Combining safety and nature: A multi-stakeholder perspective on integrated floodplain management
Introduction
River management strategies and land use of floodplains, especially those in industrialized countries, have changed considerably over the last two decades (Jacobs and Buijs, 2011, Pahl-Wostl, 2006, Sparks, 2010). One of the most pronounced changes is related to the increased importance of a sound ecological status for the fluvial system. This focus on nature rehabilitation and the trade-off with flood protection demanded for an integrated planning and management approach. As a result the floodplains were changed to multifunctional riverine landscapes (Pahl-Wostl, 2006, Van Stokkom et al., 2005), which increased complexity regarding management (e.g. Dufour and Piégay, 2009), perceptions (e.g. Jähnig et al., 2011) and institutional arrangements (Wiering and Arts, 2006) of these multifunctional floodplains. In Europe, this is most evident in the Rhine river basin (Havinga and Smits, 2000) and also visible in The Netherlands.
In The Netherlands, the so-called “Plan Stork” (De Bruin et al., 1987) has brought the aims of nature rehabilitation and flood protection closer together. Plan Stork elegantly focused attention on the long-forgotten biodiversity of the floodplains as it has been erased from man's recollection as a result of one-sided agricultural use of the floodplains during the last few centuries.
Based on historical studies and international references to natural (unregulated) river systems, the authors stated that the original fluvial-related biodiversity would return as soon as
- A)
the agricultural land use of the floodplains ended;
- B)
more room was given to natural erosion and sedimentation processes;
- C)
large herbivores were introduced into the floodplains.
This vision of “self-regulating nature” (Stanford et al., 1996, Ward et al., 2001) became a source of information for the Dutch ecological rehabilitation programs of the Rhine branches and Meuse River (Buijs, 2009). In the end, 42 percent of Dutch floodplains will be transformed to a self-regulating nature (Postma et al., 1996) within the context of hampered riverine processes (hampered by regulation), and self-regulating nature reaches the boundary conditions set by flood protection and navigation conditions (Stanford et al., 1996). Also, fueled by such European policy guidelines as the European Water Framework Directive and Natura 2000 (Mostert, 2003), more and more agricultural land in the floodplains was bought by the national government and handed over to nature management organizations (Van Heezik, 2006, Wiering and Van De Bilt, 2006).
During this period (1987–1995), there was close cooperation between three ministries: the (formerly called) Ministry of Agriculture, Nature, and Fisheries1; the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning, and the Environment; and the Ministry of Transport, Public Works, and Water Management.2 Apart from a spectacular increase in biodiversity along the Dutch rivers, new economic perspectives related to ecotourism also resulted from this land use transformation to more natural and multifunctional floodplains (Kurstjens and Peters, 2012).
Successful cooperation between the three ministries resulted in the transformation of a large area of agricultural land to a self-regulating nature that changed after the floods of 1993 and 1995 (Van Heezik, 2006). Although the declaration of Arles (Anonymous, 1995) — in which Rhine riparian states participated — has increased the international awareness of the important role nature plays in sustainable flood protection, The Netherlands, being the most downstream country, realized that increasing the water discharge capacity was the primary way to maintain the agreed flood protection level.
Based on this awareness, the “Room for the River” program was launched in 2006, and resulted in a comprehensive package of measures intended to increase the water discharge capacity of the Dutch river systems (Anonymous, 2006). Although the main aim was still flood protection, this new planning and policy tried to stimulate so-called win–win situations; i.e. approaches that would generate positive returns in different domains: primarily in the domain of flood protection, but also in the domains of landscape development and economic profit (Smits et al., 2000).
Again, this was an almost revolutionary change and resulted, for instance, in the Waal region (the Waal River is the main branch of the Rhine in The Netherlands), in a multi-player and multi-level process, and in the creation of more multifunctional river landscapes.
The integrated approach was not confined to the level of goal setting (i.e. the idea of combining flood protection, nature, and economics), but was also visible on the level of participant collaboration, which can be observed in other countries as well (Junker et al., 2007). From 2005 onwards, stakeholder participation and bottom-up approaches have been the usual tools with which to involve participants around the Waal River and to include the construction of new coalitions between stakeholders. In this context, in 2006, the WaalWeelde program launched an initiative by the University of Nijmegen (later adopted by the provincial government of Gelderland) to connect public and private entities in order to make Waal area safer, more natural, and economically stronger (Willems, 2009).
