This paper discusses the issue of valuation with respect to the use of water systems and related infrastructures in the context of regional planning. It is argued that a further institutionalisation of the integration of local (public) values into interactive decision making is needed. This requires an institutional design that embeds local values in the use of valuation methods and rules and guidelines relevant to regional planning. Existing procedures of valuation and weighing may still be used but in a context of co-valuation. However, co-valuation is characterized by its multi-actor approach towards valuation that assesses different and sometimes competing values. A case study was conducted to experiment with the combination of deliberation and weighing in local/regional spatial development concerning water systems and related infrastructures. Based on the case study and related research, some first steps towards the involvement of local values in decision making are proposed.
BadeT. and van der SchroeffO. (2006) Geld als water. Over Europese richtlijnen, water en regionale economie. Arnhem: Kenniscentrum Triple E.
2.
BoumaJ.J. (2006) “Water management in coastal zones and deltas”, Journal of cleaner production, 15: 1495–1498.
3.
BoumaJ.J.FrancoisD. (2008) “Assessing socio-economic impacts of wave overtopping: An institutional perspective”, Coastal engineering. Article in Press.
4.
DammersE.HornisW. (2005) Schoonheid is geld! Naar een volwaardige rol van belevingswaarden in maatschappelijke kosten-batenanalyses. Rotterdam: NAi Uitgevers, Ruimtelijk Planbureau.
5.
de BruynS.BlomM.J. (2007) Leidraad MKBA in het milieubeleid. Versie 1.0. CE Delft.
6.
DenzauA.T. and NorthD.C. (1994) “Shared mental models: Ideologies and institutions”, Cyclo, 47: 3–31.
7.
DuijnM.StArmourW. (2008) “An integrative approach to knowledge transfer and integration: Spanning boundaries through objects, people and processes”, OLKC. Copenhagen.
8.
EdelenbosJ. and MonnikhofR. (eds) (1998) Spanning in interactie: Een analyse van interactief beleid in lokale democratie. Amsterdam: Instituut voor publiek en politiek.
9.
EdelenbosJ. and MonnikhofR. (eds) (2001) Lokale interactieve beleidsvorming. Een vergelijkend onderzoek naar de consequenties van interactieve beleidsvorming voor het functioneren van de lokale democratie. Utrecht: Lemma.
10.
EdelenbosJ.van SchieN. (2008a) “Democratic anchorage of interactive governance: Developing institutional interfaces in water governance. Experiences from a Dutch water case in action”, PSA Conference. Swansea.
11.
EdelenbosJ.van SchieN. (2008b) “Organizing interfaces in water governance”, Policy Sciences (forthcoming).
12.
EijgenraamC.J.J.KoopmansC.C. (2000) Evaluatie van infrastructuur- projecten. Leidraad voor kosten-batenanalyse. Centraal Planbureau en Nederlands Economisch Instituut.
13.
EisenhardtK.M. (1989) “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of management review, 14 (4): 532–550.
14.
GaaffA.StrookmanM. (2003) Kosten en baten van alternatieve inrichtingen van de Horstermeerpolder. Den Haag: LEI.
15.
GaaffA.StrookmanM.ReinhardS. (2003) inrichtingsvarianten van het Apeldoorns Kanaal. Toepassing van Maatschappelijke Kosten-Batenanalyse in een interactief proces. Den Haag: LEI.
16.
GroffenB.van LuinA. (2006) Nederland boven water. Programma gebiedsontwikkeling 2007–2009. Habiforum, Nirov, De praktijkacademie.
17.
JacobsM. (1997) “Environmental valuation, deliberative democracy and public decision-making institutions”, In FosterJ. (ed.), Valuing Nature? Ethics, economics and the environment. London: Routledge. pp. 211–231.
18.
JasanoffS. (1990) The fifth branch. Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge: Harvard university Press.
19.
KeeneyR.L. (1992) Value-focused thinking. A path to creative decisionmaking. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
20.
KeynonW.HanleyN. (2001) “Citizens' juries: An aid to environmental valuation?”, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19: 557–566.
21.
MessnerF.ZwirnerO. (2006) “Participation in multi-criteria decision support for the resolution of a water allocation problem in the Spree River basin”, Land Use Policy, 23: 63–75.
22.
Ministerie van LNV V&W EZ en VROM (2006) “Adaptatieprogramma Ruimte en Klimaat, Nationaal Programma”.
23.
Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat (2000) Waterbeleid voor de 21e eeuw. Geef water de ruimte en de aandacht die het verdient. Advies van de commissie waterbeheer 21e eeuw. Commissie waterbeheer 21e eeuw.
24.
Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat (2003) Vergelijking afwegings- en waarderingsmethoden voor waterbeheersprojecten Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat (2007) De Watervisie ‘Nederland veroveren op de toekomst’. Kabinetsvisie op het waterbeleid.
25.
Ministerie van VROM (2006) “Vijfde Nota Ruimtelijke Ordening. Ruimte voor ontwikkeling”.
26.
NiemeyerS. and SpashC.L. (2001) “Environmental valuation analysis, public deliberation, and their pragmatic syntheses: A critical appraisal”, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19: 567–585.
27.
NorthD.C. (1992) The New Institutional Economic and Development. St. Louis: Washington University.
28.
NorthD.C. (1994) “Economic Performance through Time”, The American Economic Review, 84 (3): 359–368.
29.
NowotnyH.ScottP. (2001) Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Oxford: Polity Press, Blackwell Publishers.
30.
O'ConnorM. (2000) “Pathways for environmental valuation: A walk in the (hanging) gardens of Babylon”, Ecological Economics, 34: 175–193.
31.
OllivierG. (2004) An analytical understanding of the Water Framework Directive questioning its potential to enable sustainable management of water. SLIM (Social Learning for the Integrated Management and sustainable use of water at catchment scale), Case study monograph 9.
32.
PorterM.E. (1980) Generic competitive strategies, competitive strategy technigues for analyzing industries and competitions. New York: The free press.
33.
ReinhardS.PolmanN.B.P. (2007) Baten van de Kaderrichtlijn Water in het Friese Merengebied. Een interactieve MKBA-vingeroefening (Wettelijke Onderzoekstaken Natuur & Minieu (WOt) 48). Wageningen: LEI.
34.
RijkswaterstaatRiza D.G. (2002) Praktijkervaringen met meervoudig ruimtegebruik binnen watergerelateerde projecten. Lelystad: RIZA.
35.
RMNO (2008) Social cost benefit analyses for environmental policy making. Conference version. Den Haag: RMNO.
36.
RuijgrokE.C.M. (2007) Kentallen waardering natuur, water, bodem en landschap. Hulpmiddel bij MKBAS's. eerste editie. Witteveen + Bos, Ministerie van LNV.
37.
RuijgrokE.C.M.BrouwerR. (2004) Waardering van natuur, water en bodem in maatschappelijjke kosten baten analyses. Een handreiking ter aanvulling op de leidraad OEI. Witteveen + Bos.
38.
SabatierP.A.FochtW. (eds) (2005) Swimming upstream. Collaborative approaches to watershed managementCambridge: MIT press.
39.
SagoffM. (1988) The economy of the earth. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
40.
ScholzJ.T. and StiftelB. (2005) Adaptive governance and water conflict. New institutions for collaborative planning. Washington: Resources for the future.
41.
SchuijtK.D. (2003a) “Valuation of water. The process of economic valuation of ecosystems in water management.”. Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.
42.
SoderholmP. (2001) “The deliberative approach in environmental valuation”, Journal of economic issues, 35 (2): 487–495.
43.
SpashC.L. (2001) “Broadening democracy in environmental policy processes. Editorial”, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19: 475–481.
44.
SpashC.L. (2007) “Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change”, Ecological economics, 63: 690–699.
45.
ConsultingSterkBuitenBureau (2007) Werkwijzer MKBA in de regio.
46.
van den BergA.E. (1999) “Individual differences in the aesthetic evaluation of natural landscapes”. PhD thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
47.
van den BergA.E. and KooleS.L. (2006) “New wilderness in the Netherlands: An investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes”, Landscape and Urban Planning, 78: 362–372.
48.
van DijkJ.M. (2008) Water and environment in decision-making. Water Assessment, Environmental Impact Assessment, and Strategic Environmental Assessment in Dutvch planning. A comparison. Delft: Eburon.
49.
van RooyP.van LuinA. (2006) Nederland boven water. Praktijkboek gebiedsontwikkeling. Habiforum, Nirov, VROM.
50.
van SchieN.RijnveldM. (2007) “Citizens as policy makers: The creation of policy options in spatial development from multiple perspectives”, ERSA. Paris.
51.
WilliamsonO.E. (1998) “Transaction cost economics: How it works; where it is headed”, De Economist, 146: 23–58.
52.
WitteJ.P.M. and MeulemanA.F.M. (2006) Waarden en baten van natuur. Een verkennend onderzoek naar de mogelijkheid tot kwantificeren. BTO.
53.
YinR.K. (1993) Applications of case study research. California: Sage publications.
54.
ZillerA. and PhibbsP. (2003) “Social impacts and CBA. Integrating social impacts into cost-benefit analysis: A participative method: Case study: The NSW area assistance scheme”, Impact assessment and project appraisal, 21 (2): 141–146.
