Implementing the Environmental Planning Act in Dutch municipalities

(1)

1

Implementing the Environmental Planning Act in Dutch municipalities:

How does size matter?

Nick Kramer s1282581 June 11th 2018

Master Thesis: MSc Public Administration: Public Management Faculty of Global Governance and Global Affairs

Leiden University

Thesis Supervisor: Prof. S.M. Groeneveld Second Reader: Dr. C. van Eijk

(2)

2

Lately the field of public administration in the western world has been confronted with a new paradigm shift from New Public Management (NPM) to New Public Governance (NPG). NPM has had a profound impact on public administration as it stressed values of effectiveness, efficiency, narrow inputs, measurable outcomes, higher managerial control and a distance between policy making and implementation (Boyle & Harris 2009, 9-10; Brandsen & Honingh 2013, 880-881; Osborne 2006, 388-389). Government according to this view should be run in a business-like fashion and treat its citizens as customers similarly to what a business would do; the main focus is here on granting them good value for money. This system has reached some limits: as it became clear that effective is not necessarily efficient and several other problems surfaced, NPM was not able to give the high quality solutions that were envisioned; it put a high limitation on the choices that were available for citizens due to standardization drives to gain efficiency. Standardization has also led to a corrosion of the relation between government and citizen as face to face contacts became less prevalent (Boyle and Harris 2009, 6-9). A final problem that arose was the fact that closely adhering to the procedures and rules became more important than the quality of the outcome, for example hospitals getting paid per patient and not for the good result of the hospitalizations (Boyle & Harris 2009).

These problems along with the financial difficulties governments have been facing recently, have put pressure on NPM and led to a call for a new mode of public administration; this call has led to NPG. Here the vision of the plural state is dominant, it is connected to many different actors and the government is no longer solely responsible for producing, developing and delivering goods and services. These are delivered by cooperation between the actors. (Osborne 2006, 384). In this new paradigm government attempts to treat its citizens not as customer but as a partner (Moynihan & Thomas 2013, 788-789). The partnership is envisioned as a way of doing more with less resources as citizens are involved in the production and delivery of services. By involving the public, products and services can be customized to fit ones needs and local on the ground knowledge and skills are envisioned to be complementary, leading to a higher quality outcome (Etgar 2008).

NPG finally stresses the importance of networks that lead to supported decisions; this also builds trust which is seen as the key currency of this mode of public administration. This

(4)

4

mode is seen as the way to mend the corroded links between government and public: responsiveness is key to this (Osborne 2006, 383-384). While this new paradigm sounds great there are still many questions as to how this can be implemented in practice and what strategies do municipalities use for this? This thesis will take up that challenge.

The NPM problem of emphasizing the process over the outcome quality and corroded relationships described above are also visible in a very different policy. In spatial planning the introduction of communicative planning has led to a prominent place of debate in the decision-making process, but not to desired outcomes (Huxley 2000; Yiftachel 2009). In the Netherlands these problems have also been visible, the planning processes (big and small) have become slow and grinding. Deliberation takes up much time and there have been many ways and avenues to appeal when one does not agree with a reached decision. This has been one cause that has led to pressure on the Dutch planning system. Another pressure has been a limitation of choices as land-use plans are agreed upon for a very long term (10 years) and changes to them call for a long procedure. The municipality that is the primary force in these procedures used to work in a rather hierarchic fashion, checking what was possible and what wasn‟t with little leeway, this can be seen as limiting the available choices of the public. These two factors have not helped in fostering trust amongst its citizens.

To address these issues a new planning act has been introduced. The new Dutch Environmental Planning Act (further on EPA) was accepted back in march 2016 (Staatsblad, 2016). The new act entails a broad terrain under the newly used concept of physical living environment (fysieke leefruimte) and it contains amongst others rules and regulations on the environment, building, planning and health. The major goals of the law are to speed up the permit granting process, be more responsive to citizen needs and increase the quality of the living environment. This new act fits the mold of NPG neatly as it stresses trust, collaboration, flexibility and good outcomes but here also the implementation is still a huge question mark. The EPA will serve as the setting for this thesis to answers the following research question:

To what extent and how does municipal size affect the strategies for implementing the EPA? Scientific Relevance

This thesis is scientifically relevant as NPG, citizen engagement and co-production has been a recent and strongly growing body of research. The theoretical frames have not been fully formed and synthesized, especially co-production is a recent phenomenon (Voorberg, Bekkers

(5)

5

& Tummers 2014, 1334). Beyond the theoretical debates the question of how the proponents of NPG can be successfully introduced in practice and what variables are helpful or actually having a negative impact are not fully researched yet. The fact that many governments on various levels propose reforms that embrace these concepts makes this question even more pressing (Voorberg, Bekkers & Tummers 2014). The care decentralizations are a recent Dutch example of the shift towards NPG; here the responsibility of providing care was shifted from the central government to local governments with the underlying idea that the closest government would be better able to judge what was needed by its citizens; so local governments got more room to make their own decisions and to some extent provide tailor-made care (within bounds).

Voorberg, Bekkers and Tummers make a distinction between two sides of participation namely that of the citizen side and what involves them and the organization side what allows for participation. This thesis will address the latter as it is focused on an organizational change forced by law. Their literature review found 122 total articles of which a 103 focussed on this side of participation (Voorberg, Bekkers & Tummers 2014, 1342). There clearly is still a lot of testing to be done on this side of participation.

The EPA is very relevant for the current shift in government as it also highlights NPG elements in its design such as an emphasis on effectiveness and integrality. It therefore is an epitome of the current movement of western governments. It promotes the new way without discarding the old way. In fact in this case they attempt to make them work together.

What makes the EPA organizationally an even more interesting scientific setting is that it consists of an episode of forced change on a massive scale. Every Dutch municipality is forced to change with the new law as a stimulus, this means that around 380 organizations need to move in a broad similar direction. The act however also explicitly leaves room for local variation. Comparing some of these cases (municipalities) will give a unique chance in the effects of different contextual and contingency factors.

