Community participation in Room for the River projects

(1)

Community participation in Room for the River projects

A research on the role of community participation in Room for the River projects in Nijmegen and Deventer

Author: Marc Baauw

Student number: S2613972 Supervisor: H. Hoeckner Spatial planning and design Faculty of spatial sciences University of Groningen

(2)

Abstract

Climate change is gaining more interest as the effects are more evident. Flood events in the past and predicted flood risks for the future caused the Dutch government to set up a national programme in order to prevent cities from flooding. Within a paradigm shift from merely fighting water by building dikes to a more integrated and resilient approach ‘Room for the River’ was set up, a national flood protection plan for the Dutch rivers. Although the programme was a nation-wide project, it was divided into 34 independent projects executed by local governments. This integral way of executing different projects under one programme fits within the concept of resilience and contributes to the way communities think about water management and flood risk protection. One of the aspects of a resilient approach on flood risk management is community participation. This research focuses on two sub-projects from the room for the river programme in Nijmegen and Deventer, and the role of community participation within those projects, what has been done to make involvement possible and how this contributes to the process from a perspective of different stakeholders. For this purpose interviews were conducted with involved municipalities, provinces, water boards and Rijkswaterstaat to get insights in their contribution and perspective on community participation. Whereas both Nijmegen and Deventer had similarities within their use of participation tools, they also had their own ways of incorporating participation in a sense that Nijmegen incorporated participation in concrete cases, whilst participation in Deventer was part of the project throughout the whole process. However, when linking the results to the theory, both projects show the relevance of community participation in water management projects. This is also reflected by the way Room for the River projects in general fit within the transition to a more integrated way of planning.

(3)

1. Introduction

1.1 Climate change and water management

Within the past two decades climate change has become a more and more urgent problem. It has put the focus on predicted future issues like sea-level rise, and more and heavier precipitation leading to higher peaks in river runoff (Restemeyer et al., 2015; Muller, 2007; Flood & Schechtman, 2014;

Kwadijk, 2010; Lu & Stead, 2013). Especially the last issue brings high risks for the Netherlands due to the fact that more than half of its area is prone to flooding, with 26% lying under the sea level and 29% exposed to risks of river flooding (PBL, 2010).

Since the flood disaster in 1953, it became clear that only protecting against water with dikes and other defence mechanisms is not sufficient and a new approach to water management is needed (Brouwer, 2015). Among other flood events in the 1990s this lead to “institutional changes and a reframing of the system of decision-making” (Lu & Stead, 2013, p. 200). Whereas the flood disaster in 1953 lead to immediate response from governments in order to build defences, flood events in 1993 and 1995 lead to discussions about the way the government dealt with water defence resulting in new planning strategies like ‘give water more space’ (Lu & stead, 2013). Despite the fact that there were no dike breaches in 1993 and 1995, doubt arose about the stability of the dikes and more than 200.000 people were evacuated which led to overthinking of the water defence strategies. Merely increasing the height of dikes was considered to be insufficient leading to other measures.

Within this thought the government set up a national plan called ‘Ruimte voor de Rivier’ focussing on giving the rivers more space instead of just strengthen the dikes in order to lower the risk of flooding (Projectorganisatie Ruimte voor de Rivier, 2006). The plan consisted of approximately 30 subprojects divided along the Rhine, Waal, Maas and Ijssel using different measures depending on the spatial possibilities and financial costs. Some of these measures are excavation or inland shifting of dikes, lowering of floodplains and the construction of flood channels. This research focuses on two bigger subprojects: ‘Ruimte voor de Waal’ in Nijmegen and ‘Ruimte voor de rivier Deventer’.

1.2 Shift in water management

It is evident that the flood risks related climate change should not be ignored. In Dutch water management a paradigm shift is visible towards a more adaptive way of coping with water-related issues, like living with water (Lu & Stead, 2013). There has also been a shift to a more integrated way of planning (Lu & Stead, 2013; Kwadijk et al., 2010). This transition towards more of a resilience approach, according to Van der Brugge et al. (2005, p. 171) “is in a stage in which the integral, participatory water management paradigm is being implemented”, which can be seen in room for the river projects.

Besides a shift from fighting against water to living with water, there has also been a shift in the field of urban planning from ‘planning for the people’ to ‘planning with the people’ (Mensah et al., 2016).

Van der Brugge et al. (2005, p. 171) show that the policy report ‘Anders omgaan met water’ (2000) already proposed a “a participatory and anticipative river-basin approach”. Moreover, “participation is

(6)

deemed an essential element in developing adaptive and integrated water management” (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007; Watson, 2007; Huitema et al., 2009, in Lamers et al., 2010, p. 2) because it increases societal support which is beneficial for the result (Mensah et al., 2016). Complications can arise, however, when decisions of governments have no support from the community it decides for. Also, there are limits on public participation according to Meadowcroft (1998) and Van der Arend (2007, In Lamers et al., 2010) because ideally community participation would be represented by everyone affected by the process which is ‘practically impossible’. Especially in flood risk development projects, where the relevance for adequate measures and benefits for the community are obvious, clear communication between governments and communities is needed.

1.3 Resilience and water management

Besides the relevance of climate change for water management and a shift within this field towards a more integrated approach, the concept of resilience has gained global popularity as well according to Flood & Schechtman “since the early 2000’s” (2014, p. 21). Within this research the concept of resilience will build a bridge between water management and the measures taken to prevent flooding on one side, and the relevance of community participation on the other side.

1.4 Research problem and question

In order to get insights in how community participation is integrated in the planning process within a transition towards a ´living with water´ system, this research will look at ´Room for the river´ projects in Nijmegen and Deventer. These projects are interesting because they were both executed within a urban context, affecting relatively more people than rural projects. Furthermore, according to the evaluation of the design processes (ECORYS, 2011), in both Deventer and Nijmegen an above average amount of attention was spent on the spatial quality with positive results due to relatively higher municipal commitment in these projects. The aim is to get a view on the role of community participation within the projects and the lessons which can be learned from this role.

This is represented by the following research question:

How is community participation integrated in ‘room for the river projects’ in Nijmegen and Deventer?

This question will be supported by the following sub-questions:

- Which role does community participation play in the project plans?

- What do decision makers do to involve the community?

- What does the community do to get involved in the process?

- To what extent can community participation be seen in the final plans?

- How does community participation relate to resilience in these projects?

