Appendices Appendix A In-depth interviews Appendix A1 Interview set-up Nijmegen-Lent Appendix A2 Interview set-up Oxford Appendix A3 Matrix actor-categories in-depth interviews Nijmegen-Lent Appendix A4 Matrix actor-categories in-depth interviews Oxford Appendix B Structured Interviews APPENDIX B1 QUESTIONNAIRE STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS NIJMEGEN LENT APPENDIX B2 QUESTIONNAIRE STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS OXFORD APPENDIX B3 MAP OF AREAS OF STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS IN NIJMEGEN-LENT APPENDIX B4 MAP OF AREAS OF STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS IN OXFORD APPENDIX C APPENDIX C1 SURVEY RIVER REGIONS THE NETHERLANDS APPENDIX C2 SURVEY THAMES RIVER BASIN APPENDIX D NEWSPAPER ARTICLES Appendix D1 Search-words newspaper articles Netherlands Appendix D2 Search-words newspaper articles UK Appendix E A Dike relocation project in the Netherlands Appendix E1 Counts Secondary codes in-depth interviews Appendix E2 Description of most important legitimating Elements Appendix E3 Gamma Coefficients structured interviews Appendix E4 List of codes Newspaper articles Appendix E5 Survey results Appendix F Oxford Flood Management Appendix F1 Counts Secondary codes in-depth interviews Appendix F2 Description of most important legitimating Elements Appendix F3 Gamma Coefficients structured interviews Appendix F4 List of codes Newspaper articles Appendix F5 Survey results
Appendix A In-Depth Interviews Appendix A1 Interview set-ups Nijmegen-Lent Interview vragen ambtenaar (waterschap/rijkswaterstaat) - Introductie ik & onderzoek - Hoelang heeft u gewerkt/ werkt u al in het waterbeheer? - Wat is het leukste project waar u ooit aan heeft gewerkt? Wat vond u zo leuk aan dat project? - Wanneer vindt u een waterbeheer project geslaagd? - Het waterbeheer in Nederland zou:______________________________________________ Over het project - Wanneer bent u betrokken geraakt bij dit project? - Hoe bent u betrokken geraakt? - Hoe zag u uw taak in het project? - Wanneer bent u uit het project gestapt? Waarom? - Wat waren uw verwachtingen van het project? o Wat wilde u bereiken/ hoofddoel? - Hoe hebben jullie het project vormgegeven, waarom zo? - Kunt u kort beschrijven hoe het project is gelopen? (eventueel splitsen in voor en na PKB) o Wat had achteraf anders/beter gekund, wat vond u juist goed? o Wat was de aanleiding van het project? Wat was het doel van het project? Inhoud - Welke inhoudelijke vragen kwamen naar voren gedurende het project? Hoe is op deze vragen een antwoord gegeven? - Kunt u iets meer vertellen over het ontwikkelen van de verschillende alternatieven hoe is dat in zijn werk gegaan? Welke actoren bij betrokken? Van Ellen/ andere consultancies instituten. - Wat waren de belangrijkste criteria voor het kiezen tussen de verschillende alternatieven - Hoe werd de afweging gemaakt? Actoren - Wat waren de belangrijke actoren die in het project deelnamen? - Wat is uw beeld van deze actoren? - Hoe was de sfeer in de projectgroep? Tussen de overheden? In de stuurgroep, verhouding stuurgroep-projectgroep? Communicatie? - Wat waren uw verwachtingen over de inhoudelijke bijdrage die de verschillende actoren zouden leveren? - Wat vond u van de input van de verschillende actoren? Wat voor kennis brachten de verschillende actoren in het project in? Was dit volgens uw verwachtingen/ verassingen? - Welke belangen speelden een rol? Hoe tegen elkaar afgewogen? hoe gecommuniceerd? Publieke participatie - Wat was het doel van de publieke participatie? Wat waren uw verwachtingen? Wat vindt u van pp? - Hoe was de publieke participatie vormgegeven? Waarom zo? - Wat is uw beeld van de mensen in de adviesgroep? - Communicatie met adviesgroep/ andere belanghebbenden/ gewone burgers?
- Hoe is er gereageerd op de input van de adviesgroep? Systeem steun/legitimiteit - Hoe kijkt u terug op het project tot nu toe? - Wat zijn uw verwachtingen voor het verdere verloop van het project? - Bent u tevreden met de gang van zaken tijdens het besluitvormingsproces? - Bent u tevreden met het resultaat? - Hoe kijkt u nu naar de andere actoren/betrokkenen? Waarom? - Hoe denkt u dat de andere actoren terugkijken op het project? - Wat voor effect heeft dit project denkt u gehad op het beeld dat de mensen in deze omgeving hebben van overstromingsbeleid? - Waarom denkt u dat dit project het bewuste effect gehad? Interview vragen burger - Introductie ik & onderzoek - Hoelang woont u al in Lent? Wat heeft u met de Waal? - Heeft u weleens eerder deelgenomen aan een dergelijk project? - Hoe zou Lent er over 20 jaar uit moeten zien? - Het waterbeheer in Nederland zou:________________________________________ Over het project - Wanneer bent u betrokken geraakt bij dit project? - Hoe bent u betrokken geraakt? - Hoe zag u uw rol in het project? - Wat was de aanleiding van het project? - Wat was het doel van het project? - Bent u nog betrokken? Wanneer bent u uit het project gestapt? Waarom? - Wat waren uw verwachtingen van het project? o Wat wilde u bereiken/ hoofddoel? - Kunt u kort beschrijven hoe het project is gelopen? o Wat had achteraf anders/beter gekund, wat vond u juist goed? Actoren - Wat waren de belangrijke actoren die in het project deelnamen? - Wat is uw beeld van deze actoren? Publieke participatie - Wat was het doel van de publieke participatie? Wat waren uw verwachtingen? - Hoe was de publieke participatie vormgegeven? Waarom zo? - Wat is uw beeld van de mensen in de adviesgroep? - Hoe was de sfeer in de adviesgroep? Tussen de overheden? In de stuurgroep, verhouding stuurgroep-adviesgroep? Communicatie? Inhoud - Welke inhoudelijke vragen kwamen naar voren gedurende het project? Hoe is op deze vragen een antwoord gegeven? Bent u daar tevreden over? Heeft het uw beeld/mening beïnvloed?
Wat waren uw verwachtingen over de inhoudelijke bijdrage die de verschillende actoren zouden leveren? - Wat vond u van de input van de verschillende actoren? Wat voor kennis brachten de verschillende actoren in het project in? Was dit volgens uw verwachtingen/ verassingen? - Hoe is er gereageerd op de input van de adviesgroep? - Kunt u iets meer vertellen over het ontwikkelen van de verschillende alternatieven hoe is dat in zijn werk gegaan? Welke actoren bij betrokken? Van Ellen/ andere consultancies instituten. - Wat waren de belangrijkste criteria voor het kiezen tussen de verschillende alternatieven? - Hoe werd de afweging gemaakt? Systeem steun/legitimiteit - Hoe kijkt u terug op het project? - Bent u tevreden met de gang van zaken tijdens het besluitvormingsproces? - Bent u tevreden met het resultaat? - Hoe kijkt u nu naar de andere actoren/betrokkenen? Waarom? - Hoe denkt u dat de andere actoren terugkijken op het project? - Wat voor effect heeft dit project denkt u gehad op het beeld dat de mensen in deze omgeving hebben van overstromingsbeleid? - Waarom denkt u dat dit project het bewuste effect gehad? -
Interview Decision Maker - Introductie ik & onderzoek Over het project - Hoe heeft u de beginperiode van het project beleefd? (Loevesteijn?) o Wat was de aanleiding van het project? Wat was het doel van het project? - Hoe zag u uw taak in het project ? - Wat waren uw verwachtingen van het project? o Wat wilde u bereiken/ hoofddoel? - Wat waren voor u de belangrijkste issues die tijdens het project speelden? - Wat waren voor u de belangrijkste momenten in het project tot nu toe? - Hoe hebben jullie het project vormgegeven, waarom zo? - Hoe kijkt u terug op het project tot nu toe? o Wat had achteraf anders/beter gekund, wat vond u juist goed? - Kunt u iets meer vertellen over de periode na het goedkeuren van de PKB? Inhoud - Discussie over 18.000 m3/sec.. Lentse Warande? Hoe heeft u dat beleefd? - Wat waren de belangrijkste criteria voor het kiezen tussen de verschillende alternatieven - Hoe werd de afweging gemaakt? - Bent u tevreden met het resultaat? Actoren - Wat waren de belangrijke actoren die in het project deelnamen? - Wat is uw beeld van deze actoren? Wat vindt u dat hun taak is in dit project?
- Hoe was de sfeer in de stuurgroep? Verhouding stuurgroep-projectgroep? Communicatie? - Wat waren uw verwachtingen over de inhoudelijke bijdrage die de verschillende actoren zouden leveren? - Wat vond u van de input van de verschillende actoren? Wat voor kennis brachten de verschillende actoren in het project in? Was dit volgens uw verwachtingen/ verassingen? - Welke belangen speelden een rol? Hoe tegen elkaar afgewogen? hoe gecommuniceerd? - Bent u tevreden met de gang van zaken tijdens het besluitvormingsproces? - Hoe kijkt u nu naar de andere actoren/betrokkenen? Waarom? - Hoe denkt u dat de andere actoren terugkijken op het project? Publieke participatie Begreep: aangedrongen op publieke participatie vanuit gemeente: Waarom? - Wat was het doel van de publieke participatie? Wat waren uw verwachtingen? Wat vindt u van pp? - Hoe was de publieke participatie vormgegeven? Waarom zo? - Wat is uw beeld van de mensen in de adviesgroep? - Communicatie met adviesgroep/ andere belanghebbenden/ gewone burgers? - Hoe is er gereageerd op de input van de adviesgroep? - Wat voor effect heeft dit project denkt u gehad op het beeld dat de mensen in deze omgeving hebben van overstromingsbeleid? Waarom denkt u dat dit project het bewuste effect gehad? - Hoe gaat in deze fase de pp vormkrijgen? Waarom zo? Systeem steun/legitimiteit - Wat zijn uw verwachtingen voor het verdere verloop van het project? Interview topic checklist Persoonlijke betrokkenheid bij het project Project “narrative” Visie op: - gebruik kennis - Publieke participatie - beleidsprocessen - Taak verschillende - waterbeheer actoren Beeld van: - projectinhoud (probleemdefinitie, alternatieven, criteria) - actoren - proces (participatie, bestuurlijk, ambtelijk) Hoe mening is beïnvloed door project: legaliteit - waterbeheer voorspelbaarheid - overheid participatief - publieke participatie consensus georiënteerd - kennis/ onderzoek contest - actoren Entry of actors Motivation of actors Legitimerende elementen: rekenschap transparantie responsiviteit billijkheid en incluiviteit
- Tevredenheid project - Vertrouwen overheden - Vertrouwen in maatregel/ Waterbeheer - Verbeterpunten voor volgende projecten role of actors power of actors rules of conduct process structure responsiveness of actors homogeniousness of network problem definition paradigms used policy alternatives maatschappelijk belang weighing criteria
Appendix A2 Interview set-up Oxford Opening question: - Can you describe how you first became involved with flood management in Oxford? - Can you describe how you became involved with the development of the Oxford flood risk management strategy? Finishing questions: - How do you look back on the Oxford flood risk management strategy project? - Do you find the flood management in Oxford acceptable? - Do you in general support the flood management in Oxford/ in the UK? - How do you think most people in your area look back on the OFRMS? - Do you think most people in your area find flood management in Oxford acceptable / support it? Monitor for: - generalizations - stating good intentions - expressing opinions - distancing - asking closed questions - interviewer and respondent share context - expressing number of topics: what do you want to talk about? Possible follow up questions: Take your time Let me think about what you just said I’m not quite sure I understand this correctly How did it start? How did it continue? what happened next? Can you give me an example? Can you walk me through X from when it started to when it finished? Who else was there? What did they say or do? How did they react? Did you talk to anyone about it? How did you react on them doing X? When X was happening what thoughts did you have? What feelings did you have?
3
A3 Matrix actor-categories in-depth interviews Nijmegen-Lent Flood Spatial Nature Shipping Business Living management planning Conservation Decision Makers
2
1
Civil Servant
5
1
Expert
2
Interest group
1
1
Citizen
2
A4 Matrix actor-categories in-depth interviews Oxford Flood Nature Preservation management Conservation of buildings/ archeology
4
living
Decision Makers Civil Servant
2
Expert
1
Interest group Citizen
3
1
1 3
4
Appendix B Appendix B1 Questionnaire structured Interviews Nijmegen-Lent Geachte heer, mevrouw, Zoals u zich wellicht nog kan herinneren stond het water van de Rijn zowel in 1993 als in 1995 zo hoog dat er bezorgdheid was dat de dijken het niet zouden houden en een overstroming zou ontstaan. Sinds die tijd hebben de Nederlandse overheden plannen gemaakt om toekomstige overstromingen beter het hoofd te kunnen bieden. Voorbeelden van dit soort plannen zijn de Deltawet grote rivieren en de PKB Ruimte voor de rivier. Ook voor uw omgeving zijn er plannen gemaakt, zoals het project Dijkteruglegging Lent. Door middel van deze enquête willen wij, onderzoekers van de Technische Universiteit Delft, u vragen naar uw mening over de plannen die de overheden in uw omgeving hebben om overstromingen vanuit de Waal tegen te gaan en naar Dijkteruglegging Lent in het bijzonder. U hoeft geen speciale kennis te bezitten om aan deze enquête mee te kunnen doen. Er zijn geen goede of foute antwoorden. Uw eerlijke antwoord is belangrijk voor ons. DE EERSTE 21 VRAGEN GAAN OVER EEN SPECIFIEK PROJECT UIT UW OMGEVING, NL. DIJKTERUGLEGGING LENT 1. Bent u betrokken geweest bij het project Dijkteruglegging Lent? (Meerdere antwoorden mogelijk) o Ik heb nog nooit gehoord van het project Dijkteruglegging Lent GA NAAR VRAAG 2A o Ik ben op geen enkele manier betrokken geweest GA NAAR VRAAG 2B o Ik heb me bewust op de hoogte gehouden van het project door middel van b.v. het lezen van de informatiebrieven en/of het volgen van het nieuws via radio of tv o Ik heb deelgenomen aan door de overheid georganiseerde informatie en discussieavonden o Ik heb tegen het project geprotesteerd (bv. d.m.v. een brief, een interview, een gesprek met een ambtenaar of politicus, een handtekening zetten, in een demonstratie meelopen) o Ik ben lid geworden van een burgerplatform of belangenvereniging o Ik heb in de adviesgroep of klankbordgroep van het project gezeten o Ik heb ingesproken in het project INDIEN U BETROKKEN BENT GEWEEST BIJ HET PROJECT DIJKTERUGLEGGING LENTGAAT U DAN DOOR NAAR VRAAG 2C.