This thesis also addresses a policy-area that is often overlooked in public administration and public management academic writing. Most of the articles on government responsiveness, citizen engagement and co-production deal with areas like health-care, education and safety. The more public and social nature of these areas might be conducive to this difference, as planning is usually more private as it concerns one‟s own home or land it might be less visible. However I view it as a very important policy-area especially for municipalities as

(6)

6

local authorities usually have primacy in local planning and thus share a strong connection to its inhabitants. Moreover it is a policy area that affects every single inhabitant as it concerns housing, health, recreation and many more areas. To my knowledge there has only been a single article that explores the link between planning and co-production. Planning scholar Watson promotes the added value that coproduction could have for planning (Watson 2014). With this thesis I will attempt to fill in some these gaps.

Practical relevance

Being a municipal councilor in the municipality of Lopik I must admit to losing some sleep overnight on the implementation of the EPA: creating an integrated, flexible and responsive municipal organization is a huge challenge. The goals in itself are enviable, you cannot be against giving room to new initiatives and creating a user-friendly process; but what worries me is the enormous change that is needed, many of the areas that are described in the new law under the concept of physical living environment are at the moment separated in different departments, and these usually are not communicating with each other currently. While building-rules and environmental directives were already closely related in current planning acts, health for example is now seen as a completely different policy-area. How to integrate these sectors into cohesive, well working and communicating units will be a major challenge.

Figure 1.1: A visual representation of some of the policy-areas that will need to work more integrated under the new EPA

Besides these more organizational concern there is an even bigger challenge: to grant more space and be responsive to citizens needs requires a different mind-set, it is no longer simply applying given rules but it means more actively engaging citizens and working together: in fancy words this is envisioned as a cultural change within municipal organizations, and that will ask a lot from civil servants, aldermen, local politicians and even the public itself, as how

Social Affairs Building and Environm ent Public Works Civil

(7)

7

things were done is envisioned to change. The change is on most levels wanted but how do you go about it is a major question that probably every municipality currently is struggling with. To add to this notion a recent VNG survey amongst municipal councilors showed that practical knowledge on the EPA was not at a high level yet, many were inquiring about the effects of the law change (61.6%), requested general information about the law (57.3%), what the law meant for their role (44.1%) or when what needed to be done (35.9%). (VNG 2016a). The results show that more practical knowledge is highly needed at least at one level in the municipality.

A final major practical concern is that the law might be an overall failure and that many of the current documents, visions, rules and regulations will just be heaped on a massive pile with a new cover, and it will afterwards be business as usual. The delaying of the implementation phase is already not helping on that account and (former) Minister Schultz van Haegen also hinted at this in her interview by stating she wanted to keep the pressure on municipalities and force the change (Schultz van Haegen, 2017).

This thesis will be composed of six total chapters. The first chapter will be the introductory chapter. The second chapter will give a description of the new planning act and its goals. The third chapter will serve as a theoretical guideline and introduce NPG its components and its pre-conditions. The following chapter will deal with the used research methods and introduce the qualitative research design of this thesis. The fifth chapter will present the findings of this research project and describe the ways municipalities of different sizes plan to implement the EPA. Finally we will wrap up with a conclusion, this will brought forth in chapter six.

(8)

8 Chapter 2: The Research Setting: The Environmental Planning Act

2.1: Goals of the new Act

The new Environmental Planning Act (further on EPA) was agreed upon by parliament back in March 2016 (Staatsblad, 2016). This new act entails a broad terrain under the newly used concept of physical living environment (fysieke leefruimte) and it contains amongst others rules and regulations on the environment, building, planning and health. The major goals of the law are to speed up the permit granting process, be more responsive to citizen needs, create room for experiments and new initiatives and above all make the procedures more user-friendly (Hoorn & Buitelaar, 2016). The new EPA attempts to do this by integrating of a host of separate sectoral laws and regulations into a single clearer law. In the new situation 26 laws, 120 governmental decrees (AmvBs) and 120 ministerial decrees would be reduced to a single law, 4 governmental decrees and approximately 10 ministerial decrees (Hoorn & Buitelaar, 2016).

Figure 2.1: a visual representation of the impact of the EPA

The process of agreeing on this new law has been and still is testing, especially in the negotiations between the central government, ministries and municipalities. The actual implementation of the new law therefore has been pushed back on several occasions first from January 2017 to July 2018. Most recently in an interview on 27th of July 2017 Minister Schultz van Haegen of infrastructure and environment stated that the implementation would be delayed and that the new date would still have to be agreed upon. In the interview she

26 Laws 120 GDs

120 MDs

Current

Situation

1 Law, 4

GDs and

+_10 MDs

Envisioned

Situation

(9)

9

emphasized that the different regulations were not yet clear enough. The date was hard to determine as she did not want to rush the project and risk losing quality but on the other hand didn‟t want to decrease pressure on the municipalities to much as that could mean further delays when implementing the new law (Schultz van Haegen, 2017). Currently the aim is to implement the law at the first of January 2021.

The muddy lawmaking process is already an indication of how hard it is to combine and integrate separate and different laws in many different policy areas. The delay is giving municipalities more time to really see how this new act will impact their organization.

As stated in the introduction this new law envisions four areas of improvement, these are: creating more room for local decision-making, being better able to develop citizen initiatives, speeding up the overall processes of planning and regulations and allow governments (Municipalities and Provinces) to develop a more integral approach in their decision-making process (see figure 2.2). The goals are interesting as they entail a combination of NPM features like increased efficiency and clarity and NPG features of increased citizen participation.

More local room for decisions More able to develop initiatives Faster processes Integral Decision-making

Figure 2.2: The 4 areas of improvement of the Dutch Environmental Planning Act. Adapted from: Basisgids omgevingswet, power point 2, sheet 4. Retrieved from: aandeslagmetdeomgevingswet.nl

2.2 The link to citizen participation and co-production

Most of these goals can be combined into a single goal and that is improving governmental responsiveness. Faster processes and procedures are a blessing for a citizen and helps to keep people involved. Room for local decisions can lead to tailor-made solution that really engage with local needs. Less and clearer rules can also help the citizen to become more active, and should allow for more people to come up with initiatives (Irvin and Stansbury 2004).

(10)

10

Increasing local decision-making is a key part of this as in theory this allows the municipality to set special aims that apply to their local situation. As it is envisioned now the national rules will be brought to the municipality with a bit of band-with. The national level sets a host of rules containing standard measures and the municipality can either be more ambitious or less ambitious. In the end the plusses and minuses must add-up to an improvement overall. To clarify this approach the analogy of a mixing panel is used with some slides turned up and others turned down, but in the end the piece of music must sound good (See figure 3). Finally the municipality is also allowed to set additional rules for example on light pollution.

