|Networks||Regulatory context||Knowledge context||Realization framework|
This section deals with connecting BwN to scoping and decision making in society. In order to connect to and make use of the power structures in place, with the objective to make BwN happen in society.
Serious success factors are: Understanding the basic mechanisms of decision making; consciously targeting crucial persons, organizations and networks; and using effective arguments in interaction. For this, mapping of processes, arenas, and actors in arenas and processes is crucial. Strategy starts by understanding how the system works and by being able to map and monitor the system.
Scoping and decision making in society
Scoping and decision-making are best understood as polymorphic processes including a variety of actors. Decisions with regard to infrastructure are prepared and elaborated with actors both from the executive power and from civic society. Linkages between individuals, networks and organizations provide an important analytical perspective on this process.
Scoping and decision-making should not be approached as a linear and entirely rational process which always leads to the pareto-optimal solution. There are always multiple rival perspectives, advocated by actors participating in different projects phases. Power is not limited to actors who have the formal/legal right to decide, nor are the most powerful actors identical in each and every phase. Decision phases do not always appear in consecutive order: they may overlap; they may be unusually short or lengthy; the sequence of phases may be disrupted; the phases may unroll in a disorderly manner. During these phases challenges are framed and prioritized, fact finding goes on, joint learning proceeds, alternatives are framed, bargaining goes on and actors try to embed multiple perspectives and interests.
Not only the issues at hand, but also the prevailing power relations often play a role. In some cases there may be a lack of knowledge ('how'?) on how to deal with an issue, whereas actors do share ambitions ('what'?). In other cases there may be disputes between actors with regard to the problems to solve and the ambitions to have ('what'?), whereas knowledge ('how'?) is not discussed. If actors in such ‘structured issues’ debate only the 'what' question, bargaining may help. For discussions with regard to the 'how' question, knowledge and learning may be of use. If both 'what' and 'how' - i.e. both the goals and the means - are discussed, however, often lengthy and disorderly scoping and decision-making processes occur in which it is hard to focus and scope. Such 'wicked issues' are therefore harder to handle than structured ones.
Furthermore, scoping and decision-making will vary per type of environment, as depicted in Sandy Shores, Estuaries,Delta Lakes, Tropical Coastal Waters and Coastal Seas. These differences relate to characteristics of socio-economic and socio-political systems in place and problems and ambitions that are typical of these environments. Understanding how these systems work is a prerequisite for defining strategies and actions.
Participating in the decision making 'game' requires awareness of some key characteristics of BwN-relevant decision making processes.
Resources in society are dispersed over multiple actors, networks and coalitions. All of these parties act towards and participate in arenas, where they may hold strong power positions, although their power bases may vary between legal, expertise-based, financial or support-based. Also, the relevant arenas differ by project phase and not every actor is present/influential in every phase.
It is usually wise to connect to and make use of the power structures in place, rather than trying to combat them in an uphill battle. An assessment of power relations and the position of and possibilities for the BwN developer therein is necessary before the latter can sensibly think about choices and strategies. A focus on networks, embedded organizations and individuals offers a perspective for this (stakeholder analysis).
The term network implies a cluster of interdependent actors. Each of these actors has an interest in decision making, tries to influence the decision(s) and is connected to others by shared ambitions or resources.
In the case of BwN, relevant networks:
- are linked to socio-political or social-economic life
- have a stake in BwN-relevant decision-making
- have competences and capacities to influence scoping and decision-making
Essential is the notion that without clustering of individuals there would be no organizations and without individuals and organizations there would be no networks. Sometimes individuals, organizations and networks are referred to in one word: actors. All play roles, and all can be important. Which roles and how dominant depends on their motivation, position and resources. Different types of networks with varying characteristics can be found. The BwN developer can make strategic use of networks and embedded individuals and organizations. Policy networks can broaden or narrow options and shift the agenda by pursuing strategies that create new political and economic realities.
Depending on the situation, BwN managers may choose, for instance, to create such networks or to participate in existing ones. Different types of networks are relevant in the context of BwN, depending on the goals pursued and project phase: agenda-setting or realization call for different strategies and a different type of network.
The focus in this section is on how to link to and come to grips with interactions in the arenas, where scoping takes place and decisions are prepared and taken. It is essential for the BwN-initiator and for the BwN-coalition not to overlook important networks, actors, processes and factors.
The ‘job' for which guidance is offered is about:
- How to map and influence arenas, actors, agendas and decision making in society?
- How to advocate the BwN-approach and influence scoping and decision making in this direction?
This guidance in presented in seven paragraphs below, followed by the lessons learned so far from from case studies.
Note that the strategic question how to connect to society should continuously be asked. There is no single strategy that secures success in all cases. Sometimes it is better to focus upon one arena, one network or one actor, in other cases the best approach is a 'scattershot' covering multiple arenas, networks and actors. Timing is essential, the general rule of thumb is that the earlier one gets involved in the development process, the better the opportunities to effectively promote BwN principles and alternatives. Connecting to early process phases on a work-floor level may be facilitated through connections with appointed or elected politicians holding formal decision power. Having BwN acknowledged and valued by these actors is a positive asset which enables ‘sailing with the wind’ while connecting to other arenas, networks and actors.
1. Connect to political and societal agendas
A good start for the BwN developer is to find out what contemporary issues, problems and challenges are on the agendas. Read documents, talk to governors, city council members, stakeholders and find out to what extent BwN is an option. And if not, how BwN-alternatives could enter the agenda and what critical success conditions would be. Visit the local area where BwN could be applied, talk to locals about the situation, its history, future visions, conflicts and dominant actors and don’t forget to keep track of personal data. Realize that these informants may be your future allies, so be open, invite them to participate and don't be surprised if they invite you. Positioning BwN requires making connections with current political and societal agendas.
2. Track arenas and processes (backward mapping)
Track down the relevant processes and arenas that might lead to acceptance or refusal of BwN project alternatives. This is most efficiently done by backward mapping, starting from the (yet unknown) final project-decision, and then working one’s way back in time. Individual processes and arenas in the chain can range from deliberation and consultation to formal decision-making and implementation. The overview over processes and actors obtained this way helps the BwN developer to identify arenas and actors and to connect to them. Drawing flow charts helps to structure the information and keep the overview.
3. Map actors, positions and stakes
Stakeholder mapping maps out relevant actors, their positions and their social relations. Think of:
- actors that cannot be ignored such as policy and decision-makers, authorities, coordinating civil servants and potential opponents with legal (blocking) power.
- actors that add resources, such as disciplinary experts, local system specialists, (opinion) leaders of local networks.
- actors that have a stake in the infrastructure to be realized, such as future users, beneficiaries or parties active in adjacent domains.
Position the actors by considering aspects such as role, stake, preference and power position. Also include their relationship with the project and its proponents. This can be done by assessing how they perceive the potential of BwN principles and to what extent they have confidence in the BwN developer and his network. This overview helps to identify the actors that can and should be involved in the BwN project development. Visualizing actors involved and their networks in flow charts helps to keep track of who plays what role in which activities.
Decide whether the scope of analysis should be expanded to:
- adjacent policy domains: knowledge on adjacent policy domains becomes helpful if an alternative or additional approach route for BwN is needed that touches other policy domains, or if there are opportunities to include additional functions coming under those domains. This is often done by mobilizing actors and resources from these domains and inviting them to the relevant arenas;
- higher administrative levels: knowledge on a higher administrative (e.g. supra-local) level than the expected intervention level can be helpful if exercise of power is needed to surpass a blockade. This provides opportunities to reframe the problem by appealing to higher-level perceptions of problems and solutions.
4. Connect to actors and arenas (forward mapping)
Some opportunities can be seized by just contacting persons, participating in meetings and actively presenting BwN principles and alternatives. Networking and communication is thus essential. It is crucial to anticipate how BwN alternatives should be linked to the existing power game and the political and socio-economic context.
Connecting BwN as soon as possible to actors and arenas is a proven success strategy, be it that it requires continuous efforts to consolidate the position. The alternative, viz. to wait and see when there is an opportunity to plug in the BwN-approach, e.g. at a moment when progress stagnates, is a risky strategy for two reasons:
- It may very well happen that there is no window of opportunity, at all.
- In case of rivalry of ambitions decision making easily gets politicized. Plugging in BwN aspects after the initial phase may then become hard, especially if a ‘pressure cooker’ situation evolves: nobody wants to intervene during the process in order to add new ingredients.
Some issues to reflect upon as a BwN-proponent ‘in action’:
- Be adaptive to the arena you choose to connect to and be aware of the problems/issues already on the agenda.
- Reason from the perspective of the actors and argue accordingly.
- Be open and transparent, targeted but not manipulative.
- Think about alternatives and follow-up strategies in advance.
5. Organize BwN arenas
Initiating new arenas, new coalitions, searching for new perspectives can also be part of the strategy of the BwN-proponent. Methods may range from ‘out of the box’ brainstorm sessions to communities of practice. Creative working sessions to reveal the BwN-potential should involve expertise in the field of engineering, hydrology, morphology and ecology, as well as generic and applied local knowledge about the socio-economic system. Out of the box thinking should be mirrored by expertise with regard to political issues, problem perceptions, local history and local rivalries. Obviously, actors from the arenas in which decisions are prepared and eventually taken should not be excluded, and the same goes for stakeholders, especially if they have a long-standing relationship with the relevant decision-makers. We recommend to use facilitators that are process-oriented and capable of building partnerships and trust.
A promising strategy is to look for and connect to one or more influential advocates or ‘champions’ that embrace BwN-principles in important arenas and networks. This task particularly suits regional politicians, preferably those actively involved in public administration, especially if they act irrespective of their regular policy portfolios. This practice, acting irrespective of normal portfolios, is hardly observed at national level. In the case of the Delfland Sand-Engine experiment on the South-Holland coast, for instance, many people think this would not have been possible without the continuous inspired support of one of the provincial governors.
6. Organize connections to the power game
Do not hesitate to talk with relevant civil servants and governors. Ask for their policy agenda, important meetings and events and be invited to them. Try to introduce some BwN-ideas into the regular policy and development processes and connect as early as possible to them. At the start of development, policy makers and professionals are more receptive to expertise, analyses, concepts, new approaches and innovation. Later on in the process they tend to become more focused on a certain line of reasoning. Keep in mind that the socio-political system tends to reproduce problem solving strategies and measures that have proven to be successful in the past. Superior ideas are not necessarily recognized in the political process, as political reality does not necessarily correspond with technical rationality. Therefore, invite yourself to the discussions and seize any opportunity to become part of the project group. Ideally the developer and his network work themselves gradually into the regular arenas for preparation and decision making, though creating the preferred design is not an easy task. In order to embrace BwN and not to consider it as something 'alien', actors need to get acquainted with it and get into a guided process of joint learning about the potential of BwN in their particular situation.
Video: The promotional video made to illustrate political commitment to the Soft Sand Engine at the Frysian Lake IJssel Coast.
7. Monitor the arenas and the coalitions
Like natural systems, socio-political systems are dynamic and seldom in a long-lasting steady state. People change their preferences and positions without notice: circumstances change and are exploited during the process. Developments have to be monitored and strategies have to be reconsidered accordingly. Connecting to the appropriate experts, stakeholders and decision-makers therefore calls for continuous monitoring, instead of a single moment of analysis. Keep on being alert on which activities are needed for an arena and the actors therein: do they need information? do they need to be convinced? is cooperation needed, for instance on fact finding or joint learning?
The pilot experiments executed so far in the Building with Nature innovation program have taught us the following lessons with respect to governance and networking:
Lesson 1: Bridging administrative scales and ecosystem scales
BwN is a multi-level strategy of which the scales should preferably correspond with the physical and biological ecosystem scales. As a misfit may occur between administrative and geographic scales and ecosystem scales, BwN should stress the effects at ecosystem level, not only at local level. It is therefore important to include administrative actors operating at the relevant ecosystem scales, rather than only those geographically connected to a concrete (project) location.
Lesson 2: Bridging to politicians, finding champions
In the end, decisions are often taken by governors selected for a set period of time (e.g. four years). In order to demonstrate their capability to their constituencies, they must show that the plans adopted by them are a success. BwN-projects, however, observe the timescales of nature, irrespective of whatever human scales, and often take decades to come to fruition. This conflict between long-term effect and short-term demand for political successes can work against BwN. BwN designs should therefore be made attractive to politicians, also from a short term perspective: progress should be made visible, intermediate results highlighted and celebrated in a visible way. Clearly, this means combining short-term intermediate goals with long-term objectives.
Actively look for influential individuals who can be an advocate or 'çhampion' who are positive about the BwN principles and have influence in and access to important arenas and networks. These individuals normally are regional politicians, preferable governors. This is well illustrated by the case of the Delfland Sand Engine, which would not have been possible without the active support of the provincial governor.
Lesson 3: Bridging to civil servants
In general, both politicians and civil servants are needed to make a project come true. Their mutual priority depends on the situation and the project phase. If actors fight over ambitions that relate to their interests, or stated ambitions exclude a BwN-approach, connecting to politicians/governors/champions becomes essential. Yet, also feed the bottom-up process: seek for connections with civil servants in relevant administrative organization, since they play important roles and can exert a lot of influence. In the case of the Frisian coast pilots, for instance, a Community of Practice (COP) turned out to be an effective instrument to promote BwN among various administrative organizations.
Lesson 4: Bridging to the public at large
While connecting to politicians and civil servants is essential, connecting to the public at large should also be considered. NGOs and other stakeholders may be influential in public arenas, so it may be recommendable to align with them.
Some patterns found in the BwN-cases:
- Hardly any opposition against the concept of building with nature has been encountered. Opposition concentrated on what BwN is perceived to enable: To anticipate on potentially disruptive nature legislation that can be used to block development in a later stage.
- When looking for partners in promoting BwN solutions, one would better concentrate on actors who are inclined to think in terms of development instead of conservation. Organizations promoting nature seem to be obvious partners to align with and most of them are. Yet, some of them have a conservation attitude towards nature and perceive development-oriented approaches such as BwN with skepticism. Even the synergy with nature is sometimes objected to by these actors, because it is considered as ‘greenwashing’, i.e. abusing nature to achieve economic objectives. In some cases nature-organizations chose to enter the integral development coalition because they perceived this as unavoidable.
- Public opinion is volatile. The negative media attention associated with the closure of the feeder channel to the lagoon of the Delfland Sand Engine because of swimmer safety, for instance, turned the public opinion overnight from generally positive to negative.
Lesson 5: Arguments pro BwN
The general observation is that the arguments that should be used to advocate BwN depend on the situation and on the arena, networks and actors addressed. This requires thinking from the perspectives, ambitions and interests of these actors and linking this to a contextual and flexible use of arguments.
Influential arguments in favour of BwN used in the cases considered can be categorized as follows:
- Coping with regulatory settings: the fact that the plans put forward in these cases all had significant effects on designated habitat areas (N2000), this was most frequently the argument why BwN and similar approaches were welcomed. One may also perceive this as enabling human ambitions (in designated habitat areas).
- Lower costs and/or added value (compared to traditional solutions and approaches in use): in several situations this argument opened doors. One relevant category are lower implementation costs, another one are avoided future costs, i.e. costs that would have been incurred in the absence of BwN. A third category is added value, linked to additional functions such as fisheries, tourism and nature; the ecosystem services approach is a relevant tool to underpin claims.
- Transfer of costs: Sometimes BwN principles and solutions involve a transfer of costs across projects, programs and scales. Long-term maintenance costs of a BwN-alternative, for instance, may be lower than those of a traditional design. If construction and maintenance are financed from different sources or come under different authorities, this argument may not make much of a difference. Given the trend towards lifecycle costing, this should be a vanishing problem..
- Flexibility : If effects do not occur as expected, or unforeseen situations occur, BwN offers the possibility to make small incremental and if necessary adaptive steps. This implies that the authorities responsible can stay in control, the chance of early write-off of investments is minimal and the drive to costly over-designing is avoided.
- Controllability: rather than claiming that BwN “lets nature take its course”, BwN-advocates should emphasize the steering possibilities offered by the design and show that BwN is anything but uncontrolled. For politicians, a project should be amendable and steerable, since in the end they are held responsible if anything goes wrong.
Lesson 6: Seek for integral development signals to connect to
In arenas with 'integral development' on the agenda, actors will take a more development-oriented view and will be more inclined to include novel dynamic approaches aiming at system transformation. The system itself is in transition, and creating new dynamics is less of a threat than in a static system. Be aware that there is always a conservationist coalition trying to keep the system in its present state or to restore a past state which they consider favourable.
Lesson 7: Enhancing support
There are different ways to introduce BwN and to enhance support. Participating in official hearings is the most obvious option, but not necessarily the most effective one, as such hearings will be held rather late in the process. More pro-active BwN-practices are, for instance, to start a community of practice (COP), or to have a series of talks with influential politicians and civil servants, or to organize ateliers with practitioners and policy makers. Clever use of media may also work. A video on YouTube, for instance, worked well to expose BwN principles. in the case of the Frisian coast pilots. The expression of support by regional governors who appeared in the video payed a crucial role in getting the projects accepted. Playing an active role in project groups, steering groups and advisory groups gives direct access to information and networks and enables anchoring BwN principles. Acting towards the public at large, so as to get as many people as possible acquainted with BwN, is also worth considering.
Make sure that the public has the opportunity to live through and undergo the design. This can and should be done in two ways: 1. Visualize the design before implementation. Modern technology offers many opportunities to visualize the design in virtual reality, i.e. to show what people will see when the project is completed (and during the project realization phase). 2. Make sure that the design adds something for the public, for instance additional nature that can be visited and enjoyed, or recreational opportunities. Be aware that the general public is more likely to value what is and is less focused on what could be.
Lesson 8: Explicit commitment to BwN
Include all important actors from all relevant sectors and create commitment with regard to the procedure and the result. Also make committing appointments on who will be financially responsible. Division of costs should be clear at the project inception, not only when designs have been finalized. Commitment should be documented, for instance in a covenant. Alternatively, the project can be labeled as ‘experimental’, in order to secure additional financial means from for instance innovation-stimulating funds.
This lesson learned relates to the issue of how pro-active or project focused BwN advocates want to operate. Sometimes it might seem that dominant actors and coalitions embrace BwN. So why in such case spend energy on issues discussed in this section guidance? For several reasons: they might change their position, influenced by opponents and developments that they perceive relevant. This might for instance happen when opponents add new knowledge and alternatives to the agenda. Also political decision-making and procurement can easily endanger BwN projects. So monitoring as referred to above should be done, keeping in mind the project phases. For instance with regard to management and maintenance often other arenas and actors are relevant, there are examples that their decisions hinder BwN effects to be realized. Also when BwN seems to be accepted, it is of importance to continue 'spreading the news' as opinions might change over time. New opposition can emerge for instance due to changes in strategic agendas, new knowledge and financing issues concerning appropriate financial arrangements.
Lesson 9: Apply creative strategies
If things do not proceed as expected one can think of some strategic interventions, such as introducing new actors that are process-oriented, so-called brokers. Also activating NGOs can be helpful, if they support BwN and the relationship is based on mutual trust. Look for opinion leaders that could become BwN champions in their networks. Another strategy is to connect to new arenas, or a joint stakeholder initiative, a platform, a committee, all ways to bring in new information and expertise. Activating media can be be very effective, but may also fire back. Coupling additional goals and resources to those under discussion can also be of help to bring this afloat again, or to reduce opposition against BwN (Bressers and Lulofs 2010: 27-31).
The power used by Building with Nature to meet its objectives is dispersed over society and is not limited to actors having the formal right to decide. The challenge is to determine how polymorphic decision making in hybrid arrangements can be understood. Understanding decision making and formal and informal power structures is a prerequisite for influencing decisions. We describe a couple of illustrative examples below.
Case IJsseldelta south (By-pass Kampen)
To the southwest of the Dutch town of Kampen, in the province of Overijssel and bordering Lake IJssel (IJsselmeer), a new river branch is being designed in order to cope with the increased discharge in the Dutch Rhine branches. The creation of this new branch for flood safety is combined with other developments such as housing, infrastructure, recreation as well as nature development. This is integrated into the large-scale integral development project IJsseldelta-South. Planning and design started in 2004, the final plan has been approved in the summer of 2012. An intensive participation process was part of the design process. The resulting plan largely coincides with the former sea-arm “de Reeve” and includes large-scale nature development. Overall, the plans have a high level of “nature inclusive” thinking in them and nature itself is considered essential for making the project a success.
The IJsseldelta-South project has been running since 2004 and nature has been a significant goal from the start. In 2005 there was a political decision on the general direction of the project which included nature development and a strong focus on creating a meandering and natural landscape (Projectorganisatie IJsseldelta-Zuid, 2005a). In the concrete first plans for the area, principles similar to what we now call “Building with Nature” formed the basis of the plans and have been broadly accepted since. In 2010 the terminology of building with nature and “nature-inclusive design” were in use by the project organization. These basic principles might prove to be beneficial not just for nature, but even for the acceptance of the project as a whole, as they anticipate the judicial process related to nature legislation such as Natura 2000. Although this assumption has not been tested so far, it has reinforced the belief that natural development can go hand in hand with flood safety.
Although the Netherlands are continuously developing, there are areas that for several decades are left untouched. One of them is the Markermeer, formerly part of the Zuiderzee, later the IJsselmeer, and separated from it by a dike, the Houtribdijk. The latter was built as part of a plan to reclaim the area, but this plan was abandoned when the need for agricultural land decreased. With the Markermeer and the IJmeer, the Amsterdam metropolitan area has access to a conservation and recreation area on its doorstep of nearly 80,000 hectares. The extensive open waters and the varied coastline possess unique qualities, especially given their urban surroundings. The potential value of this area for nature is beyond question. The lakes are a key link in several bird migration routes. The presence of many thousands of birds is one of the reasons why this area enjoys protection at a European level (N2000). But nature in this area is under pressure and has declined significantly since the eighties. Turbidity has gone up, flora and fauna are on the decline and bird numbers have fallen. The question is whether and how this decline can be reversed.
At the same time, the Amsterdam Metropolitan area is very dynamic. The city of Almere is set to double in size by 2030 to 350,000 inhabitants, Amsterdam and environs continue to grow and Utrecht is about to launch into a new phase of expansion. There will soon be more than 1.5 million people living around the two lakes. All these extra residents will create a growing demand for infrastructure, jobs and recreational facilities. This urban development puts huge demands on its surroundings. The landscape is a key distinguishing feature of the Noordvleugel, a metropolitan region that, in contrast to most other European metropolitan areas, consists of a network of cities instead of one large continuous urban area. The Markermeer and IJmeer could contribute significantly to this position, boosting this area’s international competitiveness. The potential is there, but it must be exploited wisely on the basis of proactive and sustainability-oriented policies. One aspect of this involves a renewed legal approach to conservation projects that goes beyond the current practice of species conservation and environmental compensation.
The Future Vision for Markermeer-IJmeer aims to enable nature in this area to gradually regain its vitality and resilience. The most notable proposals are the development of an extensive marshland area along the shoreline by Lelystad and ‘primary banking’ at Almere. The marshland and primary banking will result in a greater array of transitional zones, which will provide extra habitats and further increase the area’s biodiversity. The marshland is positioned to enhance the relationship between land, lake and conservation area for the benefit of birdlife. Another pillar of the plans is suspended sediment management. The realization of zones sheltered from wave action, combined with sludge drains, are meant to create more areas of clear water around the lakes. This will allow water plants to reestablish, which will further clarify the water. The end result of all these measures will serve to increase biodiversity and landscape variation. In other words a landscape that is more appealing to plants, animals and people.
The need for integral development is recognized at the level of the national government, which has led to a more holistic approach as part of the National Programme for the Randstad (the urbanized city rim in the western part of the Netherlands). The provinces of Flevoland and Noord-Holland have been requested to manage an Integrated Development Perspective project for the Markermeer-IJmeer. This scheme was submitted to the Ministry of Transport & Public Works as an intermediate step towards a long-term strategy for the area.
The Integrated Development Perspective project claims that the ecological decline can be reversed with a systematic approach. This approach aims to create an ecological system that is flexible enough to absorb future changes without a substantial loss of quality. This will help to generate space for the urban and recreational dynamics of the Amsterdam Metropolitan area.
To realize the above, more work is needed in ecological terms than is legally required to maintain the conservation levels laid down in the European Natura 2000 programme. Natura 2000 and its Dutch legislative implementation have resulted in an ecological task which is drafted in terms of ecological support for specific species and habitats. This is not enough, however, to prevent that the ecological system as a whole remains vulnerable to natural phenomena (such as storms and climatic changes) and human intervention. The system approach of the Integrated Development Perspective project aims to create a robust ecosystem.
- Hans Bressers and Kris Lulofs (2010), Analysis of boundary judgments in complex interaction processes, in: Hans Bressers and Kris Lulofs (eds.) Governance and Complexity in Water Management. Creating Cooperation through Boundary Spanning Strategies, Edward Elgar/ IWA, p. 17-32.
- Kris Lulofs and Menno Smit, Monitor Building with Nature IJmeer-Markermeer-IJsselmeer 2008-2012, Executive summary, September 2012
- Menno R. H. Smit en Kris R.D. Lulofs, Chances and Challenges for Building with Nature in the IJsselmeer Area, Universiteit Twente, Ecoshape BwN Mij 1.3 – phase 1
- Menno R. H. Smit en Kris R.D. Lulofs, Monitor Building with Nature in the IJsselmeer Area. Case studies: IJsseldelta-Zuid – Bypass Kampen & BwN experiments MIJ, Universiteit Twente, Ecoshape BwN Mij 1.3 – phase 2
- Menno R. H. Smit en Kris R.D. Lulofs, Monitor Building with Nature in the IJsselmeer Area. Case studies: Almere IJland and TMIJ (TBES), Universiteit Twente,Ecoshape BwN Mij 1.3 – phase 3