1.5 Readers guide

In chapter 2 the theoretical framework will be discussed in which relevant scientific theories and concepts will be explained which form the basis of this research. This will be followed by the methodology section in chapter 3 which will contain a description of the chosen methods, the data

(7)

collection process, analysis and ethical considerations. In chapter 4 the results of the data collection will be presented followed by a conclusion and discussion in chapter 5.

(8)

2. Theoretical framework

In this chapter the relevance of different factors and concepts arising from the research problem will be discussed based on existing scientific literature, also building further on the introduction chapter.

Also general information about the two sub-projects will be provided in this chapter followed by a conceptual model and hypotheses.

2.1.1 The concept of resilience in water management

Resilience is a concept broadly used in different contexts. As Alexander (2013, in Flood &

Schechtman, 2014) explains the concept was originally used in the fields of law and politics and later on in science and humanities. However, after the concept was picked up in mechanics, ecology and psychology it passed on and was adopted by social science and sustainable science. According to Flood & Schechtman (2014) the global use of the term resilience increased since the early 2000’s, mostly related to projects in the field of coastal protection or flood defence. In their study they try to understand the concept of resilience from the perspective of engineering, ecology and psychology but find that although the strength of the concept lies in its multi-system application, its weakness is

“its lack of specificity” (p. 29). However, more studies show the application of the concept of resilience within a water management context. Lu & stead (2013, p. 200) argue that “the use of the term resilience is often limited in scope and often considered as a synonym for adaption” if using it within the context of planning . Flood resilience, as more specifically described by Restemeyer et al.

(2015) consists of three main aspects, focussing on the whole cycle of hazard control: Robustness, adaptability and transformability. Whereas robustness means the ability to withstand a flood through the usage of barriers like dikes, adaptability and transformability have a more social implication.

Adaptability is about the ability of a city to be prepared for a flood event, so that if it occurs damage is limited incorporating physical as well as social preparedness. Transformability highlights the ability of a city and its society to shift towards more integrated approaches such as ‘living with the water’

instead of just ‘fighting the water’.

Although adaptability and transformability seem closely related, transformability is only the case if, besides physical changes in the environment, there are changes in peoples mind-sets. Lu & Stead (2013) also name robustness as an aspect of resilience together with rapidity. Whereas they define robustness as the strength of a system to “carry and absorb uncertain disturbances” (Lu & Stead, 2013, p. 201), which is not very different to how Restemeyer et al. (2015) define robustness, they define the rapidity of a system as “the flexibility to rearrange itself into a new stable state (which is not always the same as its previous state) after a collapse occurs” (Lu & Stead, 2013, p. 201). Hereby they add that the cities new condition does not necessarily has to be the same as how it was previous to the disturbance. Moreover, McEwen et al. (2017) argue resilience (besides the ability to resist, adapt and transform) also is a network of capacities in which people obtain knowledge of past events.

Among other aspects, communication and social capital (‘watery sense of place’) are mentioned.

They address another type of resilience which can be relevant for flood risk management as well, namely community resilience. They describe it as “a process linking a network of adaptive capacities […] to adaptation after a disturbance or adversity” (McEwen et al., 2017, p. 15). This ‘adaption’ can be seen as the necessary change in people’s mind-sets in order to speak of transformability as argued by Restemeyer et al. (2015). Also ‘rapidity’ as mentioned by Lu & Stead (2013) and transformability seem to correspond with each other in a way that both transformability and rapidity refer to a

(9)

transition – or in other words rearrangement – from one phase to another. It is clear that resilience, in terms of water management, is not easily defined from one perspective.

2.1.2 Relevance of community participation

Besides resilience, McEwen et al. (2017) mention the concepts lay knowledge, such as “local, informal, traditional or vernacular knowledge” (Degen et al., 2013, in McEwen et al., 2017, p. 16) and flood memory which are focusing more on the social capital of communities than the planning process as a whole. Lay knowledge is important because it can highlight the ‘mismatches between local knowledge and scientific assessment’ (Monbiot, 2014, in McEwen et al. 2017). Moreover, McEwen et al. (2017) argue that the relevance of flood memory lies in the integration between individual and collective experiences, and thereby the integration of individual and collective knowledge.

To use individual knowledge, communication between the community and the decision makers is necessary. According to McEwen et al. (2017) only relying on ´expert knowledge ´ has its limitations.

Therefore, community participation and social agreements on acceptable flood risks should be incorporated. Apparently, according to several sources mentioned in Mensah et al. (2016, p. 2)

“community participation is considered essential for fair and representative decision-making in planning process because such participation helps in framing land-use plans to address various needs, problems and interests of communities to achieve more positive results”. Creighton (2005) and Healy (2006) (in Lamers et al., 2010, p. 2) add it is also necessary for “developing well-balanced plans with wider societal support, creating transparency for the public, and allowing smoother policy implementation”. This highlights the relevance of community participation in decision making in order to create a resilient urban design.

Concerning community participation and what it enhances, Arnstein, in his research on participation in 1969, already proposed a ‘ladder of participation’ in which a hierarchy is seen on the extent in which a community can participate in a decision making process. Within this ladder eight types of participation are ranked from low to high participation: Manipulation, therapy, informing, consultation, placation, partnership, delegated power and citizen control. However, in more recent research Edelenbos (2000, in Edelenbos et al., 2006) shows a similar participation ladder in which only 5 types of participation are included:

Informing: The government pursues a policy on which they in inform the society about. The society on their turn doesn’t give any input.

Consulting: The government decides about their policy. however they give the community the opportunity to give comments on the policy. The community is only a consulting partner in such a way that although they can comment on the policy, the government doesn’t have to incorporate those comments.

Advising: The government decides about their policy. Besides giving the community the opportunity to give comments, they are more open for other ideas or solutions. The community has an advising role in which they are a serious source of input.

(10)

Coproducing: The government decides about the policy in compliance with certain preconditions or they decide their policy together with the participant as an equivalent partner. In this type of participation the community has a moderate codeciding role.

Codeciding: The government leaves policy making mostly to the participant, although they have a facilitating role. The community is initiator.

Within a water management project the most suitable type of participation, however, depends on different factors as Breman et al. (2008) set out. They mention the complexity of the problem, the flexibility of the goals, the diversity within the stakeholders and the motivation of the stakeholders as factors to take into account. This leaves the decision makers with the task to define the problem and accordingly chose the desired type of participation. However, considering relying on expert knowledge has limitations, as McEwen et al. (2017) explain and if community participation is indeed seen as an essential element, as said by Mensah et al. (2016), a combination of different types of participation can provide a solution.

2.1.3 Resilience and community participation

Kwadijk et al. (2010) say there are currently two approaches within climate adaption policy which are being operated on regional and local levels. The predictive top-down approach, which is more traditional and most widely used and the resilient bottom-up approach. Whereas the top-down approach primarily uses climate projections and quantitative data to base policy on, the bottom-up approach is less bound to these predictions. Kwadijk et al. (2010, p. 730) add that the bottom-up approach focusses on “vulnerability and risk management by examining the adaptive capacity and adaptation measures required to improve the resilience and robustness of a system exposed to climate change”, meaning that it is also fixated on qualitative data. Here we can also see similarities with on one hand the resilience definition used by Restemeyer et al. (2015) in which adaptability and robustness are crucial. On the other hand Kwadijk et al. (2010) name adaptive capacity as aspect of bottom-up approaches in planning which matches with the community resilience definition of McEwen et al. (2017). In this way a resilience approach can be seen as a bottom-up approach in which community participation is relevant. When linking this to the participation ladder as proposed by Edelenbos (2000, in Edelenbos et al. 2006), more intensive types of participation seem more suitable, such as coproducing and codeciding. This does not mean, however, aspects of other types of participation should not be incorporated as well.

(11)

2.2 Room for the river cases

‘Room for the River’ is a national design plan, set up by the Dutch government in 2006. As already mentioned shortly in paragraph 1.1 the plan initially consisted of 39 measures, spread over 30 locations in the Netherlands (Rijkswaterstaat), of which 34 where eventually executed. The aim of setting up this programme was to reach a certain decrease of the water levels in the rivers during peak drainage, as it is expected that more and heavier rainfall puts higher pressure on the rivers draining capacities thus increasing flood risk (van Twist et al. 2011). Two of the sub-projects this research focuses on are ‘Ruimte voor de Waal’ and ‘Ruimte voor de Rivier Deventer’. Figure 1 shows the location of these projects in The Netherlands. Both projects will be elaborated on in the next paragraphs.

Figure 1: Project locations sub-projects (Ruimte voor de Rivier, adjusted)

(12)

2.2.1 Project ‘Ruimte voor de Waal, Nijmegen’

Nijmegen is a Dutch city in the province of Gelderland with 173 934 inhabitants according to the central bureau for statistics (CBS, 2017). Most of the cities area lies on the southern bank of the Waal river. At the western side of the city, the river makes a sharp turn creating a bottleneck. According to the project organisation (Municipality of Nijmegen & i-Lent, 2016) high water levels in 1993 and 1995 called for adequate measures, leading to the setup of the national programme ‘Room for the River’.

‘Ruimte voor de Waal’ was a sub-project of ‘Nijmegen omarmt de Waal’ which was part of the room for the river programme and was completed in 2015. The project area, as can be seen on figure 2, covered the part of the Waal between the city centre of Nijmegen on the southern bank and the village of Lent on the northern bank. The measures taken within this project included the relocation of the dike on the northern bank 350 metres inland and the excavation of a flood-bypass, creating a multifunctional island in the middle of the river. The measures result in a water level drop of 35 centimetres.

Figure 2: Project area ‘Ruimte voor de Waal’ (De Gelderlander, 2007, adjusted)

(13)

2.2.2 Project: ‘Ruimte voor de Rivier Deventer’

Deventer is a Dutch city in the Province of Overijssel with 99 431 inhabitants (CBS, 2017). The city is located on the eastern bank of the Ijssel river. Due to the predicted increase in peak drainage of the Ijssel river, the project ‘Ruimte voor de Rivier Deventer’ was necessary to maintain the same level of security (Waterschap Groot-Salland, 2010). Just like ‘Ruimte voor de Waal’, this project was completed in 2015. The measures consisted of the excavation of several floodplains stretching out over a length of 10 kilometres towards the village of Olst in the north, as can be seen on figure 3. The measures result in a water level drop of at least 10 centimetres and even at least 17 centimetres at the most upstream part of the project.

Figure 3: Project area ‘Ruimte voor de Rivier Deventer’ (Waterschap Groot-Salland, 2010)

(14)

2.3 Conceptual model

Figure 4: Conceptual model

2.4 Explanation conceptual model

Climate change leads to an increase in flood risk due to sea-level rise, more and heavier rainfall and higher peak drainage of rivers. In order to minimize these risks flood risk management is needed.

Influenced by the resilience approach a transition in flood risk management has been seen in which participation and integration are essential. Within the resilience approach three main aspects are visible: Robustness, adaptability and transformability in which transformability concerns participation and integration. Both the transition in flood risk management and the aspects of participation and integration are reflected in the Room for the river programme as set up by the national government.

Furthermore, participation and integration are influenced by both the community and the decision makers as part of the planning process which contributes to how the room for the river projects are shaped.

(15)

3. Methodology

Following up the previous chapters, this chapter contains the aim of this research and an explanation of the data collection and analysis methods used in this research based on the research questions mentioned in chapter 1 and theories discussed in chapter 2.

3.1 Aim of the research

This research tries to get insights in how community participation is taken into account within flood risk planning projects like ‘room for the river’, in order to provide a view on the role of community participation and the lessons which can be learned from the projects. Two ‘subprojects’ within this national project were chosen to be researched: ‘Ruimte voor de Waal’ in Nijmegen and ‘Ruimte voor de rivier Deventer’. The room for the river projects fit in the transition from fighting against to living with water. Vis et al. (2003, p. 34) state that ‘resilient flood risk management is flood risk management that aims at giving room to the floods but with concurrent impact minimization’, which is practically what room for the river does. Both projects aim at lowering the river water level to avoid flooding and both projects facilitate recreational development (Ruimte voor de Rivier, 2016). These projects are comparable, firstly because they are both conducted under the same national programme both aiming at decreasing the river water level. Furthermore, as already mentioned in paragraph 1.4, both projects were executed within an urban context in which they affect relatively more people than projects within a rural context. Also ECORYS (2011) mentions both Deventer and Nijmegen as cities where relatively higher municipal commitment was seen due to an above average amount of attention on spatial quality.

