Slideshow presented at the Annual NIG Workconference 2009, Leiden, The Netherlands, by Jaap Evers

1. Adaptive Implementation of Integrated Spatial Plans: A Game Jaap Evers CSTM – Twente Centre for Studies of Technology and Sustainable Development, University of Twente

3. THE GAME •

4. THE GAME •

5. GAME PROCESSES • Table 1: Level of participation in decision-making based on Edelenbos (2000) Not-interactive Setting agenda, discussion No-input Consulting Informing (2) (1) Interactive Policy development and decision making Policy development, used for decision making Policy development, decision may deviate Co-deciding Co-producing Advising (5) (4) (3) Decision making Contribution of participants Level of Participation

6. GAME PROCESSES • Table 2: Models and the characteristics of the cooperation processes (Kuindersma & Kolkman, 2005; Soeterbeek, 2000) Creativity en Consensus seeking for combining goals and innovative solutions (C) Laboratory Model Negotiation and Bargaining on deals (N) Market model Conflict and Fighting for own goals and stakes (F) Arena model Characteristics of Cooperation process

7. GAME PROCESSES • Table 3: Characteristics of the interaction processes Interactive (5) C, N, F Interactive (5) C, N, F - Interactive (5) N, F Interactive (5) N, F Interactive (5) N, F Municipality Water Authority Province Community Session 3 Not-inter-active (1) F Not-inter-active (1) F Not-inter-active (1) F Community Interactive (5) C, N, F Interactive (4) C, N, F - Interactive (5) C, N Interactive (5) C, N Interactive (5) C, N Municipality Water Authority Province Session 2 No Role No Role No Role No Role No Role No Role Community Interactive (4) C, N Interactive (4) C, N Interactive (4) C, N Interactive (4) C, N Interactive (4) C, N Interactive (4)* C, N** Municipality Water Authority Province Session 1 A3 A2 A1 S3 S2 S1 Characteristics of the interaction processes

8. GAME OUTCOMES • 4 2 = (2+2)/2 2 = (2+2)/2 2 A3 4.6 2 = (2+2+2)/3 2.3 = (3+2+2)/3 3 A2 9 3 = (3+3)/2 3 = (3+3)/2 2 S3 6 2 = (2+2)/2 3 = (3+3)/2 2 S2 7.5 2.5 = (3+2)/2 3 = (4+2)/2 2 S1 Score Average amount of responsible authorities participated in the realized construction Average amount of goals realized per site where function combinations were realized Amount of sites with combined functions Game

9. GAME OUTCOMES • Table 5: Costs of all measurements to attain the individual policy goals when constructed independently € 11,658,800.- € 13,406,000.- Minimum Total Costs Maximum Total Costs € 200,000.- Budget Recreation (tracking path, cycling path, picnic sites) € 904,800.- € 1,560,000.- Agricultural Water Buffer (12 ha) OR Ecologically constructed Water Buffer (12 ha) Municipality € 286,000.- Reconstruction Veilense Mill Channel (€52,000.-/km, total 5.5km) € 1,508.000.- € 2,600,000.- Agricultural Water Buffer (20 ha) OR Ecologically constructed Water Buffer (20 ha) Water Authority € 8,760,000.- € 8,840,000.- Ecological Network (North, app. 144 ha) OR Ecological Network (South, app. 146 ha) Province Costs Measurement Actor

10. GAME OUTCOMES • Table 6: Extra costs and cause of the games The project team has 75.5 ha of land of Mr. Bos left over after land relocation. Extra costs = 75.5 ha x € 30,000.- = € 2.3 million (but the land can be sold to interested farmers or investors in the near future) A3 No combination of Ecological Network and Water Buffer, did not safe € 3.16 million, because of adaptive behaviour A2 Paid 10% extra for land acquisition for Ecological Network and offered fam. De Graaf a new tractor. Extra costs = € 0.6 million + tractor S3 No combination of Ecological Network and Water Buffer, did not safe € 3.16 million. Paid 10% extra for land acquisition for Ecological Network and Reconstruction of Mill Channel. Extra costs = € 0.63 million S2 The total property of Mr. Bos (120 ha) was exchanged for a smaller total property of other farmers for land relocation (75 ha). Extra costs: 120 ha – 75 ha = 45 ha (x €30,000.-) = € 1.4 million S1 Extra costs and causes Game