Colophon
Title Coastal development strategies to Alleviate conflict Consensus versus Coercion Author W. J. M. Vendrig Student number: 11014709 E: wouter.vendrig@student.uva.nl P: 06-39394920 University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Social Sciences Master Thesis Urban and Regional Planning
Thesis Supervisor mw. prof. dr. M. (Maria) Kaika Second Reader dhr. dr. J. (Jochem) de Vries 26 june 2017 Word Count: 19.509
Strategies of Zeeland and Zuid-Holland to alleviate conflict in
coastal development
Consensus versus Coercion
Master Thesis
W.J.M. Vendrig
June 2017
4
Colophon
Title Coastal development strategies to Alleviate conflict Consensus versus Coercion Author W. J. M. Vendrig Student number: 11014709 E: wouter.vendrig@student.uva.nl P: 06-39394920 University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Social Sciences Master Thesis Urban and Regional Planning
Thesis Supervisor mw. prof. dr. M. (Maria) Kaika Second Reader dhr. dr. J. (Jochem) de Vries
Word Count: 19.509 Figure 1: Image front page by Natuurmonumenten, (Natuurmonumenten, 2017)
I
Preface
This thesis on coastal development in Zeeland and Zuid-Holland is written as completion for the Master ‘Urban and Regional Planning’ at the University of Amsterdam. In my Master’s year, I have learned a lot of new information to help me in my future career. The writing and research took place from January to June 2017.
I would like to use the opportunity here to thank a few people that helped me during my research and my writing period. First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor during this research, Maria Kaika, for her advice and support. I also wish to thank all the respondents, without their participation I would not have been able to conduct this analysis. My friends and family have helped me a lot by discussing the subject and finding news articles, as well as giving me tips and ways to improve. The inspiration for this specific subject came from newspaper coverage in the first place. But the definite decision was made during a cycling trip through the dunes of Wassenaar. For that I also want to thank my cycling crew; de Rode Lantaarns. The topic is still getting attention in mainstream media, and I suspect it will continue to do so.
I hope you enjoy reading this thesis. Wouter Vendrig
II
Abstract
Coastal development has been in the media for over a year now in the Netherlands. Municipalities and developers saw opportunities to generate income with beach side developments. While provinces wanted to preserve the coast as much as possible. This resulted in a feud over the landscapes near the North Sea. Out of that clash came the coastal agreement, a declaration of intent between all the involved parties to intensify cooperation. Zeeland and Zuid-Holland have used the agreement to reach their regional goals of landscape preservation, both with a different approach. As a result, municipalities adjusted their own policy to the approach of the provinces. In some instances, this resulted in conflicting situations, while in other instances the process was more focused around mutual gains. This dynamic is further elaborated in the following problem statement and subsequent research question:
Coastal development is a hot topic in the Netherlands. Provinces have used different strategies to maintain a balance between natural values and new projects. Zeeland has used a consensus-oriented approach while Zuid-Holland exerted pressure with legislation, as part of the coercion strategy. The effects of the two categorized strategies are different, ranging from conflict to well-crafted processes.
What are the effects of the consensus approach and the coercion strategy of Zeeland and Zuid-Holland respectively, in coastal planning vis-à-vis alleviating conflict over coastal area development?
The main source of data is collected by interviewing knowledgeable stakeholders in relevant positions. Aside from the interviews, additional data is retrieved from policy documents and archival pieces.
Together the two methods form a comprehensive insight into coastal development. Archival data and the viewpoints of respondents combine well. The archival data shows the objective of the policy makers, while the interview results show how it is perceived in practice. A total of nine stakeholders have been interviewed. Among them: two provinces, one recreational organisation, one environmental federation and five municipalities. Three municipalities were interviewed in Zeeland and two in Zuid-Holland. The province of Zeeland pursued a consensus oriented approach in regard to the coastal development issue. A historically popular approach in the Delta province (Pinedo, 1999). Municipalities, nature organisations and recreational associations were involved, but developing companies were not. By choosing this approach, the region settled for an end result with several compromises. Every
development that was officially initiated before the coastal vision (Coastal Vision Concept , 2016) could continue as part of a transitional document (Transition document for projects that conflict with the coastal vision, 2016). This resulted in a situation where beach houses are restricted, unless they were already in consideration by the municipality. Despite that reality, some municipalities have integrated the ideas of the vision into existing legislation. They had the option to develop as part of the transitional document, but chose to follow the interest of the region.
Zuid-Holland used a different approach to deal with the same issue, although there were less
developments in this province. In anticipation of the coastal agreement, the province of Zuid-Holland restricted beach side development with a coercion strategy. In three instances, this decision led to conflict. Noordwijk, The Hague and Westland all had disagreements with the strategy. According to respondents of Noordwijk and The Hague, there was few contact with the province. Municipalities were not included in the process. However, because of the coercion strategy, the province could achieve their own goals.
Two provinces with two different approaches to deal with coastal development. But both Zeeland and Zuid-Holland had reasonable arguments for their strategies. Zeeland is more dependent on tourism as an economic force, while Zuid-Holland is in dire need of nature. However, due to the consensus approach, Zeeland will probably see more future developments. Zuid-Holland has had three conflicts, but the policy is now clear to the municipalities.
III
List of organisations
RECRON Association of recreational entrepreneurs
ZMF Environmental Federation of Zeeland
ZHMF Environmental Federation of Zuid-Holland
HISWA Dutch Association of Proprietors in the Water Sports Industry
Rijkswaterstaat National Government responsible for main infrastructure
Natuurmonumenten Nature organisation on national level
Staatsbosbeheer Semi-government for maintaining green heritage
VVV Tourism information agency
KHN Royal branch-organisation for food service industry
NBTC Marketing for the Netherlands
ANWB Royal Dutch Touring Club, supporting travel and tourism
IV
Table of content
PREFACE ... I ABSTRACT ... II LIST OF ORGANISATIONS ... III
1. BACKGROUND ... 2
INTRODUCTION ... 2
CONTEXT ... 3
POLICY OF THE STATE ... 4
PROBLEM STATEMENT ... 5
RESEARCH QUESTION ... 5
RELEVANCE OF THE RESEARCH SOCIETAL AND SCIENTIFIC ... 6
STRUCTURE OF THE RESEARCH ... 6
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ... 8
HOW TO STUDY POLITICAL POWER (MOLLENKOPF,1992) ... 8
CONSENSUS BUILDING ... 10 COERCION ... 11 PLANNING INTERVENTION ... 12 3. RESEARCH DESIGN ... 14 CASE STUDIES ... 14 QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS ... 15 ARCHIVAL ANALYSIS... 16 LIMITATIONS ... 16 STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS ... 17 4. CASE 1: ZEELAND ... 20
EXPLAINING TYPE OF POLITICAL STRUCTURE AND PLANNING BASE... 20
ARCHIVAL ANALYSIS ... 21
RESPONDENTS... 25
CONCLUSION ZEELAND ... 30
5. CASE 2: ZUID-HOLLAND ... 32
EXPLAINING TYPE OF POLITICAL STRUCTURE AND PLANNING BASE... 32
ARCHIVAL ANALYSIS ... 33
RESPONDENTS... 34
CONCLUSION ZUID-HOLLAND ... 40
6. DISCUSSION ... 42
7. CONCLUSIONS ... 44
8. BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 48
2
1. Background
Introduction
The Netherlands has always had a love-hate relationship with water and the sea. Planning and engineering have been a part of this relationship as well. On the one hand it provided protection, food, and fertile soil, on the other side there was the lurking danger of flooding. In a process spanning many years, a new factor affected the relationship: vacation homes and recreational development sites as tourism locked in a place close to the water. It provided economical
possibilities but it went at the expense of nature and landscape. Which in term resulted in a strong opposition from nature organisations. Drink water companies and water safety parties claimed
territory along the shore as well. With all these parties involved, the coast became one of the most
desired pieces of land in the Netherlands. After the economic crises of 2008 ended, recreational entrepreneurs and developers saw opportunities to expand their business with beach houses, hotels, and other buildings. This went hand in hand with the state policy line of decentralized planning practices and a neoliberal government. This was during the Rutte Ⅱ administration (Political power between November 2012 March 2017). The minister of Infrastructure and the Environment
(responsible for improving quality of life, access, and mobility in a clean, safe, and sustainable environment (Government of the Netherlands, 2017)) gave permission to municipalities to build autonomously on their own grounds. Not realizing that this would result in a building spree and a societal protest to protect the landscape. Because of the major consequences, the house of
representatives and the provinces along the coast had to intervene. This was done with the creation of the ‘Kustpact’ or coastal agreement, a document in which the intention to preserve coastal zones is expressed. Leading up to this document, municipalities and developers still had some running plans. Therefore, the agreement allows for certain types of development. All but two municipalities have signed the document (Helling, 2017). Not every party signed the document willingly,
municipalities can see the monetary gains of coastal development, which is often referred to as ‘the chicken with the golden eggs’ to show how profitable development can be, even for governmental organisations. One of the reasons for that, is the scarcity of coastal grounds.
The dunes and coastal areas are exquisite for recreational purposes, the openness and diversity in nature has proven popular for Dutch, Belgian and German tourists. In 2016 4,6 million Germans visited the Netherlands, the coast is the most popular destination with almost 1.6 million visitors (NTBC Holland Marketing, 2016). This shows the importance of maintaining and improving the coastal qualities wherever possible. Economic benefits are high especially in Zeeland (van Riet, 2017). Future trends are pointing in the direction of rising tourism on top of the already strong product. According to the EEA (European Environment Agency, 2016), southern Europe will see a steady decrease in tourism and the more northern regions will see an increase because of the rise in temperature due to global warming. The same report makes it clear that tourism will increase in the Atlantic zone. The two trends that definitely influence shoreline development are in favour for more recreational accommodations and shows urgency for unambiguous planning. Municipalities and provinces have to respond to these trends eventually and at the same time protect their natural landscape.
3
Context
The coast of the Netherlands amounts to 523 kilometres in length (Holland-info, 2017), with multiple variations in functionality. In recent years, the building spree along the coast has reached its highest point. This was because the financial crises ended and developers saw their opportunity. In 2014, 2015 and 2016 almost 2.000 residential places were developed (Bescherm de Kust, 2017). As a result, the society responded with the movement: Protect the Coast (Bescherm de Kust, 2017). This
movement protested against every single development at the coast. Because of that, media,
provinces, and nature organisations started to pick up the topic as well. This resulted in the creation of the coastal agreement. For this research, two provinces and their strategies will be discussed. These are Zeeland and Zuid-Holland. The two provinces both had different implementations of the agreement.
Zeeland is the most southwestern province of the Netherlands and has three major areas. In the research, the North Sea coast is discussed, the shores of the rivers are considered a different issue and has another dynamic to it. In total Zeeland contains a 490 km long shoreline (Omroep Zeeland, 2014), this includes the riverbanks etc. The dunes represent 60km of the coast. The province is famous for the North Sea flood of 1953 and the following resiliency with the Delta Works. Nowadays, Zeeland is mostly famous for tourism. Especially Belgium and Germany contribute to the 15.6 million overnight stays in Zeeland (Knowledge centre for Coastal Tourism, 2015). For the economy, this shows the importance of tourism already. Tourism is responsible for almost 14.000 jobs for a total added value of €457.068.000 (Knowledge centre for Coastal Tourism, 2015). In comparison: the agricultural sector gives 18.600 jobs with €2.159.500.000 added value, but uses 77% of Zeeland’s territory (CBS, 2015) against 3% territory for recreational purposes. Alternatively, 8% of the territory is assigned to forests and open landscape according to the same document.
Natuurmonumenten (2017) indicated 21 distinctive nature areas to draw a rough comparison between landscape, agriculture, and recreation. Zeeland has thirteen municipalities, six of them are relevant in the research as they have a shoreline at the North Sea. The province still has a religious background in Christianity and this shows in democratic occasions. CDA has become the biggest party, and the two other religious parties are significant as well.
Zuid-Holland is the province with cities like Rotterdam and The Hague. It lays in
the west, bordering the North Sea with 65 km of shoreline (Provincie Zuid-Holland, 2016). In contrast to Zeeland, the shoreline has not that many rivers, the shoreline is therefore quite straight. This also means that the landscape is homogenous. In total, there are sixty municipalities in Zuid-Holland, eight of them are located on the North Sea shoreline. From north to south these are: Noordwijk, Katwijk, Wassenaar, The Hague, Westland, Rotterdam, Voorne-Putten and Goeree-Overflakkee. Zuid-Holland is less dependent on tourism than Zeeland. That is because logistics,
industry, and finance all have a bigger economic impact, the harbour of Rotterdam for example provides 22 billion dollars in added value (Ploos van Amstel, 2011). A number that is impossible to achieve by recreational businesses. Respondents acknowledged this as well (van Riet, 2017, p. 40).Part of the shore of Zuid-Holland is the Maasvlakte in Rotterdam, an expansion of the harbour of Rotterdam created with sand supplements. The Maasvlakte was and is only used for industry and is not part of the discussion on coastal development.
4
Policy of the State
In the policy document coastline (Nationale Visie Kust, 2013) there is attention to water safety and the preservation and improvement of the current structure of extensive dunes and beach sites, along with lively seaside’s and economic development. State policy gives responsibility to provinces and municipalities primarily. Yes- if, is maintained for development in the built environment and no- unless, in the non-built environment and quiet zones. In addition, the state in the Netherlands is responsible for water safety in the majority of cases, there is a state department, Rijkswaterstaat, to monitor safety. Regional water authorities work alongside Rijkswaterstaat to provide local input. The most significant state document on shoreline development is the Coastal agreement (Kustpact, 2017). It was signed in February 2017 by almost all municipalities located on the western shoreline, all the relevant provinces, the state, the regional water authorities, and nature organisations with either a nationwide program or a relevant regional program. But the association of recreational entrepreneurs and the Dutch Tourism society signed as well. There are fourteen statements to back up on goals and definitions, eighteen articles on how to achieve certain changes and nine described core values as an appendix. In the document, the roles of the three major governmental institutions were finally made explicit. The state is responsible for water safety and drinkable water in
cooperation with the regional water authorities. Provinces are directing nature and landscape and steer regional coastal policies. And last but not least, municipalities have the task to use the space on the local level. They can form zoning plans on their territory as a legal instrument. This is basically the normal methodology in Dutch spatial hierarchy. What is more important, is the intention to work together and to find a balance between spatial developments and the values of the coastal zones. As a covenant, the coastal agreement has no actual legal consequences. But it describes core values of the coast:
- Free sight and large scale;
- Natural and dynamic;
- Robust waterworks;
- Contrast between compact built environment and extended areas without buildings;
- Contrast with hinterland;
- Coastal heritage with dunes and in the hinterland;
- Coastal towns, bathing hubs and hinterland;
- User qualities;
- Cultural and mental connotation. (Kustpact, 2017, pp. 16-19)
Every new development will be tested on these core values before the acceptance of it. To
implement this, the agreement describes zones as either buildable or landscape. The lines are drawn based on the contrast between compact built environment and extended areas without buildings. Following these statements, action points for province, municipality and state are described. The state will be monitoring the agreement (Kustpact, 2017, p. 10).
5
Problem statement
Coastal development is a hot topic in the Netherlands. Provinces have used different strategies to maintain a balance between natural values and new projects. Zeeland has used a consensus-oriented approach while Zuid-Holland exerted pressure with legislation, as part of the coercion strategy. The effects of the two categorized strategies are different, ranging from conflict to well-crafted processes.
In coastal provinces in the Netherlands, Public opinion is divided on whether to develop recreational sites or not. The focus of the research is on municipalities that are located next to the North Sea, which leaves four provinces: Friesland, Noord-Holland, Zuid-Holland, and Zeeland. Municipalities see opportunities to improve their environment with new developments. Which would be positive for tourism and thus the financial state of the municipality. Regional institutions feel that they have to intervene in this planning dynamic. Coastal development and this conflict generated nationwide protests and media coverage. Protect the coast played a major role in this protest, which is a coalition of Natuurmonumenten, ZMF, ZHMF and similar environmental and nature organisations (Coalitie Bescherm de kust, 2017). Protect the coast used media and protests groups to influence governments and to mobilize civilians into joining their organisation. This was done with great success and was a big initiator for the agreement. They did this by collecting all the projects on their website (Weijts, 2016). Via this methodology, the conflict between development and nature became known to the masses. The discussion has been in the news for several years, this goes back to a policy document (Nationale Visie Kust, 2013) on the coast of the ministry of infrastructure and environment, in which there was a paragraph in favour of freedom of development (Nationale Visie Kust, 2013, p. 86). At least from a state level perspective, regional and local governments would take over the decision-making process on shoreline development. It triggered a movement to preserve the coast, especially beach houses and pavilions became a focal point in the media coverage. The coastal agreement and Accompanying societal resistance initiated coastal provinces to act upon them. Zeeland and Zuid-Holland were the first ones to implement a strategy to achieve the goals from the agreement. The agreement is not legally binding and is more of an expressed intention to stop building in certain zones on the beach. It can however be a document for provinces to adjust policy and eventually legislation towards the agreement. In the case study of the two provinces their strategies are further elaborated. We define two major strategy angles, the approach of using legislative power to reach goals of one side of the spectrum, and the approach of consensus building and win-win situations. Alongside an exploration of the strategic angles used by Zeeland and Zuid-Holland this research will focus on the intervention of institutions in planning dynamics.
Research question
As mentioned above the research question will focus on the provinces Zeeland and Zuid-Holland. This results in the following question:
What are the effects of the consensus approach and the coercion strategy of Zeeland and Zuid-Holland respectively, in coastal planning vis-à-vis alleviating conflict over coastal area
development?
In planning policy and practice two key and antithetical approaches exist: Consensus building and Coercion. These concepts will be further explained in the following chapters. The second concept is planning intervention, and will be revolving around the dynamic between municipalities and
provinces and when the province finds a reason to intervene. There are no sub-questions formulated because of the comparable nature of the research.
6
Relevance of the research societal and scientific
Societal relevance
As described before there is a societal interest in the developments around the coastal agreement. Civilians and media follow them closely, while the nature organisations are involved in the creation of the coastal agreement. It is safe to say that the relevance of the research has considerable interest from society. All national newspapers have reported on the issue, while regional newspapers
devoted even more of their articles and time on the issue.
Academic relevance
Research in coastal development issues is rare. NRC made a series of articles on specific towns, with a similar methodology. But there was no significant research on the role of provinces in planning practices along the shore. It is additionally relevant to academic literature, because the two provinces had different approaches to tackle the issue. This is a clear instance to distinguish consensus building from coercion in provincial planning.
Structure of the research
The thesis has a total of six chapters, this being the first one, in which the context and background of the research is explained. In the second chapter, the literature review, a theoretical framework of relevant articles and books is revealed. Followed by the methodology which is used to acquire data and to show the reader how to place the information into perspective. Chapter five & six will elaborate on cases and will interpret the information of the research. This is the result of the aforementioned methodology. Chapter five is about the province of Zeeland, while chapter six is on Zuid-Holland.
The research described in earlier chapters will be concluded in the seventh chapter which will summarise the findings of this paper and present the conclusions, limitations of the study and recommendations for future research. Only followed by the bibliography and the appendices.
Figure 4: The town of Middelkerke (Belgium), high rises along the shore is the nightmare of Dutch civilians and provinces. (Chaudoir, 2015)
8
2. Literature review
There are two major concepts contained in the research question. Firstly, there are the approaches of Zeeland and Zuid-Holland. The first province works with a consensus oriented strategy, while Zuid-Holland’s approach was more top-down. Academic literature defines this as consensus versus coercion as component of the political power paradigm. The second major concept is planning justification. When is it equitable for a government to interfere in a planning practice? In the following parts, the two concepts will be further described with specific literature.
How to study political power (Mollenkopf, 1992)
Political power is a concept of this research because coastal development is really balancing between market influences and the interests of civilians and landscape. The decision-making processes of both local and regional institutions, have a direct effect on how the coast will evolve. Mollenkopf is the defining article in this concept, being one of the first writers on this subject (How to Study Urban Political Power, 1992). Mollenkopf makes a distinction between Pluralist and Structuralist. Pluralist are consensus builders and are ‘convinced that bargaining between multiple groups defines the urban
power structure’ (Mollenkopf, 1992, p. 24). The pluralists see ‘politics as an autonomous realm with real authority’ (Mollenkopf, 1992, p. 24). Short lived coalitions were central as the stakeholders often
shift between different issues. The province of Zeeland used, and is still using an approach that is structured around consensus. In that process, multiple interest groups are governing the problem. Structuralists, on the other side, are dependent on state and (socio-)economic relationships (Mollenkopf, 1992, p. 24). A structuralist approach involves the identification of the elements of a
system and their interrelations/the rules governing the ways in which the elements can be put together without regard to any specific content (Dunford, 2012, p. 9). In practice, this means that
structuralists have more attention to historic values (Dunford, 2012, p. 10) and that individual actors are granted a more significant role (Castells, 1983).
Mollenkopf describes critiques on both movements. For instance, pluralists are attacked on social and wealth inequality. It appears that pluralist prefer a corporate system and political competition based on capitalist development. This critique comes from the structuralist neo-Marxist movement (Mollenkopf, 1992, pp. 27-28). Harvey is one of them, he argues that ‘capitalist development and the
circuits of capital have determined urban spatial patterns, the bureaucratic state and urban consciousness’ (Mollenkopf, 1992, p. 28). Capital and economic activity are favoured over good
government as the stakeholders with power get a spot at the table. Mollenkopf describes critique on structuralism as: ‘the assortation that the state ‘’must’’ undertake activities that favour capital tends
to be functionalist’ (Mollenkopf, 1992, p. 34). An aspect that is comparable with the ideas of
neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism is included in an article of Rose and Miller. Were the free market principle is the solution to everything, ‘Markets are to replace planning as regulators of economic activity’ (Rose & Miller, 1992, p. 198). This is a major misconception in urban politics according to Mollenkopf:
‘Structuralist tend to reduces urban politics to the fulfilment of economic imperatives’ (Mollenkopf,
1992, p. 35), the most promising thread of structuralism is the possibility for conflict and political indeterminacy (Mollenkopf, 1992, pp. 35-36).
In that frame, we can see the relevance with coastal development. In a neo-liberal world, recreational houses would appear everywhere along the shore. But in this case, multiple
stakeholders interfere, which causes a conflict. A fluid approach with multiple stakeholders would therefore be a priority, at least from a pluralist perspective (Munck, 2003, p. 91). Unless conflict is not considered as a bad thing, or even essential in achieving contrasting goals.
9 The relevance of the theory for the case studies is that both structuralism and pluralism are
represented in the political entities. Zeeland has a clear pluralist identity and Zuid-Holland has some similarities with structuralism.
Mollenkopf concludes in a theoretical synthesis of the two movements by naming three
relationships; 1) relationship with local state and economy. 2) how the local state sees competition and a dominant political coalition. 3) change of economic and social and the political competition mobilization of these interest (Mollenkopf, 1992, p. 37). Which in turn identifies two interactions, those between the leaders of their city government and its political/ electoral base and secondly between the leaders of their city government and their economic environment. Corporations and entrepreneurs have a more ideal position during the governing time period and thus more influence on the decision making. Or as Dahl said it: ‘more (money, energy, and organizational strength) into
maintaining the corporate domain as a private preserve than into making its public acts public’ (Dahl
& Lindblom, 1976, p. 40). In this context, the relationship between policymakers and interest groups walk a fine ethical line that separates participatory democracy from undue influence (Martini, 2012, p. 2).
Returning to the Netherlands; on the one hand, there is a strong pull from economic entities for coastal developments. However, civilians have the stronger position during election periods. So, Local and regional governments manoeuvre through these positions. This gives enough reason to investigate into this dynamic. Mollenkopf at one points said: ‘Sooner or later, the state and political
competition will be subordinated to the needs of capital’ (1992, p. 29). In Zeeland and Zuid-Holland,
this is the case as well. It is interesting to see how the coastal governments deal with economic and electoral pulls.
Aside from that, the market-priority is obvious, and less powerful groups are disadvantaged in the process. Mollenkopf provides arguments for why the two sides are not good for the voter, which can be used in the research. For the rest of the research, the political bodies are distinguished in the consensus builders, who use meetings and discussions to reach similar goals and the entities that use legislative power to achieve individual goals. Consensus will eventually turn into legislation, just like legislation always needs some form of consensus. In this case we identify the two via the intention and starting position of the provinces. Dearden, Bennet & Johnston made a spectrum of ‘Options for governing protected areas’ from government decision to full stakeholder involvement (2005, p. 93). This is the spectrum in which provinces and municipalities establish an approach for coastal
development. Although Dutch institutions will attempt to work with the five principles of good governance; legitimacy, direction, performance, accountability, and fairness (Graham, Amos, & Plumptre, 2003, p. ii).
10
Consensus Building
In large groups of stakeholders, consensus building can be an efficient way of decision making. The key facet of the process, is the way various stakeholders and interest groups can work together towards a mutually acceptable solution (Burgess & Spangler, 2003). Environmental and urban policy makers have adapted this method for many years (Burgess & Spangler, 2003). Consensus is reached if all parties agree with the decision, initial standpoints need to be altered most of the time, this is done by reaching compromises. Not all stakeholders compromise to the same magnitude, but the process needs unanimity and the greater good is the centre of attention.
In this format, civilians have a voice to participate in local developments. Burgess and Spangler (2003) describe that consensus-built decisions have more ground in future gatherings. Gray continues on this to describe consensus as ‘the most common application for natural resource
conflicts and site-specific environmental disputes (over land use, water resources, energy, air quality, and toxics) and intergovernmental disputes, and other public policy controversies’ (Gray, 1989, p. 7).
Which fit the problem description of coastal development in the Netherlands. Gray also defines four conditions for a successful consensus process (Gray, 1989, pp. 11-16). Along with the pros and cons a process can be evaluated via these conditions;
1. Interdependent stakeholders; 2. ‘Good-faith’ participation;
3. Joint or group ownership of the decision; 4. Emergent process.
Pros Cons
Increases the quality of solutions developed by the parties. This is because solutions are based on a comprehensive analysis of the problem.
The problems are ill defined, or there is disagreement about how they should be defined.
Each party has a different perspective and therefore many more angles are considered than if a few experts or a select few people developed the solution on their own.
Several stakeholders have a vested interest in the problems and are interdependent.
Possibility for innovation. These stakeholders are not necessarily identified as a
cohesive group or organization.
More resources, because there are more stakeholders There may be a disparity of power and/or resources
for dealing with the problems among the
stakeholders. Stakeholders may have different levels of expertise and different access to information about the problems. While the problems are often
characterized by technical complexity and scientific uncertainty
Minimize the chance of an impasse or deadlock
Stakeholders have ownership of the outcome of consensus-building processes
Differing perspectives on the problems often lead to adversarial relationships among the stakeholders. Consensus building can also save money that may
have been spent on court cases, for example.
Incremental or unilateral efforts to deal with the problems typically produce less than satisfactory solutions.
The participatory process may also help strengthen the relationships between stakeholders that used to be adversaries. The stakeholder group can develop mechanisms for dealing with related problems in the future.
Existing processes for addressing the problems have proven insufficient and may even exacerbate them. (Burgess & Spangler, 2003)
11 Consensus building has both positive and negatives examples in spatial planning. In the UK
(Allmendinger & Haughton, 2012), it is considered to have winners and losers at all time. Allmendinger and Haughton name this as: ‘There will always be those who do not agree’ and continues with: ‘Consensus-based planning approaches may not be resolving difficult issues so much
as masking them and displacing them to other arenas’ (Allmendinger & Haughton, 2012, p. 100).
While Swyngedouw criticises from a different angle and with the help of Rancière (2000, p. 125) stating that consensus needs a large group of stakeholders to stay relevant, but it also means that the arbitration is high and so is compromise (Swyngedouw, 2009, p. 615). He continues this by suggesting a new political approach. An approach of conflict and debate, a so called spaced of contestation (Swyngedouw, 2009, p. 616). Because politics thrive with conflict, it could even be the purpose of the concept. In order to create a better (spatial) situation. ‘Politics in this sense is the
ability to debate, question and renew the fundament on which political struggle unfolds, the ability to radically criticize a given order and to fight for a new and better one’ (Diken & Laustsen, 2004, p. 9).
An interesting take on contemporary politics in general and in consensus building specifically. Conflict belongs in politics, but consensus building might be the best way to achieve general interest. Innes & Booher argue that consensus building can offer more knowledge, ideas, and effective joint action for these conditions than the cleverest policymaker or analyst could (1999, p. 421). In some instances, an institution can benefit more with partners, while other instances need the approach of legislation and the dedication of one large stakeholder.
Coercion
On the other end of the spectrum of government decision-making is a fully controlled process. This is the theory of coercion. Dearden et al described this as government sole decision making (2005, p. 93), while Dahrendorf has a more fundamental description: ‘Coherence and order in society are
founded on force and constraint, on the domination of some and the subjection of others’
(Dahrendorf, 1959, p. 157). In context of spatial planning, legislative control and regulation uphold full agency. ‘Coercion may, therefore, be viewed as a necessary deviation from consensus in order to
control the non-co-operative’ (Adams, 1966, p. 716) .
A good example of that is the green belt approach, where nature is preserved from development. This means that some areas cannot increase the amount of buildings there. A regional government can choose to implement such a regulation for nature areas, like the coast in this case. Municipalities in the Netherlands often do not have the land or capability to do this. They also have more direct interests in economic or recreational developments. Provinces and the nation (Graham, Amos, & Plumptre, 2003, p. 34) do have the land and the capability to implement green belts or conservation zones to limit growth from urban centres (Evans, 2004, p. 59). In that sense, the regional institutions exceed command of the local institutions. With a legislative approach, a province can force priority to the goals of the region rather than the local entities. In the polarizing world of coastal development, there is always some stakeholder agreeing to this approach, nature organisations and province work together for instance (van Riet, 2017). But it will also result in some form of disagreement, this is in contrast with the consensus building approach. Where disagreements are avoided to the extreme. In the case of full agency control, the process and end goal can be achieved much faster, because there would be no negotiation. Municipalities have to supplement to the needs of the province (Province of Flevoland, 2014, p. 2). It would however distort the governmental relationship according to a document of the province of Flevoland (Province of Flevoland, 2014, p. 2), and as a result the province could be negatively portrayed as a force-through kind of organisation. Which would be bad for societal acceptance (Province of Flevoland, 2014, p. 2).
12
Planning intervention
To expand on the two strategies regarding coastal development, planning intervention theories are implemented. One of the general articles to base this framework around is written by the duo Campbell and Fainstein (1996). They describe planning from a debate perspective of five different issues. The first and last debate are not that relevant. The Second debate is about the justification for planning, ‘Planning is intervention with an intention to alter the existing course of events’ (Campbell & Fainstein, 1996, p. 6). The dualism between planning on the one side and the free market on the other side is emphasised in this article as well. The safest way to define planning justification is that of the mechanism to fill the gap for market failure, however this does limit some of the powers of creative and redistributive planning efforts (Campbell & Fainstein, 1996, p. 7). In the third debate, the following statement is made: ‘planners are torn between serving employers, fellow planners, and
the public. In this terrain of contested loyalties, what remains of the one accepted cornerstone of planning: serving the public interest?’ This passage is a fundamental take on contemporary planning.
It describes that planning and politics should prioritize public interest over economic and personal gain. The fourth debate is on effectiveness of planning that touches on the unavailability of money and the reliability of the market. While their goals often differ, or at least should differ. Other constraints lay in the dependency on bureaucracy and democracy. This results in a reactive and regulatory role for the planner.
As can be seen the duality between market actors and politics or planning are far advanced, they are not only interacting but are dependent on each other. The coastal development in the Netherlands is showing this as well. Developers see money in beach houses etc. and municipal government wants to make use of this desire. They act between their electoral field and market interest. But they are still chosen by the public and want to be chosen again. During an election, a politician can say anything that would be good for the campaign. In office, a politician must get things done. This is for a large part dependent on the economic structure. Local governments and local businesses provide each other necessary opportunities. Coastal municipalities balance on this line all the time. An
intervention of the province and state is the logical method to prioritize from economic interest to public interest. Unless consensus can be reached on how to deal with the dynamic of landscape and development.
Campbell and Fainstein refer to readings of Klosterman several times. His writings are on the topic of planning justification as well (Klosterman, 1985). Klosterman identifies four arguments for planning. Economic arguments, Pluralist arguments, Traditional arguments, and Marxist arguments. Some subdivided into smaller parts of it. Economic arguments are on the base of landscape planning. To preserve nature, governmental institutions must protect vulnerable sites with legislation and control. Tragedy of the commons and public goods would otherwise takeover and exploit the beauty of the beach. The pluralist argument is based on the shared interest of the community as ‘the political
arena is dominated by individuals and groups who use their access to government officials and other élites to protect their status’ (Klosterman, 1985, p. 11). Only governments can ensure that the
interests of the community are considered (Klosterman, 1985, p. 12). Traditionalist planners believe that their methods ‘could more effectively promote economic growth and political stability than the
unplanned forces of market and political competition’ (Klosterman, 1985, p. 13). While the Marxists,
according to Klosterman, is the ideology of large state interference and anti-capital ideas. Social improvements can only be achieved with: ‘revolutionary activity of labour and the replacement of
existing social institutions benefiting capital by new ones which serve the interests of society at large’
(Klosterman, 1985, p. 14). These are the arguments that are used in the contemporary society to justify the role of planning.
13
Landscape conservation
Where urban growth is contained in green belts or growth control regions (Evans, 2004, p. 59), surrounding cities and towns see an increase in land value (Evans, 2004, p. 60). This is the case because the amount of developable land is suddenly decreased. In a healthy market, less land or less supply means a higher relative demand and thus an increase in price. This works only if developed land is worth more than current land usage. If the town or city is still growing in population, two things happen, the urban boundaries would shift vertically (high-rise) and the land would be intensified and prices would rise (Evans, 2004, p. 62). A great example of this is the masterplan of Noordwijk (van der Hulst, 2017), with great attention to congress and hotel expansion. A
conservation of coastal landscape would be a decision from regional authorities to preserve the nature, but it would have an effect on the towns as well. This effect cannot be ignored in the long run. When development is restricted along the shore, prices will go up and the surroundings will fill in the created gap. In the Netherlands, national landscape preservation is a task of the province (Voogd, Woltjer, & van Dijk, 2011, p. 200).
14
3. Research design
The thesis uses three major forms of data collection: an archival analysis, a case study, and in-depth interviews with informed stakeholders. Interviews are transcribed and cited to show the different angels of the interviewees. With that knowledge, a stakeholder analysis is also added to show relationships and the convoluted schemes of communication and tuning between them. This stakeholder analysis is done before the interviews to learn about the significant stakeholders with the most information to share. As described before, the methodology is applied to the two relevant regional locations Zeeland and Zuid-Holland, to be able to answer the research question. To
implement the theoretical framework of this research in the methodology, the two major concepts of the framework are used in the understanding and execution of the methodologies. The concepts are political power and justification for planning. Via this set of methodologies used, the research should be valid, replicable, and reliable (Bryman, Reliability and validity in qualitative research, 2001). Quantitative data is unable to clear up the main question for the research as it requires a view on the social world and a relationship between the provinces and their stakeholders. If a relationship needs to be interpreted quantitative data can add significance in some instances, but in this case that role was given to archival and policy analysis. From the research question, we learn that there are going to be two cases: Zeeland and Zuid-Holland. To understand the two cases, both provinces will be visited and analysed following the scheme below.
.
Figure 6: Set-up Methodology
Case studies
To answer the research question, data is needed from municipalities and provinces. The best way to narrate this is with a Case study design. Where the theoretical framework and relevant discourses are proven or disproven. This is necessary to make the research embedded in reality and ensures internal validity. Case study research will be done according to methods of Bryman (Research Designs, 2001) and Yin (2009). A representative or critical case of a municipality is most likely the result to describe this reality. As it displays significance in the representative province. The extreme, revelatory, and longitudinal case types are also excluded because of the absence of an extreme case as most cases are comparable in some way, no inaccessible cases, and no time respectively. Because the power relationship between local and regional government is of interest, one case can be representative for the entire region. To be significant however it is interesting to explore multiple relationships between forms of government. The relationship between province and municipality will be researched in the Dutch provinces of Zeeland and Zuid-Holland, whom both are located along the North Sea. Of course, the municipalities will have to be located on the shore and in the previously mentioned provinces. The methods of analysis are interviews and document analysis.
What are the effects of the consensus approach and the coercion strategy of Zeeland and Zuid-Holland respectively, in coastal planning vis-à-vis alleviating conflict over coastal area development?
Stakeholder Analysis Interviews Archival Analysis Stakeholder Analysis Interviews Archival Analysis
Zeeland Zuid-Holland
15
Qualitative Interviews
This is the primary way to gain primary data. It is a research method with little quantitative figures and numbers. As described in the problem statement and the research question, interpretation of legislation and vision of involved parties is key for this research. Just like nuance and even opinions of the actors. The subject at hand is very polarizing, as pro development is aggressively fought by the movement of coastal protection, while developers tried to evade zoning and participation. The municipalities and provinces are in this framework the prioritized stakeholders, because this is where the conflict originated from. In the table below is indicated which parties are relevant and have been interviewed. Unfortunately, developers of coastal sites have not been interviewed in the process, it was harder to achieve contact with them.
Actor Role Access
Municipality Responsible for policy, zoning,
participation etc.
Yes, Vlissingen Veere and Schouwen-Duivenland and The Hague and Noordwijk
Province Supervising municipalities role
and adding vision and policy
Yes, Zeeland and Zuid-Holland
Environmental organisations Joined the organisations
opposed, tries to at least maintain current
environmental situation
Yes, the ZMF
Tourism organisation Interest for entrepreneurs in
coastal zones
Yes, the Recron
Table 2: Stakeholders accessed for this research
The interviews have been done with the help of a question list in a semi-structured setting.
Questions were not asked to achieve simple and code-able answers, but to understand the point of view of the respondents. To achieve that, the same of some questions were asked to different stakeholders for the most revelatory ones, this helps to reveal the different point of views.
Otherwise, the question list is just to fall back on during follow-up questions. Before the interview, the respondent received the major questions via e-mail. This approach resulted in open answers, which is crucial for the research at hand, but at the same time let the interviewee be prepared for the questions. This is fair because some topics are politically charged in municipalities. All interviews have been done with knowledge of Bryman (Interviewing in Qualitative Research, 2001), and its tips on criteria of the interview and the possible questions. Because there is no coding done, this method is both more practical and more expressive. Some interviews significantly departed from the guide, while others were linear. Over time the question list evolved due to better understanding of the cases and some questions were added because of that. Meaning some interviewees talked about issues in former interviews. The strategy involved asking question that were either open or
formulated to follow-up on. That was done to achieve more explanatory answers from within their perspective on the situation at hand. The general topics are related to the conceptual and theoretical framework with topics regarding: planning intervention, political power, context, and competition. Bryman describes nine types of questions in (Interviewing in Qualitative Research, 2001, pp. 476-478), only the indirect question was not a part of the chosen strategy. This kind of question was substituted with more direct and interpreting questions because the interviewer is more comfortable with straight forward questioning. With the exception of two interviews, the entirety of the
interviews were held at the office location of the interviewees, one was held at a café and the other exception was via telephone. The longest interview was ninety minutes long and the shortest was via phone and was about twenty-five minutes, the average was around sixty minutes per interview.
16 Via telephone and computer software the interviews have been recorded and transcribed at a later stage. All the interviews were held in Dutch, but the transcribing is done in English to support the English reader. The transcripts can be found in the appendix of this research. When an interview is named as a reference, the page number shows the quotes location in the appendix. Conversation analysis will naturally be a part of this research. This is done in the chapters five and six.
Interviews ordered chronically:
- Municipality of Noordwijk, Dick van Leeuwen, 22-03-2017;
- Province of Zeeland, Welmoed Hollemans, 24-03-2017;
- Province of Zuid-Holland, Arjan van de Lindeloof, 13-04-2017;
- Municipality of Vlissingen, Walter Vael, 24-04-2017;
- Municipality of The Hague, Arno Lammers, 25-04-2017;
- Municipality of Veere, Rene Dekker, 26-04-2017;
- Environmental Federation of Zeeland, Thom van Riet, 02-05-2017;
- Recron, Association of recreational entrepreneurs, Arthur Helling 09-05-2017;
- Municipality of Schouwen-Duivenland, Marcel van den Berge, 16-05-2017.
Archival analysis
Aside from the qualitive data from the interviews, it is desirable to investigate if there is a foundation for the coastal agreement. This can be done via interviews as described above, but grey literature and policy documents can aid in this as well. It is marked as archival data from municipalities and from local, regional, and even national newspapers and is part of the chapters five and six. Data will be analysed with discourse analysis and documents as source of data, this will be done via the book of Bryman (Language in Qualitative Research, 2001). Interpretation can be different from person to person, which makes objectivity a key quality of the researcher. Policy documents on coastal development were also made before it became an issue. Therefore, the documents from before the coastal agreement do not describe the situation. Only a couple of documents have been written since.
- Coastal Vision Zeeland - Regional plan Zeeland
- Transitional document Zeeland - Motion explanation in Zuid-Holland
Limitations
Ethnography, participant observation and focus groups will not be used in this research (Bryman, The nature of qualitative research, 2001), normally described as qualitive research methods. They will not be used because of the following reasons. Ethnography and participant observations is a strong research method for immersion in a social situation on a regular basis. But for this research there is not a clear group of people that should be analysed, due to the more regional and even national angle of the subject. Only an ethnographic engagement in regional meetings would be a strong addition to the research, but these are entirely inaccessible. Social situation that explain the implications of the coastal agreement are none existent.
Focus groups would have been an interesting approach on this research because of some colliding interests. However, the practicality of such a meeting is low, the stakeholders are mostly far apart as they do not work in the same municipalities. They are also well-informed and have busy schedules probably. Another issue with focus groups is that the target of these meetings would quickly go to the most problematic developments in the area. Something that is not desired to receive
information. Monitoring a focus group is never done by the researcher, which makes it even less desirable. The interaction between the different stakeholders would nonetheless be very interesting.
17
Stakeholder Analysis
In the coastal agreement, a total of fifty-nine actors are named (Kustpact, 2017), all these signed and discussed the agreement in one way or another. This varies from a state party, to municipalities, to recreational organisations to drinking water companies. According to the coastal agreement every party saw the relevance of signing a document for the preservation of coastal landscape. In the following image, the involved stakeholders are named and registered to their respective scale of involvement. There are three scales, based on the three major governments in the Netherlands, State, Province, and Municipality. This is done to show the complicated nature of the coastal zones, but also to give an indication on what issues play at which level. For instance, on the provincial/ regional level the nature and landscape institutions have a higher quantity than recreative
associations, while at the municipal level this is reversed. This could imply that nature has insured a place at regional authorities, which was also stated by Arno Lammers (2017, p. 27), but it is also reasonable to assume that this is because nature goes across municipal borders rather quick. The relationships between the parties are shown in the diagram on the next page.
Table 3: Stakeholders arranged to scale of operation
State
•Rijkswaterstaat •Dune Preservation
•Natuurmonumenten & Staatsbosbeheer •Landscapes NL
•Bird Protection
•Association Coast and Sea •ANWB Tourism Association & VVV •Association de Noordzee
•Holland Marketing NTBC
Province
•Regional Water Authorities in the involved provinces •Environmental Federations: ZMF, MNH, CBF, FMF •Landscape Foundations
•Association of the Protection of the Waddenzee •Dunea and other Drinkwater Providers •Tourism Societies
•Water Sport Associations
Municipality
•Associations of Beach site owners •Recreational Entrepreneurs and owners •Food Service Nederland
•Developers •Inhabitants •Visitors
18 Below is the stakeholder analysis translated into a relation model. The legend will explain the colour scheme. The stakeholders with the wider frames are those that signed the coastal agreement. Every party that is connected to the protect the coast movement has been indicated with a green arrow (Coalition Bescherm de kust, 2017).
Figure 7: Stakeholder connections
State
Provinces
Municipalities
Rijkswaterstaat Dune Preservation Natuurmonumenten & Staatsbosbeheer Landscapes NL Bird ProtectionAssociation Coast and Sea ANWB Tourism Association & VVV Association de Noordzee Holland Marketing NTBC
Coastal Development
Regional Water Authorities Environmental Federations Landscape Foundations Association of the Protection of the WaddenzeeDunea and other Drinkwater Providers Recron Water Sport Associations Associations of Beach site owners Recreational
Entrepreneurs and owners
Food Service Nederland Developers Visitors Inhabitants Protect the Coast Movement Specific Action Groups Nature organisation Water Priority Development & Landscape Action Group No Direct Opinion Building priority Government Signed Agreement
20
4. Case 1: Zeeland
In chapter one, the context of the province of Zeeland was briefly explained, to show where it is located and some macro-data on tourism is given. Zeeland is dependent on the tourism sector to an extent. This is important to understand the strategy they chose for the application of the coastal agreement. Three municipalities have been interviewed, the province, the environmental federation and the national Recron organisation.
Explaining type of political structure and planning base
Zeeland’s province has a strong regional role historically. Municipalities listen and cooperate well within the regional network (van Riet, 2017, p. 40). Thom van Riet explained this due to the relative small cities that are located in the province and the delegating role that the province played in water safety implementations (2017, p. 40). He said: ‘Middelburg, Vlissingen and Goes are pretty strong, but all the others are just small in any way. That means that the lines to the provincial board are shorter. Municipalities are actually looking to the province for what they want, and the province says we will do it together’ (van Riet, 2017, p. 40) . That is how they have a strong position in the region and also how they can cooperate on a regular basis. Every six weeks, a meeting with the coastal municipalities is scheduled (Hollemans, 2017, p. 7). The political power lays with the centre party CDA, the liberal party VVD and the labour party PvdA. A coalition with fundamental contradictions, especially between the market oriented VVD and the worker-oriented PvdA. The CDA is in the middle of this, searching for the balance as the one with the most seats (Province of Zeeland, 2002).
Consensus is one of the key words in the province for decades. In 1999 the NRC newspaper reported ‘Only through consensus we can make a stand against The Hague (national government) as a smaller province’ as spoken by the representative of the province (Pinedo, 1999). And in the same article, Zeeland is called ‘the Poldermodel in the flesh’. The Poldermodel is the popular name for the Dutch practice of policymaking by consensus between government, employers, and trade unions. It requires a strong governing authority and a habit for co-operation and consultation (The Economist, 2002). Efforts for regional consensus and harmonic initiatives are highly advocated in Zeeland. This was not surprisingly the main strategy for coastal development (Hollemans, 2017, p. 8) (van Riet, 2017, p. 32). But consensus is hard, if not impossible to achieve without compromise. So, this had to be done in Zeeland as well, according to the recreational manager of the municipality of Schouwen-Duivenland (van den Berge, 2017, p. 55).
Natural and landscape values are highly appreciated in Zeeland, for economic and other reasons. In a way, the province is dependent on natural quality: agriculture, fishery, and tourism. These three economical forces in Zeeland require space and nature (Economische Agenda Zeeland, 2015, p. 7). Other economic forces are industry and logistics (Knowledge centre for Coastal Tourism, 2015). The planning goals are in line with the economic interest, nature and recreation have priority, but they collide on some occasions as well. Balance in this is fragile and lobbyist are trying to show their relevance. Water is also one of the themes that always show up as a planning priority. In ‘Physical planning in the coastal region of Zeeland, The Netherlands’ (1998) the writers even divide planning in the two frameworks of land and water. Coastal development is in the middle of these, recreation, water and landscape fight for more space and better quality along the shores of Zeeland.
In the following paragraphs, archival data and the results of the interviews are presented, leading up to the conclusion. Which will show the positive and negative consequences of the consensus
21
Archival Analysis
The province of Zeeland provided three major documents to show policy and legislative decisions for coastal zones. In the following passages, these three documents will be discussed to understand regional decision making and current policy. The documents are part of the archive of the province of Zeeland on coastal developments (Vael, 2017, p. 20).
1. Coastal Vision Concept (Coastal Vision Concept , 2016). Policy piece to show intended
strategy, made in cooperation with municipalities, touristic organisations, and environmental federations.
2. Regional plan Zeeland 2012-2018 (Regional plan Zeeland 2012-2018, 2016). Policy piece before the vision of 2016. Focused on economics, water, and spatial issues.
3. Transition document (Transition document for projects that conflict with the coastal vision, 2016). Legislative piece to inform the Province about developments that do not get
influenced by the coastal vision.
Coastal Vision (in concept)
The coastal vision originates from late 2016, before the actual signing of the nationwide agreement. However, the agreement was a starting point for the vision piece. In the introduction, there is room for words like integral and in cooperation, to acknowledge the pluralist nature of the province of Zeeland and their desire for consensus. And to expand on this: ‘The vision is a product of the combined partners of the coast of Zeeland: Strong together’ (Coastal Vision Concept , 2016, p. 3). Symbiose, identity, quality restoration, and differentiation are named as starting points. Besides that, Zeeland names safety, landscape, bathing hubs, recreational residence, agriculture, and mobility to improve and protect. For now, the focus will be on the recreational residence chapter and the remarks that involve beach houses regarding safety.
As part of water safety, beaches require sand to be able to shift and thus to widen. They see three types of development: Pavilions, Sleep houses and daily cabins. The pavilions can be year-round in some instances, the others not. And then two types of beaches are discussed: Recreational beaches and nature beaches. Nature beaches want to minimize developments, the recreational beaches have more possibilities. For example, the nature beaches will not develop any sleep houses, while the recreational beaches can have these. The chapter on recreational residences primarily sees opportunities in bathing hubs, open landscape, and nature areas. This is described as part of the ‘economic engine of the quality coast’. Differentiation and identity are once again named among key features for the future. To achieve that, the province is naming the minimal demands for quality and improved enforcement, the companies on the low end will be stimulated to invest or terminate (Coastal Vision Concept , 2016, p. 16). Spatial quality, economic possibility, distinguished strength, and societal values are the base concepts of development, constructed in a framework of
development.
22
23
Regional plan Zeeland 2012-2018
The regional plan of Zeeland has one chapter dedicated to recreational residence, chapter 3.1.6 (Regional plan Zeeland 2012-2018, 2016, p. 27). This document is made for economic growth, development, and innovation of spatial Zeeland and has legislative power via the ‘Wet Ruimtelijke Ordening’, the ‘Waterwet’ and the law on environment conservation. As goal for recreational residence, Zeeland sees a qualitative product for current and future market developments. Locations with economic value that fit in the landscape are cleared to develop. This document contains a map with all the potential developments on the most demanding topics, like campings, hotels,
recreational residences, and water sport centres. In coastal zones, there is another mechanic as well, when a new location for residence is created, transformation at other sites will be demanded. New camping sites are, for the time being, postponed as the market is currently full, hotels on the other side have more perspective. Although all new development will have to answer to the map of opportunities (shown below). These are the global additions of the regional plan to the coastal vision on residence locations.
24
Transition document for projects that conflict with the coastal vision
This motion describes the actions from the current situation and zoning plans to the new situation as result of the coastal vision. Some projects have been given permission, but are, under new
legislation, not eligible for development. So, the status of these project had to be explained, to clear all the discontinuities and consequences of the shifting policies. Information of the municipalities has been evolved into a list of all the individual projects. This is arranged to three different categories. 1. Definitive projects, either in realisation phase or at least sustained in zoning plans. 2. Pipeline
Projects, not yet in realisation but some promises were made by municipal leadership. 3. Other plans and projects. (Transition document for projects that conflict with the coastal vision, 2016)
1. For category one, the action points are clear, either the projects are already finished or already in the realization phase, which means no further action is required. It is also possible that they are accepted in zoning plans but are not financed/ constructed yet, this means that the municipality could chose to develop either way. However, if they signed the covenant, it would be better to dissociate oneself from the intended development. In the enclosed table, we can see that category one has the highest quantity of units (Transition document for projects that conflict with the coastal vision, 2016, p. 3). Because of the projects being approved by the local councils, they have to follow up on them, by either continuing with the development or by providing financial compensation.
2. Category two are the so-called pipeline projects. These projects are in consideration for a longer period of time. Meaning they were initiated before the signing of the coastal
agreement. Municipalities will have issues cancelling these plans because they committed via a council decision/ design zoning plan/ public agreement. The transitional document says it has to be official before 1 January 2019, if not it will be reviewed to the current zoning plan. In this category, we see some big and interesting projects. For instance, the Brouwerseiland project and some camping developments. Because of the state of these projects, there is a great deal of societal objections against it. They are not yet approved; however, the
municipalities have trouble cancelling these plans. Protest groups see them as avoidable, and try to influence councils.
3. Category three are the other plans and projects. These are following the remarks made in the coastal vision and should be following the guidelines of the vision. If that is the case, there is no reason to not develop.
To add to this document, the Hotspot policy is taken into account. Any new development should be clustered along previous, similar accommodations. It is part of the transition to attach this policy on the coastal vision document and to make a new allocation of the coastal zones.
In conclusion, Zeeland has prioritized policy towards fast adaptation of the coastal agreement. The coastal vision works on the ideas of the agreement. This is most apparent in the way open beaches are differentiated from bathing hubs. The agreement draws the lines between the two zones, the vision explains how the development will continue. In the coastal vision, everything is on par with the agreement or even more conservative. This was only possible if the running projects could somehow be detached from future projects. Zeeland did this with the transitional document. Running projects, including the debatable ones, can continue despite the reaction of society. This meant that the vision document of the province could be as conservative as it is. Van Riet (2017, p. 34) stated the following on that: ‘The good thing about this was, that we could make the general policy for the coast with a
clear mind’. It also resulted in the still ongoing process of questionable projects like Brouwerseiland
(Brouwerseiland project, 2017). The following chapter will show how the different stakeholders adapt policy.
