Citizen participation in pluvial flooding adaptation initiatives: A comparative qualitative study of Rotterdam and Eindhoven

(1)

Citizen participation in pluvial flooding

adaptation initiatives

A comparative qualitative study of Rotterdam and Eindhoven

Marloes Noordermeer - 12358274 Supervisor: Dr. Jannes Willems

Second assessor: Prof. Dr. Maarten Bavinck Bachelor thesis Future Planet Studies University of Amsterdam

(2)

Abstract

Due to the problems of increased rainfall caused by climate change and impervious surfaces in cities, adaptation to pluvial flooding is needed to prevent damage. Citizen participation plays an important role in implementing pluvial flooding measures on private land as the municipality can only implement measures on public land. However, not all types of citizen participation are equal, with some types leading to the exclusion of minority groups and deepening inequality in society, and other types to meaningful and empowering participation. To research which factors are responsible for enhancing citizen participation in pluvial flooding adaptations, this research used a qualitative analysis of both a document analysis and semi-structured interviews of the cities of Eindhoven and Rotterdam. These two cities were chosen due to the availability of data and their unique pluvial flooding challenges. First, the instruments used for citizen participation in both cities were identified and categorized. In Eindhoven these were traditional planning instruments, citizen committees and surveys, which were categorized as traditional government-led climate planning, non-governmental provision, and inclusive planning, respectively. In Rotterdam the instruments were information evenings, citizen committees and neighborhood scans, which were categorized as traditional government-led climate planning, co-production and co-co-production, respectively. Then the cities were compared to each other to find the overarching factors which caused the instruments to be categorized in their respective category. After this, the factors that increase citizen participation were determined. Three factors were identified: anchoring, customization and flexibility, and attitude.

(3)

INTRODUCTION ... 5 PROBLEM STATEMENT ... 5 RELEVANCE ... 5 AIM ... 6 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ... 6 STRUCTURE ... 7 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 8 METHODS ... 11 DOCUMENT ANALYSIS ... 11 INTERVIEWS ... 12 OPERATIONALIZATION ... 13 Sub-question 1 and 2 ... 15 Sub-question 3 ... 15 ANALYSIS ... 16 TYPES OF PARTICIPATION ... 16 Rotterdam ... 17 Eindhoven ... 18

DIFFERENCES EINDHOVEN AND ROTTERDAM ... 20

WHAT WORKS? ... 20

Rotterdam ... 20

Eindhoven ... 21

DISCUSSION ... 23

ACADEMIC SUPPORT FOR THE FINDINGS ... 23

SUPPORT FOR THEORY? ... 23

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? ... 24

CONCLUSION ... 25

REFERENCES ... 27

APPENDIX ... 32

APPENDIX I: CODE BOOK ... 32

APPENDIX II: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ... 35

Interview questions in Dutch, interviewee “R”: Rotterdam ... 35

(4)

Table of figures and tables

Figure 1. Location of Rotterdam (left) and Eindhoven (right). ... 7

Figure 2. Six different types of citizen participation in climate adaptation. Note. From "public participation, civic capacity, and climate change adaptation in cities," by A. Sarzynski, 2015, Urban Climate, 14, p. 58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2015.08.002 ... 8

Figure 3. Conceptual model of citizen participation. ... 9

Table 1. Documents used for the document analysis. ... 12

Table 2. Interviewees of Rotterdam and Eindhoven. ... 13

Table 3. Operationalization of Sarzynski's framework. ... 14

Table 4. Classification of participatory instruments in Rotterdam and Eindhoven*. ... 16

(5)

Introduction

This chapter will discuss 5 topics. First, the problem of pluvial flooding, how this can be dealt with using citizen participation, and the downsides of citizen participation are addressed. Second, the relevance of this study for both the academic community and society are reviewed, including the focus on Rotterdam and Eindhoven. Third, the aim of the thesis will be shortly explained. The fourth part focuses on the research questions and explains why Rotterdam and Eindhoven were chosen for the study. Finally, the fifth part will show the structure for the remainder of the thesis.

Problem statement

Climate change leads to more intense rainfall, which can lead to flood risks for cities because they are comprised of a large area of impervious surfaces (Brockhoff et al., 2019; Lashford et al., 2019; Michel et al., 2020). Due to the increased intensity of precipitation the sewage capacity can be exceeded and cause pluvial flooding (Lashford et al., 2019; Rosenzweig et al., 2018).

In the Netherlands, this type of pluvial flooding can lead to health risks, as the sewage system in cities often comprises of combined sanitation and storm water (Brockhoff et al., 2019). When this combined sewer overflows, people can be exposed to the sewer contents (Brockhoff et al., 2019). Pluvial flooding does not only lead to health risks, but it also causes financial damage to houses, businesses and infrastructure, and can make it harder for emergency services to help those in need (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2016).

In the urban areas of municipalities, the local government runs into the problem of public and private space (Dai et al., 2018). For example, in the urban part of the city of Eindhoven, the municipality only owns 20% of the land which means it can only implement climate adaptation solutions in that space (Gemeente Eindhoven, 2019). This means that citizen participation plays an important part in adapting to pluvial flooding, as they have the opportunity to significantly increase the rainwater adaptation in a city (Dai et al., 2018; Uittenbroek et al., 2019). Therefore, municipalities often stimulate citizen initiatives in climate adaptation (see e.g. Gemeente Eindhoven, 2020a; Rotterdams Weerwoord, 2020).

Even though citizen participation is widely used in the Netherlands, there are risks associated with it (Stapper & Duyvendak, 2020; Wamsler et al., 2020). These range from exclusion of less influential groups of residents (Stapper & Duyvendak, 2020), to failing to lead to sustainable outcomes in climate adaptation (Wamsler et al., 2020). The exclusion of less influential groups of residents and minority groups can potentially deepen inequality in society, by only letting empowered citizens make decisions that benefit themselves instead of everyone (Begg, 2018; Stapper & Duyvendak, 2020). This can cause more problems for minority groups since they are already worse affected by pluvial flooding than more privileged citizens (O’Hare & White, 2018). Therefore, these citizens are not only the worst affected in pluvial flooding, but they also have fewer means to deal with problem. Finally, they also have less influence on citizen participation processes to implement pluvial flooding adaptation projects (O’Hare & White, 2018).

Relevance

The city of Rotterdam is more often researched than Eindhoven when it comes to climate adaptation (see e.g. Uittenbroek et al., 2014). However, Rotterdam is then compared to the cities of Amsterdam, the Hague and Utrecht, and only on climate adaptation, instead of participatory processes. The only time the participatory process of Rotterdam is compared to other cities is when it is compared

(6)

to the much smaller cities of Tiel and Kockengen (Uittenbroek et al., 2019). Moreover, articles comparing different participation processes tend to compare different countries (e.g. Lashford et al., 2019; Sarzynski, 2015). Other articles just perform a single case study without comparison to other cases (e.g. Brockhoff et al., 2019; Forrest et al., 2020; Trell & Van Geet, 2019). There are studies that compare different cities’ citizen initiatives in climate adaptation, however these focus on Australia (Serrao-Neuman et al., 2015) or the UK (Few et al., 2007), which face different climate adaptation problems than Dutch cities.

Not only does this thesis contribute to academic literature, but it can also contribute to the wellbeing of citizens. When the participation processes are improved, the residents of the cities not only benefit from the decreased pluvial flood risk and subsequent financial impacts, but there are also health benefits to green pluvial flood initiatives. For example, a greener city has a reduced exposure to air pollution and reduced stress (Cole et al., 2017). Moreover, community initiatives can strengthen the social networks in a neighborhood (Aldunce et al., 2016).

Aim

Because of the lack of research on the comparison of participatory processes in pluvial flooding adaptation between the cities of Eindhoven and Rotterdam, the aim for this research is to fill this gap in the literature and research, using qualitative methods, the factors responsible for enhancing citizen participation. Furthermore, by providing new findings in the factors responsible for enhancing citizen participation, this research may help with pointing out new roads for academic research. This may lead to more knowledge on implementing future residential pluvial flooding initiatives. Consequently, this could then reduce pluvial flooding in these cities.

Research questions

Because of the importance and the risks of citizen participation, I will analyze the public participation processes in Rotterdam and Eindhoven to see which factors are responsible for improving citizen participation processes in pluvial flooding adaptation. This leads to the following research question: Which factors enable public participation in pluvial flooding adaptation?

To research this, the main research question was broken down into three sub-questions: Sub-question 1: How can Rotterdam’s instruments of citizen participation in pluvial flooding

adaptation be classified?

Sub-question 2: How can Eindhoven’s instruments of citizen participation in pluvial flooding

Sub-question 3: Which factors enhance citizen participation in these cities?

Rotterdam and Eindhoven were chosen because they both place an emphasis on citizen participation in their climate adaptation programs. Therefore, a lot of data is available on the participation and communication strategies of these two cities (Gemeente Eindhoven, 2016, 2018, 2020a, 2020b; Gemeente Rotterdam, 2016, 2020, 2021; ORG-ID, 2018; Rotterdams Weerwoord, 2020). Moreover, both these cities can be seen dealing with similar issues as other European cities (Sušnik et al., 2014). However, they do have unique their challenges, such as a very small sewage capacity for surplus rainfall in Eindhoven (only 10 mm) (Sušnik et al., 2014), and a soil type consisting mainly of

(7)

clay, which has a low infiltration capacity, in Rotterdam (Dai et al., 2018). All in all, this allows for valuable comparisons between the two cities.

Figure 1. Location of Rotterdam (left) and Eindhoven (right).

Structure

To answer the research questions, the available academic literature will first be laid out, after which the most important theories will be presented and critically assessed. Here the conceptual model will also be explained, detailing the most important structures and relationships in citizen adaptation for pluvial flooding adaptation. After this, in the methods section, the use of a document analysis and semi-structured interviews will be explained. Moreover, the operationalization of the framework used in this thesis will be explained and the methods used will be specified per sub question. This will be followed by the analysis where first the types of participation in Eindhoven and Rotterdam are shown using the data gathered by a document analysis and semi-structured interviews, followed by the thematic differences between the two cities that explain the disparities in the instruments of Eindhoven and Rotterdam. Lastly, the analysis will focus on which factors seem to work in enhancing citizen participation against pluvial flooding in Eindhoven and Rotterdam.

After the analysis, the discussion section lays out the limitations of the research and the support of the results in academic literature. Moreover, the discussion links back to the barriers of enhancing citizen participation found in the literature, and how these are or are not supported by the results of the research. Finally, in the conclusion the research questions will be answered and the impact of the findings of the research on academics and society will be discussed.

(8)

Theoretical framework

To see which research has already been done on the topic of citizen participation in pluvial flooding adaptation, this chapter will first focus on the theory which states that there are differences between participation processes which can lead to differing results of meaningful participation. After this the downsides of citizen participation are discussed as well as the reason why it is nevertheless important to use citizen participation in climate adaptation processes. Subsequently, the important factors which limit or enhance citizen participation are shown. This is then all condensed into a conceptual model, which is briefly explained. Finally, the different measures against pluvial flooding that can be taken by either the municipality or its citizens are laid out.

As can be seen in the problem statement, citizen participation is an important tool to achieve climate adaptation regarding pluvial flooding. However, Arnstein (1969) shows us that not all participation processes are alike. Arnstein (1969) made a framework of eight different typologies of participation ranging from manipulation to citizen control. In the former, the participation process is used to “educate” residents to change their viewpoints, while in the latter citizens have actual positions of power to influence decision-making and allocate funds (Arnstein, 1969; Sarzynski, 2015). Sarzynski (2015) adapted this framework, along with other frameworks, in her analysis of public participation in climate adaptation. To identify which type of participation is used, Sarzynski (2015), as well as Dietz and Stern (2008) ask five questions of participation: “who participates, when participation happens, what happens, how much participation, and why the actors participate” (p. 54). Resulting from this, as can be seen in figure 2, six different types of participation are identified instead of Arnstein’s eight (Sarzynski, 2015).

Figure 2. Six different types of citizen participation in climate adaptation. Note. From "public participation, civic capacity,

and climate change adaptation in cities," by A. Sarzynski, 2015, Urban Climate, 14, p. 58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2015.08.002

Not only are there differences in the types of participation, but there is also debate around the downsides of participatory processes. Brockhoff et al. (2019) mention several reasons why participation can cause confusing situations surrounding the responsibility of rainwater infiltration and storage, ranging from a lack of examples on rainwater management to too little know-how of citizen participation in climate adaptation decision-making.

Some argue that citizen participation in climate adaptation can even lead to undesirable outcomes (Wamsler et al., 2020). Wamsler et al. (2020) mention that the crucial limitations for participation are power structures and a lack of understanding on how to contact the municipality. Furthermore, Wamsler et al. (2020) agree with Brockhoff et al. (2019) that there are unclear responsibilities surrounding climate adaptation for citizens. This can even lead to decreased participation (Wamsler et al., 2020).

However, public participation does not only hamper climate adaptation. Uittenbroek et al. (2019) mention that participation processes can also help to legitimize new urban planning projects.

(9)

Furthermore, participation processes can also help the government achieve goals it wouldn’t achieve without the help of the public, in this case more pluvial adaptation in private areas (Bobbio, 2019). Lastly, since participation processes are mandated by law, we should take the opportunity to try and see what can be improved (Gierveld, 2019).

As we have just seen, not every participation process is equal. Even though there is not one specific way to design a participatory process, Bobbio (2019) shows the tradeoffs which are present in designing participation. For example, the tradeoff between online versus on-site participation: online participation can reach more residents, however the intensity of participation is low and electronic barriers exist (Bobbio, 2019). Serrao-Neumann et al. (2015) also mention a limiting factor for public participation in adaptation to climate change, which is the technocratic approach taken by the municipality which supports the idea that informing and getting feedback from citizens on climate change adaptation is enough to deal with climate change. According to them, it is not enough to just inform people. Instead, a platform for intense debate is needed where residents can participate in a meaningful way early on in the process (Serrao-Neumann et al., 2015). This will give citizens legitimate power to raise alternative solutions and discuss different options (Serrao-Neumann et al., 2015). Finally, Mees et al. (2019) point to the importance of flexibility of the municipality, so that rules can be bent to support citizens’ pluvial flooding initiatives. All in all, there is no one way to design a public participation process for pluvial flooding initiatives, however there are some guidelines from the literature. In figure 3 below, the conceptual model of the literature discussed is shown.

Figure 3. Conceptual model of citizen participation.

As the conceptual model above shows, multiple factors impact the extent of citizen participation in pluvial flooding adaptation strategies. Most notably, the relationship between the type of participation and the actual citizen participation can differ, depending on the classification of the participatory instrument used (Sarzynski, 2015). The most restrictive type is government-led planning, while co-production has the most positive relationship with citizen participation. More barriers to citizen participation are a technocratic approach of the municipality, power structures and unclear responsibility for citizens surrounding pluvial flooding (Serrao-Neumann et al., 2015; Wamsler et al., 2020). A positive relationship between citizen participation and the number of citizen initiatives can be found, which ultimately leads to decreased pluvial flooding. Municipal initiatives can also be used for this, which are legitimized by the use of citizen participation (Uittenbroek et al., 2019).

(10)

Besides having different types of participation in pluvial flooding adaptation, there are also different measures that can be taken against pluvial flooding. Measures that can be taken by citizens themselves often fall under the category of blue-green infrastructure (BGI), such as green roofs (Rosenzweig et al., 2018). BGI measures are effective up until the point when the precipitation levels are greater than the infiltration capacity of the soil (Rosenzweig et al., 2018). Moreover, there are also technical measures which are mostly taken by the local governments themselves where the flow of water is controlled, like below-ground water storage and creating a separate rainwater sewage from the household sewage system (Dai et al., 2018; Rosenzweig et al., 2018). The limitations of these solutions are often the lack of space in the ground and the high installment costs (Rosenzweig et al., 2018). This, in combination with a trend of decentralization in the management of pluvial flooding results in a larger role for citizens to be involved in measures against pluvial flooding (Brockhoff et al., 2019).

(11)

Methods

As can be seen in the previous chapter, the process of citizen participation is not straightforward and may lead to exclusion of minority groups. This section will show the methods used in the research to find out which factors are responsible in enhancing meaningful participation. This research used a qualitative comparative case study approach where a document analysis was used as well as semi-structured interviews to gather primary data on participation processes in Rotterdam and Eindhoven. First, the use of the document analysis will be substantiated, as well as the documents used for this. Second, the use of semi-structured interviews will be supported, and the way data was gathered from these is shown. The third section focusses on the operationalization of the framework of Sarzynski (2015) as mentioned in the introduction and theoretical framework. Lastly, the method for answering the three sub-questions will be discussed.

Document analysis

First of all, using atlas.ti, a document analysis was made of 10 policy documents on climate adaptation and/or flooding, 5 documents per city. The documents used can be seen in table 1. The time period for the documents is 2014-present, since that is when Rotterdam took a big step in climate adaptation by joining the 100 resilient cities network (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2016). Furthermore, Rotterdam started with Water Sensitive Rotterdam in 2015, which led to an increased focus on both pluvial and fluvial flooding in the city (Leander, 2016). Moreover, Eindhoven got a new coalition agreement in 2014 which stated the importance of participation (Gemeente Eindhoven, 2016). However, due to time constraints, more recent documents were chosen over older ones since they would have more up to date data and recent insights into citizen participation.

(12)

Table 1. Documents used for the document analysis.

City Author Document

Rotterdam Gemeente Rotterdam (2020) De betrokken stad

Glas et al., (2016). Strategie afvalwaterketen RoSA

Gemeente Rotterdam (2021) Van Buis naar Buitenruimte: Gemeentelijk Rioleringsplan Rotterdam 2021-2025 Gemeente Rotterdam (2016) Rotterdam resilience strategie Rotterdams Weerwoord

(2020)

Uitvoeringsagenda 2020-2022 Eindhoven Gemeente Eindhoven (2019) De Eindhovense Klimaattoets

Gemeente Eindhoven (2018) Gemeentelijk Rioleringsplan Eindhoven Gemeente Eindhoven (2016) Groenbeleidsplan

Gemeente Eindhoven (2020a) Klimaatplan 2021-2025

Gemeente Eindhoven (2020b) Leidraad participatie & omgevingsvergunning

To analyze these documents, a priori codes were made based on the framework of Sarzynski (2015) as can be seen in figure 2. This framework was chosen as it is a combination of other frameworks of participation in climate adaptation, with categories that can be easily adapted to interview questions and coding. Emergent coding was also used to include the themes of the policy document that were not present in the framework. The codes can be seen in Appendix I.

The document analysis was completed prior to the interviews, so that in-depth questions could be asked to the interviewees on specific topics where more clarification or data was needed. The data from the interviews was used for triangulation. This triangulated approach of combining document analysis with in-depth, semi structured interviews are also present in literature on citizen participation in pluvial flooding adaptation, suggesting that it is an appropriate method for this thesis, and making the data gathered more reliable (see e.g. Aldunce et al., 2016; Trell & Van Geet, 2019). Moreover, the triangulation will ensure the validity of the results as more views and perspectives on the topic of public participation are gathered, which can then be compared in-depth (Carter et al., 2014).

Interviews

After the document analysis, two semi-structured interviews were held with municipal employees tasked with citizen participation in pluvial flooding adaptation, as can be seen in table 2. The interviews were held online due to the COVID-19 restrictions and work from home mandate. This can create a barrier for the interviewees to fully express their opinions since they might not be comfortable with online interviews. However, I tried to accommodate for this by conducting the interviews in Dutch,

(13)

so that the interviewees would be better able to nuance their opinions in their native language. Moreover, the questions were specified to the city and the knowledge and expertise of the interviewee. The full list of interview questions can be found in Appendix II. As mentioned previously, the questions were made using the data from the document analysis. To retain the academic integrity of the research, I tried to be mindful of my position and opinions as a Future Planet Studies student as well as my political opinions and refrained from asking any questions related to this. In addition, the interviewees were anonymized in the transcripts according to their wishes, thereby following the UvA guidelines for ethical research.

I also tried to set up interviews with citizen organizations to include their perspective on citizen participation in pluvial flooding adaptation, but due to various reasons, this was not successful. Therefore, this research focuses mainly on the perspective of the municipality.

Table 2. Interviewees of Rotterdam and Eindhoven.

Actor group Interviewees Date

Municipal employee Rotterdam

Interviewee R - Project manager citizen participation in Rotterdams WeerWoord

21-4-2021 Municipal employee

Eindhoven

Interviewee E - Project manager and advisor on urban water and climate adaptation

21-4-2021

The interviews were used to provide more insight into the participatory processes of Eindhoven and Rotterdam. Even though the cities have a lot of policy documents on citizen participation in comparison to other Dutch cities, conducting interviews with municipal employees tasked with citizen participation and climate adaptation allows for a more in-depth analysis (Few et al., 2007). The interviews were semi-structured to allow the interviewee to give their own opinion on the participation processes and to emphasize points they believe are important (McIntosh & Morse, 2015). Furthermore, a semi-structured interview allowed for follow-up questions on any topics that arose during the interview which warranted this (McIntosh & Morse, 2015).

The interviews were recorded with the permission of the interviewee, and subsequently transcribed, anonymized and coded using atlas.ti. Again, both a priori coding based on the framework by Sarzynski (2015) was used as well as emergent coding. The emergent coding was used to find any themes that were raised in the interviews, but not in the literature on participation. This will make sure that the most important themes according to the interviewees will get included in the research, even if it did not fit the template of the first coding (Blair, 2015).

Operationalization

Sarzynski’s (2015) framework was operationalized using table 3. The dependent variable of this research is pluvial flooding, the independent variable is the initiatives of the municipality and the citizens. Citizen participation will then be the moderating variable, which can change the strength the initiatives have on pluvial flooding. The code book containing the codes corresponding to the different concepts can be found in Appendix I, as well as the other codes used in this thesis. The codes were made in Dutch for the analysis since both the policy documents are written in Dutch, and the interviews were conducted in Dutch. The codes were translated for the appendix.

(14)

Table 3. Operationalization of Sarzynski's framework.

Concept Definition Classification Breadth Which and how many

citizens are involved

· Narrow: small number of people without diversity, only using expert knowledge or people with more time and political skills

· Broad: large number of people involved, diverse group of people including minorities, using citizen knowledge Openness At which steps in the

process are citizens involved

· Low: only involved in planning · Moderate: decision & implementation · High: planning, decision & implementation Intensity Effort made by

participants to be involved and by the municipality to keep citizens involved

· Low: single meeting, participation without opportunity to express opinions

· High: citizen committee, intensive dialogue and contribution of information, long-term, repeated meetings

Influence The extent of power

or influence the citizens have over the project and process

· Inform: help citizens understand the problem · Consult: get feedback on decisions

· Involve: ensure concerns and values are incorporated · Collaborate: citizens involved in every part of the

process and incorporate opinion to the maximum extent · Empower: Final decision-making power for residents Goals The goal of the

municipality to use public participation

· Instrumental: legitimizing the solution. One-way flow of information

· Intrinsic: citizen education and prioritizes their concerns · Normative: empower marginalized groups

· Substantive: participation improves quality of the outcome

(15)

As mentioned in the introduction, three sub-questions were made to answer the main research question:

Sub-question 1: How can Rotterdam’s instruments of citizen participation in pluvial flooding

Sub-question 3: Which factors enhance citizen participation in these cities?

Sub-question 1 and 2

To answer sub-question 1 and 2, first the major participatory instruments were found in the policy documents and interviews using emergent coding. Then, the a priori codes as seen in Appendix I corresponding to the 5 concepts in table 3 were used to classify the different instruments into their respective rank of citizen participation. Both the interviews and policy documents were analyzed to classify the instruments of Rotterdam and Eindhoven.

Sub-question 3

To answer sub-question 3, mostly emergent coding was used to find the overarching themes of the cities, the result of which can be seen in Appendix I. These themes could then be used to explain the differences in classification of the instruments of Eindhoven and Rotterdam. Again, both the interviews and policy documents were analyzed for this.

(16)

Analysis

As mentioned in the methodology, the first step taken in the research was a document analysis of policy documents concerning climate adaptation and citizen participation. Here, the results of this document analysis will be shown, and the cities of Eindhoven and Rotterdam will be compared.

Types of participation

The most common instruments identified in the policy documents and interviews for citizen participation in Rotterdam are information evenings, neighborhood scans, and citizen committees. For Eindhoven, these are traditional instruments, like information evenings or flyers, surveys, and citizen committees.

Table 4. Classification of participatory instruments in Rotterdam and Eindhoven*.

Type Breadth Openness Intensity Influence Goals Rotterdam Information evenings Traditional government-led climate planning

Narrow Low Low Informing

& consulting Instrumental Neighborhood scans Co-production Moderate to broad High Moderate to high

Collaborate Intrinsic & normative Citizen

committee

Co-production* Narrow High High Collaborate & empower Intrinsic (potential for normative) Eindhoven Traditional instruments Traditional government-led climate planning

Narrow Low Low Informing Instrumental

Surveys Inclusive planning

Broad Low Low Consult Instrumental

(potential for substantive) Citizen committee Non-governmental provision *

Narrow Moderate High Empower Intrinsic

* Not every indicator of this type fits the framework of Sarzynski (2015), however the framework doesn’t allow for mixed types of participation, even though she argues that “individual areas may fall in multiple categories” (p. 57). Therefore, the decision is made to choose the type which fits most indicators.

(17)

Rotterdam

Information evenings

For information evenings, citizens are often informed on pluvial adaptation projects and where to apply for subsidies, without having the opportunity for engaging in intensive dialogue (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2021). Here, the municipality just educates its citizens on the problems of pluvial flooding and proposes options on how to solve this. Because of this, the citizens can’t propose or implement their own ideas (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2021). This clashes with the fifth perspective of the city on its future “inclusive”, where the city is made “with and by the residents instead of for the residents'' (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2021, p. 15). Information evenings are also often used for feedback on projects implemented by the municipality, which adds a consulting influence to the informing influence already identified (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2021). Because information evenings have a one-way information flow from municipality to its citizens, an instrumental goal is identified (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2020, 2021).

The information evenings are an approach to try and increase the self-reliance of the citizens, so they know what to do to address pluvial flooding (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2021). However, this excludes residents who do not master the Dutch language, as interviewee R admitted when talking about applying for subsidies “it does require a certain knowledge and skill of the Dutch language”. This results in a clash of principles, where the municipality wants to make its citizens more self-reliable, yet missing the opportunity to increase the breadth of their approach and inform more citizens, possibly leading to more initiatives against pluvial flooding.

Neighborhood scan

The neighborhood scans are ranked at the top of the framework. Here, as interviewee R mentioned the municipality looks “at which social networks there are in a neighborhood, and who is

already involved. And from there we look at the possible links to climate adaptation, which is a different approach to top-down”. This leads to a broader involvement as people are more motivated to be

involved (personal communication, interviewee R, April 21 2021). Moreover, residents are involved from the very beginning all the way until the end because they are involved with the projects on a close level, so they are also very likely to manage and maintain the implemented project (personal communication, interviewee R, April 21 2021). Associated with this is a moderate to high intensity as there is an intensive contribution of knowledge from citizens to the municipality.

Additionally, this scan allows for the customization of participation because the networks and issues differ per neighborhood. Here, a collaborating influence can be seen as the residents are involved in every part of the process, and their concerns and ideas are prioritized (personal communication, interviewee R, 21 April 2021). The neighborhood scan corresponds with an intrinsic goal, as the municipality educates citizens on what they can do against pluvial flooding, and it incorporates their concerns in the eventual projects in the area (Rotterdams Weerwoord, 2020).