This new, integrated, multi-player approach was very successful in early planning and implementation phases around the Waal River (Smits, 2009). It was only later that some obstacles occurred; these were caused by issues regarding the maintenance and management of the newly constructed multifunctional riverine landscapes.
In 2007, more pressure was put on the flood protection goals due to the results of the “Veerman” commission (Deltacommissie, 2008) in which experts urged that the new approach should also be adapted to include climate change. This implied an upgrading of the requirements with regard to protection against river flooding. It was predicted that the Rhine branches, including the Waal River, should be able to cope with 18.000 cubic meters of water per second instead of 16.000 m3/s.
Today, a second obstacle is the national government's decreasing river and nature management budgets. As a result, more efficient management will be needed. Thirdly, for the large-scale riverine ecosystem rehabilitation, the self-regulating nature approach appeared to result in an increase of forested floodplain area (Geerling et al., 2008). The concern arose, especially among water managers, that this riparian vegetation would eventually reduce the water discharge capacity of the river systems. This resulted in the so-called nature-safety dilemma (Vreugdenhil, 2010, Wiering and Van De Bilt, 2006). Apparently, it was very difficult to reconcile the self-regulating nature objectives with the (updated) flood protection goals. The nature-safety dilemma is closely related to the debate on river restoration success. Different perspectives define success or failure of restoration measures (Jähnig et al., 2011). To understand rivers and floodplains, a variety of dimensions are essential to explore (Boon, 1998, Lenders and Knippenberg, 2005), such as temporal dimensions (e.g. historical biodiversity conditions) and social dimensions (e.g. the four representations on the equilibrium of nature (Fig. 2)). So, the question is whether the underlying visions of nature held by the stakeholders involved are as difficult to reconcile as these policy goals are.
The Program Direction Room for the River (PDR), the main board responsible for implementing the Room for the River program, responded with a top-down solution, an approach that strongly contradicted the multi-level and multi-player approaches previously adopted, as for instance in the above-mentioned WaalWeelde program. This new solution was called Stroomlijn (Streamline) (Van Soest, 2008), a name as telling as “Room for the River” was. It called for the flood risk to be reduced to a single, conceivable, and manageable physical problem, solvable by removing vegetation in the floodplains as had been done so successfully before. In fact, as it had been done since the second half of the 19th century when the floodplains were used for agricultural purposes instead of an ecological function (Van Heezik, 2006).
The PDR, however, did not go that far back for their points of reference. They only referred to their reference state in 1997, one that was not far removed in time, but nevertheless, a period before the start of the new Room for the River policy, and before the transition of agricultural use to nature rehabilitation. This reference-based strategy should be replaced by an objective based strategy according to Dufour and Piégay (2009), because dynamic river systems make it impossible to return to a previous state.
The Streamline solution focused only on flood protection using strict norms and inflexible approaches an approach that is clearly at odds with earlier ones such as the WaalWeelde program or Plan Stork. The question then arises as to whether this solution of the PDR will end up dissolving the cooperative coalitions of stakeholders that until recently worked closely together to develop and implement successful, integrated floodplain projects. Because, at the same time (2008), the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature, and Food Quality3 had already classified the ‘new’ nature in the floodplains as Natura 2000 — the European network of protected sites — making it impossible to remove this ‘new’ nature.
This Natura 2000 designation by the Ministry was completely at odds with the selected strategy of the PDR, and made it a very complex matter to implement the Streamline project. All the more so because many nature organizations, responsible for daily maintenance, support the approach of the Ministry. This inevitably complicates efforts to combine flood protection and nature objectives in floodplains.
In an attempt to solve this nature-safety dilemma, and also in collaboration with water and nature managers (Peters et al., 2006), a new floodplain management strategy called “Cyclic Floodplain Rejuvenation” (CFR) was launched (Duel et al., 2001, Smits et al., 2000) and later elaborated upon by scientists (Baptist et al., 2004). The core of CFR strategy is to mimic natural erosion and sedimentation processes and so rejuvenate floodplains and riparian forests in regulated river systems.
In natural, unregulated lowland river systems (not found in The Netherlands) regulatory works are absent, leaving riparian forests to gradually “choke” the river during periods of low water discharge conditions. During high water discharges (floods) the river breaks through the natural river banks, demolishing parts of the existing forests and creating new by-passes (Geerling, 2008). These natural events maintain the water discharge capacity of the involved river system and simultaneously locally “rejuvenate” the geomorphological and vegetation succession, resulting in a wide variety of niches and biodiversity.
In The Netherlands, river regulation of the Rhine branches was started during the late 18th century. From that period on the goal was to improve navigation (deep and wide river bed) and flood protection (fast flowing river and low hydraulic resistance of the floodplains) (Van Heezik, 2006). For these reasons, uncontrolled rejuvenation processes of riparian forests can no longer be allowed in densely populated areas such as The Netherlands. However, by mimicking the natural rejuvenation processes through carefully planning, clear cutting, and designing side-channels at certain locations, a (controlled) rejuvenation process can be realized — even along the highly regulated Rhine branches — without reducing the flood protection level. Of course, after such a CFR intervention, the succession of morphology and vegetation will resume so that after a certain period, the controlled rejuvenation process must be repeated, thus giving the floodplain management strategy a cyclic character.
CFR, as a novel management strategy, has been tested at two locations along the Waal River (Fig. 1). Based on these experiments, CFR appears to be a management strategy that could have promising possibilities to combine flood protection and nature rehabilitation goals in floodplains, especially in Natura 2000 target areas.
However, there are different perspectives among the participants on how to reconcile ecological, social and economic objectives with flood protection (Dufour and Piégay, 2009, Jähnig et al., 2011) leading to different opinions about CFR and other possible management strategies. Therefore the objective of this study is to explore the actors' opinions, visions and values, regarding the maintenance of nature and flood protection in floodplains. We have done this by interviewing the various participants involved in river and floodplain management along the Waal River, and by focusing on five themes that frequently emerge in the discussion of floodplain management:
- (1)
Visions of floodplain management.
- (2)
Participant collaboration in floodplain management.
- (3)
Visions of nature and definition of self-regulating nature.
- (4)
Realization of Natura 2000 goals in floodplains.
- (5)
Feasibility of the Cyclic Floodplain Rejuvenation (CFR) strategy.
Section snippets
Methods
Our investigation is based on a qualitative research method combined with a short questionnaire. Face-to-face interviews were held using a semi-structured interview guide. In addition, the short questionnaire was filled in by the interviewees to get more information and occasionally to probe the outcomes of the interviews.
A qualitative approach is well-suited to gather insight into motivations, perceptions, wishes, and needs of participants (Erlandson et al., 1993). It gives the interviewer an
Results
The results from the interviews and questionnaire are structured according to the five main themes of our study: (1) general vision of floodplain management, (2) participant collaboration, (3) visions of nature and definition of self-regulating nature, (4) development of Natura 2000 management plans, and (5) Cyclic Floodplain Rejuvenation (CFR) in practice. The full names of the abbreviations of the respondents are presented in Table 1.
Conclusions
The results show many obstacles regarding the five themes of our study. The multi-player and multi-level planning process of WaalWeelde and the Room for the River program focused on implementation rather than on maintenance strategies, so these strategies are neither clear nor widely accepted by the respondents.
The integrated floodplain management approach, especially as it combines flood protection and nature goals, resulted in more space for self-regulating nature. Those areas are dominated
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to Emiel Kater and Kees Bastmeijer for their informative conversations, and to Gertjan Geerling, Donna Scarlett, and Laura Verbrugge for their valuable comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. In addition, the authors would like to thank the respondents for their participation in the interviews.
References (51)
Declaration of Arles. Tackling the Problems Caused by the High Water Level of Rhine and Meuse
(1995)Spatial Planning Key Decision Room for the River: Approved Desicion
(2006)- et al.