3.2 Data collection

In order to get insights in relevant concepts and theories and how they relate to this research and to each other, a literature research was done to explore existing scientific literature. Together these concepts and theories form the theoretical background for this research, as presented in the theoretical framework of chapter 2.

For answering the research question and the sub-questions, qualitative research was done. The first sub-question of the research problem: ‘Which role does community participation play in the project plans?,’ can be answered by collecting and analysing secondary data, such as planning documents of the two projects. Secondary data, as described in Clifford et al. (2010), is useful because a lot of information is already out there. They add that “such data are an indispensable source of information for many student projects” (p. 61) and say it “may prelude data collection […] for comparison between places”. This is relevant since this research compares two different cases.

In order to get answers on the other sub-questions this research used semi-structured interviews as a way to collect primary data. The reason behind the choice for interviewing is that semi-structured interviews, although guided by several general questions about the topic, leave room for the participant to give an open response (Clifford et al., 2010, p. 105). Therefore this research will be a qualitative research. As Valentine (2005, in Clifford et al., 2010, p.108) explain: “the aim of an interview […] is not to be representative […] but to understand how individual people experience and make sense of their own lives”. This is the case in this research in which peoples experiences on participation are questioned, generating subjective and interpretative data. Surveys would limit the respondent in their answers or will not give the researcher the opportunity to ask further on given answers. As surveys are useful for collecting data about certain behaviours or patterns (Clifford et al., 2010), this is not what this research is aiming to achieve.

(16)

3.3 Interviewee target group

The goal was to conduct interviews with several different stakeholders of about 3 or 4 interviews per project. On one side this would be the municipalities, the provinces, water boards and Rijkswaterstaat. On the other side the goal was to conduct interviews with one or two community members. The chairman of a neighbourhood association if present, would be a desirable expert because of the variety and diversity within a community, and because otherwise the amount of people to be interviewed would be too much.

The organisations mentioned above were formally contacted. To get in contact with the right person, emails were send to the general email-address asking for contact information of the one involved in the concerning project, mentioning my motives for contacting them. If email turned out to be insufficient, the organisation was contacted by telephone. In some cases the right person was contacted directly.

Eventually 7 interviews were conducted in total. For the case of Nijmegen 4 interviews were conducted with the municipality, the province, the water board and Rijkswaterstaat. For the case of Deventer 3 interviews were conducted with the municipality, the province and the water board.

These interviews took place at a time and location preferred by the interviewee. An overview of the conducted interviews can be found in table 1.

Table 1: Interview information (Own source)

Despite contacting several neighbourhood associations, however, this lead to non-response or a notion they were not involved, hence the absence of that target group within this research.

Nevertheless , two different interview guides were constructed because there is a difference within the perspective of the intended interviewees: decision makers and governments on one side and citizens on the other side. The introduction is still the same for both target groups. The second interview guide was not necessary. The interview guide which was used for this research is included in appendix 1, as well as the alternative interview guide (Appendix 2).

(17)

3.4 Analisys

Analysis of the interviews was done using a coding scheme. According to Meghan Cope (in Clifford et al. 2010, p. 441) “Coding is basically a way of evaluating and organising data in an effort to understand meanings in a text” and “helps the researcher identify categories and patterns”. The coding method used for this research is descriptive coding, in which the codes were constructed beforehand.

The following coding scheme will give an overview of the different codes:

Planproces Participatie Soort participatie Ervaringen geïnterviewde

Succesfactoren Valkuilen Top-down

Bottom-up

Veel Weinig Neutraal

Informeren Raadplegen Adviseren Coproduceren Meebeslissen

Goed Slecht Neutraal

Duidelijkheid Maatwerk Transparantie Betrouwbaarheid Realistische verwachtingen Relevantie

Luisteren naar mening

Compensatie

Impulsiviteit Gebrek aan tijd Gevoel dat mening er niet toe doet Teleurstellingen uit het verleden

Relevantie onvoldoende Onbetrouwbaarheid Onduidelijkheid Table 2: Coding scheme (Own source based on Knoop, 2016)

As the interviews were conducted in Dutch the transcripts are Dutch as well. Therefore, a Dutch coding scheme was more sufficient. However, appendix 3 includes the coding scheme in English.

3.4 Reflection on data

As mentioned in section 3.2, it was not possible to reach involved stakeholders from a community perspective like neighbourhood associations. This results in data which is mostly collected from governmental organisations giving a one-sided view on the topic. However, this will not be much of a problem since the aim of the research is not affected by this inconvenience. Because the data is of a qualitative nature, data collected from interviews can be slightly untrue since it is based on memory and experiences which are hard to fact-check.

3.5 Ethical considerations

Because the parties involved in this research are governmental organisations, the interviewees, although speaking about their own experiences, represent these organisations. Therefore, and for privacy reasons the names of the interviews will not be mentioned in this research. In this research, every interviewee has been approached respectfully. Prior to each interview, every interviewee has been asked for permission to record the interview.

(18)

4. Results

In this chapter the results of the data collection as elaborated on in chapter 3 are presented. Findings from the secondary as well as the primary data collection are set out based on the sub-questions. In this way the results will give a structured overview on the different aspects.

4.1 Role of participation in project plans

The importance of community participation is stressed in different documents and webpages.

However, it is mostly mentioned as an important aspect without any further elaboration on how participation is going to be incorporated. Especially in governmental documents as the ‘Startnotitie milieu effect rapportage’ (Gemeente Nijmegen & Waterschap Rivierenland, 2009) or the ‘Planstudie Ruimte voor de Rivier Deventer’ (Waterschap Groot Salland, 2010) participation is mentioned in a procedural context, using it as a legally mandatory tool instead of a desired part of the process.

Although it seems that way, other documents do elaborate on the role participation in the room for the river programme. Jan Hendrik Dronkers (in Rijkswaterstaat & UNESCO-IHE, 2013) points out that the goal was to include the community as early as possible. This fits the image of the room for the river programme and the integral approach it encompasses and contributes to local support, which in turn contributes to less resistance.

The same document also stresses the strength of local governments as initiator of certain projects.

Whereas technical measures where mostly initiated by Rijkswaterstaat, local governments initiated the measures with a bigger focus on spatial quality. In this way not only spatial quality, but also societal support got more attention.

As for the role of community participation in the project plans, there is no large difference between the project in Nijmegen and Deventer. The importance is mostly stressed in general ‘Room for the river’ documents. The aim of these documents is primarily to elaborate on the technical measures and the spatial quality, thus focussing on the final result and less on the process. One of these documents is PKB Ruimte voor de Rivier (Projectorganisatie Ruimte voor de Rivier, 2006) in which it is mentioned that there has to be a certain flexibility within the plans, meaning that measures should be open for other initiatives if socially more desired. This could be interpreted as a certain degree of freedom in which the community can initiate their thoughts.

However, when looking at Nijmegen for instance, there are a view concrete examples of how they planned to get the community to be involved. Under the ‘frequently asked questions’ section on their project-website they state:

“The municipality thinks it is important to keep the residents up to date concerning the developments within the project. This will be done by information meetings, theme meetings, this website and the newsletter ‘Ruimte voor de Waal’ ” (Ruimte voor de Waal, 2016).

Furthermore they say the municipality will frequently be in touch with ‘Platform Waalsprong’, in which inhabitants as well as entrepreneurs from Nijmegen-Noord will be represented, implicating a pro-active attitude of the municipality towards involving the community in the planning process and during the execution.

(19)

In the case of Deventer, ‘Planstudie Ruimte voor de rivier Deventer’ (Waterschap Groot Salland, 2010) mentions a focus group in which inhabitants as well as other local concerned parties take place, such as sports associations, ‘Staatsbosbeheer’, the ferry service and nature concerned associations, among others. Furthermore they mention, as stated before, the guidelines for formal participation on the environmental impact report.

4.2 Community involvement during the process

During the process the community can be involved in different ways and on different moments. The extent in which participation took place and the ways in which this participation took place differ within the different process phases. A distinction is seen between participation as a result of an active local government and as a result of an active community, initiating participation. Furthermore there is a distinction between participation leading up to the project and participation during the project.

Within this context, the experts were asked about the role of participation prior to and during the execution of the project and how the communication was done (Interview guide, Appendix 1)

4.2.1 Decision makers perspective

One of the strengths of the room for the river programme, as mentioned in the paragraph before, was the integral approach. Although the decisions were made top-down, the effectuation was delegated to local authorities. Whereas this was primarily the municipality in Nijmegen, this was primarily the water board in Deventer. Both projects will be discussed on how the municipality or the water board tried to involve the community

Nijmegen

In the case of Nijmegen, the municipality was delegated by the national government to execute the room for the river plans. However, as interviewee 1 as well as interviewee 3 (Appendix 4.1; 4.3) stated, they weren’t on board initially. Whereas the municipality was against the plans because it

“came in like a bomb” (interviewee 4, Appendix 4.4) and it meant 40 to 50 houses had to be demolished, the community was deficiently informed leading to little to on societal support. This lack of societal support can be caused by lack of clarity or lack of knowledge as interviewee 1 explains:

“Maybe the utility and necessity of river expansion wasn’t brought to the spotlights enough […]

because the people said the excavation of a bypass wasn’t necessary, according to them it could be solved within the existing system” (Appendix 4.1).

Referring to a study done by a local professor in which the necessity of expanding the river was contradicted, this implicates a community initially relies on local expert knowledge rather than governmental decisions. Also this stresses the importance of communication in order to create the societal support needed for such a project. It depends however on the role of the involved parties how this is achieved. Whereas the province had a more mediating task between the national and local governments, the water boards were focused on the part of water safety, leaving the municipality to “be bold enough to stand in the frontline themselves” (interviewee 2, Appendix 4.2).

(20)

Only after the plans were top-down decided the municipality enhanced them completely, taking their own responsibility in order to be as close to the developments as possible and overcome the resistance within the municipality. This is stressed by interviewee 4, saying:

“There was a lot of resistance against the whole project but eventually we said that, if it has to be done anyway, it has to be done right so we want to decide for ourselves how completion of the plans is taking place” (Appendix 4.4).

This lead to an increase in municipality – community contact and different ways of involving the community in the process, creating more societal support. The impact of such a project on the community and the complexity it brings with it asks for uncomplicated approaches. Interviewee 3 (Appendix 4.3) states a lot of effort was put into an approachable way of informing, inviting all residents to come with ideas themselves. Although informing and consulting, as seen in the participation ladder of chapter 2 are participation types in which the role of the community is moderate, it does help to create awareness and contributes to understanding.

Nevertheless, more interactive forms of participation where used as well, implicating the need for higher societal support but also implicating the municipality represents its residents. With this intention different types of participation where initiated, as set out by interviewee 4 (Appendix 4.4):

“From day one we organised a project group and started sketching which attracted residents who came to look what we had and told us things we did not know yet […] and we started with excursions in the project area, led by residents. […] During archaeological research we connected excursions to the process as well”.

Not only is the community involved in this way, letting them lead excursions themselves contributes to increasing social support as well, whereas they know the area, know its qualities and they know what is interesting. Furthermore, making the construction site accessible for residents increases knowledge on the actual proceedings.

Besides informing the community about the plans and involving them in creating designs, interviewee 2 (Appendix 4.2) mentions nuisance as a necessity for participation. People need to be informed about the nuisance they experience during the execution of the project. The municipality frequently organised information meetings to address this, among other information such as agreements.

However, measures merely taken to increase societal support without the intention of stimulating community participation were conducted as well. In the context of nuisance as mentioned by interviewee 2, it is important to think about logistics, which have implications on how a project is executed. This is shown by the measures taken by the municipality to minimize nuisance, as interviewee 4 sets out:

“A seepage screen was constructed because a village feared there would be too much seepage in their basements. […] Most of the sand was carried away by ships instead of trucks. […] Accessibility of the city centre was guaranteed by the use of bypasses during construction. […] It is an accumulation of a lot of measures” (Appendix 4.4)

This shows the municipality did not only focused on involving the community within the process, but also focused on minimizing dissatisfying conditions to stimulate societal support.

(21)

Deventer

In contrast to Nijmegen, the municipality of Deventer interfered actively in the planning process from the beginning, attracting the project management to themselves in this phase. However, when the plans were made and the destination plans were ready the municipality passed their responsibility to the water board as the water board was delegated executor, which was a “huge mistake” as claimed by interviewee 5 (Appendix 4.5):

“We soon realised this was way too impetuous because for a lot of people it has only just started then, and from that point on people start to see what is going to happen. A lot of choices have to be made right away […] and the municipality is the government closest to the community so people come to us”.

