval.
Figure 9. Overview of PKB procedure and EIA for the Room for the River Programme. Source: Middelkamp
(2011).
In this case, however, the official government proposal (PKB 1) was a result of a process that started
earlier (2001), and consisted of government initiatives aimed to explore the opportunities and
possibilities of translating the concept of Room for the River into practical measures. Based on Schut et al.,
(2010) and his interview, a national resilience study was developed (2000-2002) that included 600
potential measures based on three criteria: 1) sustainable safety (based on a discharge capacity of 18,000
m3/s), 2) spatial quality based on the government’s Fifth National Policy Document on Spatial Planning, and
3) a cost-benefit analysis. These measures were ranked based on scores assigned to each indicator. The
study in addition included the use of a hydraulic model called ‘blokkendoos’ (box of blocks) to test the
hydraulic effects of combined measures. (Marc Schut et al., 2010)
During this time depoldering the ‘Noordwaard’ was not officially considered in the first list of measures.
Instead in the region the development of two green rivers for the longer term were proposed (Marc Schut
et al., 2010). In this case green rivers are measures similar to the green-ways described in the previous
case. These according to van den Brink (2009) consist of two channels in the landscape where water can
flow after a high peak event. Despite these measures were considered hydraulically effective, they were at
the same time controversial due to their social and environmental impact (Marc Schut et al., 2010).
Interviewees also elaborated over this point by stating that such measures were not feasible due to the
characteristics of the landscape and peat characteristics of the soils.
31
The resilience study, however, was not the only initiative developed by the government during this phase.
Mentioned by interviewees and in the literature, interactive design and planning sessions were also
organized to prepare the regional advice and define more concretely the possible measures (Middelkamp,
2011; Marc Schut et al., 2010; van den Brink, 2009). In doing so, the steering group ‘Ruimte voor de Rivier’
(Room for the River) together with the ‘Bureau Benedenrivieren’ (Bureau Lower River Region) engaged in
a negotiation process with different actors. These consisted of national, provincial, and local governments,
water boards, representatives of farmers, residents and other groups; with a degree of organization and
representation (Huisman et al., 2004; van den Brink, 2009). The principle behind it was now to ‘zoom in
the scope’. In order to facilitate cooperation the box of blocks model was also used primarily as
communicative tool. In general, this can be referred then as specifically the moment in time when
dialogues and negotiations moved to local contexts, resulting for the ‘Noordwaard’ comprising area in the
preliminary definition of possible projects.
Depoldering, a possiblity in the ‘Noordwaard’?
There was a clear strategy in developing the initial approach for the lower river region, were the case
study is located. The interviewee, who became involved in such procedures from the government side,
expressed that the main criteria was to focus on measures for the longer-term discharge (18,000m3/s). He
argued that “measures to comply with such a standard in the future will have to be developed anyway...
therefore, why not take it as a guiding principle and do it properly from the beginning”. Another mentioned
criteria was to consider the local interests of actors (farming, nature development, ecological demands,
economic development based on water recreation) (Edelenbos, Roth, & Winnubst, 2013). This
interviewee mentioned in addition that the challenge relied then in getting the local actors to understand
this was a wise approach.
The overall process comprising the initial interactive design sessions and planning process was outlined
by the government interviewee, of consisting of both formal and informal activities. Part of the formal
activities based on the interviews and literature review refer to the initial four step-wise design sessions
that were officially developed during 2002-2004. These aimed to determine specific working areas and a
general vision for the region (Edelenbos et al., 2013). The first of this sessions was conducted to explore
with actors, different ideas which were translated into maps (Marc Schut et al., 2010). During the second
session the maps were re-discussed resulting in 42 potential measures for the lower region (Marc Schut et
al., 2010). At this moment short and long term measures were discussed, but the adequacy of short-term
measures to comply with future safety objectives was brought into question (van den Brink, 2009). As a
result of how strategically the long-term vision was handled by the facilitators in the region, two
interviewees pointed out that actors realized after this process, that a major spatial measure might be
preferable. Interviewees also mentioned that although it was not considered formally, this was when local
actors started to consider depoldering the ‘Noordwaard’ as possible option. The other long-term solution
was the development of a green river through the Land van Heusden en Altena, but according to one
interviewee between this two, depoldering was by then preferred by most actors.
Based on Schut et al., (2010), after these two design sessions the 42 measures were presented to the
regional steering committee for the lower region. This resulted at the end in a classification of depoldering
the ‘Noodwaard’ as a controversial measure (Marc Schut et al., 2010). From this event what is important
to mention is that it brought the idea of depoldering to the formal discussions. Interviewees highlighted
that many actors despite recognizing its potential, at the same were concerned in relation to the promise
made by the Brabant Province and how such a measure will affect the activities and actors living in the
area. However, as the two last design sessions continued and negotiations proceeded, depoldering the
‘Noordwaard’ was changed at the end from controversial measure to the officially preferred solution
(Marc Schut et al., 2010).
32
Based on interviews at this moment most of the actors had agreed on such a measure but not all were
sharing the same position. In addition, such alternative was preferred under the condition that it became
part of the short-term policy programme (forerunner status: clarity given in two years); residents and
farmers will remain living and performing their regular activities; or if reallocated that reasonable
compensation will be granted; and that they will be involved in the planning process (Edelenbos et al.,
2013). So after this process a subsequent planning procedure continued to develop more specifically the
project and to devise how it will be implemented. Based on the interviews this process consisted again of
formal public meetings and design workshops to discuss the plans with the local and regional actors. The
RWS served as an initiator and it was during these discussions that the ‘Belangenvereniging Bandijk’
platform and the ‘Klankbordgroep’ were established. This latter with the main objective to inform the
different parties, monitor and evaluate the activities, resolve conflicts, and to become a communication
platform between institutions.
The sessions developed between 2005-2006 aimed to discuss three alternative projects for the
‘Noordwaard’ to start elaborating their respective Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The sessions
consisted of workshops with farmers, residents, the Southern Netherlands Farmers’ Organization (ZLTO),
and interest groups. From 2006-2007 the EIA and the drafting of the design vision was carried out in more
detail. This included another consultation round with several design workshops and residents meetings.
Informally field visits, citizen evenings, and ‘kitchen-table’ talks with residents and farmers were
developed to discuss their opinions and individual land living preferences after depoldering. The output
from this process was presented to the State Secretary in 2007 as the regional alternative. The EIA was
also finished around the same time. It was now left to the State Secretary to decide if the devised vision
would become the preferred alternative of the EIA and thus the National Project Decision. (van den Brink,
2009)
Based on the government facilitator interview at that time, having one-on-one dialogues with farmers and
other actors in an informal setting, contributed in building trust and information sharing. This helped
lobbying the different ideas and building channels of communication where local concerns and interests
could be shared. He also mentioned that even during the formal activities strategies were carefully
considered in how the workshops were handled. For example, all actors sit on a same working table to
create an atmosphere of equality and approacheness. During these phases it has been stated that the
cooperation between actors was enabled by the strategies chosen in how information was managed (open
and full information provided by facilitators; local actors wanted to be informed as soon as possible)
(Edelenbos et al., 2013).
Following these actions during 2007-2010 discussions were held in relation to the real estate strategy and
the compensation for loss value and opportunities to continue with agricultural activities (implementation
plan). This process took time which in turn translated in farmers and local residents to increase their
uncertainty about the process (van den Brink, 2009). This became a product from a change in the way
negotiations were dealt. During these years the government facilitators were changed and the process
became less open and even closed. From the government point of view the innovative way the facilitators
were handling the earlier process represented a change in traditional procedures (set first a course for a
certain result and then involve the social enrollment). It has been stated that the government before
committing and not being able to comply, chose to follow more a risk avoidance approach for the
remaining part of the process. This meant changing back to ‘normal’ procedures, which translated in a
limited access to local actors during the definition of rules for the compensation, damage and compulsory
purchase. The approach changed because such decisions could set implications for the other Room for the
River projects. (Edelenbos et al., 2013)
33
According to the interviews and supported by the literature, however, around the time when the process
to develop more specifically the project started, there was a group of farmers and residents who believed
their interests were not taken into consideration and that the exploration of other solutions was
undermined in the previous process. This motivated them to establish the ‘Platform Behoud Noordwaard’
(Platform Save De Noordwaard) in 2004. The objective of the platform was to convey their interests and
opposition to the government’s plan in a constructive way. This was done by elaborating alternatives,
which could also meet the Room for the River’s objectives. To do so they partnered with specialists who
could assist them in this case. This was how TU-Delf University and Wageningen University became
involved in the process. (Middelkamp, 2011; Pleijte et al., 2011; Marc Schut et al., 2010; van den Brink,
2009)
The platform mobilized a first research in cooperation first with TU-Delf University (Pleijte et al., 2011;
Marc Schut et al., 2010). A research project was conducted where alternatives to depoldering were
evaluated based on natural, hydraulic, cultural, legal, and economic conditions (Huisman et al., 2004). The
outputs showed a more cost-effective alternative (€100 million) compared to others (€280-360 million)
including the government’s proposal at that time. This particular alternative measure consisted of an inlet
and outlet structure that will allow flooding in the area only when necessary (with a probability of once in
500 years). In addition, such measure will make the area able to maintain its current living and
agricultural conditions. (Huisman et al., 2004) Based on Schut et al., (2010) despite this research created
space to reopen dialogue, it didn’t’ translate into anything tangible in the region. However, interviewed
farmers and the literature mentioned that in 2005 another strategic cooperation by the platform was
established with Wageningen University. This was made possible by the habilitation of funds to perform a
new research via the University’s ‘science-shop’. (Pleijte et al., 2011; Marc Schut et al., 2010)
The strategy to develop this research was based on “1) underpinning the Platform’s alternative with a
qualitative landscape ecological system analysis, 2) critically reviewing the government’s hydraulic model
and its basic assumptions, and 3) criticizing the democratic process and finding ways to penetrate political
agendas” (Pleijte et al., 2011). As result of this process “the platform’s alternative was proactively defended
by providing with answers to arguments the Ministry would use to contest the alternative plan” (Marc Schut
et al., 2010). However, mentioned by interviewees and in the literature, the possibilities of such efforts in
translating into other tangible alternatives for the area were again hindered by several events and factors:
1) The PKB procedure (phases 1, 2 and 3) had started already in 2005 based on the government’s
proposals
2) The project was also granted a ‘Forerunner Status’ in 2005 (speed up the process)
3) The unity of members in the Platform weakened as members were asked by the BLRR to become
co-operative with other local actors who were willing to comply with the other on-going efforts.
In addition, that clarity soon will be given with regards on the reallocation of houses,
expropriation of land, and functional activities in the area. (Pleijte et al., 2011)
4) Despite a research was performed in 2006 by the Investigation and Verification Office of the
Senate to evaluate the Platform’s alternative against the government’s proposal, the new
alternative was found to general to compare. Although the Commission agreed on some of the
findings, the process formally was already too advanced to change the on-going course. This
initiative was a result from a clarification hearing organized after the received contestations from
the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management and BLRR over the proposed
alternative developed by Wageningen University and the Platform. (Pleijte et al., 2011; Marc
Schut et al., 2010)
Between the last semester of 2006, the Room for the River became approved by the Parliament and the
Senate, leading to the final approval by the government in 2007 (PKB 4). The final specific project decision
of depoldering the ‘Noorwaard’ was made officially in 2009 and its implementation started in 2011 to be
finished in 2014 (RWS, 2009).
34
The consented eco-engineering project
As previously mentioned the final project consists of transforming the ‘Noordwaard’ polder into a
multifunctional area with differential flooding frequencies (RWS, 2009). High peak water discharges from
the ‘Nieuwe Merwede’ will be allowed to flow through the area in the direction to the ‘Hollands Diep’
(RWS, 2009). But in order to allow such functions, the project was elaborated to comply with the following
objectives: 1) reach a minimal hydraulic water level reduction of 30 cm at Gorinchem, 2) include a
sustainable perspective for farmers, 3) current inhabits are allowed to stay, 4) and improve the spatial
quality of the area (RWS, 2007). This led to the development of a new safety design where housing and
infrastructure, became adjusted to open channels with tidal influence and flooding during high waters,
without endangering the people, goods and livestock. In addition, such design allowed the creation of
opportunities to strengthen Natura 2000, via the creation of nature and recreational areas. (RWS, 2009)
The core of this particular design relied in finding a safety layout acceptable for all the affected (private
sector, people, families, entrepreneurs, farmers, administrators and public decision makers), while
considering that part of the area will flood several times a year, and other might be flooded under a
frequency of once every 100 years or up to 1000 years (RWS, 2009). The ultimate design (Figure 10)
includes the location of high-diked polders in the northwest and southeast part of the ‘Noordwaard’.
These will be used for living and agriculture. New houses in this area are planned to be located at the edge
of the polder. In the northeast the flow-through area will become the intertidal zone. Low dikes will bind
the intertidal polders, and dwelling mounds are planned on which new houses will be built. In the eastern
part of the flow-through area the polders will be turned into wet grasslands and these will be used for
nature development and cattle (which can flee to special areas during high waters). Other polders in this
area will consist of dry grassland, which can be mainly used by cattle and will be well drained. Creeks will
separate the polders in order to return in a way the spatial layout of the area to its historical condition. On
the banks of the creeks vegetation will be established consisting of trees and reeds. A sloped dike
surrounded by a willow field will protect a historical landmark in the area consisting of a fort. Some areas
will not face any change and will be used as grassland for cattle. (Middelkamp, 2011)
In the area currently 6 to 7 farmers (polders) are staying compared to the original 26. It was mentioned in
the interviews that a new initiative was created to explore the possibilities and define the ‘rules’ for the
future use (agriculture, cattle), organization and management (e.g. criteria for allocation, valuation of
landyield capacity, monitoring, rent fees) of the new intertidal polders. With this regard it is worth
mentioning in general that by far the most preferred alternative for the organization and management is
to implement a model that will allow collective collaboration to grow. It was also mentioned that now as
the implementation phase has started RWS, ‘Klankbordgroep’ and the ZLTO continue to oversee the local
operational activities and engage in regularly meetings with other concerned actors to discuss emerging
collective interests or problems.
35
Figure 10. Landscape Plan for depoldering (eco-engineering) the ‘Noordwaard’. Source: modified from Ruimte voor de Rivier (2009).
36
Costs and benefits associated with the eco-engineering project
Based on the interviews the option was given to the farmers to either move or stay in the area. However,
to stay implied that some areas would be allowed to flood several times a year. This meant that
agricultural possibilities would be compromised. These conditions led some farmers to consider that
moving could then result in their best option. It was mentioned that due to the forerunner status of the
project, some farmers believed for example they could get better off by receiving an extra ‘bonus’ for
providing safety to others. Overall, the expropriation and compensation process in the end was perceived
very subjectively. While for some it was mentioned to be relatively fair for others it could have been
developed better as higher expectations were raised. The fact that this process took several years, created
an atmosphere of uncertainty and doubt, turning into an emotional process to the local people.
Interviewees mentioned that if chosen to move voluntarily, farmers received compensation over the value
of their land. However, if chosen to stay then the government will run the costs of reallocation or for the
works to provide safety to their houses and buildings (if needed). In addition, for those farmers staying it
was agreed that they would benefit from a special insurance. This accounts for the retribution over
possible damages caused by future floods. However, this insurance was granted over the basis that only
the holder of the land could claim. This could be inherited but not transferred over selling the land. The
total budget assigned to the project was of € 300,000 million (RWS, 2007).
In relation to the benefits based on the interviewees the idea was to enhance the spatial quality of the area
by restoring old creaks and the natural environment. Local actors mentioned that this will attract tourists
and it can open new possibilities for them. It was mentioned for example that new small business could be
created by renting canoes, selling their growing products, enable vacation houses or floating houses.
There are already entrepreneurs in the area, one who owns a campsite and another one with a horse
stable that could benefit. The creation of bike lanes was also mentioned as another positive value. In
addition, with the habilitation of the middle polders opportunities are going to be created to develop more
agricultural activities for those who choose to stay. In this sense, already initial attempts have been
developed to assign rent and management fees. These have been established based on the different types
of polders and the yielding capacity of the soils, ranging from the highest to the lowest: dry low quay
polders, wet low quay polders, inter tidal flat, and inter tidal creek areas. Furthermore, it was mentioned
from the interviews that other benefits are associated with supporting the Natura 2000 network, as the
area is adjacent to the National Park De Biesbosh.
37
7 Analysis In Chapter 3 the IAD framework was described as a nested arrangement of action situations and rules in-
use where the broader scope of activities basically aims to identify more collective behaviours or actions
at the subsequent levels (M. D. McGinnis, 2011). In both case studies rules in-use were found at the
constitutional, collective-choice and even operational levels. These are related to the different action
situations (described in Chapter 6) that made up the process leading to the final and consented eco-
engineering project(s). In the following sections the identified rules in-use for both case studies are
presented.
7.1 ‘Rambla del Poyo’: Rules in-use In this section the rules in-use for the ‘Rambla del Poyo’ are described. In this case those rules correspond
mainly to constitutional and collective-choice action arenas. Nonetheless, despite rules at this latter level
are meant to define operational level action arenas, it can be expected that operational rules will be
further defined once implementation of projects commence. In order to represent the identified rules in
this case, these were classified according to the types of rules (Figure 11) that directly affect the
components or types of action situations they relate to (boundary, position, choice, information and payoff
rules).
7.1.1 Boundary rules
There are several actors that became part of the process. In the case of the governmental authorities
(regional and provincial) what determined their involvement and role in the process, comes from the
principles of their own constitution and institutionalization. Nonetheless, it can be stated that there were
formal4 and informal rules that in a way had an influence and also determined the approach this
institutions took as the crafting of solutions developed. These also determined the actors that during the
process were considered, and how or to which extent their participation was included.
In terms of formal rules the 1985 Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private
projects on the environment, with its consecutive appropriation by the Spanish authorities, is relevant to
the case. This because it made it a requisite that a project that impose significant effects over the
environment, should meet specific environmental requirements and be summited to a public information
process before an Environmental Impact Declaration (EID) is emitted. As a result of this regulation, when
the first proposal (1995-1996) became conditioned, this significantly influenced the scope and the
approach the competent authorities decided to implement onwards. In addition, this regulation also
defined in a way the actors and sectors, that became part both during the formal and informal dialogues.
This since one of its mandates indicates that concerned actors of a particular project should be consulted
through a formal public information process. Thus, municipalities, environmental groups, inhabitants,
farmers, public services, amongst others became involved (Annex 5).
Another platform that in a way allowed the possibility of a particular actor (in this case the environmental
groups) to enter the process and engage a more formal participation, was the European Commission of
Environment, when the complaints from this group were made official. But yet one more formal rule that
helped the shaping of the positions and roles of those who became involved was the PATRICOVA. The
main objectives included in this plan stressed the need to develop measures for a return period of 100-
500 years, in addition, to develop measures that would impose the least environmental impact. Therefore,
it also influenced the approaches taken by both the authorities and the consultancies (AMINSA and
TYPSA).
4 ‘Formal rules are those backed by the law, implying enforcement of rules by the state, while informal rules are upheld by mutual agreement, or by relations of power or authority, and rules are thus enforced endogenously’(Cousins, 1997).
38
Figure 11. Rules in-use influencing components of action situations at constitutional, collective-choice and even operational level leading to eco-engineering
projects in ‘Rambla del Poyo’.
39
In the light to develop solutions that would comply with the objectives of this Plan, it can also be stated
that this motivated the inclusion of another important actor who could provide with further technical
assistance, the Technical University of Valencia. Based on the interviews, for the informal negotiations and
dialogues held to explore and define the best alternatives, the criteria to define who should be the main
actors to include was based on:
Municipalities that based on the first exploration of solutions, where identified with the highest
flooding risks and economic impacts
Secondly, actors whose territorial boundaries would become affected (expropriation) with the
implementation of the alternatives
Municipalities with high political weight because of the pressure they receive from influential
organized groups (i.e. farmers downstream the basin)
And actors who during the process took a more active role (i.e. Municipality of Cheste)
7.1.2 Position rules
In the area traditionally the national, provincial and regional state authorities hold the main interest and
responsibility to administrate and control the initiatives related to hydraulic projects. Since 1934 the main
institution responsible has been the Hydrological Confederation of Júcar (HCJ), a body under the Ministry
of Environment. Despite this organism still remains the central authority at a regional level, since the
1980’s the administrative framework has experienced a series of changes. New policies and regulations
were introduced or amended and new bodies institutionalized. This has resulted in a polycentric level of
governance in relation to any type of hydraulic initiative in the area. Currently authorities from different
levels (i.e. municipalities and other sate bodies and ministries) and types (i.e. environmental, landscape,
and transport sectors) have now a particular role, set of positions and responsibilities. In addition, other
actors have become part of the process (i.e. university, environmental groups, etc.). As a result from the
positions or roles taken by the actors, but also from the previously explained action situations in which
they interacted, the actors involved established distinctive relations between each other. Such relations
can even be depicted as those that developed from the formal or informal rules influencing the action
situations in which they interacted (Figure 12).
Figure 12. Map of actors and their relations leading to eco-engineering in ‘Rambla del Poyo’. Both formal
and informal relations are represented by dashed lines; continuous lines represent only formal relations.
40
Before the eco-engineering projects in the area the development of projects in this field followed mainly a
unidirectional and top-down approach. Regional and provincial governmental authorities were the main
and responsible actors, with possibly consultancies assisting in the development and realization. Other
actors were rarely considered if not included throughout the process. With the development of the eco-
engineering projects the start of the process followed the same line. But it changed as new regulations
became official and new objectives were established. This changed the positions for some the actors, in
addition of involving new actors with particular roles or influences during the process.
As previously mentioned the HCJ has been the governmental authority, responsible of leading and
monitoring the execution of hydraulic projects. In the beginning the role of the institution was to lead and
monitor the process according to procedures and current regulations: public call to develop the project,
public information process, tender process once approval from EID and execution. When new regulations
enter into force and new objectives or modifications were required, the institution took an additional role
and that was to facilitate and promote platforms to include other actors in discussions and negotiations to
explore new solutions. In addition, the HCJ served an important role in channelling the state funds that
enabled the process.
The Ministry of Natural, Rural and Marine Environment was also a key actor in the process, in terms of
ensuring that objectives are met, environmental requirements fulfilled and other relevant legal and social
conditions were indeed formally addressed. The evaluation, resolution and recommendations are
presented via the EID. Therefore, as part of the process it has been the institution that ultimately has hold
the power of either conditioning (fist project) or approving its realization (Phase I of initial project, and
the final eco-engineering projects).
The European Commission of Environment deserves special mention as for the process it had a relevant
position. In this case by fulfilling its mandate of investigating complaints presented by civil society, where
possible European Union law has been infringed. When the complaint was made it reinforced the
redirection of the approaches taken, more specific with the definition of clearer environmental objectives
the projects should meet. This action was the result of the role environmental groups adopted during the
process, in ensuring that the natural and ecological values were protected with the implementation of the
project. Concerned of the consequences of the first project (1991-1995) one particular environmental
group (Ecologists in Action-Agro) took action by presenting the allegations to the European Commission
and therefore posed a very influential role.
Once the settings were in place for the search of new projects, the civil engineering consultancies
(AMINSA and TYPSA) took also a different position. For the region the government authorities lack of
sufficient capacity to develop themselves these tasks. Therefore, they rely on private consultancies that
before would be in charge of drafting the projects based mainly on a technical-hydraulic basis, with their
respective environmental impact study. In the search of solutions that could comply with new safety
standards and environmental objectives, these actors were then faced to work on a broader basis. Both
consultancies now had to work considering other social preferences and the requirements of new
regulations. They also became involved with relevant actors (farmers, municipalities and environmental
groups), as part of a strategy to discuss the interests and concerns in the search of defining the best
solutions. In the case of AMINSA a key opportunity was found by working with the Polytechnic University
of Valencia (PUV), when testing the effects of the possible solutions with use of the latest hydraulic
models. Therefore, the PUV in this case introduced a new role in the process: the role of research in
decision-making.
There are 32 municipalities in the area, however, not all became involved or had a particular role in the
process. Their position was to ensure that the conditions and space for development growth within their
limits was not compromised. In this sense they looked after the land affected by the projects and how this
would affect the interests of other local actors.
41
They also seek to explore for alternatives that would bring them other benefits (such as recreational
spaces and bike lanes to go along the solutions). In most cases the municipalities exercised a passive role,
in the sense that they became involved up to the extent, the developers of the projects included them
during the conducted informal dialogues. In other cases, they exercised a more active role throughout the
process by manifesting their concerns; putting pressures and requesting further clarifications and
dialogues. This was for example the case of the municipality of ‘Cheste’ by having influenced at the end the
complete discard of the reservoir as a possible solution. Also, the actions taken by the platform ‘per un
Barranc Viu’ supported by the municipality of ‘Paiporta’, when works for Phase I initiated and the locals
wanted to ensure a more ecologically sound approach instead of the original ‘hard-works’ approach.
It is worth mentioning that as the negotiations with the municipalities were developed, the interviewed
actors in charge of the project indicated that in most of the cases there was an identifiable change of
perspective in some municipalities. Through the negotiations and dialogues, the municipalities came to a
better understanding of the interconnections of the different proposed solutions, their relevance and the
consequences of not implementing them. This facilitated the negotiations when they were too reserved
about the proposals. In the other hand, some municipalities hold the posture that even with the informal
dialogues throughout the process, they were still left with the impression that because it was a State
initiative, the projects will be developed anyway despite their full consent. For them these platforms for
negotiations were not entirely inclusive as not for all the cases the interests were truly considered. As for
other municipalities they claimed not becoming too involved, as the proposed solutions didn’t affected
directly their boundaries. A clear change in the position of municipalities in the crafting of new solutions
compared to traditional ways is therefore evident through their participation in the informal discussions.
However, during these actions as previously mentioned not all municipalities became involved and their
position to the extent of how much they were included or became influential is relative. During the formal
information process, pretty much the positions by the actors remained the same as before: authorities
published the project, actors have a 30 day term to present allegations, authorities respond and then make
if necessary the amends.
As mentioned before, during the processes leading to eco-engineering projects took place, new regulations
and requirements became official. This made it then a more complex process as new institutions adopted
a role in terms of becoming responsible in dictating if the requirements are met by the project (planning
and execution). These are to name the most relevant: the General Directorate of Territory and Landscape,
the General Directorate of the Environmental Management, and the Department of Natural Areas of
Conservation, all from the Provincial Authority (Generalitat Valenciana). Furthermore, as for the other
actors involved (other sectorial government authorities), their position became clear during the formal
information processes. The presented allegations were to ensure that the preventive and corrective
measures when implementing the project were to be fulfilled.
7.1.3 Choice rules
When looking at the main actions taken for this case, clear choice rules at the collective level (influencing
operational levels) can be outlined. These consisted of the new objectives (flood safety standards,
hydraulic planning, environmental quality and costs/benefits) selected as the main ruling criteria for the
devising of the new projects proposals. After the 2000’s EID which conditioned the initial proposal and in
the light of new regional regulations (PATRICOVA), this scenario motivated the regional authorities (HCJ)
to change their scope and also to set new rules in how the process should be developed. In relation to the
process new choice rules consisted in developers of proposals, partnering with the UPV for technical
assistance, as well as promoting a stepwise process to preliminarily discuss the alternatives with other
local actors. For the steering process the choices were to explore first possible solutions with local actors
and then evaluate them from a technical perspective (UPV assistance).
42
Then based on this assessment preliminary alternatives were again discussed with relevant actors for
feedbacks and to further define them. After these procedures the official drafting or the projects started
which included another round of informal consultation with local actors to discuss specific details before
the formal consultation procedure. In addition, this process included the generation of supplementary
studies and information, which according to official regulations and current law, had to be submitted also
to a formal consultation process.
So during this process there was one clear choice and that was to develop both formal and informal
procedures to engage with the different actors. Informal actions consisted of the facilitation of dialogues
with other actors in order to socialize and negotiate the solutions. As one interviewee mentioned these
actions were developed by choosing a simple pragmatic principle: “to inform about the ideas for the
possible alternatives, that had been already assessed, but still be flexible enough by allowing room for
negotiation”. Following this line, such particular actions were ruled by choosing an ‘informational’ or even
‘consultation’ level of participation with the actors. Another criteria chosen was to dialogue mainly
individually with those actors with power in opinion or that represented a strong opposition. Therefore,
specific interests or concerns were strategically targeted. This action was also realized by the
consultancies, which accompanied the process and were responsible to convey further explanations
regarding the proposed solutions.
Due to the nature of the type of ‘participatory’ process that was developed during the planning and design
phase, some environmental groups and municipalities choose to engage in more active process to express
their opinion and defend interests. This was done by using platforms such as the European Commission of
Environment, as well as pronouncing statements in the media. Also based on the interviews performed to
some Municipalities, by addressing directly the authority (HCJ) and requesting further explanations or
justifications to their proposals. But in general, these groups together with farmers, irrigators and other
competent state bodies, although relatively participated during the planning, their actions were mostly
relegated to analyse the proposals that were presented to them. Also, to manifest their suggestions or
recommendations, in some cases alternative proposals, via written allegations during the formal public
information process. Another strategy other actors [platform ‘per un Barranc Viu’ (For a living Ravine)]
chose to express their opinion, was through manifestations on the constructions sites when works for
Phase I of the project were to initiate. Finally, other main choice rules relate to following the formal
governmental procedures (official evaluation, verification and approval of projects). These mainly were
led and performed by the competent governmental authorities.
7.1.4 Information rules
In this case the channels for communication and information between actors was also governed by clear
identified rules. The overall principle selected by the steering actors was to inform local actors about the
flood safety, costs and benefits, and the environmental considerations embedded in the selection of
potential alternatives. The main strategy for information sharing and generation was to mainly follow one
level (top down) approach. This is supported because although actors were addressed during the initial
planning phase, their participation remained mainly consultative. It has also been stated that during this
phase a stepwise process was developed, since despite according to interviewees local participation was
not truly enabled, still several rounds of informal consultations were developed. The formal consultation
process preceded and so the final projects became officially selected. With the application of such strategy,
therefore, both formal and informal platforms for communication, information transfer and feedbacks
were created. The informal channels mainly consisted of meetings and one-one consultations, which were
aided by the use of indicative tools such as maps. In terms of the level of detail and clarity about the
information during this process it can be stated that this remained somehow restrained.
43
It is important to mention that also only after official documentation was published, that detailed
information about the project proposals was accessible for the public. So specific strategies that defined
how information was shared and divulgated among actors consisted in final official documents and
reports of public access and other informational documents (e.g. meetings minutes, outputs from informal
interactions). However, their ‘public access’ condition was put into question as these were not easily
obtained and the process to access them still remains bureaucratic. This leads to the assumption that for
this case, either the bureaucratic conditions behind the governance context is a limiting factor, or
strategically certain information was kept from the public (during the process and currently).
Furthermore, that particularly the informational inputs provided by external assistance (research
institutions) was used to develop and aid the devising of the government proposals. Since local
participation was somehow limited during the initial phase, some actors used the social media to convey
and inform other actors about their positions.
7.1.5 Payoff rules
There was a clear strategy in evaluating the payoff rules in this case. This consisted in devising a
methodology to evaluate the costs of future impacts if actions are not taken. The outputs from this
approach let to the definition of the cost of damage of one unit of impact (2 euros average annual damage).
From this value an estimation of the total units of impacts and costs was done for each municipality
resulting in a total impact cost for the area of 32 million euros/year. Based on this definition the
municipalities with the most costs were identified and this outline was used to target them with priority
during the negotiations. This approach helped to communicate the ideas in terms of the annual costs that
could be saved if solutions are implemented, aiding then somehow the cooperation of actors.
Another value considered as part of this rules was the estimation of the total costs of implementing the
solutions (including land expropriation, development of the environmental monitoring plan, and the
security and health study). With regards of the values assigned to the benefits that will be gained from the
implementation of the projects, these can be summarized as: the protection against flood risk,
hydrographical planning, functional environmental recovery, protection of the Albufera, river areas for
public use (recreational spaces) and the creation of biological corridors. Clear environmental benefits are
distinguished, however, in this case these have not yet been quantified or further evaluated.
44
7.2 The ‘Noordwaard’ Polder: Rules in-use
In this section the overview of the identified rules in-use for the ‘Noordwaard’ case is presented. The same
as in the previous case, constitutional and collective-choice but also operational rules, are all grouped and
represented according to the types of rules influencing the components or types of action situations.
Therefore, the rules in-use described in the following sections basically refer to the values the involved
actors considered, their positions and choices, information exchanged and the costs and benefits
evaluated at these levels (Figure 13).
7.2.1 Boundary rules
In this case there were also multiple actors that became part of the process from the principles of their
own constitution and institutionalization. In addition, actors who also became involved by the defined
formal and informal rules during the process, which dictated who were allowed to enter action arenas,
their duties and procedures. In terms of formal rules, the 1985/337CEE Directive, with its amend by
97/11/EC, relative to the Environmental Impact Assessment, became also relevant to the case. This
boundary rule allowed the participation of different actors during formal consultation processes. In
addition, since the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the government proposals were developed
in line with the ‘devised vision’, it not only supported this process but it also allowed the integration and
interaction with other actors during this phase. Worth noting, in this case compared to the ‘Rambla del
Poyo’, this rule was not merely the main driving principle defining the scope, sectors and actors to include
in the process.
Formally what could be mentioned was the main driver for this case in changing paradigms and defining
which actors became part of the process, was the 4th National Policy on Water Management (Policy
Guideline for Room for the River) and the Spatial Planning Key Procedure (PKB). Informal rules
contributed such as the Commission WB21’s advice to include actors’ participation during early planning,
and the State Secretary decision to prepare a regional advice, based on a preliminary consent at local
levels for possible solutions. These elements defined which actors together with their positions were to be
considered or installed (advisory groups).
It is important to mention that for the ‘Noordwaard’ case once the design phase and implementation
started, there were also criteria that defined which should be the main actors to include. This was based
on considering actors of the area that will become directly affected with the project (land expropriation,
reallocation, or with concerned interests). Furthermore, there was also and additional informal criteria
that can be said allowed other actors to enter action arenas. This were the strategies opted by the
Platform Save the ‘Noordwaard’ in searching external, non-governmental assistance to generate
alternative proposals.
7.2.2 Position rules
The same as in the previous case, traditionally national, provincial and regional authorities hold the main
interest and responsibility in relation to flood and water management in the Netherlands. Despite in this
case a type of polycentric governance was already in place, the analysis of the process for depoldering the
‘Noordwaard’, showed that new policies and regulations also changed the roles and positions of installed
institutions. Although the initiation and final decision still remained a government attribution at the
national level, the planning and design process included the integration and participation of different
levels of authorities (province, municipality, water board and other ministries and government bodies)
and other actors at regional and local levels (ZLTO, farmers, residents and others). This represented a
change in terms of how projects to provide national-wide flood safety were developed; in which both top-
down and bottom-up approaches were combined to define the final alternatives.
45
Figure 13. Rules in-use influencing components of action situations at constitutional, collective-choice and operational level for depoldering the ‘Noordwaard’.
46
The same as in the ‘Rambla del Poyo’ as a result from the positions or roles taken by the actors, but also
from the previously explained action situations in which they interacted, the actors involved in the
‘Noordwaard’ case also established distinctive relations between each other. Such relations were also
depicted as those that developed from the formal or informal rules influencing the action situations in
which they interacted (Figure 14).
Figure 14. Map of actors and their relations leading to eco-engineering in ‘Noordwaard’ Polder. Both
formal and informal relations are represented by dashed lines; continuous lines represent only formal
relations.
For the Dutch government a change in positions compared to traditional approaches, relied in initiating a
process were legitimacy was given space. Therefore, this led to the development of activities to explore
possible measures first at the national level. Then to define strategies for steering processes that could
provide with a consented regional advice on more concrete measures. With this approach new roles were
assigned to the RWS (‘Rijkswaterstaat’) and the BLRR (Bureau Lower River Region) where in addition of
their technical positions, these actors also engaged new responsibilities such as becoming facilitators and
negotiators with actors. Thus, this implied that such actors were faced to devise particular strategies to
thrive during the negotiations.