Figure 2.3: The mixing panel of rules. Retrieved from: Basisgids Omgevingswet (aandeslagmetdeomgevingswet.nl)

The great change that this system brings is that an initiative doesn‟t need to check all the rule boxes by default anymore but they can adhere to a certain degree and can also compensate for certain shortcomings (Aan de slag met de omgevingswet 2017, 41). One downside of this approach is that decision on rules van vary between different municipalities and that might not help to clarify the rule set all together.

Allowing band-with means a lot for municipalities, no longer can a civil servant just check and see if all the boxes are ticked. Now they have to oversee the whole picture and actively think of where there is room for compensation and which parts of the plan might not be the

(11)

11

most important. This clashes with the earlier system where if one standard was not met the whole plan would fail, and a new plan would have to be started from scratch. This new mind-set needs to be practiced and takes a while to mind-set in.

2.3: Cultural Change

The EPA calls for a big cultural change in how the municipalities go about their way. Internally as I showed above several changes are needed. First of all the rules need to be inventoried, measured and reviewed in order for the streamlining process to work. Second increased integrality calls for a closer cooperation within the municipalities, no longer can division be closed of sectors as they need to be integrated and make considerations together. This might lead to different working arrangements and options can also be vary from one municipality to another. Some might choose to create standard work teams, others might opt for more integral meetings while still others choose to implement loose project groups, just to name some options. These first two changes are really more focused on the NPM principals of efficiency and effectiveness. The third change shows that the new act calls for a much more active civil-servant who looks at solutions and makes considerations amongst a host of options. New competencies might be called for here. This side really embraces the NPG concepts of creating value(s) that transcends efficiency and effectiveness. These three changes all were more emphasizing the internal workings and decision-making arrangements within the municipality.

Beside the envisioned changes internally, there are big changes planned externally as well. We saw that one of the key aims of the EPA was for government to become more responsive to citizen needs. A much quoted saying emphasizes this change: the new law envisions a change “from no unless to yes if”( Janssen 2017; ROconnect.nl 2014). The quote implies a more positive approach to spatial planning as a lot is envisioned to be possible, and no longer hosts of actors need to be convinced for minor deviations of current rules to be approved. (Janssen 2017). Most of the rules are envisioned to be agreed upon within a municipal environmental plan. This plan needs to be more responsive and not be set in stone. (Aan de slag met de omgevingswet 2017, 40-41). All the municipalities have to make this plan for their own territory and it needs to be accorded by the municipal council. A current development is that also meetings are taking place at the inter municipal or regional level.

The environmental plan discussed above seems to be an ideal spot for citizen participation as it is envisioned to serve the local needs within a municipality. Advice from the public is

(12)

12

needed to get a good picture of these needs. The forming of the plan is not the only place in which public participation is needed. As the environmental plan is promoted to be very dynamic it implies that ongoing consultation and cooperation is needed.

To make a good consideration within the rules (as mentioned above) for each initiative a strong link between the municipality and the citizen is needed. In the ideal situation citizen initiatives are viewed to be ongoing processes instead of a single checks of fit. When a citizen comes with an (spatial) idea he further develops this in cooperation with the municipal alderman and civil servants. In the new act the citizen who filed a request is also required to participate throughout the further process (Aan de slag met de omgevingswet 2017, 53-54). This situation resembles a reciprocal co-production process (Boyle & Harris 2009). It implies that civil servants will need to be much more open-minded when dealing with citizens and that might call for completely different skillset. As Tuurnas stresses participation really is a skill that takes some time to develop, as well on the citizens side as on the civil service side (Tuurnas 2015). Starting sooner than later definatly seems to be the best way forward. All in all a lot of change is to be expected from the implementation of the EPA. A main question is how to install this cooperative sense on both sides. Trust will need to be built up over time to foster it. And the municipality cannot have a reputation for being uncooperative.

2.4: Strategies for implementing the EPA

To help municipalities with implementing this new law the VNG has introduced several strategies of how to implement the EPA, these are rough cut as the axis do not mutually exclude each other, but the model can enlighten us on how different municipalities can implement the EPA (See figure 4). As a first step municipalities need to determine their own ambition level for the implementation of the EPA. The model has an assumption that not everything can be done at once but must happen in sequence (VNG 2016, 4). For example a municipality must first streamline its inner workings before becoming active externally. The model envisions two different axis, the first is formed by an internal or external focus, this axis determines to what degree the municipality will focus on the internal or external side of the implementation. This axis resembles the scholarly literature on NPM and NPG quite strongly, with the internal focus promoting a streamlining of processes and effectiveness while the external focus emphasizing citizen participation, ways of becoming more inclusive and promoting cooperation (Boyle & Harris 2009).

(13)

13

The second axis determines how much a municipality is willing to change, is it beforehand embracing the change and willing to go far in this or is it looking to only slightly adapt.

Figure 2.4: a visual representation of the VNG implementation ambitions. Adapted from VNG. (2016). Bewust

kiezen voor de meest passende aanpak. VNG p. 4. Retrieved from: https://vng.nl/files/vng/20161125-projectleiders-veranderaanpak-interview.pdf

Combining the position on the two different axis will determine the ambition level of the municipality and that is matched with a implementation strategy shown in the quadrants of the model, for an example internal focus and an adjustment focus will give a consolidating strategy (strategy 1) here the municipality operates defensively and only makes minor

Internal Focus External Focus Focus on change Focus on adjustment

(14)

14

adjustments to their organization. A municipality that has an internal focus but embraces the changes strongly as a measure to improve its organization chooses the calculating strategy (strategy 2). Here the municipality embraces change and looks to really improve its inner workings. Again these two strategies seem to converge more with the NPM values of efficiency and effectiveness. These strategies do not seek to embrace the NPG values of becoming more responsive and cooperative.

When a municipality has an external focus it is more likely to implement NPG features as it actively seeks to draw in the public with initiatives and decision-making. A municipality that combines this external focus with an adjustment focus will choose the distinguishing strategy (strategy 3). Hereby it actively seeks to engage it public but does not want to completely change its inner workings. This strategy can be seen as more defensive than the innovative strategy (strategy 4) in which municipalities actively seek to engage its citizens but also want to strongly change their inner workings. The four strategies distinguish themselves by the level of ambition with strategy one being the least ambitious and strategy 4 being the most ambitious. With these final two strategies the municipality the municipality tries to embrace the NPG values of cooperation and participation fully. These strategies are at a first glance more ambitious that the first two strategies.

When setting its ambition level(s) and choosing a corresponding strategy for implementing the EPA the VNG advises municipalities to first look at their ambition and ask questions like what do I want to get out of this new law? Do we want to continue to work as much as we do now, that would imply a more defensive strategy. On the other hand embracing the change would imply a much more offensive strategy (VNG 2016, 3). An important point to take away from the model is that there are many different options available for municipalities and that choices are contingent. The VNG stresses that the choice of strategy and ambition should be realistic taking into consideration differences in resources, capacity and quality of the bureaucracy. These factors have not appeared from thin air but strongly match the academic literature on positive and negative conditions for citizen participation and co-production (Bovaird et al 2015; Buckwalter 2014; Jakobsen 2013; Tuurnas 2015). Additional factors are the level of engagement of its citizens and the (spatial) challenges and problems it is experiencing within its territory. These factors also fit tightly within a larger body of academic literature on participation (Alford 2002; Irvin & Stansbury 2004; Poteete & Ostrom 2004; Porter 2012).

(15)

15

Not quite incidentally the considerations that determine the strategy also correspond strongly to the variables we saw in the previous chapter and the ones we shall see in the next chapter. The factors that impact the choices also link with the focus on small and large municipalities in this thesis. As smaller municipalities are expected to have less resources, a smaller bureaucracy and a less specialized bureaucracy. Smaller size might also have a direct impact on the level of participation of citizens through closer communities (Irvin & Stansbury 2004; Poteete & Ostrom 2004). The different strategies therefore are a great tool to focus and conduct this study. As municipalities are familiar with these it can serve as a base for the questions that will be asked in the different interviews in this research project. It can help clarify our research subject.

The model however is not a silver bullet as different municipalities have many more options available. A municipality for example might also try to combine the strategies, first focusing on changing its own inner working and after that is in order focusing citizen engagement.

Having described the current situation in the practical field, within the municipality. The next chapter will attempt to make sense of this movements by looking closer at a wider scholarly context. I will show that the EPA is not a unique development but fits a current trend in government that tries to make governments more responsive to citizens and widen the scope of values within government. The VNG ambition levels show the conjuncture of internal effectiveness and external responsiveness, they symbolize the interplay of NPM and NPG. The academic literature can also give insight in the role that size has played at times and how higher responsivity has been reached in different cases.

(16)

16 Chapter 3: New Public Governance: Drawing in the crowds

This chapter will delve deeper into the literature of new public governance and its components of citizen participation, co-production and co-creation. It will give an overview of the most used definitions of these concepts and go more into detail about the different forms that these concepts can appear in. After that an overview of potential risks and benefits will be given. This is followed by an assessment of positive and negative conditions to implementing more governmental responsiveness (in the form of citizen participation and co-production).

3.1: New Public Governance: Participation and Co-production

As mentioned above New Public Governance (NPG) started as a challenge to NPM, it allowed both practitioners and academics to place a wider range of values at the center of policy-making than was the case with NPM‟s narrow focus on efficiency and input control. NPG consists a few core feature of public governance that are important for building trust and legitimacy and which are ignored and/or undervalued by NPM. Firstly common values are at the core of NPG. The government is to reach solutions that support the common good, not just improved efficiency, effectiveness, or responsiveness in the implementation of an already formed and decided upon plan (Alford, 2002; Bao et al. 2012, 447; Stoker, 2006). Secondly NPG stresses the fact that policy should be made through engaging a larger network of stakeholders, that consists of citizens and interest parties etc. (Yang & Holzer, 2006). Network theory forms the base of this and it is assumed that through the engagement of the wider network solutions above mere aggregated preferences can be reached (Yang & Holzer, 2006). NPG firmly believe that good solutions are reached through co-production and participation processes in which a wide host of partners need to be involved, shared ownership is of utmost importance in this view. The role of the government in this view is not just to regulate, and provide public benefits but to give a forum of discussion and serve as a flywheel and link parties (Bao et al. 2012, 447). NPG is somewhat of an ideal type, below I will go into its public engagement components of citizen participation and co-production.

(17)

17

Citizen Participation

Participation is a widely used concept, Roughly two different types of participation can be discerned, customer participation that focuses more on a business-like involvement in developing customized products (Dong, Evans & Zhou 2008). And on the other hand Public Participation where citizens are actively involved in policy-making by the government. Wang & Van Wart (2007) define this concept as “greater citizen access to and the involvement in the policies and operations of government-related activities, ranging from voting and running for local office to responding to government surveys and attending public hearings” (Wang & Van Wart, 2007, p. 265). As the definition shows there are many forms and levels of participation. Arnstein in her famous article envisioned a ladder of participation containing eight different steps ranging from manipulation where the citizens has a very low amount of control up to „citizen control‟ in which the public is the dominant actor and holds most power.

Figure 3.1: An adaptation of Arnstein's (1969, 217) ladder of participation

At the stage of non-participation, with the steps therapy and manipulation government doesn‟t want to involve the wider public, though they might attempt to construct a façade of involvement. At the stage of tokenism more participation is wanted here the citizens are heard and consulted but they lack any serious power in the decision-making process. Their influence

Degree of citizen control

- Citizen Control -Delegated Power -Partnership Degree of tokenism -Placation -Consultation -Informing Non-Participation -Therapy -Manipulation

(18)

18

is determined by the mercy of the powerful. Placation is the most extreme form because the ground rules of the process call for involvement. The final stage citizen control is where the power shifts and is shared to varying degrees by the public and government (Arnstein 1969, 217).

This ladder will serve as a tool to place the required level of participation for implementing the EPA. The EPA is envisioned to push environmental planning somewhat higher up the ladder, as a high degree of active participation is envisioned and needed. For making larger plans consultation and placation will be needed while for individual cases partnership and delegated power seem to be the right avenue.