This shows a miscalculation of the municipality considering their role for the community during the project, although the water board is delegated executor. Nevertheless the municipality took measures to involve the community by organising information meetings about the floodplains for which every citizen of Deventer was invited to attend and give input, calling them ‘floodplain meetings’. This is showing a way of attracting people by lowering the threshold using a theme.

Furthermore, more active participatory measures were taken. Because the room for the river decision was made by the national government, the city of Deventer wanted to give substance to the plans themselves, as stated by interviewee 6:

“The national government wanted to construct something for Deventer and then we said we, as inhabitants of Deventer, the organisations, stakeholders, wanted to be involved in the planning process, because we think we can indicate what qualities fit in the city the best” (Appendix 4.6) As a result, everyone was invited to take place in the advisory group which on their turn would have close contact with the steering group. This shows an integrated approach in which the community can participate in an advising role, besides merely being informed.

Furthermore the methods used to involve the community implicate a preference for personal contact. Although newsletters were used as a method for informing the community, this was not the main communication instrument. This is shown by the actions of the water board, having contact with a variety of local parties. A few of these parties, as summed up by interviewee 6 (Appendix 4.6), are nature and environmental organisations, the arts sector and educational organisations. The role of the water board in this collaborations was to encourage these organisations to not only participate in the process, but also tell the story to the rest of the community themselves.

The added value of this collaborations is also reflected in the co-financing of an information centre by the water board. In order to reach as much people as possible, the water board financially supported the setup of an information centre for the aquatic sports association.

The approach of the water board in this sense can be seen as a city wide approach in which as much different parties as possible were tried to be involved. Not only does this contribute to the extent in which the community is aware about the activities, it also contributes to the understanding of the necessity and even encourages people to participate as well. This is also reflected by the following passage from interviewee 7:

(22)

“They had several moments at the completion, but also during the execution, where the whole city and the surroundings were invited again to be involved to explain what was happening there. And that works. By that a certain degree of understanding is accomplished for the way in which you have to operate” (Appendix 4.7).

This implicates the focus on community involvement was not concentrated on the planning process alone, but was spread out during the whole effectuation of the project, showing it is important to keep the community involved until the completion. However, he adds, clear communication on when people can participate and in which way is essential.

4.2.2 Community perspective

Whereas on one hand the decision makers can stimulate the community to participate, the community on the other hand can initiate participation as well. Active self-organized participation reflects a community which is concerned with their environment, although this might be due to interest or because they are directly affected by the project. Again, both Nijmegen and Deventer will be discussed about the extent of community participation initiated from within the community itself.

In this context, the experts were asked in what way the local community was of importance for them and if there were any initiatives (Interview guide, Appendix 1).

Nijmegen

As already became clear from interviewee 1 in paragraph 4.2.1, the municipality as well as the community were against the initial plans decided by the local government. To express their disagreement, residents of Nijmegen even demonstrated in The Hague, according to interviewee 4 (Appendix 4.4). Although this is not participation in the sense of directly engaging in the process in a constructive way, this form of a community initiative implicates the community is concerned with their environment and can be seen as a request for involvement. This is also reflected by what interviewee 1 says about the decision process:

“In the context of National plan Room for the River, the region proposed more river expansion along the Waal river. Nevertheless The Hague said no, we will only do Nijmegen, and Munnikenland […].

And then a group of people stood up and said more has yet to be done on river expansion, and spatial development. So then the programme of Waalweelde emerged” (Appendix 4.1).

Although the ´Waalweelde´programme was not part of the Room for the River programme, this shows a by Room for the River induced initiative following a community which actively puts itself in the picture as stakeholder.

Within a formal context, in which the community has the opportunity to submit their visions on the plans and potentially object against certain decisions however, interviewee 4 states there were only 3 visions submitted. Despite this form of participation is bound by legal regulations, it shows a shift in societal support when comparing the planning process phase with the preparation phase, implicating higher societal support later in the process. This higher societal support is reflected by interviewee 2, saying:

(23)

“The good thing at Nijmegen is that, what eventually has been realised, has been mainly achieved bottom up by the people living in Lent. So if there had to be done something anyway it would be a variant the people wanted themselves” (Appendix 4.2).

This shows the community wanted to be involved despite their initial opposition. Remarkable, however, is the notion of interviewee 1 saying there were not much community initiatives in Nijmegen compared to other projects along the Waal river where the province was involved. He even states that if community participation was initiated immediately from the start, some facilities would have been there right away (Appendix 4.1). This implicates that the view initiatives that were proposed by the community were taken into account.

Furthermore in case the community initiates participation themselves, it appears the municipality is the first party they seek contact with, even though other parties like the water board or the province are active stakeholders as well. Nevertheless people did step to the water board, as interviewee 3 makes clear saying that although they only had a relatively small design task in which participation is hardly relevant, residents of Lent still asked them to participate and share their thoughts.

Some initiatives even help to stimulate the community to participate, or at least contribute to societal support. One example of this is mentioned by interviewee 3 saying a local resident came up with the idea to build an observation point (Appendix 4.3). In this way people who came to the project site to look at the activities had a better overview of the area, attracting more people. This shows a variety in people participating within the project. Interviewee 1 addresses two kind of people:

“You can see that the residents and companies sometimes argue from a perspective stating they are owner and ‘my grandfather even lived here’. Those people have a certain ‘not-in-my-backyard’

attitude. But there are also citizens who know what is going on […] and really place themselves in a state of cooperation” (Appendix 4.1).

Not only does this have implications for governments on how to receive input from different perspectives, there are also implications on how to process this input and translate it into actions.

Further initiatives arose from environmental considerations, whereas the community stood up against the removal of several rows of trees.

Deventer

In the case of Deventer the extent of which community initiatives were induced by the community itself was mostly caused by the connections the water board had with the different local parties. The community in this sense was stimulated to participate by participating parties involved through already existing ties. However, this had some interesting implications whereas the initial goal was to involve certain parties, which has a strengthening effect on the total participation. This was positively experienced by the water board, as interviewee 6 states:

“I really enjoyed to just use other people who came to us with ideas like ‘can’t we do this or can’t we do that?’, creating a lot more societal support for your project” (Appendix 4.6).

aiming on the arts sector which inspired people to share thoughts. However, another perspective is shown by the municipality:

(24)

“The people always said they weren’t involved. That is a signal of course, they always said they weren’t involved […] whilst everyone had been invited for the floodplain meetings” (Interviewee 5, Appendix 4.5)

Although this may be caused due the role the municipality took after the planning process was completed and the activities started as mentioned in paragraph 4.2.1, it sketches a situation in which the community took low initiatives themselves. Whereas she says a lot of people did attend the meetings, she mentions the reason people claimed not to be involved could have been caused by the expectation of a personal invitation. Also they could have missed the publication in which the invitation was added. This shows a certain disinterest implicating it could be difficult for the community to estimate the impact of such a project on their environment.

