Safety First? Place Attachment in the Conflict of Durgerdam

Safety First? Place attachment in the conflict of Durgerdam

Friso van Alphen, 10510303 [email protected]

Master Urban and Regional Planning Graduate School of Social Sciences University of Amsterdam

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Maria Kaika Second reader: Prof. Dr.Tuna Tasan-Kok

11-06-2018

Safety First?

Safety First? Place attachment in the conflict of Durgerdam

Friso van Alphen

Preface

Dear reader,

In the summer of 2017, I made a bicycle tour with my father around the IJsselmeer, as he was surprised that I never cycled over the Afsluitdijk and thought this is something you have to do at least once in a lifetime. This became a tour with the theme of cycling and a father-son adventu- re, but also an informational tour on flood protection. The first village that we passed through was Durgerdam. Even though I have been there before, this time my interest was caught by the complex conflicts at the villages along the Markermeerdijken were facing. This made me realize that I would like to know more about what is happening in Durgerdam, but not through desk research, but by coming in contact with the residents themselves.

I would like to thank Maria Kaika in special for the motivational supervision and constructive feedback. The motivational feedback sessions were right what I needed and gave me new insights on how to improve this thesis. Also, I am grateful to the residents of Durgerdam for sharing their unique stories with me. I have been welcomed by all of you with open arms which gave me a warm feeling. Hester and Ben from Hoogheemraadschap Hollands Noorderkwartier and Anke from Natuurmonumenten deserve a special thanks as well for making time to have a conversation with me during these hectic and busy times. Finally, I would like to thank my brother Sander for brainstorming with me during the times that I got stuck with my results, My father Jos for making pictures with me of Durgerdam with his drone, and my friend Max for revising this thesis on grammar and legibility.

I hope you enjoy your reading.

Friso van Alphen

Amsterdam, June 2018

Index 1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………11 2. Theoretical framework……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….13 3.1. Attachment to place and community………………………………………………………………………… 13 3.2. NIMBY conflicts…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….16 3. Methodology……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….20 4. Context of Durgerdam…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………24 4.1 History of Durgerdam……………………………………………………………………………………………………24 4.2 Durgerdam in the 21st century…………………………………………………………………………………….25 4.3 Dike reinforcement……………………………………………………………………………………………………….26 5. Analysis place attachment………………………………………………………………………………………………………….30 5.1. Physical landscape elements……………………………………………………………………………………….30 5.2. Landscape experiences……………………………………………………………………………………………….33 5.3. Social identities……………………………………………………………………………………………………………35 6. Analysis matters of conflict……………………………………………………………………………………………………….38 6.1. Practical matters…………………………………………………………………………………………………………38 6.2. Aesthetics matters……………………………………………………………………………………………………….40 6.3. Trust matters…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…42 6.4. Scale matters……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….44 7. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………46 8. Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………48 9. Literature……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………50 10. Appendix……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………54 .

1.Introduction For over 10 years already, there is a conflict about the dike at Durgerdam. The dike got condemned in 2006 because it is not stable enough to guarantee safety to the 1.2 million people living in North-Holland. The plans to reinforce the dike led to resistance of the local community as they were afraid that the reinforcement would harm the spatial characteristics of the historical village (Meershoek, 2017). This thesis is about the role of place attachment in the conflict of the dike reinforcement in Durgerdam, and the main research question is: What meanings does the local population attribute to Durgerdam, and how does this play a role in the conflict?

The Netherlands is internationally well known for its battle against water. For centuries, the Dutch are fighting flooding hazard and it can be seen as part of its culture (Wesselink, 2007). Dikes keep the land free of flooding, but also big manmade structures such as the Maeslantke- ring are a symbol of the constant struggle of living below sea level and are part of the Dutch cultural landscapes. Due to climate change, this struggle against a rising sea level demands constant maintenance on these dikes. After the Watersnoodramp in 1957, dikes were built and reinforced into such a heavy degree that sometimes dike houses were demolished and existing characteristic landscapes were affected (Van Rijswijk, 2014). This did not always go without opposition, for example in Brakel in the 1970’s. Houses that were standing on the dike got exprop- riated and demolished and the characteristic appearance of the village disappeared (van Meurs, n.d.). The citizens of Brakel came in protest but without any results. Houses, farms, the school, the mayor's house and the 100-year-old town hall got demolished, but more important, a part of their cultural landscape was destroyed.

The fear of similar matters is now present in Durgerdam. The 33-kilometer long Markermeerdij- ken between Amsterdam and Hoorn got condemned in 2006 (Meershoek, 2016b). Within this 33 kilometer lies the small village of Durgerdam, a former fisherman village known for its unique long line of picturesque houses along a small road on top of the former Zuiderzeedijk (Everink, 2001). Plans to reinforce the dike were made but inhabitants of Durgerdam fear sharp damage to their monumental village as they are not convinced that dike reinforcement is necessary in the proposed way (Meershoek, 2017). The residents of Durgerdam objected to the proposed plans and a resistance was formed which gave them more time in the process of decision making. What has followed is a process in which residents and the waterboards together are figuring out a possible solution that is supported by the local community.

The way this conflict unfolds can be seen as a ‘’not in my backyard’’ (NIMBY) conflict. The Mar- kermeerdijken protect 1.2 million Dutch citizens from flooding and the general attitude towards flood protection is positive. However, residents of Durgerdam don’t agree on the measures that are proposed in this particular case. Different aspects of place attachment and sense of community play a role in this conflict as the residents fear that part of their unique place will be har- med. Therefore it is interesting to study this peculiar case of NIMBY conflict from a place at-

11 tachment point of view. NIMBY conflicts have been studied widely, especially on windmills. However, often these NIMBY conflicts are viewed from an individual ‘costs and benefits’ point of view (Quah & Tan, 1998). How feelings of belonging to a place and its community play a role in conflicts with different interests between stakeholders is still understudied. Devine-Wright (2009; 2013) and Manzo & Perkins (2006) are researchers that plead for more attention to place attachments and place identities in climate change issues.

While this research adds scientific value, it also is very relevant on a practical level. There is a trend occurring in which citizens are becoming more and more involved in spatial development programs in the Netherlands (Buitelaar et al., 2012). This research can add value as it can de- monstrate the role of spatial context in a world were involvement of citizens in spatial development will only increase. How to cope with resistance and how to create support for plans will take a more central role in urban planning and thus requires more attention.

The aim of this research is to create a better understanding of how the concept of place attachment plays a role in such conflicts. To do so, multiple forms of research that provide data that helps to understand the how’s and why’s in this conflict were conducted. Questionnaires have been handed out to all households in Durgerdam, and interviews with the residents were held. Also, interviews with important stakeholders such as the Hoogheemraadschap Hollands Noorderkwartier and Natuurmonumenten were conducted. Finally, I visited one of the participation evening organized on April 3rd, 2018.

The chapters that follow are each concerned with questions about the place attachment of the residents of Durgerdam in this NIMBY conflict. In chapter 2, bodies of relevant literature are linked with the research question ‘’What meanings does the local population attribute to Durger- dam, and how does this play a role in the conflict?’’. First, how landscape elements play a role in developing a sense of place is discussed, followed by the role of sense of community in developing place attachment. Then a theoretical framework on the NIMBY concept and the importance of place and context in development programs is formed. Chapter 3 will show how the research question is examined by discussing the research design and its execution. The way the data is collected and analyzed will be discussed. The 4th chapter will give a description of the history of Durgerdam, the current conflict and what stakeholders are involved. Then, my findings based on the interviews and questionnaires will be presented. Chapter 5 will dig deeper into what meanings residents of Durgerdam attribute to the place and chapter 6 will focus more on the matters of the conflict in Durgerdam. In chapter 7 I will answer the research question and, finally, chapter 8 will discuss the research and the theoretical implications of this thesis and further research recommendations will be made.

12 2. Theoretical Framework The concepts of place attachment and place identity have been studied widely. Different appro- aches on how different people are attached to certain places are developed. However, how these feelings of being attached to a place play a role in conflicts, especially NIMBY conflicts, is still understudied. First, this chapter will elaborate on different concepts of place attachment such as emotional bonds, landscape elements and sense of community. This is followed by a deeper analysis of the NIMBY concept. Finally, this chapter links the concept of place attachment and NIMBY conflicts and defines the gap in existing literature and practices by proposing a new way on how NIMBY’s should be perceived.

2.1 Attachment to place and community Tuan (1977) is one of the first academics who wrote about concepts such as space and place. He states that space and place cannot be seen as separate, but are interdependent. Space can be seen as an abstract geometrical concept, which turns into a place when using it and adding value to. Spaces, therefore are interpreted to equate with everywhere, whereas places are specific. Spaces contain values that are assigned by the people who live in it. These memories and experiences with a place are what Tuan calls a ‘sense of place’, which is strongly related to ‘place attachment’. This means the emotional bond between human and place, something that humans create naturally according to Tuan (1977). The concept of place attachment helps us ‘’understand how particular preferences, perceptions, and emotional connections to place relate to community social cohesion, organized participation, and community development’’ (Manzo & Perkins, 2006: 336), as it describes the involvement and emotional bond between human and a certain place. Often this relates to the living environment, but Lewicka (2011) describes that this can also relate to a street, neighborhood, city, country, or even the world. Besides the scale, Manzao and Perkins (2006) note that the emotional bond with a place can be both positive and negative.

The concept of place attachment is widely used by researchers from multiple disciplines. Geo- graphers, psychologists, and sociologists are all researching the concept, which results in many different terms and definitions. However, Lewicka (2011) sees three important components that contribute to the attachment to a place: the physical environment, human behavior, and social or psychological processes. Geographers see place attachment as a product of the influence of the physical environment. Stedman, (2003) describes that people are attached to (symbolical) meanings that are produced by a place. Psychologists tend to focus more on how place attachment evolves as a psychological process, and sociologists see place attachment as a product that evolves from the community and consists of social contacts and cultural processes. These appro- aches are combined in the way how landscape elements create meaning for mankind.

The appreciation of the physical environment, also known as the landscape, is the starting point for triggering place attachment (Relph, 1987; Mohammad et al., 2013; Cullen, 1971). Even

13 though landscapes are complex things, which are described and interpreted in various ways throughout history, three universal characteristics are present, which are connected with each other. Relph (1987) argues that landscape elements are the ‘building blocks’ of the landscape. Everywhere around the world, landscapes look different. Places and landscapes are made by vi- sual images, and physical features are an important part of the process of creating landscapes. Second, Ralph argues that in order to exist, landscape elements need to be connected with society. Landscape elements need to be able to be used in a physical or mental way. De Groot (2006) argues that landscapes are sources that provide humans with ecological, economical and social- cultural goods that have an inseparable connection with society. Finally, the ability of the human to interpret, makes it possible that a landscape is something that can be seen (Relph, 1987). A landscape can be seen, but can also be read as it contains different layers of meaning. Cosgrove (1989) argues that these layers of meaning are socially constructed and therefore, based on one’s gained experiences, landscapes can be experienced in different ways. Landscapes contain a biophysical entity but are especially based on mental, cultural and social processes.

Mohammad et al. (2013) acknowledge the importance of landscape elements, as they describe that places are a fusion of human and cultural landscape elements and the landscape should be perceived that way. The elements centers on the way we experience the world. They state that more study has to be done on landscape elements to have a better understanding of how people’s perceptions, experiences and responses towards their surroundings based on elements that relate to their culture and norms as value and uniqueness character are an important issue in environment-behavior study. Cullen (1971) confirms this in one of his early works, as he argues on what to achieve as a unique sense of place. He states that designing places is not only about facilitating our daily activities, but also providing symbolic and affective qualities such as landscape elements to bring people to a place. Mohammad et al. (2013) follow up upon this as they argue that when defining sense of place, components of landscape elements play a significant role and landscape elements should be designed as a whole.

Dikes can be seen as a peculiar landscape element. Their prior function is to protect land from being flooded, but they carry more meanings. Hall and Page (2006) see a dike landscape as a li- minal place as the dike symbolizes the direct separation between land and sea. They describe that the experience of landscape is at its optimum on this point of transition between two different landscapes and, in this case, on the dike. Fischer (2007) argues that sea dikes symbolize the separation between wilderness and civilization. The seaside is untouched by human influences while the other side is created by humans and is fully under human control. Therefore he calls this difference order versus disorder, with the landside as order, and the seaside as disorder. This border is dynamic in its nature as it is influenced by dike breaches and spatial developments. On the other hand, dike can be a symbol of connection. ‘’Dikes are vital to the landscape's appearance: apart from their form and location, their uninterruptedness defines spaces in a landscape and connects areas with each other’’ (Nijhuis, 2014: 72). In this way, the continuity of the dike

14 can connect the local with the supra-regional and is capable of creating the connection between a landscape's history and our spatial experience.

What is being understudied within the concept of place attachment, is the role of sense of community and community identity (Manzo & Perkins, 2006). They argue that many researchers are focussed on economic, political, or social dynamics within and between communities and public agencies, but tend to forget the importance of place identity and sense of community. They describe the concept of place identity as ‘’it consists of dimensions of the self that develop in relation to the physical environment by means of a pattern of beliefs, preferences, feelings, values, and goals’’ (Manzo & Perkins, 2006: 337). Through the interaction of one with the community of a place, one creates their own personal identity and values. The greatest agreement on the definition of sense of community revolves around the feeling of belonging to a group and being member of a group. This includes an emotional bond within the community that can be based on shared interests or a shared history (Perkins & Long, 2002). Two dimensions of sense of community were identified by Riger and Lavrakas (1981) within attachment with a community that is communal: a sense of bondedness and a sense of rootedness. It describes how one can feel being part of their neighborhood and its community, not only by individual emotional bonds but also external, social processes. These bonds are influenced by the length of residence and appear to be stronger among families with children and elderly (Hummon, 1992).

While sense of community and community identity are focussed on emotional bonds between people and within communities, place attachment, as an emotional bond between people and place, can complement the sense of community. Manzo and Perkins (2006) argue that both can motivate members of a community to actively participate in neighborhood development. They state that sense of community and place attachment can be linked at both individual and community scale. Sense of community also plays a role in conflicts that are related to place attachment. In many cases, perceived threats to the uniqueness of the identity of a place and its landscape ideas are connected with its local community that wishes to defend the characteristics of their identity and bounded place which they identify themselves with (Tilley, 2006). The result is an almost inevitably nostalgic imagination of how places should be preserved, and how heritage projects have to be conserved with compelling aims. The ethnic groups continuously search for a romanticized identity where this ethnic group stays pure in the face of change. Til- ley (2006) states that the affective power of place and locality is stronger than any influences of global processes. These feelings and ideas about their local identity are embedded in the characteristics of places and landscapes. What they look like, but also their appearance on post- cards, guidebooks, and tourist brochures, and how they feel. What kind of emotions certain landscapes are paired with and the relations that these places build on. ‘’Landscape and places express group identities to the outside world through passing through and identifying with particular places and particular histories’’ (Tilley, 2006: 14).

15 As shown, the way residents of a local community attach meaning to space, and turn it into a place as described by Tuan (1977) is done through place attachment and sense of community. To answer the question of what values the residents of Durgerdam attach to the place Durgerdam it is important to look at what kind of landscape elements trigger this place attachment, what kind of experiences the local community correspondent the place with, and what role a sense of community and community identity plays in this attachment of place.

2.2 NIMBY conflicts The construction of public services and facilities such as wind energy farms, waste incineration plants, roads and highways require large amount of land. Choosing the best location can take many years while, due to public opposition, the start of the construction is often delayed (Wols- ink, 1994). During these discussions, the term ‘NIMBY’ (Not In My Backyard) often comes up. Ac- cording to Dear (1992: 288) ‘’NIMBY refers to the protectionist attitudes of oppositional tactics adopted by community groups facing an unwelcome development in their neighborhood’’. Ano- ther term which has been used often is `LULUS', which stands for `locally unwanted land uses' (Popper, 1985). For it advocates, the need for these facilities often seems clear, but for the nearby residents of the facilities, this might not always be the case (Botetzagias & Karamichas, 2009: 240). Residents may enjoy the advantages of living close to the facility, but they are also exposed to most of the negative externalities (Mingyuan & Bin, 2016: 376). Such facilities create benefits that may be large, but they are distributed over a wide range of people. This means that everybody enjoys the benefits, but the individual share of the benefits is small (Olson, 1965). Next to that, Olson describes that the burdens of providing the collective good tend to be unequally shared. The costs are mostly located in the local host community or neighborhood while the benefits are for a wider range of people. Research on NIMBY’s in energy projects are of particular interest. Although numerous opinion polls indicate a generally positive stance and a public support for renewable energy, actual development has to cope with opposition, leading to the project being delayed or even abandoned (Devine-Wright, 2009). This is typically described as ‘NIMBYism’ as there is a difference between the high levels of general public support and the disputed local projects.

According to Vlek (1995) the societal interest within NIMBY is recognized by the local community, but at the same time, the preference to execute the project somewhere else is expressed. He claims that it is a phenomenon that is an expression of local egoism as the local community wants to prevent its ‘backyard’ from attacks on free space. However, Wolsink (1994) states that conflicts are often too easily described as NIMBY when that is not the case and warns for the ‘nimby syndrome’. He explains that opponents are often described as ‘short-sighted’ and cynical motives are attributed to this group. Labeling a conflict as a NIMBY is an easy way to shut down opposition while this opposition is not always about self-interest. In some cases, NIMBY labels are attached while in reality there is a NIABY (not in anyone's backyard). Wolsink (1994) explains how residents opposed the plans of building a nuclear power plant not because they did not

16 want the power plant near their houses, but because the residents have a negative attitude towards the type of facility anywhere.

Futrell (2003), on the other hand, argues that NIMBY claims emerge from important social processes. He explains that residents often experience an ‘information haze’ which means “a condition in which there are conflicting, contradicting, multiparty, multidirectional communications that fail to clarify the risks associated with a project, thus rendering lay interpretations of a situation increasingly vague and difficult” (Futrell, 2003: 365). This ‘information haze’ might occur because of the difference in the way experts and government officials talk in contrast with local citizens. Communication problems that result in resistance by the local community are triggered by this haze of information. The feeling of anxiety and threat are developed when the public asks questions that are not answered in a (partly) acceptable way. Botetzagias and Kara- michas (2009) recognize this problem. According to them, citizens of local communities are particularly distrustful towards government officials and members of developing programs. They describe that various studies show that when a local community trust the administration and agrees with the sitting process, they are less likely to resist the plans (Botetzagias & Karami- chas, 2009: 940-941). Also being involved in the decision-making process has a positive effect on the support of the local community and projects face less protest. Cowan (2003) notes that Lack of consultation has three consequences. Objectors are excluded from the right to know about the project in the future, following the community is denied from supporting the project, and finally the lack of involvement results in a non-preferred location which would not have been selected with the involvement of members from the local community. Since resistance can be explained from fearing the unknown, consultation could have prevented this (Cowan, 2003: 382- 383).

Devine-Wright (2013) understates this special attention to the context of the community in climate adaptation programs and stresses the need for understanding the strength of property ow- nership and neighborhood cohesion in such cases. At the moment, government-led efforts are ‘’expert driven and fail to engage with residents, overlooked local knowledge and led to feelings of alienation’’ (p. 65). James (2010) describes the importance of seeing residents as experts and the importance of acknowledging the importance of the context. He also sees barriers in partici- patory planning such as mistrust between the local level and higher governmental levels.

To successfully plan and develop, there is a need for sense of place. Planners too often do not acknowledge the importance of place attachment and identity, resulting in competition instead of cooperation. ‘’Our thoughts, feelings, and beliefs about our local community places—what psychologists call “intra-psychic” phenomena—impact our behaviours toward such places, thus influencing whether and how we might participate in local planning efforts.’’ (Manzo & Perkins, 2006: 336). If these feelings and reactions are recognized, they can play a big role in mobilizing citizens. However, when this is not happening, these feelings could divide a community. The

17 ‘sense of place’ influences their “normative evaluations of what battles are worth fighting for, what battles are best left to others, who to cooperate with, and who to dispute’’ Nicholls (2009: 80). Swyngedouw and Kaika (2008) follow up on this by claiming that in order to understand socio-ecological movements, their particular socio-spatial context has to be understood as well. Illustrative to the discussions about identity and landscapes, and community participation is the transformation of the Ladybower Reservoir and Rutland Water (Cosgrove, Roscoe & Rycroft, 1996). This article gives good insights into the role of landscape aesthetics and symbolism on both local and national level. The pure expression of modernist aesthetics was resisted, especially in designing rural landscape and made place for a more place-specific design, consisting picturesque aesthetics. Heavy materials were concealed with soft materials in order to emphasize nature. Neither both local communities were on beforehand hostile to the modernist transformation and only succeeded partly in their negotiations. However, these are good examples how national planning can bring special attention to place landscapes and identities within manmade nature.

Instead of looking at NIMBY’s from an individual psychological perspective, Devine-Wright (2009) argues that we should look at NIMBY’s from a place-attachment point of view. He argues that barely any study connects attitude towards a facility that might provide a NIMBY situation with place attachment, while there might be a connection between the two. The so-called ‘NIMBY’ responses he described should be re-conceived as place-protective actions, which are founded upon processes of place attachment and place identity (Devin-Wright, 2009). Vorkinn and Riese’s (2001) study is one of the exceptions that did attempts to establish a link between place attachment and attitudes towards a proposed hydropower project in Norway. Following the study, the more attached the residents felt towards the affected place, the more negative their attitude was against the hydropower project. However, Devine-Wright (2009) argues that the study left a number of gaps as it followed a particular quantitative research design.

Davidson and Howe (2014) follow up upon this in their research about antipathy towards needle distribution services. In such NIMBY conflicts as described before, they see that communities try to carve themselves out of a larger area ‘’and by doing so limit who can speak for the new space and hence what the material future of the space will be—what services and/or people are ‘ap- propriate’ for the ‘new’ space’’ (Davidson & Howe, 2014: 629). They suggest using the term ‘defensive place-making’ as this is a strategy used by residents of a community to more strongly classify the space and give new meaning to place making of a certain area. Looking at NIMBYs from a place-attachment point of view gives us new insights into how attitudes towards proposed projects emerge, and how negative attitudes and opposition are formed.

To answer the question what role the place attachment has in the conflict in Durgerdam, this theoretical framework offers a new way of approaching this conflict. Instead of labeling opposition to the dike reinforcement as a NIMBY response, this theoretical framework argues that is

18 should be conceived as place protective action. Seeing conflicts through this lens can help to understand how negative attitudes towards the dike reinforcement in Durgerdam emerge. It helps us understand what role, for example, aesthetic matters and creating support take in these conflicts instead of labeling the residents of Durgerdam as egocentric and selfish.

19 3. Methodology This chapter will summarize the research design used in this thesis and comment on its execution. To give an answer to the research question ‘'What meanings does the local population attribute to Durgerdam and how does this play a role in the conflict’’, I needed a research design that allowed me to research how various factors interact in a complex, specific pattern. A case study research design allows me to look through the eyes of the participants and give me a better understanding of how they perceive the world and its reality (Yin, 2012). It provides a lot of data, as a case study is known for its idiographic approach: it is concerned with the unique features of the case (Bryman, 2012: 52). The main goal of the research is to intensively examine the setting to get a better understanding of what meanings the local population attribute to a place and how this influences their attitude in a conflict in the context of a single case. Therefore I chose one single village that is in the middle of a conflict that concerns interference in its cultural landscape.

The first method used for the collection of data was the questionnaire (see appendix) that was used to collect a body of data to function as a starting point. The questionnaire was based on a literature and newspaper review. This method is very effective to get a larger sample than with interviews and it functions very well as a way to gather data that can be used as a starting point for my research (Bryman, 2012). Asking the respondents to describe Durgerdam in 5 words, or using Likert scales to measure the affection of the residents towards the place Durgerdam, affection with other residents of Durgerdam, and affection towards the Durgerdammerdijk makes this method particularly fruitful to gather information that concerns answering the first research question. Also, the questionnaires contain open questions about the identification of the local residents with Durgerdam, the community, and the dike. The advantages of open questions are that they allow unusual responses, do not suggest answers and are useful for exploring new areas (Bryman, 2012: 247). In this way, I found new starting points about if and why the residents identify themselves with the place and the community. Also, this survey will give insights in if there is a homogeneous resistance against the current national plans or not.

The questionnaire is spread among all 182 households of Durgerdam. Respondents were asked to answer the questionnaire and send it back via mail, make a picture and send it to my email ad- dress or mobile phone number. Another possibility was to answer the questionnaire online. Reac- tions came via all possible ways, and especially via mobile phone was effective. Only the residents who were older than 15 years were asked to participate in the questionnaire, because there is a higher chance that parts of the questionnaire are unclear for younger populations. The age groups 25-45 and <65 years are over-represented in the response group while the age groups 15-25 is underrepresented (figure 1). 42 of these questionnaires have been answered which means a response rate of 23%. According to Bryman (2012), this means that the results of the questionnaire are not representative for the community, but he also argues that this does not mean that the results are useless. I will only use the questionnaires as an indicator to have star-

20 ting points for the interviews. Likert scales can function as an indicator for subjects and items that are interesting to dig deeper in during the interviews (Bryman, 2012). The open questions still pointed out new anchor points that were interesting to investigate and the question in what 5 words the respondent would describe Durgerdam still gives a good idea of what kind of aspects are thought of when describing Durgerdam.

15-24 25-44 45-64 15-24 25-44 45-64 >65 >65 4% 14% 28% 24% 25%

19%

43% 43%

Figure 1: Left, age distribution of the response group. Right, age distribution of Durgerdam.

As explained, the questionnaires were supplemented by interviews that were conducted with individual residents of Durgerdam. In the interviews, I was especially interested in detailed sta- tements about personal experiences and underlying perspectives of how events were perceived. To do so I took a narrative approach to elicit detailed personal experiences and looked at how respondents reasoned about their situation. The function of these interviews with local residents is to have a better understanding on how local residents create meaning with the elements and history of the place, and also on why there is a conflict from the point of view of the local residents.

The selection of respondents was done by ringing doorbells and after referring to the questionnaire asked if they were open for an interview. Bryman (2012) describes this as convenience sampling, which means that the sample consists of respondents that are simply available and accessible to the researcher. The problem with this sampling strategy is that I cannot be certain that the respondents represent all residents of Durgerdam. On the other hand, when obtaining samples, I kept in mind that residents from all over Durgerdam had to be included in the sample set. This resulted in a set that was diverse in terms of length of residential stay in Durgerdam, which seems to play a main role in this research. Some of the respondents lived here for more than 70 years and have never lived somewhere else while others only lived here for a couple years. In this way, the set of interviewees are representable for the community of Durgerdam. In total, I collected 10 interviews between March 13th and April 23rd of around an hour each. 21 The interviews with the local residents were semi-structured which means that they will follow qualitative starting-points but were provided with a topic list. The questions were designed to focus on explicit subjects of being connected with the place and elicit personal stories. Usually, I opened the interview by asking about the residential history and, if they did, why they moved to Durgerdam. I discovered that asking about experiences is more effective than asking about opinions as respondents usually start talking about their opinions when asking about experiences. After asking about subjects related to place attachment and when a more confidential bond is formed, I went deeper into the conflict. This would consist of questions as ‘Have you been present at the participation evenings?’. Each interview was concluded with the question whether the respondent had things in mind that were not discussed yet that were important to understand their perspective and whether they wanted to add something. This makes sure that my opinion was neutral and nothing was overlooked.

To have a good understanding of the conflict from both sides I decided to join a participation evening organized by the Hoogheemraadschap Hollands Noorderkwartier (HHNK) on April 3rd. The method used here was simple or contrived observation. This method allowed me to observe behavior directly without having influence over the situation that I observed (Bryman, 2012: 273). At this participation evening that was led by experts, residents informed each other about the process. This was also a moment for them to express their anger and concerns which is vital to understanding the conflict and its arguments. The aim of the observation was to record details about the behavior of the participants and other parties involved in the conflict and develop a narrative account based on similar concerns from there. This is why unstructured observations would fit.

At the end of this evening, I got in contact with a lot of experts. However, these interviews were not recorded so I had to make quick notes. I have spoken to experts of client water safety, landscape architecture, nature monuments, the village council and residents involved in the participation tracks. Following these conversations, two appointments have been made for a more in-depth interview. One with two members of the HHNK, and one with a member of Natuurmo- numenten Amsterdam. The interview with members of the HHNK was very valuable to get a complete picture of the conflict because they are responsible for meeting the national safety standards in Durgerdam and thus have partly other interests than the residents of Durgerdam. The interview with Natuurmonumenten Amsterdam was valuable, since it shed light on the conflict from a new perspective as, they had researched different geographical scales. An extra interview with members of Boskalis and the Province of North Holland would have been preferred. Boskalis could give better insights into the technical engineering challenges and is seen by many residents as an opponent in the conflict. The province, on the other hand, is a stakeholder that is neutral as they have to grant the authorization for executing the plans. In the end, the province has to decide whether the proposed plans are a good compromise between the voice of the residents of Durgerdam and guaranteeing safety.

22 As described, for data collection I have chosen for multiple research methods. As Bryman (2012) describes, combining both quantitative and qualitative data triangulate findings in order that they may be mutually corroborated. Combining strengths of multiple methods may offset the weaknesses of both methods and can answer different research questions. I combined the different methods of data collection to develop a narrative on the place attachment and conflict in Durgerdam.

This research does pose limitations. The most prominent critique on case studies is the issue of generalization, also known as external validity (Yin, 2012). How can the results that come from one single case be applied to other cases? This case study is an intense and detailed examination of a single example. The goal of this research is to look at particular details, but can also gene- rate new insights on broader topics. This case can help prove or reject theories described earlier.

Another limitation is the situatedness of the researcher. One of the crucial steps in qualitative research is describing and understanding the world as it is seen from the participant's points of view, and bringing this to a social scientific account. Studying the language, meaning and perspectives from the respondents' view will bring insights in the way participants see the world. When arriving at a social scientific account, it is important to not lose touch with the world as those who provide data see it. In order to do so, it is important to acknowledge that data gathering and processing might lead to changes in how the researcher interprets the way the participants see the world.

The third limitation is the timeframe, as there was a limitation on the number of interviews and observations. More interviews and presence at more participation evenings would have given me better insights and might have given me results that are more representative for the community of Durgerdam. Especially having more time for interviews with other external parties involved in the conflict would have given me a clearer vision of the interests involved in the conflict.

23 4. Context of Durgerdam The village of Durgerdam is situated in North-Holland and is part of the municipality of Amster- dam. Its proximity to the city of Amsterdam, but still being rural is what Durgerdam makes it attractive for many residents. Only 182 households in 2017 are part of the village (Allecijfers, 2017) but what makes it so unique is that all houses are built in the form of a ribbon, upon a dike (see figure 2). The area of Durgerdam has a unique genesis as the landscape is built and preserved by humans. Without the influence of mankind, this landscape would not have existed in its current shape. The role of the Durgerdammerdijk is key in the existence, conversation, and preservation of this landscape. To understand the meaning of this dike landscape for the local community it is necessary to understand the history and its forms of appearance of the landscape.

Figure 2: Aerial picture of Durgerdam (Swart, 2008)

4.1 History of Durgerdam The natural landscape where Durgerdam is situated nowadays, used to be marshlands. It contained big raised bogs that were crossed by small rivers and creeks, covered by reed and swamp forests with willows and birches. When in the 10th and 11th century the first pioneers from the higher situated shorelines got into the marshlands of Holland, the grounds were swampy but also a few meters above sea level. The draining of the soil was crucial to prepare the soil for residence and agriculture. The soil was divided in plots by series of ditches and banks, dug parallel among each other. These hooked up with natural streams of water, such as the Bamestra, Ye, and Gisspe, and were able to discharge excessive water. These natural streams discharged their 24 water at the Almere, a freshwater lake that later became the Zuiderzee. This draining causes the peat to oxidate and the soil to subside while at the same time the sea level was rising. Drai- ning the rainwater became more complicated and every storm resulted in flooding (Waterlands Archief, n.d.). To protect the land from more floods, sea dikes around Waterland and along the IJ were built, which followed through in the 15th century with dams and dikes along the rivers (Gawronski, 2001). The Saint Elizabeth’s flood in 1421 that was caused by a storm surge, resulted in huge flooding of the former Zuiderzee with major damage as a result. As a result of this flood, the citizens of IJdoorn and Waterlandt got approval to build a new dike in 1422. The Uit- dammerdijk was built and IJdoorn came to lie outside the dike. Meanwhile, the dam that was built in the peat stream near Durgerdam moved to its current location Durgerdam (Gawronski, 2001). Along with this dike a new village established: Ydoornickerdam, named after the hamlet that got engulfed by the Saint Elizabeth’s flood ,which is known as Durgerdam nowadays.

In the ages following, the residents of Durgerdam financially mainly depended on the shipping industry. In the 18th century, the whole republic had to deal with deprivation and decay and that was tangible in Durgerdam. The whole village was forced into the fishing industry when demand for the shipping industry decreased (Centrale Dorpenraad Landelijk Amsterdam Noord, n.d.). More floods followed in 1625, 1687, 1825 and 1916, but that came to an end when in 1932 the Afsluitdijk was established. However, this also resulted in a loss of a big share of the fishing industry as the former Zuiderzee became separated from the rest of the sea.

4.2 Durgerdam in the 21st century The unique history of Durgerdam can still be seen in the current landscapes. The various landscape characteristics form a whole and carry a unique appearance. The historical character described before can still be found in Durgerdam, as the houses still express the feeling of an old fisherman village (see figure 3). The picturesque village upon the former Zuiderzeedijk is situated very close to Amsterdam. Traveling from Amsterdam to Durgerdam takes only a couple min- utes by bicycle or car. Once, Amsterdam was a hamlet, but it became very rich and grew explo- sively while surrounded by villages, such as Durgerdam, remained small. They enjoy the view over the water of the Buiten-IJ and the polder IJdoorn. Also from the backyards, there is a view over the Durgerdammer Die, a friendly polder landscape (Everink, 2001).

The uniqueness of the village, combined with its proximity to Amsterdam caused Durgerdam to become very popular. What used to be a poor fisherman village has now turned into a village where urban two-income earners come to reside (Schenk, 2000). Housing prices increased enor- mously and are relatively expensive for the amount of square meters. According to Mitula (n.d.) the recent prices per square meter is 4,887.23 euro, and the average price for a house 1,148,500 euro. The result of these explosive growing housing price is that the younger generations from families that grew up in Durgerdam are not able to stay in the village and the youths have to

25 leave (Schenk, 2000). Many of the residents of the current Durgerdam do not work as a fisherman anymore, but commute between Durgerdam and Amsterdam.

Also, the pressure of tourists increased in the last years. The number of international tourists that visit Amsterdam is growing annually between 5 and 10 percent since 2000 (Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek, 2017). Because there is barely space for tourists in the city of Amsterdam, policy focusses on stimulating tourists to visit the area around Amsterdam, including Durgerdam. This results in more international tourists who visit Durgerdam, mainly by bicycle. According to the Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek (2017), it is expected that the number of international tourists in Durgerdam will continue to grow.

Figure 3: Street view of Durgerdam (Van der Pijl, 2006)

4.3 Dike reinforcement The water authorities and the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment (Rijkswaterstaat) work in the Flood Protection Program, together with other actors, to ensure that the primary flood defenses meet the safety standards (Hoogwaterbeschermingsprogramma n.d.a). In North-Hol- land, the HHNK is responsible for ensuring safety. During the second national assessment round (2001-2006) of the Dutch dikes, it was concluded that the Markermeerdijken largely did not meet the legal standards. These dikes protect 1,2 million Dutch citizens from flooding. Among 26 others, the whole of the Waterlandse Zeedijk appeared to not meet safety standards. The legal water safety standard, expressed as the probability of exceeding an extreme flood level, is rated at 1/10.000. This means that the probability of flooding should be less than 1/10.000 per year. The entire Waterlandse Zeedijk did not meet this safety standard. The dikes did not appear to be stable enough and were not high enough at certain points (Hoogheemraadschap Hollands Noorderkwartier, n.d.b). There is a danger that under extreme weather conditions the inside of the dike may shift and collapse. To ensure the dikes meet the safety standards, a Pre Design Pro- ject Plan was presented in Juli 2014 by the HHNK. This design serves as a basis for the final strengthening design.

