Stakeholder responses to future flood management ideas in the Rhine River Basin: nature or neighbour in Hell’s Angle

Abstract

This article identifies responses of stakeholders to future management of the Rhine River Basin, notably to the plan Rhine In The Future. This plan foresees the construction of a bypass between the rivers Rhine and IJssel, the Green River. The Green River would be a nature reserve area that can be flooded during high water discharges. The inhabitants of the area would be permanently relocated. Their defence of stakes will be coloured by patterns of acting and thinking that belong to respectively postmodernity, modernity and pre-modernity. These different colourings show in negotiation skills, levels of organisations, alertness, power positions, and access to local and outside resources. Most local stakeholders appreciate the postmodern environmentalism that leads to the greening of river management, but regret the loss of their strong, pre-modern, social cohesion. Whereas they consider national interests in a rather balanced way, they doubt the necessity of the bypass for safety reasons. They have confidence in financial compensations for relocation, but will negotiate about these compensations with skill and determination. Their tactics will be reinforced by collective efforts that stem from their social cohesion.

Full text

Stakeholder responses
to future flood management
ideas in the Rhine River Basin:
nature or neighbour in Hell’s Angle
Peter E. van der Werff
Summary This article identifies responses of
stakeholders to future management of the Rhine
River Basin, notably to the plan Rhine In The Future.
This plan foresees the construction of a bypass
between the rivers Rhine and IJssel, the Green River.
The Green River would be a nature reserve area that
can be flooded during high water discharges. The
inhabitants of the area would be permanently
relocated. Their defence of stakes will be coloured by
patterns of acting and thinking that belong to
respectively postmodernity,modernity and pre-
modernity. These different colourings show in
negotiation skills, levels of organisations, alertness,
power positions, and access to local and outside
resources. Most local stakeholders appreciate the
postmodern environmentalism that leads to the
greening of river management, but regret the loss of
their strong, pre-modern, social cohesion. Whereas
they consider national interests in a rather balanced
way, they doubt the necessity of the bypass for safety
reasons. They have confidence in financial
compensations for relocation, but will negotiate
about these compensations with skill and
determination. Their tactics will be reinforced by
collective efforts that stem from their social
cohesion.
Keywords Stakeholders ÆFloods ÆRiver basin
management ÆNaturisation ÆPostmodernity Æ
Modernity ÆPre-modernity
Introduction
This article concerns responses of stakeholders who live
in an envisaged wetland in the upstream River Rhine,
east of the city of Arnhem. Here, ideas for the creation
of a major wetland are launched that would serve the
joint purpose of being a retention basin, a bypass during
high water discharges, a nature conservation area, and
an attractive place for recreational activities. As the
wetland would be entirely inundated at intervals of 5–10
years, the residents in the area would have to be relo-
cated. Notably the population of the hamlet of Helhoek,
literally Hell’s Angle, would be affected. The study aims
at responses of local stakeholders to the far-reaching
management ideas.
Proposals for the creation of a large wetland are not
limited to this area alone. In the Netherlands it is widely
recognised that changes in the physical environment are
putting more pressure on the river system and require a
far-reaching shift in water management. Basically two
management approaches are being discussed here that
are actually part of wider constellations in society and
are usually labelled as modernity and postmodernity. The
modern approach is found in the presently implemented
flood plain policies and will be briefly reviewed and
illustrated below. The postmodern approach will be fur-
ther elaborated as it guides, among other things, the
radical ideas for future river basin management under
study here.
In abstract terms, attention is given to modernity as a
wide set of established patterns of thought and behav-
iour, and postmodernity as a number of social trends,
understood as ongoing changes in patterns of thought
and behaviour. These trends may or may not result in
more fixed, established, institutionalised patterns of
thought and behaviour. Moreover, it is relevant to look
at the interactions between modern established patterns
One professor says ‘it will be dryer’, the other one says ‘it will be
wetter’.
We all have mobile telephones so we know it when the water
comes.
The social cohesion of this community will be lost forever.
When you’re not bought out you’ll be the real victim.
We like to have a nature reserve area around here.
Received:13 October 2003 / Accepted: 15 April 2004
Published online: 10 June 2004
ªSpringer-Verlag 2004
P. E. van der Werff (&)
Institute for Environmental Studies,
Vrije Universiteit, 1081 HV Amsterdam,
The Netherlands
E-mail: werff@ivm.vu.nl
DOI 10.1007/s10113-004-0073-z Reg Environ Change (2004) 4:145–158 145
Original article

and postmodern trends. Such interactions take place
between actors or organisations, as well as within the
heads of individual actors or within organisations.
Finally, the research is facing gradual and radical shifts
that occur from modern patterns to postmodern trends,
and from these trends to institutionalised patterns of
postmodern thought and action.
The main postmodern feature that penetrates water man-
agement is the trend of naturisation, as it is locally called. It
aims at preserving or restoring natural habitats, replenish
groundwater stocks and benefit recreation. Simultaneously,
it contributes to reducing flood risk. As such, it provides a
means of adapting to sea level rise, higher river water
discharges, soil subsidence, and increased density of flood
plain habitation—all regarded as serious problems that
threaten safety in the Netherlands.
However, the trend of naturisation is not only a logical
response to these physical changes, but also a part of the
gradual shift in thinking, from modernity to postmoder-
nity. This shift has generated a number of ideas about
reconstructing the Rhine and Meuse River basins (Minis-
terie van Verkeer en Waterstaat 2000). One prominent idea
concerns the creation of the wetland bypass between the
rivers Rhine and IJssel for the joint purpose of diversion
and retention of excess water, and the conservation of
wetland nature.
This so-called Green River would also bring the periodic
submersion or isolation of farms, households and busi-
ness firms. Notably, the population of the hamlet of
Helhoek would need to be entirely relocated. Like other
localities in the envisaged Green River area and else-
where, the hamlet is known for its strong social cohesion
that would be lost if the relocation would take place.
This social cohesion can be regarded as part of pre-
modernity.
The present research found a complex set of frequently
changing relationships between pre-modern, modern and
postmodern elements in the Green River area, of which the
outcomes may very well determine the future river basin
plans and measures. The article describes how these dif-
ferent elements and interactions create opportunities for
actors to explore and exploit opportunities, and are
sources of conflict and complication.
The next section reviews the three domains of post-
modernity,modernity and pre-modernity in abstract
terms, and applies these to water management in the
Netherlands. The section ‘River Management Options’
describes a modern and a postmodern river management
option and stakeholder reactions at the national level.
The next section ‘The Green River’ provides details of
the local Green River plan as part of the national post-
modern option. The section ‘Stakeholder Responses’
describes stakeholder reactions to the Green River plan
with an emphasis on pre-modern elements. The section
‘Dealing with conflicts’ depicts conflicting views and
interests among local and national stakeholders
concerning the Green River plan, mostly on the basis
of experiences with earlier infra-structural works in
the area. Finally the section ‘Conclusions’ provides
conclusions and recommendations.
Modernity, postmodernity
and pre-modernity in river basin
management
Postmodernity, modernity, and pre-modernity
The trend of postmodernisation increasingly affects our
thought and action in technology, economy, management,
and recreation. In paraphrasing and citing a leading
author about the subject, David Harvey (1989), this moves
away from modernity with its emphasis on the search for
mastery of a physical area as a totality by deliberately
designing a closed form and constructing ‘once-and-for-
all’ solutions. Postmodern planners tend to consider long-
term processes, and view these as rather uncontrollable,
full of uncertainty, or even chaotic—as processes in which
anarchy and change are ‘playing’ in open situations.
What emerges is the norm of seeking out pluralistic and
organic strategies in approaching reality as a collage of
differentiated spaces and mixtures, rather than pursuing
grandiose plans based on functional, separate zoning of
activities. This shift coincides with a denunciation of the
reductionist Enlightenment worldview and its perceived
powers of universally applicable science and technology. It
rather entails a reorientation towards more openness,
flexibility and intuition as the basis for decision-making
and implementation (Harvey 1989; Toulmin 1992).
Postmodernity, as a noticeable shift in sensibility, prac-
tices and discourse formations (Huyssens 1984), can be
regarded as modernity taking a critical look at it self
although criticism of modernity is far from new itself
(Bauman (1992). Additionally, Ulrich Beck (1992) prefers
to position criticism of modernity not so much as post-
modern but rather as late modern. He deems modernity
able to regain control over major environmental problems
by upholding and institutionalising its reflexive exercises.
However, critics find Beck’s argument that absolute con-
trol can be gained over such processes as the emissions of
pollutants and toxins too impractical (Riddle 1998).
Broad circles in society aim an increased scrutiny of the
modern belief system. A first core element of this belief
system is the priority of instrumental rationality encap-
sulated in the reductionist worldview, earlier indicated as
the Cartesian or mechanistic worldview. A second element
in the set of modern beliefs is the conviction that progress
is imperative and based on individual freedom and self-
realisation. A third element is the idea of history as the
linear development that occurred in Western Europe and
would set the example for other societies in the World
(Brand 1999:631–635).
In these societies, where pre-modernity is seen to domi-
nate, people have remarkably close-knit communities
based on personalised relationships. Such types of rela-
tionships can be called many-stranded (Wolf 1966)
because of the inclusion of many aspects in the relation-
ship between two people. They deliberately contribute to
mutual care, social control and a large number of volun-
tary associations. Another pre-modern element is that local
knowledge tends to be stored not only in documents and
146 Reg Environ Change (2004) 4:145–158
Original article

stories, but also in behavioural patterns, making it difficult
to change quickly but contributing to whatever behaviour
has been proven to be beneficial for environmental sus-
tainability. Yet another pre-modern element is that envi-
ronmental management is not so much in the hands of
national rulers as left to the experienced care of local
communities (van der Werff 2001).
The three domains in water management
Like in other sectors, also in water management there is
now a gradual shift from modernity towards postmoder-
nity visible, including a diversion of power away from the
nation-state and towards localisation and internationali-
sation. Modern river basin planners looked for monolithic
‘once-and-for-all’ projects, with the nation-state as the
power centre having total control. Nature was supposed to
be conquered. Examples of modern water management in
the Netherlands are the IJsselmeer Works, with the large-
scale reclaiming of land from the Zuiderzee, an inland sea,
and the Delta works that were aimed at saving the province
of Zeeland from seawater floods for all times.
Postmodern river basin planners, on the other hand, tend
to consider long-term processes and wider contexts. They
appreciate natural features and acknowledge the physical
environment as rather uncontrollable in the long run.
There is a shift from technocratically devised, state-con-
trolled projects to flexible, integrative, nature-conserving
projects, with power shifting to civil society, local
authorities, and international bodies (see also Table 1).
More appreciation emerges of organic, dynamic, unpre-
dictable life in both society and nature (Harvey 1989).
The rise of environmental awareness itself may even
spring from postmodernity. According to some, the rise of
environmentalism does not so much relate to objectively
measured deterioration of the physical environment,
including climate change, but rather to contemporary
changes in thinking and acting that stem from social
sources. More precisely, the upcoming trend of environ-
mentalism is seen as an ‘integral part of the transformation
of the cultural experience of space and time in the con-
ditions of postmodernity’ (Brand 1999).
Environmentalism in the Netherlands has led to the trend
of naturisation. It emphasises the need for returning as
much as possible to original natural situations. It attempts
to integrate hard core technology and economy with soft
biology and environmentalism. It stimulates the flexible
integration of societal segments such as politics, govern-
mental organisations, civil society and the private sector. It
is part of the tendency towards more balance and inter-
action between top-down, authoritarian thinking and
bottom-up, democratic thinking. Naturisation invites for
comprehensive and flexible styles of analysis, policy
making and implementation.
The trend of naturisation facilitates integrative thinking
about hitherto separately treated functions of the river
basins, such as flood safety, drinking water supply, fish-
eries, agriculture, residence, recreation and transport. It
has generated a number of concepts about reconstruction
of the Dutch river basins, including for the creation of
so-called green rivers as retention basins and bypasses
(Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2000). The idea for
aGreen River east of Arnhem, between the rivers Rhine
and IJssel, is a one of them.
Remarkably, for naturisation planners it is not difficult to
see the value of social cohesion in villages such as Helhoek.
Apart from wide differences, both pre-modernity and
postmodernity pursue integration, through acknowledging
the interacting forces of both natural elements and social
elements. Whereas the trend towards naturisation keeps
defending technological and economic interests along with
applying high standards for safety, it adds the restoring or
safeguarding of organic unity in the physical environment.
This addition would contribute to the viability of the
nature-society systems in the long run.
River management options
The modern option
Adequate safety measures retain the highest priority in the
Netherlands. A prominent project aiming at such safety is
still modern in approach. It is being launched as Room for
Rivers (Ruimte voor Rivieren). It is devised in a top-down
way by technocratic centres at the national level. It joins in
with the policy of reinforcing of existing dikes during the
1990s and aims at deepening the flood plains that border
the summer course of rivers and removing constructions
that hamper the flushing of excess water.
The project Room for Rivers, then, regards the deepening
of flood plains with about two meters. The governmental
water management department Rijkswaterstaat favours
this plan and is now implementing it. The project is sup-
posed to increase substantially the water discharge
capacity and does not affect the land use pattern outside
the sparsely inhabited flood plains. It keeps societal
upheaval and political controversy reduced and therefore
precludes conflicts with civilians and politicians that offi-
cials tend to avoid.
Opponents to the Room for Rivers project claim that sil-
tation of the flood plains will continue which makes the
solution unsustainable. Moreover, still hundreds of houses
Reg Environ Change (2004) 4:145–158 147
Table 1
Analytical dimensions in water
management
Pre-modernity Modernity Postmodernity
International level Insignificant Isolated policies
of Nation-states
Treaties European
Union
National level Insignificant Authoritarian approach Interactive approach
Local level Responsibilities
of local bodies
Dependent on national
government
Co-responsibilities of
civil society
Original article

and other constructions would be inundated or have to
disappear (Rijkswaterstaat 1999; Agrarisch Dagblad 1999;
De Gelderlander 1999; De Volkskrant 1999; Trouw 1999).
A recent study found that costs for removing about 500
enterprises in the flood plains would take more then 700
million guilders (Metro 1999).
Another counter-argument to Room for Rivers is that the
project does not really tackle the phenomenon of high
river water levels in a comprehensive and environmentally
friendly way and is therefore unrealistic in the long run.
The safety of downstream areas in the western parts of the
country is seen to improve more if, in the event of high
discharge, floodwater can be temporarily diverted and
stored in eastern, upstream areas of the country and flu-
shed northward to the sea. Therefore, in this upstream
area, measures for local safety, storage and flushing have
to be combined.
The postmodern option
The modern thinking behind the project Ruimte voor
Rivieren is offset by the rise of postmodernity in Dutch
river basin management. It shows a number of trends of
which many have integration as a common denominator:
–Simultaneous consideration of short-term and long-
term perspectives.
–Simultaneous consideration of diverse parts and func-
tions of the physical environment.
–International collaboration.
–Collaboration between various governmental bodies.
–Collaboration between decision-makers and the pro-
viders of knowledge.
–Participation of the private sector and the civil society
in government domains.
This set of trends became evident in the international
conference on integrated water resources management
Living with Water (IAWQ, EWPCA and NVA 1994) and
the subsequent publications by Van Rooij and others in
European Water Pollution Control in 1995, 1996 and 1997.
Similar trends are visible in the rather far-reaching
approach for future river basin management called the
Green Option. The approach led to a broad plan to pro-
voke a discussion about profoundly different styles of
water management in the country. It was designed by the
research institute WL/Delft Hydraulics and launched under
the name Rijn op Termijn (Rhine In The Future) in 1998.
The plan starts out with the assumption that water dis-
charge levels in the long run could become higher then the
levels assumed by Rijkswaterstaat in justifying the self-
imposed limitations of the Room for Rivers flood plains
project. The designers of Rhine in the Future do
acknowledge that such higher discharge levels are very
uncertain. If they nevertheless come forward with their
plan it is notably to introduce a new type of thinking about
future river basin management.
This new, green, approach emphasises the importance of
interconnecting various physical elements of the river
basins. It considers interactions between surface water,
ground water, quantity and quality of these waters, soils
under and next to water-bodies, ecosystems in the river
basin, and the built environment. It provides ample space
for organic, self-regulatory dynamics in the river basin.
More practically, the Rhine in the Future plan envisages
changes throughout the Dutch Rhine Basin. Its main fea-
ture, though, is the reconstruction of the IJssel River that
branches off the Rhine in the upstream part of the country
towards the north. It suggests increased (2:7) channelling
of water through the IJssel and the development of
retention zones on agricultural land that can store flood-
water to either subside into the soil or be flushed later on.
See also Figs. 1, 2.
The arguments for the new role of the IJssel valley are
manifold. First, the alternative of channelling more excess
water through the flood plains of the river Rhine to the
downstream, western part of the country is more expen-
sive. The eastern part has more farmland, which is more
suitable for periodic flooding than the densely built wes-
tern part of the country. Second, the government aims at
decreasing the total acreage of farmlands already. Third,
the eastern provinces have in any case to deal with
increased flood risk and organise for storing and flushing
of excess water. Fourth, eastern ground water levels are
148 Reg Environ Change (2004) 4:145–158
Fig. 1
Current (left panel) and pro-
posed future (right panel) dis-
tribution of the Rhine’s peak
flow over its branches. The
5,000 m
3
/s branch is additional
and only used in times of high
water. It largely relies on an
earlier branch of the river. After:
Delft Hydraulics (1998)
Original article

lowering which creates increased shortages during sum-
mers. Fifth, wetlands and woods are planned that enrich
the natural quality. Sixth, the enriched nature will attract
additional tourists that benefit local trade.
First reactions to the postmodern option
The authors of Rhine in the Future emphasise that the
proposed project is environmentally very beneficial in the
long run but socially and politically difficult in the short
run. According to the public relations officer of the pro-
ject, it drew attention from government bodies, newspa-
pers, municipality administrators and interest groups (see
NRC Handelsblad 1998). In general, as one informant
states, civil servants find the plan too radical and hope that
during their term they don’t need to decide on such a far-
reaching affair. National politicians lend a better ear to the
plan and the Minister of Transport and Water has asked
three advisory committees to include the Rhine in the
Future plan in their studies.
Again according to the public relations officer, reactions to
the plan at the level of the IJssel region vary between
extremes. Provincial politicians are interested but want to
study the plan in detail before giving official statements
about it. Representatives of inland navigators reject the
plan because of reduced shipping possibilities on the
IJssel. Nature conservationist organisations, on the other
hand, strongly favour the turning of farms into lands and
waters that are rich in bio-diversity.
Residents and farmers tend to have the not in my backyard
(NIMBY) reaction, while asking why the poorer east
should bleed for the west with its higher prosperity and
political power centres located there. In addition, some
farmers oppose the idea of exposing their land to increased
flood risk, while others hope to receive ample compensa-
tions for giving up farming. On the other hand, as will be
described below, the field study shows that local stake-
holders are quite well aware of the need for public mea-
sures and their personal interests in these measures.
The feelings of concern, mistrust and outright opposition
are reinforced as the Rhine in the Future plan is designed
by physical scientists without prior stakeholder consulta-
tion, or attention paid to compensation arrangements. A
furious opponent of the plan is the mayor of the Twello
municipality, halfway along the IJssel River, who is also
chairman of all river municipalities in The Netherlands.
The designers of the plan will visit the Twello municipality
council in order to discuss environmental, societal and
financial details.
The Green River
The plan
At the detailed empirical level, the present research
included a field study undertaken among stakeholders
living in the eastern part of the province of Gelderland.
Here, in the area between Lobith at the River Rhine and
Doesburg at the River IJssel, the Rhine in the Future plan
envisages a major wetland that would function as a
by-pass and retention basin during high water discharges
in the River Rhine.
This area is essential for the success of the entire plan. A
large extension of the water volume flushing from the
River Rhine into the IJssel Valley is not possible at the
present point of branching off near Arnhem and Wester-
voort because of dense settlement directly bordering the
rivers. Yet, channelling much more water through the
IJssel is required to relieve the western part of the country.
Therefore, a new connection has been opted that bypasses
Arnhem and Westervoort and actually makes a shortcut
from the Rhine upstream to the IJssel downstream of these
urban settlements.
The bypass will be about 25 km long and about 2 km wide.
No channel will be dug out; excess water will just inundate
the area. Both existing and new dikes of 3–5 m high will
border the intended area. The bypass is not only meant for
the flow and retention of excess water, but also to function
as a nature reserve area or eco-corridor with an enriched
diversity of trees, plants, animals and micro-organisms.
This last function gives the intended bypass its name of
Green River.
Reg Environ Change (2004) 4:145–158 149
Fig. 2
The proposed bypass and
restructured IJssel River. The
light areas are currently flood-
safe, but will occasionally flood
in the proposed situation.
Source: Delft Hydraulics (1998)
Original article

The Green River starts close to the German border, near
the village of Spijk. It runs to the northwest and emits in
the IJssel near Giesbeek. The first part of this bypass is a
system of old riverbeds (strangen) of the Rhine, and
therefore called the Rijnstrangen area. After some pre-
liminary changes during the twentieth century, the Rijn-
strangen area was closed off from the Rhine by a dike near
Spijk in 1959 and preserved as a nature reserve with sparse
habitation. Farmers were bought out by nature conserva-
tion organisations and moved to Canada, USA, Portugal,
France, Germany and Poland.
Compared to other parts of the radical Rhine in the Future
plan, opening up the Rijnstrangen area for excess water
will not be too much of a problem. Some forty houses and
farmsteads will have to disappear or face the risk of
periodic inundation. Only minor roads cross the first part
of the Green River. During periods of inundation ferry
services would facilitate local transport.
Realising the second part of the Green River, however,
would be a major operation with serious consequences.
The water would have to cross a chain of villages and the
best place is in-between Zevenaar and Duiven, where the
Green River will affect the least number of inhabitants.
Nevertheless, here hundreds of families in and near the
hamlet of Helhoek would have to leave hearth and home
forever to give way for the Green River. The residents of
the outskirts of Zevenaar and Duiven will come to face new
dikes of 3–5 m high along the Green River.
Bridge or tunnel constructions will be needed for the
Green River to cross railways, the highway to Germany
and some local roads. Once flowing beyond this infra-
structure and the hamlet of Helhoek, the water will broadly
follow a streamlet and inundate sparsely populated farm-
lands before emitting into the IJssel River near Giesbeek.
Invasion of Helhoek
For the local residents the alternative of being evicted
would be to remain living in Helhoek with the risk of a
flood once in 5–10 years. Nuanced protective measures can
be taken in case the area around the houses is submerged.
However, submersions will not be the only things that
come to Helhoek. A number of large infra-structural
projects will be invading the locality. The national railway-
company (Nederlandse Spoorwegen) plans three railways
to pass through Helhoek in the near future. First, there is
the so-called Betuwelijn, a freightrailway to Germany that
is being constructed at present and will join the existing
railway in Zevenaar. It will come to run through a new
trench to reduce noise pollution for residents.
Second, the same railway trench may be broadened again
for the high-speed railway line between Amsterdam and
Cologne. Third, there is a plan to construct a northern
branch of the Betuwelijn that may come to run right on the
main street of Helhoek. Although the national government
officially cancelled this plan in 1999, at the provincial level
there are still forces that aim at continuing with it.
On top of that all, Rijkswaterstaat will broaden the high-
way to Germany that borders the north of Helhoek from
four to six lanes and construct a new highway from
southwest to northeast and connect that to the highway to
Germany.
Although plans like that of the northern branch of the
Betuwelijn may be reconsidered from time to time, some
of these plans will certainly be implemented. However,
these plans have no provisions to let the Green River by-
pass flowing over or under the intended constructions.
Yet, the Rhine in the Future plan, and therefore perhaps
the entire Rhine flood protection in the Netherlands in the
future, depends on the realisation of the Green River.
So, in order to realise Rhine in the Future, its protagonists
need to convince the powerful Nederlandse Spoorwegen
and Rijkswaterstaat of the importance of the plan. These
organisations will have to invest large amounts of money
not only to let the Green River cross the dry infrastruc-
tures, but also to build the Green River with sophisticated
technologies in order to accommodate the local population
and allow the conservation of nature in and around Hel-
hoek.
The authors of Rhine in the Future may find support
among the Gelderland provincial authorities, the Water-
board Rijn and IJssel, the municipalities involved, NGOs
for nature conservation, as well as the tourist business.
Over the heads of the Helhoek people, these probable
protagonists may have to negotiate with the Nederlandse
Spoorwegen and Rijkswaterstaat. But whatever result fol-
lows from their negotiations, the population of Helhoek is
going to face major interventions in the form of railway
and motorway constructions and, if the Green River is
realised, periodic submersion of the hamlet or a complete
relocation.
It is for these reasons that the following sections concen-
trate on how stakeholders in the envisaged Green River
area, and notably Helhoek, regard their coping with the
large infra-structural plans. The research has discussed the
plan with residents and other stakeholders who will be
most affected by its implementation. It sheds light on their
thinking of the future, including climate change, high
water levels, water management solutions and the distri-
bution of advantages and disadvantages.
Stakeholder responses
In my backyard
This section contains citations in spoken language that
indicate thinking of Green River stakeholders about how
to deal with future management alternatives. In the words
of Harriette Marshall, when writing about discourse
analysis, these texts are repertoires as culturally embedded
and socially communicated, shared systems of meanings,
or versions of cognitive processes, actions, policies and
other phenomena (1995:91–93).
‘You see, if the government wants it, we can’t stop it. The
new railways are coming. The new motorways are coming.
So, the Green River will also be coming. We, of course,
wonder about the reasons behind this bypass project. Is it
really needed? There are more floods, that is true, but the
150 Reg Environ Change (2004) 4:145–158
Original article

government allowed too many constructions in the flood
plains. These should be removed and the flood plains
deepened. Now, finally, they start doing something about
it. That should be sufficient.
Will there be more rain in the future? Is that because of
climate change? Listen, one professor says ‘it becomes
dryer’, the other says ‘it becomes wetter.’ So, what do we
simple citizens know about it. That’s for the professors and
the government to decide. Oh, is it not a plan of the gov-
ernment? Well, some people will get rich from it, isn’t it?
Sure, we like to have a nature conservation area around
here. We can go for horse riding, cycling, canoeing, and
taking out the dog for a walk. Tourists will come and
spend money, which is good for the local shopkeepers. But
the risk of river floods is very small once the flood plains
have been deepened.
We are not so afraid of floods. We have centuries of
experience with the river. We all have mobile telephones
nowadays (we hebben tegenwoordig allemaal een GSM-
etje) so we know when the water comes. In the basement
we put the machines on chocks (opklossen) to keep them
dry. If the water level rises too high we simple drive away.
Or we become just like Noah. We get in the boat and sail to
the nearest hill (we stappen in de boot en varen naar de
Eltenberg). Only the immigrant families (import) don’t
know what to do exactly.
If this Green River project is really implemented the water
will have to cross a number of motorways and railways.
How are they going to arrange for that? And if they
manage to build bridges or tunnels to allow the excess
Rhine water to flow here, most of us will have to leave.
We’ll get financially compensated for that; we don’t doubt
that too much.
The real loss will be the quality of social life in this close-
knit community. The immigrant families also came to
appreciate the friendliness, the many flourishing associa-
tions (het bloeiende verenigingsleven) and mutual help of
neighbours (noaberplicht). They work somewhere else and
just wanted to live in the countryside.
Some of us may have to leave and get financial compen-
sations for it. Others will stay without financial support
and living in-between all the new constructions that are
planned right here before the Green River might come.
These people will be the real victims. They will live in
infra-structural islands, being isolated and facing the
monsters of progress.
We also like to get quickly to other places every day, but all
these new highways and railways, my oh my, Holland is
organised well enough with the present infrastructure. The
Betuwelijn for freight transport is more an object of
prestige for national and local politicians than economi-
cally viable or reducing road transport and air pollution.
The northern branch is even less required. Only Germany
is going to benefit. The construction works are planned
without proper co-ordination. Building the Betuwe rail-
way, and later on the High Speed Line along the same
route will take twenty years. If they do it at the same time it
takes only ten years. Rijkswaterstaat says that these pro-
jects have separate trajectories of preparation. The last
project has to be adjusted to the earlier projects.
The officials also say that they have to deal with many
locations where roads and railways will pass. So, why
should they pay extra attention to Helhoek? But we think
that they are just inflexible blockheads, not talking to each
other, wasting millions of guilders of tax payers’ money on
extra salaries and commissions, and burdening the resi-
dents here with the nuisance of subsequent works under
construction.’
These and other statements indicate two striking impli-
cations once the Green River would be developed. First,
the relocation of probably the entire Helhoek population
means the loss of precious social cohesion that has been
preserved in the community so far. Second, the local
stakeholders negotiate the terms of relocation as a well-
organised group of people, with experience and skills
gained in plans for earlier infrastructures. The next two
paragraphs discuss these two implications respectively.
Helhoek’s social cohesion at stake
Helhoekers explain in different ways the high level of
social cohesion and, as they perceive it, the good quality of
social life in their community. One argument was that the
wider area of the Achterhoek is known for a settlement
pattern of small farmer families that reside spread out and
as compensation revert to strong social organisation.
Another argument is that Helhoek and Groessen are
Roman Catholic communities surrounded by a majority of
Protestant communities historically which brought the
Catholic minority all the more together.
In order to prove that relative isolation of a village creates
strong cohesion examples are given of fishermen’s villages
such as Volendam, Katwijk, Spakenburg and Urk. Here the
perspective was aimed at the sea, connections with the
inland population remained weak, and social cohesion was
strong enough to keep the community traditional and
secularisation limited.
To some extent, the arrival of ecological sustainability
ideas harbours the risk of bringing submersion of such
closely-knit communities. Though regretted by its propo-
nents, to be certain, the greening of the Rhine River basin
may bring the end of the Helhoek community. National
and ecological interests will come to dominate and destroy
local and social interests of which, according to the
interviewees, social cohesion is the most precarious of all.
This cohesion shows in social contact that surpasses the
functional, single-stranded interactions between a shop-
keeper and a customer, a teacher and a pupil, or one
neighbour and the other. Rather, multi-stranded relation-
ships dominate in which people maintain contacts for a
number of reasons and meet each other at many different
occasions. Also, customs of mutual help exist among a
large majority in the community. Though social control is
rather far-reaching, it is not felt to be restrictive or suf-
focating but offering meaning, support and prevention of
petty crime. It is actually described as being applied with a
certain wisdom and friendliness.
Immigrant families are welcomed in direct personal ways
but also with a ceremony performed by a number of Hel-
hoekers assembled for the occasion. Most newcomers
appreciate this attention and become rapidly integrated in
Reg Environ Change (2004) 4:145–158 151
Original article

the community life. Just a few families declined the elaborate
welcome and prefer to live more independently, which is
rather well accepted or understood in the community.
Social events are not only organised to welcome immi-
grants but for other occasions as well. Winners of sports
prizes are celebrated, sick people receive attention in ad-
justed ways, and old aged people are honoured at jubilees.
A large number of voluntary associations are responsible
for the organisation of these events. They either operate in
the village of Groessen that includes Helhoek, or in the
hamlet of Helhoek alone (see Table 2).
The central one is the Neighbourhood Association Hel-
hoek (Buurtvereniging Helhoek). Other such associations
in Groessen are of Diesakkers, Lijkweg, and De Woerd.
The one in Helhoek has existed for 20 years, has 58
households as members, and conducts 5–6 annual events
in addition to special events for children, adults, mar-
riages, funerals and other rites de passage for people at
important points in their lives.
Perhaps the most important festival period is in the third
week of September when fun fair (kermis) is held. The
festivities start with a mass in the church on Saturday at
6:00 PM. The Rifle Club conducts shooting contests on
Sunday where all real inhabitants participate. The ele-
mentary school is closed so that the children can along
with the adults join the full-day party in the honour of the
shooting champion (Schutterskoning).
The carnival association De Deurdraaiers holds an annual
procession of about 25 floats and a party in a tent for
about 2,000 people from Helhoek and nearby villages. The
Children’s Committee is active for the celebration of
Queen’s Day on April 30th, and St. Nicholas evening on
December 5th. The Charitas association Vincentius collects
money door to door about every week. Other associations
organise regular and incidental events for religious pur-
poses, make music or have sports games.
The communities of Helhoek and Groessen, both being
part of the Duiven municipality, are closely intertwined. If
the Green River is implemented, Groessen is likely to be
spared. Groessen is the larger one of the two villages with
about 1,600 inhabitants as against about 200 in Helhoek.
Roman Catholicism is the only religion in Helhoek and
Groessen, with an exception for some immigrant families
in Helhoek; Groessen has no import families. Helhoekers
depend on the priest and the family doctor who live in
Groessen. Most children go to the elementary school in
Groessen and secondary schools in the nearby villages of
Zevenaar and Duiven.
The frequent meetings and activities, including the joint
efforts to prepare all these events, are felt to give much
mental satisfaction. Privacy, on the other hand, is certainly
appreciated for oneself and respected for others. The skills
to maintain a proper balance between contact and privacy
are consciously applied, discussed and reconsidered, and
after all constitute social capital that has been accumulated
by trial and error over a long period of time.
The remarkably strong social cohesion in Helhoek does
not mean that all internal relationships are full of har-
mony. It means that both harmony and conflict exist in the
local network of dense, multi-stranded relationships. The
local cohesion also does not mean that all external rela-
tionships are discordant. It means that both harmony and
conflict can occur in the external contacts as well. At the
same time, Helhoekers have the clear-cut possibility of
common activities in the outside world at their disposal.
Helhoek’s social cohesion against interventions
Disregarding the envisaged Green River, the local
stakeholders deal already with a number of infra-struc-
tural works that are either being implemented or plan-
ned. In Helhoek and Groessen the pressure group
Groessen In Protest (GRIP) is busy studying the Green
River plan along with other plans to redesign the Rhine
River basin. GRIP was originally established in 1990 in
order to deal with the planning process for the Bet-
uwelijn, the freight railway from Rotterdam to Germany.
A number of houses, farms, gardens and small enter-
prises were to be left. The potential evictees and other
local stakeholders to be affected by the new railway
united in the action group. They developed an agreement
that all members would defend interests jointly as long
as possible whereas if it came to negotiate individually
about damage and compensation they were free to do so,
with the help of specialised lawyers, and without being
blamed by the others.
152 Reg Environ Change (2004) 4:145–158
Table 2
List of associations in Helhoek
1. Buurtvereniging Helhoek, neighbourhood association
2. Katholieke Plattelandsorganisatie(KPO), Roman Catholic
rural organisation
3. Gelderlandse Land- en Tuinbouw Organisatie (GLTO),
farmers’ organisation
4. Groups for various services in the Roman Catholic
Church
5. Groessen in Protest (GRIP), interest group dealing with
plans for infrastructures
6. Brass band St. Andries
7. Show band KDO
8. Children’s choral society
9. Youth choral society
10. Women’s choral society
11. Men’s choral society
12. Vita Nova, general choral society
13. Riffle Club EMM
14. Shooting association Irene
15. Sportclub Groessen, soccer club
16. Handball club
17. Judo club
18. Cycle club (occasionally organised)
19. Gymnastics club (occasionally organised)
20. Card playing club (occasionally organised)
21. Scouting club for young girls (kabouters)
22. Scouting club for young boys (welpen)
23. Scouting club for older boys (scouts)
24. Old age society De Bejaardenbond
25. Youth society Rinoceros
26. Charitas association Vincentius
27. De Zonnebloem, association taking care of the sick at
home
28. Bearers’ association, functioning at funerals, of about 25
men
29. Children’s committee
30. Carnival association De Deurdraaiers
Original article

The approach of joint action to be followed by individual
action worked out well in dealing with the Betuwelijn project
and will be applied again in preparatory stages for other
railways and motorways and, if it comes, for the Green River.
During the period 1999–2000 GRIP co-ordinated a joint
protest of 14,000 notices of objection against the track for
high speed trains from Arnhem to Germany.
One of the consequences of sending notices of objection,
for that matter, is that each sender is placed on mailing
lists of government bodies to inform local stakeholders
about infra-structural projects. It is because of this policy
that large numbers of stakeholders receive detailed infor-
mation about relevant plans. In addition, they are
informed by the chairman of GRIP, who is a member
of the sounding board group of stakeholders for
Rijkswaterstaat, the national government body for wet and
dry infrastructures.
GRIP also operates to raise awareness about the possible
construction of the new infrastructures, such as the
Northern Branch of the Betuwelijn railway. GRIP organ-
ised a cycle trip of 25 km in the area where this Northern
Branch would come. It applied visual demonstration of
effects for the cyclists to see on the way. The slogan of the
action was We worden verkocht voor een appel en een ei,
which means literally We are sold for an apple and an egg,
or We are sold for a song.
Most of the farmers are members of the vigilant Farmers and
Horticulturists Organisation LTO (Land- en Tuinbouw
Organisatie). Groessen has many fruit growers with a
minority of stockbreeders. Helhoek still has only six farm-
ers: five dairy farmers and one pig farmer. Three other
farmers have left recently. In the southern part of the
intended Green River, near the present river Rhine, farmers
were bought out to give way to the new nature reserve area
called Rijnstrangen. One farmer went to Canada and three
settled down in the USA.
There is no strong organisation for the about 40 small-scale
enterprises in Helhoek, including industrial workshops,
freight carriers and shops that would have to move to other
places. However, the entrepreneurs are expected to strongly
negotiate financial compensations. They are less involved in
the social life of Helhoek then the resident farmers and are
rather used to shifting their locations.
Most residents will negotiate cleverly. Original residents
will feel that the loss of social life can hardly be compen-
sated with money but they may tend to negotiate in a
balanced way. Newcomers, the import families, have star-
ted to appreciate the value of local community life and also
feel that to be at stake. However, while keeping their jobs
in nearby urban centres they did settle in Helhoek espe-
cially for the quite natural environment. They may first
oppose fanatically any plan for relocation and later on
negotiate the terms of relocation with the same fanaticism.
Dealing with conflicts
Internal conflicts
In more general terms, how may Helhoekers react when
the Green River is going to be realised? First, some of the
old residents may reflect the historical situation in which
the villagers were rather docile and let themselves be told
what to do by authority figures such as the priest and the
landlord. However, the majority of the population has
quite a fighting spirit, with organised farmers and the
younger generation in front. Moreover, Helhoekers have
gained experience with earlier plans for large infrastruc-
ture works where they learned to operate as a well-
organised group of people.
Second, it is not likely that they will fight like lions against
everything new or external. It is the type of social
sophistication related to the social cohesion of Helhoek
that may guide behaviours in the contacts with planners of
the Green River. Helhoekers maintain a multitude of
external contacts in the present day and there also dem-
onstrate, with variations, a certain sense of social wisdom
or sophistication. The local stakeholders are certainly
willing to consider the needs of wider society and ecology,
while at the same time assertively defend their stakes.
A third type of reaction by Helhoekers to a possible Green
River project in the future would be that they clearly see
their interests at different levels of scale. They themselves
as well as others, such as relatives and colleagues, have
stakes in the quality of large-scale infrastructure, and
economic and ecological sustainability. They are not only
influenced by but also push forward wider social trends
such as democratisation of planning and decision making,
internationalisation of river basin management, naturisa-
tion of civil engineering and pursuing integration of
environmental parts. Table 3 enlists the divergent and
conflicting interests that the actors consider simulta-
neously in order to maintain balance.
The Polder Model
The fourth type of reaction by Helhoekers to a Green River
that would flood their hamlet has to do with conflicts
between stakeholders and can be described as shaped by
the Polder Model. This model indicates the Dutch cultural
feature of a predominance of compromise over confron-
tation. The Netherlands are even known abroad for this
Polder Model that shapes important decision making
Reg Environ Change (2004) 4:145–158 153
Table 3
Internal conflicts
Stakeholders Divergent interests
General Local and national interests
Long-term and short-term interests
Economic and safety interests
Green vs. technocratic orientation
Residents Lower real estate prices vs. nature reserve nearby
Long-term and short-term interests
Green vs. technocratic orientation
Farmers Financial compensation vs. loss of social cohesion
Green vs. technocratic orientation
Entrepreneurs Financial compensation for moving vs. worries
about moving
Commuters A15 noise, landscape pollution vs. less rush on the
way to work in the Arnhem area
Socialists Green vs. technocratic orientation
Conservatives Green vs. technocratic orientation
Original article

processes through negotiations instead of conflicts that
can lead to deadlock situations or do more damage to the
common good then necessary. The Polder Model is notably
famous for bringing together trade unions, employers and
the government annually to decide on wages levels while
considering employment rates, inflation and other macro-
economic factors.
This Polder Model can be seen as part of a wider trend
towards increased democratisation and co-responsibility
in Dutch society. It goes hand in hand with high levels of
education and information among citizens, the civil soci-
ety, and a diminishing gap between government circles
and local communities with regard to felt needs and
concerns. The emergence of this Polder Model, imbuing
the entire Dutch society, is also likely to affect interactions
between local and external stakeholders about a futuristic
Green River plan.
Perhaps the best example of the Polder Model applied in
Helhoek is the project on perspectives of various groups of
stakeholders regarding the Green River organised by the
Liemers College, a high school in the bordering village of
Zevenaar. Teachers and students of the section for pre-
paratory scientific education (VWO) organised a study to
assess the Green River plan as it was published in the
media.
Students made biological and geographical studies to see
environmental consequences and design smart solutions
for having both a nature reserve area and maintain living
conditions for residents and entrepreneurs. The results
were presented in an exposition in the school building.
Other students interviewed a number of stakeholders to
find out various interests and perspectives, including from
residents, farmers, industry, transport, nature conserva-
tionists and municipality officials. The students simulated
the complex communication about different interests in a
workshop, in order to learn remaining in contact with each
other even if stakes and opinions were widely diverging.
Abbink’s backyard
However proper the above generalisations may be, they
tend to conceal what conflicts of interest individual
stakeholders can come to face. The case of farmer Abb-
ink’s family living in the northern part of Helhoek pro-
vides an illustration of such particular details. According
to the judgement of the researcher, aiming at the mini-
misation of subjectivity and maximisation of integrity,
their case can be seen as rather representative of the
farming community in the envisaged Green River area. In
an extensive interview the family members explained their
responses to government interventions over the last dec-
ade that may indicate how they would respond to the
construction of the Green River. Table 4 presents a num-
ber of such interventions and how these have affected the
farm and the family.
On the one hand, the Abbinks appreciate most of the
measures as aiming at the common good and benefiting
the family as well. On the other hand, they point at neg-
ative consequences in the form of material losses, newly
created dangers and uncertainties, lack of financial com-
pensations, and disrespect for their personal feelings.
One of the most serious complaints is that decisions about
possible interventions are often postponed or several times
reversed. This pattern is felt as creating swords of Damo-
cles that hang over the family’s heads for prolonged peri-
ods while they can fall on them any moment. Will the
Abbinks really have to move entirely to a new location, yes
or no? Will they have to move this year, or only after ten
years? Should they decide to move before the children of
the eldest son go to school? Should they invest in a high-
tech cow-stable in Helhoek or in their new location? Can
they afford a delay considering changes in the dairy
market and agricultural politics of the European Union?
As Farmer Abbink said: ‘the authorities ignore such wor-
ries. It eats away my stomach.’
Conflicts between parties
The generalisations about Helhoek’s social sophistication
and the Dutch Polder Model not only conceal individual
problems such as of Farmer Abbink, but also the conflicts
that are battled out and may affect a future Green River
project. The relocation needed for the project would not be
the first one in the Netherlands and lessons can be learned
from earlier ones.
In several instances, numbers of houses, firms and even
entire communities have been removed to make space for
new infrastructures in the Lowlands. In order to extend the
harbour areas of Rotterdam, Antwerp and Amsterdam not
only scattered buildings but also complete hamlets and
villages have been demolished and populations relocated
over the past few decades. A few individuals and com-
munities, such as the vocal artists’ hamlet of Ruigoord
near Amsterdam, have been able to resist pressures from
the government on a permanent basis. Other residents,
farmers and entrepreneurs have developed knowledge and
skills to exert more compensation from government
154 Reg Environ Change (2004) 4:145–158
Table 4
The Government and Farmer Abbink
Government intervention Effect for Farmer Abbink
Completed
Redistribution of land
(ruilverkaling)
Appeared to benefit development
companies
High voltage lines Radiation. Risk of electrification.
No information
Gas pipelines Cracks in the walls. Not repaired
Faster N810 road Casualties
Acidic manure reduction Too costly. Risk of bankruptcy
Greening of agriculture Low-protein hay
Greening policy in general Agricultural education includes
the environment nowadays
Possible in near future
Broadening of highway A12 Disconnection from land at other
side of road
Industries along A12 Disconnection from land at other
side of road
Construction of highway
A15 from Betuwe
Right through the stable
Construction of Noordtak
freight railway
Right through the kitchen
Possible in far future
Green River Relocation of the family and
farmstead
Original article

departments in exchange for their relocation and other
damages suffered.
For comparative reasons one may think of large infra-
structural projects in other societies, such as the complex
of dams in the Narmada River basin and the Theri Dam in
India, or the Three Gorges Dam in the Chang Jiang River
in China (Roy 1999). Here, in Asia, the distance in social
power, levels of information and material interests of
planners and construction companies on the one hand and
local populations on the other is about as vast as the
projects and the damage that they inflict on evictees and
ecology. Such distances are rather reduced in the Nether-
lands, which contributes to easier and more constructive
types of negotiations between planners and population.
Nevertheless, several types of conflict between parties are
observed that occur at present and may happen when the
Green River is to be implemented (see Table 5). A major
encounter occurs between the national postmodern
emphasis on ecological systems and the local, pre-modern
tendency of preserving the social cohesion. The futuristic
river flood risk management that emerges clearly collides
with the much-acclaimed social life of agrarian villages
such as Helhoek. The choice would be between ecological
reconstruction and village cohesion, between nature and
neighbour.
Farmers are involved in several structural conflicts of
interest with other parties. Two explanations for this
prevail. First, farmers are an effectively organised profes-
sional category and operate both within and against the
societal establishment with keenly developed skills such as
of organisation, lobbying, legal advice, publicity, and
physical activism.
Second, farmers are in a way caught in-between postmo-
dernity and modernity. They feel they are under high
pressure from both the government and public opinion to
reduce their large-scale production and environmental
pollution, and produce healthier food. They partly accept
these demands as reasonable, and partly as in conflict with
modern demands to heavily increase production and
productivity as these emerged in the decades immediately
after the Second World War.
Perhaps the fiercest conflict exists between farmers and
environmental activists. A notorious conflict arose with
the late, radical activist group Lekker Dier that urged for
better living conditions for the domestic animals. The
group deployed physical confrontation tactics in the style
of Greenpeace actions and managed to draw similar
attention from the press. Farmers however felt deeply
offended and misunderstood by the aggressive interven-
tions on their territory and in their operations.
Farmers also feel misunderstood by nature conservation
officials such as belonging to the Ministry of Agriculture
and Nature Conservation. New regulations are issued to
stimulate environmentally friendly farming but farmers
often feel these regulations reveal a lack of proper
knowledge of affairs. Also, the farmers feel that new con-
servation projects as implemented by the government
forest department Staatsbosbeheer often show a lack of
knowledge or consideration of the effects for agriculture.
Just south of Helhoek, Staatsbosbeheer creates a nature
conservation area and foxes are put out. These foxes, as
one farmer complains, do not restrict themselves to the
boundaries of the area but go on nightly prowls to
neighbouring farmsteads at distances of tens of kilometres.
Conclusions
The present study identified responses of stakeholders to
future management of the Rhine River basin, notably to
the plan Rhine In The Future. This plan foresees the
construction of a bypass between the rivers Rhine and
IJssel, the Green River. The Green River area would be
flooded during high water discharges. The inhabitants of
the area, especially in the village Helhoek, would be per-
manently relocated both for their safety and in order
remove obstacles to the flow of water.
Responses in three domains
The stakeholders in the Green River area appear to be
influenced in their responses by the three domains in
which they operate: modernity,postmodernity and pre-
modernity. They act within the modern domain by main-
taining instrumental, single-stranded relationships that
deal with only one aspect of life. They mostly engage in
such contacts with actors outside their own village com-
munity. In doing so, they benefit from and contribute to
modern state arrangements, technological innovations and
economic growth, and suffer from technological draw-
backs, a reductionist worldview, and to some extent, social
alienation.
They take part in postmodern developments as well. They
contribute to, are influenced by, and are informed about
trends such as more openness, intuition and flexibility in
decision-making regarding society and environment. They
understand the wisdom of combining safety with ecology
of the river basin. They increasingly participate in plan-
ning processes. They consider the necessity of interna-
Reg Environ Change (2004) 4:145–158 155
Table 5
Conflicts of interest between parties
Conflicting parties Stakes
Government departments Power
Government vs. local
population
Top-down measures vs. local
interests and initiatives
Country vs. local population River basin management vs. ‘not
in my backyard’ (NIMBY)
Green officials vs. residents Nature conservation vs. social
cohesion
Technocrats vs. postmodern
managers
Large project construction vs.
long-term ecological approach
Green officials vs. farmers Green farming measures vs.
modern farming
Nature conservation vs. nuisance
for neighbouring farmers
Activists vs. farmers Animal protection vs. economic
productivity
Residents vs. commuters Peace and quite vs. smooth
highway traffic
Original article

tional management of the river Rhine and think about
long-term sustainability. Their request is that plans are
based on detailed knowledge of their interests and that
power centres stick to decisions once made.
Remarkably, postmodern and pre-modern features show
similarity in intensified interaction and local social cohe-
sion. A collective relocation, it is felt would result in the
loss of pre-modern acquisitions and is the most important
disadvantage of the Green River plan. The Helhoekers are
prepared to prevent this loss with deliberation and skill.
Complex interactions
In addition to their participation within the three domains,
the stakeholders of the Green River areas manage inter-
actions between these domains. Put in more abstract
words, the defence of stakes is coloured by interactions
between patterns of acting and thinking that belong to
respectively modernity,postmodernity, and pre-modernity.
These different colourings show in negotiation skills, levels
of organisations, alertness, power positions, and access to
local and outside resources. It is from these complex
dynamics that future measures in the Rhine River basin
will result. In turn, these measures will have their conse-
quences for the local population, larger scale society and
water management.
The local stakeholders are well aware of the actual and
planned interventions and the related arguments given by
the government. However, they have serious doubts about
the magnitude of climate change and the predicted higher
discharge levels in the rivers. They therefore doubt the
need for a bypass from the Rhine to the IJssel, though
appreciating the construction of a nature reserve area.
They mostly suspect technologists and policy makers
concentrated in and around the national government
centre in The Hague: ‘These Hague people have personal
interests in large construction works’ (see also Table 6).
In their relationships with modern state government
bodies, the local stakeholders have some confidence in
financial compensations for relocation, as was witnessed
during expropriation procedures for other infra-structural
works nearby. But based on the same experience, they will
negotiate financial compensations with skill and determi-
nation acquired in the modern domain. Their tactics will
be reinforced by collective efforts that stem from their
strong social cohesion belonging to the pre-modern
domain. Also, their attachment to the soil and the social
cohesion would make them fierce opponents.
In contrast to responses by these ‘old families’, newly
immigrated families are expected to protest most vocally
and effectively. Their locals-state conflict would have the
flavour of the ‘not-in-my-backyard’ (NIMBY) reactions to
national policies. Nevertheless, both ‘old’ and ‘new’
stakeholders consider national interests in a rather bal-
anced way and see ultimate advantages for themselves. Put
in other words, conflicts that would make them opponents
to other parties tend to be treated rather sensibly.
156 Reg Environ Change (2004) 4:145–158
Table 6
Local stakeholder responses
Serious doubts about:
- Climate change
- Much higher discharge levels
- Need for a bypass
- Impersonal interests in ‘The Hague’
Awareness of contradicting interests:
- Local interests vs. national interests
- Economic interests vs. safety interests
- Economic interests vs. nature interests
- Comfort of infra-structures vs. nuisance of infra-structures
Table 7
Implications of a future relocation plan
Resistance or negotiation:
- New families will concentrate on resistance
- Old families will concentrate on negotiations
Negotiations will be based on:
- Strong social cohesion
- Experience with dry projects
- Reasonableness, Polder Model
- Trust in getting full financial compensation
Felt costs:
- For those who remain: infrastructure islands
- For those who may have to leave: uncertainty, Damocles
- Loss of social cohesion, naastenliefde, noaberplicht
Requests to the government:
- Interact with us
- Know our interests
- Decide clearly and only once
Table 8
Scenario of maximum local
acceptance of Green River
Actors Necessary activity Status of the activity
All stakeholders Shared sense of urgency Absent
All stakeholders Shared vision about naturisation Absent
National government bodies
and local stakeholders
Two-way vertical interactions Mostly top-down interactions
Official knowledge of local interests Insufficient
National government bodies Top-down provision of information Happens
National government bodies Decisions clear and only once Decisions often postponed
and reversed
National government bodies Financial compensations Good examples available
Municipality councils Consensus building based on local
and external knowledge,
and direct interaction
Happens, but with little
bearing on river basin
management
Mass media Top-down provision of information Happens
Schools Education in environmental
awareness
Happens
Education in multi-stakeholder
perspectives
Happens
Original article

Another type of balance that appears to exist has to do
with emerging social trends, such as naturisation and
democratisation. Local stakeholders are not only passively
influenced by these trends, but also contribute actively to
them and are therefore open to new arguments and
material that would have implications ‘in their backyard’.
Their main requests to the government bodies responsible
to large infra-structural works is to first interact with
them, acquire knowledge of their interests, and decide
clearly and only once in order to avoid that ‘uncertainties
eat you up’. In response they would be quite co-operative,
help avoiding mistakes and contribute to finding technical
solutions (see Table 7).
Recommendations
A recommended policy scenario for the maximum local
acceptance of a Green River plan is summarised in Ta-
ble 8. The social trend towards naturisation should mature
more and be able to overrule other interests of a majority
of stakeholders. The government should convince local
stakeholders with proper arguments that the Green River
bypass is necessary for safety reasons. The provision of
financial compensations and top-down information
should be kept at present levels or improved. Government
officials have to learn how to listen to local stakeholders,
respect their interests and integrate these considerations in
policies. Thereafter, decisions should be made once and
for all. Municipality councils may be involved as they
function with much local knowledge and ability to reach
compromises about plans and implementation.
Acknowledgement This article is part of the project on Social
and Institutional Responses to Climate Change and Climatic
Hazards (SIRCH) conducted in 1998–2001. The SIRCH project is
a collaboration of the Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije
Universiteit in Amsterdam, Oxford University, Middlesex Uni-
versity, University of Seville and University of Madrid. The
SIRCH-project is financed through the European Commission,
DG 12.
The British partners concentrate on future management of flood
and drought risk in the Thames River basin. The Spanish partners
study the same for droughts in the lower Guadalquivir River
basin.The Dutch look at the same for floods in the Rhine-Meuse
River basin. They have studied institutional aspects and risk
perceptions at the national level, and scenarios of future climate
that may create higher flood risks.
The present study concerns perceptions and responses of local
stakeholders to future changes in river basin management. The
stakeholders contributed with care to the research in lengthy
interviews, telephone calls, follow-up contacts and casual meet-
ings. The research was discussed in half-yearly SIRCH meetings,
two seminars at Delft Hydraulics and scientific conferences
abroad. Along with gratitude to the responding stakeholders and
participants of meetings, thanks are expressed to Alison Gilbert,
Nicolien van der Grijp, Darley Jose, Xander Olsthoorn and
Richard Tol for their comments on earlier drafts.
Appendix: Methodology
Data were collected through study of documents, holding
of interviews (see Table 9), enquiries on the phone, and
observations in the Green River area and Helhoek. Inter-
actions were maintained with Delft Hydraulics, the pres-
sure group Groessen in Protest (GRIP), the students’
project of Liemers College in Zevenaar, and members of
the European SIRCH project.
The study applies the system-oriented approach, by look-
ing at interactions between stakeholders that create the
commonalities in the language and the cultural cement
that bind the actors. This approach contrasts with actor-
oriented stakeholder studies that collect data of individual
actors as if they were isolated units, and statistically pro-
cess these data at an aggregate level. To be certain, the
present study includes divergent perspectives and interests
of individual stakeholders and stakeholder groups, but
does not regard such divergence as the only part of social
reality that counts (Van der Werff and Gupta 2001).
Nearly all cited texts were given in response to questions
asked by the researcher. Direct speech is used in order to
emphasise the subjective, though shared, story lines that
were found to predominate in Green River area. The
citations in spoken language indicate the thinking of local
stakeholders about how to deal with future management
alternatives.
References
Agrarisch Dagblad (1999) Vrees voor voortbestaan bedrijven
uiterwaarden. April 24
Beck U (1992) Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. Sage,
London
Brand P (1999) ‘The Environment and Postmodern Spatial Con-
sciousness: A Sociology of Urban Environmental Agendas’.
J Environmental Planning and Management 42(5):631–648
De Boer, J. & M. Hisschemoller 1998. Omgevingswaarden en de
kust. Research Paper R98/12. Amsterdam: Institute for Envi-
ronmental Studies.
De Gelderlander (1999) Veilige Rijn kost 4 tot 5 miljard. April 15,
Arnhem
De Volkskrant (1999) Ruimte voor rivieren is nieuwe tover-
formule. April 20, Amsterdam
Grijp N van der, Olsthoorn A (2003) Institutional Framework for
Management of the Rivers Rhine and Meuse in the Netherlands:
An Overview. SIRCH Working Paper, IVM Report D-00/03.
Institute for Environmental Studies, Amsterdam
GRIP (1999) Voor een appel en een ei. Manifest of the Pressure
Group ‘Groessen in Protest’, June 13, Helhoek
Harvey D (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity. An Enquiry
into the Origins of Cultural Change. Blackwell, London
Heertje A (1999) ‘Kok moet het tij keren’. In: Vrij Nederland, July
24, pp 18–19
Reg Environ Change (2004) 4:145–158 157
Table 9
Number of interviews held
By phone Personal Total
Local farmers 1 4 5
Local residents 0 7 7
Regional informants 1 6 7
Key informants 5 2 7
Total 7 19 26
Original article

IAWQ, EWPCA, NVA (1994) Living with Water. International
Conference on Integrated Water Resources Management, 26–29
September, Amsterdam
Lash S, Szerszynski B, Wynne B (eds) (1996) Risk, Environment
and Modernity. Towards a New Ecology. Sage, London
Liemers College (1999) De Groene Rivier. Project of high school
(VWO) students. Liemers College, Zevenaa
Marshall H (1995) ‘Discourse Analysis in an Occupational Con-
text.’ In: Cassell C, Symon G (eds) Qualitative Methods in
Organizational Research. Sage, London, pp 91–106
Meurs Rudie van (1996) Hoog water: Boerenrepublieken. Schef-
fers, Utrecht
Metro (1999) Ruimte voor Rivieren kost bedrijven miljoenen.
June 23, Amsterdam
Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat (2000) Discussienota
Ruimte voor de rivier. Staatsdrukkerij, The Hague
NRC Handelsblad (1998) ‘Plan voor nieuwe Groene Rivier’.
August 27, Rotterdam
Olsthoorn A, de Wolf H (1999) The Evolution of Acceptable Risk.
Institute for Environmental Studies, Amsterdam
Rijkswaterstaat (1998) Ruimte voor Rijntakken. Rijkswaterstaat,
Directie Oost-Nederland, Arnhem
Rijkswaterstaat (1999) Stand van zaken: Ruimte voor Rijntakken.
Rijkswaterstaat, Directie Oost-Nederland, Arnhem
Rijkswaterstaat (1999) Verslag: Openbare informatiebijeenkomst
in het kader van Stand van zaken Ruimte voor Rijntakken.
Minutes of information meeting at 28 April 1999, Arnhem.
Rijkswaterstaat, Directie Oost-Nederland, Arnhem
Rooij PTJC van (1995) ‘Towards Comprehensive Water Man-
agement in the Netherlands: (1) Developments.’ In: European
Water Pollution Control, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp 59–66
Rooij PTJC van (1995) ‘Towards Comprehensive Water Man-
agement in the Netherlands: (2) Bottlenecks.’ In: European
Water Pollution Control, Vol. 5, No. 6, pp 33–40
Rooij PTJC van (1996) ‘Towards Comprehensive Water Man-
agement in the Netherlands: (3) Planning.’ In: European Water
Pollution Control, Vol. 6, no. 3, pp 36–45
Rooij PTJC van, van Sluis JW, Tolkamp HH, de Jong J (1997)
‘Towards Comprehensive Water Management in the Nether-
lands: (7) AUTUNNO and Evaluation of Overall Approach of
IPEA.’ In: European Water Pollution Control, Vol. 7, No. 4,
pp 5-15
Roy Arundathi (1999) ‘The Greater Common Good. India Has
3,600 Dams. They Have Devoured 50 Million People Already.
Silently. Now It’s The Turn Of The Narmada.’ In: Outlook, May
24, pp 54–72
Sessions G (ed) (1995) Deep Ecology for the 21
st
Century:
Readings on the Philosophy and Practice of the New Environ-
mentalism. Shambhala, Boston
Straten F van (2000) ‘Het water herneemt zijn ruimte.’ NRC
Handelsblad, 31.8.2000:7
Tol RSJ, van der Grijp N, Olsthoorn A, van der Werff PE (1999)
Adapting to Climate Change: A Case Study on Riverine Food
Risks in the Netherlands. SIRCH Working Paper 5, IVM Report
D-99/10. Amsterdam: Institute for Environmental Studies
Toulmin S (1992) Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity.
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Trouw (1999) ‘Boeren vrezen verlies uiterwaarden’. April 20,
Amsterdam
Veldboer L (1996) De inspraak voorbij: Ervaringen van burgers
en lokale bestuurders met nieuwe vormen van overleg. Instituut
voor Publiek en Politiek, Amsterdam
Wallaart T (1999) ‘Betuwelijn, een wanbesluit’. In: Vrij Nederland,
July 24, pp 18–19
WL/Delft Hydraulics (1998) De Rijn Op Termijn. WL/Delft
Hydraulics, Delft
Werff PE van der (2001) Kerala
Werff PE van der, Gupta J (2001) Stakeholder Research in the
Context of Technology Transfer. An Inductive Analysis of
Approaches and Shortcomings. IVM Report Number D-00/12.
Institute for Environmental Studies, Amsterdam
Wolf ER (1966) Peasants. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey
158 Reg Environ Change (2004) 4:145–158
Original article