Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis Within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions

The Design of a Tool for Institutional Analysis regarding Flood Risk Management in the Delta Cities of New Orleans, USA and Rotterdam, the Netherlands

MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk May, 2013

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 3 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions The Design of a Tool for Institutional Analysis regarding Flood Risk Management in the Delta Cities New Orleans, USA and Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Information Marga van den Hurk (1322192) [email protected]

Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management Section Policy Analysis MSc Systems Engineering, Policy Analysis & Management SPM5910 Master Thesis Project May 2013, Delft

Graduation Committee Chairman: Prof.dr.ir. W.A.H. Thissen (Section Policy Analysis) First supervisor: Dr.ir. M.P.M. Ruijgh-van der Ploeg (Section Policy Analysis) Second supervisor: Dr. ir. B. Broekhans (Section POLG) External supervisor: Ir. J. van den Berg (RoyalHaskoingDHV)

External Sponsor Royalhaskoning DHV NWO: Integrated Planning and Design in Delta regions (IPDD) Urban Regions in the Delta (URD)

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 5 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

Achieving water security and safety requires institutional, legal and regulatory support and capacity for change, adaptive management structures, new forms of relationships, and multilayered models capable of integrating complex natural and social dimensions. Michel Jarraud, UN – Water Chair, Analytical Brief, World Water Day, 22 March 2013, The Hague.

The previous words capture in one sentence the challenge and complexity of analyzing institutions related to the water safety. As a consequence the project that is in front of you is the end result of nine months talking, working, interviewing, analyzing, travelling, discussing, writing, reviewing, discussing and rewriting. The activities resulted in an institutional analysis tool that enables practitioners to analyze institutions in the complex, adaptive environment of delta systems. The project started in the end of the summer of 2012 and is executed in the form of a Master Thesis Project for the master program System Engineering, Policy Analysis and Management of the Delft University of Technology, in collaboration with the engineering company Royalhaskoning DHV and the NWO-URD research consortium: Integrated Planning and Design in Urban Delta regions (IPDD).

How to read this Report The report starts with a theoretical discussion on the definition of institutions and its role within the complex systems of delta regions, followed by the development and presentation of the institutional analysis toolbox and guideline. The thesis ends with a discussion, conclusions and reflection. The readers whom are only interested in the guideline or theoretical foundation of the institutional analysis toolbox are referred to the: • Guideline: Institutional analysis toolbox and guide. Analyzing institutions in the complex systems of delta regions (Hurk, 2013a) • Scientific Article: Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions

Acknowledgments Looking back, one can say that the thesis project I conducted, was part of a complex, dynamic environment consisting of engineering companies, research institutes and governmental organizations that were all represented by professionals with different disciplines. Being part of this large multi-actor system allowed me to put in practice the competences I learned during my master program SEPAM. Nevertheless, I definitely did not just applied knowledge I gained within the last couple of years. During the last months I had many new experiences. I never executed a project on my own for such a long time, I never went on a field research to another country, nor did I worked in a large engineering company, let alone did I developed a tool or wrote a guideline. It is not surprising that I could not do this project solitarily. Therefore, I would like to thank Dr. Ir. Tineke Ruijgh – van der Ploeg for supervising this process. I am pleased with the expertise, guidance and involvement she provided throughout my thesis. I am also grateful to Job van den Berg for providing me with many opportunities. Without him I would not have experienced to work within a research consortium and to go on a field research in New Orleans. Moreover, I would like to thank Professor Wil Thissen and Dr. Ir. Bertien Broekhans for being part of my graduation committee and supporting me with useful feedback and research suggestions. In general I was amused by the enthusiasm during the various meetings with my graduation committee.

I would also like to thanks Marcel Marchand, Jos Timmermans, Suzan van Kruchten, Jai Clifford Holmes and Patrick Martel for reading draft versions of the institutional guideline or parts of my thesis. The suggestions and expert opinion they gave me, were of great input for my thesis. I am thankful for the IPDD research consortium, the international comparison project team of IPDD led by professor Han Meyer, and my colleagues at the engineering company Royalhaskoning DHV for providing me a first professional working experience in the Netherlands. Finally, I promised to thank in my preface Stevan Spencer, Chief Engineer of the South Louisiana Flood Protection Authority East (SLFPAE), and Gerald Gillen, Executive Director of the SLFPAE, for providing me a three-hour private tour around the newly developed Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction in New Orleans.

Marga Rotterdam, 1 May, 2013

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 7 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

Throughout the world delta areas are important centers for ecology, agriculture, economic activities, urban settlements and industries. Therefore, it is not only considered challenging, but also essential to adapt with suitable solutions to the growing physical (e.g. climate change; population growth etc.) and societal (e.g. political situation etc.) trends that explicitly manifest in these regions. Hence, it is crucial to understand why certain adaptive interventions are successful in a given delta. Typically, these arrangements consist of both technical and institutional components. Especially, institutions are significant to apprehend, as they are essential in safeguarding and protecting the values of actors in a delta system by providing stability and predictability. Additionally, for a delta system to work it needs certain institutions to guide and structure the positions, relations and behavior of the parties that own, (re)design, and operate the system.

To date, various institutional analysis frameworks exist that are able to provide insight to practitioners in the institutional environment of complex systems. However, none of these frameworks is specified for the purpose of analyzing institutions regarding flood risk management in local areas in the complex systems of delta regions. This institutional analysis gap resulted in the following research question: ‘What is an appropriate tool to analyze institutions regarding flood risk management in local parts of the delta cities New Orleans in the Mississippi delta and Rotterdam in the Rhine, Meuse, and Scheldt delta?’. Various research methods are used to answer this question. A literature review is conducted to gain knowledge regarding the theoretical context of institutions in the complex adaptive systems (CAS) of delta regions. The conceptual framework and various secondary studies were the input of the development of the institutional toolbox and guideline. To refine, adjust and improve the toolbox, case studies and an expert panel were used for testing and reviewing. Furthermore to show and reflect on the usability for practitioners of the tool, case studies in the delta cities New Orleans and Rotterdam were conducted with the final version of the toolbox. The latter also provided recommendations for follow up studies.

Results In this thesis institutions are defined as a system of interrelated, shared concepts consisting of strategies, rules and embedded norms used by humans to structure situations and behavior. When using this term, it implies that the multiple concepts need to be separately identified and treated as separate terms with a different frequency of change. Furthermore, delta regions are considered as complex adaptive systems (CAS). CASs are a special type of complex system formed to adapt to the changing environment and can be considered as open systems in which different elements interact dynamically. The interaction in delta regions results in the exchange of information, self- organization and the creation of many different feedback loops. Moreover, often the relationships between components are nonlinear, unpredictable or unknown. All the previous aspects result that the system as a whole has emergent properties that cannot be understood by the separate parts. A delta region is considered adaptive, because it has the capacity to change and learn from experience. Seeing a delta region as an CAS enabled to indicate certain challenges related to analyzing institutions in these type of systems. Resulting that the main challenges of analyzing institutions in deltas are: Defining the boundaries and scales; Dealing with temporal dynamics; Providing insight in the multi-actor system; Providing insight in the shared values and Dealing with different disciplines involved within the complex adaptive delta system.

Currently, the existing institutional analysis frameworks of Williamson (1998), Ostrom (2001) and Koppenjan & Groenewegen (2005) all have the ability to structure institutions in complex systems. Moreover, all these frameworks are well known, widely accepted, straightforward to understand and interchangeable. As a consequence, it is suggested to combine successful elements of all these frameworks in one basic framework in order to meet the institutional challenges as far as possible. This basic institutional analysis framework builds on the four-tier institutional framework of Koppenjan & Groenewegen (2005), which enables to show the interrelatedness of institutions in four distinct layers. Two adjustments are made to the original framework. First, there is more focus on the temporal dynamics of each layer of the framework by adding the frequency of change (Williamson, 1998). Moreover, the basic framework enables to show the role of actors and their interaction within the system. Nevertheless, when the focus is on the CAS of deltas, a more distinct institutional analysis is required to understand the institutional environment. The basic framework alone, does not have enough ‘resolution power’ when considering the various disciplines (e.g. spatial planning, engineering, water governance) involved in deltas. Nonetheless, certain methods exist that enable a specified institutional analysis for various discipline groups, such as the e.g. spatial layer approach (VROM, 2001); life cycle approach (GBA, 2013; Ruijgh, 2011) and flood risk elements (EC, 2012). It seems that both the basic institutional framework and the presented methods (hereafter named bits) derived from disciplines can enhance one another when being combined in an adjustable matrix. Each bit is presented as an independent column and enables to provide insight in the institutional environment from different perspective. All the bits aim to provide insight in the institutional environment. The tiles within the institutional analysis matrix are the area in which the institutions can be filled in by describing them briefly. To be specific about the concept of institutions, each layer and bit element is supported by clear definitions and examples to enable to structure what is ought to be included in the tiles of a matrix and what not. However, the focus of analysis with the toolbox needs to be defined by the practitioners, this can for example be based on a specific institutional layer, the relations of a certain bit element or an overview of the overall institutional environment. The toolbox also enables to indicate relationships between all the tiles, which can be (missing) mutual or direct interdependencies.

L1: Actors and Games L2: Formal and L4: Informal L3: Formal Informal Institutional Institutions Actors Interaction Arrangements Environment Bits Layer Approach Life-cycle approach Scales Flood risk elements Institutional analysis matrix

L1.s1 L1.i1 L2.1 L3.1 L4.1 Occupation Design Local Prevention Layer

L1.s2 L1.i2 L2.2 L3.2 L4.2 Network Building & Regional Protection Layer construction

L1.s3 L1.i3 L2.3 L3.3 L4.3 Substratum Operation & Delta Preparation Layer Maintenance

L1.s4 L1.i4 L2.4 L3.4 L4.4 Emergency Financing River Response

Layer approach (VROM, 2001; Nijs et al, 2006) L1.s5 L1.i5 L2.5 L3.5 L4.5 Life-cycle approach (Ruijgh, 2011; Nicolas & Steyn, 2012) Scales (U-Lab, 2013) Flood risk Management (EC, 2012) Recovery

Legend Relationship Mutual interdependency Direct interdependency Mutual missing interdependency Direct missing interdependency Institutional Analysis Toolbox

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 9 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

Even though the toolbox is simplified and enables to structure institutions. It is still considered difficult to execute an institutional analysis. Therefore, the toolbox is supported by a guideline to improve the usability for practitioners. The guideline includes various research steps that support the execution of an institutional analysis. It helps the researcher to specify the focus of the institutional analysis tool by establishing a question-driven, well-defined research purpose.

• Identify purpose of analysis by using the yes-no scheme Step 1: De!ne purpose • Identify main questions to be addressed by using the question boxes • Scan Information at hand for main characteristics of institutional environment and conditions for • Select the type(s) of matrices that are going to be used in the institutional • Review available data and possible methods of data collection analysis with the analysis box • Pre-select a limited but balanced set of actors and interests toolbox Step 2: i) Depends on time and resource available for analyzing and timing Preliminary scan of • Pre-select a limited set of institutional arrangements ii) Depends on support among stakeholders and data availability data and context • Review available data sources • Determine most appropriate focus for analysis based on preliminary scan • Perform an initial analysis on di"erent scales • Set up data collection strategy • Perform a retrospective study by using retrospective manual • Perform an actor analysis by using actor analysis manual Step 3: • Review cultural context of the delta region by using Hofstede website Data Collection • Use key-informants to advise on data collection speci!cs • Fit collected data into matrix structures • Use management plans, laws books, literature study (for data triangulation) • Support and refer to tiles by text Step 4: • Explain relationshipss by text • Conduct interviews for the !ll-in of the overview (for data triangulation) Structuring and analyzing of data • Use only statements of actors, avoid taking assumptions in the matrix • Cross check collected material with data from other sources • Use underlying theory of institutional analysis toolbox for interpretation Step 5: • Present constructed matrix for feedback and validation Presentation of • Two types of conclusion can be drawn: delta speci!c and delta comparison results, translation • Acknowledge that institutional analysis toolbox is a lens and does re#ect the into conclusions & complete institutional environment Institutional analysis guideline consisting of five steps recommendations • Draw a !nal conclusion

To show the usability of the toolbox similar case studies were executed in which the toolbox and guideline are applied regarding flood risk management in the delta cities New Orleans and Rotterdam. The case studies had the same purpose for analysis, proposed questions and matrices. The toolbox provided a structured and systematic pursuit of gaining institutional knowledge within local cases of the delta cities. The case studies are focused on institutions that put requirements on the location choice of large storm surge barriers and the institutions that put requirements on the design decision regarding the life cycle elements of the redesign of a waterfront. The main conclusion derived from the case studies is that the toolbox provides insight in that (missing) critical institutions, which either enable or constrain certain design decisions. The latter can be clarified by an example derived from the case study regarding redesign of a waterfront dike in New Orleans. This project was implemented because the design and construction were fully funded due to formal arrangements appointed by the federal state. However, the requirements related the maintenance and operation of the structure were not taken into account in the design of the tool, as the party responsible for maintenance was not included in the design process. The latter results that the short-term aim is achieved by meeting the flood risk standards conform the flood defense act, however at the same time new institutions need to be developed to safeguard these norms on the long term. The toolbox enabled to indicate and structure observations of which the outcome allows a dialogue between the involved actors. It can be concluded that case studies showed that the beta version of the tool is sufficient enough to conduct field tests by practitioners.

Future Works The aim of this research is achieved by presenting an institutional analysis toolbox, which meets all the challenges for analyzing institutions in complex adaptive delta systems. Various lessons were learned during the case studies and verification study of the toolbox and guideline. In the future it is principal that various experts verify the institutional analysis toolbox and more cases studies are executed to test the approach and suitability of the tool. Only this way it is possible to further develop the toolbox in such a way that it is really useful for professionals working in delta regions.

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 11 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

Chapter 1 Introduction ...... 15 1.2 Research Question & Expected Output ...... 17 1.3 Research Path and Methods ...... 18 1.4 Readers Guide ...... 23

Part I Theoretical Framework

Chapter 2 Definition of Institutions ...... 26

Chapter 3 Institutions in Delta Regions ...... 27 3.1 Definition of a Delta Region ...... 28 3.2 Characteristics of the Complex Adaptive System of a Delta ...... 28 3.3 Challenges to Deal with Complex Adaptive Systems ...... 30 3.4 Conclusion and Input for Design Space ...... 32

Chapter 4 Existing Institutional Frameworks ...... 32 4.1 Existing Institutional Analysis frameworks ...... 33 4.2 Conclusion and Input for the Design Space ...... 37

Part II Institutional Analysis Tool

Chapter 5 Design Input ...... 40 5.1 Design Approach ...... 40 5.2 Design Requirements ...... 40 5.3 Design Space ...... 43

Chapter 6 Institutional Analysis toolbox ...... 51 6.1 Basic Institutional Framework ...... 51 6.2 Bits of the Toolbox ...... 53 6.3 Institutional Analysis Toolbox ...... 58

Chapter 7 Guideline ...... 60 7.1 Define Purpose, Questions and Conditions for Analysis ...... 61 7.2 Preliminary Scan of Institutions, Stakeholders and Context ...... 64 7.3 Data Collection ...... 64 7.4 Structure and Analyzing of Data ...... 66 7.5 Translation of Results into Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 67

Part III Analysis with Case Studies

Chapter 8 Case Study New Orleans ...... 70 8.1 Purpose, Questions and Conditions for Institutional Analysis ...... 70 8.2 Preliminary Scan of Institutions and Stakeholders ...... 70 8.3 Data Collection ...... 70 8.4 Structuring and Analyzing of Data: Case Studies ...... 74 8.5 Validation: Case Study New Orleans ...... 80

Chapter 9 Case Study Rotterdam ...... 81 9.1 Purpose, Questions and Conditions for Institutional Analysis ...... 81 9.2 Preliminary Scan of Institutions and Stakeholders ...... 81 9.3 Data Collection ...... 81 9.4 Structuring and Analyzing of Data: Case Studies ...... 84 9.5 Validation: Case Study Rotterdam ...... 89

Chapter 10 Synthesis of Case Studies ...... 89 10.1 Evaluation of executing of Case Studies ...... 90 10.2 Evaluation of the outcome of the Case Studies ...... 91

Part IV Interpretation

Chapter 11 Discussion and Recommendations ...... 94 11.1 Added Value of Institutional Analysis Toolbox ...... 94 11.2 Added value concerning the usability for practitioners ...... 94 11.3 Follow up studies based on Case Study Application ...... 95 11.4 Difficulty of Comparing Delta Regions from an Institutional Perspective ...... 95 11.5 Future Work and Recommendations ...... 96

Chapter 12 Conclusion ...... 96

Chapter 13 Reflection ...... 99 13.1 Academic Perspective ...... 99 13.2 Practical Added Value ...... 100 13.3 Results ...... 102 13.4 Approach and Methods ...... 102 13.5 General Process and personal challenges faces ...... 103

Bibliography ...... 105

List of Figures ...... 112

List of Tables ...... 113

Appendices ...... 115

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 13 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

CAS Complex Adaptive System MK Maeslantkering (NL) CAN Climate Adaption Navigator NFS Non-Federal Sponsor (U.S.A) CPRA Coastal Protection and Restoration NGI Northern Gulf Institute (USA) Authority NL Netherlands DBFMO Design, Building, Financing, NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service Maintenance & Operation (USA) ECI Early Contractor Involvement NPS National Park Service (USA) Procedure NOLEO New Orleans Louisiana FCUS Federal Congress United States Environmental Organization (USA) (USA) POR Program of Requirements FEMA Federal Emergency Management RM Rhine, Meuse (NL) Agency (USA) RMS Rhine, Meuse and Scheldt (NL) FRM Flood Risk Management RWS Rijkswaterstaat (Directorate- GBA Government Buildings Agency (NL) General for Public Works and Water GIC Gulf Intra Coastal Constructors Management) (NL) GIWW Golf Intercostal Water Way (USA) SES Socio-Ecological System GWP Global Water Partnership SELA South East Louisiana (USA) GWPTA Global Water Partnership Technical SL Spatial Layer Advisory SLFPAE South Louisiana Flood Protection HSDRRS Hurricane and Strom Damage Risk Authority East (USA) Reduction System (USA) STS Socio-Technical System IAD Institutional Analysis Development S&WB Sewerage & Water boards New I&E Ministry of Infrastructure & Orleans District (USA) Environment (NL) TCE Transaction Costs Economics IER Individual Environmental Report URD Urban Regions in the Delta IPDD Integrated Planning and Design in USA United States of America the Delta USACE United States Army Corps of IWRM Integrated Water Resource Engineers (USA) Management USCGN United States Coast Guards and LC Life Cycle Navigation (U.S.A) LPV Lake Pontchartrain Vicinity (USA) USEPA United States Environmental LDNR Louisiana Department of Natural Protection Agency (USA) Resources (USA) USGS Unites States Geologic Survey LDWF Louisiana Department of Wildlife (USA) and Fisheries (USA) WCC West Closure Complex MAS Multi Actor System

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 15 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

Throughout the world delta systems are unique and significant regions. Delta areas are important centers for economic activities, industries and agricultural production. The regions are considered to have great ecological importance as they often contain wetlands with unique biodiversity (Aerts, et al., 2009). Furthermore, delta regions can be characterized as areas with a high human population density (Bucx et al., 2010a). Another essential feature is the complex relationship between land and water (GWP, 2000, p24), which can be illustrated with the statement of Verhallen et al. (2001, p.161) indicating that: ‘Every land-use decision is a water management decision’. The previous aspects result in the involvement of different type of scholars (e.g. spatial planners; civil engineers; water governance experts) in delta regions. This all reveals the complex, dynamic environment that characterizes each delta system in the world. In addition both physical and societal phenomena are drivers of change in delta regions (Bucx et al., 2010a). Examples of physical events driving change are climate change, economic development, subsidence, population growth, and technological development. Societal trends, on the other hand, such as the organizational and political situation, also affect how deltas are conceptualized. It is challenging to acknowledge and adapt to both types of drivers for change, whilst also minimizing their undeniable drawbacks (Bucx et al., 2010a).

Even though we see that in all deltas similar trends and complications exist, the actual manifestations of these problems are location specific. Moreover, White (Svendsen, 2005, p. 34) noted from a river basin perspective that: ‘if there is any conclusion that springs from a comparative study of river systems, it is that no two are the same'. Hence, the specific solutions for problems within a given delta create possibilities for learning when searching for new ways to counter delta-related management problems. However, just 'rolling out' arrangements that are successful in a certain delta region might not be successful in other delta regions. So, it is of great importance to understand why certain solutions work in a given delta. Typically these arrangements consist of technological elements and institutions. The technological components of delta management, like a water defense work, play a critical role in safeguarding the safety in a delta. Moreover, it seems that technical aspects are often relatively easy to design, when they are engineered independently from other domains or for only one actor (Hermans, 2005 p.2). However, when these interventions are implemented in a complex system, many problems and difficulties can occur, such as restrictions due to the formal rules or a mismatch between the designed and the actual operation procedures. Hence, the technical components do not oversee the system (Koppenjan & Groenewegen, 2005). For a delta system to work it needs certain institutions to guide and structure the relationships between the different components (Koppenjan & Groenewegen, 2005). Moreover, institutions are able to restrict and direct development, but also allow new rules and open up opportunities for different organizational arrangements within deltas (Koppenjan & Groenewegen, 2005). Therefore, I consider it is valuable to share knowledge regarding institutions and institutional arrangements that are currently in place in delta regions. This can provide insight for governance arrangements that are able to deal with the complex problems delta regions are facing.

1.1.1 Institutional Analysis in Delta Regions In contemporary times, some delta studies exist that are able to share knowledge on delta management. However, it is concluded that most of these studies address aspects of delta

management based from one perspective or discipline e.g. hydrology (Wang et al., 2009); or geoscience (Wright et al., 1973). As a consequence an institutional analysis is often excluded in delta studies. This omission can be caused due to the complex definition of the term institutions (Hodgson, 1988; Ostrom, 2011) and the unawareness of the existence of institutions. Moreover, it seems that the delta studies that do take into account institutions in their analysis, have difficulties of using distinctive and structured analysis methods to analyze institutions within the complex systems of deltas (e.g. in the studies of Bucx et al., 2010). In addition interviews with practitioners in delta regions, revealed that when an institutional analysis is conducted in practice, the emphasis is often on the involved stakeholders and the arrangement they make, leaving out formal regulation or norms within a system (Elings, 2013). Nonetheless, some scholars have presented well-known institutional analysis frameworks for understanding institutions in delta regions. Examples of such an institutional frameworks are the Institutional Analysis Development (IAD) framework of Ostrom and the four-tier institutional analysis frameworks of transaction costs economics of Williamson (1998). However, on first sight it seems that these frameworks are not accustomed to deal with the challenges related to the complex adaptive system of deltas. Moreover, it is assumed that there is a need by practitioners for a tailored institutional analysis framework that is able to explore institutional arrangements regarding flood risk management in (local) areas within delta regions. Such a tool can facilitate insight into institutional arrangements that are able to deal with the physical and societal trends that are prevalent in delta regions. Additionally, this tool can be used to monitor the institutional environment of certain delta regions. Furthermore, this tool might be able to analyze institutions in a local region before starting or implementing a project.

1.1.2 User Group The selected user groups of the institutional analysis tool are practitioners that are interested in the institutional environment of a delta region. There is a broad spectrum of experts related to flood risk management in delta regions such as engineers, water governance experts, and spatial planners. As a consequence there are multiple purposes for conducting an institutional analysis e.g. exploratory study, feasibility study or monitoring. The selection of this user group has influence on the research set-up of this thesis, what these consequences are can be read in section 1.3.3.

1.1.3 Research Context: Integrated Planning and Design in Delta regions This thesis project does not stand on its own and is part of a larger research project named ‘Integrated Planning and Design in the Delta' (IPDD). The IPDD research program is part of the NWO-NICIS research program Urban Regions in the Delta (URD), aiming to develop sustainable urban planning policies and comprehensive area developments in complex urban networks (IPDD, 2013). IPDD aims to develop a planning and design methodology that contributes to a balance between the complexities of intertwining sectorial interests at different levels. This can lead to the transparent and balanced consideration and combination of various aspects, such as flood protection, urban development, economic development, ecological development, tourism and recreation as well as freshwater management. The core of the method to be developed involves establishing a new relation between knowledge building, research by design and the creation of societal and political support. The Southwestern delta of the Rhine, Meuse and Scheldt is the case study that facilitated the development of this method (IPDD Flyer, 2011). This thesis project supports the part of the IPDD research program regarding international comparison. The aim of the international perspective is to determine how the IPDD methodology might be relevant for other delta-areas in the world. It focuses on which experiences from other deltas might be relevant

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 17 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk and appropriate for the RMS delta. It especially concerns how planning in delta areas can gain new impetuses that lead to new developments, and new arrangements. The theoretical foundation of the IPDD research is included in this thesis project by taking into account the following aspects:

• Considering a delta system as a Complex Adaptive System (CAS); • Take into account the perspectives of the domains: Governance, Science & Engineering, and Planning & Design.

1.1.4 Flood Risk Management In order to design an institutional tool for analyzing institutions in delta regions, one needs to start at a small scale with a well-scoped focus. Flood risk management (FRM) is a good subject for developing an initial tool, as it is a much-studied subject within deltas. Floods are natural phenomena, which cannot be prevented from happening. However, human activity is contributing to both a decrease and increase in the probability and consequences of flood events and inundation (Aerts et al., 2009). FRM aims to reduce the likelihood and the impact of floods and focuses on the way to deal with such events (EC Europe, 2012). Hence, flood risk management involves decisions relating to spatial planning, design and operation of water works, and as a consequence involves many types of institutional arrangements.

1.1.5 Delta Cities of New Orleans and Rotterdam Besides having a focus on flood risk management, this research explores two delta cities. Trends like, climate change may increase the risk of floods in delta regions (Kabat & Vellinga, 2010). Especially the communities, infrastructures and industries in delta cities are expected to become vulnerable in the future (Aerts et al., 2009). The city of New Orleans, located in the Mississippi delta and the city of Rotterdam located in the Rhine, Meuse, and Scheldt (RMS) delta face similar challenges. Examples of similarities include promoting the economic position of a port, the construction and maintenance of a large-scale flood defense system, nature conservation, land subsidence and adaptation to climate change (Bucx et al., 2010a). Gradually policy makers and engineers in New Orleans and Rotterdam have acknowledged the significance of adapting to the flood risk challenges (Aerts et al., 2009). Both cities have developed initiatives, which are adaptive to these growing trends (e.g. Water Plan Rotterdam, 2007; Climate Initiative Rotterdam, 2013; Water Management Strategy New Orleans, 2009). The latter makes both delta cities suitable case studies within this thesis. Nevertheless, the delta cities show differences regarding population size, history, culture, climate, governance structures and geography. It is assumed that both cities have different institutions and adjustment paths to cope with challenges.

1.2 Research Question & Expected Output The current institutional analysis gap is that no adapted method, tools or frameworks are able to explore institutions in local areas of the complex systems of deltas for the selected user group. The context of this project is within the IPDD research program, which adopts the system perspective of considering a delta as a Complex Adaptive System (CAS) and takes into account various disciplines. The research objective and the system perspective of this report are considered to be extensive. Henceforth, to have a well-scoped focus the research is delineated by looking at the institutional environment of flood risk management in the delta cities New Orleans and Rotterdam. These aspects have resulted in the following research question:

What is an appropriate tool to analyze institutions regarding flood risk management in local parts of the delta cities New Orleans in the Mississippi delta and Rotterdam in the Rhine, Meuse, and Scheldt delta?

Various terms are mentioned in this research question. To clarity, first an explanation of each term is given. Following this, appropriate means the development of an institutional analysis tool that complies with the design space and design requirements. Institutions can be described as a system of interrelated, shared concepts consisting of strategies, rules and embedded norms used by humans to structure situations and behavior. A more extensive definition of the terms institution, by also referring to the term institutional arrangements is described in section 2. In this research a special distinction is made of institutional analysis methods and methods. Methods are used as supporting tool for data collection, data analysis and research design (Clough & Nutbrown, 2012) while institutional analysis methods consider methods that can be used to analyze institutions. An institutional framework in the context of institutions, organizes diagnostic and prescriptive inquiry (Ostrom, 2004). Ostrom (2005, p. 826) mentions that an institutional framework provides: ‘The most general list of variables that should be used to analyze all type of institutional arrangements.’ In other words an institutional framework helps to identify the elements and relationships that one needs to consider for institutional analysis (Ostrom, 2004). Moreover, the elements contained in the institutional framework help analysts to answer certain questions they aim to address when they are conducting an analysis. An institutional analysis tool is a type of institutional framework that combines (elements of) existing institutional frameworks with various institutional analysis methods. The term analyze should not be understood as to ‘roll out’ or implement ‘best practices’ of institutions from one delta to another. Rather the aim is to present an institutional analysis tool existing of a set of variables that can be used to analyze the institutional environment of delta regions. For the development of the tool and to show the usability of the tool case studies are used about institutions related to flood risk management in the delta cities New Orleans and Rotterdam.

1.3 Research Path and Methods To be able to answer the main questions, the research question is subdivided into the following 5 sub questions. After each question the chapter is written in which the sub question is answered.

# Question Ch. I What is the role of institutions in the complex adaptive systems of delta regions and what 3 are the challenges for analyzing these institutions? 2 What can be learned from the existing institutional analysis frameworks for the 4 development of an institutional analysis tool to analyze institutions in complex, adaptive delta systems? 3 What is entailed to develop an institutional analysis tool to analyze institutions in PII complex, adaptive delta systems and what is the design of such a tool? 4 How can this institutional analysis tool be applied to develop insight in the PIII institutional environment of the delta cities New Orleans and Rotterdam and what is the effect of applying the institutional analysis tool? 5 How can the institutional analysis tool be improved for future applications after applying PIV this approach?

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 19 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

To give an answer to all the sub questions certain research steps and methods were used. The research path presented in figure 1 shows the structure of this research by defining four different research parts consisting of: Part I Theoretical Framework, Part II Institutional Analysis tool, Part III Case Studies and Part IV Interpretation. All parts influence each other. The research path shows a sequential order, however, all research steps were subjected to iterations leading to adjustments. The aim of the iterations was to refine the research definition and to improve the consistency of the institutional analysis tool. Due to multiple testing and reviewing steps the institutional analysis tool was constantly adjusted. The presentation of a chronological story with all the iterations that are executed would result in unclear reporting. Therefore, the adjustments made based on the testing and reviewing of the toolbox are already presented in Chapter 5 Design Input. A detailed and schematic overview of the design approach with its iteration steps is described in section 5.1. Based on the design input, the final version of the institutional analysis toolbox and guideline are presented, followed by presenting the usability of the final version of the tool by using case studies. At last the interpretation of the results is presented in Part IV.

Part 0 Chapter 1 Introduction

Part I Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Institutions Chapter 4 Theoretical Institutions in the Complex Existing Institutional Framework Systems of Deltas Analysis Frameworks

Part II Chapter 5 Institutional Design Input Analysis Tool Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Institutional Analysis Guideline Toolbox

Part III Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Case Studies Case Study New Case Study Rotterdam Synthesis of Case Orleans Studies

Part IV Chapter 11 Chapter 12 Chapter 13 Interpretation Discussion Conclusion Re!ection

Figure 1 Research Path

1.3.1 Theories Multiple theories have already been presented in the introduction. The theories used in this research can be linked to institutions, complex adaptive systems and existing institutional analysis frameworks. The theoretical research perspective is described in Part I Theoretical Framework.

1.3.2 Research Methods The development of the institutional analysis tool in this research is constructed on a qualitative base. Within qualitative studies, validity is an important concept. In this research validity refers to consideration of the findings of a study are true and certain (Guion et al., 2011). True means that research outcomes are accurate and reflect the situation that is aimed to be described (Guion et al., 2011). Certain means that the research results are supported by several sources and references (Guion et al., 2011). Data triangulation is used to improve the validity of this qualitative research, by using diverse sources of information. In this research both theoretical and methodological triangulation were used. Theoretical triangulation means that multiple perspectives were used to interpret the institutional tool and case studies (Guion et al., 2011). Methodological triangulation involved the use of multiple qualitative methods for research (Guion et al., 2011). The research methods used for answering the sub research questions are explained in the next sections.

Literature Review A review of literature in this research is used to establish credibility (Neumann, 2004). ‘Reviews of the literature are able to critically, meaningfully, and purposefully situate the study, its data, and the findings in relevant contexts’ (Dellinger & Leech, 2007, p. 324). In this thesis literature review was conducted to support the theoretical framework of this study.

Secondary Research The secondary research or desk research consisted of collecting, summarizing and synthesizing of existing research and documents (Crouch & Housden, 2003, p. 19), which was necessary for the analysis of existing delta studies and delta management plans. Additionally the desk research supported data triangulation in the case studies.

1.3.3 Methods for testing and reviewing As can be seen in figure 1 iterations take place within and between Part II and Part III of this research. These iterations were based on methods for testing and reviewing the institutional analysis tool. In this research two types of tests were used: an expert panel and case studies. How these tests contributed to the verification and validations of the institutional analysis tool is explained in the following sections.

Verification and Validation Rounds The institutional analysis tool was a newly created tool for analyzing the institutional environment in a delta region. Therefore, a well-structured verification and validation study of this analysis tool was required to test and optimize the tool. In this research verification means: ‘building the system right' (O'Keefe et al., 1987 p.5). Verification is aimed at eliminating errors in the institutional tool. Validation means: ‘building the right system' (O'Keefe et al., 1987 p.5). In this context validation was concerned with the quality of the outcome determined by the institutional tool. The institutional analysis tool was tested, verified and validated in three rounds:

Round 1: Case studies were used to support the development, to test and to verify the institutional analysis tool. More about the methodology of the case studies is presented in the next section of this paragraph. The results of round 1 are described in section 5.4.

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 21 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

Round 2: Experts were asked about the set-up of the initial institutional analysis tool and guidelines. The experts received a draft guideline, which they were asked to read. In a follow-up interview the experts reflected on the content of the tool and guide (see appendix A). The verification criteria and the results of round 2 are described in section 5.4.

Round 3: At last a validation study of the outcome of the case studies is completed. Within the validation check was looked whether the data and outcome of the case studies is consistent. The experts received a draft guideline and the case studies, which they were asked to read. In a follow- up interview the experts reflected on the content of the case studies by using the guideline (see appendix A). The validation criteria and the results of round 3 are described in section 8.5 and 9.5.

The techniques for analyzing the verification and validation criteria are based on reviews, which include walkthroughs of the guideline with experts.

Case studies Case studies are understood as: ‘an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context’ (Yin, 1998 p.16). In this research project case studies were used to contribute to the development and testing of the institutional analysis tool and guideline. Having case studies as a research method for the development of an institutional analysis tool required a certain research strategy (Yin, 1998). This research strategy of using case studies in this thesis cover three parts; the design, data collection, and data analysis. As can be seen in figure 2 the research strategy of case studies were part of an iterative process, meaning that the execution of the case studies resulted in the adjustment and improvement of the institutional analysis tool.

De!ne & Design Prepare, collect & analyze Analyze & Conclude Part II Chapter 8 & 9 Chapter 10

Write individual Conduct case case report and Select Cases study New conduct Orleans Draw cross-case Develop validation study conclusions Insitutional based on case Analysis Toolbox studies Write individual Design data case report and collection Conduct case conduct protocol study Rotterdam validation study Figure 2 Research Strategy and Method of Case Studies (Inspired on Yin, 1998)

Design: The research strategy of the case studies begins with the design of the institutional analysis tool, which is done in part II. The design of the tool is based on requirements and the selected design space. The latter is subjected to iterations, as the outcome of case studies influences the development of the institutional analysis tool.

Preparation and data collection: The preparation of the cases studies, collection of data and the actual use of the institutional analysis tool are done by executing various case studies within the delta cities of New Orleans and Rotterdam. The selection of these case studies is based on the fact that New Orleans and Rotterdam face similar trends regarding flood risk management. In both

delta regions similar sub cases are selected to show the usability of the institutional analysis tool. The case study topics are the following: large-scale storm surge barrier (West Closure Complex; Maeslantkering) and the waterfront flood protection of a city (Lake Pontchatrain; Lekdijk Rotterdam). The case studies in both cities were analyzed with the same level of detail and in an equal manner. The information used in the case studies included many variables and data points. Therefore the case studies relied on multiple sources to assure data triangulation (Yin, 1998). The set-up of the case studies presented are based on the final version of the guideline (chapter 7).

Analysis and conclusion: The adjustments made to the institutional analysis tool by executing case studies are presented in section 5.4. The results of the case studies with the final version of the toolbox are presented in chapter 9 and 10. An evaluation concerning the outcome of both case studies and a reflection on the usefulness of the toolbox are presented in chapter 11.

Field research: data input for case studies A field study within this research means the gathering of data by means of conversations, interviews and analysis of projects. In this research the researcher conducted field research in New Orleans. During this field research various semi-structured interviews were held with experts. Moreover, these experts took the researcher on guided tours around the wetlands, the hurricane protection systems and the city of New Orleans. The field research created a realistic frame of reference and background knowledge of the delta city of New Orleans.

Semi-structured-interviews: data input for case studies The types of interviews that were used in this research are semi-structured interviews. Semi- structured interviews are a key method of enabling dialogue and deep engagement with participants while retaining focus on a particular topic (Noor, 2008). The semi-structured interviews were relevant for data collection of the case studies. The interview set-up an interviewee list can be found in appendix B.

Expert Panel For the verification and validations round 2 and 3, three experts were asked their opinion on the institutional analysis tool. The experts were chosen based on the their working or researching field (see table 2). To ensure that each expert was asked similar questions, the same documents, questions, and checklists were used, that can be found in appendix A. The outcome of the expert is written in section 5.4.

1.3.3 Methodological consequences for selection of user group The selection of the user group had some methodological consequences within this thesis project. The aimed outcome of this thesis was to develop an institutional analysis tool for a broad spectrum of experts in delta regions. However, the research method of the case studies showed that the case studies in this research were conducted by the researcher of this thesis project and not conducted by letting actual experts perform the case studies. The reason for this methodological ‘bug’ was due to limited research time, which did not allow doing case studies with experts to test the tool. It is assumed that this has not major consequences for the outcome of this research, as an expert panel is used. The verification and validation study with the experts enabled to reflect on the usability of the tool by practitioners. As a consequence the expert study allowed doing recommendations regarding follow-up studies to improve the tool for expert use.

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 23 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

1.4 Readers Guide Within this project special attention is placed on the readability of this thesis for different scholars from different background or expertise (e.g. spatial planning; engineering and water governance). The motivation for this is to avoid wrong assumptions based on terminology used within this research and to assure the theoretical triangulation of this study. For this purpose possibly ambiguous terms are defined and if necessary clarified by using examples or analogies.

The thesis outline is structured as follows. First a short definition of the term institutions is presented in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 connects institutions with the complex, adaptive systems of delta regions. In Chapter 4 a literature study regarding existing institutional frameworks is presented. In Part II the design input (Chapter 5) together with the institutional analysis tool are presented (Chapter 6). Also the guideline of the toolbox is presented in this part (Chapter 7). In chapters 8 and chapter 9 the toolbox is applied in four local case studies related to the delta cities New Orleans and Rotterdam. Chapter 10 presents a synthesis of the case studies and reflects on the usability of the toolbox. In Part IV first a discussion with follow-up studies are described in Chapter 11. Chapter 12 consists of the conclusion. At last in Chapter 13 the evaluation and reflection is presented.

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 25 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

The theoretical framework is an essential aspect of this research, as the subsequent research parts refer to the theories mentioned in this section. In the introduction it was described that an institutional analysis framework identifies the elements and general relationships amongst these elements (Ostrom, 2011). A well-founded theoretical basis is an essential aspect for development of an institutional analysis tool, as when the institutional analysis tool does not have the capability to be: ‘systematic and consistent, recommendations based on the outcome of the institutional analysis framework may provide an incorrect impression of the institutional environment.’ (Ostrom, 2011 p.9). Furthermore, the way variables interact with one another in such a tool can differ for various system perspectives (Ostrom, 2011). Thus, the elements in the tool need to be supported by both a well defined theoretically framework and research perspective. Part I Theoretical framework contains the following three chapters:

Chapter 2 Definitions of Institutions ...... 26 Chapter 3 Institutions in Complex, Adaptive Delta Systems ...... 27 Chapter 4 Existing Institutional Analysis Frameworks ...... 34

Institutions are commonly referred to as particular formal organizations of government and public services (Van Dale, 2013). The definition of institutions in this thesis is more far-reaching than simply indicating organizations (Esman & Uphoff, 1994). In this context institutions also contain rules, customs and behavior patterns that are important to a society. To clarify this concept, the term institution finds an analogy in the procedures related to a team sport, such as field hockey (Bandaragoda, 2000): the rules in the game provide a structure on how the game should be played. The actual play of the game, the relationships between players and the strategies used among the teams are considered institutions. Also the arrangements that specify the layout of the playground and the positions of the players are institutions. The institutional agreements include enforcement rules, like the use of cards as carrier of sanctions on the one hand. On the other hand these agreements can also contain awards for compliance, like the handout of a golden medal. In this sense, institutions cover the complete organization of the team, strategies used and the rules enforced by the arbitrators (Bandaragoda, 2000). However, it should be noted that these agreements only can be named institutions if they have a certain degree of durability, are accepted by those involved and are used in practice (Koppenjan & Groenewegen, 2005). Institutions comprise of:

• Norms, traditions, religion, practices and customs; • Laws, rules and regulations; • Policies and objectives; • Organizations, their bylaws and core values; • Incentive and accountability mechanisms; • Operational plans and procedures; • Contracts, covenants, financial and informal arrangements; • Stakeholder’s interaction.

The above elements reiterate the comprehensiveness of the term institutions and the difficultly of defining this term in one phrase. This also reflects that institutional theory is used in various domains. Hodgson (1996) argued that there is no unified and solid definition for the term institutions. Ostrom (1986, p.1) agrees on this aspect by stating: 'Little agreement exists on what the term institution means’. However, in order to discuss and describe institutions some explanation is required, this is done by listing and reflecting on four definitions of well-known institutional scholars:

• Hodgsons (1998 p.654) describes institutions as: ‘durable systems of established and embedded social rules that structure social interactions.’. • Ostrom (2007) defines institutions as ‘shared concepts used by humans in repetitive situations organized by rules, norms, and strategies’ (Ostrom, 2007, p.23). She delineates institutions further as being formal or informal. Formal institutions are characterized as rules- in-form and the latter as rules-in-use (UC Denver, 2013). Ostrom supports this definition with the Institutional Analysis Development (IAD) Framework. • Williamson (1998) focuses on the institutions of governance (Part two of New Institutional Economics) and defines institutions as ‘the play of the game’. Williamson presents the

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 27 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

economics of institutions in a four-layer institutional analysis framework that expresses the socio-political ‘embeddedness’ of regulations (Williamson, 1998, p.27). • Koppenjan & Groenewegen (2005, p.244) describe that institutions are a: ‘system of rules that structure the course of actions that a set of actors may choose’. They present institutions by a multiple-layer institutional analysis framework regarding complex socio-technical systems.

Based on the above definitions one can conclude that the role of temporal dynamics and the durability of institutions are essential, as institutions can have a long evolving path (Hodgons, 1998 p.565). On the other hand institutions can also be transformed, as institutions are constantly changing in relation to their physical environment or when interacting with other types of institutions (Williamson, 1998). Moreover, I conclude that the term institutions are encompassing and consist of multiple aspects. When using the term institutions, it is suggested that multiple concepts need to be separately identified. As a consequence it might be useful to explain thoroughly what each aspect means, how these aspects relate to each other and what the frequency of change is of type of institutions. Hence, in this research I consider the term institutions as a system of interrelated shared concepts consisting of strategies, rules and embedded norms used by humans to structure situations and behavior. In this respect Institutional arrangements are interpreted as: ‘sets of institutions to coordinate and regulate the different (in)formal regimes and coalitions for collective action and inter-agent coordination.’ (RU, 2013; Koppenjan & Groenewegen, 2005).

It seems that currently some multiple-tier institutional frameworks are able to support this definition of institutions, as these frameworks enable to show how different types of institutions relate to one another. An example of a multi-layered framework is the IAD framework of Ostrom (2004). However, more multi-tier institutional frameworks, such as the frameworks of Williamson (1998) and Koppenjan & Groenewegen (2005), exist that can be useful for defining institutions in such a structured manner. These multi-tier institutional frameworks will be extensively explained and analyzed in Chapter 4 Existing Institutional Analysis Frameworks.

Delta systems are difficult to classify, as they often have characteristics of several types of systems. Thus, the selected (theoretical) system perspective influences the design of the institutional analysis tool. It is considered essential to have thorough knowledge of the appropriateness of the chosen system vision and its relation to institutions. In this research a delta region is considered as a Complex Adaptive System (CAS). The role of institutions related to this system perspective is examined by answering the following sub question:

What is the role of institutions in the complex adaptive systems of delta regions and what are the challenges for analyzing these institutions?

To answer this question first a definition of a delta region is presented. Secondly, the definition of a complex adaptive system is described. Additionally, the role of institutions in the complex, adaptive delta systems is described. Based on this description challenges are indicated, which may

hamper to analyze institutions. At last a conclusions is presented with input for the design requirements and design variables.

3.1 Definition of a Delta Region It seems that various experts from different domains have defined the term delta region. Therefor, the classification of a delta region can be defined from different perspectives (Bucx et al., 2010b). Syvitski & Saito (2007) stated that a delta can be considered as a ‘seaward area of a river valley after the main stem of a river splits into distributary channels.’ While, Kubo (2006), describes that a delta region is an: ‘area of a river valley underlain by Holocene marine sediments.’ (Bucx et al., 2010a). However, these definitions only consider a delta from a physical perspective in which a delta region is formed based on the deposition of the sediment. While the definition and boundaries of a delta region also depend on the extent to which ‘the coastal low lands and other sub systems are included in the territory of the delta system’ (Syvitski, 2008). Hence, also the economic, infrastructural, ecological and social systems have influence on the definition of a delta region. Within this research I do not consider it is favorable to select one system perspective to define a delta region. This means that within this project no exact definition of a delta system is presented, rather the delta system is seen as a complex system, consisting of sub systems with openness to its environment. Figure 3 presents an overview of the complex environment of a delta, which consists of various interrelated sub systems (Meyer & Van der Berg, 2011).

Figure 3 The Delta as a Complex, Layered System (Meyer & Van der Berg, 2011)

Although it is possible to present a simplified overview of the complex system of a delta by indicating sub systems, it remains difficult to define the boundaries of a delta system. This is caused due to different boundaries of the sub system and the mismatch between the administrational and physical boundaries of these sub systems (Verhallen et al, 2001). This challenge might cause methodological problems for conducting an institutional analysis in a delta region. More about this challenge is described in section 3.3.1.

3.2 Characteristics of the Complex Adaptive System of a Delta To elaborate on the role of institutions within a complex system of a delta, firstly the term complex system is defined. Complex systems are dynamic and like many other systems, they are constantly changing (Barnes et al., 2005). This constant change results in the need of certain flexibility and resilience in order to deal with change. In the complex systems of the RMS delta region, the strategy to deal with change is defined by adaptive delta management (Deltacommissaris, 2013).

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 29 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

In this research I consider delta regions as complex adaptive systems. Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) are a special type of complex system formed to adapt to the changing environment. CASs are: ‘open systems in which different elements interact dynamically to exchange information, self- organize and create many different feedback loops, relationships between causes and effects are nonlinear, and the systems as a whole have emergent properties that cannot be understood by reference to the component parts’ (Grus et al., 2005 p37-38). CASs are adaptive, because they have the capacity to change and learn from experience (Rotmans & Loorbach, 2009). In the existing CAS literature there is no clear picture of the overall behaviors of complex adaptive system (Grus, et al., 2010). Moreover, there is hardly anything written about the relationship between a CAS and institutions (Batty & Torrens, 2005), let alone regarding the role of institutions in the CASs of delta regions. By linking the defining characteristics of a CAS with practical examples coming from the Mississippi delta and RMS delta regions it is possible show the significance of acknowledging institutions in delta regions (see Appendix C). The outcome of this study is summarized with the following conclusions:

• Components – Delta regions consist of various (institutional) components and sub systems (Grus et al., 2006; Holland, 1992). It is important to be aware and understand the relations between components, as the components in delta regions are linked via crosscurrent causal relations. Furthermore, there is a constant exchange of information between the actors in the delta system. The interaction between the components can result in conflicting values of actors or components in the system. Besides, the components in a delta system are directed or supported by various disciplines. • Complexity – The behavior of the system emerges because many components interact simultaneously (Cilliers, 1998). The technical and physical components in a delta region do not control the complex system, for a delta system to work it needs certain institutional arrangements to guide the interdependencies between the different components (Groenewegen & Koppenjan, 2005). Hence, complexity complies that the whole of the system is different from the sum of its individual parts (Eoyang & Berkas, 1998), meaning that (sub) systems in delta regions cannot be analyzed and explained by the physical, societal or institutional parts separately. • Openness – Delta regions interact with the environment (Rotmans & Loorbach, 2009). They are part of a larger system consisting of a local, delta, river basin, and continental scale. As a consequence the regions are also susceptible to external influences (Eoyang & Berkas, 1998). Hence, an open system can be both influenced by market regulations (development of demand, costs, competition, and economic drivers) and government regulation (formal law) (Koppenjan & Groenewegen, 2005). These regulations are often used to protect both public and private interests within the delta system (Koppenjan & Groenewegen, 2005). • Unpredictability - Open systems, in which the relationships between the system components are only partially known, result in unpredictable behavior. The unpredictability in a delta system is partly the result of the multi-actor setting, in which many actors are taking independent actions that subsequently influence other actors (Koppenjan & Groenewegen, 2005). Moreover, institutions are often used to curtail unpredictability and at the same time can be a source of uncertainty and unpredictability. In some cases institutions can cause a deadlock, be counterproductive or create unstable situations. The latter might be caused due

to non-linear behavior of the system, which means that it may be difficult to determine the value of a second variable, even when a first variable is known (Eoyang & Berkas, 1998). • Sensitivity to initial conditions – Small differences in the initial state of the system may result in a change in the system (Grus et al., 2006). Institutions can be used to adapt to or deal with the consequences of abrupt changes, such as natural disasters, within the system. However, the redesign of institutions can also result in the need for adjustment of the whole system. • Heterarchy – The organization structures of a delta region lies somewhere between the extremes of anarchy and hierarchy. A heterarchy implies a large variety and sometimes overlapping institutional arrangements to control a certain system (Eoyang & Berkas, 1998). • Adaptability – Delta systems are able to adjust and adapt to external influences (Cilliers, 1998). Both technical arrangements and institutional arrangements can support adaptability. Adaptive institutional arrangements refer to: ‘a process, action or outcome in a system in order for the system to better cope with, manage or adjust to some changing condition, stress, hazard, risk or opportunity.’ (Smit & Wandel, 2006, p. 282). • Feedback loop mechanism –feedback loops can influence the behavior of delta systems (Eoyang & Berkas, 1998). Feedback loop mechanisms can be mitigated or aggravated by institutional measures. For examples rules can be adopted to mitigate the feedback mechanism related to ‘tragedy of the commons’ of common pool resources ( Ostrom, 1994). • Path dependency - The set of institutional arrangements one faces for any given circumstance is limited by the event and decisions one has made in the past (Grus et al., 2006). Institutional arrangements consist of norms and shared values that often evolve over a long time (Hodgons, 1998). Hence, historically ‘rooted’ practices have an important influence on the attitude and shared values of stakeholders in the institutional environment of a delta region.

Some conclusions can be derived from the previous enumeration. Firstly, the enumeration proves that delta systems show characteristics and behavior of a complex adaptive system. Secondly, I demonstrated that the CAS perspective provides insight in the essential role institutions in delta regions. Another notion I derived from this system perspective is that one should consider that a characteristic of a CAS is that not all the relations within a system are known. As a consequence it is hardly possible to endeavor to have a world-view in which all causalities and interactions are known (Cilliers, 1998; Eoyang & Berkas, 1998). It needs to be acknowledged that a delta system is constantly changing, which has the consequence that the systems are difficult to understand, control and analyze.

3.3 Challenges to Deal with Complex Adaptive Systems The literature review regarding institutions, delta systems and CAS identified that it is difficult to analyze institutions in delta regions. These difficulties result in challenges, which I believe should be taken into account when conducting an institutional analysis or when designing an institutional analysis tool. These challenges are explained in the following sections.

3.3.1 Scale and Boundaries of a Complex Adaptive Delta System The difficulty of presenting a definition of a delta, and the CAS characteristics of openness and heterarchy show that it is not simple to determine the system boundaries of a delta. This can lead to management problems at the boundaries and the points situated between levels of

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 31 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk government in delta regions (Verhallen et al, 2001). Furthermore, ‘Boundary issues may occur in the physical system but also in the human system: social, economic and administrative aspects of society are cause of boundaries between people, organization and government institutions.’ (Verhallen et al, 2001 p.2). Hence, it is challenging, but essential, to get insight in different scales and boundaries of a delta region, when conducting an institutional analysis.

3.3.2 Temporal Dynamics of a Complex Adaptive Delta System The CAS characteristics of complexity, sensitivity to initial conditions and path dependency result that there is a constant exchange of information, needs, strategies between the components and actors of a delta region. Due to the different temporal dynamics it is a challenge to structure the institutions within such a system. Additionally, the dimension of time seems important to understand the evolvement of different type of institutions in a delta system.

3.3.3 Multi-actor Setting within a Complex Adaptive Delta System In a delta system there are multiple parties involved in a so-called multi-actor system (MAS). MAS are socio-technical systems where actors are part in the system and also are the developers of the system (Carton, 2007). Therefore, a MAS consist of an inter-organizational system in which many units and individuals are involved (Koppenjan & Groenewegen, 2005). Multi-actors systems can be challenging to analyze, as they are constantly changing. However, when considering the indicated definition of institutions, the role and the interaction of the actors are essential to apprehend when doing an institutional analysis.

3.3.4 Shared Concepts within a Complex Adaptive Delta System Institutional arrangements consist of norms and shared values that often evolve over a long time. ‘One of the most difficult problems to overcome in the study of institutions is how to identify and measure them. Because institutions are fundamentally shared concepts, they exist in the minds of the participants and sometimes are shared as implicit knowledge rather than in an explicit and written form.’ (Ostrom, 2005 p. 823). A better understanding of these cultural values is important practical policy making related to its governments, organizations and institutions (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2001). However, it is considered a challenge to ‘grasp’ these shared concepts, especially when being unfamiliar with a certain environment.

3.3.5 Disciplines within a Complex Adaptive Delta System A delta system consists of various sub systems and sectors. This conclusion reveals that there are multiple ways to look at a delta system. Moreover, it is concluded that (sub) systems in delta regions cannot be analyzed and explained by the physical, societal or institutional parts separately. Therefore In this research I take into account the viewpoints of the three disciplines that are mentioned in the IPDD research: spatial planning & design, science & engineering and water governance. It seems that these disciplines have different motivations, aims and perspectives of dealing with institutions in a delta system. As a consequence it is considered situational for practitioners to analyze institutions in delta regions. This results that different types of institutional analyses are required to provide insight in institutions in complex adaptive delta systems for a wide range of disciplines.

3.4 Conclusion and Input for Design Space In the introduction of this chapter the sub question was posed regarding the implication and challenges of considering a delta region as a complex adaptive system in relation to institutions. The answer to this question is multilateral. The challenge of defining deltas showed that it is not favorable to present a definition of a delta region. Therefore, I indicated that a suitable system perspective of looking at a delta region is by considering it as a complex adaptive system. I showed that there are two principal notions associated to the CAS theory and the analysis of institutions in a delta region. First with the literature study I showed that it is possible to see a delta system as a CAS, as the characteristics of a CAS comply with the features of a delta system. Moreover, it became clear that it is possible to link the characteristics of a CAS with institutions in delta regions. The role of institutions in the CAS of delta regions can be explained with the following conclusions. The complex system of deltas consists of multiple (institutional) components that are constantly changing. In this particular setting the presence of components results that a delta is considered as a multi-actor system, consisting of various unknown or conflicting cross-causal interrelations leading to unpredictable behavior (Koppenjan & Groenewegen, 2005). Therefore, in my opinion, there is a need for institutions to structure and guide the social structures in a delta system. Institutions in a delta region often evolved over a long time, as they include shared values, secure market & governmental regulation and established relationships between actors. As a consequence, often institutions are able to create stable situations. However, delta regions also have an open relation with its environment and are influenced from both the inside and outside the system. Additionally, institutions are able to change relatively fast, for example when dealing unstable situations such as a natural disaster. In some cases institutions can even cause a deadlock, are lacking, be counterproductive or create unstable situations. Moreover, the multi-actor system results that a wide range of disciplines are involved in delta regions, with different aims for conducting an analysis.

Based on the previous I conclude that the CAS perspective provides insight in the essential role institutions in delta regions. However, the literature review regarding institutions, delta systems and CAS also identified that it is difficult to analyze institutions in delta regions. Therefore, I suppose it is critical that certain challenges are addressed when designing an institutional analysis tool. These are:

• Defining the boundaries of a complex adaptive delta system; • Dealing with temporal dynamics within a complex adaptive delta system; • Providing insight in the multi-actor system of a complex adaptive delta system; • Providing insight in the shared values within a complex adaptive delta system; • Dealing with different disciplines involved within the complex adaptive delta system.

The challenges are the input criteria for the analysis of the existing institutional frameworks in section 4. Moreover these challenges are the basis for the design variables in section 5.3.

Currently, various institutional frameworks exist that are able to analyze the institutional environment in a delta region. In order to develop an institutional analysis tool for the analysis of institutions in delta regions, one should be aware of the existing institutional frameworks that may

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 33 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk be useful for this purpose. In this chapter three well-known institutional frameworks are presented. These are the four-layer framework of Williamson (1998), the four-layer framework of Koppenjan & Groenewegen (2005) and the institutional analysis and development framework (IAD) by Ostrom (2005). The following sub research question is central in this section:

What can be learned from literature regarding the existing institutional analysis frameworks for the development of an institutional analysis tool needed to analyze institutions in the complex, adaptive systems of delta regions?

First, the existing institutional analysis frameworks are described and how these frameworks relate to one another. The description of each framework results in conclusions and design input for the tool.

4.1 Existing Institutional Analysis frameworks To avoid developing an institutional analysis tool that is not based on theoretical foundation, it is it is necessary to understand the functioning of various useful elements of existing institutional frameworks in relation to the context of this study. Therefore first the institutional analysis frameworks, their interrelatedness and their ability to meet the challenges of analyzing CAS are explained in the next sections.

4.1.1 Four-layer Framework Williamson Williamson (1998) has specified the definition of institutions based on transactions costs economics by focusing on the institutions of governance, which is included in part two of the new institutional economics. He did this by developing a four-tier concept for transaction costs economics. The four-layer framework of Williamson (1998) is a framework to describe institutions in an integrated manner of which each level in the frameworks operates at its own pace. The top level (L1) in the framework of Williamson (1998) is the social ‘embeddedness’ level. This level represents the norms, customs and religion, which often are characterized with a long evolving time. The second level (L2) in the framework contains the formal institutional arrangement, which consists of laws and formal regulation. The institutions in this level provide: ‘the rules of the game in which economic activities are organized and maintained’ (Williamson, 1998). The third level (L3) of institutions describes Williamson (1998) as: ‘where the institutions of governance are located’. These governance structures are understood as institutions that govern the interaction between actors. The last level (L4) of the framework indicates the resource allocation by actors on a daily basis (Williamson, 1998). This level is related to the field of neo-classical economics by structuring the individual analysis in the field of microeconomics. Therefore, the required outcomes in this layer are guided by market behavior.

As presented in figure 4, the different layers of Williamson have bidirectional connections. The frequency of change of each layer results that the layers are constrained from above by ‘slower’ levels, but are also influenced by ‘faster’ levels from underneath, as a consequence: ‘in the framework the lower layers, entirely operational and most flexible, are influenced, either constrained or facilitated, by the layers above’ (Broekhans & Correljé, 2008, p.). Moreover, within part two of the New Institutional economics and consequently also in this framework, the focus is mainly on the third ‘governance of institutions’ level. It is assumed that the third level is shaped by both the individual behavior of the agents (L4) and the formal rules of the game (L2) (Stepney,

Welch, & Andrews, 2010). Williamson suggests it is possible to arrange all the organizational activities in previous described four layers, which enables to explore how certain institutions, such as cultures, shared values and norms have formed over in a period of time (Stepney, et al., 2010). Hence, I agree with the conclusion that in Williamson’s framework: ‘the researcher can conceptualize the system by thinking in layers and also the interactions the layers may have with each other.’ (Stepney et al., 2010 p.43).

Level Frequency Purpose (years)

L1: Embeddedness: Informal institutions, 2 3 Often non calculative; customs, traditions, 10 to 10 spontaneous norms, religion

L2: Institutional

environment: formal Get the institutional rules of the game - esp 2 10 to 10 environment right. First order property (polity, economizing. judiciary, bureaucracy

L3: Governance: Play of the game - esp. contract Get the governance (aligning governance 1 to 10 structures right. second structures with order economizing transaction

L4: Resource allocation Get the marginal and employment (prices continuous conditions right. Third and quantities incentive alignment order economizing

L1: Social theory L2: Economics of property rights / positive political theory L3: transaction cost economics L4: neoclassical economics/agency therory Figure 4 Four-Layer Framework of Williamson (1998)

Even though flood risk management is not directly related to transaction costs economics it seems possible that this model is used to provide insight in the current institutional situation (Broekhans & Correljé, 2008). When doing an institutional analysis with the framework regarding flood risk management it is possible to get insight in the shared values of the delta system by looking at Level 1: Embeddedness of the framework. Additionally, the framework specifically takes into account the frequency of change. However, it does not provide very detailed insight in the multi- actors setting, neither does it provide specific insight or attention to the different involved disciplines within a delta region. Nonetheless, in my opinion strong points of the framework are that the framework is sufficiently generic to be applied to almost any type of system, such as a delta system. The framework is able to structure a complex system on a relative easy manner by indicating frequency of change of the institutions involved.

4.1.2 Institutional Analysis Development Framework The IAD framework is a: ‘multi-tier conceptual map that offers a way to understand the policy process by outlining a systematic approach for analyzing institutions that govern action and outcomes within collective action arrangements’ (Ostrom, 2007, p.44). The central notion in the IAD framework is the action arena. Ostrom (2004) distinguishes seven separate components, all influencing the arena, as shown figure 5. In the action arena the decision making, analysis and

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 35 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk prediction, takes place. In other words, in the arena the actual ‘play of the game’ is situated. The action arena selected for analysis depends on the outcome that is aimed to achieve. What happens in the action arena leads to certain patterns of interaction between actors, which leads to (collective) outcomes. Both aspects can be judged and are influenced by a set of evaluation criteria (Stepney et al., 2010). Attributes of the physical environment, community attributes and rules are used to govern and guide the behavior of the involved actors and the action arena (Ostrom, 2011). Biophysical variables are for example the availability of natural resources and aspects of the community are factors such as norms. The type of rules within the IAD can consist of entry and exit rules, payoff rules, aggregation rules, position rules, scope rules, authority rules, and information rules (Ostrom, 2011).

Action Arena Physical Conditions Patterns of Action interaction Community Attributes Evaluative Actor Criteria Rules

Outcome

Figure 5 The Institutional Analysis Development Framework (Ostrom, 2004)

The IAD framework is related to the layers in Williamson’s framework. The IAD is concentrated on the rules that are similar to Level 2 within the framework of Williamson. The IAD is focused on this layer because Ostrom (2011) states that: ‘even though the physical world and community inﬂuence the action arena, it are the rules that deﬁne the action arena.’ Furthermore, the rules in the IAD can be analyzed by distinguishing three separate layers, which appear to match quiet precisely to the levels of Williamson: the operational (Williamson L4), the collective choice (Williamson L3), and the constitutional choice levels (Williamson L2) (Stepney et al., 2010). Additionally, the different layers relate almost to the same time frames as mentioned by Williamson. Moreover Williamson’s Level 1, is part of the attribute of community in the IAD. Based on the previous argumentation I conclude that both frameworks are built on similar concepts, and therefore might be interchangeable. However, in contrast with the Williamson framework the IAD framework is able to show the variety of components and details by explicitly defining the key features of the system. Moreover, the IAD framework is valuable for providing insight in the stakeholder interaction and the ‘action arenas’ regarding flood risk management. The IAD framework is able to explain the complex role of institutions in delta by taking into account different system components. It provides the opportunity of getting insight in the shared values of the system by looking at the exogenous variables. Additionally, the framework takes into account the dimension of time and is able to deal with the multi-actor system in a CAS. The characteristics of CAS show the involvement multiple components, which result that multiple action arenas on several levels are identified. As a consequence multiple institutional analysis need to be conducted in the IAD framework separately when doing analysis regarding flood risk management. Nevertheless, in my opinion convincing points of the framework are, that the framework is able to provide insight in the multi-actor system and how this system is influenced by its context consisting of rules and other system attributes.

4.1.3 Four-Layer Framework of Koppenjan & Groenewegen Koppenjan and Groenewegen (2005) have set-up a framework inspired on the four-layer framework of Williamson (1998) and Ostrom (2011). They do this by linking the development of complex technical systems to institutional arrangements. The aim of this framework is to argue that the evolution of socio-technical systems and its institutions is intertwined and related to each other (Koppenjan & Groenewegen, 2005). This means that institutions restrict and steer technical developments. However, on the other hand Koppenjan & Groenewegen (2005) proposed that technical innovations require new rules and open up paths to different organizational arrangements. Koppenjan & Groenewegen’s model provides insight for a ‘stable momentum’ of institutional design in relation to technical design and process design.

As shown in figure 6, on first sight the content of the institutional frameworks of Williamson (1998) and Koppenjan & Groenewegen (2005) look similar. However, the frameworks are different for three reasons. First, the indication of time seems less important in Koppenjan & Groenewegen’s model as the aim of their framework is to provide insight in a stable momentum. Secondly, the four-layer model allows relationships between all layers (Koppenjan & Groenewegen, 2005; Marchand & Ruijgh, 2009). Thirdly, Koppenjan & Groenewegen added the layer of the actors and their strategies to the transaction costs framework. As a result the framework emphasizes on the L1: Actors and games in the socio-technological systems, which has a link with the action arena mentioned in the framework of Ostrom. In this respect Layer 1 stands for the level of individual actors and their interactions in the context of a complex technological system or setting. The other layers are quite similar to the once mentioned in the transactions costs framework of Williamson. In Layer 2 the Institutional arrangements are located, or in other words mechanisms to coordinate the transactions between them. The legal rules are situated in Layer 3, which are the formal rules of the game, and determine the legal positions of the players and the mechanism available to coordinate transactions. The fourth layer includes culture, values, norms and attitudes: the institutional environment.

Level

L4: Informal institutional environment of socio- technological systems: Norms values, orientations, codes

L3: Formal institutional environment of socio- technological systems: Formal rules, laws and regulations, constitutions

L2: Formal and informal institutional arrangement of socio- technological systems: agreements, covenants, contracts etc. informal: rules, norms, orientation, relations

L1: Actors and games in socio-technological systems: actors and their interaction aimed at creating and influencing provisions and outcomes Figure 6 Four-Layer Framework Koppenjan & Groenewegen (2005)

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 37 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

The framework of Groenewegen & Koppenjan is able to explain the complex role of institutions in delta regions in an interrelated manner. Moreover it provides the opportunity of getting insight in the shared values of the system by looking at Level 4. Additionally, the framework takes into account the dimension of time by identifying a different frequency of change of each institutional level. In my opinion strong points of the frameworks are that its sufficiently generic to be applied to almost any type of system, and can structure an institutional analysis on a relative easy manner. Furthermore, the framework has a focus on actors and their interactions.

4.2 Conclusion and Input for the Design Space In the introduction of this chapter a sub question was posed regarding what we can learn of the existing institutional frameworks of Williamson, Ostrom and Koppenjan & Groenewegen for development of an institutional analysis tool regarding flood risk management in the complex adaptive system of delta regions. This is done by looking at the ability of the existing framework to meet the challenges posed in the conclusion of section 3.

First, some general remarks concerning using institutional analysis frameworks are presented. Based on the content of each described framework, I consider that the structuring and formalizing of the analysis by an institutional analysis framework, makes it easier to understand the complex patterns generated in complex adaptive delta system. Another essential notion that I would like to emphasize is that it seems that the depth of the institutional analysis becomes small when one does not have a well-defined aim for the analysis this is especially the case when using a generic framework. Hence, in order to have an usable institutional analysis: specific, distinct questions need to be posed regarding the subject of analysis before starting an institutional analysis (Ehrmann, 1995). Furthermore, I conclude that the scope of the analysis also plays a role when executing an institutional analysis. When one has a large scope, more institutions will be in place, making it more complex to structure all the relevant institutions.

As shown in the previous sections the presented institutional analysis frameworks are built upon similar concepts and are related to one another. Moreover, they are all successful in: ‘explaining behavior and interpreting global outcomes within many different contexts such as economy, organization and policy analysis’ (Koppenjan and Groenewegen, 2005; Imperial, 1999). Although these frameworks have similar aims and all can be insightful in complex systems of delta regions, they also differ in nature. The main difference is that Williamson’s and Koppenjan & Groenwegen’s frameworks allow for more ‘liberty’ in the analysis by looking at only four separate layers. While, the IAD framework is specified further by including more separate variables, such as the explicit representation of the physical world and the focus on actors. Williamson’s framework does not specifically provide insight in the multi-actors setting and the interaction between stakeholders. While, the framework of Koppenjan & Groenewegen is more linked to the framework of Ostrom in comparison to Williamsons’ framework, by focusing on the actors and games in L1. The latter indicates that scholars of the existing institutional frameworks all have a different focus for analysis within their framework. Ostrom focuses in her framework on the relationship between formal regulations and the roles of actors. While Williamson is focusing of the ‘governance of institutions’ situated in level 2 of his framework. Koppenjan & Groenewegen, on the other hand, put emphasize on the Actors & Games in level 1.

It seems that all frameworks provide insight in the shared values and take into account the frequency of change of different types of institutions. Moreover, it is concluded that all frameworks take into account the role of actors in the framework, however they all do this in a different extent. At last is shown that the frameworks are interrelated to one another and are built on the same concepts. In the previous sections it became clear that all the frameworks have different strong points for meeting the challenges in CAS of delta regions, which possible can contribute to one another. Therefore, I suggest it is valid to combine successful elements of all frameworks in a basic institutional analysis framework, which enables to meet the institutional challenges more sufficiently. Examples of combinations are by putting more emphasis on the actors and their interactions in the frameworks of either Williamson or by having more focus on the frequency of change by adding this more specific in the frameworks of Ostrom and Koppenjan & Groenewegen. More about possible combinations is written in section 5.3 and 6.1.

However, when the focus is on the complex system of a delta region and flood risk management, a more specified institutional analysis is required to meet the challenges and to be able to explain the institutional environment thoroughly. Hence, even when combining successful elements, it will primarily meet the challenges regarding defining insight in temporal dynamics, culture and actors. In my opinion, the main deficiency is that all the existing frameworks are not able to provide sufficient insight in the existence of different system perspectives and the boundaries and scales of a delta system. Moreover, the existing frameworks do not have enough resolution power to meet the different purposes of analysis of the involved disciplines in a delta system. As a consequence I suggest that the basic framework needs to be extended to meet all the challenges of analyzing institutions in delta regions, possibilities for doing so are elaborated in section 5.3.

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 39 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

Part II Institutional Analysis Tool provides an answer to the following sub research question:

What is necessary to develop an institutional analysis toolbox for the complex, adaptive delta regions and what is the design of such a tool?

With entail is meant that the analysis tool complies with the design input. The design space and design variables in chapter 5 are based on the theoretical framework, the user groups, the blind spots of existing comparison studies and the testing and reviewing of draft versions of the institutional analysis tool. The design input resulted that ensemble of (institutional) analysis tools is set-up, which together form the institutional analysis tool and guideline. Part II exists of the following chapters:

Chapter 5 Design Input ...... 40 Chapter 6 Institutional Analysis Toolbox ...... 51 Chapter 7 Guideline ...... 60

The theoretical framework showed the role of institutions within the complex adaptive systems of delta regions. In this chapter the theoretical framework is connected to the establishment of an institutional analysis tool by presenting the design input of the institutional analysis tool. Firstly, the design process is presented. Secondly, the design requirements, and thirdly, the design space are discussed. At last the adjustments based on the testing and reviewing are described.

5.1 Design Approach Several steps are indicated to structure the design process of the tool. The design approach and design steps, which are visualized in figure 7, are based on the meta-model of Herder (2004). The design requirements and the design space are the input for the development of initial institutional analysis tool and guideline. However, the visualization of the design approach illustrates that the design of the tool is an iterative process. Meaning that that initial tool was constantly adjusted. The testing and reviewing of the conceptual design consists of case studies and an expert panel. Based on the comments derived by the testing and reviewing, the tool is refined. After the implementation of the adjustments the final institutional analysis toolbox and guideline can be presented.

Determine Implement adjustments adjustments in (5.4) institutional analysis tool Design Requirements (5.2) Construct initial Present Institutional institutional analysis tool and analysis tool and guide guideline (6 & 7)

Design Space Expert panel (5.3) Develop test: Case studies & Expert Panel (1.3) Case studies

Test & Review Figure 7 Design approach

In this chapter first the design requirements (5.2), design space (5.3) are presented. The methods related to the development of the test are already presented in section 1.3.3. The adjustments that are made based on the case study and expert panel are explained in section 5.4.

5.2 Design Requirements In order to have a well-grounded design of the institutional analysis tool, it seems necessary to me to derive requirements from theory, the selected user group and existing delta comparison studies. The design requirements are a description in which the conditions and limits for the constructions of an institutional analysis tool are defined (Dym & Little, 2003). A complete overview of the program of requirements (POR) is presented in section 5.2.4.

5.2.1 Requirements derived from Theoretical Framework Input for POR A well-founded multi-layered definition of institutions and accompanying • Define institutions on institutional analysis framework is necessary for the reproduce-ability and a multi-tier basis

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 41 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

Input for POR consistency of the tool. This leads to an institutional analysis tool, which • Promote reproduce-abilty is open to objectification. The analysis of the complex adaptive system and objectification showed that it is necessary that the institutional analysis tool is able to • Deals with boundaries and comply with certain challenges. These challenges are defining the scales system boundaries of a delta system, providing insight in the path • Deals with temporal dependency and temporal within a delta system, the difficulty of dynamics providing insight in a multi-actor system, and dealing with shared • Deals with multi-actor concepts. Moreover, the institutional analysis tool needs to be able to setting take into account the involvement of various disciplines in a delta • Deals with shared region. It is important to note that the existing institutional frameworks concepts showed that each existing institutional framework are all linked to each • Deals with multiple other and show similar principles. As a consequence the institutional disciplines frameworks are interchangeable and can be combined to meet the challenges.

5.2.2 Requirements derived from User Group1 Input for POR The user group of the tool is meant for experts and practitioners that • User group: experts in the want to get insight in the current type of institutional arrangement on a delta local level. An institutional analysis that needs numerous persons for a long time might put too high demands on the resources (Hermans, • Efficient use of the tool 2005). In practice often only a limited amount of resources is available within limited time and for institutional analysis (Elings, 2013). Consequently, the suggested the resources available for scope for application of the tool is limited. Moreover, it seems that it is analysis and data not possible to provide a prefunding institutional analysis when not collection having a well-defined purpose of analysis and local demarcation. Hence specific questions need to be posed by the user regarding the • Have a well-defined scope subject of analysis (Ehrmann, 1995). It is considered valuable to and purpose for accompany the tool with a guideline for two reasons. First, by providing institutional analysis the user with a clear and structured analysis method. This will help the user by executing the data collection and analyzing with the tool in a • Perform the institutitonal structured manner. Secondly, the guideline provides the ability to analysis on local scale in provide clear definitions of element used in the tool to support delta regions; objectivity and enables similar results by different users. • Include a guideline

5.2.3 Requirements derived from Existing Comparative Studies Currently, various delta studies, delta alliances and delta collaboration programs exist (Aerts et al., 2009; Kabat & Vellinga, 2010; Wang et al., 2009). Over the years numerous studies are conducted to compare deltas, resulting that a lot of expertise on the characteristics and functioning of deltas exists. However, most of this knowledge is based on the analysis from one perspective and leave out the focus on institutions (Bucx et al., 2010). Other comparison studies can have a high aggregation level, which makes it hard to operationalize certain institutional aspects. In the

1 These requirements are based on own observations during research and are derived from the book Hermans, L. (2005). Actor Analysis for Water Resources Management: Putting the Promise Into Practice. Eburon Uitgeverij B.V.

following paragraphs is reflected on the research approach and outcomes of integrated comparison studies that take into account institutions. This is done by looking at the aim of the study, approach of the study, and institutional analysis. The selected studies are the ‘Comparative assessment of the vulnerability and resilience of 10 deltas’ (Bucx et al., 2010) and ‘Delta Urbanism: Planning and Design in Urbanized Deltas. Comparing the Dutch Delta with the Mississippi River’ (Meyer & Nijhuis, 2013)

Comparative Assessment of the Vulnerability and Resilience of 10 Deltas The motivations of the study by Bucx et al (2010) is that: ‘Relatively little knowledge is necessary for a comparative overview of delta management in which both the natural, scientific, social and managerial knowledge is analyzed in a comprehensive way’. As a consequence it assumes that there is a need for some kind of generic framework, which is applicable to all deltas. The aim of this framework is to monitor and compare the current and future status of deltas and to improve resilience and support sustainable development in an integrated perspective (Bucx et al., 2010). To provide insight in this complex system, it is proposed to apply a simplified structure in the form of the spatial layer approach (Bucx et al., 2010). In the research is mentioned that the governance and institutional aspects are analyzed by combining the four-tier framework of Williamson (1998) with the spatial layer approach of VROM (2011). However, this approach is not reflected in the work document of the delta alliance (Bucx et al., 2010a). Institutions and governance aspects are analyzed without using this framework or clear structure based on the spatial layer approach, this is also reflected in the different ways the institutions in each delta region are summarized by appointed practitioners. I conclude that the framework itself and the model provide a structured and integrated overview of a delta system, but do not do this in an organized manner regarding institutional analysis.

Planning and Design in Urbanized Deltas The article Planning and Design in Urbanized Deltas of Meyer & Nijhuis (2012) starts by mentioning that planning and design approaches in urbanized deltas are in process of fundamental reconsiderations. The approach of this study is to consider the urbanized delta area as a complex, layered system, which is based upon complex system theories and the spatial layer approach that originates from McHarg (1969). The article analyzes the delta system from a morphological perspective by doing a retrospective study. This article mentions the complex environment within a delta system and mentions some institutions, however its focus is not on institutions and therefore does not include a structured well-defined institutional analysis.

Requirements existing Comparison Studies Input for POR Both comparison studies show that the analyses of delta regions are • Use clear definitions of considered complex. Moreover, it seems that the definition and instituions and concepts concepts related to institution are limited defined in existing studies. I conclude that institutional analysis is often not (fully) included in the • Provide a structured delta study. As a consequence the studies do not provide an institutional analysis institutional analysis in a structured manner. Moreover, it seems that method the spatial layer approach is relevant for analyzing planning and design of spatial developments in urbanized deltas.

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 43 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

5.2.4 Final overview of Design Requirements The design requirements are based on the perspective, type of research and questions that one aims to answer with the institutional analysis tool. With requirement is meant: ‘a functional need that a particular product or service must be or perform.’ In other words a statement that identifies the necessary capabilities, characteristics, or quality standards of the institutional analysis tool to be valuable for practitioners in delta systems (Dym & Little, 2003). The design requirements of institutional analysis tool can be summarized with the following list:

1. Provides a multi-tier definition of institutions – The tool needs to be able to distinct separate types of institutions and to show the relation between these layers; 2. Provides an objective tool – The analysis tool should define elements in such a way that it enables a tool for objective research of which the analysis is reproducible, transparent and can be easily crosschecked. 3. Provides insight in the boundaries of a delta region 4. Provides insight in the temporal dynamics within a delta region 5. Provides insight in the multi-actor setting of a delta region 6. Provides insight in the shared concepts within a delta 7. Provides insight in various system perspectives within a delta region 8. Provides a well-defined purpose for institutional analysis on a local scale 9. Reporting and data collection – The institutional analysis tool should be developed for practitioners that have limited time and resources for data collecting, analyzing and reporting. 10. Includes clear guidelines & definitions – the tool needs to be supported by a clear guideline which helps the practitioner with executing the analysis.

5.3 Design Space To develop an institutional analysis tool in a structured manner, it is necessary to identify the design space. The design space consists of the design demarcation and the design variables.

5.3.1 Design Demarcation The design demarcation of the tool is already mentioned in the introduction. The demarcation can be enumerated be demarcating by the following:

• Focus on the delta cities of New Orleans and Rotterdam; • Focus on flood risk management; • Having a system perspectives of seeing a delta as a complex adaptive system; • Taking into account the disciplines: spatial planners, engineers and water governance; • User group: experts in delta regions.

5.3.1 Design Variables Design variables are alternatives whose values can be freely varied by the designer to deﬁne a designed object (Koppenjan & Groenewegen, 2005). In the next sections the design variables for the institutional analysis tool are presented, which are mainly derived of the theoretical part 1 and the design requirements. The variables are schematized in a morphological chart (table 1).

Support of tool One can choose to develop a tool that singly consists of an institutional analysis tool. However, it is also possible to support the tool with a guideline. When considering the complexity of analyzing institutions in delta regions for experts that are not familiar with institutions, it is decided to include a guideline with the tool. This also increases the user friendliness of the analysis as described in the design requirements of the user group in section 5.2.2.

Selection of Existing Institutional Analysis Frameworks The three existing institutional analysis frameworks are all interrelated with one another. The frameworks are well known and accepted by various scholars. The literature study and discussion of the frameworks in Section 4 revealed that it is suggested to combine the institutional frameworks to meet the challenges of institutional analysis in CAS most sufficiently.

Design Variables concerning Challenge of dealing with Involved Disciplines The analysis of CAS of delta systems revealed the existence of different disciplines in delta regions. This involvement results in different reasons to analyze institutions in delta regions. In this research the viewpoints are taken of the disciplines: spatial planning & design, science & engineering and water governance. The reason why these disciplines are selected is because these are essential in adaptive interventions in delta regions. It seems that these disciplines have different motivations, aims and perspectives of dealing with institutions in a delta system. To motivate what kind of analysis methods fit with a certain discipline, first the discipline is described. Based on this description a suggestion of accompanying analysis methods is presented.

Spatial planning is dealing with: ‘the problem of coordination or integration of the Spatial spatial dimension of sectorial policies through a territorially based strategy’ Planning (Cullingworth, 2006, p. 91). However, it seems that spatial planners often deal with more complex institutions than land-use regulation, as they also address the tensions and contradictions among ‘sectorial policies’ (UNECE, 2008). The analysis method of the spatial layer approach (McHarg, 1969; Nijs & Kuiper, 2006; VROM, 2001) seems useful to address this complication. The Dutch layers approach is: ‘a stratified model that distinguished spatial planning tasks on the basis of the differing spatial dynamics of substratum, networks and occupation patterns (Van Schaick & Klaasen, 2011, p.1). The layers stand for aspects in the domain of urban and regional design and planning. This method includes different sectorial perspectives and has proved to be useful to analyse responsibilities and positioning of actors (Marchand & Ruijgh, 2009).

Engineering is dealing with the development or (re)design of technological solutions. In order to do so, engineers often must balance different design Engineerning choices and user prerequisites to select the solution that matches best with all the requirements. In other words: ‘the task of engineers is to identify, understand, and interpret the constraints on a design in order to produce a successful result.’ (US DL, 2006). When conducting an engineering project these requirements are often related to design, building, financing and operation (DBFO) (GBA, 2013). This distinction seems helpful to analyze institutions related to these life-cycle elements of an engineering work in a structured way. Moreover, this method proved to be useful for getting insight in the relationships between institutions in the design, construction, operating & financing of water related systems (Ruijgh, 2011, p. 201).

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 45 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

Water governance is dealing with integrated water management approaches by Water balancing between water safety, flood risk management, socio-economic Governance activities and ecosystems. It does this by the formulation and implementation of water legislation and policies (UNDP, 2013). Furthermore, within water governance the roles of the government, citizens and the private sector are studied. It primarily does this by looking at the responsibilities regarding management, maintenance, ownership, and administration of flood defense structures and services (UNDP, 2013). Water governance plays and important role for the safeguarding of flood risk management in delta regions (Delta Programma, 2012). Experience has shown that the most effective approach is through the development of flood risk management programs incorporating the five elements: prevention, protection, preparation, emergency response and recovery and lessons learned (EC Europe, 2012). Using these elements enables to analyze institutions regarding flood risk management regarding water governance from a all-encompassing perspective.

It can be concluded that the presented disciplines have different motivations, aims and perspectives of dealing with institutions in a delta system. The suggested methods of the spatial layer approach; life cycle elements and flood risk management elements enable a widespread institutional analysis, for example by having special focus on planning, responsibilities and financial structures within water system.

Type of Tool In Section 4 is concluded that even a combination of the existing institutional analysis frameworks does not have enough resolution power to meet the different purposes of institutional analysis of the involved disciplines in the complex adaptive system of a delta. Nonetheless, in the previous section different methods are described for providing a ‘custom-made’ institutional analysis for various discipline groups. The suggested analysis methods enable to analyze institutions from different perspectives. However, these methods do not take into account the challenges of: providing insight in the multi-actor setting and providing insight in shared values when conducting an institutional analysis. Moreover, the proposed methods are not able to provide information regarding the multiple types and the interrelatedness of institutions. It seems that both the institutional framework and the presented methods derived from disciplines can enhance each other when being combined. The enhancing can be done in various ways, as one has different ways of combining the different analysis methods, however, on first hand it seems most logical to develop a matrix, which sets out the institutional analysis method against the different disciplines. Furthermore, one can chose to either create separate tools or to create an adjustable tool. In this case is chosen for an adjustable tool.

Design Variables concerning Challenge of defining System Boundaries It is challenging to define the boundaries of delta regions. In section 3.1 already a visualization (figure 1) was presented of defining the complex adaptive system of a delta system. Moreover, research showed that analyzing the context of a delta system on different scales (e.g. river basin, delta, city) is helpful to get an overview of the scales and context of a delta region (Meyer & Nijhuis, 2012). Another option is by doing a stakeholder interviews with representatives of various sub systems and asking them about ‘their’ boundaries of the system (Colenbrander, 2011). To limit the resources and time for analysis it is chosen to use a quick-scan by looking at different scales.

Design Variables concerning Challenge of defining Temporal Dynamics There are multiple ways of dealing with temporal dynamics in the complex adaptive system of a delta region. It seems that there are various retrospective studies that help to indicate the path dependency within a delta system (Kruchten, 2010; Meyer & Nijhuis, 2012). The thesis project of Kruchten (2010) showed an efficient analysis method for analyzing the path dependency in a delta system. Moreover, when analyzing institutions it is suggested to take the frequency of change of different types of institutions into account.

Design Variables concerning Challenge of defining Multi-Actor System The complex system of a delta consists of a multi-actor system. It can be considered challenging to define a multi-actor system. A way of doing so is by including an actor analysis and by having focus in the basic institutional framework on actors and their interactions in the system. Various types of actor analysis exist. It is chosen to have an actor analysis based on the triple-helix model of Etzkowitz (1994). The reason why this analysis method is chosen because it distinguishes three types of user groups within the actor analysis businesses; government organizations and research institutes) that are all relevant in the complex adaptive system of a delta.

Design Variables concerning Challenge of defining Shared Values It seems that the shared values are included in all the existing institutional analysis frameworks. Therefore it is guaranteed that the shared values are taken into account when doing an institutional analysis with the tool. However, the shared values can be hard to capture, as these often consists of tacit knowledge and ‘unwritten’ rules. Ways of providing insight in cultural, norms and values is by looking at the five dimensions of Hofstede (2012): Power Distance; Individualism; Masculinity; Uncertainty Avoidance and Long-term Orientation. Another option is by doing interviews with stakeholders regarding shared values and conducting field research. It seems that the dimensions of Hofstede are valuable to consider when doing a field research, however they also proved not to be specific enough. Therefore it is suggested that the analysis of the shared values need to be supported by interviews with stakeholders.

Morphological Chart All the design variables are put in a morphological chart. A morphological chart is a method to generate ideas in an analytical and systematic manner (Nijs & Kuiper, 2006). The morphological method results in a matrix of functions and options. The functions are listed in the columns. The options are listed in the rows and stand for the possible means to realize the functions. The challenges and design requirements of the institutional analysis tool are taken as a starting point to find the functions and the options for in the morphological chart. The morphological chart helps to formulate the institutional analysis tool that is based on carefully chosen combination of components. The components together form the initial institutional analysis tool and guideline. The institutional analysis toolbox is developed through analyzing suitable combinations of sets of options (OCW, 2013). Hence, the selection of the components is based on an iterative process consisting of testing the combination of options with the design requirements, expert interviews and the case studies. In table 1 an overview of the functions and options for design are presented. The green blocks show the decisions made for the development of the framework.

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 47 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

Table 1 Morphological Chart Institutional Analysis Tool Functions Options Presentation of Tool Tool Guideline Toolbox & Guideline Tool Basic framework Koppenjan & Williamson Ostrom Groenewegen Type of Tool Adjustable matrix Separate matrices Included Disciplines Spatial Planning Engineering Water Governance Spatial planning Spatial Layer Approach method Engineering method Life cycle elements Spatial Layer Approach Water governance Flood Protection Multi layer flood safety method strategy Scales bit Scales: local, delta Scales: local, regional, region, river basin national, continental Guideline Boundaries Context Analysis Defining sub systems Interviews Temporal dynamics Retrospective Study … …. Kruchten (2010) Multi-actor setting Triple Helix … …

Shared Values Hofstede (2013) Interviews

5.4 Determining of Adjustments Institutional Analysis Tool The design requirements, design space and design variables resulted in an initial set-up of the institutional analysis tool. This concept is tested and reviewed by case studies and an expert panel. In this chapter the most important adjustments to the original tool are presented. These adjustments form the input for the final institutional analysis tool.

Adjustments made based on Case Studies Based on the morphological chart a draft of the institutional analysis tool was set-up. The case studies resulted in the improvement of the institutional analysis tool to meet all the set design requirements. There are various other reasons and motivations for these modifications. For now, the most important adjustments based on the case studies are summarized by the following enumeration:

• Including clear definitions of all the elements involved in the matrix to increase the objectivity and reproducibility of the tool; • Adding relationships and numbering within the matrices to enable clear referring by text; Explaining what kind of relationships can be used in the matrix; • Including data triangulation within the case studies by adding reference table; • Including a structured guideline with research steps consisting of clear instructions and show the possibility of iterations between the research steps;

• Including yes-no scheme to guide the users with defining the research purpose, the selection of the institutional analysis matrix and starting point of analysis; • Developing specified question boxes related to the yes-no scheme, which enables the practitioners to have a clear, well-structured purpose for analysis; • Providing a structured way of presenting conclusions of the institutional analysis.

Verification Round 1 Based on the morphological chart a draft of the institutional analysis tool was set-up. The verification study resulted in the improvement of the institutional analysis tool, of which the result is described in this section. The verification is done with the following criteria (derived from Critech, 2002):

1. Component verification of each element in toolbox and the guideline regarding each separate element within the toolbox and guideline: a. Basic institutional framework; b. Bits; c. Matrices; d. Guideline steps 2. Integration verification. A verification study regarding the integration of the separate elements in the toolbox and guideline. 3. Acceptance verification. A verification study to determine whether the user group accepts the tool. 4. System verification. A verification study to determine whether the tool complies with the design requirements, design demarcation and design space.

To check the verification criteria three experts reflected on a draft version of the tool and guideline (Appendix A). The experts were asked to read this document and reflect on the document in a one- hour interview by answering a questionnaire (Appendix A and table 3). The questions are related to the component, integration and acceptance verification criteria. In the table 2 the expertise of the experts is presented. The outcome of the verification study is visualized in table 3.

Table 2 Experts Verification Round 1 Experts Verification Round 1 Expert 1: Jos Timmermans, obtained his engineering degree in Tropical Land and Water Use from Wageningen University and his PhD in policy sciences from DUT. He is currently working as an assistant professor at the Delft University of Technology. Expert 2: Marcel Marchand, is an expert in the field of coastal zone management and flood risk management and has over 25 years of experience in the Netherlands and abroad. He has a scientific background as policy analyst & ecological scientist. Marcel Marchand is currently working fort the research institute Deltares specialized in water related topics. Expert 3: Suzan van Kruchten, did research on knowledge development in the Californian water sector and relationships between the Dutch and Californian organizations, knowledge institutions and industries. She is currently still involved in water related projects in the USA and is working as policy-maker for the province of Noord Holland.

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 49 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

Table 3 Expert Interview Outcome Expert Information Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3

Yes No Yes No Yes No Introduction Do you understand the importance to analyze x x x institutions in delta regions? Toolbox 1a. Basic: Is the structure and content of the basic x x x institutional framework clear? 1b. Bits: Are the structure & the content of the bits clear? x x x 1b. Bits: Do you have suggestions for other bits? x x x 1c. Matrix: Is the structure and the content of the toolbox x x x clear? 2. Do you have suggestions for improvement? x x n/a n/a Guideline 1d. Is the structure and content of the guideline clear? x x x 1d. Do you have suggestions for improvement? x x x Conclusion 3. Has the institutional analysis tool added value? x x x 3. Would you make use of the toolbox? Why (not)? ? ? x x 2. Suggestions for improvement? x x x

1 Component Verification The tool consists of multiple elements. In this chapter all these components are verified separately with the input of the experts. The bulleted points stand for the adjustments that are made to the tool and guide. To be specific which information is given by each expert, after each statement the number of the expert is written between brackets.

Basic Institutional Framework All experts agree that the initial institutional analysis framework is clear and logic. The interrelations between the institutions are clear and the frequency of time provides the user insight in the type of institutions. Including stakeholders and their interaction in the toolbox makes it a useful addition to the origin institutional analysis frameworks. The framework is adjusted by: • The basic institutional framework is supported with clear definitions and examples (Expert 2).

Bits All the experts agree that the bits provide the opportunity to show ‘an institutional cross section’ with different perspectives. Based on the verification study the following adjustments are made: • It is made clear that no horizontal relationship exists between the bits and that not all the bits (or matrices) are necessary to use when doing an analysis (expert 2, 3).

• Additionally, it is agreed that more bits are possible for analysis such as multi-layer flood safety (Dutch: meerlaagse veiligheid) (expert 1, 2, 3), however it is also suggested to keep the toolbox simple and not to include too many bits (expert 2). At last there is also more emphasis is put on temporal dynamics within the bits of the toolbox (expert 2); • Spatial Layer Bit is adjusted by: describing the dynamics of each element better (expert 2) and by the indication of the existence of a possible hierarchy between the spatial layers is removed (expert 1); • Life-cycle bit is adjusted by: placing the life cycle elements in a chronological order (design, construction, maintenance, financing) (expert 2). • Scale bit is adjusted having a clear definition of each scale is added (expert 2).

Matrices The general elements in the matrices are clear (expert 1, 2, 3). The experts agree that there is limited place available within the tiles, which can lead to discussions. The matrices is adjusted by: • The possibilities of cross checking the data sources and references used in the matrix is improved by adding a reference table (expert 1, 3); • The role and type of the relationships between the tiles is explained extensively, by also indicating what is meant with normative interdependencies (expert 3).

Guideline The guideline is of great support for the institutional analysis toolbox, however there is room for improvement (expert 2, 3). The guideline is adjusted by: • Revising the questions boxes by removing ‘indicators’ in the questions, as the indicators could be interpreted differently among different users doing a similar study (expert 3);

2 Integration Verification of Institutional Analysis Toolbox and Guideline The main comment is that the matrices can present a black-and-white representation of reality, which can be over-simplified (Expert 3). The framework is adjusted by: • Demanding for the execution of a validation study of the case studies can overcome the black-and white representation. However, this is an important remark, which seems hard to deal with as the interpretation of the results can vary for different stakeholders. Therefore, on this statement is further reflected in the section 13.

3 Acceptance Verification The experts (1, 2, 3) accept the toolbox; however, no test and case studies are executed with a group of experts. Therefore this verification study does not provide insight in the acceptance of the experts actually using the toolbox. This needs to be further analyzed by doing experiments and test case study sessions with experts in a later study.

4 System Verification of Institutional Analysis Toolbox and Guideline The last test that is executed before showing the final tool is to check whether the toolbox and guideline comply with the design space and design requirements, as can be seen in figure 4.

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 51 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

Table 4 System Verification Requirements Final Version Provides a multi-tier definition of institutions; x Provides an objective tool x Provides insight in the boundaries of a delta region x Provides insight in the temporal dynamics within a delta region x Provides insight in the multi-actor setting of a delta region x Provides insight in the shared concepts within a delta x Provides insight in various system perspectives within a delta region x Provides a well-defined purpose for institutional analysis x Reporting and data collection x Includes clear guidelines & definitions x

The initial institutional analysis toolbox is tested and reviewed. This resulted that the toolbox and guideline now comply with the design requirements. The adjustments are implemented and resulted in the presentation of chapter 6 institutional analysis toolbox and chapter 7 guideline.

A toolbox refers to a type of storage to hold tools. In this context a toolbox is used to combine several types of institutional analysis methods and existing institutional analysis frameworks by presenting four types of matrices. The institutional analysis toolbox is able to support the execution of an institutional analysis in a delta region from different perspectives. The institutional analysis toolbox consists of a basic institutional framework, four bits and a matrix. In this chapter all the elements are described separately. In the last paragraph of this chapter the overall institutional analysis toolbox is presented.

6.1 Basic Institutional Framework The basic institutional framework is inspired on existing institutional analysis frameworks. The four-tier framework of Koppenjan & Groenewegen (2005) is selected as foundation of the basic institutional framework. The framework is chosen because it builds on both the frameworks of Williamson (1998) and Ostrom (2001), and defines four interrelated institutional layers that all have different temporal dynamics. However, to meet all the design requirements as good as possible the framework is adjusted. Therefore, two adjustments are made to the original framework of Koppenjan & Groenewegen. First, there is more focus on the temporal dynamics of each layer of the framework by presenting the frequency of change above each layer (inspired on framework of Williamson). This is mostly done to support the definitions used of each institutional layer in the basic framework. Moreover, the basic framework enables to show the role of actors within the system. The latter is inspired on the action arena in the IAD framework of Ostrom (2004). As a consequence the L1: Actors and Games is split up in two parts consisting of the actors and the interaction. This separation enables to show which actors are involved within a system and how they cooperate. Figure 8 presents the basic institutional framework.

Basic Institutional Framework

L1: Actors and Games L2: Formal and L4: Informal L3: Formal Informal Institutional Institutions Actors Interaction Arrangements Environment

2 Frequency (years) Relatively fast 1 to 10 10 to 10 Relatively slow

L1: Stakeholder interaction (Ostrom 2011; Koppenjan&Groenewegen, 2005) L2: Informal arrangements Socio-tecnical system (Koppenjan&Groenewegen, 2005; Williamson, 1998) L3: Formal Institutions Socio-tecnical system (Koppenjan&Groenewegen, 2005; Williamson, 1998) L4: Social theory (Koppenjan&Groenewegen, 2005; Williamson, 1998)

Figure 8 Basic Institutional Framework

The basic institutional analysis framework is supported by clear definitions of the institutional levels 2

L1: Actors and Games stand for actors and their interaction intended at forming and influencing requirements and outcomes. Actors stand for: ‘a single individual or as a group functioning as a corporate actor’ (Ostrom, 2011, p.12). In this case actors stand for all the stakeholders involved within the interaction arena. Interaction stands for: ‘strategic interactions between actors, the rules devised to constrain the actions of actors, and the process used to generate the institutions’ (Anderies et al., 2004, p. 18). Examples of interactions are action arenas regarding land sales between agents, information exchange, the sharing of ambitions by stakeholders, lobbying, strong stakeholder involvement against certain solutions, and strategic behavior. The frequency in this layer is relatively fast as interaction between stakeholders can take place on a day-to-day basis. However, the interaction can also include long-term relationships built on trust.

L2: Formal and Informal Arrangements are also known as governance structures, which are designed to coordinate arrangements among actors. In this level actors make use and of mechanisms to coordinate the interactions and transactions between them. Moreover, this layer contains the arrangements that are created and designed to meet the rules enforced by the formal arrangements of level 3. Formal arrangements are covenants, agreements, rules, contracts, and maintenance procedures etc. Informal arrangements are the company norms, and relations such as public-private partnerships etc. The frequency of change varies between 1 and 10 years.

L3: Formal Institutions are the existing mechanisms to organize formal relationships between the involved actors in a system. Furthermore, the formal institutions determine the legal positions of the involved actors. Formal institutions comprise of formal rules, laws, regulations and constitutions. The average frequency of change varies between 10 to 100 years.

L4: Informal Institutional Environment consists of shared values, norms, and culture. The informal environment has influence on the ‘attitude’ of the actors in the system. Elements in this level are often based on historically developed practices. As a consequence, the frequency is relatively slow, as it takes time for norms and values to evolve over time. However, on the other hand this level can be influenced by abrupt changes such as a natural disaster.

2 The layer explanation is based on articles of Koppenjan & Groenewegen (2005) and Broekhans & Correljé (2008)

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 53 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

6.2 Bits of the Toolbox It is suggested to combine the basic framework with the different institutional analysis methods mentioned in the section 5.3 Design Variables concerning Challenge of dealing with Involved Disciplines. Therefore, one can consider the basic institutional framework as a fixed horizontal axis, which can be combined with the various methods (hereafter named bits) of which the combination results in a matrix. The term bit finds an analogy with bit-screwdrivers. These types of screwdrivers have a basic frame in which different bits can be installed. This enables to use one tool to drive a broad range screws (e.g. crossheads, trod heads, Phillips heads). Each bit is presented as an independent column and enables to provide insight in the institutional environment from another perspective, but all aiming to provide insight in institutions. The bits enable to analyze delta regions on various scales and perspectives, to enable a situational institutional analysis. It possible to use different or more type of bits, but for know the following bits are being analyzed and applied in the toolbox:

• Spatial Layer Approach • Life Cycle Analysis • Scales • Flood Risk Elements

In the following paragraphs the spatial layer, life-cycle, flood risk and scale bits are explained by describing the origin of the bit, the definition of each bit element, the relation between the bit elements, and the expected focus and the type of analysis.

6.2.1 3x4 matrix: Spatial Layer Approach Every land decision is a water decision in delta regions. In this respect one needs to acknowledge that land use planning and water management are interrelated (GWPTA, 2000, p. 22; Marchand & Ruijg). The Dutch layers approach is: ‘a stratified model that distinguished spatial planning tasks on the basis of the differing spatial dynamics of substratum, networks and occupation patterns (Van Schaick & Klaasen, 2011, p.1). The layers stand for aspects of concern in the domain of urban and regional design and planning within delta regions

Definitions Spatial Layer Approach The spatial layer approach consists of the following definitions (Based on Nijs & Kuiper, 2006)

Occupation layer. In the occupation layer, the patterns are indicated that are the result of the human use of the substrate and the network layers, such as Occupation land use functions, urban patterns and economic activities (Meyer & Nijhuis, Layer 2012). The frequency of change in this layer is relatively fast. Transformations can take place in often less then 50 years (20 – 50 years).

Network layer: The networks layer consists of the physical infrastructure of transport, such as the roads, railways, waterways, ports, underground pipes Network Layer and cables. However, the network layer also consists of invisible connections such as ICT. The frequency of change is moderate due to the technological complexity, and the expensive character of infrastructures (50-100 years).

Substratum Layer: The substrate layer consists of the comprehensible system of water and soil. Moreover, it includes the contained life present in the Substratum substratum layer. The base contains a historical archive. Processes in the soil Layer layer are part of cycles on a local, regional, national and even global scale. The dynamic of change is slow and therefore changes take place in the course of centuries (100-500 years).

Relation between Layers Each layer in the spatial approach is characterized by its own temporal dynamics. The substrate layer changes relatively slowly and can be modified marginally. Although it is possible to adjust the networks relatively fast in general infrastructures have a long service life (Meyer & Nijhuis, 2012). Whereas, the occupation layer depends heavily on the networks and the base layers, but can adapt relatively fast. Moreover, each spatial layer influences the other layers by both enabling and constraining factors. For example the type of soil in the base layer enables certain agriculture to be preformed in the occupation layer.

Furthermore, it has to be acknowledged that the position of water in the three-layers model is complex and literally runs in through layer (Marchand & Ruijgh, 2009).Over the years the model also proved to be helpful in positioning the role of actors in the different layers. The responsibilities in the base and network layers are usually assigned to public organizations. The base layer generally includes components that require a long development time and are difficult to influence. The resource management often directs the legislation in the base layer to maintain and protect the natural resources. As a consequence this layer is often the responsibility of public parties. Traditionally public departments, water boards and utility companies are involved in the network layer. The occupation layer because is driven by influence of private rights and private ownership of actors (Marchand & Ruijgh, 2009). Resulting that the role of governmental organizations is often limited in the occupation layer.

Presentation of Matrix and Focus of Analysis Combining the basic institutional framework with the spatial layer approach bit results in matrix presented in Figure 10 and Appendix D. The 3 x 4 matrix can be helpful in the analysis or (re)design of new institutions that support the implementation of integrated spatial plans. As the matrix provides insight to reexamine, which institutions in the other levels must be changed or added in order to overcome an impasse in the institutional layers (Ruijgh, 2009). Moreover, the matrix is able to present insight in the positioning and responsibilities from the perspective of different spatial layers. The matrix is suited to deal with issues that are related to responsibilities, location choice decisions and design decisions regarding spatial impact.

Similar existing Applications A literature review showed that Marchand & Ruijgh (2010) and Marchand (2010) adapted a matrix by combining the institutional framework of Koppenjan & Groenewegen (2005) with the spatial layer approach (McHarg & History, 1969; VROM, 2001). The research paper of Ruijgh and Marchand (2010) puts emphasis on the relation between water management and spatial planning in relation to its integration in the overall water systems (Marchand & Ruijgh, 2009). The authors consider that the layer model is instrumental in the design of new water management strategies and adaptive interventions to climate change. The matrix enables to start a dialogue among actors, as it

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 55 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk challenges the stakeholders to reconsider, which institutions in the other levels must be added or changed in order to overcome the impasse they are in.

Furthermore Marchand (2010) wrote a research paper about the Climate Adaption Navigator (CAN) (Marchand, 2010). This application provides insight into the issues in which some of the actors are locked in by either cultural values or formal institutions. The advantage of the CAN method is that it provides insight into the potential interactions between institutional measures and the consequences they may have on other stakeholders. Based on the outcome of these studies, I conclude that both applications have a focus on explaining and dealing with the institutional gridlocks that restrict actors. Therefore, both examples support the practicality of this matrix for conducting an institutional analysis from a spatial perspective.

6.2.2 4x4 matrix: Life Cycle Elements Engineering is dealing with the development or (re)design of technological solutions. In order to do so, engineers must balance different design choices and user prerequisites to select the solution that matches best with the requirements. When conducting an engineering project these requirements are often related to design, building, financing and operation (DBFO) steps (GBA, 2013). This distinction seems helpful to analyze institutions related to these life-cycle elements of an engineering work in a structured way. In this specific case a special focus of the life cycle elements is on public works related to flood risk management.

Definitions Life Cycle Elements The life cycle elements consists of the following elements:

(Re)design: is the creation of a plan, project or agreement for the construction of an object or a system. The design can consist of architectural blueprints, Design engineering drawing that are based on a program of requirements, which are often set up by the clients and or the contractors (GBA, 2013).

Construction: is a process that consists of the building or assembling of a Building & public work. The construction starts with the designed blue print and ends construction with the transmission of the finished work to the party that is responsible for the operation and maintenance (GBA, 2013).

Maintenance: involves fixing any sort of structure when a (public) work is broken or out of order. It also includes performing routine actions, like Operation & scheduled maintenance (GBA, 2013). Operation means the activities involved Maintenance for the actual use of a certain public work such as the opening of a sluice, the closing of a floodgate and the starting of pumps.

Financing: A key point in the life cycle are the financial arrangements, as financing affects almost every decision in the life cycle. Financial arrangement Financing related to public works can consists of funding plans, contracts, subsidies, taxes, the financial allocation of life cycle responsibilities etc.

Relation between Elements Each life cycle element represents a certain temporal dynamics. Every project has a different project- and lifetime. This depends for example on the type of contract that is selected and on the complexity of the project executed. Moreover, each layer is connected, as the life-cycle steps are sequential, meaning that the process starts with design and ends with operation and maintenance. As a consequence, the design is often based on the construction necessities, financial requirements and needs for maintenance. The financing of the public work is related to each life- cycle step.

Various types of institutions are involved in the life-cycle elements like the procurement and tendering of a public work. Tendering and procurement comprises the process of offering and buying the basic infrastructure and services (Nicholas & Steyn, 2012). Additionally, the design and construction elements are often liable to various informal and (international) formal rules like flood risk norms in flood defense act, water directives and environmental impact assessment procedures. After the project is delivered, operation and maintenance are essential for safeguarding the quality of the structures. Often the maintenance and operation are written down in management plans. Furthermore, the parties for operation and management of the system are often not the same parties who designed, financed and constructed the project (GBA, 2013).

Presentation of Matrix and Analysis Focus The matrix presented in figure 10 and appendix D can be helpful in the analysis or design of (new) institutions that support the implementation of new public works and management plans. The matrix challenges the expert to reconsider, which institutions and actors are in place related to a public works. This can lead to the consideration that institutions in the other levels must be added or change in order to design, construct, maintain and finance a water work more efficiently. The matrix is suited to deal with issues that are related to responsibilities, time and financial aspects.

Similar existing Applications The article ‘Manifestations of adaptive capacity: an institutional analysis of adaption of a local storm water drainage system’ (Ruijgh, 2011) shows a similar matrix. A four-by-four matrix is used for institutional analysis to understand the interdependencies of institutions in the operation, design, financing and building of public works and water systems (Ruijgh, 2011). The framework has special emphasis on the fact that the ‘norms and principles within the system are robust and do not change easily’. This application proves that developed four-by-four framework provides insight into how changes in institutions may change the adaption space.

6.2.3 4x5 Matrix: Flood Risk Management Flood risk management is very different amongst deltas, and flood risk management involves decisions pertaining to planning, design and operation of water works, and involves many institutions. Floods are natural phenomena, which cannot be prevented from happening. However, human activity is contributing to both a decrease and increase in the likelihood and adverse consequences of extreme flood events. Flood risk management aims to reduce the likelihood and the impact of floods and the way to deal with such events. Experience has shown that the most effective approach is through the development of flood risk management programs incorporating the five elements (EC Europe, 2012).

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 57 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

Definitions of Flood Risk Elements The following aspects are taken into account regarding flood risk management:

Prevention: Preventing damage caused by floods by avoiding construction of Prevention houses and industries in present and future flood-prone areas by adapting future developments to flood risk

Protection: Taking measures, both structural and non-structural, to reduce the Protection likelihood of floods and the impact of floods in a specific location. Examples of these structures are levees, dikes, etc.

Preparation: Preparing the environment for flooding. For example by Preparation informing the population about flood risks and what to do in the event of a flood.

Emergency Emergency Response: The development of emergency response strategies and Response plans in the case of a flood;

Recovery Recovery: The development of plans and strategies to get normal conditions back as soon as possible. Additionally, mitigating both the social and economic impacts on the affected population.

Relation between Layers The flood risk elements matrix helps to identify the amount of integrated flood risk management within a delta region. Looking at the relationships of the flood risk management elements can do this.

Presentation of Matrix and Analysis Focus The matrix can be helpful in the analysis or design of new institutions that support the implementation of comprehensive flood risk plans. The matrix challenges the expert to reconsider, which institutions and actors are in place related to flood risk management. This can lead to the consideration that institutional arrangements in the other levels must be added or change in order to have more integrated flood risk management. The matrix is suited to deal with issues that are related to responsibilities and the comprehensiveness of flood risk management.

6.2.4 4x4 Matrix: Scales A characteristic of a delta system is that it exists of multiple sub systems. All these sub systems have different boundaries. It is not easy to explicitly define the boundaries of each sub systems

(Verhallen et al., 2001). Hence, a delta system is constantly interacting with its environment and influenced by international, national, regional and local institution. As a consequence it might be relevant to look what the context of a certain project is on different scales and from different contexts.

Definitions of Scales The following scales are defined:

Local Local: Municipality, district, lake, natural area such as a park;

Regional Regional: City, province, water board, safety region;

Delta Delta: boundaries assumed by delta committee in place;

River River: the whole river basin of the river; boundaries taken by a river basin committee.

Presentation of Matrix and Analysis focus Each bit element is part of the context of the other scales as the system is interacting with its environment. The scale matrix presented in Figure 10 and appendix D can be used to support the other matrices by doing an analysis of different contexts. This helps the user to look how a larger or smaller scale influences a project by regulation of for example a federal government or external international unions. It also enables to show the legislative power from a smaller scale.

6.3 Institutional Analysis Toolbox The main elements in the toolbox are now presented. However, the content of the overall toolbox is not explained. In Figure 10 the overall institutional analysis toolbox is presented consisting of a basic institutional framework, four bits and a matrix. The basis institutional framework forms the fixed horizontal axis of the toolbox that can be combined with different bits to establish a matrix, which allows a more specific analysis regarding flood risk management. The tiles within the institutional analysis matrix are the area in which the institutions can be filled in by describing the institutions briefly. The tiles do not leave room for each institutional arrangement that is in place. As a consequence, only the most important institutional arrangement can be filled in. The limited amount of space within the tiles results in the need for the user to be specific and concise. However, the limited amount of space also allows discussion, as can be argued why a certain institution is included or not. It is hardly to overcome this problem, especially when only using one key-informant or limited data sources. However, it is also possible to argument explain by text why

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 59 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk an institution is or is not placed in a certain tile. To enable this in a structured manner each tile has a number in the left corner. The number is based on the layers within the fixed basic institutional framework and the row number of the tile. The unique code for each tile enables to easily refer to the tile by text.

Relationships An important element in the toolbox is possibility of indicating the relationships between the tiles. The relationships between the tiles are important as they present the missing and dominant relationships between the institutions in the matrix. They allow showing the propagation of a certain institution on other institutions. Moreover, the interdependencies are significant for providing an answer to the proposed question for analysis. The interdependencies can exist in the forms of direct and indirect relations. In the toolbox is already shown that in the basic institutional framework mutual relationships exist between the four layers. To keep the toolbox simple the interdependencies between each tile within a single row are not shown, just as is presented in the basic institutional framework. However, next to horizontal relationships also vertical and diagonal relationships are possible in the matrix. Moreover, these relationships are not limited to the tiles that are directly adjoining tiles and can exist between each tile in the matrix. Additionally, the relationships can either show a directed relation (arrow) or mutual interrelation. The bold continuous lines are representing interdependency; the dashed line suggests missing interdependencies between tiles.

Legend Relationship Mutual interdependency Direct interdependency Mutual missing Interdependency Direct missing interdependency Figure 9 Legend Institutional Analysis Toolbox

The indication of the interdependencies is based on a normative perspective. In this context normative stands for conforming to or based on norms (Miriam-Webster, 2013). The relationships are for example able to show: ‘institutional failures or ineffective policymaking and can be seen to be caused by errors in intelligence and order in the policy process.’ (Enserink et al., 2013). Examples of normative interdependencies are indicating that: ‘one or more steps in the linear policy process may have gone wrong: there was insufﬁcient information or understanding, not all alternatives were examined, important steps were skipped, actors were not aligned, etc.’ (Enserink et al., 2013). Another example of indication a relationship is by defining what role financial institutions play in the decision regarding design, building and operation & maintenance of a public work. This enables for example to show that a certain formal regulation regarding the financing of the maintenance of a public work might (not) influence the institutional design requirements of the public work. Being aware and the indication of these relationships can result in a dialogue between the parties that are responsible or involved in the project.

Transitioning Towards a Guideline The elements of the institutional analysis toolbox are now presented. The type of institutional analyses depends on the focus of the research. To enable the user-friendliness and to safeguard limited resources and time and that the toolbox is supported with a guideline that is presented in chapter 7.

Basic Institutional Framework Frequency (years) Relatively fast 1 to 10 10 to 102 Relatively slow

L1.s1 L1.i1 L2.1 L3.1 L4.1 Occupation Design Local Prevention Layer

L1.s2 L1.i2 L2.2 L3.2 L4.2 Network Building & Regional Protection Layer construction

L1.s3 L1.i3 L2.3 L3.3 L4.3 Substratum Operation & Delta Preparation Layer Maintenance

L1.s4 L1.i4 L2.4 L3.4 L4.4 Emergency Financing River Response

Layer approach (VROM, 2001; Nijs et al, 2006) L1.s5 L1.i5 L2.5 L3.5 L4.5 Life-cycle approach (Ruijgh, 2011; Nicolas & Steyn, 2012) Scales (U-Lab, 2013) Flood risk Management (EC, 2012) Recovery

Legend Relationship Mutual interdependency Direct interdependency Mutual missing interdependency Direct missing interdependency Figure 10 Institutional Analysis Toolbox

An institutional analysis toolbox without clear guide is not useful for an inexperienced user. Therefore, in this chapter a guideline is presented for applying the institutional analysis toolbox. In the previous chapter four different matrices within the institutional analysis toolbox are presented. However, before doing an institutional analysis one should know more about the origin and definitions of some basic elements used in the institutional analysis toolbox. Therefore it is suggested to read the following chapters of this thesis before conducting an institutional analysis:

Chapter 2: Basic introduction to institutions Chapter 3: Institutions in the complex, adaptive systems of a delta Chapter 6: Institutional analysis toolbox Chapter 7: Guideline Chapter 9: Case Study New Orleans and/or Chapter 10: Case Study Rotterdam

After reading the recommended chapters or the institutions analysis guideline document it is assumed that the expert has enough basic knowledge to perform an institutional analysis by using the institutional analysis toolbox. In figure 11 a schematic overview of the steps for conducting an institutional analysis is presented. These steps are derived from research experience and the book Guidelines for the application of a model-based actor analysis (Hermans, 2005). In the following paragraphs each step is elaborated in detail. It should be made clear that it is possible to adjust between and within the steps. As a consequence the analysis with the toolbox is an iterative process.

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 61 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

• Identify purpose of analysis by using the yes-no scheme Step 1: De!ne purpose • Identify main questions to be addressed by using the question boxes and conditions for • Select the type(s) of matrices that are going to be used in the institutional analysis with the analysis box toolbox i) Depends on time and resource available for analyzing and timing ii) Depends on support among stakeholders and data availability

• Scan Information at hand for main characteristics of institutional environment • Review available data and possible methods of data collection Step 2: • Pre-select a limited but balanced set of actors and interests Preliminary scan of • Pre-select a limited set of institutional arrangements data and context • Review available data sources • Determine most appropriate focus for analysis based on preliminary scan • Set up data collection strategy

• Perform an initial analysis on di"erent scales • Perform a retrospective study by using retrospective manual • Perform an actor analysis by using actor analysis manual Step 3: • Review cultural context of the delta region by using Hofstede website Data Collection • Use key-informants to advise on data collection speci!cs • Use management plans, laws books, literature study (for data triangulation) • Conduct interviews for the !ll-in of the overview (for data triangulation)

• Fit collected data into matrix structures • Support and refer to tiles by text Step 4: • Explain relationshipss by text Structuring and analyzing of data • Use only statements of actors, avoid taking assumptions in the matrix • Cross check collected material with data from other sources • Present constructed matrix for feedback and validation

• Use underlying theory of institutional analysis toolbox for interpretation Step 5: Presentation of • Two types of conclusion can be drawn: delta speci!c and delta comparison results, translation • Acknowledge that institutional analysis toolbox is a lens and does re#ect the into conclusions & complete institutional environment recommendations • Draw a !nal conclusion

Figure 11 Guideline Steps Institutional Analysis Toolbox

7.1 Define Purpose, Questions and Conditions for Analysis Without a clear vision and purpose of the analysis it is not useful to conduct an institutional research. To help the expert with the analysis different supporting tools are set-up. These tools are a yes-no scheme and sets of questions, which are described in the following paragraphs.

Identify Purpose of Analysis by Using the Yes-No Scheme Before starting an analysis one should prepare and know which types of questions one is planning to answer within the analysis. Moreover one should know which type of matrix is selected for used. To help the expert a yes-no scheme (figure 12) is made in which questions can be posed to specify the research scope. The result of using this scheme is the selection of an institutional matrix tools and accompanying questions box.

Yes-No Scheme

Interested in an existing, Interested in analysis of Interested in institutional Interested in institutional The institutional singular project and want to institutional arrangements arrangements regarding life- arrangements regarding "ood analysis toolbox is Yes No No No know more about the regarding spatial planning & cycle, responsibilities and risk management? not useful for your institutional environment? spatial impact of a project? !nancing of a project? purposes

No Yes

The institutional Analysis of role of certain or all Analysis of the role & Yes Yes analysis toolbox is not useful for your spatial layers in a local project positioning of public and purposes from an institutional private agents in a local perspective? project?

Go to !ood risk Got to spatial layer Go to life-cycle questions management questions and questions and use spatial and use life-cycle bit & scale use !ood risk management layer bit bit & scale bit

Figure 12 Yes- No Scheme Guideline Institutional Analysis Toolbox

Identify the Focus of Analysis The focus of analysis with the toolbox needs to be defined by the practitioners before starting an analysis. The focus can for example be based on a specific institutional layer, the relations of a certain bit element or an overview of the overall institutional environment.

Identify Main Questions by Using the Question Boxes The outcome of the yes-no scheme and the selected focus gives suggestions to the user for the type of matrix and recommended questions for conducting a specific institutional analysis. Each matrix in the institutional analysis toolbox is assisted with directional questions to support a structured institutional analysis. The types of questions are based on the vertical and horizontal relation of each bit element in the matrix (see figure 13). This type of questioning helps to identify the relation between the institutional layers, the responsibilities & positioning of stakeholders and which institutions are (possible) missing in an organized manner. An example can be given regarding the role of institutions of the occupation layer within a project. One can ask questions regarding the relation of the occupation layer with the other spatial layers (vertical orientation). However, on the other hand one can also pose questions related to the types of institutions influencing this layer (horizontal orientation).

Horizontal orientation of questions Types of institutions related to bit element L1.s1 L1.i1 L2.1 L3.1 L4.1 Occupation s Layer question Network Layer

Substratum Layer Vertical orientation of Relation of bit element with other elements Relation

Figure 13 Orientation of Questions for Analysis

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 63 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

The questions are separated in the question boxes: life cycle and spatial layer. It should be made clear that these questions need to be adjusted to the region, scope and focus of the research (e.g. replace certain project). Besides, these questions are just a directory for formalizing the right questions. Hence, to have a successful institutional analysis not all questions have to be answered and it is possible to ask more or different questions related to the field of research.

Table 5 Spatial Layer Question Box Spatial Layer (SL) Questions Matrix What institutions put constrain or requirements on the design choices related to the SL occupation layer of a certain project? What institutions put constrain or requirements on the design choices related to the SL network layer of a certain project? What institutions put constrain or requirements on the design choices related to the SL substratum layer of a certain project? What institutions put constrain or requirements on the design choices regarding a SL location choice of a certain project? What is the positioning of public & private agents related to the spatial layers and SL accompanying institutions of a certain project? What is the influence of institutions from a larger scale or context? Scale

Table 6 Life Cycle Question Box Life-Cycle (LC) Questions (1) Matrix What institutions put constraints or requirements on the design of a certain project? LC What institutions put constraints or requirements on the building & construction of a LC certain project? What institutions put constraints or requirements on the maintenance & operation of a LC certain project? What institutions put constraints or requirements on the financing of a certain project? LC What is the relation between the design life cycle element and the other life cycle LC elements a certain project? What are the responsibilities & positions and accompanying institutions when analyzing LC a certain project? What is the influence of institutions from a larger scale or context? Scale

The questions and topics in the above question boxes enable to analyze institutions in a single delta region. However, with the institutional analysis toolbox it is also possible to compare institutions between multiple delta regions. It should be noted that to be able to successfully compare two delta regions one should answer the question for both delta regions and address the same type of project or scope.

Select the Type(s) of Matrices that are going to be used After each question in the question box stands the type of matrix one needs to use to do an

institutional analysis. The type and amount of matrices and level of detail of the analysis depends on the time and the resource available for the study. At this moment it is unclear how much time it takes to conduct an analysis with a specific matrix as this varies for each project. Moreover, this depends on the skills of the expert, the availability of data and the complexity of the chosen project. Besides this depends on the quality the expert is striving for. When one just wants to make a quick-scan and an institutional overview, the analysis can be executed rather fast, however, a detailed analysis can take more time.

7.2 Preliminary Scan of Institutions, Stakeholders and Context Before starting the actual institutional analysis it suggested to first do a scan regarding the availability of data. This can be done by executing quick but representative actor-scan (e.g. business, education organization and governmental organizations). Furthermore one can do a quick-scan regarding the availability of institutions (e.g. federal laws, management plans). Moreover, it is suggested to look for a key-informant within the analyzed system, which is able to help the expert with contacts and data collection. This preliminary scan specifies the appropriate focus, expected time and questions posed for analysis and the strategy for data collection. Based on the outcome of the preliminary scan, the purpose for analysis can be refined and adapted.

7.3 Data Collection In the previous steps the questions, the purpose for analysis and a preliminary scan are presented. This provided the expert already with some knowledge of the delta region. In this step the data is collected for the institutional analysis. To get more knowledge about the context of the system it is suggested to conduct a retrospective study and actor analysis. After that it is suggested to conduct a literature study, interviews with key informants and a field research for data collection

Context Analysis: Perform an Initial Analysis on different Scales In this section it is suggested that the expert collects data for a short description based on the socio-economic and socio-ecological features of a delta region. A suggestion is to use the table 7 to get an initial overview of the main characteristics of the river basin, delta and city located in the delta region. It should be made clear that this analysis method is only used to start the institutional analysis. It can be difficult or time consuming to fill-in each cell as certain data is not available. Therefore, the aim of this analysis is not to fill in each cell with detailed information, rather the aim is to get an feeling about the institutional context of the project one is analyzing.

Table 7 Socio-economic and Socio-Ecological Context from Multiple Layers Socio-economic and socio-ecological context Scale River Basin Delta City Population density Main economic drivers Flood protection strategy Ecology Government type

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 65 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

Context Analysis: Perform a Retrospective Study Presenting a description about events and abrupt changes of the past enables to explain how a delta system evolved and transitions took place (Meyer & Nijhuis, 2012). An institutional retrospective study can provide insight in the establishment of institutions (Kruchten, 2010). Looking at the history of the multiple delta region, one can say that the delta interventions regarding governance aspects can be split up in phases (Meyer & Nijhuis, 2012). These phases can be selected based on change in regime. A regime change can be triggered due to an event (e.g. floods), change in technique (e.g. physical construction), transformation relation between human and natural environment (e.g. legislation and governance) (Meyer, Nijhuis 2012). The indicator for such historical events can be found with the help of literature. After the literature study the scheme presented in table 8 can be filled in.

Table 8 Retrospective Analysis Box Institutional Context - Retrospective Variable Description Indicator Historical Event A description of the events and abrupt Indicators that influence the changes of the past enable to explain institutional environment how institutions have evolved or Enabling: opens up opportunities transitioned. for new arrangement in the future Constraining: Institutions are embedded and can cause an impasse in the future.

Again it should be mentioned that the aim of this study is not to present a detailed overview of all the historical events that took place, rather the aim is to indicate the existence of the initial situation and the main variables that caused the system to be the way it is right now. This analysis enables to show: ‘the path dependency within the system, which explains how the set of decisions one faces for any given circumstance is limited by the decisions one has made in the past, even though past circumstances may no longer be relevant’ (Grus et al., 2006).

Context Analysis: Perform an Actor Analysis For the actor analysis a system is used based on the triple helix model (Etzkowitz, 1994). This model addresses the relationship between knowledge institutions, governments and businesses in relation to the environment. The triple helix shows the complexity within and between these three dynamic groups (Kruchten, 2010). The actor analysis is based on the helices by distinguishing the following aspects:

• Businesses, Industries, NGO’s and Citizen representatives; • Knowledge institutes: consisting of all the research institutes and universities; • Governments: governmental organizations and authorities - a separation is made between the tiers federal; state; regional and local governmental organizations.

The actor analysis of the institutional analysis toolbox focuses especially on the role of the agents, the type of organizations, the responsibilities and means of resources of each actor. After all the

three helices are analyzed it possible to say something about the collaborations with other authorities, knowledge institutes and companies regarding the topic of research.

Table 9 Stakeholder Analysis Box Stakeholder Context – Actor Analysis (Businesses, Research institutes, Government) Actor Type of organization Responsibilities Means & Resources

Context Analysis: Perform a Shared Value & Politics Study The shared values play an important role when analyzing delta regions from an institutional perspective. ‘A better understanding of (in)visible cultural differences is one of the main contributions of social sciences for practical policy making related to its governments, organizations and institutions’ (Hofstede, 2001 p.). Hofstede uses the following cultural dimensions: Power Distance; Individualism; Masculinity; Uncertainty Avoidance and Long-term Orientation. These country-scale dimensions of Hofstede (2012) do not justice to the ‘profound meanings of local practices or delta region in countries.’ (Hofstede, 2001). Resulting that an idiographic element needs to be included when using these dimensions. Therefore, the interpretation of the country-scale dimension is based on personal observations during a field research and profound discussion with locals (2012). Next to the cultural dimensions it is valuable that one is aware of the political context of the delta region.

Use Key-Informants to advise on Data Collection Specifics To improve the data collection, verification and validation of the data it is important that one finds some key-informants who are trustworthy and have local knowledge of the area that is analyzed. The key-informant can support the expert with the data collection and contacts for interviews.

Use Management Plans, Law Books, and Literature Studies To increase the data triangulation and the reproducibility of the tool it is recommended to use multiple data sources such as management plans, laws books, literature studies etc.

Conduct Interviews When one has the opportunity, it is of great value to do a field research and to conduct interviews with stakeholders in the system. Interviews help to support the data triangulation. Moreover, valuable information about the functioning of a system is often captured by stakeholders and is not explicitly written in management plans or documents. The interview set-up is described Appendix B.

7.4 Structure and Analyzing of Data Before structuring the data it is important to be specific about the concept of institutions in the toolbox. In the presentation of the institutional analysis toolbox each layer and bit element is supported by a definitions and examples that enable to structure what is ought to be included in the tiles of a matrix and what not. However, the user is free to define each tile in the toolbox in accordance to with one’s own view, as long as this is done consistently. After the data is collected

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 67 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk and the concepts are defined the institutions should be ordered and structured in the toolbox. The tiles in the matrices do not leave a lot of space for elaboration. As a consequence it is necessary that the essence of the institutions, is written in only a couple of words. Each tile is numbered which, enables to refer to each tile by text. It is important to argument why certain institutions and relationships are indicated. When doing so, one should take into account the following statements: 3 • Use only statements of actors and avoid taking assumptions in model; • Cross check collected material with data from other sources; • Present a constructed analysis matrix for feedback and validation.

Moreover, one should add the following table to have transparency regarding the references, data sources and the type of resource used to fill in each tile. This improves the data triangulations, the ability to cross check collected material and the trustworthiness of the matrix.

Table 10 Table for References and Type of Resources Tile nr. Reference Type of resource L1.s1 ..

7.5 Translation of Results into Conclusions and Recommendations The delta specific analysis provides insight in the specific characteristics of a delta region. For example by indicating which institutions needs to be taken into account when implementing a new project. After the matrix is filled in it is possible to use the question box to answer the institutional specific questions in a structured manner. This table supports a structured analysis of the research objective presented by the matrix. An example of structuring the conclusion regarding a project related to the spatial analysis of a certain project is presented in the table 11.

Table 11 Conclusion Box: Spatial Layer Questions Spatial Questions Answer What institutions put requirements on the design choices related to the substratum layer of a certain project? ..

After the conclusion-table is filled in, one can interpret the results by drawing conclusions and lessons learned, based on the presented matrix. To increase the trustworthiness, at last a validation study of the outcome of the case studies is completed. Within the validation check is looked whether the data and outcome of the case studies is consistent.

3 These prescipts are based on own observations during research and are derived from the book Hermans, L. (2005). Actor Analysis for Water Resources Management: Putting the Promise Into Practice. Eburon Uitgeverij B.V.

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 69 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

In Part III Analysis with case studies the institutional analysis toolbox and guideline is used for analyzing institutions regarding adaptive flood risk management in two delta cities. The selected delta cities and regions are New Orleans, Louisiana, United States of America in the Mississippi Delta and Rotterdam, The Netherlands in the Rhine, Meuse & Scheldt Delta. In this part the following research questions is central:

How can this institutional analysis toolbox be applied to develop insight in the institutional environment of the delta cities New Orleans and Rotterdam and what is the effect of applying the institutional analysis toolbox?

In both delta regions various case studies are selected to be able to test two institutional analysis matrices of the toolbox: spatial layer & life cycle. The case study topics are the following: the design decision regarding the spatial impact of a large-scale storm surge barrier and the design decisions regarding DBFO of a city dike. This case selection enables to look at the institutional environment of delta cities regarding flood risk management from different perspectives. This is executed by having similar analysis methods, equivalent matrices and the same questions posed within the case studies of both delta cities.

Chapter 8 Case Study Delta City of New Orleans ...... 70 Chapter 9 Case Study Delta City of Rotterdam ...... 80 Chapter 10 Synthesis of Case Studies ...... 89

The delta city New Orleans is located in the Mississippi River Delta Region in the southern part of the state Louisiana in de United States of America. The region has approximately 1,5 million inhabitants. In the previous years the delta region was influenced by various natural and man- made disasters, forcing the delta to adjust and adapt to the changed environment (Bucx et al., 2010). These disasters emphasized the existence of counterproductive or the lack of certain institutions in the delta (USACE, 2012). In this chapter institutions in the delta city of New Orleans are analyzed. Therefore, the institutional toolbox and accompanying guide is applied in two local cases.

8.1 Purpose, Questions and Conditions for Institutional Analysis The purpose of the case study of the delta city of New Orleans is providing insight in the design decisions (e.g. physical structures, protocols, procedures) regarding flood risk management within the delta city of New Orleans. The case study topics are the following: the institutions that put requirements on the location choice of the large-scale storm surge barrier West Closure Complex and the institutions that put requirements on the design decisions regarding the DBFO of the city dike surrounding the waterfront of Lake Pontchartrain. It should be noted that the specific questions and purpose for each case study is explicitly presented in section 8.4.

8.2 Preliminary Scan of Institutions and Stakeholders The preliminary scan of institutions and stakeholders about the context of the delta system is sufficient enough to execute an institutional analysis. The researcher executed a field research in New Orleans and multiple key-informants were found. Resulting that the data availability is high and the difficulty of data collection is low. It is considered effective to execute the case studies about New Orleans. The purpose of the analysis does not need to be revised.

8.3 Data Collection First an introduction is presented about the delta region by an analysis on different scales. After that a retrospective study, a quick actors scan, and a study about the shared values in the region are presented.

Introduction to the Delta City New Orleans: Analysis based on different Scales In this paragraph the delta city New Orleans is analyzed in the context of three scales: rivers basin of Mississippi River, Mississippi River Delta and City of New Orleans. The Mississippi river with its many tributaries drains 31 states in the United States of America and two Canadian provinces. The Mississippi river delta can be characterized as a river dominated or fluvial dominated delta (Meyer et al., 2009). The Mississippi River Delta is a modern area of land built up by alluvium deposited by the Mississippi River (Meyer et al., 2009). It is a biologically important region, comprising of mostly coastal wetlands and salt marshes (Meyer et al., 2009). Commercially the delta is considered to be a significant region. Firstly, the shipping traffic supports the economy of New Orleans (Bucx et al., 2010a). Secondly, the coastal economy of the delta is dominated by offshore natural gas and oil production and is referred to as the US energy coast. In recent years the delta has been extensively modified by large infrastructure projects and water protection works that are executed by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (Podany, 2012). The largest city in the delta region is New Orleans. The system boundary of the Greater New Orleans district is almost equal to the physical

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 71 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk structure of the Hurricane Storm Damage Reduction System (HSDDRS) that surrounds the area and protects it from flooding by the nearby river.

Table 12 Overview of Context New Orleans Socio-economic and ecological context Scale River Basin Delta City Population - 1.5 million 343,829 Main economic - Port of New Orleans, Oil Port of New Orleans, drivers and natural gas, Wet Tourism, Fisheries lands tourism, energy coast, fisheries Flood River Levees, national River levees maintained HSDDRS, pumps, inner protection regulation flood safety: 1 and operated by CPRA & flood walls, sluices and in 100 chance of being USACE and ‘soft’ locks, extensive internal equaled or exceed in any infrastructures -natural drainage system (SELA), year (= 100-year flood) protection by wet lands Flood insurance Ecology - (Coastal) Wetlands Wetlands Governmental Federal Government CPRA, USACE, State of City council of New type USA Louisiana Orleans

Retrospective Study Looking at the history of the delta region one can say that the delta interventions regarding governance aspects can be split up in phases (Meyer & Nijhuis, 2012). For the Mississippi river these can be characterized by three phases of delta interventions (Meyer, Nijhuis 2012):

Time Line paradigm shifts in Mississippi Delta

1100 1300 1700 1850 2000 Present Time

1st period of 2nd period: public 3rd period: in search of new Urbanization works exploitation paradigm

Mississippi Delta Figure 14 Timeline Paradigm shifts in Mississippi Delta (Hoeferlin, 2012)

One should take into account that this analysis is only conducted to get a general feeling of the context and history of the delta region. This results described are not based on an in-depth literature study.

Table 13 Schematic Overview Retrospective Study New Orleans Institutional Context - Retrospective Variable Description Indicator The regime of the It seems that the beneficial naturally high • Natural high location delta system until location next to the Mississippi river for trade was • Economic trade the 19th century: incentive for start settlement in the region (Meyer • Spanish and French the first human & Nijhuis, 2012). The urbanization of New Orleans Rule occupations and started around 1700. During this time the region • Multiple Flood Events interventions was under Spanish and French rule (Wagner, • Urbanization 2011). During this time the region already • Technological suffered from multiple flood events and water development related problems (Meyer & Nijhuis, 2012). There was a growing need to control the system by both institutional and technical arrangements (Meyer & Nijhuis, 2012).

The regime of the The role of the United States Army Corps of • Increased focus on delta system in Engineers became more important in the 19th flood risk the 19th and century, especially after the implementation of management 20th century: the New Deal (Meyer, 2012), which resulted that • Draining and dike draining and dike the USACE got more responsibilities regarding construction construction flood risk management (Meyer & Nijhuis, 2012). • Important role and Initially the USACE was only focused on responsibilities for safeguarding the national interest of navigation, USACE: safeguarding later the Corps also became involved with the both navigation and flood protection of the primary flood systems of flood safety of the Mississippi. primary levees.

The regime of the In the recent years, with hurricane Katrina as • New focus on flood delta system in driving force, the fortification around New risk management the 21th century Orleans expanded by implementing the HSDDRS • Hurricane protection (Bucx et al., 2010a). The system is able to protect system is 100 percent

the region form water outside of the region, funded by the federal However, it leaves less room for the outflow of government intensive rainfall within the city to leave the city, • Strong emphasis on resulting in inundation problems after rainfall private ownership (Meyer et al., 2009). As a consequence a new • Low power distance: water management strategy is developed Decentralized power (Wagonner et al., 2013) at the city level NO

Actor Analysis Various actors are involved in the delta of the Mississippi river. Within the government organization a separation is made between the government tiers federal; state; regional; local governmental organizations. Most government parties are collaborating in the Coastal Protection and Restoration Agency (CPRA). After Hurricane Katrina, the Louisiana Legislature restructured the State's Wetland Conservation and Restoration Authority to form the CPRA in 2005 (CPRA, 2013).

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 73 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

The CPRA is an important authority regarding flood risk management in the region consisting of various levels of government organizations can be seen in figure 15.

DE/Chair, CPRA and CO Chairs

Parishes Levee Authorities Levee Districts Federal Agencies State Agencies Je!erson East Authority East Je!erson USACE OCPR Orleans West Authority Orleans FEMA GOHSEP Plaquemines Lake Borgne USGC DNR St Bernard Basin USGS DOTD St Charles West Je!erson USF&WS DEQ S&W Board Algiers NMFS F&W Pontchatrain NWS Port of NO NCRS EPA

Figure 15 Collaboration of different Governmental Organizations in New Orleans

In the CPRA an important role is appointed to the federal agency USACE and the State of Louisiana. This shows that the flood risk management is the main responsibility of public parties. The role of businesses related to flood risk management is relatively low, as a consequence there are hardly any public private partnerships between government organization and business (Case, 2012; St. Louis, 2012; Bucx et al., 2010). Most private companies operate independent in the delta system. However, it seems that some industries like the navigation, the oil & gas agency and fisheries can have a strong lobbying power (Bucx et al., 2010b). The importance of universities and research institutes is more acknowledged over the years (Case, 2013). Currently, there is not much collaboration between the universities and the government or businesses. However, a couple of years ago the Northern Gulf Institute of the Louisiana State University was installed (Dubrovak, 2012), to promote knowledge regarding ecology and water manager in the delta region itself. The complete overview of the actor analysis can be found in appendix F.

Shared Value & Politics Study The cultural dimensions (Hofstede) indicate some cultural values that are applicable in the Mississippi delta region. The American premise of ‘liberty and justice for all’ result that the acceptance of unequally power distribution is low. This is also evidenced by the focus on equal rights and private rights (Hofstede, 2013). Moreover, the inhabitants of the U.S.A. can be considered as a highly individualistic culture. This translates in the expectation that people primarily look after themselves and their immediate families (Hofstede, 2013). The US is considered to be a short-term oriented culture (Hofstede, 2013). As a result, it is a culture focused on traditions and fulfilling social obligations. Interviews with various stakeholders in New Orleans have confirmed these cultural dimensions (Case, 2012; Doody, 2012; Durbrak, 2012). The political system in the state Louisiana is unique in relation to the other states in America, ‘Since statehood, Louisiana has been a traditionally conservative state full of middle-class whites and African American’ (Shughart, 2006). Conversely, the city of New Orleans is characterized as a liberal and democratic city (Shughart, 2006). It is possible that the political balance in Louisiana is affected by the post-Hurricane Katrina emigration from New Orleans (Case, 2012; Shughart, 2006). Moreover, the state of Louisiana has long been known for its toleration of corruption in the local government. In the book Peapatch Politics (199) corruption in the state is described as ‘a way of life, inherited,

and made quasi-respectable and legal by the French freebooters who founded, operated, and left us as the governmental blueprint that is still Louisiana's constitutional and civil law.’ Moreover, the culture of the Mississippi delta comprises: ‘distrust of state-involvement and emphasizes on individual accountability over collaborative government action’ (Shughart, 2006). These aspects have influence on the way actors in the delta system behave and react on events.

8.4 Structuring and Analyzing of Data: Case Studies The focus of the New Orleans case studies is related to the Hurricane and Strom Damage Risk Reduction System (HSDRRS), which is the new-implemented system to protect the region against flood risk. The HSDRRS consists of five major projects. Two of these projects are analyzed with the

helpSystem of theManagement different Plan matrices within the toolbox. The case study Marchtopics 2012 are the following: Case 1 West Closure Complex (WCC) and Case 2 LPV project.

Case 2

Case 1

Figure 9-1. Index of IERs Figure 16 Geographical Location Case Studies New Orleans

Each IER provided details on HSDRRS features and limits of work within which all Eachtemporary case study and permanent starts with project a short features introduction would be restricted. regarding In the some project, cases, thefollowed IERs set by the specific aim ofoperational the case parametersstudy, analysis to meet questions technical orand environmental the type of goals. matrices Some usedof these for parameters analysis. The case studies endare capturedby presenting within thea conclusion. ‘Environmental Design Commitments” portion of the IER Decision Record; in other cases, these commitments were captured in interagency correspondence between New Orleans District and resource agencies. Personnel responsible for the OMRR&R 8shoul.4.1d beCase made aware1 West of these Closure commitments Complex shown in Attachment H to ensure that future work within the project area remains compliant with all applicable environmental laws and Onregulations the west and bank commitments of the Mississippi made during River the environmental south of the compliance city New Orleansprocess. there the city is threatened by two water bodies when a storm surge occurs (Hoffman, 2011; USACE, 2013a). Therefore, there is 9.5 Policy a need that reinforcements are made along the west bank to protect the Jefferson, Orleans and PlaqueminesGuidance and Parishes. policy regarding The West environmental Closure Complex compliance is are being provided built inon a the number Gulf of Inter -coastal Water Engineer Regulations (ER) and Engineer Policies (EP). Attachment A, References presents a Waylisting (GIWW) of ERs anda little EPs southrelated ofto theenvironmental convergence compliance. of the Harvey Canal and Algiers Canal (USACE, 2013) (See figure 16, case 1 for exact location). The GIWW is considered a Federal navigation channel with Deviations from the HSDRRS as described in a given IER could require further importanceenvironmental for investigation, commercial analysis barge and, traffic in some(Mujica, cases, 2012). further Th environmentale WCC structure compliance includes a sector gate, sluiceactivities gates, before floodwalls, such deviations levees, could and be a implemented. pumping station. Potential The deviations location shall of bethe brought WCC is close to the to theto the Environmental attention of New Protection Orleans District Agency’s Planning Bayou Division aux at Carpes the earliest Clean stage Water of conception Act (CWA) 404(c) area, a to minimize project delays. Construction of any deviations from the project as described in a wetlandgiven IER area cannot of commencegreat national until revised significance. environmental The GIWWcompliance West is completeClosure . Com plex is recently opened and is influenced by various studies and legislation. In this case study focus is put on the institutions that put constraints or requirements on the design and location choice of the WCC. For this purpose the 3x4 matrix: combining 38spatial layer approach with basis institutional framework is used . The following questions are defined for analysis:

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 75 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

• What institutions put requirements and constrains on the design decisions regarding the type of closure structure that was implemented from a spatial perspective? • What institutions put requirements and constrains on the design decisions regarding the spatial location of the West Closure Complex? • What are the responsibilities and positioning of the involved parties within the spatial layers of the West Closure Complex? • What is the influence on the design of the West Closure Complex from a larger scale?

The analysis resulted in the matrix presented in the figure 17 is able to structure the institutions regarding the WCC to provide answer on the questions. The interpretations of the answers are described in the following conclusion and discussion based on the matrix:

3 x 4 Matrix: Spatial Layer Approach with Basic Institutional Framework

Frequency (years) Relatively fast 1 to 10 10 to 102 Relatively slow

L1: Actors and Games L2: Formal and L3: Formal L4: Informal Informal Interaction - Action Institutions Institutional Bit Stakeholders Arrangements Arena Layer Approach

L1.s1 L1.i1 L2.1 L3.1 L4.1 • Residents New Action arena: • EIA: Public • Flood Act 1965 • Government is Occupation Orleans • Location choice: hearings for • Defense responsible for Layer • Businesses environment design and Emergency !ood safety •Je"erson, protection construction Appropriations Plaquemines and • Structure type: Act, 2006 Orleans Parishes High !ood safety

L1.s2 L1.i2 L2.2 L3.2 L4.2 •CPRA Action arena: • Design and • Defense • Navigation •USACE • Structure type: location plan WCC Emergency continuity and Network Layer • Port of NO limited hindrance movable Appropriations economic bene#ts •USCGN navigation construction Act, 2006 • NFS:West Je"erson • Closing protocol: (federally funded) • River and Harbor Levee district USACE or NFS? • Closing Procedure Act of 1899

L1.s3 L1.i3 L2.3 L3.3 L4.3 • NGO Gulf Action arena: • Fast process IER • Coastal Wetland • Willingness to Substratum Organization • Location choice: • Modify the Bayou Protection and agree with nature Layer •EPA Nature aux Carpes 1985 Restoration Act compensation •CPRA compensation & • National Granting Environment permission Protection Act

Legend Relationship Mutual interdependency Direct interdependency Mutual missing interdependency Direct missing interdependency Figure 17 Case 1 New Orleans West Closure Complex 3x4 matrix

Institutions that put Requirements and Constraints on Design Decisions of the WCC It seems that there were a couple design alternatives regarding the type of flood defense structures of the WCC: it was possible to have a closed structure in the form of a fixed storm surge barrier, an open structure with radical improvement to the levees and floodwalls lining the Harvey and Algiers or a movable structure that results that the levees and floodwalls lining the Harvey and Algiers canals become a second line of defense (USACE, 2012). In general the aim of the Interagency Team assigned to the WCC project was to: ‘engage the navigation industry, local non- government organizations and parish leadership to identify the best engineering, least damaging and most effective risk reduction measure for people living and working on the west bank,’ (Lee, 2012). The 3 x 4 matrix enables to shows that the navigation sector aimed for a flood defense structure that does not hamper the navigation during both construction and under normal

76 Project Milestones

conditions• Originally (no storm) considered (Hoffman, a 2011; wide Mujica, range 2012) (l1.i2of alternatives & L4.2). The planned structure is near a nature• Developed conservation GIWW area. A West system Closure consisting of onlyComplex dikes would alternative have a relative in conjunction large spatial impact with in comparison the EPA, National with a movable Park Service, storm surge barrierFederal regarding and state nature resource (Mujica, agencies2012). As a consequenceand the public representatives of nature organization• Investigated demanded four for a alternativesstructure with ain low spatial depth impact. Additionally, the action arena within the• Developed occupation alayer working demanded stakeholder for a flood defensegroup system that that met was monthly able safeguard the federal standard for flood risk (Mujica, 2012)(L1.i1; L4.3). As a result each action arena regarding the type of structure in (L1.i) agrees with the construction of a movable structure (L2.2). However, still decisions need to be made regarding the location choice of the WCC. Building Strong 7 The Defense Act (L3.2) enabled to accelerate the design and construction of the WCC by providing 100 percent federal funding (2.3) to the USACE and CPRA to execute the construction (Mujica, 2012). The GIWW WCC was built under time pressure (L3.2) and therefore during the design and construction less focus was on the requirements regarding the operations and maintenance of the system (Stack, 2012). As a result when the complex was finished there was no finished closure procedure or operation, maintenance and test procedure made by the USSACE, CPRA or the Non- federal sponsor (L1.1i) (Mujica, 2012; Podany, 2012). The representatives of the parishes and businesses in the occupation layer demands for a decision regarding this aspect as these influences the flood safety of the region (Mujica, 2012). This is also in conflict with the Flood Act of 1965 (L3.1), which describes that the flood defense structure needs to comply with flood safety standard 1:100.

Institutions that put Requirements and Constraints on Spatial Location of the WCC The selection of a movable flood defense structure resulted that the only suitable location of the WCC was within the Bayou Aux Carpes national park (Mujica, 2012). Initially the National Environment Protection Act (L2.3; L3.3) constrained this location choice. However, the formal regulation of the Defense Emergency Appropriation (L3.2) enabled to have special arrangements regarding building the WCC in the Bayou Aux Carpes national park (Hoffman, 2011; Mujica, 2012). The act resulted that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) granted the USACE of Engineers permission to modify the Bayou aux Carpes 1985 determination to allow for construction on the western-most boundary of the wetland area (L3.1; L3.3; L3.4). To accelerate the design and construction process the Individual Environmental Reports (IER) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), to calculate the ecological impact and the nature compensation, were executed during the WCC was designed and constructed (Hoffman, 2011; Mujica, 2012; USACE, 2013a).

Responsibilities & Scale Each spatial layer related to the WCC consists mostly of representatives of governmental agencies (L1.s123). The substratum layer, however, also includes some non-governmental organizations that tried to influence the decision-making regarding the location of the WCC (L1.s3). The representatives within the occupation layer also consist of some private parties like resident’s organizations and business organizations (L1.s1). The construction of the WCC is influenced from

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 77 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk different scales and contexts. The WCC has to comply with various federal arrangements and state law. Moreover, the (inter)national interest of the GIWW is valuable to take into account to understand the context and the importance of the trade (e.g. navigation or exploitation of oil & gas) through the WCC towards the whole Mississippi River Basin.

Conclusion The construction of this large-scale complex project was executed successfully on a short term without too many delays. The use of different institutions to speed up the project time enabled this. An example is the special institutional arrangement regarding the nature compensation regarding the Bayou Aux Carpes 404(c), which allowed a relative fast choice of the spatial location of the WCC. Moreover it seems that the representative of each spatial layer supported (indirectly due to norms and shared values) the type of flood defense, which enabled a fast process regarding the design decisions regarding the actual structure. However, the fast implementation time resulted that the operation, testing and maintenance of the complex was not completely included during the design and construction of the WCC. The latter contradicts with the formal requirements for flood safety, which needs to be safeguarded by the local sponsor for the WCC.

8.4.2 Case 2 Waterfront Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity (LPV) The project around Lake Pontchartrain and the Vicinity is designed to reduce risk among residents and businesses on the East Bank of Orleans Parish from a storm that has a one percent chance of occurring in any given year (Podany; USACE, 2013). The project was executed after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The project area stretches from the 17th Street Canal in the northwest to the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) at the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal-Lake Borgne Surge Barrier (see figure 16, case 2 for location). This project involves the following structures and projects (USACE, 2013):

• LPV101: Demolish I-walls and replace them with new T-walls; construct new floodgates • LPV102: Raise levees to 100-year elevations. • LPV103.1: Strengthen existing Marconi Floodgate; replace St. John floodwalls • LPV103.2: Install floodgates on Lakeshore Drive and Lake Terrace Drive • LPV104 : Replace I-walls at Pontchartrain Beach with T-walls; replace floodgate on Lakeshore Drive with a levee.

The USACE and contractors developed the project. The projects are liable on various technical studies and multiple types of legislation. To get more insight on the institutions that influenced the design decisions regarding organization, financial structures and responsibilities of these technical plans the project is analyzed with the help of the 4 x 4 Matrix: Life-cycle Approach with Basic Institutional framework. Based on the selection of the matrix the following questions are defined for analysis:

• What institutions put constraints and requirements on the design of the LPV project? • What institutions put constraints and requirements on the construction of the LPV project? • What institutions put constraints and requirements on the maintenance and operation of the LPV project? • What institutions put constraints and requirements on the financing of the LPV project? • What is the relationship between the different Life-cycle elements with in the LPV project?

• What are the responsibilities and positioning of the involved parties with the life-cycle elements of the LPV project? • What is the influence on the design of the LPV project from a larger scale?

After filling in the matrix is it possible to answer the specified accompanying life-cycle question box related to the 4 x 4 matrix.

4 x 4 Matrix: Life-cycle Approach with Basic Institutional Framework

Frequency (years) Relatively fast 1 to 10 10 to 102 Relatively slow

L1: Actors and Games L2: Formal and L4: Informal L3: Formal Informal Institutional Institutions Stakeholders Interaction Arrangements Environment Bit Life-cycle approach Institutional analysis matrix L1.s1 L1.i1 L2.1 L3.1 L4.1 •USACE Action Arena: • Design plan of LPV • Flood Control Act • Flood safety Design • Contractors • USACE & project 1965 •CPRA Contractors: • Early Contractor • Environmental •EPA Design plan of LPV Procedure Protection Act • Residents NO Parish Project • IER & EIA •WRDA

L1.s2 L1.i2 L2.2 L3.2 L4.2 •USACE Action Arena: • Early Contractor • National • Private Ownership Building & • Contractors • USACE & Procedure Environmental construction •CPRA Contractors: LPV • Construction Protection Act • NOLA construction plan permits •EPA

L1.s3 L1.i3 L2.3 L3.3 L4.3 • NFS: SLFPAE Action Arena: • Selection • Flood Control Act •? Operation & •CPRA • Development of procedure NFS 1965 Maintenance • Residents NO Parish Operation an • Annual IER • National •EPA maintenance • Annual check Environmental •USACE protocol USACE Protection Act

L1.s4 L1.i4 L2.4 L3.4 L4.4 •USACE Action Arena funding: • Construction: • Department of • Task of (federal) Financing • NFS: SLFPAE • Design & Building: federal funds. Defense government to • Federal Congress of USACE Maintenance: Emergency safeguard !ood USA • O & M: SLFPAE? CPRA, NFS & Tax Appropriations Act protection •CPRA • Contracts LPV plan of 2006

Legend Relationship Mutual interdependency Direct interdependency Mutual missing interdependency Direct missing interdependency Figure 18 Case 2 New Orleans Waterfront LPV Project 4x4 matrix

Institutions that put Constraints and Requirements on Design Decisions of the LPV The design of the LPV project (L2.1) has to comply with the regulation within the Flood Control Act, 1965 (L3.3), which requires that the design needs to conform with a flood risk probability of 1:100 year (L3.3) (Gillen, 2012). The design is also influenced by the federal act: the Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico Act of 2006, which allowed 100 percent federal funding and Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) procedures (L2.1). The ECI procedure is utilized to develop plans from 10 percent to 100 percent starting at the beginning of the project (L2.2 & L2.4). In this case the USACE already used contractors in a very early stage of the project (Podany, 2012). Before implementing the structures the plan has to comply with the IER (L2.1) and EIA (L2.1), which has to follow the directives in the NEPA.

Institutions that put Constraints on the Construction & Building of the LPV The USACE & Contractors (L1.s2) were responsible for the building and construction of LPV (Gillen, 2012; Spencer, 2012). To limit the hindrance for the residents during construction the project has

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 79 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk to comply with an IER before starting the construction (L2.2). Moreover, various administration plans and permits had to be granted before starting the project.

Institutions that put Requirements on Maintenance & Operation of the LPV Project The SLFPAE is appointed by the CPRA as non-local sponsor for the operation & maintenance of the project (L1.s3) (Gillen, 2012; Spencer, 2012). The SLFPAE has to develop operation and maintenance protocols (L1.i3), which needs to safeguard the federal regulation of one in hundred of annual probability storm (L3.3) (Gillen, 2012; Spencer, 2012). The USACE is responsible for annual check of the system (Gillen, 2012; Spencer, 2012).

Institutions that put Requirements on the Financing of the LPV Project The Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico Act of 2006 (L3.3) resulted that authorized accelerated completion of the project and restoration of project features to design and construction elevations at 100 percent Federal cost (L3.3). Normally these costs are allocated by 65 percent Federal costs and 35 percent for the non-federal sponsor appointed by the state of Louisiana (St. Martin, 2012; Gillen, 2012; Spencer, 2012). The SLFPAE is appointed by the CPRA as non-local sponsor for the operation & maintenance of the project (L1.s3) (Doody, 2012). The non-federal sponsor got financially supported by the CPRA and the state of Louisiana (Gillen, 2012; Spencer, 2012). The SLFPAE is allowed to ask ad valorem taxes to the property owners in their district (L2.3) (Doody, 2012). It is possible that the Ad Valorem Tax is vote off in the near feature by the residents of the New Orleans Parish (Doody, 2012). The new constructions around the LPV demand more maintenance costs and expertise to meet the safety standards. It is probable that in the future the SLFPAE is not able to pay for the higher costs of maintenance and operation of the constructions (Gillen, 2012; Spencer, 2012; Doody, 2012)

The Relationship between the Life-Cycle Elements within the LPV Project The financing life-cycle element, due to the newly implemented Defense Act (L3.3), had an important role and influenced all the other life cycle elements (Doody, 2012). The defense act enabled the USACE to use ECI procedures. The latter combined with the funding by the federal congress of the USA allowed a lot of decision power for the design and construction to the USACE and the contractors (Gillen, 2012; Spencer, 2012). This resulted in a clear distinction between the role of the design and construction performed by the USACE and the maintenance and operations performed by the SLFPAE. Even though the SLFPAE tried to influence the design and construction requirements of the LPV designs regarding maintenance and operation, these criteria were not really taken into account in the final design (Gillen, 2012; Spencer, 2012) (L1s3; L1S1; L2.1;L2.3).

Responsibilities & Scale Within this project mostly public parties are involved. Some private parties like contractors and construction companies are part of the design and building & construction of the water works. However, these are under supervision of the USACE or the SLFPAE. The LPV project is part of the larger project named the HSDRRS project (USACE, 2012). The project is also closely related to the SELA (USACE, 2013). Moreover, the project is influenced by a lot of federal regulation. Formal Institutions that play a critical role are the Flood Control Act of 1965 (L3.1, L3.2 & L3.3).

Conclusion This case study shows the effect of fast implementation and construction of public works and the design power of the stakeholders with the financial funds. The USACE gained a lot of decision power by getting 100 percent federal funds for the design and construction of the plan. The role of the state of Louisiana and the CPRA became less important and as a consequence the Non-Federal sponsor got less decision power related to the design criteria. It is probable that the short-term achievement of flood protection within the standards is achieved. However, it is possible that this perspective does not fit with the long-term planning of the maintenance of the structures.

8.5 Validation: Case Study New Orleans Within this paragraph the case studies are validated on data validation and outcome validation.

Data Validation All the cases are supported with a reference table (see table 18 & 19). This enables the readers to crosscheck the used data. Moreover, multiple sources are used, which assure data triangulation and to increase the trustworthiness of the analysis. It is concluded that the data validation is sufficient.

Outcome Validation All experts reflected on the outcome of the case studies. They all agreed that the structure and content of the case studies is clear and well structured. On the questions whether the experts also agree with the outcome of the case studies, two experts (1, 2) were not able to give an answer. The reason for this is that both experts do not have local knowledge regarding the institutional environment of both case studies. The third expert provided the same answer, however, also mentioned that the outcome of the case studies could provide a very ‘black & white’ presentation of the reality, leaving little room for nuances. As a consequence this expert did not completely support the outcome of the case study. The latter is an important remark, and especially needs to be taken into account before presenting the outcome to other parties. The conclusion is that the outcome validation is only party supported by experts.

Table 14 New Orleans Outcome Validation of Case Studies Expert information Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3

Yes No Yes No Yes No Case Studies Is the structure and content of the case studies clear? x x x Do you agree with the outcome of the case studies? n/a n/a n/a n/a x

The conclusions of this validation study is that the data validation is sufficient by including the references table which shows data triangulation by using various references and types of resources. The outcome validation is partly sufficient. All the interviewed experts did not have specific knowledge regarding the institutional environment within New Orleans. Therefore, the experts could only give generic feedback on the case studies and were not able to reflect on the actual outcome of the case studies. When the case studies are actually used for real recommendations or other applications, these need to be validated by experts involved in the projects described.

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 81 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

The Rhine, Meuse, Scheldt delta region is located in the Western part of the Netherlands and Belgium. The region has approximately 6,5 million inhabitants (Bucx et al., 2010a p.110). The state- of-the art of the RMS delta is largely the result of the Dutch Delta-program, which is initiated after the disastrous flood of 1953 (Meyer & Nijhuis, 2012). However, this paradigm changed from fighting against the water to living with the water (Van der Most et al., 2010). As a consequence there is a need to (re)design some institutional arrangements in the region. In this chapter the institutional arrangement in the delta city of Rotterdam are analyzed by applying the institutional toolbox and accompanying guide in two local cases.

9.1 Purpose, Questions and Conditions for Institutional Analysis The purpose of the case study of the delta city of Rotterdam is providing insight in the design decisions (e.g. physical structures, protocols, procedures) regarding flood risk management within the delta city of Rotterdam. The Rotterdam case study topics are the following: the institutions that put requirements on the spatial design decisions of the large-scale storm surge barrier Maeslantkering and the institutions that put requirements on the design decisions regarding DBFO related to the Lekdijk. It should be noted that the specific questions and purpose for each case study is explicitly presented in section 9.4.

9.2 Preliminary Scan of Institutions and Stakeholders The preliminary scan of information about the context of the delta system is sufficient enough to execute the institutional analysis. It can be concluded that the data availability is high and the difficulty of data collection is low. As a consequence it is effective to execute the case studies about Rotterdam. The purpose of the analysis does not to be revised.

9.3 Data Collection First an introduction is presented about the delta region by presenting an analysis on different scales, a retrospective study, an actor scan and a study about the shared values in the region.

Introduction to the RMS Delta: Analysis based on Different Scales In this paragraph the delta city Rotterdam is analyzed in the context of three scales: rivers basin of Rhine, Meuse, Scheldt Rivers, RMS River Delta and City of Rotterdam as presented in table 15. The Rhine, Meuse Scheldt River with its many tributaries drains in multiple countries of Western Europe (Huisman et al., 2000). The RMS delta is of great economic importance for both the Netherlands and Belgium as it consists of a ‘chain of cities and industrialized areas’ (Delta Programma, 2012). Furthermore, the ports of Antwerp, Vlissingen and Rotterdam are important hubs for trade in the world. Additionally, the soil type in the delta results that a certain type agriculture (e.g. bulbs) can takes place in the region, which is of great importance for the Dutch and Belgium economy (Bucx et al., 2010b). The delta can be considered as a: ‘man-made region, as the delta has been extensively modified by large infrastructure projects, reclamation of land and water protection works’ (Bucx et al., 2010b). The delta region contains multiple large cities, one of the largest city in the delta region is Rotterdam. The Nieuwe Waterweg connects the port of Rotterdam with the hinterland via the city of Rotterdam. As a consequence Rotterdam has a characteristic waterfront (Delta Programma, 2012). However, at the same time the presence of the river also results that the city and its surrounding environment is vulnerable for flooding.

Table 15 Overview of Context Rotterdam Socio-economic and ecological context Scale River Basin Delta City Population density - 6,5 million 616.456 Main economic Agriculture, Ports, Agriculture, Port of Rotterdam drivers Navigation by river Fisheries Flood protection (natural) River Levees Dutch Water Works, Waterfronts, levees, surge strategy and water works levee systems, barriers, adaptive building, pumping stations drainage Main ecology River Ecology Coastal area Meuse river Important Commission for Dutch Delta Program, Municipality of Rotterdam; government type protecting the Rhine, Flemish-Dutch Water Board: Hollandse International Scheldt Cooperation in the delta; Schierland and & Meuse Commission Scheldt Area Krimpenerwaard; Delfland

Retrospective Study4 Looking at the history of the delta region one can say that the delta interventions regarding governance aspects can be split up in phases (Meyer & Nijhuis, 2012). When considering these aspects the Rhine Meuse Scheldt Delta can be characterized by four phases of delta interventions.

Time Line paradigm shifts RMS Delta

1100 1300 1700 1850 2000 Present Time

1st period of 2nd period: dikes, 3rd period: national in search of new Urbanization polders, new urban public works paradigm patterns RMS Delta

Figure 19 TimeLine Paradigm Shifts in RMS Delta (Hoeferlin, 2012)

Table 16 Schematic Overview Retrospective Study Rotterdam Institutional Context - Retrospective Variable Description Indicator The regime of the ‘The first settlements in the western part of the • Urban settlement on delta system until Netherlands could be found on the natural natural high location; the 11th century: elevations of the coastline and on the natural the first human elevations of former sea inlets or dikes’ (Meyer & occupations Nijhuis, 2012).

4 The retrospective analysis is mainly derived from the article: Delta Urbanism: Planning and Design in Urbanized Deltas. Comparing the Dutch Delta with the Mississippi River Delta (Meyer & Nijhuis, 2012)

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 83 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

Variable (2) Description (2) Indicator (2)

The regime of the From the 13th century a new type of urban • Reclaiming of land delta system in the development in the western part of the Netherlands • Drainage-technology 13th draining and took place (Meyer & Nijhuis, 2012). Landowners and • Subsidence & poldering communities started to reclaim the peat-lands by Formation of Polder constructing drainage-systems (Rutte, 2007). The land-scape drainage led to subsidence of the land, because the • Institutions of polder drained and dry peat oxidized (Huisman, 2004). management The regime of the The city Rotterdam was founded in 1814. The • Port of Rotterdam delta system in the location of the city was considered as the most • Frequent floods 19th and 20th tactical area to develop a port (Meyer 1999). At that • Technological century moment the up stream rivers already caused development frequently flooding in the region (Busman 2011). In • National responsibility response engineers built flood-defense flood risk management constructions and drainage systems at a gigantic • Storm of 1953 scale (van de Ven 2004; Huisman, 2004). The period • First Delta Program can be characterized by science and technology. In • Paradigm change: 1798 Rijkswaterstaat (RWS) was founded, which technocratic and became an important civic institute in the scientiﬁc regime Netherlands (Bosch, Van der Ham 1998). The storm in • Implementation of 1953 led again a to new paradigm consisting of a ‘Delta works’. (Brugge, 2005) concerning the flood risk management in the South Western Delta: Dutch Delta Plan & the Delta Works. The regime of the Currently, from a physical point of view the delta is • New focus on flood risk delta system in the flood prone and suffering from marine salt-water management 21th century intrusion (Bucx, 2010). The delta is also characterized • Focus on environment by a high urbanization rate, economic activities and • Second Delta program compact infrastructure (VROM, 2001). Partly due to • Climate change these new-faced trends and features, there was a • Paradigm change: from need for reconsidering the old paradigm (Meyer & fighting against to Nijhuis, 2012). Therefore, a second Delta program living with water. was set up in 2008 (Delta Commissie, 2008).

Actor Analysis Various actors are involved in the delta of the Rhine, Meuse Scheldt Delta. Within the government organization a separation is made between the government tiers state; European; national; regional & local governmental organizations. Another separation can be made between the sectorial management line of responsibility and the administrative line of responsibility (Bucx et al., 2010b; Huisman et al., 2004). The major water bodies in the delta are managed by the national government of the Netherlands and Belgium. In 2008 a second delta committee was instituted by

the Dutch Government with an accompanying Delta Fund to guarantee annual investment in the delta (Bucx et al., 2010b). The ministry of Environment & Industry (E&I) enforced RWS (Directorate- General for Public Works and Water Management) to develop and implement a long-term integrated policy toward the future of the delta waters (Bucx et al., 2010b). To achieve this RWS closely collaborates with the regional water boards. The water boards are charged with managing water barriers, waterways, water levels, and water quality and sewage treatment in their respective regions: ‘Dike-rings’ (Bucx et al., 2010b). Next to the sectorial water management also administrative governance organization are parts of the water management in the RMS Delta. The RMS Delta falls under the jurisdiction of two states: Belgium and the Netherlands, six provinces and multiple municipalities. In the recent years the role of the provinces changed from mainly responsive (for issuing permits and overseeing developments) to a more active role concerning spatial planning (Bucx et al., 2010b). The municipalities are mainly responsible for the permitting and the wastewater treatment. Moreover, the RMS delta can be characterized by different public- private partnership (infrastructure, housing and coastal defense, stimulating innovative management and development) (Bucx et al., 2010b). The delta is characterized by a high collaboration between the universities, research institutes, governmental organizations and businesses (TU Delft, 2013).

Shared Value & Politics Study The cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 2005) indicate some cultural values that are applicable in the RMS delta region. The Dutch can be characterized by being independent, stands for equal rights and the power having hierarchy for convenience only and (Hofstede et al., 2005). Moreover, the Netherlands can be considered as a feminine country, which means that decision making is achieved based on consensus and involvement (e.g. poldermodel) (Hofstede et al., 2005). As a consequence, conflicts are often resolved by compromise and negotiation. The latter is also reflected in the shared characteristics that Dutch have the preference to avoid uncertainty and therefore ‘security is an important element in individual motivation.’ (Hofstede, 2013). The uncertainty avoidance can be directly reflected in the high water safety standards regarding flood risk management in the Netherland. The politics of the Netherlands take place: ‘within the framework of a parliamentary representative democracy, a constitutional monarchy and a decentralized unitary state (provinces). Therefore, the Netherlands can be defined as a consociation state’ (Government, 2013). Dutch politics and governance are characterized by: ‘a common striving for broad consensus on important issues, within both the political community and society as a whole’ (Government, 2013). The corruption rate is considered low and there is political stable climate.

9.4 Structuring and Analyzing of Data: Case Studies

Case 1

Case 2

Figure 20 Geographical Location Case Studies Rotterdam

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 85 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

In this paragraph the most appropriate focus for institutional analysis is determined. The case studies are selected by looking at similar case studies as used within the New Orleans case study (storm surge barrier and water front levee). The case study topics are the following: Case 1 Maeslantkering and Case 2 Waterfront Lekdijk. Each case study starts with a short introduction regarding the project, followed by the specific aim of the case study, analysis questions and the type of matrices used for analysis. The case studies end by presenting a conclusion.

9.4.1 Case 1 Maeslantkering The Maeslantkering storm surge barrier is located in the waterway (Nieuwe Waterweg) that connects Rotterdam with the North Sea. This location is important because this waterway is the main route to the port of Rotterdam (I&E, 2013). The structure consists of two large arms, which can be closed to keep out seawater in case of a high storm surge (Vrancken, Van den Berg, & Dos Santos Soares, 2008). The design and construction of the Maeslantkering was finished in 1997 and falls under various studies and legislation. The institutional analysis within this case study aims to get insight in the institutions that put requirements on the design and location of the construction of the Maeslantkering. Therefore the 3x4 matrix: combining spatial layer approach with basis institutional framework is used for analysis. The following questions are posed for analysis:

• What institutions put requirements and constrains on the design decisions regarding the type of closure structure that was implements from a spatial perspective? • What institutions put requirements and constrains on the design decisions regarding the spatial location of the Maeslantkering? • What are the responsibilities and positioning of the involved parties within the spatial layers of the Maeslantkering? • What is the influence on the design of the Maeslantkering from a larger scale?

3 x 4 Matrix: Spatial Layer Approach with Basic Institutional Framework

Frequency (years) Relatively fast 1 to 10 10 to 102 Relatively slow

L1: Actors and Games L2: Formal and L3: Formal L4: Informal Informal Institutions Institutional Bit Stakeholders Interaction Arrangements

Layer Approach

L1.s1 L1.i1 L2.1 L3.1 L4.1 • Surrounding Action arena: • Damage • Water Act • Government is Occupation Inhabitants & • Location choice: compensation • Delta Act responsible for Layer businesses low spatial impact arrangement • Compulsory !ood safety • Province Z-H • Structure type: • Permits Purchase Act High !ood safety • Salt/Sweet water

L1.s2 L1.i2 L2.2 L3.2 L4.2 •RWS Action arena: • Design MK • Water Act • Navigation • Ministry of I&E • Structure type: Movable • Delta Act Continuity and Network Layer • Contractor: BMK limited hindrance construction • Navigation Act economic bene"ts • Waterboards navigation • RWS maintenance • Province Z-H • Closing protocol • WB primary dikes • Port of Rotterdam • Salt/Sweet water • Z-H supervision

L1.s3 L1.i3 L2.3 L3.3 L4.3 •RWS Action Arena •EIA • European Water •? Substratum • Ministry I&E •? • Environmental Directive Layer policy plan • Nature • 'ontgrondingen Conservation Act wet' • Water Act

Legend Relationship Mutual interdependency Direct interdependency Mutual Missing Interdependency Direct missing interdependency MK= Maeslantkering Figure 21 Case 1 Rotterdam Maeslantkering 3x4 Matrix

Institutions that put Requirements on the Design Decisions of the Maeslantkering The main aim of the construction of the Maeslantkering is to protect the hinterland from being flooded, as required by formal regulation regarding Water Act and Delta Act (L3.1) (RWS, 2012). However, the stakeholders and representatives within the network Layer (L1.s2; L1.i2) demanded limited impact on the navigation and the accessibility of the port of Rotterdam. Partly because of this reason RWS decided that in the Nieuwe Waterweg no closed dams were allowed as the port of Rotterdam needs to be accessible (RWS, 2012; Vrancken et al., 2008). Therefore, a fixed and closed barrier like the ‘Oosterscheldekering’ could not be constructed; as such a barrier would block the shipping route (Meer, Hendriks, Denuth, & Vos, 2001). To deal with the latter the design consisted of two large floating gates on both levees of the waterway. However, this choice resulted in the need for the reinforcement of the existing primary flood defense systems (mostly primary dikes). At that moment a similar surge barrier did not existed in the world.

Institutions that put Requirements on the Spatial Choice of the Maeslantkering To find a structure that was able to comply with the previous mentioned design demands, the Dutch government asked building contractors to produce a design for the storm surge barrier by setting out a competition. The Bouwkombinatie Maeslant Kering (BMK) submitted the winning design (Meer et al., 2001). Innovative regarding this approach is that not a fixed blue print was given to the contractor. Only boundary conditions, such as the location choice, limited hindrance to navigation, formal regulation and planning the design had to comply with were presented (Vrancken et al., 2008). This design and construct approach resulted that the contractor had a lot of freedom regarding the design of the construction and enabled innovative constructions (Beek, 1999; Vrancken et al., 2008). The construction of the Maeslantkering turned out to be the most attractive in terms of cost, environmental effects (substratum layer) and safety (occupation layer). Furthermore the Maeslantkering could be built more rapidly than dike reinforcements and lowered the total spatial impact. This also caused that the environmental impact assessment was completed and approved within six months.

Responsibility & Scale The BMK consortium (Bouwcombinatie Maeslantkering) did the design and construction of the surge barrier. The Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment (I&E) enforced RWS to maintain and operate the Maeslantkering (Vrancken et al., 2008). The RWS of the province South Holland became the manager of the Maeslantkering. RWS works closely together with the water boards involved with the construction. The province of South Holland oversees the water boards and RWS. The main aim is to safeguard flood safety in South Holland at the desired level. The management and maintenance of the Maeslantkering is outsourced by RWS and is performed by companies (RWS, 2012). The construction of the Maeslantkering is influenced by the international position of the port of Rotterdam, the river basin committees of the Meuse and Rhine, and multiple European directives.

Conclusion The new type of surge barrier enables to find a construction, which complied most with the demands of the different spatial layers. Next to the overall consensus concerning the structure type, the use of the competition and design & construct agreements provide incentives for an acceleration of the design and implementation process.

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 87 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

9.4.2 Case Study 2 Waterfront Reinforcement ‘Lekdijk’ In 1999 the water board of Schieland & de Krimpenerwaard (HHSK) conducted the five-year safety assessment of their dikes (HHSK, 2013). This safety assessment showed that the ‘Lekdijk’, the dike near the village Nieuw Lekkerland was not stable and high enough (Arcadis, 2004). While, formal regulation demanded that the levee must meet the safety requirements before 2012. The dike reinforcements consists of the following projects (HHSK, 2013): Strengthening dike; Soil reinforcements; Sheet pile wall construction; Coffer dam construction; and Diaphragm walls construction. The reinforcements and maintenance operations have consequences for society, as many people live or work on and along the dike and attach value. Therefore, the dike reinforcement was liable to various technical studies and multiple types of legislation. To get more insight in the organization, financial structures and responsibilities of these technical plans the project is analyzed with the help of the 4 x 4 Matrix: Life-cycle Approach with Basic Institutional framework. The following questions are used for analysis:

• What institutions put constraints and requirements on the design of the Lekdijk? • What institutions put constraints and requirements on the construction and building of the Lekdijk? • What institutions put constraints on the maintenance and operation of the Lekdijk? • What institutions put constraints and requirements on the financing of the Lekdijk? • What are the responsibilities and positioning of the involved parties with the life-cycle elements of Lekdijk? • What is the influence on the design of the Lekdijk from a larger scale?

4 x 4 Matrix: Life-cycle Approach with Basic Institutional Framework

Frequency (years) Relatively fast 1 to 10 10 to 102 Relatively slow

L1: Actors and Games L2: Formal and L4: Informal L3: Formal Informal Institutional Institutions Stakeholders Interaction Arrangements Environment Bit Life-cycle approach Institutional analysis matrix

L1.s1 L1.i1 L2.1 L3.1 L4.1 • Water board HHKS Action Arena: • Plan Redesign • Flood defense act • Flood safety Redesign • Province of South • HHKS & Opperduit: Krimpenerwaard • Room for the river Holland Design plan of • IER & EIA • Water Toets • Consortium Lekdijk • Hydraulic boundary • Flora and Faune Opperduit condition Act

L1.s2 L1.i2 L2.2 L3.2 L4.2 • Water board HHKS Action Arena: • Grant construction • Act on water Building & • UPC, OASES & Eon • Reinforcement plan permits defense works construction • Municipality • Safeguarding • Zoning plans • Water Act - Water •RWS utilities & minimize Toets • Consor. Opperduit damage

L1.s3 L1.i3 L2.3 L3.3 L4.3 • Water board HHKS Action Arena: • Mainteance • Water Defense Act Operation & • Province of South • Maintenance and protocol HHSK • 4th Memorandum Maintenance Holland operation plan • Assesment RWS on Water • Land Purchase • Management plan Management Lekdijk

L1.s4 L1.i4 L2.4 L3.4 L4.4 • Water board HHKS Action Arena funding: • Construction: • Act on water • Task of (federal) Financing • central dutch • Design & Building: national funds. defense works government to government Flood protection Maintenance: • Water Act safeguard !ood program (HWBP) HHKS & RWS protection • Contracts

Legend Relationship Mutual interdependency Direct interdependency Mutual missing interdependency Direct missing interdependency Figure 22 Case 2 Rotterdam Waterfront Lekdijk 4x4 Matrix

Institutions that put Constraints and Requirements on the Design of the Lekdijk There are various ways to design the reinforcement of a river levee. The solution that is chosen in this case, is selected based on three criteria: meet the safety standards regarding the ‘threats’ of the dike (dutch: faalmechanisme), maintain and if possible increase the development of functions on and along the embankment; and where possible improve the ecological, landscape and heritage values (Arcadis, 2004; HHSK, 2013). The first criterion is institutionalized in the water act (in the time of construction the design felt under the Flood Defense Act (L3.1)), which ‘labels’ safety norms to all dikes in the Netherlands. The Lekdijk is a primary flood defense and part of the dike ring area 15, Lopiker and Krimpenerwaard (L3.1), which has a formal flood risk norm of 1:2,000 per year (Arcadis, 2004; HHSK, 2013). The criterion regarding spatial impact and the improvement of functions are related to the development of the area. The part of Lekdijk near the municipality of Nieuw Lekkerkerk is highly built-on (Arcadis, 2004; HHSK, 2013). As a consequence the Lekdijk is almost fully developed by buildings and cultural heritage. The urban planning along the Lekdijk put constrains on the reinforcement of the dyke. However, there are different technical solutions for the Lekdijk. In this case HHKS was looking for solutions that minimize the impact on the existing buildings (Arcadis, 2004). After the design was finished an Environmental Impact Assessment needed to be conducted regarding the dike reinforcements (Arcadis, 2004).

Institutions that put Constraints and Requirements on the Construction of the Lekdijk The Water Board HHSK tried to choose an implementation strategy that limits the damage during construction as much as possible (HHSK, 2013). As a consequence the requirements were put on the implementation of the dam walls on order to prevent environmental damage (L3.1). Moreover, before the work began an architectural recording (L2.2) of all the properties was conducted (HHSK, 2013). A recording of the houses stands for a recording of the precise state of the property (HHSK, 2013). After the work was finished a final recording of all the houses was conducted. The water board compensated possible indicated damage. Moreover, if mitigation of environmental damage is not possible and nature and landscape values permanently were lost, the environmental policy demanded at restoring these ‘lost values’ by means of the so-called compensatory measures (L2.2; L3.2).

Institutions that put Constraints on the Maintenance and Operation of the Lekdijk The Water Board HHSK carries out maintenance and mowing twice a year the bank (HHSK, 2013). The section Management Plan within the Flood Defense Act (L3.3) indicates that the dike is a primary dike and needs to comply with a management plan for maintenance (L2.3).

Institutions that put Constraints and Requirements on the Financing of the Lekdijk The Central government funded the dike reinforcement project in the context of the Flood Protection Program (HWBP) (L2.4).

Responsibilities & Scale The Water Board HHKS is responsible for the management, maintenance and operation of the embankment (HHKS, 2013). Moreover, the water board is responsible for the dike strengthening plan and the execution of the work. Besides the water board is responsible for answering questions, requests, complaints and compliments by the surrounding inhabitants. The College of the Provincial Executive (Dutch: Gedeputeerde Staten) of the Province of South Holland is the supervisory authority on the flood defense in South Holland (L1s3). The consortium ‘Opperduit’,

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 89 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk appointed by the water board SK, is responsible for the design and building of the dike reinforcement (L1s1; 2; 3).

Conclusion and Reflection on Visualization by Matrix The matrix is able to show the responsibilities and the design criteria that are in place concerning the redesign of the primary flood defense dike of the Lekdijk. It seems that the water board of HHSK has the responsibility concerning all the life cycle elements, making it possible to take into account the criteria set by all the life cycle elements. Moreover, the inclusion of design criteria that limit the permanent basis hindrance of existing spatial development result that solutions can be found that are supported by surrounding stakeholders.

9.5 Validation: Case Study Rotterdam Within this paragraph the case studies are validated on data validation and outcome validation.

Data Validation All the cases are supported with a reference table (see table 20 & 21). This enables the readers to crosscheck the used data. Moreover, multiple sources are used, which assure data triangulation. The use of different data sources increased the trustworthiness of the institutional analysis. It is concluded that the data validation is sufficient.

Outcome Validation No experts reflected on the outcome of the case studies.

Table 17 Case Study Rotterdam Outcome Validation Expert information Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3

Yes No Yes No Yes No Case Studies Is the structure and content of the case studies clear? n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Do you agree with the outcome of the case studies? n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

The conclusions of this validation study is that the data validation is sufficient by including the references table which shows data triangulation by using various references and types of sources. The outcome validation is not sufficient, as experts did not reflect on the outcome of the case studies in Rotterdam. When the case studies are actually used for real recommendations or other applications, these need to be validated by experts involved to the projects described.

In the previous chapters case studies were executed in which the toolbox was applied to analyze flood risk management in the delta cities New Orleans and Rotterdam. The case studies in both cities are analyzed in an equal manner with the same purpose for analysis, proposed questions and matrices. The aim of the case studies was to reflect on the effect of conducting an institutional analysis with the institutional analysis toolbox and guideline. Evaluating the execution of the case studies and the outcome of the case studies is enables to describe this.

10.1 Evaluation of executing of Case Studies In general it was more difficult than expected to execute the case studies. Most troubles were found with defining the research scope and the purpose of analysis. Other troubles were found related to the definitions within the toolbox and the amount of time to conduct each analysis step. In general I can conclude that it takes experience to execute case studies.

Defining Research Purpose Without a clear scope it is not possible to conduct an institutional analysis. Initially, I clearly had problems with defining the research scope of each case study. The reason for this was that even though the matrix were filled in, it did not seem possible to provide specific conclusions based on the structures within the framework. However, after a couple trial and errors I got more skilled in assessing the research purpose and type of research questions. Nonetheless, this part is essential in defining the appropriateness of the tool, especially when considering the user friendliness for the practitioners. The applications of the case studies showed that the defining of the research purpose of the institutional analysis guideline is currently underdeveloped in the toolbox and guideline.

Definition used within the Toolbox While executing the case studies with the final toolbox and guideline still some difficulties occurred by having ambiguous definitions regarding the different elements in the toolbox. Firstly is reflected on the indication of shared values in the toolbox. The toolbox provides the possibility for including norms, values and shared concepts in the institutional analysis. However, I conclude when applying the toolbox to in a case study, it is still difficult to define and include this aspect. A reason for this is because the institutional environment consists of tacit knowledge, intangible or unwritten rules, which are hard to capture, especially in just a couple of words. Therefore, I conclude that when doing a shared value study by only looking at the five national cultural dimensions of Hofstede is not sufficient for getting insight in the institutional environment of a local case study. As suggested in the guideline the norms need to be captured by conducting interviews in which specific questions are posed to become aware of the culture and norms. Moreover, even though the spatial layers elements are explained it still seems difficult to use the spatial layer approach, as the definition within the spatial layer approach can be ambiguous. The latter can hamper the consistent use of the spatial layer approach. For example, it can vary whether one puts a port authority in the network layer or the occupation layer. A suggestion to overcome this problem is by looking in which action arena (Li1) the representative of a certain sub sector or structure are presented, based on that the type of institutions related to this actor can be filled in matrix.

Role of Context Analyses The role of the content analyses: analysis on scale, retrospective study and actor analysis might be revised based on their usefulness. When starting with the institutional analysis it seems that it can take a lot of time to execute the context analyses, while it is not completely clear whether these context analysis have a lot of added value. I recommend not spending too much time in finding all the aspects within the context analysis steps, as the context analysis is only used to get familiar with the institutional environment of the research project. I should be considered that in the cases presented in section 8 and 9 a context analyses was provided regarding the whole delta region. When one is focusing on one local area, the analyses might be more useful, as these will be more specific.

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 91 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

Time and Resources for conducting Case Studies Currently it is unclear how much time it takes to execute an analysis with a specific matrix. This leaves a knowledge gap about the indication of the costs and resources necessary to conduct an analysis. It is recommended to conduct a follow-up study concerning this point.

10.2 Evaluation of the outcome of the Case Studies Even though there are still some remarks concerning the institutional analysis toolbox and guideline. I concluded that the toolbox in general provides a structured and systematic pursuit of institutional knowledge within local cases of the delta cities. In specific the toolbox proved to be useful for providing insight in the institutions that put requirements on the spatial planning of large storm surge barriers and the institutions that put requirements on the design decision regarding the life cycle elements of the redesign of a waterfront. The lessons learned from the case studies; enable to show the practical usability of the toolbox.

Lessons Learned based on Case Studies Large Storm Surge Barrier It seems that a project can be executed faster when the representatives of the spatial layers each have the same aims or objectives, even though when they have a different motivation. Moreover, adjustments and redesign of existing institutions, such as special arrangements regarding funding, a design contest, design & construct contracts and compensation measures regarding spatial impact are able to speed up and break up possible deadlocks in the design process of a project. However, the case of the WCC also showed the importance of taking into account the maintenance and operation requirements of the system during the design and construction of the project in order to safeguard the quality of the system on the long-term. Another notion derived from these two case studies is that even though technically the structure types are similar, the institutional environment clearly results in differences regarding the function of the system.

Lessons Learned based on Case Studies of Redesign of Waterfront In the case study of the Lekdijk the role of the existing spatial development influenced the design decisions regarding the construction, resulting that trade-offs need to be made between the permanent hindrance and the costs of the structures. Moreover, both case studies show the importance of focusing on the interfaces between the different life cycle elements. This indicates that when interdependencies are missing, such as the lack of maintenance requirements in the design of the LPV project, this might cause problems on the long-term. Moreover because, in the case study of the Lekdijk was shown that the water board of HHSK is responsible concerning all the life cycle elements, making it possible to take into account the maintenance criteria in the redesign of the waterfront.

Conclusions The main conclusion derived from the case studies is that the toolbox provides insight in the (missing) critical institutions, which either enable or constrain certain design decisions. The toolbox enables to indicate and structure observations regarding institutions in an easy manner. As a result, the outcome of the toolbox allows a dialogue between the involved actors. It can be concluded that case studies showed that the beta tool is sufficient enough to conduct more field tests by practitioners.

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 93 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

Part IV Interpretation connects the research outcomes to the research framework. In this part first the usability is discussed by presenting a discussion with suggested follow-up studies. After the discussion conclusions are presented by answering all the research questions within this research. At last a reflection is presented regarding the academic relevance, social relevance, research results, methods and approaches used. At last a personal reflection is presented with acknowledgements.

Chapter 11 Discussion ...... 94 Chapter 12 Conclusion ...... 96 Chapter 13 Reflection ...... 99

In this chapter the results, struggles and assumptions within this thesis project are discussed. The discussion results in suggestions for future research and follow-up studies by answering the following question: What is necessary to improve the institutional analysis tool for future applications?. The suggested improvements are defined by specific recommendations. This section will start by discussing the added value of the institutional analysis toolbox. Furthermore it focuses on the lack of the results of the toolbox and the difficulties regarding comparing institutional arrangement within delta regions.

11.1 Added Value of Institutional Analysis Toolbox An important aspect of discussion is whether the toolbox has added value. The case studies proved that the institutional analysis toolbox is useful for structuring institutions. However, this data set might be considered too small to base conclusions on regarding the added value of the toolbox and guideline. Therefore it is discussed whether the toolbox has added value in comparison with the existing institutional analysis frameworks. In section 4 the existing institutional analysis frameworks are extensively analyzed. This analysis showed that the existing frameworks of Williamson, Koppenjan & Groenewegen and Ostrom are all generic, widely accepted and able to provide insight in institutions in of complex systems. Based on the inability of meeting the challenges defined by analyzing institutions in a complex adaptive system, a more extensive tool is developed in the form of an institutional analysis toolbox, which enables to conduct situational analyses from different perspectives. However, it is assumed that the existing frameworks are not able to show a more precise overview of the institutional arrangements within delta regions than the institutional analysis toolbox. The latter is not proven by checking whether the existing institutional analysis framework are able to answer similar questions on the same level of detail in equal case studies than the institutional analysis toolbox. Therefore, it is suggested to conduct similar case studies with the existing institutional frameworks. The outcome of this study enables to say something about the added value of the institutional analysis toolbox in comparison with the existing frameworks.

11.2 Added value concerning the usability for practitioners An important point to consider is the added value of the institutional analysis toolbox for practitioners. The toolbox is supported by a practical guide, which enables to conduct an institutional analysis relatively easy by practitioners. However, the design of a tool for a broad range of practitioners might result that definitions are different interpret. The analysis toolbox is able to overcome this ambiguity, by having a well structured and well-defined definitions of concepts used in the tool. As a consequence the toolbox can support the dialogue between different disciplines regarding institutions. Nonetheless, the interviews with the expert panel also showed some remarks regarding the application of the institutional analysis toolbox and guideline. Resulting that to increase the added value of practitioners some follow up studies need to be performed.

To improve the trustworthiness and the usability by practitioners of the tool I believe it is important to verify the toolbox based on internal consistency by having more interviews with different experts to increase theoretical triangulation and the trustworthiness of the tool. Another recommendation to improve the added value is the testing of the application of the toolbox by a

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 95 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk broad range of experts. For example by organizing a workshop in which multiple experts with different backgrounds are asked to conduct an institutional analysis with the tool. The workshop starts with a short introduction about the tool and an example of an institutional analysis conducted with the tool. After that the experts are asked to execute a case study on their own. The subject of the case study can be pre selected or related to the working field of the experts.

Based on the ability of the practitioners to use the tool, can be determined whether the institutional analysis tool is useful for practitioners and what kind of improvements can be made to the tool. Possible suggestions of improvement can be based on the inclusions of other type of bits to expand the analysis toolbox and to enable a broader research scope for the institutional analysis tool. Additionally, the outcome of the case studies during the workshop enables to look whether the toolbox is reproducible and is able to provide similar results by different experts. This can be done by comparing the questions for analysis, the data collection, the filled in matrix, the relationships indicated between the tiles and by looking at the conclusions derived from the previous analysis steps. The outcome can be the input for revisions of the tool. The previous mentioned studies and recommendation can be executed in the form of a master thesis of which the main objective is to refine the toolbox by making the tool more trustworthy and valuable for practitioners in delta regions.

11.3 Follow up studies based on Case Study Application In chapter 10 an evaluation is presented based on the application of the case studies. This showed some suggestions for improvement of the tool. Firstly the conducting of the case studies indicated that the defining of the research purpose of the analysis is currently still underdeveloped in the toolbox and guideline. A follow up study regarding structuring this aspect is meaningful. Secondly, there is a need to improve the use of the shared concept better. Thirdly, it is suggested to revise the role of the context analyses in the guideline. At last, the design of the toolbox was an iterative process. The case studies became a significant part of the design of the toolbox. The toolbox and guideline were constantly adjusted while doing the case studies. This iterative process resulted that currently it is unclear how much time and resources a specific analysis with the toolbox will take. In a follow up study it is useful to measure how much time it takes to execute a case study. It is suggested by analyzing by looking what critical steps take most time and how the total institutional analysis time can be limited, without reducing too much level of detail. A possible research set-up is by having experts execute a case study and by letting them measure how much time it takes to execute each research step. Based on the outcome of this research the guideline might be revised to meet the design requirement of limited resources.

11.4 Difficulty of Comparing Delta Regions from an Institutional Perspective An application of the institutional analysis toolbox might be to compare different delta regions, however, this causes is challenging due to two reasons. It seems that comparing institutions is difficult; ‘Due to limitations to accurately predict the future performance of alternative institutional settings, comparisons are not always possible’ (Herrera et al., 2005). Secondly, It seems that comparing delta regions is problematic, as the regions not only differ from geographical characteristics but also from a socio-economic perspective. The difficulties of comparing institutional environments in delta regions make it challenging to execute a comparison study, as

one need to focus on two research fields. Especially when having a complex adaptive system as system perspective, which implies that a system is hard to capture in general. So, one can questions whether it is possible to actual compare delta regions. However, it seems that when one is looking at similar, local cases supported with comparable matrices and question it should be possible to say something about the differences and similarities of the institutional environment of the case studies. Nonetheless, before this is possible, some follow-up studies need to be executed regarding the improvement of the current tool regarding comparison purposes.

11.5 Future Work and Recommendations In the previous sections already some future work and follow-up studies were mentioned. In this section recommendations regarding future research about generalization and outreach are presented. It is suggested to look for possibilities to apply generalize the toolbox for the purpose of analyzing institutions in other regions or projects. The toolbox is currently specified on the complex, adaptive systems of delta regions and only analyzed the RMS and Mississippi delta region. It is recommended to test whether the tool is also applicable in other delta regions.

Furthermore, next to other delta regions, various other fields of analysis and systems with similar features as delta regions can be analyzed with the toolbox. An example can be to conduct an institutional analysis of large-scale infrastructural projects. Nonetheless, it is also possible to gain knowledge regarding institutional analyses from other research fields. At this moment some institutional analyses studies exist for other purposes than analyzing institutions in delta regions, such as institutional methods for rural development (IFAD, 2012) or agriculture economics (Herrera, Van Huylenbroeck, & Espinel, 2005). By analyzing these studies it is possible to gain input for the institutional analysis toolbox.

Moreover, I believe it is important that the content of this thesis is shared and presented to different experts. This enables to start a dialogue regarding the role and acknowledgement of institutions within delta regions.

In this research, an institutional analysis tool is developed, presented and applied. This tool enables to execute a specified institutional from multiple perspective. In section 11 the discussion and recommendations for future studies are presented. It is now possible to recap the main findings and to give answers to the research questions that are posed in the beginning of this thesis. For this we take a leap back and start with the point of departure of this research.

Throughout the world delta areas are important centers for economic activities, agricultural production and industries. It is challenging to adapt with suitable solutions to the physical and societal trends that manifest in delta regions. It is important to understand why certain arrangements work in a given delta. Institutions are important to apprehend, as they constrain and steer development but also allow new rules and organizational structures within delta regions. To date, there is no specified institutional tool for the purpose of analyzing and comparing institutions in local areas parts of delta regions. This institutional analysis gap resulted in the following research question for this thesis: What is an appropriate tool to analyze institutions

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 97 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk regarding flood risk management in local parts of the delta cities New Orleans in the Mississippi delta and Rotterdam in the Rhine, Meuse, and Scheldt delta?

In order to answer this research question, the research is divided in five sub research questions.

1. What is the role of institutions in the complex adaptive systems of delta regions and what are the challenges for analyzing these institutions? 2. What can be learned from the existing institutional analysis frameworks for the development of an institutional analysis tool to analyze institutions in the complex, adaptive delta systems? 3. What is necessary to develop an institutional analysis toolbox for the complex, adaptive delta regions and what is the design of such a tool? 4. How can this institutional analysis toolbox be applied to develop insight in the institutional environment of the delta cities New Orleans and Rotterdam and what is the effect of applying the institutional analysis toolbox? 5. How can the institutional analysis tool be improved for future applications after applying this approach?

In the following paragraphs each research question is answered, which together form the answer to the main research questions

1. What is the role of institutions in the complex adaptive systems of delta regions and what are the challenges for analyzing these institutions? In this thesis institutions are understood as a system of interrelated, shared concepts consisting of strategies, rules and embedded norms used by humans to structure situations and behavior. When using this term, it implies that multiple concepts need to be separately identified and treated as separate terms with a different frequency of change. Furthermore, delta regions are considered as complex adaptive systems, which are a special type of complex system formed to adapt to the changing environment. As a consequence it is concluded that there is a need for institutions to structure and guide the social structures positions, relations and behavior of the parties that, plan and operate in the CAS of delta systems. It seems that these institutions in a delta region often evolved over time and are able to create stable situations. However, at the same time deltas have an open relation with its environment and are influenced from both the inside and outside the system. Therefore, the institutions in delta regions are able to change relatively fast (e.g. natural disaster). Furthermore, in some cases institutions can even cause a deadlock, are lacking, be counterproductive or create unstable situations. In my opinion the incompatibility of certain institutions are caused due to the CAS characteristics: complexity, the unpredictability and the openness of a delta system, which result that not all components and relationships are known in a delta system. Moreover, the multi-actor system results that a wide range of disciplines are involved in delta regions, which all demand a different type of institutions. Based on the previous I have identified that it is complicated to analyse institutions in delta regions. I suppose it is critical that these difficulties are addressed when designing an institutional analysis tool. Therefore the institutional analysis tool box should be able to meet the challenges of analyzing institutions in deltas are: Defining the boundaries; Dealing with temporal dynamics; Providing insight in the multi-actor system; Providing insight in the shared values and Dealing with different disciplines involved within the complex adaptive delta system.

2 What can be learned from the existing institutional analysis frameworks for the development of an institutional analysis tool to analyze institutions in the complex delta systems? First, some general remarks concerning using institutional analysis frameworks are described. I consider that the structuring and formalizing of the analysis by an institutional analysis framework, makes it easier to understand the complex patterns generated in complex adaptive delta system. An essential notion is that it seems that the depth of the institutional analysis becomes small, when one does not have a well-defined aim for the analysis. Furthermore, I concluded that the scope of the analysis also plays a role when executing an institutional analysis.

Three well-known existing frameworks of Williamson, Ostrom and Koppenjan & Groenewegen are taken into account for answering this question. Even though the frameworks have different structured and focus, all these frameworks have similar aims and all can be insightful in complex systems of delta regions. To say something about the ability to learn of the frameworks is looked whether the frameworks meet the challenges for institutional analysis in CAS. Firstly, all the frameworks take into account the frequency of change of different types of institutions. Moreover, it is concluded that all frameworks take into account the role of actors in the framework, however they all do this in a different extent. At last is shown that the frameworks are interrelated to one another and are built on the same concepts. The analysis revealed that all the frameworks have different strong points for meeting the challenges in CAS of delta regions, which possible can contribute to one another. Therefore, I suggest it is valid to combine successful elements of all frameworks in a basic institutional analysis framework, which enables to meet the institutional challenges more sufficiently.

However, when the focus is on the complex system of a delta region and flood risk management, a more specified institutional analysis is required to meet the challenges and to be able to explain the institutional environment thoroughly. Hence, even when combining successful elements, it will primarily meet the challenges regarding defining insight in temporal dynamics, culture and actors. In my opinion, the main deficiency is that all the existing frameworks are not able to provide sufficient insight in the existence of different system perspectives and the boundaries and scales of a delta system. In other words the existing frameworks do not have enough resolution power to meet the different purposes of analysis of the involved disciplines in a delta system.

3. What is necessary to develop an institutional analysis toolbox for the complex, adaptive delta regions and what is the design of such a tool? The institutional analysis tool is set up based on a design approach, which includes design requirements, design variables and testing of the toolbox by using case studies and an expert panel. The design requirements are based on theory, the user group and existing delta studies. The design input resulted to construct an adjustable matrix consisting of a basic institutional analysis framework that builds on the four-tier institutional framework of Koppenjan & Groenewegen (2005) and enables to show the interrelatedness of institutions in four distinct layers, the frequency of change and the actor interaction. To increase the ‘resolution power’ of the basic framework can be extended by adding institutional methods such as the e.g. spatial layer approach (VROM, 2001); life cycle approach (GBA, 2013; Ruijgh, 2011); flood risk elements (EC, 2012) and scales. As a consequence, the basic institutional framework can be considered as a fixed horizontal axis that can be combined with various bits, of which the combination results in a matrix. Each bit is presented as an independent column and enables to provide insight in the institutional

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 99 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk environment from another perspective. The bits can be used to analyze institutions for different purposes and perspectives, but all aiming to provide insight in the institutional environment. To meet all the design requirements, the toolbox is supported by a guideline to improve the usability for practitioners. The guideline includes various research steps that support the execution of an institutional analysis. It also helps the researcher to specify the institutional analysis tool by establishing a question-driven, well-defined research purpose on a local scale.

4.What is the appropriateness of the institutional analysis toolbox by applying the tool to analyze local case studies in the delta cities New Orleans and Rotterdam? To test the generic toolbox some case studies were executed in which the toolbox features were analyzed regarding flood risk management in delta cities. Similar case studies are applied in both cities by using the same purpose for analysis, the comparable questions and matrices. This analysis enabled a first to share knowledge regarding institutions within local case studies of delta regions. Even though there are still some remarks concerning the institutional analysis toolbox and guideline. I conclude that the toolbox provided a structured and systematic pursuit of institutional knowledge within local cases of the delta cities. The main conclusion derived from the case studies is that the toolbox provides insight in that (missing) critical institutions, which either enable or constrain certain design decisions. The toolbox enabled to indicate and structure observations of which the outcome allows a dialogue between the involved actors. It can be concluded that case studies showed that the beta tool is sufficient enough to conduct more field tests by practitioners.

5. How can the institutional analysis tool be improved for future applications after applying this approach? After conducting all the previous research steps it is possible discuss the outcome of the toolbox. Even though the beta version of the tool is considered sufficient. However, the various lessons that were learned during the development of the toolbox and recommendation suggested in the discussion chapter, could lead to an even better toolbox in the future. Therefore, it is principal that the institutional analysis toolbox is applied in more cases and more expert from different scientific domains tests the toolbox. Only this way it is possible to further develop the toolbox in such a way that is has added value for a wide variety of experts in various domains.

The answer on the main question can be defined by summarizing in the conclusion of the sub questions. The tool is appropriate because it fits with the design input.

In this section a reflection is presented on the thesis project. The reflection will include the academic learning and personal experience while executing this thesis project. The reflection consists of the academic perspective, the practical perspective, the results, the approach and methods and the general process.

13.1 Academic Perspective To reflect on the academic perspective of this research I looked at the definition of a scientific method, which is considered as the following: ‘principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through

100

observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.’ (Miriam Webster, 2013). I used this definition to reflect on the academic level of the applied research method and on the end result of the institutional analysis toolbox and guideline. In this part only is reflected on the latter, in section 13.4 a reflection on the research approach and method of this thesis is given. Looking whether the toolbox complies with the features of scientific research does this:

• Systematic pursuit of knowledge: The institutional analysis toolbox can be seen as a body of techniques for investigating institutions in a systematic way. • Formulations of a problem: The guideline of the toolbox supports the expert with the formulation of a problem by posing specified analyses questions. After setting the purpose, the institutional analysis with the toolbox, results in the acquiring of new knowledge, or correcting and integrating of previous knowledge regarding the institutional environment within a delta region. • Collection of data: to be named scientific, the toolbox must be based on measurable and empirical evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning (Newton, 1999). The toolbox is founded on a conceptual framework consisting of institutions, institutional frameworks and CAS theories. The conceptual framework formed the input for the design requirements together with various desk researchers, the design variables for the analysis tool. Moreover, an empirical study is presented in the form of case studies to both refine and evaluate the institution analysis toolbox. • Data triangulation: Additionally, the research with the toolbox is envisioned to be objective by reducing assumptions and biased interpretations of the outcome analysis. Encouraging data triangulation and the reference table support this. Additionally, this also improves the reproducibility by other researchers.

In general, one can say that the institution analysis toolbox and guideline are relevant from an academic point of view, as it provided a way of systematic pursuit of institutional knowledge. However, the definition of a scientific method also mentions the formulation and testing of hypotheses. It is possible that the analysis toolbox can support the testing of hypotheses in the future by looking for patterns in institutional analysis in delta regions. However, before doing so first the institutional analysis toolbox needs to be further developed to be able to present a structured and descriptive institutional analysis of a local delta region. Furthermore, a scientific article is written, which can be considered as an academic result.

13.2 Practical Added Value To reflect on the practical perspective of this research is looked at the usefulness, social relevance and added value of the institutional analysis toolbox. Various experts from different disciplines evaluated the tool. The experts accepted the tool but also suggested some revisions of the tool. The experts agreed on the importance and need for understanding institutions in delta regions. Moreover, did they agree that the toolbox provides added value for institutional analysis in delta regions and water governance. As a consequence the practical added value of the toolbox can be considered valuable. However, this can be further specified by looking at the value of the product and the value of the client.

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 101 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

Value of the toolbox The separate document Institutional analysis guideline enables to provide practitioners a possibility to use the toolbox in a relative simple manner. The guideline is written in a simple manner with clear definitions, resulting in a widely accessible guideline. Furthermore, various talks about the guideline with project managers in the field of international water management revealed that the basic institutional analysis framework enables to analyze institutions from a broader perspective, than usefully is done. Mostly, is only looked at either stakeholders or formal arrangements. Furthermore the project managers indicated that often the norms and shared values are not taken into account in institutional analysis studies. This reveals the added value of the toolbox, as this enables to analyze institutions on a broad perspective.

In the previous section the added value of the benefits of the toolbox are mentioned. However, it is not reflected on the ‘difficulty’ of actually performing an institutional analysis with the toolbox, while previous conclusions considered some of the complications existing in the current institutional analysis tool. These are for example, providing insight in the shared norms and the ambiguous character of some of the elements included in the toolbox, such as the spatial layer approach. Furthermore, is mentioned that it is necessary to improve the purpose of analysis in the guideline, as this seems as one of the most difficult aspects of the whole analysis. I conclude that these aspects make the practical use of the framework more difficult. However, even though the framework is not able to present a fully accepted and complete presentation of the actual situation, the tool still enables to start a dialogue between actors.

Value for client IPDD and Royalhaskoning DHV In this section is reflected the practical value for the client of the tool, which is considered the international comparison research team of the of IPDD project. The usability for the client can be considered sufficient, when looking at the delivery of the guideline. However, there is a need to adjust and connect the outcome of this research to the international study. The reason for this is because the research project IPDD has different, slower term then this thesis has. When the research proposal for this thesis was written in September, the focus of the international comparison research was not as well defined as it currently is. This left the researcher with a lot of freedom for executing this project, which does not entirely comply with the current status of the international comparison study. Nevertheless, I believe the tool still can be useful for the international comparison of the IPDD project. The toolbox enables to have an equal, structured institutional analysis of all the delta regions e.g. RMS delta, Mississippi delta, Mekong delta and the Elbe Estuary.

Furthermore, I believe this tool might also be applicable in other fields of the IPDD project. At this moment the IPDD project is busy with the development of a Serious Design Game in Haringvliet Region of the RMS delta. For this design game various analysis are conducted based from various perspectives: spatial planning, actor analysis, scenarios. However, no focus is put on the institutional arrangements that enable and constrain the design decisions regarding Haringvliet system. I believe executing an institutional analysis with the toolbox can help the IPDD project to broaden their institutional analysis scope, by also including the informal arrangement between parties, the formal regulations constraining and the shared values in a system.

102

At last this tool might also be useful for the stakeholder management unit of the engineering company Royal Haskoning DHV. This unit is specialized in the process management of large-scale complex projects. For these types of project it is useful to gain comprehensive knowledge about institutional environment by using the toolbox. This enables to conduct quick scan of the institutional environment in a manner, leading to well-found start of a project. Even though some follow-up studies are necessary to improve the toolbox, the institution analysis toolbox and guideline have certainty the possibility to support the institutional analysis for a broad range of practitioners.

13.3 Results In this section is reflected on the end results in relative to the ambition level that was set in the introduction the scope and complexity of this research were presented. The ambition of this research can be considered high, as the aim of this study was two folded. Next to the creation of a toolbox, this generic tool was also tested. The previous sections of this reflection showed the academic and practical relevance of this study, which can be translated in the physical end results of a scientific paper and a practical guideline. Based on these two results of this thesis one can say that the ambition level is reached.

Nevertheless, during both the kick-off meeting and the mid-term meeting of this thesis project it was suggested that the research should narrowed down by focusing on a singular institutional tool. This left me for a choice. On the one hand the research scope could be narrowed down by only focus and reflect on one matrix, like life cycle matrix. The focus on only this matrix could provide an in-depth study. Moreover, based on this exhaustive study recommendations and suggestions could be made for the development of other institutional tools. However, on the other hand I could also choose to combine different types of institutional analysis methods and try to develop a more comprehensive tool. To make a choice between the previous options, I took into account the complex adaptive system perspective. Within this system perspective it is, in my opinion, not favorable to select one perspective for analysis. The reason for this is because multiple perspectives are able to show the complex, and cohesive character of a delta region. As a consequence it is chosen to develop a tool that is able to look with distinctive angles to a delta region. A downside of this choice is that the thesis becomes too abstract and generic. This is slightly reflected in the need for a wide range amount of follow-up studies described in Section 11 Discussion. Nevertheless, the case studies in chapter 8 and 9 showed the possibility to execute detailed analyses by using the toolbox.

13.4 Approach and Methods As mentioned in section 13.1 a scientific method should be supported by a well-structured documentation, archiving and sharing of data and methodology. In this section is reflected on the choice and implementation of methods and techniques used in this research. This is done by shortly reflecting on the following research methods:

• Within this research there was a focus on both theoretical and methodological triangulation were used. Different experts reflected on the first version of the guideline, which supported the theoretical triangulation. However, due to the relative small amount of experts used within this research this cannot be considered satisfactory and needs follow-up studies. The methodological triangulation of this research is satisfactory as the thesis involves the use of multiple qualitative research methods.

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 103 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

• Literature reviews were mainly used for the support of the conceptual framework and only caused problems when there was limited literate available. For example not much literature exists about the complex adaptive systems in relation to delta regions and institutions. However, the connection of theory with practical examples resulted in the possibility of applying existing theory on a new research filed. • The case studies within this research have an important role regarding the empirical base of this research. The case studies formed an important aspect for the development of the institutional analysis toolbox. However, this has as main consequence that it is difficult to indicate the total research time of a case study. • The field research in New Orleans resulted in a realistic frame of reference and background knowledge about the delta city New Orleans, which was beneficial for the data collection of the case studies of New Orleans. Moreover this field research enabled to analyze which data collection strategies are useful for the guideline for the analysis toolbox. • An important research tool that needs to be reflected up on is the semi-structured interviews. It was possible to interview a lot of different stakeholders and experts in New Orleans. However, the field research in New Orleans happened in a relatively early stage of the thesis project, when the analysis toolbox was not far developed. However, generic ideas about the perspective, outcome and direction of the research were made at that moment. This resulted in the conduction of semi-structured interviews by taking into account the system perspective of a complex adaptive system and the role of institutions in delta regions. Some interviews were recorded, however not each interview was possible to record due to obstruction of the interviewee, or due to a lack of technical support. However, each interview is summarized and used for input for the case studies. Due to the methodological data triangulation within the case studies, the information derived from the interviews could be validated. • The institutional analysis toolbox was verified and validated by expert in three rounds. Especially the last round of the validation steps of the output of the case studies seemed more difficult, because the experts did not had concise knowledge regarding the exact institutional analysis environment of the case studies. This enabled the experts to reflect on the outcome of the case studies only on a generic scale and not completely on the outcome of the case studies.

13.5 General Process and personal challenges faces In the last section I will reflect on the general process of this thesis and the personal challenges that were faced during this theism.

A couple of months I got the opportunity to become part of the research consortium Integrated Planning & Design in urban Delta regions. This meant that I would do my thesis project for this research consortium (32 hours/week) and I also would become a process assistant of the IPDD project (8 hours/week). Within the IPDD project I became part of the sub project international comparison. The aim of this the international perspective is to determine how the IPDD methodology might be relevant for other delta-areas in the world. This research project consists of urban planners, flood risk experts and water governance experts. My task was to analyze the governance within the Mississippi Delta. For this study I went on a two-week field research in New Orleans to attend a workshop between Dutch and American urban planners to develop a new

104

Water Management Strategy for the city of New Orleans. Next to attending this workshop I got the opportunity (via the network of RHDHV) to speak with a lot of different experts related to the newly developed hurricane protection system (HSDRSS). This was a great chance for me as I suddenly was interviewing persons that were the chief project management of the complete project. Even though I went to New Orleans on pretty short notice and a relative short term, I never expected to be able to speak with that many persons. The field trip to New Orleans was a great opportunity and success.

One can say that the environment of this thesis project was complex. The thesis was part of multiple projects and parties. This also reflects in the process of my thesis. At first I had great trouble to find a focus of my research. I got a lot of input from the various meetings, conferences and interviews I have attended. Moreover, because the focus of the international comparison sub project was not clearly defined, I got a lot of freedom for defining my research project, making it even more difficult to find a proper research scope. However, these aspects also allowed me with a lot of valuable information and the ability to conduct a research I was interesting in. After reading some delta comparison studies I became aware of some aspects that were missing in these studies; the institutions. This choice fit with the policy analysis section and the expertise of my first supervisor, making it a valid focus for my thesis project. At first I really thought the writing of this thesis was difficult, as I tend to include to many aspects within my story. I tried to reduce the page numbers by having a critical revision, but still I found it difficult to narrow down my research scope. Looking back I can say that my thesis project provided me with a lot of great opportunities and experiences. I got the opportunity to work in a professional environment, conducted a field research abroad and experienced what it is like to execute a project on my own. The total research time of this project was a little more then 9 months, however, when considering the fact that I worked one day a week you can say that I executed this project with just a small delay. As a consequence I can personally reflect on a successful project.

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 105 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

Aerts, J., Major, D., Bowman, M., Dirke, P., & Marfal, M. (2009). Connecting Delta Cities - Coastal Cities, Flood Risk Management and Adaption to Climate Change. Amsterdam: Delta Cities. ALBL. (2012). Association of Levee Boards of Louisiana - Without Flood Control Nothing Else Matters. Louisiana: Association of Levee Boards Louisiana. Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2004). A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecology and Society, 9(1), 18. Arcadis. (2004). Project Nota/MER Dijkversterking Nederlek. Lekdijk, gedeelte Schuwacht - Voorstraat - Opperduit Hoogheemraadschap van de Krimpenerwaard (No. 110403/HN4/B63/000720.005). Amersfoort: Arcadis. Retrieved from http://www.dijkversterkingnederlek.nl/aspx/download.aspx?File=/contents/pages/126161/mer.pdf Bandaragoda, D. J. (2000). A framework for institutional analysis for water resources management in a river basin context (Vol. 5). Iwmi. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=Kyv1PY- vBpgC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=bandaragoda&ots=JkoOKU9DfK&sig=ckiC_djCHwu3NNizSLVOqO_mU lM Barnes, M., Matka, E., & Sullivan, H. (2003). Evidence, Understanding and Complexity Evaluation in Non-linear Systems. Evaluation, 9(3), 265–284. Batty, M., & Torrens, P. M. (2005). Modeling and prediction in a complex world. Futures, 37(7), 745–766. Broekhans, B., & Correljé, A. F. (2008). Flood management in the Low Lands: From probability to risk. Submitted for FRIAR. Retrieved from http://www.levenmetwater.nl/static/media/files/Flood_management_in_the_Low_Land_final.pdf Bucx, T., Marchand, M., Nakaske, C., & Van de Guchte, C. (2010a). Comparative assessment of the vulnerability and resilience of 10 deltas – Work Document (No. Delta alliance reports number 1). Delft/Wageningen: Delta Alliance International. Retrieved from http://www.deltares.nl/nl/actueel/nieuwsbericht/item/12265/delta-alliance-studie-10-werelddelta- s-onder-de-loep Bucx, T., Marchand, M., Nakaske, C., & Van de Guchte, C. (2010b). Comparative assessment of the vulnerability and resilience of 10 deltas – synthesis report. (No. Delta alliance reports number 1). Delft/Wageningen: Delta Alliance International. Retrieved from http://www.deltares.nl/nl/actueel/nieuwsbericht/item/12265/delta-alliance-studie-10-werelddelta- s-onder-de-loep Carton, L. J. (2007). Map making and map use in a multi-actor context: Spatial visualizations and frame conflicts in regional policymaking in the Netherlands. Retrieved from http://www.narcis.nl/publication/RecordID/oai:tudelft.nl:uuid:f5821d4b-5299-4af9-baad- 176dbf1daabb Case, B. (2012, October 10). Interview with Bradford W. Case Risk Acting Director Mitigation Branch Mitigation Authority - City of New Orleans. Cilliers, P. (1998). Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems. Taylor & Francis Group. Clough, P., & Nutbrown, C. (2012). A student’s guide to methodology. Sage Publications Limited. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=jKUBy_v- KPsC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Clough,+P.+and+Nutbrown,+C.+(2007)+(2nd+Edition)+A+Student%E2 %80%99s+Guide+to+Methodology,+London,+Sage+Publications&ots=fEEbkWfEac&sig=6Mkj41vx ANE6vn9JPueLG6qPnEU Colenbrander, D. (2011). Exploring coastal spaces: towards linking social and ecological systems. Congress 89th, & USACE. Flood Control Act of 1965- Title II of Pub.L. 89–298. , Pub. L. No. 120 STAT. 418 PUBLIC LAW 109–234—JUNE 15, 2006 § Title II of Pub.L. 89–298 (1965). Congress 89th, & USACE. Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965 Pub.L. 89–298 (Title III). , Pub. L. No. Pub.L. 89–298 (Title III). § Sec (1965). CPRA. (2013). Organization in the Coastal Protection & Restoration state of Louisiana, Governor Bobby Jindal. Retrieved from

106

http://coastal.louisiana.gov/index.cfm?md=pagebuilder&tmp=home&nid=73&pnid=0&pid=67&cati d=0&elid=0 CPRA, 2012. (2012). Louisiana’s 2012 Coastal Master Plan. Baton Rouge: CPRA. Retrieved from http://www.coastalmasterplan.la.gov/ Critech. (2002). What is Verification and Validation? CriTech Research. Retrieved from http://www.critech.com/vv.htm Crouch, S., & Housden, M. (2003). Marketing Research for Managers. Butterworth-Heinemann Limited. Cullingworth, B. (2006). Town & Country Planning. Routledge. Dellinger, A. B., & Leech, N. L. (2007). Toward a Unified Validation Framework in Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(4), 309–332. doi:10.1177/1558689807306147 Delta Programma. (2012). Delta Programme - Rhine Meuse Delta. Opportunities for the current flood risk management strategy in 2100. Den Haag: Delta Commissaris. Deltawerken. (2004). Maeslantkering. Retrieved from http://www.deltawerken.com/Maeslantkering/55.html Doody, T. (2011). Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authorithy East 2011 Strategic Plan. New Orleans. Doody, T. (2012, October 4). Interview with Tim Doody President of the South Louisiana Flood Protection Agency East (SLFPAE ). Durbrak, K. (2012, October 9). Interview with Katrina Durbak Louisiana research fellow State University (LSU) Coastal Sustainability Studio - not recorded. Dym, C. L., & Little, P. (2003). Engineering Design: A Project-Based Introduction. John Wiley & Sons. EC Europe. (2012). Floods and their Impact. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/impacts.htm Ehrmann, S. C. (1995). Asking the right questions: what does research tell us about technology and higher learning? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(2), 20–27. Elings, C. (2013). Interview with Christiaan Elings, Stakeholder engagement consultant at National Capital Integrated Coastal Development Program for Jakarta. Enserink, B., Koppenjan, J. F. M., & Mayer, I. S. (2013). A Policy Sciences View on Policy Analysis. In W. A. H. Thissen & W. E. Walker (Eds.), Public Policy Analysis (pp. 11–40). Springer US. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-4602-6_2 Eoyang, G., & Berkas, T. H. (1998). Evaluating Performance in a Complex Adaptive System.(see URL). GBA. (2013). Standard Guideline DBFM(O) contract. - the standard guidelines for buildings and infrastructure project. Governmental website. Retrieved from http://www.ppsbijhetrijk.nl/english/Publications?publicatiesoort=Leidraad Gillen, G. (2012, October 11). Interview and guided tour with Gerard Gillen Executive Director SLFPAE. Global Water Partnership Technical Advisory. (2000). Integrated water resources management. TAC Background Papers, 4. Grus, L., Crompvoets, J., & Bregt, A. (2006). Defining national spatial data infrastructures as complex adaptive systems. In GSDI-9 conference proceedings (pp. 6–10). Retrieved from http://cmaptools.cicei.com:8002/rid=1174293139168_1516206204_1503/Defining%20National%20 Spatial%20Data%20Infrastructures%20as%20Complex%20Adaptive.pdf Guion, L. A., Diehl, D. C., & McDonald, D. (2011). Triangulation: Establishing the validity of qualitative studies. Retrieved from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fy394 Hermans, L. (2005). Actor Analysis for Water Resources Management: Putting the Promise Into Practice. Eburon Uitgeverij B.V. Herrera, P. A., Van Huylenbroeck, G., & Espinel, R. L. (2005). A Generic Four-step Methodology For Institutional Analysis. In 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrieved from http://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaae05/24542.html HHSK. (2013). Dijkversterking Nederlek. Retrieved from http://www.dijkversterkingnederlek.nl/?csrf_id=52u4yw3p3kyu0iu5o2gvcxbp Hodgson, G. M. (1988). Economics and Institutions. Journal of Economic Issues, 1, 1–25. Hoeferlin, D. (2010). Gutter to gulf goes global. Episode 1: Mixology - Washington University in St. Louis. Hoffman, R. (2011, June). West Closure Complex by Robert Hoffman, P.E. Deputy Chief, Engineering and Construction. Portland District, New Orleans.

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 107 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

Hofstede, G. H., & Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Sage Publications, Inc. Retrieved from http://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=w6z18LJ_1VsC&oi=fnd&pg=PR15&dq=comparing+inst itutions&ots=x5dAGeNwk-&sig=K-CG6IrbgaiN1Grbp3lVU6SLbQ0 Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2005). Cultures and organizations. McGraw-Hill London. Retrieved from http://www.publidisa.com/PREVIEW-LIBRO-9780071439596.pdf Holland, J. H. (1992). Complex Adaptive Systems. Daedalus, 121(1), 17–30. Huisman, P. (2004). Water in the Netherlands - Managing checks and balances (NHV-special 6.). Delft: Veenman drukkers, Rotterdam. Huisman, P., De Jong, J., & Wieriks, K. (2000). Trans boundary cooperation in shared river basins: experiences from the Rhine, Meuse and North Sea. Water Policy, 2(1), 83–97. IFAD. (2012). Guidance notes for institutional analysis in rural development programs. Rome. Retrieved from http://www.ifad.org/english/institutions/index.htm Job. (1998). Financien Deltawerken. Retrieved from http://library.thinkquest.org/19846/data/ne/delta/maes/maes.htm Kabat, P., & Vellinga, P. (2010). Deltas in Times of Climate Change. Abstracts Scientific Program International Conference Rotterdam, the Netherlands 29 Sept – 1 Oct 2010. Rotterdam. Koppenjan, J., & Groenewegen, J. (2005). Institutional design for complex technological systems. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, 5(3), 240–257. Kruchten, S. (2010, March 23). Master Thesis: Hoe California samen werkt met water; de Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Erasmus University Rotterdam, Nederland. Marchand, & Ruijgh. (2009). Reframing Integrated Water Management for Urbanized Areas; A Combined Approach of Spatial Planning and Governance to Analysis and Design. McHarg, I. L., & History, A. M. of N. (1969). Design with nature. Published for the American Museum of Natural History [by] the Natural History Press. Retrieved from http://student.agsci.colostate.edu/rdfiscus/Design%20with%20Nature.pdf Meer, A., Hendriks, S., Denuth, L., & Vos, P. (2001). The Maeslantkering. Retrieved from http://www.lefo.ro/swea/Geography%20&%20Water%20(Sophie%20Hendriks,%20Patty%20de%20 Vos,%20Angelique%20.htm Meyer, H., Morris, D., Waggonner, D., & Dircke, P. (2009). Dutch Dialogues: New Orleans, Netherlands: Common Challenges in Urbanized Deltas. SUN. Retrieved from http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/clc/1918796 Meyer, H., & Nijhuis, S. (2012). Delta Urbanism: planning and design in urbanized deltas. Comparing the Dutch Delta with the Mississippi Delta., 16. Meyer, H., & Van der Berg, J. (2011). Integrated Planning and Design in the Delta (IPDD Flyer). NWO/NICIS. Mujica, J. (2012, October 11). Interview with Joaquin Mujica - Interim Operations Manager for the West Closure Complex USACE - United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) - not recorded. Nicholas, J. M., & Steyn, H. (2012). Project Management for Engineering, Business, and Technology. Routledge. Nijs, A. C. M., & Kuiper, R. (2006). Locatiezoeker - Uitwerking lagenbenadering voor bepalen zoekruimte verstedelijking (No. Rapport 500074001/2006) (p. 60). Den Haag: Directie MNP. OCW. (2013). Delft Design Guide : Morphological Chart. Retrieved April 18, 2013, from http://ocw.tudelft.nl/courses/product-design/delft-design-guide/course-home/ Ostrom, E. (1986). An agenda for the study of institutions. Public Choice, 48(1), 3–25. Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 7–27. Ostrom, Elinor. (2005). Doing Institutional Analysis Digging Deeper Than Markets and Hierarchies. In C. Menard & M. M. Shirley (Eds.), Handbook of New Institutional Economics (pp. 819–848). Springer US. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/0-387-25092-1_31 Ostrom, Elinor, Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994). Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources. University of Michigan Press. Pel, B. (2012, May). IPDD WP6 – internationale vergelijking Deltagebieden.

108

Podany, T. (2012, October 11). Interview with Thomas J. Podany Chief Protection & Restoration Office; Program & Project Management Division United State Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) - not recorded. Raad RLI. (2011). Tijd voor Waterveiligheid - Strategie voor overstromingrisicobeheersing. Den Haag: Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat. Rotmans, J., & Loorbach, D. (2009). Complexity and transition management. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 13(2), 184–196. Ruijgh, T. (2011). Manifestations of adaptive capacity: An institutional analysis of adaptation of a local stormwater drainage system. Climate law, 2(2), 201–217. RWS. (2012). Maeslantkering. Retrieved April 10, 2013, from http://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/water/feiten_en_cijfers/dijken_en_keringen/europoortkering/maesla ntkering/ Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America. Emergency Supplemental Appropriation act for defense the global war on terror and hurricane recovery, 2006 - PUBLIC LAW 109–234—JUNE 15, 2006. , Public Law 109–234 109th Congress § Public Law 109–234 109th Congress (2006). Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ234/pdf/PLAW- 109publ234.pdf Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, & NEPA. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. , § Pub. L. 91-190, 42. Shughart, W. F. (2006). Katrinanomics: The politics and economics of disaster relief. Public Choice, 127(1), 31– 53. Smit, B., & Wandel, J. (2006). Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 282–292. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.008 Spencer, S. (2012, October 11). Interview and guided tour with Stevan Spencer Chief Engineer SLFPAE. Stack, M. (2012, October 11). Interview with Mike Stack - Chief of Emergency Operations United State Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) - not recorded. Stepney, S., Welch, P. H., & Andrews, P. S. (2010). Cosmos 2010. Luniver Press. Svendsen, M. (2005). Irrigation and River Basin Management: Options for Governance and Institutions. CABI. Tempelhoff, J., Hoag, H., Ertsen, M., Arnold, E., Bender, M., Berry, K., … others. (2009). Where has the water come from? Water History, 1(1), 1–8. UC Denver. (2013). Institutional analysis and development (IAD) frameworks. Retrieved from http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/SPA/BuechnerInstitute/Centers/WOPPR/IAD/Pages/ default.aspx UNECE. (2008). SPATIAL PLANNING Key Instrument for Development and Effective Governance with Special Reference to Countries in Transition. Geneva: UNECE Information Service. USACE. (2012). Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction System - Appendix C. System Management Plan. New Orleans: USACE. USACE. (2013a). Gulf Intracoastal Waterway West Closure Complex. Retrieved from http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/hps2/videos/wb_video.asp USACE. (2013b). Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction System, Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity - Orleans Parish. Retrieved from http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pd/projectslist/home.asp?projectID=217 Van der Most, H., De Wit, S., Broekhans, B., & Roos, W. (2010). Kijk op waterveiligheid. Eburon Uitgeverij BV. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=0MkHX- ogDdoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA7&dq=kijk+op+waterveiligheid&ots=8lPzQ6b9t2&sig=N59XiplULVpMgdAr g2x6pcd4Yts Van Schaick, J., & Klaasen, I. (2011). The Dutch Layers Approach to Spatial Planning and Design: A Fruitful Planning Tool or a Temporary Phenomenon? European Planning Studies, 19(10), 1775–1796. doi:10.1080/09654313.2011.614387 Verhallen, A. J. M., Huygens, M., Ploeg, M. R., Bouleau, G., & Meire, P. (2001). Shifting system boundaries in vision building for river basin management. IAHS PUBLICATION, 155–164.

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 109 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

Vrancken, J., Van den Berg, J., & Dos Santos Soares, M. (2008). Human factors in system reliability: lessons learnt from the Maeslantkering storm surge barrier in The Netherlands. International Journal of Critical Infrastructures, 4(4), 418–429. doi:10.1504/IJCIS.2008.02016 VROM. (2001). Nota Rime - Ruimte voor Ontwikkeling. Rijksoverheid Nederland. Retrieved from http://notaruimteonline.vrom.nl/download/download/NotaRuimteCompleet.pdf Wagner, J. A. (2011). Delta Urbanism: The Netherlands and Delta Urbanism: New Orleans. Journal of Architectural Education, 64(2), 179–180. Wang, X., Chen, F., Wu, Z., Zhang, M., Tewari, M., Guenther, A., & Wiedinmyer, C. (2009). Impacts of weather conditions modified by urban expansion on surface ozone: Comparison between the Pearl River Delta and Yangtze River Delta regions. Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 26(5), 962–972. Willemse, C. (2012, October 11). Lunch Interview with Conny Willemse - Dutch Consulate New Orleans of the Royal Embassy of the Netherlands - not recorded. Williamson, O. E. (1998). Transaction cost economics: how it works; where it is headed. De Economist, 146(1), 23–58. Wright, L. D., Coleman, J. M., Programs, U. S. O. of N. R. G., & Louisiana State University (Baton Rouge, L. ) C. S. I. (1973). Variations in morphology of major river deltas as functions of ocean wave and river discharge regimes. Retrieved from http://search.datapages.com/data/doi/10.1306/819A4274-16C5- 11D7-8645000102C1865D Yin, R. K. (1998). The abridged version of case study research: Design and method. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1997-36452-008

110

Case Study Bibliography Table 18 Case 1 References New Orleans West Closure Complex Tile Data Sources Type of resource L1.s1 (Mujica, 2012; USACE, 2013b) Interviews, Documents L1.s2 (CPRA, 2013; Mujica, 2012; Podany, 2012; USACE, 2013b) Interviews, Documents L1.s3 (Hoffman, 2011; Mujica, 2012; Podany, 2012; USACE, 2013a, 2013b, p. 201) Interviews, Documents Ls.i1 (Mujica, 2012) Interviews, Field Research Ls.i2 (Mujica, 2012; USACE, 2013a) Document Ls.i3 (USACE, 2013a) Interviews L2.1 (Mujica, 2012) Interviews, L2.2 (USACE, 2013)(Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, Document, law 2006, sec. Public Law 109–234 109th Congress Public Law 109–234 109th Congress; USACE, 2013a) L2.3 ((Hoffman, 2011; Mujica, 2012; USACE, 2013a) Interviews, documents L3.1 (Congress 89th & USACE, 1965a, sec. Title II of Pub.L. 89–298 sec. Title II of Pub.L. 89– Law 298 Title II of Pub.L. 89–298, 1965b, sec. Sec Sec; Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America & NEPA, n.d., sec. Pub. L. 91–190, 42 Pub. L. 91–190, 42 Pub. L. 91–190, 42 sec. Pub. L. 91–190, 42) L3.2 (Congress 89th & USACE, 1965a, sec. Title II of Pub.L. 89–298 sec. Title II of Pub.L. 89– Law 298 Title II of Pub.L. 89–298, 1965b, sec. Sec Sec; Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America & NEPA, n.d., sec. Pub. L. 91–190, 42 Pub. L. 91–190, 42 Pub. L. 91–190, 42 sec. Pub. L. 91–190, 42) L3.3 (Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, 2006, sec. Law, interviews Public Law 109–234 109th) (Mujica, 2012) L4.1 (Hoeferlin, 2010; G. H. Hofstede & Hofstede, 2001; Mujica, 2012; Willemse, 2012) Interviews, books L4.2 (Hoeferlin, 2010; G. H. Hofstede & Hofstede, 2001; Mujica, 2012; Willemse, 2012) Interviews, books L4.3 (Hoeferlin, 2010; G. H. Hofstede & Hofstede, 2001; Mujica, 2012; Willemse, 2012) Interviews, books

Table 19 Case 2 References New Orleans Waterfront LPV Tile Data Sources Type of resource L1.s1 (CPRA, 2013, 2012; Doody, 2012; Gillen, 2012; Spencer, 2012) Interviews, Field research, Documents L1.s2 (CPRA, 2013; Podany, 2012; USACE, 2013b) Interviews, Documents L1.s3 (Doody, 2011, 2012; Gillen, 2012; Podany, 2012; Spencer, 2012) Interviews, Documents L1.s4 (Doody, 2011, 2012; Gillen, 2012; Podany, 2012; Spencer, 2012); USACE, 2013b) Interviews, Documents Ls.i1 (CPRA, 2013; Gillen, 2012; Podany, 2012; Spencer, 2012) Interviews, Field Research Ls.i2 (Gillen, 2012; Spencer, 2012; USACE, 2013b) Document Ls.i3 (Gillen, 2012; Spencer, 2012; USACE, 2013a) Interviews Ls.i4 (Gillen, 2012; Spencer, 2012; USACE, 2013) Interviews L2.1 (Podany, 2012)(ALBL, 2012) Interviews, documents L2.2 (Gillen, 2012; Spencer, 2012USACE, 2013) Document L2.3 (Gillen, 2012; Spencer, 2012; USACE, 2013b) Interviews, documents L2.4 (Senate , House of Representatives of the United States of America & NEPA, n.d., sec. Law, Interviews Pub. L. 91–190, 42 sec. Pub. L. 91–190, 42) (Gillen, 2012; Spencer, 2012) L3.1 (Congress 89th & USACE, 1965a, sec. Title II of Pub.L. 89–298 sec. Title II of Pub.L. 89– Law 298 Title II of Pub.L. 89–298, 1965b, sec. Sec Sec; Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America & NEPA, n.d., sec. Pub. L. 91–190, 42 Pub. L. 91–190, 42 Pub. L. 91–190, 42 sec. Pub. L. 91–190, 42) L3.2 (Congress 89th & USACE, 1965a, sec. Title II of Pub.L. 89–298 sec. Title II of Pub.L. 89– Law 298 Title II of Pub.L. 89–298, 1965b, sec. Sec Sec; Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America & NEPA, n.d., sec. Pub. L. 91–190, 42

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 111 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

Pub. L. 91–190, 42 Pub. L. 91–190, 42 sec. Pub. L. 91–19) L3.3 (Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, 2006, sec. Law, interviews Public Law 109–234 109th) (Gillen, 2012; Spencer, 2012) L3.4 (Congress 89th & USACE, 1965a, sec. Title II of Pub.L. 89–298 sec. Title II of Pub.L. 89– Law 298 Title II of Pub.L. 89–298, 1965b, sec. Sec Sec; Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America & NEPA, n.d., sec. Pub. L. 91–190, 42 Pub. L. 91–190, 42 Pub. L. 91–190, 42 sec. ) L4.1 (Gillen, 2012; G. H. Hofstede & Hofstede, 2001; Willemse, 2012) Interviews, books L4.4 (Gillen, 2012; G. H. Hofstede & Hofstede, 2001; Willemse, 2012) Interviews, books

Table 20 Case 1 References Rotterdam Maeslantkering Tile Data Sources Type of resource L1.s1 (Deltawerken, 2004; Job, 1998) Websites. blogs L1.s2 (Meer et al., 2001; RWS, 2012) Documents, Websites L1.s3 (Deltawerken, 2004; Job, 1998) Documents, Websites Ls.i1 (Deltawerken, 2004; Meer et al., 2001) Documents, Websites Ls.i2 (Deltawerken, 2004; Meer et al., 2001) Document L2.1 (Meer et al., 2001; RWS, 2012) Document L2.2 (Deltawerken, 2004; Job, 1998; Meer et al., 2001; RWS, 2012) Document, law L2.3 (Deltawerken, 2004; Meer et al., 2001) Documents L3.1 (RWS, 2012) Law L3.2 (RWS, 2012) Law L3.3 (RWS, 2012) Law L4.1 (Broekhans & Correljé, 2008; Hofstede, 2001; Van der Most et al., 2010) Literature L4.2 (Broekhans & Correljé, 2008; Hofstede, 2001; Van der Most et al., 2010) Literature

Table 21 Case 2 References Rotterdam Waterfront Lekdijk Tile Data Sources Type of resource L1.s1 (Arcadis, 2004; HHSK, 2013) Documents, websites L1.s2 (Arcadis, 2004; HHSK, 2013) Documents, websites L1.s3 (Arcadis, 2004; HHSK, 2013) Documents, websites L1.s4 (Arcadis, 2004; HHSK, 2013) Documents, websites Ls.i1 (Arcadis, 2004; HHSK, 2013) Documents, websites Ls.i2 (Arcadis, 2004; HHSK, 2013) Documents, websites Ls.i3 (Arcadis, 2004; HHSK, 2013) Documents, websites Ls.i4 (Arcadis, 2004; HHSK, 2013) Documents, websites L2.1 (Arcadis, 2004; HHSK, 2013) Documents, websites L2.2 (Arcadis, 2004; HHSK, 2013) Documents, websites L2.3 (Arcadis, 2004; HHSK, 2013) Documents, websites L2.4 (Arcadis, 2004; HHSK, 2013) Law, Documents L3.1 (Arcadis, 2004; HHSK, 2013) Law, Documents L3.2 (Arcadis, 2004; HHSK, 2013) Law, Documents L3.3 (Arcadis, 2004; HHSK, 2013) Documents, websites L3.4 (Arcadis, 2004; HHSK, 2013) Documents, websites L4.1 (Broekhans & Correljé, 2008; Hofstede, 2001; Van der Most et al., 2010) Literature, Observations L4.4 (Broekhans & Correljé, 2008; Hofstede, 2001; Van der Most et al., 2010) Literature, Observations

112

Figure 1 Research Path ...... 19 Figure 2 Research Strategy and Method of Case Studies (Inspired on Yin, 1998) ...... 21 Figure 3 The Delta as a Complex, Layered System (Meyer & Van der Berg, 2011) ...... 28 Figure 4 Four-Layer Framework of Williamson (1998) ...... 34 Figure 5 The Institutional Analysis Development Framework (Ostrom, 2004) ...... 35 Figure 6 Four-Layer Framework Koppenjan & Groenewegen (2005) ...... 36 Figure 7 Design approach ...... 40 Figure 8 Basic Institutional Framework ...... 52 Figure 9 Legend Institutional Analysis Toolbox ...... 59 Figure 10 Institutional Analysis Toolbox ...... 60 Figure 11 Guideline Steps Institutional Analysis Toolbox ...... 61 Figure 12 Yes- No Scheme Guideline Institutional Analysis Toolbox ...... 62 Figure 13 Orientation of Questions for Analysis ...... 62 Figure 14 Timeline Paradigm shifts in Mississippi Delta (Hoeferlin, 2012) ...... 71 Figure 15 Collaboration of different Governmental Organizations in New Orleans ...... 73 Figure 16 Geographical Location Case Studies New Orleans ...... 74 Figure 17 Case 1 New Orleans West Closure Complex 3x4 matrix ...... 75 Figure 18 Case 2 New Orleans Waterfront LPV Project 4x4 matrix ...... 78 Figure 19 TimeLine Paradigm Shifts in RMS Delta (Hoeferlin, 2012) ...... 82 Figure 20 Geographical Location Case Studies Rotterdam ...... 84 Figure 21 Case 1 Rotterdam Maeslantkering 3x4 Matrix ...... 85 Figure 22 Case 2 Rotterdam Waterfront Lekdijk 4x4 Matrix ...... 87 Figure 23 Complex Adaptive System of the Delta (IPDD Flyer, 2012) ...... 118 Figure 24 Institutional Analysis Toolbox ...... 119 Figure 25 Application Four-Layer Framework of Williamson ...... 125 Figure 26 Application IAD Framework Ostrom ...... 125 Figure 27 Application Four-Layer Framework Koppenjan & Groenewegen ...... 126 Figure 28 3 x 4 Spatial Layer Approach with Basic Institutional Framework ...... 127 Figure 29 4 x 4 Life-cycle Approach with Basis Institutional Framework ...... 127 Figure 30 4 x 4 Scales with Basic Institutional Framework ...... 128 Figure 31 5x 4 Flood Risk Management with Basic Institutional Framework ...... 128

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 113 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

Table 1 Morphological Chart Institutional Analysis Tool ...... 47 Table 2 Experts Verification Round 1 ...... 48 Table 3 Expert Interview Outcome ...... 49 Table 4 System Verification ...... 51 Table 5 Spatial Layer Question Box ...... 63 Table 6 Life Cycle Question Box ...... 63 Table 7 Socio-economic and Socio-Ecological Context from Multiple Layers ...... 64 Table 8 Retrospective Analysis Box ...... 65 Table 9 Stakeholder Analysis Box ...... 66 Table 10 Table for References and Type of Resources ...... 67 Table 11 Conclusion Box: Spatial Layer Questions ...... 67 Table 12 Overview of Context New Orleans ...... 71 Table 13 Schematic Overview Retrospective Study New Orleans ...... 72 Table 14 New Orleans Outcome Validation of Case Studies ...... 80 Table 15 Overview of Context Rotterdam ...... 82 Table 16 Schematic Overview Retrospective Study Rotterdam ...... 82 Table 17 Case Study Rotterdam Outcome Validation ...... 89 Table 18 Case 1 References New Orleans West Closure Complex ...... 110 Table 19 Case 2 References New Orleans Waterfront LPV ...... 110 Table 20 Case 1 References Rotterdam Maeslantkering ...... 111 Table 21 Case 2 References Rotterdam Waterfront Lekdijk ...... 111 Table 22 Overview of Expert Panel ...... 116 Table 23 Question list Experts (in Dutch) Round 1 & 2 ...... 116 Table 24 Interview List New Orleans ...... 119

114

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 115 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

Appendix A Expert Panel ...... 116 Appendix B Semi-Structured Interviews with Stakeholders and Experts ...... 117 Appendix C Delta as a Complex Adaptive System ...... 120 Appendix D Application Existing Institutional Frameworks ...... 125 Appendix E Separate Matrices in Institutional Analysis Toolbox ...... 127

116

Appendix A Expert Panel Table 22 Overview of Expert Panel Name Institute Function R Jos Timmermans DUT/TBM Researcher water governance 1, 2 Marcel Marchand Deltares Specialist flood risk management 1, 2 Suzan van Kruchten Embassy NL Writer MSc How California works with water. 1, 2

Table 23 Question list Experts (in Dutch) Round 1 & 2 Expert information Expertise/current working field Yes No Motivation Introduction Do you understand the importance and need to analyze institutions in delta regions? Toolbox Basic: Is the structure and content of the basic institutional framework clear? Bits: Are the structure and the content of the bits clear? Bits: Do you have suggestions for other bits? Matrix: Is the structure and the content of the overall toolbox clear? Do you have suggestions for improvement? Guideline Is the structure and content of the guideline clear? Do you have suggestions for improvement? Case Studies Is the structure and content of the case studies clear? Do you agree with the content and outcome of the case studies? Conclusion Does the institutional analysis toolbox provide added value? Would you make use of the toolbox? Why (not)? Do you have suggestions for improvement?

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 117 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

Appendix B Semi-Structured Interviews with Stakeholders and Experts This document provides an overview of the set-up the semi-structured interviews used in this research. The structure of this document is the following: first the questions are formulated for the expert & stakeholder’s interviews. After that the analysis of the interviews is described.

Interview: Strategy and Questions An important following question is how to formulate them as interview questions and how to conduct the interviews. Through suggestive questions answers can be triggered regarding the system and institutional definitions of the respondents. The general guideline of this method is to use relatively simple questions that the respondent from his / her own perspective can answer. It is essential that the respondent can talk freely and tell his story without upsetting or theory-laden questions. The question order is set-up based on the methodology of the progressive contextualization (Vayda, 1983). The interview strategy is unraveling: Start at the topics that are relatively current, practical and immediately relevant to the respondent. The responses provide opportunities for further exploratory follow-up questions. The advantage is that the respondent gets going easily. Finally, it is also important to ensure that the information rich, useful and concrete. For the interviews, each time not more than an hour available, so the limited time must be used efficiently. Some guidelines:

• Initiation. The respondent should be made clear well in advance what the interviewers want to know, and what is the purpose of the research. The respondent must also be made clear whether they are seen as: an expert, as an individual or as a representative of a particular organization. • Use of map and system diagrams. Interviewer promotes geographical concreteness by asking with the help of the map examples and locations to be designated. Analysis system is promoted on the basis of the system diagram. • Recording and reporting the interview. Recording interviews using data recorder is essential for (re-) analysis, but interviews are not fully elaborated using transcripts due to restricted research time. The analysis, in the form of notes, thus begins already during the interview. • Structure. Capture the story of the respondent is more important than to finish all the questions. The finishing the questions in fixed sequence will not always be useful. But it is important that there are no issues entirely forgotten. Monitoring is an important task for the researcher notes; always ask for contact details for follow-up material.

Stakeholder and Expert Interviews Both stakeholders and experts are interviewed. Stakeholders are asked about their experiences, actions and position within the larger whole, but especially for their interpretation related to certain cases. The experts will provide a ‘helicopter perspective’.

Interview Questions • Function and activities surveyed: What is your job title? What are your activities for your organization? • Scale Dynamics: Can you specify the scale your activities occur (local, regional, national, international)? Which scales distinguish you? In what way are the other scales relevant to you / your organization?

118

Aim of the research project

The objective of this project is the development of theory and methods of planning and design that offer the possibility• Historical to determine and current the nature dynamics: and shape Can youof the 3 new important delta system, developments and the investigation over the past how decade short and medium term measures relate to the possible new nature and form of the delta system. In other words,indicate this that method relevan shouldt to provide you? How insight dynamic on sustainable (stormy spatial / drastically, development stable in / urbanized progressive) del ta have areas on thebeen long developments term in relation been? to a What concrete was acthetion influence perspective of legislation? on the short term. The RMS delta represents the main case and is used as a 'laboratory' in which certain approaches and concepts can be tested• withExciting stakeholders. locations (hotspots): Based map of Mississippi Delta: Could you explain in your opinion The methodare of the planning interesting and design places will are, focus and onwhere balanced future development developments of different and issues aspects provides? at stake What in are the delta: water safety, water management, nature, port and industrial development, agricultural development,the key urban challenges? development, And atwhat different are the scales main and institutional with different barriers? time horizons. Essential• inExploring this method institutional of planning interactions shall be thesubsystems development and actor of a newconstellations: relationship I consideredbetween knowledge the … Delta on the specific area, design and governance. This methodas awill combination primarily be of developed the following with and ‘layered’ for parties subsystems that play ( -a asking central question role in the related RMS Delta to the CAS region. The goal is to develop the method in a way that it will have a more universal value and being relevant to&Diamond other urban Scheme). and urbanizing Where deltaare you areas in thisas well. scheme? Which subsystems are the dependencies and relationships stronger, with which they take off and where will you think the main

Researchchallenges approach: wi towardsll arise? the delta as a complex adaptive system • Exploring Institutions based on the institutional analysis toolbox: What are the possible The IPDD research project starts from the perception of the delta as a complex system (Batty, M. Mitchell 2009,consequences S. Mitchell 2009, and opportunities de Roo and Porter for you?2007, WhichScheffer institutions 2009). Complex constrain systems the theories work you are offer a fruitfulexecuting? perspective – Asking for planning, question design related and to engineering each tile in as the well selected as for governance matrix for andanalysis decisi (useon- life- making. Instead of a reduction of the delta to a set of functionally and technically separated areas and sectors, thecycle strong or spatial interrelationships layer matrix). and mutual influences of areas and sectors should be taken seriously. In the disciplines of landscape architecture and urban design, a theory on the urbanized landscape• Conclusion: as a layered Questions system has for been interesting developed respondents, (McHarg 1979, willingness Sijmons to 1991). be involved in a later stage of Based on mycomplex research? system Do theories you have and on any layers relevant theo ries, documents the basic for assumption me that canis that help the medelta to can fill -bein the considered as a complex and layered system, as shown in figure 3. scheme?

Globalization Demography, culture

Climate change River basins

Figure 3. The delta as a complex and layered system Figure 23 Complex Adaptive System of the Delta (IPDD Flyer, 2012)

From this point of view, we can distinguish different phases through history, each period with a certain ‘regime’ of the delta as a complex system.

The first phase covers a long period from the 11th century to early 19th century. In this period the by human intervention influenced transformation of the Dutch delta area is the result of a plurality of relatively small-scale initiatives. The initiating parties in the process of land reclamation, cultivation and urbanization are mainly private entrepreneurs and city governments (Rutte 2005; Beenakker et al 2007; Boerefijn 2010; Borger et al 2011).

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 119 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

L1.s1 L1.i1 L2.1 L3.1 L4.1 Occupation Design Local Prevention Layer

L1.s2 L1.i2 L2.2 L3.2 L4.2 Network Building & Regional Protection Layer construction

L1.s3 L1.i3 L2.3 L3.3 L4.3 Substratum Operation & Delta Preparation Layer Maintenance

L1.s4 L1.i4 L2.4 L3.4 L4.4 Emergency Financing River Response

Layer approach (VROM, 2001; Nijs et al, 2006) L1.s5 L1.i5 L2.5 L3.5 L4.5 Life-cycle approach (Ruijgh, 2011; Nicolas & Steyn, 2012) Scales (U-Lab, 2013) Flood risk Management (EC, 2012) Recovery

Legend Relationship Mutual interdependency Direct interdependency Mutual missing interdependency Direct missing interdependency Figure 24 Institutional Analysis Toolbox

Table 24 Interview List New Orleans Name Institute Function Tim Doody South Louisiana Flood Protection President Agency East (SLFPAE ) Marcia St. Martin Water and Sewerage Boards New Executive President Orleans (NO W&S Boards) Bradford W. Case Risk Mitigation Authority - City of Acting Director Mitigation Branch New Orleans Gerard Gillen SLFPAE Executive Director Stevan Spencer SLFPAE Chief Engineer Katrina Durbak Louisiana State University (LSU) Research Fellow Coastal Sustainability Studio Thomas J. Podany United State Army Corps of Chief Protection & Restoration Office; Engineers (USACE) Program & Project Management Division Raymond Newman USACE Chief Marine, Management Section; Operation Division Mike Stack USACE Chief of Emergency Operations Joaquin Mujica USACE Interim Operations Manager for the West Closure Complex USACE Conny Willemse Dutch Consulate New Orleans Consulate/Lawyer

120

Appendix C Delta as a Complex Adaptive System Anchoring theory with examples of the Mississippi Delta Region and the RMS Delta Region

Components In the RMS Delta and Mississippi Delta various subsystems, sectors and stakeholders are interacting (see figure 3). Delta regions contain for example ports, recreation areas, agriculture companies, transport networks, eco-systems, and urban patterns. The division of a delta system in smaller components is not ‘mutually exclusive’ as many of these systems are not easy to identify and have interdependencies with (multiple) other subsystems. Consequently, the subsystems within a delta region are linked with each other via multiple positive or negative crosscurrent causal relations. Moreover, the individuals, groups and organizations within the system take decisions on the development and functioning of these various subsystems and as a result the parties involved in a delta system, create a multi-actor setting. The multi-actor setting can result that subsystems have conflicting values. An extensive stakeholder analysis in the ‘Zuid-Westelijke Delta’ (IPDD WP4, 2012) showed for example that there is a tension of values when it comes to the operation of water defense works. Currently, the main water infrastructures in the RMS delta are used for transportation (e.g. Nieuwe Waterweg). Due to expansion of the Port of Rotterdam there is an increase of the transport by inner navigation and as a consequence more sailing times are required. This phenomenon puts pressure on the capacity of the waterworks, like the sluices of the Volkerakzoom- lake. A downside of the frequently opening of a flood defense work is that it can influence the flood safety. Consequently, from a flood risk management perspective this proposal is not preferred. The economic growth of the Port of Rotterdam has conflicting values with the safeguarding of the water safety by the Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management (Dutch: Rijkswaterstaat).

Components – CASs always consists of components and sub systems (Grus et al., 2006; Holland, 1992). These components are linked via crosscurrent causal relations and result in a multi-actor setting, which sometimes can have conflicting values.

Complexity The various components within the RMS delta and Mississippi Delta have their own temporal dynamics and there is interaction between and within the subsystems. As a result the interrelations are difficult to interpret. In addition there are probably interactions between components whose existence is not known, which causes complexity. For instance, it is known that there is a relation between the closing of the primary flood defense system the ‘Haringvliet sluice’ in the RMS Delta and its impact on the ecological structures, but it is not completely clear which exact physical causalities are the drivers for this relation. Within a delta not only unknown physical causalities can cause complexity, also the actor dynamics can cause complication, as not all societal relations are know and can result in a sluggish policy processes. An example is the decision-making regarding the ‘Hedwige-Polder’, which is located between the Netherlands and Belgium. In 2008 a treaty was signed between the Netherlands and Belgium regarding the deepening of the channel in the Western Scheldt to increase the accessibility for the port of Antwerp. In this treaty was decided that the ‘Hedwige polder’ would be ‘de-poldered’ as ‘nature compensation’. However, some surrounding farmer organizations disagreed and as result until now (2012) no decision is made regarding the ‘de- poldering’.

Complexity – The behavior of the system emerges because many components interact simultaneously (Cilliers, 1998). In principle, this means that there is a constant exchange of

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 121 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk information between the components and actors in the system. Complexity implies that the whole of the system is different from the sum of its parts (Eoyang & Berkas, 1998). As a consequence the systems cannot be analyzed and explained by the physical or societal and institutional parts separately.

Sensitivity to Initial Conditions Due to the complex environment of a delta system it is hard to define the initial conditions of delta regions, as the system evolved over many decades. When looking at history of a delta region one can assume that due to the strong adaptive ability of the region the RMS delta and Mississippi delta always proved to be able to adapt to transitioning circumstances. However, a system can also be influenced by an abrupt change of the conditions within a delta. In the RMS delta a change of the amount of parties responsible for the flood risk legislation (abrogation of water boards) may have a major effect on many organizations and society within the whole delta region. The initial conditions can also change by modifications on different scales that have the ability to change the systems abruptly from stable to unstable states like natural disturbances, such as floods. An example of the latter is the tremendous impact Hurricane Katrina had on the New Orleans region. institutions can help to absorb or mitigate these natural events.

Sensitivity to initial conditions – In CASs small differences in the initial state of the system may result in a change in the system (Grus et al., 2006). Institutions can be used to adapt to or deal with the consequences of abrupt changes within the system. However, the change of institutions can also cause sensitivity to conditions and result in adjustment in the whole system.

Path Dependency Related to sensitivity of initial conditions is path dependency. A retrospective study enables to show that certain decisions and structures that are implemented in previous decades now cause a certain path dependency. The transformation from only draining water in the west of the Netherlands hundreds of years ago, to the current structure of physical and human conditions with numerous sluices, dykes, institutions and water taxes in the Rhine, Meuse Scheldt (RMS) Delta (Tempelhoff et al., 2009). Once these structures are implemented, a certain dependency situation is created regarding decisions that are taken before. Likewise, path dependency can be found within the existing institutions. Most institutions have been created along informal and incremental processes; ‘they are manifestation of unique, historical learning experiences of parties that have interacted over a longer period of time in a specific context and have developed rules on that basis.’ (Bandaragoda, 2000). It appears that certain institutions, norms and values regarding flood risk management are hard to influence. An example is that, as a consequence of the prevailing tradition to organize flood protection in a rather centralized way in the RMS delta, the flood awareness of much Dutch inhabitants is quite limited (Broekhans & Correljé, 2008).

Path dependency - Path dependency explains how the set of decisions one faces for any given circumstance is limited by the decisions one has made in the past, even though past circumstances may no longer be relevant. Some institutions evolve over a long time and show path dependency.

Openness Path dependency enables to show that environment is determined in relation to the delta system (Luhmann, 1987). In other words external factors are able to influence a delta system due to its open

122

character. The RMS delta and Mississippi Delta are part a larger system on a country, river basin, continental and international scale. As a consequence external factors and processes influence the delta system. For example, globalization affects the amount of trade within the ports of Rotterdam and New Orleans. To maintain the economic position of the ports it is necessary that the navigability fit with the type of ships that enter the ports. When the waterways are not deep enough for new constructed ships, these ships are not able to enter the port. As a consequence canals need to be deepened or the economic position of the port is decreased, like in the example of the ‘Hedwige Polder’. The procedures of the execution of the latter are enabled and constraint by (formal) regulation. The previous example shows that the functioning of an CAS is both influenced by market forces (development of demand, costs, competition, and economic drivers) and government regulation (formal law). The government regulation can be coming from the levels local, national or even global regulation. The regulations are often used to protect both public and private interests within the delta system.

Openness – CASs interact with the environment (Rotmans & Loorbach, 2009) and are susceptible to external influences (Eoyang & Berkas, 1998). As a consequence an open system is both influenced by market forces and government regulation. Partly due to this openness it is difficult to define where the (legal) boundaries of complex and adaptive systems are (Barnes et al., 2003).

Unpredictability At the moment in both delta areas tools are used to model scenarios to adapt to the future. However, it is not possible to predict the future completely. In other words a delta system is hard to predict. Unpredictability relates to the selected ‘time-perspective’ and the influence of externalities. This can be presented by doing a quick retrospective study. When looking back at the history of the last 10 years in the RMS delta, one can assume that not much has changed during these years. However, when looking 10 years back at the Mississippi Delta some huge differences took place. The Mississippi delta is struck by two major disasters; Hurricane Katrina and the BP oil spill. Within 5 years after Katrina a large-scale hurricane protection system was implemented with the support of federal funds. Hurricane Katrina was not only an event caused by natural phenomena of an extreme storm surge, high winds and rainfall. The unpredictability also reflects in the complex multi-actor setting within a delta. Some responsible organizations did not respond adequately regarding their tasks. In the an independent report that was published after Hurricane Katrina was concluded that: ‘This was not a design failure; this was a failure on the part of the organizations responsible for the design and construction of the flood defense works to effectively use proven technology’. Thus, designing flood protection systems not only has a technological or substantive dimension, but it also pre-supposes coordination of the behavior of parties necessary to make the system function. This coordination is organized through institutions that regulate the positions and relations between parties.

Unpredictability - Complex systems are limited predictable and makeable (Cilliers, 1998; Eoyang & Berkas, 1998). Open systems in which the relationships between the system components are only partially known, results in unpredictable behavior. The unpredictability of CASs is also a result of many actors taking independent actions that subsequently influence other actors and their actions.

Heterarchy A delta system is a multi-actor system. The actors within the system have unpredictable and complex behavior. As a consequence an individual may have the power to necessitate a change regarding a certain aspect. However, pressure from peers may be sufficient to constrain the behavior

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 123 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk of this individual by restricting this with formal law. Therefore, a delta can be considered as a heterarchy. The credibility of this statement is reasoned by describing why a delta system is not a hierarchy or anarchy. Within the Mississippi delta and RMS delta there are no clear and hierarchical rules that are applicable. A reason for this can be because there is not one authority responsible for the whole region, there is a difference in the natural boundaries and the institutional boundaries of the delta. In the RMS Delta the administrative responsible parties are at least the European Union, the governments of the Netherlands and Belgium, six provinces, six Dutch water boards, various Belgium water organizations and multiple municipalities. This scattered amount of organizations with different responsibilities related to delta management result that no administrative hierarchical structures exist within a delta system. One can also not speak about anarchy because certain institutions are in place that restricts individuals for behaving freely. For example an individual is not allowed to construct a house without a permit on a dyke. A delta system can be considered as a heterarchy because most able to move freely in the system, however some actors are not able to access the ‘action arenas’ in which decisions regarding certain institutions are set.

Heterarchy – The structures of a CASs lie somewhere between the extremes of anarchy and hierarchy in a heterarchy. A heterarchy is a system of complete organization with overlap that is multiplicity, has mixed ascendancy, is divergent, but shows some patterns (Eoyang & Berkas, 1998).

Adaptive A delta system can be considered to be adaptive in a sense that is able to continually adjust and adapt to potential changes before or after a certain event. At the same time there is also a constant reflection and possible actions developed to adjust. The RMS delta, for example, adapts by initiating a new Delta Program, which is based on the changing environment by taking into account the climate scenarios. Another example of adaptation is the construction of houses on poles in regions outside the levee district within the Mississippi Delta.

Adaptability –CASs are able to adjust and adapt themselves to external influences (Cilliers, 1998). However, system adaptability may also be a result of internal factors; the system may change as it learns from its own experience. Physical structures and institutions can arrange adaptability.

Self-organization For a system to be adaptive it needs a certain self-organizing ability. The ability of RMS delta and Mississippi delta to be self-organizing shows a ‘mixed’ outcome. Some sectors are self-organized, like the recreation companies, agriculture and ports. However, other sub system are in need of the help of an external agent is to organize the system. For example, the principal financing of the primary flood defense systems in the Mississippi Delta is designed and constructed by United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) the executive body of the federal government of the USA. This party is not ruled by an actor in the delta area of the Mississippi, but still has a tremendous influence on the flood risk management in the region.

Self-organization – Self-organization in an CASs is the ability to develop a new system structures and institutions based on their internal constituents (Rotmans & Loorbach, 2009).

Non-Linearity

124

The difficulty of analyzing self-organization and adaptively is due to the non-linear behavior is occurring in delta regions. For example, in delta systems changes in political strategies and institutions may have a causal influence on behavior of sub systems that were initially not intended to be influence. This indicates that the relations between variables are limited to determine.

Nonlinear behavior – In CASs it is difficult to determine the value of a second variable, even when a first variable is known, this can be written down as the existence of nonlinear behavior (Eoyang & Berkas, 1998).

Feedback Loop Mechanisms The complex behavior regarding nonlinearity is supported by feedback loop mechanisms. The Dutch Delta program can be seen as a feedback loop with the goal of adaptive capacity of the system to increase. An example of feedback loops in the Mississippi delta can be found in the transformation to a drained landscape, the emphasis changed to the discharge of rainwater to the rivers as quick as possible. This man-made influence resulted in soil subsidence. As a consequence the delta area came vicious circle of draining and subsiding. Another common feedback loop within delta regions is based in the literature as ‘tragedy of the commons’ (Ostrom et al., 1994) . Within delta regions some common goods aspect can be defined as ‘free-riding’. This term means that different actors want to use the system for their own benefit, but are not inclined to contribute to the maintenance. When appropriation and provision are not balanced, that common goods will be exhausted. An example of this is when one fisher’s activities change the outcomes of another fisher’s activities through the interacting biophysical and human units that influence the dynamic, living fish stock.

Feedback loop mechanism – The system has a tendency to use its own output to adjust its inputs and processes (Eoyang & Berkas, 1998). Two types of feedback loops can adjust the behavior of complex adaptive system: negative and positive. The feedback loops can be influenced by measures of institutions.

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 125 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

Appendix D Application Existing Institutional Frameworks

Frequency Level (years)

The informal institutions have an important in"uence on the attitude of agents in the system. L1: Embeddedness: Elements in this layer are often based on historically developed practices, for instance the options for Informal institutions, water protection and their e#ectiveness. An example is that, as a consequence of the fundamental 2 3 customs, traditions, tradition to organize "ood protection in a rather centralized way, the "ood awareness of much Dutch 10 to 10 norms, religion inhabitants is quite limited (Broekhans & Correljé, 2008).

L2: Institutional Legal rules are the mechanisms available to coordinate transactions between these players. It also environment: determines the legal positions of the involved agents. For example Article 21 of the Dutch formal rules of the game - esp Constitution preserves that the state has to take care of the livability of the country. Resulting that 10 to 102 property (polity, the state has the responsibility to carry out water management and "ood protection measures judiciary, bureaucracy (Broekhans & Correljé, 2008).

L3: Governance: These institutional arrangements are designed to coordinate speci!c transactions among multiple Play of the game - esp. contract actors. In this level, agents design mechanisms to coordinate the transactions. Examples of these (aligning aspects in water management are the contracts between parties of drinking water quality. Also the 1 to 10 governance structures with establishment of arrangements to incentivize civilians & businesses to have responsibilities regarding transaction the possible consequences of "ooding are governance structures (Broekhans & Correljé, 2008).

L4: Resource Institutions in this layer are the internal structures individual agents have to coordinate regarding allocation and employment resource allocation on a day-to-day basis. In delta regions individual agents can be households and (prices and !rms. Examples of institutions related to individual agents are: land sales between agents, strong quantities continuous incentive stakeholder involvement against certain spatial impacts like the construction of a dike and private alignment investment of civilians to prepare their houses to deal with "ood events (Broekhans & Correljé, 2008).

L1: Social theory L2: Economics of property rights / positive political theory L3: transaction cost economics L4: neoclassical economics/agency therory Figure 25 Application Four-Layer Framework of Williamson

Action Arena

Physical Conditions: Action: Soil type, climate, morphology, creating an integrated, adaptive !ood safety system in sediments, water quality Patterns of interaction: the RMS delta while taking Coalitions between subs other systems like sweet water systems & Partnerships. accessibility, ecological, recreation, port development Community Attributes: and other related aspects into Resources and knowledge account. regarding governance, science, planning, institutions and technologies capacity related Actors: Evaluative Criteria to water management. Each actor is either a decision- The set of outcomes that may maker or an active, in!uential be executed need to bene"cial stakeholder. E.g. RWS, Port of from social economic Rules: Rotterdam, City of Rotterdam, perspective Operational, Informal and Munincipality of Goederee, Formal institutional WWF, LTO, Deltri Platform, arrangements: Flood Act, Water Boards, Province of Zeeland Water Plan, etc. Outcome: adaptive regional concept, which is supported by various stakeholders. The payo# potential is based on mutual gains.

Figure 26 Application IAD Framework Ostrom

126

Level

Elements in this layer are often based on norms, values, orientations and codes. An L4: Informal institutional environment of socio- example is that the inhabitants of the Netherlands assume that the water defense technological systems: works are arranged by the central government, as a consequence of the history Norms values, regarding the prevailing tradition to organize !ood protection. A con!icting value is, orientations, codes however, the amount of protection each region gets allocate

L3: Formal institutional Legal rules are the mechanisms consisting of formal rules, laws and regulations, environment of socio- constitutions. For example Article 21 of the Dutch Constitution preserves that the technological systems: state has to take care of the livability of the country. Resulting that the state has the Formal rules, laws and regulations, responsibility to carry out water management and !ood protection measures constitutions (Broekhans & Correljé, 2008).

L2: Formal and informal institutional Within the RMS delta multiple covenants and public-private partnerships like arrangement of socio- consortia exist concerning the governing, maintenance and operation of the !ood technological systems: agreements, covenants, risk management. contracts etc. informal: rules, norms, orientation, relations

L1: Actors and games in Information exchange and sharing of ambitions and vision of stakeholders. An socio-technological systems: actors and their example in the RMS delta is the presentation of various parties by presenting reports interaction aimed at concerning their visions and ambitions of regional aspects of the system. creating and influencing provisions and outcomes Figure 27 Application Four-Layer Framework Koppenjan & Groenewegen

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 127 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk

Appendix E Separate Matrices in Institutional Analysis Toolbox 3 x 4 Matrix: Spatial Layer Approach with Basic Institutional Framework Frequency (years) Relatively fast 1 to 10 10 to 102 Relatively slow

L1: Actors and Games L2: Formal and L3: Formal L4: Informal Informal Institutions Institutional Bit Actors Interaction Arrangements Layer Approach

L1.s1 L1.i1 L2.1 L3.1 L4.1 Occupation Layer

L1.s2 L1.i2 L2.2 L3.2 L4.2 Network Layer

L1.s3 L1.i3 L2.3 L3.3 L4.3 Substratum Layer

Legend Relationship Mutual interdependency Direct interdependency Mutual missing interdependency Direct missing interdependency Figure 28 3 x 4 Spatial Layer Approach with Basic Institutional Framework

4 x 4 Matrix: Life-cycle Approach with Basic Institutional Framework

Frequency (years) Relatively fast 1 to 10 10 to 102 Relatively slow

L1: Actors and Games L2: Formal and L4: Informal L3: Formal Informal Institutional Institutions Actors Interaction Arrangements Environment Bit Life-cycle approach Institutional analysis matrix

L1.s1 L1.i1 L2.1 L3.1 L4.1

Design

L1.s2 L1.i2 L2.2 L3.2 L4.2 Building & construction

L1.s3 L1.i3 L2.3 L3.3 L4.3 Operation & Maintenance

L1.s4 L1.i4 L2.4 L3.4 L4.4

Financing

Legend Relationship Mutual interdependency Direct interdependency Mutual missing interdependency Direct missing interdependency Figure 29 4 x 4 Life-cycle Approach with Basis Institutional Framework

128

4 x 4 Matrix: Scales with Basic Institutional Framework Frequency (years) Relatively fast 1 to 10 10 to 102 Relatively slow

L1: Actors and Games L2: Formal and L4: Informal L3: Formal Informal Institutional Institutions Actors Interaction Arrangements Environment Bit Scales Institutional analysis matrix

L1.s1 L1.i1 L2.1 L3.1 L4.1

Local

L1.s2 L1.i2 L2.2 L3.2 L4.2

Regional

L1.s3 L1.i3 L2.3 L3.3 L4.3

Delta

L1.s4 L1.i4 L2.4 L3.4 L4.4

River

Legend Relationship Mutual interdependency Direct interdependency Mutual missing interdependency Direct missing interdependency Figure 30 4 x 4 Scales with Basic Institutional Framework

5 x 4 Matrix: Flood risk elements with Basic Institutional Framework Frequency (years) Relatively fast 1 to 10 10 to 102 Relatively slow

L2: Formal and L4: Informal L1: Actors and Games L3: Formal Informal Institutional Institutions Actors Interaction Arrangements Environment Bit Flood risk elements Institutional analysis matrix

L1.s1 L1.i1 L2.1 L3.1 L4.1

Protection

L1.s2 L1.i2 L2.2 L3.2 L4.2

Prevention

L1.s3 L1.i3 L2.3 L3.3 L4.3

Preparation

L1.s4 L1.i4 L2.4 L3.4 L4.4 Emergency Response

L1.s5 L1.i5 L2.5 L3.5 L4.5

Recovery

Legend Relationship Mutual interdependency Direct interdependency Mutual missing interdependency Direct missing interdependency Figure 31 5x 4 Flood Risk Management with Basic Institutional Framework

Towards a Tailored Institutional Analysis within the Complex Systems of Delta Regions 129 MSc Thesis Marga van den Hurk