5
2a. Als u niet bekend bent met het project Dijkteruglegging Lent: zou u wel betrokken willen worden bij dergelijke projecten? (maximaal 3 antwoorden a.u.b.) Nee want:
o Ik heb geen verstand van overstromingsbeleid o Het maakt mij niet uit wat er besloten wordt o Het gaat mij niet aan wat er besloten wordt o De overheid kan hier prima zonder mij over beslissen o Er zijn mensen gekozen om dit soort beslissingen voor ons te nemen o Ik heb geen tijd/ zin/ energie om me met dit project bezig te houden o Er wordt toch niet geluisterd naar mensen zoals ik o Mensen zoals ik kunnen de overheid toch niet stoppen o Het is niet aan gewone burgers om hierover mee te praten Alleen als:
o Het mij persoonlijk aan gaat o Ik tegen de voorgenomen plannen ben o Ik de voorgenomen plannen een warm hart toe draag Ja, want:
o Ik heb zinnige kennis om in zo’n project in te brengen o Ik kan het besluit van zo’n project beïnvloeden o Ik wil de belangen van de gewone man laten horen. o Al kan ik het project misschien niet stoppen, ik kan het project misschien wel bijsturen
o Niet geschoten is altijd mis o Wie niet meepraat, mag later ook niet zeuren o Het is een burgerplicht om mee te praten over dit soort projecten Anders namelijk:________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ 2b. Als u niet betrokken bent geweest bij het project Dijkteruglegging Lent kunt u dan aangeven waarom u niet betrokken was? (vink de belangrijkste 3 redenen aan)
o Ik heb geen verstand van overstromingsbeleid 6
o Het maakt mij niet uit wat er besloten wordt o Het gaat mij niet aan wat er besloten wordt o De overheid kan hier prima zonder mij over beslissen o Er zijn mensen gekozen om dit soort beslissingen voor ons te nemen o Ik heb geen tijd/ zin/ energie om me met dit project bezig te houden o Er wordt toch niet geluisterd naar mensen zoals ik o Mensen zoals ik kunnen de overheid toch niet stoppen o Het is niet aan gewone burgers om hierover mee te praten o Anders nl: INDIEN U NIET BEKEND BENT MET het project DIJKTERUGLEGGING LENT GAAT U DAN DOOR NAAR VRAAG 22 INDIEN U WEL BEKEND BENT MET het project DIJKTERUGLEGGING LENT, MAAR NIET BETROKKEN WAS, DAN KUNT U DOORGAAN NAAR VRAAG 5 2c. Als u wel betrokken bent geweest bij het project Dijkteruglegging Lent kunt u dan aangeven waarom u betrokken bent geraakt: (maximaal 3 redenen aanvinken)
o Het gaat mij persoonlijk aan o Ik ben tegen de voorgenomen plannen o Ik draag de voorgenomen plannen een warm hart toe o Ik heb zinnige kennis om in het project Dijkteruglegging Lent in te brengen o Ik kan het besluit van het project Dijkteruglegging Lent beïnvloeden o Ik wil de belangen van de gewone man laten horen. o Al kan ik het project misschien niet stoppen, ik kan het project misschien wel bijsturen
o Niet geschoten is altijd mis o Wie niet meepraat, mag later ook niet zeuren o Het is een burgerplicht om mee te praten over dit soort projecten o Andres nl: 3. Op welke manier is er op uw betrokkenheid gereageerd door de overheidsinstanties? (open vraag)
4. Hoe tevreden bent u over de reactie van de overheidsinstanties op uw betrokkenheid?
7
o o o o o
zeer ontevreden ontevreden niet ontevreden, niet tevreden tevreden zeer tevreden
5. Wat is volgens u het specifieke probleem dat men met het project Dijkteruglegging Lent wil oplossen?
6. Hoe belangrijk vindt u het dat dit probleem wordt aangepakt? o Heel belangrijk o Belangrijk o Neutraal o Onbelangrijk o Heel onbelangrijk o Weet niet 7. In het project Dijkteruglegging Lent zijn een aantal oplossingen bedacht waaruit gekozen kon worden. Kunt u deze opties omschrijven? Dijkteruglegging
Lentse Warande
8. Zijn er nog opties die hierboven niet genoemd zijn, maar die u wel belangrijk vindt? Kunt u die optie ook beschrijven?
9. Welke optie heeft uw persoonlijke voorkeur?
8
-
Dijkteruglegging Lentse Warande Optie genoemd in vraag 8 Geen voorkeur
10. Waarom heeft deze optie uw voorkeur?
11. Wat denkt u dat de belangrijkste redenen waren voor de overheid om te kiezen voor de optie Dijkteruglegging? -
weet niet
12. Wat vindt u van deze redenen?
-
weet niet
In projecten zoals het project Dijkteruglegging Lent kunnen burgers, maatschappelijke organisaties en experts op verschillende manieren worden betrokken. De volgende vragen gaan over hoe burgers, maatschappelijke organisaties en experts bij het project Dijkteruglegging Lent betrokken zijn door de verantwoordelijke overheidsinstanties. 13. Allereerst willen we u een aantal stellingen over de betrokkenheid van burgers in het project Dijkteruglegging Lent voorleggen. Kunt u voor elke stelling aangeven of u vindt dat burgers teveel, voldoende of te weinig op deze manier bij het project betrokken zijn door de overheidsinstanties De overheidsinstanties hebben de burgers gedurende het project geïnformeerd over de stand van zaken Overheidsinstanties hebben de burgers mogelijkheden gegeven om zich uit te spreken over Dijkteruglegging Lent Burgers hebben in het project Dijkteruglegging Lent ruimte gekregen om advies te geven aan de overheidsinstanties Overheidsinstanties hebben het advies van de burgers gebruikt voor hun beslissing het project Dijkteruglegging Lent
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
teveel voldoende te weinig weet niet teveel voldoende te weinig weet niet teveel voldoende te weinig weet niet teveel voldoende te weinig weet niet
9
Burgers hebben ruimte gekregen om mee te werken aan het ontwikkelen van alternatieven in het project Dijkteruglegging Lent
o o o o
teveel voldoende te weinig weet niet
De overheden hebben de input van de betrokken burgers laten meewegen in hun beslissing.
o o o o
teveel voldoende te weinig weet niet
14. De volgende stellingen gaan over de manier waarop maatschappelijke organisaties, zoals bijvoorbeeld de milieufederatie werden betrokken in het project Dijkteruglegging Lent. Kunt u wederom per stelling aangeven of maatschappelijke organisaties teveel, voldoende of te weinig op deze manieren betrokken werd in Dijkteruglegging Lent? De overheidsinstanties hebben de maatschappelijke organisaties gedurende het project geïnformeerd over de stand van zaken
o o o o
teveel voldoende te weinig weet niet
Overheidsinstanties hebben de maatschappelijke organisaties mogelijkheden gegeven om zich uit te spreken over het project Dijkteruglegging Lent
o o o o
teveel voldoende te weinig weet niet
Maatschappelijke organisaties hebben in het project Dijkteruglegging Lent ruimte gekregen om advies te geven aan de overheidsinstanties
o o o o
teveel voldoende te weinig weet niet
Overheidsinstanties hebben het advies van de maatschappelijke organisaties over het project Dijkteruglegging Lent zichtbaar gebruikt
o o o o
teveel voldoende te weinig weet niet
Maatschappelijke organisaties hebben ruimte gekregen om mee te werken aan het ontwikkelen van alternatieven in het project Dijkteruglegging Lent
o o o o
teveel voldoende te weinig weet niet
De overheden hebben de input van de betrokken maatschappelijke organisaties laten meewegen in hun beslissing.
o o o o
teveel voldoende te weinig weet niet
10
15. Tenslotte staan hieronder nog enkele stellingen over hoe experts werden betrokken in het project Dijkteruglegging Lent kunt u wederom aangeven o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Er zijn experts geraadpleegd om lastige inhoudelijke vragen die speelden in het project Dijkteruglegging Lent op te lossen De experts die werden geraadpleegd gaven een onafhankelijk advies over het project Dijkteruglegging Lent De kennis die experts inbrachten werd gebruikt om duidelijk de voor en nadelen van alle alternatieven evenwichtig naast elkaar te zetten
De kennis die experts hebben ingebracht is gebruikt als basis voor het besluit in het project Dijkteruglegging Lent
teveel voldoende te weinig weet niet teveel voldoende te weinig weet niet Zeer mee eens eens Neutraal Mee oneens Zeer mee oneens Weet niet Zeer mee eens eens Neutraal Mee oneens Zeer mee oneens Weet niet
Gemeente
1
2
3
4
8
Waterschap
1
2
3
4
8
Provincie
1
2
3
4
8
Ik heb geen beeld van de invloed van deze partij
veel te veel invloed
teveel invloed
precies genoeg invloed
Veel te weinig invloed
te weinig inlvoed
16. Bij het maken van plannen tegen overstromingen zijn veel mensen en groeperingen betrokken. Hieronder staan een aantal van die mensen en groeperingen. Kunt u aangeven of u denkt dat deze mensen, groeperingen en overheidsinstanties te veel, precies genoeg of teveel invloed hadden in het project Dijkteruglegging Lent?
11
Rijkswaterstaat
1
2
3
4
8
Nationale overheid
1
2
3
4
8
Tweede Kamer
1
2
3
4
8
Eerste Kamer
1
2
3
4
8
Belangenverenigingen zoals Mileufederatie, de fietsersbond etc.)
1
2
3
4
8
Bedrijfsleven
1
2
3
4
8
GeWA
1
2
3
4
8
Andere Burgers
1
2
3
4
8
Ingenieursbureaus (zoals Haskoning, Oranjewoud)
1
2
3
4
8
Uzelf
1
2
3
4
8
(e.g. Ministerie V&W/ ministerie VROM/ Ministerie LNV
Opmerkingen:
1
2
3
4
8
1
2
3
4
Ik heb geen beeld van de kennis van deze partij
Geen vertsand van zaken
Enig verstand van zaken
hun beeld vanvan heb geenverstand Ik Voldoende gedrag zaken tijdens het project
slecht van zaken Zeer verstand Veel
Acceptabel
Zeer goed Gemeente
onacceptabel
17. Hieronder staan nog een keer een lijst met enkele partijen die bij het project betrokken waren. Kunt u per partij aangeven: a) Vond u hun gedrag acceptabel? b) Heeft u de indruk dat ze verstand van zaken hadden?
8
12
Waterschap
1
2
3
4
8
1
2
3
4
8
Provincie
1
2
3
4
8
1
2
3
4
8
Rijkswaterstaat
1
2
3
4
8
1
2
3
4
8
Nationale overheid
1
2
3
4
8
1
2
3
4
8
Tweede Kamer
1
2
3
4
8
1
2
3
4
8
Eerste Kamer
1
2
3
4
8
1
2
3
4
8
Belangenverenigingen zoals Mileufederatie, de fietsersbond etc.)
1
2
3
4
8
1
2
3
4
8
Bedrijfsleven
1
2
3
4
8
1
2
3
4
8
GeWA
1
2
3
4
8
1
2
3
4
8
Andere Burgers
1
2
3
4
8
1
2
3
4
8
Ingenieursbureaus (zoals Haskoning, Oranjewoud)
1
2
3
4
8
1
2
3
4
8
(e.g. Ministerie V&W/ ministerie VROM/ Ministerie LNV
Opmerkingen:
18. Heeft u begrip voor hoe het project is verlopen? o Veel begrip o weinig begrip o geen begrip 19. Hoe tevreden bent u over het verloop van het project “Dijkteruglegging Lent”? o zeer ontevreden o ontevreden o niet tevreden niet ontevreden o tevreden o zeer tevreden 20. Heeft u begrip voor de gekozen oplossing?
13
o Veel begrip o Weinig begrip o Geen begrip 21. Hoe tevreden bent u met de gekozen oplossing in het project Dijkteruglegging Lent? o zeer ontevreden o ontevreden o niet ontevreden, niet tevreden o tevreden o zeer tevreden IN UW OMGEVING WORDEN NOG MEER MAATREGELEN GETROFFEN TEGEN OVERSTROMINGEN VANUIT DE WAAL. DE VOLGENDE VRAGEN GAAN OVER UW BEELD VAN HOE IN UW REGIO BESLOTEN WORDT OM DIT SOORT MAATREGELEN TE NEMEN. 22. Heeft u het idee dat de mensen in uw omgeving de plannen om overstromingen tegen te gaan over het algemeen acceptabel vinden? o Ja, de meesten wel o De meningen zijn sterk verdeeld o Nee, de meesten niet 23. Heeft u het idee dat over het algemeen de mensen in uw omgeving de plannen om overstromingen tegen te gaan steunen? o Ja, de meesten wel o De meningen zijn sterk verdeeld o Nee, de meesten niet 24. Vindt u de plannen om overstromingen in uw omgeving tegen te gaan over het algemeen acceptabel? o Ja, (bijna) alle plannen o Sommige wel, sommige niet o Nee, (bijna) geen van de plannen 25. Steunt u over het algemeen de plannen om overstromingen in uw omgeving tegen te gaan? o Ja, (bijna) alle plannen o Sommige wel, sommige niet o Nee, (bijna) geen van de plannen 26. Hoeveel vertrouwen heeft u erin dat bij nieuwe projecten, waarin maatregelen tegen overstromingen in uw omgeving worden ontwikkeld:
14
1
2
3
4
5
8
De input van belanghebbenden op een correcte manier zal worden gebruikt in de besluitvorming
1
2
3
4
5
8
Dat de overheden een goede beslissing zullen nemen?
1
2
3
4
5
8
De overheden alle belangen goed zullen afwegen?
1
2
3
4
5
8
Het project goed zal verlopen
1
2
3
4
5
8
Het project goede maatregelen zal opleveren
1
2
3
4
5
8
Betrokken overheden en andere betrokkenen op een correcte manier zich gedragen tijdens het project
1
2
3
4
5
8
8. Weet niet
5. geen vertrouwen
4. Zeer weinig vertrouwen
3. weinig vertrouwen
2. vertouwen
1. veel vertrouwen De kennis van experts op een correcte manier zal worden gebruikt in de besluitvorming?
27. Kunt u aangeven hoeveel vertrouwen u heeft in de maatregelen tegen overstromingen uit de Waal in uw omgeving? o veel vertrouwen o vertouwen o weinig vertrouwen o Zeer weinig vertrouwen o geen vertrouwen o Weet niet
15
28. Hoe belangrijk vindt u het dat er in uw omgeving maatregelen tegen overstromingen worden genomen? o Heel belangrijk o Belangrijk o Neutraal o Onbelangrijk o Heel onbelangrijk 29. Denkt u dat de overheid in uw omgeving genoeg maatregelen neemt tegen overstromingen vanuit de Waal? o teveel o genoeg o te weinig o weet niet 30. Op welke manier vindt u dat burgers betrokken moeten worden bij het maken van plannen tegen overstromingen? o burgers moeten alleen geïnformeerd worden o burgers moeten de kans krijgen zich uit te spreken over de plannen o burgers moeten advies kunnen uitbrengen over de plannen aan de regering o burgers zouden mee moeten kunnen werken aan het ontwerpen van de plannen o burgers zouden mee moeten kunnen beslissen over het uitvoeren van de plannen (bijvoorbeeld door een referendum) 31. En hoe zouden maatschappelijke organisaties, zoals de milieubeweging en monumentenzorg betrokken moeten worden? o Maatschappelijke organisaties moeten alleen geïnformeerd worden o Maatschappelijke organisaties moeten de kans krijgen zich uit te spreken over de plannen o Maatschappelijke organisaties moeten advies kunnen uitbrengen over de plannen aan de regering o Maatschappelijke organisaties zouden mee moeten kunnen werken aan het ontwerpen van de plannen o Maatschappelijke organisaties zouden mee moeten kunnen beslissen over het uitvoeren van de plannen 32. Het maken van plannen tegen overstromingen kan op verschillende manieren gebeuren, hieronder staan een aantal stellingen over belangrijke aspecten van het maken van dit soort plannen. Kunt u aankruisen welke drie aspecten u het meest belangrijk vindt?
16
Als er plannen worden gemaakt om overstromingen in mijn omgeving tegen te gaan dan: Het meest belangrijk vind ik: -
Moeten die plannen gestoeld zijn op wetenschappelijke kennis
-
Moeten alle belangen van de verschillende partijen die door deze plannen worden geraakt eerlijk tegen elkaar afgewogen worden Moet het algemeen belang de doorslaggevende factor zijn
-
Moet de beslissing over wat er moet gebeuren overgelaten worden aan de experts Moeten onze volksvertegenwoordigers, die we gekozen hebben, beslissen wat er moet gebeuren. moeten alle betrokken partijen, burgers, belangengroepen, bedrijven en overheden, samen beslissen wat er moet gebeuren Moeten alle relevante feiten verzamelt worden en geanalyseerd, zodat een gefundeerde beslissing kan worden genomen Moeten alle belanghebbenden met elkaar onderhandelen om zo tot een voor iedereen aanvaardbaar plan te komen Moet er een open maatschappelijk debat worden gevoerd om zo tot een oplossing te komen dat zo breed mogelijk wordt gedragen
33. Tenslotte: Hieronder vindt u drie stellingen, kunt u aangeven welke stelling het meest overeenkomt met uw eigen mening? (omcirkel een stelling) o Het is de taak van de overheid om te zorgen dat we veilig zijn tegen overstromingen o Het is een gedeelde verantwoordelijkheid van de overheid en de burgers om te zorgen dat we veilig zijn tegen overstromingen o Het is hoofdzakelijk de verantwoordelijkheid van de burgers om te zorgen dat ze veilig zijn tegen overstromingen Licht uw mening eventueel toe:
TENSLOTTE NOG WAT PERSOONLIJKE KENMERKEN: Uw leeftijd: _______________________________ Uw geslacht: _______________________________ Uw regio:___________________________________ (Reeds ingevuld door TUDelft) DANK U VOOR UW MEDEWERKING!
17
18
B2 Questionnaire structured Interview Oxford Sir, madam, We are a group of researchers from the University of Technology Delft in the Netherlands studying the development of urban flood management strategies in Europe. As you will probably remember Oxford has suffered from a number of river floods in the last 10 years. Since that time the responsible governments have developed new plans to manage such floods. For instance “short term measures” have been taken and plans to clear obstructions near Redbridge are implemented at the moment. Currently the Environment Agency is developing the “Oxford flood risk management strategy”. We are interested in what the citizens of Oxford think about flood management in the Oxford area in general and this Oxford flood risk management strategy in particular. We would like to kindly ask you to fill in the questionnaire. If you don’t have an answer to one of the questions you can fill in “don’t know”, this is also very helpful information for us. Thank you! THE FIRST 23 QUESTIONS WILL BE ABOUT THE PROJECT: “OXFORD FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY” 1. Have you been involved in the “Oxford flood risk management strategy” project? 1. I have never heard of the Oxford flood risk management strategy GO TO QUESTION 2A 2. I have not been involved at all GO TO QUESTION 2B 3. I have consciously kept myself informed of the project by reading the newspaper, visiting the website etcetera. GO TO QUESTION 2B 4. I have participated in citizen meetings on the project organised by the government 5. I have protested against the project (for instance through writing a letter, giving an interview, having a conversation with a civil servant or politician, signing a petition or joining a protest march 6. I have become a member of a citizen group concerned with flooding 7. I have been consulted by the Environment Agency in an early stage 8. I have voiced my opinion on the project in the consultation round 9. Other____________________________________________________ IF YOU HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ‘OXFORD FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY’ GO TO QUESTION 2C. 2a. If you had known about the “Oxford flood risk management strategy”, would you like to have been involved? (maximum 3 answers please.) No: 1. I don’t have sufficient knowledge of flood management 2. I don’t care about what will be decided 3. It is none of my business what will be decided
19
4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
The government can decide perfectly well without me People have been elected to make such decisions for us I don’t have the time/energy to become involved in such a project Nobody will listen to people like me People like me cannot stop the government anyway Ordinary citizens should not be consulted on such decisions
I would only become involved if: 10. It concerns me personally 11. I am against the proposed plans 12. I am a strong supporter of the plans I would become involved, because: 13. I can bring in valuable knowledge for the project 14. I can influence the decision on the project 15. I want to bring forward the interest of the common man 16. I might not be able to stop the project, but I might be able to change it a bit 17. If you don’t try, you fail automatically 18. If you do not participate now, you should not complain later on 19. It is a duty of all citizens to participate in such projects 20. Other:____________________________________________________________ IF YOU HAVE NEVER HEARD OF THE ‘OXFORD FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY’ PROJECT PLEASE GO TO QUESTION 24 2b. If you were not actively involved in the project, can you indicate why not? (Maximum 3 answers) 1. I don’t have sufficient knowledge of flood management 2. I don’t care about what will be decided 3. It is none of my business what will be decided 4. The government can decide perfectly well without me 5. People have been elected to make such decisions for us 6. I don’t have the time/energy to become involved in such a project 7. Nobody will listen to people like me 8. People like me cannot stop the government anyway 9. Ordinary citizens should not be consulted on such decisions 10. Other:_________________________________________________________ ______ IF YOU KNOW OF THE ‘OXFORD FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY’ PROJECT, BUT HAVE NOT BEEN INVOLVED PLEASE GO TO QUESTION 3 2c. If you have been involved in the project can you indicate why? (Maximum 3 answers) 1. It concerns me personally 2. I am against the proposed plans 3. I am a strong supporter of the plans 4. I can bring in valuable knowledge for the project
20
5. I can influence the decision on the project 6. I want to bring forward the interest of the common man 7. I might not be able to stop the project, but I might be able to change it a bit 8. If you don’t try, you fail automatically 9. If you do not participate now, you should not complain later on 10. It is a duty of all citizens to participate in such projects 11. Other: ______________________________________________________________ 3. Please describe in your own words what you think the problem is that the government is trying to solve with the “Oxford flood risk management strategy” project. ________________________________________________________________________ ____ 4. How important is it to you that this problem will be solved? 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Neutral 4. Unimportant 5. Very unimportant 98. Don’t know 5. The Environment Agency has expressed in the consultation document a preference for “Option 9” which entails a new medium sized watercourse, additional measures and possible floodwater storage in the future. Could you describe this option more elaborately in your own words?______________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ______ 6. What is your personal opinion on this option? o 1. Positive:___________________________________________________________ ___ o 2. Negative___________________________________________________________ ___ o 3. Mixed:____________________________________________________________ ____ o 98. I have no opinion 7. Are there measures that could be taken that have not been mentioned above, but that you find important nonetheless?
21
________________________________________________________________________ ____ If so, can you describe that measure in your own words? 8. In your personal opinion which issues or aspects should be given special attention in the further development of ‘Oxford flood risk management strategy’? ________________________________________________________________________ ____ 9. Which issues or aspects do you expect will be crucial for the governmental bodies in the further development of ‘Oxford flood risk management strategy’? ________________________________________________________________________ ____ INVOLVEMENT OF PEOPLE, ORGANISATIONS, EXPERTS AND GOVERNMENTAL BODIES There are differences between European countries how ordinary citizens, interest organizations and experts are involved in urban flood management projects. The next questions are about how citizens, interest groups and experts have been involved until now in the ‘Oxford flood risk management strategy’ project. 10. Do you know how citizens have been involved in the project? 1. Yes 2. No (Go to question 14) 11. Can you indicate how citizens have been involved until now in the ‘Oxford flood risk management strategy’ project? 1. Citizens have been informed by the government 2. Citizens have been consulted by the government 3. Citizens have been given the opportunity to co-design the project 4. Citizens can co-decide on the project 98. I don’t know 12. Are you satisfied with how citizens have been involved until now in the project? 1. Yes 2. No, citizens should be involved like this:________________________________ 98. don’t know 13. Do you know how interest organisations have been involved in the project? 1. Yes 2. No (Go to question 16) 14. Can you indicate how interest organisations have been involved until now in the ‘Oxford flood risk management strategy’ project? 1. Interest organisations have been informed by the government
22
2. Interest organisations have been consulted by the government 3. Interest organisations have been given the opportunity to co-design the project 4. Interest organisations can co-decide on the project 98. I don’t know 15. Are you satisfied with how interest organisations have been involved in the project until now? 1. Yes 2. No, interest organisations should be involved like this:_____________________ 98. Don’t know/no opinion In flood risk management projects experts are often involved in a number of ways. The next 2 questions are about how experts have been involved in the ‘Oxford flood risk management strategy’ project. 16. Do you know how experts have been involved in ‘Oxford flood risk management strategy’ project? 1. Yes 2. No (go to question 19) 17. Below you see a number of statements about how experts were involved in the ‘Oxford flood risk management strategy’ until now. Can you indicate if you agree or disagree with these statements? Experts have provided answers to difficult issues that played a role in ‘Oxford flood risk management strategy’
Experts were capable of giving independent advice on the project ‘Oxford flood risk management strategy’
The knowledge the experts brought in has been used to clearly weigh the pros and cons of the proposed measures.
1. Agree completely 2. Somewhat agree 3. Neither agree, nor disagree 4. Somewhat disagree 5. Disagree completely 98. don’t know 1. Agree completely 2. Somewhat agree 3. Neither agree, nor disagree 4. Somewhat disagree 5. Disagree completely 98. don’t know o Agree completely o Somewhat agree o Neither agree, nor disagree o Somewhat disagree o Disagree completely 98. don’t know
23
18. Are you satisfied with how the experts have been involved in the project until now? 1. Yes 2. No, the experts should be involved like this:________________________________ 98. Don’t know/no opinion 19. When making urban flood management plans a large group of people, organisations and governmental bodies are involved. Below a list of such people, organisations and governmental bodies is given. In your perception do these people, organizations and governmental bodies have enough, too little or too much influence on the ‘Oxford flood risk management strategy’ project?
24
I do not know how much influence this actor has on the project
Excessive influence
Too much influence
Exactly enough influence
Too little influence
Extremely little influence
Comments:
Municipality
1
2
3
4
5
8
Environment Agency
1
2
3
4
5
8
Oxfordshire county council
1
2
3
4
5
8
DEFRA
1
2
3
4
5
8
Cabinet
1
2
3
4
5
8
Parliament
1
2
3
4
5
8
Interest groups
1
2
3
4
5
8
Business
1
2
3
4
5
8
Oxford Flood Alliance
1
2
3
4
5
8
Oxford citizens
1
2
3
4
5
8
Engineering and consulting firms (e.g. Black & Veach) You
1
2
3
4
5
8
1
2
3
4
5
8
Other actor: _____________________
1
2
3
4
5
8
_____________________________________________________________________ 20. Below you find another list of stakeholders in this project. Can you please indicate: a) Did you find their conduct in this project acceptable? b) Do you think they have enough knowledge to contribute to the project?
25
I have no view of the knowledge level of this actor
No knowledge
Somet knowledge
Sufficiently knowledgeable
I have no view of the conduct of this actor in this project Very knowledgable
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
8 8
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
8 8
Oxfordshire county council
1
2
3
4
8
1
2
3
4
8
DEFRA
1
2
3
4
8
1
2
3
4
8
Cabinet
1
2
3
4
8
1
2
3
4
8
Parliament
1
2
3
4
8
1
2
3
4
8
Interest groups
1
2
3
4
8
1
2
3
4
8
Business
1
2
3
4
8
1
2
3
4
8
Oxford flood alliance Oxford citizens Engineering and consulting firms
1 1 1
2 2 2
3 3 3
4 4 4
8 8 8
1 1 1
2 2 2
3 3 3
4 4 4
8 8 8
Very bad
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Very good Municipality Environment Agency
Comments:______________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ _____________ 21. Until now have you found the policy making process of the ‘Oxford flood risk management strategy’ project acceptable? 1. I support the projects process 2. I find the projects process acceptable 3. I find the projects process unacceptable 22. How satisfied have you been with the policy making process of the ‘Oxford flood risk management strategy’ project? 1. Very unsatisfied 2. Unsatisfied 3. Not unsatisfied, not satisfied 4. Satisfied 5. Very satisfied
26
23. Do you trust that good decisions will be taken in ‘Oxford flood risk management strategy’? 1. Yes 2. No 98. Don’t know Please explain: _________________________________________________________________ 24. All in all, do you regard the development of the ‘Oxford flood risk management strategy’ as legitimate (that is acceptable, proper)? 1. Legitimate 2. Illegitimate 3. No opinion 98. Don’t know IN YOUR AREA OTHER FLOOD MANAGEMENT POLICIES ARE BEING DEVELOPED APART FROM THE ‘OXFORD FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY’. YOU CAN THINK FOR INSTANCE OF MEASURES TAKEN NEAR REDBRIDGE AND THE SHORT TERM MEASURES. THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ARE ABOUT ALL SUCH MEASURES IN GENERAL. 25.a Have you ever been involved in the development of flood management measures in the Oxford Area? 1. I have never been involved in a flood management project. (Go to question 26) 2. I have consciously kept myself informed of flood management projects by reading the newspaper, visiting the website etcetera. 3. I have participated in citizen meetings on a project organised by the government 4. I have participated in citizen meetings on a project organised by a citizen group 5. I have protested against the project (for instance through writing a letter, giving an interview, having a conversation with a civil servant or politician, signing a petition or joining a protest march 6. I have become a member of a citizen group concerned with flooding 7. I have been consulted by a governmental body in an early stage 8. I have voiced my opinion on the project in a consultation round 25b. If you have been involved in a flood management project: what flood management project have you been involved in?________________________________________________________ 26. Do you think most people in your area find the flood management measures taken in Oxford acceptable? 1. Most people support the measures taken 2. Most people find the measures acceptable
27
3. The opinions about the measures very greatly 4. Most people find the measures taken unacceptable 5. Most people strongly oppose the measures taken 27. Do you find the flood management measures taken in Oxford acceptable? 1. I support most measures taken 2. I find most measures acceptable 3. I find some measures acceptable, others not so 4. I find most measures unacceptable 5. I strongly oppose most measures taken
5. No trust
2
3
4
5
8
1
2
3
4
5
8
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
8 8
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
8 8
1
2
3
4
5
8
8. Don’t know
4. Very little trust
1
3. Little trust
2. Trust
The knowledge of experts is used in an appropriate manner in the project? The input of stakeholders is used in an appropriate manner in the project? That a good decision will be taken? The governmental bodies will weigh the diverse interests in a good manner? The project will run a proper course? Good flood management measures are developed Governments will behave correctly during the project
1. Deeply trust
28. Do you trust that when flood management measures are developed for Oxford:
29. Do you trust the flood management measures taken in Oxford? 1. Deep trust 2. Trust 3. Little trust 4. Very little trust 5. No trust 98. Don’t know 30. How important do you think it is to take flood management measures in Oxford?
28
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Very important Important Neutral Unimportant Very unimportant
31. Do you think the government is taking enough flood management measures in Oxford? 1. Too many 2. Enough 3. Too little 98. Don’t know 32. Developing flood management measures can take place in a number of different ways. Below you find a number of aspects of flood management projects. Can you indicate in order of importance which three aspects you find the most important aspects of flood management projects? (maximum 3 answers + in order of importance) If flood management plans are made in my area, then: I find this most important: 1. These plans should be based on scientific knowledge 2. All interests of the different stakeholders have to be taken into account 3. The general interest should be decisive 4. The decision on what needs to be done should be left to experts 5. Our elected representatives should decide what needs to be done 6. All stakeholders, citizens, interest groups, experts and governmental bodies should decide together what needs to be done 7. All relevant facts should be gathered and analyzed to come to a well-founded decision 8. All stakeholders should negotiate together to come to a decision which is acceptable to all 9. An open societal debate should be held to come to a plan that represents the general interest. 33. All in all do you find the development of flood management policies in your region legitimate (that is acceptable, proper)? 1. Legitimate 2. Illegitimate 3. No opinion 98. Don’t know
29
FINALLY SOME PERSONAL INFORMATION: Age: _______________________________ Sex : _______________________________ Region :___________________________________ (filled in by TU Delft) THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION!
30
APPENDIX B3 MAP OF AREAS OF STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS IN NIJMEGEN-LENT
31
APPENDIX B4 MAP OF AREAS OF STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS IN OXFORD
32
Appendix C1 Survey Dutch river regions Vragenlijst Meningsvorming Waterveiligheidsbeleid
Niet mee eens
Neutraal
Mee eens
Helemaal mee eens
Weet niet/ geen beeld van
Ik sta achter de doelen, en de meeste plannen van het waterveiligheidsbeleid Ik vind dat de meeste besluitvormingsprocessen in het waterveiligheidsbeleid goed verlopen. Ik sta over het algemeen achter de overheden, die zich met waterveiligheid bezig houden.
Helemaal niet mee eens
I1 Bij het beleidsveld “waterveiligheid” denk ik aan:______________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ I2 Hieronder vindt u een lijst van zaken, die in verband te brengen zijn met waterveiligheid. Kunt u aankruisen welke zaken u herkent? o Reclame spotjes “Nederland o Rampenbestrijdings oefening leeft met water” (bijvoorbeeld o Waterschap/hoogheemraadschap met Peter Timofeeff) o Rijkswaterstaat o PKB “Ruimte voor de Rivier” o Ministerie van verkeer en o Het nieuwe delta programma waterstaat o Dag van de dijk o Deltawet Rivieren o Hoogwater Rijn en Maas o Anders nl:____________________ 1993/1995 L1. Hoe vindt u dat het waterveiligheidsbeleid in Nederland is geregeld? (omcirkel uw keuze)
1
2
3
4
5
8
1
2
3
4
5
8
1
2
3
4
5
8
L2. Aan welke overheden dacht u bij de vorige vraag? (Meerdere antwoorden mogelijk) o gemeente o Ministerie van VROM o waterschap o Ministerie van LNV o provincie o Parlement o Rijkswaterstaat o Anders nl. : o Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat
33
Helemaal niet mee eens
Niet mee eens
De meningen zijn erg verdeeld
Mee eens
Helemaal mee eens
Weet niet/ geen beeld van
GL1. Hoe denkt u dat de mensen om u heen het waterveiligheidsbeleid geregeld vinden? (omcirkel uw keuze)
De meeste mensen staan achter de doelen, en de meeste plannen van het waterveiligheidsbeleid
1
2
3
4
5
8
De meeste mensen vinden dat de meeste besluitvormingsprocessen in het waterveiligheidsbeleid goed verlopen. De meeste mensen staan achter de overheden, die zich met waterveiligheid bezig houden
1
2
3
4
5
8
1
2
3
4
5
8
E1. Bent u ooit betrokken geweest bij een besluitvorming rondom waterveiligheid? (bijv. in een Ruimte voor de Rivier-project) En zo ja, op welke wijze? o Nee (Ga door naar vraag E4) o Ja nl: (Meerdere antwoorden mogelijk) o Ik heb deelgenomen aan door de overheid georganiseerde informatie en discussieavonden o Ik heb tegen het project geprotesteerd (bv. d.m.v. een brief, een interview, een gesprek met een ambtenaar of politicus, een handtekening zetten, in een demonstratie meelopen) o Ik heb actief mijn steun laten blijken voor het project (bv. d.m.v. een brief, een interview, een gesprek met een ambtenaar of politicus, een handtekening zetten, in een demonstratie meelopen). o Ik ben lid geworden van een protestorganisatie of steun organisatie (bv burgerplatform, belangenvereniging etc.) o Ik heb in de adviesgroep van een project gezeten o Ik heb juridische stappen ondernomen tegen een project o Ik ben betrokken geweest uit hoofde van mijn beroep o Ik ben op een andere manier actief betrokken geweest nl.: ____________________________________________________________ E2. Hoe heeft u uw betrokkenheid bij de besluitvorming rondom waterveiligheid ervaren? (kruis uw keuze aan) o Zeer negatief o negatief o neutraal o positief o zeer positief o Weet niet o Anders nl. __________________
34
E3 Heeft uw betrokkenheid uw beeld van waterveiligheidsbeleid veranderd? o Ja, mijn beeld van waterveiligheidsbeleid is negatiever geworden o Ja, mijn beeld is positiever geworden o Ja, mijn beeld is genuanceerder geworden. o Ja, ik heb meer inzicht gekregen in waterveiligheidsbeleid o Nee, mijn beeld is hetzelfde gebleven o Anders nl.___________________________________________________________ o Weet niet E4. Discussieert u weleens met mensen in uw omgeving over waterveiligheid? o (Bijna) nooit (Ga door naar vraag E9) o Ja af en toe o Ja regelmatig o Anders nl. ____________________________________________________________ o Weet niet E5. Met wie heeft u dergelijke discussies gehad? (Meerdere antwoorden mogelijk) o Directe familie o Vrienden o Buren/ mensen uit woonomgeving o Kennissen o Collega’s o Anders nl_____________________________________________________________ E6. Zijn deze mensen zelf betrokken (geweest) bij waterveiligheidsbeleid? (Meerdere antwoorden mogelijk) o Nee o Ja zij zijn omwonenden in een waterveiligheidsproject o Ja, zij vertegenwoordigen een belangengroep (zoals milieu, economie of recreatie) in een project o Ja zij zijn werken aan dergelijke projecten als ingehuurde consultants o Ja zij werken als ambtenaar aan een dergelijk project o Ja, zij zijn politiek actief (als politicus of bestuurder van een overheidsorgaan) in een project o Anders nl._____________________________________________________________ o Weet niet E7. Schat u in dat deze mensen meer, minder of evenveel kennis hadden over waterveiligheidsbeleid als uzelf? De meesten hadden: o Veel minder kennis o minder kennis
35
o o o o o
Evenveel kennis Sommigen meer, anderen hadden minder kennis Meer kennis Veel meer kennis Weet niet
36
E8. Is uw beeld van waterveiligheidsbeleid veranderd door deze discussies? (Meerdere antwoorden mogelijk) o Ja, mijn beeld van waterveiligheidsbeleid is negatiever geworden o Ja, mijn beeld is positiever geworden o Ja, mijn beeld is genuanceerder geworden. o Ja, ik heb meer inzicht gekregen in waterveiligheidsbeleid o Nee, mijn beeld is hetzelfde gebleven o Weet niet o Anders nl.___________________________________________________________ E9. Houdt u zich via de media op de hoogte van projecten of ontwikkelingen rondom het waterveiligheidsbeleid in Nederland? o Nee (Ga door naar vraag LE1) o Alleen als het toevallig langs komt, kijk, luister of lees ik berichtgeving over het waterveiligheidsbeleid in Nederland o Ik houd me bewust/actief op de hoogte van het waterveiligheidsbeleid in Nederland o Anders nl.___________________________________________________________ E10. Is uw beeld van waterveiligheidsbeleid veranderd door de berichtgeving via de media? o ja, mijn beeld van waterveiligheidsbeleid is negatiever geworden o ja mijn beeld is positiever geworden o Ja mijn beeld is genuanceerder geworden. o Nee, mijn beeld is hetzelfde gebleven o Weet niet o Anders nl.____________________________________________________________ LE1.
Hieronder vind u een aantal stellingen over waterveiligheid. Wilt u omcirkelen: A. Of deze stelling het huidige waterveiligheidsbeleid goed beschrijft? B. Of u vindt dat het waterveiligheidsbeleid idealiter zo zou moeten zijn?
37
Weet niet
Dit zou niet zo moeten zijn
Dit zou gedeeltelijk zo moeten zijn
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3
8 8 8 8
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3
8 8 8 8
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
Dit zou zo moeten zijn Geen mening/ weet niet
Dit is zo
Iedere burger wordt even goed beschermd tegen overstromingen, ongeacht de kosten Er wordt genoeg tijd uitgetrokken worden om tot een zorgvuldig besluit te komen De invloed van betrokken burgers is klein Om tot een goed besluit te komen wordt zoveel mogelijk informatie gebruikt Waterveiligheidsbeleid wordt overgelaten aan experts De betrokken overheden zijn bereid hun plannen aan te passen als hiervoor vanuit de maatschappij steekhoudende argumenten worden aangedragen Er wordt zo snel mogelijk tot een besluit gekomen om duidelijkheid te creëren Besluiten zijn gebaseerd op kennis, niet op emoties De kern van een besluitvormingsproces is het maatschappelijk debat Maatregelen worden alleen genomen als ze noodzakelijk zijn Betrokken burgers hebben veel zichtbare invloed Maatregelen pakken de oorzaken van overstromingen aan Maatregelen verkleinen de kans op overstromingen Maatregelen verkleinen de gevolgen van overstromingen Maatregelen zorgen ervoor dat schade door overstromingen snel kan worden hersteld Burgers hebben veel invloed Bij het ontwerpen van nieuwe maatregelen wordt rekening gehouden met toekomstige ontwikkelingen De invloed van een maatregel op de directe omgeving is in verhouding met het probleem dat opgelost wordt. De kosten van de maatregel is in verhouding met de economische waarde van het te beschermen gebied Waterveiligheid weegt zwaarder in besluiten dan natuur, wonen of recreatie
Dit is gedeeltelijk zo
Stelling
B Ideale situatie
Nee dit is niet zo
A Huidige situatie
38
Betrokken overheden laten zich niet te veel leiden door maatschappelijke groeperingen
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
Tenslotte willen we u nog een paar vragen stellen over uzelf: D1. Wat is uw geslacht? o Man o Vrouw D2. Wat is uw leeftijd? ________________________ D3. Wat zijn de cijfers van uw postcode? ___________ D4. Wat is uw hoogst genoten opleiding? o geen opleiding o basisschool o VMBO/MAVO/VBO/huishoudschool o HAVO/HBS o VWO/Gymnasium o MBO o HBO o Universitair o Universitair + o Anders nl.______________________________________ Graag terugsturen naar (u kunt ook de bijgevoegde antwoord-envelop gebruiken): TU Delft, Faculteit Technologie, Bestuur en Management Sectie Beleidsanalyse t.a.v. drs. M.E.Cuppen Antwoordnummer 10051 2600 VB Delft
39
Appendix C2 Survey Thames river basin Questionnaire UK flood management Additional comments are welcome on a separate sheet. If you have no answer to a question, feel free to fill in ‘don’t know’ or ‘no opinion’. This is valuable information for us as well. I1 When I think of “flood management”, I think of: ________________________________________________________________________ ___ I2 Do you think it important that flood management measures are taken in your region? o Very important o Important o Not important, not unimportant o Unimportant o Very unimportant
disagree
Don’t agree, don’t disagree
agree
Completely agree
Don’t know/ I have no view of this
I support the goals of flood management and their realization in most flood management plans. In my opinion, most decision making processes concerning flood management run properly I look favorably upon most governmental bodies that are responsible for flood management
Completely disagree
L1 What is your opinion about how flood management is organized in the UK?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2 Which governmental bodies came to mind in the last question? (Several answers possible) o City council o District council o Water companies o County council o Environment Agency o DEFRA o Other ministries:_____________________________________
40
Disagree
Most people are neutral
Agree
Completely agree Opinions vary greatly among my acquaintances Most people have no opinion
I don’t know / have no view
Most people around me support the goals of flood management and their realization in most flood management plans. Most people think most decision making processes concerning flood management take a proper course Most people look favorably upon most governmental bodies that are responsible for flood management
Completely disagree
o Parliament o Other: _____________________________________________ L3 What do the people around you think about how flood management is organized in the UK?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E1 Have you ever been involved in flood management (for instance in a project or projects)? o No o Yes o I have consciously kept myself informed of the project by reading the newspaper, visiting the website etcetera. o I have participated in citizen meetings on the project organised by the government o I have protested against the project (for instance through writing a letter, giving an interview, having a conversation with a civil servant or politician, signing a petition or joining a protest march) o I have actively shown my support for the project ((for instance through writing a letter, giving an interview, having a conversation with a civil servant or politician, signing a petition or joining a protest march) o I have become a member of a citizen group concerned with flooding o I have been consulted by the Environment Agency in an early stage o I have voiced my opinion on the project in a consultation round o I have taken legal action against a project o I have been involved in a flood management project through my profession o Other_______________________________________________________ ____
41
E2 How did you experience your involvement in the flood management projects? o Very positively o positively o neutral o negatively o very negatively E3. Has your opinion of flood management changed through your personal experience in a flood management project? o o o o o o o
Yes, my opinion on flood management has become more positive Yes, My opinion on flood management has become more negative Yes, my opinion on flood management has become more nuanced Yes I gained more insight in flood management No my opinion on flood management has remained the same. I don’t know Different, namely _____________________________________________
E4. Do you have, or have you ever had, discussions about flood management with people you know? o (Almost) never (PLEASE CONTINUE WITH QUESTION E9) o Yes, now and then o Yes, regurlarly E5. With whom did you have these discussions? o Family o Friends o Neighbors o Acquaintances o Colleagues o Other namely______________________________________________________ E6. Do the people (with whom you had discussions about flood management) have personal experience of flood management? o No o Yes o They live in an area subject to flooding o They are inhabitants of an area where a flood management project was implemented o They represent an interest group in a flood management project o They work as a consultant in flood management projects o They work as a scientists on flood management issues o They work as a civil servant on flood management projects
42
o They are politically active (and thus deal with flood management projects) o Don’t know o Other: _______________________________________________________ E7. In your perception do these people have more or less knowledge of flood management, than you do? o Most people have more knowledge of flood management, than I have o Most people have the same level of knowledge of flood management as I have o Some people have more, some have less knowledge of flood management, than I have o Most people have less knowledge of flood management than I have o Don’t know E8. Has your opinion on flood management changed through these discussions? o Yes, my opinion on flood management has become more positive o Yes, My opinion on flood management has become more negative o Yes, my opinion on flood management has become more nuanced o Yes I gained more insight in flood management o No my opinion on flood management has remained the same. o I don’t know o Different, namely __________________________________________ E9. Do you keep yourself informed about flood management (developments) through the media? o No (CONTINUE TO QUESTION LE1) o I watch, listen or read news about flood management (developments) in the UK if I happen to catch it. o I actively scan the media for news on flood management (developments) in the UK E10. Has your opinion on flood management changed through the news coverage in the media? o Yes, my opinion on flood management has become more positive o Yes, My opinion on flood management has become more negative o Yes, my opinion on flood management has become more nuanced o Yes I gained more insight in flood management o No my opinion on flood management has remained the same. o I don’t know o Different, namely _________________________________________ LE1 For the following statements, can you indicate: A. Whether they describe the current state of flood management in the UK well?
43
Partly true
True
Don’t know
Should not be true Should be partly true Should be true
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Many flood management measures are taken
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Experts decide about flood management policy The responsible governmental bodies are prepared to adjust their plans on the basis of sensible arguments from citizens Decisions on flood management plans are made quickly, so that people are not left in doubt for too long. Decisions are based on facts, not emotions A societal debate is the core of decision making processes concerning flood management Flood management measures are only taken when they are necessary The influence of citizens is visible in policies Flood management measures address the causes of flooding Flood management measures lessen the chance of flooding Flood management measures lessen the consequences of flooding Flood management measures increase the resilience against flooding Flood defenses are well-maintained Possible future developments are taken into account when designing flood management measures There is parity between the (local) impact of flood management measures and the problem these measures are solving The costs of flood management measures are in parity with the economic value of the assets it will protect.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stelling
Every citizen is equally protected against flooding, regardless of cost Enough time is taken to make careful, well-considered decisions about flood management plans Citizens have little impact on FM policies
Don’t know/no opinion
Not true
AND: B. Whether you think this statements should ideally be true of flood management in the UK? A. Current B. Ideal
44
Flood management takes precedence over nature, housing or recreation Responsible governmental bodies are not influenced too much in their decisions by pressure from societal groups
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D1. What is your sex? o Male o Female D2. What is your age?________________________ D3. What is your postal code? ______________________ D4. Please indicate the highest education-level that you attained? o No education-level completed o Primary school o Secondary school o Sixth Form/College o University (Undergraduate) o University (Postgraduate) o Different, namely:_____________________________________________ If you want to participate in the ‘lottery’ for the SENZ umbrella, please fill in your full address below, this information will only be used for the ’lottery’ and will not be made available to third parties. Name:__________________________________________________________________ _ Street: ___________________________________________________________________ Postal code + City:__________________________________________________________ E-mail address (to notify of result of ‘lotery’)_____________________________________ Please return this survey with the enclosed answering envelope, or to the following address: University of Technology, Delft Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management Miriam Cuppen Postbus 5015 2600 GA Delft, the Netherlands
45
Appendix D Newspaper articles Appendix D1 Search-words newspaper articles Netherlands waterveiligheid OR Delta* OR Ruimte voor de rivier OR leven met water OR hoogwater OR noodoverloop* OR dijk* OR waterschap OR Rijkswaterstaat OR waterstaat
Appendix D2 Search-words newspaper articles UK flood OR flood management OR environment agency OR DEFRA OR flooding OR flood insurance OR space for water OR levee OR bund OR flood plain OR river OR groundwater OR sewerage
46
Appendix E Nijmegen-Lent Appendix E1 Counts Secondary codes in-depth interviews
47
Appendix E2 Description of most important legitimating Elements The analysis of the in-depth analysis showed 16 legitimating elements meriting closer attention. These 16 elements are described in more detail below. Content-elements The content-related elements were problem definition, issues, criteria, approach and alternatives. Problem definition: (Mentioned 37 times by 15 actors.) Due to the multitude of issues which needed to be taken into account, the problem definition was multi-faceted. First, this project needed to make the flood defense system in this area according to the new flood management norms. Second, through this project the bottleneck could be removed from the river. Third, if the bottleneck was removed, this would have positive effects downstream and upstream the Waal. As a result the problem definition was not broadly understood, or shared in the actor network and many actors gained the impression that it was changed by Rijkswaterstaat to promote their preferred alternative. This led to more negative attitudes among citizens, but also the alderman towards the project and towards Rijkswaterstaat specifically. Issues: (Mentioned 159 times by 19 actors.) a multitude of issues played a role in the project. Issues that were mentioned in the interviews were flood management, urban planning/ spatial quality, nature, impact, money and the historic value of the buildings that would have to be demolished. Flood management seemed to have an inherent legitimacy. If it was necessary people are willing to make personal sacrifices to ensure the Netherlands stay dry, as various actors suggested. However, in this case, flood management did not help in choosing between alternatives. Citizens questioned whether Brokx would be more effective in terms of flood management. Therefore, they believed benefits to other issues had led to the choice for Brokx. They thought that the Brokx alternative was probably chosen, because it offered more opportunities for urban developers, than the Lentse Warande. However, the role of urban planning in choosing Brokx was never made explicit and thus citizens did not see urban planning as a legitimate reason to choose for one of the alternatives. Urban planning was not so explicitly discussed as a central issue during the EIA, because responsibility for the two main interests “urban planning”/”spatial quality” and “flood management” was divided between separate governmental bodies. Civil servants from Rijkswaterstaat felt they ought not decide on urban planning or spatial quality issues, since this was the responsibility of the municipality. The alderman explained that since the municipality was not deciding between the two alternatives, he aimed at making both alternatives acceptable from an urban planning perspective. As a result spatial quality was an issue which was only included in the design at a late state in the project, which was much regretted by several civil servants and experts. Some civil servants became slightly less enthusiastic about the content of the project, because they feared urban planning was considered too late to ensure this project would lead to a new landmark. While the civil servants blamed the process, pointing especially to the difficult position of the
48
municipality, one expert blamed Rijkswaterstaat, believing they had not given enough room to the urban planners to improve the designs. The expert’s perception of the role of Rijkswaterstaat is linked to his access to the actor network, as his access was determined by Rijkswaterstaat. Many different issues had to be taken into account, yet only a few actors indicated representing more than one issue. The alderman explained that his role was complicated, because he had to simultaneously represent the interests of the city, the interests of the future inhabitants of the Waalsprong and the interests of those citizens who would have to leave the area. Many different interests were represented in the participatory process, which led to actors being aware of the many issues at play. However, although these actors were aware of the various interests, they tended to assign different weights to the different interests. Thus, citizens felt that the impact on their personal lives had not been given enough weight, while at the same time they tended to dismiss other interests, such as nature. The fact that very little cross-cutting issues existed seems to have aggravated the conflicts in the project, since there was no consensus on how the issues should be weighed against each other. Remarkably, money was an issue which was only discussed a few times in the interviews. Only a few actors mentioned the issue of money, even though the proposed measure was costly and at the time of the interviews the first signs of an economic crisis had become apparent. Some stakeholders expressed their surprise at the lack of importance of the money issue at the national level. One citizen expected that with the financial crisis the Lentse Warande would suddenly become more attractive to the flood managers. Criteria: (mentioned 34 times by 17 actors.) Main criteria by which the alternatives were judged were fairness, effectiveness, necessity, feasibility, the potential for future development, clarity to inhabitants and the explainability. Citizens questioned the fairness, the effectiveness and the necessity of the Brokx alternative. Civil servants questioned the feasibility, and the clarity to inhabitants of the Lentse Warande. Civil servants and decision makers argued for the Brokx alternative by pointing to the potential it had for future development. Finally, citizens questioned the explainability of building on the proposed island extension in the Waal. In the urban plan developed by the municipality (after the 2007 parliamentary decision on the dike relocation), it was proposed to extend the new island in the Waal, by digging out part of the technical flood plain and heightening part of the current river bed. At the time of the interviews, it was debated whether permanent housing could be developed on this island extension, or whether that part of the island should be floodable during high water. Citizens argued that building new houses on a new island in the Waal, while old valuable houses had to be removed was not explainable to those having to move. Since no final decision had yet been made, attitudes were not influenced by this new plan, but the citizens strong reactions to this plan suggested that deciding in favor of permanent housing, could negatively influence the attitudes toward the content. In short, civil servants and citizens disagreed with each other about the criteria that were used to judge the alternatives and also how the alternatives “scored” on these criteria. The
49
participatory process has not been able to bridge the gap between these perceptions, but seems instead to have made these differences in perception more pronounced. Approach: (mentioned 31 times by 12 actors.) During the project, citizens started to strongly question several choices made in the approach towards designing this flood management measure. Civil servants and decision makers argued that any measure here should be a robust measure, because of the pressure to build in this area and the proximity to the city of Nijmegen. However, citizens argued for a more adaptive approach (claiming the Lentse Warande was such an adaptive approach), because of the many uncertainties concerning climate change and the high impact of the Brokx measure. Citizens also debated why spatial flood management approach should be preferred over technical measures, while other actors argued for the Brokx alternative, because it was a spatial measure. Next to the approach, other choices made at the policy sector were debated, such as the choice to design a measure which could withstand water quantities of 18.000m3/s, rather than the 16.000 m3/s norm which was put down in law. Alternatives: (mentioned 75 times by 17 actors.) The alternatives were mainly used in the interviews as center points to argue for or against. Citizens argued in favor of the Lentse Warande and against the dike relocation, because the lentse Warande was less invasive, and in their view more adaptive. Civil servants and decision makers argued against the dike relocation and in favor of the dike relocation, because the dike relocation was more robust, would not leave people in insecurity for a long period, solved the bottleneck, and it was a spatial measure. Meanwhile, one of the experts was disgruntled that the debate in the EIA centered around these two alternatives, while in an EIA more alternatives needed to be compared. The EIA mainly compared the two alternatives “Brokx” and “Lentse Warande”. The two alternatives were difficult to compare because they were different in nature and time scale. Furthermore, Because a citizen alternative was compared to the preferred alternative of the vice minister, a winloose situation developed. Civil servants were aware of the difficulties and dangers of comparing these alternatives, but felt this situation had been unavoidable because of the mechanisms of the project. Meanwhile, one of the experts argued that civil servants could have used the EIA as a tool to re-open the process and in that way gain the trust of the advisory group. The fact that instead these two alternatives were compared gave the experts the impression that RWS was not willing to open up the process, perhaps due to political pressure. Process related elements Process-elements that stood out were EIA/Research, use of input, Lock-in (predecision, & coupling issues), progress (speed/delay/length & invisibility), goal participation and type of process. EIA/Research (mentioned 44 times by 15 actors). It seems that these debates on institutions in the EIA could develop partly because of the official aim of the EIA. In line with EIA regulations, the project leader believed an EIA should be about the most
50
invasive decision, in this case whether a dike relocation should happen or not. It was only a small step from posing this question in the EIA and comparing a dike relocation (spatial measure) to a technical measure, to debating the institutions which underpinned the first choice for a dike relocation. During the process much research had been done. Various studies were done by different actors, for instance RWS, the municipality, the province and citizens all conducted their own studies. The initial studies were done without the involvement of societal actors, with great speed and at relatively low costs. These studies had far reaching consequences since they resulted in the vice minister expressing a preference for a dike relocation and the governmental bodies signing a contract on the conditions for collaborating on such a dike relocation. The speed, invisibility and low financial investment led citizens to question the quality, the thoroughness and the reliability of these initial studies. Consequently, they developed the Lentse Warande as an alternative to the dike relocation. Citizens also questioned the independence of the experts working on the project. These experts had been involved at various stages of the project and were consistently paid by the same organization. This shows that while involving the same experts throughout the project can contribute to establishing a knowledge base and ensuring progress in the project, it can also lead to (possibly strategic) accusations of dependency and bias. Meanwhile, experts and civil servants disagreed on the EIA’s methodology. Civil servants were willing to sacrifice a little methodological robustness to meet the manifested needs of the project, while experts wanted to hold on to the methodological robustness to ensure quality. This disagreement on the methodological requirements contributed importantly to one expert’s negative process and stakeholder attitude. The EIA was the phase in which citizens and experts were most intensively involved. In consequence, citizens perceived the EIA as a key part of the process, while civil servants and decision makers attached less importance to the EIA. In their eyes, it was a necessary step to make sure the dike relocation was a good measure. This use of the EIA was rejected by citizens and experts alike. They pointed out that since the EIA was the most expensive and extensive study done in the project, it should should have more weight than the other studies. Civil servants tried to downplay the importance of the EIA by making a summary of the final draft, but this attempt backfired. Citizens started to distrust civil servants more, because they perceived the EIA should be more central to the project. When citizens and experts were angered about the project when they became aware that decision makers and civil servants attached less importance to the EIA process than they did. Civil servants viewed the opinions voiced in the advisory group as a specific type of information which an EIA delivered. In line with this, they treated the advice letter of the advisory group as information which needed to be given to the vice minister in its context. Thus they added their own comments to the advice letter explaining the context and what had been done with the comments in the advice letter. The citizens in the advisory group were angered by how civil servants had treated their letter. They regarded their advice as equal to the advice of the steering group and not as just another bit of information in the EIA.
51
Lock-in (compilation of two secondary codes: Coupling issues mentioned 12 times by 8 actors, and predecision mentioned 36 times by 12 actors) During the process, many participating actors developed the impression that the process had been locked-in from the start, which frustrated them and was an important factor in looking negatively on the project. Actors saw two main causes that the process was locked-in: at an early stage in the process the solution “alternative Brokx” became coupled to financing a second bridge across the Waal, and the perception arose that the decision for Brokx had been made prior to the EIA. A major frustration in the project was that before the start of the EIA phase, the Vice minister and the municipality of Nijmegen had agreed that if Nijmegen cooperated with the state to implement a dike relocation, the state would cofinance a second bridge across the Waal. This coupling of issues was perceived by citizens as an unfair bribe of the state. Especially since the issue of the bridge had been coupled to one particular alternative, rather than to the issue of flood management as such. Thus the participating citizens believed that governmental bodies were so unresponsive to ‘their’ alternative, because they did not want to re-open the contract and renegotiate the bridge. Many participants became very frustrated, because they perceived that the decision for the dike relocation had been made prior to the EIA. This perception arose during the EIA, as the project leader made it clear at an early public meeting that the Vice minister preferred the Brokx alternative, hence calling the project “dike relocation”. This perception was strengthened at the end of the EIA when details became known about the governmental contract which formed the basis of the EIA. In this contract, governmental actors had agreed to cooperate on the dike relocation. Participants who perceived the decision had been taken prior to the EIA, started to feel that an alternative they did not desired was pushed through, they felt they had been kept dangling and had been made to waste valuable resources (free time and energy mainly) on a hopeless cause. These two process aspects highlight the danger of making early decisions in projects, when not all stakeholders have been involved yet. Issues can be coupled, but if no definite choice has been made for a particular alternative, a coupling of particular solutions is dangerous. Prior decisions can lead to (perceived) lock-in situations, which makes a project less open and thus leads to the development of negative attitudes towards the process. Use of input (Compilation of use of input mentioned 18 times by 7 actors and power/influence mentioned 27 times by 8 actors) A process aspect which seemed to importantly influence the attitude formation of actors was the (non-)use of their input. Civil servants argued citizens had had much influence since their input had been so central in the EIA process. However, most societal actors saw their input not reflected in the end-result and thus did not think they had had real influence. The citizens’ alternative had been put aside in favor of the Brokx alternative. The issue of seepage, which was raised by the citizens, was not resolved during the EIA, and experts saw their advice on process design being put aside by their client. Only one actor, a business woman, mentioned how some of her input was used in the final plan. As a consequence, she was quite satisfied with the result of the participation. Interest groups representatives didn’t see their input used, but were less distressed by this then
52
citizens, because they were not against the proposed plan and they had foreseen their lack of influence and had adjusted their involvement accordingly: they both had become less intensively involved at an early stage of the EIA process. The fact that the seepage question was unresolved resulted in more negative attitudes among citizens towards Rijkswaterstaat. Rijkswaterstaat was seen as unresponsive and arrogant, and citizens felt they were not taken seriously. Civil servants from Rijkswaterstaat felt that the issue of seepage was a genuine issue, but needed to be, and could be resolved at a later stage in the project. The fact that the alternative of the citizens was put aside in favor of the Brokx alternative, gave citizens the feeling that they had lost and that participation had been a waste of their resources (time, money and energy). This seriously limited their willingness to participate in future similar projects. Thus, as a result of how their input was not used, these actors developed negative attitudes towards the process. The fact that civil servants had not heeded the process design advice of the experts, gave the experts the feeling they were dismissed and it frustrated them. Progress (compilation of two secondary codes: speed mentioned 54 times by 15 actors, and invisibility mentioned 34 times by 12 people). The progress in this project also seemed to influence the attitudes of the actors. A speedy process was necessary for the municipality, who was facing claims from contractors, and for businesses, who needed to decide on investments, but could not because of potential large damages if they needed to relocate. To speed up the process, civil servants could make use of the context of the project: it was a pilot project of the Room for the River program and thus had a strict time plan. However, speeding up the process had some negative side effects. It overwhelmed participating citizens, because they had to read and comment on many thick and complicated technical reports in a short time span. As a result some citizens and business representatives felt the Brokx alternative was pushed through, and the process compromised on thoroughness. A call from the vice minister to a participating citizen that she would take extra time to make a decision on this project, was deeply appreciated and interpreted as a sign of thoroughness. Thus, it seems that more than speed, thoroughness is a legitimating element for participating citizens. Progress should be guarded, but the speed of a process should also not be too high. In this case, actors attitudes towards the projects process were also influenced by the invisibility of parts the process. The EIA phase ended chaotically: The EIA was not brought into procedure, but instead the project was incorporated into the larger Room for the River program and Rijkswaterstaat gave leadership over the project to the municipality. As a result communication with participating actors in the advisory group abruptly stopped, without a real closing of the advisory group. Actors who had participated in the advisory group spoke of a deafening silence and didn’t know if any future participation from them was required. This made them insecure and a little suspicious of the process. Goal of participation (mentioned 30 times by 12 actors)The goal of participation led to conflicts in the project and thus influenced the actors attitudes towards the process. Different ideas developed on why societal actors were brought into the process: the
53
goal of participation remained ambiguous. Participants in the advisory group wanted to have ‘real’ influence and throughout the process developed the perception that this was not the goal of RWS who was leading the project. Some thought that the only goal of the participation was to take societal actors along in the process, so to let them get used to the decisions slowly. Others thought it had merely been a procedural obligation. Another goal which was often mentioned was to gain support for the project. More positively received goals of participation were getting local knowledge input and the input of issues: what issues were important to the community. The alderman and civil servant from Nijmegen argued that the goal of participation changes per phase of the project and thus what the most appropriate form of participation is changes as well. For instance, after the decision for the dike relocation changed, the municipality thought that those citizens who would have to move could best be involved through a negotiation process on the compensation for their house, but needn’t be involved in the further design of the dike relocation. Because participating citizens and business representatives had different ideas on what should be the goal of participation, they became disappointed in the results of the process. They felt they had not been taken seriously, that the advisory group was a charade, and that they had been used and manipulated. Thus these actors developed more negative attitudes towards the project. Stakeholder related elements Next to these content elements and process elements, five stakeholder-related elements played a role in the project’s legitimation. 1) the availability of necessary resources 2) access to others and to information, 3) the role actors played in the process 4) the professional behavior of the actors, 5) the representativeness of actors versus their interests. Resources (mentioned 59 times by 15 actors): actors tended to experience the project more negatively if they felt they had too little resources, and more positively if they felt they had plenty of resources to participate meaningfully in the project. Thus, citizens complained about having too little resources (time, money, knowledge and manpower) to really contribute, and civil servants liked the project because so many resources were available. Access (mentioned 18 times by 7 actors): Various stakeholders perceived that during the project they had at times too little access to either information and/or to other stakeholders. Especially the consultants would have liked to have more access to other stakeholders apart from their own client and felt they had been stopped by their client to have this contact. Some stakeholders felt there were obstacles to the flow of information in the project at various times. For instance, initially no access was given to information on the financial underpinning of the alternatives to the advisory group. Also various stakeholders indicated providing (to them essential) information to the Viceminister on the project, which had not been made available to the Vice minister by RWS. Because of this perceived lack of access, the process was seen as not open enough, which contributed to negative project attitudes.
54
Role (mentioned 136 times by 19 actors): although many roles need to be played in the project, combining roles in one organization can be dangerous. For instance, the roles of process manager and decision maker were played first by Rijkswaterstaat and later by the municipality. However, not all actors accepted these organizations to play these roles, since both organizations had clear interests in the project and thus were not neutral. Behavior (mentioned 27 times by 8 actors): actors were judged on basis of their “professional behavior” and their knowledge. What is considered professional behavior differs per actor: For instance, civil servants are supposed to be neutral and responsive, and citizens are supposed to act reasonable and rational. Demonstrated professional behavior and knowledge could give actors influence in the project. In this manner, primes-inter –pares developed in the advisory group, but also in the steering group in this case. This mechanism could be reassuring, since it is difficult to establish a-priori who the relevant actors are that need to be involved in the project. If too many actors are involved, less relevant actors are likely to become less influential anyway, due to this mechanism. Interests (mentioned 64 times by 18 actors): the project displayed a tension between why actors became involved and how their involvement was justified by others. Actors are mainly allowed access to the project if they have a clear interest in the project, or if they have relevant knowledge of the project. The intensity of an actor’s involvement seems to be dependent on how much the actor expects the project to impact his interests. Also less impacted actors seem to expect the more impacted actors to do the bulk of the work. The Brokx alternative would have large negative impacts on a number of actors. Therefore, opponents were mobilized more strongly than potential proponents or neutral actors. However, this mechanism that highly impacted became most involved, led civil and decision makers to question the representativeness of the advisory group and therefore downplayed their importance and the influence they should have on the project. Consequently, this led participating citizens to feel they were not taken seriously and to see governmental actors as unresponsive, and arrogant.
55
Appendix E3 Gamma Coefficients structured interviews Percentage of respondents to structured interviews having no image of influence, behavior or knowledge of key actors
stakeholder
Respondents having No image of no image of Behavior (%) influence (%)
No image of
Municipality
8.7
26.1
21.7
RWS
13.0
39.1
30.4
Waterboard
47.8
47.8
34.8
Province
60.9
56.5
43.5
State
26,1
47.8
39.1
2nd Chamber
43.5
52.2
43.5
1st chamber
47.8
73.9
43.5
Societal/ groups
Interest 39.1
52.2
39.1
Business
39.1
69.6
52.2
GEWA (citizen 30.4 action group)
78.3
65.2
citizens
21.7
43.5
30.4
experts
34.8
65.2
47.8
Knowledge (%)
Gamma coefficients satisfaction with process * behavior, influence and knowledge
Correlation with “satisfaction with process” (gamma)
Influence
Behavior
Knowledge
Municipality
n.s.
-.852
-634
Rijkswaterstaat
-.732
-.661
n.s.
Citizens
.860
n.s.
n.s.
56
Gamma Coefficients satisfaction with satisfaction with content* behavior, influence and knowledge
Correlation with “satisfaction with content” (gamma)
Influence
Behavior
Knowledge
Municipality’s
n.s.
n.s.
-.683
Rijkswaterstaat’s
-.750
-.579
n.s.
Citizens’
.948
n.s.
n.s.
Appendix E4 List of codes Newspaper articles Topic Count Subdivisions issue 64 Issues: spatial quality proposed measure 46 art alternative 60 bridge research 31 business maintenance 17 climate change RfR 17 cost benefit approach 16 finances/funding implementation 16 flood management impact/negative side institutions/law/norms/regulations/rules 14 effects event 13 issues criteria 12 nature decision 11 preservation city view participation 10 problem communication 9 recreation clarity 7 seepage speed 6 shipping compensation 5 urban planning cooperation 4 vervuiling slib risk 4 water board 4 Alternative alternative awareness 3 compartimenteringsdijk draagvlak 3 dike relocation independence 3 insurance taxes 3 mitigating measures agriculture 2 emergency flood attitude 2 Criteria retention area connected projects 2 effectiveness coordination plans 2 necessity
1 1 1 3 1 1 16 1 4 3 12 3 4 1 3 1 8 1 15 1 7 2 1
34 2 8
57
coupling issues criteria information input citizens/society international cooperation pilot project politics process responsibilities societal debate time plan agreement archeology correctness research delay divided responsibilities ending phase engineers expertise hurry international connection living in the flood plain malfunctioning levee procedure process support programme responsiveness testing transparency process use of input water flow
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
safety
1
58
Appendix E5 Survey results Gamma coefficients: sources of diffusion correlated with having perceptions of policy sector legitimacy (all Gamma coefficients are significant at 98% confidence interval)
Following the media
Having discussions
Having perception content Gamma = .478 legitimacy
Gamma = .387
Having perception process Gamma = .505 legitimacy
Gamma = .388
Having perception Gamma = .561 stakeholder legitimacy
Gamma = .387
interpersonal
Gamma coefficient having sector attitude * using the sources of information
Having experience in flood management
Following the media
Having interpersonal discussions
Having attitude
content -.530
-.364
n.s.
Having attitude
process .846
-.427
-.255
n.s.
n.s.
Having stakeholder .602 attitude
Gamma coefficient Policy sector attitude*how did the actor experience his participation
How did the actor experience his participation Content attitude
.615
Process attitude
.577
Stakeholder attitude
.655
59
Gamma correlation between legitimating elements and Policy sector attitudes Content Process attitude attitude Gamma Gamma Every citizen is equally protected against flooding, regardless Not Sign. Not Sign. of cost Enough time is taken to make careful, well-considered Not Sign. Not Sign. decisions about flood management plans Citizens have little impact on FM policies -.235 -.445 Many flood management measures are taken Not Sign. Not Sign. Experts decide about flood management policy -.304 -.292 The responsible governmental bodies are prepared to adjust -.309 -.378 their plans on the basis of sensible arguments from citizens Decisions on flood management plans are made quickly, so Not Sign. Not Sign. that people are not left in doubt for too long. Decisions are based on facts, not emotions Not Sign. -.306 A societal debate is the core of decision making processes Not Sign. Not Sign. concerning flood management Flood management measures are only taken when they are Not Sign. -.289 necessary The influence of citizens is visible in policies Not Sign. Not Sign. Flood management measures address the causes of flooding Not Sign. Not Sign. Flood management measures lessen the chance of flooding Not Sign. -.357 Flood management measures lessen the consequences of Not Sign. Not Sign. flooding Flood management measures increase the resilience against Not Sign. -.337 flooding Flood defenses are well-maintained Not Sign. -.405 Possible future developments are taken into account when Not Sign. Not Sign. designing flood management measures There is parity between the (local) impact of flood Not Sign. -.373 management measures and the problem these measures are solving The costs of flood management measures are in parity with Not Sign. Not Sign. the economic value of the assets it will protect. Flood management takes precedence over nature, housing or Not Sign. Not Sign. recreation Responsible governmental bodies are not influenced too much Not Sign. Not Sign. in their decisions by pressure from societal groups
Stakeholder attitude Gamma -.342 Not Sign. -.306 Not Sign. -.322 -.312 Not Sign. Not Sign. Not Sign. -.270 Not Sign. Not Sign. Not Sign. Not Sign. Not Sign. Not Sign. Not Sign. Not Sign.
Not Sign. Not Sign. Not Sign.
60
Appendix F Oxford Flood Management Appendix F1 Highest Counts Secondary codes in-depth interviews influence 11 6 process/ 4 stakeholder/ 1 other 4 1 content/ 5 process/ 6 use input 11 stakeholder 6 past experience 12 3 process/ 12 stakeholder 7 progress 12 1 content/ 4 process/ 7 other 4 approach 13 9 content/ 4 system support 8 3 content/ 2 process/ 1 finances/funding 13 stakeholder/ 7 other 5 procedure 13 13 process 3 communication 15 12 process/ 3 stakeholder 5 responsiveness 15 7 process/ 8 stakeholder 6 process support 16 16 process support 5 5 content/ 10 process/ 2 event 17 stakeholder 4 phase 17 1 content/ 16 process 4 alternative 19 17 Content/2 process 8 empowerment 19 5 process/ 14 stakeholder 5 responsibilities 19 17 stakeholder/ 1 process/ 1 other 6 replacement 20 1 process/ 19 stakeholder 7 activate 22 4 process/ 17 Stakeholder 6 access 28 8 process/ 20 stakeholder 7 working relationship 28 7 process/ 20 stakeholder/ 1 other 8 network 29 29 stakeholder 8 1 content/ 5 process/ 23 work division 29 stakeholder 6 interest 30 28 stakeholder/ 2 other 9 awareness 31 10 process/ 21 stakeholder 14 criteria 36 34 content/ 2 stakeholder 11 3 process/ 2 content/ 33 knowledge 40 stakeholder/ 2 other 9 research 43 19 content/ 23 process/ 1 other 6 problem 40 content/ 3 process/ 2 definition 46 stakeholder/ 1 other 9 role 54 1 process/ 53 stakeholder 11 information 67 47 content/ 20 process/ 1 other 10 meeting/site visit 82 82 process 11 involvement 83 51 process/ 32 stakeholder 11 112 content/ 18 process/ 2 issue 140 stakeholder/ 8 other/ 11
61
Appendix F2 Description of most important legitimating elements The 5 content-related elements meriting further discussion are: 1) Issues, 2) Finances, 3) Criteria 4) Information 5) Cause of flooding. Issues (mentioned 140 times by 11 different actors) Related to Research (mentioned 43 times by 6 actors) Many side issues play a role in the flood management in Oxford as we have seen above. These issues function as constraints for the flood management. Many respondents mentioned several of these issues: the environment, both the port meadow issue as well as the conservation area situated at the location of the planned upstream storage area, archeology (just the archeologists and civil servants), the protected view, infrastructure, fishery and the disruption to the area during implementation. The respondents felt it was important these issues were taken into account next to the issues more directly related to flooding, such as the fact that at least two types of flooding were relevant for the area: river flooding and ground water flooding and how to deal with the existing water management arte facts such as culverts. The respondents seemed well aware that these issues formed the constraints for the project and that they needed to be weighed against each other. They were keen that this weighing happened in a fair manner and that all interests were taken into account. By repeatedly bringing their own main issues to the fore from an early stage on, the representatives of special interests hoped to garner enough attention for their issue. Striking was that even respondents who were flood victims mentioned these issues and stated that even though they desired flood prevention measures, they did not desire them at all costs. Thus, in this case, the legitimation of the OFRMS project was not negatively influenced by the multitude of issues which needed to be taken into account. It seems that the issues which were taken into account were mostly accepted as valid constraints for the project, even though some representatives of special interests felt pressure from the community to not push their issues on the agenda of the project. In contrast, 50% of the respondents to the structured interviews answered they did not trust that in flood management projects the different interests would be weighed appropriately against each other. And another 16% had very little trust in this. Thus, for both participants and non-participants it seems important how the different interests are weighed against each other. However, participants perceive how interests are weighed in flood management projects very differently from non-participants. Financing/funding (mentioned 13 times by 5 actors) With regard to financing, three issues were important for the legitimation of the flood scheme: the national funding scheme and its effects, the consequences of the economic crisis, and the cost-benefit ratio. The national funding scheme is structured in a relatively straight forward manner. Money allocated for maintenance is separate from
62
money allocated for flood management schemes. On basis of a criteria list all flood management schemes which are approved in principle are ranked on a list according to order of priority. Then the available money is allocated to the highest ranking schemes, until all money is allocated. EA’s civil servants saw this criteria list as a highly transparent and therefore commendable aspect of the flood management governing system in the UK. By the use of such a list “politics” could meddle less with flood management. Recently the list of criteria was changed, which could have negative consequences for the future ranking of the OFRMS project. This was seen as one of the major obstacles to implementing the OFRMS project in the foreseeable future. Several respondents (civil servant and citizen) hoped that the political interest for Oxford would work positively for the scheme. Though these same respondents would frown upon such display of political favoritism in flood management out of moral considerations. The less enthusiastic respondents had the impression that the national funding scheme was one of the main reasons the OFRMS was considered and not less invasive measures such as increased maintenance. They disapproved of this skewed funding. Another perceived threat to the OFRMS project was the economic crisis which at the time of the interviews was manifesting itself increasingly. For opponents of the OFRMS the developing economic crisis reassured them that the project was not likely to be implemented any time soon. They expected major cut backs in big flood management schemes. These expected cut backs and the unlikeliness of the OFRMS getting funded decreased the perceived necessity for opponents to actively resist the project. Proponents of the scheme also saw the possibility that the economic crisis would delay implementation of the scheme. One respondent explained that big schemes like the OFRMS could be used as a means of supplying jobs. Thus the economic crisis could also be catalyst for earlier implementation of the scheme. It was remarkable that all respondents (minus one) mentioned the cost-benefit ratio of the OFRMS project, but also of flood management in general in their interviews. This indicates a wide spread value in the UK that not more money should be spent on the measures than would be protected by them. Even for flood victims the cost benefit ratio was mentioned as important. Although flood management was seen as important, no excessive money should be spent on it. In the last round of interviews the issue of the incremental cost benefit ratio popped up as an important issue. The new information that became available after publication of the SEA report, resulted in a lower than expected incremental cost-benefit ratio, if climate change was not taken into account. As a consequence, it was likely that the flood scheme would be implemented later rather than sooner. The citizen who was interviewed after this new development had become public, had made an effort to understand this issue. He claimed willingness to accept climate change was indeed occurring, and therefore the incremental cost benefit ratio should not stop the scheme. Yet he did not question the importance of these figures as such for policy making. Decision criteria (mentioned 36 times by 11 actors)
63
The fifth category of aspects for legitimation are the criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, necessity and feasibility. All respondents recognized that it was necessary to improve flood management in Oxford. Critical respondents testified of experiencing pressure from society to not voice or at least not push their concerns on the scheme, since Oxford needed improved flood management. Also various respondents expressed genuine concern for negative press and made efforts to generate positive press about flood management plans and the EA. Respondents motivated these actions by pointing to the necessity of taking flood management measures. In defending or opposing the scheme the respondents tended to point to how effective and efficient they believed the scheme was. Opponents questioned both. For instance, one citizen questioned the effectiveness of the scheme, because she did not understand how an extra channel could solve the issue, when she had been told previously that maintenance of the old channels was not effective. Others questioned the size of the proposal compared to the size of the problem and whether simpler, smaller measures could not be just as effective, but more efficient. OFA members raised similar issues with the EA and were permitted to pose these questions to the hired experts in a meeting. The answers given at this meeting were to them satisfactory. Feasibility also played a role in this case. During the meeting with the OFA and the EA, the area manager expressed his wish to “develop a plan that can be implemented in my lifetime”. Therefore he was unwilling to try and develop a plan which would potentially influence the ecology of Port meadow. The straightforwardness of the area manager about his constraints was remarkable and seemed to affect OFA-members’ attitudes positively. Since perfect flood management was not attainable and it was made explicit why, OFA members seemed more willing to accept the proposal as it was. A telling remark from one of the interviews is: “Well it’s some of those arguments he was making today as well about these water meadows that have particular kind of grassland which are protected scientific sites, the rare habitats. You just, there is no point in trying to propose a scheme that is potentially going to endanger those, because there is so much regulation, it would just never happen. And he is not going to, he has got a limited number of people, he has got a lot of work to get on with, he can’t afford to have people spending lots and lots time dealing with trying to push through proposals that are meeting lots and lots of opposition from other bits of government and so on. And I can understand that, because that’s what my own working environment is like. I can completely relate to what he is trying to do.” (interview C3) That the area manager’s explanation had indeed influenced the attitude of the OFA members positively, becomes even more obvious in light of the reactions of other actors not present at this meeting. Where OFA members
64
accepted the explanation of the EA, other participants kept their questions about the feasibility, the effectiveness and the efficiency of the scheme. Information (Mentioned 67 times by 10 actors) Another legitimating element was the information used in the project. First of all, respondents tended to accept information if they perceived that 1) it was correct, 2) that the information was presented at an appropriate level of detail, 2) that all available information was used, 3) that information was accessible to all actors, and 4) that the experts (sources) that had collected the information were trusted. For participants, it seemed important that the information in the project was correct. Especially opponents of the plan commented on the correctness of the information, as it could be a reason to actively resist the project. An example of how the correctness of information can influence the legitimation of the project is how last minute changes to the plan due to new Information were perceived. During the consultation process new information became available to the project team, which impacted the time-frame for the project. In the communication towards the public it was not clearly explained that this change was due to new, previously unavailable, information. One citizen wondered if the EA should not have had this information already, and questioned the trustworthiness of the project as a result. Other citizens had already been interviewed when this happened and thus did not comment on this event. In general the respondents perceived the EA to have done thorough research and to have relied on expertise during this project. Another aspect of information was the appropriate level of detail of the accessible information. A detailed research report like the SEA, which was filled with scientific lingo, was not looked into by for instance OFA members, although this SEA report was publicly available. However, citizens found that the consultation document contained too little detail on the relevant issues for citizens and too much detail on “irrelevant issues”. The interviewed citizens desired to receive more information on the possible negative side effects for the environment. Not only those side effects that would come into play after implementation, but those relevant for the implementation phase. Citizens felt that the consultation document contained too little detail on these aspects and too much detail on the various options. All assessed options were listed, including the do-nothing option and all options which were in essence parts of the factual proposal. This list of options were perceived as non-sensical and slightly irritated some citizens. The readibility of the report and of the consultation document were genuine concerns for the project team. Yet from the interviews it must be concluded that they were not successful in making the documents attractive for the lay-public. This was partly caused by the phase of the project. An SEA by nature is less detailed and less far developed than assessments at later stages of the project. Yet the disparity between the efforts the project team made for readability and the dissatisfaction with the information among citizens, also reveals a conflict between ideas on the “proper scientific manner” of
65
writing such assessments and the information needs of the public who is supposed to comment on these reports. Perceived lack of detail, vagueness of information, and questions on the usefulness of generic information for the specific contexts led respondents to fill in details through guessing (sometimes correctly, sometimes wrongly) and a feeling of not knowing how to comment in the consultation. During the project various actors were involved in collecting information. Most participants were actively gathering information from various sources and eager to bring this information into the project OFRMS. Interest group representatives pointed to, or claimed to know of, knowledge which could be relevant for the project. They claimed that whether the EA used this information appropriately would be decisive in whether they would accept the project. As another example, in the preceding years, OFA had gathered and documented local information on flooding in Oxford. They had taken pictures, and used other observation techniques to gain a better understanding of the floodplain. This information helped them in presenting their ideas and arguments to the EA. It seems important to the participants that generic information and local information are visibly combined to come up with what are perceived as “sensible” suggestions, plans, proposals. Access to information (‘access’ mentioned 28 times by 7 actors) Perceived limitations of access, especially to information possibly relevant for the project are frustrating to respondents. One respondent mentioned some documents were unaccessible for him and this hampered him in making a quality judgment on the project. Also the reverse dynamic played a role. Respondents reacted very positive if they were given access to information or knowledgable others, above and beyond their expectations. In general, respondents seemed to be willing to invest time and energy to gain a right understanding of the information which was made available and the implications this information had for the project. Finally, instead of checking all available information, actors tended to trust and accept information if it came from a trustworthy source. For instance IG1 said: “So now that we knew David was doing that work, we were quite content that it would be done thoroughly and adequately”. Also a good understanding of the argumentation line used in the project was important. Thus, information was an important legitimating element in this case. Next to its accurateness and trustworthiness, respondents are concerned about the level of detail of the information, the sources of information, and the access to information. Having more access to information than a respondent expects seems to positively influence his judgment on the project. Problem definition/ cause of flooding (mentioned 46 times by 9 actors) A third category of content aspects which various respondents referred to, was the cause of the flooding. Through establishing what caused the recent floods, respondents