Assessment of the effects of cyclic floodplain rejuvenation on flood levels and biodiversity along the Rhine river
River Research and Applications
(2004) River restoration in five dimensions
Aquatic Conservation-marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
(1998)Public support for river restoration. A mixed-method study into local residents' support for and framing of river management and ecological restoration in the Dutch floodplains
Journal of Environmental Management
(2009)- et al.
Ooievaar. De Toekomst Van Het Rivierengebied
(1987) Exploring the relationship between public environmental ethics and river flood policies in western Europe
Journal of Environmental Management
(2012)Van vriend naar vijand naar verslagene en verder: een evolutionair perspectief op de verhouding tussen mens en natuur
(1999)- et al.
Visions of nature and landscape type preferences: an exploration in The Netherlands
Landscape and Urban Planning
(2003) Samen Werken Met Water: Een Land Dat Leeft Bouwt Aan Zijn Toekomst
(2008)
Cyclic Floodplain Rejuvenation. a New Strategy Based on Floodplain Measures for Both Flood Risk Management and Enhancement of the Biodiversity of the River Rhine
From the myth of a lost paradise to targeted river restoration: forget natural references and focus on human benefits
River Research and Applications
Doing Naturalistic Inquiry. a Guide to Methods
Changing Rivers: Analysing Fluvial Landscape Dynamics Using Remote Sensing
Nature rehabilitation by floodplain excavation: the hydraulic effect of 16 years of sedimentation and vegetation succession along the Waal River, NL
Geomorphology
Bestuurlijke Waarden; een verkennend onderzoek naar de bestuurlijke aspecten van de eventuele introductie van Waardschappen
Reflections on ‘what is ecosystem management?’
Conservation Biology
River management along the Rhine: a retrospective view
Understanding stakeholders' attitudes toward water management interventions: role of place meanings
Water Resources Research
River restoration success: a question of perception
Ecological Applications
Objectives of public participation: which actors should be involved in the decision making for river restorations?
Water Resources Research
Rijn in Beeld, deel 1: Ecologische resultaten van 20 jaar natuurontwikkeling langs de Rijntakken
The (im)balance of nature: a public perception time-lag?
Public Understanding of Science
The temporal and social dimensions of river rehabilitation: towards a multi-dimensional research perspective
Archiv für Hydrobiologie
Natuurbeheer en –ontwikkeling
Cited by (42)
Stakeholder analysis: Mapping the river networks for integrated flood risk management
2021, Environmental Science and PolicyThe Virtual River Game: Gaming using models to collaboratively explore river management complexity
2020, Environmental Modelling and SoftwareCitation Excerpt :This paradigm shift, while still retaining flood safety as its primary focus, led to an increasingly more integrated river management approach. As a result, it attracted new stakeholders to river management (Verbrugge et al., 2019) and emphasized the importance of stakeholder participation in decision-making (Edelenbos et al., 2017; Fliervoet et al., 2013; Zevenbergen et al., 2015). In the context of the new Dutch river management paradigm, we set out to develop the Virtual River Game as a tool to increase and support stakeholder participation.
The role of place attachment in public perceptions of a re-landscaping intervention in the river Waal (The Netherlands)
2018, Landscape and Urban PlanningCitation Excerpt :River landscapes were transformed to create more space for the river, for example by constructing side channels or excavating floodplains, and enable sustainable use of its resources for economic, ecological and human well-being benefits (Rijke, van Herk, Zevenbergen, & Ashley, 2012). Incorporating local values, knowledge and perspectives to account for these benefits is one of the major challenges of river management (e.g. Fliervoet, van den Born, Smits, & Knippenberg, 2013; Gundersen, Kaltenborn, & Williams, 2016; Smith, Clifford, & Mant, 2014). Local residents’ livelihoods are among the ones greatest affected by both floods and flood prevention measures, however, their particular interests are often not represented in decision-making processes (Burley, Jenkins, Laska, & Davis, 2007; Junker, Buchecker, & Müller-Böker, 2007; Michels, 2016).
Landscape conflict assessment based on a mixed methods analysis of qualitative PPGIS data
2018, Ecosystem Services