Public participation in flood control areas - approaches to ‘sustainable’ communication strategies

Global warming causes heavy rainfall and rising sea levels. These climate effects prove to be a strong motivation for looking differently at issues of water management and safety in estuaries. For decades, the only answer to hazardous situations (e.g. flooding by increased river discharges or by incoming storm water) was to strengthens dikes and dams. This led to damage in the natural water system, a declining biodiversity and destruction of the unique estuary and river landscapes. Nowadays, different approaches are more frequently implemented, with creating more space for the rivers as a guiding principle. Instead of stemming and rapid discharge, water is contained in estuary and catchment areas. The alternative approach to water management contributes to a more sustainable development of the estuary, protecting the natural and ecological values. However, estuaries are often densely populated areas, accommodating several (conflicting) spatial and economical functions, such as residential areas, ports and harbors, industrial zones, farming and recreational facilities. Creating more space for water management (i.e. retention areas, flood planes and wash lands) leaves less space available for other spatial developments. As a consequence, stakeholders will be affected in their interests; e.g. cities cannot grow unrestrained and farming will have to be downsized. Concepts as ‘multiple land use’ and ‘societal cost – benefit evaluation’ come to mind to characterize the challenge for transforming the designated areas into more sustainable, multi-functional retention basins. Governmental agencies are often acting as project executives in these transformations. They are faced with various stakeholders who are all trying to defend or strengthen their specific interests. A vital question is how to communicate with these stakeholders in the different stages of the transformation process. What communication strategy applies to what situation? And equally important, if a communication strategy is developed, how should it be instrumented? What will the message be, how are the target groups identified and addresses, which mediums should be applied? And, more important, what kind of public participation is required to enable cooperation and avoid opposition to the transformation process? In general, four basic communication strategies can be identified: co-knowing, co-thinking, co-working and co-deciding. Each of these strategies apply to different situations, following the cultural and historic context in the area, the established relationship between the ‘governor and the governed’, and of course, the preferred style of governance. In a research assignment from four governmental agencies in The Netherlands, the UK and Belgium we have evaluated the applied communication strategies in six flood control areas in the EU. For this assignment, an evaluative framework was developed. The evaluation shows the suitability of the applied communication strategy in each of the reviewed areas. Moreover, lessons are drawn on the question in what situation, which type of communication strategy is most suitable. Also, the review gives examples of good practice and inspiration for ‘sustainable’ communication efforts in future transformation processes.

Clausewitz inspired reflections on aid operations in turbulent environments: the case of Nepal 1999-2005/06

This research is an exploratory single case study, which focuses on the interplay between aspects of Clausewitz's theory on war and the practice of aid agencies in Nepal between 1999-2005/06. During which period Nepal was embroiled in an escalating violent contlict between Maoist rebels and the ruling establishment. which had a severe impact on the operations of aid agencies present in Nepal. The study draws primarily on Clausewitz's theory on war to provide analytical tools of help to the aid industry and those in strategizing roles at country level in thinking through the challenges faced in unstable and deteriorating operational contexts, in order to further poverty and contlict reduction efforts. The research reflects on the processes of strategizing and implementing aid operations in turbulent environments from a Clausewitz-inspired perspective and advances two main findings. First, the thesis finds that one key concept used in this retlection process, which shows itself to be of practical help, is the 'aid trinity'. The 'aid trinity' is a normative reflective framework that consists of three interacting layers, being psychological, social and managerial, which facilitates the thinking through and strategizing of aid operations. Second, by borrowing Clausewitz notion of friction, the research demonstrates that the existence of multiple forms of friction present in processes of strategizing and implementing aid operations in turbulent contexts like Nepal, could severely hamper these operations. Friction can be understood as the mediating force between what was perceived as the ideal fonn of conducting aid operations in Nepal and their actual character, resulting in the inability of the international aid community to address appropriately the dynamics of poverty and conflict. The research highlights the need to factor in the reality of these multiple forms of friction and to allow for their impact in policy, strategizing and implementation processes, in the hope of maximizing poverty and contlict reduction efforts in fragile states and other turbulent environments

Applications of incidence bounds in point covering problems

In the Line Cover problem a set of n points is given and the task is to cover the points using either the minimum number of lines or at most k lines. In Curve Cover, a generalization of Line Cover, the task is to cover the points using curves with d degrees of freedom. Another generalization is the Hyperplane Cover problem where points in d-dimensional space are to be covered by hyperplanes. All these problems have kernels of polynomial size, where the parameter is the minimum number of lines, curves, or hyperplanes needed. First we give a non-parameterized algorithm for both problems in O*(2^n) (where the O*(.) notation hides polynomial factors of n) time and polynomial space, beating a previous exponential-space result. Combining this with incidence bounds similar to the famous Szemeredi-Trotter bound, we present a Curve Cover algorithm with running time O*((Ck/log k)^((d-1)k)), where C is some constant. Our result improves the previous best times O*((k/1.35)^k) for Line Cover (where d=2), O*(k^(dk)) for general Curve Cover, as well as a few other bounds for covering points by parabolas or conics. We also present an algorithm for Hyperplane Cover in R^3 with running time O*((Ck^2/log^(1/5) k)^k), improving on the previous time of O*((k^2/1.3)^k).Comment: SoCG 201