However, despite the goal of the municipality for transparency to its citizens, it is not clear to what extent these concerns are incorporated and how tradeoffs are made between different concerns. A substantive goal can also be seen because, as interviewee R mentioned, citizen knowledge is used by the municipality “everyone is an expert of their own environment, like I live here and if it rains, I know

where the puddles are in the street”.

Citizen committee

The final major instrument for citizen participation in Rotterdam is a citizen committee. Here, a select group of residents, either voluntary or elected, represent the interests of their neighborhood,

(18)

leading to a narrow breadth (personal communication, interviewee R, April 21 2021). In Rotterdam they are involved for a long time in the process of an initiative since they are responsible for a 4 year plan where the vision of the neighborhood regarding citizen initiatives and climate adaptation projects is established (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2016; Personal communication, interviewee R, April 21 2021). This leads to a high openness and intensity.

The committee has the power to steer developments and has the final decision-making power to grant funding for neighborhood initiatives. Moreover, they are involved in giving feedback to the municipality on ways to include citizens in projects against pluvial flooding (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2021). According to interviewee R, the feedback of the citizen committee is taken “quite seriously” by the municipality, indicating both collaborative and empowering levels of influence. Finally, the committee has the potential for normative goals, when marginalized groups are represented in the committee. However, the opposite can also be true when these groups are excluded. Intrinsic goals are found here as the committee advocates for their neighborhood in municipal processes and can educate citizens in the neighborhood on the issue of pluvial flooding (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2021).

Eindhoven

Traditional instruments

Just like in Rotterdam, Eindhoven also uses traditional methods like information evenings, flyers and newspaper ads, and open meetings to inform citizens about the dangers of climate change and what actions residents can take (Gemeente Eindhoven, 2018). Again, the intensity here is low as people are not involved over a longer period of time, nor do they have the opportunity to provide their own input, especially with the flyers and newspaper ads. Consequently, the openness for this is also low as residents are not involved in multiple stages of the project (Gemeente Eindhoven, 2018). The informing approach corresponds with an instrumental goal, because residents do not, or have little opportunity to express their own concerns and ideas on pluvial flooding.

Unlike Rotterdam, Eindhoven only has an informing influence as its goal is to inform citizens about climate change and the dangers of pluvial flooding (Gemeente Eindhoven, 2018). However, questions can be raised about the effects of this method as interviewee E (project manager water in the city and climate adaptation, municipality Eindhoven) argues that this “is not the message to bring to the

residents. I rather tell people that we are making their street more livable”. He thinks that it sends a

more positive message, rather than to focus on climate adaptation which causes a lot of people to lose interest.

The breadth of the traditional methods is a point of contest, as the municipality works with a “quadruple helix” where the government, businesses, knowledge institutions, and citizens all work together to achieve more green space in the city (Gemeente Eindhoven, 2016). However, this isn’t reflected in the view of interviewee E. He mentions that “there is only a small group interested. I’d

rather spend my time and energy working with people who really want something, than to have to convince people that change needs to happen”. Moreover, as interviewee E mentioned, minority groups

can almost be invisible to the municipality as their concerns and complaints end up in the “social domain” of the municipality instead of the “urban planning domain”. This will limit the breadth of public participation.

Surveys

The municipality of Eindhoven uses surveys for a multitude of reasons, from letting people give their opinion on a specific project to finding out how the budget can be best spent (Gemeente Eindhoven, 2020a; personal communication, interviewee E, April 21 2021). The breadth of this

(19)

instrument is very broad, as in some surveys up to 5000 people get polled, according to interviewee E. Moreover, these surveys will often be sent to the entire neighborhood, thereby not implicitly excluding anyone. However, the downside of this method is that surveys are often digital, which can be a barrier to those not having access to electronic devices or a stable internet connection (Gemeente Eindhoven, 2020b).

The intensity of this instrument is very low, as the surveys will not be repeated over the course of a project and the residents do not engage in an intensive dialogue with the municipality. The influence is higher than the traditional information evenings, since residents are allowed to give feedback which is considered in the planning of the project (personal communication, interviewee E, April 21 2021). This fits the consulting influence. Related to this is the instrumental goal of surveys. It can be classified as instrumental due to the fact that there is a one-way information flow, without empowering marginalized groups. However, there is a potential for substantive goals depending on how the results from the surveys are used. Interviewee E mentions that the surveys give the municipality an idea on what is already working well, and which steps in pluvial flooding adaptation can still be taken. This allows the municipality to focus its limited funds on specific targets, instead of spending money on projects that don’t need it (personal communication, interviewee E, April 21 2021). Finally, the openness of surveys is low because the opinion of residents is either only asked in the planning phase of the project for the problem formation, or when the project is finished as an evaluation (personal communication, interviewee E, April 21 2021).

Citizen committee

Similar to Rotterdam, Eindhoven uses citizen committees as well. These committees get involved in the decision-making process when a new pluvial flooding project is proposed (Gemeente Eindhoven, 2020a). These committees are composed of volunteers who are interested in the topic of climate adaptation, usually consisting of 10-15 people (personal communication, interviewee E, April 21 2021). Just like Rotterdam, having only volunteers can limit the breadth of participation because, according to interviewee E, it is generally the same group or type of people who are active in the committee. This is a persistent problem, despite recent efforts to increase the diversity in the committees by interviewee E: “only a limited number of people will show up, and even fewer will stay around (…)

so it’s a challenge”. This links to a high intensity as the citizen committee will be involved for a longer

time in the process, checking the updates the municipality makes to its plans for up to 4 or 5 times (personal communication, interviewee E, April 21 2021).

Additionally, the feedback of the committee is almost always adopted by the municipality, except when there are extreme reasons not to do so (Gemeente Eindhoven, 2016). This points to an empowering influence of the committee due to the fact that their opinion carries a lot of weight. Because the feedback is taken quite seriously, an intrinsic goal fits best with a citizen committee. The concerns of the committee are clearly prioritized by the municipality, as can be seen by the empowering influence. Lastly the openness of the committee is moderate. This is because, contrary to Rotterdam, it is not involved in the process design or problem formation. However, it is involved in option generation because it can suggest solutions for pluvial flooding (Gemeente Eindhoven, 2016). Moreover, the committee has a small budget it can spend on the implementation of projects against pluvial flooding (personal communication, interviewee E, April 21 2021).

(20)

Differences Eindhoven and Rotterdam

As can be seen in table 4, the participatory instruments in Rotterdam are ranked higher in the framework than those in Eindhoven. A possible explanation for this is that citizen participation is more anchored in Rotterdam than in Eindhoven. Rotterdam not only anchors participation as a requirement in its policies, but also in the “thoughts and actions of all Rotterdammers” (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2016, p. 130; Rotterdams Weerwoord, 2020). Eindhoven also anchors participation in its policies and the previously mentioned quadruple helix, but this is often not achieved when the municipality only focuses its resources on the residents who are already interested in climate adaptation (personal communication, interviewee E, April 21 2021). Because Rotterdam has embedded participation in this broad way, more departments of the municipality are involved than those in Eindhoven, where the social domain and the urban planning domain remain quite separate (personal communication, interviewee E, April 21 2021).