Local and regional authorities for the ‘Noordwaard’ project, apart from engaging in cooperative decision-
making, in general did not engage in major changes in roles. Nonetheless, they had an important position
during the initial phases. They became mainly the first addressed actors when measures at regional levels
started to be considered and negotiated. To get them to understand the interdependencies of water
management countrywide was key in order to facilitate further cooperation and dialogues (at subsequent
levels and phases). Other ministries (VROM and LNV) became also involved mainly as other verification,
evaluation and support bodies to ensure that other sectorial interests were not compromised (i.e.
environmental impact assessments). For the ‘Noordwaard’ case universities became also part of the
process but their role was different. They took a position of contra-expertise providers with the
development of alternative proposals. Also, local residents and farmers in this case took new and different
roles.
47
Instead of being relegated to express only their positions through the formal consultation processes, they
became involved in planning and design activities, thus, assuming a role of negotiators. Some opposing the
government proposals assumed an additional role and that was of strategically partnering with the
universities to become independent proponents of alternative projects as previously mentioned. Key
actors such as the ZLTO and the Advisory board that was established took the main positions of looking
after collective interests and supporters for the different actors involved during the negotiation process.
7.2.3 Choice rules
In general by looking at the process several relevant choice rules can be identified that shaped the main
actions engaged by the involved actors. To briefly mention the most relevant found at a constitutional
level these are: the change of the discharge normative capacity (16,000m3/s to 18,000m3/s in the long
term); new policy approach for water management (moving from vertical to spatial solutions); and initial
exploration at a national level in translating the concept of Room for the River to concrete measures
(resilience study). At the collective-choice level relevant choice rules can be said consisted of the initiative
by the State Secretary for a regional advice consisting of a regional and local steering process. This led for
the lower river region to choose as a tactical approach or strategy, to negotiate with actors measures
based on local interests for the long-term discharge (18,000m3/s).
Depoldering the ‘Noordwaard’ was chosen as a regional measure, under the conditions that local actors
will be given the choice to stay in the area and that clarity over its design and implementation will be
provided in the short term (granting forerunner status). This led to the definition of rules that shaped the
criteria (objectives) for the project, but also the process to develop its design vision and later on its
implementation (include actors in planning and design). As a result of this choice rules all actors became
somehow (based on their positions) involved in actions aiming to discuss and devise alternatives that
complied with the defined objectives and criteria. In addition, they engaged in negotiation and dialogue
activities to reach consensus or exchange information. Furthermore, based on these rules and the choices
made in defining the level (placation and partnership) and processes (formal and informal) for the
participation of actors, these were also allowed to engage in such activities to convey their opinions,
interests, oppositions or recommendations.
In this particular point is worth highlighting the choice made by opposing farmers and residents to the
government proposals. Mentioned already their main choices consisted of forming an organized group,
seek expertise assistance from universities, and manifest their interests and propositions in a constructive
way by presenting alternative measures. To elaborate on this point is worth mentioning a choice made by
the government in response to the alternative proposals presented by this platform. This consisting of the
development of a research by the Investigation and Verification Office of the Senate to evaluate such
proposals against the government’s, as result from the hearing requested by the concerned parties. One
relevant choice rule that determined this process worth highlighting was the selection of closing down the
open negotiations with actors, in relation to the real state, expropriation and compensation discussions. In
this sense the process turned again into a top down approach. The government made this choice since
decisions at this point could set precedents for other Room for the River projects, but also to have more
control about the process and follow again more closely traditional procedures.
Summarizing, choice rules defined the RWS and the BLRR in their positions to exert the main action of
socializing, negotiating and initiating with strategic actors the project planning and design for the region.
The advisory group, ZLTO and residents association were chosen or included to provide support during
these processes. Local and regional authority bodies were approached or came together initially to discuss
preliminary ideas and to explore potential projects. Then other local and regional actors became included
as negotiations progressed and more detailed discussions about the project were being realized.
48
Finally, other main activities that took place during the process consisted of the formal and official
evaluation, verification and approval of projects, ruled by the formal governmental procedures. These
mainly led and performed by the national government (Parliament, Cabinet), except for the formal
consultation process were the public again could convey their positions by presenting formal allegations
or reactions.
7.2.4 Information rules
There were clear strategies during the process in relation to what and how information was shared
between the involved actors. For example, from the initiators of the process the principle was to get across
information that will enable the understanding of involved actors, that a change in the approach for flood
safety was needed, and that in doing so cooperation and collaboration was essential. This led to the
generation of strategies aimed to convey the objectives and criteria selected to achieve such scope.
Furthermore, the mentioned principle was also composed of enabling the participation of actors to ensure
a legitimate process where local interests, preferences and positions were considered. Therefore, this also
defined the strategies that allowed the collection and integration of such informational feedbacks.
In this case it can be stated that during the initial planning activities information was conveyed following a
top down approach. A list of potential measures (national resilience study) was developed first for their
consecutive socialization with other actors at subsequent levels. To do so, indicative and visual tools (box
of blocks and maps) were developed to aid the information transfer. After this initial step the process
changed into a bottom up approach, as even focusing initially at regional levels, the strategy followed a
stepwise process that allowed the exchange and generation of information. The information handled at
this moment focused on the discharge normative capacity (for the ‘Noordwaard’ case the long term value)
and the other defined criteria (spatial quality and cost/benefit). The stepwise approach consisted in first
exploring and collecting ideas with actors and translating them into maps. Then these ideas were re
discussed and presented to the regional steering committee for their evaluation. At this moment
information was strategically handled, as depoldering was being discussed and considered, but due to its
controversy was not yet included ‘officially’ nor discarded. Interviewees mentioned that such strategies
created the space and momentum for it to be readdressed in the latter stages. As the stepwise negotiation
process continued, a decision had to be made and based on agreed choices and how the local interests
were strategically handled, it then resulted in depoldering becoming officially one of the projects for the
region.
This process and the consecutive (devise vision for depoldering) became only possible with the setting up
of formal and informal channels of communication, and platforms for information transfer and feedbacks.
These consisted of planning and design sessions, meetings, workshops, fields and personal visits, living-
room talks, official consultation processes. These became supported by the strategic definition of the
working groups, advisory or organized groups, which facilitated the lobbying and managing of
information transfer and feedbacks. Interviewees mentioned that during the initial planning and design
process there were also strategies chosen in how the information was conveyed. For example during
workshops and sessions, facilitators tried to accommodate and engage with actors by creating a setting of
equality, reliability, and approacheness.
Strategies that defined how information was also shared and divulgated among actors consisted in
documents, brochures, minutes, official reports, outputs from design and planning sessions, and other
research studies with alternative measures. Some actors also used the media to express and inform about
their positions, while others also used such statements as elements to steer the process. It can also be
mentioned that organized actors (Platform Save the ‘Noordwaard’) used research as a mechanism to
convey and inform about local knowledge, their interests and positions. In general information during the
first and initial phases aimed to be transparent, open and accessible. This contributed in building trust and
confidence between the actors about the process.
49
Therefore, cooperation and consents were enabled. However, once the mayor agreements and decisions
were made, when it was time to discuss about the real estate, compensation and reallocation mechanisms,
this turned back to traditional procedures of information generation and sharing. Information was not
conjunctly created with local actors and it was only shared after the government made the preliminary
proposition.
7.2.5 Payoff rules
In relation to this type of rules it can be mentioned that values were given to the costs incurred during the
planning and design process and to the expenses for its implementation (300,000 million Euros). Worth
highlighting, also values were given to the costs of moving, reallocation and expropriation of land. A
relevant payoff rule that was settled between the government and the remaining actors in the area was
the grant of the special life insurance.
Interviewees highlighted that values assigned to benefits consequently rely in the provision of flood safety
(nationwide) and enhanced quality in the area. However, values have been also given to new
opportunities that can be created as a consequence of the expected increase of tourism (e.g. sell products,
rent canoes), and the possibilities of expanding agricultural activities with the use of the middle inter tidal
polders. Since implementation of the project has already begun, interviewees stated that although the
previous mentioned benefits are potentially considered, only in time their true applicability,
accountability and efficiency could properly be assessed and thus such benefits in practice obtained.
50
7.3 Rules in-use and eco-engineering approaches: perspectives from case
studies
In this section the analysis of the rules in-use for both case studies is presented. The analysis is structured
by describing in general how rules in-use influenced interactions and outcomes in eco-engineering and
vice versa. The analysis is then elaborated in further details for each study case. Finally, the analysis
between traditional versus eco-engineering approaches is described.
7.3.1 Rules in-use influencing interaction and outcomes in eco-engineering and vice versa
In the previous sections rules in-use were identified according to the action situations (interactions and
outcomes) they relate to. It was mentioned that such action situations were found at the constitutional
level (i.e. application and enforcement of formal rules), collective-choice and operational level (i.e.
informal lobbying, conflict resolution and information sharing). For both case studies rules in-use found at
the constitutional level were the EU Directives (i.e. Birds, Habitats, EIA), and the national or regional
regulations and policies (i.e. PATRICOVA, PKB, 4th National Policy on Water Management). These
influenced the actors who became involved and their relations (actors’ networks). This depiction was
made based on how it is embedded in such regulations and policies, who are the actors responsible for
their application and to which other actors they apply. However, choice rules were also found that
influenced how such regulations and policies were enforced. For both case studies these consisted in the
choices of considering multifunctional objectives and the flood protection and environmental standards to
develop the potential projects.
At collective-choice and operational level, rules in-use (boundary, position and choice) were also found
influencing the actors’ networks and coalitions (i.e. criteria considered to include actors for preliminary
consent, coalitions for external expertise support). In addition, such rules were found influencing the
positions for some actors by changing their perceptions of roles (e.g. project developers now facilitators).
Also, the level of participation of actors in terms of the extent to which their interests and influences were
considered (e.g. informative or inclusive). Furthermore, these rules in-use (boundary, position and choice)
were found influencing informal procedures consisting of the facilitated or steering processes that
unfolded.
In relation to the information type of rules, it can be stated that these were found to be influencing a
‘negotiated knowledge’ to devise and approve the potential projects. The term negotiated knowledge is
used in this case to refer to the clear strategies that were selected with regards to the mechanisms and the
extent to which information was available between the actors (i.e. establishment of working or advisory
groups, workshops, meetings, etc.). Also, with regards to the type of information shared and considered
through the use of multiple discourses: costs/benefits, environmental, flood safety or local and regional
perspectives. Furthermore, to how the information was developed through a strategic learning approach,
consisting of a process with multiple feedbacks, open or closed, top down/bottom up.
In both case studies information rules were found closely linked to payoff and choice rules (informal
procedures and level of participation) through the negotiated knowledge. Information rules accounted as
information issues those related to flood protection, the potential projects themselves (planning/design),
the costs and benefits assigned, but also the exchange of interests, oppositions and concerns amongst
actors. Therefore, it was mainly through the information sharing that also conflicts, lobbying and informal
decisions were addressed.
51
In the previous paragraphs it has been described how the mutual influence between rules in-use and
interactions in eco-engineering approaches became reflected in relation to the rules in-use. In terms of
how such mutual influences reflected in the interactions, it can be mentioned that these reflected in a top
and bottom-up interchange and a distributed decision-making between actors. In addition, by interactions
developing over a time frame consisting of 10 years in average, denoting that rules in-use and eco-
engineering projects didn’t developed suddenly but rather as a long time process. Furthermore, such
influences were reflected in the strategic alliances that were established between the actors. As a result
the outcomes produced consisted of projects characterized by their integral design, their technical and
governance innovation, the provision of ecosystem services, and overall by enabling an integrated and
multifunctional flood risk management in the respective areas (Figure 15).
Figure 15. Rules in-use influencing interactions and outcomes in eco-engineering and vice versa.
Rules in-use: influencing networks and coalitions, role perceptions and level of participation in case studies
When analysing the influences of rules in-use and eco-engineering approaches in relation to the actors’
networks, the main changes were found in how the actors related to each other with regards to the
planning, design and decision making for the projects. A top down approach was identified in ‘Rambla del
Poyo’ and a top down/bottom up approach for the ‘Noordwaard’. The level of participation was different
in both cases. This lead to define a new balance between the actors’ interests and influences, were in both
cases it became broader but remained still constrained. For the ‘Rambla’ case it was mainly informative
and consultative. In the ‘Noordwaard’ the extent to which local actors influenced the process and their
interests were considered, was comparably larger and consisted of two phases: initial (inclusive,
placation, partnership) and final (mainly informative).
Both case studies also showed that developers of projects (government bodies, contractors or working
groups) assumed new roles by becoming facilitators and negotiators. In addition, as new actors became
involved clear strategies determined who was in and who was out (formal rules and criteria for
preliminary consents: actors with stakes or with added resources such as the provision of expertise).