Co-production

Co-production is envisioned to be a deeper form of citizen participation, with Arnstein ladder in mind these processes will be at the highest stage of the ladder. Co-production has been defined in a multitude of way in the literature and through time (Nabatchi, Sancino & Sicilia 2017, 768; Vanleene, Verschueren & Voets 2015, 4). An often used definition is that of Parks et al.: “Co-production involves a mixing of the productive efforts of regular and consumer producers. This mixing may occur directly, involving coordinated efforts in the same production process, or indirectly through independent, yet related efforts of the regular producers and consumer producers” (1981, 1002 cited in Vanleene, Verschueren & Voets 2015, 4). This definition focusses more on a business relationship while many other definitions focus more on the government citizen relationship (Bovaird 2007, 847; Joshi & Moore 2006, 40; ). Pestoff posits: “Co-production provides a model for the mix of both public service agents and citizens who contribute to the provision of a public service” (Pestoff 2009, 197). A main characteristics in this relationship is that a degree of power is shifted for the government to the public and a reciprocal relation is formed (Boyle & Harris 2009, 11).

Another main characteristic of co-production is a focus on synergy between government representatives and outsiders. Ostrom emphasizes this phenomenon by stating: “No government can be efficient and equitable without considerable input from citizens. Synergetic outcomes can be fostered to a much greater extent than our academic barriers have let us contemplate” (Ostrom 1996, 1083). In a similar fashion Boyle and Harris envisioned co-production to be a way to do more with less (Boyle and Harris 2009, 19).

(19)

19

In conclusion by taking into account all these different definitions of co-production we can sum up that co-production is built around the involvement of outsiders in a host of policymaking, planning and delivery processes with the goal of creating synergy through citizen input. As the concept is very broad and entails many activities and actors Nabatchi, Sancino and Sicilia suggest we use it as an umbrella concept that needs to be worked out further (Nabatchi, Sancino & Sicilia 2017, 769). I will attempt to do this in the following section.

Types of Co-production and Participation

Co-production and participation can be categorized by various characteristics like who is involved in the process and whether the benefits are enjoyed by the individual or by the larger community. The EPA is a bit both in this respect as a beautiful environment is subjective but can potentially be enjoyed by the larger community but most planning processes are more individual, it is a person who wants to do something with his land.

Moreover as mentioned above there are many activities that fall under the umbrella of co-production and participation, Arnstein hints at this with the ladder of participation (Arnstein 1969). Bovaird & Loeffler come up with seven different activities and examples that fall within production: planning, design, financing, prioritizing, managing, co-delivery and co-evaluation. Each emphasizes a different way in which the public is engaged. In co-planning citizens are asked to actively share their wishes and ideas for a certain plan or policy (upfront) Collaborative planning also falls under this aegis. In co-design a policy or plan is formulated with the citizens. In co-financing the government partly finances a project, plan or policy, the other part is financed by the citizen. Co-prioritizing gives the citizen the possibility to set the policy agenda (or part of a budget) to address their most pressing issues. In co-managing the government and citizens jointly run a specific project often for a longer period of time. With co-delivery the government and citizens jointly deliver a certain service also often for a longer period of time. Finally in co-evaluation the citizens are invited to share their ideas and experiences of a certain policy after it has been running for a while (Bovaird & Loeffler, 2012).

In general the actions do resemble each other somewhat (co-planning and co-design) and clear cuts can‟t always be made as some of the actions will be combined to get the maximum results. What is important to take away is that these action are all part of wider governmental

(20)

20

arrangements to increase responsiveness towards citizens. They are therefore also expected to be a part of the chosen governmental strategy while implementing the EPA. Former experience with these actions can have an effect on the chosen strategy. For the EPA co-financing, co-planning, co-prioritizing and co-design look especially usable as these touch on developing (land-use) plans and determining urgent problems.

3.2: Positive and negative conditions for citizen participation and co-production

In the literature many conditions that can influence the sustainability of a collaborative process are described. These include rules and regulations, clear commitments between government and citizens, the skills that are need on the citizen and government side, interest in the subject and push and pull factors and finally living conditions and social ties (rural, large groups etc.) are mentioned. This section will work out these conditions in more detail (Irvin & Stansbury Ostrom 1996). In her seminal article „crossing the great divide‟ Elinor Ostrom examined several co-production schemes in the developing world. From these cases she drew several favorable results from co-production and citizen participation processes. These were the taking away of legal obstacles and a fast and efficient system of dealing with citizen initiatives. This notion ties in greatly with the goals of the EPA that envisions just that efficiency (Ostrom 1996, 1082).

A first favorable condition is providing a process that makes clear and reciprocal commitments between the government and the public. This is thought to up the stakes for both parties this condition is also voiced by several other authors (Boyle & Harris 2009, 22-23; Ostrom 1996, 1082). Moynihan & Thomas went very far with their view on reciprocity, they posit that sanctions might be helpful to reach the desired level of assistance for citizens, as it will deter non-compliance and it shows that everyone is treated fairly and free-riding is punished (2013, 792). Alford (2002) however stressed the limited effect of these measures and promoted positive reinforcement by the government as being much more effective and beloved option. For the EPA communicating that much is possible in the policy area of environmental planning might just be one of these positive reinforcement. This corresponds with the notion that material and non-material incentives are positively affecting citizen engagement by creating a willingness on the public side. Getting a sense of fulfilment through participation in the process was mentioned as a key driver (Alford, 2002; Bovaird et al. 2015, 17; Ostrom 1996, 1082).

(21)

21

The nature of the process is having a big impact on whether citizen participation or co-production can be sustained. If the process is very hard, complex and increasingly technical participation will not be optimal as potential participants might be scared-off by the magnitude of the task(s) at hand (Bovaird et al. 2015, 16; Irvin & Stansbury 2004, 62). The EPA is looking to be a troublesome case in this respect as the policy field of environmental planning is rather complex and consists of a great bulk of rules and regulations. Further there might be a difference for the kind of citizens that the municipality has, affluent and educated citizens are be expected to be more active and understanding (Alford 2002, 50-51; Irvine & Stansbury 2004, 62). Finally providing citizens with assistance and information might help them overcome this barrier of knowledge, but it still looks to be a challenge (Alford 2002, 50; Jakobsen 2013; Porter 2012). Supplying a user friendly system of information sharing in this policy area might also be much needed as this can lower the costs of obtaining information and knowledge decreases (Meijer 2012). As the resources available to municipalities for informing its inhabitants is expected to be different for larger and smaller municipalities, it is quite possible that they will make very different choices in this respect. This thesis will delve further into this.

In a similar way not only the skills of the citizens are a precondition but participation and co-production also requires much of the professional or the civil servant. For example they really need to engage it‟s potential partners and look into the citizen or other partner‟s needs. Government attempts to draw in citizens and first time initiations have had a positive effect on participation (Buckwalter 2014; Jakobsen, 2013; Marschall 2006). Tuurnas cited a civil servant that was working in a Finish co-production process as stating,” – why do we have to turn on our professional brains? We might as well position ourselves as residents: What would I want? Would I really participate in such and such?” (Tuurnas 2015, 589). This perfectly sums up the need of an open mind and the need for empathy. Good communication skills are an absolute necessity in these processes (Brandsen & Honingh 2015, 882). Moreover the ability to network and connect with partners is needed, a sectoral deep subject knowledge is no longer the only requisite to arrive at a good solution. What is needed is shared and dispersed knowledge and higher levels of interactions between civil servants (Brandsen & Honingh 2015, 882; Tuurnas 2015, 590). The EPA seems to emphasize these notion with its call for a more integral approach to the living environment

(22)

22

Another important condition for implementing participation and co-production is that of interest: is the public actually interested in the subject at hand. Irvin & Stansbury (2004) are rather skeptical here and state that a large part of the public is complacent in a great host of policy issues. Their research on a failed participatory scheme for the management of a watershed showed that it is very hard to bring together different parties for a not very salient subject. People did not want to invest time in the process and did not feel strongly about it. Huitema (1998, 223) came to the same conclusion as he stated “it is hard to motivate citizens to become involved in a highly participatory process” (cited in Irvin & Stansbury 2004, 61). These studies mostly treated on group processes while the EPA will mostly deal with individual citizen needs as it is mostly about how their land can be used and what their direct living space will be a strong motivator. Individual processes give a different set of calculations to participate (Bovaird et al. 2015). Breaking the complacency gridlock can be done when there is a high sense of urgency or even a crisis experience for the individual. Serving self-needs is seen to be highly motivational and can come close to this sense of crisis. Getting personal benefits is often shown to be a key driver to co-produce (Irvine & Stansbury 2004, 62; Moynihan & Thomas 2013). Bovaird et al (2015, 19) stresses the need to come up with creative, attractive and imaginative ways to let citizens be more group inclined in their co-production efforts. A mixture of material incentives needs always to be provided (Moynihan & Thomas, 2013, 792). Some authors also point out that government initiatives such as making available helpful materials can make a difference (Jakobsen 2013). This is one of the greatest challenges that the Dutch municipalities will face when implementing the EPA.

A final condition that is mentioned in the literature is the living space of the inhabitant, the fact that the groups that are targeted for co-production are close to each other (geographically) not too large and mostly homogeneous. Trust is more readily fostered under these conditions as well as stronger incentives to monitor the members of the group, by insiders and outsiders. Face to face meetings and close personal links are of utmost importance here (Irvine & Stansbury 2004, 62; Ostrom 1996, 1082). This would seem to indicate that smaller municipalities would provide somewhat more fertile ground for citizen participation and co-production (Irvin & Stansbury 2004, 62; Ostrom 1990, Poteete & Ostrom 2004, 439-442). Large and diverse groups affected by distance tend to run into much larger coordination problems as many different views and opinions need to be taken into consideration (Poteete & Ostrom 2004, 453). Finally it needs to be noted that negative effects of large group size and low homogeneity can be successfully amended by a well-designed process and institution

(23)

23

(Poteete & Ostrom 2004, 453-455). This confirms that also for the implementation of the EPA there are no one size fits all solutions, at the same time a contingent solution gives an additional problem of predictability as there are many options available to municipalities. It is therefore also expected that the different municipalities (in size amongst others) will make different choices.

In line with this the type of living area and social ties also seems to have some effect on participation. This is especially interesting for this thesis as small municipalities tend to be rural of character while that larger ones tend to be more densely populated rural areas. Living in a rural area is often seen as having a negative influence on the sense of community, as ties are less strong and based on interest rather than on background (like religion, age and closeness) (Stadelmann-Steffen & Freitag 2011). Hooghe & Botterman (2012) did not find a significant impact of rural living on the participation in voluntary organizations but did find a significant effect of belonging to a religion and take part in church services. The effect of these for citizen-government participation and co-production are not thoroughly examined yet but there are some preliminary results. Bovaird et al (2015) found that living in an urban area had a significant but minor positive effect on individual co-production willingness, but did not find strong evidence for an effect on group participation. The results show that this is an interesting area to explore in this thesis as much is still unclear as of yet.

3.3: The effect of size on the positive and negative conditions for citizen engagement

Some of the conditions described above are a given, the complexity of the subject for example holds true for each municipality spatial planning and environmental law are inherently rather complex. It is up to the lawmakers to make the EPA as understandable as possible. Some of the other condition are much more contingent and varied per municipality. Municipal size for has a profound impact on the availability of resources the municipalities are financed in a rather complex way, for a part they get financed by the national government by a system that accounts for a whole host of factors, (sixty in total). These range from the total length of roads, the presence of high schools up to the stability of the ground (VNG 2016c). Another part is the local tax that municipalities can raise (on property and households). For both the factors the rule of the economy of scale do apply a large municipality (measured in

(24)

24

inhabitants) has more households and is more likely to house a high school. This thesis assumes therefore that large municipalities have more resources available. This is strengthened by the fact that larger municipalities also have a larger capacity to attract loans (VNG 2015, 180-182). The amount of resources has an impact on the way civil participation can be implemented. As we saw above resources were a great necessity to make citizen participation and co-production processes successful. It can also mean that larger municipalities de facto can introduce many more processes and can build up experience through that. Resources can also allow municipalities to invest more heavily in projects as a measure of co-financing and have more money available to oil certain projects. Finally having more financial resources can allow a municipality to attract more external temporary experts.