Nevertheless the cooperation with the community was seen as positive from their perspective, considering the initiatives that have originated from community.

Also, besides the formal ways of opposing plans as has been seen in the case of Nijmegen as well, in some cases the municipality is even put offside, as said by interviewee 5 (Appendix 4.5). Whereas some plans initiated by the community are being presented before anything is done with them, others take things into their own hands as is seen in an example considering a city beach in which societal support is completely built bottom up using crowdfunding. Although this can show an actively engaged community on one hand, on the other hand it can also implicate a counter reaction on the earlier mentioned idea that people felt left out.

Further initiatives shine light on other motives for participation. These are reflected by individual initiatives stimulated by interest or knowledge more than direct involvement. Although these initiatives are not representing community conceptions, they can show great impact. A small example mentioned by interviewee 6 (Appendix 4.6) refers to a woman taking pictures from the same spot for 500 days, once or twice a week resulting in a compilation.

A bigger individual initiative is mentioned by both interviewee 6 and 7 (Appendix 4.6; 4.7), concerning the idea of a farmer to build a nature farm in the middle of the floodplains. Whereas building in the floodplains initially was considered not-done by both the municipality as well as the water board, they both stressed however, the importance of local knowledge. In this sense knowledge has been a motive for participation as well as interest or participation as a result of being affected directly.

(25)

4.3 Community participation in final plans

Community participation, as discussed in the previous paragraphs, has been integrated in different ways. On one hand the decision makers intentionally involved the community and on the other hand the community initiated participation themselves. It became apparent that participation from both perspectives had outcomes in the final plans. The both projects will again be presented.

Nijmegen

The outcomes in Nijmegen were different in nature, in a sense that both governmental initiated participation and community initiated participation resulted in several realised products. One of the main outcomes mentioned by interviewee 3 as well as interviewee 4 (Appendix 4.3; 4.4) were the design of the bridges, whereas people could contribute to the design of the bridges and share their thoughts in several design sessions. This resulted in a design based on the communities desires. Apart from the design, community initiatives like memorial stones or the housing of swallows under the bridge were realised as well. This reflects how participation is not only a tool to create societal support during the project, it also shows that actually honouring initiatives contributes to societal support for future projects.

Another outcome was derived of a less participatory process, on which the decision makers anticipated even though it was not part of the initial plan. This is reflected in an example mentioned by interviewee 2 in which a beach people used to go to was not accessible anymore during the project activities:

“That beach actually wasn’t accessible anymore and still people tried to reach it through all sorts of ways. […] so then you talk to the contractor about the possibilities of making a corridor although it brings extra costs.” (Appendix 4.2)

It shows a certain flexibility within the project in which anticipating on certain, although undesired, community behaviour results in a solution to minimize hindrance for the executors as well as the community. Another outcome within this context is the observation point initiated by a local resident as mentioned in paragraph 4.2.2.

Concerning the importance of participation in such projects there are certain considerations. Within the framework of a project there are aspects on which can be participated and aspects that cannot be compromised. Whereas interviewee 2 stresses the importance of clarity about the participation procedures, interviewee 4 adds the importance of clarity about what can and cannot be participated about:

“For me participation means that not everyone can challenge everything, but that you have to listen as much and deep as possible to the interests of the stakeholders within the area. That you are open for suggestions and that the outcome isn’t decided at the beginning of the process” (Appendix 4.4).

This can be interpreted as the general attitude of the municipality in Nijmegen and their stance on participation within the project, implicating there should be enough room for participation considering there is a framework in which this should be incorporated clearly.

(26)

Deventer

In Deventer the outcomes of community participation had a more holistic character. Whereas there were a lot of different stakeholders, there were a lot of expectations since every stakeholder had their own expectations of the project. The solution, according to interviewee 6 (Appendix 4.6), was the contractual form in which a description of the planned activities and intended results was incorporated in order to create a plan which complied as much with the expectations as possible. This is also reflected by interviewee 5, saying:

“That you take the area on board, the recreational goals, the environmental goals, giving everything a place within the project.. That maybe caused it to be complex but eventually it lead to a beautiful end result” (Appendix 4.5)

This implicates that community participation in Deventer was not used as a tool to increase societal support or as a consolation, it was an integrated part of the complete process in order to contribute to the total picture. Nevertheless a view concrete outcomes showed how this integral way of incorporating participation was executed. Interviewee 5 mentions a conflict in which the marina was assigned a new location although residents weren’t pleased, resulting in a compromise:

“So then we suggested to at least work something out together […], to share thoughts. This was done in a very constructive way […] going through the area together to make a planting plan” (Appendix 4.5).

This shows the municipality took their responsibility and compromised a form of participation in which the community got to codecide about their direct environment, despite the marina assignation. Further outcomes of participation are seen in the role of the water board as they connected different parties throughout the planning process, resulting in the scouting club getting their own place near the marina.

Considering individual initiated participation, the nature farm as mentioned in paragraph 4.2 implicates the importance of local knowledge and the flexibility of the executor, which resulted in a farm realised in the floodplains. That knowledge and flexibility is relevant is stressed by interviewee 7:

“The importance of participation is that it doesn’t become a solace but that community involvement, how to incorporate it and how it comes back in the project, is adequately thought about. That has to do with listening to the environment and not lock everything from the beginning” (Appendix 4.7) This can again be translated to the way Deventer incorporated participation in which it contributed to the process as a whole.

(27)

4.4 Relation to resilience

As discussed in the theoretical framework of chapter 2 community participation and resilience can be related in a way that a resilience approach is a bottom-up approach in which community participation is integrated. Furthermore, it is discussed that a shift in water management has taken place to a more integrated approach such as ‘living with water’. In this light respondents were asked how the project they were involved in fitted into this shift from fighting against water to living with water. Also they were asked how to characterise the process.