Specific strategies were evidenced in terms of how these new actors also choose to interact in the light of
their new found roles or to establish coalitions. Particular coalitions from the case studies worth
highlighting are the partnerships between local actors and research institutes for contra-expertise
support in ‘Noordwaard’. In ‘Rambla’ on the contrary such partnerships were established between project
developers and the research institute.
52
Rules in-use: influencing multifunctional objectives, environmental and flood safety standards in case studies
In the ‘Rambla del Poyo’ the regulations and policies influencing the environmental and flood safety
standards were the EU Directives (Birds and Habitats→Natura 2000, EIA, Floods), PATRICOVA, and the
new flood safety regime (return period of 500 years). The new multifunctional objectives and criteria to
comply with such norms and regulations was set to achieve a level of flood safety (based on the safety
regime), develop measures with technical-hydraulic basis, include socio-economic interests, and improve
the ecological quality of the area.
On the other hand for the ‘Noordwaard’ case the policies and regulations consisted of the 4th National
Policy on Water Management, PKB procedure, the EU Directives (Birds and Habitats→Natura 2000, EIA)
and the new flood defence regime (16,000m3/s to 18,000m3/s in the long term). The new objectives and
criteria were developed at two levels: National (sustainable safety, spatial quality, cost/benefit) and local
(specific water level reduction target, farmers allowed to stay, spatial quality and local sustainability).
Rules in-use: influencing informal procedures (facilitated processes) in case studies
The facilitated or steering process in the ‘Rambla del Poyo’ (Figure 16) was characterized by consisting of
a one-directional approach with several phases each consisting of informal feedbacks (between regional
and local level actors). In this case, project developers also defined rules over the extent to which local
actors had an influence or power over the preliminary decisions made (level of participation). This was
mainly limited and to an extent restricted.
Figure 16. Facilitated process approach for ‘Rambla del Poyo’.
For the ‘Noordwaard’ case the steering process (Figure 17) consisted of a multi-layered steering
approach. It initiated at the national level to enable first a regional advice. Then the process moved to the
local context when the design vision of the project was being realized. Each ‘layer’ consisted of their own
set of rules and in both regional and local steering levels; several rounds of informational ‘feedbacks’
followed a bottom up approach. Project developers in this case engaged an open, interactive and
innovative steering process. In this particular case despite steering processes were developed before the
official consultation, discussions continued with regards of the implementation of the project. When the
real state affairs were to be defined, the process changed and the strategies went back to more traditional,
closed and formal procedures. Local actors were not involved in such planning phase.
Phase 1:
Regional authority starts the process by tendering a project to deliver potential solutions.
-1st round of 'local and informal' feedbacks
Phase 2:
Potential solutions are tested and decisions are made over preferred options.
-2nd round of 'local and informal' feedbacks
Phase 3:
Regional authority tenders project for the drafting of preferred
solutions
-3rd round of 'local and informal' feedbacks
Phase 4:
Preferred solutions and EIA submited to formal
consultation process
53
Figure 17. Facilitated process approach for ‘Noordwaard Polder’.
Rules in-use: influencing the negotiated knowledge, strategic learning and use of multiple discourse in case studies
In relation to the mutual influences between interactions in eco-engineering and the rules in-use, the
negotiated knowledge consisted for both cases in clear communication strategies. In the ‘Rambla’ the
pragmatic approach by having a careful control over the information shared and the actors targeted,
reflects that such approach still remained close to traditional practices. In the ‘Noordwaard’ case such
strategies indeed represented a significant change, as comparably local actors during the initial phase
were reached and included to a greater extent. The strategy in this case consisted of building strong bonds
of trust and reducing the uncertainties with regards to the process. This was done through clear and
prompt information sharing agreements, which then clearly denotes that this became a key factor that
facilitated cooperation. The strategies in this case also included a broader set of activities and even
platforms or working groups to support the negotiations and dialogues with the local actors. In both cases
it was found that the use of social media played a role in how it was used to convey interests and positions
between the actors.
In relation to the use of multiple discourses both case studies showed that a key strategy was found in
taking into account the different perceptions of actors’. In doing so, project developers engaged in the use
of multiple discourses to strive a strategic learning among actors that could also facilitate their
cooperation and consent. For the ‘Rambla del Poyo’ environmental, cost/benefits and flood safety
discourses where used. For the ‘Noordwaard’ case this even resulted not only in the consideration but also
in integration of local and cross-sectorial discourses. These constituted the use of the long-term flood
safety, local interests, and ecosystem services discourse.
In order to achieve such negotiated knowledge new rules were established to aid a strategic learning
amongst actors. The strategies chosen in each case were different and these become closely related to the
facilitated processes described in the previous section. Overall the mutual influences resulting from the
rules in-use and the interactions with regards to the informational situations constitute one of the main
mechanisms in which different levels of rules interconnected to define subsequent levels, or feedback each
other throughout the process. As mentioned previously, these action situations not only allowed
information and knowledge sharing at subsequent levels and vice versa, but in addition they became
spaces were actors could deliberate, negotiate, and reach for decisions. Therefore, allowing feedbacks or
interconnections between different levels of action situations (collective-choice and operational) with
regards to these other interactions. It is worth mentioning that despite these action situations were found
to be the most relevant mechanisms, it is acknowledge that they did not constitute the only mechanisms
were feedbacks took place (i.e. in the ‘Noordwaard’ case when parallel activities were developed in
devising alternative project proposals).
54
Interactions: influencing top down and bottom up interchange, distributed decision making, time frame, and strategic
alliances in case studies
For both case studies the influencing top down and bottom up interchange, the distributed decision-
making, and the strategic coalitions, resulted from how the interactions amongst actors consequently
developed from the mutual influence between rules shaping particular action situations and vice versa.
Such conditions became reflected for both case studies, in relation to the information, conflict-resolutions,
and lobbying interactions.
The process leading to eco-engineering projects in ‘Rambla del Poyo’ consisted of about 11 years total. The
‘Noordwaard’ case consisted of process of 9 years. This distinction was relevant to depict as it meant that
the different interactions unfolded through a long time span. The interactions became then multiple and
were changing as for example new rules in-use were placed or as different actions situations were being
developed. It reflects also that eco-engineering projects based on the case studies, have the particular
condition of requiring of processes consisting of at least several years in order to be developed.
Outcomes: flood defence strategy, innovations, ecosystem services, and multifunctional and integrated flood
management in case studies
As a result of rules in-use shaping or being shaped by eco-engineering approaches, this leads to denote
particular characteristics in the ultimate achieved flood defence strategy. In both cases such attributes
were found in the integral design of the measures, which not only included multiple objectives but also a
broader spatial scale (e.g. national, regional) and ecosystems interconnectivity (e.g. Natura 2000). In
addition, the connections between different eco-engineering projects, representing a major change in how
such are not being developed isolated.
In relation to the creation of new social and environmental opportunities, such as ecosystem services, new
agricultural opportunities, tourism, etc. These particular aspect remains however a big question in both
cases. This since despite environmental criteria was used as a discourse during negotiations; the general
and vague set objectives in this matter may have resulted in different interpretations by the involved
actors and thus favouring collaboration. Only through their implementation and within time the so-called
new creation of these opportunities can be in fact evaluated and accounted. Nevertheless, the outcomes
produced account for the development of a multifunctional river flood management in the respective
areas.
Furthermore, the design vision for the ‘Noordwaard’ case represents in itself an innovative flood defence
project from a technical perspective. Edelenbos et al., (2013) has already pointed out that this case in
particular shows how innovative approaches in design, may develop in informal and trust-building
cooperation and negotiation. This not only denotes the role of influential or changed rules in triggering
innovation, but also the challenges in how formal structures, processes and procedures, should then
enable more the generation of innovative ideas in such contexts. In other words, this highlights how
innovation in the governance system can translate into technical innovation and vice versa.
55
7.3.2 Traditional versus eco-engineering approaches: lessons learned
Regardless of the types and levels or rules found in both case studies, new or changed rules became
evident compared to ‘traditional approaches’. To provide with an overview and comprehensiveness of
changes, these are represented on the basis of the main influences identified between the rules in-use and
eco-engineering approaches. This since overall despite differences in the governance systems between the
study cases, the most relevant influence of new or changed rules in-use was commonly found at these
contexts (Table 6).
Table 6. Lessons learned from eco-engineering approaches versus traditional approaches.
Traditional approach Eco-engineering approach
Multifunctional objectives, environmental and flood safety standards
Centralized or unbundled policy frameworks Comprehensive policy frameworks and policies (multilevel and
cross sectorial)
Flood defence regime: first definition of flood risk
thresholds (safety standards)
Flood defence regime: definition or modification of flood risk
thresholds (safety standards) under new scenarios (e.g.
Climate Change)
Main objectives and criteria for projects: flood
safety, technical and hydraulic, cost/benefit
Definition of multilevel and functional objectives and criteria
for projects: flood safety, environmental and spatial quality,
socio-economic
Formal and Informal procedures (facilitated processes)
Independent sectorial implementation of regulation
and policies by formal procedures
Implementation of regulation and policies with cross-sector
coordination and integration by formal and informal
procedures
Top down planning, design and decision-making Top down and bottom up planning, design and decision-
making
Networks and coalitions, role perceptions and level of participation
Stakeholders’ integration only during formal
consultation procedures
Stakeholders’ integration (participation at different levels and
moments before formal consultation procedures)
Balance between interests and influences of
concerned stakeholders (mainly concentrated in
project developers)
Balance between interests and influences of concerned
stakeholders (broader to legitimate)
Developers of projects mainly with technical roles Developers of projects also facilitators and negotiators
Negotiated knowledge, strategic learning and use of multiple discourse
Communication strategies closed and hierarchical
following only formal consultation procedures
Communication strategies by steering processes, formal and
informal procedures, strategic lobbying groups and use of
social media
Implementation of negotiated knowledge narrower
and single discourse use. Result: innovation is
smothered
Implementation of ‘negotiated knowledge’ by the use of
multiple discourses, strategic knowledge transfer, and
coalitions between actors (expertise support: research with a
new role). Result: innovation is enabled
Outcomes
Independent project based design (accounting the
hydrological and hydraulic systems) → use of hard
engineering structures
Integral and spatial designs (accounting socio-ecological
systems and broader spatial scales) → use of natural resources
to increase structure functionality or the natural environment
to create structures
Opportunities:? New opportunities: flood safety, ecosystem services,
sustainability
River flood management Multifunctional river flood management
56
7.3.3 Rules in-use in eco-engineering and the SESs framework
Based on the analysis presented in the previous sections, if one considers the SESs framework and by
looking at the rules in-use found in eco-engineering approaches, links and influences between other sub
tiers of the governance system became evident (e.g. network structures). But these even translated in
integrating and influencing other higher level of tiers (users, resource system and resource units). Despite
not all these inter-linkages were fully addressed, it is worth highlighting such connections.
These links for example include the already described rules in-use (mutually) influencing the knowledge
of SES and mental nodes of users, in the context of the new/changed knowledge and information arenas.
But there are also the rules in-use (mutually) influencing the resource system and units (boundaries, size,
technology, predictability of dynamics, economic value, spatial and temporal distribution, interaction
among other units, etc.), in the context of the outcomes produced by the flood defence strategy. This
denotes again the complexity embedded in eco-engineering and supports the adequacy in framing such
approach after all as SESs.
57
8 Discussion
8.1 Rules in-use and eco-engineering
8.1.1 The complexity of the rules in-use in eco-engineering
The analysis of the rules in-use from the study cases reflects that there were multiple and different levels
of influential ‘values’ developing across time. Rules embedded in eco-engineering show that these
developed at constitutional, collective-choice and operational level. These were also (mutually)
influencing different action situations such as the generation and exchange of information, consultation,
lobbying and conflict resolution amongst involved actors. This denotes the complexity of the governance
system in the eco-engineering approach. These particular settings could account their origin partly from
the polycentric type of governance in place in both cases. But also by considering that developing an eco-
engineering approach was not a process that arose suddenly. For both study cases it took in average 10
years. It included a combination of the political momentum after high peak events, informal and formal
actions/decisions, parallel activities performed by the actors involved, the exploration of possible
alternatives (research), and the development of the project proposals themselves. Therefore, there were
multiple grounds from which traditional rules or changed strategies (at different levels and processes)
came into the picture influencing the approach.
8.1.2 The new and changed rules in-use compared to traditional approaches
In both cases it was found that the process leading to the ultimate eco-engineering projects, involved new
triggering rules; but at the same time rules mainly related to the traditional procedures, information
sharing and network arrangements being changed in return (feedbacks). The approach was somehow in-
between fostered and forced by the new constitutional regulatory and policy frameworks. Interviewees
from the ‘Rambla del Poyo’ case stated for example that the motivation to include environmental
objectives arose in order to comply with the normative requirements (i.e. EU Directives). In this sense
their integration didn’t result from perceiving them as opportunities rather obstacles.
As the process in both case studies unfolded, traditional rules related to decision-making procedures and
actors’ networks changed. These changes translated in allowing the integration and participation of new
actors with particular stakes. This scenario led actors to engage in new roles and choices. For each study
case choice rules were also established to define the extent and the ways actors’ interests and influences
were included. Another relevant change was reflected in the information sharing situations. New rules led
to facilitated processes and actions striving strategic understandings in the local actors.
In order to implement eco-engineering projects, the potential measures imply changes in land use.
Especially when initiatives are to affect land property or put interests at stake, processes tend to become
polemic. There is a common phrase that clearly summarizes the perceptions of local actors when it comes
to projects of this nature: ‘as long as it’s not in my backyard’. Therefore, by giving value on facilitating local
cooperation under these premises, this possibly can be accounted as the explaining factor for the changed
rules influencing the actors’ roles and networks as well as the negotiated knowledge.
In the ‘Rambla del Poyo’ the final consented projects although represented a ‘shift’, the procedures
remained partially close to traditional approaches (i.e. participation of local actors still limited). This was
due probably because the process was developed mainly to comply with new constitutional rules.
Therefore, in doing so placed rules were only bent to allow room enough for innovation that could help
meet such requirements. For the ‘Noordwaard’ case the final consented project represents a clear example
of how technical innovation was triggered by innovations in the governance system.
58
This case evidences that with the use of multiple discourses and by focusing on the opportunities of
combining multiple interests, objectives and requirements; not only the approach but also the final project
design became itself a new idea. This aspect highlights the importance of finding catalysts that can enable
such spaces, as they represent potential roads that could not only assist but also become a mean to further
improve eco-engineering approaches.
8.1.3 Comparing the ‘Rambla del Poyo’ and ‘Noordwaard’ governance systems
It is interesting to discuss that initially by looking at study cases with different governance contexts that a
comparison between the two would not be most suitable. The idea was to mainly outline and draw key
principles of what could be considered ‘lessons learned’. However, during the analysis common
denominators operating in both cases were found. This allowed the identification of the main contexts in
which rules in-use despite having different values in both cases, still were considered to be common. This
also facilitated the overall comparison of rules in-use embedded in eco-engineering and traditional
approaches. This leads into thinking that despite differences between the governance contexts, the study
cases owe partly their common links to the overarching frameworks in the European context such as the
EU Directives (i.e. EIA, Birds and Habitats). Therefore, such frameworks might be having a greater
influence in the shaping of these approaches than what one would expect. Nevertheless, different national
policies and regulations in each case were also playing a role, however, in principle these were also found
to be common (defining flood safety levels and more participatory processes).
Furthermore, in addition to formal rules (explained previously) the already mentioned premises
(property-rights systems; interests at stake) involved in projects of this nature, might also be the lead of
both cases developing for example steering processes that facilitated the cooperation among actors.
Another example is found in the consideration of multiple objectives and the need to devise projects that
could meet such standards (role of research). Therefore, it can be stated that the common principles found
in both the implications of developing eco-engineering type of projects and the overarching rules shaping
the projects, became mutually critical and laid the grounds for the findings of ‘similar in principle (e.g.
level of participation, informal procedures, negotiated knowledge) but yet differentiated (e.g. differences
in the levels of participation)’ rules in-use. It is worth mentioning that of course these common grounds
might also be accounted for other overlooked factors. Also, that despite these similitudes the values
assigned in both cases for such particular rules, represented at the same time core differences. This in
order to not overlook the importance of relevant differences also found in both study cases.
8.2 Application of the IAD and SESs framework
8.2.1 Challenges when facing different action situations and levels of rules in-use
The IAD framework has proven its usefulness in understanding institutions. Its tier-like nature depicts all
the possible inter-linkages to highlight the different elements constituting institutions given a particular
system. However, the framework was built to facilitate the analysis of exogenous variables at one
particular level of action situation. This means for example that a researcher can choose the level of rules
in-use (constitutional, collective-choice or operational) and how these relate to particular activities
(monitoring, sanctioning, conflict resolution, provision of information and infrastructure, appropriation
and policy-making). Based on the understanding that eco-engineering approaches integrate both the socio
and ecological systems, therefore, both the IAD and SESs framework was chosen to perform the research.
In both case studies rules in-use were found at the three levels and almost in all the mentioned activities.
This translated into faced challenges in how to address such differences and complexities. In other words
with multiple action situations and multiple levels of rules, questions arose in how under such conditions
the framework could best be applied to perform the analysis. The strategy used consisted then in using
the IAD framework mainly as a roadmap to guide the identification and categorization of the variables that
59
influenced the different interactions and outcomes produced. As a consequence the compilation of the
different action situations and levels of rules found were all schematically presented as an overall result.
In terms of analysing the information following this strategy, this allowed a better comprehension of the
rules in-use and the governance systems in both study cases. However, a downside was that particular
activities were not reflected in greater detail, and the information was schematically presented with no
distinction in time, situation or level or rules in-use. Therefore, such distinction had to be addressed and
described separately in the different sections. Nevertheless, an overall schematic representation of the
rules in-use was chosen since after all different activities at different levels were being analysed anyways.
Considering this complexity and in the attempt of addressing its integral comprehension, not sufficient
grounds were found in spreading it.
8.2.2 The usefulness of the IAD and SESs frameworks in Eco-engineering
Overall the framework represented a good approach when looking at eco-engineering approaches but its
implementation might still be better recommend when applied to specific actions situations at a defined
level of rules. This particular factor has become a main critic to the framework. The condition that it is
mostly fitted to perform an analysis of what could be called a snapshot in time of a situation, limits to a
certain extent the performance of an institutional change analysis as such changes cannot clearly be
reflected. This became then one of the major drawbacks in applying this framework in this research.
Suggestions on how this could be overcome could be in narrowing to a particular process and level the
activity of interest. Then chose two or the desired moments and apply the analysis. This could lead to
different snapshots that can then be comparable. However, in the light of looking at complex systems
(SESs) and for example considering eco-engineering approaches as in this case, key information will
logically be left out. Thus, this implies a compromise between simplicity to aid the analysis and achieving a
greater comprehension and integration of the system, which at the end represent the intrinsic
characteristic of eco-engineering approaches.
Another relevant observation is that when applying the IAD and SESs frameworks in eco-engineering with
regards of the types of rules, a clear distinction could be made over the constitutional rules. For both study
cases it was stated that the other rules in-use were found at the collective-choice level but it was difficult
to distinguish to a certain extent which of these were directly influencing operational levels. The
boundaries between these two became somehow blurry probably because throughout the process clear
feedbacks influencing both levels were identified. Furthermore, when it came to distinguishing between
the types of rules, by looking at the interactions in eco-engineering it became difficult to distinguish values
corresponding to choice, aggregation or information types of rules. In both case studies the action
situations related to information sharing, conflict resolution and lobbying activities were intertwined.
Therefore, the identification of clear boundaries thus the clear depiction of these types of rules was not
fully achieved. This supports the better use of the framework by focusing on one particular level or action
situation. Nevertheless, the root of these challenges might also be in the eco-engineering approaches
themselves. Especially as in terms of how these approaches account for a comprehensive integration
between and within the social and natural systems, resulting in blurry boundaries that become to identify.
8.2.3 Underpinning the IAD and SESs frameworks
The IAD framework was used to aid the analysis of the rules in-use. However, the SESs framework was
also included as one of the higher-level tier (governance system) depicts the different levels of rules as
sub-level tiers. Since the scope of the research was to focus on the rules, other tier variables were not
addressed in greater detail. However, in the last section of the analysis and overall reflection addressing
such links was included.
60
There are scholars (M.D. McGinnis, 2011; Mincey et al., 2013) who have underpinned the SESs and IAD
framework in the attempt of how to use the framework more ‘dynamically’ by depicting the connection
between outcomes coming from one action situation to another or the influences between different tier
variables level. One approach has been presented by McGinnis (2011) which allows the ‘spread’ but still
‘linked’ analysis of process which can also enable the identification of rules in-use influencing them.
Another approach presented by Mincey et al., (2013) considered the analysis of the rules in-use at
collective-choice and operational level by using the types of rules that relate to action situations. An
approach similar to the one presented in this research. However, these approaches have been mostly
exploratory. Nonetheless, their application could represent opportunities for future research in this field.
Following this line, in the literature there are multiple frameworks to assess institutional change, but the
extent to which they relate to SESs so that they fit when looking at eco-engineering approaches will have
to be evaluated.
8.3 Methods and techniques
8.3.1 Criteria for selection of case studies and key actors interviews
In relation to the methods some observations can be made over the criteria for selection. The phase of the
project was not included. This resulted in the case of the ‘Noordwaard’ that rules in-use were also found at
the operational level. The construction of the case became more complex as when performing the
interviews, most actors could elaborate more over the recent strategies in relation to the implementation
(more familiar with the current context) and not so much over the previous steps. This brings into
mention also the fact that processes in both cases took an average or 10 years and some interviewed
actors were engaged mainly at particular stages. This meant that their contribution remained sometimes
restricted to particular moments. In occasions it also became difficult for them to remember with specific
detail the initial processes. Furthermore, it was experienced that instead of providing with a storyline they
expected to be asked concerning particular events. Therefore, closing down the possibility of getting new
insights despite those already known and thus consulted.
To overcome these challenges the strategies used consisted in addressing the questions sometimes two or
even more times throughout the interview by framing them differently. This in order to validate
mentioned information, but also allow the interviewee to provide with new inputs that were not shared
previously. This strategy also proved effective, as once the interviewee got into context, information
flowed more naturally. Another strategy consisted in summarising the answers provided before moving to
the next questions to check if the information was understood correctly. In doing so, interviewees
sometimes elaborated more when realizing that key information for example has not yet been mentioned.
These in general represented the main advantages of having selected the semi-structure interview
technique.
On the other hand, drawbacks were found in particular with the Dutch case as the interviews were
performed in English. Not being the first language for both parties the meaning or particular information
might have been miss interpreted. The positions of interviewees and how the questions were articulated
might also lead to cross understandings. Interviewees might have for example understood the questions
in a particular way different from what it was expected from them to elaborate on; or in occasions
interviewees would refer to particular events or actions with different names making it difficult to
connect. Furthermore, it was found in particular when interviewing government officials that answers
might have been biased by referring or stressing issues that might translate mainly as ‘positive’ outcomes
from this research. This is what I would call the use of ‘political discourses’ in which statements are made
with regards of what the people expect to hear, and also that support the institutions they represent. To
face these challenges again readdressing and reframing the questions throughout the interviews became a
good strategy. Furthermore, the validation of first hand collected data with secondary source data also
supported the verification and processing of the information to perform the analysis.
61
For the interviews performed in each case in occasions procedures became bureaucratic. For example, in
the ‘Rambla del Poyo’ some municipalities required a formal procedure to perform the interviews. It
consisted of registering and then request the interview and the consultation of the file related to the case.
After the evaluation of the request answer will be given if the interview was going to be granted or not. In
the ‘Noordwaard’ to access the farmers first the ZLTO had to be approached. After having a briefing
meeting the contacts of farmers were provided.
Other difficulties experienced consisted of key identified actors longer being active (ecological groups in
the ‘Rambla’ case), or others became difficult to locate as the have already moved (farmers with
expropriated land in the ‘Noordwaard’ case). Therefore, the setting up of meetings became a challenging
process. To overcome these limitations by using previous references from interviewed actors and with the
support provided by experts for their contact, the arrangements of meetings became possible. The
snowball sampling technique proved effective, however, actors referencing other particular ones could
have meant a bias in the selection of interviewees. In addition, only a total of 14 interviews were possible.