This broad approach allows for more flexibility since the municipality can provide more customized participation than if fewer departments are involved, as mentioned by interviewee R: “it

lowers the barrier for participation (...) we try to give space for the diversity of the neighborhood, (...) not only a diversity in people in a neighborhood, but also the buildings, so what the neighborhood needs differs every time”. Consequently, this flexibility also allows the municipality of Rotterdam to use

multiple participatory instruments at the same time which increases the breadth, according to interviewee R: “I think because we use these different approaches, we can visit many different people”. As well as anchoring, the stance of the municipalities differ regarding citizen initiatives against pluvial flooding. In Eindhoven, there is more of a wait-and-see attitude as mentioned in the

Gemeentelijk Rioleringsplan: “we ask the city for its cooperation for climate adaptation” (Gemeente

Eindhoven, 2018, p. 47). Both cities mention that they want to support citizen initiatives against pluvial flooding, but Rotterdam goes further in this than Eindhoven. Interviewee E mentions that there are financial and time barriers for the municipality to support initiatives in Eindhoven (personal communication, interviewee E, April 21 2021). Like with the traditional instruments, Eindhoven takes a more informing approach to teach its citizens about measures against pluvial flooding (Gemeente Eindhoven, 2018).

In Rotterdam, there are also wait-and-see mindsets as they say that “every Rotterdammer is

called upon to contribute to the resiliency of the city. And especially to start new initiatives” (Gemeente

Rotterdam, 2016, p. 126). However, these calls are compensated by the more proactive way of reaching out to citizens regarding pluvial adaptation using existing organizations like Opzoomermee, mosques and community centers (personal communication, interviewee R, April 21 2021). Interviewee R mentions that “they have a totally different target group to Rotterdams Weerwoord and people who are

already involved”. Therefore, the residents who are less likely to step forward and initiate a pluvial

flooding measure by themselves are also reached by the municipality of Rotterdam, while this may not be the case in Eindhoven due to financial and time barriers.

What works?

Rotterdam

In Rotterdam, citizens feel a lack of involvement and support for their ideas (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2020). The usefulness of traditional planning instruments like the information evenings can be questioned, as they aim at informing citizens on climate change. Nevertheless, the problem isn’t necessarily that citizens don’t know about the problems of climate change, and that too much information can be overwhelming, to the point where people drop out of pluvial flooding adaptation

(21)

projects (personal communication, interviewee R, April 21 2021). Hence, information evenings rank low on intensity and openness, suggesting that it is not fit for increasing the involvement intensity and time.

The customization of participation, as seen in the neighborhood scan, is not only effective at reaching a broader group of residents, but it also helps with residents inspiring their neighbors to start pluvial flooding adaptation projects (personal communication, interviewee R, April 21 2021). Interviewee R mentions that the ability to customize instruments is beneficial as it allows you “to bake

the cake in the flavor of the neighborhood. In one neighborhood you bake a chocolate cake and in the other neighborhood you bake an apple pie”. Therefore, the collaborations with mosques, community

centers, but also large citizen organizations like Opzoomermee increases the breadth and number of pluvial flooding adaptation initiatives.

Moreover, the ability to provide different types of participation can increase the breadth and give citizens the power to decide in which way they want to participate (personal communication, interviewee R, April 21 2021). In this way, it is not about restricting access to participation for citizens, which can happen in the committees. Rather, it is providing opportunities to allow citizens to choose which type of participation they want to get involved in. Combining options with narrow breadth, but high intensity, openness, influence and goals (like a citizen committee), with an instrument with a broad breadth (like the neighborhood scan and information evenings) can provide a balance between intensively involving those who are willing and able to spend more time, and those who just want to provide feedback. However, this doesn’t solve the problem of people who want to be involved in the committee, but can’t because of a lack of time or specific skills.

Lastly, the neighborhood scan has the highest-ranked type of public participation of all the instruments discussed in the analysis. Customizing the participation on the available networks in a neighborhood, and allowing the residents to solve the local pluvial flooding problems not only increases the chances that other residents will start initiatives of their own, but also provides a cost-effective maintenance solution (personal communication, interviewee E, April 21 2021).

Eindhoven

The traditional instruments used by Eindhoven should on paper, as argued by the municipality document Groenbeleidsplan, (Gemeente Eindhoven, 2016) be very inclusive and diverse as a result of the use of the “quadruple helix”. However, this does not seem to be the case in practice as evidenced by interviewee E. Therefore, the traditional instruments do not work to attract a broad group of citizens, as evidenced by the classification of traditional government-led climate planning.

This can also be seen in the percentage of residents that are not involved in participation processes. The municipality of Eindhoven mentions that 60% of its residents are hardly involved in participation processes for climate adaptation (Gemeente Eindhoven, 2020a). This matches with the statements of interviewee E, who says the municipality mainly focuses on those who are already concerned about climate change. Residents are not satisfied with the way they are currently involved in participation (Gemeente Eindhoven, n.d.). 67% of residents did so through traditional instruments and 1% through citizens committees (Gemeente Eindhoven, n.d.). This also points to the fact that traditional instruments don’t adequately satisfy the needs of residents for more intense involvement.

The citizen committee, which has a more intense involvement, in Eindhoven has a lower openness than the one in Rotterdam. Unlike the committee in Rotterdam, it is not involved in the process design by making a long-term plan for the neighborhood. However, it is still the highest-ranked instrument used by the municipality of Eindhoven. If it wants to improve its openness to reach the same level of citizen participation as in Rotterdam, early on involvement of citizens in the planning stage can

(22)

be realized which safeguards long-term participation. Making a 4-year plan like in Rotterdam can help for safeguarding citizen participation in the future.

As can be seen in the “types of participation: Eindhoven” section, surveys have the potential to increase the quality of pluvial flooding adaptation because the municipality can focus its funds on the problem areas that need it most. This is an easy way for the municipality to increase the usefulness of the surveys, as currently it is a mid-tier type of participation in the framework of Sarzynski (2015).

(23)

Discussion

As mentioned in the methods section, I was unfortunately unsuccessful in interviewing citizen organizations. This resulted in a focus on the municipality instead of both the municipal and citizen perspective. Moreover, only two interviews were held in total. This can be expanded to more interviews in total to increase the total amount of data gathered which will result in a higher validity of the research. Despite this limitation, there are still findings of my research, mainly the importance of anchoring, flexibility and customization, and a proactive attitude.

Academic support for the findings

Some of these findings are supported by literature. The importance of anchoring can also be seen in the research by Carmin et al., (2013), who argue that embedding is important to make participation a normal part of the process. The importance of the attitude of the municipality is not yet prevalent in academic literature. The research that has been done on attitude focuses only on the attitudes of citizens or private insurance companies (see e.g. Trell & Van Geet, 2019). The importance of a proactive attitude is contradictory to the decentralization trend which is visible in Dutch urban planning, where the municipality takes on a smaller role (Brockhoff et al., 2019). Finally, the importance of flexibility and customization in providing multiple participatory methods and using citizen organizations is not yet supported in the literature. This could be explained by the fact that this is a relatively new approach (personal communication, interviewee R, April 21 2021). However, the general importance of having a flexible municipality is supported by Mees et al. (2019).