It appears resilience is reflected the projects in several ways. One of those ways is the way in which the organisation of the projects has been executed, which means the central decision of the national programme and the decentralized execution. Another way resilience is reflected is seen in the main goals of the programme in which, besides safety, spatial quality was included in the so called

‘dubbeldoelstelling’. The third way can be seen in how the community contributed to the projects through participation.

Nevertheless the different interviewees had their own perspectives on how their project fitted within the previous mentioned transition, and how this is characterised.

Nijmegen

In Nijmegen the first way resilience is reflected in the projects can be seen in how the different stakeholders collaborated. As interviewee 2 says:

“If you look at it from a high level of abstraction, you see it is a municipal plan what has been collectively embraced […] so I think it has been quite innovative this projects are shaped together with the governmental partners and hasn’t been imposed top-down” (Appendix 4.2).

That the process has been innovative is seen in the way the municipality got to actively engage in the process after being announced something was going to happen on their territory which is also stressed by interviewee 4 (Appendix 4.4), saying the collaboration of several governments was quite special:

“It was a combination of a top-down, abstract, goal filled in with a lot of influence from the community. In my opinion this was a good combination”.

This collaboration of different parties shows an integrated approach towards the project, which is one of the reasons it fits in the transition.

Concerning the so called ‘dubbeldoelstelling’, in which safety and spatial quality are represented, Nijmegen has been a “perfect example” according to interviewee 3 (Appendix 4.3). Whereas the collaboration of different governmental parties lead to an organisational structure, incorporating spatial quality as a primary goal as well resulted in room for other functions like nature and recreation.

In the light of the transformability aspect of resilience, the change in people mind-sets is reflected by interviewee 4 saying people eventually were more content with their new place than their old place, after being relocated, resulting in the realisation that cooperation has more beneficial outcomes than counteracting (Appendix 4.4). This implicates the community is able to acknowledge the necessity of the project. Furthermore he addresses the floods in 1993 and 1995 as a wake-up call, saying the old

(28)

way of thinking concerning strengthening the dikes just increases the risk. This also contributes to a change in mind-sets, realising ‘living with water’ is essential.

Deventer

One way resilience is reflected in Deventer is seen in the way the project has been organised.

Whereas interviewee 5 states the project was “decided top-down but area-specific executed by lower governments” (Appendix 4.5), this implicates the integrated way of planning water management is shifting towards. This is also confirmed by interviewee 7:

“We chose an approach in which we intensively passed through the project with the surroundings”

(Appendix 4.7).

This is also reflected by the measures taken to involve the community as discussed in paragraph 4.4.

This integrated approach in which the water board connected several stakeholders and concerned parties fits within the transition as seen in contemporary water management.

One of the aspects mentioned as successful was the double goal, or so called ‘dubbeldoelstelling’. In this light resilience is seen in integrating other aspects besides the initial goal of safety against floodings, and therefore fitting within the transition, as stated by interviewee 5:

“I think because we really looked at which room we had within the project it fits in the transition. […]

and I think that is caused by assigning as much priority to the spatial quality goal as to the safety goal” (appendix 4.5).

However, as mentioned by interviewee 7, because there was the second goal of spatial quality, the financial resources were there as well to create room for spatial quality in the projects (Appendix 4.7).

The qualities of the project in Deventer, as mentioned by both interviewee 5 and 6 is the way the project fits within the landscape. According to interviewee 5 “They could have gone for a more technical solution but then it wouldn’t be as nice” (Appendix 4.5) in which she targets at the way participation is incorporated.

(29)

5. Conclusion and discussion

This research tried to get insights in how community participation is taken into account within flood risk planning projects like ‘room for the river’, in order to provide a view on the role of community participation and the lessons which can be learned from the projects. Considering the results of chapter 4, this chapter attempts to provide an answer on the research question:

‘How is community participation integrated in ‘room for the river projects’ in Nijmegen and Deventer?’

Whereas Nijmegen and Deventer where both conducted under the same umbrella called Room for the River, both projects stood on their own and used their own approaches. This is reflected in a couple of things.

In general it can be said that participation played a role in Nijmegen as well as Deventer, wether or not it was in different forms or a different extent. Initially it appears participation in a formal sense is a standard procedure in which everyone involved in the project or concerned by the planned activities can appeal against the plans file objection. Besides that, other, more interactive forms of participation, can be recognised.

Despite the goals of the National government had to be achieved considering the decrease in water levels, in which participation and negotiations were excluded, participation was possible on other aspects. The way in which this has been integrated in both projects shows similarities as well as differences.

With regard to similarities it is notable the focus group had a prominent role in both projects, in which consultation between the different governments and stakeholders was important. Other tools which stood out were the organisation of information meetings and design sessions. However, the differences can be seen in other aspects.

When looking at Nijmegen it appears participation was mainly used in concrete cases. In this sense people could codecide about the design of the bridges and conversations were held about the relocation of aquatic sports associations, however several measures were decided beforehand.

Concerning Deventer, participation had a more complete and even intermediary role, in which the dialogue was constantly maintained in order to contribute to a completely supported result. The role of the water board in this context was essential, constantly bringing several parties together

When linking to the theory, it can be said both projects are an example of the transition in water management as discussed in chapters 1 and 2 whereas they highly relate to the aspect of transformability, meaning there are physical changes as well as changes in peoples mind-sets. These changes in peoples mind-sets are on one hand reflected by the extent of participation and how it was received, and on the other hand the way in which the execution was delegated to lower governments, showing the integrated approach the concept of transformability relates to.

Concerning the types of participation used within the two projects and looking at the participation ladder as discussed in chapter 2, it can be concluded a mix of participation types are present.

(30)

However, whereas in Nijmegen it appeared the focus was more set on informing, consulting and advising in which the municipality had a more facilitating role, coproducing and codeciding were less prominent types of participation. This in contrast to Deventer, where the intensive collaborations between different stakeholders characterise a more prominent focus on coproducing and even codeciding, besides the more traditional ways of informing and consulting.

Although this might implicate a more participatory attitude in Deventer than in Nijmegen, this is not necessarily the case, whereas both the municipality as the other involved parties in Nijmegen had an active role in the whole process. Furthermore it is difficult to conclude if one approach is more suitable than the other, since both projects were completed successfully and with satisfaction.

However, different circumstances could contribute to the way participation is integrated.

Community participation in Room for the River projects