Legitimation of flood management

(1)

Legitimation

of flood management

Legitimation of flood management

M.E. Cuppen

The legitimacy of a governing system is at risk when actors leave

projects angry, disappointed or disillusioned. Unfortunately this is a common phenomenon. Legitimacy is defined as the reputation of a governing system that it is justifiable and (therefore) authoritative. It is generally assumed that when legitimacy is lack-ing implementing and enforcing policies becomes more difficult. It is unknown to what extent policy makers can contribute themselves to safeguarding the policy sector’s legitimacy. Too little is known on how legitimacy develops, for instance in flood management. Therefore this research studies the question: “how is flood management currently legitimated?”

This research focuses specifically on the interplay between flood management projects and the legitimation of the flood management sector. This research add-ressed four shortcomings in current legitimacy research, both theoretically and empirically. First, much legitimacy research has focused on the legitimacy of a specific aspect of the governing system, rather than on the legitimacy of the whole system. Second, much research has been focused on legitimation in governing systems with a “government” structure, rather than governing systems with a governance structure. Third, much legitimacy research has not taken into account the interplay between different levels of policy making. Fourth, much empirical research on legitimacy has not distinguished clearly between the legitimacy of the governing system and the support of individual actors for the governing system..

To address these shortcomings, this research developed a legitimation framework. This framework was tested in two cases of urban flood management projects, the Oxford flood risk management strategy and the Nijmegen-Lent dike relocation, using a mix of qualitative methods. Based on the findings of this research some conclusions and guidelines have been formulated on how policy makers can take legitimacy into account in flood management projects.

(2)

LEGITIMATIONOFFLOODMANAGEMENT LEGITIMERENVANWATERVEILIGHEIDSBELEID

(Met samenvatting in het Nederlands)

Proefschrift

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Technische Universiteit Delft,

op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof.ir. K.C.A.M. Luyben, voorzitter van het College voor Promoties,

in het openbaar te verdedigen op vrijdag 14 09 2012 om 10.00 uur door Miriam Elsbeth CUPPEN

Doctorandus in de politicologie geboren te Eindhoven.

(3)

Dit proefschrift is goedgekeurd door de promotoren: Prof.dr.ir. W.A.H. Thissen

Prof mr. dr. E.F. Ten Heuvelhof

Copromotor: Dr. ir. B. Enserink

Samenstelling Promotiecommissie:

Rector Magnificus Voorzitter

Prof.dr.ir. W.A.H. Thissen Technische Universiteit Delft, promotor Prof mr. dr. E.F. Ten Heuvelhof Technische Universiteit Delft, promotor Dr. ir. B. Enserink Technische Universiteit Delft, copromotor Prof.dr.ir. V.J. Meyer Technische Universiteit Delft

Prof. dr. J. Edelenbos Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam Prof. dr. V.J.J.M. Bekkers Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam Prof. dr. T.A.J. Toonen Technische Universiteit Delft

Dr. Ir. B. Broekhans heeft als begeleider in belangrijke mate aan de totstandkoming van het proefschrift bijgedragen. (art. 16.4)

(4)

A

CKNOWLEDGEMENTS Writing a dissertation is like the 10.000 meter in speed skating: long hard work! I could not have finished my 10.000 meters without the help and support from many others. In no particular or-der:

Thank you Wil Thissen, Ernst ten Heuvelhof, Bert Enserink and Bertien Broekhans. You were

the four who invested most in developing this dissertation and this researcher. Wil, you have a big mind and a big heart, it was an honour working with you. Ernst, you were there, when you were needed the most. Bert and Bertien, you always challenged me to make things better, thank you for all your time and effort.

Thank you, Bert van Meeuwen and Joanna Pardoe for your help with the case studies. Joanna, I enjoyed working with you on the Oxford case, and on our book chapter, be-cause of your sharp mind, can-do attitude and friendly spirit. Thank you Bianca Stalenberg, and Cornelia Redeker for your different perspectives on Flood management in urban areas, but most of all for all the cups of tea, the e-mails and the support. Thank you also Han Meyer, Han Vrijling, Wilfred Molenaar and Robert de Koning for all your comments during the research. Thank you to Professor Penning-Rowsell and all research-ers at the Flood Hazard Research Centre. You helped in getting my Oxford case going.

Thanks to all people I have interviewed or who filled in a survey. I promised anonymity so I can’t mention you by name. Thank you for your stories and allowing me into your life for a short time. I hope I have done you justice in this dissertation. Without you, this dissertation would not exist.

I have had the honour of talking with many colleague researchers on our research inter-ests. Some on conferences, some outside. Thank you so much for your time and insights. Thank you especially, Ingrid Coninx, and Madelinde Winnubst for sparring with me on our mutual research interests and writing together on conference papers.

Thank you Heleen Vreugdenhil and Sertaç Oruç for being my office mates. Heleen: speaking is silver, silence is golden, laughing with you is diamond. Sertaç: Game, gamer, gamest... Good luck with finishing this level in the game of life, it is possible! Thanks to all my colleagues at Policy analysis for all the interesting and not so interesting discussions at the lunch table, the section outings and the skating trips. Thank you, Jill Slinger for believing in me from the beginning and introducing me into the wonderful world of flood management. You are truly a motivator and an inspiration. Thank you TPM-kelderkoor for 5 years of much needed musical refreshments. Thank you Shirin, Olga,

“I almost wish I hadn’t gone down the rabbit hole

-and yet- and yet- It’s rather curious, you know

This sort of life!” Lewis Caroll (1865). Alice’s adventures in Wonderland

(5)

Le gi tim at io n of f lo od m an ag em en t

water colloquium, and my PhD peers at NIG. I always left NIG-meetings feeling in-spired.

Thank you papa en mama for all your advice and all your faith in me. Thank you Janneke for being my paranymphe, I am proud to call you my big sister. Thank you tante Clementine for the beautiful painting for my cover and Jan Los for making it into a photo for my cover. Thank you Henry for being you and loving me.

I dedicate this dissertation to my uncle ir. Bart Cuppen, who first raised my interest in civil engineering. I never became an engineer, but I did share with him my love for big infrastructural works, and for good discussions on life, the universe and everything. I wish he could have seen this book.

(6)

S

UMMARY

L

EGITIMATION

IN

FLOOD

MANAGEMENT

A LEGITIMACYPROBLEMFORTHEFLOODMANAGEMENTSECTOR

The legitimacy of a governing system is at risk when actors leave projects angry, disap-pointed or disillusioned. Unfortunately this is a common phenomenon. On basis of their experiences, actors form attitudes towards projects, but also towards the whole policy sector, as is evident in statements made by participants of projects such as: “this is not my government anymore!” and “I don’t believe in the Dutch democracy anymore.” Also, these angry actors are part of larger social networks and their attitudes can spread through these networks.

Legitimacy is defined as the reputation of a governing system that it is justifiable and (therefore) authoritative. The development of negative attitudes towards flood manage-ment and the diffusion of these attitudes can influence legitimacy negatively. It is general-ly assumed that when legitimacy is lacking implementing and enforcing policies becomes more difficult. However, if an actor regards a policy sector as legitimate, (s)he will be in-clined to comply to its policies without force. Therefore continuously safeguarding the legitimacy of the policy sector benefits its policy makers.

It is unknown to what extent policy makers can contribute themselves to safeguarding the policy sector’s legitimacy. Too little is known on how legitimacy develops, for instance in flood management. Therefore this research studies the question: “how is flood manage-ment currently legitimated?” This research focuses specifically on the interplay between flood management projects and the legitimation of the flood management sector. Based on the findings of this research some conclusions and guidelines have been formulated on how policy makers can take legitimacy into account in flood management projects.

GAPSINCURRENTLEGITIMACYRESEARCH

This research addresses four shortcomings in current legitimacy research, both theoreti-cally and empiritheoreti-cally. First, much legitimacy research has focused on the legitimacy of a specific aspect of the governing system, rather than on the legitimacy of the whole sys-tem. For instance, such research has looked at the legitimacy of a government agency, or of a new law. However, policies are developed in a system of interdependent aspects. It cannot be assumed a-priori that the reputation of only one of these aspects determines the legitimacy of the whole system. Besides, more and more actors are involved more intensively and longer in the flood management governing. As a result, they can see more aspects of the system and therefore can base their attitudes towards the system on more aspects. In this way, a greater variety of aspects can play a role in the legitimation of the whole governing system. For these reasons, the legitimacy of the whole governing system should be studied rather than just the legitimacy of one aspect. _mmary

(7)

Second, much research has been focused on legitimation in governing systems with a “government” structure. However, the flood management governing system is changing from a government structure to a governance structure. A governing system with a gov-ernment structure is strongly hierarchical and based on the principles of representative democracy. Governing systems with a governance system make policies in a network of interdependent actors, which is at odds with some principles of representative democracy. Therefore, legitimacy of such a governing system cannot be solely based on these princi-ples of representative democracy. This research focuses on the question on which other aspects of a governing system legitimacy can be based.

Third, much legitimacy research has not taken into account the interplay between differ-ent levels of policy making. In line with Ostrom, I assume that a governing system has different levels of policy making. In this research I focus on the two lowest levels: the project-level and the policy sector level. Policy outcomes at the project level directly ence the socio-technical system, policy outcomes at the policy sector level structure influ-ence the project level. Above mentioned statements from participating citizens in projects such as “this is not my government anymore” indicate that legitimation processes for different levels can influence each other. This research focuses on the legitimation of pro-jects and the legitimation of the policy sector to study the interaction between these two.

Fourth, much empirical research on legitimacy has not distinguished clearly between the legitimacy of the governing system and the support of individual actors for the governing system. However, this is an important distinction, because legitimacy does not refer to the attitude of an individual actor, but to a reputation of the system in a society. In other words, support is defined at the individual level, whereas legitimacy is defined at the col-lective level, and therefore legitimacy has to be measured differently than support. Cur-rent methods for studying legitimacy do not treat it as a reputation: either legitimacy is measured as support, or a simple aggregate of support, or it is attempted to measure legit-imacy objectively. This research combines and adds to current methods to measure legiti-macy. Next to survey questions measuring the support of individual actors, I also ask re-spondents how the people around them view flood management. I supplement this with analysing the tone in which newspaper articles write about flood management. Combining these three measures indicates the legitimacy of flood management more accurately than only measuring the support of individual actors.

STUDYINGLEGITIMACYTHEORETICALLYANDEMPIRICALLY

The theoretical part of this research deals with the complexity of legitimation, through developing a descriptive framework of legitimation that addresses all above mentioned shortcomings. Based on existing knowledge of the structure of governing systems poten-tial legitimating elements were identified. Legitimating elements are those elements of the governing system on which actors base their attitudes towards the governing system and these elements are therefore central for the legitimation of the governing system. Potential

(8)

elements are for instance having access to other actors, sufficient resources and a sup-ported problem definition and approach. Based on public opinion research I assume that legitimacy develops through three mechanisms: at the individual level, actors form their

attitudes towards projects and the policy sector (mechanism: attitude formation). The project

attitudes of actors can influence their attitudes towards the policy sector or vice versa through attitude translation. These attitudes can spread in social networks, when other ac-tors adjust their attitudes based on the attitudes of others expressed in personal discus-sions or in the media (attitude diffusion).

The empirical part of the research is an international comparative case study. The legiti-mation framework is applied to two cases, after which the framework is adapted and fur-ther specified. Two large flood management projects are compared: the Nijmegen-Lent dike relocation in the Netherlands, and the Oxford flood risk management strategy in the UK. Both cases use a wide variety of data sources: in-depth interviews with participating actors, structured interviews with non-participating actors, 200 newspaper articles on flood management and a survey in the river basins of the Thames in the UK and of the main rivers (Meuse, Rhine, Waal, Ijssel) in the Netherlands. To analyse these data sources, I use interpretative methods to analyse the in-depth interviews and the news paper arti-cles, and I analysed the structured interviews and the surveys with simple statistical meth-ods.

HOWISFLOODMANAGEMENTLEGITIMATEDATPRESENT?

This research gives insight in the mechanisms of legitimation and identifies several im-portant legitimating elements for the flood management governing system.

ATTITUDEFORMATION

Although legitimacy is not an attitude of an individual actor, it is rooted in the attitudes of actors. This research shows that actors can have four possible attitudes towards a project or policy sector: next to support or rejection, actors can have two different ambivalent attitudes: they can support the content, but contend the process, or they can support the process(es), but contend the content. In the controversial project Nijmegen-Lent dike relocation, all four attitudes towards the project developed. At the policy sector level, most actors supported the content, but in both countries attitudes towards the process were very mixed. Also the research shows that many actors are neutral towards the policy sector or do not have a fully formed attitude. The presence of neutral and not fully formed attitudes in society underlines that legitimacy is not the same as support for the governing system. Positive attitudes towards a governing system are not even a necessary condition for legitimacy.

The research demonstrates that prolonged personal experience with a policy sector, for instance through a flood management project, is a crucial factor for developing attitudes toward the policy sector or project. An actor uses previously gathered information about mm

(9)

the policy sector to develop attitudes only once he has sufficient personal experience in a project. Actors who have only been involved shortly in a project tend to have weaker attitudes and tend to be less willing to express their attitude.

ATTITUDETRANSLATION

An actor’s policy sector attitude and his/her project attitude influence each other. How these attitudes influence each other differs per actor type. Professional actors (civil serv-ants, politicians and lobbyists) are likely to explain and defend aspects of and events in the project by the characteristics of the policy sector. However, these arguments are not au-tomatically accepted by citizens with little knowledge of the policy sector. In contrast, these inexperienced actors are likely to use their experiences in a project and the infor-mation they have on previous projects to form an attitude towards the policy sector. This mechanism can explain certain conflicts between citizens and civil servants in flood man-agement projects. The arguments on which one group of actors bases its attitudes are not understood or accepted by the other group. This was the case in the Nijmegen-Lent dike relocation project: An important reason civil servants supported the outcome of the pro-ject was that the chosen alternative was a spatial measure, which was the new dominant paradigm in the policy sector. In contrast, citizens did not understand why the outcome should be a spatial measure and therefore did not accept the outcome of the project.

ATTITUDEDIFFUSION

Based on public opinion literature, I assumed that in legitimation, attitudes do not only form, but also spread through a network. In this way, a reputation of the governing sys-tem can develop that is separate from attitudes of individual actors. However, attitude diffusion is hardly found in the two cases studied. In contrast, in general actors were una-ware of the attitudes of others towards the policy sector. The Nijmegen-Lent dike reloca-tion project seems to be the only excepreloca-tion: negative project attitudes of participating citizens seem to have spread throughout the Lent-community, as both participating and non-participating citizens rejected the project for the same reasons.

On basis of these results, two questions can be asked. First, it can be asked if actors need to be aware of the attitudes of others for a policy sector to have legitimacy. Legitimacy is defined as a reputation, which implies actors are somewhat aware of each others attitudes. Also it can be questioned under which circumstances actors become aware of the policy sector attitudes of others. This research cannot definitely answer either of these questions, but it can suggest a few hypotheses. It seems premature to claim that the flood manage-ment sector lacks legitimacy, because actors are unaware of each others attitudes towards it. However, I expect that under such circumstances the legitimacy of the sector is weaker than if actors were aware that most actors shared a positive attitude towards the sector. Therefore, I propose to distinguish between legitimacy based on a “dominant attitude” and legitimacy based on a “reputation.” A policy sector has a reputation if actors are aware of each others attitude. I suggest to speak of a dominant attitude, when actors are

(10)

not aware of the attitudes of others, but one attitude towards the sector is dominant. I hypothesize that the difference between a dominant attitude and a reputation matters for legitimation. A governing system can be legitimate if there is a neutral or positive domi-nant attitude, or a positive reputation. I further hypothesize that the legitimacy of a gov-erning system is weaker when it is based on a neutral or positive dominant attitude, than if it is based on a positive reputation. This hypothesis assumes governing systems can have a certain degree of legitimacy, and therefore that its legitimacy can decrease or increase. Based on this assumption, chapter 7 developed the legitimacy scale, which can be applied in follow-up research. Second, I hypothesize that attitude diffusion is the mechanism by which dominant attitudes develop into reputations and that this mechanism takes place in rare situations such as crises. Most often crises will lead to a sudden weakening of the legitimacy of the policy sector.

LEGITIMATING ELEMENTS

This research highlights a number of important legitimating elements for the flood man-agement sector: those aspects of the governing system on which actors base their atti-tudes towards it. Actors seem to base their attiatti-tudes towards the flood management sector mostly on content-related aspects. Generally, non-participating actors desire rational deci-sion making processes in which experts and knowledge play a central role and that lead to effective, well-maintained measures that prevent floods. While the Dutch also desire greater influence for citizens and a responsive government, the policy sector attitudes of the English were not influenced by these aspects. This result indicates that participation is not a legitimating element in every context and that therefore more participation cannot, by definition, solve legitimacy problems.

For the legitimation of flood management projects, the following elements were im-portant in both cases:

1. Agreement on the substantive starting principles of the project, such as the prob-lem definition, the design paradigm, the central issues and the decision criteria 2. The use of the input of societal actors in the substantive outcome, not only in the

process

3. Access for all participating actors to all information and all other actors

4. Balance between the required and desired investment of an actor in the project, his/ her influence on the outcome and the amount of input requested from the actor 5. Sufficient resources for all actors to enable them to participate meaningfully These elements indicate once again that more participation cannot always solve legitimacy problems. In fact, it can worsen legitimacy problems. More participation can easily lead to more dissatisfaction among actors, because more participation requires higher investment from the participants, but does not guarantee more influence on the substantive outcome of the project. Also, more intensive involvement in a project can lead participating actors to overestimate the importance of the sub-process in which they are involved for the _mm

(11)

whole project. Finally it could be noticed that those participants who saw the project as a negotiation tended to develop more neutral attitudes than those who saw the project as a process in which consensus had to be reached about the preferred solution (deliberation). It seems that deliberation can lead to deeper conflicts. At the same time for many partici-pants deliberation is an important legitimating element.

In short, this research shows three mechanisms are important for legitimation: attitude formation, attitude translation and attitude diffusion. However, attitude diffusion only takes place in special circumstances that need to be further explored. The findings of the research imply that public participation in flood management projects need not have a positive influence on the legitimacy of the flood management sector. In fact the relation-ship between public participation and legitimacy is complex and highly context depend-ent.

RECOMMENDATIONSFORPROJECTMANAGERS

This research shows that flood management projects and the legitimation of policy sec-tors interact. Since the legitimacy of the policy sector helps in implementing and enforcing flood management projects, project managers benefit from taking legitimation into ac-count in their projects. The found legitimating elements provide a number of key points of attention . Based on this research I recommend project managers to:

1. Formulate clear and agreed-upon starting principles

2. “Blame the system” if needed: If a starting principle cannot be changed, this can be made clear to all actors and explained by pointing to the boundaries of the system. 3. Clearly explain to all actors the function of each sub-process in the entire project 4. Ask participating actors for input that will be used in the substantive outcome, not

only the process

5. Provide all actors with sufficient resources 6. Provide all actors with access to all other actors I further recommend project managers to:

1. End every round of the project clearly and respectfully

2. Manage work-relationships and the transfer of knowledge in case of changes in the actor network during the project

3. Enable actors to interpret the project as a negotiation and a deliberation and be aware of the pitfalls of both interpretations for the project

4. Create a good balance between the intensity of the participation and the resulting influence of the participating actor

RECOMMENDATIONSFORFUTURERESEARCH

This research opens up the following new avenues for further study: 1. Test the legitimation framework in other flood management sectors 2. Test the legitimation framework in other policy sectors

(12)

mma

ry

4. Analyse the relationship between dominant attitudes and reputations New directions for research unrelated to legitimacy are:

1. Compare conflicts in projects framed as negotiations to conflicts in projects framed as deliberations

2. Analyse further the interaction between an actor’s desired influence and his willing-ness to participate

3. Explore other possible forms of participation in infrastructural projects next to par-ticipative EIA’s

4. Research the role of the media in projects beyond attitude diffusion: How is the media used by participating actors, what are expected effects of this media use?

(13)

(14)

L

EGITIMEREN

VAN

WATERVEILIGHEIDSBELEID

DREIGENDLEGITIMITEITSPROBLEEMINDEWATERVEILIGHEIDSSECTOR

De legitimiteit van beleid is in het geding wanneer actoren na afloop van waterveiligheids-projecten boos, teleurgesteld of gedesillusioneerd zijn, en dit is helaas een veel voorko-mend fenomeen. Actoren vormen op basis van hun negatieve ervaringen niet alleen atti-tudes over individuele projecten, maar ook over de gehele beleidssector. Dit blijkt bij-voorbeeld uit uitspraken als “dit is mijn overheid niet meer” en “ik geloof niet meer in de Nederlandse democratie als zodanig”, die werden gedaan naar aanleiding van waterveilig-heidsprojecten. Daarnaast maken ook boze actoren deel uit van sociale netwerken en hun attitudes kunnen zich verspreiden in deze netwerken.

Legitimiteit kan gezien worden als een reputatie van een beleidssysteem. Een legitiem beleidssysteem heeft de naam justificeerbaar te zijn en (daarom) autoriteit te bezitten. Zowel de verspreiding van negatieve attitudes ten opzichte van individuele projecten, als de vorming van negatieve attitudes ten aanzien van de gehele beleidssector beïnvloeden legitimiteit negatief. Algemeen wordt aangenomen dat legitimiteitsproblemen implementa-tie en handhaving van beleid bemoeilijken. Als een actor een beleidssector als legiimplementa-tiem beschouwt, zal die actor geneigd zijn zich, zonder dwang van buitenaf, te conformeren aan het beleid dat in een sector wordt ontwikkeld. Beleidsmakers hebben er daarom baat bij dat de legitimiteit van de beleidssector gewaarborgd blijft.

De vraag in hoeverre beleidsmakers zelf kunnen bijdragen aan de borging van legitimiteit is op basis van huidig onderzoek niet te beantwoorden, omdat er te weinig bekend is over hoe legitimiteit zich ontwikkelt, bijvoorbeeld in de waterveiligheidssector. Dit onderzoek richt zich daarom op het proces waardoor legitimiteit ontstaat en ontwikkelt: “het legiti-meren.” De centrale vraag van dit onderzoek is dan ook “hoe ontstaat en ontwikkelt de legitimiteit van het waterveiligheidssysteem?” Specifiek wordt in dit onderzoek gekeken naar de wisselwerking tussen waterveiligheidsprojecten en de legitimiteit van de watervei-ligheidssector. Op basis van de bevindingen in dit onderzoek zijn conclusies en enkele richtlijnen geformuleerd hoe er in waterveiligheidsprojecten met legitimiteit rekening kan worden gehouden.

TEKORTKOMINGENINHETWETENSCHAPPELIJKONDERZOEKNAARLEGITIMITEIT Dit onderzoek adresseert, zowel theoretisch als empirisch, vier tekortkomingen in het huidige onderzoek naar legitimiteit. Allereerst heeft veel legitimiteitsonderzoek zich ge-richt op de legitimiteit van een specifiek aspect van een beleidssysteem, niet op de legiti-miteit van het gehele systeem. Dergelijk onderzoek kijkt bijvoorbeeld naar de legitilegiti-miteit van een overheidsorgaan, of van een bepaalde wet. Maar aangezien beleid wordt

ontwik-m en vat tin g

SA

MENVATTING

(15)

vanuit worden gegaan dat één specifiek aspect doorslaggevend is voor de reputatie van het gehele beleidssysteem. Bovendien worden steeds meer actoren steeds intensiever en langduriger betrokken bij het waterveiligheidssysteem. Hierdoor hebben steeds meer acto-ren zicht op steeds meer aspecten van het systeem. Het is waarschijnlijk dat deze actoacto-ren meer verschillende aspecten van het systeem zullen mee laten wegen in het vormen of aanpassen van hun mening over het beleidssysteem. Op deze wijze kunnen meer aspecten dus de legitimiteit van het systeem beïnvloeden. Aangezien niet a priori kan worden vast-gesteld welke aspecten van doorslaggevend belang zijn, is het juister bij onderzoek de legitimiteit van het gehele systeem in ogenschouw te nemen dan de aandacht te beperken tot slechts een deelaspect.

Ten tweede, veel legitimiteitsonderzoek heeft zich gericht op de ontwikkeling van legiti-miteit in beleidssystemen, die een “government” structuur hebben. De waterveiligheids-sector is echter aan het veranderen van een “government-“ naar een “governance” struc-tuur. Een government structuur is sterk hiërarchisch en besluitvorming is primair geba-seerd op de principes van representatieve democratie. In een governance structuur wor-den besluiten genomen in netwerken van actoren die wederzijds afhankelijk zijn en dit staat op gespannen voet met de principes van representatieve democratie. De legitimiteit van een dergelijk beleidssysteem kan niet slechts gebaseerd zijn op traditionele “legitimerende elementen” als verkiezingen, en representatieve democratische beleidspro-cessen. Daarom richt dit onderzoek zich op de vraag op welke andere aspecten van het beleidssysteem de legitimiteit kan worden gebaseerd.

Ten derde heeft eerder onderzoek naar legitimiteit te weinig rekening gehouden met de wisselwerking tussen verschillende niveaus van beleid maken. Net als Ostrom (2005), veronderstel ik in mijn onderzoek dat er verschillende niveaus van een beleidssysteem te onderscheiden zijn, waarbij ik me richt op de twee laagste niveaus: het project-niveau en het beleidssector niveau. Beleidsuitkomsten op het project niveau beïnvloeden direct het sociaal-technisch systeem waar het op gericht is. Beleidsuitkomsten op elk hoger niveau in een beleidssysteem structureren het onderliggende niveau. Uitspraken van burgers als “dit is mijn overheid niet meer”, die zij uiten n.a.v. ervaringen in projecten, geven aan dat de legitimeringsprocessen van deze verschillende niveaus door elkaar beïnvloed kunnen wor-den. Om deze wisselwerking te kunnen onderzoeken kijkt dit onderzoek naar zowel het sectorale als het project niveau, en de wisselwerking tussen beide.

Ten vierde maakt veel empirisch onderzoek naar legitimiteit geen duidelijk onderscheid tussen steun van een individuele actor voor een beleidssysteem en de legitimiteit van het beleidssysteem. Het is belangrijk dit onderscheid te maken omdat legitimiteit niet de me-ning van een individu over een beleidssysteem is, maar een reputatie die een beleidssys-teem kan hebben in een samenleving. In andere woorden: “steun” wordt gedefinieerd op het individuele niveau, terwijl “legitimiteit” op collectief niveau gedefinieerd wordt. Veel empirisch onderzoek naar legitimiteit blijft steken op het individuele niveau, of probeert legitimiteit objectief te meten. Beide methoden doen echter geen recht aan het idee van

(16)

legitimiteit als reputatie. Om legitimiteit als reputatie te onderzoeken heeft dit onderzoek het gangbare arsenaal aan methoden uitgebreid. Naast enquête vragen over steun voor waterveiligheidsbeleid vroeg dit onderzoek aan respondenten naar hun perceptie van de houding in hun omgeving ten opzichte van waterveiligheidsbeleid. Daarnaast wordt door het analyseren van krantenartikelen onderzocht met welke toon er over waterveiligheids-beleid in de media wordt geschreven. Deze drie metingen samen geven een completer beeld van de legitimiteit van waterveiligheidsbeleid dan wanneer alleen individuele steun wordt gemeten.

LEGITIMITEITONDERZOEKENINTHEORIEENPRAKTIJK

Het theoretische deel van het onderzoek gaat in op de complexiteit van ‘legitimeren’. Ik heb een raamwerk ontwikkeld, dat het proces van legitimeren beschrijft. Hierin worden alle bovengenoemde tekortkomingen geadresseerd. Op basis van bestaande inzichten in de structuur van beleidssystemen worden potentiële legitimerende elementen benoemd. Legitimerende elementen zijn die aspecten van een beleidssysteem waarop actoren hun attitude ten opzichte van het systeem baseren. Potentiële elementen zijn bijvoorbeeld toegang tot andere actoren, voldoende beschikbare hulpbronnen en een gedragen pro-bleem definitie en aanpak. Op basis van huidig publiek opinie onderzoek veronderstel ik dat legitimiteit zich ontwikkelt aan de hand van drie gekoppelde mechanismen: op indivi-dueel niveau worden attitudes gevormd ten opzichte van een project of de beleidssector (attitude vorming). De attitude van een actor ten opzichte van een project kan zijn/haar attitude ten opzichte van de beleidssector beïnvloeden en visa versa (attitude translatie). Deze attitudes kunnen zich verspreiden in sociale netwerken wanneer andere actoren hun attitude aanpassen op basis van andermans attitudes geuit in media of persoonlijk discus-sies (attitude diffusie).

Het empirische deel van het onderzoek bestaat uit een internationaal vergelijkend casus-onderzoek. Dit deel past het ontwikkelde raamwerk toe op twee casussen, waarna het raamwerk wordt aangescherpt en verder ingevuld. Het vergelijkt twee grote ruimtelijke waterveiligheidsprojecten: “Dijkteruglegging Nijmegen-Lent” in Nederland en de “Oxford Flood Risk Management Strategy” in het Verenigd Koninkrijk. Beide casuson-derzoeken hanteren verschillende databronnen: diepte-interviews met participerende acto-ren; gestructureerde interviews met niet-participerende actoren in de directe omgeving van de projecten; analyse van 200 krantenartikelen over waterveiligheid; en een grootscha-lige enquête in het stroomgebied waarin het project zich afspeelde: in Nederland langs de rivieren de Maas, de Waal, de Rijn en de IJssel; in het Verenigd Koninkrijk langs de rivier de Theems. Ik analyseer de diepte-interviews en de krantenartikelen op interpretatieve wijze, via verschillende coderingsrondes. Ik analyseer de enquêtes en gestructureerde in-terviews door middel van statistische methodes.

HOEWORDTDELEGITIMITEITVANHETWATERVEILIGHEIDSBELEIDGECREËERD? Het onderzoek geeft met name inzicht in attitude vorming en translatie en brengt

ver-m

en

vat

tin

(17)

Le gi tim at io n of f lo od m an ag em en t ATTITUDEVORMING

Hoewel legitimiteit niet hetzelfde is als de attitude van een individuele actor, is het wel geworteld in deze attitudes. Dit onderzoek laat zien dat er vier soorten attitudes mogelijk zijn ten opzichte van een project of beleidssector: naast steun voor en weerstand tegen het project of de sector, kunnen actoren ook twee ambivalente attitudes hebben. Ener-zijds kunnen actoren de inhoud steunen, maar ontevreden zijn over het proces, anderEner-zijds kunnen actoren juist het proces steunen, maar ontevreden zijn over de inhoud. In het controversiële project “Dijkteruglegging Nijmegen-Lent” zijn al deze attitudes te onder-scheiden. Opvallend is dat in beide landen de inhoudelijke aspecten van de beleidssector grotendeels gesteund werden door de bevolking, maar dat in beide gevallen de attitudes ten opzichte van beleidsprocessen in de sector behoorlijk verdeeld waren. Het onderzoek wijst ook uit dat veel actoren een neutrale of niet gevormde attitude hadden ten opzichte van de beleidssector en de onderzochte projecten. Langdurende persoonlijk ervaring met de beleidssector blijkt een cruciale factor te zijn in het ontwikkelen van attitudes. Eerder verkregen informatie over de sector of het project wordt gebruikt om attitudes te vormen, maar slechts wanneer er voldoende persoonlijke ervaring is opgedaan in een project. Ac-toren die slechts kort of niet betrokken zijn geweest bij een project zijn vaak minder uit-gesproken in hun attitudes en vaker niet bereid een specifieke attitude te verwoorden. De aanwezigheid van veel neutrale en niet gevormde attitudes onderstreept dat legitimiteit niet hetzelfde is als steun voor een beleidssysteem. Positieve attitudes zijn zelfs geen noodzakelijke voorwaarde voor legitimiteit.

ATTITUDETRANSLATIE

De attitude van een actor ten opzichte van een beleidssector en zijn attitude ten opzichte van een project beïnvloeden elkaar. Hoe deze attitudes elkaar beïnvloeden is anders voor ambtenaren, politici en professionele lobbyisten dan voor burgers die slechts af en toe betrokken zijn bij het project. Professionals zijn geneigd gebeurtenissen in een project te verklaren en te verdedigen op basis van de kenmerken van de beleidssector. Deze verkla-ringen worden echter niet automatisch geaccepteerd door burgers die weinig kennis van de sector hebben. Zij zijn daarentegen geneigd op basis van hun ervaringen in een project en de informatie die zij hebben over eerdere projecten een attitude te vormen over de beleidssector. Dit mechanisme is een belangrijke verklaring voor conflicten in een project tussen bijvoorbeeld ambtenaren en burgers. De argumenten die ten grondslag liggen aan de attitudes van de ene groep worden niet begrepen of geaccepteerd door de andere groep. Dit is bijvoorbeeld duidelijk in het project “Dijkteruglegging Nijmegen-Lent.” In dit project steunden ambtenaren de uitkomst van het project omdat het gekozen alterna-tief een ruimtelijke maatregel was, het heersend paradigma in de beleidssector. Burgers echter begrepen niet waarom de uitkomst per se een ruimtelijke maatregel zou moeten zijn en accepteerden dus de uitkomst van het project niet.

(18)

ATTITUDEDIFFUSIE

Op basis van de theorie veronderstelde ik dat voor de ontwikkeling van legitimiteit attitu-des zich niet alleen moeten vormen, maar ook verspreiden in een netwerk zodat er een reputatie kan ontstaan die uitstijgt boven individuele attitudes. Maar dit mechanisme vind ik nauwelijks terug in de casussen. Sterker nog, over het algemeen zijn actoren zich weinig bewust van de attitudes van anderen ten opzichte van de beleidssector. Alleen binnen het project “Dijkteruglegging Nijmegen-Lent” lijken de negatieve attitudes van participerende burgers zich verspreid te hebben onder niet-participerende burgers. Beide groepen ston-den negatief ten opzichte van het project, zowel ten opzichte van de uitkomst als ten op-zichte van het gevoerde proces.

Deze resultaten doen twee vragen rijzen: Ten eerste, wat betekent het voor de legitimiteit van de waterveiligheidssector dat de verschillende relevante actoren zich niet bewust zijn van de attitudes van andere actoren ten opzichte van de sector? Legitimiteit wordt immers gedefinieerd als een reputatie, wat veronderstelt dat actoren zich enigszins bewust zijn van elkaars attitudes ten opzichte van de sector. Ten tweede kan worden gevraagd onder wel-ke omstandigheden actoren zich bewust worden van de attitudes van andere actoren. Op basis van dit onderzoek kan over beide vragen geen uitsluitsel gegeven worden. Enkele hypotheses kunnen wel worden gesteld. Het lijkt mij voorbarig om te stellen dat de water-veiligheidssector niet legitiem is wanneer de actoren zich weinig bewust zijn van elkaars attitudes. Wel verwacht ik dat onder dergelijke omstandigheden de legitimiteit van een sector zwakker is dan wanneer actoren zich ervan bewust zijn dat de meeste actoren posi-tief ten opzichte van de sector staan. In vervolgonderzoek zou dus onderscheid gemaakt moeten worden tussen verschillende vormen van legitimiteit. Ik stel voor om onderscheid te maken tussen een reputatie van een beleidssector en een dominante attitude ten opzich-te van een beleidssector. Een beleidssector heeft een reputatie als actoren zich bewust zijn van elkaars attitudes ten opzichte van de sector. Wanneer hiervan geen sprake is kan het nog wel zo zijn dat actoren over het algemeen eenzelfde attitude ten opzichte van de sec-tor hebben, zonder dat zij zich dit bewust zijn. In dit tweede geval stel ik voor te spreken over de dominante attitude ten opzichte van een sector. Ik veronderstel verder dat het verschil tussen dominante attitude en een reputatie relevant is voor legitimiteit. Een be-leidssysteem kan legitiem zijn wanneer er een neutrale, of positieve dominante attitude is, of een positieve reputatie. Echter, ik veronderstel dat de legitimiteit van een beleidssys-teem zwakker is wanneer het is gebaseerd op een neutrale of positieve dominante attitude dan wanneer het gebaseerd is op een positieve reputatie. Deze hypothese veronderstelt dat een beleidssysteem dus een bepaalde mate van legitimiteit kan bezitten en derhalve dat legitimiteit kan afnemen en toenemen. Hoofdstuk 7 ontwikkelt naar aanleiding van deze hypothese een legitimiteitsschaal. Tenslotte veronderstel ik dat attitude diffusie het me-chanisme is waardoor een dominante attitude zich ontwikkelt tot reputatie. Dit mechanis-me zal alleen in werking treden onder bijzondere omstandigheden zoals crises. Ik veron-derstel dat attitude diffusie daarom vaak zal leiden tot een verzwakking van de legitimiteit

m

en

vat

tin

(19)

Le gi tim at io n of f lo od m an ag em en t LEGITIMERENDEELEMENTEN

Het onderzoek brengt ook verschillende belangrijke legitimerende elementen aan het licht. Legitimerende elementen zijn die aspecten van een beleidssysteem waarop actoren hun attitude ten opzichte van het systeem baseren. Actoren lijken hun attitude ten opzich-te van de waopzich-terveiligheidssector met name opzich-te baseren op inhoudelijke aspecopzich-ten. Niet-participerende actoren verlangen een rationeel besluitvormingsproces met een centrale positie voor kennis en experts, en effectieve, goed onderhouden maatregelen die overstro-mingen voorkomen. Nederlanders willen daarnaast een grotere invloed voor burgers en een overheid die luistert naar de burgers. Engelsen daarentegen baseren hun attitude ten opzichte van de waterveiligheidssector niet op de invloed van burgers en de responsiviteit van de overheid. Op basis van deze uitkomst kan gesteld worden dat participatie niet in alle contexten een legitimerend element is en dat meer participatie dus niet per definitie een legitimiteitsprobleem kan oplossen.

Voor de legitimiteit van waterveiligheidsprojecten zijn in beide casussen de volgende ele-menten van belang:

1. Overeenstemming over de inhoudelijke start principes van het project, zoals de probleemdefinitie, het centrale ontwerp paradigma, de belangrijkste issues en de beslissingscriteria

2. Het gebruik van de input van maatschappelijke actoren in de inhoudelijke uitkomst, niet alleen in het proces.

3. Toegang voor alle actoren tot alle informatie en alle andere actoren.

4. Een goede balans tussen hoeveel een actor kan en wil investeren, hoeveel invloed de actor heeft en hoeveel input van hem gevraagd wordt te leveren.

5. Voldoende hulpbronnen voor alle actoren om deel te kunnen nemen aan het pro-ces.

Op basis van deze laatste twee elementen kan gesteld worden dat meer publieke participa-tie makkelijk kan leiden tot meer ontevredenheid onder burgers, omdat meer participaparticipa-tie een hogere investering vraagt, maar niet garandeert dat de actor meer invloed heeft op de inhoudelijke uitkomst van het project. Intensievere betrokkenheid kan er bovendien toe leiden dat participerende actoren overschatten hoe belangrijk het deelproces, waarbij zij betrokken zijn, is voor het gehele project. Tenslotte viel op in de casussen dat participan-ten die het project zagen als een onderhandeling, neutralere attitudes hadden dan partici-panten die het project zagen als een proces waarin consensus over een oplossing moest worden bereikt (deliberatie). Deliberatie kan daarom leiden tot diepe conflicten in een project. Echter, deliberatie is voor veel participanten ook een belangrijk legitimerend ele-ment.

Dit onderzoek wijst dus uit dat drie mechanismen van belang zijn bij de ontwikkeling van legitimiteit: attitude vorming, attitude translatie en attitude diffusie. Hierbij moet aangete-kend worden dat attitude diffusie alleen in bijzondere situaties voorkomt. De uitkomsten van het onderzoek impliceren dat publieke participatie in waterveiligheidsprojecten niet

(20)

per definitie een positieve invloed heeft op de legitimiteit van de waterveiligheidssector. De relatie tussen publieke participatie en legitimiteit is complex en zeer afhankelijk van de context.

AANBEVELINGENVOORDEPRAKTIJK

Aangezien er een wisselwerking bestaat tussen waterveiligheidsprojecten en de legitimiteit van de sector zijn project managers er bij gebaat in hun projecten rekening te houden met legitimiteit. De gevonden legitimerende elementen geven goede aanknopingspunten hier-voor. Dit onderzoek leidt tot de volgende aanbevelingen:

1. Formuleer duidelijke start principes die zo mogelijk door alle actoren onderschreven worden.

2. Gebruik het systeem als zondebok. Indien aan een start principe niet kan worden getornd, moet dit helder verteld worden aan alle actoren. Hierbij mag een manager de grenzen van het systeem aangeven als zondebok.

3. Leg duidelijk de functie van elk deelproces in het gehele project uit.

4. Vraag maatschappelijke actoren om input die bruikbaar is in de inhoudelijke uit-komst, niet alleen in het proces. En gebruik deze input zoveel mogelijk

5. Zorg voor voldoende hulpbronnen voor alle actoren. 6. Zorg dat alle actoren vrije toegang tot alle andere actoren

Op basis van dit onderzoek kunnen ook andere aanbevelingen gedaan worden, die niet direct aan legitimiteit gerelateerd zijn:

1. Eindig elke ronde van een project duidelijk en respectvol

2. Manage de werkrelaties en de kennisoverdracht zorgvuldig wanneer actoren veran-deren gedurende het project.

3. Zorg ervoor dat mensen het project kunnen interpreteren als een onderhandeling en als een inhoudelijk overleg en wees bewust van de nadelen van beide interpretaties voor het project.

4. Zorg voor een goede balans tussen de intensiteit van betrokkenheid en de resulte-rende invloed.

AANBEVELINGENVOORTOEKOMSTIGONDERZOEK

Na aanleiding van dit onderzoek kan gedacht worden aan verschillende richtingen voor vervolgonderzoek. Onderzoek naar legitimiteit kan zich verder richten op het volgende:

1. Het testen van het legitimiteitsraamwerk in andere waterveiligheidssectoren. 2. Onderzoeken hoe legitimiteit zich ontwikkelt in andere projectfasen 3. Onderzoeken van de relatie tussen dominante attitudes en reputaties 4. Het toepassen van het legitimiteitsraamwerk op andere beleidssectoren. Naast onderzoek naar legitimiteit, kan vervolgonderzoek zich ook richten op:

1. Het vergelijken van conflicten in projecten die ontstaan wanneer actoren het project interpreteren als een onderhandeling met conflicten die ontstaan wanneer actoren het project interpreteren als een deliberatie

(21)

2. Het verder analyseren van de interactie tussen de invloed die een actor verlangt en verwacht te hebben en zijn bereidheid te participeren in een project

3. Verkennen van andere mogelijke vormen van participeren in infrastructurele pro-jecten naast participeren in de ontwikkeling van MERs

4. Het onderzoeken van de rol van de media in projecten: hoe worden de media door participanten gebruikt en welke effecten heeft dit media gebruik?

(22)

Acknowledgements iii

Summary v

Samenvatting xiii

Chapter 1 Introduction 1

1.2 From government to governance in Dutch flood management 1

1.3 Legitimation of flood governance 2

1.4 Issues in studying legitimation of flood governance 3 1.5 Main research question and sub-questions 4

1.6 Set-up of dissertation 6

PART 1 THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS 9

Chapter 2 Policy Making 11

2.1 Systems approach 11

2.2 Frameworks of Policy making 12

2.3 Elements of the Framework 15

2.4 The framework and legitimation 24

Chapter 3 Legitimation 41

3.1 Legitimacy in government settings 41

3.2 Legitimacy in governance settings 46

3.3 How support and legitimacy are related 52

3.4 Grounds for legitimation 59

3.5 Legitimation processes 61

3.6 A legitimation framework 64

Chapter 4 Methods 67

4.1 Introduction 67

4.2 Methodological stance 67

4.3 From framework to research design 71

(23)

PART 2 EMPIRICAL EXPLORATIONS 89

Chapter 5 A dike relocation project in the Netherlands 90

Introduction 91

5.1 The project “Dike relocation Nijmegen”, a description 93 5.2 Conflict in a flood management project 101

5.3 Policy sector attitudes 118

5.4 The mechanisms of legitimation 126

5.5 Conclusions 132

Chapter 6 Oxford Flood Management 138

Introduction 139

6.1 Flood risk management in Oxford 140

6.2 Attitudes towards the Oxford flood risk Management strategy 144 6.3 Attitudes towards the flood management sector in Oxford and beyond 157 6.4 The mechanisms of legitimating flood management 170

6.5 Conclusions 176

Chapter 7 Revisiting the legitimation framework 181 7.1 Flood management in the Netherlands and the UK 182 7.2 Central themes in legitimating flood management 190 7.3 Specifying the legitimation framework 195