The team that would execute the practical matters was formed in December 2015. The HHNK formed an Alliance with the consortium Boskalis and Volkerwessels private contracting parties. Together they are responsible for the technical preparation, the plan study, the legal procedures and executing the construction works (De Leeuw, 2017). Also, financial risks and savings are shared. In July 2016 the Alliance presented tow possible solutions: an outward reinforcement of the old dike or a new dike in front of the present dike in the water (Hoogheemraadschap Hollands Noorderkwartier, 2016). Residents were asked to indicate their preference before the end of Au- gust, which was much too rapid according to the village council (Meershoek, 2016a). In Decem- ber 2016 the Alliance proposed the chosen design. The proposed design contained three breakwaters in front of the current dike (see figure 4). The fact that there is no need to intervene in the current dike and maintaining its present shape is seen as a big advantage by the Alliance. However, this will be at the cost of the free view over open water (De Ingenieur, 2016). The residents think differently: ‘’At the end, the solution that is experienced as most harmful by the residents is chosen’’ (Meershoek, 2016b).

27 Figure 4: Proposed plan from the Alliance 2016, three breakwaters (De Ingenieur, 2016)

An additional participation process with the residents, the municipality, the province and HHNK follows between February and July 2017, led by an external party. But due to lack of support of the local residents and ongoing resistance, extra time is taken. Minister Schultz from Infrastruc- ture and Environment writes in a letter that a separated plan will be made for Durgerdam and more time is needed for the decision-making process (Schultz van Haegen, 2017), in which the residents of Durgerdam will become more involved. This started in October 2017. Three so-called ‘tracks’ were started in which residents participated: the technical need for strengthening the dike (track 1), considerations and decision-making (track 2), and the integrated design (track 3) (Hoogheemraadschap Hollands Noorderkwartier, 2017a). At the end of 2018, the new plan is expected to be submitted, and the dike will meet safety standards at the end of 2021.

Figure 5: Timeline of important events.

29 5. Analysis place attachment In this study, I chose ten residents in such a way that they would provide an as representative picture of the experience of Durgerdam as possible. These residents are from different geograp- hic parts of Durgerdam, come from different socio-economic backgrounds, and differ in their length of residence. They include both men and women whose ages ranged from 35 to 80 years. However, to get a fully representative picture, this sample is lacking respondents that are below the age of 35. Also, more background information on the highest level of education is needed.

The difference in profound understanding of the place is depicted by which elements the respondents prioritize and which they do not. Although there are differences in prioritizing these elements, a lot of similarities are found n how residents identify themselves with the place Dur- gerdam. Letting the residents fill in a questionnaire on what they value most about Durgerdam and how they would describe Durgerdam in 5 words gave a good impression of what elements are associated with Durgerdam. Subsequently, deeper meanings of these elements are researched by interviewing residents of Durgerdam.

5.1 Physical landscape elements More than half of the answers on the question what the residents appreciate most of Durgerdam are related to physical landscape and natural characteristics. Associations such as water, meadows, sky, wind, nature, and reed are placed in this category. The variation of associations indicates that, within this category different, individual landscape elements form a landscape as a whole and are important for the mental construction of the dike as described by Cosgrove (1989). The analysis of the data has been done through coding. Within the codes, different groups of elements can be identified: water, flora and fauna, the dike, and cultural-historical elements. While analyzing the data in both the questionnaire and the interviews, data has been sorted based on the previously named groups.

The most important element that plays a role in the identification with the place Durgerdam is the water. For the residents of Durgerdam, this means the water of the Markermeer. It already starts with the fact that some of the respondents had their first contact with Durgerdam from the water. During sailing trips across the Markermeer and the Kinselmeer, some residents came into contact with Durgerdam for the first time. As one respondent said: ’’I used to sail and when I went by I thought wooow, if you can live here’’. This might be a reason why inhabitants associate the water with recreation, relaxation, and leisure.

In addition, the water was of great importance for many residents who had several generations of ancestors living in Durgerdam. The village used to be a fisherman village that relied heavily on the activities that took place on the water. For a long time, fishing activities were the only source of income during the summers and winters. That shared history creates an association with the water that still prevails. Prior to the creation of the Afsluitdijk, Durgerdam was located

30 at the Zuiderzee. The fact that this has been the case does play an important role for some of the residents in choosing to live in Durgerdam. ‘’The realization that you have. Previously, here was just the Zuiderzee, which came with salt water. There were ships here and if it was very rough they would sit in the ship instead of the house because if it was going to overflow then the ship went up anyway. And you can still see that a bit. You see the forms of the landscape. I think that's wonderful’’. From the interviews, this also follows when they explain why they would not want to live in Holysloot or Ransdorp. The contact and the connection with the water make Durgerdam a unique place in Waterland, where it also plays an important role that the water is not stationary but flowing. These waves give the residents the feeling that they live 'on the big water' and 'really close to nature’.

The association with floods are barely made by the residents when examining the questionnaires. Fear of a new flood is currently not appearing. However, the interviews do show that the respondents are aware of the damage caused by the water in the past and that this shared history of flooding also ensures a shared identity as described by Perkins and Long (2002).

While Durgerdam is often associated with water on the one hand, while on the other had it also is associated with ‘green’ and wildlife elements such as pastures and the local fauna which consists of cattle, but also birds such as spoonbills, godwits, and geese. The rears of the houses are adjacent to a large piece of pasture filled with cattle that varies from cows and sheep. The residents indicate that the elements that belong to it such as the grass, the trees, and the cattle are highly appreciated and part of Durgerdam. ‘’On the other side you also look out on the meadows and you hear the cows that are going to be milked in the morning as they pass by in a procession. You see 10 billion birds’. Another resident confirmed this by saying ‘It is the nature, it is unique. You have the cows and the sheep behind you in the pasture. Nobody has that!’’. These elements play an important role in the experience of what the residents describe when they live rurally and outside the city. They often indicate that they find the city too busy and have chosen for Durgerdam because it is more connected to nature. This includes that at the edge of Durgerdam, Polder IJdoorn is located. This is a bird breeding area on the edge of Dur- gerdam. Due to the vulnerable breeding birds, the area is not accessible, but can easily be overlooked from the dike, or for example through a bird viewing hut. But also smaller natural elements contribute to the unique character of Durgerdam. For example, the reed along the edge of the water is often mentioned as a small natural detail, which still carries a large emotional load.

Between the water and meadows lies the Durgerdammerdijk. This element contributes to what many of the residents say that Durgerdam is about. The residents of Durgerdam rate the Durger- dammerdijk as being a part of Durgerdam with a 9,2 relatively high. The primary function of the dike, protection against floods, seems to play a role in the process of placemaking for the residents. Interviews show that the respondents have the feeling that protecting themselves from

31 water has always been a part of the Dutch identity as the Dutch are famous for their battle with water, and especially been part of the identity of Durgerdam. ‘’The dike is actually not special at all. That makes it so special. It's just there. This is what the village is about. It is a dike village. Because the dike has all those emotions of the Netherlands, of keeping things dry together. There is a special kind of feeling. It is made by people’s hands to ensure that no water comes in. There have been many floods here. That's what it's for. But after a while, something so functional gets an emotional load. We already have few mountains or whatever. Landscape is of course a Dutch word because we create our own environment’’. Some of the residents even noted that the village even would not exist without the dike as it would simply be flooded.

More importantly, the Durgerdammerdijk functions as a figural connection between the residents of the village. It is associated as the basis of Durgerdam. The village is built as a ribbon with all houses built upon or along the dike. Several residents of Durgerdam describe the village as a ‘dike village’, with the dike as the basis of Durgerdam. Living on the dike is an experience that all the residents share and appreciate and connects them with each other. ‘’It's a ribbon construction, so it's important to stop the water. But it is also called Durgerdam. We are really on a dam. Yes, it has multiple functions. I think it really belongs to the village. I cannot think it away (...) That is also something you share with each other. That you all live on a dike’’. This seems similar to the way Nijhuis (2014) describes the figural meaning of a dike as a connecting element. In Durgerdam it connects the houses built upon the dike, and so its residents with each other.

Other words that are often used to describe Durgerdam have a connection with the history of the village, such as fisherman village, harbor town, old wooden village, monumental and cultural heritage. This indicates the shared history experienced by the residents of Durgerdam. This was also an often recurring theme during the interviews with residents. The elements of this shared history results in a feeling of connection with the place and between the residents. ‘’Of course you have very special houses here. If you drive into the village until you leave the village, you hardly know where to look. You have the water, the beautiful peek-throughs, beautiful facades, the houses in which you also recognize things. That these houses resemble each other but also are very own. That is why Durgerdam is so characteristic for me’’. The houses still carry their old character, thanks to the appearance of the houses. The houses from the outside, for example, still carry many elements from the past, such as the fact that a lot of the houses are made of wood and bare their own color. Although the houses often have been renovated, enough attention has been paid to retaining these old elements in order to retain these characteristics. ‘’Those shapes and the beams and that just those elements have been preserved. I think that's very nice. The character and atmosphere of a house is very decisive for me. I would not like to live in a new house’’.

32 The houses have also been around for a long time and they carry many stories with them. One of the residents told that his house used to be from an old merchant captain in the 1930s. The house has been turned slightly towards the sea and the roof was transverse so that the roof tiles won’t be blown away. When there is a storm, roof tiles often were blown away because the wind is coming underneath them. Another tells that her house was her parents' house and that it goes back 5 generations. The house has always been part of the family and for this person there is also a long history in this house. The road also carries these characteristics of Durgerdam. Be- cause the dike is narrow and meanders through the village, it gives a unique experience that takes you back in time and gives the feeling that you are really out of the city. The fact that the road surface consists of clinkers, and not asphalt, contributes to this unique character of Dur- gerdam. ‘’A commitment to a world that goes bigger than you only know yourself, but that you see the shapes in the landscape that you think, that was the same a few hundred years ago. The vastness you have here and the old shapes’’.

The way the residents of Durgerdam describe different elements of the landscape of Durgerdam show similarities with the way how Relph (1987) describes landscape elements as ‘building blocks’ of the landscape as the respondents mention the water, flora and fauna, the dike and the houses. The way Cosgrove (1989) argues that layers of meaning are based on the interpretation of someone can be seen with the residents of Durgerdam as well and triggers a place attachment as mentioned by Cullen (1971) and Mohammad et al. (2013).

5.2 Landscape experiences Next to the elements, the respondents often associate Durgerdam with the view and with other forms of landscape experience. These associations deal with the sensory perception of landscape and incorporate the landscape as a whole. They can be linked to the physical landscape elements or nature characteristics in the sense that the whole of different landscape elements are a condition for a specific landscape experience and a specific view as described by Tuan (1977).

The questionnaire shows that the primary landscape experience that residents name is the view. Both at the front and at the rear of the houses the residents have a free view of the landscapes at the moment. At the front this is over the dike, over the water of the Markermeer. At the back, it is over the meadows of Waterland. The free view is experienced as a unique aspect in contrast to living in Amsterdam. This view seems to be the most important part of the feeling of freedom, space, tranquility and being in touch with nature. Here the respondents often repeat the contrast with the city of Amsterdam. ‘’Yes, and this is even stronger, that of those seasons. It is also in the winter and in the fall I always get a little bit of an emotional dip, in the sense that it is dark and it never gets light again, and I really have that less here. And it is also because it is a very nice place, but I really believe that when you go out, there are different co- lors. It is still very beautiful, even if it is a gray day. If you then look over the water or over the

33 meadow and then even if it is very foggy or cold. Then it is still beautiful and there is color or something’’.

This primary landscape experience mentioned by the residents refers to the geographical location of Durgerdam. The inhabitants of Durgerdam are very aware of the unique location of Dur- gerdam. For many residents, the A10 is an imagined boundary of the city life of Amsterdam. When they pass under the highway they often feel that they have fled the hustle and other negative aspects of life in the city. As one of the respondents described: ‘’It is really every time you come under the A10 then you still think wow, all year round’’. Living in Durgerdam, therefore, has for almost all residents the meaning of living outside the city life and this is often described as the 'village feeling'. ’’When I cycle home in the evening, oh, I'm glad I'm here. I could not live in the city. We find this for us with such a garden... I am crazy about a garden. I could not live in the city. No really’’.

On the other hand, the pleasant thing about living in Durgerdam is that it is so close to the city. As the previous quote indicates, this respondent regularly goes to Amsterdam by bike. The interviews and questionnaires show that many of the residents work in Amsterdam or regularly go there. The advantages of living in the city, such as having many amenities and shops in the neighborhood are present in Durgerdam. With that, it seems that Durgerdam is situated in a unique location where the advantages of living in the big city are absorbed, but the negative consequences do not come with it. As one of the residents described, ‘It feels like the best of both worlds’. When looking, there is virtually nothing to see from the city of Amsterdam. There is no big street traffic and in the evening it is not as noisy as in the city. The feeling that you are completely out of the city is strong here. But on the other hand, all the benefits you have in the city are present because the residents live within cycling distance of the city. As one of the residents of Durgerdam mentioned: ‘’that you are able to go there [Amsterdam] by bicycle and still have the comforts. It feels a bit like the best of two worlds. This is municipality Amsterdam, so you are not completely out of town. We also looked for a house in Holysloot, but only the idea is already very far away. And we don’t have that feeling here’’. This quotation is a good example of how residents of Durgerdam feel very connected to Amsterdam on the one hand, but on the other hand, do not have the feeling of living in a big city. The associations with Durger- dam are rural, but still connected with the big city.

This experience of living on the border of wilderness and civilization is also described by Fischer (2007). However, Fischer (2007) describes the border of wilderness and civilization as the border between sea and agriculture, while the respondents mention both sea and agriculture as wilderness and Amsterdam as civilization. Living in Durgerdam can be seen as living on the border of wilderness and civilization, or as some respondents would call it ‘the backyard of Amsterdam’.

34 5.3 Social identities For the residents of Durgerdam, the most important social identity is based on the distinction between rural and urban as mentioned earlier. When asking the respondents in the questionnaire what bonds the residents with each other, almost all of them replied with answers that relate to living outside the city, living with the peacefulness of the place, or the feeling of community. That these shared interests create bonding, is also mentioned by Perkings and Long (2002). The ‘here versus somewhere else’ or ‘we versus the others’. The word ‘we’ is often used by many people when interviewing them to refer to all residents of Durgerdam (‘’we didn’t like the plans’’, ‘’We enjoy the view’’). The residents feel like they share a particular attitude that is unique for the residents of Durgerdam and not common outside the area. For the residents of Durgerdam this means living outside the city and enjoying the peace, quietness and the view. ‘’It is a place where people choose for. People who love the water, love being outside. So maybe they are yuppies, but maybe they are also not. Because people also consciously choose not to live in the city’’. An external threat can be a catalyst for strengthening the identity of a community (Tilley, 2006). It might function as a reason for members of the community to become more connected with each other. The initial decision of HHNK to strengthen the dike was a threat to everyone. Although residents might differ in the way they attach meanings to the place and experiences, the presence of an external threat strengthens the feeling of a shared identity and the feeling of ‘we, the residents of Durgerdam’. This comes from the same fundamental will to protect their view and the characteristics of Durgerdam.

On a less fundamental level, changes in social identities can be identified resulting in different social identities of residents living in the same community. The older generation, who lived in Durgerdam before the opening of the A10 and know the village as a fisherman village, is decrea- sing in number, making room for younger people with different ideas. The former historical dominant social identity will be characterized first, which upon I will describe the elements of the new social identity that is challenging this historical dominant social identity.

For the older generation, Durgerdam used to be a small fisherman village where everybody knows their neighbors. ‘’We used to walk in by everybody, and the door was always open at everybody’s house’’. To them, the feeling of community means looking after each other and having small talk on the street. ‘’But it always seems that if your child is lost, you will be called later that he is walking here. Everyone takes each other into account and you know a lot more’’. The older residents often compare the feeling of being part of a community with the anonymous feeling of living in Amsterdam. ‘'It is nice that the community here is a bit bigger [than in the city of Amsterdam]. That you know it. That gives a nice feeling. That you are on a street as part of your group or something’’. Being familiar with the people you live with in the street and in the neighborhood is a very important aspect for them. This might originate from the time that Dur- gerdam was mainly inhabited by poorer families that needed each other’s help to survive. As one of the older respondents described ’’There used to be a different mentality and very different

35 people lived here too. Who shared much more. Poverty shares hey’’. These residents had a stronger tie with each other at the time and see that the public is changing. ‘’It really is now a kind of gathering place for many creative professions that live here. They are no longer fisher- men’’. They feel less connected with residents that live here for a shorter period as they have other interests and are wealthier. Some of them are labeling the residents that live here for a shorter period as yuppen or non-natives. For the older generation, these ‘yuppen’ are mainly concerned with their jobs and are never at home during the day. When they start having kids they become more connected with the other residents but the feeling of connectedness as it used to be disappeared for them. One explanation could be, as Hummon (1992) describes, that bonds are influenced by the length of residence. Residents that live somewhere for a longer period tend to be stronger connected to a certain community than those who live there for a shorter period.

Another element of attitude that the older generation differs from with newer residents of Dur- gerdam is the attitude towards climate change. Most residents who have lived in Durgerdam for some time now, see the danger of rising sea levels less than those who live here for a shorter period of time. They indicate that in all the years they have lived here, they have never seen the water come to such a height that it became dangerous. ‘’The main reason is that I find it ridiculous, because in fact nothing is wrong. The water never reaches the dike here. With certain wind, the water is gone completely gone. That it is against the flooding is just the biggest bullshit you can think of. A few weeks ago it was high water. Then the risers are flushed with the water. But the bottom is just dry, so when does that happen? They say that the dike is too weak. Well, such a flood disaster that it overflows here, I think it's really too far-fetched. I do not believe it’’. From their own experience, they do not understand that there is a need to be better protected against the water since there is still a lot of room for rising water. Some cannot imagine that the water will rise 1 or 2 meters in the future.

This attitude towards climate change is a little more nuanced with the younger generation. ‘’The world is changing, the climate is getting more intense, we do not have that changed and that has an impact on things like this. So you will have something with it’’. They do not see the danger at the moment yet, but they think that they should already think about what this can mean for the future. By already thinking about the impact of climate change on the future, a great danger can be avoided. The attitude towards climate change among residents of the older generation could also be explained by the fact that this generation grew up in a time when the hazards of climate problems were less known and less attention was paid to than today. It could also be that the younger generation is better educated, which is related to knowledge about climate change.

As the number of people of this older generation decreases in Durgerdam, and people of younger generations increase, a demographic shift is occurring. These younger residents bring new ideas

36 about the identity of Durgerdam and challenge the old social identity. Most younger residents seem to appreciate different things and expect other relations with other residents. Where the older generation is more focused on the small-town feel, the younger generation is more focused on the view. Where the older generation is more focused on being connected with each other, the younger generation often refers to privacy. ‘’The house also stands shoulder to shoulder, so you do not look inside each other. That works, I think, because in Ransdorp everyone can look inside and that is very strange. They are also farmers, but also different. Much more oppressi- ve. Much more that village. That everyone is involved’’. Residents who live here for a longer period don’t seem to like the way how these new residents are involved in the social action in their own way. They have some problems with the way this opinion is changing. ‘’Well, at first I have nothing to do with that. No, I say that. They are reclusive. Only focused on their job. And their own circle’’. Despite the fact that these changes occur, they understand that these opinions are changing. ‘’You see, of course, that at the moment when people get older and die, their place is taken over. So I think that in a while there is a chance that there are only yuppies from Amsterdam. I think that will change’'. Although differences in social identities are arising, the differences are becoming irrelevant when external threats are endangering the community, just as Tilley (2006) explains. Maintaining the characteristics of Durgerdam unites the residents because of their shared interests in the ongoing planning process around the Durgerdammerdijk (Tilley, 2006; Perkins & Long, 2002).

After analyzing the questionnaires and interviews different forms of how the residents of Dur- gerdam identify themselves with the place and different meanings that the local population attribute to the place can be distinguished. Elements such as the water, flora and fauna, the dike, and the old wooden houses and harbor capture these values and create a sense of place within the local population. But maybe more important are the landscape experiences in creating meaning to the place. The view over the water and the meadows, and the contrast of rural and urban is very specific for Durgerdam. The feeling of being outside the city when crossing the A10 highway and being in a rural area creates a feeling of freedom that is appreciated by the residents of Durgerdam. This similarity of meanings between the residents in combination with an external threat creates a common social identity. However, within this social identity, there is a dichotomy. With the younger generation of wealthy, highly educated residents, the former social identity is challenged. Where the older generation is more focused on the small-town feel and being connected with each other, the younger generation is more focused on the view and often refers to privacy.

37 6. Analysis matters of conflict Since the Durgerdammerdijk was rejected in 2006, a major conflict has arisen between local residents of Durgerdam and parties such as the Hoogheemraadschap Noorderkwartier (HHNK). In order to get a good picture of how this conflict unfolds, I have discussed this with the same residents with whom I conducted the interviews about the identification with Durgerdam because these give a good representative picture of the population of Durgerdam. In the questionnaires, I also discussed the conflict in greater depth. Because there is a conflict between two sides, I also started a dialogue with other parties. For example, I visited the HHNK in Katwoude and I went into conversation with other interested parties such as Natuurmonumenten Amsterdam Noord Holland Midden and involved landscape architects. Finally, I was also present at one of the public participation evenings in Durgerdam. This data is complemented with data from policy documents. From all these forms of data collection, it appears that the conflict is on different topics. First of all, there is the question of the practical need for dike reinforcement. In addition, the aesthetic matters of the reinforcement is a point where there is still much debate about. There are also conflict matters of trust among the parties responsible for reinforcing the dike and the geographical scale seems to play a role in the conflict.

6.1 Practical matters The conflict starts with the question of how necessary it is to carry out a dike reinforcement. In 2002 the Markermeerdijken officially got the status of primary flood embankments as the were plans to build a polder on the place what now is the Markermeer. In 2004, these plans were officially rejected, resulting in the Markermeerdijken being labeled as primary embankments (Tweede Kamer Staten Generaal, 2004). This meant that the dikes had to follow higher safety standards. In 2006, during the first following scrutiny, the entire area between Amsterdam and Hoorn was condemned. ‘‘It is a primary embankment which means that it has to follow different standards. Even though the presence of the Houtribdijk and the Afsluitdijk’’. In the future, the dikes would no longer comply with the flood risk guidelines drawn up by the HHNK. As members of the HHNK describe, the problem of water safety is still present. Multiple ways of research showed that the dike in its present form does not meet the standards that have been set in 2006 and cannot guarantee safety in the future according to the HHNK. For them, the discussion about the need for the strengthening is over.

‘’The question is whether there is a discussion. Questions are asked about it. With the 2006 re- port that it has been rejected, this is actually no longer a discussion. I put it down pretty blunt- ly. Formally it has been rejected and therefore there is no discussion anymore. (..) A sort of re- assessment was made in 2017 whether a safety problem is based on the new standards. Nothing new came out of that. It is nuanced. For Durgerdam, no. Something small has changed. In the past we had a stability problem. Only a high specification has been added. Roughly speaking, there is still a safety problem. Only the problem has been faded in color. Where it was sometimes a stability problem, it has now become a height problem or vice versa. It has changed a

38 bit, but the basic question: is there still a safety problem, there is one’’. The HHNK does realize this can be confusing. The Markermeerdijken that have only been transformed into a primary embankment in 2004, and the new guidelines that have been set in 2017 make the conflict more complex. The results of a more complex problem lead to more opposition as Cowan (2003) describes how this may leads to the fear of the unknown. However, according to the HHNK, this does not change the need for improvement in water safety.

As described earlier, there is a difference in acceptance of climate change between the different generations. While it seems that the younger generation of residents can better identify the need to reinforce the dike, residents who have lived here for a long time are increasingly ques- tioning this. Residents of the older generation indicate more often from their own experience that they do not feel that water safety risks are present. ‘’They will, of course, talk about an east wind on the south. A bit what we have today. And that is not so often. So what are you talking about? The water should now also be higher. And I've never experienced that I thought now we have to be careful’’. This disbelief from residents results in frustration towards the HHNK. They have the feeling that they did everything they can to show the need for strengthening the dike to the residents of Durgerdam.

‘’In Track 1 (action program technical water safety) we supplied the data to the expert. This shows that there is still a safety task. That has been confirmed by the experts and that is shared with the village. In my view in that track, it is very nicely framed. We started in 2006. We have made a new analysis of that safety statement. The conclusion is that there really is’’.

Nevertheless, there are also questions about the need for dike improvement by residents of the younger generations, but this relates to the specific case of the dike at Durgerdam. To prevent the Durgerdammerdijk from being unnecessarily reinforced, the dike section at Durgerdam was taken separately (Tweede Kamer Staten Generaal, 2017). Here again, research was carried out into the necessity of strengthening the dike, in which the residents themselves were also involved. An action group has been set up which, under the guidance of a member from the HHNK, will make a recalibration of the necessity of the strengthening. This can be related to defensive placemaking as described by Davidson and Howe (2014). What appears, for now, is that the reinforcement needs to be slightly less intense than originally was proposed. With more extensive investigations, findings have been made that the sinking of the dike in recent years is not only caused by a natural decline but that this has also been caused by the digging of the tumbler quay during the widening of the road (Hoogheemraadschap Hollands Noorderkwartier, 2018a).

It seems that residents who have lived for a longer time in Durgerdam are skeptical about the need for strengthening the dike than residents from the younger generation. As one of the residents from the younger generation noted, ‘’We have continued to enter the dialogue. Always talk. Always talk again and keep asking these questions. Moving along and asking questions

39 again’’. Also, following the questionnaire, residents who have lived in Durgerdam for a shorter period, rate the current plans of the HHNK higher than residents from the older generation. Re- sidents from the younger almost always answered in questionnaire that they just want to be sure the best option is chosen, and do not want a decision being made in a hurry. In the questionnaire, residents who have lived in Durgerdam 10 years or longer rate current plans with a 5.5 on average, while residents who have lived here for shorter than 10 years rate the plans with a 7 on average. Most of the last group note that, as long as good scientific research is done, they can live with the plans. ‘’If from good (!) scientific research follows that there is a need [for strengthening the dike], I will agree with the results’’, as one of the residents of this group described. Therefore it seems that in accepting the need for strengthening the dike, there is a dichotomy between residents from the younger generation and residents from older generation within the sample.

6.2 Aesthetic matters In addition to the question whether it is necessary to reinforce the dike, and to what extent this reinforcement must be resistant, the conflict also creates fears among residents that the characteristic identity will be lost with the reinforcement of the dike. In the Policy Agreement Water, it is decided that water management has to be purposeful and efficient, which means high quality and low costs (Ministerie van Infranstructuur en Milieu, 2011). The new approach needs to be solid, simple and sober. For the finance of the flood protection program, design re- quirements are ‘sober and efficient’. Sober within the meaning of only financing programs that contribute to the primary embankments meeting the safety guidelines, and efficient within the meaning of looking for a solution with the lowest costs of construction and maintenance of the embankments (Hoogwaterbeschermingsprogramma, n.d.b). As a member of the HHNK mentioned ‘’We have to stick to the limits of the subsidy and the options of choice are therefore limited. A very expensive solution, therefore, drops out, it is not inside the limits of the subsidy’’.

Although the HHNK has to follow these guidelines for finance of water safety, the residents of Durgerdam demand a more place-specific approach as they are afraid that unique characteristics will be lost. The biggest worry among the residents is that they lose their view. One of the solutions proposed by the HHNK as a possibility was the construction of a breakwater in the Marker- meer. This, however, went down the wrong way for many residents. ‘’But those first designs that were made were so terrible. As if someone really did his best to bully us. One design was even more horrible than the other’’, described one of the residents. The residents indicate that too little attention has been given to the cultural history and unique character of Durgerdam. This attention for place-specific context is described by various authors as one of the main rea- sons for opposition (Devine-Wright, 2013; James, 2010) and their particular socio-spatial context has to be understood as well (Swyngedouw & Kaika, 2008). The view over the water, that so many residents of Durgerdam attach great importance to, will be lost in the eyes of the residents because of the breakwater in the water. In addition, some of the residents express con-

40 cerns about stagnant water. In the eyes of some residents, this could lead to the arrival of houseboats in the future, or in the worst case a reclamation of land. ‘’If you are building a dike here, you will get a sheltered spot behind the dike. A dike has an advantage and a disadvanta- ge. If you go to Schellingwoude you will see all those houseboats. If you are going to lay down for a dike here, you will get a spot where they will put houseboats. That also plays a part. We get stagnant water here. You no longer have running water at the door. The sand is increasing. Then you will get a reclamation’’. This would mean for them that the peace of Durgerdam will be lost and thus one of the landscape experiences that they link to Durgerdam.

As mentioned before, the HHNK has to follow financial guidelines when improving water safety. However, there are more financial means available when improving water safety, which can be combined with other aims. As the Technische Adviescommissie Hoofdgroenstructuur (2018) describes, stakeholders around the dike are offered the possibility to couple their aims. This is necessary when the dike needs to be adapted to the wishes of other stakeholders. The HHNK does realize that this offers them room to maneuver and offers them a bigger scala of possible designs. ‘’In the current flood protection program is fitting in of aims an important key message, criteria. It has to fit in well in the environment. And that is not that hard formulated within the limits of the subsidy, but sometimes there is referred to. You should pay attention to it and that is something we pay attention to. In that way, it offers us some more room. It is a feeling thing for me he. The purposefulness is being stretched a little bit. Where in the past often with purposefulness was mentioned that it is too expensive, is now the possibility that you mention that it fits well in the environment’’.

To utilize this room for maneuvering, an action group with participating residents was set up with an independent landscape architect bureau to give more attention to these landscape experiences. This trajectory focuses on the integral design and not on flood risk management (Hoogheemraadschap Hollands Noorderkwartier, n.d.a). At the moment, the significance of Dur- gerdam at different scale levels and how it can be retained is examined. There are some touris- tic focusses developed by the municipality of Amsterdam. One of these focusses is ‘Rural North’, which means that focus on the area is on maintaining the so-called ‘couleur locale’: a rural area that does not have a big tourist attraction, but derives its quality from its authentic landscape, its geographical location (along the water) and the ensemble of the dikes and housing (Hoog- heemraadschap Hollands Noorderkwartier, 2018b).

As far as the design of the dike design is concerned, there is a fear among residents that the unique character of Durgerdam will be lost and that they will lose their view of the water. Part- ly, because a sober and effective approach is expected from the HHNK, this fear is not ground- less. But due to ‘fitting in’, more financial means become available, residents are asked to participate in this interpretation process. The municipality of Amsterdam would also like to retain

41 the characteristics of Durgerdam. However, flood risk management can not suffer from the implementation of the dike design.

6.3 Trust matters While there are long discussions about the need and the implementation of the dike strengthening, there is also a strong feeling of mistrust. This feeling is linked to the prevailing feeling that the decentralization of government tasks and privatization puts more emphasis on money and less on the interests of citizens. ‘’I actually have little faith in it because it is becoming more and more commercial. In the past, the government had much more control and that is now all fragmented. So I do not really trust at all. By privatization. It should not be commercial’’. This also described by Botetzagias and Karamichas (2009). The presence of Boskalis, a publicly listed company that is responsible for the activities on and around the dike in the future reinforcement, causes many residents to feel that the strengthening of the dike is too much of a money issue at the moment. ‘’Boskalis would like to do something anyway. Seems logical to me. I don’t see a reason to trust them. A profit-making company wants to make profit ... That is not hel- ping people. I do not think that is neutral (...) Those dyke builders have to continue. They will come with a reason to continue building’’. However, the HHNK chose to involve market parties in the early stages that possess knowledge and experience with market operators. ‘’It is a form of contract that has been used to a limited extent in Dutch hydraulic engineering and which requires a different way of working; one that is aimed at the pursuit of common interest, shared goals and working together on the basis of trust’’ (Hoogheemraadschap Hollands Noorderkwar- tier, 2017b). Also, this way of cooperation allows the HHNK to find a cheaper way of meeting the safety standards.

However, residents of Durgerdam feel more threatened by the big alliance than helped. Especi- ally residents who have lived in Durgerdam for a longer time do not trust other parties that are involved in the planning process. They share the feeling that the plans are already made and their voice is not being heard. As some state, the local community is only invited when the plans are made, but then it is too late. ‘’It was just pushed through, that is not possible. No listening was done during the public consultation evenings. And if there is a participation evening, the decisions are often already made. Then the plan is ready and that's just a bit of a presentation so you know what it's about. But then the plan is ready. So there is no more participation. That is actually a wrong word. You better call it a presentation evening’’. Also, the moments that the residents of Durgerdam were invited were at impossible moments. One of these moments was in the middle of August when most residents were on their holiday. That gave some residents the feeling that these participation evenings were ‘wipes against bleeding’ and plans were made to oquickly. Futrell (2003) describes this phenomenon of opposition as a result of ‘information haze’.

42 Bundling the powers of different actors could lead to more knowledge and lower costs, but it also gives the resident the feeling that they are in an uneven conflict. ‘’It is an unequal battle. Professionally salaried organizations such as the municipality and the water project developer that are just busy working on these plans day and night. And then you have residents that only have the hours that they are free. That is already an unequal battle. Because they have all kinds of tactics to get things done. That feels like a fight’’. This feeling of being in an unequal fight with other parties feels for some residents similar to a conflict that dates back 20 years, when a somewhat similar resistance against the plans of building IJburg started. During these years, plans were made about the reclamation of the land of what now is called IJburg. Howe- ver, residents of Durgerdam during these years were not in favor of these plans. They argued that the houses are being built unnecessary and that the city of Amsterdam would come to close to Durgerdam. Instead of creating IJburg, there should be considerations about building somewhere else than the Randstad (Reformatorisch Dagblad, 1994). A resistance somewhat similar to what is happening nowadays occurred, but without results. IJburg was built and the residents that were active in the resistance during these years felt cheated, as they could not recognize themselves in the outcomes. The residents have the same fear at the moment with the plans to strengthen the dike.

The HHNK does recognize this mistrust towards local politics. According to them, it is the basic attitude carried by all Dutch citizens that is hard to change and that is working against them ‘’Distrust in local politics, that is the basis for me. That is reflected towards us. (...) It is the basic attitude that the government is not trusted, and the contractor even more’. They see it as problematic how this mistrust is affecting them and their work. ’What I find difficult is that they often question what the experts say. We have explained it again, and there will always be people who just do not believe it. Sometimes that is difficult. (..) Your professionalism is questioned and that's just not nice. You have studied for it, and we have certain agreements in the Netherlands about how we deal with water safety. In the world we are known for that, but locally this is being questioned. That just hits some people in their profession while you are ac- ting in good conscience’’. But even though there seems to be a struggle between the government and the local community, there are also residents who think more in the form of cooperation. Their trust was damaged especially at the beginning, but they see that their wishes are better being listened to at the moment. To gain more trust, good communication and understanding between the residents and the bundled parties is necessary. After an administrative consultation in June 2017, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment decided that more time is needed to assess the dike in Durgerdam, and the residents are being included in the process through a so-called integrated participation process (Schultz van Haegen, 2017). Members of the HHNK indicate that this is something they learned from the similar case of Uitdam. Continuously staying in contact with residents, and keeping them on board during the process is important to create support within the local community, as members of HHNK explain. Devine-Wright (2013) argues that it is essential to keep communicating with local residents to avoid the feeling of alienation

43 when experts fail to engage with residents. As the president of the village council Ons Durger- dam noted, the way things are going now creates conditions in which residents are better able to live with the outcomes of the process. However, we must ensure that no decisions are being made under time constraints, also further in the process (Hoogheemraadschap Hollands Noor- derkwartier, 2018a).

6.4 Scale matters What sometimes seem to be forgotten is the geographical scale and the impact of the strengthening of the dike. The Durgerdammerdijk is part of the Markermeer dikes. The Markermeer dikes together protect approximately 1.2 million North Hollanders and 25 billion euro worth of economic value (Hoogheemraadschap Hollands Noorderkwartier, 2017b). This means that the scale of the conflict is much greater than just Durgerdam. In the interview, the HHNK explains that it seems that a part of the residents of Durgerdam do not seem to see how far the strengthening of the dike stretches and how many other people are concerned with this. ‘’Suppose things go wrong in Durgerdam, then a large part of Amsterdam goes under water, for a longer period of time. In 2016 several books were published about what it was like to get everything dry again in 1916. What all that cost to temporarily provide people with shelter. Not only the people but also the farms and the animals. And if you compare that with what it takes to take preventive measures, you know very well why we do that. A dike reinforcement is much cheaper than clea- ning up everything. And those are amounts that have not yet been indexed, which are more than 100 years old. I was shocked at how much that cost in 1916. It is often forgotten’’. To prevent such things from happening again, basic water safety agreements were made that apply for al Dutch citizens. ‘’To offer everyone in the Netherlands a basis for water safety. That is the foundation of that new standard. That includes certain measures’’.

Because more than a million people are involved in this conflict without actually realizing it, this conflict takes the form of a NIMBY as described in the theoretical framework. The entire hinterland will benefit from the reinforcement of the Durgerdammerdijk, but only the residents of Durgerdam will feel the disadvantages of this. This gives this conflict a much larger scope than just the residents of Durgerdam. However, in the media, you mainly hear the voices that go up in Durgerdam. A study by Natuurmonumenten (2017) shows that when proposing the reinforcement alternatives, there is only a unanimous vote from Durgerdam against the plans of a reinforcement measure with a breakwater that will be at the expense of the view. For the residents of surrounding villages, it is often the case that they judge this reinforcement alternative as the most positive. This clearly reflects how different interests can ensure that alternatives are experienced in different ways.

What also emerges from a study by Natuurmonumenten (2017), is that a large proportion of the respondents who do not live in Durgerdam are not well aware of what is going on in the area and therefore cannot form their opinion. They often find that it takes too much time to find out

44 exactly what is going on. This also shows that this conflict is much stronger among the residents of Durgerdam than among the residents of the villages behind them. From a member of Natuur- monumenten, it was also stated that this conflict is still happening at the moment mainly with the residents of Durgerdam, ‘’But as soon as it means that there will be a compromise between flood risk management and the view, you will also hear people living elsewhere'. Members of the HHNK see the same problem. They refer to the hinterland as the ‘silent majority’. ‘'And you do not hear the rest of the people. They assume that the government will arrange it for them. That silent majority whomever you do it for, you won’t hear them but they are extreme- ly important. You will hear them as soon as things go wrong’’.

However, the size of the potential threat is also seen by some of the residents of Durgerdam. A few residents mentioned in the interview that it still is somewhat the responsibility of Durger- dam to protect the hinterland from flooding. One of the inhabitants of Durgerdam who is involved in engineering and water safety of the dike reinforcement, noticed during the participation evening that we should see the dike as given to protect us. ‘’We are now in the position that we lose our view, but also remember that we need to protect the people behind the dike. It is also about the safety of more than a million other Dutch people’’. As Wolskink (1994) describes, opponents are often described as short-sighted as they appear to be egocentric and only about self-interest. However, it seems that some residents of Durgerdam are not opposing strengthening flood protection in their backyard, but want to be sure that none of the cultural landscapes are affected, anywhere. Some residents are not against a dike reinforcement in Durgerdam but have a negative attitude against the way this dike reinforcement is done.

Substantive, the subjects of conflict seem to be the necessity and the implementation of the measures that are being taken to guarantee water safety. However, on a deeper level, issues such as mistrust, transparency, and money seem to be roots of the conflict. Through an integrated participation process, better cooperation between residents and the Alliance is sought, ho- pefully resulting in better public support for the plans that are being made. Furthermore, deliberating national versus local interests seem to be the core of the conflict. Following the interviews, it sometimes seems to be forgotten how far the impacts of the measurements stretches and that there is a silent majority that plays an important role. However, not all opponents of the dike reinforcement are against a dike reinforcement ‘in their backyard’ but oppose the way it is done. Seeing this conflict from a place-attachment point of view as Devine-Wright (2009) describes, gives us better insights in how the attitude towards the proposed project emerges and shows that simply labeling this conflict as NIMBY is too easily done.

45 7. Conclusion The aim of this chapter is to give an answer to the research question: What meanings does the local population attribute to Durgerdam, and how does this play a role in the conflict of dike- reinforcement? The starting point for answering this research question is provided in the theoretical framework by arguing that conflicts such as in Durgerdam should be looked at from a place attachment point of view to create a better understanding in how positive and negative attitude towards a proposed project emerge, instead of labeling it as a NIMBY. To do so, different aspects of place attachment are identified in Durgerdam, to understand what meanings the local population attribute to Durgerdam.

Following the questionnaire and the interviews, different landscape elements that trigger place attachment can be identified. Elements such as water and meadows mark the biggest natural elements that are mentioned. However, also manmade elements such as the Durgerdammerdijk and cultural-historical elements carry a deeper emotional rooted meaning and create a sense of place. The primary landscape experience that is described by the residents is related to the contrast between urban and rural. The unique geographical location of Durgerdam provides a feeling of peace and quietness while being in proximity to the city of Amsterdam. Residents describe it as the ‘best of both worlds’, with the A10 as a mental border. This results in a feeling of living close to nature and outside the city, as residents describe it as the ‘village feeling’. The view over the water has a primary function in this experience. This resemblance within the community of emotional and experienced meanings are the basis for a shared social identity. Shared values and attitudes create a feeling of a sense of community which strengthens the attachment of the residents of Durgerdam to the place. However, there is a dichotomy within this social identity. With the younger generation of wealthy residents the former social identity is challenged. Where residents who have lived longer in Durgerdam are more focused on the small- town feel and being connected with each other, the younger generation is more focused on the view and often refers to privacy.

This dichotomy can also be found in the practical matters of the conflict. Residents who have lived for a longer time in Durgerdam are more skeptical about the need for a dike reinforcement than those who have lived here for a shorter period. As length of residence influences the attachment to a place, this might be an explanation for the skeptical stance of the older generation in this place protective stance. This place protective stance can also be identified in the aesthetic matters of the conflict as residents are afraid that the elements and experiences of place attachment described before will be lost with the reinforcement.

While practical and aesthetic matters seem to form the basis of the conflict, trust and scale matters are deeper rooted matters of the conflict. Lack of public participation, feeling of alienation and information haze caused residents to mistrust the planning authorities and oppose the proposed plans. Furthermore, deliberating national versus local interests seem to be at the

46 core of the conflict as well. Following the interviews, it sometimes seems to be forgotten how far the impacts of the measurements stretch and that there is a silent majority that plays an important role. Residents seem to be attached to, and identify themselves with the local place of Durgerdam, while the conflict presents itself on a much larger scale as it concerns the safety of 1,2 million Dutch citizens.

Looking at this conflict from a place-attachment point of view enables us to look at the deeper rooted attitudes towards the proposed plans of strengthening the Durgerdammerdijk. Labeling the conflict as a NIMBY insinuates that the residents of Durgerdam act egocentrically while seeing this conflict from a place attachment point of view shows us that residents Durgerdam are afraid that the village will lose its characteristic landscape elements and experiences and act place defensive to protect these. These place protective actions seem to be triggered by the place attachment of the residents of Durgerdam.

47 8. Discussion Science is a process of making decisions. During this research, multiple practical and theoretical problems occurred in which decision had to be made to keep a clear vision of the aim of the research. Also, some topics are not included due to limited resources.

In this study, the decision was made to make use of a case study research design. The aim of a case study is to seek in-depth information about one specific case and provide an intense and detailed study of a single example. This limits the external validity of the case study. However, the focus of this research was not to seek for a conclusion to be generalized, but as an explora- tion on how place attachment might play a role in conflicts. A comparative study would fit better to make generalizations.

As discussed earlier, the amount of respondents on the questionnaire is too low to draw strong conclusions. In this research, the questionnaire is used as starting point for the interviews. More responses would have given data that would be have been more reliable. Instead of distributing the questionnaire, filling them in together with the respondents in an interview-form would have given a better response rate. This, however, is very time-consuming. To increase the number of respondents I send reminders to the residents of Durgerdam, and spread the questionnaire during the participation evening.

The questionnaire was based on the theoretical framework and preliminary research on newspaper articles and policy documents. More data about the level of education would be preferred as this could give insights into the attitude towards the proposed plans and may play a role in the described dichotomy within the social identity.

In retrospect, a question regarding what scale the residents of Durgerdam feel most connected to would add value. As the matters of scale was a theme that came to play a primary theme in this study during the research, more data about this topic would have been useful. Asking the respondents in the questionnaire whether they feel most attached to Durgerdam, Waterland, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands or Europe could provide useful data on the matters of scale.

It would also be useful to spread this questionnaire among residents of other villages. To identify the matters of scale, I used the research of Natuurmonumenten (2017). This research provides useful information, but as this is primarily concerned with retaining the polder IJdoorn it could have been more specific on attachment of other elements as well.

The research of Natuurmonumenten (2017) is also mainly quantitative. When conducting interviews with residents of surrounding villages, more explanations on differences in attitudes could have been founded. However, as time was limited during this research, this could be an interesting follow-up.

48 For the interviews, more respondents would have been preferred. Especially interviews with important actors such as Boskalis or the Province would have added value to the research. An interview with Boskalis could give insights into the technical engineering challenges, and an interview with the Province would add value as the Province has to be neutral in granting the authorization for executing the plans. Also, more interviews with residents of Durgerdam would provide data that is more representative for the community of Durgerdam.

Besides the number of respondents, matters of objectivity are something to be aware of in the interviews. The aim of the interviews is to understand the world from the participants’ point of view. Studying perspectives from the respondents' view will bring insights in the way participants see the world but when translating this to scientific account, it is important to maintain the participants' vision. In order to do so, it is important to acknowledge that data gathering and processing might lead to changes in how the researcher interpret the way the participants see the world.

Also, it might be challenging to stay neutral and not pick a party while discussing the conflict with respondents with different opinions. To not get carried away in the believes and reasonings of the respondents is of great importance to deliver a good scientific research. To do so, I trans- cribed the conducted interviews and took time to critically analyze the interviews. Analyzing the interviews without the respondent being present made it easier for me to draw my own objecti- ve conclusions.

Finally, a topic that might play a big role and is understudied in this research is the fact that residents of Durgerdam are not afraid to question orders from authorities and resist these. Resi- dents of Durgerdam often have their roots in Amsterdam, and people from Amsterdam are known for being outspoken and do not just follow orders from authorities. As one of the respondents noticed, ‘’A couple people here know how to deal with this. Have a sharp tongue and are arti- culate. Here it is often, but why?’’. It would be nice to research a similar case, but somewhere else. I would suggest doing similar research in the dike village Lekkerkerk were widening of the river de Lek seems to be necessary. Lekkerkerk is a strongly reformed village that might resist less against the plans that are made by large institutional bodies. A similar research in Lekker- kerk could present different outcomes in the conflict, if there is any conflict.

49 9. Literature

Allecijfers (2017). Durgerdam. Retrieved May 24, 2018, from https://allecijfers.nl/buurt/durgerdam-amsterdam/.

Botetzagias, I., & Karamichas, J. (2009). Grassroots Mobilisations Against Waste Disposal Sites in Greece. Environmental Politics, 18(6): 939-959.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford University Press.

Buitelaar, E., Feenstra, S., Galle, M., Lekkerkerker, J., Sorel, N., & Tennekes, N. (2012). Vorm- geven aan de spontane stad: belemmeringen en kansen voor organische stedelijke herontwikke- ling. Den Haag / Amsterdam: Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving / Urhahn Urban Design.

Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek (2017). Steeds meer hotelovernachtingen. Retrieved May 25, 2018, from https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2017/36/steeds-meer-hotelovernachtingen.

Centrale Dorpenraad Landelijk Amsterdam Noord (n.d.). Historie. Retrieved April 11, 2018, from http://www.centraledorpenraad.nl/landelijk-noord/historie.

Cosgrove, D. (1989). Geography is everywhere: culture and symbolism in human landscapes. In: D. Gregory & R. Walford (Eds.), Horizons in Human Geography (118-135). Totowa, NJ: Barnes and Noble Books.

Cosgrove, D., Roscoe, B., & Rycroft, S. (1996). Landscape and Identity at Ladybower Reservoir and Rutland Water. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 21(3): 534- 551.

Cowan, S. (2003). NIMBY syndrome and public consultation policy: the implications of a discourse analysis on local responses to the establishment of a community mental health facility. Health and Social care in the Community, 11(5): 379-386.

Cullen, G. (1971). The Concise Townscape. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.

Davidson, P. J., & Howe, M. (2014). Beyond NIMBYism: understanding community antipathy toward needle distribution services. International Journal of Drug Policy, 25(3): 624-632.

De Groot, R.S. (2006). Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to access land use conflicts in planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 75: 175-186.

De Ingenieur (2016). Golfremmers gaan karakteristiek Markermeerdijk beschermen. Retrieved May 24, 2018, from https://www.deingenieur.nl/artikel/golfremmers-gaan-karakteristieke-markermeerdijk-beschermen.

De Leeuw, M. (2017). Hoe 33 kilometer dijk uitmondde in een hoofdpijndossier. Retrieved May 24, 2018, from https://www.cobouw.nl/infra/nieuws/2017/10/hoe-33-kilometer-dijk-uitmondde-een-hoofdpijndossier-101254179.

Dear, M. (1992). Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58: 288–300.

Devine-Wright, P. (2009). Rethinking NIMBYism: The Role of Place Attachment and Place Identity in Explaining Place-protective Action. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19: 426–441.

Devine-Wright, P. (2013). Think global, act local? The relevance of place attachments and place identities in a climate changed world. Global Environmental Change, 23: 61-69.

Everink, J. (2001). Durgerdam: schilderachtig havendorpje aan het Buiten-IJ. Retrieved May 22, 2018, from http://www.janeverink.com/essays/durgerdam.htm. 50 Fischer, N. (2007). Between Land and Sea: The Dike as an important element of the North Sea coastal landscape The Dike in Coastal Landscape The Beginnings of Sea Dikes. Retrieved May 18, 2018, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234015974_Between_Land_and_- Sea_The_Dike_as_an_important_element_of_the_North_Sea_coastal_landscape_The_Dike_in_- Coastal_Landscape_The_Beginnings_of_Sea_Dikes

Futrell, R. (2003). Framing Processes, Cognitive Liberation, and NIMBY Protest in the U.S. Che- mical-Weapons Disposal Conflict. Sociological Inquiry, 73(3): 359-386.

Gawronski, J. (2001). De voorloper van Durgerdam. Ons Amsterdam, 53(12): 336-340.

Hall, C. M., & Page, S.J. (2006). The Geography of Tourism and Recreation: Environment, Place and Space. Abingdon: Routledge.

Hoogheemraadschap Hollands Noorderkwartier (2016). Versterking Markermeerdijken Informa- tieblad Durgerdam en Uitdammerdijk. Bewonersbijeenkomst 05-07-2016. Retrieved May 21, 2018, from, https://www.markermeerdijken.nl/document.php?m=2&fileid=15029&f=7b0cca- d8f3252823571aa1e30db0cca3&attachment=0.

Hoogheemraadschap Hollands Noorderkwartier (2017a). Vergadering Bewonersavond participa- tieproces Durgerdam 11 oktober 2017. Retrieved May 24, 2018, from https://www.markermeerdijken.nl/markermeerdijken/durgerdam_3199/.

Hoogheemraadschap Hollands Noorderkwartier (2017b). Ontwerp Projectplan Waterwet Verster- king Markermeerdijken, Retrieved May 22, 2018, from https://www.commissiemer.nl/projectdo- cumenten/00002063.pdf?documenttitle=Conceptversie%20Projectplan%20Waterwet.pdf

Hoogheemraadschap Hollands Noorderkwartier (2018a). Publieksavond dinsdag 3 april 2018. Dur- gerdam.

Hoogheemraadschap Hollands Noorderkwartier (2018b). Spoor 3 - verslag 22 maart 2018. Durger- dam.

Hoogheemraadschap Hollands Noorderkwartier (n.d.a). Spoor 3. Retrieved May 9, 2018, from https://www.hhnk.nl/durgerdam/spoor-3_43388/.

Hoogheemraadschap Hollands Noorderkwartier (n.d.b). Waarom versterken? Retrieved April 13, 2018, from https://www.markermeerdijken.nl/markermeerdijken/waarom-versterken_280/.

Hoogwaterbeschermingsprogramma (n.d.a). samenwerking: een verregaande alliantie. Retrieved May 24, 2018, from http://www.hoogwaterbeschermingsprogramma.nl/Programma/Een+intro- ductie/Alliantie/default.aspx.

Hoogwaterbeschermingsprogramma (n.d.b). De ontwerpeis ‘sober en doelmatig’. Retrieved May 8, 2018 from http://www.hoogwaterbeschermingsprogramma.nl/Projecten/ Spelregels+voor+de+projecten/De+ontwerpeis+_sober+en+doelmatig_/default.aspx.

Hummon D.M. (1992) Community Attachment. In: I. Altman I., & S. M. Low (Eds), Place Attach- ment. Human Behavior and Environment: Advances in Theory and Research xs(253-278). Boston, MA: Springer

James, R. K. (2010). From 'slum clearance' to 'revitalisation': Planning, expertise and moral regulation in Toronto's Regent Park. Planning Perspectives, 25(1): 69-86.

Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31: 207-230.

Manzo, L. C., & Perkins, D. D. (2006). Finding common ground: The importance of place attachment to community participation and planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 20(4): 335-350.

51 Meershoek, P. (2016a). Durgerdam vreest aantasting monumentaal dorp. Het Parool. July 30th, 2016.

Meershoek, P. (2016b). Durgerdammers boos over dijkbesluit. Het Parool. December 10th, 2016.

Meershoek, P. (2017). Bewoners Markermeerdijken eisen alternatieve verzwaring. Het Parool. March 4th, 2017.

Mingyuan, W. & Bin, L. (2016). Legal Regulation of NIMBY Conflict in China. In: L. Barrera-Her- nandez, B. Barton, K. Godden, A. Lucas, & A. Ronne (Eds.), Sharing the Costs and Benefits of Energy and Resource Activity. Legal Change and Impact on Communities (371-392). Oxford: Ox- ford University Press.

Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu (2011). Bestuursakkoord Water, Den Haag: Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu.

Mitula (n.d.). Woningen Durgerdam. Retrieved May 25, 2018, from https://woningen.mitula.nl/ woning-durgerdam.

Mohammad, N. M. M., Saruwono M., Said S. Y., & Wan Hariri, W. A. H. (2013). A Sense of Place within the Landscape in Cultural Settings, Procedia. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 105: 506-512.

Natuurmonumenten (2017). Enquête beleving IJdoorn resultaten. Amsterdam.

Nicholls, W. J. (2009). Place, networks, space: Theorising the geographies of social movements. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 34: 78–93.

Nijhuis, S. (2014). Dikes in Focus. In: E. J. Pleijster & C. van der Veeken (Eds.), Dutch Dikes (72- 75). Rotterdam: NAi Publishers.

Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action. Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cam- bridge: Harvard University Press.

Perkins, D. D., & Long., D. A. (2002). Neighborhood sense of community and social capital: A multi-level analysis. In: A. Fisher, C. Sonn, and B. Bishop (Eds.), Psychological sense of community: Research, applications, and implications (291–316). New York: Plenum.

Popper, F. J. (1985). The environmentalist and the LULU. Environment, 27(2): 7-11.

Quah, E. & Tan, K. C. (1998). The siting problem of Nimby Facilities: Cost - Benefit Analysis and Auction Mechanisms. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space. 16(3): 255-264.

Reformatorisch Dagblad (1994). De fraaie achtertuin van Durgerdam loopt gevaar. Bewoners furi- eus over woningbouw in het IJmeer. Reformatorisch Dagblad, November 11th, 1994.

Relph, E. (1987). The Modern Urban Landscape. Londen: Pion.

Riger, S. & Lavrakas P. J. (1981). Community ties: Patterns of attachment and social interactions in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9(1): 55–66.

Schenk, W. (2000). Stadse tweeverdiener rukt op in Durgerdam. De Volkskrant. September 26th, 2000.

Schultz van Haegen, M. (2017). Kamerbrief over uitkomsten bestuurlijk overleg over dijkverster- king bij Uitdam en Durgerdam van 5 juli 2017, Den Haag: Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu.

Stedman, R. C. (2003). Sense of place and forest science: toward a program of quantitative research. Forest Science, 49: 822-829.

52 Swart, S. (2008). Luchtfoto van de Waterlandse Zeedijk bij Durgerdam, foto genomen richting Marken [Photograph]. Retrieved June 2, 2018, from: https://siebeswart.photoshelter.com/ima- ge?&_bqG=26&_bqH=eJwrSkuM9EmJzCqPT3S3SArzM8nwzCvP8fGpLAi1MjW1MjQwAGEg6Rnv- Euxs61JalJ5alJKYqwbmxzv6udiWANmhwa5B8Z4utqEgtT4FXoYGUU5RIXr5avGOziG2xamJRckZA- B_0ITA-&GI_ID=.

Swyngedouw, E., & Kaika, M. (2008). The Environment of the City... or the Urbanization of Na- ture. In: G. Bridge & S. Watson (Eds.), A Companion to the City (567–580). Blackwell: Oxford.

Technische Adviescommissie Hoofdgroenstructuur (2018). Jaarverslag TAC 2017. Amsterdam: Gemeente Amsterdam.

Tilley, C. (2006). Identity, Place, Landscape and Heritage, Journal of Material Culture, 11(1/2): 7–32.

Tu a n , Y. F. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. Minneapolis: University Min- nesota Press.

Tweede Kamer Staten Generaal (2004). Nota Ruimte Ruimte voor ontwikkeling, Deel 4. Den Haag.

Tweede Kamer Staten Generaal (2017). Brief van de Minister van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat. Den Haag.

Van der Pijl, E. (2006). The village of Durgerdam, near Amsterdam [Photograph]. Retrieved June 6, 2018, from https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Durgerdam.jpg.

Van Meurs, R. (n.d.). Het debacle van Brakel. Polderpers. Retrieved May 21, 2018, from http:// www.polderpers.nl/debacle-brakel-2/.

Van Rijswijk, M. (2014). Handreiking landschappelijke inpassing en ruimtelijke kwaliteit in wa- terveiligheidsopgaven, Den Haag: Programmadirectie Hoogwaterbescherming.

Vlek, C. A. J. (1995). Nimby als sociaal dilemma: een diagnose en wat therapie, In: B. van der Moolen & H. Voogd (Eds.), Niet in mijn achtertuin, maar waar dan? Over de ruimtelijke inpassing van ongewenste activiteiten (32-46). Alpen a/d Rijn: Samson.

Vorkinn, M., & Riese, H. (2001). Environmental concern in a local context: The significance of place attachment. Environment and Behaviour, 33: 249–263.

Waterlands Archief (n.d.). Geschiedenis van regio Waterland. Retrieved April 11, 2018, from http://waterlandsarchief.nl/doen-en-leren/geschiedenis-van-regio-waterland.

Wesselink, A. (2007). Flood safety in the Netherlands: the Dutch political response to hurricane Katrina. Technology in society, 29(2), 239-247.

Wolsink, M. (1994). Entanglement of Interests and Motives: Assumptions behind the NIMBY-theory on Facility Siting. Urban Studies, 31(6): 851-866.

Yin, R. K. (2012). Case Study Research. London: Sage.

53 10. Appendix

1) What is your age? ______

2) For how long do you live in Durgerdam? ______Year

3) To what extend do you feel connected with the other residents of Durgerdam? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4) How would you describe the residents of Durgerdam? ______

5) What do you think connects the residents of Durgerdam with each other? ______

6) To what extend do you feel connected with the place of Durgerdam? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

7) How would you describe the place of Durgerdam? ______

8) What do you appreciate most of Durgerdam? ______9) To what extend is the Durgerdammerdijk part of the identity of Durgerdam 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

10) Why is the Durgerdammerdijk (not) part of the identity of Durgerdam ______

54 11) Are you familiar with the plans of strengthening the Durgerdammerdijk? (When no, this is the end of the survey.) Yes No

12) To what extend do you agree with the plans of strengthening the Durgerdammerdijk? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

13) What is for you the main reason to (dis)agree with the plans of strengthening the Durger- dammerdijk?? ______

14) What would you like to see different in the plans of strengthening the Durgerdammerdijk?? ______