Small-scale hydropower in the Netherlands : problems andstrategies of system buildersCitation for published version (APA):Manders, T. N., Höffken, J. I., & van der Vleuten, E. B. A. (2016). Small-scale hydropower in the Netherlands :problems and strategies of system builders. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 59, 1493-1503.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.100

DOI:10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.100

Document status and date:Published: 04/02/2016

Document Version:Publisher’s PDF, also known as Version of Record (includes final page, issue and volume numbers)

Please check the document version of this publication:

• A submitted manuscript is the version of the article upon submission and before peer-review. There can beimportant differences between the submitted version and the official published version of record. Peopleinterested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit theDOI to the publisher's website.• The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review.• The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and pagenumbers.Link to publication

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.

If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license above, pleasefollow below link for the End User Agreement:www.tue.nl/taverne

Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at:openaccess@tue.nlproviding details and we will investigate your claim.

Download date: 03. Sep. 2020

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 59 (2016) 1493–1503

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

http://d1364-03

n CorrE-m

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Small-scale hydropower in the Netherlands: Problems and strategiesof system builders

Tanja N. Manders n, Johanna I. Höffken, Erik B.A. van der VleutenSchool of Innovation Sciences Technology Innovation, Society, Eindhoven University of Technology, De Zaale, 5612 AJ Eindhoven, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 7 May 2015Received in revised form11 December 2015Accepted 17 December 2015

Keywords:Small-scale hydropowerSustainable energyLarge technical systemsSocial aspects of sustainable energySustainability transitions

x.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.10021/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

esponding author. Tel.: þ31 40 247 2349.ail address: t.n.manders@tue.nl (T.N. Manders

a b s t r a c t

Small-scale hydroelectricity (hydel) currently receives worldwide attention as a clean, green, and sociallyjust energy technology. People generally assume that downsizing hydel plants reduces harmful impacts.However, recent debates call for careful circumspection of small hydel’s environmental, social, andeconomic sustainability, if we are to avoid conflicts, costly setbacks, and hype-disappointment cycles.This paper provides such a circumspect case for the Netherlands, an interesting country thanks to itshighly institutionalized water sector. We highlight the importance of studying hydel power as part of alarger, interconnected Large Technical System. For selected cases, we identify what tensions small hydel‘system builders’ are facing and discuss which strategies they use to address these problems. We dis-tinguish ‘yield to fit in’, ‘confirmative policy focus’, and ‘hydel legitimation’ strategies for the develop-ment of small-scale hydropower in the Dutch highly-institutionalized wet network.

& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14942. Theory and approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14953. Small-scale hydel sustainability vision and case selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14964. Hydropower problems in The Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1497

4.1. The logics of location. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1497

4.1.1. Roeven-Nederweert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14974.1.2. Hagestein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14974.1.3. Borgharen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14974.1.4. Bosscherveld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14974.1.5. Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1498

4.2. Problems related to fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1498

4.2.1. Traveling fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14984.2.2. An acceptable fish damage benchmark. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14984.2.3. Catering to the interests of stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14994.2.4. Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1499

4.3. The lack of momentum for developing hydropower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1499

4.3.1. Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1499

5. System builder strategies: addressing the problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14995.1. Yield to fit in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15005.2. Confirmative policy focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15005.3. Hydel legitimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1500

5.3.1. Legitimation through emphasizing architectural value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15005.3.2. Legitimation through involving people. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1500

).

1 The classThe EU distingHere we discusplants are cons

T.N. Manders et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 59 (2016) 1493–15031494

5.3.3. Legitimation through emphasizing comparative green advantages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15005.3.4. Legitimation through establishing best practice design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1501

6. Discussion and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1501References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1502

1. Introduction

Small-scale hydroelectricity (hydel) is currently attractingworldwide attention as a clean, green, and socially just energytechnology. Already favored for some time as an option for elec-tricity generation in emerging economies, more recently, small-scale hydel has also made headway in industrialized economies.For example, in its 2009–2012 Small Hydropower Roadmap, theEuropean Small Hydropower Association (ESHA) proposes thatsmall-scale hydel, defined as systems with a power output up to10 MW, can contribute significantly to the European Union'srenewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction targets. In 2010,some 21,800 small-scale hydel plants made up about 8 percent ofthe EU’s renewable energy mix, and there are prospects for furthergrowth: over half of the EU’s economically feasible small-scalehydel potential remains untapped [1]. Even in a flat country suchas the Netherlands, at the very bottom of the list of EU countrieswith small–scale hydel systems, new plants are currently beingproposed by pioneers.

This renewed policy and practitioner interest in small-scalehydel is underpinned by promises of sustainability, climate changemitigation, and avoidance of the problems of large-scale hydro-power [2–4]. Especially in emerging economies, the environ-mental, social, economic, and technical sustainability of large-scalehydropower has been severely criticized [5–8]. Proponents of mini,micro, and pico hydel systems usually present small-scale hydel asa more sustainable alternative to large dam projects [3,9–12].1 InEurope, an additional problem of large-scale hydropower is thatmost suitable sites have already been exploited. Here small-scalehydel promises to generate electricity at low-head sites in a sus-tainable way [13]. For example, the above-mentioned ESHAroadmap emphasizes that small-scale hydel systems produce asteady flow of green energy, “are mainly run-of-river with little orno reservoir impoundment”, that “blend in with [their] sur-roundings with no environmental impacts”. Next to environ-mental sustainability, the roadmap promises economic sustain-ability: small-scale hydel features “incomparable high efficiency…, time availability of the resource, long life time (up to 100years), higher unit power investment”, and indirect benefits suchas power grid stability and enhanced water resource management[14]. If policy makers create “regulatory stability” and “fair marketrules”, the roadmap argues, small-scale hydel will be a promisingsustainable energy option for Europe.

Across the board, people assume that downsizing hydel plantswill reduce harmful effects. Their green, clean, socially just, andsmall-scale features make small-scale hydel a rather uncontestedtechnology in the sustainable energy literature. Its revival echoesfamiliar discourses on “small is beautiful” [15]. However, severalauthors warn against an “ideological” or “politically correct”approach to sustainability that takes such promises at face value[16]. They argue, for instance, that the per kilowatt adverseenvironmental impact of certain small-scale hydel schemes issimilar to those of large dams [2]. As for social sustainability, case

ification of hydropower is still rather ambiguous in the literature.uishes small (o10 MW) and large (410 MW) hydropower [13].s micro to small hydropower in the Netherlands, so 10 kW to 10 MWidered ‘small-scale’.

studies of village-scale hydel in India reveal local conflicts andpower struggles that tend to escape the attention of regional andnational policy makers and scholars. In fact, it took meticulous on-site ethnographic research to uncover such conflicts [17]. Theseauthors conclude that small-scale hydel’s environmental, social,and economic sustainability needs careful evaluation and cir-cumspection. If we proactively identify, rather than ignore, sus-tainability problems, we may be able to anticipate or remedythese, and perhaps avoid the costly setbacks, hype-disillusionmentcycles, and tensions that sustainable energy analysts haveobserved for biofuels, wind, energy, fuel cells and hydrogen, andPV systems [18–21].

This paper scrutinizes small-scale hydro from a sustainableenergy policy and innovation sciences – the social science of(sustainable) innovation – perspective and makes three contribu-tions. First, it provides the required circumspection of small-scalehydel. We identify the problems faced by small-scale hydropowerpractitioners in the Netherlands and their coping strategies. Othersshould pose this question about other countries. As for the Neth-erlands, scholarly studies of Dutch small hydel are rare, and asnoted, the country is lagging behind in EU small-scale hydeldevelopment. Yet even here, small-scale hydel’s promise of “cheap,renewable and endless” energy that can “be developed withoutsignificant impact on the existing surroundings” (p.1459) [22] isalive and kicking, and new plants are currently being erected [23].Moreover, the Netherlands makes for an interesting case studybecause of its highly developed and institutionalized water sector.This country lies in the common delta of the rivers Rhine, Meuse,and Scheldt, and over two-thirds of its land territory would besubject to regular flooding without its elaborate flood protectioninfrastructure. Inland shipping as well as land reclamation havebeen policy priorities for centuries. Intensive urbanization andagriculture further challenged and propelled the institutionaliza-tion of Dutch water management, and the country’s wet infra-structure became comparatively tightly-coupled [24,25]. Höffkenfound that sustainability tensions of small-scale hydel plants inIndia were often related to competing water uses, rather thanenergy [17]. We will show whether and how such tensions playout in the tightly-coupled, highly institutionalized Dutch watersector, and the implications for Dutch small-scale hydeldevelopment.

