Citizen Initiatives in Water Governance in the Netherlands: Reflection and Implication to Asian Cases

  • Jurian EdelenbosEmail author


This chapter reviews preceding cases of citizen engagement in water governance in the country, focusing on the interaction and relationship between citizen initiatives and governmental agencies in two cases from the Room for the River program, in order to provide a reference for Asian cases depicted in the following chapters. In the Netherlands, the traditional sectoral engineering approach has been used for water management for many years. However, the transition from this traditional method to an interactive method for integrated water management co-produced by citizens and government has been accelerated. Through comparative studies of two cases of flood risk management projects, this chapter shows contextual differences in the strategy, resources, and goals of initiators and governmental responses to stakeholder initiatives. The findings and discussions in this chapter contribute to the development of the theory of water governance and provide a perspective to analyze Asian cases where the role of government is still dominant in water governance.


Citizen initiative Interactive governance Water management Spatial planning Government support 


  1. Abbas, N.Hl., Irna van der Molen, Manal R. Nader, and Jon C. Lovett. 2014. Citizens’ Perceptions of Trust Relationships in the Environmental Management Process in North Lebanon. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 58: 1511. Scholar
  2. Bang, H.P. 2004. Culture Governance: Governing Self-Reflexive Modernity. Public Administration 82 (1): 157–190.Google Scholar
  3. Beierle, T. 2002. The Quality of Stakeholder-Based Decisions. Risk Analysis 22 (4): 739–749.Google Scholar
  4. Boonstra, B. 2015. Planning Strategies in an Age of Active Citizenship: A Post-structuralist Agenda for Self-organization in Spatial Planning. Doctoral thesis. Groningen: PhD Series InPlanning.Google Scholar
  5. Chess, C., and K. Purcell. 1999. Public Participation and the Environment: Do We Know What Works? Environmental Science & Technology 33: 2685–2692.Google Scholar
  6. Dalton, R.J. 2008. Citizenship Norms and the Expansion of Political Participation. Political Studies 56 (1): 76–98.Google Scholar
  7. De Moor, T. 2013. Homo Cooperans. Instituties voor collectieve actie en solidaire samenleving, oratie. Universiteit van Utrecht.Google Scholar
  8. Edelenbos, J. 2005. Institutional Implications of Interactive Governance: Insights from Dutch Practice. Governance. An International Journal of Policy and Administration 18 (1): 111–134.Google Scholar
  9. Edelenbos, J., and I.F. van Meerkerk. 2016. Critical Reflections on Interactive Governance. Self-Organization and Participation in Public Governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Edelenbos, J., P.J. Klok, and J. van Tatenhove. 2009. The Institutional Embedding of Interactive Policy Making. Insights from a Comparative Research Based on Eight Interactive Projects in the Netherlands. American Review of Public Administration 39 (2): 125–148.Google Scholar
  11. Edelenbos, J., I. van Meerkerk, and T. Schenk. 2016. The Evolution of Community Self-organization in Interaction with Government Institutions: Cross-Case Insights from Three Countries. American Review of Public Administration. Google Scholar
  12. Edelenbos, J., M.W. van Buuren, D. Roth and M. Winnubst (2017), Stakeholder Initiatives in Flood Risk Management: Exploring the Role and Impact of Bottom-Up Initiatives in Three ‘Room for the River’ Projects in the Netherlands, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 60 (1), pp. 47–66 Accepted for publicationGoogle Scholar
  13. Feldman, M.S., and A.M. Khademian. 2007. The Role of the Public Manager in Inclusion: Creating Communities of Participation. Governance 20 (2): 305–324.Google Scholar
  14. Few, R., K. Brown, and E.L. Tompkins. 2007. Public Participation and Climate Change Adaptation: Avoiding the Illusion of Inclusion. Climate Policy 7 (1): 46–59.Google Scholar
  15. Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
  16. Green C. H. 2002. Flood Management from the Perspective of Integrated Water Resource Management. Paper given at the 2nd International Symposium on Flood Defence, Beijing.Google Scholar
  17. Healey, P., 1997. Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies (2nd Rev. ed. by UBC press in 2006), Palmgrave, Hampshire.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 2007. Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies: Towards a Relational Planning for Our Times. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Heltberg, R., H. Gitay, and R.G. Prabhu. 2012. Community-Based Adaptation: Lessons from a Grant Competition. Climate Policy 12 (2): 143–163.Google Scholar
  20. Innes, J.E., and D.E. Booher. 2010. Planning with Complexity. An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality in Public Policy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Irvin, R.A., and J. Stansbury. 2004. Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort? Public Administration Review 64 (1): 55–65.Google Scholar
  22. Klijn, E.H., J. Edelenbos, and A.J. Steijn. 2010. Trust in Governance Networks: Its Impact and Outcomes. Administration and Society 42 (2): 193–221.Google Scholar
  23. Knott, J., and A. Wildavsky. 1980. If Dissemination Is the Solution, What Is the Problem? Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 1 (4): 537–578.Google Scholar
  24. Kooiman, J., ed. 1993. Modern Governance: New Government–Society Interactions. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Koontz, T. 2005. We Finished the Plan, So Now What? Impacts of Collaborative Stakeholder Participation on Land Use Policy. The Policy Studies Journal 33: 459–481.Google Scholar
  26. Kruse, S., and L. Seidl. 2013. Social Capacity for Drought Risk Management in Switzerland. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 13 (12): 3429–3441.Google Scholar
  27. Kuhlicke, C., et al. 2011. Perspectives on Social Capacity Building for Natural Hazards: Outlining an Emerging Field of Research and Practice in Europe. Environmental Science & Policy 2011: 804–814.Google Scholar
  28. Leach, W., and N. Pelkey. 2001. Making Watershed Partnerships Work: A Review of the Empirical Literature. Journal of Water Resources, Planning and Management 127 (6): 378–385.Google Scholar
  29. Lijphart, Arend. 1969. Consociational Democracy. World politics 21 (02): 207–225.Google Scholar
  30. Lijphart, Arend, and Don Aitkin. 1994. Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945–1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lintsen, H. 2002. Two Centuries of Central Water Management in the Netherlands. Technology and Culture 43: 549–568.Google Scholar
  32. Lowndes, V., L. Pratchett, and G. Stoker. 2001. Trends in Public Participation: Part 2 – Citizens’s Perspectives. Public Administration 79 (2): 445–455.Google Scholar
  33. Lupo Stanghellini, P.S. 2010. Stakeholder Involvement in Water Management: The Role of the Stakeholder Analysis Within Participatory Processes. Water Policy 12: 675–694.Google Scholar
  34. Maciejewski Scheer, A., and C. Höppner. 2010. The Public Consultation to the UK Climate Change Act 2008: A Critical Analysis. Climate Policy 10 (3): 261–276.Google Scholar
  35. MacPherson, C.B. 1977. The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Margerum, R.D. 2011. Beyond Consensus: Improving Collaborative Planning and Management. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Marien, S., M. Hooghe, and E. Quintelier. 2010. Inequalities in Non-institutionalised Forms of Political Participation: A Multi-level Analysis of 25 Countries. Political Studies 58 (1): 187–213.Google Scholar
  38. Marshall, K., K.L. Blackstock, and J. Dunglinson. 2010. A Contextual Framework for Understanding Good Practice in Integrated Catchment Management. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 53 (1): 63–89.Google Scholar
  39. Mayer, I., J. Edelenbos, et al. 2005. Interactive Policy Development: Undermining or Sustaining Democracy? Public Administration 83 (1): 179–199.Google Scholar
  40. Meijerink, S., and W. Dicke. 2008. Shifts in the Public-Private Divide in Flood in Management. International Journal of Water Resources Development 24 (4): 499–512.Google Scholar
  41. Meijerink, S., and D. Huitema. 2010. Water Transitions, Policy Entrepreneurs and Change Strategies: Lessons Learned Water Policy Entrepreneurs: A Research Companion to Water Transitions Around the Globe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  42. Nye, M., S. Tapsell, and C. Twigger-Ross. 2011. New Social Directions in UK Flood Risk Management: Moving Towards Flood Risk Citizenship. Journal of Flood Risk Management 4 (4): 288–297.Google Scholar
  43. Pahl-Wostl, C., 2006. The Importance of Social Learning in Restoring the Multifunctionality of Rivers and Floodplains. Ecology and Society, 11 (1), art. 10.
  44. ———. 2007. Transitions Towards Adaptive Management of Water Facing Climate and Global Change. Water Resources Management 21 (1): 49–62.Google Scholar
  45. Petts, J., and C. Brooks. 2006. Expert Conceptualizations of the Role of Lay Knowledge in Environmental Decision-Making: Challenges for Deliberative Democracy. Environment and Planning A 38: 1045–1059.Google Scholar
  46. Rhodes, R.A.W. 1997. Understanding Governance. Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity, and Accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Rijke, J., S. van Herk, C. Zevenbergen, and R. Ashley. 2012. Room for the River: Delivering Integrated River Basin Management in the Netherlands. International Journal of River Basin Management 10 (4): 369–382.Google Scholar
  48. Rinaudo, J.D., and P. Garin. 2005. The Benefits of Combining Lay and Expert Input for Water-Management Planning at the Watershed Level. Water Policy 7: 279–293.Google Scholar
  49. Roth, D., and M. Winnubst. 2009. Reconstructing the Polder: Negotiating Property Rights and “Blue Functions” for Land. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 8 (1): 37–56.Google Scholar
  50. ———. 2010. Overdieps polderen. Enkele aspecten van de planvorming voor de Overdiepse Polder. Bestuurskunde 2010 (3): 52–64.Google Scholar
  51. Sabatier, P.A., W. Focht, M. Lubell, Z. Trachtenberg, A. Vedlitz, and M. Matlock, eds. 2005. Swimming Upstream. Collaborative Approaches to Watershed Management. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Sørenson, E. 2002. Democratic Theory and Network Governance. Administrative Theory and Praxis 24 (4): 693–720.Google Scholar
  53. Sørenson, E., and J. Torfing. 2007. Theories of Democratic Network Governance. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  54. Stake, R.E. 1998. Case Studies. In Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, ed. N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, 86–109. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Surowiecki, J. 2004. The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  56. Teisman, G.R., M.W. van Buuren, and L.G. Gerrits. 2009. Managing Complex Governance Systems. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  57. Thaler, T., and M. Levin-Keitel. 2015. Multi-level Stakeholder Engagement in Flood Risk Management – A Question of Roles and Power: Lessons from England. Environmental Science and Policy 55: 292–301.Google Scholar
  58. Thaler, T., and S. Priest. 2014. Partnership Funding in Flood Risk Management: New Localism Debate and Policy in England. Area 46 (4): 418–425.Google Scholar
  59. Torfing, J., B.G. Peters, J. Pierre, and E. Sørensen. 2012. Interactive Governance. Advancing the Paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Tseng, C.-P., and E.C. Penning-Rowsell. 2012. Micro-political and Related Barriers to Stakeholder Engagement in Flood Risk Management. The Geographical Journal 178 (3): 253–269.Google Scholar
  61. Van Buuren, M.W. 2013. Knowledge for Water Governance. Trends, Limits, and Challenges. International Journal of Water Governance 1 (1–2): 157–175.Google Scholar
  62. Van Buuren, M.W., J. Edelenbos, and E.H. Klijn. 2010. Gebiedsontwikkeling in woelig water. Over water governance bewegend tussen adaptief waterbeheer en ruimtelijke besluitvorming. Den Haag: Lemma.Google Scholar
  63. Van Buuren, M.W., E.H. Klijn, and J. Edelenbos. 2012a. Democratic Legitimacy of New Forms of Water Management in the Netherlands. International Journal of Water Resources Development 28 (4): 629–645.Google Scholar
  64. Van Buuren, M.W., J. Edelenbos, and J.F. Warner. 2012b. Space for the River: Governance Challenges and Lessons. In Making Space for the River. Governance Experiences with Multifunctional River Flood Management in the US and Europe, ed. J.F. Warner, M.W. van Buuren, and J. Edelenbos, 187–201. London: IWA Publishing.Google Scholar
  65. Van Meerkerk, I., B. Boonstra, and J. Edelenbos. 2013. Self-Organization in Urban Regeneration: A Two-Case Comparative Research. European Planning Studies 21 (10): 1630–1652.Google Scholar
  66. van Stokkom, H.T.C., A.J.M. Smits, and R.S.E.W. Leuven. 2005. Flood Defense in the Netherlands; A New Era, A New Approach. Water International 30 (1): 76–87.Google Scholar
  67. Warner, J. 2006. More Sustainable Participation? Multi-stakeholder Platforms for Integrated Catchment Management. International Journal of Water Resources Development 22 (1): 15–35.Google Scholar
  68. ———. 2011. Flood Planning. The Politics of River Interventions. London: IB Tauris.Google Scholar
  69. Warner, J.F., M.W. van Buuren, and J. Edelenbos, eds. 2012. Making Space for the River. Governance Experiences with Multifunctional River Flood Management in the US and Europe. London: IWA Publishing.Google Scholar
  70. Winnubst, M., 2011. Turbulent Waters; Cross-Scale Conflict and Collaboration in River Landscape Planning. Ph.D., Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  71. Wolsink, M. 2006. River Basin Approach and Integrated Water Management: Governance Pitfalls for the Dutch Space-Water-Adjustment Management Principle. Geoforum 34 (4): 473–487.Google Scholar
  72. Yin, R.K. 1984. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public Administration & SociologyErasmus School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Erasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations