The Role of Policy Entrepreneurs in the Transition of Dutch Water Management

The role of policy entrepreneurs in the transition of Dutch water management A case study of the Afsluitdijk and the implementation of Integrated Water Resources Management

MSc Aquaculture and Marine Resource Management L.C.F. Geerlings Front cover photo: (Roosjen, 2020)

The role of policy entrepreneurs in the transition of Dutch water management

A case study of the Afsluitdijk and the implementation of Integrated Water Resources Management

Lotte Geerlings 940316-253110 22/04/2021

MSc Thesis Environmental Policy Group

Eira Carballo Cárdenas

Summary

The effects of climate change are challenging flood management. The increase of sea level and water temperature affect storm characteristics and increase the occurrence of future flood events and coastal hazards. Therefore, the Dutch water management strategy is forced to change according to the increased knowledge and awareness of future (flood) events. The Afsluitdijk, a primary flood defence in the North of the Netherlands, is used as a case study for this paradigm shift in water management. In 2006, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management reported that the Afsluitdijk was deemed as ‘not safe’ due to insufficient crown height and lack of stability. This resulted in the governmental decision to renew and reinforce the dike.

This thesis aimed to understand the transition of water management at the Afsluitdijk towards the implementation of Integrated Water Resources Management and understand the role of policy entrepreneurs in this policy change. Using the Multiple Streams Framework of Kingdon (1984), the policy process was unravelled by identifying the problem, policy and politics stream to provide insight into the paradigm shift to IWRM. A qualitative single-case study approach of the Afsluitdijk was conducted. Data was collected via literature search and eight conducted interviews with multiple involved actors of the decision-making process, both governmental as non-governmental actors.

The problem stream at the Afsluitdijk revealed a lack of protection and ecological connectivity in this case study. In the policy stream, IWRM including adaptive measures was suggested as a solution to the problem. The national mood regarding IWRM and adaptive measures were the identification point of the politics stream. Climate scenarios and near floods rose awareness regarding the adaptation in water management, taking into account the risks due to the Netherlands location and low elevation. The identification of the perceived issue, the set solution and the correct political climate resulted in the identification of the window of opportunity, the market exploration (2007-2009) for the renewal of the Afsluitdijk.

The partnership between the regional and local governmental authorities (Province of North Holland, Province of Fryslân, Municipalities of Hollands Kroon and Súdwest-Fryslân) resulted in the coalition ‘De Nieuwe Afsluitdijk’ and was identified as a policy entrepreneur. DNA successfully implemented the strategies of ‘coalition building’, ‘problem framing’ and ‘recognizing and exploiting the window of opportunity’, resulting in the addition of measures to increase regional development regarding three tracks of main importance for the Afsluitdijk: energy, economy and ecology. The role of De Nieuwe Afsluitdijk as a policy entrepreneur was vital for the implementation of IWRM, as without them the renewal would have been focused on increasing safety for the future. While now a multifunctional dike is being constructed, an icon for Dutch hydrologic engineering by combining hard grey infrastructure participating on the future for the country.

Acknowledgements

This thesis is the last part for the fulfilment of the master Aquaculture and Marine Resources Management. Although the journey was longer than anticipated, I have enjoyed the exploration of the social sciences. This thesis provided an opportunity to learn more about the agenda-setting of water management in the Netherlands. The Afsluitdijk provided an interesting study subject as it provides an iconic landmark in the Netherlands and allowed me to look at flood defences differently.

I would like to thank all the interviewees for their time and contribution to my thesis, as the data provided an in-depth understanding of the policy process of the Afsluitdijk. A special thanks to my supervisor, Eira Carballo Cárdenas, for her valuable knowledge and feedback during the past months. I have enjoyed our meetings in which we had good discussions resulting in new insights into the subject. In addition, I would like to thank my parents for their advice and patience during this thesis, counselling me over the phone, 2000 km away, would not have been easy. Lastly, I wish to thank my friends for their time and listening ear during this process.

Enjoy!

Table of contents

List of Tables ...... v List of Figures ...... v 1 The paradigm transition of Dutch flood management ...... 6 1.1 Problem statement ...... 7 1.2 Case study ...... 7 1.3 Research aim & Questions...... 8 1.3.1 Research Aim ...... 8 1.3.2 Research Questions ...... 8 1.4 Thesis structure ...... 8 2 Historical background ...... 9 2.1 History of water management in the Netherlands ...... 9 2.1.1 Phase 1: Bronze age - flood policy ...... 10 2.1.2 Phase 2: Middle ages – flood defences ...... 10 2.1.3 Phase 3: Industrial revolution - large-scale engineering works ...... 10 2.1.4 Phase 4: The emergence of integrated water policy ...... 11 2.1.5 Phase 5: contextual interactive water policy – adaptation policy ...... 11 2.2. History of the Afsluitdijk ...... 12 2.2.1 Rise of the Zuiderzee ...... 12 2.2.2 Design for the closure and reclamation of the Zuiderzee ...... 12 2.2.3 The Zuiderzee Association ...... 13 2.2.4 Construction of the Afsluitdijk ...... 14 2.2.5 Aftermath and consequences ...... 15 3 Conceptual Framework ...... 16 3.1 Integrated Water Resources Management ...... 16 3.1.1 Emergence of IWRM ...... 16 3.1.2 Defining and conceptualizing IWRM ...... 17 3.2 The Multiple Streams Framework ...... 18 3.2.1 Problem stream ...... 18 3.2.2 Policy stream ...... 19 3.2.3 Politics stream ...... 19 3.2.4 Window of opportunity ...... 20 3.3 Policy entrepreneurship ...... 20 3.3.1 Defining policy entrepreneurs...... 21 3.3.2 The skillset ...... 22 4 Methodology ...... 25 4.1 Research design ...... 25 4.1.1 Qualitative research ...... 25

iii

4.1.2 Single case study ...... 25 4.2 Data collection ...... 25 4.2.1 Primary data: interviews – semi-structured ...... 25 4.2.2 Secondary data ...... 27 4.3 Data Analysis ...... 27 4.3.1 Coding ...... 28 4.3.2 Operationalization ...... 28 5 Results ...... 31 5.1 Policy context draft ...... 31 5.1.1 Problem stream ...... 31 5.1.2 Policy stream ...... 33 5.1.3 Politics stream ...... 36 5.1.4 Window of opportunity ...... 37 5.2 Policy entrepreneurs ...... 39 5.2.1 Problem framing ...... 39 5.2.2 Recognizing and exploiting windows of opportunities ...... 40 5.2.3 Coalition building ...... 40 5.3 Policy outcome ...... 41 5.3.1 Safety ...... 41 5.3.2 Energy ...... 42 5.3.3 Economy ...... 42 5.3.4 Ecology ...... 42 6 Discussion ...... 44 6.1 Main findings and interpretations ...... 44 6.1.1 Policy context ...... 44 6.1.2 Policy entrepreneurs ...... 45 6.1.3 Policy outcome ...... 46 6.2 Limitations of the research design ...... 48 7 Conclusion ...... 50 7.1 Recommendations for further research ...... 50 References ...... 52 Appendices ...... 63 Appendix A: Previous plans for the closure of the Afsluitdijk ...... 63 Appendix B: Interview guide ...... 67 Appendix C: Example of coding ...... 68

List of Tables

Table 1: Overview of the interviewed stakeholders at the Afsluitdijk ______27 Table 2: Operationalization of the conceptual framework ______29 Table 3: Main themes in the MSF streams ______38 Table 4: Example of coding (Interview DNA, 13/01/2021) ______68

List of Figures

Figure 1: Map of the Netherlands, showing the location of the Afsluitdijk ...... 7 Figure 2: History of water management in the Netherlands illustrated by five identified phases by Kielen (2009) ...... 9 Figure 3: Plan Lely, 1891 (van der Wal, 1932) ...... 13 Figure 4: Causal model of entrepreneurship (Green, 2017) ...... 22 Figure 5: Conceptual framework of the agenda-setting of IWRM at the Afsluitdijk ...... 24 Figure 6: Stakeholder mapping of the Afsluitdijk ...... 33 Figure 7: An overview of the main documents, reports, implementation plans and structural visions, published in the period of 2006-2018, regarding the renewal of the Afsluitdijk ...... 36 Figure 8: Project fish migration river (De Afsluitdijk, n.d.) ...... 42 Figure 9: Difference between the policy aim during the exploratory phase versus the policy implementation ...... 47 Figure 10: Plan Kloppenburg and Faddegon, 1848 (van der Wal, 1923) ...... 63 Figure 11: Plan van Diggelen, 1849 (van der Wal, 1923) ...... 64 Figure 12: Figure 12: Plan Beyerink, 1866 (van der Wal, 1923 ...... 65 Figure 13 Plan Stieltjes, 1870 (van der Wal, 1923) ...... 65 Figure 14: Plan Leemans, 1875 (van der Wal, 1923) ...... 66

1 The paradigm transition of Dutch flood management

Dutch flood management has transitioned over the years, from seeking higher grounds to actively changing the landscape by reclamation and building structures protecting against floods. This thesis aims at understanding the transition of water management of the past decades in the Netherlands, by exploring the decision-making process and implementation of a new policy at a primary flood defence, The Afsluitdijk. The next paragraphs will elaborate on this aim by introducing the setting and main themes and concepts of the study.

The impact of climate change is challenging flood protection management (Janssen, van Tatenhove, Mol, & Otter, 2017). The rise of the global mean sea level (GMSL) and global (sea) temperature, has an impact on the characteristics of wind waves, tides and surges increasing floods and coastal hazards (Church et al., 2019; Katsman et al., 2011; Oppenheimer et al., 2019). Coastal floods will happen more often in the future, endangering 15 million people worldwide by 2030 (Alfieri, Dottori, Betts, Salamon, & Feyen, 2018; EEA, 2019; Oppenheimer et al., 2019; Ward et al., 2020). There is a need to anticipate on the sea level rise in flooding defence systems, as a large part of the world’s population depends on it (Kabat et al., 2009; van Baars & van Kempen, 2009).

Due to the increase of knowledge of climate change and the uncertainty of future (flood) events, there is a growing awareness and a need for new, adaptive forms of water management (Gain, Rouillard, & Benson, 2013; Ludwig, van Slobbe, & Cofino, 2014; Milly et al., 2008). The paradigm of water resource management has long been on the traditional approach aiming to control water via sectorial and top-down methods. Currently, this paradigm is moving towards a more integrated approach where the focus lies on adapting and anticipating on the future (Giupponi & Gain, 2017; Ludwig et al., 2014; Milly et al., 2008; Savenije & Van der Zaag, 2008; Xie, 2006).

Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) is an example of an approach that aims at improving water management by connecting and coordinating the different aspects of water issues (i.e. water safety, water quality) (Gain et al., 2013; Snellen & Schrevel, 2004). The concept of IWRM was already introduced in the 1980s but was refined in the 90s becoming “a new ‘holy grail’ of water management” (Biswas, 2008, p.275) (Ludwig et al., 2014). The approach aims at the coordinated development of water resources by endorsing multi-level stakeholder involvement, establishing economic and social welfare as well as the protection and development of the ecosystems (Ako, Eyong, & Nkeng, 2010; Gain et al., 2013; Xie, 2006). IWRM is a promising yet complex multi-dimensional approach for tackling the adaptation issues related to climate change (GIZ, 2021; Jiménez Cisneros et al., 2015; Rouillard, Benson, & Gain, 2014).

In the Netherlands, the traditional function of a (sea) dike is to reduce the risk of flood events and wave overtopping, primarily focussing on economic and social benefits by protecting the behind laying land and population (Alves, Gersonius, Sanchez, Vojinovic, & Kapelan, 2018; van Loon-Steensma, Schelfhout, & Vellinga, 2014). These hard engineering structures are mainly rigid and permanent and may not keep up with changing weather events due to climate change, increasing the change of flood events due to dike breaches. Their resilience and adaptability can be increased by including adaptations, becoming a multifunctional structure, where not only the primary function of flood protection is realized, but also the ecological aspect

6 of water management is incorporated. This ‘greening’ of infrastructure, can make flood defences more resilient and effective (Alves et al., 2018; Janssen et al., 2017; Jones, Hole, & Zavaleta, 2012; van Loon-Steensma et al., 2014; Voskamp & Van de Ven, 2015).

1.1 Problem statement

Scholars have explored the concept and the application of IWRM in case studies around the world. Substantive research has focused on the implementation of IWRM, mainly at river basins, but the application of this approach at flood defence structures is a scarcely studied subject (de Oliveira Vieira, Sandoval-Solis, de Albuquerque Pedrosa, & Ortiz-Partida, 2005; Goyal, Garg, Patil, & Thomas, 2020; Rouillard et al., 2014; Watson, 2014). Therefore, this study is researching the last paradigm shift of water management at flood defences, from the traditional segregated approach, towards the implementation of IWRM. To understand this policy change, this thesis is researching the agenda-setting of new integrated and adaptive approaches to cope with future events due to climate change by applying the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) of Kingdon (1984). The role played by policy entrepreneurs, as advocators for a change in Dutch water management, is researched by analysing the implementation of IWRM at the renewal of the Afsluitdijk, a flood defence infrastructure, which forms the case study for this thesis.

1.2 Case study The Afsluitdijk, a 32 km dike in the north of the Netherlands (Fig. 1), is currently being renovated as it Wadden Sea did not pass the last safety assessment (Rijkswaterstaat, Afsluitdijk 2013). The Afsluitdijk is a primary flood defence that was constructed between 1927-1932, closing off the former Zuiderzee from the Wadden Sea, thereby creating the IJsselmeer IJsselmeer. The dike was built to provide safety for surrounding villages and four polders were reclaimed for agricultural land and inhabitation (See Chapter 2 for more background information).

The Netherlands is densely populated, and a majority of the people live in the coastal lowlands. Due to its low Figure 1: Map of the Netherlands, showing the location of the Afsluitdijk elevation, the country is very vulnerable to flooding and is relying heavily on flood protection structures. (Jongman, 2018; Jorissen, Kraaij, & Tromp, 2016; Kabat et al., 2009). Without the 38,000 kilometres of primary flood protection, approximately 65% of the country would be flooded by rivers and the sea (Frieser, Vrijling, & Jonkman, 2005; Jorissen et al., 2016).

The Dutch Water Act (Article 2.2) requires the water authorities to perform risk assessments of the primary waterworks every 5 years. During the second safety assessment (2001-2006), the Afsluitdijk was inspected and was deemed as ‘not safe’ as it did not meet the standard of withstanding floods with a probability of 1:10 000 per year. The causeway’s measured ratio was 1:300, due to an insufficient crown height, strength of the stone and grass coverings and strength and reliability of engineering structures (Rijkswaterstaat, 2013; Inspectie Verkeer &

Waterstaat, 2006). Following this assessment, the Minister of Transport and Water Management (current Minister of Infrastructure and Water Management) stated in 2007 that the Afsluitdijk needed a renovation. The renewal of the Afsluitdijk, which started in 2018 and is expected to be finished in 2025, is carried out by Rijkswaterstaat, the executive agency of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management. The vision of Rijkswaterstaat and regional authorities is to formalize the improvement of the Afsluitdijk for flood risk management in such a way that the unique spatial quality of the dike will be reinforced.

Through a stakeholder mapping, this thesis unpacks the policy process which took place between 2006 – 2019, aiming to understand the role of policy entrepreneurs in the implementation of IWRM at the Afsluitdijk.

1.3 Research aim & Questions. 1.3.1 Research Aim The aim of this thesis is two-fold: (i) to understand the transition of water management at the Afsluitdijk towards the implementation of Integrated Water Resources Management, and (ii) to understand the role of policy entrepreneurs in this policy change. Using the Multiple Streams Framework from Kingdon (1984), the policy process will be unraveled by identifying the problem, policy and politics stream and the window of opportunity, uncovering to what extent policy entrepreneurs took part in the implementation of IWRM at the Afsluitdijk, to provide insight into the paradigm shift of water management in the Netherlands.

1.3.2 Research Questions Resulting from the above objective, two research questions are formed:

To what extent is Integrated Water Resources Management incorporated into the renewal of the Afsluitdijk?

How did policy entrepreneurs shape the implementation of the new policy at the Afsluitdijk, based on their implemented strategies and acquired skillset?

1.4 Thesis structure To provide a better understanding of the history of Dutch water management, a historical overview of five identified phases of water management is given in Chapter 2. This chapter also provides a summary of the decision-making process leading up to the construction of the Afsluitdijk. Chapter 3 elaborates on the conceptual framework, introducing the main concepts of this study. The methodology is described in Chapter 4, in which also the conceptual lens is operationalized, followed by the presentation of the results in Chapter 5. In Chapter 6 the main findings are discussed and interpreted, following by the limitations of the study. The last chapter, Chapter 7, concludes the main research questions and gives recommendations on further research.

2 Historical background

This chapter provides background information on the history of water management in the Netherlands and the construction of the Afsluitdijk, to better understand the current transition of water management at the Afsluitdijk.

2.1 History of water management in the Netherlands Due to its location, the Netherlands has been intervening with water bodies, to meet the needs and requirements of its population, since the Bronze age (Kielen, 2009). This relationship with water management developed and transitioned over the years, from resistance and protection against water to the exploitation of water, to cooperation with water. This chapter will give a historical overview of water management in the Netherlands, based on the five identified phases of Kielen (2009) where the transitioning of policy characteristics are identified: (i) from the beginning era ‘flood policy’, (ii) during the middle ages ‘water quantity policy’, (iii) in the industrial revolution the focus was on sector-oriented water policy, (iv) from the 1980s there was an integrated water policy, and (v) from 1990 a transition happened to contextual interactive water policy (Fig. 2).

Figure 2: History of water management in the Netherlands illustrated by five identified phases by Kielen (2009)

2.1.1 Phase 1: Bronze age - flood policy During the late bronze age (c. 3200 – 600 BC.), inhabitants in the Netherlands settled in coastal areas on high grounds, like sea walls, to ensure safety from floods and food availability. These inhabitation locations are also known as ‘Flachsiedlung’, meaning habitation without a mound. (Jongmans, Van den Berg, Sonneveld, Peek & Van den Berg van Saparoea, 2013). Due to an increase of wetter periods, the unfavourable living conditions of the Flachsiedlung were replaced by mound habitation, known as ‘terpen’ (Jongmans et al., 2013). Around 500 BC, the Dutch started to build these terpen where they could live on permanently and retreat with their livestock during times of floods (Kielen, 2009; Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2006; Van Lier & Steiner, 1982). Between 300 AD and 600 AD, the population density decreased as communities fled the coastal areas due to extreme weather conditions. The sea level increased and flooded the salt marsh landscape including the terps. During this time, the drainage conditions were not optimal due to the absence of channel systems, leaving the region too wet for inhabitation and cultivation.

2.1.2 Phase 2: Middle ages – flood defences After a sharp decline in the Early Middle Ages (AD 500 – 1050), the population increased again during the High Middle Ages (AD 1000 – 1250), resulting in high demand for fertile land. The country reclaimed the coastal landscape and the wetlands by using shallow ditches for drainage, and modifying grasslands and forests for agricultural purposes (Jongmans et al., 2013; Kielen, 2009; TeBrake, 2002). The drainage of the peatlands caused the ground to settle and subside to the level of the Zuiderzee, making the grounds susceptible to flooding. The Dutch realized that ditches and watercourses were not enough to fight the threat of flooding and a different approach of flood management was needed (Kielen, 2009; Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2006; TeBrake, 2002).

An important step of landscape development in the Middle Ages was the introduction of quays and dikes in the 11th century (Jongmans et al., 2013). At the end of the 13th century, a complex system of dikes, sluices and dams was constructed in the Netherlands, that protected the land against flooding (TeBrake, 2002). The attention increased towards coordinating and monitoring the complex system of dikes and sluices, especially regarding construction and maintenance. Without a central authority, local communities founded hydraulic engineering institutions themselves that dealt with possible challenges and problems of the systems. In the 13th century, the first water boards were recognized by political authorities that enabled wate management on a national level. (Lazaroms & Poos, 2004; TeBrake, 2002; Van Lier & Steiner, 1982). The introduction of the windmill in 1409 made large scale land reclamations possible, enabling the drainage of bigger lakes (Kielen, 2009; Ravesteijn & Kroesen, 2007; Stuyfzand, 1995; Wolff, 1992).

2.1.3 Phase 3: Industrial revolution - large-scale engineering works In 1850, the industrial revolution advanced technological development in the Netherlands. In the 19th century, the steam engine was introduced, enabling the reclamation of bigger lakes, including the drainage of Lake Haarlem (Haarlemmermeer) in 1852 of 180km2 (Hoeksema, 2007; Kielen, 2009; Ravesteijn & Kroesen, 2007; Stuyfzand, 1995; Wolff, 1992). Due to the technical developments and innovations, more land could be recovered, and the agricultural sector was thriving (Stańczuk-Gałwiaczek, Sobolewska-Mikulska, Ritzema, & van Loon- Steensma, 2018). In the 20th century, the steam engines were replaced by diesel engines,

10 increasing their effectivity, and increasing large technological development (Kielen, 2009). The Zuiderzee flood in 1916, and the North Sea flood in 1953, resulted in great economic loss for the country. These events triggered a change in water management, after which the focus was placed on the fortification of the Dutch coastline to protect the land from the sea (Inman, 2010; van Koningsveld & Mulder, 2009). In Chapter 2.2, the history of the development of the primary flood defence, the Afsluitdijk, will be discusses in detail.

2.1.4 Phase 4: The emergence of integrated water policy During the 1950s and 1960s, the pollution of the rivers in the Netherlands increased due to the growth of urban and industrial development after the Second World War. In 1972, the pollution of the river Rhine was at its highest and the low oxygen levels of the water resulted in a decrease of flora and fauna (Timmerman, Beinat, Termeer, & Cofino, 2010). In the 1970s, a movement started regarding nature conservation and recreation. Ecology and habitat conservation became more important on the political agenda and management approaches evolved to adaptive management (van Koningsveld & Mulder, 2009). This led to the rise of an integrated approach to water management, where multiple aspects of water management were coordinated together, establishing the economic value of water while protecting and sustaining the ecology. Chapter 3 discusses the concept of integrated water management in detail.

2.1.5 Phase 5: contextual interactive water policy – adaptation policy The near floods of 1993, 1995 and 1998, raised the need for a new long-term policy regarding flood control. The Dutch government realised that safety was no longer improved by the construction of heavier grey infrastructure and concepts as ‘Room for the River’ were implemented, to not work against but with the water (Van Der Brugge, Rotmans, & Loorbach, 2005; Wolsink, 2006). When the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) in 2007 presented four climate scenarios, based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment, the awareness for the need to adapt to the effects of climate change increased (Kielen, 2009). The Delta committee argued that the rising sea level could no longer be ignored and that the Netherlands had to implement adaptive strategies to protect the next generations from disastrous flooding events (Deltacommissie, 2008; Haasnoot & Middelkoop, 2012). This last shift in water management, where integrated water management is supplemented with adaptive measures to cope with the effects of climate change, is the scope of this thesis.

2.2. History of the Afsluitdijk When the industrial revolution reached the Netherlands water management reached a new era, larger reclamations of land became possible and the fortification of the coastal line increased due to the build of primary flood defences, such as the Afsluitdijk. The construction of this flood defence was a lengthy process, mainly due to the difficulty of reaching consensus during the decision-making process regarding the closure of the Zuiderzee, which was reinforced by the uncertain political environment due to WWI, poverty and famine.

This chapter discusses the decision-making process of the construction of the Afsluitdijk, and the political scene at the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, starting by outlining the role of the Zuiderzee for the Netherlands. This is followed by a description of the first designs for the closure of the Zuiderzee. The founding of the Zuiderzee Association and consensus building is described next. Afterwards, the construction of the Afsluitdijk is explained, ending with addressing the consequences of the dike.

2.2.1 Rise of the Zuiderzee During the Middle Ages, the Zuiderzee became an important international trade spot due to its location. In the 14th century, Dutch cities such as Stavoren and Bolsward joined the Hanseatic League, which was a collaboration of traders from various European Cities (Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, 2014, 2017). The commercial fishing industry grew to a large-scale business and the Zuiderzee became of big economic importance. When the Dutch East India Company (VOC) was founded in 1602, international trade flourished. The Zuiderzee accommodated the homeports of the companies, which made it a European centre of world trade (Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, 2017; Van Lier & Steiner, 1982; van Popta, 2017).

Over the years, the Zuiderzee was silting up and new sailing routes from Amsterdam to the North Sea were needed, which resulted in the construction of the ‘Noord-Hollandsch Kanaal’ in 1824. The channel increased the number of multinational companies sailing the North Sea, threatening the share of Zuiderzee fishery, and making the Zuiderzee no longer the trading hub of the Netherlands. During this time, weather conditions worsened, and floods became more common, even though the Zuiderzee was already diked around in the 14th century. The economic value of the Zuiderzee decreased and could not compete with the costs of flooding any more, triggering the conversation of a possible reclamation of the Zuiderzee (Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, 2014, 2017; Van Lier & Steiner, 1982; van Popta, 2017).

2.2.2 Design for the closure and reclamation of the Zuiderzee The engineer Hendrik Stevin published the first plan for the damming and reclamation of the Zuiderzee in 1667. Though the plan was never considered to be plausible, as the Zuiderzee was 6700 km2, one hundred times bigger than the largest lake drained in the 17th century. The technology was not advanced enough during that time to dam the sea of 400.000 ha and the plan was not given any further attention (Hoeksema, 2007; Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, 2019; Van Lier & Steiner, 1982). However, large reclamations became possible during the industrial revolution due to the development of technology resulting in the invention of the steam engine, and the reclamation of the Zuiderzee rose to the agenda. During this period, the people believed in constant redevelopment and altering the landscape on a bigger

12 scale. This sparked the idea of making large reclamations technically possible and the discussion reopened again (Hoeksema, 2007; Hofstee, 1954; Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, 2017; Wolff, 1992).

A large variety of plans were presented in a period of 30 years. Appendix A describes five plans presented between 1848 and 1875. In these plans, engineers, shipbrokers, and mechanical inventors offered suggestions for increasing flood safety by partial reclamation of the Zuiderzee or by connecting the Wadden Islands and draining the whole Dutch part of the Wadden Sea and the Zuiderzee. The plans were supported with arguments regarding increasing freshwater lakes but also to gain extra land for agricultural use, as there was a need for fertile land due to the famine of 1877 (van der Wal, 1923b). Most of the plans were impracticable given the state of technology at that time; others were realistic but never implemented as there was a lack of political support (ter Veen, 1935; Verduin, 2011; Westerdijk, 1932).

2.2.3 The Zuiderzee Association After these multiple proposals Age Buma, member of the House of Representatives, went into discussion with engineer van Diggelen in 1885 to agree on the Zuiderzee question. They decided to present the issue to a broader public and to research the possibilities of a reclamation plan In 1886, the Zuiderzee Association (Zuiderzeevereniging) was established to conduct technical and financial research on the closure and reclamation of the Zuiderzee, the Wadden and the Lauwerzee (van der Wal, 1923b; Westerdijk, 1932). The first plan of action was to gather enough money to form a technical department and to increase the member rate. The numbers grew quickly and in October 1886 the board appointed Engineer of Rijkswaterstaat, J. van der Toorn, and civil- engineer, Cornelis Lely, as the leading engineers of the Zuiderzee Association (Hoeksema, 2007; van der Wal, 1923b; Westerdijk, 1932).

On behalf of the Zuiderzee Association, Cornelis Lely formed his first plan Figure 3: Plan Lely, 1891 (van der Wal, 1932) in 1891 for the reclamation of the Zuiderzee (Fig. 3). The main objective of Lely’s plan was to obtain more agricultural land, by closing the Zuiderzee with a dike, gaining yearly approximately 10,000 ha to a total of 232,000 ha in 32 years. The plan would cost ƒ 190,000,000 and included the construction of a dike that closed the Zuiderzee off from the Wadden Sea: The Afsluitdijk. The advantages of the construction of the Afsluitdijk, according to Lely, were to (i) increase safety, (ii) discharge water with the use of the sluices, and (iii) increase water changes, providing water quality improvement for the surrounding provinces. To gain land, five polders in total were to be reclaimed: Wieringermeer, North-East polder, South-West polder, South-East polder, and North-East polder (van der Wal, 1923b; Verduin, 2011). The plan was presented to Queen Emma and the Cabinet, resulting in the appointment of a committee to investigate the technical feasibility for the closure and the reclamation of the Zuiderzee, led by Cornelis Lely, the Minister of Water management, Trade, and Industry.

2.2.3.1 Zuiderzee Act Cornelis Lely was Minister of Water management, Trade, and Industry for three periods, and during these times he tried to put the closure of the Zuiderzee on the political agenda, without success. Two flood events were needed to start the ‘propaganda’ of Lely’s plans which showed the importance of the Zuiderzee’s closure and reclamation.

The First World War (WWI) broke out in 1914 and exposed the vulnerability of the Dutch food supply and how they depended on foreign countries. Due to food shortages and farm overpopulations, the need for fertile land increased (Janssen, 2015; van der Wal, 1923; Van Koningsveld et al., 2003; Van Lier & Steiner, 1982). During the First World War, another disaster struck the Netherlands, the Zuiderzee Flood of 1916. The flood damaged large parts of North Holland, exposing the deficient flood defences in the Netherlands (Deltacommissie, 2008; Geurts et al., 2007; Janssen, 2015; Rijkswaterstaat, 2013; Westerdijk, 1932; Wolff, 1992). These disasters, WW1 and the Zuiderzee flood, were necessary to emphasize the urgency for the closure of the Zuiderzee. Lely utilized these events to convince the people and government of the necessity of his plans regarding the reclamations and the build of the Afsluitdijk (Mansholt, 1916; Verduin, 2011).

The act for the Zuiderzee reclamation was proposed to the House of Representatives on 9 September 1916, including the following plans: (i) the closure of the Zuiderzee by the construction of the Afsluitdijk, (ii) reclaiming four parts of the Zuiderzee by creating polder in the North-West, South-West, South-East and North-East, and (iii) establishing the interests of the flood defences, drainage, and shipping (van der Wal, 1923b). The Zuiderzee Act was passed by the Dutch parliament on March 7th of 1918 to close off the Zuiderzee by building the Afsluitdijk of 32 km and reclaiming the 2300 km3 sea bottom, colonizing about 550.000 acres of land (Hofstee, 1954; van der Wal, 1923; Wolff, 1992). With the execution of the plan, there would be (i) an increase of security against floods, (ii) improvement on the control over water, (iii) regulation of the salinity level In the IJsselmeer, (iv) improvement of the communication between regions, (v) an increase in the food production and (vi) creating more farmland (Van Lier & Steiner, 1982).

2.2.4 Construction of the Afsluitdijk Based on the original plans of Cornelis Lely from 1891, the construction of the Afsluitdijk started 36 years later, in January 1927 (Hoeksema, 2007; Rijkswaterstaat, 2013). The project was completed five years later on the 28th of May 1932 after which the Zuiderzee officially became the IJsselmeer. The Afsluitdijk of 32 km, connecting the provinces of North-Holland and Friesland, was officially opened on September 25th 1933 (Hofstee, 1954; Rijkswaterstaat, 2013; Waterman, Misdorp, & Mol, 1998; Wolff, 1992).

The first polder created was the Wieringermeer, in the North-West of the Zuiderzee, which was already reclaimed before the construction of the Afsluitdijk. The dike that was built to create the polder was established between 1927 and 1929, and the Wieringermeer was finished in 1930, reclaiming 200 km2 of land with the use of 2 pumping stations (Hoeksema, 2007; Hofstee, 1954). The Noord-Oost polder was the second polder to be reclaimed in 1942 (Hoeksema, 2007; Hofstee, 1954). During the Second World War, in 1945, the Germans blew a gap in the dike of the Wieringermeer and the polder flooded again (Hofstee, 1954). The reclamation of the third polder, the Eastern Flevoland started in 1950 but was slowed down massively due to the flood in Zeeland in 1953, where the big machinery and technicians went

14 to help during the flood aftermath (Hofstee, 1954). In 1957 the third polder was reclaimed of 540 km2, and the Southern Flevoland of 64 km2 in 1968, connected by one dike making them a single polder; Flevoland (Hoeksema, 2007; Wolff, 1992). The Markerwaard was the fifth planned polder to be reclaimed in the Lely plan but was never realized. Proponents of the polder argued that it would yield agricultural land as well as urban and recreational development. Opponents emphasized the ecological value of the area as a freshwater lake. The government announced in 1991 that the reclamation of the Markerwaard was off the agenda to maintain the ecological value of the area (Hoeksema, 2007; Wolff, 1992).

2.2.5 Aftermath and consequences The closure of the Zuiderzee had consequences on ecological, economic, and social level. The aim to increase flood safety was achieved by the construction of the Afsluitdijk, as well as the increase of freshwater supply which the IJsselmeer provided. By the reclamation of the four polders, agricultural land was provided and food safety ensured. However, the effect of the closure on the ecosystem did not play a part in the decision-making process at that time, and some of the consequences were unexpected (LINKit consult & Wageningen Water Consult, 2012; Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, 2017).

The construction of the Afsluitdijk formed a hard separation between the Wadden Sea and IJsselmeer and the natural transition between salt and freshwater disappeared (de Leeuw, Dekker, & Buijse, 2008; Griffioen & Winter, 2017). The IJsselmeer gradually changed in two years to a brackish-freshwater lake (de Leeuw et al., 2008; PO IJsselmeer & Sportvisserij Nederland, 2011; Waterman et al., 1998). The formed barrier had a big impact on fish and many migratory species declined or even disappeared, leading to a decrease in fisheries (de Leeuw et al., 2008; Jansen, 1937; LINKit consult & Wageningen Water Consult, 2012; Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, 2014). Freshwater species increased over the years, replacing species like herring and anchovies for eel (de Leeuw et al., 2008; Griffioen et al., 2014; PO IJsselmeer & Sportvisserij Nederland, 2011; Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, 2017). Eel fishery expanded under the freshwater conditions during the 1930s and 1940s, resulting in an overexploiting of the stock in the 1950s (de Leeuw et al., 2008).

This chapter showed the changes in Dutch water management over the years. Water management transitioned from avoiding flooding by settling on high areas, to actively changing the landscape by the construction of dike systems and the reclamation of land. Often a change in water management was triggered by a (flood) disaster, as shown by the build of the Afsluitdijk as a result of the flood in 1916. The new paradigm of water management is focusing on working ahead of the disasters by implementing adaptive measures at flood defences to anticipate on future events due to climate change. This last shift in water management is researched using the concepts of IWRM and policy entrepreneurship, which will be introduced in the next chapter.

3 Conceptual Framework

This thesis aims to study the paradigm shift of water management in the Netherlands, in which the traditional flood management approach at the Afsluitdijk transitioned to an integrated approach of water management, supplemented with adaptive measures to cope with the effects of climate change. In this chapter the main concept of this study are explained.

The transition of water management is studied by analysing the policymaking process to understand whether and how policy change occurred at the Afsluitdijk, and to what extent IWRM is being implemented. To unravel the policy process, the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) from Kingdon (1984) is used, as the framework addresses the policymaking process by focussing on how and why an issue becomes included on the policy agenda, in this study the implementation of IWRM at the Afsluitdijk. The MSF is a known model used in various papers where the policy making process was studied, as it is applicable to a wide variety of policy fields (Kingdon, 1995; Rawat & Morris, 2016; Robinson & Eller, 2010). An important part of the MSF is the role of policy entrepreneurs in the policy making process. The concept of policy entrepreneurship is explored in this conceptual framework to understand the part policy entrepreneurs played in the policy transition towards IWRM at the Afsluitdijk. The conceptual framework is visualized in Figure 5.

First, the concept of IWRM is described. This is followed by the exploring of the Multiple Streams Framework by Kingdon (1984), describing the three streams (i.e., problem, policy and politics) needed for policy change and the so-called window of opportunity. Hereafter, a detailed explanation of policy entrepreneurship is given, on what their role is in the policy process and how they advocate for policy change by the implementation of strategies. 3.1 Integrated Water Resources Management The traditional approach of water management at the Afsluitdijk, focussed on providing flood safety, is transitioning towards a new policy in which other aspects of water management are integrated. Hereby a multifunctional flood structure is created, enhancing recreational purposes, providing chances for eco-tourism, sustainable energy and ecological development as implementing climate adaptation strategies. The concept of IWRM is researched as it forms a valuable approach for the coordination of water management fields.

The following paragraphs are analysing the concept of IWRM, starting with describing the history of the approach. Hereafter, the definitions of IWRM are explained, together with the corresponding objectives of the concept. 3.1.1 Emergence of IWRM The segregated traditional approach of water management focuses often on managing one function of a water body (i.e. water level) while paying little attention to the potential side effects. The environmentalist movement of the 1970s shed light on the importance of the ecological aspect of water management. The anthropogenic influence on water quality and ecology became more visible and environmental concern increased (Bijker, 2007; Disco, 2002; Kielen, 2009). This led to the need for different forms of water management (Gain et al., 2013). In the 1980s, the concept of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) was introduced, an approach which aims at regulating different water demanding sectors, while taking into account social, economic and environmental issues (Ludwig et al., 2014).

The push for the new integrated approach came in the 1990s, when a new period for water management occurred. The vision on water management changed as social and ecological issues of water management became more important (Kielen, 2009; Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2006). The international popularity of the concept increased when IWRM was codified in 1992 in the Dublin Principles at the International Conference on Water and the Environment (ICWE) and at in the same year at the Rio Summit (de Stefano, 2010; Gain et al., 2013; Giupponi & Gain, 2017; Ludwig et al., 2014; Savenije & Van der Zaag, 2008; Snellen & Schrevel, 2004). The international support continued to grow in 2000 when 113 countries adopted the Dublin principles of IWRM during the World Water Forum at the Hague, and in the same year the UN included IWRM as part of its Millennium development goals (de Stefano, 2010; Gain et al., 2013). In 2000, the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC) was introduced, whose principles enabled the tool of integrated management of river basins (IRBM) (Gain et al., 2013; Giupponi & Gain, 2017; Ravesteijn & Kroesen, 2007). 3.1.2 Defining and conceptualizing IWRM The Dublin Principles of the ICWE were of big importance for the development and elaboration of IWRM over the years. The four principles of IWRM emphasized (i) the role of water for the environment, (ii) the participatory approach of water management, (iii) the central role women play in managing water and (iv) the economic value of water (Pahl-wostl, Jeffrey, & Sendzimir, 2008; Snellen & Schrevel, 2004; Xie, 2006). These principles are the core of most scholars’ definition of IWRM.

An often-used description of IWRM is by Global Water Partnership (GWP, 2000), which defines IWRM as “…a process which promotes the co-ordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems.” (p. 22). Gain, Rouillard & Benson (2013) proposed 5 objectives of IWRM, based on the Dublin Principles. The 5 objectives of IWRM according to Gain, Rouillard & Benson (2013) are: (i) an integrated approach to water management, (ii) implemented on a specific scale (i.e. river basin), (iii) good governance, (iv) participation of multiple stakeholders and (v) equitable access for stakeholders and efficiency through demand management.

To analyse the water management transition at the Afsluitdijk and evaluate the implementation of IWRM at the renewal of the Afsluitdijk, three aspects will be highlighted; (i) integral management, (ii) adaptive management and (iii) the participation of multiple stakeholders. The three aspects are based on the set objectives for IWRM of Gain, Rouillaird & Benson (2013). The objective of the implementation of IWRM on a specific scale is the overall focus of the study as this study researches a case study, demarcating the study area as the Afsluitdijk, therefore not included in the above evaluated aspects.

This thesis researches a case study of a primary flood defence wherein flood control is the main component of the water management. These mainly grey structures are rigid and need to adapt for future events. The effects of climate change on sea level rise and water management provide a challenge for flood management and adaptive measures are needed to cope with future events. IPCC defines adaptive capacity as “the ability of a system to adjust to climate change (including climate variability and extremes) to moderate potential damages, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with the consequences.” (Parry, Canziani, Palutikof, Linden, & Hanson, 2007, p. 869).

The addition of adaptive measures at IWRM provides a change to adapt the climate change while establishing a coordinated management of the field of water bodies, addressing complexity and uncertainties in the future (Lankford, 2008).

3.2 The Multiple Streams Framework In 1995, John Kingdon published ‘Agendas, Alternatives and Public policies’, a book about policy formation based on his research on the government of the United States (Ackrill & Kay, 2011). Although his main focus was on the health and transport policy in the US, his findings of the process of policymaking became widely known. With his research, Kingdon concluded that policy forming seldom occurs gradually, but is in fact, subject to discontinuity, as the process depends on a fleeting moment, a window of opportunity, to establish an issue in the political agenda (Lorenzoni & Benson, 2014; Zohlnhöfer & Rüb, 2016).

Kingdon modified the Garbage Can Model (GCM) established by Cohen, March & Olsen (1972), which includes four streams: problems, solutions, participants and choice opportunities, directed to organizational decision making (Rawat & Morris, 2016; Robinson & Eller, 2010). Based on the GCM model, Kingdon developed his own: The Multiple Stream Framework (MSF). This framework explains why some issues make it into the policy agenda, whereas others do not make the cut (Rawat & Morris, 2016; Travis & Zahariadis, 2002; Yusuf, Neill, John, Ash, & Mahar, 2016). The MSF helps to grasp the decision-making process in politics and agenda-setting (Teisman, 2000; Zahariadis, 2016). Kingdon explored how ideas gain support through formal and informal routes (Mintrom & Norman, 2009). Since its publication, The Multiple Streams Framework has been a popular framework amongst various studies around the world, used for evaluating policy processes (Rawat & Morris, 2016; Robinson & Eller, 2010).

According to Kingdon (1984), two factors are of importance in agenda-setting: the active ‘participants’ and the ‘processes’ where issues are identified. The participants are the various actors involved in the policy-making process, ranging from the influential, ‘visible’ Prime Minister, to the not-so-visible bureaucrats (Keskitalo, Westerhoff, & Juhola, 2012; Kingdon, 1995; Rawat & Morris, 2016). Kingdon explains the policy formulation process by identifying three streams which develop and operate mainly independent of each other: the problem stream, policy stream and the politics stream (Owens, 2010; Rawat & Morris, 2016; Robinson & Eller, 2010; van Herk, Zevenbergen, Ashley, & Rijke, 2011), which are briefly outlined next.

3.2.1 Problem stream Issues become problems when people and/or policymakers recognize or interpret these as a problem for themselves or society (Maltby, 2013). Problems can be perceptions, opinions, conditions or issues which are defined as problems and require attention and demand a solution (Hermansen, 2015; Howlett, McConnell, & Perl, 2015; Lorenzoni & Benson, 2014; Yusuf et al., 2016).

According to Kingdon (1984), problems are brought to the attention of policymakers by three mechanisms: (i) indicators, (ii) events, and (iii) feedback- channels (Brunner, 2008; Keskitalo et al., 2012; Robinson & Eller, 2010; Travis & Zahariadis, 2002). Through monitoring and special studies, indicators emerge and can highlight the importance and the scale of a problem.

Dramatic events or crises, like floods or military coups, can get the attention of the public and policymakers in one moment, unlike the monitoring indicators. An important mechanism for policymakers Is feedback, received from evaluation studies, target groups and the media on what the consequences are of the current policies (Pralle, 2009; Travis & Zahariadis, 2002). If an issue arises by one of the three mechanisms, the status will change from a condition to a problem and will rise on the agenda (Keskitalo et al., 2012). Only a fraction of the problems is brought to the attention of policymakers and applicable to couple to a solution. The coupling has to be done swiftly or the moment will pass and the problems may fade from the agenda (Cairney & Jones, 2016). This may occur due to budget deficiency, too little awareness for the problem, failure to solve the problem or the feeling that the issue already has been addressed (Kingdon, 1995).

In this study, the problem stream is researched by the mapping of the stakeholders. Interviews were conducted to unravel the incentive of participation and identification of the problem perception of the stakeholder regarding the Afsluitdijk. 3.2.2 Policy stream In the second stream, ideas for potential solutions float around in the ‘policy primaeval soup’. These ideas are generated by a policy community of specialists, including academics, researchers, advocates and interest groups, who share a common concern in a single policy area (Howlett et al., 2015; Kingdon, 1995; Travis & Zahariadis, 2002). In the soup, proposals for policies are then forwarded by ‘policy entrepreneurs’, who are actors that are willing to invest time and money for future rewards and are key for the survival of an idea (Brunner, 2008). The entrepreneurs propose, test, combine and transform the proposals, also known as ‘softening up’, but not all ideas survive (Travis & Zahariadis, 2002; Zahariadis, 2016; Zohlnhöfer & Rüb, 2016). The proposals have to meet the policy community criteria; be financially feasible, technically feasible, within the budget restraints and have value for both the public as the policy community itself to survive in the policy stream (Brunner, 2008; Keskitalo et al., 2012; Lorenzoni & Benson, 2014; Pralle, 2009). By the process of natural selection, only a few ideas float to the top of the soup and gain acceptance by the policy community, while most will disappear off the agenda as focusing events redirect the attention of policymakers (Brunner, 2008; Kingdon, 1995; Robinson & Eller, 2010; Zahariadis, 2016).

The policy stream is identified by researching the legislation, regulation and reports regarding the renewal of the Afsluitdijk in the time period of 2006-2018. Potential solutions to solve perceived problem are steered by these regulations. 3.2.3 Politics stream In the politics stream, the status of the agenda is determined by policymakers as they have the opportunity and motive to turn a solution into a policy (Brunner, 2008; Cairney & Jones, 2016). This depends on political factors that affect the agendas including the national mood, organised political forces and power shifts. The national mood is mainly sensed by the use of public opinion polls, as it gives the government insight in which problems and solutions are popular amongst the public (Kingdon, 1995; Pralle, 2009). The organized political forces include interest groups and parties, who can promote certain issues, or exert force on proposals that threaten their interests (Keskitalo et al., 2012; Yusuf et al., 2016). Through administrative and legislative turnover, elections or a change in staff, a shift in power within the government is caused which has a big impact on politics (Howlett et al., 2015; Travis & Zahariadis, 2002). A change in power will translate in a change in policy, as new participants

19 are introduced, providing new motives and opportunities (Cairney & Jones, 2016; Robinson & Eller, 2010).

This study researches the national mood regarding the renewal of the Afsluitdijk regarding adaptive measures and IWRM. The national mood is identified by the interviewed stakeholders’ perception of new forms of water management as well as the government’s response to the increase of knowledge on climate change via the enforcement of new management strategies for flood defences.

3.2.4 Window of opportunity When a problem is established, a solution is set and the political climate is correct for taking action on it, the three streams collide (Kingdon, 1995; Yusuf et al., 2016). When this ‘coupling’ happens, the chance of establishing an issue in the political agenda may increase, and this is called a ‘window of opportunity’ (Fig. 5) (Maltby, 2013; Travis & Zahariadis, 2002). These windows occur by compelling events or problems, and are only of short duration and therefore called as ‘fleeting opportunities’ by Kingdon (Travis & Zahariadis, 2002; Yusuf et al., 2016). The coupling of these three streams leads to agenda formulation and agenda implementation (Fowler, 2019). Policy entrepreneurs are necessary for the coupling of the streams, as they possess the needed power and qualities to prioritize proposals on the agenda (Fowler, 2019; Rawat & Morris, 2016).

The vague definition of policy entrepreneurs is often stated as a shortcoming of the MSF, as Kingdon does not identify how and why certain actors can become a policy entrepreneur. Kingdon explains that these actors are motivated to address problems, because of incentives and future gains, but Kingdon’s explanation lacks clarification on how policy entrepreneur’s attention is grasped in the first place (Bundgaard & Vrangbæk, 2007; Goldfinch & ’T Hart, 2003; Hermansen, 2015; Rawat & Morris, 2016).

The next paragraph explores the concept of policy entrepreneurship further and explains how these shortcomings on the concept have been addressed by other scholars., as well as how policy entrepreneurship is applied in this study.

3.3 Policy entrepreneurship Since Kingdon’s original framework (1984), many studies bowed over the theory of policy change and the actors responsible for this change (Boasson & Huitema, 2017; Gunn, 2017). Scholars explored the theory as well as adapted the concept of policy entrepreneurship (Aviram, Cohen, & Beeri, 2020; Edler & James, 2015; Hu, Lin, Yeh, He, & Liu, 2020; Mintrom & Norman, 2009; Zhu, 2008). There is growing attention for the understanding of these entrepreneurs on why and how they affect the policy process (Hu et al., 2020; Mintrom, 2019).

The following section explores the concept of policy entrepreneurship, starting with the definitions of policy entrepreneurs and how these differ from other actors. Afterwards, the importance of the policy context and location of policy entrepreneurs is highlighted. The last paragraph sheds light on the needed skillset for policy entrepreneurship, explaining the value of skills, attributes and strategies for policy entrepreneur to achieve policy change.

3.3.1 Defining policy entrepreneurs. Kingdon (1995) defines policy entrepreneurs as “…individuals willing to invest “time, energy, reputation, money-to promote a position for anticipated future gain in the form of material, purposive or solidary benefits” (p. 179). These future gains can be sorted into three categories, the promotion of (i) personal gains, (ii) specific values in a policy or the solving of public problems and (iii) the enjoyment of the policy ‘game’ itself (Aviram et al., 2020; Brasil & Capella, 2017). Mintrom (1997) stresses the fact that policy entrepreneurs are actors “..who seek to initiate dynamic policy change” (p. 739). The actors who influence the process significantly to policy change are called ‘policy entrepreneurs’ (Crow, 2013). They distinguish themselves by their desire and readiness to actively change the current situation, revealing themselves by their efforts in transforming policy ideas into policy innovation (Gunn, 2017; Mintrom, 2019; Mintrom & Norman, 2009). Key to their entrepreneurship is that they promote and influence policy change (Crow, 2013).

To analyse policy entrepreneurship in this thesis, policy entrepreneurs are identified as ‘individuals who actively promote and influence policy change, by their involvement in the decision-making process and successful implementation of strategies’.

3.3.1.1 Policy context Green (2017) emphasizes the importance of the policy context in the policy entrepreneurship, which includes (i) the level of governance, (ii) the occurrence of rules or laws and (iii) the presence of other like-minded organisations. The position of the policy entrepreneur, influenced by the three dimensions stated above, can affect the access to power and resources, and therefore their success in policy change (see Fig. 4) (Boasson & Huitema, 2017; Gunn, 2017; Huitema, Lebel, & Meijerink, 2011).

Ackrill et al. (2013) argue that entrepreneurship can be understood “…as a general label for a set of behaviours in the policy process, rather than a permanent characteristic of an individual or a particular role” (p.882), therefore, the policy entrepreneurs can be found anywhere in the policy community. Policy entrepreneurship happens at multiple levels of governance, from local politics to international politics, by actors with a wide range of backgrounds (Gunn, 2017). As argued by many scholars, policy entrepreneurs can be located within the government, individuals who are seeking change as bureaucrats or politicians, and outside the government in the form of academics, representatives of non-governmental organizations as well as citizens (Aviram et al., 2020; Brasil & Capella, 2017; Crow, 2013; Gunn, 2017; Meijerink & Huitema, 2010). Based on the motivations of policy entrepreneurs for policy change, Crow (2013) determined three categories; (i) the personally interested citizen entrepreneur, (ii) the professionally interested expert entrepreneur and (iii) the elected entrepreneur who is professionally interested. Policy entrepreneurs can be a single person or formed by a collective group. Individual policy entrepreneurs need to have good networking skills to achieve change on their own. Collective entrepreneurship has an advantage due to the building of a coalition where skills and capacities are combined from people from different positions, enlarging the change of successful implementation of strategies and policy change (Meijerink & Huitema, 2010). In this thesis a coalition of regional and local governmental authorities is identified as a policy entrepreneur.

(strategies) POLICY CONTEXT POLICY ENTREPRENEUR POLICY OUTCOME (varies by e.g. level of (varies by resources, targets) governance, existing rules)

Figure 4: Causal model of entrepreneurship (Green, 2017)

3.3.2 The skillset Kingdon (1995) states that policy entrepreneurs rely on their resources, e.g. in the form of time, energy and reputation, to couple the three streams together (Ackrill et al., 2013). Policy entrepreneurs are skilful actors who use these resources to implement strategies, to promote and sell their ideas and (thereby) establish policy change (Crow, 2013; Green, 2017; Mintrom & Vergari, 1996). Studies about policy entrepreneurship differ in their definition of the various variables these entrepreneurs need to effect policy change, and often these concepts are used intertwined. (Edler & James, 2015). The study of Mintrom (2019) is used in this thesis as a guideline in understanding and categorizing the different concepts regarding policy entrepreneurs. According to Mintrom (2019), “Strategies can only be effectively deployed by people possessing specific attributes and skills” (p.308). These attributes can be nurtured over time, enabling the achievement of specific skills. The following paragraphs will highlight the attributes, skills and strategies which are searched for in the actor’s skillset, to determine policy entrepreneurship in this thesis.

3.3.2.1 Attributes and Skills The attributes that are relevant in this thesis are social acuity and credibility. Social acuity entails the perceptiveness of other actors and their surroundings. The attribute requires actors to have knowledge of the policy issue and process to identify windows of opportunities, and is key for expanding networks and to build coalitions (Aviram et al., 2020; Gunn, 2017; Mintrom & Norman, 2009). Next to social acuity, the attribute of credibility will be focused on. Policy entrepreneurs need to be deemed credible to develop relations and establish their status in the political field. Credibility is an important attribute to hold a particular position around the government and can be achieved by past achievements or having an expertise in a particular field (Mintrom, 2019). (Aviram et al., 2020; Brasil & Capella, 2017; Gunn, 2017; King & Roberts, 1992; Kingdon, 1995; Mintrom, 2019).

The attributes of social acuity and credibility enhance the skills of negotiation and networking. The skill to negotiate includes the power to persuade: “the ability to form a policy narrative and persuasive argumentation” (Aviram, Cohen & Beeri, 2020, p. 41). The skill is useful for policy entrepreneurs to build support and influence policy change (Aviram et al., 2020). Networking is an important skill as collective entrepreneurship is often successful (Huitema et al., 2011). Policy entrepreneurs gain knowledge of different problem perceptions by connecting with other actors. Acquiring and sharing this knowledge, helps to build coalitions and improve the chance of policy change. (Gunn, 2017; Jarvis & He, 2020; Mintrom, 2019).

3.3.2.2 Strategies Green (2017) argues that entrepreneurs are defined by their choice of strategies. Policy entrepreneurs develop strategies to push their proposals on the political agenda. The ability of deploying these strategies is affected by the possession of the already noted skillset (Mintrom, 2019). In the literature, various strategies can be found which policy entrepreneurs implement.

Three strategies are highlighted as they are often used and most applicable to this study: ‘problem framing’, opportunities’, ‘coalition building’ and ‘recognizing and exploiting windows of opportunity’.

How problems are identified and framed determines what kind of people will pay attention to the highlighted issue (Aviram et al., 2020; Brouwer & Biermann, 2011; Meijerink & Huitema, 2010; Mintrom, 2019). Problem framing which is important for agenda-setting and can shape people’s perception of the issue. Policy entrepreneurs make strategically use of highlighting failing policies or current crises to create a narrative and promote possible solutions (Faling, 2019; He & Ma, 2020; Mintrom, 2019).

Policy entrepreneurs build coalitions to accomplish their objectives and promote policy change (Brouwer & Biermann, 2011; Huitema et al., 2011; Mintrom & Norman, 2009). This linking strategy uses the entrepreneurs’ social acuity and networking skills to form bonds with actors to gain support for their proposal (Brouwer & Biermann, 2011; Green, 2017; Huitema et al., 2011; Mintrom, 2019). These coalitions can be formed with actors from the same disciplinary background or a strategic coalition where the policy beliefs are not aligned and they dependent on each other to achieve their objectives (Huitema et al., 2011). Policy entrepreneurs who operate in groups have often more success in policy change due to their access to resources, knowledge and political influence (Crow, 2013).

Policy entrepreneurs need a ‘chance’ to launch and gain support for their policy proposals (Huitema & Meijerink, 2010). Window of opportunities provide these openings, for policy entrepreneur to link their proposals to problems and enable policy change (Gunn, 2017; Huitema & Meijerink, 2010). The key challenge for policy entrepreneurs is to recognize and exploit windows of opportunities, and take advantage of these moments before they are over (Goldfinch & ’T Hart, 2003; Huitema & Meijerink, 2010).

PROBLEM STREAM POLICY STREAM POLITICS STREAM

POLICY ENTREPRENEURS

Attributes: Skills: Strategies: • social acuity • networking • problem f raming • credibility • negotiating • coaltion building • exploiting windows of oppurtunities policy context policy

POLICY AGENDA SETTING

Traditional approach Integrated Water Resource flood management Management (IWRM)

ECOLOGY SAFETY SAFETY ECONOMY (adaptive measures) ENERGY policy outcome policy

Figure 5: Conceptual framework of the agenda-setting of IWRM at the Afsluitdijk

4 Methodology

This chapter describes the methodology used for this thesis, how the study was set up and carried out. First, the research design of this thesis is discussed followed by the forms and methods of data collection. Then the analysis of the collected data is described. Finally, the previously presented conceptual framework (Ch. 3) is operationalised for this study. 4.1 Research design 4.1.1 Qualitative research This study followed a qualitative research approach to comprehend the policy process at the renewal of the Afsluitdijk. The main aim of qualitative research according to Kumar (2014) is “… to understand, explain, explore, discover and clarify situations, feelings, perceptions, attitudes, values, beliefs and experiences of a group of people” (p.132). Since the goal is to understand the role of policy entrepreneurs in the policy transition at the Afsluitdijk, the qualitative approach is suitable for this study.

4.1.2 Single case study To understand the role of policy entrepreneurs in the agenda-setting of IWRM as a flood defence management approach, this research is focussing on the decision-making process of the Afsluitdijk. A single case study is performed of the renewal of the Afsluitdijk, a primary flood defence in the North of the Netherlands. Yin (2002) defines a case study as: “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (p. 13). A single case study can “provide insight into an event” (Kumar, 2014, p. 155), and in this research, an in-depth understanding of the policy process and policy implementation at the Afsluitdijk.

The Afsluitdijk was chosen as a case study as it is an important water management structure in the Netherlands, representing a major landmark of Dutch history. Because of the low elevation of the Netherlands, the dike is crucial to protect the land from flooding, and the effects of climate change on sea-level rise and weather conditions are increasing the flood defence’s importance. Not only does the Afsluitdijk provide flood safety from the Wadden Sea, but it is also used as a causeway, as it connects the provinces of North-Hollands and Friesland. The dike was built to reclaim land and protect the land from floods. Almost 100 years later, the renewal of the Afsluitdijk is taking place to increase safety by implementing adaptive measures (regarding climate change) as ensuring conditions for regional development in the field of ecological, economic and energy. (Rijkswaterstaat, 2015)

4.2 Data collection The data collection methods consisted of in-depth semi-structured interviews and literature research. 4.2.1 Primary data: interviews – semi-structured As a primary data source, interviews were conducted with actors involved in the renewal of the Afsluitdijk to understand the role of policy entrepreneurs in the transition of traditional water management towards an integrated approach at the Afsluitdijk. The structure is managed and maintained on a national, provincial and local level. Stakeholders are involved with their own

25 ambitions and agenda, focussing on policymaking, water safety, economic development, ecological development and conducting sustainable energy. The main goal of the interviews was to unravel the actors’ part in the policy process of the Afsluitdijk, by clarifying their problem perception, proposed solutions and ambition for a change in water management.

Actors were found and contacted via the websites of De Nieuwe Afsluitdijk and Rijkswaterstaat. The contacted actors are part of various sectors: actors within the government, NGOs, and private businesses. Governmental actors were essential interviewees in this study as they are the driving force behind the renewal of the Afsluitdijk. They have access to many social and political resources and have a good understanding of the policy context. Both state and regional governmental actors were approached. NGOs are important in this case as they have valuable insight into the policy process, as participants and observants. Especially nature organisations were approached given the ecological concern and ambition for the Afsluitdijk. Private businesses are part of the Afsluitdijk concerning economical and sustainable energy development.

In total, 8 stakeholders were interviewed from various levels of governance, both within and outside the government. The interviewed stakeholders included Rijkswaterstaat, Deltacommissaris, ‘De Nieuwe Afsluitdijk, Coalition Blauwe Hart Natuurlijk, the Waddenvereniging, Province Friesland, Windpark Friesland and build consortia Levvel (see table 1). The interviews were conducted in a semi-structured manner. This approach follows “…a general script and covers a list of topics” (Bernard, 2011, p.156) and provides room to explore new leads (Bernard, 2011).

On forehand, an interview guide was constructed and sent to all the interviewees. This guide contained open-ended questions based on the key concepts of the conceptual framework, which can be found in Appendix B. The questions focussed on understanding the actors’ role within the project, their incentives for participating, the collaboration and cooperation between stakeholders and their opinion about the policy change and implementation of the IWRM at the Afsluitdijk. Questions were altered per actor to fit their function regarding their company and role within the project. The first interview was conducted on December the 17th 2020 and the last on January the 15th of 20201. The interviews were all conducted in Dutch, via telephone or Microsoft teams (30-60 min calls), and recorded with verbal permission of the respondent. Before data analysis, the data was processed by fully transcribing the conducted interviews. All the interviewees received a copy of the transcript form them to review.

Table 1: Overview of the interviewed stakeholders at the Afsluitdijk

Date Organisation Function Level of Focus interviewee interviewee governance 1 17/12/2020 Windpark Friesland Head engineer Regional & Energy Local 2 18/12/2020 Waddenvereniging Marine biologist Regional Ecology and project leader VMR 3 22/12/2020 Province Friesland Project manager Regional Ecology, VMR Economy & Energy 4 11/01/2021 Coalition Blauwe Hart Manager Regional & Ecology Natuurlijk Local 5 13/01/2021 De Nieuwe Afsluitdijk Program manager Regional Safety, (DNA) Economy, Ecology & Energy 6 13/12/2021 Levvel Engagement Regional & Safety manager Local 7 14/01/2021 Rijkswaterstaat (RWS) Engagement National Safety manager 8 19/01/2021 Deltacommissaris Financial/Economic National Safety & Consultant and Economy Deputy Director of the Staff

4.2.2 Secondary data The secondary data collection was based on literature gathering including (i) scientific articles, (ii) reports and publications from the European Commission, (iii) reports and publications from the Dutch Government, (iv) reports from NGO’s, (v) websites of state and regional government and (vi) newspapers and online press releases. The data was collected via online searches using the snowball technique. Scientific articles were gathered using databases like Scopus, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect and JSTOR. Keywords used in this search included ‘flood- management’, ‘Afsluitdijk’, ‘policy change’, ‘IWRM’, ‘EBA’, ‘sustainable flood policy’. Literature research was used to gain knowledge of the case study area, flood management in the Netherlands and the decision-making process of the renewal of the Afsluitdijk.

4.3 Data Analysis The chosen method for analysing the collected data was a thematic analysis, which is a helpful method for “…for identifying, analysing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p.79). The thematic analysis provides a useful and flexible tool for organizing and describing the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). It enables to find themes and patterns in the collected data, regarding the stakeholders’ role and ambitions in the policy transition of the renewal of the Afsluitdijk and a detailed understanding of the decision-making process. This research followed the 6 phases set by Braun & Clarke (2006) to perform the thematic analysis:

(i) Familiarizing with the data (ii) initial coding, (iii) exploring the themes, (iv) reviewing the themes, (v) defining the themes, (vi) reporting the findings. 4.3.1 Coding To analyse the transcripts, descriptive coding was used to discover themes in the text as “coding turns free-flowing texts into a set of nominal variables” (Bernard, 2011, p. 429). Both deductive as inductive coding was applied. The combination of deductive and inductive coding provides a flexible approach for data analysis, testing theories as well as developing new ones. Deductive coding is a top-down approach where the hypotheses are set beforehand, analysing the text using pre-established themes (Bernard, 2011). Inductive coding, also known as ‘open coding’, Is a bottom-up approach that allows “…understanding to emerge from close study of the texts” (Bernard, 2011, p. 430). This method allows you to discover themes and concepts by looking at the text. Coding the transcripts was iterative, i.e., the creation, reviewing and adaptation of the codes and themes was a repetitive process.

The coding started as deductive based on the concepts derived from the conceptual framework, focussing on the three streams and the window of opportunity of the MSF (Kingdon, 1984). But as the coding process was iterative, new themes were discovered (e.g. policy entrepreneurship), and the coding became also inductive. The research questions covering possible policy entrepreneurship and the used strategies were created because of this inductive coding process. An example of the coding process can be found in Appendix C. 4.3.2 Operationalization In the conceptual framework, the main concepts of this study are identified. For the analysis of the data, the main concepts used in this study are operationalized in Table 2.

The three streams of Kingdon (1984) are part of the policy context, as they create and determine the circumstances for policy entrepreneurs to act in. Policy entrepreneurs will be identified by their success of the implementation of strategies (see Table 2). The policy outcome of this study will be assessed by the extent to which IWRM is implemented at the Afsluitdijk, based on the integral and adaptive aspect of management, and the presence of a participatory process.

Table 2: Operationalization of the conceptual framework

Main concepts Operationalization Data collection

Policy context Level of governance, actors, mapping Interviews and stakeholders during time period of 2006 - secondary data 2018 Problem Presence of an event or issue that can be stream perceived by actors as a problem for water management. Actors Mapping the involved stakeholders at de decision-making process of the Afsluitdijk. Multi-level Management from different levels of the governance government (international, supranational, national, regional, local). Policy Presence of proposals for a new approach of stream water management. Legislation Presence of legislation and regulation and regarding water management, within the time regulation period of 2006 – 2018. Politics National mood regarding integrative, adaptive stream water management. Window of An opportunity to chance the policy paradigm Opportunity in water management Policy Actors who were involved in the decision- Interviews entrepreneurs making process and achieved policy change by the successful implementation of strategies. Strategies Coalition Collaboration between actors with shared building policy matters/desired outcome and pooling of resources to achieve common goals. Problem Actively framing a problem by creating a framing narrative in reports/publications. Recognizing Forming and promoting solutions to their and perceived problem. exploiting windows of opportunity Skills Negotiating Achieving a position in the decision-making process to implement their proposals. Networking Participation in interactions with other stakeholders (stakeholder meetings). Attributes Credibility Holding particular position within or around the government / narrative / past achievements / expertise in a particular field (Mintrom, 2019).

Social acuity Knowledge of the policy issue and policy process. Knowledge of regional needs regarding water management. Policy outcome IWRM Implementation of integral and adaptive Interviews and management, formed by a participatory secondary data process. Integral Coordinated management of the different management functions of water (economical, water quality, ecological, spatial quality). Adaptive Integrating of adaptive measures which management anticipate on future flood events. Participatory Involvement of actors in the decision-making process process.

5 Results

In the conceptual framework, the relation between the policy context, the policy entrepreneur and the corresponding outcome is explained, forming the structure of this chapter. The policy context establishes the ‘rules’ of the game in which policy entrepreneurs search for windows of opportunities to achieve policy change. To understand the change of water management at the Afsluitdijk, it is important to research who is responsible for the policy change and to what policy outcome this has led.

First, the policy context is studied by mapping the stakeholders involved in the policy-making, followed by the determination of the level of governance at which the policy entrepreneurs operate at. In this paragraph the problem, policy and politics stream are identified, which enables the identification of the window of opportunity for policy change at the Afsluitdijk. Next, the policy entrepreneur of this case study is analysed based on their implemented strategies and skills. The final paragraph discusses the policy outcome which influenced by the involvement of the policy entrepreneur in the decision-making process. The realised and planned projects are elaborated on per ‘track’, which includes safety, energy, economic and ecological development. As interviews were conducted with actors involved in the renewal of the Afsluitdijk, the findings are supported by quotes to emphasize the actors’ perspective on the project’s decision-making and policy outcome.

5.1 Policy context draft The policy context of the Afsluitdijk is analysed by applying the three streams of Kingdon’s MSF (1984). This is done by mapping the stakeholders involved in the decision-making process, identifying the level of governance and researching the occurrence of legislation and regulation between the period of 2006 and 2018 at the Afsluitdijk.

5.1.1 Problem stream In this study, the problem stream is operationalised as the ‘presence of an event or issue that can be perceived by actors as a problem for water management.‘. The actors who participated in the decision-making process are mapped in the following paragraphs (see Fig. 1), identifying their problem perception regarding the Afsluitdijk.

5.1.1.1 Actors at the national level At the government level, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate policy and the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality are the stakeholders who are involved in the decision-making process of water management structures in the Netherlands. The ministers are responsible for the development and implementation of legislation. Rijkswaterstaat is the executive agency of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, and responsible for the management of the main public infrastructures in the Netherlands. Rijkswaterstaat is the main actor of the renewal of the Afsluitdijk and responsible for the construction, management and maintenance of the structure. Rijkswaterstaat perceives the safety issue, which was shown in the second safety assessment, as the problem of the Afsluitdijk. Due to the uncertain future of climate change, Rijkswaterstaat is performing a major reinforcement (Rijkswaterstaat, 2015).

For the reinforcement of the dike, Rijkswaterstaat hired Levvel, a construction consortium consisting of Van Oor, BAM and Rebel. A DBFM-contract was signed, which means that Levvel is responsible for the design, build, finance, and management of the project for the next 25 years (Interview Levvel, 13/01/2021).

5.1.1.2 Actors at the regional and local level At the regional land local level, the governmental authorities of the provinces of Noord-Holland and Fryslân, and the municipalities of Hollands Kroon and Súdwest-Fryslân are involved, as the Afsluitdijk provides the connection via the highway A7 between the two provinces. These governmental actors benefit from the renewal of the Afsluitdijk, as it provides shelter from flooding to their regions.

The Coalition ‘Blauwe Hart Natuurlijk’, a partnership between various nature organisations and fishers’ associations, is devoted to establishing a strong Ijsselmeer area. They are an active stakeholder in the (decision-making process) project and advocate for ecological and sustainable development of the Afsluitdijk regarding the Ijsselmeer (Interview Blauwe Hart, 04/01/2021). At the North-side of the Afsluitdijk, the Wadden sea provides a unique habitat for flora and fauna. The Wadden Association (De Waddenvereniging) is committed to safeguarding the flora and fauna of the Wadden Sea. Both actors consider the construction of the Afsluitdijk as an ecological disaster, work together in the workgroup ‘Natuur Afsluitdijk’ (with It Fryske Gea, Sportvisserij Nederland and netVISwerk) and initiated the fish migration river (Interview Blauwe Hart, 04/021/2021; Interview Waddenvereniging, 18/12/2020).

The three mechanisms that bring problems to the attention of policymakers are events, feedback channels and indicators (Brunner, 2008). The latter was the case in this study. The second safety assessment of Afsluitdijk, as prescribed in the Water Act (art 2.2.), assessed the primary defence as ‘not safe’. The safety assessment was the indicator that brought the problem, the insufficient safety of the Afsluitdijk, to the attention of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, whereafter the Government decided to renew and reinforce the Afsluitdijk. The province of Fryslan and the environmental organizations Waddenvereniging and Blauwe Hart, perceive the problem as the lack of nature development at the Afsluitdijk, especially the fish migration possibilities as the dike forms a barrier between the Wadden Sea and IJsselmeer (Table 3).

Figure 6: Stakeholder mapping of the Afsluitdijk

5.1.2 Policy stream In the policy stream, ideas float around in the ‘policy primaeval soup’, waiting to be coupled to problems (Kingdon, 1984). To analyse the policy stream in this case study, the concept is operationalized as the ‘presence of proposals for a new approach of water management’. The following paragraphs, organized to the levels of governance, discuss the legislation, regulations and reports of importance of the renewal the Afsluitdijk, to assess the drive for integrated approaches of water management. An overview of the main documents, reports, implementation plans and structural visions, between the period of 2006-2018, regarding the renewal of the Afsluitdijk, is given in Figure 7.

5.1.2.1 Legislation and regulation on the supra-national level The European Commission monitors the correct application of European legislation, influencing Dutch legislation and affecting the renewal of the Afsluitdijk from the top of the chain. This paragraph describes the relevant legislation the activities of the renewal of the Afsluitdijk.

The Afsluitdijk is surrounded by two water bodies, the Wadden Sea and the Ijsselmeer, which are under European protection by the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC). The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC) was introduced in 2000 for “the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater…”. WFD final objective is to achieve a good ecological quality status for all water bodies by 2015, with a final deadline in 2027 (Borja et al., 2006; Boyes & Elliott, 2014; Giakoumis & Voulvoulis, 2018).

Complementary to the WFD, the European Floods Directive (FD) (2007/60/EC) was introduced

33 in 2007, aiming to manage flood risk by reducing the negative effects on the environment, cultural heritage, the economy and human health. The directive requires member states to do a three-step assessment: (i) a preliminary risk assessment of the situation, (i) mapping flood hazard and risks (iii) conducting flood risk management plans, keeping all sorts of floods in consideration (e.g., coastal floods, storm surges, urban flooding) (Dráb & Říha, 2010; Eleftheriadou, Giannopoulou, & Yannopoulos, 2015; Tsakiris, Nalbantis, & Pistrika, 2009). The Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) is integrated into the Dutch Water act (Slomp, 2012).

The European Directive (2009/28/EC) compels the Netherlands to have 14% of the total energy consumption in the country, be from renewable sources. This directive prescribes the Afsluitdijk project to integrate sustainable energy initiatives in their policy. At the Paris Agreement of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2016 arrangements were made to reduce the effects of climate change. This led to the ambition to make the Afsluitdijk ‘energy-neutral, meaning that renewable energy must be generated to cover the amount used for the construction and management of the dike. For wind energy, there was no room and support along the Afsluitdijk resulting in various plans for the generation of solar energy (Rijkswaterstaat, 2017b).

The European Bird and Habitat Directives (79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC) are important parts of European environmental law and include area protection and species protection. The areas protected by these two directives are part of the Natura 2000 network, areas of importance for conservation. The Afsluitdijk lies between two Natura 2000 sites, the Wadden Sea and the Ijsselmeer, two areas of big ecological importance for the Netherlands (Rijkswaterstaat, 2009, 2017a). The effects of the renewal of the Afsluitdijk and the final project are monitored regarding ecology to keep the ‘integrity’ of a Natura 2000 site. According to Rijkswaterstaat ( 2013), the renovation project could bring negative effects on protected flora and fauna species, meaning a change in the quality of habitat types and habitat species as well as changes in the morpho-dynamics of the area. The quality of habitats may change by the shift in current and water outlet (Kistenkas, 2012; Rijkswaterstaat, 2009, 2013, 2017; Vikolainen, Bressers, & Lulofs, 2012; Witteveen+Bos, 2013). Impact assessments were performed to predict the possible effects of the construction work on the environment. Actions to limit the effects were taken before the construction phase, e.g., measures were taken to prevent birds from breeding near the working locations (Rijkswaterstaat, 2013). The expected effects on nature because of the renewal project are limited for the Ijsselmeer. At the Wadden sea, seals could be disturbed by the noise of the construction, and due to the changes in freshwater pulses, protected habitat types could be disturbed. Though, the effects on the conservation objectives of the seals and habitat types are not expected to be significantly negatively. Alternative measures were offered, as working outside the seal breeding season, to limit possible negative effects. However, no alternative had only neutral or positive effects on other issues (Rijkswaterstaat, 2013).

5.1.2.2 Legislation and regulation on the national level The Water Act (2009) aims at the integrated management of water systems by three objectives: (i) the prevention or limitation of flooding, (ii) the protection and improvement of the chemical and ecological qualities of water systems and (iii) the fulfilling the social functions of water systems. Nine acts surrounding water management were merged into the Water Act, including the former Flood Defence Act which stated that the primary flood defences should be assessed every five years on whether they comply with the legal standards. In 2006 the

34 report of the second safety assessment was published and reported that the Afsluitdijk did not meet the standard and therefore considered ‘not safe’ (De Nieuwe Afsluitdijk, 2016; Inspectie Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2006). The Afsluitdijk has to withstand flooding with a probability of 1:10 000 per year, but currently, the ratio is 1:3000. As reported in the safety assessment, the Afsluitdijk has an insufficient crown height, strength of the stone and grass coverings as well as an insufficient strength and reliability of engineering structures (Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2007a; Rijkswaterstaat, 2011, 2013).

The Water Vision of 2007 highlighted the key subjects of the new approach of water management in the Netherlands, focusing on adapting and mitigating the effect of climate change, to establish coherence between policy domains and parties and increase the sustainability in water management (Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2007b). In the Water Vision, the Minister of Transport and Water Management (current Minister of Infrastructure and Water Management) concluded that the Afsluitdijk needed to be renewed and started the initiation phase of the project. The announcement of the government led to a market exploration of the possibilities for the renewal of the Afsluitdijk. In 2009 the final report of the exploration, ‘Dijk en meer’, was published, presenting four visions on how the Afsluitdijk could be renewed including innovative adaptations. Due to limited financial resources and the primary focus of Rijkswaterstaat to improve the safety of the dike and improve the discharge capacity, the proposed plans were disregarded and the government asked the parties to focus on flood protection (Interview DNA, 13/01/2021). This led to the collaboration of regional and local authorities, as they did not agree with the decision of the government, in which there was no room for regional development at the renewal of the Afsluitdijk.

‘De Nieuwe Afsluitdijk’ (DNA) is a coalition of the Provinces of North-Holland and Fryslân, and the municipalities of Hollands Kroon and ‘t Fryske Gea, who focus on the development of the region regarding three tracks: economy, energy and ecology. In 2011 the structural vision for the Afsluitdijk was published by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, where the spatial conditions regarding the safety measures, contributing to the development of a sustainable, innovative and spatially attractive region, were explained (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu, 2011). Subsequently, at the end of 2011, an administrative agreement was settled between the government and the DNA, making appointments about the cooperation, finances and responsibilities of the project and to join their ambition for the development of the Afsluitdijk (De Nieuwe Afsluitdijk, 2017; Bestuursovereenkomst Toekomst Afsluitdijk, 2011).

The policy stream in this case study entails the presence of proposals for a new approach of water management. The Floods Directive requires the member states to map potential flood risk areas and come up with corresponding flood management plans. The Water Act aims at an integrated approach of the water system in which the social functions are fulfilled as a good ecological water quality is established. These legislation instruments require Rijkswaterstaat to control flooding by improving the integration of water functions. The solution set in this policy stream, is the integrated water management approach connecting the different fields of water management and increasing the socio-economic safety issue by adapting to future, climate change induced, events (Table 3).

Figure 7: An overview of the main documents, reports, implementation plans and structural visions, published in the period of 2006-2018, regarding the renewal of the Afsluitdijk

5.1.3 Politics stream The politics stream consists of the national mood, political interest and the government’s dynamics regarding a ‘problem’ (Brunner, 2008; Widyatama, 2018). In this case study, the politics stream is operationalized as the ‘national mood regarding integrative, adaptive water management’, and assessed by the government’s response to climate change in the form of new management strategies.

As shown in Chapter 2, water management has transitioned over the years due to changes in human needs. The climate scenarios of KNMI, published in 2007 based on the IPCC assessment, raised the awareness on the effects of climate change on sea level rise (Kwadijk et al., 2010). Due to governmental reports as the Water Vision (2007), this awareness was emphasised and translated into future plans on tackling climate change. Dutch people are aware of the risk of floods as we had such events often in the past (floods of 1916, 1953, 1993 and 1995), resulting in both social and economic losses.

In the coalition government programme of Balkenende IV in 2007, climate change had a prominent role and plans were made to adapt to the future, but the economic crisis of 2007 threw a spanner in the works (Vink, Boezeman, Dewulf, & Termeer, 2013). The crisis changed the perception of the policy makers on the renewal of the Afsluitdijk. The lack of financial resources resulted in the scrapping of the regional development components, and the only focus was on the safety aspect of the Afsluitdijk (Interview DNA, 13/01/2021). As a reaction on this decision, DNA, a coalition of regional authorities, was created to push for the regional development, as stated above.

The working group ‘Nature Afsluitdijk’, part of DNA, proposed ‘the greening of infrastructures’, by including an ecological element in the renewal of the Afsluitdijk, the fish migration river

(Provincie Noord-Holland, Provincie Fryslân, Gemeente Wieringen, Gemeente Súdwest- Fryslân, & Gemeente Harlingen, 2011). Nature development and connectivity have been an important pillar of the Dutch nature national policy, e.g. National Ecological Network (EHS), so the awareness and perception to improve the ecological and environmental status at the dike is significant among actors affiliated with nature organizations.

The national mood regarding integrated water management approaches and adaptive measures regarding climate change determines the political stream in this case study. Due to the increase of knowledge of the impacts of climate change on water bodies, there is a growing interests to anticipate future flood events via the implementation of adaptive measures at flood defences, in which the implementation of IWRM can be a tool (Table 3).

5.1.4 Window of opportunity When a problem is established, a solution is set and the political climate is correct for taking action on it, the three streams collide forming a window of opportunity. In this case study, the problem streams indicated the issue of lack of safety and ecological connectivity at the Afsluitdijk. IWRM including adaptive measures was the proposed solution to the issue in the policy stream. The positive public mood in regarding the incorporation of adaptive climate change measures in new water management approaches, as identified in the politics stream, led, in combination with the problem- and policy stream, to the colliding of the three streams and opened the window of opportunity, the market exploration of the Afsluitdijk which took place between 2007-2009.

The renewal project of the Afsluitdijk was initiated by the cabinet in 2007 in the water vision (Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2007b). This led to a market exploration, between 2007-2009, of the possibilities for the renewal of the Afsluitdijk. In 2009 the report was published presenting four vision on how the Afsluitdijk could be renewed including innovative adaptations (Rijkswaterstaat, 2009). This market exploration is identified as the window of opportunity, as it provided the chance to shift the policy paradigm in water management from safety-oriented to more integral and adaptive management.

Table 3: Main themes in the MSF streams

Main themes Problem stream Flood control “There are actually two reasons for the project, two main objectives. The first is to put water safety in order, the other reason is the need to drain more water” (RWS, 14/01/2021)

Connectivity of nature “…but ecologically it was of course a disaster” (Province Friesland, 22/12/2020)

Policy stream EU Floods Directive Risk assessments for floods and corresponding flood management approaches EU Habitats Directive Impacts assessments, focus on the Wadden sea Water vision 2007 Decision to reinforce the Afsluitdijk in an integrated manner

Politics stream KNMI 2006 climate “climate change and sea level rise have scenarios moved much higher on the agenda” (RWS, 14/01/2021) Economic crisis 2007 “Then there was a kind of "no-nonsense" approach from The Hague.” (DNA, 13/01/2021)

5.2 Policy entrepreneurs

Policy entrepreneurs are necessary for the coupling of the streams, as they possess the needed skills and attributes to prioritize proposals on the agenda (Fowler, 2019; Maltby, 2013; Rawat & Morris, 2016; Travis & Zahariadis, 2002). In this study, entrepreneurs are operationalized as actors who are ‘involved in the decision-making process and achieved policy change by the successful implementation of strategies’.

‘De Nieuwe Afsluitdijk’ (DNA), a partnership between the provinces of North-Holland and Fryslân and the municipalities of Hollands Kroon and Súdwest-Fryslân, is identified as a policy entrepreneur in this case study because they affected the agenda-setting of IWRM at the Afsluitdijk. DNA was established as a reaction to the lack of regional development in the proposals of the government for the renewal of the Afsluitdijk. The province of Fryslân acknowledged that the construction of the Afsluitdijk had negative effects on the ecology of the Ijsselmeer and Wadden Sea (Interview Province Fryslân, 22/12/2020). These problem statements led to their ambition for incorporating regional development into the new policy of the Afsluitdijk regarding three tracks: ‘ecology’, ‘energy’ and ‘economy, as well as the sustainable and circular use of materials during the renovation.

DNA will be assessed on policy entrepreneurship based on the strategies and related skillset of policy entrepreneurship, as formulated in the conceptual framework. The strategies that are explored are problem framing, the recognition and exploiting of windows of opportunity and coalition building. The skillset of policy entrepreneurship that is analysed in this study contains the negotiation skill and networking skill, and the attributes of credibility and social acuity.

5.2.1 Problem framing DNA stated that the construction of the Afsluitdijk obstructs the fish migration from the two water bodies, framing the problem as an ecological disaster (Interview Province Fryslân, 22/12/2020). This is an important strategy for policy entrepreneurship as highlighting a crisis, in this case an ecological crisis, gives incentive for other actors to be involved at the decision- making. DNA published their implementation plan for the Afsluitdijk in 2013, emphasizing the possibilities to improve the flood defence by following the three tracks of ecology, economy and energy by implementing an integrated approach to climate adaptation. (De Nieuwe Afsluitdijk, 2013). DNA wants to make the Afsluitdijk a hotspot for sustainable ecological innovation and an example on how water, nature and energy can work together to become an iconic structure (De Nieuwe Afsluitdijk, 2013; De Nieuwe Afsluitdijk, 2016).

DNA has set up workgroups for the preparation, coordination and implementation of the regional ambitions. Workgroups have been established to devise e.g. nature development, recreation and tourism and renewable energy. To represent the interests of multiple stakeholders in the projects, the workgroups comprises a wide range of participants, both governmental as non-governmental organizations, such as RWS, energy companies, private companies nature organizations and regional and local authorities.

The improvements DNA proposed for the Afsluitdijk include the construction of the fish migration, an initiative of nature conservation organizations ‘t Fryske Gea, Blauwe Hart and

Waddenvereniging, which was picked up by DNA and developed to a project part of the renewal of the Afsluitdijk. Regarding the economy track, DNA proposes the increase of recreational functions at the Afsluitdijk, by the construction of a cycling path, an educational centre and paths structures to establishing the Afsluitdijk as a touristic hotspot. DNA aims at improving the sustainability of the construction of the projects by focusing on the circularity of the used materials (De Nieuwe Afsluitdijk, 2013; De Nieuwe Afsluitdijk, 2016; Interview DNA, 13/01/2021).

As DNA is a collaboration of regional and local authorities, they know the policy game. They possess the attribute of social acuity as they know the aspirations and need of the residents of their regions. Having the skillset to involve the citizen and local businesses in the renewal of the Afsluitdijk, favoured the DNA by building a good reputation amongst the stakeholders as well as credibility as an actor (Interview DNA, 13/01/2021). These skills and attributes contributed to the effectiveness of the implemented strategies.

5.2.2 Recognizing and exploiting windows of opportunities The market exploration, between 2007-2009, of the renewal of the Afsluitdijk, created a chance for actors to be involved in the renewal of the Afsluitdijk and push for their ambitions and goals. Due to the recession of 2008-2009 cuts were made in the originally one billion euro’s for the reinforcement of the Afsluitdijk which resulted in a ‘bare basic model’ for the renewal (Interview Waddenvereniging, 18/12/2020). Rijkswaterstaat decided to focus on improving the safety and discharge capacity of the structure, leaving the proposed initiatives out of the renewal. The regional authorities felt that valuable ideas, emerged in the market exploration, could strengthen the region, and argued that there should be space to implement these ideas. “This has resulted in the national government saying “that's fine, but then you have to do it yourself”. And that was the start for ‘De Nieuwe Afsluitdijk’.” (Interview DNA, 13/01/2021). The market exploration created an opportunity to ‘look’ at the Afsluitdijk in a new way. With the current knowledge on climate change and the possibilities of hydraulic engineering, innovative means can be created and change the way of managing flood defences in a more integrated way.

5.2.3 Coalition building DNA is a coalition of regional and local governmental authorities that was established to push for regional development at the renewal of the Afsluitdijk (Interview DNA, 13/01/2021). By combining the provinces and municipalities ambitions, strengths and knowledge, DNA pooled their resources which improved their position in the process of policy change. An important component of this strategy is exchanging knowledge and information on the subject of water management and ecological development, as well as knowledge of the political game. This improved their position as an actor within the field and credibility amongst other stakeholders, increasing the chance of achieving policy change (Interview DNA, 13/01/2021).

DNA signed in 2013 an administrative agreement with Rijkswaterstaat about the cooperation between the national and regional authorities, agreeing on the policy choices and future development perspectives. This agreement shows the negotiation skill of DNA. The cooperation between Rijkswaterstaat and DNA resulted in the parties addressing the stakeholder together about the project developments, as they try to act as a single government from the Afsluitdijk, via generic stakeholder consultations and during specific consultations per project (e.g. the fish migration river) (Interview DNA, 13/01/2021).

5.3 Policy outcome

The MSF (Kingdon, 1984) identifies that the coupling of the three streams (problem, policy and politics stream) is done by policy entrepreneurs during a policy window which leads to agenda setting and decision-making (Fowler, 2019). In the following paragraphs the realised and planned projects are discussed per ‘track’, regarding safety, energy, economic and ecological development.

The policy outcome, as a result of the influence of policy entrepreneurs at the policy context, led to the integration of different aspects of development at the renewal of the Afsluitdijk. In the previous section ‘DNA’ was identified as a policy entrepreneur due to their successful implementation of strategies. According to DNA, they were essential in the establishment of the ecology and spatial quality development at the renewal (Interview DNA, 13/01/2021). Due to the collaboration between Rijkswaterstaat and DNA, the renewal of the Afsluitdijk is also focussing on the development and reinforcement following the three tracks of energy, economy and ecology (Interview DNA, 13/01/2021). Safety is still the main function of the flood defence, but changes are made as multi-disciplinary measures (i.e. fish migration river) are implemented. The purpose of the renewed dike is to connect land, water and nature in a unique way by increasing the development of nature and recreational purposes (De Nieuwe Afsluitdijk, 2017b; Rijkswaterstaat, 2015).

5.3.1 Safety Rijkswaterstaat is, on behalf of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, reinforcing the Afsluitdijk and is the executive stakeholder of the renewal. The primal goal of Rijkswaterstaat is to improve the water safety of the dam and increase the water drainage from the Ijsselmeer to the Wadden Sea at the Afsluitdijk, to comply to safety standard set in the Water Act (Art. 2.2) and cope with the changing climate (Rijkswaterstaat, 2017b). To improve the stability of the Afsluitdijk for the next 50 years, the dike is reinforced with the use of 75.000 Levvel-blocs on the Wadden seaside that can withstand strong storm surges. For the production of these innovative concrete blocks less concrete is used reducing the CO2 emission. The Afsluitdijk becomes a flood-resistant dike meeting the safety requirement of 1/10.000 (Rijkswaterstaat, 2013). The dike’s height is expandable so that after 50 new reinforcements can be taken to adapt to adapt after 50 years to the current sea level situation (Rijkswaterstaat, 2016; Interview Levvel, 13/01/2021).

Two extra storm surge barriers will be placed at Den Oever and Kornwederzand, which can be closed at high tide, increasing the safety of the dike (Rijkswaterstaat, 2016). existing drainage sluices at Kornwederzand and Den Oever are being reinforced, and two extra sluices will be constructed to increase the drainage capacity of the dam. Additionally, two pumping stations are being built to discharge the water in case of high tide, adapting to future sea level rise (Rijkswaterstaat, 2017b). Establishing a new motto for water level management, as stated by Levvel, “drain if possible, pump if necessary” (Interview, 13/01/2021). The circularity of materials is taken into account by using ‘old’ sand out of the IJsselmeer for the realisation of the projects (De Nieuwe Afsluitdijk, 2013; De Nieuwe Afsluitdijk, 2016; Interview DNA, 13/01/2021).

5.3.2 Energy The ‘Energy’ track aims to establish innovative sustainable energy initiatives at the Afsluitdijk (Interview DNA, 13/01/2021). Multiple initiatives (i.e. hydropower, tidal-kites) were launched regarding the generation of sustainable energy in new ways, though many projects did not succeed and some became bankrupt. The private company REDstack is, since 2015, researching the possibilities for generating blue energy at a pilot plant on the Afsluitdijk, what entails retrieving energy from the salinity difference between salt water, from the Wadden Sea, and freshwater, from the IJsselmeer. DNA is planning this year to realise solar energy panels at the parking lots around the Wadden Center (Interview DNA, 13/01/2021).

5.3.3 Economy Part of the ‘Economy’ track was the realisation of the Wadden Center Afsluitdijk in 2018 for educational purposes. The region wanted to establish an ‘experience’ of the Afsluitdijk, Wadden Sea and Ijsselmeer, and increase outreach and education activities. The centre is based around the history of the Afsluitdijk and the renewal of the dam; education is provided on the effects of climate change for the delta and the realised sustainable initiatives. The Wadden Center is an initiative from both Rijkswaterstaat and DNA, to increase tourism for the Afsluitdijk and the region, and educate visitors on the function of the dam and related initiatives. DNA is also realising a cycling path along the Wadden Sea side, improving the attractiveness of the dike for recreational purposes. The ‘Economy’ track also includes the nautical economy, where plans are made to deepen the channels at the Ijsselmeer and to widen the space at the sluice complexes and bridges, for an increase of commercial gains through shipping (De Nieuwe Afsluitdijk, 2016; Interview DNA, 13/01/2021).

5.3.4 Ecology The ‘Ecology’ track of the DNA policy is focusing on improving and elaborating the ecological status around the Afsluitdijk, especially the ecological recovery of the IJsselmeer. The construction of the Afsluitdijk closed off the Zuiderzee and decreased the ability of species to migrate and hibernate, leading to a decline in fish stock as many fish species depend on both freshwater and saltwater for their life cycle (De Nieuwe Afsluitdijk, 2017a; Witteveen+Bos, 2013). Fish migration via the sluices is difficult as the current Figure 8: Project fish migration river (De Afsluitdijk, n.d.) is often too strong to swim against. At the West-side of the dam, near Kornwederzand, a fish migration river is being realised to improve the migration of fish and other aquatic species from the Wadden Sea and Ijsselmeer and vice versa (Fig. 8) The concept of the fish migration river was an initiative of workgroup ‘Natuur Afsluitdijk’. The key objective of the river is to increase the migration opportunities for fishes by luring them in with the ‘smell’ of fresh Ijsselmeer water, and giving them an easy way down the 4 km long river, slowly moving through a gradient of salinity change. The fish migration river is expected to be finalized and working in 2023. Also, a fish-friendly sluice regime is implemented to increase the chance of the fishes to migrate between the water bodies (De Nieuwe Afsluitdijk, 2017; Interview Waddenvereniging, 18/12/2020).

The measures taken at the renewal of the Afsluitdijk aim to improve the enhancement of the safety of the flood defences by the implementation of adaptive measures and increase of the economic, recreational and ecological value of the food defence. The stability of the dike is reinforced for the next 50 years by the use of Levvel Blocs and the construction of new sluice complexes. Water level management will be improved by the construction of two pump stations. The enhancement of the ecological quality of the Afsluitdijk is realised by the fish migration, The dike is made to be a touristic hotspot through the construction of cycling paths and the presence of an educational Wadden Centre. Renewable energy initiatives at the Afsluitdijk include the Blue energy pilot and construction of solar panels. Through this policy outcome, the different fields of water management are coordinated together with a focus on climate adaptation.

6 Discussion

This chapter elaborates on the findings of this research. With the use of literature the results are discussed and interpreted. This is followed by addressing the limitations of the research design, both in terms of the conceptual framework and the methodology.

6.1 Main findings and interpretations 6.1.1 Policy context Multi-level governance is occurring at the management of the Afsluitdijk, as multiple actors participate from various political levels (Stephenson, 2013). The European Union is at the top of the policy process, followed by the national government (and associated executive agency, Rijkswaterstaat), and regional and local authorities, as the provinces and municipalities. An inclusive interactive participatory mode of policymaking is occurring here, where the region actors are of importance and the top-down approach is less present (Keulartz, 2009). An important part of legislation for water management was the implementation of the EU Flood Directive in 2007, to reduce and manage the risks of floods on society, economy and the environment. The increased awareness of the effects of climate change on water management, and the implementation of the EU flood directive, resulted in a growth of attention for adaptive measures. The participation of multiple actors at various policy levels brings complexity to the policy game. Power differences become visible as well as the knowledge gaps could be exposed between the actors, due to information dispersion. Political accountability is decreased due to the blurred lines of responsibility (Milio, 2014; Stephenson, 2013).

The market exploration of the renewal of the Afsluitdijk was identified as the window of opportunity in this case study as it established a change for stakeholders to be part of the decision making-process. In the history of water management in the Netherlands, windows of opportunities have occurred before, resulting in a change of policy. These windows of opportunities include the flood of 1916 which resulted in the construction of the Afsluitdijk, the flood of 1953 formed the plans of the Deltaworks and the floods of 1993 and 1995 caused the dike reinforcements (Meijerink & Huitema, 2009). These disasters sparked the change of policy in flood management. The window of opportunity of this case study, the market exploration, was of a different type and one could argue that it was not the typical window of opportunity. These moments occur by compelling events or problems, and are described by Kingdon (1995) as ‘fleeting opportunities’ as they are of short duration (Travis s& Zahariadis, 2002; Yusuf, Neill, John, Ash, & Mahar, 2016). The window of opportunity in this case, opened after the announcement of the government to renew the Afsluitdijk in the Water vision (2007), after a testing period of the flood defence of 5 years. The exploratory phase of the project took 10 years, demonstrating that not every window of opportunity is a fleeting moment. Actors were invited to participate in a market exploration to come up with innovative means to renew the Afsluitdijk. This was an opportunity to draw attention to their ‘problem’ and to push for a new approach regarding water management (Meijerink, 2005).

6.1.2 Policy entrepreneurs De Nieuwe Afsluitdijk (DNA), a partnership between regional and local authorities, is identified in this case study as a policy entrepreneur based on their successful implementation of strategies, leading to policy change.

The DNA seized and exploited the window of opportunity when it occurred, to take part in the decision-making process and to push for a new water management approach. DNA argued that the closure of the Zuiderzee by the Afsluitdijk obstructed the fish migration, and framing the problem as the build of the Afsluitidjk as an ecological disaster. They were unsatisfied with the proposed renewal of Rijkswaterstaat, which only focused on improving the safety of the strategy and during the exploratory phase of the project they pushed for regional development as part of the renewal of the Afsluitdijk. Using strategies as coalition building, by the collaboration of the province of North-Holland and Fryslân the municipalities of Hollands Kroon and Súdwest-Fryslân, they combined resources in the form of money, time and knowledge establishing their position in the policy game. Because they are a collaboration of regional authorities, they possess the attribute of social acuity as they have knowledge of the regional residents’ aspirations and needs, improving their credibility as a stakeholder. DNA’s acquired skillset and ambition for regional development, established them as policy entrepreneurs and resulted in the policy change, the implementation of IWRM at the Afsluitdijk. The traditional approach of the primary water defence, providing safety, is now being adapted with measures to increase ecological, energy and economic development.

The effectiveness of the strategies, as stated in the literature, is determined by the resources and skillset of the policy entrepreneur. Collective entrepreneurship was found the most effective form of policy entrepreneurship in the study of Huitema, Lebel, & Meijerink (2011) of strategies of policy entrepreneurs in water transitions worldwide. Crow (2013) stated that policy entrepreneurs who operate in a group have often more success in policy change due to the greater access to resources and political influence. These claims are confirmed in this case study, as the strategy of coalition building proved to be the most effective one for DNA. The coalition of regional and local authorities pooled their resources and hereby increasing the change of achieving policy change.

According to Huitema & Meijerink (2010), policy entrepreneurs are often the actors who are working to open windows of opportunity before exploiting them. This is done by actively coupling a solution to a certain problem. DNA coupled their proposal for the fish migration river to tackle the problem of ‘nature connectivity’ at the Afsluitdijk, as the dike forms a hard barrier for fish. In this case the window was not opened by policy entrepreneurs but only exploited, as the window was opened by the safety assessment which is prescribed by the Water Act (Art. 2.2.1).

6.1.3 Policy outcome

6.1.3.1 IWRM DNA established themselves as a policy entrepreneur and became involved the agenda- setting of the new policy at the Afsluitdijk. Their successful implementation of strategies resulted in the integration of regional development on ecology, economy and energy field at the water management of the flood defence, establishing IWRM.

The traditional approach of the primary water defence, providing safety, is now being adapted with measures to increase ecological, energy and economic development. Water management at the Afsluitdijk has made a transition regarding three aspects: from (i) sectoral to integral management, (ii) reactive to adaptive management and (iii) a hierarchical to a participatory process.

6.1.3.1.1 Integral management The traditional approach of water management is fragmented, meaning every aspect of water resources is managed separately (Giupponi & Gain, 2017). IWRM, as the title of the concept states, is an integrative approach where the various functions of water are combined and managed together. IWRM establishes the coordination between the different aspects of water management, ensuring the development of the economic and social value of water resources, as well as the protection of ecosystems (Ako et al., 2010; Gain et al., 2013; Xie, 2006). The previous policy of the Afsluitdijk was of a sectoral approach, solely focusing on flood safety. This policy has transitioned towards IWRM as the renewal of the Afsluitdijk is supplementing the safety measures with regional development via the coordinated management of the different functions of water, ensuring ecological and economic development.

In the final report of the exploratory phase, Rijkswaterstaat stated its ambition to realise the Afsluitdijk as an symbol for hydraulic engineering and innovation, by incorporating measures on the development of nature and recreation, sustainable energy generation and (nautical) economy (Rijkswaterstaat, 2009). When reflecting on the implemented policy, the projects which are executed or are planned to be realised differs from the proposed policy in the exploratory phase, Figure 1 highlights this. The proportion between the economy, energy and ecology tracks have changed at the implementation of the new policy at the Afsluitdijk. The ecology track contains only one project, though a comprehensive project, the fish migration river, establishing both ecological development as economic development, regarding fisheries. Combined with the establishment of the Wadden centre, which causes an increase of (eco)tourism, the ratios of the tracks of ecology and economy take up a bigger part in IWRM than the energy track. Wind energy has been excluded from the project as the construction of a windfarm in the Wadden Sea is contradicting against the protected status of the Wadden Sea, according to the UNESCO heritage site and The European Bird and Habitat Directives (79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC) (Rijkswaterstaat, 2017).

Figure 9: Difference between the policy aim during the exploratory phase versus the policy implementation

6.1.3.1.2 Adaptive management Traditional water management in the Netherland was of a reactive approach, this is shown by the building of flood defences as the Afsluitdijk and the Deltaworks, as a response to the floods of 1916 and 1953. The policy was focused to control waterbodies, using grey, rigid infrastructures (Giupponi & Gain, 2017). Water management has now shifted to anticipate on future events which are becoming more regular due to climate change, and to take measures to prevent flood disasters. Climate change adaptation is a forward-looking approach, considering the possible future due to change in the environment. As IWRM connects the various fields concerned with water resources, these measures can be taken in every sector and can be “advocated as a means of climate change adaptation” (Gain et al., 2013, p.11). To cope with the effects of climate change, the new policy at the Afsluitdijk is implementing adaptive measures regarding the stability of the flood defence and height, to ensure a safe flood defence for the next 50 years.

For sea level rise and increase of coastal hazards: These measures include the increase of the strength of the Afsluitdijk with the use of Levvel blocks, creating a flood-resistant dike, lasting the next 50 years. And the increase of sluices and reinforcement of existing ones, to regulate the water level in the IJsselmeer. This is also taken care of with the build of two pumping stations to discharge water in case of high tide.

The implementation of IWRM at flood defences is a fairly new approach and few cases have been studied, though the adaptation of water management structures to adapt to climate change has been researched. Taylor (2009) studied the possibilities of IWRM as a tool for climate adaptation and concluded that there are opportunities for adaptive management at water infrastructure by e.g. increasing the ability of the system to resist the impacts of flood surges. Goytia, Pettersson, Schellenberger, van Doorn-Hoekveld, & Priest (2016) argue that the Netherlands has been increasing the strength of flood defences to comply with the safety standards but should now look to adapt to climate change by the challenges by the implementation of alternative management approaches. IWRM is an example of such an approach, but the implementation of it at flood defences is still in the pilot phase according to Gralepois et al. (2016). Though the integrated approach of water management has translated into approaches such as ‘room for the river’ (Hartgers et al., 2015).

An example of the implementation of the ‘room for the river’ approach is the project of ‘Dike relocation Lent’ Nijmegen, the Netherlands. This case study by Kaufmann, Van Doorn- Hoekveld, Gilissen, & Rijswick (2016) describes the shift towards an eco-based management

47 approach at a secondary-flood defence. The project aims at ‘giving’ the river Waal more room by the construction of a deep channel. Hereby more room will be created for ecological development, establishing an integrated approach in which the field of ecology, economy and recreation will be enhanced (Kaufmann et al., 2016).

6.1.3.1.3 Participatory process The common discourse regarding water management happens in a hierarchical way, where the national government has the power, a top-down approach which is knowledge oriented (Giupponi & Gain, 2017; Ludwig et al., 2014). The decision-making process of the Afsluitdijk showed the transition towards a more participatory process, where both governmental as non- governmental actors could participate (Ludwig et al., 2014; Meijerink & Huitema, 2010).

The renewal of the Afsluitdijk started with a market exploration, the window of opportunity, in which stakeholder had the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process of the new policy and submit proposals that served their interests. As IWRM coordinates different fields of water management together, various stakeholders are connected. The stakeholders’ norms and values have to be taken into account to let IWRM work. For example, the fish migration river improves the migratory route for fish between the IJsselmeer and Wadden Sea, which is beneficial for both ecological development (important for nature conservation organisations as the Waddenvereniging and Blauwe Hart) and economic development (important for fishers). Due to the participatory approach of IWRM, different views and opinions on the matter of stakeholders must be taken into account, resulting in a longer process before consensus is found and by the integration of multiple aspects of water management, the projects are more expansive and takes longer time to realise them (Keulartz, 2009).

IWRM is often described as a bottom up approach where the authority is given to the private, specialized sector to ensure water management as a demand-driven issue (Global Water Partnership, 2000; Xie, 2006). Global Water Partnership (2000) emphasizes that “bottom-up strategies do not mean that the complete devolution of decision-making to the local or community level is desirable or feasible; an appropriate balance has to be struck between community-level organizations and governmental bodies” (p. 46). One could argue that there is a balance between top-down and bottom-up management at the Afsluitdijk, in which Rijkswaterstaat, takes on the responsibility for managing and constructing the renewal of the Afsluitdijk focusses on adaptive safety measures, and the regional authorities are responsible for the projects which makes the Afsluitdijk a multifunctional infrastructure regarding the inclusion of ecological and economic development.

6.2 Limitations of the research design 6.2.1 Limitation of the conceptual framework In this thesis, Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) (1984) was chosen to guide the analysis, as it helps to understand the policymaking process by focussing on how and why an issue becomes included in the policy agenda. The MSF is a known framework used in various papers where the policymaking process is studied, as it is applies to a wide variety of policy fields (Kingdon, 1995; Rawat & Morris, 2016; Robinson & Eller, 2010).

Scholars have often found Kingdon’s concepts vague and inconsistent (Rawat & Morris, 2016; Sabatier, 2007). Kingdon argues that the three streams of the model need to collide to result

48 in the process of policymaking. But there is disagreement, as scholars argue that not all the streams have the same weight of importance and therefore not all have to come together to let an issue arise on the political agenda (Rawat & Morris, 2016). The vague definition of policy entrepreneurs is often stated as a shortcoming of the MSF, as Kingdon does not identify how and why certain actors can become policy entrepreneur. Despite the many studies, there is a limitation in the conceptualization of policy entrepreneurship. The definition of policy entrepreneurs, as well as their needed attributes, skills and strategies, differ and compete with each other (Aviram et al., 2020). The various and contradictory definitions of policy entrepreneurs made the process of choosing the proper strategy- and skillset for the assessment of policy entrepreneurship difficult. In this case study, policy entrepreneurship was assessed based on the successful implementation of the strategies: ‘problem framing’, ‘coalition building’ and ‘recognizing and exploiting windows of opportunities’. These strategies were chosen as they were best suited for this analysis and often identified in studies as successful for achieving policy change (Huitema et al., 2011; Huitema & Meijerink, 2009; Mintrom, 2019).

6.2.2 Limitations of the methodology The primary data source for this research was the performance of interviews. In total 17 actors, who are directly and indirectly involved in the policy process related to the renewal of the Afsluitdijk, were contacted with an interview request. The number of interviewees is in this study was 8, consisting of both governmental and non-governmental actors. This number of respondents may have influenced the results and the perception of the stakeholder role in the project, affecting the study’s outcome. To increase the validity of future research, a bigger and wider set of respondents should be contacted. The interviews were conducted in a semi- structured way, leaving room to stray from the subject which can help the interviewer to stumble upon new insights of the case and enhance the in-depth understanding of the participants' motivations and perception of the problem. However, this form of interviewing is time-consuming and it is relying on the interviewer’s skills for conducting the talk and the interviewees’ willingness to go in-depth on the subject and the problem. Also, the interviewees' opinion could affect the outcome as they speak on behalf of the whole organization or business. The interview guide was set up based on Kingdon’s MSF (1984), especially looking at the actors’ opinion and perception of the problem and their role in the renewal of the Afsluitdijk. During the analysis of the transcripts, policy entrepreneurship was detected and the conceptual framework of the study was altered, focussing more on the role of policy entrepreneurs in the coupling of the three streams of Kingdon (1984). If the interview guide would have included questions regarding policy entrepreneurship and the corresponding skillset and depicted strategies, it would provide a more in-depth understanding of this entrepreneurship and how it affected the policy change at the Afsluitdijk.

7 Conclusion

This study aimed at understanding the paradigm shift of water management in the Netherlands, by researching to what extent IWRM is incorporated into the renewal of the primary flood defence the Afsluitdijk and analysing how policy entrepreneurs shaped the implementation of this new policy. This chapter concludes the research by answering the main research questions and providing recommendations for additional research.

The market exploration for the renewal of the Afsluitdijk provided a window of opportunity for stakeholders to be involved in the agenda-setting of the new policy. The partnership of regional and local authorities, ‘De Nieuwe Afsluitdijk’ (DNA) , was identified as a policy entrepreneur due to their successful implementation of strategies. DNA exploited the window of opportunity by framing the Afsluitdijk as an ecological disaster and emphasizing the lack of regional development in the Governments’ proposed plans. This led to the transition of the segregated traditional approach of flood control at the Afsluitdijk towards the implementation of IWRM as the new policy. Safety measures are combined with the regional ambition for the development of energy, economy and ecology, by the construction of a fish migration river, Wadden Centre, a cycling path and blue energy pilot, connecting and coordinating the different fields and functions of water management. Adaptive measures are taken to anticipate future events as Rijkswaterstaat is constructing a flood-resistant dike with stability for 50 years and increasing the discharge capacity by building extra sluices and pumps to keep up with the sea-level rise and control water level management at the IJsselmeer.

Without the coalition ‘DNA’, the renewal would have only probably focused on improving the safety of the flood defence, showing the value of policy entrepreneurs in the paradigm shift of water management in the Netherlands. By the incorporation of IWRM, the Afsluitdijk is aiming to become an innovative icon in the field of hydraulic engineering and flood management.

7.1 Recommendations for further research

Water management is a much researched topic but there are still knowledge gaps in the field of adaptive management at flood defences. There is a need to include adaptive measures in flood management to cope with climate change. These adaptive strategies will keep on evolving based on the current knowledge of the effects of climate change, and water management approaches should evolve along it to deal with the uncertainty of future events.

More research on the implementation of IWRM with adaptive measures at flood defences can enhance the understanding of the value of this form of water management approach. For the improvement of the implementation of IWRM, a tool to test the participatory process could be useful. A stakeholder analyses could be beneficial to assess and monitor the extent of the participatory process during the different planning phases of the project (e.g. initiation phase, exploratory phase, execution phase).

It is important to further research the factors that leads to the rise of a water management issues on the political agenda. This case study focused on a particular flood defence system, the Afsluitdijk, but additional research on other cases (i.e. Deltaworks,), can enhance the

50 understanding of the policy making process at water management structures.

Multiple studies researched the functioning of policy entrepreneurs and their skillset, but the definitions differ and there is not a clear model for this concept. Additional research on the objectives and skillset of policy entrepreneurs, creating a list of recommended strategies to implement, can help by the understanding of policy entrepreneurship, especially of their specific role in water management. A defined model for policy entrepreneurship could enhance the effectiveness of strategies in the field of agenda-setting.

References Ackrill, R., & Kay, A. (2011). Multiple streams in EU policy-making: The case of the 2005 sugar reform. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(1), 72–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2011.520879 Ackrill, R., Kay, A., & Zahariadis, N. (2013). Ambiguity, multiple streams, and EU policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(6), 871–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2013.781824 Ako, A. A., Eyong, G. E. T., & Nkeng, G. E. (2010). Water resources management and integrated water resources management (IWRM) in Cameroon. Water Resources Management, 24(5), 871–888. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-009-9476-4 Alewijn, O., & Polderwerker, E. (1868). Droogmaking der Zuiderzee. De Economist, 17(1), 525–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02204087 Alfieri, L., Dottori, F., Betts, R., Salamon, P., & Feyen, L. (2018). Multi-model projections of river flood risk in Europe under global warming. Climate, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/cli6010006 Alves, A., Gersonius, B., Sanchez, A., Vojinovic, Z., & Kapelan, Z. (2018). Multi-criteria Approach for Selection of Green and Grey Infrastructure to Reduce Flood Risk and Increase CO-benefits. Water Resources Management, 32(7), 2505–2522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-018-1943-3 Aviram, N. F., Cohen, N., & Beeri, I. (2020). Policy entrepreneurship in developing countries: A systematic review of the literature. Public Administration and Development, 40(1), 35– 48. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1852 Bijker, W. E. (2007). Dikes and dams, thick with politics. Isis, 98(1), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1086/512835 Boasson, E. L., & Huitema, D. (2017). Climate governance entrepreneurship: Emerging findings and a new research agenda. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 35(8), 1343–1361. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654417730713 Borja, Á., Galparsoro, I., Solaun, O., Muxika, I., Tello, E. M., Uriarte, A., & Valencia, V. (2006). The European Water Framework Directive and the DPSIR, a methodological approach to assess the risk of failing to achieve good ecological status. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 66(1–2), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2005.07.021 Boyes, S. J., & Elliott, M. (2014). Marine legislation - The ultimate “horrendogram”: International law, European directives & national implementation. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 86(1–2), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.06.055 Brasil, F. G., & Capella, A. C. N. (2017). Translating ideas into action: Brazilian studies of the role of the policy entrepreneur in the public policy process. Policy and Society, 36(4), 504–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2017.1374691 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Brouwer, S., & Biermann, F. (2011). Towards adaptive management: Examining the strategies of policy entrepreneurs in dutch water management. Ecology and Society, 16(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04315-160405

Brunner, S. (2008). Understanding policy change: Multiple streams and emissions trading in Germany. Global Environmental Change, 18(3), 501–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.05.003 Bundgaard, U., & Vrangbæk, K. (2007). Reform by coincidence? Explaining the policy process of structural reform in Denmark. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(4), 491– 520. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00190.x Cairney, P., & Jones, M. D. (2016). Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Approach: What Is the Empirical Impact of this Universal Theory? Policy Studies Journal, 44(1), 37–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12111 Church, J. A., Gregory, J. M., Cazenave, A., Groegru, J., Jevrejeva, S., Milne, G., & Pfeffer, T. (2019). Sea level change. Encyclopedia of Ocean Sciences, 493–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.10820-6 Crow, D. A. (2013). Review of Policy Research. Review of Policy Research, 30(1), i–ii. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12008 de Leeuw, J. J., Dekker, W., & Buijse, A. D. (2008). Aiming at a moving target, a slow hand fails! 75 years of fisheries management in Lake IJsselmeer (the Netherlands). Journal of Sea Research, 60(1–2), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seares.2008.03.005 De Nieuwe Afsluitdijk. (2016). Uitvoeringsplan De Nieuwe Afsluitdijk 2017-2020 (Issue november 2016). De Nieuwe Afsluitdijk. (2017a). De Nieuwe Afsluitdijk. De Nieuwe Afsluitdijk. (2017b). De vismigratierivier : het ecoduct door de Afsluitdijk. de Oliveira Vieira, E., Sandoval-Solis, S., de Albuquerque Pedrosa, V., & Ortiz-Partida, J. P. (2005). Integrated water resource management. In AWWA 124th Annual Conference and Exposition: The World’s Water Event, ACE 2005. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319- 70061-8_4-1 de Stefano, L. (2010). International Initiatives for Water Policy Assessment: A Review. Water Resources Management, 24(11), 2449–2466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-009-9562- 7 Deltacommissie. (2008). Working together with water: A living land builds for its future. 134. Disco, C. (2002). Remaking “nature”: The ecological turn in Dutch water management. Science Technology and Human Values, 27(2), 206–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390202700202 Dráb, A., & Říha, J. (2010). An approach to the implementation of European Directive 2007/60/EC on flood risk management in the Czech Republic. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 10(9), 1977–1987. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-10-1977-2010 Edler, J., & James, A. D. (2015). Understanding the emergence of new science and technology policies: Policy entrepreneurship, agenda setting and the development of the European Framework Programme. Research Policy, 44(6), 1252–1265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.12.008 EEA. (2019). Economic losses from climate-related extremes in Europe — European Environment Agency. https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/direct- losses-from-weather-disasters-3

Eleftheriadou, E., Giannopoulou, I., & Yannopoulos, S. (2015). The European Flood Directive: Current Implementation and Technical Issues. September. Faling, M. (2019). Strategizing beyond boundaries policy entrepreneurship for (Issue January). Fowler, L. (2019). Problems, politics, and policy streams in policy implementation. Governance, 32(3), 403–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12382 Frieser, B. I., Vrijling, J. K., & Jonkman, S. N. (2005). Probabilistic Evacuation Decision Model For River Floods In The Netherlands. In International Symposium on Stochastic Hydraulics 2005: 23 and 24 May 2005. Nijmegen - The Netherlands. Gain, A. K., Rouillard, J. J., & Benson, D. (2013). Can Integrated Water Resources Management Increase Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change Adaptation? A Critical Review. Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 05(04), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.4236/jwarp.2013.54a003 Geurts, J., Kootwijk, M., Maka, C., van der Sar, A., Brinkhuis, M., Maisson, J., & Moerman, G. (2007). Een ander Ijsselmeergebied, een ander beleid. Giakoumis, T., & Voulvoulis, N. (2018). The Transition of EU Water Policy Towards the Water Framework Directive’s Integrated River Basin Management Paradigm. Environmental Management, 62(5), 819–831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1080- z Giupponi, C., & Gain, A. K. (2017). Integrated water resources management (IWRM) for climate change adaptation. Regional Environmental Change, 17(7), 1865–1867. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1173-x GIZ. (2021). Integrating EbA and IWRM for climate-resilient water management. Global Water Partnership. (2000). Integrated Water Resources Management. In TAC Background Papers (Issue 4). https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315153292 Goldfinch, S., & ’T Hart, P. (2003). Leadership and institutional reform: Engineering macroeconomic policy change in Australia. Governance, 16(2), 235–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0491.00215 Goyal, V. C., Garg, A., Patil, J. P., & Thomas, T. (2020). Formulation of integrated water resources management (IWRM) plan at district level: A case study from Bundelkhand region of India. Water Policy, 22(1), 52–99. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2020.157 Goytia, S., Pettersson, M., Schellenberger, T., van Doorn-Hoekveld, W. J., & Priest, S. (2016). Dealing with change and uncertainty within the regulatory frameworks for flood defense infrastructure in selected European countries. Ecology and Society, 21(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08908-210423 Gralepois, M., Larrue, C., Wiering, M., Crabbé, A., Tapsell, S., Mees, H., Ek, K., & Szwed, M. (2016). Is flood defense changing in nature? Shifts in the flood defense strategy in six European countries. Ecology and Society, 21(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08907- 210437 Green, J. F. (2017). Policy entrepreneurship in climate governance: toward a comparative approach. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 35(8), 1471–1482. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654417735905 Griffioen, A. B., Winter, H. V., van Keeken, O. A., Chen, C., van Os-Koomen, B., Schonlau,

S., & Zawadowski, T. (2014). Verspreidingsdynamiek, gedrag en voorkomen van diadrome vis bij Kornwerderzand t.b.v. de Vismigratierivier. Griffioen, A. B., & Winter, H. V. (2017). Fish Migration River Monitoring Plan Monitoring program on the effectiveness of the FMR at Kornwerderzand. https://doi.org/10.18174/409282 Gunn, A. (2017). 16 . Policy entrepreneurs and policy formulation. September. Haasnoot, M., & Middelkoop, H. (2012). A history of futures: A review of scenario use in water policy studies in the Netherlands. Environmental Science and Policy, 19–20, 108– 120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.03.002 Hartgers, E., van Buuren, M., Fontein, R. J., van Hattum, T., de Lange, M., & Maas, G. (2015). Natuurrealisatie in het programma Ruimte voor de Rivier. In Alterra-rapport. He, A. J., & Ma, L. (2020). Corporate policy entrepreneurship and cross-boundary strategies: How a private corporation champions mobile healthcare payment innovation in China? Public Administration and Development, 40(1), 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1868 Hermansen, E. A. T. (2015). Policy window entrepreneurship: the backstage of the world’s largest REDD+ initiative. Environmental Politics, 24(6), 932–950. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2015.1063887 Hoeksema, R. J. (2007). Three stages in the history of land reclamation in the Netherlands. Agricultural Water Management, 56(1), 161–177. https://doi.org/10.1002/ird Hofstee, E. W. (1954). The netherlands’ zuiderzee- project. Unknown, 292–298. https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/368634 Howlett, M., McConnell, A., & Perl, A. (2015). Streams and stages: Reconciling Kingdon and policy process theory. European Journal of Political Research, 54(3), 419–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12064 Hu, F. Z. Y., Lin, G. C. S., Yeh, A. G. O., He, S., & Liu, X. (2020). Reluctant policy innovation through profit concession and informality tolerance: A strategic relational view of policy entrepreneurship in China’s urban redevelopment. Public Administration and Development, 40(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1866 Huitema, D., Lebel, L., & Meijerink, S. (2011). The strategies of policy entrepreneurs in water transitions around the world. Water Policy, 13(5), 717–733. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2011.107 Huitema, D., & Meijerink, S. (2009). Policy dynamics in Dutch water management Analyzing the contribution of policy entrepreneurs to policy change. Water Policy Entrepreneurs: A Research Companion to Water Transitions around the Globe, 6(11), 951–952. Huitema, D., & Meijerink, S. (2010). Realizing water transitions: The role of policy entrepreneurs in water policy change. Ecology and Society, 15(2), 3. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03488-150226 Inman, M. (2010). Working with water. Engineered Systems, 35(5), 24–25. Inspectie Verkeer en Waterstaat. (2006). Primaire waterkeringen getoetst. Landelijke Rapportage Toetsing, 5. Jansen, L. (1937). De sociale gevolgen van de afsluiting der Zuiderzee voor het eiland Marken. Mens En Maatschappij, 13(1), 40–61.

Janssen, S. K. H. (2015). Greening Flood Protection in the Netherlands: A knowledge arrangement approach. Janssen, S. K. H., van Tatenhove, J. P. M., Mol, A. P. J., & Otter, H. S. (2017). Greening flood protection through knowledge processes: lessons from the Markermeer dikes project in the Netherlands. Regional Environmental Change, 17(2), 551–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1040-1 Jarvis, D. S. L., & He, A. J. (2020). Policy entrepreneurship and intuitional change: Who, how, and why? Public Administration and Development, 40(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1876 Jiménez Cisneros, B. E., Oki, T., Arnell, N. W., Benito, G., Cogley, J. G., Döll, P., Jiang, T., Mwakalila, S. S., Kundzewicz, Z., & Nishijima, A. (2015). Freshwater resources. Climate Change 2014 Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects, 229–270. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415379.008 Jones, H. P., Hole, D. G., & Zavaleta, E. S. (2012). Harnessing nature to help people adapt to climate change. Nature Climate Change, 2(7), 504–509. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1463 Jongman, B. (2018). Effective adaptation to rising flood risk. Nature Communications, 9(1), 9–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04396-1 Jorissen, R., Kraaij, E., & Tromp, E. (2016). Dutch flood protection policy and measures based on risk assessment. E3S Web of Conferences, 7, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20160720016 Kabat, P., Fresco, L. O., Stive, M. J. F., Veerman, C. P., Van Alphen, J. S. L. J., Parmet, B. W. A. H., Hazeleger, W., & Katsman, C. A. (2009). Dutch coasts in transition. Nature Geoscience, 2(7), 450–452. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo572 Katsman, C. A., Sterl, A., Beersma, J. J., van den Brink, H. W., Church, J. A., Hazeleger, W., Kopp, R. E., Kroon, D., Kwadijk, J., Lammersen, R., Lowe, J., Oppenheimer, M., Plag, H. P., Ridley, J., von Storch, H., Vaughan, D. G., Vellinga, P., Vermeersen, L. L. A., van de Wal, R. S. W., & Weisse, R. (2011). Exploring high-end scenarios for local sea level rise to develop flood protection strategies for a low-lying delta-the Netherlands as an example. Climatic Change, 109(3–4), 617–645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011- 0037-5 Kaufmann, M., Van Doorn-Hoekveld, W., Gilissen, H. K., & Rijswick, V. (2016). Strengthening and Redesigning European Flood Risk Practices Towards Appropriate and Resilient Flood Risk Governance Arrangements Analysing and evaluating flood risk governance in the Netherlands Drowning in safety? STAR-FLOOD receives funding from the EU . www.starflood.eu Keskitalo, E. C. H., Westerhoff, L., & Juhola, S. (2012). Agenda-setting on the environment: The development of climate change adaptation as an issue in European states. Environmental Policy and Governance, 22(6), 381–394. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1579 Keulartz, J. (2009). European nature conservation and restoration policy - Problems and perspectives. Restoration Ecology, 17(4), 446–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526- 100X.2009.00566.x Kielen, N. (2009). Water management in the Netherlands in transition. Irrigation and Drainage, 58(2 SPEC. ISS.), 217–224. https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.496

King, P. J., & Roberts, N. C. (1992). An Investigation into the Personality Profile of Policy Entrepreneurs. Public Productivity & Management Review, 16(2), 173. https://doi.org/10.2307/3380990 Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Kwadijk, J. C. J., Haasnoot, M., Mulder, J. P. M., Hoogvliet, M. M. C., Jeuken, A. B. M., van der Krogt, R. A. A., van Oostrom, N. G. C., Schelfhout, H. A., van Velzen, E. H., van Waveren, H., & de Wit, M. J. M. (2010). Using adaptation tipping points to prepare for climate change and sea level rise: A case study in the Netherlands. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(5), 729–740. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.64 Lankford, B. A. (2007). Integrated, adaptive and domanial water resources management. Adaptive and Integrated Water Management, 1(2007), 39–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75941-6_3 Lazaroms, R., & Poos, D. (2004). The Dutch water board model. Journal of Water Law, 15(3–4), 137–140. LINKit consult, & Wageningen Water Consult. (2012). Naar een nieuwe Afsluitdijk De vismigratie-rivier bij Kornwerderzand. Lorenzoni, I., & Benson, D. (2014). Radical institutional change in environmental governance: Explaining the origins of the UK Climate Change Act 2008 through discursive and streams perspectives. Global Environmental Change, 29, 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.07.011 Ludwig, F., van Slobbe, E., & Cofino, W. (2014). Climate change adaptation and Integrated Water Resource Management in the water sector. Journal of Hydrology, 518(PB), 235– 242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.08.010 Maltby, T. (2013). European Union energy policy integration: A case of European Commission policy entrepreneurship and increasing supranationalism. Energy Policy, 55, 435–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.12.031 Mansholt, D. R. (1916). De overstrooming in Noord-Holland en de Afsluiting der Zuiderzee. 1, 6–8. https://doi.org/10.16309/j.cnki.issn.1007-1776.2003.03.004 Meijerink, S. (2005). Understanding policy stability and change. The interplay of advocacy coalitions and epistemic communities, windows of opportunity, and Dutch coastal flooding policy 1945-2003. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(6), 1060–1077. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760500270745 Meijerink, S., & Huitema, D. (2009). Understanding and managing water policy transitions: A policy science perspective. Water Policy Entrepreneurs: A Research Companion to Water Transitions around the Globe, January, 23–36. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849803366.00011 Meijerink, S., & Huitema, D. (2010). Policy entrepreneurs and change strategies: Lessons from sixteen case studies of water transitions around the globe. Ecology and Society, 15(2), 17. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03509-150221 Milio, S. (2014). The conflicting effects of multi-level governance and the partnership principle:Evidence from the Italian experience. European Urban and Regional Studies, 21(4), 384–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776413493631

Milly, P. C. D., Betancourt, J., Falkenmark, M., Hirsch, R. M., Kundzewicz, Z. W., Lettenmaier, D. P., & Stouffer, R. J. (2008). Climate change: Stationarity is dead: Whither water management? Science, 319(5863), 573–574. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1151915 Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu. (2011). Structuurvisie Toekomst Afsluitdijk - Ontwerp. Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat. (2006). Waterkoers 2: De visie van DG water op het waterbeleid in Nederlands. 93. Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat. (2007a). Voorschrift Toetsen op Veiligheid Primaire Waterkeringen. 476. Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat. (2007b). Watervisie. Nederland veroveren op de toekomst. Kabinetsvisie op het waterbeleid. Mintrom, M. (1997). Policy Entrepreneurs and the Diffusion of Innovation. American Journak of Political Science, 41(3), 738–770. Mintrom, M. (2019). So you want to be a policy entrepreneur? Policy Design and Practice, 2(4), 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2019.1675989 Mintrom, M., & Norman, P. (2009). Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. Policy Studies Journal, 37(4), 649–667. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2009.00329.x Mintrom, M., & Vergari, S. (1996). Advocacy coalitions, policy entrepreneurs, and policy change. Policy Studies Journal, 24(3), 420–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541- 0072.1996.tb01638.x Oppenheimer, M., Glavovic, B., Hinkel, J., Wal, R. van de, Magnan, A. L., & Abd-Elgawad, A. (2019). Chapter 4: Sea Level Rise and Implications for Low Lying Islands, Coasts and Communities. IPCC SR Ocean and Cryosphere. IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [H.- O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, V. Masson- Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama, N. Weyer (Eds.)]. In Press., 1–169. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam6284 Owens, S. (2010). Learning across levels of governance: Expert advice and the adoption of carbon dioxide emissions reduction targets in the UK. Global Environmental Change, 20(3), 394–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.11.001 Pahl-wostl, C., Jeffrey, P., & Sendzimir, J. (2008). Adaptive and Integrated Water Management. Adaptive and Integrated Water Management, November 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75941-6 Parry, M. L., Canziani, O. ., Palutikof, J. P., Linden, P. J. van der, & Hanson, C. E. (2007). IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. In Cambridge Univeristy press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044910-4.00250-9 PO IJsselmeer, & Sportvisserij Nederland. (2011). Visplan IJsselmeer en Markermeer 2010- 2011. april. Pralle, S. B. (2009). Agenda-setting and climate change. Environmental Politics, 18(5), 781– 799. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010903157115 Provincie Noord-Holland, Provincie Fryslân, Gemeente Wieringen, Gemeente Súdwest- Fryslân, & Gemeente Harlingen. (2011). Ambitie Agenda Afsluitdijk.

Ravesteijn, W., & Kroesen, J. O. (2007). Tensions in water management: Dutch tradition and European policy. Water Science and Technology, 56(4), 105–111. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2007.542 Rawat, P., & Morris, J. C. (2016). Kingdon’s “ Streams ” Model at Thirty : Still Relevant in the 21st Century ? 44(4), 608–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12106/abstract Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed. (2014). Bewonings geschiedenis noordelijk kustgebied. http://cultureelerfgoed.nl/sites/default/files/publications/achtergronddocument- bewoningsgeschiedenis-noordelijk-kustgebied.pdf Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed. (2017). Cultuurhistorische IJsselmeerbiografie : Friesland. http://edepot.wur.nl/441480 Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed. (2019). Leven met water: dijken, muren tegen de waterwolf. Rijkswaterstaat. (2009). Dijk en meer. Eindrapportage Verkenning Toekomst Afsluitdijk. Rijkswaterstaat. (2011). Derde toetsronde 2006-2011: Presentatie van de toetsresultaten van de Afsluitdijk (Issue september 2010). Rijkswaterstaat. (2013). Startdocument planuitwerking Afsluitdijk (pp. 169, 172). Rijkswaterstaat. (2015). Masterplan Beeldkwaliteit Afsluitdijk. 266. Rijkswaterstaat. (2016). The Afsluitdijk Project. In Report. Rijkswaterstaat. (2017a). Project Afsluitdijk: Caring for nature. Rijkswaterstaat. (2017b). Rijksinpassingsplan Afsluitdijk - Aanvulling 2017. Robinson, S. E., & Eller, W. S. (2010). Participation in policy streams: Testing the separation of problems and solutions in subnational policy systems. Policy Studies Journal, 38(2), 199–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00358.x Rouillard, J. J., Benson, D., & Gain, A. K. (2014). Evaluating IWRM implementation success: are water policies in Bangladesh enhancing adaptive capacity to climate change impacts? International Journal of Water Resources Development, 30(3), 515–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2014.910756 Sabatier, P. (2007). Theories of policy process. In Handbook of Public Policy Agenda Setting. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315682723-6 Savenije, H. H. G., & Van der Zaag, P. (2008). Integrated water resources management: Concepts and issues. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 33(5), 290–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2008.02.003 Slomp, R. (2012). Flood Risk and Water Management in the Netherlands. Flood Risk and Water Management in the Netherlands, July 2012, 101. https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%3A7d27240f-1169-4536-b204- fc821345669b Snellen, W. B. B., & Schrevel, A. (2004). IWRM: for sustainable use of water 50 years of international experience with the concept of integrated water management. FAO/Netherlands Conference on Water for Food and Ecosystems, 1–16. http://www.colinmayfield.com/WHCourse/IWRM%5CnDocuments/IWRM_Backgroundon epage.pdf

Bestuursovereenkomst Toekomst Afsluitdijk, 1. Stańczuk-Gałwiaczek, M., Sobolewska-Mikulska, K., Ritzema, H., & van Loon-Steensma, J. M. (2018). Integration of water management and land consolidation in rural areas to adapt to climate change: Experiences from Poland and the Netherlands. Land Use Policy, 77(June 2018), 498–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.06.005 Stephenson, P. (2013). Twenty years of multi-level governance : ‘ Where Does It Come From ? What Is It ? Where Is It Going ?’ 1763(May). https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2013.781818 Stuyfzand, P. J. (1995). The impact of land reclamation on groundwater quality and future drinking water supply in the Netherlands. Water Science and Technology, 31(8), 47–57. Taylor, P. (2009). IWRM as a Tool for Adaptation to Climate Change. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 8(4), 1–120. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0954349X97900035 TeBrake, W. H. (2002). Taming the waterwolf: Hydraulic engineering and water management in the Netherlands during the middle ages. Technology and Culture, 43(3), 475–499. https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.2002.0141 Teisman, G. R. (2000). Models for research into decision-making processes: On phases, streams, rounds and tracks of decision-making. Routledge Handbook of Public Policy, 78(4), 299–319. ter Veen, H. (1935). Zuiderzee en Staat. De Economist, 84(1), 811–833. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02201118 Timmerman, J. G., Beinat, E., Termeer, K., & Cofino, W. (2010). Analyzing the data-rich-but- information-poor syndrome in dutch water management in historical perspective. Environmental Management, 45(5), 1231–1242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010- 9459-5 Travis, R., & Zahariadis, N. (2002). A multiple streams model of U.S. foreign aid policy. Policy Studies Journal, 30(4), 495–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541- 0072.2002.tb02160.x Tsakiris, G., Nalbantis, I., & Pistrika, A. (2009). Critical technical issues on the EU flood directive. Eur Water, 25(26), 39–51. van Baars, S., & van Kempen, I. M. (2009). The Causes and Mechanisms of Historical Dike Failures in the Netherlands. E-WAter, 2009(06), 1–14. http://www.ewa-online.eu/e- water-documents.html Van Der Brugge, R., Rotmans, J., & Loorbach, D. (2005). The transition in Dutch water management. Regional Environmental Change, 5(4), 164–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-004-0086-7 van der Wal, L. T. (1923a). Geschiedenis van de plannen tot afsluiting en droogmaking van de Zuiderzee, met chronologische lijst van geschriften tot en met het jaar 1922 B. Hilos Tensados, 1, 1–476. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 van der Wal, L. T. (1923b). Geschiedenis van de plannen tot afsluiting en droogmaking van de Zuiderzee. van Herk, S., Zevenbergen, C., Ashley, R., & Rijke, J. (2011). Learning and Action Alliances for the integration of flood risk management into urban planning: A new framework from

empirical evidence from The Netherlands. Environmental Science and Policy, 14(5), 543–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.04.006 van Koningsveld, M., & Mulder, J. P. M. (2009). Sustainable coastal policy developments in the Netherlands. A systematic approach revealed. 5036(March), 0–50. https://doi.org/10.2112/1551-5036(2004)020 Van Koningsveld, M., Stive, M. J. F., Mulder, J. P. M., De Vriend, H. J., Ruessink, B. G., & Dunsbergen, D. W. (2003). Usefulness and effectiveness of coastal research: A matter of perception? Journal of Coastal Research, 19(2), 441–461. Van Lier, H. N., & Steiner, F. R. (1982). A review of the Zuiderzee reclamation works: An example of Dutch physical planning. Landscape Planning, 9(1), 35–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3924(82)90010-7 van Loon-Steensma, J. M., Schelfhout, H. A., & Vellinga, P. (2014). Green adaptation by innovative dike concepts along the Dutch Wadden Sea coast. Environmental Science and Policy, 44, 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.06.009 van Popta, Y. (2017). Sloop de dijken, laat de zee terugkeren! 19–25. Verduin, S. (2011). Een sterk verhaal: de Tweede Deltacommissie. Vikolainen, V., Bressers, H., & Lulofs, K. (2012). Implementing eu natura 2000 at the project level: Lessons from the veluwe border lakes in the netherlands. Public Administration, 90(4), 1016–1031. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01971.x Vink, M. J., Boezeman, D., Dewulf, A., & Termeer, C. J. A. M. (2013). Changing climate, changing frames: Dutch water policy frame developments in the context of a rise and fall of attention to climate change. Environmental Science and Policy, 30, 90–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.10.010 Voskamp, I. M., & Van de Ven, F. H. M. (2015). Planning support system for climate adaptation: Composing effective sets of blue-green measures to reduce urban vulnerability to extreme weather events. Building and Environment, 83, 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.07.018 Ward, P. J., Winsemius, H. C., Kuzma, S., Bierkens, M. F. P., Bouwman, A., Moel, H. D. E., Loaiza, A. D., Scussolini, P., Sutanudjaja, E. H., Beek, R. V. A. N., Bemmel, B. A. S. V. A. N., Huijstee, J. V. A. N., Rijn, F. V. A. N., & Wesenbeeck, B. V. A. N. (2020). Aqueduct Floods Methodology (Issue January). www.wri.org/publication/aqueduct- floods-methodology Waterman, R. E., Misdorp, R., & Mol, A. (1998). Interactions between water and land in The Netherlands. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 4(2), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02806503 Watson, N. (2014). IWRM in England: bridging the gap between top-down and bottom-up implementation. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 30(3), 445– 459. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2014.899892 Westerdijk, J. (1932). Onafgebroken voortzetting of voorloopige opschorting van de gedeeltelijke droogmaking der Zuiderzee. Widyatama, B. (2018). Applying Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework in the Establishment of Law No.13 of 2012 Concerning the Privilege of Yogyakarta Special Region. Journal of Government and Civil Society, 2(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.31000/jgcs.v2i1.643

Witteveen+Bos. (2013). De Nieuwe Afsluitdijk Notitie Reikwijdte en Detailniveau vismigratierivier Afsluitdijk. Wolff, W. J. (1992). The end of a tradition: 1000 years of embankment and reclamation of wetlands in the Netherlands. Ambio, 21(4), 287–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/4313944 Wolsink, M. (2006). River basin approach and integrated water management: Governance pitfalls for the Dutch Space-Water-Adjustment Management Principle. Geoforum, 37(4), 473–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.07.001 Xie, M. (2006). Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) – Introduction to Principles and Practices 1. Water, 1–15. Yin, R. K. (2002). Case study research: Design and Methods. In Sage Publications (Vol. 5, Issue 2). https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9149(74)90005-8 Yusuf, J. E. (Wie), Neill, K., John, B. S., Ash, I. K., & Mahar, K. (2016). The sea is rising… but not onto the policy agenda: A multiple streams approach to understanding sea level rise policies. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34(2), 228–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X15614457 Zahariadis, N. (2016). Delphic oracles: ambiguity, institutions, and multiple streams. Policy Sciences, 49(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-016-9243-3 Zhu, X. (2008). Strategy of Chinese policy entrepreneurs in the third sector: Challenges of “Technical Infeasibility.” Policy Sciences, 41(4), 315–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-008-9070-2 Zohlnhöfer, R., & Rüb, F. W. (2016). Decision-Making under Ambiguity and Time Constraints Edited by.

Appendices

Appendix A: Previous plans for the closure of the Afsluitdijk

Plan Kloppenburg and Faddegon, 1848

J. Kloppenburg and P. Faddegon, a former shipbroker and a mechanical inventor, were no experts in hydraulic engineering (van der Wal, 1923). Their plans included the damming of the river ‘Het Ij’, the build of a dam from Medemblik to Stavoren and reclaim a big part of the Zuiderzee. They also planned to connect all the Wadden Islands to the mainland, from Den Helder to the German coast at Emden with dikes. The Netherlands lost territory due to the independence of Belgium in 1839, and Kloppenburg and Faddegon wanted to substitute this with the construction of a new province. As well as the increase of the population as the amount of poverty in the country, substantiated their argument to reclaim the Zuiderzee for agricultural land (ter Veen, 1935). They priced their plan with opportunities for agriculture, shipping and trading opportunities, by creating/yielding 600.000 hectares of land for approximately ƒ18.700.000, -. but no technical elaboration was given though

Figure 10: Plan Kloppenburg and the men thought it was possible. No further attention was ever given to this plan Faddegon, 1848 (van der Wal, (van der Wal, 1923). 1923)

Plan van Diggelen, 1849

Engineer B.P.G. Van Diggelen published his plan a year later than Kloppenburg & Faddegon, with technical clarifications, what was to be expected from a man who has been involved in multiple water management projects But he was not able to keep the public interest for his plan to reclaim the Zuiderzee (ter Veen, 1935). His goal was to improve the water management and quality of the surrounding areas, as well as gradually reclaiming the Zuiderzee (Westerdijk, 1932). Van Diggelen wanted to reclaim almost the whole Zuiderzee and Waddenzee, except for the sea inlets ‘Texelstroom’ and ‘Vliestroom’ due to the trading opportunity as well as the possible technical problems the reclaiming of those inlets would give. For the reclamation, a dike would be constructed from the mainland at Den Helder, to the West point of the Wadden island Terschelling. The total surface to be reclaimed would be approximately 550.000 HA with the cost of ƒ 326.000.000,- (van der Wal, 1923). Van Diggelen’s plan gained more attention than the previous plan, as it included technical aspects, a socio-economic study and insight into the possible issues. Figure 11: Plan van Diggelen, But from an engineering point of view it was too vague, and financial it was not 1849 (van der Wal, 1923) feasible yet (Alewijn & Polderwerker, 1868; H. ter Veen, 1935; van der Wal, 1923). Though van Diggelen was asked to further elaborate on his plan to the Minister of Foreign Affairs about the feasibility and benefits, no further action was taken. After plan Van Diggelen the discussion around the closure of the Zuiderzee and land reclamation was silenced again till the sixties (van der Wal, 1923).

Plan Beyerink, 1866

The chief engineer of Rijkswaterstaat, J.A. Beyerinck, was involved in multiple reclamation projects, including the Haarlemmermeer in 1852, and had the needed experience to see the potential of reclaiming the Zuiderzee (van der Wal, 1923; Westerdijk, 1932). Beyerinck presented his plan in 1866, where the river ‘Het Ij’ would still flow into the Zuiderzee and the construction of a dam from North- Holland to Friesland, from Enkhuizen to Ketel, reclaiming 195.000 HA of land. His project, estimated to cost 12 years for ƒ 84.000.000,-, was taken more seriously than his predecessors (van der Wal, 1923). Directly in 1866, a loan was requested which sparked the interest of the people and specialists for the reclamation of the Zuiderzee. The plan ended up at the Government who formed a council to further research the possibilities, technical issues and construction of Plan Beyerinck (van der Wal, 1923). The plan was submitted for review to the engineer Stieltjes, who already stated that Beyerinck’s plan was Figure 12: Figure 12: Plan not feasible, botch technical as financial. The council concluded the Beyerink, 1866 (van der Wal, 1923 same in their final report in 1868. They had objections as they thought the reclamation would not be beneficial, for a private company to execute the plan without risks. There was no need for the State to carry out the reclamation, so the Council gave negative advice. And if the reclamation would yield benefits, they advised to act with caution and only reclaim the southern part of the Zuiderzee (ter Veen, 1935; van der Wal, 1923).

Plan Stieltjes, 1870

Engineer T.J. Stieltjes, who was involved in de reviewing of Plan Beyerinck, used the latter as his basis. He altered and improved Plan Beyerinck, by increasing the number of channels between the polders, reclaiming a total area of 195.000 HA for ƒ 98.000.000,- (van der Wal, 1923). The Government formed a State Commission to tackle the Zuiderzee dilemma, which was a first in history, showing that the case was taken more seriously from now on. In 1873 the State Commission presented their report on Plan Stieltjes. They concluded that the activities would take 16 years costing ƒ 123.000.000, -. The reclamation was thought to be technically feasible, and that it would be beneficial for the common good, especially for the water authorities. They stated that the responsibilities of the construction would be with the State, as it is of national importance. The Minister wanted to conduct further research into Figure 13 Plan Stieltjes, 1870 the reclaiming of the land and the importance of military defence (ter (van der Wal, 1923) Veen, 1935; van der Wal, 1923).

Plan Leemans, 1875

The engineer of Rijkswaterstaat W.F. Leemans was asked to further research Plan Stieltjes (ter Veen, 1935). In 1875 he published his plan based on the last two plans (Beyerinck-Stieltjes), reclaiming the Southern part of the Zuiderzee of 157.500 HA for ƒ 116.000.000, -. The plan led to discussion, and even to a law draft. But eventually, the Ministry was replaced and the law was redrawn (van der Wal, 1923). A new period started, where the issue was not which plan for the reclamation was the most advisable, but if a certain plan would be executable. Experts already determined that only the Southern part of the Zuiderzee would be feasible to reclaim, and other plans with bigger areas to reclaim were not technically and financially feasible. So, the attention went to Plan Beyerinck- Stieltjes-Leemans. Though, quickly overshadowed by the agricultural crisis of 1877 in West-Europe (ter Veen, 1935; van der Wal, 1923). Figure 14: Plan Leemans, 1875 (van der Wal, 1923)

Appendix B: Interview guide

This interview guide consists of example questions presented to each stakeholder, depending on the different interviewees, questions were altered. As clarified in the methodology (Ch. 4.2.1), the questions focused on understanding the stakeholder’ role within the project and their opinion on the policy change at the Afsluitdijk.

Interview questions o How and since when are you involved with the Afsluitdijk? o What is your position in the project and what are your tasks? o How is the interaction between the stakeholders? o What were the key issues of the stakeholder meetings? o What were the most desired changes form the stakeholders?

o How do you define sustainability? o How is sustainability achieved at the renewal of the Afsluitdijk? o How does the Afsluitdijk combine the development of nature and renewable energy with flood protection, what is your role in this part? o What are, according to you, the main issues that have been integrated into the new policy? o What is your opinion on sustainable adaptation, e.g., blue energy, fish migration river? o What are the challenges of including sustainable adaptations to flood defences? o What are the remaining challenges and opportunities of the integration of sustainable adaptations at flood defences?

Appendix C: Example of coding

Below, an example of the coding process is presented of the interview conducted with DNA at 13/01/2021. The coding process was both deductive and inductive.

Table 4: Example of coding (Interview DNA, 13/01/2021)

TEXT OPEN CODING SUB-THEME THEME I: En daarmee is ‘De Nieuwe Afsluitdijk’ als groep ontstaan? R: In 2006 is vast komen te staan dat de Afsluitdijk niet meer veilig genoeg meer was, Safety- Legislation Policy stream ze voeren een soort APK uit om de zoveel assessment tijd voor zeedijken. Toen zijn er een aantal consortia aan het werk gegaan want we Initiative Exploratory phase Stakeholder dachten toen dat de markt veel beter plannen stakeholders engagement kon maken en realiseren, dan dat de overheid dat kon. Uiteindelijk zijn die plannen afgewezen. En toen zaten we ook in de Rejection of Exploratory phase Politics stream crisis. plans

Toen was er een soort ‘no-nonsens’ Governance Politics stream benadering vanuit Den Haag. Ambition Die zeiden “we focussen ons op de government waterveiligheid en het watermanagement, en we skippen de rest, de ‘flauwekul’, en we gaan ons richten op onze kerntaken als Rijksoverheid”. Toen hebben de regionale Initiative Stakeholder overheden gezegd, “er zitten waardevolle Establisment stakeholder/policy engagement/Policy ideeën tussen en we zien de kans om DNA proposal stream hiermee de regio te versterken als we aan de slag gaan met de Afsluitdijk, we vinden dat hiervoor meer ruimte moet zijn”. Dat heeft ertoe geleid dat de Rijksoverheid heeft gezegd “dat is prima, maar dan moeten jullie het zelf doen”. En dat was de start voor ‘De Nieuwe Afsluitdijk’.