Our second contribution is to propose a Large Technical Sys-tems perspective for identifying small-scale hydel sustainabilityproblems. This perspective provides an actor-centered andproblem-centered systems approach to studying the dynamics ofcomplex infrastructure. It has previously examined how poten-tially conflicting uses of water, as well as transnational (inter)dependencies, were negotiated, accommodated, and integrated inwet infrastructure [26–28]. The next section will elaborate on thisperspective and its methodological implications before we pro-ceed to the empirical analysis and broader discussion of Dutchsmall-scale hydel development issues.

Finally, a third contribution reflects on the wider debate aboutscale and sustainability. Some argue that (environmental) sus-tainability “is fundamentally a question of scale” [29–32]. Manysmall emissions add up to large-scale environmental problems.Policy makers and practitioners try to upscale small-scale sus-tainability successes. Some plead for downsizing harmful large-

T.N. Manders et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 59 (2016) 1493–1503 1495

scale technologies, as in the case of hydroelectricity. Others won-der how to link large-scale and small-scale approaches to sus-tainable innovation. Some scholars argue that these notions oflarge and small scale are problematic, and that the issue of scaleand sustainability needs to be conceptually and empirically re-examined [32–34]. This paper tries to draw lessons from the caseof small hydel for this ongoing debate.

2. Theory and approach

In order to identify relevant problems of small-scale hydel inthe Netherlands, regardless of the disciplinary nature of theseproblems (e.g. technical, financial, legal, or environmental), weneed a transdisciplinary and holistic approach. For this purpose,we draw on the Large Technical Systems (LTS) framework ofanalysis. Like other systems theories in technology policy andinnovation studies, LTS theory was originally developed to shiftthe analytical focus from highly visible artefacts (e.g. nuclearreactors or hydroelectric dams), to sociotechnical systems (e.g. theelectricity supply system), encompassing a wide range of inter-acting technical, social, and environmental elements. LTS authorsargued that the dynamics of such systems, not their most visibleelements, constitute the locus of technological, social and envir-onmental change, and should be the unit of scholarly analysis [35–38]; for a review see [39,40]. Studying small-scale hydel schemesas sociotechnical systems allows us to link technological devel-opments to a wide range of social and environmental issues aswell as stakeholders.

Moreover, and here this perspective differs from many othersystems theories, LTS theory suggests a research approach that isinformal, actor-centered, and problem-centered. LTS scholarshiptends to be informal and actor-centered because it uses qualitativemethodologies to follow centrally positioned actors, so-calledsystem-builders, as they envision, build and change socio-technical systems. Studying individuals or organizations who workon the scale of the overall system, LTS theory has long been knownfor “humanizing systems theory” [41]. The approach is problem-centered because it follows these system-builders as they identify,articulate, and solve technical as well as non-technical ‘criticalproblems’ – problematic or lagging elements that hamper overallsystem growth and the realization of their vision. It is by identi-fying and solving such bottlenecks that system-builders forge abroad variety of elements into a sociotechnical system that worksin the real world [35,42]. Later research has shown that system-building is a complex and multi-actor game, but the crucial pointremains: Centrally positioned key actors observe and articulatekey problems relevant to overall system development, regardlessof the disciplinary (technical or non-technical) nature of theseproblems [43]. Studying these system-builders is therefore avaluable research entry for identifying problems, conflicts, andstrategies in sustainable innovation processes. In this study, wefollow hydel system builders (the practitioners who manage ahydel project) to track their identification and solutions to small-scale hydel’s sustainability problems.

Past research indicates tensions and conflicts that could berelevant to our inquiry, and which the researcher has to bear inmind. We distinguish three possible sources of problems relevantto small-scale hydel development. First, LTS studies of wet infra-structure have emphasized tensions and conflicts relating to geo-graphical interdependencies along river systems. Sometimes sta-keholders find these interdependencies mutually beneficial. Forinstance, Rotterdam harbor stakeholders and upstream commer-cial interests from Duisburg to Strasbourg and Basel jointly madethe River Rhine a pivotal economic artery, to their joint benefit. Inother cases, river interdependencies entail a conflict of interest, as

in upstream flood prevention causing downstream floods, orupstream pollution causing downstream contamination of drink-ing water. Such systemic interdependencies exist on local, regio-nal, national, and continental scales [28,44–46].

A second category of problems stems from the multiple,potentially conflicting, uses or functions of LTS. Large TechnicalSystems were originally defined by their functionality, as func-tional systems. However, LTS studies of wet infrastructure haveshown the multi-functionality of water systems. Wet system-builders typically struggled to integrate the diverse functions thatdifferent stakeholders projected on the same waters or waterworks. Hydroelectricity production could converge or conflict withfunctions such as shipping, flood protection, drinking water sup-ply, agricultural irrigation and drainage, ecological functions, andso on [26,47,48].

A third source of tension, finally, opposes new sociotechnicalsystems to old, mature ones. In energy production, the well-known challenge is to introduce nascent sustainable energy sys-tems into mature electricity systems, which over the past centuryhave been built around fossil fuels (and in some countries alsoaround nuclear and large-scale hydro facilities). The new andvulnerable sociotechnical systems (e.g. solar or small-scale hydelcooperatives today), often studied as sustainable energy ‘niches’,come with different technologies, stakeholders, and values thanthe incumbent system, often studied as sociotechnical ‘regimes’that tend to resist radical change [49–53]. In wet infrastructure, wemight see similar dominant systems or regimes that counteractradical change, thus frustrating the development of new nichesystems. Niches with more momentum stand a better chance ofchallenging such regimes.

Existing LTS studies of wet infrastructure illustrate the lattertwo tensions for our case. The construction of a Dutch nationalwater management system (ca. 1940–1970) is illustrative andimportant to our study. The lead system builder – the nationalgovernment’s civil engineering agency Rijkswaterstaat – identifiedmany competing uses of Rhine water that entered the country inthe east. Western cities and intensive agriculture craved freshwater for drinking water, irrigation, and the discharge of sewageand saline ground water. Northern cities (including Amsterdam),agriculture, shipping interests (haunted by summer droughts), andfisheries desired the construction of weirs to divert the samewater northwards. Meanwhile, flood protection was a nationalpriority. In the early 1940s, Rijkswaterstaat engineers identifiedabout twenty key aspects of national water circulation, thenweighed and incorporated these in a national water managementsystem controlled by strategically situated weirs and dams. By the1970 s, the result was a tightly-coupled, multi-purpose, and highlyinstitutionalized wet infrastructure [25,27]. Given the entrench-ment and momentum of the incumbent system, the subsequentintegration of yet another competing use of water – biodiversitypreservation ‒ became a major challenge for system builders. Ittook lots of societal and political pressure, a Rijkswaterstaat crisis,and an influx of ecologists and biologists, before this new concernbecame technologically and institutionally accommodated in thesociotechnical system design [54]. In a similar way we expectsmall-scale hydel projects, as new ‘niche’ systems, will run intoagricultural, navigation, water supply, and other ‘regime’ intereststhat are deeply entrenched in the existing water managementsystem.

These insights from the LTS literature inform our methodology.To identify potential small-scale hydel problems in the Nether-lands, we took hydel system builders as our starting point andsought their identification and articulation of critical problems.Since we were interested in any critical problem, irrespective of itsstatus in the sociotechnical system or its disciplinary nature, weinvestigated local system-builder experiences in depth. To insure

T.N. Manders et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 59 (2016) 1493–15031496

this explorative and qualitative study was feasible, we selectedfour cases (of fewer than twenty existing or projected hydel plantsin the Netherlands). For each case, we conducted semi-structuredinterviews and document analysis, focusing on the problems andsolutions identified and prioritized by system builders. We usedthe problem typology introduced above as a heuristic device. Ifsystem builders pointed at other stakeholders as ‘problematic’, weperformed follow-up interviews and document analysis in order tograsp the opposing party’s views.

Fig. 1. Location of the hydel plants, own drawing derived from [87].

3. Small-scale hydel sustainability vision and case selection

As mentioned above, hydropower is internationally envisionedas a green and reliable technology that does not disturb much ofits surroundings. Although hydropower’s potential is inter-nationally acknowledged, the public interest in hydropower as arenewable energy source is not widespread in the Netherlands.Compared to alternative (renewable) energy sources, hydro-power’s potential is quite low in the Netherlands ‒ in 2011hydropower only contributed to 0.02 percent of the total energymix [55]; some policy makers expect this percentage to stay low (aperception problem that small-scale hydel entrepreneurs have tohandle). As a Rijkswaterstaat officer explains: “there are still acouple of big locations on the Meuse, so the total hydropowercapacity can be increased by around 20 to 50 MW.[…] So there arequite a few locations where plants can be established, but I believethis will be a maximum of four to five plants and some smallerones scattered around. That will be about it.” [56,23]. In theNetherlands, the greatest (technical) potential for hydropower lieswithin the national waterways under Rijkswaterstaat jurisdiction[56]. Hydropower, however, is not this agency’s core mandate,which leaves it up to market actors [56]. Clearly, Rijkswaterstaatassigns lower techno-economic potential to hydropower and isthus less interested in developing targeted policies to further itsdeployment. Compared to other renewable energy options, espe-cially off-shore wind, hydropower’s potential is deemed less pro-mising [57].

Though incumbent actors such as Rijkswaterstaat find hydro-power development in the Dutch institutional “water-scape”challenging, enthusiastic practitioners do believe in and strive todevelop hydropower there. As we will show, these hydel systembuilders relate the development of hydropower to an overall visionof renewable energy, sustainability, and climate change mitigation.They aim to establish their plants within a wet system in whichsmall hydel generation can flourish and benefit from the ‘freely’flowing water at locations where a difference in head has alreadybeen created. In their view, small hydel plants form a valuableaddition to the renewable energy mix. Through their develop-ments, the system builders are able to identify which problems arehampering the realization of their vision and seek strategies toovercome these barriers.

For this paper, we draw broader lessons from in-depthempirical research on four micro-hydel projects. Partly for prac-tical reasons, we chose ‘run-of-river’ hydel case studies with dif-ferent dimensions, organizational setup, and business models.When studying the motivations and sustainability visions of thesystem builders involved, we should bear in mind that the conceptof small-scale hydel did not always evolve around sustainability.For instance, a number of 1980 s hydel initiatives promised busi-ness opportunities amid high oil prices and the neoliberal turn.However, these initiatives became problematic when oil pricesplummeted [58,59], and such ‘business opportunity’ visions forsmall hydel faded. Our cases illustrate that the current hydelcomeback is especially thriving on the promises of sustainability

and climate change mitigation—even though these still obviouslyneed a viable business model [23].

Our first case is on the Rhine River System and situated at theHagestein weir in the River Lek. The weir, owned by Rijkswater-staat, regulates upstream water levels for commercial shipping. Its1.8 MW hydel plant was established in 1958, but has been idlesince 2005. A newly founded energy cooperative, ADEM Houten, isattempting to renovate and restart it to provide green electricity toabout 1200 households, because they believe the plant can play animportant role in their aim to achieve local sustainable energyambitions.

The remaining three cases are situated in the Meuse River andcanal system. The Meuse enters the country south of Maastricht,and its domestic drop in elevation of some 44 m, though minor ininternational terms, can be exploited for hydel generation. Oursecond case is a 1 MW projected hydel plant near Maastricht, atthe Bosscherveld sluice. Rijkswaterstaat currently seeks to expandthe feeder capacity, and a local entrepreneur has added a hydelplant to make strategic use of the regulated water flow. The plantwill serve about 1000 households.

Slightly further downstream, our third case is an 11 MW plantplanned near the weir at Borgharen. Energy company Essent con-sidered a hydel plant here, but abandoned that idea in 2003. Pri-vate investor WKC Borgharen B.V. took over. Funded by a hydroproject developer, green investors, and green energy companyGreenchoice, the scheme aims to provide green energy to 13,000Maastricht households. The practitioner wants to demonstratehydropower’s significant share in renewable energy generation.

Finally, following the Zuid Willemsvaart Canal northwards, weinclude the small 36 kW hydel plant at Sluice 15 in Nederweert.The sluice was established by Rijkswaterstaat in 1917 to adjustwater levels when the canal was connected to two other canals.The hydel plant, dating from around 1920, exploited the elevationdifference between two connected canals. It was abandoned in1949, but renovated to provide green energy by a private party in1993. The renovation was funded by Rijkswaterstaat, the

T.N. Manders et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 59 (2016) 1493–1503 1497

municipality, the provincial government, and the Dutch govern-ment’s cultural heritage agency. As one of the country’s oldesthydel plants, it has a protected heritage status. Fig. 1 gives anoverview of the plants studied in this paper.

4. Hydropower problems in The Netherlands

Our starting point is the system builders as the starting point inorder to identify problems these practitioners distinguish in thecontext of small-scale hydel development in The Netherlands –

problems that they face in realizing their vision of sustainability.Our findings are structured in three different sections. We start byoutlining the essential role that location characteristics play inhydropower development, before detailing the two major issues,namely fish interests and the lack of momentum for developinghydropower.

4.1. The logics of location

The specific location of a hydel site produces barriers andopportunities for hydel plants and the space for system builders todevelop their envisioned systems. Interestingly, the systembuilders in this study do not mention these location characteristicsin relation to conflicts. This is surprising since other socio-technical hydel studies have identified location-related issues assignificantly contested (e.g. [17]). Furthermore, and this couldpartly explain the absence of societal protests, other interests’priorities (e.g. agricultural, navigational, safety) are institutionallywell-protected and publicly accepted [56,60–63]. Yet, despite notbeing a contested issue, location characteristics remain essential tostudy so that we can understand other system-building dynamics.Perhaps more importantly, location demonstrates the balance ofinterests in the incumbent system. We will describe per case studyhow system builders deal with the characteristics of location andother involved interests.

4.1.1. Roeven-NederweertThe Roeven-Nederweert hydel plant, situated in Nederweert at

the junction of three waterways, is one of the oldest hydel plantsin the Netherlands. It has been in intermittent operation fromapproximately 1920 to 1949 [64]. The plant in its current formwasestablished in 1993 after a thorough restoration and renovation bya company specialized in adapting old technologies [60]. Initially,the hydel plant was meant to provide electricity for a new sluice,Sluice 15, constructed around 1920 and for the Noordervaart sluice[65]. This new water construction required a feeding canal, alongwhich the Roeven-Nederweert hydel plant is situated. Althoughthe Noordervaart is still fed by this feeding canal, it is no longerused for shipping purposes. It has become a dead end canal [65].The canal’s function has changed from enabling navigation tobalancing water levels. At some times of the year, there are smallerdifferences in head at the hydel plant’s location, thus minimizingthe electricity generation potential. Furthermore, the generationpotential suffers during warm summers from the extensive growthof water plants which jam the hydel plant’s grid. In Roeven-Nederweert, the combination of natural factors and the manage-ment of the wet network, affect the suitability for electricitygeneration. This, however, did not deter the system builder. Bybuilding this plant, they are making a stand for renewable energygeneration and its contribution to the sustainable energy debate.

4.1.2. HagesteinThe Hagestein plant, dating from 1958 [66], is also one of the

oldest original hydel plants in the Netherlands. It is located on theHagestein weir, which is part of the ‘weir combination Hagestein-

Amerongen-Driel’ that balances the distribution of water betweenthe Waal, Ijssel, and Nederrijn rivers. The three-weir constructionHagestein-Amerongen-Driel has to maintain the water at a certainlevel, mainly for navigational and drinking water purposes and toprevent the formation of brackish water. The difference in heightthat emerged with the construction of the weir was a coincidencethat made the location suitable for harnessing hydropower. Yet theweir’s water balancing function has priority over the generation ofhydropower [63]. For Hagestein, this meant that in practice, thehydel plant is not able to operate approximately 50 percent of thetime since the weir is then entirely open. The fluctuating waterlevels at other times due to rainfall patterns affect the weir’soperation and consequently the water flowing through the tur-bines. Thus the plant is not able to generate electricity duringthese periods. The hydel plant has not been operating since 2005.However, a local sustainable energy company is one of the partiesseriously interested in re-establishing the plant in order to ‘use’the energy generated by the Hagestein hydel plant [67]. Theirvision is to realize locally produced and used electricity; moreover,the plant will harness the power of water that would otherwiseflow ‘unused’ down the river.

4.1.3. BorgharenBorgharen is one of the small series of possible locations on the

Meuse for relatively large-sized hydel plants. Initiatives to developthe Borgharen plant originate from 1989, but they experiencedmany difficulties such as lengthy procedures to obtain licenses andlack of a profitable business case. In 2003 a private investor tookover. This practitioner envisions a hydel plant that will showcasethe efforts to reduce CO2-emissions in the Netherlands anddemonstrate hydropower’s potential as a renewable source com-pared to other sources such as wind and solar [68]. The plannedmaximum capacity of the plant is 13.5 MW, with an annual pro-duction of approximately 42 GWh. The electricity will be providedto the city of Maastricht’s 120 thousand inhabitants [69] and isexpected to cover 30 to 35 percent of the household demand. Thehydel plant will be situated next to the Borgharen weir. This weir’soperation is tailored to feed the canal “Julianakanaal” and enablenavigational use. The head created by the weir is a welcomeknock-on effect that makes this location suitable for hydropower,but the weir will not be operated to fully benefit the hydel plant.According to the system builder: “Well, look, the weir has been builtto benefit the Juliana canal, so it is hard to say we believe hydropoweris suddenly more important. Of course, navigation is more importantthan an electricity plant of this size. […] From here on you cannavigate all the way to Liège, so that is quite important, that haspriority” [61].

Besides priority being given to navigation, fluctuating watertables also impact the operation of the Borgharen plant. Never-theless, the system builder chose this location since it enablesthem to establish a plant with a relatively high generationcapacity.

4.1.4. BosscherveldThe hydel plant at Bosscherveld will be built next to the Bos-

scherveld sluice, near the Zuid Willemsvaart canal. Currently, thefeeding function is still the primary role of the constructionaround the Bosscherveld sluice and the hydel plant will be locatedalongside this feeding canal. Besides for navigation, water is alsodirected through the feeding canal to serve agricultural uses, natureconservation, and industry, especially for the Kempen region inBelgium. As acknowledged by the system builder: “This means, thewater feeding function still holds an important position” [62]. Onaccount of agreements with Belgium to improve water availability,some adaptations were required. Currently the Bosscherveld sluicedoes not function accurately enough for water feeding purposes.

2 Natura 2000 is a network of protected nature areas within the EuropeanUnion for the conservation and recovery of biodiversity.

T.N. Manders et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 59 (2016) 1493–15031498

That is why Rijkswaterstaat plans to construct a bypass around thesluice that could handle a greater capacity to meet the waterdemand. As explained by the practitioner: “feeding is demand-dri-ven, so the amount of water that is required is the amount of waterwhich is supplied” [62]. This allows the practitioner to determinewith quite a high degree of certainty how much water will beavailable for electricity generation in the bypass.

Climate change might alter some water patterns, resulting forexample in drier summers and increasingly wet winters. Thiswould consequently reduce the operating potential and thereforethe economic returns for a hydel plant. The system builder expli-citly went for Bosscherveld, where he is assured of a certainminimum amount of water availability for approximately 95 per-cent of the time.

4.1.5. SynthesisAll the system builders deliberately chose locations that in their

opinion have potential: either where the existing infrastructurecan be used and upgraded (Roeven–Nederweert and Hagestein),suitable for a considerable size of plant (Borgharen), or where thewater flow is stable (Bosscherveld). Although changing weathercircumstances and other uncertainties in the wet network couldthreaten the energy generation potential, the practitioners do notidentify these issues as deterring the realization of their hydelplants. Rather, they articulate these issues as typical characteristicsof the wet network that hydel plant developers should consider.Yet, one topic they do identify as problematic is ‘fish’.

4.2. Problems related to fish

All the practitioners seem to be very much aware of problemswith fish, or fish interest organizations. Either the practitioners tryto avoid fish problems by aiming for fish-friendly hydel plants, orthey struggle with strongly coordinated fish interest organizations.In any event, ‘fish’ is a critical subject when talking about hydel inthe Netherlands. Before detailing the fish problems as they emergein the case studies, we will briefly describe the Dutch fish interestorganizations and their concerns about traveling fish.

4.2.1. Traveling fishDutch fish interest organizations present themselves as critical

guardians of the ecological habitats of fish and the fish migrationnetwork. Accordingly, they intend to be highly involved in thedevelopment of hydel projects. Generally, the organizations aresuspicious of hydropower due to the obstacles that hydel plantsand turbines can create. Problems occur when fish have to passthrough the hydro plants on their way upstream or downstream.Every weir, sluice, or hydel plant is an obstacle, not just formigrating species, but also non-migrating species are hamperedwhen traveling for other survival reasons (e.g. food). Furthermore,even when they are able to swim through the obstacles, the fishcan still be affected due to delays or energy loss [70]. Conse-quently, fish are more vulnerable to predators or not able to reachspawning grounds in time.

Fish traveling upstream will have to overcome the height dif-ference caused for example by the weir where the hydel plant islocated. Fish interest organizations demand that every differenttype of fish must be able to manage the height difference under allcircumstances [71]. Yet, in practice this is often very challenging:the behavior and other characteristics of various fish are difficultto grasp; some plant designs might be adequate for smaller fish,but not for larger species [72]. Even if fish stairs resemble a naturalriver as much as possible, the fish might find orientation difficult[71–73]. Additionally, well-functioning fish ladders are costly andhave a negative impact on a hydel plant’s economic returns.Another option to benefit migrating fish is the fish-friendly

management of a weir [71]. However, smaller fish might find itdifficult to pass through and this management interferes withmany other water functions, like balancing water levels.

There are appalling pictures showing fish shattered by a hydelplant’s turbines. These turbines can be deadly or damaging fordownstream swimming fish, hit either by the rotating blades orthe pressure difference [23]. A fish passage is a technology whichprevents fish from passing through the turbines by trying to makethem follow the flow in the fish passage. However, as is the casefor fish stairs, different fish respond differently to these technol-ogies, and changing water flows make it difficult to design asolution that works optimally in every situation [72]. Anotheroption is a fish-friendly turbine design, with different shapes ofblades [72,74]. An additional fish-friendly management method isto adapt the turbine’s operating period to suit the fish [71]. Yetfrom the hydel-practitioner’s perspective, these methods willprobably result in lower economic returns, and might not alwaysbe possible due to other stakeholders’ water management [71,1].

We will now focus on the fish-related problems that arise atthe Borgharen and Bosscherveld hydel sites. Still in the develop-ment phase, these two cases are particularly significant. Becausetheir practitioners also deal with the problems relating to fishquite differently, we use these two cases to demonstrate the issuesin more detail. Generally speaking, fish problems emerge con-cerning: agreeing on and handling an acceptable fish damagebenchmark; and aligning and catering to the interests of othersystems’ stakeholders.

4.2.2. An acceptable fish damage benchmarkThere is no question that hydel plants hinder the free movement

of fish to some extent. The grounds for argument, however, are:how severe is this hindrance. The following incident illustrates this:Fish interest organizations ‘Visstandverbetering Maas’ and ‘Sport-visserij Nederland’ (also an anglers’ sport-fishing association)appealed against the granting of two licenses to establish the Bor-gharen hydel plant. These licenses confirmed that the project wouldbe in line with both a nature conservation and a water act (‘Nat-uurbeschermingswet’ and ‘Waterwet’). Following this appeal, theState Council (‘Raad van State’) invalidated the two licenses pre-viously granted to the Borgharen hydel plant [75,76] issued onSeptember 14, 2011 and February 8, 2012. A deciding factor in theappeal was that the granting of the licenses was not based onproper research. In the view of the fish interest organizations, thelicenses disregarded the fact that migrating fish on their routetowards the future Borgharen plant are already exposed to severestress, since they have to pass through two other existing hydelplants situated on the Meuse, in Alphen/Lith and Linne [75–77].According to a maximum fish damage benchmark, the cumulativedamage of all (existing and new) hydel plants may not exceed tenpercent to prioritized fish species, which include eel and salmon[78]. Since the two existing plants at Alphen/Lith and Linne alreadyexceed this norm, the fish interest organizations claim there is nooption for a third hydel plant. Furthermore, the Borgharen hydelplant will be in a critically ecological Natura 2000 location [79].2

Stressing the ecological importance of this location, the fish interestorganizations insist on insuring that if the hydel plant is built, itmust not cause any additional damage to fish.

While the fish organizations take the fish damage benchmarkas a starting point for their arguments and actions, the Borgharensystem builder fundamentally questions the empirical validity ofthis benchmark. The ten percent benchmark, based on expertjudgments from the task force established by Rijkswaterstaat and

T.N. Manders et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 59 (2016) 1493–1503 1499

the Ministries of Agriculture, Nature, Nutrition, and EconomicAffairs, serves as a rule of thumb to define policy for hydel plants[78]. The task force itself emphasizes that this benchmark is notempirically grounded: In their habitat report [80], the authors usethis benchmark, but also state that it is not based on empiric fishpopulation research. For this reason, the system builder claims itcannot form a guideline for granting a license [61]. He actuallybelieves it might even be possible to increase the maximumthreshold value without endangering the survival of the species.Besides this, he claims that the two existing hydel plants shouldnot restrict establishing a third hydel plant. In his view, every plantshould be treated equally, so all three plants should comply withthe same fish mortality percentage. The conflict about the validityof the benchmark is still unresolved – and the development of theplant is pending.

4.2.3. Catering to the interests of stakeholdersAnother major issue affecting the development of hydel in the

Netherlands relates to the problem of aligning and catering to theinterests of the various stakeholders involved. This is especiallyapparent when we compare the Borgharen and Bosscherveldcases. The system builder in Borgharen, Rijkswaterstaat, and thefish interest organizations are uncompromising, as illustratedabove by the contested fish damage benchmark. The parties inBosscherveld cooperate more closely. An important aspect of thiscooperation is creating shared value: the Bosscherveld practitionerproposed to share the cost of constructing a bypass with Rijks-waterstaat [62]. Both Rijkswaterstaat and the practitioner willbenefit from this cooperation. They create a win–win situation inwhich they share construction costs. In doing so, the systembuilder was able to incorporate Rijkswaterstaat’s interests in hisproject. Furthermore, there is willingness on both sides (systembuilder and fish organizations) to cooperate in finding acceptableconditions whereby hydropower will also look after fish interests[56]. The system builder in Bosscherveld made a serious effort tounderstand the skeptical fish interest organizations. “If you do nottake other interests seriously, then you will get nowhere […] You haveto listen, what are their issues, can I develop a solution for these” [62].Supported by the results from the research conducted on theoperation of the system’s auger turbine, the practitioner was ableto convince the fish organizations that the turbine will not causefish mortality. “We succeeded, partly because we aimed for a fish-safe system. What’s more, we don’t go against them. So, if you do nottalk to interest groups, they will oppose your plans and this will showin your results” [62]. In the practitioner’s strategy to develop thehydel plant, considering others’ interests played a pivotal role.

4.2.4. SynthesisThe findings around the problems of fish underline that what is

considered “sustainability” depends on various parties’ under-standing. Ecological interests and hydro energy interests arepotentially conflicting. Practitioners present hydropower as agreen technology. However, precisely this claim is contested bythose who question hydropower’s supposedly environmentalfriendliness: “The main tension we see when it comes to hydel in theNetherlands, is between ecological goals and energy generationpolicies” [56]. This comes to the fore in the Borgharen and Bos-scherveld cases. Particularly fish interest organizations stronglyquestion hydropower as a sustainable energy technology [81].However, by aligning and catering to the interests of key stake-holders, the Bosscherveld system builder was relatively successfulin avoiding conflicts with fish interest organizations. This was notthe case in Borgharen, where the problem of agreeing to anacceptable fish damage benchmark shows the tension betweenhydropower and fish interests that stakeholders find difficult toease. At the core of the conflict lies the tension between the

various endeavors to achieve a more sustainable society, the onegroup emphasizing renewable energy production, the otherstressing the need to protect the natural habitat.

4.3. The lack of momentum for developing hydropower

The second problem in the context of hydropower develop-ment in the Netherlands is the challenge of having to gain publicsupport for hydro projects. The public’s perception of hydropowerand renewable energy promises seems to be that they are gen-erally ‘not enough’ to generate public support for hydel projects.Practitioners struggle with the general notion that hydropowerhas too little potential in the Netherlands to compensate for thenegative impact on fish. As shown before, Rijkswaterstaat under-lines that currently, ecological interests outweigh renewableenergy interests: “Finally we are noticing in discussions about thepublic interest in hydropower, that ecology is winning from sustain-able energy generation interests. […] We prioritize the ecologicalaspects and regulations because we see these as more important sincethere are alternatives to hydropower” [56]. This is in line with ESHAevaluations [1] which argue that the government “remains underthe strong influence of the ‘pro-ecological’ lobby” (p.23). Conse-quently, system builders feel the need to legitimate their efforts inhydro development to make it a publicly accepted option forrenewable energy generation.

Looking at all the system builders, it is interesting to see thatmaking a case for small hydro in the Netherlands is directly relatedto adopting an initiating role. This seems to be triggered by theinaction of other stakeholders. The Borgharen practitioner felt heshould insure the continuation of the project, since the govern-ment and energy suppliers quit and withdrew: “In 2003, they said,we have tried for so long now, we quit. Then I said, I think that’s ashame. If our government will not generate sustainable energy, norour utility companies, then who will?” [61]. In Bosscheveld the lackof mandate by Rijkswaterstaat to promote hydropower is thereason the practitioner took the initiative. The Hagestein practi-tioner was initially not interested in exploiting the hydel plant;nevertheless they have currently taken the initiative, since seeingand leaving the plant idle was not an option for them. In Roeven-Nederweert, the practitioner also felt that someone should takeresponsibility for the hydel plant: If Rijkswaterstaat, the owner,would not undertake the necessary renovation of the plant,someone else had to do it.

4.3.1. SynthesisIn the Netherlands, system builders face the problem of having

to legitimize hydropower, since public support is lacking andhydro development is not backed by a clear public mandate.

Consequently, practitioners take the initiative to develop andmake a case for hydropower. By setting an example with theirprojects, they hope to contribute to hydropower’s momentum.Besides the lack of momentum, we also identified the variousissues concerning fish that practitioners encounter in their hydeldevelopment efforts. Although location characteristics, especiallyexisting water infrastructure and functions, significantly influencethe development and performance of hydel plants in the Nether-lands, the practitioners do not articulate these factors as problems.They prefer to place these issues and their hydel plants under agreater understanding of the Dutch water system, which we willturn to now.

5. System builder strategies: addressing the problems

We will distinguish three strategies that system builders adoptin order to overcome the problems they face when trying to

T.N. Manders et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 59 (2016) 1493–15031500

realize their hydel plant visions. As will become clear, the devel-opment of hydropower – and its problems – can only be under-stood within the larger context of the Dutch water system. In theirefforts to develop hydropower, practitioners also strive to becomepart of this larger system. Their strategies reveal that the problemsare embedded within the typical dynamics of the broader wetsystem in the Netherlands.

5.1. Yield to fit in

Due to the infrastructure-related water flow dynamics of Dutchrivers, hydel initiatives are more likely to be profitable aroundexisting constructions. Indeed, existing constructions such asweirs create opportunities for hydel projects, since they increasethe water availability and control the water flow. However, all fourcase studies clearly showed that hydel plants often have to con-form to the conditions created by other water managementinfrastructures; in other words hydel plants have to make use ofthe ‘remaining water flow’, since other water functions get prior-ity. Balancing water levels, water feeding function and navigationare often mentioned in the case studies as being more importantthan hydel. Additional tensions arise due to natural circumstancesthat affect the water flow and differences in the location’s head.Heavy rainfall for example causes high water levels, for whichweirs have to be opened completely.

The case studies reveal that due to water-weather dynamicsand seasonally fluctuating water tables, the ‘remaining water flow’

that hydel plants are eager to use is not stable. Plants, having toadjust to these circumstances, are designed with a focus onminimum flow, since damming and thereby artificially increasingand controlling the water flow is no option in the highly indus-trialized wet network of the Netherlands. Conflicts with otherwater uses are only avoided because the hydel plant mainlyadjusts to the existing functions’ water requirement. The plantonly uses the ‘residual’ water after other interests are met. Con-sequently, for system builders, “yield to fit in” seems to be themotto and a sound strategy for developing hydropower in theNetherlands.

5.2. Confirmative policy focus

A second strategy emerges when we analyze the role hydelplays in the regulatory context. It is interesting that we see thetension between hydropower and fish interests not only on theground but also in the national and European regulatory systems[1,82,83]. In the EU, the Renewable Energy Directive aims to sti-mulate renewable energy sources and sustainable generation,including the promotion of hydropower. The Water FrameworkDirective, however, does not advance small hydropower, but evenimposes restrictions on its development [1,82,83].

Dutch legislation regarding the promotion of renewable energyand the protection of biodiversity form the main regulatory sus-tainability framework, within which small hydropower is devel-oped. Also here the regulations are ambiguous and indecisiveabout how to prioritize or balance hydropower and fish interests.The legislation anticipates that by 2020, 14 percent of the Neth-erlands’ total energy demand has to come from renewable energy[84]. In line with institutional regulations for EU and UnitedNations directives, the Dutch government is also aiming to protectbiodiversity. In 2011 the EU agreed to the Biodiversity Strategy,which relates to the Covenant on Biodiversity [70]. One of thisstrategy’s aims is the conservation of Natura 2000, a network ofprotected nature areas in the EU which will insure the survival ofessential flora and fauna. Important legislations to protect biodi-versity are the Flora- and Fauna law and specifically for Natura2000 areas, the protection act ‘Natuurbeschermingswet 1998’. A

special license is required whenever there is a risk that certainactivities could harm a protected nature area. Other legislationincludes the Habitats Directive, the Benelux verdict for Free Fishmigration, and the European Eel regulation [70]. Under the Ben-elux verdict, parties agreed that they will put effort into stimu-lating free upstream migration in the Meuse. These European andnational regulatory frameworks determine the issuance of licensesrequired to establish a hydel plant.

A Rijkswaterstaat officer describes the resulting tension: “Onthe one hand we want and have to increase this percentage of sus-tainable energy generation; on the other hand, we have to complywith signed international agreements in order to ensure free migra-tion of fish through the rivers, so that fish are not hindered byobstacles or exposed to mortal damage from obstacles” [56].Obviously, due to this regulatory ambiguity, the potential conflictbetween fish and hydel interests lingers on. Hydel practitionersand fish interest organizations alike exploit this situation byfocusing on those regulations that favor their own interests.

5.3. Hydel legitimation

System builders need to build momentum for Dutch hydro-power development. Inaction of other stakeholders prompts themto take the initiative to legitimize their projects, thereby making acase for hydropower in general. As we will show below, legit-imizing small hydropower, labeled as a renewable and sustainableenergy technology, is only the starting point for increasing publicsupport. We identified four different legitimation approaches.

5.3.1. Legitimation through emphasizing architectural valueThe plant in Roeven-Nederweert displays architectural features

in the ‘Amsterdam style’. The practitioners drew on these archi-tectural features and the promises of green energy to garnersupport for the renovation and restoration of the WKC Roeven-Nederweert [60]. By linking aesthetical and sustainability aspects,the practitioner was able to realize the plant. However, every yearit is a constant struggle to maintain public support and surviveeconomically. The need to adjust to other water managementpriorities and changes in the suitability of water tables regularlyforce the plant to close.

5.3.2. Legitimation through involving peopleIn Hagestein it is the involvement of local people that plays a

crucial role in the legitimation of the plant. Though the amount ofgenerated electricity might be small on a nation scale, its con-tribution at the local level is significant. By providing local sus-tainable energy to and from the municipality of Houten, the plant’smanagement involves the local residents and makes the hydelplant visible and important to them. The corporation uses thesupport of the residents involved for campaigns, events, andpetitions to get the Hagestein hydel plant working again. Membersof the corporation can actively participate in decisions on the re-start of the plant [63].

5.3.3. Legitimation through emphasizing comparative greenadvantages

In Borgharen the practitioner justifies the project by showingthe benefits of hydropower compared to other (renewable) energyalternatives. He mentions the high efficiency, reliability, and theabsence of visual pollution, noise, and gas emissions as positivecharacteristics of hydropower compared to other (even othersustainable) forms of energy generation [61]. Despite the fishorganizations’ critique that hydropower hinders and kills fish, forthe practitioner, hydropower is ‘green enough’ to be consideredenvironmentally friendly.

T.N. Manders et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 59 (2016) 1493–1503 1501

5.3.4. Legitimation through establishing best practice designIn Bosscherveld the practitioner stresses the innovativeness

and the export value of hydropower when realized in a bestpractice design. With his plant he aims to showcase the compat-ibility of fish and hydropower interests [62]. The practitioner wasable to integrate the hydel project plans in the existing watermanagement system, avoiding a conflict between ecological fishinterests and hydropower interests. Moreover, he argues that theinnovative turbine’s fish and ecologically-friendly design couldserve as an example for future projects. It could potentially sti-mulate a trajectory of more ecological and fish-friendly hydelplants by changing the skeptical attitude of the fish interestorganizations and encouraging fish-friendly technological solu-tions. Furthermore, the practitioner argues that as the system isfeasible and easy to understand, it has therefore great exportpotential.

The various legitimation approaches show that in order toincrease public support, practitioners not only employ the sus-tainable features of small hydropower, but link the establishmentof their plants to other societal issues. The legitimation approa-ches, the ‘yield to fit in’ strategy and the focus on favorable reg-ulations are all part of the system builders’ efforts to makehydropower part of the larger Dutch water system.

6. Discussion and conclusions

In this paper we respond to recent requests for circumspectionof the taken-for-granted social and environmental sustainability ofsmall-scale hydel. Scrutinizing, rather than ignoring small hydelsustainability problems may help to anticipate setbacks, hype anddisappointment cycles, and conflicts. We provide such a circum-spect case for the Netherlands, with its tightly-coupled and highly-institutionalized water sector. We ask what sustainable innovationproblems and strategies emerge in such a context.

To do so, we tapped into the Large Technical Systems frame-work of analysis that provides a holistic and transdisciplinaryperspective on sustainable innovation. Moreover, we took a qua-litative approach and studied small hydel entrepreneurs as “sys-tem builders”. Instead of a priori defining objectives, problems andsolutions, we followed these agents as they articulated particularsustainability visions, stumbled upon problems impeding thesevisions, and invented innovation strategies by way of problemsolution.

Our first set of findings relates to the call for circumspection.We found that since the 1980s, system builder visions switchedfrom emphasizing business opportunities to sustainability gains.Even in the case of small scale systems with minor outputs, theystress the need to proceed, arguing that using too little ‘freely’flowing water for sustainable energy production would be asocietal waste and missed opportunity.

Moreover, when we examine the articulation of problems thatsystem builders feel impede their visions, fish issues were espe-cially salient. They struggle with finding an acceptable fish damagebenchmark, and relating to the interests of other stakeholders.Another problematic theme is the lack of momentum for hydelprojects.

We also found different types of strategies that system buildershave developed to address the problems. These include yielding toother water uses (‘yield to fit in’), sticking to favorable regulatoryframeworks (‘confirmative policy focus’), and linking the legit-imation of hydropower to other socially relevant issues (‘hydellegitimation’). Importantly, we showed that the system buildersapply these different strategies to make hydropower part of theDutch water management system. The problems are embedded –

and should be understood ‒ within the dynamics of that broader

water system. Consequently, small-scale hydropower’s potential inthe Netherlands depends on how easily these plants will fit intothe existing water system with its functions, connections andnatural characteristics. Different to what a common understandingmight suggest, small hydropower technology is not by definitionsustainable and uncontested. These claims seem to be based on anoff-the-shelf concept of the technology, in which it is viewed inisolation from its socio-environmental context. As the case studiesshow, for small hydropower to be successful, it has to negotiate itsplace within the dynamics of the existing water system.

Our second contribution relates to the use of the LTS frame-work of analysis. The LTS approach urges us to transcend dis-ciplinary analysis, whether executed from technical or social sci-ences, and to study sustainable innovation from a transdisci-plinary, sociotechnical-systems perspective. In addition, its focuson system builders articulating sustainability visions, problems,and solutions allows us to track real-life hydel tensions and con-flicts in a much broader context. Among the tensions known fromprevious LTS studies, we found that the multi-functionality ofwater infrastructure was a particularly important issue. The Dutchwet system fulfills multiple functions, including water balancing,navigation and ecological (preserve the fish) resources that playedan important role in the cases we analyzed. As we have shown, thehydro system builders’ efforts to develop their projects aresimultaneously directed at making hydropower part of the wetsystem. Yet, other actors in the Dutch wet system do not seem toleave much space for small hydropower practitioners. This is whysystem builders chose to ‘yield to fit in’.

Our analysis revealed another source of tension, namely theopposition of new sociotechnical systems to mature ones. Systembuilders seek to create space for hydro projects within a wetinfrastructure that is already tightly-coupled, highly institutiona-lized, and accommodates multiple functions. These factors makethe subsequent integration of yet another water use ‒ generatinghydroelectricity ‒ highly challenging. When conceptualized as a‘niche’, small hydropower challenges the interests of incumbentactors who dominate the water sector. Rijkswaterstaat and fishinterest organizations are examples of incumbent actors whocounteract the sustainable innovation under study. Rijkswaterstaatkeeps a low profile and does not pro-actively position itself in thehydropower development discourse; fish interest organizationsare outspokenly skeptical about hydropower. The problems thatsystem builders encounter related to fish and having to legitimatehydropower mirror the dynamics and interests in the incumbentsystem. Phrased differently, history matters: Sustainable energypractitioners do not start with a clean slate—they have to deal witha tightly coupled and highly institutionalized water system thathas evolved over centuries.