Thus, in order to overcome such possible limitations and to achieve a greater representation of the
stakeholders’ perceptions, secondary sources of information were consulted. These mainly constituted
documents in Spanish (native language) and for the Dutch case literature in English, found in relatively
considerable amounts. These proved to be effective in contributing with the construction of the cases and
to perform the consequent analysis.
8.3.2 Data processing methods
The use of a timeline of critical events to process the information turned out to be an effective technique.
By doing so it was possible to analytically assess the compiled information and crosschecked the input
data. The overall description that was achieved for both cases facilitated their overall comprehension and
it also laid the ground for the development of the consecutive analysis. The studies showed that the eco-
engineering approach was a process that developed over several years. The techniques used to get a grip
over the process allowed the identification of which were new and change rules. Such changes led to a
final situation but they did not occur at the same time. If one only focuses on an identified starting point
and an end point, key changes in between can therefore become overlooked. Thus, not being able to grasp
a comprehensive analysis.
62
9 Conclusions
9.1 Related to the research questions What are the main events and processes (action situations) leading to eco-engineering initiatives?
Processes and events in eco-engineering initiatives mainly constituted the application of national and
regional policies, and the monitoring and enforcing of those activities in formal and informal contexts. But
also formal and informal information exchange, negotiation rounds, the exploration and crafting of
alternatives and formal consultation activities. These were found across scales (constitutional, collective-
choice and operational) or developing sometimes parallel with mutual feedbacks and across time.
Who are the actors involved in these action situations?
Actors involved in eco-engineering initiatives comprise a diverse and multiple group. These vary from
government units (national, regional, local) and authority bodies (regional, local), to expertise providers
(universities), environmental groups, other project developers (private consultancies), farmers, and
residents, to organized platforms, boards and strategic steering/working groups.
What boundary, position, choice, information or payoff rules were applied in these action situations?
Boundary rules in both case studies consisted of the national and regional policies (e.g. EU Directives,
PATRICOVA and PKB) and the rules related to the criteria to include particular actors in the preliminary
consents (e.g. actors affected by expropriation of land, with concerned interests, etc.). Position rules were
those defining the roles of actors (i.e. project developers decision makers and facilitators, local actors
decision-makers, universities as expertise providers). Choice rules consisted to the values related to the
definition of the multiple objectives for projects, related to the criteria to develop regional and local
steering processes, the level of stakeholders’ participation, and the formal and informal procedures.
Information types of rules consisted of those defining the information generation and sharing and the
strategies in how and the extent to which information was transferred. Payoff rules consisted of the
identified strategies defining the costs and benefits assigned to the eco-engineering projects.
What are differences between rules in-use in traditional versus eco-engineering approaches? Main differences between rules in-use in traditional versus eco-engineering approaches, were found
related to the influencing overarching policy and regulatory frameworks (EU Directives and new flood
defence policies). In the rules in-use that influenced actors’ networks and roles, the top down versus
bottom up decision-making, broader participation of local stakeholders, increased balance between
interests and influences of local actors. In addition, with regards to rules in-use influencing the new
platforms and communication strategies, the use of multiple discourses and processes to strive the
negotiated knowledge between actors.
How do rules in-use influence interactions and outcomes in eco-engineering approaches and vice versa?
The unveiled rules in-use in eco-engineering approaches consist of (mutually) influencing values at the
constitutional, collective-choice and operational levels. At the constitutional level both case studies
evidenced that eco-engineering projects were triggered by the influence of new regulations and policies at
(i.e. EU Directives and regional flood safety policies). At collective-choice and operational levels, new or
changed boundary, position, and choice rules were found influencing actors’ networks. In addition, actors’
perceptions of roles and their level of participation. Furthermore, such were found influencing informal
procedures (facilitated processes).
63
Informational type of rules influenced a strategic learning between concerning actors and the use of
multiple discourses. For both case studies the mutual influence of rules in-use and eco-engineering
approaches resulted from distinctive interactions. Such interactions were characterized by a top and
bottom-up interchange between actors, a distributed decision-making and the establishment of strategic
alliances. As a result the outcomes produced consisted of projects characterized by their integral design,
their technical and governance innovation, the provision of ecosystem services, and overall by enabling an
integrated and multifunctional flood risk management in the respective areas.
In addition, based on the SESs framework that the mutual influences became reflected also in other
elements composing the governance systems, and as a result of the ultimate reached flood defence
strategy to other elements in the ecological system as well.
9.2 Rules in-use and eco-engineering
Despite differences were found in both cases, similarities were also depicted which can be related to the
overarching frameworks. This could be pointed as the main influential factor; nonetheless, the role of
regional and local values assigned to rules in-use at a collective-choice and operation levels, were critical
in defining which actors became involved, their positions and their strategies. These conditions denote the
polycentric nature and complexity of the governance systems embedded in eco-engineering approaches.
Also, that if one seek to grasp a comprehensive understanding of such contexts it makes it almost
inevitable to look beyond scales, sectors and even time horizons. Furthermore, that both common found
principles became mutually influenced (feedbacks).
Broader and more open facilitating processes can trigger greater governance and technical innovation in
eco-engineering projects. Strategies should be devised in order to enable such opportunities. These could
be found in expanding the use of multiple discourses and incentivising interactive-information exchanges,
which at the same time can facilitate cooperation between actors’. Integrating actors’ participation at an
early stage, building trust, and striving a structured knowledge (preparing the grounds).
9.3 Related to the SESs and IAD framework and eco-engineering
The application of the SESs and most in particular the IAD framework proved to be adequate by assisting
the analysis of the rules in-use. However, weak points became evident when applying it to complex
governance settings such as those embedded in eco-engineering approaches. The frameworks themselves
are limited in allowing the clear depiction between levels of rules in-use and their (mutually) influencing
multiple actions arenas.
9.4 Related to research methods
The use of a timeline of critical events proved adequate in constructing the cases and exposing the
information that allowed the identification of relevant action arenas and rules in-use. The use of primary
and secondary data allowed their mutual validation to reduce biases and support their
representativeness.
64
10 Recommendations
10.1 Key points for future research
An analysis of the rules in-use, actors and action situations in eco-engineering approaches, using the
concept of ‘network of adjacent action situations (NAAS)’ provided by (M.D. McGinnis, 2011). The approach
underpins the IAD framework in order to assist its application to complex policy settings.
This might prove to be useful in the attempt to make clearer the interrelations between different action
situations and levels of rules.
The SESs and IAD framework could also be used to develop an assessment of eco-engineering approaches
by defining a specific level of rules (constitutional, collective-choice and operational), type of action
situations (monitoring, appropriation and provision) and moments in time. By narrowing the scope this
might unveil relevant findings that otherwise could have been overlooked. However, this ‘fragmented’
approach could also represent losing the overall understandings of the systems at stake.
A similar approach could also be developed but using other study cases to test if the similar ground
principles found, are indeed common denominators in initiatives following such approach. Other
examples in the European context could then be considered. Following this line it will be interesting to
compare even with cases found in developing countries.
Research aiming to look at in particular the new opportunities created by eco-engineering approaches is
also recommended. The different initiatives laid their core over the potential multi-sectorial benefits they
aim to produce. To look at for example the ecosystem services, tourism, and intertidal agriculture, such
analysis could deliver the inputs in the understandings of how the produced outcomes feedback the socio-
ecological systems. Furthermore, such new opportunities open the possibilities to perform other types of
research as for example assessments for the development of payment for ecosystem services schemes, or
even how the new socio-economic opportunities connect with the livelihoods of local people.
Research could also focus on the innovation elements found. Such works could aim for example in looking
at other experiences and identifying which were the elements triggering both governance and technical
innovation.
Other research could also focus on performing a discourse analysis. It was found in both case studies that
the use of a multiple discourse proved to be a key factor enabling cooperation and negotiation. This makes
it interesting to evaluate how for example taking one or all discourses; these are understood or framed by
the different involved stakeholders.
10.2 Related to the methods and techniques
With regards to the methods and techniques it is recommendable to target the key representatives of the
different stakeholders. The snowball sampling technique can result biased as for example particular
actors might consider only to recommend other actors that will have a particular view or position.
Therefore, one should account this factor and ensure such representativeness.
While performing this research the use of different sources of data proved to be effective. This since it
allowed the triangulation and verification of the input data. Therefore, it is recommendable when
performing this type of research to consider approaches that can enable the verification (multiple data
sources). Also, it is worthwhile to ask interviewees if they could provide with other supporting literature.
Key stakeholders have access to documents that are not easily if not impossible to obtain otherwise.
65
The use of the timeline of critical events is also recommendable to construct the cases when the ‘ground
research approach’ is used. To improve the use of this technique a ‘draft’ layout can be elaborated to share
with stakeholders during interviews. This might help them recall the process and give feedbacks. The
preliminary construction of a stakeholders map can also be developed as supporting material during the
interviews. This might enable the collection of further useful insights.
The use of the IAD and SESs such frameworks proved to be suitable and therefore recommended as
approaches for further analysis of eco-engineering. However, specific recommendations in their
application can be found as the mentioned in section 10.1.
10.3 Future development of eco-engineering
Project developers or managers could for example consider learning experiences from the two cases. To
engage in initiatives considering an eco-engineering approach, first a normative and regulatory
framework mapping should allow the identification of criteria and objectives the projects should target
for. Following this mapping stakeholders and engaging in activities to promote a steering process
(multiple discourse use and structured knowledge) could not only facilitate cooperation but at the same
time trigger technological innovation for the projects.
66
11 References AMINSA. (2006). Memoria Resumen de Impacto Ambiental Adecuación Ambiental y Drenaje de la Cuenca
del Poyo Vertiente a la Albufera (pp. 90). Valencia, España: Ministerio de Ambiente, Confederación Hidrográfica del Júcar, Programa AGUA Albufera.
Apitz, S., Elliott, M., Fountain, M., & Galloway, T. (2006). European environmental management: Moving to an ecosystem approach. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2(1), 80-85. doi: 10.1002/ieam.5630020114
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Desing and Implementation for Novice Researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.
Berga, L. (1993). El Plan Hidrológico Nacional y la Problemática de las Inundaciones en España. Revista de Obras Públicas, 3.327. AÑO 140, 53-63.
Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1998). Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. . Cambridge, Uk: Cambridge University Press.
Resolución de 16 de diciembre de 2011, de la Secretaría de Estado de Cambio Climático, por la que se formula declaración de impacto ambiental del proyecto Adecuación ambienal y drenaje de la cuenca del Poyo vertiente a la Albufera, Valencia. (2012).
Borsje, B. W., van Wesenbeeck, B. K., Dekker, F., Paalvast, P., Bouma, T. J., van Katwijk, M. M., & de Vries, M. B. (2011). How ecological engineering can serve in coastal protection. Ecological Engineering, 37(2), 113-122.
BwN. (2012). Pilots and cases 2012. from http://publicwiki.deltares.nl/display/BWN/EDD+-+Pilots+and+cases
Camarasa, A. M., López-García, M. J., & Soriano-García, J. (2011). Mapping temporally-variable exposure to flooding in small Mediterranean basins using land-use indicators. [Hazards]. Applied Geography, 31(1), 136-145. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.03.003
Camarasa, A. M., & Segura, F. (2001). Flood events in Mediterranean ephemeral streams (ramblas) in Valencia region, Spain. CATENA, 45(3), 229-249. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0341-8162(01)00146-1
Camarasa, A. M., & Tilford, K. A. (2002). Rainfall–runoff modelling of ephemeral streams in the Valencia region (eastern Spain). Hydrological Processes, 16(17), 3329-3344. doi: 10.1002/hyp.1103
Cousins, B. (1997). How Do Rights Become Real?: Formal and Informal Institutions in South Africa's Land Reform. IDS Bulletin, 28(4), 59-68. doi: 10.1111/j.1759-5436.1997.mp28004007.x
Cowie, G., & Borrett, S. (2005). Institutional perspectives on participation and information in water management. [Vulnerability of Water Quality in Intensively Developing Urban Watersheds]. Environmental Modelling & Software, 20(4), 469-483.
DELTARES. (2009). Eco-engineering, from http://www.innoverenmetwater.nl/upload/documents/Eco%20engineering%20(brochure).pdf
EcoShape. (2011). Projects Retrieved 15-10-2012, 2012, from http://www.ecoshape.nl/en_EN/environments.html
Edelenbos, J., Roth, D., & Winnubst, M. (2013). Dealing with uncertanties in the Dutch Room for the River programme: a comparison between the Overdiep polder and Noordwaard. In F. Warner, A. van Buuren & J. Edelengbos (Eds.), Making space for the river: Governance experiences with multifunctional river flood managemetn in the US and Europe (pp. 200). London, UK: IWA Publishing.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. doi: 10.2307/258557
EU. (2011). OURCOAST, Integrated Coastal Zone Management. The Netherlands: European Union. Francés, F., García-Bartual, R., Ortiz, E., Salazar, S., & Miralles, J. (2008). CRUE Research Report No I-6:
Efficiency of non-structural flood mitigation measures: "room for the river" and "retaining water in the landscape": CRUE Funding Initiative on Flood Risk Management Research.
French, P. (2006). Managed realignment – The developing story of a comparatively new approach to soft engineering. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 67(3), 409-423.
Gerritsen, H. (2005). What happened in 1953? The Big Flood in the Netherlands in retrospect. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 363(1831), 1271-1291. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2005.1568
Hartley, J. (2004). Case Study Research. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research (pp. 324-333). Great Britain: Athenaeum Press Ltd., Gateshead.
67
Hess, C., & Ostrom, E. (2005). A Framework for Analyzing the Knowledge Commons: a chapter from Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: from Theory to Practice: Library Publications. Paper 21.
Huisman, B., van de Rotten, P., Sanders, R., Yan, Y., & Xia, Y. (2004). Project Noordwaard (F. o. C. Engineering, Trans.) (pp. 109). Delft, The Netherlands: TU Delft University.
IPCC. (2007). Summary for Policy Makers. . Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Janssen, M., Anderies, J., & Ostrom, E. (2007). Robustness of Social-Ecological Systems to Spatial and Temporal Variability. Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal, 20(4), 307-322.
Klijn, F., van Buuren, M., & van Rooij, S. A. M. (2004). Flood-risk Management Strategies for an Uncertain Future: Living with Rhine River Floods in The Netherlands? [AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment]. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 33(3), 141-147. doi: 10.1579/0044-7447-33.3.141
Levy, J., Gopalakrishnan, C., & Lin, Z. (2005). Advances in Decision Support Systems for Flood Disaster Management: Challenges and Opportunities. [International Journal of Water Resources Development]. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 21(4), 593-612. doi: 10.1080/07900620500258117
McGinnis, M. D. (2011). An Introduction to IAD and the Language of the Ostrom Workshop: A Simple Guide to a Complex Framework. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 169-183. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00401.x
McGinnis, M. D. (2011). Networks of Adjacent Action Situations in Polycentric Governance. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 51-78. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00396.x
Middelkamp, J. (2011). Public Participation: The influence of characteristics of projects on the role of stakeholders and design changes. (Master Degree), University of Twente, Enschede.
Mincey, S. K., Hutten, M., Fischer, B. C., Evans, T. P., Stewart, S., & Vogt, J. M. (2013). Structuring institutional analysis for urban ecosystems: A key to sustainable urban forest management. [Urban Ecosystems]. 1-19. doi: 10.1007/s11252-013-0286-3
Mitsch, W. J., & Jørgensen, S. E. (2003). Ecological engineering: A field whose time has come. [The Philosophy and Energence of Ecological Engineering]. Ecological Engineering, 20(5), 363-377.
Naumann, S., Anzaldua, G., Berry, P., Burch, S., McKenna, D., Frelih-Larsen, A., . . . Sanders, M. (2011). Assessment of the potential of ecoystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation and mitigation in Europe. . UK: Final report to the European Comission, DG Environment, Contract no. 070307/2010/580412/SER/B2, Ecologic institute and Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University Centre of the Environment.
Ostrom, E. (2007a). Developping a method for analyzing institutional change Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis (pp. 56). Arizona, United States: Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity, Arizona State University.
Ostrom, E. (2007b). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(39), 15181-15187.
Ostrom, E. (2009). A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science, 325(5939), 419-422. doi: 10.1126/science.1172133
Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 7-27. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00394.x
Ostrom, E., & Cox, M. (2010). Moving beyond panaceas: a multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis. Environmental Conservation, 37(04), 451-463. doi: doi:10.1017/S0376892910000834
Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (2006). Rules, games, and common-pool resources. United States of America: The University of Michigan Press.
PATRICOVA. (2002). Plan de Accion Territorial de caracter sectorial sobre Prevencion del Riesgo de Inundacion en la Comunidad Valenciana (Memoria) (Vol. 1, pp. 79). Valencia, España: Generalitat Valenciana-Dirección General de Urbanismo y Ordenación Territorial-.
Pleijte, M., Schut, M., & During, R. (2011). Reflexivity in action research: two spatial planning cases Knowledge in action (Vol. 11, pp. 221-245): Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Polski, M., & Ostrom, E. (1999). An Istitutional Framework for policy analysis and desing. Kelembagaandas.worldpress.
Reed, M., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., . . . Stringer, L. (2009). Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1933-1949.
Rijsdorp, A., Adegeest, A., de Kuijer, O., de Koning, R., & Gaastra, R. (2006). Ontwerpvisie Ontpoldering Noordwaard. In B. N. Rotterdam (Ed.), (pp. 71). The Netherlands: Room voor de rivier.
68
rivier, r. v. d. (Cartographer). (2009). Inrichtingsplan Onpoldering Noordwaard. RWS. (2007). De-poldering Noordwaard: Plan, process and procedure [Presentation]: Miniterie van
Verkeer en Waterstaat. RWS. (2009). National Programme: Integrated flood alleviation measures in the Netherlands. In R. R.
Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat (Ed.). The Netherlands: Room for the River. Schielen, R. M. J. (2006). On the role of the civil society in 'Room for the River' in the Netherlands (pp. 3).
Arnhem, The Netherlands: Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Department of Integral Water Management and Waste Water Treatment, University of Twente, Faculty of Engineering Technology.
Schut, M. (2012). Who cares about research?! : a study on the role of research in policy processes in competing claims contexts. (Proefschrift Wageningen
Met lit. opg. - Met samenvatting in het Engels, Nederlands en Portugees), s.n.], [S.l. Retrieved from http://edepot.wur.nl/202812
Schut, M., Leeuwis, C., & van Paassen, A. (2010). Room for the River: Room for Research? The case of depoldering De Noordwaard, the Netherlands. Science and Public Policy, 37(8), 611-627. doi: 10.3152/030234210x12767691861173
Segura, F., Sanjaume, E., & Meyer, M. J. (1985). Repercusiones de un fenómeno extraordinario en la Rambla de Chiva. Cuadernos de Investigación Geográfica, tomo XI, 137-148.
Stijnen, J. W., Kanning, W., Jonkman, S. N., & Kok, M. (2013). The technical and financial sustainability of the Dutch polder approach. Journal of Flood Risk Management, n/a-n/a. doi: 10.1111/jfr3.12022
Turner, R. K., Burgess, D., Hadley, D., Coombes, E., & Jackson, N. (2007). A cost-benefit appraisal of coastal managed realignment policy. Global Environmental Change, 17(3-4), 397-407.
TYPSA. (2009a). Estudio de Soluciones y Viabilidad de la Solución Propuesta -Proyecto Adecuación Ambiental y Drenaje de la Cuenca del Poyo Vertiente a la Albufera- (2 ed., pp. 90). Valencia, España: Ministerio de Ambiente, Confederación Hidrográfica del Júcar, Programa AGUA Albufera.
TYPSA. (2009b). Memoria Proyecto Informativo de Adecuación Ambiental y Drenaje de la Cuenca del Poyo Vertiente a la Albufera (pp. 52). Valencia, España: Ministerio de Ambiente, Confederación Hidrográfica del Júcar, Programa AGUA Albufera.
TYPSA. (2009c). Restauración Forestal -Proyecto Adecuación Ambiental y Drenaje de la Cuenca del Poyo Vertiente a la Albufera- (2 ed., pp. 44). Valencia, España: Ministerio de Ambiente, Confederación Hidrográfica del Júcar, Programa AGUA Albufera.
van den Brink, M. (2009). Rijkswaterstaat on the Horns of a Dilema. Delft, The Netherlands: Uitgeverij Eburon.
van Slobbe, E., de Vriend, H., Aarninkhof, S., Lulofs, K., de Vries, M., & Dircke, P. (2012). Building with Nature: in search of resilient storm surge protection strategies. Natural Hazards, 1-20. doi: 10.1007/s11069-012-0342-y
Waltner-Toews, D., & Kay, J. (2005). The Evolution of an Ecosystem Approach: the Diamond Schematic and an Adaptive Methodology for Ecosystem Sustainability and Health. Ecology and Society, 10(1), 38.
69
12 Annexes Annex 1. Interviewed actors involved in the processes leading to eco-engineering projects in ‘Rambla del Poyo’.
Actors Number of Interviewees
Hydrological Confederation of Jucar 2
Municipality of Xirivella 1
Municipality of Riba-Roja de Turia 1
The Polytechnic University of Valencia 2
Consultancies:
-TYPSA
-AMINSA
2
TOTAL 8
Annex 2. Interviewed actors involved in the processes leading to eco-engineering project in the
‘Noordwaard’ Polder.
Actors Number of Interviewees ‘Rijkswaterstaat’ and Room for the River project group 1 Farmers (members of the Platform ‘Behoud Noordwaard’) 2 ‘Klankbordgroep’ Noordwaard 1 Wageningen University 1 ZLTO 1
TOTAL 6 Annex 3. Phoned interviewed actors involved in the processes leading to eco-engineering projects in
‘Rambla del Poyo.
Actors Number of Interviewees
Municipality of Massanassa 1 Municipality of Quart de Poblet 1 Municipality of Cheste 1 Environmental group ENEBRO Chiva-Ege 1
TOTAL 4
70
Annex 4. Semi-structure questionnaire used for key informant interviews.
A. Introduction: explain academic background and the goals of the research B. Questions
1. Where does the idea come from (eco-engineering)? Initial starters: Events (high peak discharges,
regulations, laws, programmes, particular activities, other)
Criteria (approaches, guidelines,
objectives, motivations, principles,
other)
2. Which were the main events and processes that unfolded leading to eco-engineering projects?
3. How these processes developed?
Processes: Formal decisions and interactions Informal decisions and interactions Other events Criteria: Approaches, objectives, motivations,
other 4. Which were key actors interacting in such processes? 5. What defined their participation and roles? 6. What defined their strategies (choices) and
interactions with regard to the processes? 7. Which strategies and interactions were effective and
which weren’t?
Most important/influential actors in: Design/planning activities Conflict resolution
(intermediaries/consensus) Provision of information Decision-making Criteria: Approaches, strategies, motivations,
other 8. Which and how costs and benefits were accounted? Ecosystem services
Externalities Social networks Trust environment Costs: avoided damages,
implementation Other
9. What represented main changes from traditional approaches related to this field?
Processes: Formal decisions and interactions Informal decisions and interactions Actors involved and criteria
71
Annex 5. Actors involved in formal dialogues and consultation processes in ‘Rambla del Poyo’. Source: BOE (2012).
Government Units Municipalities Environmental groups -General Directorate of Biodiversity (Ministry of Environment) -Government Delegation in Valencia -Government Sub-delegation in Valencia -General Directorate of Environmental Management (Generalitat Valenciana) -Environmental Evaluation Area of the Autonomy Secretary of Territory and Environment (Generalitat Valenciana) -General Dictatorate of Environmental Quality (Generalitat Valenciana) -General Dictatorate of Spatial Planning (Generalitat Valenciana) -General Directorate of Public Works (Generalitat Valenciana) -General Directorate of Fishing and Alimentation (Generalitat Valenciana)
-Municipality of Alaquás -Municipality of Aldaia -Municpality of Alfafar -Municipality of Benetússer -Municipality of Chiva -Municipality of Loriquilla -Municipality of Manisses -Municipality of Massanassa -Municipality of Paiporta -Municipality of Picanya -Municipality of Quart de Poblet Municipality of Siete Aguas -Municipality of Xirivella
-ADENA -SEO -Study and Defense Group of Environment ‘Rocandell’ -ENEBRO Environmental Group of Chiva-Ege -Ecologists in Action-Alicante -Ecologic Group L’Aber-ea -Friends of the Wetlands of South Alicante Association - ‘Xúquer’ -Coordinador in Defense of the Forests