Resources are not only financial and also technology is seen as being very important. A modern up to date IT system that is easy to use has been shown to make citizen engagement much easier (Meijer 2014). The EPA is determined to work with a system that is easy to use and accessible for citizens. Developing and running such a system however is very costly, so costly that municipal cooperation might be needed for the smaller municipalities to provide for this.

This notion of scale also has influence on the municipal workforce, a larger municipality by having more inhabitants can also afford and is expected to have a larger workforce. However not only scale has an influence on this, even when looking at the amount of civil servants per thousand inhabitant the larger cities are high on the list (Bekkers 2008). So in absolute and relative sense larger municipalities have a larger workforce. This can have a big impact on implementing citizen participation. Small municipalities by having less civil servants are much more vulnerable as they often only have one employee in a particular function while larger municipalities often have multiple. This allows larger municipalities to have a larger degree of continuity. Tuurnaas (2015) mentioned the importance of learning how to co-produce but as mentioned above the larger municipalities also have a greater chance of running more citizen participation and co-production schemes and therefore build up more expertise through those projects, a smaller municipality through its size will need to be more selective. There can also be more information exchange between civil servants in the larger municipalities.

Tuurnas also mentioned the importance of skills and expertise in co-production processes (Tuurnas 2015). In general larger municipalities through size and resources do have the better civil servants. They are better able to provide growth possibilities and are able to develop the

(25)

25

skills through courses, programs etc. Good employees in small municipalities also tend to transfer to larger municipalities for these reasons too. Also a higher salary has a major impact (Oostrom-van der Meijden & Leijs 2010, 18). It is also the question whether a given municipality has enough skilled and expert civil servants within its workforce, if not external help might be needed. If that is the case the notion above of resources comes into the picture again. With limited resources municipalities might be more selective in what to focus on when setting their ambition levels.

Not everything that is big is good however the civil corps in smaller municipalities while being less experts are more generalists and more able to do a lot of things. Especially for working more integral this could be an advantage as lines are shorter and there are less people in total (us knows us). This notion is also true for co-production processes, having a closer and more familiar community is seen as a major positive factor for installing citizen participation and co-production processes (Irvin & Stansbury 2004, 62; Ostrom 1990, Poteete & Ostrom, 2004, 439-442). To add to this larger municipalities also tend to be much more diverse which makes co-operation much harder to coordinate as multiple experiences and values can clash. Also in the Netherlands the smaller rural areas tend to have closer more collective (religious and organizational) communities, Stadelmann-Steffen & Freitag (2011) saw this as an important connector between people.

In conclusion size is expected to have a large impact on the ambitions and ability to choose an external focus, with a possibility for higher degrees of citizen participation and co-production and more responsiveness for municipalities. It will be interesting how the factors mentioned above impact the choices a given municipalities makes.

3.4: The envisioned causal model.

To sum up the theoretical section of this thesis, size is expected to have an impact on a host of positive and negative pre-conditions for high levels of citizen participation and co-production or in the words of the VNG preconditions for having an external focus. Size is expected to have an impact on the municipal strategy in multiple ways. In this paragraph a model is proposed to make this visually clear (see figure 2). Size is expected to have a strong impact on the availability of resources, having a larger size will give you more resources is the assumption of the model. More resources will give you more funds to choose an ambitious

(26)

26

strategy moreover it grants you more options to fund and oil participation projects and finally allow you to more easily run and develop a usable ICT System and attract external experts.

Figure 3.2: A graphical representation of the impact of size on EPA implementation choices.

Size is also expected to have an impact on the workforce of a municipality. A larger municipality is expected to operate on a larger scale and therefore be larger on a whole. This allows for more specialization and allows the municipality to run more projects and gain experience through that. The workforce and resources are also connected as more monetary resources will allow for more easily attracting more external experts. Size can also affect the internal workings of the municipality as being larger will require a different and more layered organization form. Being small has an advantage for increasing integrality as people are already more familiar with each other.

Size Resources Workforce Type of community Implementation Strategy

(27)

27

Size finally is also expected to have an impact on the closeness of the community. Us knows us is more readily available in smaller and closed societies. Moreover small communities tend to be more homogenous. Religion and organizational life might play a strong connecting role in the smaller communities.

Size in this project will be the independent variable as it is expected to have an influence on the three different main variables: resources, civil service corps and the type of community for various reasons stated above. Those three factors are predicted to have a major impact on the dependent variable; The ambition level of a given municipality and the corresponding strategy (internal focus or external focus) as determined by the VNG model. In this model citizen participation and co-production elements are imagined to be much more prevalent if an outward focus is chosen as the ambition of a municipality.

3.5: Propositions

Having described this thesis‟ imagined causal model and through that model the expected effect of municipal size on implementation ambition and the respective strategies. We can now offer some tentative expectations in the shape of propositions. In general small and large municipalities are expected to be radically different and direct opposites.

P1: Size is expected to have a strong effect on resources (the larger the more resources) and resource are much needed to effectively run an ambitious strategy. In this respect larger municipalities are expected to be better able to be more ambitious and have embrace the possibilities of the EPA more readily. Based on this I expect to see the distinguishing and innovative strategy in the larger municipalities. On the other hand smaller municipalities are therefore expected to be less able to choose an ambitious strategy and are expected to be more conservative and choose a strategy accordingly. This would lead to the consolidating or calculating strategy.

P2: Municipality size is expected to have an effect on the expertise and size of the municipal civil service corps (the bigger the municipality the larger and more expertized the corps). Big municipalities are expected to be less vulnerable and more offensive and ambitious while implementing the EPA. Therefore I expect the larger municipalities to employ the distinguishing or innovative strategy. In contrast Small municipalities have a smaller and less specialized civil servant corps, that makes them more vulnerable. They are therefore expected

(28)

28

to be less likely to choose an outward focus when implementing the EPA. This would lead to the consolidating or calculating strategy.

P3: Municipal size is expected to have an effect on the kind of society a municipality finds within its soil. Large municipalities are expected to have more remote links with their inhabitants, and also among their inhabitants. The lose ties will make implementing the outward focus much more challenging in larger municipalities. This is expected to lead to a less ambitious strategy (consolidating or calculating). Smaller municipalities are expected to have tighter links (us knows us). Those links are also more often more set and institutionalized (for example through religion). Closer ties to and between citizens will make and outward focus easier to implement so in this area the distinguishing or innovative strategy might be more reasonable to apply.

This study will explore these propositions and investigate whether the envisioned links and causal mechanisms hold up in practice.

(29)

29 Chapter 4: Methodology

This chapter will set out the research methodology used in this research project. In the first section the research design will be described. In the second section the case selection will be explained and presented, the third section will set out the way the data is collected. The fourth section will operationalize the various variables used in this research project and give indicators for each of these variables. The final section will go into the issue of validity and reliability for this study.

4.1: Research design

The central focus of this thesis is a comparison between municipalities. Size is the prime distinction as we want to investigate its effect on the EPA implementation process. As the implementation of the EPA is still a developing research setting and as we are still in an infant stage of the process, this topic and setting lends itself well for a more explorative research method. The propositions are more tentative in that sense as we cannot yet test strong hypotheses. The method that suits these needs is a small-N comparative study, by which we study the effect of size on municipal ambitions and strategies (Toshkov 2016, 259-260). By comparing municipalities that differ in size but are similar in other relevant aspects like being located in the province of Utrecht, we can see if size really matters in the setting of the EPA. As this is a rather new topic that has not yet been studied up closely an small-N comparative study is fitting. The aim is to cast a wide net and draw some tentative first conclusions in order to get more data to formulate a theory

4.2: Case Selection

In the Netherlands the province still has a large role in organizing and coordinating environmental and spatial planning. The choices a municipality can make are limited by what the province has determined. To control for this fact and for the larger regional variations I have chosen to focus this research project within a single province.

To select the municipalities within that province several criteria will be used. First of all it is of major importance if the municipality has already begun with planning to implement the EPA, otherwise the dependent variable wouldn‟t be present within that case. The degree of

(30)

30

progress however is expected to vary from case to case, with some of the municipalities being front runners while others will lag behind.

A import selection criteria is size by the amount of inhabitants, this is the prime measurement used to capture municipal size in the Netherlands. One of the most important differences here will be municipal size. Size is chosen as a vital component as it is related to many different variations (as chapter 3 showed). Size is of course a very relative concept and to come to a rigid measurement the categorization of municipal size as determined by the ministry of home affairs is it will be used. Under 20.000 is seen as small in this study, from 20.001 up to 55.000 is seen as medium and 55.001 and over is seen as large. In the In the Netherlands there currently are 27 municipalities who have 100.000+ inhabitants. While there are around 300 municipalities with less than 40.000 inhabitants (Ernst 2017).

The amount of inhabitants is not the only determining factor for size; therefore additional and factor will be taken into account. These are for example the population density within a municipality, the amount of villages within a municipality and the total territory of the municipality. The goal is to select cases in such a way that there are different types of municipalities within each of the size classes. This will add variety to the findings of this study.

As mentioned above the amount of settlements a municipality has within its territory can also play an important role. Settlement often vary in character and that variation might have a large impact on participation strategies. By selecting municipalities that have a different amount of settlements in each of the classes we can control for this fact. A fourth criteria is the amount of territory a municipality has, this determines the balance between urban and more rural areas within a municipality. The fifth criteria also addresses this rural and urban balance. The feature is known as inhabitant density, it is formed by a combination territory size and amount of inhabitants. You can calculate this number by dividing the amount of inhabitants by the size of the territory in km². By using this set of criteria we can be assured that a good balance of different municipalities is selected. It also controls for features other than the amount of inhabitants.

The province that is ultimately selected is Utrecht. Utrecht has some major advantages, first of all it is the most central of the provinces in the Netherlands. Secondly as the map (figure 1) shows, Utrecht as a province has a great variation of density within its borders. There are highly populated areas with Utrecht, Amersfoort and Zeist and Nieuwegein being prime

(31)

31

examples. This is offset with the availability of very low dense areas like Lopik, Renswoude and Eemnes. Many municipalities also exhibit an interesting combination between high density areas and low density areas here there are high populated cores with low populated rural backlands examples are Woerden, Stichtse Vecht and Ronde Venen.

Figure 4.1: The inhabitant density of Utrecht: Retrieved from: Destaatvanutrecht.nl

A final important feature of Utrecht is that it has a fair amount of municipalities with varied amounts of settlements. Lopik, Stichtse Vecht and Ronde Venen all have a high amount, while Renswoude, Utrecht and Nieuwegein have a very low amount of settlements.

By following the criteria set out in the previous paragraph nine different cases were selected in the end (See table 1). Three in each of the classes in amount of inhabitants (small, medium and large). The three cases within each of the classes also vary in amounts of settlements with their territory, their total territory and it‟s density.

(32)

32

Municipality Size:

Inhabitants

Territory (in km²) Density (Inhabitans

divided by territory)

Number of Settlements

Utrecht G4 94.93 Large 3650 Low

Zeist Large 48.45 Medium 1296 Medium

Stichtse Vecht Large 96.62 Large 666 High

Woerden Medium 89.35Large 577 Medium

De Ronde Venen

Medium 116.98 Large 929 High

Lopik Small 75.75 Large 188 High

Woudenberg Small 36.53 Medium 350 Low

Renswoude Small 18.42 Small 278 Low

Table 4.1: The selected cases.

G4 sized municipality:

Utrecht is the largest municipality within the province of Utrecht. It is one of the four largest municipalities in the Netherlands. It has a total of 344.384 inhabitants and can be considered a large city. It consists of three settlements Utrecht, de Meern and Vleuten. It has a relatively large territory with 94.93 km². Utrecht is also a very dense municipality with 3650 inhabitants per km². Because of its huge size in comparison to the other big municipalities, I have decided to introduce a fourth class of municipal size. It would not be methodologically sound to put together Utrecht with municipalities that are six times smaller. Utrecht is a special case because of that size and only four municipalities in the Netherlands are somewhat comparable to it, therefore in the province of Utrecht it deserves its own class.

Large sized municipalities:

The class of large municipalities is made up by two municipalities, Zeist and Stichtse Vecht. Stichtse Vecht has 64.611 inhabitants. It is quite recently formed by a municipal merger and it

Implementing the Environmental Planning Act in Dutch municipalities