Creating value with an ocean ecopark

An assessment of the interdependent actor situation for a comprehensive ocean ecopark design in small island developing states Master of Science Thesis

Rick Oudshoorn

Creating value with an ocean ecopark An assessment of the interdependent actor situation for a comprehensive ocean ecopark design in small island developing states

Master of Science Thesis

For the degree of Master of Science in System Engineering, Policy Analysis and Management at Delft University of Technology

Rick Oudshoorn

November 12, 2014

Graduation committee Prof. dr. ir. W.A.H. Thissen - Section Policy Analysis Dr. S.W. Cunningham - Section Policy Analysis Dr. ir. I. Bouwmans - Section Energy & Industry P. Dinnissen - Bluerise Dr. ir. J.S. Timmermans - Section Policy Analysis

Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management · Delft University of Technology Copyright c Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management All rights reserved. Executive Summary

The purpose of this research is to provide insight in the system design process of an ocean ecopark, from the viewpoint of an independent policy analyst. More concretely efforts are made to provide capabilities gain insight in the value creation process between interdependent actors that influence the configuration of an ocean ecopark. An ocean ecopark is an initiative that deploys the potential of the ocean by utilizing cold ocean water through synergetic rela- tions between tenants. This initiative can provide small island developing states (SIDS) with an opportunity to produce their own food, energy and drinking water in an economical and sustainable manner. The construction of a cold water network, that enables the connection among different tenants on an ecopark, is a very expensive investment. The configuration of an ocean ecopark is still undefined and is adapted to the needs of a location to ensure the success and acceptance. In order to do so, this research assesses the actor context to provide insight in the aspects where an ocean ecopark can be valuable for an island. Corresponding with the socio-technical background, the complications within this design process are, for the purpose of this research, related to the actor situation. Namely, the many actors are involved on or around on ocean ecopark that can affect or are affected by this project. Each of the actors has their own objectives that they like to accomplish, and for which the ocean ecopark can be an excellent possibility. The ocean ecopark has only limited opportunity to accom- modate these, sometimes, conflicting interests of actors. Moreover, actors possess different resources and capabilities to influence the design process. This creates interdependencies in the actor environment and complicates the design process. Synthesizing, the problem dealt in this research concerns the limited understanding of the value creation process by interdependent actors that affect the design of an ocean ecopark. This research approaches this problem by providing a tool systematic analysis of the inter- dependent actor situation to enhance the system design process, related on the value aspect. Within the context of this problem exchange modelling is tested for its fit for purpose, as it accommodates the important aspects of this actor situation, resources and objectives. The analysis of this problem consists of a proposition of mutual beneficial transactions that actors can make when rationalizing their decision over the control they possess. By exchanging excess control (resources) for favourable control based on their interest (objectives) over issues (core values), an actor is better capable of fulfilling its objectives. This static assessment leads to a redistribution of the control, which actors can exert for the purpose of an ocean ecopark design.

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn ii Executive Summary

The results shown by the exchange model tool encompass the weighted values for an ocean ecopark and preliminary system specifications. The weighted issues are derived by accumu- lating the different interest functions of actors. A designer can apply these weighted issues as criteria for the creation and evaluation of conceptual designs. The preliminary system specifications can be obtained through the actors who possess a large portion of the resources to influence a relevant issue. Since there resources are needed for the design process, their commitment and acceptance can be realized by integrating their wishes for a particular issue into the conceptual design. This value creation process arises through the commitment of actors for the design process. Exchange modelling shows what control actors are seeking in order to achieve their goals, and under what conditions they are willing to cooperate. Com- municating and integrating these aspects in the design process enhances the commitment of actors to the design and design process. This substantiates the need for an integrative effort of systems and actors to realize an ocean ecopark, as actors input is necessary for the system design and a system design can convince actors for engaging to the process. Transforming the exchange modelling results towards practical insight in the system design is subject to several assumptions that can hamper the interpretation of the model. The actor situation is assumed static to give advice for the system perspective. Moreover, it assumes that there is one common denominator to identify the exchanges of control. Lastly, the model assumes rationality among the actors. These three aspects have as limitation that the outcome of the exchange model might differ in real world situations. The conceptualized exchange model is capable of providing insight in the vale creation process among actors. To further enhance the design process this research indicates to further specify the values for the actors to design a comprehensive ocean ecopark. One can accomplish this by integrating the perception of actors over the issues to indicate specific system specifications for a detailed design. This increases the value that an ocean ecopark creates for and by the involved actors.

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis Preface

In fulfilment of my master degree this thesis is the final step, and presented here before you. It has taken its shape during the past six months. By far it was the most challenging but also most interesting report and research I have conducted at the Delft University of Technology. The idea, around which this thesis has evolved, had captured me from the beginning; using cold deep ocean water to stimulate sustainable development in an ocean ecopark. I have made an exploration of the actor system surrounding the ocean ecopark, and l hope that this thesis report contributes to the further development of the ocean ecopark. First of all, I want to thank Bluerise for giving me the opportunity to research this interesting project. Special thanks to Paul Dinnissen for his eagerness to learn more about the actor situation of an ocean ecopark and aid me wherever he could. Interesting discussions arose regularly with my first supervisor, Dr. Scott Cunningham. I am grateful for his help with the struggles I encountered with capturing the complications of the problem, the research process, and transforming my thoughts into words on paper. I also want to thank Dr. ir. Jos Timmermans for his feedback on the modelling sequence. To complete my graduation com- mittee, I want to thank Dr. ir. Ivo Bouwmans for his critical views from another perspective, which shed a different light on the situation, and my chair Prof. dr. ir. Wil Thissen for his remarks and steering to pinpoint the aspects I need to focus on to improve the quality of my master thesis. Not only my graduation committee supported me during my research process, I also would like to extend my gratitude to my friends and family for their support. Foremost my girlfriend Lisa who motivated me to work hard for this thesis, but also made sure I took enough time off to relax and put my mind to other things. Secondly, my fellow graduation students who helped me through, with their colourful discussions and feedback about one another’s theses. Without them, and all the other friends and family that helped out and have shown interest, this process would not have been the same.

Delft, University of Technology Rick Oudshoorn November 12, 2014

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn iv Preface

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis Table of Contents

Executive Summaryi

Preface iii

1 Introduction1 1-1 Energy potential in the ocean...... 1 1-2 Designing in socio-technical systems...... 3 1-3 The difficulty of designing an ocean ecopark...... 5 1-4 Problem statement...... 6 1-5 Structure of this report...... 6

2 Research approach7 2-1 Objective, and social and scientific relevance...... 7 2-2 Research questions...... 8 2-3 Methodology...... 8 2-4 Research framework...... 10

3 Actor analysis 11 3-1 Game structured actor analysis...... 11 3-2 Actors: related to an ocean ecopark...... 12 3-3 Relations: formal chart of the actors...... 12 3-4 Rules of the game: an institutional analysis...... 12 3-5 Perception of actors...... 15 3-6 Objectives in this multi-actor system...... 17 3-7 Resources...... 17 3-8 Appraisal of the components of actor analysis...... 18 3-9 Conclusion...... 19

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn vi Table of Contents

4 Choosing an actor analysis method 21 4-1 A specific actor analysis method: exchange modelling...... 21 4-2 An alternative method: conflict analysis...... 22 4-3 Conclusion...... 23

5 The methodology of exchange modelling 25 5-1 Assumptions for exchange modelling...... 25 5-2 Implementation of the exchange model...... 27 5-3 Exchange modelling sequence...... 29 5-4 Actor identification...... 30 5-5 Issue definition...... 30 5-6 Expression of interest and control...... 32 5-7 Conclusion...... 32

6 Case study 33 6-1 Case description...... 33 6-2 Conceptualization of actors...... 34 6-3 Conceptualization of issues...... 35 6-4 Conceptualization of interest and control matrices...... 37 6-5 Implementation of exchange modelling...... 38 6-6 Considerations for conceptualization of an exchange model...... 38 6-7 Conclusion...... 39

7 Sample results for the case study 41 7-1 The equilibrium control...... 41 7-2 Systems design for an ocean ecopark...... 44 7-3 Actor engagement strategy for an ocean ecopark...... 47 7-4 Conclusion...... 50

8 Validation of the conceptualized exchange model 51 8-1 Validation outcomes...... 51 8-2 Conclusion...... 53

9 An applicable and transferable exchange model for Bluerise 55 9-1 Generalizable insight to other locations and purposes...... 55 9-2 Transferability of the model...... 56 9-3 Awareness for the use of exchange modelling...... 58 9-4 Conclusion...... 58

10 Added value of an exchange model 59 10-1 Applicable insight of the exchange model...... 59 10-2 Added value of transactions on the multi actor system...... 61 10-3 Completing the system design process...... 64 10-4 Research contributions to socio-technical design efforts...... 65

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis Table of Contents vii

11 Conclusions and recommendations 67 11-1 Answering the research questions...... 67 11-2 Recommendations and future research for Bluerise...... 70 11-3 Future research for scientific research...... 71

12 Reflection 73 12-1 Reflection on research process...... 73 12-2 Reflection on research methodology...... 74 12-3 Reflection on conceptualization of the case study...... 75 12-4 Reflection on objective and products delivered...... 75

References 77 References...... 77

A Actor mapping 83 A-1 Stakeholder mapping cube...... 83 A-2 Identifying important actors...... 84 A-3 Resource interdependence...... 84

B Value focused thinking 87 B-1 Objective trees...... 88 B-2 Issue definition...... 92

C Analytic Hierarchy Process 97 C-1 Analytic Hierarchy Process for the interest matrix...... 97 C-2 Analytic Hierarchy Process for the control matrix...... 101

D The exchange model code in Excel 105

E Sample results 107

F Validation 113 F-1 Mathematical validation...... 113 F-2 Threats to statistical conclusion validity...... 116 F-3 Threats to construct validity...... 121 F-4 Threats to internal validity...... 123

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn viii Table of Contents

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis List of Figures

1-1 SWAC and OTEC technology, derived from War (2011) and Acevado et al. (2011) 2 1-2 Ocean energy potential, derived from Bluerise (2014)...... 2 1-3 Preliminary design of synergetic relations, derived from Acevedo et al. (2011).. 4

2-1 Research framework...... 10

3-1 High-level actor network in an ocean ecopark context...... 14 3-2 High level system diagram of ocean ecopark...... 17 3-3 Overall objective tree in ocean ecopark multi actor system...... 20

5-1 Composition of an exchange model, adopted from Coleman (1990)...... 27

6-1 Interest matrix of the case study...... 37 6-2 Control matrix of the case study...... 37

7-1 Equilibrium control matrix of the case study...... 42 7-2 Initial control and equilibrium control among the actors of the case study.... 42 7-3 The potential of the exchanges with bilateral interaction of the case study.... 43 7-4 The utility change due to the exchange model of the case study...... 43 7-5 Value vector of the case study...... 45 7-6 Issue dependency graph of the case study...... 45 7-7 Power vector of the case study...... 48 7-8 Actor dependency graph of the case study...... 49

10-1 Generic system design process, adapted from Sage and Armstrong Jr. (2000).. 60 10-2 Competitive equilibrium control in a situation without EcoOcean...... 62 10-3 Four situations with an exchange model...... 63

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn x List of Figures

10-4 Demarcation of research contributions...... 66

A-1 Power-interest diagram, adapted from Eden and Ackermann (1998)...... 84 A-2 System diagram of ocean ecopark multi actor system...... 86

B-1 Objective tree FlyFast...... 88 B-2 Objective tree EcoOcean...... 88 B-3 Objective tree Department ED...... 89 B-4 Objective tree Food & Good...... 89 B-5 Objective tree BlueTourism...... 90 B-6 Objective tree Green World...... 90 B-7 Objective tree Newnovative...... 91

C-1 Analytic Hierarchy Process for FlyFast...... 97 C-2 Analytic Hierarchy Process for EcoOcean...... 98 C-3 Analytic Hierarchy Process for Department ED...... 98 C-4 Analytic Hierarchy Process for Food & Good...... 99 C-5 Analytic Hierarchy Process for BlueTourism...... 99 C-6 Analytic Hierarchy Process for Green World...... 100 C-7 Analytic Hierarchy Process for Newnovative...... 100 C-8 Analytic Hierarchy Process for Economic business case...... 101 C-9 Analytic Hierarchy Process for Employment...... 101 C-10 Analytic Hierarchy Process for R&D...... 102 C-11 Analytic Hierarchy Process for Self-sustainability...... 102 C-12 Analytic Hierarchy Process for Business climate...... 103 C-13 Analytic Hierarchy Process for Environmental impact...... 103 C-14 Analytic Hierarchy Process for Tourism...... 104

E-1 Dependency matrix for actors...... 107 E-2 Dependency matrix for issues...... 108 E-3 Demand for control matrix...... 108 E-4 Potential bilateral exchanges per two actors...... 111

F-1 Mathematical validation power and value vector...... 114 F-2 Mathematical checks proposed by Coleman...... 114 F-3 Calculated equilibrium control, based on input from Van der Lei and Herder (2011) 115 F-4 Equilibrium control, derived from Van der Lei and Herder (2011)...... 115 F-5 Difference in own work and already conducted exchange models...... 115 F-6 System interpretation team member A...... 116 F-7 System interpretation team member B...... 118

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis List of Tables

3-1 Actors in the ocean ecopark multi actor system...... 13

4-1 Assessment of exchange modelling and conflict analysis...... 23

5-1 Table of definitions for exchange modelling components...... 26 5-2 Methods for issue definition...... 30 5-3 Scale for preferences by AHP, adopted from Ragsdale (2008)...... 32

6-1 Conceptualized issues of the case study...... 36

8-1 Generic exchange model components...... 52

B-1 Issue definition...... 92

F-1 Different value and power interpretations...... 120 F-2 Experimentation with strategic behaviour...... 121 F-3 Validation of issues...... 123

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn xii List of Tables

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis Chapter 1

Introduction

Designing an artefact in a socio-technical system is the effort of intertwining a systems design with actors’ preferences. Combining the system and actor perspective requires insight in the related complexities that arise in a socio-technical system. This is especially visible for the design of an ecopark; where different firms with different expectations need to establish themselves an cooperate on an geographical confined area, requiring a technical network infrastructure to provide the connection. The purpose of this research is to advance the design process of an ocean ecopark by providing insight in this situation. The first section depicts what opportunity is present which Bluerise tries to grasp. Section two defines the overall issues of designing an artefact in a socio-technical system. This view is applied in section three by assessing the difficulties with designing an ocean ecopark which uses cold ocean water as prime input for their operations. From these complications a problem statement is formulated in section four. A final section is dedicated to the outline of this research.

1-1 Energy potential in the ocean

The ocean has a huge potential in providing energy; solar energy is captured and stored, which can accumulate up to more than 4000 times the current energy demand (Vega, 2002). With diminishing fossil fuel resources and increased emphasis on the environment this ocean energy can be harnessed to fulfil the growing demand for renewable energy sources. Seawater Air Conditioning (SWAC) and Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) are two sustainable techniques that are capable of harnessing this potential, see figure 1-1. SWAC utilizes heat exchangers to provide cooling capacity; cold deep ocean water is used to capture the warmth inside a building (War, 2011). OTEC generates electricity by driving a generator, through evaporation and condensation of a working fluid (ammonia is most often used), using the temperature difference of warm ocean water (between 25 and 28 ◦ C), and cold deep ocean water (between 4 and 7 ◦ C) (Vega, 2002).

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 2 Introduction

Figure 1-1: SWAC and OTEC technology, derived from War (2011) and Acevado et al. (2011)

At this time both techniques require the transportation of cold deep ocean water towards the surface to be utilized. Binger (2004) mentions several uses of cold deep ocean water on land. It can generate cheap renewable energy at base load capacity; enhance the availability of fresh drinking water; create fertile land for the production of crops and food; and reduce the need of foreign capacity for investments. The availability of cold deep ocean water can be especially valuable for small island developing states (SIDS). Figure 1-2 shows where there is a large enough temperature difference in the world (with the related cold water source); this is present around SIDS.

Figure 1-2: Ocean energy potential, derived from Bluerise (2014)

Briguglio (1995) and Weisser (2004) argue that the usage of ocean water contributes to the following characteristics of SIDS:

• A high dependency on import for food, drinking water and fossil fuels, with related high product cost;

• A rather small internal market, and limited possibilities to experience economies of scale;

• A high dependency on foreign investments;

• A precious ecosystem, like coral reefs and endangered species, exposed to environmental issues; and

• A large source for potential renewable energy, like wind, sun and ocean water.

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis 1-2 Designing in socio-technical systems 3

Bluerise, a start-up company in the Netherlands, seizes the opportunity on SIDS by developing SWAC and OTEC plants on these islands. For this purpose the cold ocean water is pumped up, as both facilities are currently designed for land purposes, but both have the potential to be constructed in the ocean. The cold deep ocean water, after being processed by SWAC and OTEC, is still of sufficiently low temperature and satisfactory quality to fulfil other needs on SIDS. An ocean ecopark is initiated to use this (processed) deep ocean water for the operations of firms. It gives potential for firms in the sectors aquaculture, agriculture, desalination, algae farms, etc. to use and share the cold water for the benefit of their businesses in a climate with harsh conditions (De Vries, 2013). Figure 1-3 gives an indication how the water can be used in synergy for different operations. All these operations require a certain cooling capacity of the water (a certain temperature), and through utilizing they heat up the water. Utilizing this cold water source is a sustainable and economically efficient approach to produce different products and services needed on an SIDS. The cold ocean water, at a temperature of 4 to 7 degrees, is brought to the surface with a network of capital intensive pipelines. This concept shows close resemblance with the characteristics of ‘industrial symbiosis’. A well-known concept of industrial symbiosis is eco-industrial parks. Multiple firms, whether or not in a geographical confined area, share raw materials, resources and waste in a synergetic relationship to obtain individual and collective benefits which could not have been reached alone (Chertow, 2000). The ocean ecopark desires various parties to share the cold water resources to achieve environmental and economic benefits. Eco-industrial park literature is used throughout this research to substantiate the arguments and results. Noteworthy contributions to this field of knowledge are the papers written by Chertow (2000), Ehrenfeld and Gertler (1997), Lowe (1997), and Côté and Cohen-Rosenthal (1998). The aim of Bluerise, the main problem owner, is to successfully design and establish an ocean ecopark that is capable of using deep ocean water resources. It allows for the development of sustainable technologies (among others OTEC), thereby creating long lasting value, both environmentally and economically (De Vries, 2013). The actors take a prominent position in the design efforts. Within this pluricentric setting different parties have expectations of this project, and need to be convinced of its potential in order to establish it. In order to contribute to the design of an ocean ecopark, it is researched where an ocean ecopark can create value for the different actors, and with whom this value can be created. The latter stipulates the need to also recommend options to convince actors to commit themselves to the ocean ecopark. As there are no previous experiences with designing a commercial ocean ecopark a tool is developed that is capable of indicating the value for the actors and strategic insight for different locations. Confined outside the research boundaries are the engineering and optimization of an ocean ecopark, the research into the financial aspects of the ecopark, and the design of institutions to aid the ecopark.

1-2 Designing in socio-technical systems

Designing an artefact in a socio-technical system requires dealing with many technical and actor interdependencies. Bauer and Herder (2009, p. 597) advocate that it is a difficult task to execute, as “technical components and social arrangements are so intertwined that the successful design of such systems requires the joint optimizations of technological and social variables”. A unilateral systems perspective would optimize the components, sub-systems

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 4 Introduction

Figure 1-3: Preliminary design of synergetic relations, derived from Acevedo et al. (2011)

of an artefact, to its sole objective function. With this perspective the design efforts are considered as incremental to gain insight in the components and individually optimize them. One neglects the difficulty of comprehending the interaction between the components and their unanticipated emergent behaviour (Sage & Armstrong Jr., 2000). In a socio-technical system an artefact affects or can be affected by multiple actors, with each their own opinion, capabilities and objective function. So it is no longer possible to optimize the system towards one objective function, but it must be adjusted towards multiple (sometimes contrasting) objective functions (Hermans, 2005). In a socio-technical system none of the actors can influence the whole system by themselves, and all pursue their personal goals by using their capabilities on the sub-systems. From an actor perspective all these actors can negotiate with each other until consensus is reached on the objectives and direction of an artefact. Purely focussing on this perspective makes the whole process very sluggish and slow, with a high potential for hampering the process (de Bruijn & Herder, 2009). Still, the design of an artefact is subject to many objectives posed by many actors with many interdependencies, leading to unpredictable and emergent behaviour in a non-linear dynamic environment (Koppenjan, Veeneman, van der Voort, ten Heuvelhof, & Leijten, 2011). The design process can incorporate the preferences of the actors and use their expertise to create acceptance for the designed system (Bostrom & Heinen, 1977). Therefore, incorporating both perspectives is a necessity for a design in a socio-technical system and together actors can identify a design for an artefact to cope with ill-structured problems. For the purpose of this research a system design and actor engagement strategy are defined, using notions of De Bruijn and Herder (2009). System design: integrating interdependent subsystems to achieve a comprehensive artefact towards an optimal solution. Actor engagement strategy: engaging actors to interact with each other to ensure com- mitment and contributions for a substantiated decision making process.

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis 1-3 The difficulty of designing an ocean ecopark 5

1-3 The difficulty of designing an ocean ecopark

The design of an ocean ecopark faces similar difficulties as within a general socio-technical system. Although to a lesser extent the design of an ocean ecopark requires the integration of actor preferences and systems specifications. As discussed earlier, there is no predefined format for the design of an ocean ecopark. An eco- industrial park, which an ocean ecopark is associated with, can provide many collective bene- fits, namely employment possibilities, resource efficiency, cost reductions, and environmental benefits, etc. (Mirata, 2004). Per specific location a different system design is applicable, dependent on the needs of the relevant actors. This makes it difficult to define one common objective function towards the design must be optimized. Furthermore, difficulties with de- signing an ocean ecopark arise when incorporating the needs of tenants, which as put as a prerequisite when those want to locate themselves on the site. Per business different require- ments are posed on the quality and flexibility of the cold water resource. With multiple uses of the water stream the toxic materials can accumulate further down the network, which can cause damage to equipment (Lowe, 1997). In an eco-industrial park there is also the risk of overreliance on one supplier for materials, which can cause intermittent delivery of the water source if not dealt adequately in the design phase (Ehrenfeld & Gertler, 1997). One should consider all these aspects when designing an ocean ecopark. To add upon the complications for the system design, there is limited space on SIDS and due to the high capital costs for the pipeline infrastructure limited deviations in the realisation process are possible. This substantiates that a singular systems perspective is not sufficient for designing an ocean ecopark. The actor perspective must also be involved to deal with the multiple objective functions within the system for the design. Main reason is that from a review among 63 eco- industrials parks it is concluded there is very little success to organize and plan the exchange of resources and waste between businesses (Gibbs, Deutz, & Proctor, 2005). If actors are not involved in the design process the strategy does not align with their expectations and organizational changes are not incorporated sufficiently in the design of an eco-industrial park which leads to failure of an eco-industrial park (van Leeuwen, Vermeulen, & Glasbergen, 2003). A second reason for incorporating the actor perspective in the design space is the high inter- dependencies between actors. The ocean ecopark has an impact on local actors, which can potentially hamper the design process as they struggle with the ’not in my back yard’ problem (Roberts, 2004). It create interdependencies between tenants that need to cooperate together, which deviates from the traditional way of doing business, namely an individualistic approach (Lambert & Boons, 2002). Other interdependences are created with the environment for the need of financial support and permits over which control is dispersed within the system over different actors (Lowe, 1997). One needs to study the interdependencies between actors and the prerequisite involvement of actors to adequately deal with the multiple objective functions within this multi actor system, besides considering the technical difficulties, for the system design process. This research assesses the actor environment around an ocean ecopark to define system specifications that can be used in the design process. As all locations have a different context, no specific insight is acquired for one location; rather a tool is designed to be able to gain relevant insight per individual location.

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 6 Introduction

1-4 Problem statement

The following problem statement is formulated based on the previous mentioned knowledge gaps for this research: There is a lack of understanding how to deal with the interdependent actor situation of an ocean ecopark on SIDS, which uses abundant cold deep ocean water as input. This interde- pendent situation requires the integration of the actors’ values for the ocean ecopark into the system design process.

1-5 Structure of this report

For this research the following structure is used. The second chapter elaborates on which research approach is taken, and why this is suitable to cope with the presented actor problem. Chapter three contains an actor analysis of the different components related to this multi actor situation. Based on the important components in the relevant actor environement, derived from the actor analysis, a specific actor analysis method is advocated in chapter four. The general modelling sequence, including assumptions, is presented in the fifth chapter. In the subsequent chapter this generic method is conceptualized for a anonymized case study. In the seventh chapter a proof of concept is given for this method, by showing the impact of assessing the actor situation on the design process of an ocean ecopark. The model is validated in chapter eight. The ninth chapter is dedicated to the added value of the defined actor analysis method for the operations of Bluerise. Chapter ten’s focus is on the scientific contribution of the used model on a generic system design approach to indicate the generalizability to other applications. A closing statement is made in the eleventh chapter, to conclude on the research questions and state recommendations for future research. A reflection on the research process is made to identify improvements for future research activities.

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis Chapter 2

Research approach

Designing an ocean ecopark is complicated due to the multiple objective functions within the system. This chapter covers the research approach to deal with this particular state of affairs. Firstly, the objective and relevance of this research are specified. Subsequently, the main research questions are formulated for this research. The third paragraph gives an in- depth description on the approach and methodology to obtain the answers for the research questions. The last paragraph is dedicated to a comprehensive research framework.

2-1 Objective, and social and scientific relevance

The following objective is formulated for this research: The creation of a tool that is able to adequately deal with the actor situation in order to explore how the design of an ocean ecopark could encompass the values of interdependent actors, at any given SIDS where cold ocean water is accessible. Social relevance Insights are communicated to Bluerise on several aspects that can contribute to their oper- ations. First of all, awareness is created for integrating the different values of actors within the system of an ocean ecopark. Their preferences are used to make recommendations for the design by defining systems specifications. Advice is offered on how to engage the different actors to contribute to the design process, and which actors are necessary for the creation of the pursued value. Bluerise can use this tool at different locations where they would like to initiate an ocean ecopark. This research has also value for society; the development of ocean ecoparks can be an opportunity for SIDS to mature their islands further and become less reliant on other countries. Scientific relevance This research investigates the contribution of incorporating the actor environment in the system design process for the case of ocean ecoparks. Although most authors stipulate the importance of actors, inter alia Mirata (2004), Costa and Ferrão (2010), and Roberts (2004),

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 8 Research approach there are no guidelines described to address the actors input for the design process. For the first time, according to the knowledge of the author, this intertwined perspective of systems and actors is applied on the design of an ocean ecopark. The contributions of this application are discussed to also contribute to the scientific field of designing in socio-technical systems.

2-2 Research questions

For this study the following main research question and corresponding sub-questions are formulated. What are the applicability and limitations of an assessment of the actor situation, which encompasses the various values of interdependent actors, on the system design of an ocean ecopark on SIDS where cold deep ocean water is accessible? Sub-research questions:

1. What is the contribution of an assessment of the actor situation to cope with the complications for designing an ocean ecopark on SIDS?

2. What are the limitations of the use of actor situations for a system design concerning an ocean ecopark on SIDS?

3. How generalizable is the insight gained for using actor situation on system designs for other locations and purposes?

2-3 Methodology

To answer the research questions and sub-questions one needs to conduct a method that is able to provide understanding of the multi actor system. An actor analysis method could suffice in this need, and give the needed insight the actor system. It gives a structured approach to derive at results and recommendations and can enhance interactions between actors (De Bruijn & Ten Heuvelhof, 2008). A problem is that there is a whole spectrum of actor analysis methods that all focus on parts of the system. Dependent on the focus and content of the situation an actor analysis method can be found more appropriate to provide understanding. Burton and Obel (1995, p. 62) argue that this content validity must focus on “do the variables, parameters and relations capture the phenomenon of study?” Thus, relating this to an actor analysis method, an appropriate method should properly incorporate the important aspects of the content of the problem (Brugha & Varvasovszky, 2000). To cope with this the relevant aspects are extracted from the multi actor system by means of a portrayal of the different components. This research is divided into two parts, one determines an appropriate actor analysis method, and the second part applies and tests this tool on the problem. Actor analysis methods The first part consists of choosing an appropriate actor analysis method. The context of the multi actor system is portrayed by the relevant components to ensure that the content of the

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis 2-3 Methodology 9 problem is correctly reflected into the chosen method. Hermans (2005) proposes six compo- nents that are always present in an actor system, namely actors, relations, rules, perception, objectives, and resources. Based on this representation an appropriate actor analysis method is chosen. This aligns with five methodological requirements posed by Hermans and Thissen (2009) to which an actor analysis method must comply. Firstly, the model’s purpose must be to gain insight in the relevant aspects of the multi actor situation in an easy to grasp way, without decreasing the understanding of the system. Secondly, a right method aligns its theoretical basis with, and incorporates, the important actor component(s) in the system. A third requirement is the reproducibility of the modelling sequence, by a transparent description which is accessible for other parties who are interested in it. Fourth, the practical usefulness of the method demonstrated in previous problems. Lastly, the validity of the method encompasses that the correct method is chosen and that the modelling sequence is validated. So the decision for a specific actor analysis method is checked for these requirements. The first step in the design sequence is to find an actor analysis method that complies with these requirements for the specific content of the problem. After the method selection, an anonymized case study is conducted. In this case study the actor analysis method is applied on the situation of an ocean ecopark. This case study serves as a proof of concept of the usefulness of this actor method for this problem. It illustrates what kind of results can be drawn from the method. A next step in the design sequence is to validate the chosen and conceptualized model, in order to advocate if a useful method is chosen and if the correct components are designed. A last step is generalizing this method for the use of Bluerise. They want to apply it for different locations, and it is determined how well this method is capable of it. This phase is concluded with a description of the transferability of the designed method. This design sequence is presented in a research framework, figure 2-1. Practical requirements According to Bluerise their objective for an actor analysis model is to gain insight in the value that can be created by the ocean ecopark, how Bluerise can facilitate the interaction between the actors, and to determine the dependencies among the actors. Besides the objectives there are softer requirements which would add to the quality of the model if satisfied. These needs are identified as a clear visual representation of the actor situation, insight in the behaviour of actors, determining the social value of an ocean ecopark, and preliminary recommendations for the technical design of an ocean ecopark. Two criteria are determined to which the model must comply, namely the generalizability towards other locations, and the flexibility to deal with different actor settings. Role of the researcher Different styles are identified by Mayer, van Daalen, and Bots (2013) for a policy analyst to adopt throughout the research process. As efforts are focussed on the design of a tool, a first appropriate style is design and recommend. Complementary on this style are the research and analyse style, to identify a suitable design, and advise strategically style. The latter encompasses the strategic benefits of the tool for Bluerise to develop an ocean ecopark and engage actors to their project. To employ these styles a desk research is applied. Enserink, Koppenjan, and Mayer (2013) define this as “system analysis, provide information, and en- closing the scientific insight needed to make informed decisions”. Thus, throughout the whole research a desk research is used to support the appropriate styles.

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 10 Research approach

2-4 Research framework

Chapter 3

Structured assessment of multi actor Chapter 5 Chapter 7 Chapter 9 system Methodology of Case study: Practical use of Chapter 4 Chapter 6 Chapter 8 Chapter 11 chosen actor proof of concept the model analysis method Actor analysis Conceptualiza- Validition of Conclusions and method tion of the conceptualized Chapter 10 recommen- selection model model dations Added value of the model on the design process

Figure 2-1: Research framework

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis Chapter 3

Actor analysis

The multi actor system is portrayed by an assessment of the actor components in order to define the important aspects of the actor context. Subsequent research efforts focus on the relevant component(s) within this context for identifying an appropriate actor analysis method (Hermans & Thissen, 2009). Hermans (2005) proposes a structured framework to do so. In sequence, this chapter researches the following components: actors, relations, rules, perception, objectives, and resources individually per section. The eighth section gives an appraisal of these components.

3-1 Game structured actor analysis

The basis of the analysis comes from a game structured method of Hermans (2005). This framework is composed of the concepts that are present in a multi-actor context at both the network level and the actor level. Implications are that the components of actors are modelled, which are difficult to comprehend, and are clearly interrelated. A game structuring method The network level encompasses the actors that have the ability to influence the project by their resources. These actors have relations with other actors, in other words they can form coalitions to together strive towards something. In the network of actors there are rules which prescribe what can be done (behaviour) by the actors according to overarching norms and values. On an actor level actors possess three components, their perceptions, their objectives and their resources. The perceptions can be resembled by the information an actor has about the system and how this is distributed among the actors. Objectives are the things actors strive for to maximize or minimize. Actors can have different objectives and one can also consider it a pay-off for the actor how to allocate their scare resources to fulfilling their objectives. The resources are the means an actor has to influence the system, in mostly fulfilling their own objectives.

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 12 Actor analysis

Actor analysis To assess the six components a general actor analysis is conducted. A first common step taken to assess the actors in the presented context is by identifying the relevant actors, their power, interest and influence around the relevant topic to get a broad overview of the context (Bryson, 2004; Brugha & Varvasovszky, 2000). This actor mapping (also called stakeholder mapping) is conducted in appendix A, whereby the structure of Hillson & Simon (2012) is used to identify the different actor types and importance. A power-interest diagram is used to identify the most important actors, in order to determine the focus point of this actor analysis (Eden & Ackermann, 1998). They argue that only the actors with high power and interest can be considered players those actors and their attributes are used to assess the other components from the framework. Varvasovszky and Brugha (2000) argue that due to changes in environment, influences over time, and political context change the validation of an actor analysis is difficult.

3-2 Actors: related to an ocean ecopark

Scientific literature has identified several (generic) actors that should be incorporated for the establishment of an ecopark. Lambert and Boons (2002), Kim (2007), Heeres, Vermeulen and De Walle (2004), and Baas and Boons (2004) identified the following actors, which are presented in table 3-1 in general and specific terms. Per location a different set of actors can be identified, with each different characteristics and behaviour. Appendix A describes the analysis done for the identification of the important actors in each group for the case of CuraÃğao. The latter two are added to this list, for their ability to influence the design of an ecopark.

3-3 Relations: formal chart of the actors

Within the context of an ocean ecopark each actor has a different role and has diverging relations with each other. The formal and informal relations between actors are depicted in figure 3-1. This graph shows which actor groups have a relationties with each other, and what the nature is of this relations. This figure and the actor analysis are composed based on sources from Bluerise (2014), Prochazka (2013), and personal communication with members of Bluerise. An extensive overview is presented in appendix A.

3-4 Rules of the game: an institutional analysis

Within the context of an ocean ecopark there are rules that influence the behaviour and relations between the actors. Koppenjan and Groenewegen (2005) use four different layers to assess the institutional environment; a similar effort is performed for the ocean ecopark case. This analysis describes the norms and values, legislation and common knowledge for the system the ocean ecopark is situated in. The norms and values (layer 4 informal institutions) present on Curaçao are mostly the same as in the Netherlands, as their civil law system is almost equal to its equivalent in the

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis 3-4 Rules of the game: an institutional analysis 13

Table 3-1: Actors in the ocean ecopark multi actor system

Actor group Role Governmental agencies, relevant min- Provide a legislative framework for firms and projects istries, local authorities, and regulators which are needed to establish an ocean ecopark and towards which one need to comply Knowledge institutes (among others uni- Knowledge institutes can provide additional insight in versities and research institutes) the synergetic relationships and provide potential for improving production on an ocean ecopark. Moreover, they can be potential tenants and do research on the scientific fields related to water and oceans Project developers (project managers) Attempting to establish and facilitate an ocean eco- park at a given location that creates value for the different actors on and around this project (Acevedo, Baskar, Prochazka, & Hermans, 2011), also Enserink et al. (2013) mention the importance to also incorpo- rate the problem owner(s) in the actor analysis Environmental interest organizations Make a case for the environmental impact of projects and strive for sustainability. They can support an ocean ecopark for it sustainable nature, and use it for their own purposes Firms: private enterprises, businesses, Firms (potential tenants) on an ocean ecopark cooper- and waste treatment facilities ate and have synergetic relations to achieve collective and individual benefits Other initiatives Other projects or ideas that can cooperate or compete with an ocean ecopark Project initiator Initiating party who sees a possibility for an advance- ment in sustainable and economic development, by for example seeking possibilities to commercialize abun- dant ground

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 14 Actor analysis

LLeeaassee llaand

Govveerrnmeentt Prrojjeecctt Prrojjeecctt Ownss Hiirreed aaggeencciieess iiniittiiaattorr deevveellopeerr

SSeettss sspeecciiffiicc lleeggiissllaattiion on deelleeggaatteed ffiieelld LLeeaassee llaand

FFiirrmss Ottheerr Knowlleeggdee Diissttrriibutteess Coopeerraattee IInfforrmss ((potteenttiiaall maarrkkeett bodiieess kknowlleedggee //Compeettee tteenaanttss)) paarrttiieess

EEnvviirronmeentt IInffllueencceess publliicc aall iintteerreesstt aaboutt ggrroupss

FForrmaall hiieerraarrcchyy

IInfforrmaall hiieerraarrcchyy

Figure 3-1: High-level actor network in an ocean ecopark context

Netherlands. It has a well-developed institutional framework where there is political stability with democratic elections, and press freedom to inform the local population (Goede, 2009). Legislation (layer 3 formal institutions) are drawn up by the government and controlled by the regulating authority BT&P. Applicable for this case is the legislation on electricity, and economic zones. Without concessions, given by the government, no electricity can be delivered to the third parties . This is done to maintain a transparent, affordable, available, and sustainable electricity generation, with the related price regulations stated in the Pricing Ordinance 1961 (BT&P, 2011). Implications for Bluerise are there are possibilities to generate sustainable electricity due to changes in the market model allowing competition. To stimulate investments in Curaçao several arrangements are applicable on new initiatives to support the economic development of Curaçao. More specific, these consist of a profit tax of 2% for 5 to 11 years, and exemptions from import duties, land taxes (for 11 years), and personal income tax (for 2 years). Additional legislation is focussed on ‘ordinance maritime management’ (PB 2007, 18), United Nations Sea Convention (OJ 2005, 18), establishment rules for companies (PB 1946, 43), and legislation focussed on the distribution between local and foreign employees (80% should be local population) (Prochazka, 2013). According to Goede (2009) the Bureau for Intellectual Property of the Netherlands Antilles can be involved for the patenting of new innovations and knowledge. The economic zone legislation is focussed on whole business parks. When an economic zone is

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis 3-5 Perception of actors 15 applicable it has the advantage that minimal taxes have to be paid by the tenants established on this zone. Economic zones are exempted from import taxes and sales taxes, and only need to pay limited export taxes (Curinvest, n.d.). Licences and permits (layer 2 formal and informal arrangements) need to be present for the ecopark to construct the park and for doing business in Curaçao. The latter is a business licence and a director’s licence from the Executive Council of Curaçao to establish a busi- ness in Curaçao (PWC, 2013). The government style of the island is focussed on governing through the involvement of actors through horizontal interactions. Most important are here the involvement of state-owned enterprises, which have a large influence on the political issues (Goede, n.d.). The relations (layer 1 actors and games) between the actors in the multi actor setting are mostly informal of nature. Most parties are interested in mutual beneficial interactions and through their network they seek these possibilities to further obtain their objectives. For (environmental) projects, Kloppenburg mentions three important aspects that he considers crucial for the islands culture and view on similar projects, namely the goals and interest of the project should be transparent, there is limited awareness for new projects, disbelieve on the potential success of new projects (Prochazka, 2013).

3-5 Perception of actors

The context of an ocean ecopark also encompasses the perception of actors towards the ocean ecopark. Do they perceive it is a positive or negative effort? This component also consists of the information actors have of the project, which can alter their perception. The actor group preferences are formulated based on the important actors and their preferences. Bear in mind that the actor mapping cube identifies potential roles for the actors. Those definitions are based on preliminary research against possible attitudes and interests of the actors. Dependent on the communication and involvement of the actors their preferences can differ or change. Project initiator The project initiator would like to use their abundant land nearby the airport to build an ocean ecopark. Their main vision is to create a profitable and sustainable business plan that can help them to contribute to the growth of the airport (Santine & Santine Jr., 2013). They possess information about the overall direction for the ocean ecopark. Their vision closely aligns with the prospects of an ocean ecopark. It gives them an opportunity to increase their sustainable image and further attract new businesses towards their activities. Project developer The project developer has the perception to successfully initiating an ocean ecopark, so that it can be expanded to other locations. As they not only facilitate the ocean ecopark, but also design it, they have benefits of a successful experience. This, of course, gives them a positive perception on the ocean ecopark. Governmental agencies Their problem perception is based on the fulfilment of conflicting interests they have. On the one hand they strive for a sustainable future for Curaçao and would like to make economic progress. They also would like to develop the local population and contribute to better

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 16 Actor analysis education. Limited financial resources are available in the Curaçao government to support their objectives. Currently, limited information is present within the government about energy policy and how to achieve this. The ocean ecopark could fulfil a role in their objectives, and cope with some of the characteristics of SIDS. Although the design of the ocean ecopark is not known, it can fulfil part of their goals and therewith this actor group have a positive perspective on an ocean ecopark.

Firms Important for the design of an ocean ecopark is the perspective of the potential firms. They must position themselves on the ecopark and need an environment that supports and incen- tivise them into sharing knowledge and waste. The firms are part of a larger group of tenants that should establish themselves on the ocean ecopark. Firms, but also knowledge institutes, environmental interest groups or other actors could position themselves on the park. Overall speaking an ocean ecopark gives firms the advantage of cheap and sustainable operations (Mirata, 2004). Still, they can also have a negative perception on the ocean ecopark con- cept. Within an ocean ecopark they are reliant on one supplier for their materials, where the quality of products can differ and toxic materials can accumulate throughout the synergetic relations (Lowe, 1997). Besides these aspects that can hamper the operations of a firm, they are subject to strategic behaviour of the parties, which can be reluctant to share information for the collective benefit (Ehrenfeld & Gertler, 1997).

Other initiatives Competitors are considered other parties or initiatives that either compete or cooperate with the concept of an ocean ecopark. They also try to establish their own initiative and dependent on similarities in their projects and how they are involved they could have a negative or positive perception on the ocean ecopark.

Environmental interest groups Interest groups are concerned with the quality of life on the island. There focus is on sus- tainable development, but also on the quality of the environment, like conserving certain nature areas, pollution and the coral reef. It is difficult to contain their perspective on the ocean ecopark. An ocean ecopark is commonly regarded as a sustainable project, but could hypothetically harm the environment if inadequate measures are taken. Toxic material inside the different waste streams, which are used by multiple parties, built up and only in the end adequate measures are taken (Lowe, 1997). The other way around their involvement shows the sustainable character of the ocean ecopark and that is good for the overall image of the ocean ecopark. Generalizing this, it depends on how the involvement of interest groups is arranged if they are positive or negative against an ocean ecopark.

Knowledge institutes Different knowledge institutes can help develop (sustainable) products and innovations, con- tribute with their knowledge to increase the efficiency of the ecopark, and add credibility to the ocean ecopark. They can be considered independent entities that can aid companies. An important aspect that is mentioned on the island is the knowledge drain of students and limited interest in technical studies, according to Mr. Guda, manager at FAPE and teacher at the University of Curaçao (Prochazka, 2013). A new innovative project, such as the ocean ecopark, could fulfil in their needs, and it is argued that the knowledge institutes have a positive attitude towards the ocean ecopark.

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis 3-6 Objectives in this multi-actor system 17

3-6 Objectives in this multi-actor system

In the multi actor context of an ocean ecopark, not only the objectives of Bluerise are im- portant (see chapter one), but also the goals of other relevant actors. Introducing these objectives increase the solution space for the system designs of an ocean ecopark, and create more acceptances among the actors (De Bruijn & Ten Heuvelhof, 2008). Figure 3-3 displays the overall objective tree, which is composed of the individual objective trees in appendix B. There is a tension between different objectives, some are contradictory and cannot be achieved simultaneously. This tension is the effect of incorporating multiple views. There is always the tension how to deal with scarce ground, and between sustainability and financial benefits. To elaborate on this, more sustainability means in most cases an increase in costs. There is also a gap to accomplish both the environmental benefits by synergy and developing new technologies, and the profitability of the ecopark, due to the high investments costs and related risk of more synergy and the unpredictability of R&D.

exxtterrnall ffaccttorrss

Temperature Demand for products Distance to difference of produced on ocean accesible cold water streams ecopark ocean water

Employment of local Numberr off jjobss Job possibilities population by tenants + +

+ + + Self-sufficiency + Stimulate internal food Subssyssttem:: Marrkett pottenttiiall production

+ Profit of ocean + Numberr off Subssyssttem:: Bussiinessss cclliimatte ecopark + ttenanttss + -

Subsidies, favourable Meanss tax regimes, legislative + Crriitterriia support, renewable + Subssyssttem:: IInvessttmentt rriissk energy policy etc.

+ + Impact on the Amount of cold water environment + - inflow

Amount of + ++ Subssyssttem:: R&D efffforrttss research and Knowledge on innovation innovation and sustainable development + Attractiveness for tenants + + Reputtattiion occean eccoparrk

Figure 3-2: High level system diagram of ocean ecopark

3-7 Resources

A last component within the context of ocean ecoparks are the resources needed to realize the project. Geng et al. (2009) consider the economic development, material reduction and

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 18 Actor analysis recycling, pollution control, and administration and management as important indicators for the development of an eco-industrial park. Some of these aspects can be influenced by the project developer, while others only can be influenced by other parties, such as the capacity, knowledge, or authority. Thus, the resources needed for the realization are spread throughout the entire system. Especially when relating the resources, or means, actors possess to the goals they try to accomplish. Although for some resources they can clearly be linked to actors, for other resources it is not known how they are distributed among the actors. An aggregate overview of the system, including the resources and other factors, is depicted in figure 3-2. The comprehensive system overview is shown in appendix A.

3-8 Appraisal of the components of actor analysis

This structured actor analysis portrays the different components in the context of an ocean ecopark. Hermans and Thissen (2009) state that appropriate actor analysis models should focus on the important component(s) in an actor environment. The following appraisal of components is argued for this system:

1. Resources (actions)

2. Objectives (pay-offs)

3. Actors

4. Relations (coalitions)

5. Perceptions (information)

6. Rules (rules of the game)

The problem within this system is to design and realize a successful ocean ecopark. From the entire component representation it is argued that resources are most important. Those components are scattered over the different actors, but needed for the design of an ocean ecopark. Without insight in the resource distribution one cannot determine under what conditions an actor is willing to allocate their resources for the benefit of the ocean ecopark. Das and Teng (2000) argue that according to the Resource-Based Rationale the resources can be allocated towards value maximization. The thought behind it is that by cooperating parties can find better possibilities for their resources to create value out of it, which they could not have gained by themselves (Das & Teng, 2000). In order to accomplish this resource allocation, the objectives of the actors play an important role. Actors own scarce resources that they need to achieve their own goals, what means that they are dependent on each other. To establish collaborations an important driver to consider is the expected benefit for the actors (Parkhe, 1993; Khanna, Gulati, & Nohria, 1998). For the ocean ecopark the objectives of actors determine where value can be created. It is argued that for an ocean ecopark the values are the main decisive argument for actors to allocate their resources. If the design of the ocean ecopark incorporates their goals, the resources can be gathered to achieve these values.

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis 3-9 Conclusion 19

The resources of actors and their objectives do not match with each other. This leads to relations that arise between actors to together achieve ones goals. Important to facilitate these interactions is the trust between actors, which Parkhe (1993) advocates as a premise for cooperation. To ensure this trust and therewith accomplish the relations, one needs to consider the particular actions and behaviour of each of the specific actors. For example, it can be that actors do not want to commit their resources, and waiting for another party (with similar resources) to allocate these first (Boons & Janssen, 2004). Therefore this component is ranked third. Related to previous substantiation is the relations that are already present within the system, and which should arise between the actors. However, it is assumed that the current network cannot be used to force actors to unwillingly give up their resources, as there are no behind the scene mechanisms. Moreover, the focus should lie on new relations that are not yet defined, consequently this component is not considered very important within this context. One can argue that their perception on the project is also influential in their decision to assign their resources to the ocean ecopark. Within this context this statement is not supported. Most actors have a positive perception towards the ocean ecopark, or it is dependent on an appropriate design whether or not it incorporates their goals. Thus, an actor analysis method does not need to focus on changing the perception of actors, as this is already mostly positive, but to properly important the important values of actors. The foundation for this argument can be found in the dissertation of Van Eeten (2001). Who concludes that broadening the view on a project can support the progress made by the project. So instead of focussing on perceptions on one specific design, broad directions (potential values) for a design are more relevant. Sixth are the rules of the game within the system. The assumption in this multi actor system is that there are no set of rules that can force actors to give up their resources.

3-9 Conclusion

Answers are sought to the effect of the actor context to advance the system design. The multi actor system is portrayed and it is derived that an adequate actor analysis method must focus on and adequately deal with the resources and objectives in this system. Reasons are that especially the resources are needed throughout the design process to realize the concept, and properly incorporating the values of actors (objectives) provide incentives for the actors to allocate their resources. One can consider this analysis prior design effort; it does not only show the social system in general, it gives a proper starting point for this and any other actor analysis method.

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 20 Actor analysis

t f e n o h

e t

n m e o z i n i t o a r m i i v r v x

e a n

s e e l

m n h

a e t t o o

h c n T e s t t e z i i f m e m i n n x o e r a i b

v

m

t

e n d e t n e o e z l n n a i e T r b o a i

a e m m t l i h n p a x c e i v r o c a a l o a t c e m s e a n

v

s u n o e o i s e T d r T

t s e e l k a r s a

e m e z

i r d a m n i h a s x p a x m e

o o T T s t

s e o z c i

l s

r r m

a e i e o e n t n h t i c h o t s c

i t a

t e m a e r i

e a z t a i i r s e o h v a e T h i c m t e t

p i

r c c f x o i c a o a t

n s f i t i

i m r o

f o u o o T r o T t p k

s i e r z

i t n m i e n i m t m s

e e o

t s v T s e a n z i e i m n i l m e i c

v x i s t a s c

e m a

e t n r i r t o h

s t t o T

e u a f p s b r o a i

e A n r

o c o i t n a i a

c t a o u r T p u e C r

e s z e i l a m s i

x t r a o

m

p f

e x o o

e h T y t

c e o n z a i e i c c m a i i f r x f u a u C

s

m -

d

e f s l n z o o e i n e o T o h i s o f t i m t o

i l t c a i x e a u c s d a n d a a n r r m o e

e o r u r t c o

c p C n l

T i n a i n

i

i

b c n r o o o o o T j i f s

t e s a l z e i i

u t i p m l i i o x b p i a

l s s m a

c o o o p l T

Figure 3-3: Overall objective tree in ocean ecopark multi actor system

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis Chapter 4

Choosing an actor analysis method

The purpose of this chapter is to combine the specified methodological requirements and the essential understanding needed in the context into an appropriate actor analysis method. Here an actor analysis method is connected to the resources and objectives, which are argued the most important within the given context. Firstly, a method is proposed that adequately deals with the important components. The second section is dedicated to another method that has similar capabilities to deal with the system, when one argues an alternative appraisal of components.

4-1 A specific actor analysis method: exchange modelling

Coleman (1990) created a model capable of assessing the resources and objectives of actors, named exchange modelling. It is adequate to propose mutual beneficial situations for actors by allocation of resources direct by the different objectives in the system. So far it complies with the first requirement posed by Hermans and Thissen (2009) when choosing an actor analysis method. Next requirements are discussed in the rest of this section. Cunningham and Van der Lei (2009) present the needed steps to execute an exchange model along with network implications. To illustrate their work they use the case of the supply chain of microelectronics industry, and presented potential alliances between actors. Schouten et al. (2001) and Timmermans (2004) researched the development of an area in Indonesia. Based on the dependencies between the actors and their resources and interests the important actors are identified for the given case. Potential exchanges of resources are proposed for the benefit of the decision making process. Stokman and Van den Bos (1992) use exchange modelling for the development of energy policies in the United States, among others the development for the Natural Gas Deregulation and the outcome for Nuclear Plant Construction Moratorium. Concluding remarks are made on the power each actors has on influencing the energy poli- cies and the accuracy of their predictions (where seven of the eight policies where predicted correctly). For the national rural water policy in The Netherlands the exchange modelling approach is used by Timmermans (2009). Not only does he propose potential exchanges

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 22 Choosing an actor analysis method between the actors, the model is also used for the design and execution of an interactive workshop with all the actors. Doing this creates mutual understanding of the actors in their role and possibilities within the policy arena. Van der Lei and Herder (2011) compared the exchange modelling technique with conflict analysis to determine which has more predictive capabilities for the case of redesigning water management of a polder in The Netherlands. Ex- change modelling suggested that the predefined strategies for the water management should be adjusted towards an intermediate solution to keep all the actors content. Timmermans (2008) uses the exchange model to describe the social transitions. The result of this study aid the understanding of the nature of social transitions, and better represents the real world into an exchange model. By applying this method the authors have acknowledge valuable interdependencies, described where value can be created among actors, and represented the real world situation (Hermans, 2005). With these previous applications the scientific correctness is checked and reproducible steps are given. As exchange modelling complies with the five posed methodological require- ments, this actor analysis method is chosen for this multi actor context.

4-2 An alternative method: conflict analysis

One could argue on the appraisal of the components. Mostly likely this focusses on the importance of actors, as a substitute for objectives. If this is the case, it requires a different method that should be applied in this context, namely conflict analysis (Hermans, 2005). This method, described by the book of Fraser and Hipel (1984), assesses the options of actors to behave in conflict situations. An overview is given of the benefits and limitations of both methods. One of the complications is the multiple interdependencies between the actors within this system. Both methods are capable of dealing with this complication. Conflict models present it as the impact of non-cooperation and the advantages of cooperation. Exchange modelling grasps the interdependencies between actors on resources and objectives and consequently propose possibilities and motivation for interaction (Emerson, 1976). The difference here is that conflict models are particularly focussed on contradicting viewpoints between actors, whereas exchange modelling can be applied in cooperative settings (Cunningham & van der Lei, 2009). Both methods are capable of presenting advice on how to deal with the different preferences of the actors (Van der Lei & Herder, 2011). Conflict modelling supports the user to deal with the dynamics and specifics of the different locations. A downside of exchange modelling is that it is not able to cope with the dynamics within an actor. An actor can adjust its preferences based on learning effects regarding its own preferences and the preferences of others. It also does not incorporate that a potential exchange might not take place in reality, due to contrasting views on the direction of the issue (Hermans, 2005). As discussed, most of, the actors must contribute to the establishment of an ecopark, or at least need to show their interest in such a project. It is argued by Timmermans (2004) that knowing the potential in policy negotiations between actors contributes to the actual transactions made by actors, especially if it becomes higher potentials in exchanges, and therewith increase the efficiency of the decision making (Timmermans & Beroggi, 2004).

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis 4-3 Conclusion 23

Table 4-1: Assessment of exchange modelling and conflict analysis

Method Goal Benefits Limitations Exchange Determine modelling possible • Insight in interdependen- • Neglects the social, eco- exchanges cies among and impor- nomic, cultural and insti- of control tance of actors and issues tutional environment between actors • Support a constructive • Does not take into ac- discussion among ac- count different opinions tors (Timmermans & on an issue (Hermans, Beroggi, 2004) 2005)

• Capable of given inter- • Cannot deal with mediate solutions (Van changes in interests der Lei & Herder, 2011) due to learning effects (Timmermans, 2004)

Conflict Indicates analysis power of • Identifies opportunities • Model is centred on com- actors for cooperation and im- petition (Rojer, 1999) in areas pact of non-cooperation of con- • Does not show intermedi- flicting • Show the scenarios that ate options (Van der Lei interests occur during conflict & Herder, 2011) (Van der Lei & Herder, 2011)

Although both methods result in incentives for actors to cooperate the solution must align with the preferences of the actors. Otherwise the actors are not satisfied with the result of the ecopark. Exchange modelling is better able to cope with intermediate strategies that were not in the initial input, where conflict models only produce independent strategies (Van der Lei & Herder, 2011). Thus, within this research it is argued that exchange modelling is best capable of dealing with the defined actor situation.

4-3 Conclusion

Exchange modelling has a proven application in dealing with the dispersed resources and objectives of actors. It gives insight in the dependencies between actors and reveals where they can cooperate to create value with each other. The benefit of this method is that it gives intermediate solutions for the actors in mutual beneficial relations, although it does not take into account contrasting views of actors on issues.

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 24 Choosing an actor analysis method

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis Chapter 5

The methodology of exchange modelling

Exchange modelling is proposed for the purpose of this research. This chapter contains a description on how one can derive from this generic method towards a specific application for a specific situation/problem. The beginning of this chapter starts with presenting the important assumptions behind exchange modelling. The mathematical implementation of exchange modelling is described in the second section. The third to fifth section are dedicated to the practical steps for designing an exchange modelling, which includes actor identification, defining issues and completing the interest and control matrix.

5-1 Assumptions for exchange modelling

Exchange modelling is developed by Coleman (1990) based on Social Exchange Theory, de- scribed in his book Foundations of Social Theory. The general idea behind Social Exchange Theory, presented by authors Blau (1964) and Emerson (1976), is the costs and benefits per- sons perceive in an interaction, where each of them balance if this interaction is worth more than it costs them. It can be considered a part of game theory, where the goal is to gain insight in the behaviour of actors. Coleman defined a mathematical interpretation of this concept, known as exchange modelling (also named transactional analysis or linear system of action). Before going into depth about the assumption behind exchange modelling, the terms of ex- change modelling are coupled to their equivalent in actor analysis and game theory, see table 5-1. Actors: persons or organizations who can or are influenced by an artefact, whereby an artefact could be anything that could be designed and therewith changes the system. Issues: are considered a set of goals which actors purposively try to influence for their personal benefit by allocating their control (resources) (Timmermans, 2004).

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 26 The methodology of exchange modelling

Table 5-1: Table of definitions for exchange modelling components

Actor analysis definitions Game theory definitions Exchange modelling definition Actors Players Actors Relations Coalitions Exchanges over issues Rules Rules of the game Rules Perceptions Information Potential exchanges Objectives Pay-offs Interest Resources Actions Control

Interest: the willingness of actors, measured by time, resources, etc., to pursue a certain issue compared to other issues (Timmermans, 2004). Control: defined as the resources, possibilities, capabilities, influence, etc. an actor has to change an issue towards its preferred direction (Timmermans, 2004). In a social system, as described by Coleman (1990), the interest of an actor in an issue defines towards which purpose their control is allocated. Based on the amount of control in issues and the interest in issues, one can define the personal utility function of an actor, based on the micro-economic Cobb-Douglas function (Timmermans & Beroggi, 2004). The amount of control an actor owns does not always equal their interests. This means that an actor has a high interest one issue, but possesses limited control over this issue. This ‘mismatch’ of control with the interests of an actor gives rise to potential exchanges among actors. Coleman states that actors can make a potential transaction with each other by exchanging excess control for a demand of control. Excess control is defined as too much control over an issue, a surplus, compared to the interest is has in that issue. A demand of control means that actors do not own enough control to fulfil their interests on a relevant issue (Van der Lei & Herder, 2011). One can depict an exchange of control as the allocation of ones control for the purposes of another actor’s interest, and vice versa. Thus, modifying the control matrix C in the competitive equilibrium control matrix C∗. These transactions of control only take place when it is advantageous for both actors’ utility function (Emerson, 1976). All actors behave selfishly in maximization of their personal utility function (Coleman, 1990). These transactions are resembled by a market place in which all actors can interact with each other, and make bilateral transactions. On the market each issue is valued differently by every actor. Dependent on their interest in it, it is determined if they would like gain control over an issue. Based on all these individual interests of issues a common value is placed on the issues. This value represents an exchange rate or worth of the control over an issue, which is not defined by any metrics (Coleman, 1990). For example, when all actors have a high interest in issue A and a low interest in issue B, issue A has a higher worth (value) in this system than issue B. Since its worth is higher, the control of issue A is worth more than control over issue B. Every actor in the exchange model knows the value distribution (vector) of issues. Grounded on these values transaction can be possible between actors to exchange control. The out- come of these bilateral exchanges is the overall distribution of control over the issues, in a situation where no actor can make a transaction without making another actor worse off, the Pareto optimum (Rojer, 1999). An example is given in Coleman’s book with a trading card

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis 5-2 Implementation of the exchange model 27 game between two children. It is essential to understand that these potential exchanges are theoretical propositions. The model does not take into account the (historical) relationship between two actors, and the possible effect on the realization of the exchange. Interpreting the results requires a careful approach if the interaction is actually possible. The focus of this research does not require a focus on perception, as is argued in chapter three, and exchange modelling assumes that all actors have the same perception on the system. However, the interpretation of the components of exchange modelling is different. Although this can lead to a different interpretation of the distribution of interest and control in the real world, the behaviour of actors is still guided by their stated interpretation of the reality. This also requires a careful interpretation of the results when applying them to a real world situation. Figure 5-1 presents the relationship between the different concepts.

Figure 5-1: Composition of an exchange model, adopted from Coleman (1990)

5-2 Implementation of the exchange model

All actors i (i = 1...n) behave rational in an attempt to maximize their own utility over all the issues j (j = 1...m). This utility is calculated by an exponential function of their pos- sessed control over issues and their interest (5-1), based on the Cobb-Douglas utility function (Timmermans & Beroggi, 2004).

x1i x2i xmi Ui = ci1 × ci2 × ... × cim (5-1)

With

• Ui = total amount of utility of individual actor i;

• cij = control over actor i over issue j;

• xji = interest of actor i over issue j;

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 28 The methodology of exchange modelling

Both xji and cij are subject to mathematical constraints. Every actor has 100% interest which it distributes among the issues (5-2). Similarly the control matrix divides the 100% control over an issue over the all the actors (5-3)(Timmermans & Beroggi, 2004):

C ≡ kcijk and X ≡ kcijk (5-2)

n m X X xji = 1 and xji ≥ 0, cij = 1 and cij ≥ 0 (5-3) j=1 i=1

As part of the mathematics the value and power in the system are determined (Timmermans, 2006). The value vector v displays the exchange rate of the issues in the system compared to other issues (5-4). This vector applies to all actors present in the system. Based on the value vector the power vector r can be expressed (5-5). The amount of control per issue an actor holds and the values of the corresponding issues are used to determine the power (strength) of an actor (Timmermans, 2006).

v ≡ kvjk and r ≡ krik (5-4)

−1 −1 v = (I − XC + Em) em1 and r = (I − CX + En) en1 (5-5)

The exchange model does not optimize the utility of one actor, but towards an optimal solution for all actors (5-6). Where an actor only makes an exchange when its own utility ∗ function (Ui) improves. The equilibrium control (C ) among actors can be calculated by (5-7)

∗ ∗ C ≡ kcijk (5-6)

∗ 0 −1 C = DrX Dv (5-7)

With

• Dr = a diagonal matrix with elements ri;

• Dv = a diagonal matrix with elements vi; • X0 = the transposed interest matrix X;

−1 0 • = the mathematical representation of the inverse matrix of the calculation DrX Dv.

Implicitly the exchange model determines a potential for exchange between every bilateral actor interaction. This potential for exchange can be described in mathematical terms; how- ever these calculations are not necessary to obtain the equilibrium control matrix. To gain extra understanding of the nature of the exchanges the mathematics is described below. The

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis 5-3 Exchange modelling sequence 29

∗ demand of control for each issue j of actor i can be calculated by: CD,ij = Cij −Cij. An actor has a demand of control over an issue when CD,ij is negative. A positive value indicates an excess of control over an issue. There is a potential exchange conceivable when actor i has demand of control over issue j, actor b has excess control on that specific issue, and actor i has excess control over issue m, which actor b has a demand for (5-8)(Schouten et al., 2001). This can be calculated by the following formula:

pib,j = min{eij, |dbj|} (5-8)

With

• pib,j = potential exchange between actor i and b on issue j;

• eij = amount of excess control actor i has on issue j;

•| dbj| = absolute value of the demand for control on issue j of actor b.

The total exchange potential between two actors is calculated by repeating this equation for all the different issues that are present in the model (5-9)(Timmermans & Beroggi, 2000). The total exchange potential between actor i and b is calculated by the following equation, where j represents the issues (1...m):

m m X X total exchange potentialib = min{ pib,j, pbi,j} (5-9) j=1 j=1 n X total exchange potential = total exchange potentialib (5-10) i=1

5-3 Exchange modelling sequence

Schouten et al. (2001) present six steps that need to be conducted when developing an ex- change model.

• Problem definition; • Identification the relevant actors for the defined problem; • Definition of the issues; • Expression of interest and control of actors in the issues at stake; • Implementation of the exchange model; and • Analysis of the results and feedback to the actors.

Sequentially, these steps are described in the following sections, with the exception of the problem definition, and the analysis of results.

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 30 The methodology of exchange modelling

Table 5-2: Methods for issue definition

Methods Goal Benefits Drawbacks Value-focussed Formulate the thinking objectives of • Often applied in ex- • Mostly used in inter- the actors change modelling view setting

• Opportunity to bet- • Without correct in- ter design and create put, outcome remains alternatives (Keeney, generic 1994)

System dia- Display the gram influence of • Already helps identi- • Gives a cluttered dis- means (re- fying the control ma- play sources) trix

5-4 Actor identification

First of all the actors need to be identified that potentially interrelate with each other, with the ocean ecopark, or are influenced by the ecopark. Bryson (2004) has described many techniques to recognize the important actors. For the purpose of this research a literature review is conducted to identify which actors are mentioned throughout different scientific papers. This is validated by checking for the different actors if they can or are influenced by the ecopark. De Bruijn and ten Heuvelhof (2008) and Bryson (2004) substantiated that the involvement of too many actors is not necessary for achieving the objective of a project, and makes the process slow, sluggish, and unnecessary complicated.

5-5 Issue definition

Issues need to be identified as a formulation of topics for the negotiations between actors. For the purpose of this research the issues are also used to identify different configurations of ecoparks which could be applicable for different locations. Methods for issue definition The modelling sequence of exchange modelling does not explicitly described how to define the issues. The exchange model parameters are related to the objectives/pay-offs of actors (interest) and their control (resources). It is argued that either one can be the basis of the issue definition method. Value-focussed thinking (relates to objectives) and game trees (relates to resources) are compared on their applicability for the purpose of defining issues, see table 5-2. To fulfil the objective of this research and find satisfactory answers for the research questions,

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis 5-5 Issue definition 31 value focussed thinking is most applicable. Many authors have selected this method, as “Value-focused thinking (VFT) includes a set of methods that can be used to articulate fundamental objectives in decision making” (Timmermans, 2009, p. 1218). The value an ocean ecopark can create is reflected by the objectives of the actors on a specific location. This method copes with the different perceptions actors have on the design of an ecopark, as each actor independently is asked what they would like to see incorporated into the design. Applying Value Focused Thinking Keeney (1996) describes four steps one need to conduct to derive towards the relevant issues for exchange modelling. Identify the objectives of actors This step consists of the defining the purposes of each actor. Several techniques are proposed by Keeney (1994, p. 35) to determine the truly important objectives. The goal of this step is to draw up a complete list of all objectives that are relevant for an actor inside a specific area. The objectives need to be comparable, clearly defined and operationalized (Keeney, 1994). Distinguish between fundamental and means objectives The initial list of objectives will consist of redundant objectives, alternatives and constraints. It is important to remove redundant objectives from the list. There are two types of objectives identified, means (objectives) and fundamental objectives. Means are alternatives to achieve ends (Keeney & Mcdaniels, 1992). Fundamental objectives are that what an actor strives for, and try to reach it by implementing means (objectives). Categorize hierarchies and relations between the objectives Both types of objectives can be identified by asking the ‘why’ and ‘how’ question. The answer on ‘why’ questions are the fundamental objectives. Basically, it means; why do you implement this measure, to accomplish the following objective? The ‘how’ question is focussed on how to achieve an objectives, so what measures can be applied in a given situation. This leads to a means-end tree that visualizes the dependencies between means (objectives) and fundamental objectives. Formulate the relevant issues A list of issues can be derived from translating the fundamental objectives towards definitions that preferably comply with the following properties Timmermans (2004):

• Essential: represents why actors are explicitly interested in that particularly situation;

• Controllable: actors are able to influence the issues by means of their resources;

• Complete: the issues encompass all relevant aspects of that part of the situation;

• Measurable: the issue can be operationalized;

• Operational: possible to collect information about an issue;

• Decomposable: sub-issues also can be influenced by the means of actors;

• Non-redundant: no redundancy is present between two or more issues;

• Concise: try to use as limited issues as possible; and

• Understandable: the issues must clearly present their definition.

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 32 The methodology of exchange modelling

5-6 Expression of interest and control

To determine the control and interest matrix the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is applied for the completion of both matrices. It has the potential to grasp the consideration between the using resources for one issue or another (Saaty, 1990). With this pairwise comparison a hierarchical structure is determined by means of an in depth analysis. Comparing all issues and actors on a pairwise basis is a time-consuming technique, but creates a “common scale for different criteria, apart from considering both the tangible and intangible criteria” and contributes to a common view towards the criteria (Vaidya & Kumar, 2006). It also allows the policy analyst to verify the results of the interviewee with a consistency check. A consis- tency check is done to determine if valuable outcomes can be derived from the comparisons. Ragsdale states that if the consistency check is above the threshold value of 0.1 the results are not useful for interpretation. When it occurred that the consistency check was above the threshold value the comparison was done over again, until meaningful results were obtained. Each pairwise comparison compares the preferences of one issue with another issue, according the scale presented in figure 5-3(Ragsdale, 2008). Based on these pairwise comparisons a weight is determined for the interest or control of an actor on that issue. To define the interest of actors, a matrix is filled in as presented in figure 9, which concludes how well an actor is willing to spend its effort to one issue compared to another issue. The outcome of this method is a distribution of the interest (100%) of an actor among the issues of the exchange model. The pairwise comparison of control asks per issue how much control an actor has compared to other actors. This is a perceived perception of the actors on this situation, and can differ of the actual power an actor has. The mathematics is presented by Ragsdale (2008).

Table 5-3: Scale for preferences by AHP, adopted from Ragsdale (2008)

Value Preference 1 Equally preferred 2 Equally to moderately preferred 3 Moderately preferred 4 Moderately to strongly preferred 5 Strongly preferred 6 Strongly to very strongly preferred 7 Very strongly preferred 8 Very strongly to extremely preferred 9 Extremely preferred

5-7 Conclusion

To define a specific exchange model for the case of an ocean ecopark six steps need to be taken. A problem definition is already been identified in the introduction. Actors are identified with the aid of a stakeholder mapping cube. Based on value-focussed thinking objectives of actors are translated into issues. The completion of the interest and control matrix is done by the Analytic Hierarchy Process, and based on visual representation the results are interpreted.

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis Chapter 6

Case study

The design of an ocean ecopark is complicated by the interdependencies between the actors. Resources and objectives are important components in this context, and therefore exchange modelling is chosen as adequate method to gain understnading. A single quasi-natural case provides a proof of concept. A real situation is used as basis for this case study, but the names are anonymized for the sake of confidentiality. Since the purpose is not to show specific insight and recommendations in the specific case, but rather to substantiate the model is fit for purpose and contribute to the generalization of the capabilities of this exchange model, a desk research is applied. Background information of the case is given in section one of this chapter. Consecutively, the conceptualization of the actors, issues, and interest and control are discussed in separate sections. This chapter closes with a reflection on the considerations made when applying it to a specific case study.

6-1 Case description

Somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean an island is located. Due to the tropic environment on this island it is difficult to produce food in the harsh climate. There are also no fossil resources present to generate electricity. Both lead to a high import dependency of food and energy from neighbouring countries. The island is only reachable by plane and boat, which leads to high costs for the imported products. A high degree, around 13%, of the local population is unemployed. Projects on the island are highly subject to the already present infrastructure and firms, as there is only sufficient market demand and support possibilities for a limited amount of sectors and infrastructures. This leads to intransigence of the actors towards new initiatives, since existing infrastructure is still sufficiently capable of fulfilling the market demand. The current economic situation can be related to a low global domestic product per capita. In order to improve this situation efforts are made by several parties present on the island

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 34 Case study to attract businesses. Besides this economic growth aim there is a tendency towards sustain- ability, originated by the environmental interest groups to protect the delicate nature areas and endangered fish species. These nature areas, the coral reefs, are an important part of the touristic attitude of this island and attract a lot of tourists over the year. Based on the characteristics this island is considered a SIDS. Around the island there is a temperature difference in the surrounding ocean large enough for OTEC to generate electricity. It is also accessible due to the favourable ocean floor conditions. The local airport company is striving for a sustainable attitude and wants to use the cold water source as cooling capacity for their terminal. This is an excellent opportunity to initiate an ocean ecopark that uses this cold water source on an abundant piece of land. To ensure a successful design within high potential, but rather small market, relevant actors are involved to incorporate their intentions into the design.

6-2 Conceptualization of actors

For conceptualizing the exchange model the actor groups identified in chapter three are em- bodied by one specific anonymized actor. The actors need to be identified at a specific level, as exchange modelling has not been researched for the applicability with generic actor roles or groups. The actor mapping table in appendix A is used to identify the important actors within one group through the power-interest diagram of Eden and Ackermann (1998). Project initiator: Flyfast The airport is in possession of a piece of abundant land for which they seek a purpose that can generate benefits for their own core business, and give them a sustainable attitude. Their first core business is aviation, divided into passenger and cargo flights. Secondly is their business to aid the SIDS, due to their linkage to the government. With initiatives on the abundant land they attempt to create a higher attractiveness of their airport for, mainly, businesses. Project developer: EcoOcean B.V. EcoOcean is a technical and advising firm with a clear tendency to strive for sustainable development by utilizing the ocean’s potential. Besides advancing and operating the SWAC and OTEC technologies, their main activities consists of designing and establishing ocean ecoparks. On the island they are willing to initiate an ocean ecopark that can suffice in the needs of the actors. In their current role they would design, establish and later on facilitate an ocean ecopark. Governmental agency: Department of Economic Development (Department ED) The largest and most important department in is Economic Development. Current aim is to enhance the economic conditions on the island for the benefit of the local population. An important issue for the current leaders of this department, and the whole government, is the creation of jobs for the local population. Their role consists of valuing and supporting new projects that comply with the needs of the island. One can consider them as the main legislative power on this island, by means of issuing permits, tax exemptions and subsidies. Firm: Food & Good Food & Good is one of the potential tenants on the ocean ecopark, and embodies the actor group firms. It is a food producing company that has a leading character in the developments within their sector. Their focus lies on producing, researching and generating new innovations.

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis 6-3 Conceptualization of issues 35

With these developments they attempt to contribute to a sustainable environment, especially on the interface between water and energy. Their objective is to expand their current opera- tions towards other locations, for which the ocean ecopark can be a good starting point. As one of the tenants, they are the ones who essentially use the cold water resource and produce the output on an ocean ecopark. Within the ocean ecopark their role consists of sharing water resources, knowledge and experience to, in synergy, produce valuable products. In the design process their position entails the involvement of specifications that tenants would appreciate within an ocean ecopark, so that they would establish them.

Other initiative: BlueTourism Besides the initiative of an ocean ecopark there are other initiatives that possess potential for SIDS. BlueTourism is attempting to launch a still un- defined project for the favour of tourism. The vision of this project is to establish a large touristic attraction centre. With this project BlueTourism wants to seize the opportunities present on the island. This touristic centre could provide the wanted stimulus for businesses and people to visit the island and therewith provide economic growth. Their role encompasses their efforts to launch their own initiative in parallel or instead of the ocean ecopark.

Environmental interest organization: Green World As stated, the natural areas in SIDS are delicate and a valuable magnet for tourists. Green World is mostly concerned with protecting and maintaining the quality of these areas. Their efforts are directed to ensure the existence of these areas for future generations. Their means consists of informing the public and the government about new projects, and doing research towards sustainable implications. Green World is one of the advising parties for the govern- ment with regard to permits concerning projects that impact the environment of SIDS. This environmental interest group is also considered an authority on the research field of oceans and sustainability. Both features are part of the role of this actor.

Knowledge institute: Newnovative Newnovative is a knowledge institute with a clear tendency towards using recently graduated students in highly innovative environments. It gives these young professionals the opportunity to contribute in a dynamic environment at technical projects. With these activities they have gained a lot of experience with research and developments that can advance the economic and environmental position of a company. Their capability covers the experience for finding innovative solutions for their customers.

6-3 Conceptualization of issues

The issues of an exchange model represent where the ocean ecopark can create value for the relevant actors. A list of non-redundant issues is compiled and presented in table 6-1. In appendix B the issues are identified and checked according to the value-focussed thinking method (Keeney, 1994). Although this method normally involves the actors interactively, it can also be applied for a desk research. One needs to ensure that every actor has an issue in the exchange model that it can relate to, to safeguard their commitment to contribute to the process.

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 36 Case study

Table 6-1: Conceptualized issues of the case study

Issue Relevance Definition for which actor Economic busi- Food & Good The possibility to make a profit from the activities ness case on the ocean ecopark against a reasonable financial risk. Included are the costs for land leasing, opera- tional costs, investments, market potential, expansion potential subsidies, and risk. Employment Department The created and available jobs by and for an ocean ED ecopark and their related level of education that is needed and that is educated. R&D Newnovative The creation of new knowledge, and/or innovation of products and processes which can aid the sustainable and/or economic development of the island or actors. Self-sustainable EcoOcean The ability of an island or region to fulfil in and pro- duce their own products which are required, without the help from the surrounding environment. It consti- tutes the idea of an ocean ecopark; to in synergy with other resources create products solely by the involved actors on the island. Business cli- FlyFast The influence of the political, legal, and other system mate on a location which affects that growth of businesses and profitability of their business. It encompasses favourable taxes, favourable regulation and policies for the establishment of business, and a supportive government towards the established initiative. Environmental Green world The impact of the activities of the ocean ecopark (in- impact cluding that of its tenants) on the nature areas (land and ocean) in Curaçao and its population, by waste streams, pollution, nuisance, exhaust gasses, etc. Tourism BlueTourism The attractiveness of an initiative for tourists, and how well the initiative focussed on the touristic char- acter and adds upon the touristic attractiveness of Curaçao.

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis 6-4 Conceptualization of interest and control matrices 37

6-4 Conceptualization of interest and control matrices

The interest and control matrix are the parameters within the exchange model. Their meaning is already elaborated upon in chapter 5.1. For both matrices a higher number means a higher interest or control of an actor over an issue. The assumption for this case is that all the control and interest is inside the system and held by all the identified actors, corresponding with a closed system assumption.

Ideally these matrices are completed by the specific actors that are involved in this process. This gives insight in how they perceive the system and distribution of interest and control. For this case study the matrices are completed by applying pairwise comparisons according the Analytic Hierarchy Process based on desk research, every individual AHP matrix is presented in appendix C.

Figure 6-1: Interest matrix of the case study

Figure 6-2: Control matrix of the case study

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 38 Case study

6-5 Implementation of exchange modelling

This model is implemented in Microsoft Excel. Other possibilities for programming the math- ematics are Matlab and JavaScript. Especially Matlab has a higher mathematical content which should allow for more computational speed. Due to the lack of availability of this software for Bluerise, the implementation is not programmed in Matlab. However, the initial code is derived from Matlab and other authors have made the computations with this software tool. JavaScript is not chosen due to the need to compute the bilateral interactions for the potential exchanges, and the limited possibilities to execute this within JavaScript. Excel is chosen for its clarity in the mathematical steps and the incorporated visualization options. The excel code is presented in appendix D.

6-6 Considerations for conceptualization of an exchange model

The conceptualization of a general exchange method towards an applicable method is subject to design choices, namely on the specificity of issues and obtaining interest and control. Specificity of issues For the definition of the issues design choices are made on the aggregation level of the issues to cope with the flexibility, interpretation, and path-dependency problems. The aggregation level determines at what level (specific or generic) the issues are defined. The issues must be resilient against changes in the system, for example new innovations. A change in the system reflects on a different interpretation of the issues by the actor. The model must be able to cope with this (Timmermans & Beroggi, 2000). It means that if the issues are defined in a too narrow sense, actors can feel that it does not represent their new interpretation on the system. For example, if actor A wants to include a new innovation on fish farming, but this is not defined in the issues, this actor might lose its interest for this project, as its objectives are no longer reflected in the system. Contrary to this flexibility is also the interpretation of the actors. Actors will have a different understanding of the issues, based on their stance. To a certain extent this is sought by the model, but there also need to be some common ground. If issues are defined to broad it is difficult to grasp the control and interest of actors and the meaning of an issue can become too ambiguous (Timmermans & Beroggi, 2000). There is a certain asymmetry between the actors on their direction for an issue. Some might want to increase issue A, while another wants to decrease issue A. There should be room for this asymmetry and the interpretation of observers, without overgeneralizing the model. These issues, although specified generic, cannot be transposed on a one-on-one basis towards other locations. To state that these issues represent most common points where value is created by an ocean ecopark, a brief literature review is conducted. In this literature review most important is the sustainable development, environmental impact, creation of jobs, and economic progress, favourable taxes, organizational risk (Gibbs et al., 2005; Mirata, 2004). Côté and Cohen-Rosenthal (1998) also mention the synergetic behaviour and R&D for tech- nology development as important aspects. This all represents most issues identified by these issues. Tourism is specific for the context of an SIDS, and therefore reasonable to include in this system.

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis 6-7 Conclusion 39

This brings forth a tension between a too specific aggregation level of issues, which narrows down the solution space, and too generic defined issues which are too abstract to grasps for the actors. This research has a tendency towards more generic issues, applicable for multiple situations with room for an actor’s interpretation. Later on these issues could be further specified in a discussion with the relevant actors that possess the needed resources to influence that issue. Obtaining interest and control Intentionally the issues are defined in a broad manner. This gives actors the possibility to have different interpretations on the issue. These different interpretations have as impact that the interest and control might be estimated. Conceptualizing the interest and control of the actors is not so much a contribution to a reproducible design, as it is a way to validate the usage and correctness of the model. Important here is that results can be derived from this method that represent the real world situation, and give sufficient recommendations for the technical design and actor engagement strategy. According to Hermans (2005) it is difficult to transpose statements of actors into numbers for the completion of the matrices. This is especially applicable for the governmental agencies. Momentarily, the focus of the government lies on job creation, but with new election this can also change very quickly. This can also occur within this model, and therefore action is taken to perform a sensitivity analysis and a test for strategic behaviour. The first demonstrates the dependence of the recommendations on slight changes on the input. The latter is experimenting with purposefully misstating the preferences of actors to gain personally from it.

6-7 Conclusion

A specific model is conceptualized by completing the steps proposed by Schouten et al. (2001). The actors embody actor groups within this system, with each a corresponding issue in the model. The issues are defined at a generic aggregation level to preserve actors and solutions within the system, and focus on the broad values that can be created by an ocean ecopark

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 40 Case study

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis Chapter 7

Sample results for the case study

This chapter reveals a proof of concept of the exchange model for this particular problem, illustrated by an anonymous case study. The starting point here is an unspecified piece of land that must become the ocean ecopark. Propositions are made for designers of an ocean ecopark for the system design and actor engagement strategy. These propositions are drawn based on assumptions over the actors’ interpretation of issues gathered by a desk research and do not particularly reflect or fully cover the actual situation of actors. The general results of the exchange model specified in chapter six are presented in section one. In section two and three these results are converted in respectively a system design and actor engagement recommendations.

7-1 The equilibrium control

The competitive equilibrium control C∗, see figure 7-1, demonstrates the opportunity for actors to exchange surplus control for demanded of control over another issue. This control is thus allocated for purposes that better serves both actors interest. The changes from the initial situation towards this competitive situation are presented in figure 7-2. This outcome is used to draft a system design and actor engagement strategy. An explanation and mathematical interpretation of the figures is described in section 5.1 and 5.2. System design: exchange modelling prescribes a weight to the issues in the system. This determines to what criteria an ocean ecopark should be optimized, according to the involved actors. Actors that possess a lot of control on particular issues (in the competitive situation) can exert this ‘power’ to influence parts of the conceptual designs towards their interest. Actor engagement strategy: resource interdependencies are expressed by the potential exchanges of control, see figure 7-3. The essence of the mutual beneficial interdependencies in the exchange model is used to convince actors to allocate their resources for the design of an ocean ecopark. The control matrix C shows that the control over the issues is dispersed in the system, which is among others needed for the realization of the system specifications.

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 42 Sample results for the case study

Figure 7-1: Equilibrium control matrix of the case study

Figure 7-2: Initial control and equilibrium control among the actors of the case study

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis 7-1 The equilibrium control 43

Figure 7-3: The potential of the exchanges with bilateral interaction of the case study

Figure 7-4: The utility change due to the exchange model of the case study

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 44 Sample results for the case study

Interpretation of the results The competitive equilibrium control C∗ demonstrates the opportunity for actors to exchange surplus control for demanded of control over another issue. This control is thus allocated for purposes that better serves both actors interest. All actors gain utility in the competitive outcome, see figure 7-4 Most notably are the increases of EcoOcean (27%), Food & Good (53%), and Green World (46%). Bear in mind, the total control within the system (100% per issue) remains the same among the transactions; it is only redistributed among the actors. EcoOcean, for example, gains control over the business climate and the economic business case. For both issues the amount of control did not suffice the interest they had in those issues and (part of) this demand for control is acquired in this model. Department ED gains 5% more control in the equilibrium situation, BlueTourism increases 1%, Green World increases 7% in total control; and Newnovative gains 2% control on favourable issues. This control comes from exchanges with FlyFast, EcoOcean, and Food & Good, which respectively decrease their total control with 1%, 6% and 7%. A high potential exchange means that both actors have more control to offer to each other, which is favourable for both actors in respect to their utility function. Important when interpreting the potential exchanges is if there is no potential exchange this does not mean that these actors do not like each other or should interact in a bilateral agreement, it only means that both actors do not have control (resources) in which the other actor is interested in and give some control in return.

7-2 Systems design for an ocean ecopark

The value vector determines the distribution of worth (importance) of the issues, and hence where value can be created by the ocean ecopark. These issues are to some extent entangled with each other, depicted in the issue dependency graph. Practically speaking, the value vector, figure 7-5, illuminates the weighing of the criteria, what a designer can use to con- ceptualize an ocean ecopark and test how well it complies with the defined criteria. The actors of this case study have identified the issues business climate (18%), R&D (16%) and environmental impact (16%) the most important issues. This weighing determines how much an issue presses on the design. For the design of an ocean ecopark in the case study these issues need to be incorporated at least, to comply with most of the interests of the actors. The many interdependencies in the system cause that many issues are entangles with each other. Due to the exchanges of control one cannot simply integrate the three proposed issues into the design, without considering the other issues. The issue dependency matrix, visually represented in figure 7-6 by a radar chart, expresses the intertwinement of issues with other issues. To explain the interpretation of this figure; the further the line of an issue is away from the centre, the more dependent that issue is on a corresponding issue. A designer needs to consider these entanglements when designing the ocean ecopark. It namely addresses the interdependencies within the system design. This chart demonstrates that decisions over business climate are tangled with employment, self-sustainability and environmental impact. R&D is the most self-dependent issue within this system, decisions concerning this issue do not require a lot involvement of other issues. Lastly, the decision making of environmental impact is dependent on the issue R&D and itself. Consequently, employment and self-sustainability also need to be integrated into the ocean ecopark.

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis 7-2 Systems design for an ocean ecopark 45

Figure 7-5: Value vector of the case study

Figure 7-6: Issue dependency graph of the case study

When designing the ocean ecopark main efforts should focus on integrating the mentioned issues. The design strives to best suit all the interests of all the actors, hence all the issues are discussed. The actors who possess control over the issues in the equilibrium control have the capability to influence the system specifications of that relevant issue. A designer can accommodate the wishes of those actors into the conceptual design of an ocean ecopark. Doing this enhances the possibility that actors exert their resources for the benefit of the ocean ecopark. Business climate

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 46 Sample results for the case study

In the equilibrium control situation Food & Good (28%), EcoOcean (21%), and the Depart- ment ED (21%) possess most control on the business case. Therefore their direction for this issue is translated to system specifications. All three are searching for ways to make it sim- ple and attractive for businesses to establish on the island. The purpose of EcoOcean with this issue is to attract more firms towards the ocean ecopark. Their intention is that those firms work in synergy with each other when utilizing the cold water source. This can be accomplished by acquiring one permit for the whole ocean ecopark. Tenants themselves do not have to go through the legislative procedures, what can be experienced as an obstacle for establishment. Favourable tax regimes also aid the attractiveness of the ocean ecopark for future tenants. Lastly, a clear direction or focus for the ocean ecopark for tenants to know what they can expect when they are situated there. Food & Good wants to gain access to new markets and opportunities at new locations. This first of all means easy access to permits and support from the surrounding actors to expand their operations when operations are positive. For them it helps if support is given from the government to aid their businesses and most of all, that the benefits of an ocean ecopark are clearly communicated to the outside world. The Department ED wants to improve the attractiveness of the island for businesses, and the ocean ecopark can be a perfect opportunity for them to support. R&D In the competitive situation Food & Good owns 31% of the control over R&D, Newnovative 23% and Green World 22%. Three quarters of the total control is presented by these actors within the whole system of this issue. Food & Good has stated their interest in the fields of research on the interface of water, energy, and sustainability. Similar interest in R&D is shown for Green World, with a prime focus on ocean research activities. The focus of the Newnovative is particularly on new innovations that can aid the operations of business. These can be combined in system specifications that suit all the actors. A first indication for a possible direction, or strategy, is on research for the topics water and sustainability. To ensure that progress is made with the research the ocean ecopark should enhance knowledge sharing between tenants. This can be facilitated by a knowledge centre where tenants can cooperate together. An important aspect will be to ensure the ownership of the innovations, and to make clear agreements on the distribution of benefits of new research and innovations. The design must facilitate a knowledge sharing approach that requires an open attitude of tenants. Environmental impact After exchanging control Green World owns 35% of the control over the environmental impact, EcoOcean and Food & Good own control to a lesser extent respectively 20 and 17%. Their prime focus of Green World is to protect the coral reef and diminish the impact on the nature areas. An adequate measure is a waste treatment facility which washes the used water before it is returned to the ocean. For EcoOcean and Food & Good the focus is on the synergetic relations to accomplish the sustainable benefits. This contributes to the notion to focus on a specific group of tenants which are willing to cooperate. Employment The control to determine the direction of the issue employment is owned by two parties, namely Department ED with 36% and the Newnovative with 32%. The Department ED is searching for possibilities to decrease the unemployment rate, and keep the younger genera- tion working in Curaçao. Incorporating this in the system design can be done by outsourcing facilitating work to local population (maintenance, accountancy, etc.), and to focus the at-

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis 7-3 Actor engagement strategy for an ocean ecopark 47 tention of businesses on challenging, technical companies to minimize the ‘brain drain’ of young engineers. Newnovative is searching for possibilities to increase the attractiveness for engineers to stay on the island and find more learning places for their graduates. This can be combined by setting up internships and business trips towards the ocean ecopark to make students aware and enthusiastic about the relevant topics. An educational learning centre for example, or less rigorous measures like educational trips on the ocean ecopark, could realize this objective. Self-sustainability The department ED and Green World together own 58% of the control over this issue, divided in 36% and 22% per actor. It is assumed that the government preferences are to diminish the import of products and be more self-reliant. Especially on the field of food the ocean ecopark could contribute by using the cold ocean water to create less harsh condition for crops. This also means that the food produced should be accessible and affordable for the local population. Potentially this is a tension, as this narrows the market for Food & Good a lot. Furthermore, Green World wants the production to be environmental friendly. This already is partly achieved by using the ocean water and can be enhanced by taking extra measures, like other synergetic relations.

7-3 Actor engagement strategy for an ocean ecopark

The designer of an ocean ecopark must draw up an appropriate engagement strategy in which the important actors are attached to the design process. The involvement of actors is a necessity. Troughout the whole design process the involvement of actors provide a weighted criteria distribution, indicate system specifications, exchange control towards actors that want it, and exert if for the ocean ecopark. The prime focus of the ocean ecopark lies on the business climate, R&D, and environmental impact. Lowe (1997) argues that a clear statement is beneficial to establish an eco-industrial park and incentive cooperation. So in line with the important issues an actor engagement strategy is established. Following the reasoning of exchange modelling, by indicating and communicating mutual beneficial cooperations an actors is willing to make the exchange of control and contribute to the design process. The equilibrium control matrix C∗ shows which parties hold a lot of control, and therewith the possibility to influence the design, over the important issues. In this case these are EcoOcean, Department ED, Food & Good, and Newnovative. The actor engagement strategy should ensure that these parties obtain this control, and exert it for the purpose of an ocean ecopark. Especially important are the Department ED and Food & Good, as they both possess 19% of the power distributed in the system, see the power vector in figure 7-7. The exchanges of control cause interdependencies between actors, which a designer needs to consider. The interdependencies are necessary to ensure that the actors obtain the control that they have an interest in. Figure 7-8 is a visual representation of the dependency matrix of actors from appendix E. It represents how much help an actor has need of other actors in order to realize their own interests (Schouten et al., 2001). Green World and Newnovative are most reliant on Food & Good in accomplishing their objectives. EcoOcean is dependent on the actors Green World, Department ED and Food & Good. The Department ED is mostly reliant on itself, and EcoOcean and Food & Good. Its self-dependent is caused by its

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 48 Sample results for the case study

Figure 7-7: Power vector of the case study possession of control employment, self-sustainability, business climate and tourism which it can exert for its own purposes. In turn, Food & Good is mostly dependent on Department ED and Green World. Implication of these interdependencies among actors is the need to create alliances. These alliances consists of a group of actors that can cooperate with each other to accomplish a certain issue. These alliances (interdependencies) can be used to ensure the exchange of control. In line with the reasoning of exchange modelling, actors are only willing to cooperate when both gain from it. So to convince actors a designer both actors must be shown the mutual benefits of a transaction. This means that not only the important issue can be considered, but also the other issues that are involved in a transaction. To illustrate, business climate can be exchange for employment. Both issues need to be addressed in the actor engagement strategy, but also in the system design. The latter esnures that the interest of both actors are integrated in the ocean ecopark, and thus ensure that the resources are allocated towards this purpose. Else they have given valuable control away, and have not received anything for it in return, and are disaffected by the design. The alliances are demarcated to exchanges that concern considerable amount of control over the issues business climate, R&D, and environmental impact. The remaining interactions are the most potential exchanges indicated by figure 7-3. It indicates the focus on: EcoOcean and Green World, EcoOcean and Department ED, Department ED and Food & Good, and Food & Good with Green World. A detailled overview of these bilateral exchanges is given in appendix E. Per issue the important alliances are elaborated, for the purpose of an actor engagement strategy. These potential exchanges provide insight in the needs of an actor. These needs consists of control it would like to possess to accomplish its goals, an ocean ecopark can accomodate this control and therewith engage with an actor. Also it acknowledge under what conditions actors are willing to cooperate, namely if it is beneficial for them, so this information can be used in the actor engagement strategy. Business climate In the competitive equilibrium situation EcoOcean gains a lot of control (16%) over the busi- ness climate. They acquire this control from the Department ED in exchange for control over

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis 7-3 Actor engagement strategy for an ocean ecopark 49

Figure 7-8: Actor dependency graph of the case study employment (13%), and tourism (2%). Another transaction of control is between EcoOcean and Green World, in which EcoOcean obtains 13% of the control over the business climate for control over employment (5%) and self-sustainability (9%). To these parties to actually make these exchanges the designer needs to illuminate the prospect of this exchange. One can accomplish this by providing insight in the impact of their exchange on the issues. Thus, if these bilateral exchages take place, what is the effect on the business climate (how much does it improve), and what is the impact on the employment on the island. By encompassing the system specifications in the design, one can better communicate the benefits and convince the actors. The latter also facilitates the exchange, by providing potential for both actors in the ocean ecopark. Similarly, Food & Good gains 16% control of the 100% over business climate in exchange for control over employment (between 1% to 18%) and self-sustainability (between 1% to 11%) by exchanging with the Department ED. Green World is seeking for control over employment (5% from Food & Good), self-sustainability (12% from Food & Good) and environmental impact (7% from Food & Good), and can receive this from Food & Good for control over the business climate (23%) and R&D (2%). One can convince those actors to realize the exchange by emphasizing the benefits. R&D Most important notion to make on this issue is that limited control is exchanged between the actors. Every actor exchanges some control over R&D, with Food & Good (+8%), in exchange for other control. This would mean that for this issue the exchanges do not have to be supported, and that only the wishes of the actors that possess a lot of control on R&D need to be incorporated into the design. Environmental impact Exchanges are made over the environmental impact issue. Increases are made by Green World (27% increase) and a smaller increase by EcoOcean. Green World gains its control on the environmental impact from Food & Good, by the earlier defined interaction. EcoOcean

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 50 Sample results for the case study gains this control by interacting with Food & Good and Newnovative. The interaction with Food & Good is not earlier defined and consists of an exchange of tourism (3%) and R&D (1%) in exchange for control over the environmental impact (4%). With the Newnovative this potential is mostly based on the employment control (5%) that EcoOcean has abundant. To elaborate, one can convince Newnovative to allocate their control over the environmental impact towards EcoOcean by communicating the benefits they experience with the control they get over employment. If Newnovative realizes what they can do with extra control over employment on the ocean ecopark, for example exert it for study tours etc., this is a stimulus for them to exchange the control. This part also emphasises the importance to align the actor engagement strategy with the conceptual designs. With a conceptual design the benefits can be made more concrete, which enhances the communication with the actors. Vice versa, the actors are needed to gain insight in the system specifications. This part is further explained in chapter ten.

7-4 Conclusion

Throughout the system and actor design (actor engagement strategy) it already becomes clear that both designs complement each other and are needed simultaneously. For the system design the actors input is needed together with their involvement in the design process. The actor design can be aided by a tightly related system design. The exchange model results in weighted criteria for an ocean ecopark design. Specific for this case study it means that the system design of the ocean ecopark focuses on business climate, R&D and environmental impact. A designer can optimize the ocean ecopark towards these criteria, based on the actors that own a lot of control in the equilibrium situation on a particular issue. This can be integrated by a complimentary business climate with limited amount of permits, expansion possibilities and favourable tax regimes for the tenants. The ocean ecopark must encompass research and learning possibilities (a research centre) focussed on water, energy, and sustainability. The production process of products should not hamper the coral reef and other nature areas, so proper measures should be taken. To realize the value created by an ocean ecopark, the different actors need to be engaged. Especially the Department ED and Food & Good hold control over the important issues. Incorporating the needs of the actors and indicating the beneficial interdependencies can engage the actors to the design process. Significant interactions are between Food & Good and Green World, EcoOcean and the Department ED, Green World and EcoOcean, and the Department ED with Food & Good. These mutual beneficial connections are a good starting point to convince the actors of the worth of allocating their control for the benefit of the ocean ecopark.

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis Chapter 8

Validation of the conceptualized exchange model

The conceptualized exchange model is validated to conclude if it correctly reflects the real world, and can be generalized towards other situations where an ocean ecopark is initiated. A first section advocates the validity of this model, based on four points: mathematical validations, statistical conclusion validity, construct validity, and internal validity. Based on these validation tests, a general model is provided, and conclusions are drawn on the validation. An elaborate substantiation of the results is provided in appendix F.

8-1 Validation outcomes

A regular validation, corresponding the model results with real world trends, cannot be con- ducted in a multi actor situation, where continuously other actors are applicable with chang- ing interest and control (Varvasovszky & Brugha, 2000). Moreover, the case is based on an anonymized case where currently parallel activities take place, which gives limited possibility to references the results. To still provide evidence for the generalizability of the model the different components of the model are validated. It is argued that when the correct model with corresponding components is correctly modelled, the results will also hold in future situ- ations. This validation process is supported by the book Coleman (1990) and Shadish, Cook and Campbell (2002). Mathematical validation Reflections are made on the visual representation of the model to determine if it complies with the mathematical constraints and assumptions posed in chapter five. Furthermore different calculations are performed to decide upon the correct working of the exchange model in Excel. These reflections on the code show that the mathematics is correctly programmed in excel to derive valuable results from the calculation. Statistical conclusion validity Different interpretations of the parameters could lead to a change in the results. Deliberately

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 52 Validation of the conceptualized exchange model

Table 8-1: Generic exchange model components

Actor groups Issues Project initiator Economic business case Project developers Employment Governmental agencies R&D Tenants Self-sustainable Other initiatives Business climate Environmental interest organizations Environmental impact Knowledge institutes Tourism

stating wrong interest and control can also pose a threat to the trustworthiness of the results. Clearly, another interpretation on the system leads to different results, and one should clearly deal with this. These different interpretations of the actors can be used to design different configurations of an ocean ecopark and later on determine which one is most applicable. Ex- perimentations with strategic behaviour, purposefully misstating interest or control, showed limited deviations from the initial equilibrium control state. Only overestimating resources have a large positive impact on one’s own utility function, but an overall negative effect for all the other actors. Reasons can be found in the mathematical constraints of the model, where all the control and interests are distributed within the system.

Construct validity Construct validity relates how well observations of the real-life system are translated to the design, in other words, is the model appropriate for the situation. It shows that the model is not sensitive for slight increases and decreases of the statement of control and interest within the model. The Department ED is considered an important party and a shift in their parameters change the behaviour of the model. This sounds logical, as the results change according to the different input given.

Internal validity This part encompasses the validity of the identified components of the model (issues and actors). The issues are, independently, formulated based on the resource interdependency figure provided in appendix A. One additional issue was identified, but is not incorporated into the model. The motive is that it diminishes the interpretation possibilities of actors and the solution space of the designs. By backwards induction the actor group local population was identified, as a potential actor that was neglected. For the anonymized case it is argued that this actor group does not possess the resources to influence the design process. Despite, that they are influenced by the design.

Generic exchange model To make full use of this model it is advised to conduct the modelling sequence at every new location to get more understanding of the actor situation. Doing this enhances the design of an ocean ecopark aligns as it complies with the needs of the local conditions. The generic model is presented in table 8-1.

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis 8-2 Conclusion 53

8-2 Conclusion

An important aspect of the model is its generalizability to different locations. Due to the specific conditions of the continuous changing actor setting the validity cannot be checked for real life circumstances. It is therefore argued that a solid approach towards the method, and a correct substantiation for the components, gives sufficient reason to argue the usefulness of this model. During this research it is sufficiently argued that the model zeroes in to the most important components of this system, namely resources and objectives. The validation indicates that the defined components are applicable in most situations where one initiates an ocean ecopark, although it is not advocated that the specified model is applicable on every location. This validation identified no changes for the specified model. If necessary the model can be adjusted to new locations, by adding new actors or issues.

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 54 Validation of the conceptualized exchange model

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis Chapter 9

An applicable and transferable exchange model for Bluerise

This chapter continues on the appplicability and transferability of the model for Bluerise, in their role of problem owner and facilitator. The argument is continued to provide insight in the added value of exchange modelling and usage for the practical facets. Section one argues generic results that are applicable for all the design efforts of Bluerise. The second section describes the benefits and transferability of the model towards Bluerise in their role of facilitator. The last section describes the awareness that is created for the use of exchange modelling.

9-1 Generalizable insight to other locations and purposes

The sample results in chapter seven provides evidence for the applicability of the conceptu- alized model for Bluerise. Reflecting on the objective of this research, Bluerise can apply an exchange model to determine which (weighted) criteria are applicable for the evaluation of an ocean ecopark, by means of a value vector that relates a weight to the issues. Van Leeuwen, Vermeulen, and Glasbergen (2003) stipulate the need to clarify the sustainable aspect of an ocean ecopark. Despite that an exchange model does not define the impact of an issue, it does show which actor can help operationalize the issue. In consultation with that actor this issue can be further specified for detailed system specifications. Another important point made by Van Leeuwen et al. (2003) is the need of both actors to cooperate with each other. This implies an important role for exchange modelling to convince both actors of mutual beneficial advantages when cooperating. Moreover it expresses what resources actors like to possess to fulfil their interest. Illuminating where the ocean ecopark can provide value for actors if they are willing to contribute to the design process is a good starting point to convince actors. This information is provided by an exchange model in the form of potential exchanges between actors. This leads to different interdependencies, which

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 56 An applicable and transferable exchange model for Bluerise are part of the actor engagement strategy. The mutual beneficial interactions are used to pique interest of actors. Regardless of the context of the case study, claims can be made on results that apply in general on the design of an ocean ecopark which Bluerise can apply unrelated to the lcoation. This is done at the basis of literature over eco-industrial parks. System design It feels logical that business climate, R&D, and environmental impact are important issues within the ocean ecopark, as the latter two are common benefits of an eco-industrial park advocated in literature (Mirata, 2004; Ehrenfeld & Gertler, 1997). Business climate appears to a prerequisite for firms to establish them, which also is a coherent implication for an ocean ecopark. It seems inconsistent that the economic business case is not more important in the exchange model. In literature it is often argued that besides the sustainable benefits also the economic business case is important (van Leeuwen et al., 2003). Although these results are based on a desk research and actors cannot be consulted for this irregularity, reasons can be logically derived for this aspect. As it is a first commercial ocean ecopark the focus apparently does not immediately lie on economic benefits, but rather on ensuring the expansion possibilities to other locations. This is done by focussing on benefits that are important deliberations for other locations when deciding to attract an ocean ecopark. Actor engagement strategy The proposed design relies for a large extent on actors throughout the whole process. The development process Van Leeuwen et al. (2003) require the involvement of actors and gov- ernmental agencies. This argument is supported by this model. So these results can be generalized towards other locations. An important part of an engagement strategy depends on who the actors are. Each actor behaves differently and has different morals and values. These aspects are important to consider for interacting with actors. Their behaviour and his- toric relations between actors determine if it the exchanges can be realized in the real world. Additionally, the objectives and resources are distributed differently per SIDS.

9-2 Transferability of the model

The sample results in chapter seven provides evidence for the applicability of the conceptu- alized model for Bluerise. Reflecting on the objective of this research, Bluerise can apply an exchange model to determine which (weighted) criteria are applicable for the evaluation of an ocean ecopark, by means of a value vector that relates a weight to the issues. It furthermore offers preliminary system specifications for different conceptual designs of an ocean ecopark. Moreover it expresses what resources actors like to possess to fulfil their interest. Illuminating where the ocean ecopark can provide value for actors if they are willing to contribute to the design process is a good starting point to convince actors. This information is provided by an exchange model in the form of potential exchanges between actors. For this design this model is specified at an aggregated level to indicate a strategy for the ocean ecopark. At a deeper level one could also want to gain information of the interdepen- dent situation within an ocean ecopark between the different tenants, to determine rules for the synergetic relationships. An exchange model can also suffice in this, as resources and

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis 9-2 Transferability of the model 57 objectives also play an important role in that process. Redefining the actors at a lower level, and defining related issues conceptualize the exchange model for this purpose. The validation provides evidence that the components of the conceptualized exchange model are applicable for multiple situations. Nevertheless, it can occur that due to location specifics these components need to be adjusted by Bluerise. In the methodology the steps are explained with related tools to identify the important actors and define new issues. It is advised to involve one actor per defined actor group, but due to location specifics more actors of one group can be included if that is deemed necessary. The issues in an exchange model are associated with the actors, so if the actors change the corresponding issues automatically must be checked for changes. The parameters needed for this model can be obtain trough a workshop (an interactive setting), structured interviews, and desk research. The latter is illustrated by the anonymized case study conducted for this research. In parallel it is discussed for what purposes a method is suitable. Usability through workshops The most benefits from using exchange modelling can be achieved with a workshop in which the actors have the possibility to interact and discuss input and results. In order to do this an interactive setting needs to be created by Bluerise in which the invited actors can have a structured negotiation about the content and completion of the model. Through visual representation the results can be presented to the actors, to introduce them to the potential they have with attaining a cooperative attitude. Guidelines for such a workshop are derived from Timmermans (2009):

• Introduction to method and purpose;

• Brief introduction to an ocean ecopark and further purposes;

• Completing the interest and control matrices by the actors;

• Discuss results and interpretation with the actors; and

• Evaluation of the workshop.

Usability through structured interviews Bluerise can also use the opinion of experts to acquire insight in the situation. With structured interviews with experts the interest and control of actors can be obtained, and the model can be modified towards specific situations. The latter concerns the correct indication of relevant actors and issues. This allows Bluerise to acquire ex ante insight in the situation and act accordingly, with for example appropriate designs and adequate actor engagement strategies. Stokman and Thompson (2004) propose a semi-structured interview approach, which the following steps are identified:

• Identify a small number of experts to hold in-depth interwiews with;

• Inform them of the problem in concrete terms to enhance their understanding;

• Ask their opinion on the components and parameters of the model

• Only include estimations if substantiated with clear arguments and related efforts.

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 58 An applicable and transferable exchange model for Bluerise

Usability through desk research The applications of an exchange model can also focus on a desk research approach. This requires a quiet similar approach as presented in this research. Based on the system Bluerise perceives they could decide to adjust the presented model from this research to their specific cause. A next step is making estimations, by performing desk research, for the interest and control of the relevant actors. Business statements, interviews, research activities, etc. can help to identify the parameters of the model. Without actually consulting the actors the model provides insight in the position of Bluerise, strategic behaviour for future actions when contacting actors, and designs the systems design.

9-3 Awareness for the use of exchange modelling

A few important notions about transferability of a model are stated by Williams (1997). It is important that over time one still feels confident about this method. Beyond it is important that the users are aware of its capabilities and why it is important to use the designed tool this. During conversation with the team members of Bluerise this subject is already briefly touched. An initial actor analysis was conducted by them during 2011, but over time limited attention was given to writing the new experiences and changes. In their experiences with the actors no structured method was given for them to rely on and substantiate choices they made. Thus this method has the potential to suffice in that need. To create awareness and confidence for this method, several team members have completed the interest and control matrix. This is a first step for getting acquainted with the terminology and the modelling sequence. Some issues could be addressed immediately, for example what is the meaning of control?, what is the meaning of an issue?, and what does the consistency check means of the AHP methodology? Continuing, the results where communicated back to the team members. It shows what the impact is of their decisions and what relevance the results have. The model and its outcome are abstract to understand, which caused struggles to present and convince the worth of the results. A clear visual representation helped to convey the interpretation of the results. Due to a better understanding of the capabilities of the model, awareness is created.

9-4 Conclusion

Bluerise can use the conceptualized exchange model to identify the value creations process for actors. The model is transferred to Bluerise, which is able to adjust the model to its own wishes. By applying it in other locations it can provide valuable insight in the values an ocean ecopark can create and at what way one can achieve it. Bluerise can use the model as an ex ante method to provide strategic insight in the situation, or to faicliate negotiations and interactions with actors. Overal speaking, R&D, business climate, and environmental impact and the government, and firms should always be considered as part of the design process. Results for a specific actor engagement strategy cannot be transferred to other situations, as personal properties of actors are not integrated in the model.

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis Chapter 10

Added value of an exchange model

In order to provide the insight for a system design, the actor situation is assumed to be static. In this chapter a critical reflection is given over the intertwined use of system and actor perspectives. The purpose is to contribute to the scientific discussion of integrating system and actor perspectives. The first section provides reflective arguments for the approach taken in this research, namely changing the system design based on the actor situation. Another critical note is given in section two on the possibility to change the actor situation based on a fixed system design. It researches the effect of transactions and the project developer on actor situation, where the system design is assumed fixed. The third section continues the argument of the involvement of actor models for the remaining system design process. A closing argument is made in the fourth section on the generalizability of exchange modelling to future design efforts in general.

10-1 Applicable insight of the exchange model

In a straightforward system engineering process, proposed by Sage and Armstrong Jr. (2000), all the steps are performed and iterated to design an artefact towards one particular set of criteria. Figure 10-1 is used as a reference to advocate where the actor situation (represented by an exchange mode) can complement the system design process. At three points the actors’ interest is used to change the system design, namely the problem definition, value system design, and system synthesis. The problems surrounding the design of an ocean ecopark do not solely focus on the in- teraction between subsystems, but also on the interdependencies between actors. Without an assessment of the actor environment these interdependencies would not been taken into account. Exchange modelling contributes a lot to the value system design phase. The value system design encompasses the identification of the objectives for the design of an artefact. Within a system of multiple actors with each an individual objective function it can be problematic

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 60 Added value of an exchange model

Problem definition

Value system design

System synthesis

System analysis

Refinement of the alternatives

Decision making

Planning for action

Figure 10-1: Generic system design process, adapted from Sage and Armstrong Jr. (2000) to determine a common measurement of the criteria. Traditionally the interest of actors would be combined into one objective function, disregard of the individual interests (Sage & Armstrong Jr., 2000). Without assessing the actors’ interests the design of an ocean ecopark is solely subject to the opinion of the project developer (and to a certain extent the project initiator). Implications are that some actors are not satisfied with the design and thus do not want to cooperate for the benefit of an ocean ecopark, as the ocean ecopark does not hold value for them. Parkhe (1993) and Khanna, Gulati and Nohria (1998) state that an important stimulus for cooperation is the anticipated benefit of that cooperation. Exchange modelling copes with this by translating the different distributions of interest over the issues into one value function, and still satisfying every actor’s individual interest distribution. The latter is achieved as each individual actor can optimize its personal utility function, and can use their resources to influence the system synthesis phase (also called conceptual design phase). The value vector v provides a weight for the criteria. Logically the direction (minimize or maximize) for the criteria can be reasoned, although this needs to be checked with the actors.

A third contribution to the system design process is made by identifying potential alternatives within the system. In the competitive state (C∗) actors have gained control over issues they have a lot of interest in. Every actor is better off in this situation, but this outcome is still of a theoretic nature. It is argued to involve the interpretation of an actor for the system design to design conceptual configurations of an ocean ecopark that suit the needs of the actors that are most relevant on a particular issue(meaning those who possess a lot of control on an issue). Thus, one can create different conceptual designs by using the equilibrium control matrix as a starting point. This also provides an incentive for actors to contribute to the design process, as there is the opportunity to express their indication for the ecopark. Different designs arise through different interpretations of the system, and there with the distribution of the parameters. This mostly occurs when the actors themselves have not completed the matrices, but the parameters are identified through a desk research. This third contribution also provides insight in what manner the actors can be engaged and with whom the value for an ocean ecopark can be created. Exchange modelling shows whom possesses the resources

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis 10-2 Added value of transactions on the multi actor system 61 needed for an issue (criteria), and shows under what rational conditions it is willing to allocate these resources. Implications of a fixed actor environment on the system design Changing the system design based on the actor environment requires negotiations in an engi- neered system. Hence, it requires that the actors all have sufficient knowledge of the system to make actual contributions in an engineering environment. This would require that the actors in the negotiation process own technical knowledge over the impact of their decisions. If this is true, this means that actors themselves can understand the mutual beneficial ex- changes and are willing to realize them. One cannot expect that all actors have technical knowledge, which needs to be communicated throughout the process by involving experts (De Bruijn & Ten Heuvelhof, 2010). Another aspect of negotiations is who is involved in the process. Herder et al. (2008) argue that one need to make clear decisions as a designer, as incorporating all objectives and requirements of actors creates an unfeasible solution. This requires that one considers the importance of actors and issue and only incorporates the most important ones. Implication is that actors leave the design process, or hamper the negotiation progress. Another effect of negotiations for a system design is that each actor has a problem or a solution, which they all would like to address. This makes the progress sluggish and slow. To cope with this, prior design efforts can already analyse the actors and determine what they would like to have incorporated in an ocean ecopark. A last implication of starting with the actor design is that commitment towards the project must be high. Most crucial decisions for a system design are made at the early start of the project. However, since little is known over the project actors are not so willing to involve themselves to the project. This points the design efforts to the contributions of a preliminary system design.

10-2 Added value of transactions on the multi actor system

Reflecting critically on the chosen approach within this research, namely changing systems by the actors, shows that actors are not static but dynamic. In order to the impact of this approach the reversed approach is assessed. he introduction of the project developer, EcoOcean, and the transaction of resources, is research to indicate the effect of changing an actor environment based on a fixed system design, within the line of reasoning of exchange modelling. EcoOcean is chosen, in their role of actor within the system, as they are the project developer and bring the concept of an ocean ecopark to the status quo. This gives insight in the usefulness of exchange modelling is these kind of situations. The status quo The status quo encompasses the actors involved before EcoOcean enters the island. Two situations are considered, one where actors do not share resource and one where they can exchange control according to the directions of exchange modelling. In the status quo the interest of EcoOcean is omitted from the model and the control of EcoOcean is proportionally divided over the other actors to comply with the mathematical constraints, due to the closed system assumption. Despite arguments one can give to neglect self-sustainability in this model, as it closely relates to EcoOcean, it is maintained in the model. It includes the production and the degree of independence of Curaçao, which is broader than the value it has for EcoOcean.

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 62 Added value of an exchange model

Without transacting control between the actors, actors are focussed on achieving their own interest with their own resources. The government is the most self-dependent actor and can best fulfil its own interest. Similar conclusions can be drawn for Food & Good, although to a lesser extent. The government’s interest and control align on the issues self-sustainability, business climate, and tourism. On all these issues Department ED has a high interest and high control. Food & Good is able to achieve its interest on economic business case and R&D by using its own resources. When those two important actors would cooperate in the status quo (without transacting resources) the focus lies on the business climate, economic business case and self-sustainability. This is based on comparing their added control and added interest. In the experimental setting where actors can transact control, Food & Good gains more control over the economic business case, and the business climate, the Department ED over self-sustainability, BlueTourism over the economic business case, and Green World over envi- ronmental impact. Most notably are the cooperation possibilities between Food & Good and Department ED, and Green World and Department ED which can help each other to advance their goals. In total 13% of the control is exchanged between the actors. This acknowledges the opportunity that is already present on the island before EcoOcean enters, although it is not a high percentage compared to other studies 10-2. Continuing the analysis, within the status quo the design process should focus on the following weighted criteria; R&D (18%), business climate (17%), and environmental impact (15%). Comparing these criteria with the situation with situation with EcoOcean, these criteria are quite similar. This means that EcoOcean, as project developer, as a small impact on the criteria posed on the design.

Figure 10-2: Competitive equilibrium control in a situation without EcoOcean

Assessing both situations with a clearer view on the design process the impact of interact- ing provides a better opportunity to gain resources on the valuable criteria for an actor. The Department ED and Food & Good have a bigger potential to achieve their control when trans- acting their resources. Despite that the research boundaries are drawn around the abundant cold water source waiting for a use, this scenario cannot confirm or disconfirm that other ac- tors can potentially initiate an ocean ecopark. Ehrenfeld and Gertler (1997) argue that ocean

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis 10-2 Added value of transactions on the multi actor system 63 ecoparks can emerge solely through bilateral agreements between firms, but this statement cannot be supported by these results. The entrance of the project developer to the status quo When EcoOcean enters the status quo, but without interacting with other actors the design focusses on the issues they have a high control and high interest in, namely the economic business case and the environmental impact. Within the whole system other issues are also important to create value for the actors, but alone EcoOcean is not capable of realizing that. From the control matrix C it can be derived that EcoOcean has limited control on all these issues. Respectively they own 7%, 9%, and 16% of the control on these issues. Consequently, they need the resources of other actors to realize the important system specifications that came forward when involving other actors. The sample results from chapter seven show that a successful design at least encompasses the business climate, R&D and environmental impact. The competitive outcome of the exchange model provides insight in the strategic interdependencies. Recapping the results of the case study, there is a large potential of exchange between an actor alliance of EcoOcean, Department ED, Food & Good and Green World. In total almost 19% of the control can be allocated (exchanged) between actors to better suit the interests of others. No conclusions can be drawn if the ocean ecopark could also be designed without exchanging control, as not absolute numbers of control are known for a design process. It can be claimed that actors’ interests are better fulfilled in a situation where actors can exchange with each other. Implications of a fixed system design on the actor environment The added value of transacting resources (by means of an exchange model) is determined based on the four situations depicted in table 10-3. In an attempt to find a design of an ocean ecopark it is important that this design is accepted by the actors. With an exchange model it is argued that one can accommodate this by incorporating the values of all actors. The assessment in this section argues that the criteria can be considered ex ante and integrate it in the system design. Dependent on which actors are involved different designs are applicable, thus multiple designs are appropriate in the system.

PPoossssiibbiilliittyy ttoo eexxcchhaannggee ccoonnttrrooll NNoo YYeess r r e e p p o o l l o e o e v N v N e e d d

t t c c e e j j o o r r p p

f f o o

e e s c s c e n e n Y a Y a r r t t n n E E

Figure 10-3: Four situations with an exchange model

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 64 Added value of an exchange model

Establishing a new initiative should increase the status quo to be considered a success. Due to the mathematical constraints it is not possible to assess the impact of the project developer on the status quo. Exchange modelling requires the control to be changed from nominal numbers towards percentages, and added up to 100%. In the status quo actors possess resources that can influence the issues. With the entrance of EcoOcean the total control (100%) remains the same. In the exchange model this is represented as a lower percentage of control to influence the issue. The absolute control of actors is not known, and therefore one cannot conclude what EcoOcean brings to the design process. It is clear they possess resources which are required for the design, but it is not certain how much. One can conclude that the usage of exchange modelling on the real world increases the circulation of control from 13% (in the status quo) to almost 19%. This implies that with EcoOcean in the system actors receive more control that is favourable for them (it better aligns with their interest). Still, the impact of this higher potential for exchange on the design process cannot be deter- mined. It is not known how much control (resources) is needed to realize the design of an ocean ecopark. Exchange modelling does not indicate if 30% of the control is sufficient for the creation of a suitable business climate, or that at least 60% is necessary. An exchange model indicates a Pareto optimal solution and one can emphasize that one should strive to achieve this solution. In that case, the compliance of all the actors is most welcome. However, one can also argue that the extra effort to make a few actors better off is better spend at other (design) activities. Synthesizing these considerations, can one change the rules of the game to create acceptance for a fixed design. The conclusion is that an exchange model cannot provide answer what the impact is of a fixed system design by changing the actor situation (exchanging control), besides that it enhances the circulation of control for the actors. This can indicate the value of an ocean ecopark on the actor situation, but this cannot be substantiated by the model.

10-3 Completing the system design process

To complete the discussion on the contributions for the system engineering process, the phases outside the demarcation of this research are briefly discussed. An exchange model is not capable of calculating the impact of the different designs, as is done in the system analysis phase. To make the step from conceptual designs to a specific design the perception of actors comes into play, within the refinement of the alternatives phase. An exchange model does not show what the exact meaning of an actor is for an issue. For example, from an exchange model one can derive that R&D is an important criteria and roughly one can determine how this can be integrated into the design, but one does not know how this specifically should be designed to comply with the actors’ perception. By expressing how each actor perceives the issues one can delineate this information and use it. Another actor analysis method can suffice in this need to integrate perception in the different issues in the system design process. Dynamic Actor Network Analysis (DANA) is such a method that combines perception with the interest and resources of actors (Bots, Van Twist, & Van Duin, 2000). The exchange model can already provide the insight of the interests and resources that actors have, and DANA can go beyond this by adding the perception component to the system.

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis 10-4 Research contributions to socio-technical design efforts 65

Currently the exchange modelling is not able to capture the assessment of different designs, and thus contribute to the decision making phase. To explain, exchange modelling shows the Pareto optimal solution of the distribution of resources and thus guides the system designs to what extent which actor should have something to say. This Pareto optimum is based on theoretical exchanges. Dependent on how well a design is capable of facilitating these exchanges in rea life; one gets closer to this Pareto optimum. If a design matches the interest of both actors in a bilateral exchange, one can argue that this design facilitates that exchange (not taking into account the history between actors). By evaluating how well a design is capable of fulfilling the potential between the actors, exchange modelling can enhance the decision making on which design is most appropriate for a location. Ambiguous is the contribution of exchange modelling to the planning for action phase, the realization. It provides insight in the distribution of control (the resources) needed to accom- plish the values in an ocean ecopark. However, this insight is only theoretical and dependent on how much exchanges are facilitated by the design of an ocean ecopark one can determine who possess the needed resources in real life.

10-4 Research contributions to socio-technical design efforts

It is advocated that the model is useful in fulfilling the objective of this research. It especially provides insight in the weighting of the criteria and preliminary insight in how value can be created in the conceptual designs. This supports the added value of an actor perspective for system design efforts, namely this model defines where value can be created and how every specific actor interests can be integrated in the design process. The contribution of using exchange modelling lies on the aspects of a higher potential to realize the interests of all the actors. It does not provide insight in the amount of resources needed for the design process, and the impact of the ocean ecopark on the status quo. Thus, exchange modelling provides insight in the area of many actors and many objectives. In this demarcated area exchange modelling can contribute by providing understanding in the interdependencies between actors and optimization of the system design. Demarcating this further, this method can be applicable for designs identified by many components and a great impact. It is not applicable for designs focussed on areas with component design with a large or small impact. It is also not applicable for designs consisting of many components but with a small impact. The reason is that the method requires extensive preparations which are not in line with the relative difficulty of the design efforts. This demarcated research contribution is represented in figure 10-4.

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 66 Added value of an exchange model

NNuummbbeerr ooff oobbjjeeccttiivveess SSiizzee ooff ddeessiiggnn eeffffoorrttss OOnnee MMaannyy CCoommppoonneenntt AArrtteeffaacctt s l s l l t l t e r e a r a n o s n o s f m r f m O r f O f S o S e o t e

t

c n c n a g a

g i

f i f s s o o e

e

r d r d

e

e f f b b o o

t m t m t c y t u c y u a a n a a Research n N e N p a e p a r r m

G contributions M m I G M I

Figure 10-4: Demarcation of research contributions

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis Chapter 11

Conclusions and recommendations

This research advocates the combined use of system perspective and actor perspective for the design of an ocean ecopark. From an exchange model, an actor analysis method, insight is derived from interdependent actors to enhance the system design process. This chapter answers the main research questions investigated in the first section, whereas the second and third sections give, respectively insight in future action and research for Bluerise, and the scientific community.

11-1 Answering the research questions

What are the applicability and limitations of an assessment of the actor situation, which encompasses the various values of interdependent actors, on the system design of an ocean ecopark on SIDS where abundant cold ocean water is accessible from deep ocean water? What is the contribution of an assessment of the actor situation to cope with the complications for designing an ocean ecopark on SIDS? The actor environment is composed of interdependent actors with distinct objective functions and scattered resources. The exchange model makes explicit contributions on the value system design phase and the system synthesis phase of a generic design cycle. It reveals mutual beneficial interactions for cooperation between actors within the environment of an ocean ecopark. This information can be used to convince actors to involve them in the design process. The understanding of the multi actor system is complicated through the multiple interde- pendencies between actors. These are made explicit by exchange modelling by identifying resource dependencies between actors based on their interests. A designer conducts exchange modelling to indicate a weight on the identified issues, composed of the individual interest distributions of actors. These can be applied as weighted criteria to design and evaluate an ocean ecopark. These weighted criteria indicate where value can be created for the actors by an ocean ecopark.

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 68 Conclusions and recommendations

In an exchange model the individual interest functions are not neglected, each actor opti- mizes attempts to optimize their control distribution. A designer can use the competitive equilibrium state (one of the Pareto optimal outcomes) to identify the important actors for the relevant and highly rated criteria. Within the design process these actors need to be con- sidered for their input. They possess the capabilities (control) to influence part of the design. The designer can incorporate their wishes in the conceptual design phase as system specifica- tions for relevant issues, to accommodate their interest and ensure that they are stimulated to contribute to the design process. This is realized since the ocean ecopark provides benefits for the actors when it exerts its resources to it. The added value of the actor situation is clearly related to a close fitting design of an ocean ecopark. Adjusting a design towards the interest of actors requires an interwoven design effort to convince the actors to contribute to the system design. Actors need to contribute to the design process, but are only willing to do so when it clearly is beneficial for them. One can convince them with a corresponding system design, which communicates the impact of their bilateral exchanges and decisions. The impact of the exchanges of resources results in a change of the status quo in which all actors are better off. The introduction of an ocean ecopark gives the opportunity for actors to better fulfil their interests, as the design can accommodate their purposes. What are the limitations of the use of actor situations for a system design concerning an ocean ecopark on SIDS? The main limitation of applying exchange modelling for the purpose of a system design is the feasibility in practice. Several assumptions are applicable on the mathematics and on the applications that cause a careful interpretation on the usability of the model for practical use. Most important is the assumption that the actors are static to adjust the design to it. In practice the actors show learning effects and strategic behaviour within negotiations. Exchange modelling acknowledges that learning effects play an important role, as actors continuously learn and adapt in a dynamic context. However, this is not incorporated into the modelling sequence. Wrongfully, one can design a system of an ocean ecopark that does not longer represent and suit the need of actors. It is known that exchange modelling proposes exchanges based on rationality, and this leading to an equilibrium control state is used to determine preliminary system specifications. If exchanges do not take place, because of historic relations, this can lead to wrongfully interpretations recommendations for the system design. Similarly is the assumption of a common denominator for the exchanges that take place. Exchange modelling presents the negotiations as a market place where everyone knows everything, including the supply and demand of every actor, leading to a common value on issues. In real life it is questionable if one can exchange R&D efforts for environmental impact. This causes the effect that certain preliminary system specifications might not be accurate for the real world. Incorporating the actors in the design process implies that the solution space is broadened and multiple alternatives are proposed that can accommodate the objectives of the actors. It could be that the ideal solution is not an ocean ecopark for the presented purposes of the actors. Also the actors need to engage to the process, as without their contributions the system design cannot be focussed on the necessities of an island. It requires the integrative effort of involving actors with a corresponding system design. Although this is considered an obligatory effort, it does cause more efforts for the designer to align both perspectives.

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis 11-1 Answering the research questions 69

Further limitations on this research originate from the modelling assumptions. From the perspective of a fixed system to influence the actor situation, it becomes clear that changes in the actor situation are hard to comprehend, and the impact of a system cannot be determined. The model assumes that all control and interest is located within the system, and thus adds up to 100%. The impact of this assumption is that actors within the system obtain control that is not attached to them in the real world, which diminishes the quality of the results. Moreover, changes in the system, due to entering or leaving of actors, are hard to comprehend as all the control in the system is converted into percentages. This makes is hard to determine the impact of an ocean ecopark on the status quo. The entering of Bluerise enhances the potential for exchanges between actors. Hence, the interests of the actors are better fulfilled by the entrance of Bluerise to the system. However, it cannot be concluded how much better the system has become. The model uses percentage instead of absolute numbers. So the entering of Bluerise diminishes the percentage of control of actors, despite the fact that their absolute control does not change. Therefore, the impact of Bluerise cannot be determined. Moreover, another limitation due to this mathematical implication is that one cannot define how much control is needed to establish an ocean ecopark.

A conceptual limitation is the potential overlap between issues in an exchange model. Theo- retically, the issues are to be defined without redundancy. Although these relations between the issues are always present, it can hamper the completion of the matrices and should be carefully addressed when interpreting the results.

How generalizable is the insight gained for using actor situation on system designs for other locations and purposes?

An exchange model is applicable when the resources and objectives are the most important actor components. This research claims that this model can be deployed in the design on different locations. A case study and an extensive validation evidenced that the conceptualized model is useful for the said problem and for other locations. Whereas the model still requires specific actors to be identified as each specific location.

The actor engagement strategy is not transposable to other locations. Each location has different actors, with their own distribution of control and interest. This leads to a different interdependent system, and different mutual beneficial interactions. More important is that each actor has a specific behaviour and personality which should be deal with adequately. An exchange model does not deal with this, it assumes rational actors, but within the real world this assumption will not hold. Experiments with strategic behaviour reveal that there is potential to undermine the outcomes for one’s own benefits by overstating your resources. Although this is rational behaviour, other actors will react to it, what can lead to irrational consequences. This irrationality, and therewith particular behaviour and personality of actors, is not considered in an exchange model and cannot be transferred to other situations. Still, the exchange model provides information that can be used for a specific engagement strategy.

This model explicitly contributes to research areas which focus on many actors and many objectives. To demarcate this further, the design efforts must encompass an artefact design (multiple components) and have a high impact on its environment. In this demarcated area an exchange model can contribute to the understanding of the interdependent actors and provide insight for the system design.

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 70 Conclusions and recommendations

11-2 Recommendations and future research for Bluerise

The exchange model provides insight in the value creation process between actors and how a designer can incorporate this into the ocean ecopark. Within the ambit of the objective of this research this tool gives Bluerise the opportunity to gain ex ante insight in the strategic interdependencies between actors. Conducting the exchange model tool by an interactive setting (workshop), structured interviews, or desk research Bluerise can advance their design efforts based on the actor environment at different locations and different purposes. It defines a weighted distribution of the criteria and shows which actors need to be considered for preliminary system specifications. This helps Bluerise to acquire an accepted design which can be communicated towards the important parties.

It also aids their efforts to convince actors of the benefits of the ocean ecopark. Not only by incorporating the needs of the actors in the design, but also by the demand and supply actors have. Knowing what control they would like to own to fulfil their interest can be used in the actor engagement strategy. It provides the opportunity for Bluerise to facilitate the actor network, as it has a strategic overview of the interdependencies among actors.

To make full use of the potential of this model it is first important that more awareness must be created for usages of exchange modelling. It gives a structured approach to assess the actors, with their resources and objectives, but such models must be embedded in the culture of Bluerise. Over time it is recommended to re-evaluate the model, adjust it to changes in the environment, to determine the continued worth for Bluerise. As the results are not yet validated, due to the lack of incorporation of actual actors in this research, Bluerise could perform a validation step when using this model. When interactively using this method, a check must be performed to determine whether the involved actors can identify themselves with the results of the model.

Further research To further enhance the design process of Bluerise the actor situation should be further in- corporated into their efforts. Exchange modelling only provides preliminary insight and this need to be further development to ensure a comprehensive system design. Future research must focus to determine the impact of decisions for the criteria. This helps the communica- tion towards actors, as they known the effect of exerting resources for the ocean ecopark. It also aids the decisions process of which design is most applicable per situation. Other future research for Bluerise must focus on identifying the perception of actors on the issues. The perception of actors must be used to further specify the system specifications and transfer the conceptual design in a specific system design. Within these designs attention should be given to the synergetic aspect, and which kind of tenants are wanted to comply with the goals of the ocean ecopark.

Looking beyond the specific technical ocean ecopark, no institutional design is present to facilitate the development. What kind of rules should be made for the ocean ecopark? Which conditions must tenants have? How is synergy facilitated? Which cooperation structure is most beneficial for the different tenants? An institutional design could help to further incorporate these important aspects for a successful establishment of an ocean ecopark. It also could address the issue of trust, as sharing of virgin materials, and knowledge is essential for the working of an ocean ecopark.

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis 11-3 Future research for scientific research 71

11-3 Future research for scientific research

Future research for the scientific community is identified at two points to continue the efforts made in this research, namely the exchange modelling sequence and further advancing the system design cycle of ocean ecoparks. Exchange modelling has the capabilities to provide insight in the decision making process for ocean ecoparks. As it proposes a theoretical Pareto optimal, different designs can be tested on how well they achieve this optimal solution. This testing consists of adding mathematical formulas to the exchange modelling mathematics. After the current modelling sequence the actor must value the different designs and based on their evaluation it can be determined how well a design is able to achieve the ideal situation. Similarly, stimulating measures that facilitate the proposed exchanges can be tested for their effect. The system design cycle is supported at three steps by an exchange model. It does not provide explicit information for the impact of the alternatives, the creation of a specific design and the decision making process. Due to this limitation it is acknowledged that multiple methods need to be applied to accomplish a comprehensive ocean ecopark design. To continue the combined efforts of an actor and system perspective Dynamic Actor Network Analysis (DANA) can be applied. This actor analysis method also encompasses resources and objectives but also the perception. The perception of actors can be used to design specific designs. The specific perception an actor has for an issue, over which it holds a portion of the control, can be used to further define designs. This new research also aids the actor engagement strategy, as it further defines the behaviour of actors.

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 72 Conclusions and recommendations

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis Chapter 12

Reflection

Throughout this process of research, analysis and discussion, a shift took place in the perspec- tive of this report. Initially the thought was that a methodological view, where the objective was to perform the modelling sequence adequately, would be sufficient. During this research I made a shift away from this viewpoint towards a more flexible design perspective in which the goal was to conceptualize a model that suits the problem and helps to solve the problem. In this reflection attention is given to this shift, and other learning moments I perceived through discussing four topics sequentially, namely the research process, the research methodology, conceptualization and objectives.

12-1 Reflection on research process

Overall, this thesis is by far the most interesting task that was required for obtaining my master’s degree. The challenge is to define a topic that is interesting to research. Although I started early on, and quickly found a company that suited my ambitions, the research topic remained rather vague. Foremost, because there were so many interesting area’s that needed further research for Bluerise, but also because the initial situation was not clear. After some discussions it was defined that focussing on the actors would be a good contribution for the operations of Bluerise, as most parties thought their idea was splendid but only limited commitment was shown. Along the way many problems and pitfalls came arose. Most difficult was to keep the re- search within the predefined scope. A company is always interested in new information, and especially with a start-up currently involved in the same parallel area of my research, new information was available almost every day. Similarly, with each new piece of literature new research questions came up and new interesting connections were found that could be worth- while to include into my research. If one loses sight of and ventures outside the research boundaries, time can be lost quickly, without receiving the wanted reward for it. Luckily, my supervisors helped me and kept me on track towards the end goal.

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 74 Reflection

12-2 Reflection on research methodology

Although much attention was paid during the courses of the bachelor and the master, I was still inexperienced with using the exchange modelling method. Most challenging was not, although still tough, to comprehend this method, but to clearly substantiate why this actor analysis method was necessary. There are many actor analysis methods that all have a different stance on the actor context. For me, this required a shift in view on my thesis. Whereas I originally expected to perform an ordinary modelling sequence, it turned out to be more of a design approach. Especially in the end this turned out to a more suitable approach. This allowed me to view problems not from simply applying a method, but from determining the knowledge gap, and subsequently defining how a method assists in satisfying the objective. To adequately deal with this the actor context was first analysed to ensure context validity. This encompasses that the chosen method aligns with the context. Most other scientific researchers acknowledge that this is an important aspect to consider in the design process, but neglect to properly execute and substantiate this part. In this research the context validity is according to the six components identified by Hermans (2005). The usages of these components for the purpose of context validity, and explicitly referring to the context validity is considered a new scientific approach to choose the appropriate actor analysis method.

A second struggle with the method was to prove the contribution of it towards the company. Exchange modelling is an abstract model, which required good insight in the assumptions and terminology used. Explaining the content can be very challenging when it is at such an abstract level. What was helpful for me was a video that used it for a TED talk (De Mesquita, 2009). This created insight into the capabilities of the model. Secondly, I showed the results of this model. In companies the general tendency is more towards the results than to the process. When the results are clear the method also becomes clear and this also creates awareness for what you are doing.

The straightforward way to validate a model is by comparing the results with historic evidence or reality. With an actor model in a case study where parallel activities take place this is not possible. After a thorough discussion with a fellow student, I focussed the validation on the correctness of the components. Under the assumption that a correct conceptualized model logically derives at useful results. This is performed by identifying the issues of an exchange model independently from another viewpoint. Instead of translating the objectives in issues, the resources were used to define issues. When the model is internally consistent this would mean that similar issues are defined. One can make this claim, as the model consists of objectives (the interest parameters) and resources (the control parameters). Secondly the actors where controlled. By back casting the issues it is determined it is also determined who is affected by the ocean ecopark. When someone still wants to validate the results of an exchange model I would suggest taking a setting from history, repeating that history with an exchange model, and validate how well the model outcome reflects on the true historical results. The validation performed in this research takes part of the validation efforts used in the statistical research field and applies them to the exchange modelling sequence. I think this new purpose and application of validation for exchange modelling turns out good. Other authors use experts or actors to define the components, but do not explicitly perform a validation step. This is especially important in an ex ante approach.

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis 12-3 Reflection on conceptualization of the case study 75

12-3 Reflection on conceptualization of the case study

The difficulty that I perceived for the conceptualization was to draw up independent issues. During the completion of the matrices by team members a dependency between some issues was revealed. Most important was the connection between the issues tourism and employ- ment. Although, no full independence is possible, both issues do influence each other in the case study, where tourism means more jobs for the local population. To cope with this the definition of employment was broadened to also incorporate the education level of the employees (and students). Using actors to complete the matrices would have made the rest of the modelling sequence a lot simpler. Then, I could have referred to their perception for the validation of the model. For this project it was not possible to contact these actors, as Bluerise was also involved with the same actors. Taking in mind the design approach, instead of a methodological approach, this follows logically. With each specific actor the correlating set of parameters is involved, and one cannot generalize this, as other locations have other actors. Despite the obvious reasoning for this, it was difficult for me to deviate from this straightforward step in the modelling sequence.

12-4 Reflection on objective and products delivered

Exchange modelling is for the first time applied to contribute to the system design process. Normally the focus lies on the actor design, by acknowledging interdependencies and dealing with those. Therefore, a critical note is fitting after testing and applying this method. Within the demarcated research boundaries and purposes exchange modelling provides useful insight. It defines value, where one can create it and with whom. It is a method suitable for computer use and therewith easy usable to acquire insight in new situations. It use in workshops is also valued, when engaging with actors. Nevertheless, it does not provide full insight in the value creation process. The important issues are identified, but not specified towards a direction. The reason for this is that the model does not focus on the perception of actors. The impact of this is that only preliminary specifications can be assumed for the actors. The model identifies the important actors that need to be engaged to define an issue in the system design, but do not define their preferred direction. Incorporating this into a model enables the designer to also further define an issue for the system design. Related to this is that actors have different interpretations of the system. When these are incorrect this can lead to false claims over the system design. To reflect on this, one can suggest that the incorrect model is chosen. I do not agree with that, since the objective focussed on where value can be created between actors, and for this purpose exchange modelling is suited. Taken into account the progressive insight gained through conducting exchange modelling the need for perception is identified. It is also important to reflect on the assumptions that are behind exchange modelling. Fore- most the model assumes rationality. Related to this is the definition of a common worth of issues to exchange them. In real life it is questionable if one can exchange R&D efforts for environmental impact, and similarly if exchanges can take place based on historic relations. This causes the effect that certain preliminary system specifications might not be accurate for the real world.

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 76 Reflection

A last critical note must be placed on the static actor system. Exchange modelling acknowl- edges that learning effects play an important role, as actors continuously learn and adapt in a dynamic context. However, this is not incorporated into the modelling sequence. Wrongfully, can one design a system, which due to changes no longer suits the needs of an actor. One can cope with this by incorporating the adjusted behaviour of actors, due to new developments, etc. Consequently, the control and interest matrices need to be adjusted to these forecasted changes, and the model should continue and show the equilibrium state. To show this effect the changes of control over time (basically per exchange that takes place) need to be visual- ized to gain that strategic insight. This would also make it capable of dealing with specific scenarios, and assess the effect of these scenarios (for example an oil crisis) on the multi actor system.

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis 77

References

Acevedo, D., Baskar, Y., Prochazka, T., & Hermans, K. (2011). Ocean Thermal Energy - Ecopark for Curaçao (Tech. Rep.). Baas, L. W., & Boons, F. A. (2004, October). An industrial ecology project in practice: ex- ploring the boundaries of decision-making levels in regional industrial systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12 (8-10), 1073–1085. Bauer, J. M., & Herder, P. M. (2009). Designing Socio-Technical Systems. In Handbook of philosophy of science, volume 8: Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences. Binger, A. (2004). Potential and Future Prospects for Ocean Ther- mal Energy Conversion ( OTEC ) in Small Islands Developing States (SIDS). Small Island Developing States, on internet, 2006: http://www.sidsnet.org/docshare/energy/20040428105917_OTEC_UN.pdf . Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Bluerise. (2014). Bluerise. Retrieved 22 July, 2014, from http://www.bluerise.nl/ Bonham, C., Burnett, K., & Cintina, I. (2012). Economic Impact of the Natur al Energy Labor atory Hawaii Authority Tenants on the State of Hawaii (Tech. Rep. No. May). Boons, F. A., & Janssen, M. A. (2004). The Myth of Kalundborg : Social Dilemmas in Stimulating Eco- industrial Parks. Materials, Structural Change and Spatial Scales, 337–355. Bostrom, R. P., & Heinen, J. S. (1977). MIS Problems and Failures : A Socio- Technical Perspective Part II : The Application of Theory. MIS Quarterly, 11–28. Bots, P. W. G., Van Twist, M. J. W., & Van Duin, J. H. R. (2000). Automatic Pattern Detection in Stakeholder Networks. In System sciences, 2000. proceedings of the 33rd annual hawaii international conference on ieee (pp. 1–10). Briguglio, L. (1995, September). Small island developing states and their economic vulnera- bilities. World Development, 23 (9), 1615–1632. Brugha, R., & Varvasovszky, Z. (2000). Stakeholder analysis : a review. Health policy and planning, 15 (3), 239–246. Bryson, J. M. (2004). What to do when stakeholders matter: a stakeholder identification and analysis techniques. Public management review, 6 (1), 21–53. BT&P. (2011). Beleidsnota Regulering Elektriciteitsvoorziening Curaçao 2011-2015. Re- trieved from http://www.btnp.org/PDF/Beleidsnota_energie_4_feb_2011.pdf Burton, R. M. (1995). The Validity of Computational Models in Organization Science : From Model Realism to Purpose of the Model. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 1 (1), 57–71. Chertow, M. R. (2000). Industrial symbiosis: Literature and Taxonomy. Annual review of energy and the environment, 25 (1), 313–337. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University. Costa, I., & Ferrão, P. (2010, July). A case study of industrial symbiosis development using a middle-out approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18 (10-11), 984–992. Côté, R. P., & Cohen-Rosenthal, E. (1998, September). Designing eco-industrial parks: a synthesis of some experiences. Journal of Cleaner Production, 6 (3-4), 181–188. Cunningham, S. W., & van der Lei, T. E. (2009, January). Decision-making for new tech- nology: A multi-actor, multi-objective method. Technological Forecasting and Social

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 78 References

Change, 76 (1), 26–38. Curinvest. (n.d.). Benefits for businesses. Retrieved August 19, 2014, from http://www .curinvest.com/benefits-for-businesses Das, T. K., & Teng, B.-S. (2000, February). A Resource-Based Theory of Strategic Alliances. Journal of Management, 26 (1), 31–61. De Bruijn, J. A., & Ten Heuvelhof, E. F. (2008). Management in Networks: On multi-actor decision making. London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Gr. De Bruijn, J. A., & Ten Heuvelhof, E. F. (2010). Process Management. Berlin Heibelberg: Springer-Verlag. De Mesquita, B. B. (2009). Bruce Bueno de Mesquita: A prediction for the future of Iran. De Vries, M. (2013). Geen zee te diep. Retrieved July 1, 2014, from www.amigoe.com: http://www.amigoe.com/napa/napa/148945-geen-zee-te-diep de Bruijn, H., & Herder, P. (2009, September). System and Actor Perspectives on Sociotech- nical Systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans, 39 (5), 981–992. Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (1998). Making strategy: The journey of strategic management. London: Sage Publications. Ehrenfeld, J., & Gertler, N. (1997). Industrial Ecology in Practice: the evolution of interde- pendence at Kalundborg. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 1 (1), 67–79. Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social Exhange Theory. Annual review of sociology, 335–362. Enserink, B., Hermans, L. M., Kwakkel, J., Thissen, W. A. H., Koppenjan, J., & Bots, P. (2013). Policy Analysis of Multi-Actor Systems. The Hague: Uitgeverij LEMMA. Enserink, B., Koppenjan, J., & Mayer, I. S. (2013). A Policy Sciences View on Policy Analysis. In Public policy analysis (pp. 11–40). Fraser, N. M., & Hipel, K. W. (1984). Conflict Analysis: Models and Resolutions. New York: North-Holland. Geng, Y., Zhang, P., Côté, R. P., & Fujita, T. (2009, February). Assessment of the National Eco-Industrial Park Standard for Promoting Industrial Symbiosis in China. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 13 (1), 15–26. Gibbs, D., Deutz, P., & Proctor, A. (2005, April). Industrial ecology and eco-industrial development: A potential paradigm for local and regional development? Regional Studies, 39 (2), 171–183. Goede, M. (n.d.). Governance of organizations in Curaçao. Goede, M. (2009). Can Curaçao become a Creative Economy? A case study. International Journal of Social Economics, 36 (1/2), 47–69. Heeres, R. R., Vermeulen, W. J. V., & de Walle, F. B. (2004, October). Eco-industrial park initiatives in the USA and the Netherlands: first lessons. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12 (8-10), 985–995. Herder, P. M., Bouwmans, I., Dijkema, G. P., Stikkelman, R. M., & Weijnen, M. P. C. (2008). Designing infrastructures using a complex systems perspective. Journal of design research, 7 (1), 17–34. Hermans, L. M. (2005). Actor analysis for water resources management: putting the promise into practice. Eburon Uitgeverij BV. Hermans, L. M., & Cunningham, S. W. (2013). Actor Models for Policy Analysis. In Public policy analysis - new developments (pp. 185–213). Springer Science_Business Media New York 2013: New York Heidelberg Dordrecht London.

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis References 79

Hermans, L. M., & Thissen, W. A. H. (2009, July). Actor analysis methods and their use for public policy analysts. European Journal of Operational Research, 196 (2), 808–818. Hillson, D., & Simon, P. (2012). Practical project risk management: The ATOM methodology. Management Concepts Press. Keeney, R. L. (1994). Creativity in decision making with value-focused thinking. Sloan Management Review, 35 , 33–41. Keeney, R. L. (1996). Value-focused thinking : Identifying decision opportunities and creating alternatives. European Journal of Operational Research, 537–549. Keeney, R. L., & Mcdaniels, T. L. (1992). Value-Focused Thinking about Strategic Decisions at BC Hydro. Interfaces, 22 (6), 94–109. Khanna, T., Gulati, R., & Nohria, N. (1998). the dynamics of learning alliances: Competition, cooperation, and relative scope. Strategic management journal, 19 (3), 193–210. Kim, H. (2007). Building an Eco-Industrial Park as a public project in South Korea. The stakeholders’ understanding of and involvement in the project. Sustainable Develop- ment, 15 (6), 357–369. Koppenjan, J., & Groenenwegen, J. (2005). Institutional design for complex technological systems. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, 5 (3), 240–257. Koppenjan, J., Veeneman, W., van der Voort, H., ten Heuvelhof, E., & Leijten, M. (2011, August). Competing management approaches in large engineering projects: The Dutch RandstadRail project. International Journal of Project Management, 29 (6), 740–750. Lambert, A. J., & Boons, F. A. (2002, August). Eco-industrial parks: stimulating sustainable development in mixed industrial parks. Technovation, 22 (8), 471–484. Lowe, E. A. (1997, January). Creating by-product resource exchanges: Strategies for eco- industrial parks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 5 (1-2), 57–65. Mayer, I. S., Van Daalen, C. E., & Bots, P. W. G. (2013). Perspectives on policy analyses: a framework for understanding and design. In Public policy analysis (Vol. 4, pp. 41–64). Mirata, M. (2004, October). Experiences from early stages of a national industrial symbiosis programme in the UK: determinants and coordination challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12 (8-10), 967–983. Parkhe, A. (1993). Strategic alliance structuring: A game theoretic and transaction cost examination of interfirm cooperation. Academy of management journal, 36 (4), 794– 829. Prochazka, T. (2013). Framework for Developing Innovation Systems in Small Island Devel- oping States (Msc. Thesis). TU Delft. PWC. (2013). Doing business in the Dutch Caribbean. Retrieved from http://www.pwc.com/ en_AN/an/publications/Assets/business_guide_digital.pdf Ragsdale, C. T. (2008). Spreadsheet Modeling & Decision Analysis: A Practical Introduction to Management Science, fifth edition. Thomson South-Western. Roberts, B. H. (2004, October). The application of industrial ecology principles and planning guidelines for the development of eco-industrial parks: an Australian case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12 (8-10), 997–1010. Rojer, M. (1999, May). Collective Decision-Making Models Applied To Labor Negotiations in the Netherlands: a Comparison Between an Exchange Model and a Conflict Model. Rationality and Society, 11 (2), 207–235. Saaty, T. L. (1990, September). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48 (1), 9–26.

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 80 References

Sage, A. P., & Armstrong Jr., J. E. (2000). Introduction to Systems Engineering. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Santine, L., & Santine Jr., L. (2013). Visions on Curaçao - New investment opportunities (Tech. Rep.). Drukkerij Curaçaosche Courant. Schelling, T. C. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard univer- sity press. Schouten, M. J., Timmermans, J. S., Beroggi, G. E. G., & Douven, W. J. (2001, May). Multi- Actor Information System for integrated coastal zone management. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21 (3), 271–289. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Wadsworth Cengage learning. Stokman, F. N., & Thomson, R. (2004, March). Winners and Losers in the European Union. European Union Politics, 5 (1), 5–23. Stokman, F. N., & Van den Bos, J. M. (1992). A two-stage model of policymaking with an empirical test in the US energy-policy domain. Timmermans, J. S. (2004). Purposive Interaction in Multi-Actor Decision Making - Op- erationalizing Coleman’s Linear System of Action for Policy Decision Support. Delft: Eburon. Timmermans, J. S. (2006). Complex dynamics in a transactional model of societal transitions. Interjournal, 1769 , 1–18. Timmermans, J. S. (2008, September). Punctuated equilibrium in a non-linear system of action. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 14 (4), 350–375. Timmermans, J. S. (2009, August). Interactive Actor Analysis for Rural Water Management in The Netherlands: An Application of the Transactional Approach. Water Resources Management, 23 (6), 1211–1236. Timmermans, J. S., & Beroggi, G. E. G. (2000). Conflict resolution in sustainable infrastruc- ture management. Safety Science, 35 (1-3), 175–192. Timmermans, J. S., & Beroggi, G. E. G. (2004). An Experimental Assessment of Cole- man’s Linear System of Action for Supporting Policy Negotiations. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 10 (3), 267–285. Vaidya, O. S., & Kumar, S. (2006, February). Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 169 (1), 1–29. Van der Lei, T. E., & Herder, P. M. (2011). A double analysis of stakeholder interaction in public infrastructure management. Facilities, 29 (13/14), 563–576. Van Eeten, M. J. (2001). Recasting intractable policy issues: the wider implications of the Netherlands civil aviation controversy. Journal of policy analysis and management, 20 (3), 391–414. van Leeuwen, M. G., Vermeulen, W. J. V., & Glasbergen, P. (2003, May). Planning eco- industrial parks: an analysis of Dutch planning methods. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12 (3), 147–162. Varvasovszky, Z., & Brugha, R. (2000). How to do ( or not to do ) . . . A stakeholder analysis. Health policy and planning, 15 (3), 338–345. Vega, L. A. (2002). Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Primer. Marine Technology Society Journal, 36 (4), 25–35. War, J. C. (2011). Seawater Air Conditioning (SWAC) a renewable energy alternative. OCEANS 2011 , IEEE, 1–9.

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis References 81

Weisser, D. (2004, January). On the economics of electricity consumption in small island developing states: a role for renewable energy technologies? Energy Policy, 32 (1), 127–140. Williams, E. J. (1997). How Simulation Gains Acceptance as a Manufacturing Productivity Improvement Tool. Retrieved 09/10/14, from http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/ ~williame/esm97.html

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 82 References

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis Appendix A

Actor mapping

To substantiate and support the actor analysis in chapter three the method of Hillson and Simon (2012) is applied. With this information the essence of the decomposed components is portrayed. Moreover, the information of the (most important) actors is used to give attributes to the fictional actors in the case study. Section one depicts this analysis in a stakeholder mapping cube with accompanying substan- tiation. The second section argues the important actors within the multi actor environment. The last section shows the resources the actors possess within this system.

A-1 Stakeholder mapping cube

Hillson and Simon (2012) have formulated a stakeholder mapping cube which can be used to identify the important actors for a problem. In this particular case this mapping cube is used to identify the important actors per identified actor group. All the actors are represented for their attitude, power and interest in the problem. The attitude consists of whether or not the actors are supportive towards the project. Power is indicated as a high or low possibility to influence the design and establishment of the ocean ecopark. Lastly, the interest is defined as a high or low interest in the successes or failure of the ocean ecopark (Hillson & Simon, 2012). The following terms are used to identify which type of actors is present (Hillson & Simon, 2012). Hereby it is important to point out that the presentation of the actors is purely based on a desk research, where statements said in the media or on internetsites are used indicate certain aspects of an actor. Thus, the representations of the actors does not fully capture the reality. In addition, a stamp is put on actors that do not correspond to reality, since this is subject to the writers interpretation and the way how the actors are involved in the process, etc. Saviour: the actor with the potential and the interest to contribute for the benefit of the project. Friend: an actor with positive interest and attitude for the project, but without significant resources to support the project by itself.

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 84 Actor mapping

Sleeping giant: actor’s attention is not drawn to the project. But in case it is, he can heavily contribute to the project. Acquaintance: actors which cannot and do not have the interest to be involved in the project. Saboteur: a powerful actor with a negative attitude for the project, the counterpart of a saviour. However, involving them correctly can significantly benefit the project. Irritant: an actor with a negative view, but high interest, on the project, without sufficient resources to act according their preferences. Time bomb: shows low interest in the project, but has the negative attitude and the re- sources to become an important opponent (or contributor if their attitude is changed) for the project. Tripwire: actor with limited power and interest, and a negative attitude for the project.

A-2 Identifying important actors

For the purpose of determining a proof of concept an anonymous case study is conducted. The information in this appendix is based on the actual names, and should be held confidential. For each actor group the actors with a high power and interest are identified, according to the power-interest diagram A-1. A selection is made to define one important actor per actor group. Based on these actors attributes are assigned to the actors of the anonymized case study.

High

Subjects Players

Interest

Crowd Context setters

Low Low High Power

Figure A-1: Power-interest diagram, adapted from Eden and Ackermann (1998)

A-3 Resource interdependence

The information of the actor analysis is compiled in a system diagram that includes the different means, criteria and factors of the relevant actors for the specific situation of Curaçao, drafted from the perspective of a policy analyst. This information is used to depict the different resources within the system, and later on (chapter eight) it suffices as a validation tool. The system diagram consists of means, external factors, criteria and factors, as is argued in the book of Enserink et al. (2013). The means represent an overview of the most

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis A-3 Resource interdependence 85 important capabilities of the actors, derived from the stakeholder mapping cube (the power aspect). The external factors cannot be influenced by the involved actors, but do pose an influence on the system. Criteria are derived from the objectives of the actors, and the factors represent mechanisms how means influence the criteria. The arrows show if means, factors or external factors have a positive or negative effect on another factor. Sometimes the means have contrasting impacts on the system, for example the means ‘ocean ecopark open for tourists’. This is positive for the touristic attitude, but can have a negative impact on the profit of the ocean ecopark.

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 86 Actor mapping a a i i r r e e t t i i r r C C

e

s n d e s t

s d y a f s u e h n c n e n i t t e t o i e t

n o k

n a c n i t i

t r l n e e t t i a o i m h a

n v o a a c b n f c i

n i i p u v t t r e c f o s o i o

o c f c t o a r s

t t c i a a i u + e r n + s o m r f v e i s s p o n t - r p A i n o f e

t f r u l r m e b I A P e o o + S T J + + + + - + + - +

s

t n s c s a e u e i e i t d t c i i l o l o i i r

k + b b r p n i + i

a s s o r

s s p o d o f o o

e p c p

d

c e s s

n u

s

s e e g a t l g t d k l k n s a n n s a n o i i m i i l r S e l S r e r s + e

s

o p r y o t r y t m D t m t o o o i t n o i t n t c t c s c s c

e

e c c r a e r a e a a m + v o m

p s v o

p s t f t r f r n a

b n a

b s i s i o c +

o c

e o e e o f e f j j c c D

v D

i v i f f r r n n & + & I o I o P

P

R R r r ) - e

e s l + s b + b t e c m m u

u f u u

n n l d i N y o N y o o s i t i t r i t s i + t - c c p c c o

a f u a f u

y p y d p o d g t

t

a i a o i t o r n - r c i r c c r r c o o a d P a f P o f

p u p p l d d a a c n + c m n c

I n

a

a i

g f g ( f + m n m o n o i k

i k

l e

l e

r

r s s o n n t a o D n n t a D o y o n o p o y o n o p i i i t i c t c e i t o t e i t o t c c c a c c c + a m t m a t e u a e u

e

e u p u d p d n v n v p a p a o o a o a o c e r c e r r e r e p R p R c p c p o + o m m I

I

t t n

n

s l s l + e r

e r

+ a a t o d t o d m m t t n n n s n s c c s e s a s e s a a

t a

t e f e f s r s r

m

m s + t s l t l o i o s i n s n f a f a a f a o f o

m n

m n r e r t r r e t i r r i c c e e v e e v t a t a P n P n x x p p e e e e m m i i

f f

+

s o c s o c s

i s

i e e t r t t r i t i + s t e n s t e n i i i i a r b a r b v v i i n u n u t t m m e o e c o c t u t u T a T a N N + +

C f C f

s

s s

E f E o f o e f s

s

T m r T o t m o m t + o e

e

r a r u a a O s O s y e

y t

o e o e e u c c f u c r + f a d

r r d

f f t r + n n t t t n t n n s e s e s e e e n

e a n

+ a i i r

r

p r r e e c D c D i e i i C e i C e e f f c t f c m t t & i & f A f i A f i a f e a a f R E R f E f d T W w + W w w E E S S + +

d

d

n o n

o

t +

t s u

s

u

t t n s o n s o k s e

d k s e r s r a s r t l a r t r r r o o o g s e e

e g s e

+ a e o

u a t c

u t c

c e

e n t c c e

e n t p e p e

a t t l v e c g o l v n c g o n + o

o i e

n i c n b n u l l n w b n r u l c n + r i c

i i i r e n a r e l e a b l e o e l t o e l l t n i l i a f i i f i p s + p m s s t m a i i a a t a t s a e e p v W i p s r v W s r c c f f e A e D A c o n n v v i a + + i n n I I +

)

s e d

k r s s n e e l v n e

r t t l e o i e i

o . a h l e e i a t t t n n b t

t o c

c i t

b c f p l a a p a a a t h d i

i l t n o a

a k r n l r l o o e g n n n s r w

r

b s n o

i e i a u o

i c

p l f l n e e w a t

o k a y

e

g f s t t n o d e s e r

s o b e o

c l

b i p s d r

i e n t i v g a a e l r m y y n t l t a o n w o e

o n c o a t l d , p n c u p e b b i t n o l c f c a o a a i p

a

s t r l

e

o u o o n r e , p o

f e e r l a f l n n i

e a , t t c n s n

c t d c

o n o t n y e v o o (

m w e n s r e o i e o r i i

o o a m

p t i i v i g

y o t i t t o r o u o y t r o r e s n n d e f e a g o n s a a c n p i g a c l o l l l p e

a n u d r h e s r n K c o u e p i u u p n a e t r o e b u

s n c e p p u p I x n m u m n a D s m x i o o O y a S E t o e E A t p p l S S

s s n n a a e e M M

Figure A-2: System diagram of ocean ecopark multi actor system Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis Appendix B

Value focused thinking

This chapter displays the process proceeded to derive at issues. This is done by means of value focused thinking, based on the objectives of actors. Herewith the important aspects that create value for actors are involved in the exchange model. Through a desk research of (previously conducted) interviews, website statements and news articles the objectives of actors are traced. These objectives are checked for redundancy and potential means and presented in a hierarchical construction, an objective tree. All according to the methodology of value focused thinking described by Keeney (1992; 1994, 1996). The identified issues are encircled in the figures. They are chosen based through a combination of importance for the actors and to create limited redundancy between the issues. Throughout this process multiple iterations were needed to define a non-redundant set of issues. Section one combines the first three steps of Value-focused thinking in an objective tree per relevant actor; identify the objectives of actors, distinguish between fundamental and means objectives, and categorize hierarchies and relations between the objectives. The second section formulates the relevant issues, and checks them for the requirements posed by Timmermans (2004).

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 88 Value focused thinking

B-1 Objective trees

FlyFast

To ensure the existence of the airport

To maximize To maximize non- aviation related aviation related profit profit

To ensure high To maximize air To maximize profit To improve the To increase the quality operations traffic towards and from the internal processes reputation inside the airport from SIDS surrounding land

To maximize To maximize the To maximize cargo passenger attractiveness for To minimize costs transportation transportation new businesses

Figure B-1: Objective tree FlyFast

EcoOcean

TToo eennhhaannccee aa ssuussttaaiinnaabbllee aanndd ccoommeerrcciiaall oocceeaann eeccooppaarrkk

TToo miinniimiizzee TToo maaxxiimiizzee TToo maaxxiimiizzee tthhee iimppaacctt oonn tthhee bbeenneeffiittss ffoorr pprrooffiitt eennvviirroonnmeenntt SSIIDDSS

TToo hheellpp ddeevveelloopp TToo maaxxiimiizzee TToo maaxxiimiizzee tthhee TToo iinnccrreeaassee tthhee TToo miinniimiizzee tthhee tthhee llooccaall TToo eennhhaannccee tthhee ssyynneerrggyy ddeevveellooppmeenntt ooff TToo maaxxiimiizzee eexxppeerriieennccee wwiitthh TToo miinniimiizzee ddeeppeennddeennccyy oonn ppooppuullaattiioonn ttoo aaddooppttiioonn ooff RREESS bbeettwweeeenn RREESS rreevveennuuee ccoommeerriiccaall iinnvveessttmeenntt rriisskk ffuueell aanndd ffoooodd ssuuffffiiccee iinn tthheeiirr bbuussiinneesssseess tteecchhnnoollooggiieess oocceeaann eeccooppaarrkkss iimppoorrtt oowwnn nneeeeddss

TToo maaxxiimiizzee tthhee TToo miinniimiizzee tthhee TToo maazziimiizzee tthhee TToo eennhhaannccee TToo maaxxiimiizzee tthhee pprroodduuccttiioonn ooff TToo eennhhaannccee aamoouunntt ooff aattttrraaccttiivveenneessss lloonngg tteerrm uussaaggee ooff eexxcceessss vvaalluuaabbllee bbaassee llooaadd ppoolllluuttiinngg wwaassttee ffoorr nneeww lleeaassiinngg ccoooolliinngg wwaatteerr pprroodduuccttss ffoorr ccoooolliinngg ddeemaanndd ssttrreeaamss bbuussiinneesssseess ccoonnttrraaccttss SSIIDDSS

Figure B-2: Objective tree EcoOcean

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis B-1 Objective trees 89

Department ED

TToo iinnccrreeaassee tthhee lleevveell oopp pprroossppeerriittyy oonn SSIIDDSS

TToo iinnccrreeaassee tthhee TToo eennhhaannccee ssoocciiaall lliivviinngg eeccoonnoomiicc ccoonnddiittiioonnss iinn ddeevveellooppmeenntt SSIIDDSS

TToo rreedduuccee TToo eennhhaannccee TToo iinnccrreeaassee tthhee TToo iinnccrreeaassee tthhee TToo iimpprroovvee tthhee eenneerrggyy TToo iinnccrreeaassee hhiigghh sskkiillll jjoobb ccoomppeettiittiivvee ddeevveellooppmeenntt ooff rreeppuuttaattiioonn ooff ccoonnssuumppttiioonn ooff eeccoonnoomiicc aanndd ttrraaiinniinngg aaddvvaannttaaggee ooff kknnoowwlleeddggee oonn SSIIDDSS tthhee llooccaall iinnddeeppeennddeennccee ppoossssiibbiilliittiieess SSIIDDSS SSIIDDSS ppooppuullaattiioonn

TToo iinnccrreeaassee tthhee TToo eennhhaannccee aann TToo iinncceennttiivveess TToo iicceennttiivveess aamoouunntt ooff aattttrraaccttiivvee TToo iinnccrreeaassee iinntteerrnnaall ffuueell iinntteerrnnaall ffoooodd rreenneewwaabbllee cclliimaattee ffoorr eexxppoorrtt ooff SSIIDDSS pprroodduuccttiioonn pprroodduuccttiioonn eenneerrggyy ssoouurrcceess bbuussiinneesssseess

Figure B-3: Objective tree Department ED

Food & Good

TToo eennhhaannccee iittss ppoossiittiioonn oonn tthhee

maarrkkeett

TToo maaxxiimiizzee tthhee ddeevveellooppmeenntt ooff TToo maaxxiimiizzee ssuussttaaiinnaabbiilliittyy oonn pprrooffiitt tthhee ffiieelldd rreellaatteedd pprroodduuccttss

TToo maaxxiimiizzee rreesseeaarrcchh aanndd TToo miinniimiizzee tthhee TToo miinniimiizzee tthhee TToo maaxxiimiizzee TToo miinniimiizzee tthhee ddeevveellooppmeenntt iimppaacctt oonn tthhee ooppeerraattiinngg ccoosstt rreevveevveennuuee iinnvveessttmeenntt rriisskk oonn nneeww eennvviirroonnmeenntt iinnnnoovvaattiioonnss

TToo eennhhaannccee TToo eennhhaannccee tthhee TToo maaxxiimiizzee tthhee TToo maaxxiimiizzee tthhee TToo iinnccrreeaassee kknnoowwlleeddggee TToo miinniimiizzee TToo maaxxiimiizzee tthhee tteessttiinngg ooff nneeww aaddooppttiioonn ooff uussaaggeess ooff ssaalleess oonn sshhaarriinngg eexxcceessss wwaassttee eexxppaannssiioonn ssuussttaaiinnaabbllee ssuussttaaiinnaabbllee nnaattuurraall CCuurraaccaaoo aanndd bbeettwweeeenn ssttrreeaamss ppoossssiibbiilliittiieess ppoossssiibbiilliittiieess tteecchhnnoollooggiieess rreessoouurrcceess ssuurrrroouunnddiinnggss ccoomppaanniieess

Figure B-4: Objective tree Food & Good

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 90 Value focused thinking

BlueTourism

TToo mmaaxxiimmiizzee pprrooffiitt wwiitthh ttoouurriissttiicc aattttrraaccttiioonnss

TToo iinnccrreeaassee tthheeiirr mmaarrkkeett TToo mmiinniimmiizzee TToo mmaaxxiimmiizzee sshhaarree aass aa ccoossttss ooff rreevveennuuee ttoouurriissttiicc ooppeerraattiioonnss aattttrraaccttiioonn

TToo mmaaxxiimmiizzee tthhee TToo mmaaxxiimmiizzee tthhee MMiinniimmiizzee TToo mmiinniimmiizzee tthhee ttoouurriissttiicc ddeevveellooppmmeenntt ooff MMaaxxiimmiizzee ssaalleess ooppeerraattiioonnaall iinnvveessttmmeenntt ccoosstt aattttrraaccttiivveenneessss tthheeiirr pprroodduuccttss ccoossttss

Figure B-5: Objective tree BlueTourism

Green World

TToo mmaaxxiimmiizzee tthhee ccoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn ooff tthhee eennvviirroonnmmeenntt

TToo mmiinniimmiizzee TToo iinnccrreeaassee iimmppaacctt oonn tthhee ssuussttaaiinnaabbllee eennvviirroonnmmeenntt iinn ddeevveellooppmmeenntt SSIIDDSS

MMiinniimmiizzee tthhee TToo mmiinniimmiizzee tthhee TToo eennhhaannccee TToo mmaaxxiimmiizzee TToo mmiinniimmiizzee tthhee TToo iinnccrreeaassee iimmppaacctt ooff iimmppaacctt ooff tthhee aawwaarreenneessss bbeenniiggnn iinniittiiaattiivveess dduummppiinngg ooff rreesseeaarrcchh oonn eemmiissssssiioonnss oonn wwaassttee ssttrreeaammss aammoonngg tthhee ffoorr tthhee ccoommmmeerrcciiaall aanndd ssuussttaaiinnaabbllee ccoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn oonn fflloorraa aanndd ppooppuullaattiioonn oonn eennvviirroonnmmeenntt ooff iinndduussttrriiaall wwaassttee ddeevveellooppmmeenntt aarreeaass ffaauunnaa ssuussttaaiinnaabbiilliittyy SSIIDDSS

Figure B-6: Objective tree Green World

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis B-1 Objective trees 91

Newnovative

TToo iinnccrreeaassee tthhee iimmaaggee ooff tthhee ccoommppaannyy

TToo mmaaxxiimmiizzee tthhee TToo mmaaxxiimmiizzee TToo mmaaxxiimmiizzee iittss aavvaaiillaabbiilliittyy ooff tthhee TToo mmaaxxiimmiizzee tthhee ppoossssiibbllee jjoobb sscciieennttiiffiicc kknnoowwlleeddggee bbyy tthhiirrdd qquuaalliittyy ooff eedduuccaattiioonn ooppppoorrttuunniittiieess ffoorr ccoonnttrriibbuuttiioonn ppaarrttiieess ssttuuddeennttss

TToo iinnccrreeaassee tthhee TToo iinnccrreeaassee tthhee TToo mmaaxxiimmiizzee ffuunnddss TToo iinnccrreeaassee tthhee iinnvvoollvveemmeenntt ooff iinnvvoollvveemmeenntt iinn ffrroomm tthhee tteecchhnnoollooggyy ffaaccttoorr ooff ssttuuddeennttss iinn rreesseeaarrcchh rreenneewwaabbllee eenneerrggyy ggoovveerrnnmmeenntt tthhee ccoommppaannyy pprroojjeeccttss ddeevveellooppmmeennttss

Figure B-7: Objective tree Newnovative

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 92 Value focused thinking

Table B-1: Issue definition

Important objective Defined Reason issue To maximize profit from Business cli- For FlyFast it suffice in generating profit from the surrounding land mate the abundant land, and increase the attrac- tiveness of business. Thus, the business cli- mate encompasses most of their objectives. To maximize benefits Self- This objective consists of food production, for SIDS sustainability and self-sufficiency through an ocean eco- park. Therefore self-sustainability includes part of the goals of EcoOcean. This one is considered most important, as it is their first ocean ecopark, and especially this part is the essence of an ocean ecopark, and this concept is what they transfer to other locations. To enhance high skill Employment The main statements of the government focus job and training possi- on employment possibilities, so logically this bilities issue is defined for this actor. To maximize profit Economic For firms the most important aspects, besides business case other goals, is the financial side, is it a prof- itable venture. To maximize the touris- Tourism The main activity of BlueTourism is focussed tic attractiveness on creating a touristic attraction, so for the ocean ecopark it is assumed that this is for them the most important issue. To minimize impact Environmental Green World primes focus lies on the coral on the environment in impact reef protection and making this somewhat SIDS broader to protect nature areas on SIDS. To maximize its scien- R&D Providing new possibilities for the tenants to tific contribution enhance the efficiency and processes to utilize the water

B-2 Issue definition

The issues cover the most important objectives in the objective trees per actor. The defined issues are checked on the suggested requirements of Timmermans (2004). Economic business case Essential: Tenants will not place new facilities, or start new businesses, at a place where the prospect for profit (the economic business case) is not satisfactory. The same applies to the project developer/initiator who would like to receive a certain pay-back for its investments. Although not only economic considerations are important for the establishment of new busi- ness, it is one of the core considerations. Controllable: A favourable subsidy or grant, or making agreements related to the sharing of the operating costs are means for actors to influence this issue. The latter can concern the sharing of a waste treatment facility, which reduce the investment costs and have a positive

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis B-2 Issue definition 93 impact on the business case. Complete: The economic perspective on this project is related to the profit an actor perceives. This includes the costs it will make, and the expected revenue based on market prospects. Measurable: If needed, this issue can be measured by defining it in monetary units. This shows what the effect is of an action of an actor on the business case, and can present the favourable alternatives. Operational: Market research and cost estimates one can assess the business case of an alter- native. Decomposable: The market potential can be influenced by promotion or price differentia- tions, the cost can be influenced by agreements or choosing different requirements of the used material, and the risk can be negated with insurance or other agreements. Non-redundant: Redundancy could be present between the business case and the business climate, but clear differences are defined. The business case focus on the internal aspects and considerations of an actor, while the business climate relates to the environment the ecopark behaves in. Concise and understandable: this definition shows that the focus is on the economic and financial aspect of the project. Employment Essential: Qualified employees are needed for the tenants to execute their operations. From a social perspective it is also important that there are sufficient job possibilities, and related education possibilities, for the population. Controllable: Tenants are able to hire new employees for their operations and dependent on which tenants are willing and ‘admitted’ to the ecopark by the project developers more or less jobs can be created. Besides this, the government can create legislation stating a minimum percentage of jobs for the local population, and stimulate this. Lastly, research activities have the advantages of creating high qualified jobs for the local community (Bonham, Burnett, & Cintina, 2012). Complete: This issue encompasses the amount of jobs created by the ecopark, and the related knowledge and level of education to perform the required jobs. Measurable: The amount of jobs created by this initiative can be measured in fulltime- equivalents, and the level of education can be measured by the required level for the employees. Operational: Tenants can deliver this information to show how many employees they have and what is required of them. Decomposable: As already shown the amount of jobs and required education level are to sub-issues and can also be influenced by the actors, although mostly these can be seen as interrelated. Non-redundant: Some relationship is present between jobs and the research and development issue. To make a clear distinction between both and diminish the redundancy between both issues, the issue concerning R&D is purely related to the innovation part. Concise and understandable: the definitions are scoped on the level and amount of jobs, summarized as employment. R&D Essential: The development of knowledge is important for every business. It determines if new possibilities can be found to further aid the ocean ecopark in their strive for synergy and sustainability. Controllable: actors can reserve money for their research activities, and stimulating measure

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 94 Value focused thinking can be given for new innovations. Further, the ocean ecopark can have facilities that stimulate creativity to facility the R&D. Complete: It encompasses all the efforts made, and facilities, for the development of knowl- edge, research and innovations. Measurable: One can measure the amount of patents that are requested. This indicates if new innovations are being developed. Operational: When patents are requested this is noted by the authority, where information on this issue can be collected. Decomposable: Sub-issues could be the knowledge sharing between actors, their investments, new patents, etc. Each one of these can be influences by one or more of the issues. Non-redundant: no new redundancies are present, that have not already been mentioned. Concise and understandable: this issue represents the efforts made to develop new innovations and clearly shows this from its definition.

Self-sustainability Essential: As a SIDS most of the products bought are imported from other countries. This is an expensive venture and leads SIDS vulnerable for price and quantity fluctuations. Cur- rently producing their own is not possible, due to the harsh climate on SIDS. Potentially an ocean ecopark could contribute to the solution, by making it possible to grow crops op SIDS. For EcoOcean this is important as this is part of the success of an ocean ecopark, from their perspective. The government is stimulating internal food production, but has not generated the potential that is there on SIDS. Controllable: With the construction and exploration of an ocean ecopark, more products could be produced for the internal market. This however depends on how favourable the conditions are on SIDS, and if tenants are willing to sell it on SIDS. Complete: Encompassed in this issue is not only the food production, but also alignment of production and demand on SIDS. If an ocean ecopark produced product A, but present demand requires product B, the ocean ecopark still not fulfils the internal market, and there- with does not contribute to the self-sufficiency of SIDS. It also encompasses the independence in producing these products, where the idealistic goal is self-autonomy. Measurable: One can measure how much products are imported and exported for the whole island of SIDS, and also the percentage the ocean ecopark contributes to this. Based on this number, one can assess if the ocean ecopark contributes to the self-sustainability. Operational: Currently there is data on import and export, and if necessary data can be gathered for the ocean ecopark. Decomposable: A sub-issue would be the internal market, which can be influenced by for ex- ample the government. Another sub-issue is the production of food, which can be influenced by tenants or Bluerise. Non-redundant: The only interaction that could be found between another issue is with the economic business case. As there tenants decide if the economic perspective, including de- mand, for their operations is positive. This slightly influence the self-sufficiency, although self-sufficiency is broader that one of the smaller issues of economic business case. Concise and understandable: By stating self-sustainability instead of self-sufficiency the fo- cus is not only on the production towards the need of SIDS but also to create these products independent of other islands, by using the resources present on the island. Business climate

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis B-2 Issue definition 95

Essential: for the ocean ecopark business need to be attracted to the island, and this can be achieved by an attractive business climate. Controllable: actors have the possibility to influence the legal system, influence the decisions for favourable taxes and therewith influence the business climate. Although some parts are not that easy to influence, think of the legal system, which takes many years, other smaller resources can also help to create an attractive business climate. Complete: the relevant aspects are the regulatory and legislative environment and how easy it is to start up and if other favourable conditions can be added to the system. Measurable: one can measure how many businesses are establishing themselves on the loca- tion compared to earlier years. Operational: this information can be derived from the issues permits for business. Decomposable: as already mentioned many sub-issues influence the business climate and each one of those can also be influenced by the actors. Non-redundant: no redundancy is present between the business climate and the business case, this as the business climate focus on the environment, while the business case is within a business. Concise and understandable: business climate is often used as definition to address the sur- rounding environment conditions in which businesses can behave.

Environmental impact Essential: the impact of an initiative on the environment is always of importance, especially when environmental interest groups are involved. The environmental aspect need to be con- sidered, especially for the acceptance of the project, but also for the image in which the ecopark strives for a sustainable reputation. Controllable: multiple arrangements can be taken by tenants, operator, or government to influence the waste stream, pollution or impact on the nature. Complete: it involves every hinder that is produced by the ocean ecopark for environment (flora and fauna) and humans. Measurable: the amount of pollutants can be measured, just as the hindrance of noise, smell and waste from the ocean ecopark. Operational: if needed these variables can be measured by an independent entity. Decomposable: as already mentioned many sub-issues influence the environmental impact and each one of those can also be influenced by the actors. Non-redundant: slight redundancy is present between self-sustainable and environmental im- pact. As it can occur that self-sustainable requires green solutions and more synergy, which has its effect on the environmental impact. Still attention should be given to the impact of these decisions, and that is done with the definition of this issue. Concise and understandable: to avoid obscure word uses, this issue is defined as environmen- tal impact, instead of sustainability, to show the focus on the impact of the operations, rather than the process. Tourism Essential: for islands tourism is one of prime economic drivers. Therefore it is essential when operating on an island to also consider this issue. Controllable: actors can promote their activities, create guiding tours, or make it an icon place on SIDS. Complete: tourism involves all the activities with and around tourism.

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 96 Value focused thinking

Measurable: the amount of money brought in by tourism can be measured, to determine the effect of this initiative, or the increase of tourist is a measure. Operational: one can require this information by the obtained from governments. Decomposable: sub-issues are the amount of promotion, the attractiveness for persons, extra tourist, etc. Non-redundant: no new redundancy is present. Concise and understandable: in one word the issue is described.

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis Appendix C

Analytic Hierarchy Process

The Analytic Hierarchy Process uses pairwise comparisons between the issues to define the interest of the actors (dividing 100% per actor) and between actors to define the control over issues they possess (dividing 100% per issue) (Saaty, 1990). The presented graphs show the pairwise comparison per actor or issue, with their related weight (interest weight or control weight), and their consistency ratio. The interest weight and control weight are used to complete the interest and control matrix in chapter six for the exchange model. The mathematics behind these calculations are derived and presented in Ragsdale (2008).

C-1 Analytic Hierarchy Process for the interest matrix

FlyFast

EconomicEmployment businessR&D case Self-sustainabilityBusinessEnvironmental climateTourism impactInterest distribution Economic business case 1 0,33 5 4 0,13 1 0,33 0,10 Employment 3 1 5 4 0,33 2 0,33 0,15 R&D 0,2 0,2 1 1 0,14 0,25 0,2 0,03 Self-sustainability 0,25 0,25 1 1 0,13 0,5 0,14 0,04 Business climate 8 3 7 8 1 3 1 0,33 Environmental impact 1 0,5 4 2 0,33 1 1 0,12 Tourism 3 3 5 7 1 1 1 0,24 Sum 1 Consistency ratio 0,07

Figure C-1: Analytic Hierarchy Process for FlyFast

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 98 Analytic Hierarchy Process

EcoOcean

EconomicEmployment businessR&D case Self-sustainabilityBusinessEnvironmental climateTourism impactInterest distribution Economic business case 1 7 4 2 0,33 1 8 0,22 Employment 0,143 1 0,33 0,33 0,17 0,17 0,25 0,03 R&D 0,25 3 1 0,5 0,5 0,25 4 0,09 Self-sustainability 0,5 3 2 1 0,5 1 5 0,14 Business climate 3 6 2 2 1 1 5 0,25 Environmental impact 1 6 4 1 1 1 8 0,22 Tourism 0,125 4 0,25 0,2 0,2 0,13 1 0,04 Sum 1 Consistency ratio 0,08

Figure C-2: Analytic Hierarchy Process for EcoOcean

Department ED

EconomicEmployment businessR&D case Self-sustainabilityBusinessEnvironmental climateTourism impactInterest distribution Economic business case 1 0,17 0,5 0,2 0,2 1 0,2 0,04 Employment 6 1 3 2 1 6 1 0,25 R&D 2 0,33 1 0,13 0,2 0,33 0,5 0,05 Self-sustainability 5 0,5 8 1 1 4 2 0,23 Business climate 5 1 5 1 1 2 1 0,19 Environmental impact 1 0,17 3 0,25 0,5 1 0,5 0,07 Tourism 5 1 2 0,5 1 2 1 0,16 Sum 1 Consistency ratio 0,06

Figure C-3: Analytic Hierarchy Process for Department ED

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis C-1 Analytic Hierarchy Process for the interest matrix 99

Food & Good

EconomicEmployment businessR&D case Self-sustainabilityBusinessEnvironmental climateTourism impactInterest distribution Economic business case 1 8 0,5 7 0,33 2 4 0,20 Employment 0,125 1 0,2 0,33 0,17 0,25 0,33 0,03 R&D 2 5 1 4 1 3 7 0,27 Self-sustainability 0,143 3 0,25 1 0,2 0,25 2 0,06 Business climate 3 6 1 5 1 2 3 0,26 Environmental impact 0,5 4 0,33 4 0,5 1 6 0,14 Tourism 0,25 3 0,14 0,5 0,33 0,17 1 0,05 Sum 1 Consistency ratio 0,08

Figure C-4: Analytic Hierarchy Process for Food & Good

BlueTourism

EconomicEmployment businessR&D case Self-sustainabilityBusinessEnvironmental climateTourism impactInterest distribution Economic business case 1 5 2 7 3 4 1 0,27 Employment 0,2 1 0,33 2 0,5 1 0,14 0,05 R&D 0,5 3 1 3 1 3 0,17 0,12 Self-sustainability 0,143 0,5 0,33 1 0,33 1 0,13 0,04 Business climate 0,333 2 1 3 1 1 0,25 0,09 Environmental impact 0,25 1 0,33 1 1 1 0,25 0,06 Tourism 1 7 6 8 4 4 1 0,36 Sum 1 Consistency ratio 0,03

Figure C-5: Analytic Hierarchy Process for BlueTourism

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 100 Analytic Hierarchy Process

Green World

EconomicEmployment businessR&D case Self-sustainabilityBusinessEnvironmental climateTourism impactInterest distribution Economic business case 1 0,2 0,13 0,11 1 0,11 1 0,03 Employment 5 1 0,25 0,2 3 0,17 4 0,09 R&D 8 4 1 3 6 0,5 6 0,24 Self-sustainability 9 5 0,33 1 5 0,25 7 0,18 Business climate 1 0,33 0,17 0,2 1 0,11 5 0,05 Environmental impact 9 6 2 4 9 1 8 0,38 Tourism 1 0,25 0,17 0,14 0,2 0,13 1 0,03 Sum 1 Consistency ratio 0,09

Figure C-6: Analytic Hierarchy Process for Green World

Newnovative

EconomicEmployment businessR&D case Self-sustainabilityBusinessEnvironmental climateTourism impactInterest distribution Economic business case 1 0,14 0,17 0,5 0,5 1 3 0,06 Employment 7 1 1 4 7 3 6 0,32 R&D 6 1 1 4 6 2 5 0,29 Self-sustainability 2 0,25 0,25 1 3 1 5 0,11 Business climate 2 0,14 0,17 0,33 1 1 3 0,07 Environmental impact 1 0,33 0,5 1 1 1 5 0,11 Tourism 0,333 0,17 0,2 0,2 0,33 0,2 1 0,03 Sum 1 Consistency ratio 0,06

Figure C-7: Analytic Hierarchy Process for Newnovative

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis C-2 Analytic Hierarchy Process for the control matrix 101

C-2 Analytic Hierarchy Process for the control matrix

Economic business case

FlyFast EcoOceanDepartmentFood ED & GoodBlueTourismGreen WorldNewnovativeControl distribution FlyFast 1 0,5 1 0,33 4 5 2 0,14 EcoOcean 2 1 2 0,25 5 6 3 0,20 Department ED 1 0,5 1 0,2 0,33 3 3 0,10 Food & Good 3 4 5 1 3 8 5 0,37 BlueTourism 0,25 0,2 3 0,33 1 3 1 0,10 Green World 0,2 0,17 0,33 0,13 0,33 1 0,33 0,03 Newnovative 0,5 0,33 0,33 0,2 1 3 1 0,07 Sum 1 Consistency ratio 0,10

Figure C-8: Analytic Hierarchy Process for Economic business case

Employment

FlyFast EcoOceanDepartmentFood ED & GoodBlueTourismGreen WorldNewnovativeControl distribution FlyFast 1 0,17 0,25 0,11 1 1 0,33 0,05 EcoOcean 6 1 2 1 1 6 1 0,22 Department ED 4 0,5 1 0,5 5 4 1 0,18 Food & Good 9 1 2 1 3 4 1 0,24 BlueTourism 1 1 0,2 0,33 1 1 1 0,09 Green World 1 0,17 0,25 0,25 1 1 0,2 0,05 Newnovative 3 1 1 1 1 5 1 0,17 Sum 1 Consistency ratio 0,08

Figure C-9: Analytic Hierarchy Process for Employment

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 102 Analytic Hierarchy Process

R&D

FlyFast EcoOceanDepartmentFood ED & GoodBlueTourismGreen WorldNewnovativeControl distribution FlyFast 1 1 0,17 0,14 1 0,25 0,17 0,05 EcoOcean 1 1 1 0,33 3 0,2 0,5 0,09 Department ED 6 1 1 0,17 0,5 0,25 0,25 0,08 Food & Good 7 3 6 1 4 1 0,5 0,24 BlueTourism 1 0,33 2 0,25 1 0,25 0,25 0,06 Green World 4 5 4 1 4 1 1 0,24 Newnovative 6 2 4 2 4 1 1 0,25 Sum 1 Consistency ratio 0,10

Figure C-10: Analytic Hierarchy Process for R&D

Self-sustainability

FlyFast EcoOceanDepartmentFood ED & GoodBlueTourismGreen WorldNewnovativeControl distribution FlyFast 1 0,14 0,13 0,5 0,5 1 1 0,06 EcoOcean 7 1 1 1 4 5 3 0,25 Department ED 8 1 1 0,5 2 5 3 0,23 Food & Good 2 1 2 1 4 3 1 0,21 BlueTourism 2 0,25 0,5 0,25 1 3 0,33 0,08 Green World 1 0,2 0,2 0,33 0,33 1 0,17 0,04 Newnovative 1 0,33 0,33 1 3 6 1 0,14 Sum 1 Consistency ratio 0,09

Figure C-11: Analytic Hierarchy Process for Self-sustainability

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis C-2 Analytic Hierarchy Process for the control matrix 103

Business climate

FlyFast EcoOceanDepartmentFood ED & GoodBlueTourismGreen WorldNewnovativeControl distribution FlyFast 1 3 0,14 6 3 0,25 4 0,14 EcoOcean 0,333 1 0,2 2 1 0,17 4 0,07 Department ED 7 5 1 7 5 2 6 0,37 Food & Good 0,167 0,5 0,14 1 0,5 0,2 1 0,04 BlueTourism 0,333 1 0,2 2 1 0,17 4 0,07 Green World 4 6 0,5 5 6 1 5 0,27 Newnovative 0,25 0,25 0,17 1 0,25 0,2 1 0,04 Sum 1 Consistency ratio 0,08

Figure C-12: Analytic Hierarchy Process for Business climate

Environmental impact

FlyFast EcoOceanDepartmentFood ED & GoodBlueTourismGreen WorldNewnovativeControl distribution FlyFast 1 0,33 0,25 0,17 1 0,17 0,25 0,04 EcoOcean 3 1 3 0,5 3 1 1 0,16 Department ED 4 0,33 1 0,2 4 0,33 1 0,10 Food & Good 6 2 5 1 7 1 0,33 0,24 BlueTourism 1 0,33 0,25 0,14 1 0,17 0,2 0,04 Green World 6 1 3 1 6 1 3 0,24 Newnovative 4 1 1 3 5 0,33 1 0,19 Sum 1 Consistency ratio 0,09

Figure C-13: Analytic Hierarchy Process for Environmental impact

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 104 Analytic Hierarchy Process

Tourism

FlyFast EcoOceanDepartmentFood ED & GoodBlueTourismGreen WorldNewnovativeControl distribution FlyFast 1 2 1 1 0,33 4 7 0,17 EcoOcean 0,5 1 0,25 2 0,33 1 5 0,09 Department ED 1 4 1 7 1 8 9 0,30 Food & Good 1 0,5 0,14 1 0,13 0,5 1 0,05 BlueTourism 3 3 1 8 1 5 6 0,30 Green World 0,25 1 0,13 2 0,2 1 2 0,06 Newnovative 0,143 0,2 0,11 1 0,17 0,5 1 0,03 Sum 1 Consistency ratio 0,07

Figure C-14: Analytic Hierarchy Process for Tourism

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis Appendix D

The exchange model code in Excel

C = control matrix

– = Input!D6 : J12

X = interest matrix

– = Input!P 6 : V 12

C’ = transpose C

– D2 : J8 = {= T RANSP OSE(Input!D6 : J12)}

CX = multiplying C with X

– D14 : J20 = {MMULT (D2 : J8; Input!P 6 : V 12)}

XC = multiplying X with C

– D22 : J28 = {MMULT (Input!P 6 : V 12; Calculation!D2 : J8)}

actors = amount of actors in the system

– C11

issus = amount of issusin the system

– C12

Iact = identity matrix of size # actors

– Manually added, as there is no specific code in Excel for this function; D30 : J36

Iiss = identity matrix of size # issues

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 106 The exchange model code in Excel

– Manually added, as there is no specific code in Excel for this function; N30 : T 36

En = square matrix with elements 1/actors

– D38 : J44 = 1/$C$11, etc.

Em = square matrix with elements 1/issues

– N38 : T 44 = 1/$C$12, etc.

−1 r = power vector; r = (Iact − CX + En) en1

– Iact − CX + En; D46 : J52 = D31 − D15 + D39, etc. −1 – (Iact − CX + En) ; D54 : J60 = {= MINVERSE(D46 : J52)}

– en1; D62 : D68 = 1/$C$11, etc. −1 – (Iact − CX + En) en1; D70 : J76 = {MMULT (D54 : J60; D62 : D68)}

−1 v = value vector; v = (Iiss − CX + Em) em1

– (Iiss − CX + Em); N46 : T 52 = N31 − N15 + N39, etc. −1 – (Iiss − CX + Em) ; N54 : T 60 = {= MINVERSE(N46 : T 52)}

– em1; N62 : T 68 = 1/$C$12, etc. −1 – v = (Iiss − CX + Em) em1; N70 : T 76 = {MMULT (N54 : T 60; N62 : T 68)}

Dr = matrix with zeros, and r on the diagonal – D78 : J84 = copy D70 : D76 on the diagonal, and complete the matrix of size actors x actors with zeroes.

Dv = matrix with zeros, and v on the diagonal – N78 : T 84 = copy N70 : T 76 on the diagonal, and complete the matrix of size issues x issues with zeroes.

∗ 0 −1 C = equilibrium control, by DrX Dv – X0 = transpose X; D86 : J92 = {= T RANSP OSE(Input!P 6 : V 12)} 0 – DrX = D94 : J100 = {= MMULT (D78 : J84; D86 : J92)} −1 – Dv = inverse Dv; N94 : T 100 = {= MINVERSE(N78 : 784)} 0 −1 – DrX Dv = D102 : J108 = {= MMULT (D94 : J100; N94 : T 100)} ∗ 0 −1 C = transpose DrX Dv ; D110 : J116 = {= MMULT (D94 : J100; N94 : T 100)}

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis Appendix E

Sample results

This appendix gives extra insight in the sample results, chapter seven. It depicts the depen- dency matrices and the demand of control matrix in the first section. The second section is an elaborative overview of all the bilateral interactions (exchanges) between actors, as is presented by the potential for exchange graph in figure 7-3.

Dependencies of actors (= CX x 100)

FlyFast EcoOceanDepartmentFood ED & GoodBlueTourismGreen WorldNewnovativeTotal FlyFast 11 13 25 14 13 15 9 100 EcoOcean 10 15 20 20 8 16 11 100 Department ED 9 17 23 17 11 11 12 100 Food & Good 9 13 18 20 8 18 13 100 BlueTourism 12 14 20 19 16 10 9 100 Green World 6 16 14 22 6 18 18 100 Newnovative 6 16 16 22 8 14 17 100 Total 63 103 137 134 70 103 89 Figure E-1: Dependency matrix for actors

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 108 Sample results

Dependencies of issues (= XC x 100)

EconomicEmployment business R&Dcase Self-sustainabilityBusiness climateEnvironmentalTourism impactTotal Economic business case 16 14 11 14 8 12 14 90 Employment 9 13 14 13 16 13 14 92 R&D 16 17 22 15 13 20 10 113 Self-sustainability 9 12 12 13 16 13 12 88 Business climate 23 19 15 20 17 16 18 128 Environmental impact 14 14 19 14 17 19 11 110 Tourism 11 10 8 10 13 7 20 80 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Figure E-2: Dependency matrix for issues

Demand for control (= Cd x 100)

FlyFast EcoOceanDepartmentFood ED & GoodBlueTourismGreen WorldNewnovativeTotal Economic business case 8 -6 4 7 -11 -1 0 0 Employment -5 18 -18 20 5 -5 -15 0 R&D 3 1 2 -8 -1 2 2 0 Self-sustainability 3 9 -13 12 5 -18 2 0 Business climate -2 -14 16 -24 2 23 -2 0 Environmental impact -3 -5 1 7 0 -11 10 0 Tourism -2 3 2 -4 -1 2 -1 0 Total 1 6 -6 9 -1 -7 -2

Figure E-3: Demand for control matrix

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis 109

FlyFast and EcoOcean FlyFast and Department ED Economic business case 6,1 0,0 Economic business case 0,0 0,0 Employment 0,0 5,4 Employment 0,0 0,0 R&D 0,0 0,0 R&D 0,0 0,0 Self-sustainability 0,0 0,0 Self-sustainability 3,2 0,0

Business climate 0,0 0,0 Business climate 0,0 2,3 Environmental impact 0,0 0,0 Environmental impact 0,0 1,3 Tourism 0,0 2,2 Tourism 0,0 2,0 6,1 7,6 3,2 5,6 Potential 6,1 Potential 3,2

FlyFast and Food&Good FlyFast and BlueTourism Economic business case 0,0 0,0 Economic business case 7,5 0,0 Employment 0,0 5,4 Employment 0,0 5,4 R&D 2,7 0,0 R&D 1,3 0,0 Self-sustainability 0,0 0,0 Self-sustainability 0,0 0,0

Business climate 0,0 0,0 Business climate 0,0 2,3 Environmental impact 0,0 2,6 Environmental impact 0,0 0,0 Tourism 0,0 0,0 Tourism 0,0 0,0 2,7 8,0 8,8 7,7 Potential 2,7 Potential 7,7 FlyFast and Green World FlyFast and Newnovative Economic business case 0,6 0,0 Economic business case 0,0 0,0 Employment 0,0 0,0 Employment 0,0 0,0 R&D 0,0 0,0 R&D 0,0 0,0 Self-sustainability 3,2 0,0 Self-sustainability 0,0 0,0 Business climate 0,0 2,3 Business climate 0,0 0,0 Environmental impact 0,0 0,0 Environmental impact 0,0 2,6 Tourism 0,0 2,2 Tourism 0,0 0,0 3,7 4,5 0,0 2,6 Potential 3,7 Potential 0,0 EcoOcean and Department ED EcoOcean and Food&Good Economic business case 0,0 3,7 Economic business case 0,0 6,1 Employment 18,1 0,0 Employment 0,0 0,0 R&D 0,0 0,0 R&D 0,7 0,0 Self-sustainability 8,9 0,0 Self-sustainability 0,0 0,0 Business climate 0,0 13,7 Business climate 0,0 0,0 Environmental impact 0,0 1,3 Environmental impact 0,0 4,7 Tourism 0,0 0,0 Tourism 3,0 0,0 27,1 18,6 3,7 10,8 Potential 18,6 Potential 3,7

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 110 Sample results

EcoOcean and BlueTourism EcoOcean and Green World Economic business case 0,0 0,0 Economic business case 0,0 0,0 Employment 0,0 0,0 Employment 5,1 0,0 R&D 0,7 0,0 R&D 0,0 0,0 Self-sustainability 0,0 0,0 Self-sustainability 8,9 0,0

Business climate 0,0 2,4 Business climate 0,0 13,7 Environmental impact 0,0 0,0 Environmental impact 0,0 0,0 Tourism 0,9 0,0 Tourism 0,0 0,0 1,6 2,4 14,1 13,7 Potential 1,6 Potential 13,7 EcoOcean and Newnovative Department ED and EcoOcean Economic business case 0,0 0,1 Economic business case 0,0 0,0 Employment 14,7 0,0 Employment 0,0 18,1 R&D 0,0 0,0 R&D 1,6 0,0 Self-sustainability 0,0 0,0 Self-sustainability 0,0 11,8 Business climate 0,0 0,0 Business climate 16,3 0,0 Environmental impact 0,0 4,7 Environmental impact 0,0 0,0 Tourism 0,6 0,0 Tourism 2,0 0,0 15,3 4,8 19,9 29,9 Potential 4,8 Potential 19,9 Department ED and BlueTourism Department ED and Green World Economic business case 3,7 0,0 Economic business case 0,6 0,0 Employment 0,0 5,5 Employment 0,0 0,0 R&D 1,3 0,0 R&D 0,0 0,0 Self-sustainability 0,0 4,6 Self-sustainability 0,0 0,0 Business climate 0,0 0,0 Business climate 0,0 0,0 Environmental impact 0,2 0,0 Environmental impact 1,3 0,0 Tourism 0,9 0 Tourism 0,0 0,0 6,1 10,1 1,9 0,0 Potential 6,1 Potential 0,0 Department ED and Newnovative Food&Good and BlueTourism Economic business case 0,0 0,0 Economic business case 6,5 0,0 Employment 0,0 0,0 Employment 0,0 0,0 R&D 0,0 0,0 R&D 0,0 0,0 Self-sustainability 0,0 2,2 Self-sustainability 0,0 0,0 Business climate 1,6 0,0 Business climate 0,0 2,4 Environmental impact 0,0 0,0 Environmental impact 0,2 0,0 Tourism 0,6 0,0 Tourism 0,0 0,0 2,2 2,2 6,8 2,4 Potential 2,2 Potential 2,4

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis 111

Food&Good and Green World Food&Good and Newnovative Economic business case 0,6 0,0 Economic business case 0,0 0,0 Employment 5,1 0,0 Employment 14,7 0,0 R&D 0,0 2,0 R&D 0,0 2,2 Self-sustainability 11,8 0,0 Self-sustainability 0,0 0,0

Business climate 0,0 22,8 Business climate 0,0 0,0 Environmental impact 6,6 0,0 Environmental impact 0,0 0,0 Tourism 0,0 2,3 Tourism 0,0 0,0 24,1 27,0 14,7 2,2 Potential 24,1 Potential 2,2 BlueTourism and Green World BlueTourism and Newnovative Economic business case 0,0 0,0 Economic business case 0,0 0,1 Employment 5,1 0,0 Employment 5,5 0,0 R&D 0,0 1,3 R&D 0,0 1,3 Self-sustainability 4,6 0,0 Self-sustainability 0,0 0,0 Business climate 0,0 0,0 Business climate 1,6 0,0 Environmental impact 0,0 0,0 Environmental impact 0,0 0,2 Tourism 0,0 0,9 Tourism 0,0 0,0 9,8 2,2 7,0 1,6 Potential 2,2 Potential 1,6 Green World and Newnovative Economic business case 0,0 0,1 Employment 0,0 0,0 R&D 0,0 0,0 Self-sustainability 0,0 2,2 Business climate 1,6 0,0 Environmental impact 0,0 10,2 Tourism 0,6 0,0 2,2 12,5 Potential 2,2

Figure E-4: Potential bilateral exchanges per two actors

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 112 Sample results

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis Appendix F

Validation

This appendix focuses on substantiating the validation of the conceptualized exchange model. The conclusions of the validation checks are discussed in chapter eight. In sequence the mathematical validation, statistical conclusion validity, construct validity and internal validity are debated. The books of Coleman (1990) and Shadish, Cook and Campbell (2002) are applied for the validation. Mathematical validation reviews the correct mathematical implementation of the exchange model. Statistical conclusion validity argues the sensitivity and susceptibility of the input of the parameters and their effect on the interpretation of the results. Construct validity relates how well observations of the real-life system are translated to the design, in other words, is the model appropriate for the situation. Internal validity assesses the influence of a factor on another factor by means of a causal relation or correlation in a given environment, it defines the correctness of the components defined for the model.

F-1 Mathematical validation

The mathematical implementation of the exchange model is checked by means of face validity and mathematical tests to conclude the correctness of the excel code. Face validity In this model there are some common rules that should be fulfilled; one is for example the restrictions posed on the control matrix, see equation 5-2. The equilibrium control matrix should also comply with this restriction. Table 13 shows that also within this new competitive situation, there is no control loss or abundant control found in the model. The same amount of control, 1 per issue, is still present within the system. Similarly, the control distributed among the actors should be zero or higher than zero. The competitive state also complies with this restriction. As a last face validity check is if the utility is increased by this system, if an actor has exchanged control. All actors have exchanged control in this system, and as

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 114 Validation can be derived from table 15, everyone’s utility is increased. This is also one of the basic assumptions of the model. Mathematical review Coleman formulated several formulas in his book to derive the power and value vector, and equilibrium control matrix C∗. This means that similar outcomes should be derived, inde- pendently of the usages of C or C∗. In the exchange model mathematics the power vector is −1 −1 calculated with v = (I − XC + Em) em1 and r = (I − CX + En) en1. Another proposition if made by Coleman, namely that r = CXr,and v = XCv. Normally, these formulas cannot be used, due to lack of information on r and v. When calculated both it gives a validation check for the mathematical sequence. It shows that in both cases the formulas give identical answers, see figure F-1.

r = CXr 0,09 0,09 0,09 0,09 0,09 0,09 0,09 r 0,09

0,15 0,15 0,15 0,15 0,15 0,15 0,15 0,15 0,19 0,19 0,19 0,19 0,19 0,19 0,19 0,19 0,19 0,19 0,19 0,19 0,19 0,19 0,19 0,19 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,15 0,15 0,15 0,15 0,15 0,15 0,15 0,15 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13

v = XCv 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 v 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,16 0,16 0,16 0,16 0,16 0,16 0,16 0,16 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,18 0,18 0,18 0,18 0,18 0,18 0,18 0,18 0,16 0,16 0,16 0,16 0,16 0,16 0,16 0,16 0,11 0,11 0,11 0,11 0,11 0,11 0,11 0,11 Figure F-1: Mathematical validation power and value vector

Coleman also presents the following formula to calculate the value vector, based on the control and equilibrium control matrix.

(C − C∗)0(C − C∗)v = 0 (F-1)

Calculating this based on the input of the case study leads to only small deviations around zero.

(C-C*)'(C-C*)v -0,00 -0,00 -0,00 -0,00 -0,00 -0,00 -0,00 -0,00 -0,00 -0,00 -0,00 -0,00 -0,00 -0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 -0,01 -0,01 -0,01 -0,01 -0,01 -0,01 -0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 -0,00 -0,00 -0,00 -0,00 -0,00 -0,00 -0,00

Figure F-2: Mathematical checks proposed by Coleman

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis F-1 Mathematical validation 115

In an article of Van der Lei and Herder (2011) the control, interest and equilibrium control matrix. This information is used as a last way to prove that the implementation of the mathematics is correctly performed. It shows, from the results in figure F-5, that almost similar results are derived when comparing both equilibrium control matrices.

Calculated C* Nat gov Prov gov Mun gov Prov council Mun council Water Board Inhab Habi Total Multifunctional green heart 0,24 0,28 0,10 0,13 0,06 0,10 0,02 0,07 1,00 Water storage 0,21 0,33 0,11 0,12 0,06 0,09 0,02 0,07 1,00 Presitge 0,19 0,31 0,08 0,11 0,05 0,14 0,02 0,10 1,00 Security and Continuity 0,13 0,20 0,09 0,12 0,10 0,09 0,20 0,07 1,00 Process objectivity 0,12 0,19 0,09 0,18 0,06 0,09 0,19 0,07 1,00 Process transparency 0,12 0,19 0,09 0,18 0,06 0,09 0,19 0,07 1,00 Respect for landscape 0,15 0,24 0,11 0,15 0,07 0,03 0,23 0,02 1,01 A supported solution 0,19 0,18 0,08 0,19 0,10 0,08 0,15 0,03 1,00 Water management 0,13 0,21 0,10 0,13 0,06 0,19 0,11 0,07 1,00 Housing 0,16 0,25 0,22 0,16 0,08 0,03 0,03 0,09 1,01 Successful learning process 0,15 0,24 0,11 0,15 0,07 0,11 0,03 0,15 1,01 Total 1,81 2,62 1,20 1,62 0,77 1,04 1,19 0,80

Figure F-3: Calculated equilibrium control, based on input from Van der Lei and Herder (2011)

C* from Van der Lei Nat gov Prov gov Mun gov Prov council Mun council Water Board Inhab Habi Total Multifunctional green heart 0,24 0,26 0,14 0,12 0,06 0,10 0,02 0,07 1,01 Water storage 0,21 0,33 0,11 0,11 0,06 0,09 0,02 0,07 1,00 Presitge 0,19 0,31 0,09 0,11 0,05 0,14 0,02 0,10 1,01 Security and Continuity 0,14 0,19 0,10 0,12 0,10 0,10 0,19 0,07 1,01 Process objectivity 0,13 0,18 0,09 0,18 0,06 0,09 0,18 0,07 0,98 Process transparency 0,13 0,18 0,09 0,18 0,06 0,09 0,18 0,07 0,98 Respect for landscape 0,16 0,23 0,12 0,14 0,07 0,02 0,23 0,02 0,99 A supported solution 0,19 0,17 0,09 0,19 0,10 0,09 0,15 0,03 1,01 Water management 0,14 0,20 0,10 0,12 0,06 0,18 0,11 0,07 0,98 Housing 0,17 0,24 0,21 0,15 0,08 0,03 0,03 0,09 1,00 Successful learning process 0,16 0,23 0,11 0,14 0,07 0,12 0,03 0,15 1,01 Total 1,86 2,52 1,25 1,56 0,77 1,05 1,16 0,81

Figure F-4: Equilibrium control, derived from Van der Lei and Herder (2011)

Difference Nat gov Prov gov Mun gov Prov council Mun council Water Board Inhab Habi Total Multifunctional green heart 0,00 -0,02 0,04 -0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 Water storage 0,00 0,00 0,00 -0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Presitge 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 Security and Continuity 0,01 -0,01 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,01 -0,01 0,00 0,01 Process objectivity 0,01 -0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 -0,01 0,00 -0,02 Process transparency 0,01 -0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 -0,01 0,00 -0,02 Respect for landscape 0,01 -0,01 0,01 -0,01 0,00 -0,01 0,00 0,00 -0,02 A supported solution 0,00 -0,01 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,01 Water management 0,01 -0,01 0,00 -0,01 0,00 -0,01 0,00 0,00 -0,02 Housing 0,01 -0,01 -0,01 -0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 -0,01 Successful learning process 0,01 -0,01 0,00 -0,01 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 Total 0,05 -0,10 0,05 -0,06 0,00 0,01 -0,03 0,01

Figure F-5: Difference in own work and already conducted exchange models

These reflections on the code shows that the mathematics is correctly programmed in excel to derive valuable results from the calculation.

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 116 Validation

F-2 Threats to statistical conclusion validity

Obtaining the parameters needed for the exchange model can be subject to interpretation issues and opportunistic behaviour. The first aspect is the susceptibility of different inter- pretations of the control and interest distribution. A second aspect, strategic behaviour, is researched for its effect if actors deliberately misstate their interest and control. Other conceptualizations of the system Team members of Bluerise are also asked to complete the matrices. Within their attempt to fill in the matrices, the actors are kept in a general level to conclude how well it is capable of harnessing valuable insight on that level. The output of the first team member shows a high value and power for the issues economic business case (21%), business climate (19%), and R&D (19%) and the actors project initiator (19%) and project developer (25%). This leads to a situation where everyone is very dependent on the project developer, and most potential exchanges are present when including the project initiator. The environmental interest groups and the government gain most of this competitive situation. The other team member has valued the economic business case and employment as important issues. With this interpretation of the system the government and the tenants are important players, which lead logically to a high dependency on both parties. The environmental interest groups and other initiatives have limited control compared to the other parties, and play a small role in the potential for exchange in this system.

Interest matrix (= X x 100)

Project initiatorProject developerGovernmentalFirm agencyOther initiativeEnvironmentalKnowledge interest instituteTotal group Economic business case 26 29 10 23 23 6 8 124 Employment 15 9 31 7 7 6 8 84 R&D 11 17 16 23 23 6 39 134 Self-sustainability 9 9 11 6 6 15 8 64 Business climate 19 17 8 28 28 6 22 127 Environmental impact 8 10 8 6 6 57 8 103 Tourism 12 10 17 6 6 6 8 64 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Figure F-6: System interpretation team member A

The main differences can be detected about the control of the project initiator and the project developer against the government and the tenants. The first team member values the first two actors, as they possess ground, operate it and define strategies for it (indirect control)

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis F-2 Threats to statistical conclusion validity 117

Control matrix (= C x 100)

Project initiatorProject developerGovernmentalFirm agencyOther initiativeEnvironmentalKnowledge interest instituteTotal group Economic business case 15 30 10 18 17 6 6 102 Employment 13 25 14 20 14 6 8 100 R&D 11 24 10 16 12 7 20 100 Self-sustainability 13 19 22 13 11 11 11 100 Business climate 31 20 14 11 10 7 7 100 Environmental impact 19 31 9 9 9 9 9 95 Tourism 33 23 10 9 9 8 10 102 Total 135 172 89 96 82 54 71

Equilibrium (= C* x 100)

Project initiatorProject developerGovernmentalFirm agencyOther initiativeEnvironmentalKnowledge interest instituteTotal group Economic business case 24 35 6 16 14 2 4 100 Employment 24 18 32 8 7 3 7 100 R&D 11 22 10 18 15 2 21 100 Self-sustainability 20 25 15 10 9 12 9 100 Business climate 20 23 5 21 18 2 12 100 Environmental impact 13 21 8 8 7 37 7 100 Tourism 24 25 21 9 8 4 8 100 Total 135 169 97 90 77 63 68 where the second team member values the direct control of the tenants and government a lot. Besides these differences the economic business case is higher valued by both team members, which leads to a decrease of the importance of the environmental impact. Logically a different interpretation of the system, with different interest and control distributions, leads to a different competitive equilibrium control. Therefore the focus lies here on why those interpretations are different. The difference in important actors can be attributed to the definition of control. Has the project developer control over environmental impact by stating rules of entry for new tenants, or do the tenants have control by realizing this impact on

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 118 Validation

Potential exchanges (= p x 100)

Project initiatorProject developerGovernmentalFirm agencyOther initiativeEnvironmentalKnowledge interest institute group Economic business case 0 5 9 10 8 6 5 Employment 5 0 8 2 2 9 1 R&D 9 8 0 9 8 2 3 Self-sustainability 10 2 9 0 0 2 0 Business climate 8 2 8 0 0 4 0 Environmental impact 6 9 2 2 4 0 3 Tourism 5 1 3 0 0 3 0 Total 44 26 39 24 21 27 12

Interest matrix (= X x 100)

Project initiatorProject developerGovernmentalFirm agencyOther initiativeEnvironmentalKnowledge interest instituteTotal group Economic business case 21 30 10 34 8 6 10 119 Employment 13 10 38 5 8 11 18 103 R&D 8 9 5 14 8 11 41 96 Self-sustainability 40 14 18 9 8 23 9 121 Business climate 7 7 7 18 39 5 7 90 Environmental impact 6 27 5 18 8 40 12 116 Tourism 6 3 16 4 22 6 4 61 Total 101 100 99 102 101 102 101

Figure F-7: System interpretation team member B the environment? Although this stipulates the need for a clear definition of control, it also clarifies a debating point to the different interpretations that are present. It also substantiates the decision for a specific case study. In Curaçao the environmental interest groups are considered, by the desk research, an important party. It shows that when generalizing this actor it becomes less important. Thus using the generalized information for the specific case of Curaçao, could have wrongfully neglected the need and/or importance of the environmental

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis F-2 Threats to statistical conclusion validity 119

Control matrix (= C x 100)

Project initiatorProject developerGovernmentalFirm agencyOther initiativeEnvironmentalKnowledge interest instituteTotal group Economic business case 7 15 23 37 5 4 9 100 Employment 8 17 32 30 6 4 4 101 R&D 7 11 18 24 4 3 33 100 Self-sustainability 10 16 24 31 7 9 4 101 Business climate 5 6 52 12 5 5 14 99 Environmental impact 9 13 18 24 2 13 21 100 Tourism 15 14 44 9 3 4 11 100 Total 61 92 211 167 32 42 96

Equilibrium (= C* x 100)

Project initiatorProject developerGovernmentalFirm agencyOther initiativeEnvironmentalKnowledge interest instituteTotal group Economic business case 9 21 15 46 2 2 7 100 Employment 6 8 61 7 2 4 13 101 R&D 5 9 11 28 3 5 40 101 Self-sustainability 21 12 33 15 2 9 7 100 Business climate 5 9 18 42 16 3 8 101 Environmental impact 3 25 10 32 3 16 11 100 Tourism 6 5 55 13 12 4 6 101 Total 56 89 201 183 40 43 92 interest groups. Similar the project initiator can have different roles in specific locations; one can also imagine the project initiator being the same as the project developer for some cases. Thus, it stipulates the importance of a specific assessment and a clear definition of the actors who are involved. Strategic behaviour by actors The exchange model assumes rationality and self-interest among the actors. If this is the case each actor tries to adjust its behaviour to the actions another player can take to be better off (Schelling, 1960). This is defined as strategic behaviour, where the actors gain knowledge

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 120 Validation

Potential exchanges (= p x 100)

Project initiatorProject developerGovernmentalFirm agencyOther initiativeEnvironmentalKnowledge interest institute group Economic business case 0 4 2 11 7 2 2 Employment 4 0 17 0 3 2 14 R&D 2 17 0 32 8 0 5 Self-sustainability 11 0 32 0 0 0 13 Business climate 7 3 8 0 0 1 9 Environmental impact 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 Tourism 2 14 5 13 9 0 0 Total 28 40 64 55 28 6 43

Table F-1: Different value and power interpretations

Value vector (= v x 100) Team member A Team member B Economic business case 21 20 Employment 12 18 R&D 19 13 Self-sustainability 9 16 Business climate 19 11 Environmental impact 11 15 Tourism 10 8 100 101

of the competitive equilibrium and try to use this information to influence their personal gain, and thereby could affect the collective gains (Hermans & Cunningham, 2013). Four experiments are conducted to analyse the impact of strategic behaviour on changes in their own utility, the overall utility and the potential for exchange.

The first experiment focusses on overestimating the interest of Green World for environmental impact (by a factor two) to ensure that they would receive sufficient control over this issue. It shows that this strategic behaviour is not beneficial for Green World to execute. In the second experiment BlueTourism behaves indifferent about their interest in the issues, as they do not want to show their position. This proves to be a negative action for BlueTourism, without having impact on the utility of the system. Thirdly, EcoOcean wants to strengthen their positon and ideas by overstating their resources. This proves to be a very useful strategy, as more resources mean more potential for exchange. The impact is that all the other actors are worse of in this system. The last experiment shows the impact of underestimating your resources in an attempt to gain more control over favourable issues. In this theoretical case it

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis F-3 Threats to construct validity 121

Power vector (= r x 100) Team member A Team member B FlyFast 19 8 EcoOcean 25 14 Department ED 12 29 Food & Good 14 26 BlueTourism 12 5 Green World 7 6 Newnovative 10 13 100 101

Table F-2: Experimentation with strategic behaviour

Initial situation Exp. 1 Exp. 2 Exp. 3 Exp. 4 Green World utility 146% 106% BlueTourism utility 113% 88% EcoOcean utility 127% 211% Food & Good utility 153% 150% Overall utility 125% 120% 122% 124% 127% Potential for exchange 129 108 125 121 141 is argued that Food & Good states they only possess half of their actual control over economic business case. The outcome of this behaviour shows that almost no changes are made in their utility.

F-3 Threats to construct validity

Hermans and Thissen (2009, p. 810) state in their work five steps that are: “the requirements that actor analysis methods should meet”.

1. Insight in the multi actor situation; 2. Focus on the relevant component(s) of the actor situation; 3. The method can be reproduced by performing the detailed modelling sequence; 4. Has proven benefits in past applications; 5. The modelling sequence has been validated by authoritative persons.

The first two steps are ensured by means of a comprehensive upfront analysis. It is ensured that the correct components are further modelled, and that they are represented by a logical actor analysis method. From the elaboration in chapter five the resources are identified as most important for this situation. Bluerise is solely an integrator in this system, as is shown in chapter ten. One could argue that expectancy, and confounding constructs pose a threat to the construct validity (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002). This means that actors can adjust their input

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 122 Validation based on what is expected of them. For example an environmental interest group immediately states its preferences for the environmental interest groups, solely as it is expected of this actor to do so. To cope with this a small sensitivity analysis is conducted to identify the impact of adjusting ones interest or control. Sensitivity analysis For the purpose of this analysis, four parameters (two in the control matrix and two in the interest matrix) are subject to a sensitivity analysis, where the rest of the parameters remain the same. Due to time constraints only most doubtful statements, as considered by the policy analyst, are subject to this analysis. Important to consider is that both matrices are subject to mathematical constraints, equation 5-3. Implication of this is that when changing one parameter, the other parameters are adjusted proportionally to still fulfil to these restrictions. The four statements are tested with @Risk6 over 1000 iterations; graphs are displayed in appendix H:

• The control of EcoOcean over the economic business case;

• The control of Newnovative over R&D;

• The interest of the Department of Economic Development in employment;

• The interest of Green World in R&D.

The control of EcoOcean over the economic business case Doubtful is what the actual capabilities of EcoOcean are, as they are operating the ocean ecopark but tenants are using it. To illustrate this, the control of the economic business case is slightly adjusted, according a normal distribution with a mean of 0.2 and a standard deviation of 0.02. Most bilateral interactions also transform to a normal distribution and do not show extraordinary behaviour. The two most important interactions are between EcoOcean and the Department ED, and with Green World. The interaction with Green World remains rather stable under the influence of this distribution, as only a small part of their exchanges are based on the economic business case issue. The interaction with the Department only increases due to this changing the parameters. The reason for this is that here the economic business case is not at all involved in the exchange potential. It shows that the model is not sensitive for slight increases and decreases of this statement. The control of Newnovative over R&D The Newnovative is identified as a player with limited capabilities. It could overestimate its control over R& D, as it might believe it is expected from a university to have capabilities on this issue. Similar to the other sensitivity analysis, changing this parameter with plus and minus 10% does not diminish the amount of potential exchanges. For the interaction with Green World and the FlyFast only increases in the potential exchange are given as statistical possibilities. The total potential for exchange is also not very sensitive for a deviation in this parameter. The interest of the Department of Economic Development in employment The direction of the government is subject to the political party in power. Currently the focus

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis F-4 Threats to internal validity 123

Table F-3: Validation of issues

Resources-issues Objectives-issues Knowledge R&D Establishment of economic activity Business climate Financial aspect Economic business case Products produced by the ecopark Self-sustainability RES and environmental impact Environmental impact Attractiveness for population Tourism Jobs and education Employment Water stream and synergy

is on employment, but with another political party in power this could change. Most potential exchanges change according to changes of the parameter. Only the interaction between the Newnovative and the Department ED show a more divided outline. Where one might expect that the changes remain within the 10%, here the changes are more than 30%. Although it is an interaction with limited potential, it is highly sensitive for the influence of the parameter. Similar behaviour is found within the interaction between the Department ED and FlyFast. The interest of Green World in R& D For Green World they are considered an authority on the field of ocean research. Impact of this is that they behave accordingly to this expectation. Here all potential exchanges show a robust behaviour for changes in this parameter. As example; the bilateral interaction between Green World and Food & Good changes less (only 1%), where the parameter is changed with 10%.

F-4 Threats to internal validity

Where previous section gave attention to the correct model, this section defines if the correct components of the model are identified. Ambiguous Temporal Precedence For the model, where a causal relationship is assessed, it is important that the precedence is formulated correctly (Shadish et al., 2002). Transposing this for this purpose, the issues (defined by using the objectives) should be able to be influenced by the resources. Although this is already very briefly done in appendix C, a more elaborative assessment can give more insight in the validation. To confirm if the correct issues are identified, the issues are formu- lated from a resource perspective. The resource interdependency graph in appendix A is used to independently identify common causes among these resources; encircled by an identical colour. These issues are compared with the issues defined with value-focussed thinking to find discrepancies between both, in table F-3. Comparing the list of issues, only one discrepancy is identified. The other issues, although somewhat different formulated, cover the same load as their significant other. For example the ‘financial aspect’ covers the same definition as the ‘economic business case’, as both focuses on the profit that is made for an actor. The discrepancy is the extra issue ‘water stream and synergy’ identified by this validation.

Master of Science Thesis Rick Oudshoorn 124 Validation

This additional issue is not added to the exchange model for the following reasons. First, the issues are defined at a generic aggregation level. Actos can give their own interpretation of an issue. Synergy is considered a sub-issue of self-sustainability, and perhaps also environmental impact. The model should provide room for personal interpretations of these issues. Secondly, the need for synergy is not necessarily a goal, and rather a means. The configuration of the ocean ecopark is currently not known. Therefore the design could become where only one tenant uses all the water, and thus no synergy is present. To not constrain the potential designs this issue is not included in the model. Selection The selection of the actors can potentially be a threat to the exchange model. If important actors are ignored throughout the process, their valuable input is neglected (Shadish et al., 2002). When applying this method into new a location not all actors can be involved in the design process (De Bruijn & Ten Heuvelhof, 2008). Bear in mind, the involvement of actors is always based on the subjectivity of the problem owner, or the facilitator. A potential solution is to let other actors identify the important actors. In the case study the actors are validated by backwards analysing the model. Per issue it is checked which actors it influenced and if a newly identified actor should be added to the model. The local population is a potential actor that is influenced by the ocean ecopark design, especially regarding the issue employment and tourism. For the case of Curaçao, it is argued that there interest at this point are well represented by the other actors (especially by the Department ED, and the environmental interest groups). Involving the local population besides these actors could tilt the playing field in favour of their interest. Although the importance of the local population should not be neglected, they do not possess sufficient resources to create value for the ocean ecopark. Testing A well-known issue with exchange modelling is the learning effect of the actors. When con- ducting this method a second time or testing it different results could arise, due to these learning effects as actors learn from their own preferences and the preferences of other actors. In Timmermans and Beroggi (2000), an advantage of using exchange modelling in an inter- active setting was the learning and interaction between the actors to understand the overall situation and to create trust. Dependent on the goal of this model this could be a wanted or an unwanted side-effect. Based on the found literature, no identification was given to the impact of these learning effects. In the next chapter, strategic behaviour among the actors is assessed to research the effect of deliberately using learning effects for their own benefit. Instrumentation Dependent in what manner this method is conducted among the participants, the results can differ. In an interactive setting with clear visualization, the participants are more committed to the process and are willing to state their preferences, and gain more from the process. Issues can be addressed immediately, while basing the method on desk research and limited involvement of the actors can lead to different results. Recommended is to use an interactive workshop setting when deriving results, as this stimulates discussions among the actors and immediately can address important discussion points. In chapter nine a proposed set-up for such a workshop is presented.

Rick Oudshoorn Master of Science Thesis