Concepts of Participatory Decision-Making in Dutch Infrastructure Planning

  • Johan WoltjerEmail author

Continued growth in traffic volume and infrastructure facilities such as airports, railroads, and highways can lead to a variety of environmental problems. Car traffic in particular consumes energy, produces congestion, causes accidents and pollution. Traffic is also a major generator of noise nuisance. Accordingly, a major challenge for infrastructure planning is to combine economic growth with an acceptable use of the available territory, nature, and biodiversity, and a restriction on environmentally harmful emissions.

In a small, densely populated, country, such as the Netherlands, these environmental problems often emerge as highly complex decision-making situations that feature conflicting interests. Consequently, Dutch infrastructure planners find it difficult to guarantee the participation of all these interests and deliver good quality and environmentally sound outcomes.


Environmental Impact Assessment Regional Office Participatory Process Deliberative Democracy Harmful Emission 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Altena, P. (1997). Infralab-project A12 Ede-Veenendaal {Infralab A12 project from Ede to Veenendaal}; paper presented at the regional planning conference ‘De aanpak van omgevings-planning’. Zwolle, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  2. Boelens, L. (1990). Stedebouw en planologie, een onvoltooid project: naar het communicatief handelen in de ruimtelijke planning en ontwerppraktijk {Urbanism and planning, an unfinished project; towards communicative action in spatial planning and design}. Delft, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  3. Cronin, T. E. (1989). Direct democracy: The politics of initiative, referendum, and recall. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dahl, R. A. (1982). Dilemmas of pluralist democracy: Autonomy vs. control. Yale studies in political sciences. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Elster, J. (Ed.) (1998). Deliberative democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Enthoven, G. (2005). Representatief en participatief: Een tuussenbalans na 10 jaar interactief besturen {Representative and participatory: A review on 10 Years of interactive governance}. Bestuurskunde, 2, 21–29.Google Scholar
  7. Glasbergen, P. (Ed.) (1995). Managing environmental disputes, network management as an alternative. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  8. Hendriks, F. & Tops, P. W. (2001). Politiek en interactief bestuur, Interacties en interpretaties rond de ontwikkeling van het Nationaal Verkeers — en Vervoersplan {Politics and interactive administration}. The Hague: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  9. Heuvelhof, E. F. Ten & Termeer, C. J. A. M. (1991). Gebiedsgericht beleid en het bereiken van win-win situaties {Area orientated policy and reaching win-win situations}. Bestuurswetenschappen, 4, 301–315.Google Scholar
  10. Huigen, J., Frissen, P. H. A., & Tops, T. W. (1993). Het project Betuweroute, spoorlijn of bestuurli-jke co-productie {The Betuwe line project, railway or administrative coproduction}. Katholieke Universiteit Brabant, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  11. Innes, J., Gruber, J., Neuman, M., & Thompson, R. (1994). Coordinating growth and environmental management through consensus building. California Policy Seminar Report. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  12. James, W. (1967). The pragmatic method. In J. J. McDermott (Ed.), Writings of William James. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  13. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Lijphart, A. (1984). Democracies: Patterns of majoritarian and consensus government in twenty-one countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Mastop, J. M. (1987). Besluitvorming, handelen en normeren: Een methodologische studie naar aanleiding van het streekplanwerk {Decision-making, handling and standardising: A methodological study as a result of regional planning}. Planologische Studies, 4. Planologisch en Demografisch Instituut University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  16. RWS (1997). Open Keuken: Zoektocht naar methoden voor interactieve procesaanpak {Open kitchen: Zeeking methods for interactive project management}. The Hague, The Netherlands: National Head Office of Water Works, Infraplan.Google Scholar
  17. RWS NH (1995). Het open planproces, toepassing binnen projecten? {The open planning process, application within projects?}. Haarlem, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  18. RWS NH (1996). Spelregels voor het open planproces, uitgangspunten en implementatie {Rules of the game for the open planning process, starting points and implementation}. Haarlem, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  19. Susskind, L. & Cruikshank, J. (1987). Consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  20. Teisman, G. R. (1992). Complexe Besluitvorming, een pluricentrisch perspectief op besluitvorm-ing over ruimtelijke investeringen {Complex decision-making, a pluricentric perspective on decision-making over spatial investments}. The Hague, The Netherlands: VUGA.Google Scholar
  21. V&W (1996). Open deuren — werkdocument {Open doors — working document}. The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  22. V&W (1997). Draagvlak en maatschappelijke acceptatie {Support and public acceptance}. Rotterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  23. V&W (1998). Raamwerk integrale beleidsvorming hoofdinfrastructuur {A framework for integrated policy making regarding major infrastructure}. The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  24. Verma, N. (1996). Pragmatic rationality and planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 16, 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Woltjer, J. (1998). Interactieve planvorming, inventarisatie en evaluatie van praktijk — initiatieven {Interactive plan making: An inventory and evaluation of practical initiatives}. TNO, Delft, The Netherlands: Opdrachtgever.Google Scholar
  26. WRR (1998). Ruimtelijke Ontwikkelingspolitiek {Spatial development policy}. The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Groningen UniversityFaculteit Ruimtelijke wetenschappenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations