Lasse Gerrits

Management of Sediments Through Stakeholder Involvement. The risks and value of engaging stakeholders when looking for solutions for sediment-related problems

Goal, Scope and BackgroundThe management of sediments poses complex problems. One of the problems is the division of decision-making power, knowledge and money across different actors. These interdependencies call for stakeholder involvement. The various risks of stakeholder involvement are discussed from practical experience. Following this discussion, recommendations will be made regarding the interactive management of sediments in national and cross-national rivers.Main FeaturesThe first two sections will show stakeholder involvement to be both required and necessary. Stakeholder involvement ranges from no involvement, e.g. just being informed, to the other side of the scale where decision-making power is handed over to the stakeholders. Each level of participation has its own rules and roles for stakeholders, experts and policymakers. Once a certain level is chosen, the participants should adhere to it. The third section focuses on the risks accompanying stakeholder involvement. Two kinds of pitfalls are presented and discussed. The first covers general pitfalls that may occur in all kinds of processes. They comprise a lack of representativeness among the participants, the different levels of knowledge between experts and laymen, lack of communication between parties, clashing expectations when parties expect a different process than others, and finally the problem of neglecting the stakeholders when the policy process arrives at the decisionmaking phase. The second kind of pitfall occurs in international rivers. Matters become even more complicated when rivers cross borders. In that case, stakeholder involvement means dealing with different cultures and institutional differences as well.Results and DiscussionsAll these pitfalls mean that the process of stakeholder involvement is not as straightforward as it may seem. Every pitfall noted is accompanied by recommendations for the participants in future interactive processes of sedimentrelated policy-making.ConclusionsInvolvement of stakeholders when dealing with sediments is complicated. The pitfalls mentioned call for a deliberate approach and set-up of such a process. Since European policymakers tend towards a higher appreciation of stakeholder involvement, it would be advisable to pay attention to those differences. Recommendations and Outlook. Apart from the recommendations given in this article, it is recommendable to carry out more empirical research into policy-processes regarding the management of sediments. To date, much research in this field has been of a theoretical nature, so that more empirical data is required.

Decisions as Dynamic Equilibriums in Erratic Policy Processes

Abstract Policy processes are anything but static. In this paper an evolutionary framework derived from complexity theory is explored to explain how policy processes evolve in a non-linear way and how they result in a chain of subsequent policy decisions. Policy change is explained by tracing the way in which the various substituting elements of policy processes influence each other and cause, and are subject to, positive and negative feedback. Policy decisions form internally a temporal stable equilibrium between practical ambitions, normative points of view and factual claims, and externally a temporal equilibrium between policy processes that compete with each other for attention and legitimacy. This theoretical framework is illustrated by an in-depth case study on policy-making on the long-term development of the Westerschelde estuary running between Flanders and the Netherlands. The article concludes with a reflection on the added value of complexity theory for policy analysis.

Understanding And Researching Complexity With Qualitative Comparative Analysis: Evaluating Transportation Infrastructure Projects

This article proposes a complexity-informed framework for evaluating transportation infrastructure projects. The article does this through four steps. First, the properties of infrastructure development projects are discussed. This leads to the conclusion that the specific locality or contextualization of a given project is important for explaining the outcome. Hence, there is a need for an ontology and epistemology that addresses the importance of this contextualization. The second step concerns the development of the prerequisites for a methodological framework that follows from this epistemology and ontology. The third step is the assessment of common infrastructure evaluation methods against these prerequisites. This leads to the conclusion that a comparative case-based approach is the most suitable way to study the relationship between context and outcomes in projects. A framework based on Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) is presented in the fourth step. The article concludes with a discussion of the further development of QCA.

Risk Perception and Risk Communication

Publisher Summary This chapter discusses risk assessment with respect to sediment management. There are four extreme perspectives on risks: hierarchist, egalitarian, individualist, and fatalist. In a research project based on a case study, three relevant perspectives on sediment management were observed: controller, guardian and user perspectives on sediment. Risk communication on sediment management should take into account the different languages and blind spots that occur within each perspective. In sediment management issues, it is essential to respect the risk perception of all stakeholders, even when this does not comply with the scientifically estimated risk. Different stakeholders have different perspectives, meaning that they also have different views on risks. The different perspectives also have different vocabularies and blind spots, which should always be addressed in communication with these groups. Plurality in communication, which means communicating using the language of the different perspectives, is therefore very important. A diversity of communication tools that use different approaches, images and media that respect the language and blind spots of these different world views will help to reach the different stakeholders and to integrate them into the decision-making process, increasing support for decisions taken.

How Satisfaction Is Achieved In The Implementation Phase Of Large Transportation Infrastructure Projects: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis Into The A2 Tunnel Project

In the implementation phase of transportation infrastructure projects, unplanned events will inevitably occur. Although this is increasingly acknowledged, little systematic research has been conducted into what management strategies are best for dealing with these unplanned events. This article investigates how managers respond to unplanned events that occur in the context of a project during implementation, and which management responses produce satisfactory outcomes. To evaluate what strategies work in what contexts, we introduce multi-value Qualitative Comparative Analysis (mvQCA) and apply it to the Dutch A2 Maastricht transportation infrastructure project (the Netherlands). We produced systematic evidence that (a) internally oriented private management is associated with low satisfaction; (b) externally oriented management is associated with high satisfaction in responding to social, local unplanned events; and (c) that internally oriented management is associated with high satisfaction, depending in particular on the nature of the cooperation between principal and contractor in the project.