PART 3 DISCUSSIONAND CONCLUSIONS 200

Chapter 8 Conclusions and Reflections 201

8.1 How flood management is legitimated 201

8.2 Beyond legitimation 206

8.3 How to deal with legitimation in flood management projects? 209

8.4 Reflecting on the research methods 215

8.5 Recommendations for future research 217

References 220

Appendices 233

3PhD-project Flood management in urban areas 234

(24)

Figure 1.1 Dissertation outline 8 Figure 2.1 Model of a sociotechnical system 13 Figure 2.2 Visualisation of Kooiman's framework of policy making

17

Figure 2.3 Actor centered Institutionalism framework (Source: Scharpf 1997:44)

17

Figure 2.4 IAD framework, adapted from Ostrom, (2005) 19 Figure 2.5 Visualisation of Ostrom's IAD framework of policy

mak-ing

21

Figure 2.6

Holistic framework of policy making 24

Figure 3.1 Multi-level matrix of support and legitimacy 53 Figure 3.2 Possible Project Attitudes 56 Figure 3.3 Multi-level legitimation framework 66 Figure 4.1 Methods used to study legitimation framework 82 Picture 5.1 Nijmegen-Lent during the near-flood event of 1995 90 Figure 5.1 Three alternatives (in black) in the quick-scan (Source:

RWS, 2005: 39)

97

Figure 5.2 Artist’s impression of plan Brokx (Min. V&W, 2003:7) 97 Figure 5.3 Artist’s impression of Lentse Warande (Min. V&W

2003:9)

98

Figure 5.4 Project attitudes among participating stakeholders 103 Figure 5.5 Project attitudes in community Lent (respondents

struc-tured interviews)

104

Figure 5.6 Policy sector attitudes of non-participating citizens in Nijmegen-Lent

119

Figure 5.7 Policy sector attitudes among citizens living in river re-gions in the Netherlands

121

Figure 5.8 Number of analysed newspaper articles on flood manage-ment 2000-2010

124

Figure 5.9 Average Policy sector attitude scores, expressed in Dutch newspaper articles 2000-2010

124

Picture 6.1 The dreaming spires view of Oxford as seen from South park (Headington)

138

(25)

Figure 6.1 Visualisation of Flood management stakeholder network in Oxford

141

Figure 6.2 'search area' Oxford flood risk management strategy, in-cluding key spatial features (adapted from: Environment Agency, 2009:3)

143

Figure 6.3 Attitudes of participating actors towards Oxford Flood Risk Management Strategy

148

Figure 6.4 Attitudes of Non-participating actors towards the flood management policy sector (based on structured inter-views)

159

Figure 6.5 Estimated attitudes of actors participating in OFRMS towards the Oxford flood management sector (based on in-depth interviews)

160

Figure 6.6 Flood management Policy sector attitudes among citizens living in Thames river region

162

Figure 6.7 Histogram of number of analysed newspaper articles on the UK Flood management sector between 1990-2010

167

Figure 6.8 Average FM-sector content, process and stakeholder atti-tudes expressed in UK newspaper articles 1990-2010

168

Figure 7.1 Theoretical legitimation framework, developed in chapter 3

181

Figure 7.2 Governing system reputations on the scale of legitimacy 192 Figure 7.3 Adjusted legitimation framework 197

Figure 8.1 Legitimation framework 205

Figure 8.2 Causal diagram depicting relationship between influence and involvement in project

(26)

Table 2.1 Matrix of actor types 28 Table 2.2 Process Rules (De Bruijn, ten Heuvelhof & In 't Veld,

2002:56)

33

Table 3.1 Overview of legitimacy definitions 51 Table 3.2 Legitimating elements found in literature 60 Table 5. 2 Central issues in Nijmegen-Lent dike relocation project 94 Table 5.3 Content-related legitimating elements and their associated

legitimating norms 108

Table 5.4 Process-related legitimating elements, participating actors

use to legitimate a project and the associated norms 112 Table 5.5 Judgments of participating actors on stakeholder-related

legitimating elements and norms 115 Table 6.2 Issues at play in flood management in Oxford 146 Table 6.3 Content-related legitimating elements and norms used by

participating actors in Oxford 152

Table 6.4 Process and stakeholder-related legitimating elements and norms used by Participating actors in Oxford

155

Table 7.1 Legitimating elements and norms found in literature and in the cases

184-185

(27)

(28)

hap te r O ne I nt ro du ci on Chapter One

I

NTRODUCTION

On a rainy afternoon in the spring of 2007, I sat at a kitchen table in Kampen. In the morning, an engineer had proudly shown me the nearly finished new flood defense system, and now I was interviewing a citizen who had zealously opposed this system from its con-ception approximately 10 years back. We spoke about his reasons for opposing the sys-tem, about his involvement in the policy making project, and about his resulting frustra-tions. During the interview he said: “This is not my government anymore!”

1.1 T

HEIMPORTANCEOFLEGITIMACYFOR POLICYMAKING

Interesting in the situation above is that this citizen drew conclusions about government as a whole from his experiences in this one flood-management project. This afternoon at the kitchen table with a disillusioned, angry citizen had made me aware of possible long-term effects of public participation gone wrong. Apparently attitudes were formed in pro-jects, not only attitudes towards propro-jects, but also towards policy making in general. This phenomenon is not a rarity, citizens can and do oppose policies (Verhoeven, 2009:11). In my personal interviews with participating citizens, and in the newspaper, comments can be found which reflect that the attitude which is developed can be broader in scope than the single project. Comments such as “I have no faith anymore in democracy as such” or “It is clear that this is a dictatorial democracy” (Grootendorst, 2009), reflect this broader scope of attitudes. One may wonder how relevant the attitude of one citizen is for policy making? Whereas the attitudes of some stakeholders may be crucial for policy making as they possess vital resources, that can either be used to oppose or help implement the poli-cy (Sabatier 1988), most ordinary citizens do not have such resources and thus their atti-tudes at first glance may seem of less importance. However, for policy makers it is im-portant that most of the time, most people voluntarily comply to the policies made. This reduces the costs of implementation and enforcement and thus decreases the chances of policy failure (Beetham 1991; Fallon 2005). People are more likely to voluntarily comply to policies if they at least accept them. While the attitude of one citizen might not be rele-vant for policy making, the attitudes of a large group of citizens are. If many citizens have a negative attitude towards policy making, they will be less likely to comply and thus en-forcement costs will rise. Therefore, negative attitudes of citizens become relevant for policy making when they are broadly shared. Since “broadly shared attitudes” are ulti-mately grounded in the attitudes of these individual citizens, it is important to understand under what circumstances individual citizens would change their attitudes to policy mak-ing in general.

Tyler (1990), and also for instance Scharpf (2009) said that one reason for citizens to vol-untarily comply to policies is if they regard the policy making “legitimate”. This is espe-cially important in cases where the policy does not benefit the citizen personally, or even

(29)

Le gi tim at io n of F lo od m an ag em en t

not accepted without proper justification (Scharpf, 2004). In highly urbanized areas flood management measures can easily invade the personal living environment of citizens living near a river, or sea. Such invasions cannot always be fully mitigated or compensated. Even if monetary compensation is available, this might not be sufficient, since not all damages can be expressed in monetary terms. For this reason, flood management measures might not be automatically accepted and therefore flood management needs legitimacy (see e.g. Scharpf, 2004; Bekkers et al, 2007). However, as I discuss below in the Netherlands flood management is changing and these changes seem to affect the legitimacy of the flood management sector.

1.2 F

ROM GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNANCE IN

D

UTCH FLOOD

MANAGE-MENT

Flood management in the Netherlands has undergone many changes in the last twenty years. Before the mid-1990’s, flood management took a technocratic top-down approach. The Netherlands lies in the Delta of four important European rivers: the Ems, the Scheldt, the Meuse and the Rhine. Whereas the Ems and Scheldt only “discharge into tidal basins on the national borders” (Ten Brinke, 2005:1), the Meuse and the Rhine flow through a large part of the Netherlands. In response to the flood of 1953 the Dutch gov-ernment developed an extensive flood management scheme that became known as the “Delta works”. The Delta works also contained plans for the flood management of the main rivers. For the Rhine and Meuse rivers, the “delta law” contained the norm that the river levees should withstand a water discharge level that could occur with a 1/1250 per year chance1_{. Flood management took precedence over other issues, and was mainly}

de-veloped and implemented by Rijkswaterstaat2_{, under the auspices of the ministry of}

Infra-structure and Water3_{. However, when trying to implement the necessary measures to raise}

the levees to this norm in the 1970s, protests arose from environmental and from organi-zations for the preservation of monuments and historic buildings, which blocked the im-plementation of many measures (Heezik, 2007). As a result, in the 1990s, the river levees did not meet the legal norms for river levees (Stalenberg, 2010).

In 1993 and 1995, both the Rhine and Meuse had unusual high water discharges, which led to floods along the Meuse and high concerns for flooding along the Rhine. Concerns for flooding of the Rhine were so high in 1995 that over 200.000 citizens were evacuated

1. The norm only took into account the chance that levees would overflow, other failure mecha-nisms were not considered. Also, the original Delta-law norm was to withstand a 1/3000 per year chance water discharge level, this was adapted to 1/1250 per year norm in 1977 under Commission Becht (see: Stalenberg, 2010)

2. Rijkswaterstaat is the executive, administrative body of the department of Infrastructure and Water, and is responsible for the flood management of the main rivers and the sea.

3. The former Department of Infrastructure and Water (Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat) merged in 2010 with the Department of Urban planning and environment (Ministerie van Volks-huisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu VROM) in the new department of Infrastructure and Environment. Since the Dutch case study of this research was conducted prior to this merge, I will use the old names of the departments.

(30)

hap te r O ne I nt ro du ci on

from polders near the city of Nijmegen, in the East of the Netherlands (Commissie Wa-terbeheer 21e Eeuw, 2000). In response, the government developed the “new Delta-law”, which forced speedy adaptation of the river levees to the legal norms. Together with high water in 1998 and the failure of a levee near Wilnis in 2003 due to extreme drought, these (near-)flooding events triggered the Dutch government to reconsider their approach to flood management. As a result, flood management in the Netherlands is shifting slowly to a governance setting and to more emphasis on and preference for spatial measures, in-stead of technical measures. (Van Buuren et al, 2011; Wolsink, 2006) “A shift from gov-ernment to governance [indicates] a shift from hierarchical and well-institutionalized forms of government toward less formalized bottom-up forms of governance in which state authority makes way for an appreciation of mutual interdependence with different stakeholders” (Edelenbos, 2005:112). In this new context, the Room-for-the-River pro-gram was started in 2000. In this propro-gram 34 spatial measures were developed to adapt the Dutch river system to accommodate higher river discharges4_{. These 34 measures}

were developed by Rijkswaterstaat in cooperation with regional water boards, provinces and municipalities, and also societal actors were given more opportunities to participate during the development of the measures, than merely the legally required consultation period. This new set-up of flood management projects expressed the shift towards more governance settings. “This change in the Netherlands runs parallel to similar shifts in aquatic management abroad” (Wolsink, 2006:474)

1.3 L

EGITIMATION OFFLOODGOVERNANCE

However, as the above described discussion with the Kampen citizen indicates, this shift from government to governance seems to have consequences for how flood management is legitimated. Based on political philosophy, it is assumed that the procedures of repre-sentative democracy should be a powerful ground for legitimation of democratic govern-ments (Steffek, 2003). However it is not self-evident that these grounds for legitimacy apply in governance settings (Connelly et al, 2006; Welch, 2002; Connelly, 2011). The shift to governance has made it more and more clear that these democratically elected policy makers are dependent on other actors for developing and implementing policies successfully. In other words, the power of democratically elected policy makers is cur-tailed by the power that is given to other actors. Consequently, representative democratic procedures can no longer be the only grounds for legitimacy, as they do not reflect actual policy making practices. A gap has developed between the policy making practices and how they could be legitimated, a “legitimacy-gap”. Broadly two type of solutions were proposed to solve the perceived “legitimacy gap” (Connelly et al, 2006) of policy making in governance settings. First, by introducing new democratic institutions, such as delibera-tive democracy, and public participation, it was expected that actors could start to consid-4. Maximum river discharges that should be accommodated in the Rhine are expressed in law by the waterdischarge at “Lobith”, which is where the Rhine river enters the Netherlands on the Eastern border with Germany. For the Room-for-the-River program these discharges were set at 16.000 m3/s at Lobith on the short term, with potential to adapt the rivers further to accommodate 18.000

(31)

Le gi tim at io n of F lo od m an ag em en t

er these forms of policy making democratic and therefore legitimate. Second, it was con-sidered that actors might be willing to attribute legitimacy to policy making on other grounds than the institutions of representative democracy. For instance, actors might legitimate policy making because of fair procedures (Gibson, 1989; Tyler, 1990; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003, Grimes, 2006; Frey, Benz & Stutzer, 2004), or effective policies (Scharpf, 1999; 2009). By strengthening these aspects of policy making, it is hoped they could com-pensate for any legitimacy gap caused by the lack of adherence to representative demo-cratic institutions.

Despite these proposed solution, there has been little empirical research into what other grounds than democratic principles, actors use to legitimate policy making in a govern-ance setting. A complicating factor is that these legitimating grounds might differ per poli-cy sector, as Steffek (2003:258) suggested: “Although it is universally accepted that legiti-macy is about the rightfulness of domination, it is often overlooked that the specific na-ture of legitimacy therefore depends upon the specific nana-ture of domination”. This re-search aims to fill this knowledge gap by studying how flood management is legitimated at

pre-sent.

1.4 I

SSUESINSTUDYINGLEGITIMATIONOFFLOODGOVERNANCE

To find an answer to this central question, a number of interrelated sub-questions need to be studied theoretically and empirically. Legitimacy is notoriously difficult to study, as it is an ambiguous term, but to be able to study the legitimation of flood management, it needs to be understood what legitimacy is (subquestion-1).

Legitimacy is also notoriously difficult to study because it can have very different objects. Scholars studying legitimation in government settings tended to focus on either the legiti-macy of government authorities, on the legitilegiti-macy of the principles of governing or on the legitimacy of the policies (e.g. Easton, 1965). However, it cannot be assumed that in governance settings the legitimacy of any of these elements is enough to trigger the sired compliance to policies, since in governance settings each of these elements is de-pendent on other elements. For this reason, in governance settings it may be best to speak of the legitimacy of “policy making”. To be able to empirically study the legitimacy of “policy making”, it is important to understand what policy making is. Therefore,

subques-tion-2 of this research is: what is policy making? This topic will be discussed theoretically in

chapter 2.

Moreover, legitimacy can be attributed on different grounds (Føllesdal, 2004). there may be a variety of grounds on which legitimacy is attributed to flood management. Some of these may be general principles of policy making that apply to a wide variety of sectors, others may be more specific for flood management. One example of a ground for legiti-mation that is often put forward is public participation (Michels & De Graaf, 2010; Klijn & Koppenjan, 2000). However, the story of the Kampen citizen suggests that current public participation practices do not have a 100% percent success rate in securing legiti-macy. Numerous examples exist of actors who developed negative attitudes towards