Even though this thesis has shown the apparent importance of anchoring, flexibility and customization, and attitude, this is not yet incorporated in the framework by Sarzynski (2015). Therefore, the framework can be expanded by adding these three factors. However, this should only be done after further research on attitude and flexibility and customization since those are the two concepts that are still less prevalent in academic literature.

Support for theory?

One problem as found in the literature was minority groups being excluded from participation (Stapper & Duyvendak, 2020; Tyler & Moench, 2012). This problem is also seen in the instruments with high intensity and narrow breadth: the citizen committees in both Eindhoven and Rotterdam. In this thesis, there is no solution found to solve this problem. Even with the combination of instruments as can be seen in Rotterdam, citizens who want to intensively participate in a citizen committee, but do not get elected due to a lack of a social network or political skills are still excluded from this type of participation.

Another limiting factor of citizen participation as mentioned in the theoretical framework by Wamsler et al. (2020) is the lack of understanding on how to contact the municipality. Even though this thesis didn’t focus on the ways in which citizens are able to contact the municipality, a more proactive attitude of a municipality might help in reducing this since citizens can ask their questions and raise concerns or suggest ideas when they are contacted by the municipality.

Finally, the limiting factor for citizen participation, as seen in figure 3, in using a technocratic approach by the municipality is supported by this research. The technocratic instruments, information evenings in Rotterdam and traditional instruments in Eindhoven, are classified as traditional government-led climate planning in the framework by Sarzynski (2015), indicating that the technocratic

(24)

instruments aimed at informing citizens will not give citizens legitimate power to participate in raising alternative solutions and discussing different options (Serrao-Neumann et al., 2015).

What does this mean?

The implications of these findings can differ per city. For Rotterdam, which has implemented the three important factors already, the participatory processes will not have to change much. Nevertheless, for Eindhoven, the budget and time constraints have to be solved first before changes in the participatory process if changes can be implemented, especially for more labor-intensive participatory processes like the neighborhood scan. One exception to this is the use of organizations with a different target group, which are not yet used in Eindhoven. Therefore, the flexibility and customization can be partly implemented in the current situation. The wait-and-see attitude and anchoring are still the result of a limited budget and time. Therefore, Eindhoven has the biggest theoretical benefit of the findings in this thesis if the barriers of time and finances are overcome, since Rotterdam has already reached this stage.

Lastly, these findings also have implications for academics. Most notably, the need for the expanding of the framework by Sarzynski (2015) is found. Furthermore, there is a need for more research on attitude and flexibility and customization since those are the two concepts that are still less prevalent in academic literature. Finally, the finding of the importance of a proactive attitude of the municipality is contradicting Brockhoff et al. 's (2019) finding of a decentralizing trend in Dutch urban planning leading to a decreasing role for the municipality. For that reason, more research on this contradiction can be done to find out if a municipality’s capacity to offer proactive support to its citizens regarding pluvial flooding adaptation is impacted by the trend of decentralization.

(25)

Conclusion

In this thesis I have researched which factors are important in enhancing citizen participation in pluvial flooding adaptation. The reason for this is the danger pluvial flooding poses to the public, in both health risks and financial damages, and the opportunities citizen participation offers. Citizen participation is important in adapting to this as the municipality can only implement measures against pluvial flooding on municipal land. However, most of the land in Dutch municipalities are held by citizens, meaning that if the municipality wants to successfully adapt to pluvial flooding, the citizens have to be involved in implementing measures on private land as well. The cities of Eindhoven and Rotterdam were chosen for this research due to the availability of data and their unique challenges, allowing for valuable comparison.

To get to know which factors are important in enhancing citizen participation, three sub-questions were formed. The analysis in the previous section allows for answering the research question and sub-questions as posed in the introduction.

Sub-question 1: How can Rotterdam’s instruments of citizen participation in pluvial flooding

Rotterdam uses three instruments: information evenings, neighborhood scans, and citizen committees. The information evenings are classified as traditional government-led climate planning. Both the neighborhood scans and citizen committees are classified as co-production. However, the citizen committee does have a narrow breadth which is the only indicator which doesn’t fit co-production.

Eindhoven also uses three instruments: traditional participatory instruments, citizen committees and surveys. Which are classified as traditional government-led climate planning, non-governmental provision, and inclusive planning respectively. However, like in Rotterdam, the citizen committee also has a narrow breadth which is the only indicator which doesn’t fit non-governmental provision. Sub-question 3: Which factors enhance citizen participation in these cities?

There were three factors identified in enhancing citizen participation in Rotterdam and Eindhoven. First of all, anchoring allows citizen participation to be standard practice not only in municipal policy but also in the actions of its citizens.

This leads to the second factor of flexibility and customization. A broad anchoring can lead to more flexibility in a municipality since different departments can help with problems that citizens have regarding pluvial flooding. A more sectoral approach with less broad anchoring as is done in Eindhoven can do the opposite, and prevent citizen participation, especially that of minority groups. This flexibility also results in the ability of a municipality to customize participation to what is needed in a specific neighborhood, as seen in the neighborhood scan in Rotterdam. Customization can also give the municipality the space to use multiple participatory instruments at the same time, which gives citizens a choice in what way they would like to participate. Lastly, the flexibility in using different organizations to reach a broader audience than just the target group of the municipality also seems to have a positive effect on the breadth of participation.

Finally, the attitude of the municipality is the third important factor in enhancing citizen participation. A wait-and-see attitude will not reach the residents who are less likely to step forward to get involved in pluvial flooding. A more proactive approach where citizens are actively supported and approached, using different organizations to reach a broader audience, can enhance public participation. Main research question: Which factors enable public participation in pluvial flooding adaptation?

(26)

As mentioned previously, the factors that are most important in enabling public participation are anchoring, flexibility and customization, and a proactive attitude of the municipality. This can increase the breadth, and stimulate residents to start their own citizen’s initiative, creating a snowball effect of citizen initiatives against pluvial flooding.

(27)

References

Aldunce, P., Beilin, R., Handmer, J., & Howden, M. (2016). Stakeholder participation in building resilience to disasters in a changing climate. Environmental Hazards, 15(1), 58–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2015.1134427

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners,

35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225

Begg, C. (2018). Power, responsibility and justice: a review of local stakeholder participation in European flood risk management. Local Environment, 23(4), 383-397 .

https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2017.1422119

Blair, E. (2015). A reflexive exploration of two qualitative data coding techniques. Journal of

Methods and Measurement in the Social Sciences, 6(1), 14–29.

https://doi.org/10.2458/v6i1.18772

Bobbio, L. (2019). Designing effective public participation. Policy and Society, 38(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1511193

Brockhoff, R. C., Koop, S. H. A., & Snel, K. A. W. (2019). Pluvial flooding in Utrecht: On its way to a flood-proof city. Water, 11(7), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11071501

Carmin, J., Dodman, D., & Chu, E. (2013). Urban Climate Adaptation and Leadership: From

Conceptual Understanding to Practical Action [Working paper]. OECD Regional

Development, No. 2013/26, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/20737009 Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., Dicenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J. (2014). The use of

triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(5), 545–547. https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.545-547

Cole, H. V. S., Lamarca, M. G., Connolly, J. J. T., & Anguelovski, I. (2017). Are green cities healthy and equitable? Unpacking the relationship between health, green space and gentrification.

Epidemiol Community Health, 71(11), 1118-1121.

(28)

Dai, L., Wörner, R., & Van Rijswick, H. F. M. W. (2018). Rainproof cities in the Netherlands: Approaches in Dutch water governance to climate-adaptive urban planning. International

Journal of Water Resources Development, 34(4), 652–674.

https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2017.1372273

Dietz, T., & Stern, P. C. (2008). Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12434

Few, R., Brown, K., & Tompkins, E. L. (2007). Public participation and climate change adaptation: Avoiding the illusion of inclusion. Climate Policy, 7(1), 49–59.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2007.9685637

Forrest, S. A., Trell, E.-M., & Woltjer, J. (2020). Socio-spatial inequalities in flood resilience: Rainfall flooding in the city of Arnhem. Cities, 105, 102843.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102843

Gemeente Eindhoven. (n.d.). Resultaten IE 2020. https://infogram.com/1pp9vg63nkpxr 9hrg9530w5gynbzg65nxrj?live

Gemeente Eindhoven. (2016). Groenbeleidsplan. https://www.eindhoven.nl/sites/default/files/2017-12/Groenbeleidsplan_0.pdf

Gemeente Eindhoven. (2018). Gemeentelijk Rioleringsplan Eindhoven. https://repository.officiele-overheidspublicaties.nl/externebijlagen/exb-2019-57627/1/bijlage/exb-2019-57627.pdf Gemeente Eindhoven. (2019). De Eindhovense klimaattoets.

https://www.eindhovenduurzaam.nl/sites/default/files/2019-02/DeEindhovenseklimaat toets.pdf

Gemeente Eindhoven. (2020a). Klimaatplan 2021-2025. https://www.eindhovenduurzaam.nl /sites/default/files/2021-01/WEBTX_Klimaatplan_0.pdf

Gemeente Eindhoven. (2020b). Leidraad participatie & omgevingsvergunning.

https://www.eindhoven.nl/sites/default/files/2020-09/WEBTX%20Leidraad%20Participatie%20%26%20Omgevingsvergunning_20010031_18s ept.pdf

(29)

Gemeente Rotterdam. (2016). Rotterdam resilience strategie. https://www.resilientrotterdam.nl/download

Gemeente Rotterdam. (2020). De betrokken stad. https://www.rotterdam.nl/meedenken-doen/betrokken-stad/1863_De_Betrokken_Stad_PDFA.pdf

Gemeente Rotterdam. (2021). Van buis naar buitenruimte: Gemeentelijk Rioleringsplan Rotterdam

2021-2025. https://www.rotterdam.nl/wonen-leven/grp/Gemeentelijk-Rioleringsplan.pdf

Glas, H., De Ron, J., & Do, T. (2016). Strategie afvalwaterketen RoSA: Hoe realiseren we de ambities

van de langetermijnvisie. https://docplayer.nl/26960743-Strategie-afvalwaterketen-rosa.html

Lashford, C., Rubinato, M., Cai, Y., Hou, J., Abolfathi, S., Coupe, S., Charlesworth, S., & Tait, S. (2019). SuDS & sponge cities: A comparative analysis of the implementation of pluvial flood management in the UK and China. Sustainability, 11(1), 1–14, 213.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010213

Leander, E. (2016). Case study water sensitive Rotterdam. Water Governance, 4, 31–35. https://edepot.wur.nl/430871

McIntosh, M. J., & Morse, J. M. (2015). Situating and constructing diversity in semi-structured interviews. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 2, 1–12.

https://doi.org/10.1177/2333393615597674

Mees, H. L. P., Uittenbroek, C. J., Hegger, D. L. T., & Driessen, P. P. J. (2019). From citizen

participation to government participation: An exploration of the roles of local governments in community initiatives for climate change adaptation in the Netherlands. Environmental Policy

and Governance, 29(3), 198–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1847

Michel, J. A., Reginatto, G., Mazutti, J., Brandli, L. L., & Kalil, R. M. L. (2020). Selection of Best Practices for Climate Change Adaptation with Focus on Rainwater Management. In W. L. Filho, P. R. Borges de Brito, & F. Frankenberger (Eds.), International Business, Trade and

Institutional Sustainability (pp. 915–932). Springer.

(30)

O’Hare, P., & White, I. (2018). Beyond ‘just’ flood risk management: the potential for—and limits to—alleviating flood disadvantage. Regional Environmental Change, 18(2), 385–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1216-3

ORG-ID. (2018). Uitvoeringsprogramma Klimaatadaptatie Zuid-Nederland.

https://www.klimaatadaptatiebrabant.nl/uitvoeringsprogramma-klimaatadaptatie-zuid-nederland

Rotterdams Weerwoord. (2020). Uitvoeringsagenda 2020-2022.

https://rotterdam.raadsinformatie.nl/document/9272604/2#search=%22uitvoeringsagendaweer woord%22

Rosenzweig, B. R., Mcphillips, L., Chang, H., Cheng, C., Welty, C., Matsler, M., Iwaniec, D., & Davidson, C. I. (2018). Pluvial flood risk and opportunities for resilience. Wires Water, 5(6), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1302

Sarzynski, A. (2015). Urban Climate Public participation, civic capacity, and climate change adaptation in cities. Urban Climate, 14, 52–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.uclim.2015.08.002 Serrao-Neumann, S., Harman, B., Leitch, A., & Choy, D. L. (2015). Public engagement and climate

adaptation: Insights from three local governments in Australia. Journal of Environmental

Planning and Management, 58(7), 1196–1216. https://doi.org/0.1080/09640568.

2014.920306

Stapper, E. W., & Duyvendak, J. W. (2020). Good residents, bad residents: How participatory processes in urban redevelopment privilege entrepreneurial citizens. Cities, 107, 102898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102898

Sušnik, J., Strehl, C., Postmes, L. A., Vamvakeridou-Lyroudia, L. S., Savić, D. A., Kapelan, Z., & Mälzer, H. J. (2014). Assessment of the effectiveness of a risk-reduction measure on pluvial flooding and economic loss in Eindhoven, the Netherlands. Procedia Engineering, 70, 1619– 1628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.02.179

Trell, E.-M., & Van Geet, M. T. (2019). The governance of local urban climate adaptation: Towards participation, collaboration and shared responsibilities. Planning Theory & Practice, 20(3), 376–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2019.1629573

Citizen participation in pluvial flooding adaptation initiatives: A comparative qualitative study of Rotterdam and Eindhoven