Implementing policy innovations - Resource dependence, struggle for discursive hegemony and institutional inertia in the Dutch river policy domain

Due to climate changes, the volume of the water flowing in the rivers will continue to increase and the sea level will continue to rise. To be able to cope with potential future flood disasters, Dutch policy makers now try to elaborate and implement a new safety concept, called ‘space for the river’. The basic idea of this new safety concept is to increase the amount of space for the rivers, and by that to enlarge their discharge capacity. The aim of the large national ‘Space for Rivers’ project is to develop river-widening measures which improve both the safety of the inhabitants and the spatial quality of the riverine areas at the same time. Replacing dikes, digging out old river branches or creating new ones (bypasses) are some examples of possible measures. This paper focuses on the institutional dynamics brought about by this new safety concept. The national water management agency Rijkswaterstaat realised that for the implementation of this new safety concept it is largely dependent on the cooperation of other national ministries, provinces, municipalities, water boards, NGOs and inhabitants of the areas along the main rivers. Therefore, an innovative policy process was designed aimed at joint learning, and at creating administrative and societal support for an ambitious river policy program. During this process three key-dilemmas became apparent. First, there is a permanent tension, partly caused by financial scarcity, between the objectives of safety and spatial quality. Secondly, in spite of the interactive policy design chosen, existing institutions, such as the procedure for large scale infrastructure projects (‘PKB-procedure’), do support governmental hierarchy rather than horizontal modes of governance. Finally, there is a tension between long term and short term policy objectives. In other words: what relative importance is attached to either reaching safety standards in the short run or anticipating future river discharges? The main argument of this paper is that to better understand these dilemmas we need to reconstruct the frames of reference of the parties involved and the different rules of the game water managers and spatial planners are used to play.

Boundary thinking in landscape architecture and boundary-spanning roles of landscape architects

Landscape architects play important roles in addressing societal challenges. To successfully address these challenges, this essay argues that they need to expand their understanding of boundaries and engage in boundary thinking. Distinguishing between physical, mental and socially constructed boundaries, we characterise boundary thinking as a creative process and productive motive in designing landscapes. Subsequently, we present four types of boundary-spanning roles for landscape architects to perform—the subject-based designer, the visionary narrator, the process-based designer, and the design-led entrepreneur—and point to the cognitive and social capacities needed to play any of these roles. We propose for landscape architecture to consider boundary thinking in agenda setting discourses and to include boundary spanning into practice. We suggest three avenues to pursue in realising professional opportunities: exploring the roles landscape architects play, understanding the environment that enables boundary-spanning work, and developing boundary theory in landscape architectural research

Effective policy instrument mixes for implementing integrated flood risk management:An analysis of the ‘Room for the River’ program

Central to integrated flood risk management is the integration of water management with spatial planning. Existing studies often focus on analyzing the policy instruments in the initiation and planning phases of integrated flood risk management. Little is known, however, about the policy instrument mixes that enable implementation of integrated flood risk management. Therefore, in this article we analyze the Dutch Room for the River program to identify what mixes of policy instruments enable successful integrated flood risk management in the implementation phase. We collected archival and survey data and analyzed 19 implemented projects in the Room for the River program applying Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). We conclude that no single policy instrument is necessary or sufficient for successful implementation. We found three policy instrument mixes: an integrated contract mix, a project management mix, and an outside-government mix

Institutional conditions for inclusive, flood resilient urban deltas: A comparative institutional analysis of two international resilience programs in Southeast Asia

Policy makers in Southeast Asian flood-vulnerable regions are confronted with various institutional challenges when planning for inclusive flood resilience. This paper focuses on the role of international resilience programs and investigates how these programs can enable institutional transformation. The key question is which institutional conditions promote the development and implementation of inclusive flood resilience strategies by international resilience programs. The Mekong Delta Plan in Vietnam (MDP) and the Water as Leverage for Resilient Cities Asia (WaL) program in Semarang, Indonesia, are selected as the cases for a comparative analysis. To structure the comparative analysis of these programs, the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework is adopted and operationalized for the institutional analysis of inclusive flood resilience planning. The findings illustrate that whereas the MDP was able to involve decision makers from the national government and international financial institutions for mobilizing funding and technical support, the strength of the WaL program was its enabling environment for the cocreation of context-specific flood resilience proposals. Overall, this study concludes that the institutional conditions that enable project financing and the implementation of long-term and integrated flood resilience solutions are determined by engagement with national governments and by ownership of the solutions at both the national and local levels

Private management of public networks? Unpacking the relationship between network management strategies in infrastructure implementation

With the aim to successfully implement infrastructure, implementation arrangements increasingly assign responsibilities for network management to private actors. In the literature, two types of network management strategies are distinguished: process design and institutional design. To date, research has focused on either of these strategies. Moreover, while private actors aim to use the institutional capital built in the network before the private actor was introduced, the role of institutional capital in network management is often overlooked. Taking these research gaps together, we aim to explore the relationship between the two network management strategies and the intermediating role of institutional capital. We compare three cases of infrastructure implementation from the Netherlands. We find that institutional design strategies, through setting the network rules in the implementation arrangement, can ignite a virtuous or a vicious circle, respectively, hindering or enhancing opportunities for network management through process design

From water boards to ‘climate boards’? :Opportunities and threats for strategic repositioning in times of crises

Dutch water boards are commonly viewed as important player in making the Netherlands climate-proof, resonating in calls to transform water boards into ‘climate boards’. Upcoming legislative changes (i.e. the Environment and Planning Act) stress the importance of integrated approaches, emphasizing spatial quality and collaboration. Dutch water boards are therefore in a strategic repositioning process, in which the relation to the spatial planning domain stands central. The institutions’ adaptation process started already in the 1990s, yet the urgency of the current climate crisis makes it more pressing. However, strategic repositioning might be hampered due to the corona crisis. An acute crisis can absorb all attention and thereby impede a long-term transition. The question is, though, if this also applies to the water boards, as they do not have a primary responsibility in combatting Covid-19. Based on a framing analysis of strategic position papers and interviews with water board employees, we shed light on this repositioning process by identifying the water boards’ new ‘mission mystique’ and accompanying opportunities and dilemmas. We conclude that water boards remain rather cautious in living up to their new mission of a proactive partner in integrated planning; they could use their strong reputation as water authorities to act more courageous in climate-related spatial planning decisions

Boundary spanning in design-led strategic spatial planning:lessons from post-Sandy rebuilding efforts

In complex area transformations, strategic planning tends to include a collaborative approach that invites a wide range of stakeholders. But because the perspectives and interests are diverse, partly conflicting, and dynamic, a unifying plan of action will not emerge without good process design and proper facilitation for dialogue. Designers are increasingly considered as helpful for pursuing a shared vision of a complex challenge, as they are expected to unify across organizational and cultural boundaries. We interviewed 11 professionals who worked on the Rebuild by Design programme (restoring hurricane Sandy damage in and around New York) for more than five years. The interviews reveal how these designers supported reaching across boundaries as well as the conditions that are vital for designers to achieve their intended added value in a collaborative strategic planning process.</p