66
assessed whether flood management plans were sensible or not. For instance, it were the causes of flooding which the OFA tried to analyse in order to come up with “sensible” proposals for the EA. The acceptability of the proposed measures increased greatly if the plans seemed to address the cause of floods, rather than merely its symptoms. Similarly, C1 opposed the OFRMS scheme because she felt it did not adequately address the causes of flooding, such as lack of maintenance and new building development. Respondents perceived three main causes of flooding: climate change, new building development in the floodplain and lack of maintenance. The less enthusiastic respondents pointed out that especially the latter causes seemed not addressed in the OFRMS. Instead the proposed plan held the risk that more houses would be built on the flood plain and that maintenance would remain poor. Instead of the proposed plan, these opponents were in favor of a more “holistic approach” instead of “the engineering approach” which was in their view taken in the OFRMS. A telling response in this regard, which was offered by several respondents was the conclusion: “None of us want our homes to flood again, so doing something seems like a good idea. But doing something isn't necessarily making the best choice.” (Interview C1) C2 and C3 expressed similar sentiments. Thus, in this case, the problem that was addressed influenced the attitude of participating actors towards the content. The two most negative actors both said their main objection to the content of the project was that it did not address the causes of flooding. Process aspects Next to content aspects, respondents also mentioned various process aspects as legitimating elements. The following section discusses the following categories of process aspects as legitimating elements: 1) awareness of process vs activeness in process, 2) involvement/ early engagement 3) use of input, 4) meetings and site visits, and 5) catalyst events. Awareness of project (mentioned 31 times by 14 actors) Among the non-EA respondents a long term awareness of the OFRMS project was present, although none could pinpoint exactly when and where they had first learned of the project and only very few had been actively involved for longer than a year. “I actually have in my head that they were talking about that before the 2007 floods. But I can't quite remember. I have the idea that they were talking about it before that. You probably know that, because there have been floods which you know also affected peoples homes quite a lot. I can't put a particular moment on it. I did certainly start to pay more attention after my house was flooding.” (Interview C1)
67
This finding illustrates the long inception time of the project, the discrepancy between awareness and activeness and the fact that in this phase of the OFRMS project the process was still mainly an internal affair of the EA. However, the lack of involvement in the project did not seem to cause dissatisfaction. One stakeholder felt they had been involved too late in the process. They were alarmed by how far the plans had developed before they were consulted. Yet the other stakeholders were more content. One stakeholder was eager to point out that stakeholder engagement had taken place, at the suggestion that this had been limited. Involvement/early engagement (mentioned 83 times by 11 actors) The relative contentment with the process was probably due to low expectations among the participants as to the extent of their involvement. As a consequence, in this case, process elements played a minor role in legitimation in comparison to content elements. Also most stakeholders seemed to be awaiting actions and cues from the EA before becoming active in the project. Most stakeholders preferred a rational, evidencebased process. Although the process of the OFRMS project until now is not remarkably participative if regarded in light of for instance Arnstein’s ladder of participation, some efforts were made to engage certain stakeholders at an early stage. Some of this engagement was particularly aimed at getting information from these stakeholders about issues of interest. For instance archeologists from county council and city council were involved for this reason. Another reason for early engagement was to ‘warn’ those stakeholders who were being impacted, such as landowners and local inhabitants. By letting these stakeholders in on the project before the general consultation started it was hoped to gain some good will among these stakeholders. A third perceived reason for early engagement was to mobilize allies, who could help gain public support. One OFA member for instance saw this as the most important reason why OFA was involved at an earlier stage than the official consultation. All three goals seem to be achieved at least for now. A main reason for a stakeholder to become engaged in an early phase is to maximize the potential influence on the plan. This was brought forward by various stakeholders. Another method of maximizing this potential influence was by continued repetition of the concerns and issues they wished to see addressed in the plan from an early phase on. Participants hoped this continued repetition would raise attention for these concerns and issues in the EA. Having the opportunity to repeat these concerns and issues was one of the main reasons for going to official formal information meetings and to take part in the official consultation through consultation letters. This strategy of repetition was not only used by interest groups with long experience in the government but also by OFA, who allegedly repeated their questions and points at every meeting they had with the EA. Use of input (mentioned 11 times by 6 actors)
68
Thirdly an aspect that seemed very important, but mostly for the STM-1 and 2 was the taking up of the proposals of stakeholders in the plans. For instance at the suggestion of the OFA the EA decided to address the Red bridge blockages as part of STM-1. This was hugely empowering for the inhabitants of the flood plain and OFA members in particular. This did not so much bolster the image of the EA as a pro-active governmental body, but it gave the feeling to ordinary citizens that government was persuadable. Meetings and site visits (mentioned 82 times by 11 actors) Next to formal engagement the area manager made explicit efforts to engage with stakeholders through informal meetings and site visits. If questions arose and were put to the EA the area manager seemed inclined to propose to the question raiser to have an informal meeting to answer these and any further questions. Various stakeholders explained this willingness of the area manager to have such meetings as an indication that the EA “took them seriously” and “thought they were important”, which tended to lead to a more positive attitude towards the project. Next to these informal meetings another frequently mentioned aspect of the process were the site visits that took place, both in the STM-1 and in the OFRMS. In STM-1, the OFA organized two important site visits, which powerful supporters and representatives of the relevant responsible bodies attended. One site visit was to a blockage at Red bridge and the other was with a working party to Earl street/ Duke street area. The EA organized a site visit to the jubilee river as part of their stakeholder engagement in the OFRMS project. The aim was to show a comparable project and how this project had positively effected the spatial quality of the area. Site visits seem to function as events through which consensus on problem and solution identification can develop. Also it seems to help activate important stakeholders and functions as a vehicle for creating ‘working relationships” in the stakeholder network. Yet site visits are no guarantee for success. The site visit to the Jubilee river was not successful in convincing all participants of the possible benefits of the OFRMS for the Oxford region. In particular since the site was, though beautiful, not a desired result for Oxford in the eyes of all participants. Events (mentioned 17 times by 4 actors) In this case, as in many other cases a number of catalyst events took place, mainly the floods of 2005 and 2007. They raised awareness of the flood issue, led to the founding of the Oxford flood alliance and other citizen flood action groups, and it led to national pressure on the EA to solve flooding in Oxford. Stakeholder aspects 6 stakeholder aspects came forward as important legitimating elements 1) building “working relationships” 2) having knowledge/access to knowledgeables 3) comparable interests/issues basis for cooperation and structuring network 4)
69
definition of role/job & responsibilities 5) replacement of team members 6) division of work load Building working relationships (mentioned 28 times by 8 actors) Various actors referred to the necessity of building a positive “working relationship” with the EA. In such a relationship access to the EA is made easy and influence comes naturally. The OFA claimed to have successfully established such a working relationship in the STM-1 and this working relationship now extended to the OFRMS. Another stakeholder professed having difficulty establishing such a working relationship, this was probably connected to having opposite interests and also using different jargon. Knowledge (mentioned 40 times by 9 actors) A second important aspect was knowledge or having access to knowledgeables. The EA showed it had hired experts with a deep level of insight in the issue during an informal meeting with the OFA on the consultation for OFRMS. This heightened respect and trust in the EA and acceptance of the project by OFA became more likely. This knowledge did not necessarily have to be possessed by the civil servants of the EA. As long as the EA was seen to hire appropriate and knowledgeable experts the positive effect remained. This became apparent in the above mentioned meeting where the questions were hired by one of the hired engineers, but also through the remarks of one of the other stakeholder who reacted positively to hearing a respected expert had been hired to do environmental research. In contrast where the EA exhibited apparent lack of knowledge, doubt arose about the ability of the EA to come up with effective and appropriate measures. For instance this situation occurred at a public information meeting, which took place after the 2007 floods. A citizen received unintelligent answers to her question and this gave her the impression the EA was incompetent. Another knowledge-related aspect is the knowledge stakeholders could bring in from their own field of expertise. The EA considered such information interesting and stakeholders themselves were keen that such information would be used in the project. OFA-members also used knowledge from their own field of expertise to engage in flood management issues. Two OFA members had knowledge on a specific data gathering method that could be used to gain insight in the flood plain. Another citizen was promoted to a leading position in his flood action group, because he had portrayed a higher level of knowledge of flood management, than most of his neighbours. Thus even for non-professionals, possession of knowledge is an important factor in becoming engaged. Comparable & compatible interests (mentioned 30 times by 9 actors) A third “network” aspect for discussion is the structuring force of comparability in interests and issues between certain stakeholders for the network. First, the Environment Agency organized informal meetings around specific issues, inviting those stakeholders who would be interested in this issue. Second, stakeholders themselves
70
tried to cooperate with organizations that had comparable or complementary interests. In this manner the integration of all issues became a sole responsibility of the EA and its hired consultant. In this way the stakeholder network becomes structured in fragments. Although awareness among all stakeholders exists of the main issues in the project, these stakeholders are only connected to those other stakeholders who represent similar or complementing interests. One of the issues many stakeholders tried to come to grips with was their own and others’ role or job and the accompanying division of responsibilities in the project. To date the OFRMS project is very much ‘owned’ by the environment agency. It was made quite explicit for instance that OFA was no owner of this plan. OFA members perceived the magnitude of the scheme as so large that a sense of co-ownership would be difficult to cultivate for the EA, even if they wanted to do so. Division of work (mentioned 29 times by 6 actors) The clear ownership of the EA did not stop the EA from requesting OFA to distribute the consultation documents in their ‘constituency’. Related to this is the issue of the division of work load, which in this case played an important role. Such large projects require a certain division of work load not only in the internal project team of the EA, but also in the larger stakeholder network. Several respondents made references to having explicitly divided work with other stakeholders in order to coordinate the lobby activities and to make involvement in the project manageable. The clear ownership of the EA did not stop close working relationships to develop between the team of hired consultants/ experts and the EA. Ordinarily a clear distance between the consultants and the EA area client exists, which is fostered by the EA’s internal structure. Yet in this case the working relationship was so close that at an informal meeting between OFA and the EA, the present hired consultant instantly took over the role of host when the EA area manager was delayed. This close working relationship had a positive and a negative effect. On the positive side, team members were highly engaged in the project. On the negative side team members had to operate under high pressure. This close working relationship grew as a result of this time pressure felt in this project. The high pressure seems to be one of the main reasons many team members had to be replaced during the project. Replacement of team members (20 times by 7 actors) This high turn around level of the team of civil servants and experts did not seem to directly influence support levels. Yet it had a great impact on the OFRMS project. In the period that the project ran the EA project leader was replaced two times, the project director at least once and the consultant’s project leader was replaced once as well. Replacement of team members was seen as unavoidable in the eyes of the respondents, but had clear negative effects on the work load for those “long-lasting” team members, on the level of knowledge available in the team and on the connectedness of the (internal) network. The work load for lon-lasting team members increased, because they
71
had to most knowledge, and had to invest time and energy in getting new team members up to date. Knowledge was lost as those possessing the knowledge left and the same was true for relationships between stakeholders. This loss of relationships made the progress in the project more problematic, though at the time of the interviews it had been mainly an EA internal problem. Currently the area manager has retired, which could have negative effects on the external network, since he has been so central to the development of working relationships with external stakeholders. Though perhaps it is indeed unavoidable that changes in teams occur in such long lasting projects, for the design and management of these projects it seems important to be aware of this challenge and to develop strategies for dealing with them. One of the strategies in the OFRMS to deal with personnel changes was to organize informal meetings with relevant stakeholders to introduce the new team member and to informally discuss relevant issues.
72
Appendix F3 Structured interviews results Gamma correlations Policy sector attitudes- legitimating elements non-participating citizens Oxford
Frequencies mentioned by respondents: most important elements of flood management projects
73
Appendix F4 List of codes Newspaper articles
74
Appendix F5 Survey results Correlation between Legitimating elements and Policy sector attitudes
75
Shared and contested legitimating norms in Thames River basin Shared norm Enough time is taken to make careful, well considered decisions about flood management plans (Completely true: 90.3%) Decisions on flood management plans are made quickly, so that people are not left in doubt for too long (Completely true 60.0%) Decisions are based on facts, not emotions (83.5% Completely true)
Contested norm A societal debate is the core of decision making processes concerning flood management (Partly true: 49.3% ; Completely true: 43.7%) Flood management measures are only taken when they are necessary (Not true 37.0%; completely true 47.9%) Responsible governmental bodies are not influenced too much in their decisions by pressure from societal groups (Partly true 44.1%; Competely true: 38.2%)
Flood management measures lessen the chance of flooding (Completely true 93.7%) Flood management measures lessen the consequences of flooding (Completely true 94.9%) Flood defenses are well-maintained (completely true 93.6%) Possible future developments are taken into account when designing flood management measures (Competely true: 96.1%) There is parity between the local impact of flood management measures and the problem these measures are solving (Completely true 89.8%)
Gamma correlations sources of information - Policy sector attitudes
Gamma correlations Sources of information - Having a Policy sector attitude
Gamma correlation sources of information vs having perception of Policy sector legitimacy
76