Third, we contribute to the scale and sustainability debates.These debates seem to uncritically relate being small-scale tobeing sustainable, without questioning this linear relationship.Höffken [85] explored this with micro-hydel plants in India. Hercase studies showed that downscaling large hydropower tech-nology does not necessarily prevent harmful effects. Furthermore,even ‘small’ technologies are part of a ‘bigger whole’. Scale isrelational and needs to be contextualized. So ‘small’ in itself doesnot mean anything when speaking of sustainability; rather it isabout how a technology could ‘fit in’ a broader system, whichmight be easier if a technology is smaller, but it is not a reason initself.

Based on these contributions, we present the three followingconcluding points:

Yielding to other water uses might have fulfilled hydropower’spledge as a friendly renewable energy technology that fitssmoothly into the water system. However, adjusting hydel plantsto other water uses results in a relatively small autonomy for the

T.N. Manders et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 59 (2016) 1493–15031502

hydel system. Because practitioners are left with such little roomto maneuver when trying to ensure a minimal water flow, this hasa clear impact on the performance and development of hydro-power in the Netherlands.

When making the case for hydropower, practitioners need tobuttress the sustainability promise of hydropower by relating andforegrounding other values (e.g. architectural, best practicedesign). This promise alone is clearly not sufficient to make apublicly supported case for hydropower in the Netherlands.

Lastly, the unclear regulatory situation, in which conflictingperspectives about the sustainability of hydropower are writteninto the existing regulatory frameworks, may be interpreted as acall for regulatory action. Looking at European policy-makingdocuments, ESHA’s roadmap seems to support this line of think-ing: It argues that due to environmental legislation such as Natura2000 and the Water Framework Directive, small hydropower’seconomically feasible potential was greatly reduced (to 7 percentin the extreme case of Germany) [1]. Apparently biodiversity,green energy, and economic sustainability can be at loggerheads.To overcome such sustainability tensions, the roadmap suggestssolutions such as better collaboration between environmental,water, and energy authorities, and developing a best practice ofsuccessful small-scale hydel in environmentally sensitive areas.Looking beyond the European perspective, closer circumspectionof small-hydel has been recommended for various geographicalcontexts [17]. This may point to the value of developing guidelinessuch as the World Commission on Dams formulated for large-scalehydel projects [86].

References

[1] ESHA. Small Hydropower Roadmap: condensed research data for EU-27.Stream Map Project; 2009.

[2] Abbasi T, Abbasi S. Small hydro and the environmental implications of itsextensive utilization. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:2134–43.

[3] San Bruno G, Fried L. Focus on small hydro. In: Hopwood D, editor. Renewableenergy focus; 2008.

[4] Fraenkel P, Paish O, Bokalders V, Harvey A, Brown A, Edwards R. Micro-hydropower: a guide for development workers. London: Intermediate Tech-nology Publications Ltd; 1991.

[5] Khagram S. Dams and development: transnational struggles for water andpower. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 2004.

[6] Singh S. Taming the waters: the political economy of large dams in India. NewDelhi: Oxford University Press; 1997.

[7] Roy A. The Greater Common Good. Mumbai: India Book Distributors; 1999.[8] Thakkar H. The Tryst with the Big Dam. Dams, Rivers People 2007;5(8–9):7–

14.[9] Paish O. Small hydro power: technology and current status. Renew Sustain

Energy Rev 2002;6:537–56.[10] IRN. (International Rivers Network). Twelve Reasons to Exclude Large Hydro

from Renwables Initiatives (Vol. November). International Rivers Network(and other co-publishers); 2003.

[11] UNESCO. Water - a shared responsibility: UNESCO, World Water AssessmentProgramme; 2006.

[12] Practical Action. Practical Action Technical Brief – Micro-Hydro Power.Appropriate Technology: 2(36); 2007. p. 60–65.

[13] Lako P, Eder H, De Noord M, Reisiner H. Hydropower Development with afocus on Asia and Western Europe: Overview in the framework of VLEEM 2.ECN Verbundplan 2003.

[14] ESHA. Small Hydropower Roadmap: condensed research data for EU-27.Stream Map Project; 2009; p. 2–4.

[15] Schumacher EF. Small is beautiful : a study of economics as if people mattered.London: Blond & Briggs; 1973.

[16] Koutsoyiannis D. Scale of water resources development and sustainability:small is beautiful, large is great. Hydrol Sci J 2011;56(4):553–75.

[17] Höffken JI. A closer look at small hydropower projects in India: Socialacceptability of two storage-based projects in Karnataka. Renew SustainEnergy Rev 2014;vol. 34:155–66.

[18] Verbong G, Geels FW, Raven R. Multi-niche analysis of dynamics and policiesin Dutch renewable energy innovation journeys (1970–2006): hype-cycles,closed networks and technology-focused learning. Technol Anal StrategManag 2008;20(5):555–73.

[19] Dignum M. The power of large technological visions: the promise of hydrogenenergy, Ph.D. thesis. Eindhoven University of Technology; 2013.

[20] Achten Wouter MJ, et al. Jatropha: from global hype to local opportunity. JArid Environ 2010;74(1):164–5.

[21] Romm Joseph J. The hype about hydrogen: fact and fiction in the race to savethe climate. Island Press; 2004.

[22] Haas, H.P.H. Chapter 303 – Hydropower in the Netherlands: Constraints andincentives for small hydro in the Netherlands. World Renewable EnergyCongress VI. Renewables: The Energy for the 21st Century World RenewableEnergy Congress VI 1–7 July 2000 Brighton, UK; 2000. p. 1459–64.

[23] De Jong R, Slootjes N, Van Den Noortgaete T. Potentie duurzame energie bijkunstwerken. Deltares. Rijkswaterstaat WINN Energie uit Water 2009.

[24] Van de Ven. Man-made lowlands. History of watermanagement and landreclamation in the Netherlands. Utrecht: Matrijs; 1993.

[25] Van der Vleuten E, Disco C. Water wizards: reshaping wet nature and society.Hist Technol 2004;20(3):291–309.

[26] Ravesteijn W, Hermans L, Van der Vleuten E. Participation and Globalization inWater System Building. Knowledge Technology Policy 2002;14(4):4–12.

[27] Disco C, Van der Vleuten E. The politics of wet system building: balancinginterests in Dutch water management from the middle ages to the present.Knowl Technol Policy 2002;14(4):21–40.

[28] Janač J. European Coasts of Bohemia: Negotiating the Danube-Oder-Elbe Canalin a Troubled Twentieth Century. Amsterdam University Press; 2013.

[29] Newman L, Dale A. Large footprints in a small world: toward a macro-economics of scale. Sustain Sci Pract Policy 2009;5(1):1–11.

[30] Wilbanks T. Scale and sustainability. Clim Policy 2007;7(4):278–87.[31] Howitt R. Contested spatiality: geographical scale in sustainability assessment.

In: Bond AJ, Morrison-Saunders A, Howitt R, editors. Sustainability assess-ment: pluralism, practice and progress. Routledge; 2013. p. 68–84.

[32] Manders TN. Starting the discussion about "Scale and Sustainability". A lit-erature overview. Paper for the workshop Scale and Sustainability (EindhovenUniversity of Technology, 27 November 2014); 2014.

[33] Raven R, Schot J, Berkhout F. Space and scale in socio-technical transitions.Environ Innov Soc Trans 2012;4:63–78.

[34] Van der Vleuten F, Stam N, Van der Plas RJ. Putting rural energy access pro-jects into perspective: What lessons are relevant? Energy Policy2013;61:1071–8.

[35] Hughes T. Networks of Power, Electrification in Western Society. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press; 1983. p. 1880–930.

[36] Hughes T. The evolution of sociotechnical systems. In Bijker, Hughes, & P.(eds), The social construction of technological systems. New directions in thesociology and history of technology. MIT Press; 1987. p. 51–82.

[37] Hughes T. The seamless web: technology, science, etcetera, etcetera. SocialStudies of Science 1986;16:281–92.

[38] Mayntz R, Hughes T, editors. The Development of Large Technical Systems.Campus: Frankfurt; 1988.

[39] Van der Vleuten E. Infrastructures and societal change. A view from the largetechnical systems field. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 2004;16(3):395–414.

[40] Van der Vleuten E. Understanding network societies: two decades of largetechnical system studies. In: Van der Vleuten E, Kaijser A, editors. NetworkingEurope: transnational infrastructures and the shaping of Europe, 1850–2000.Sagamore Beach, MA: SHP; 2006. p. 279–314.

[41] Galambos L. A view from economic history. In: La Porte T, editor. Socialresponses to large technical systems. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 1991. p. 177–81.

[42] Hughes T. The electrification of America: the system builders. Technol Cult1997:124–61.

[43] Van der Vleuten E, Anastasiadou I, Lagendijk V, Schipper F. Europe's systembuilders: the contested shaping of transnational road, electricity and railnetworks. Contemporary European History 2007;16(03):321–47.

[44] Kaijser A. Technological Systems in the Natural World: Water and Windmillsin the Netherlands. In: Odhnoff J, Svedin U, editors. Technological SystemicChanges and Economic Theories; 1998.

[45] Kaijser A. System building from below: institutional change in Dutch watercontrol systems. Technol Cult 2002;43(3):521–48.

[46] Högselius P, Kaijser A, Van der Vleuten E. Europe's infrastructure transition:economy, war, nature. Palgrave Macmillan; 2015.

[47] Jakobsson E. Industrialization of Rivers: a water system approach to hydro-power development. Knowl Technol Policy 2002;14(4):41–56.

[48] Mulder K, Kaijser A. The dynamics of technological systems integration: Watermanagement, electricity supply, railroads and industrialization at the GötaÄlv. Technol Soc 2014;39:88–99.

[49] Kaijser A, Mogren A, Steen P. Changing direction: energy policy and newtechnology. National Energy Administration. Statens energiverk 1991.

[50] Grin J, Rotmans Jan, Schot Johan. Transitions to sustainable development: newdirections in the study of long term transformative change. Routledge; 2010.

[51] Van der Vleuten E, Högselius P. Resisting Change? The transnational dynamicsof European energy regimes In: Verbong G, Loorbach DA, editors. Governingthe energy transition. Reality, illusion or necessity. Routledge; 2012. p. 75–100.

[52] Markard J, Raven R, Truffer B. Sustainability transitions: an emerging field ofresearch and its prospects. Res Policy 2012;41(6):955–67.

[53] Huijben JCCM, Van der Vleuten E, Raven R, Verbong G. Implementation stra-tegies for solar power plants in desert regions: strategic niche management,social acceptance, and business models. eds.. In: Komoto K, et al., editors.Energy from the Desert. Very Large Scale Photovoltaic Power – State of the Artand Into the Future. London: Routledge; 2013. p. 209–18.

[54] Van Leussen W, Meijerink S. Environmentalism, renewed concern for floodsafety, and the Europeanization of Dutch water policies, 1970–2010. In:

T.N. Manders et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 59 (2016) 1493–1503 1503

Lonnquest JI, et al., editors. Two centuries of experience in water resourcesmanagement. Alexandria: A Dutch-US retrospective; 2014. p. 247–79.

[55] CBS. Hernieuwbare energie; eindverbruik en vermeden verbruik fossiele energie;2013. Retrieved February 18, 2014, from Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek:⟨http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM¼SLNL&PA¼7516&D1¼a&D2¼0-2,5,14,22,25,26-30,34,35,38,43&D3¼a&D4¼20-21&VW¼T⟩.

[56] Interview Margriet Geesink. Officer Rijkswaterstaat. Interview held on Octo-ber 25, 2013.

[57] Rijksoverheid. Het Nationaal Waterplan 2009-2015. Den Haag; 2009.[58] Knoppers R, Verbong G. Hoofdstuk 9: Waterkracht. In: Verbong G, Van Selm A,

Knoppers R, Raven R, editors. Een kwestie van lange adem: de geschiedenisvan duurzame energie in Nederland. Boxtel: Aeneas; 2001. p. 277–94.

[59] Bekkers H. Nieuwe waterkrachtcentrale in Rijn 2009 Retrieved January 7,2014, from Binnenlands Bestuur⟨http://www.binnenlandsbestuur.nl/ruimte-en-milieu/nieuws/nieuwe-waterkrachtcentrale-in-rijn.114439.lynkx⟩.

[60] Interview Sjaak Dehing. Director Bureau Aangepaste Technologie. Interviewheld on September 24, 2013.

[61] Interview Anton van der Boom. Director Arbra. Interview held on October7, 2013.

[62] Interview Meindert Pot. Director Waterpotentieel. Interview held on October8, 2013.

[63] Interview Koen Kooper. Project manager ADEM Houten/Greenspread. Inter-view held on October 16, 2013.

[64] Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed. Monumentnummer: 526501 - Water-krachtcentrale Roeven; n.d.b. Retrieved March 5, 2014, from Mon-umentenregister Cultureel Erfgoed: ⟨⟨http://monumentenregister.cultureelerfgoed.nl/php/main.php?cAction¼show&cOBJnr¼1018023⟩⟩.

[65] Interview Sjra Vossen. Volunteer Foundation Roeven-Nederweert. Interviewheld on September 17, 2013.

[66] Van Wijk A. Waterkracht centrale Hagestein weer in bedrijf: Een kwestie vanlange adem of een gebed zonder eind? In: Energie Ov, editor. BODE. ODE;2013. p. 21.

[67] ADEM ADEM Houten BV, de Alles Duurzaam. Energie Maatschappij 2010Retrieved January 6, 2014, from ADEM Houten BV⟨http://www.ademhouten.nl/⟩.

[68] Borgharen WKC. Een waterkrachtcentrale bij Maastricht 2010 Retrieved Jan-uary 7, 2014, from Waterkrachtcentrale Borgharen⟨http://www.waterkrachtcentrale-borgharen.nl/⟩.

[69] CBS. Bevolking; ontwikkeling in gemeenten met 100 000 of meer inwoners;2014. Retrieved from Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek: ⟨http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW¼T&DM¼SLNL&PA¼70748NED&D1¼0,2,4,16,18,20,22,24&D2¼a&D3¼0&D4¼a&D5¼ l&HD¼090707-1905&HDR¼T&STB¼G4,G2,G1,G3⟩.

[70] Wanningen H, Buijse T, Breve N, Kroes M, Vriese T. Breaking down barriers forfish migration in the Netherlands: towards a streamlined approach to improvefish migration; 2008.

[71] Interview Cornel van Schayk. Board member Sport Visserij Limburg. Interviewheld on September 9, 2013

[72] Terlouw J. Elektriciteit uit waterkracht: Groene of Rode Stroom? Zalmplatform2009.

[73] Bruijs M. Effectiviteit visgeleidingssystemen bij de bestaande water-krachtcentrales Linne en Alphen. Arnhem: KEMA Nederland B.V; 2004.

[74] Van den Noortgaete T, Slootjes N. Studie naar potentiële energieopbrengst bijkunstwerken in Nederland. HKV & Royal Haskoning; 2009.

[75] Raad van State. Uitspraak 201011817/1/R2. Raad van State; 2011.[76] Raad van State. Uitspraak 201109027/1/A4. Raad van State; 2012.[77] Vis in bedrijf. Zalmplatform: petitie tegen waterkrachtcentrales; 2009.

Retrieved December 19, 2013, from Sportvisserij Nederland: ⟨http://www.sportvisserijnederland.nl/vis_en_water/actueel/1564/zalmplatform:_petitie_tegen_waterkrachtcentrales.html⟩.

[78] Bakker H, Kwanten R, Muyres W, Van der Sar G, Steenhoven M, Verheijen C.Waterkrachtcentrales en Vismigratie in de Maas 2001.

[79] Maastricht Gemeente. Bestemmingsplan Grensmaas. WKC: Arcadis; 2010.[80] Bruijs M. Habitattoets Natura 2000-gebied Grensmaas ten behoeve van

waterkrachtcentrale Borgharen. Arnhem: KEMA; 2009.[81] Lucebert. Alles van waarde is weerloos; n.d. Retrieved December 19, 2013,

from Topvisser.nl: ⟨⟨http://www.topvisser.nl/media/photos/1_76_jpg_428x605_q85.jpg⟩⟩.

[82] ESHA. Small hydro in Europe: Hobbled by regulation. Bloomberg New EnergyFinance; 2010 V(41): 12–3.

[83] Pabbruwee K. Thesis: The future of small hydropower within the EuropeanUnion. An environmental policy study based on the European Water Frame-work Directive and the Renewable Energy Directive. Groningen: IVEM Pub-licaties Rijksuniversiteit Groningen; 2006.

[84] EL&I. Energierapport. Rijksoverheid: Ministerie van Economische Zaken,Landbouw & Innovatie; 2011.

[85] Höffken JI. Different emphases in the implementation of micro-hydroelectricplants in India. Energy Res Soc Sci 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.03.014.

[86] World Commission on Dams. Dams and development: a new framework fordecision-making. London: Earthscan; 2000.

[87] Grond Groen & Water. Nederlandse infrastructure. Waterbeheer in Nederland;2015. Retrieved December 3, 2015, from Grond Groen & Water: ⟨http://www.grondgroenenwater.nl/waterbeheer-in-nederland/⟩.