Challenge the future

DelftUniversity ofTechnology

Identifying long-term monitoring needsCoastline management in the Netherlands1st EEEN Forum, Leuven, 9–10 February 2012

Leon HermansFaculty of Technology, Policy and Management Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

2

Outline of presentation

1. Long-term monitoring and environmental evaluation

2. A framework that is fit for multi-actor complexity

3. Applying the framework in retrospect: coastline management in the Netherlands 1985 – 2010

4. Conclusions

3

Long-term monitoring and environmental evaluation

• Necessary for ‘evidence-based’ learning

• Long-term horizon• Uncertainties, including in underlying science• Competing interests

• “Data rich but information poor” syndrome?• Can one predict policy issues ten years ahead?

Economist, 2011

4

Researching long-term monitoring

• Aim: Support design of long-term monitoring programs fit for policy-oriented learning in multi-actor context

• Conceptual design of approach: actors and policy-oriented learning

• Historical test of design: What happened without support? Two cases, one in the Netherlands, one in South-Africa.

5

Designing an approach for monitoring

• Network context of policy-making: interdependent actors as drivers

• Outcomes of policy-processes as result of interactions among actors

• Learning to be done by these actors

• Actors central in identification learning agenda policy processes

6

Capturing the essence of actor interactions: Game theory

For each game:• Decisions• Rules and procedures• Players

For each player:• Goals – preferences, mandates, responsibilities, interests

(what they want to achieve) • Means – resources, interventions, connections (what they

can do)• Perceptions – assumptions about the game and the

system (what they think)

7

Games and Learning over Time: Rounds and Levels

Ad-hoc interventions coastline

Ope

ratio

nal

Colle

ctive

choi

ceCo

nstit

ution

al

Project “Coastalpolicy”

Project “CoastalDefense Act”

1984 1990

Decision: coastlinepreservation, incl

annual budget

2000 2003 2010

Annual sand nourishment programmes for coastline preservation decided and implemented. Decisions (annually): distribution of sand

Technical refinements (underwaternourishments, coastal fundament)

Spatial planning added to coastal policy

Weak links identified, correctiveactions formulated

Decision: pilot withsand motor, incl

budget

Water DefenseAct (1996)

Adoption Water Act (2009)

Coastal land reclamation South-Holland formally explored

Implementationweak link projects

South-Holland

Draft Act, inclProvincial Bodies

Coast

Design of coastlinemngt procedures

Ad-hoc interventions coastline

Ope

ratio

nal

Colle

ctive

choi

ceCo

nstit

ution

al

Project “Coastalpolicy”

Project “CoastalDefense Act”

1984 1990

Decision: coastlinepreservation, incl

annual budget

2000 2003 2010

Annual sand nourishment programmes for coastline preservation decided and implemented. Decisions (annually): distribution of sand

Technical refinements (underwaternourishments, coastal fundament)

Spatial planning added to coastal policy

Weak links identified, correctiveactions formulated

Decision: pilot withsand motor, incl

budget

Water DefenseAct (1996)

Adoption Water Act (2009)

Coastal land reclamation South-Holland formally explored

Implementationweak link projects

South-Holland

Draft Act, inclProvincial Bodies

Coast

Design of coastlinemngt procedures

8

Coastline management in the Netherlands, 1984 - 2011

Three rounds included in analysis:• 1990: Policy decision: Coastline preservation• 1990 – 2000s: Annual programming sand nourishments• Current: Long-term strategy for coastline (Sand motor?)

Pictures: Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Deltaprogramma

9

Game 1, 1980sCoastal erosion & Finalizing Delta Works

10

Game 1Players and Coalitions

• Engineers ‘Rijkswaterstaat’• Scientists: Delft Hydraulics , Universities,

…• Minister Public Works & Water

Management• Cabinet / Finance Minister• National Parliament• Union of Water boards• Coastal provinces• Coastal municipalities• Nature organisations• Residents coastal areas• Owners beach pavillions• Other coastal businesses• Public at large (citizens)

Coastal Experts

Budgetholders

Societal stakeholders

11

Solution space (opened up by storm event)

12

Game 2, 1990sAnnual programme sand distribution – Technical and administrative procedures

13

Game 2 Coalitions and their interests

• {Rijkswaterstaat, Waterboards}: Safety National Coast: • Coastline preservation, longer timespan

• {Municipalities, Waterboards}: Regional tailoring: • Sometimes little bit ‘extra’, for regional economy (beach

width) and safety (small dunes), shorter timespans• {Nature,Waterboards}: Nature / no disturbance

• No disturbance dune areas, for nature but also to maintain safetyof water defense structures, longest timespan

• Different coalitions with (sometimes) different interests in amount and frequency of sand nourishments at specific locations

14

Game 2: Sand nourishment programming

Nature

Coastline preservation

Regional development• Safety interest accepted by all• No extra budget for additional interests of players• Game has no shared solution space

15

Games and Assumptions  Issue to be

decidedMain coalitions Outcome

(decision)Assumptions

Establishing a coastal policy (pre-1990)

How to respond to coastal erosion

Coastal experts, Budget holders, Societal stakeholders

1990: Coastline preservation, with annual budget

Sand nourishments most efficient way to control erosion and maintain base coast line. Costs: 60 MHfl / 6 – 8 Mm3/y sand. Best way to serve nature and restore natural dune dynamics

Annual sand distributions (1990 – …)

Annual distribution of sand for coastline preservation

Water safety, regional (recreation), nature

Annually: nourishment programmes, guided by safety concerns

Policy of sand nourishments ‘works’. Nature best served by keeping dune area undisturbed. Recreational interests best served by stable beach widths.

16

Monitoring assumptions Game 1Assumptions in Games Possible IndicatorsMaintaining the base coast line through sand nourishments halts coastal erosion.

Actual/momentary coast line with the base coast line as referenceVolumes of sand used for nourishments

This means that safety is ensured. Calculated safety levels (with volume, width, height as variables?)Actual incidents, damage done

Sand nourishments halt coastal erosion in an efficient way.

Costs of sand nourishments (with estimated costs of alternatives as reference)

Sand nourishments better for nature than hard maintenance interventions.

Biodiversity: species, population age groups, etcetera. At dunes, beaches, but also sea (sand mining). Influenced by frequency and size of disturbance (sand nourishments), timing (seasons), location, sand quality (particle size),…

17

Monitoring assumptions Game 2Assumptions in Games Possible IndicatorsMaintaining the Base coast line serves safety interests

As above, coastline and safety indicators

Maintaining dunes for safety easiest to organize by prohibiting other activities

Safety indicators above. Costs for dune management water boards

Recreation interests served by stability – i.e. keeping pavilions and coastline on fixed locations, certain width of ‘dry beach’

Turn-over at beach pavilions, comparative, for varying dry beach width dynamics & correcting for other variables (€/y)

Local economic development served by allowing more access to dune reserves

Local production, jobs – for varying access regimes (correcting for other variables)

Nature best served by leaving nature undisturbed

See above for nature indicators (biodiversity)

Main alternative to sand nourishments would be ‘hard’ measures like dikes and concrete water works

?? Cannot be tested, is (partially) a ‘mental construct’

18

Monitoring in coastline management

• Since (pre-) 1990: Safety indicators

• 2009: Agreement on research nature effects sand nourishments

• 2009: Two reports with cases on sand nourishments and recreation

19

Emerging picture: partial monitoring

• Only part of assumptions were monitored• ‘Just happened’• Experts, analysts and budget Rijkswaterstaat all ‘safety’

oriented• Consequences:

• We ‘know’ sand nourishments ‘work’ for safety • We do not ‘know’ their effects on nature and recreation

• Is this bad? Should it have been differently? Who is responsible?

20

Conclusions from this case

• Looking at policy processes as ‘games’ with players who make assumptions helps uncover monitoring needs

• May suggest a broader focus for monitoring, covering needs for multiple actors

• But: who is responsible for ‘more’ monitoring?

21

Conclusions on methodology

• Long-term framework IAD + rounds • Enabled organizing data

• Game theory • Useful for suggesting concepts for analysis of actor

interactions • Added value of full game theory models for identification of

monitoring agendas is limited• Assumption-based planning / assumption surfacing

• Critical for translation from games to monitoring needs• Important to identify assumptions for multiple actors – game

theory helpful but other approaches for actor analysis also possible

22

Thank you for your attention!

Leon HermansL.M.Hermans@tudelft.nl

A more detailed working paper can be downloaded from:http://www.nextgenerationinfrastructures.eu/index.php?pageID=19&itemID=580908