Critical Realism As A Meta-Framework For Understanding The Relationships Between Complexity And Qualitative Comparative Analysis

Abstract Many methods are used in research on complexity. One of these is qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). Although many authors allude to the relationships between complexity and QCA, these links are rarely made explicit. We propose that one way of doing so is by using critical realism as a meta-framework. This article discusses the viability of this approach by examining the extent to which QCA is a complexity-informed method. This question is answered in three steps. First, we discuss the nature of complexity and its epistemological implications. Second, we focus on Bhaskar’s perspective on critical realism and show how it can be used as a framework for understanding social complexity. Third, we examine the ontological and epistemological assumptions underlying QCA and synthesize these with our critical realist approach to complexity. We argue that complex reality is non-decomposable, contingent, non-compressible and time-asymmetric. We conclude that, although QCA is inevitably reductive (i.e. it compresses reality) and partial (i.e. it decomposes reality), its core premises are built upon the notions of contingency and time-asymmetry. Therefore, it is not only a powerful method for doing complexity-informed research, but is also a complexity-informed method by itself.

Dutch spatial planning policies in transition

Traditionally, Dutch spatial planning practices are comprehensive within a centrally imposed frame of conditions. However, these conditions are steadily eroding, partly because of societal changes, partly due to a growing plurality of planning issues and partly because of an ideological reorientation resulting in changes in planning legislation and routines. The leading role of Dutch planners in planning spatial interventions has transitioned towards a more facilitating position in which societal changes are supported rather than initiated. In addition, various institutional and policy reforms have taken place and are on-going, resulting in an increased neoliberal and decentralized planning system. Reforms on-going today are strongly driven by the notion “small is beautiful”, which refers to the desire to reduce planning institutions and simplify their procedures as these have become a complexity in themselves. Here an overview is given of most prominent changes in Dutch planning policies during the last decade, and subsequently the key questions in the debate on the future of spatial planning in the Netherlands are explored.

Sediment Management Objectives and Risk Indicators

Publisher Summary This chapter discusses different aspects of social and societal driving forces and objectives in sediment risk management and introduces indicators as triggers for selecting management options on a site-specific basis, as well as on a larger scale. The guiding risk management objective is to reduce risk posed by contaminated sediments to humans and ecological receptors to a level deemed tolerable by society and to control and monitor sediment quality and ensure public communication, with the final aim of complying with the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) and Habitats Directive. This comprehensive statement implies a number of factors: (1) The principal issue of the management objective is risk reduction. (2) Controlling and monitoring are part of risk management. (3) Desirable levels of risk are determined by society – this implies that, e.g. environmental protection limits may not be enforced if the stakeholders opt against it. (4) Public communication and involvement is an essential part of risk management strategies, because not only this is legally required by various European Conventions, but also because experience shows that risk tolerance decreases with limited access to information and with the feeling of being powerless and controlled by external forces. Therefore, meeting regulatory criteria is one of four specific objectives relevant to sediment risk management, in addition to maintaining economic viability, ensuring environmental quality and development of the natural environment, and securing quality of human life.

Taking stock of complexity in evaluation: A discussion of three recent publications

Arguably, the current interest in the complexity sciences has its roots in the natural sciences, often in interplay with, and enhanced by, developments in mathematics and informatics. An oft-cited reason for this interest has been the increased ability of current computing systems to deal with complex mathematics and algorithms. As complexity gains more traction in the natural sciences, so it does in the social sciences (see e.g. Castellani, 2009). Naturally, complexity has also invaded the evaluation literature since the 1990s, where it is increasingly discussed and applied (cf. Walton, 2014). For instance, the journal Evaluation has recently published a steady number of complexity-related pieces. A search within the journal on the terms ‘complexity theory’, ‘complex system’ or ‘complexity science’ yielded forty-nine articles as part of an increasing trend. Inquiries with Scopus into complexity and evaluation yielded similar results. In this article, we take stock of recent progress and discuss what complexity holds for evaluation by discussing three recent books.

Sediment management and stakeholder involvement

Publisher Summary This chapter focuses on the basic questions concerning stakeholder involvement in the decision-making processes with respect to sediment management and consequently on the recommendations that can be derived from this. The chapter is based on both the scientific literature and the SedNet workshops. The pitfalls of stakeholder involvement are also mentioned as the process of stakeholder involvement is not as simple as it may seem at first glance. Dealing with sediment management at the river basin scale is a complex policy issue with a wide variety of different policy levels, and stakeholders involved, with different interests and perspectives. The future management of sediment whether at specific sites or at the river basin scale will have to incorporate the views, interests, and perspectives of the various stakeholders. The stakeholder process, therefore, deserves a lot of attention and it should be done in a serious way, whereas people that are not taken seriously will be disappointed and pull out of the process. The general unawareness of the general public and the complexity of the sediment issue are important hurdles to overcome.