Measuring perspectives to determine current and future support for water management strategies

November 4th, 2014

Dr. Astrid Offermans, Maastricht University, the Netherlands

Currently, one of the most pressing policy questions in Dutch water management is the extent to which strategies can count on social support, now and in the future. History has shown that a lack of social support can hinder the implementation and continuation of strategies, and may even lead to upheaval and protest as we have seen in the 1970s in the Dutch village of Brakel.

Of course, questions related to the physical robustness of strategies, or in other words: the extent to which strategies are able to cope with uncertainties in our physical environment, like climate change, remain relevant, but are generally better understood than issues related to social support. A strategy’s social robustness, or its potential to be and remain acceptable in the case of perspective change, remains a challenging aspect to understand.

I argue that the so called Perspectives Method1 can be used to better understand prevailing controversies in water management, to better explore the social robustness of strategies and to have a more focused dialogue to ultimately define more robust management solutions. Central in this method is the concept of Perspectives that can be defined as “perceptual screens through which people interpret the world and which guides them in acting”2. The Perspectives Method is based upon Cultural Theory3,4 and distinguishes four different, stereotypical perspectives: the Hierarchist, the Egalitarian, The Individualist, and the Fatalist.

For the Hierarchist, water is mainly seen as a threat to human safety. Therefore, water – and rivers in particular – need to be controlled substantially. Governments are responsible for water management and should base their decisions on research and expert advice. Water demand, no matter how high, should be fulfilled, if necessary by artificially increasing the supply. Preferred policy options focus on control and include building dikes, dams and sluices.

Egalitarians on the other hand, argue that humans have gone too far in controlling water and nature. For them, it is time return space to water and nature, to relocate human activities outside flood prone areas, to restore nature and increase nature’s resilience. Water demand should be supply driven and available water should be equally distributed between flora, fauna and humans. Decisions should be based on extensive stakeholder consultations and preferred water management strategies include providing room for the river, increase in nature area and restoration of traditional shrub cover.

Individualists adhere to a more optimistic point of view and approach water as something that offers opportunities for the economy, recreation, tourism, image etc. They attach a lot of value to innovation and technology and prefer to fuse water into spatial planning. Preferred management strategies are innovative, like the construction of tulip-shaped off-shore islands or amphibian infrastructures. Decisions in water management should be determined by outweighing costs and benefits and by choosing for alternatives that are innovative and contribute to self-development.

Fatalists mainly look at the pleasure function of water. They have very little trust in long-term policy processes and therefore prefer strategies that offer short term benefits. They think that the current terminology too often speaks of problems whereas in reality there are no problems to solve. For Fatalists it is also important to enjoy water, for example through recreation and pleasure cruising.

Several publications describe how perspectives – that are never fully stereotypical in reality – can be operationalized, measured and visualized into a triangle1,5,6,7. In Offermans et al.7 we analyzed the underlying Perspective of one of the Dutch water management policy reports (The New Delta Report8) and compared this with the average Perspective of 152 Dutch water professionals (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 shows that the Delta commission policy report8 (the black star) can be considered more Hierarchical than the present perspective among Dutch water management professionals (the yellow dots). This already poses challenges for social support in the present, but may also threaten future support if we move towards an Egalitarian, Individualistic or Fatalistic perspective1.

An in-depth analysis of the underlying reasons for these perspectivistic differences – based on our measurement tool1,7 – shows that most disagreement can be reduced to five aspects (or, in our terminology, beliefs) 7:

The policy report highly values structure and stability (Hierarchical) whereas the water management professionals value harmony and stability (Egalitarian) and freedom and independency (Individualistic). The policy report suggests to strictly follow guidelines and regulations (Hierarchical) in the case of droughts, whereas the professionals dominantly chose to distribute available water supply fairly between humans and nature (Egalitarian). Related to the previous point, in the policy report there is a demand driven approach towards water supply (Hierarchical), whereas the professionals were keener on adopting a supply driven approach (Egalitarian). In the policy report, water follows developments within spatial planning (e.g. human developments drive the spatial planning process and water needs to give way to these developments), whereas the professionals emphasized opportunities that could arise when water is integrated into the spatial planning (Individualistic). Also in terms of decision-making processes we identified differences; the policy report suggested to base decisions on expert knowledge and research (Hierarchical) whereas the professionals preferred the inclusion of stakeholders in decision-making processes (Egalitarian).

Here we see that disagreement on solutions as well as controversies in Dutch water management can often be related to differences in underlying perspectives. Insight in these differences and disentangling the sources of disagreement is considered to be a first step towards more synergetic, and therefore, more socially robust river management strategies1.

The Perspectives method allows identification of different Perspectives on water, and to compare perspectives underlying policy reports with societal or professional perspectives to analyze present and future support for strategies. The measurement tool also reveals which beliefs perspectives differ, hence offering a fundament for synergetic dialogues. Instead of debating about different ideas or the most suitable solutions or strategies, it allows to dig deeper and unravel underlying reasons for disagreement.

References:

Offermans, A., 2012. The Perspectives Method: towards socially robust river management. Maastricht: Datawyse Universitaire Pers Maastricht, 978 94 6159 190 6 Van Asselt, M. B. A., 2000. Perspectives on Uncertainty and Risk : The PRIMA approach to decision support. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers Douglas, M., 1996. Natural symbols; explorations in cosmology. London: Routledge Classics Thompson, M., Ellis R. J. and Wildavsky A., 1990. Cultural Theory. Boulder: Westview Press. Offermans, A., Haasnoot M. and Valkering P., 2011. A method to explore social response for sustainable water management strategies under changing conditions. Sustainable development, Vol 19 (5), 312-324. Offermans, A. and Cörvers R., 2012. Learning from the past: Changing perspectives on river management in the Netherlands. Environmental Science and Policy, Vol 15 (1), 13-22 Offermans, A., Valkering, P., Vreugdenhil, H., Wijermans, N. and Haasnoot, M. 2013. The Dutch dominant perspective on water; risks and opportunities involved. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A, Vol 48 (10), 1164-1177 Delta Committee. 2008. Working with water: a living land builds for its future. Findings of the Dutch Delta Committee 2008. The Hague: Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat.

Dr. Astrid Offermans holds a master degree in Interdisciplinary social sciences (Cum laude and with clear pass) and a PhD degree in sustainability science. In her PhD thesis she investigated perspective changes and their influence on social support for river management strategies in the Netherlands. Currently she is working as a postdoc researcher on the topics knowledge production and global certifying partnerships.

The views expressed in this article belong to the individual authors and do not represent the views of the Global Water Forum, the UNESCO Chair in Water Economics and Transboundary Water Governance, UNESCO, the Australian National University, or any of the institutions to which the authors are associated. Please see the Global Water Forum terms and conditions here.