Internship – Content Report

The effects of the high water and evacuation of 1995

in the lives of the residents in the Riverland and

the Dutch Duffelt area

MSc. Environmental Sciences Wageningen University

Internship in collaboration with

IHE Delft Institute for Water Education

Cristina Pinto Mosquera Student number: 820217653060

Supervisors: Dr. Anna Wesselink, IHE Delft Institute Dr. Bert van Hove, Wageningen University

October 2017

Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Motivation ............................................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 The employer: IHE Delft Institute for Water Education ....................................................................... 2

2. Internship activities ................................................................................................................................ 3

2.1 Learning outcomes .............................................................................................................................. 3

2.2 Description of activities .................................................................................................................. 4

3. Own executed project .......................................................................................................................... 13

3.1 Background ....................................................................................................................................... 13

3.2 Research questions ........................................................................................................................... 15

3.3 Research design and methodology ................................................................................................... 15

3.3.1 Preparation phase ...................................................................................................................... 16

3.3.2 Data collection ............................................................................................................................ 16

3.3.3 Data analysis .............................................................................................................................. 17

3.3.4 Production of final outcomes ...................................................................................................... 18

3.4 Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 19

3.4.1 How did residents feel during the high water and evacuation of 1995? ..................................... 19

3.4.2 What changed in the lives of the residents after the high water and evacuation of 1995? ........ 20

3.4.3 Do people remember the evacuation of 1995? Why? ................................................................ 24

3.4.4 Why did people commemorate the high water and evacuation in 2005 and 2015? .................. 27

4 Discussion ........................................................................................................................................... 28

4.1 Methodological design ....................................................................................................................... 29

4.1.1 Definition of the study area and locations for interviewees ........................................................ 29

4.1.2 Approaching the interviewees .................................................................................................... 29

4.1.3 Language barrier ........................................................................................................................ 30

4.1.4 Willingness to be recorded and filmed ....................................................................................... 31

4.2 Curious inputs from the findings ........................................................................................................ 31

4.2.1 Not afraid of high water? ............................................................................................................ 31

4.2.2 Are water professionals aware of the risk? ................................................................................ 32

4.2.3 Water professionals speaking as residents ................................................................................ 33

4.2.4 Contacting authorities a challenge ............................................................................................. 33

4.2.5 Two events in a row .................................................................................................................... 34

4.2.6 The decision making for the evacuation ..................................................................................... 34

4.2.7 No evacuation in Germany ......................................................................................................... 35

5. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 36

References .................................................................................................................................................. 38

Appendixes .................................................................................................................................................. 39

1

1. Introduction

“The Netherlands could be considered as a gateway for water” (Rijkswaterstaat, 2011, p. 21) where all the

water has to be discharged into the sea to avoid flooding. For this purpose, the Dutch have designed a

complex water management system since the 9th century that prevents river floods and storm surges.

This system includes dikes, polders, canals, pumping stations, weirs, sluices, dunes, dammed estuaries

and lakes (Rijkswaterstaat, 2011). A total of 3,000 kilometers of flood protection infrastructure has been

built to keep the Dutch feet dry (Pilarczyk, 2007).

The Netherlands has an area of 34,000 km2 and comprises the delta and flood plains of the rivers Rhine,

Meuse and Waal. Additionally, 25% of the territory is below the sea level. The lowest part is locate in East

Rotterdam, area that is 6,7 m below sea level (Netherlands Hydrological Society, 1998). The flat low areas

need the water management system for discharging the water to the North Sea and Wadden Sea

(Rijkswaterstaat, 2011). All these elements make The Netherlands a unique place to study water

management, and from my perspective, the best place to study this topic.

1.1 Motivation

Two years ago, when I arrived in the Netherlands to study my Master in Environmental Sciences with a

specialization in Water Systems and Global Change at Wageningen University (WUR), I was surprised by

so much water everywhere and by the water management system that has been working for centuries. I

confirmed that it was the wisest decision to come to The Netherlands to study water management. Since

then, I have been interested in understanding how the Dutch water system works and its social

component. Thus, for my internship I chose a related topic at IHE Delft Institute for Water Education.

In this sense, my motivation for my internship resulted from four complementary elements. First, my

interest in understanding in depth the Dutch water system. My Master courses included some elements of

the water system, but I wanted to learn about the practical aspect of all the concepts and theories that I

learned in courses such as Integrated Water Management, Climate Change Adaptation for Water

Management, Water Governance, and Natural Hazards and Disasters. My specific interest was related to

the social aspect of the water system.

Second, the possibility to collaborate with a water related academic organization to contribute to an

ongoing project or research. In this way, I wanted to ensure that my work and results were useful in the

short term. Additionally, being part of an ongoing project gives the opportunity to share experiences, and I

definitively wanted that as part of my Master studies.

Third, doing an internship within my Master Programme gave me the chance to perform in an international

professional environment. Before my Master, I worked for some years in the Ecuadorian non-

2

governmental sector in water governance and integrated water management. In despite of this, I chose an

internship instead of a Minor thesis because I wanted to experience working abroad. I was interested in

learning new methodologies and ways of working. Also, I wanted to meet and share with professionals

and water experts from other regions.

Finally, I decided to do my internship in an academic organization to strengthen my research skills. I

wanted to get in touch with Dutch stakeholders to understand their perspective about water management

in The Netherlands.

1.2 The employer: IHE Delft Institute for Water Education

IHE Delft Institute for Water Education is an international water education facility, created in 1957 and

based in Delft, The Netherlands. It confers accredited MSc degrees and PhD degrees in collaboration with

partner universities. The Institute offers educational, research and capacity development for the water

sector throughout the world. Its focus corresponds to water engineering combined with social sciences,

such as water governance (IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, 2017a).

The Institute is divided in three academic departments: Environmental Engineering and Water

Technology, Water Science and Engineering, and Integrated Water Systems and Governance. My

internship, because of the subject of my interest, was coordinated with the Integrated Water Systems and

Governance Department, specifically with Dr. Anna Wesselink, Postdoc Researcher from the Water

Governance Chair Group. This Group focuses in the interaction and links among ecological, social and

technological systems (IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, 2017c).

My internship contributes to the Hydro-Social Deltas Project, coordinated by Dr. Anna Wesselink and

funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) and the Dutch Ministry of Foreign

Affairs. The purpose of this project is to “understand the dynamic interplay between hydrological

processes (flooding, riverbank erosion, waterlogging) and social processes (demographic shifts,

urbanization processes, governance) in the urbanizing delta of Bangladesh and the urbanized delta of the

Netherlands” (IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, 2017b, p. 1).

After searching in the literature about Dutch water management, I found that there is a lot of research

done about the technical aspects and the political and institutional guidelines for water management since

ancient Dutch history. However, there is little or nothing about the social element that goes beyond the

water boards and the participatory approach (Rijkswaterstaat, 2011). The Hydro-Social Project aims to

overcome this gap. Thus, within the Hydro-Social Project I had the opportunity to do my research about

the effects of the high water and evacuation of 1995 in the lives of the residents, in the Rivierenland

(Riverland) and Dutch Duffelt area.

3

2. Internship activities

The internship agreement between the Educational Institution (WUR), the Host Organisation (IHE) and the

student was signed on May 18, 2017. See Appendix 1. IHE Trainee Agreement. At the same time, an

internal WUR contract was signed. See Appendix 2. WUR Internship Contract and Learning Agreement.

Initially, the internship had a duration of four months with eight working hours per day. However, it lasted

five months including one week of training, one week of holiday and three additional weeks to write the

reports and make the final adjustments in the documentary. It began on May 11, 2017 and finished on

October 20, 2017, including the final presentation on October 11, and the delivery of the expected

products.

The internship took place in three different locations depending on the activity. For meetings, reviews of

progress, training, and networking at IHE Delft’s campus, located in the center of Delft. The fieldwork was

done in the evacuated area. The analysis of the data, most of the edit of the documentary and the writing

of the reports was done at Wageningen University.

2.1 Learning outcomes

The internship had three learning outcomes (LO):

LO1. To describe the effects (emotional, social and/or economic) of the of evacuation of 1995 in the

residents of the Rivierenland (Riverland) and the Dutch Duffelt area1.

LO2. To synthetize relevant information to communicate it to the public through a documentary.

LO3. To perform in a professional environment to strengthen professional skills regarding leadership and

responsibility, communicate with commissioner and other stakeholders, and share knowledge and

experiences with team members.

These had specific objectives, activities and products, as shown in Figure 1.

1 The study area in the research proposal was the ‘Land van Maas en Waal’. However, once I began searching in

documents and interviewing the stakeholders and residents, I noticed that the evacuated areas was broader. Thus, I

increased my study area and focused in all the evacuated area comprising: the Rivierenland (Riverland), the Dutch

Duffelt and Gorinchem, located in the central eastern part of The Netherlands.

4

Figure 1. Learning outcomes, objectives, activities and outputs of the internship.

2.2 Description of activities

The activities performed during the internship are described below, organized according their Learning

Outcomes (LO) and Specific Objectives (SO). Each LO and SO was carefully analyzed and qualified in:

Achieved, Half Achieved or Not achieved.

LO1.To describe the effects of the evacuation of 1995 in the lives of the residents of the Rivierenland and

the Dutch Duffelt area. Achieved

SO1. Determine the effects of the evacuation of 1995 in the lives of the residents of the Rivierenland and

the Dutch Duffelt area. Achieved

Learning outcomes (LO) Specific objectives (SO) Main Activities Outputs or products

LO1.To describe the effects

of the evacuation of 1995 in

the lives of the residents of

the Rivierenland and the

Dutch Duffelt area.

SO1. Determine the

effects of the evacuation

of 1995 in the lives of the

residents of the

Rivierenland and the

Dutch Duffelt area.

a. Elaborate a research

proposal.

b. Research design and

methodology.

c. Fieldwork.

d. Analyze the data.

e. Write the report.

Technical report (12-15

pages) included in the

Content report.

LO2.To synthetize relevant

information to communicate

it to the public.

SO2. Strengthen the

student’s

communicational skills.

a. Training and technical

assistance for making

videos.

b. Produce a video

summarizing the

findings.

Documentary (30 minutes)

summarizing the key

findings.

LO3.To perform in a

professional environment

to:

i) strengthen professional

skills regarding leadership

and responsibility,

ii) communicate with

commissioner and other

stakeholders, and

iii) share knowledge and

experiences with team

members.

SO3. Strengthen the

student’s professional

profile.

a. Continuous

communication with

the Commissioner.

b. Participate in IHE

Delft Institute internal

meetings and events

(Governance

Department).

c. Practice networking.

Content report (40 pages

without appendixes).

Reflection report (5

pages).

5

a. Elaborate a research proposal

On March 1st of 2017, the internship was confirmed, the topic was agreed and the logistics were

stablished. After that meeting at IHE, I wrote a draft research proposal with a brief introduction to the topic,

the main objectives and outcomes of my research. On May 2017, the research proposal was reviewed,

improved and approved by my WUR and IHE supervisors: Dr. Bert van Hove from the Water Systems and

Global Change Chair Group at WUR and Dr. Anna Wesselink from the Water Governance Chair Group at

IHE. See Appendix 3. Research proposal.

b. Design of the research and methodology

The research was qualitative and the methodology was reviewed and updated if necessary. The design of

the study was done with continuous inputs from my supervisor. The methodology included four sequential

phases: preparation, data collection, data analysis, and the production of the final outcomes. The

methodology is detailed in Section 3. Own Executed Project.

c. Fieldwork

Once the design of the research was well defined, the fieldwork began. The fieldwork corresponded to the

data collection in the study area. It was done mostly through semi-structured interviews. Filming was part

of it. Thus, the fieldwork had two complementary aims. First, collecting the experiences of the people

regarding the high water and evacuation of 1995. Second, generating the visual material for the

documentary. I optimized time and resources taking advantage of each trip by making the interviews,

filming and taking pictures in the area, and visiting libraries and regional archives to get additional images.

This meant productive long day trips. The weather helped a lot. I was lucky that the fieldwork concurred

with summer, which was very convenient because the day light lasted longer and people were willing to

arrange interviews also at the end of the day (after work). I organized the interviews in areas, so I had a

fieldwork schedule. I went to the places once; this enabled traveling to more locations along the study

area. The fieldwork was done in the period June – August (first week) and I interviewed 20 people. More

information about the fieldwork is found in Section 3. Own Executed Project – Data collection.

d. Analyze the data

The analysis of the data followed five crucial steps:

• Taking notes during the interviews.

• Completing the notes while hearing the recorded interview to avoid forgetting details immediately

after the day trip.

6

• Writing the interviewee’s story including a description of the location with some basic information

of the interviewee and the context for the conversation.

• Organizing the data according to the research questions.

• Identifying similarities and differences among the answers.

For more detail read Section 3. Own Executed Project – Data analysis.

e. Write the report

The Content Report contains all the information about my internship. This document presents my learning

goals, the activities I performed and my research, results and discussion. As an appendix, the reflection

report is also an important part of it.

LO2. To synthetize relevant information to communicate it to the public. Achieved

SO2. Strengthen the student’s communicational skills. Achieved

a. Training and technical assistance for making videos

In order to accomplish the LO2 and to produce a documentary as the main product of my internship, I had

to learn and develop visual and audio skills through the technical assistance of an audio-video specialist

and the attendance to a short course about visual methods for water communication.

As a first step, I joined the Introduction for Knowledge clips course on June 8, 2017, taught by WUR. This

session provided some basic knowledge about clips. However, the focus was knowledge clips as a

teaching activity within WUR for explaining theories, concepts or procedures. Thus, I did not join the two

other sessions where the teachers filmed their short clips.

The one-week course was provided by IHE at its campus in Delft, from July 31st to August 4, 2017. It

constituted a summer course for IHE students and additional professionals or students who wanted to

learn about communication techniques and tools for water research. The aim of the course was to build

theoretical and practical skills to apply visual methods (photography and video) to communicate water

issues for research or professional work. See Appendix 4. Programme Visual Methods for Water

Communication Course.

The course was very useful to learn visual techniques for doing research and then, communicating the

results. The topics that I liked the most were: participatory visual research (Photo voice) on water

governance, video storytelling, and videography. The workshop about video storytelling was determinant

7

for producing my documentary because it allowed me to learn how to build the structure of a video to

make it attractive and understandable to different audiences, and to practice the editing of a video using

the programme OpenShot. The course helped me with key inputs for writing the script of my documentary

including the content, images and sounds that will transmit the message. In addition, I learned how to film

and take good shootings during the fieldwork. The course was a great experience and allowed me to

share and learn a lot from experts and other students. I approved it successfully. See Appendix 5.

Certificate Course Visual Methods for Water Communication.

The technical assistance for producing the documentary was crucial. Mr. Wim Glass, audio and visual

expert from IHE, played an important role and supported me during the filming and editing phases. On

May 30, 2017, I had a first meeting with Mr. Glas where he trained me to use the equipment and gave me

some filming tips for landscapes and interviews. Mr. Glas also loaned me the required equipment for the

filming: video camera, photo camera, microphone, tripod, and a voice recorder. Once the fieldwork was

over, Mr. Glas taught me how to use Adobe Premiere Pro for the editing of the documentary and

supported me constantly. For example, I recorded the voice over in a special silent room for this purpose.

Mr. Glass was also my technical supervisor, reviewing the documentary three times and giving me his

suggestions to improve it.

b. Produce a video summarizing the findings

The video or documentary was the main product of my internship and it constituted a challenge because I

had to learn about filming and editing, and some communicational tips to make it interesting. A video

should communicate the findings following a coherent story; it should not follow the scheme of a scientific

report. Thus, writing the script was an important task that required more effort and time than expected.

The script was the basis for the documentary but it was flexible to be adjusted during the editing process.

See Appendix 6. Script for Once in a life-time documentary.

The production of the video had several phases that were intertwined with the fieldwork, data collection

and data analysis of the research described in LO1 and in the next section about My Own Project. Thus,

during my research I had always in mind that I had to collect the data about my research questions but

also the material for the documentary. That meant that I had two complementary objectives during the

fieldwork but I also had to organize some activities specifically for collecting visual material. For example, I

traveled to Tiel to make an interview, film the river and dike, and to the Regional Archive of Rivierenland

seeking documents like newspapers, articles and booklets. Likewise, I had to film trying to get good

quality shootings while interviewing the stakeholder. This task was not easy and required some practice;

this is the reason why in some cases, the sound or the image of an interview is not the best. However, I

did all my best to ensure a good quality documentary.

8

The documentary was structured in three main sections developing a story with a setup, tension and

resolution, using emotions, data, interviewees speaking and key questions that guide the research and its

findings. The three sections were:

• Reflection about water and the Netherlands. This first part was divided in two contrasting aspects.

The first one referred to the water system running smoothly and without problems using nice

sceneries from the rivers, dikes, windmills to transmit calm and beauty. The second part showed

what could happen when the water system has problems, when there is high tide in the rivers, or

when storms happen. For this, images from the North Sea flood of 1953 and the rivers’ high tide

of 1995 were used to transmit fear and disaster.

• My research. This second part gave a brief introduction about the Netherlands and its water

system, and showed sea and rivers defenses built by the Dutch. Then, the study area and my

research was described briefly, using the question to start the story: But, are Dutch afraid of living

sin the Netherlands?

• Findings of the research. This third part was the longest one and constituted the core of the

documentary. It had four sequential topics that answered my research questions, but also a brief

description of the high water of 1995 and how was made the decision to evacuate. Fourteen

interviewees gave their points of views. My main purpose was to show and highlight my findings

through the interviewees.

Producing the documentary meant also ensuring the copyright of the images from other people. For

example, the images of the floods of 1953 and 1995 were taken from other sources; the videos about the

rivers, dikes and polders as well. Some of the images were downloaded from https://beeldbank.rws.nl/,

that is an online public image archive from Rijkswaterstaat. This archive is accessible to all citizens and

digital photos are free to download. The use of these digital images does not require copyrights but the

source must be mentioned. The additional sources were:

• Book: De Volkskrant. 1995. In de ban van het water.

• Photobook: Pelgrim, Harry. 1995. Velaten Warden.

• Video in Youtube: Cees van der Wal Fotografie en Film. 2014. Nederland vanuit de lucht. Holland

by Drone

Thus, I contacted the authors and asked their permission to use them in the documentary. Because the

objective of my documentary was academic, the authors approved without problem the use of their

material. See Appendix 7. Copyrights Approval.

9

The title of the documentary is ‘Once in a life-time. A story on living with water from the Dutch

perspective’, and it is a quote expressed by some of the interviewees. The documentary can be watched

at http://mediaserver.ihe.nl/p2go/wesselink/Once_in_a_life-time/ihepip.html

Producing the thirty-minutes documentary required five months, including the fieldwork, the script, the

editing and reviews. The editing lasted two months. The video was presented on October 11 at IHE,

during a seminar of the Integrated Water Systems and Governance Department. Students and

professionals related to the summer course and department were invited. See Appendix 8. Abstract for

the documentary.

LO3.To perform in a professional environment to:

i) Strengthen professional skills regarding leadership and responsibility. Achieved

ii) Communicate with commissioner and other stakeholders. Achieved

iii) Share knowledge and experiences with team members. Achieved

SO3. Strengthen the student’s professional profile. Achieved

a. Continuous communication with the Commissioner

The Commissioner or Host Organization was represented by Dr. Anna Wesselink, my supervisor. From

my perspective, the communication was continuous and very good. We arranged a meeting once every

one or two weeks and it occurred face-to-face, by phone call or skype call. Dr. Wesselink was responsible

for the development of my internship and was a constant support and guide. During our meetings, we

reviewed the progress of my research and Dr. Wesselink gave advice and suggestions for the next steps.

During the internship, we had twelve scheduled meetings with a total of approximately 11 hours of work.

In addition, communication through email also occurred frequently. See Appendix 9. Meetings and

workshops with IHE.

Once the data analysis finished and the edit of the documentary began, the meetings with Dr. Wesselink

occurred less often because her role diminished in this phase. Instead, the communication and

coordination with Mr. Wim Glas increased. He supported me in the editing phase giving advice and

helping with the technical aspects of Adobe Premiere and ensuring that the documentary had a ‘good

enough quality’. The meetings occurred mostly face-to-face because I needed to work at his office using

all the equipment for editing a video. We had eight meetings with a total of approximately 13,5 hours of

work. See Appendix 9. Meetings and workshops with IHE.

10

b. Participate in IHE Delft Institute internal meetings and events (Governance Department)

The internship gave me the opportunity to participate in internal meetings and seminars of the Integrated

Water Systems and Governance Department, and public conferences and debates regarding water.

These events provided new methodologies but also discussion about different approaches for studying

the social aspect of water management. Thus, they were very useful to strengthen my knowledge and to

promote the analysis of relevant elements when studying water and its interconnectedness between the

technological, social and ecological issues. I attended three internal seminars of the Integrated Water

Systems and Governance Department and two open debates.

• Seminar 1: Life stories and remote sensing as tools for doing research: differences and

complementarities (May 30, 2017). A case study was presented with the two approaches. The

Waha Irrigation Project is located in Sudan, Africa. On one hand, life stories have given insights

about gender, class, position, and many other power relationships that shape how development is

produced in the area. On the other hand, remote sensing has shown the changes from traditional

farming to commercial farming. For example, water consumption, monitoring of water, productivity

and biophysical factors can be identified with this approach.

Both approaches have clearly strengths but also limitations. The life stories show how humans

and their surroundings are ensembled. It investigates positions and give the opportunity to create

a longer history and determine the different views through talking to people. However, this

approach does not give information about for whom is irrigation sustainable? Whose language do

we use? Who speaks for whom? The remote sensing approach is considered objective and

transparent, without different interpretations. It also covers a bigger spatial scale. Still, it gives only

numbers without information about the people.

The conclusion of the debate was that it is not easy to work together but collaboration is desirable.

Some advantages of collaboration were identified as well. The first one referred to understand

why things changed in the area, combining the land use changes and the perspectives from the

people. The second one talked about benefiting from the knowledge and results of the other

project to complement and build up. To ensure some collaboration, optimize resources and avoid

losing the interest from the local stakeholders, it is recommended to work together during the

proposal preparation to make connections and complementary goals.

• Seminar 2: Resilience of the tourism sector in relation to flood risk in Zeeland, Municipality of

Veere (September 12, 2017). This seminar was the presentation of a Master Thesis within the

Hydro-Social Project as well. The framework for the research was the Resilience Wheel, that has

many indicators to assess the level of awareness and resilience towards risk. The results from the

research showed that flood resilience in the Municipality of Veere is not considered an issue in the

tourism sector. The approach constituted a diagnostic tool that increased the awareness and

11

discussion between stakeholders, who have different interpretations about flood resilience.

However, according to the average scores of the Resilience Wheel, the awareness was medium.

This final score could be analyzed separately within each stakeholder, because each one has a

different awareness of flood risk in the area.

It was very interesting to make the correlation between these findings and the ones from my

research. Both agree that the level of flood risk awareness in civil society is very low, and its

higher in the government. Both are complementary but refer to different contexts; this was about

sea storms and mine is about rivers’ high water.

• Seminar 3: The effects of the evacuation of 1995 in the lives of the residents in the Riverland and

the Dutch Duffelt area (October 11, 2017). This seminar was the occasion to present the results of

my research through the documentary. It was the perfect opportunity to refer to the Summer

Course about Visual methods for water communication because it had an important role in the

achievement of my second learning outcome and objective. The session began with the

presentation of a short video about the course. Then, the Hydro-Social Deltas Project was

explained briefly with a case study about human flows due to flooding in Bangladesh. After, I

presented my research and the documentary. See Appendix 10. Internship presentation.

After watching the documentary there was a space for questions and discussion. The main topics

referred to the methodology used to approach the interviewee, the time requirement to produce

this type of product, and some results that called the attention of the attendants. Two key inputs

were: water managers surprised with the flood risk and the evacuation, and interviewees talking

more the experience of the others than about their experiences. The documentary was considered

very useful for creating awareness. Attendants suggested to share it and make it public through

The Water Channel, Youtube, municipalities and schools.

• Debate 1: Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and international development (May 30, 2017).

The discussion was focused in two different points of view of the SDG and their influence on

international development. The first speaker mentioned that development is a political top down

issue, missing what local people really want and need. Funding for development has increased

but why are things the same? One reason is because there is no critical self-evaluation of the

projects. The speaker talked about Nepal as an example where the Millennium Development

Goals (MDGs) were fulfilled but these were not linked to the national policies. Would this change

with the SDGs?

The second speaker emphasized that the problem is not the funding, but the time frame and the

governance of the area. There is a big difference between development when projects are

implemented in a paternalist way than when the communities are involved since the projects’

12

design. To achieve a constructive development and make projects sustainable, you need to build

responsibility and empowerment of people.

Some key message mentioned in the discussion were:

- It is necessary to rethink the international cooperation.

- SDGs are not only AID; they constitute a recognition of the things that need to be

changed.

- The academic community needs to become more critical.

- Engagement produces better results than sanctions.

- The failure of AID is not fault of the donor. It is the result of the weakness of the

government and the mentality of the people. However, a crucial aspect constitutes how

the project is designed.

- Southern governments are not as powerless as Northern countries think.

- Activism to reclaim the space as citizens happens in different scales and in different ways,

not only in the streets.

- The government needs also ‘behavioral innovation’.

• Debate 2. Socio hydrology and hydro social analysis: a tale of two disciplines (July 20, 2017). The

main question for the discussion was: Why two disciplines when the object of the study is the

same? The society-nature relationship. Definitively, to know water we need to take into account

the human aspect.

The hydro social approach means a new concept: the hydro social cycle. This concept implies

moving from social links to social nature. It considers that water itself is constructed and produced

socially. The question that hydro social researchers want to address is: How is water socially

constructed?

The socio hydrology considers that humans are intrinsic to the system, as agents of change and

as beneficiaries of the ecosystem services. This approach is a two-way interaction and feedback

among humans and water.

The discussion with the attendants resulted in three key messages to take home:

- The water problems are not only hydrological.

- There is overlap between the two disciplines, but they have different objectives. The socio

hydrology seeks to understand water and humans. “We are trying to become better

13

hydrologists” (Dr. Murugesu Sivapalan, 2017). The hydro social analysis reframes issues

and produces new explanations about social sciences.

- How can these two approaches be combined by a water manager? Personally, I think that

socio hydrology can provide solutions to water problems taking humans as the center of a

water system. The hydro social can recognize values, norms, power, and within this

context frame water issues. I consider that both disciplines should have decision making

as their final goal to make water management applicable and sustainable in time.

c. Practice networking

Networking is one of the objectives of WUR’s internships because it gives the student the opportunity to

connect with other people in similar fields of interest to exchange information, ideas and resources. In my

case, doing my internship at IHE Delft Institute gave me the chance to know many interesting researchers,

academics and professionals in water governance and water communication. I think that these two

thematic are deeply related with my professional interests. working with stakeholders and achieving the

desired changes with a project for example. I would like to keep in contact with these professionals to get

their advice and technical inputs for my future work, and maybe develop together a Netherlands –

Ecuador project that will help me put in practice all my learnings and knowledge.

3. Own executed project

3.1 Background

Twenty years after the rivers’ high water and evacuation of 1995 in the ‘Land van Maas en Waal’ (land

between the Meuse and Waal rivers), people still commemorated it. News appeared in local newspapers

and journalists kept writing about it (Culemburg Courant, 2015). Therefore, I was interested in identifying

the effects of the high water and evacuation in the lives of the residents and why Dutch still remember the

event.

On January 31, 1995, approximately 250,000 inhabitants along the river Waal and 13,000 along the river

Meuse were evacuated because of danger of breaking of the dikes and the life-threatening situation for

the inhabitants of the province of Gelderland (Kaufmann, Lewandowski, Choryński, & Wiering, 2016;

Scratch, 2015). The evacuated area corresponded to the Rivierenland (Riverland), the Dutch Duffelt and

Gorinchem, located in the central east part of The Netherlands. The Rivierenland includes the

Bommelerwaard, the Betuwe and the Land van Maas (Rivierenland, 2017). The Dutch Duffelt corresponds

to the Ooijpolder and its surroundings until the German border. The Rivierenland and the Dutch Duffelt are

part of the Gelderland Province and Gorinchem is part of the Zuid Holland Province (South Holland

Province) (Culemburg Courant, 2015; van Heiningen & van de Ven, 1995). Towns such as Nijmegen and

14

Arhmen were not evacuated because they are located in higher areas, but played an important role

making decisions and giving shelter to the evacuated people (van Heiningen & van de Ven, 1995). Figure

2 shows the evacuated areas in orange, purple and red.

Figure 2. Map of evacuated areas due to high water of 1995. Data from de Persgroep Nederland BV, (2017).

Five days before the evacuation occurred, the rivers Meuse, Rhine and Waal increased dramatically their

flows (van Duin & Bezuyen, 2000). The extremely high discharges occurred because of large amounts of

rainfall, saturated subsoil and snow (Parmet & Burgdorffer, 1995). On January 28, the water boards

declared that the situation was serious. The situation was confirmed by the forecast of Rijkswaterstaat

(van Duin & Bezuyen, 2000). The majors of some towns of the area meet in Arnhem to analyze the

situation. Based on the expected water level in the surrounding rivers and the fact that the water board

stated that they would not take responsibility for dike safety, the Mayor of Nijmegen declared immediate

evacuation on January 30. People and animals left the area for a few days. On February 5, 1995, people

with their possessions returned home. Fortunately, no flooding occurred and the river levels declined

rapidly (Scratch, 2015).

Since then, different opinions whether the evacuation was justified or not have been articulated. According

to the Crisis Research Centre in Gelderland, 90% of their survey respondents considered the evacuation

was justified (van Duin & Bezuyen, 2000). On the other side, articles appeared in the media with titles

such as: ‘The evacuation of Tiel was not necessary’ (van Heiningen & van de Ven, 1995).

My work consisted in conducting a study about the effects of the flood threat on the lives of the evacuated

residents. As it was mentioned in the first section of this report, this research is part of the project Hydro-

Social Deltas that seeks to understand the interplay between flooding and social processes in delta areas

in the Netherlands and Bangladesh (UNESCO-IHE, 2017).

15

3.2 Research questions

The main research question was: How did the evacuation of 1995 affect the lives of the residents in the

Rivierenland (Riverland) and the Dutch Duffelt area?

This question was addressed through the following specific questions:

a) How did residents feel during the high water and evacuation of 1995?

b) What changed in the lives of the residents after the high water and evacuation of 1995?

c) Do people remember the evacuation of 1995? Why?

d) Why did people commemorate the high water and evacuation in 2005 and 2015?

3.3 Research design and methodology

The study was conducted through a qualitative research, which aims a depth-understanding of a situation

(Kumar, 2014). This approach allowed flexibility to adjust to the context that was faced during the

fieldwork, according to the local dynamics. This research is a single case study design because its

purpose is to explore a topic where little is known and tries to give a complete panorama of the situation

(Kumar, 2014). It gives an overall picture of the effects of evacuation of 1995 in the lives of the residents

in the Rivierenland, Dutch Duffelt area and Gorinchem.

Triangulation of data was a key component of the design. The identified sources of information aimed to

complement, verify or argue each other, giving if possible an overall view but specificity in the locations

within the study area. This method enabled obtaining different versions from the interviewees that

included experts, authorities and residents. Conclusions if possible, were drawn considering the diversity

of inputs. The study was done ensuring results’ traceability.

The methodology included four sequential phases, shown in Figure 3 and described below.

Figure 3. Scheme of the methodology.

16

3.3.1 Preparation phase

This initial phase defined the focus, scope, and study area of the research. It was based in literature

review (papers) and document analysis (newspapers, websites, books, and stories published).

The focus was definitively social. Once I reviewed the literature, I noticed that research was done

regarding hydrological issues and the political-institutional aspects afterwards the high water of 1995.

However, the social component was missing. In other words, there was a gap about how people perceive

and are affected by Dutch flood risk management. Because there was no previous study about this topic,

this research aimed to give a broad perspective based in the opinion of the people, to provide an initial

point for further or deepen qualitative and/or quantitative research.

The scope was directly linked with the study area. The study area corresponded to the areas evacuated

near the Rhine, Waal and Meuse rivers. The definition of the study area was a process that required some

fieldwork and document analysis. At the beginning, I only considered the Land van Maas en Waal that

was the area evacuated mentioned more often in the news. However, after reading and talking with some

experts, I realized the this was only one of the evacuated areas. Finally, the study area included the

Rivierenland, the Dutch Duffelt and Gorinchem.

Furthermore, this phase included the review of Dutch flood management literature to understand the water

system and all its interconnections, including the governance attached to it. Additionally, a first review of

Dutch newspapers was done to support the definition of the study area and the focus of the research.

Two crucial steps were done during this phase as well. First, the study area was visualized in the map to

organize the fieldwork, the possible itinerary, and the logistics for each location. Second, the guides for

the interviews were designed. The questions were intended to two different but complementary groups.

On one hand, experts on the topic such as academics, and stakeholders with an important role during the

event such as authorities in the different levels. On the other hand, residents of the study area. The

questionnaire for experts and stakeholder sought more information about the event by itself, including

hydrological and decision-making elements, which helped to understand better what happened from

diverse perspectives. The questionnaire for residents was focused in the experience of the person

towards the evacuation and its effects in his or her life. See Appendix 11. Semi-structured interview.

3.3.2 Data collection

The primary data collection had two differentiated but complementary methods that were intertwined:

interviewing and document analysis. The fieldwork was done in the period June - August 2017.

17

• Interviewing

The method of interviewing was applied through semi-structured interviews to experts, stakeholders and

residents. This type of interview allowed the collection of in-depth information, and the possibility to

register the diversity of points of views and experiences. At the same time, the interview is a method that

can be applied to different targets (Kumar, 2014). It was designed in a non-technical language because of

the nature of the research. The snowball sampling method was used to identify the stakeholders (Kumar,

2014; Reed et al., 2009). Each stakeholder identified and recommended other individuals that could be

interviewed due to their experience, knowledge or position. Moreover, personal contacts were very useful

to identify interviewees. In this way, many locations of the study area with the diversity of points of view

were included. Previous telephone calls or emails introducing myself and requesting an appointment were

made.

The interviews to experts and stakeholders lasted from one to two hours, depending on the interviewee.

The interviews to residents were shorter and normally lasted from twenty minutes to one hour, depending

if I had an appointment scheduled in advance or I approached them in their daily activities. The

questionnaires were a guideline for the topics that needed to be included. I tried to turn the interview in a

conversation where the interviewee could feel more comfortable and express his or her ideas freely. All

the interviews were recorded after asking permission to the interviewee and I took notes. In most of the

cases, specific questions were filmed afterwards. A total of twenty (20) interviewees were made, from

which two (2) were experts, four (4) were stakeholders, thirteen (13) were residents, and one (1) was a

worker in the area. Three (3) interviews needed translation from Dutch to English. See Appendix 12. List

of interviews.

• Document analysis

The document analysis referred to some news, stories and memories published, and books about the high

water of 1995 and its evacuation. The Dutch newspapers were acceded via LexisNexis Academic through

my WUR student account, and they were translated. This helped with a general understanding of the main

idea of the text. The collection of the documents was done online and through personal loans from the

interviewees. These documents were written in Dutch. Thus, in some cases google translator was used

for specific parts that I considered relevant for my research. However, interviews were the main source for

data.

3.3.3 Data analysis

Once the data was collected, I began analyzing the results for each research question. A tool that helped

me organizing the information was the ‘Interviewee’s story’. This was a summary of the interview and not

a merely transcription. While writing the interviewee’s story, I identified the key elements for my research

and some quotes that illustrated the point of view of the interviewee. Each interviewee’s story included

18

some basic information of the person, a brief description of the location and a map, the main ideas of the

interview, and some pictures of the location. I wrote the Interviewees’ stories from the most relevant

interviews (more information for my research). See Appendix 13. Interviewees’ stories.

3.3.4 Production of final outcomes

My internship had three main outcomes or products: content report, reflection report and documentary.

Each one had its own characteristics and presents different but complementary information about the

work done.

• Content report

This report presents a summary of the internship including my motivations, information about the host

organization, the expected learning goals and objectives, the activities done by the student, the

description of the specific academic activity and its results (research or project), discussion about the

results, conclusions and recommendations. It could be considered as a technical report and needs to

show an academic reasoning.

• Reflection report

The reflection report contains as its name suggests, a reflection about the learning goals and objectives of

the internship. It is more about my performance, skills, attitudes and experiences strengthened or gained

during the internship. See Appendix 14. Reflection Report.

• Documentary

The documentary is the main product of my internship. IHE Delft Institute for Water Education is

promoting research with innovative methods, especially in the social sciences. One of these are the visual

methods for communicating water issues. My research was social and I am interested in getting more

involved with the social sciences for water issues. Thus, it was pertinent from IHE Delft Institute to ask a

documentary with my research and findings, and I agree about it though it represented a big challenge

because making videos was totally new for me.

The documentary ‘Once in a life-time. A story on living with water from the Dutch perspective’, was

produced and required a new way of presenting a research and the results. I decided to present it telling

my story, as an outsider who arrived to the Netherlands to study water management and that was

surprised by so much water everywhere, and by the Dutch water system that functions perfectly to avoid

flooding. However, I was shocked because apparently Dutch are not afraid when high water occurs or the

water system fails. I am sure that I will be so scared if high water happens again! Thus, I wanted to know

the Dutch point of view.

19

3.4 Findings

The research produced interesting inputs about Dutch and their relationship with water and the water

system by studying the high water and evacuation of 1995. I tried to resemble the interviewees’ opinions

using their words. Thus, I included some significant quotes in boxes next to the text.

3.4.1 How did residents feel during the high water and evacuation of 1995?

The evacuation lasted five days and the interviewees shared their emotions and feelings during that

period.

Most of the interviewees mentioned that they were

calm and not afraid. Some of them emphasized that

it was even a nice time to share with family, relatives

and friends because they moved to their houses in

higher lands. They felt secure because they trust the

government and the Dutch water system, specially

the dikes. Also, the police took care of the evacuated

areas son they were confident to leave their homes.

In some cases, they reacted and evacuated after

seeing neighbors moving and taking all the

precautions.

On the other hand, some people felt nervous

and stressed because of the situation. This

resulted from their previous memories about

the high water of 1926 in the same area

and/or the evacuation due to World War II

(elderly people). In addition, finding a place

where to go when no family or close friends, was a factor that put more pressure on people. However,

most of the evacuated people went to relatives and friends houses instead of the shelters prepared by

the government. It was interesting that some interviewees mentioned that residents began evacuating

before the official announcement was made by the authorities, and that this put some pressure over the

decision.

Other residents felt strange but without

suffering, and some thought that the high

water won’t happen but they were impressed

seeing the water so high and almost over the

“What is in the house that can’t be replaced? Not

much. Thus, we left with some clothes and basic

things to my sister’s house located 50 km far away.

There was a long row of cars going out. It was a

hilarious atmosphere. During that short period of

time, the kids didn’t attend to school but I continued

working. We were calm. We were watching the

news. I didn’t feel the danger.”

Mr. Erik Schothuis, Resident Kekerdom, 2017.

“It was very scary to see the water almost all over the dike

[…] The decision to evacuate was made by the Mayor and

the order was that everybody had to leave. Immediately, the

situation became chaotic. Everyone was trying to find a

place where to go”.

Mrs. Gerry Jansen, Resident Ochten, 2017.

“I didn't experience it as a really bad situation, but

everything was a little bit strange. I didn't suffer a lot from it.

Life just continued. That's the way I experienced it”.

Mrs. Bep Büchnen – Janssen, Resident Millingen aan de Rijn,

2017.

“We have always lived with water and we know it

can come very high but we are not afraid of high

water.”

Mr. Harry Sanders, Resident Kekerdom, 2017.

20

dike. Others realized that they were living in a risky area and checked for the first time the elevation of

their house.

According to the interviewees and some

pictures found, many residents evacuated

taking their belongings creating long lines

and traffic jams in the roads. For example,

they carried their wooden floors and their

household appliances. This attitude differed

depending on the location and the quantity

of water that could flood the area. In places

such as Gorinchem, where the risk was six

meters of water if the dikes would burst,

residents took their stuff to safer areas. In

other places where the expected quantity of water was lower, people moved their valuable things to the

first or second floors to avoid damages. Some of them realized that if the dikes would had collapsed while

trying to evacuate, a disaster would had occurred because they were still in low lands.

Five days later, when people returned to

their houses they felt joyful and happy.

They shared their experiences during

those days. Though, in certain locations

some people became angry and asked the

government for additional compensation

for the damages in their houses

(particularly in houses outside the dikes

that were flooded), or to replace the floor, doors, among others. The government gave every evacuated

citizen 100 guilders to compensate the damages. This amount was considered by the citizens as a

gesture more than a compensation.

To conclude, all the interviewees agreed that the decision to evacuate was right because it was better to

prevent any disaster.

3.4.2 What changed in the lives of the residents after the high water and evacuation of 1995?

Once the interviewees expressed their feelings during the high water and evacuation of 1995, the next

step was to identify if their lives changed after the event, and if yes, in what way. The responses could be

organized in five categories that are described below.

“The impact of the evacuation on the lives of the people was

small. Most of the people knew about the danger but they

didn’t expect the flooding to happen. We had trust in the dikes

[...] When coming back after the evacuation, we had the

feeling as coming from holidays. We asked neighbors and

friends, how was it? Where did you go? Then everybody went

back to his or her own business. I don’t remember it was an

issue for a long time”.

Mr. Erik Schothuis, Resident Kekerdom, 2017.

“I was very calm during the evacuation. My first thought was that the flooding would not occur, but when I saw the water almost at the level of the dike, I was impressed. It’s an image difficult to forget […] Other residents were not so calm […] During the night, the town was illuminated and many cars coming and going, taking the stuff to safer places […] When we came back, we were together. The feeling was that we all survived; it was impressive as well. We were very happy. However, afterwards that feeling changed in some residents. Some people were angry because they thought that the evacuation was not necessary. Some of them recently moved to their new houses and they took out almost everything, such as the floor […] But the most important thing is that we survived”.

Mrs. Sylvia Terwisscha van Scheltinga, Resident Gorinchem, 2017.

21

• Nothing changed

Most of the interviewees said that nothing

changed in their lives after the evacuation of

1995. They mentioned that life continued

because there was no flooding. Some

emphasized that still they are not afraid of

high water. Moreover, because the

government improved the dikes and

established the program Room for the River

after 1995, high tide would not happen

again. Regarding the prices of the land and

the houses, and the sale and purchase of

properties, there were not effects after the

high water and evacuation of 1995.

• Emotional effects

Some residents recognized that after the evacuation, they

became more sensitive and susceptible with situations where

people are in danger and exposed to high risks that require

moving from their homes. In this sense, some Dutch

remember their experience during the evacuation when

watching news about other evacuations around the world,

and feel more empathy with those who are suffering.

Additionally, the evacuation reminded the elderly the flooding

of 1926 in the same area, and the evacuation due to World

War II. In this sense, strong emotions appeared because the

previous evacuations involved suffering and damage.

Moreover, some interviewees expressed that the evacuation definitively created some emotions because

people faced the uncertainty of leaving their houses without knowing what was going to happen. The high

“When we came back, we were happy and there was no

damage. Nothing changed in our lives. I continued with my

normal life […] Nobody moved or sold their house. No one

changed floors of wood to stone […] My brother is a farmer

and took all the cattle with trucks to higher places. He came

back and life continued as usual […] After 1995 people are

not afraid of water. Now the dikes are higher than in 1995

and we have Room for the River so, the dikes would not

break […] We feel secure and safe. When there is high

water, the cemetery comes into water, that is normal, we all

know that. In 1995 the height of the water was 40 cm in the

church. The furniture still has the mark of water. The wall of

the church is marble and the floor is stone, so it is well-

prepared for water’.

Mr. Harry Sanders, Resident Kekerdom, 2017.

“When the evacuation was over, I felt a

big relief […] Once we were back home,

the military came to the village and

organized a party to celebrate; that was

very nice and fun […] After the

evacuation, the government strengthened

the dike. Even some houses were

removed because they were too close to

the dike […] However, since then, when

there is an evacuation somewhere else, I

am affected because I know what is like

to live through something like that."

Mrs. Gerry Jansen, Resident Ochten, 2017.

“I was afraid that our building program that was in the lowest part of Gorinchem would be affected and people

wouldn’t buy houses in a dangerous area. However, people continued buying houses after the event, and

nowadays, houses are still being built there. There were no changes in the market of houses […] So, you can see

that in Holland we know the danger of water but we can handle it, also in our minds.”

Mr. Piet IJsels, Mayor of Gorinchem in 1995, 2017.

22

water of 1993 and 1995 were the most serious events after 1926 and 1953, thus, people were surprised

because of the two events in a row, and in 1995, people were more afraid.

During the data collection I found many postcards and letters sent by evacuated people to their host

families during the weeks after the evacuation, demonstrating gratitude and acknowledgment. These

definitively show the emotions that rise during those days. See Appendix 15. Gratitude demonstrations

from evacuated people. However, only one interviewee mentioned that maybe some people who shared

the house are still in contact.

• More involvement in water management

Other residents stated that their change

after the evacuation is reflected in being

more interested in the Dutch water

management. This means that they

check often the forecast, the level of the

water in the rivers, and they are more

interested in the labour of the water boards, although twenty-two years have passed since the event of

1995. Also, some people recognized the importance of paying the water management fee.

One interviewee, who is resident but also a

water professional, emphasized that the high

water of 1995 that occurred one year after the

high water of 1993 in the same area, changed

the vision of the water sector making it more

alert about possible flooding due to high tide in

the rivers. After the North Sea flood of 1953,

reinforcement of the coastal protection was

done. However, according to the interviewee,

the water sector was ‘sleeping’ until 1995, but

“In the evacuated area, people began to be more aware of the

elevation of their houses and the importance of dikes and water

management. The impact was very big for people living there […]

People needed to give a place to it in their hearts. Some people are

still afraid when the level gets a little bit high. It can be said that the

evacuation created a mindset in the people.”

Mr. Mathieu Gremmen, Water Board Rivierenland, 2017.

“We realized that infrastructure for holding water was necessary, and that it had to be maintained. We all pay a fee

to the Waterschap. We also elect the Waterschap members but before 1995, we didn’t know their role. The event

created an awareness about the Waterschap (water board); it is useful and complies with its job. However, that

awareness has diminished over the years since tides are low and dikes have been improved. At that time, the

knowledge of water, what water can do, and the danger of rivers increased in the people’s mind.”

Mr. Erik Schothuis, Resident Kekerdom, 2017.

“Professionally, it made the water sector aware that things

could go wrong because for many years things went well

with water management. We were ‘sleeping’ […] but two

times in two years was an alarm for the authorities and

technicians”. Regarding his personal life, Louis didn’t

recognize an impact. However, the effects in other citizens

were noticeable. He said “I know people who used to live

very close to the river and to the dikes, and after the

evacuation the government moved them because of the

measures that were taken, such as strengthening the dikes.

Some of these people were mad at the government.”

Mr. Louis Bijlmakers, Resident Gorinchem, 2017.

23

this event was the tipping point to make changes and improve the Dutch safety. Thus, the water sector

enhanced the policies and implemented actions for increasing flood protection. Room for the River started

after 1995. Nevertheless, apparently some people were not satisfied with the new measures.

Another interesting issue that was mentioned by three

interviewees was the contrasting positions between the

environmental groups, some residents and the

government. Before the high tide, the environmentalists

wanted to restore nature around the dikes and avoid

concrete, big, and straight dikes. Some residents

agreed with this idea and opposed to the strengthening

of the dikes. However, after 1995, the residents

changed their perspectives and requested more measures against flooding, recognizing the importance of

dikes. But also, some people thought that environmentalists had responsibility due to their resistance

against the infrastructure that was planned and necessary to improve the dikes.

• Became an active citizen

Some interviewees identified that the evacuation resulted in

an increase in their participation as active citizens. The

HoogWater Platform (High Water Platform) constitutes the

organization that was created by some of the evacuated

residents in the year 2002 to protect the interests of the

residents of the Dutch Duffelt area. This Platform is

considered as a medium-term result of the high water and

evacuation of 1995, that aims to “inform the people about the measures that the government to protect the

Dutch from high water” (Mr. Harry Sanders, Chairman HoogWater Platform, 2017). Fifteen years ago, the

Platform had a predominant role avoiding the creation of an emergency polder (or flood storage polder) in

the Ooijpolder. Nowadays, the Platform has a low profile but, it is still alert to the measures that the

government implements ensuring a healthy and peaceful environment.

Three interviewees are part of the Platform, and they all mentioned the HoogWater Platform as an

important change in their lives because they had invested in it a lot of time and resources. They

considered it as an important achievement in their lives because they had the opportunity to perform

political lobbying, and resist and defend their area as citizens.

“The change is that the government wanted

to create a flood storage polder here. For

me, that was unacceptable so, I started the

HoogWater Platform because the area

would have been destroyed if we didn’t

defend it.”

Mrs. Mieke van Eupen, Member HoogWater

Platform, Resident Ooijpolder, 2017.

“As result from the evacuation, the people

protesting in the past against the strengthen and

construction of the dikes recognized their

importance […] We have made investigation

about how much high the water could be and

how high the dikes should be […] We have to

continue with our work talking and agreeing with

the people.”

Mr. Eric Kuindersma, Water Board Rivierenland, 2017.

24

• Aware of risky areas to higher areas

Additionally, some residents became more

aware about the elevation of their house, the

height of the closer dike and how much water

will come if the dike breaks. This means that

they had recognized that they live in a risky

area where flooding could occur. Thus, they

need to be always prepared. This is related

directly with their concern about the value of

the properties because these are in

dangerous places. It was interesting that this

change was described by an academic and

professional related to water issues

(droughts). However, he might resemble the

point of view of some people but not the

majority. The interviewees said that the

evacuation did not result in moving to higher

areas and/or selling their houses. He

emphasized that Dutch trust the Dutch water

system and the government. In despite of this, one of the interviewees bought a house in a higher area

when she and her family had the chance to choose a new place to live after moving back to the town

where they were evacuated. Likewise, according to this interviewee, other evacuated people made some

adjustments in their houses to deal with future flooding. This could be interpreted as that from a small

group that realized living in a risky area, few took small measures or moved but not necessarily

immediately after the event.

3.4.3 Do people remember the evacuation of 1995? Why?

Residents experienced in different ways the evacuation and some effects in their lives were identified.

However, their lives did not change in a meaningful way. Still, people definitively remember the high water

and the evacuation of 1995. The interviewees described the reasons for remembering it.

• ‘Celebrate life’

Some interviewees explained that because there was

no flooding, no one was hurt, nothing happened with

their belongings and they could return home in few

days, there was a reason to celebrate life. This was a

“The impact was not enough for people to understand the

risk of living in the Netherlands. However, it was the first

time that some people understood what could happen […]

More houses were built in the East part of the city where

there is risk of flooding. Some residents have taken some

measures to prevent water entering their houses and

possible damage, such as building additional walls, putting

ceramic floors instead of wooden, and even building 1.5

meters higher […] People think that is nicer and better to

live near a river […] In my life there were not really changes

because it was too short. The only thing was that when we

came back to Gorinchem and tried to find a new house, not

because of the evacuation, we decided to buy a new house

in the center of the town because it is much higher and

presents less risk than living in the East.”

Mrs. Sylvia Terwisscha van Scheltinga, Resident Gorinchem, 2017.

“For the first time in my life I checked the elevation of my

house […] And as a hydrologist it is very funny that I never

thought about it, living in a risky area […] People do not

think about flooding. We completely rely on technology and

trust the government.”

Mr. Henny van Lanen, Resident Zetten, 2017.

“Such high water won’t happen again, but it will

always be a memory. It was a big event […] I

will always remember it because it was strange

to be removed from your house and leave

everything, but fortunately, nobody was hurt, so

there is a reason to celebrate life.”

Mrs. Betsy, Resident Aalst, 2017.

25

big and special event that created a ‘community feeling’ because people were working together to

overcome the situation. Also, people were experiencing the same circumstance so, they felt accompanied

and comforted.

Demonstrations of joy occurred and some celebrations were organized when people returned home.

Welcome signs were placed at the entrances of the towns; the municipalities sent letters welcoming and

thanking citizens for their collaboration with the evacuation, the authorities and with the situation by itself.

The interviewees described all these celebrations with positive feelings, emphasizing that it was even fun

and nice.

In this sense, some of the residents have in their minds the evacuation as a pleasant and enjoyable

memory that is unforgettable.

• ‘Once in a life-time’

Some interviewees felt proud of surviving such a unique

event. They considered that the evacuation was extreme for

the Netherlands because dangerous situations rarely

happen in the country. Residents remembered clearly

images about the water almost surpassing the dikes and

reaching the village. For many people, this was the first and

last time until now when they had to leave their homes and

that they saw such high tide in the rivers.

People that live close to the dikes know that during winter it

is normal to have flooding outside the dike. Thus, they are

used to high water and not surprised when this happens.

However, the event in 1995 was the largest Dutch

evacuation after World War II and it appeared in the local,

national and international news. The event was the main

topic for some days, and it was known world-wide. They

considered the experience as once in a life-time as well. Consequently, residents collected pictures,

letters from the municipality, newspapers, booklets, books and any document about the high water and

evacuation of 1995; twenty-two years later, they still keep them! When I visited the interviewees, some of

them showed me all his or her documents explaining with detail each image. See Appendix 16.

Newspapers collected by evacuate people.

“People still remember the evacuation

because there has not been one single

mayor event in the Netherlands since World

War II [..] It was amazing to see the water

coming to the village. Normally, the river is

at least 1 km far away but suddenly, the

water was in our door steps. That was once

in a life-time.”

Mr. Erik Schothuis, Resident Kekerdom, 2017.

“Things like that hardly happen in Holland.

We don’t have hurricanes and those natural

phenomena, so it was one of the most

dangerous things that happened and in a

very big area of Holland. We will always

remember it.”

Mr. Wim Jansen, Resident Culemborg, 2017.

26

• ‘Leaving your house is an emotional situation’

The water increased to a critical level and there was uncertainty

about the resistance of the dikes but flooding did not occur. The

interviewees explained that the fact that at the end there was no

flooding constitutes also an argument to remember what

happened because the evacuation by itself is an emotional

experience. The elderly made a direct relationship with the

evacuation during World War II and/or the flooding disaster of

1926 in the same area. Consequently, they were very afraid and

in some cases, there was panic among them.

Related with what was described in the previous paragraphs, the fact that this happened for the first time

in the lives of many Dutch also resulted in an emotional impact in some of the residents. An additional

element that was mentioned was the short period of the evacuation. This influenced the idea that there

were not too many bad memories and that in general, the lives of the people did not change afterwards.

But what would had happened if the evacuation lasted more days, weeks or even months? One of the

interviewees emphasized that in that case, more sad and distressing emotions would have been involved

and that probably nice memories would not exist.

Farmers were mentioned in most of the interviews because they were considered as the group who had

more negative and emotional effects. Farmers had to mobilize their cattle, chicken, sheep, goats to safer

places. Some of these farmers owned the means of transport and others were helped by agricultural

organizations. Finding a safe place and moving was a big challenge for some of them. However, one

interviewee said that in his village farmers are used to high water and that they had developed measures

in case water comes high. For example, stables

with different floors so, when there is flooding they

put the animals higher. In spite of this, the situation

in 1995 was more critical so they had to move

somewhere else.

As it was shown during the interviews, people remember the evacuation in different ways. In

consequence, a variety of remembrances were built and organized after the event. These remembrances

refer mainly to statues and signs near the rivers, and stories and memories published. See Appendix 17.

Books and booklets with the stories from evacuated people. The stories and memories confirm the

emotional effect that the evacuation had on the lives of the residents. I found many books and booklets

showing images of the high water and the evacuation, and telling the stories of the people.

“When you evacuate there is an

enormous impact because you leave

your house and you are not sure if the

house will be there after one week. If

happily enough, when you return and

everything is there, you can’t imagine

how it exploits in the mind of the

people. That is a remembrance that

will always be with you. You are part of

a process.”

Mr. Piet IJsels, Mayor Gorinchem 1995,

2017.

“Everyone remembers the evacuation because it had

an impact to leave your house with the uncertainty of

what would happen during the absence […] Farmers

had a much bigger effect; farmers suffered a lot

more”.

Mr. Eddy Hesselink, Resident Kerk – Avezaath, 2017.

27

3.4.4 Why did people commemorate the high water and evacuation in 2005 and 2015?

During my research I found that people remember the

event but also commemorated it after ten and twenty

years. I identified some commemorations like theather,

books and booklets with stories from the evacuated

people, online requests to share stories and pictures

about it, and specific events like theater and exhibitions.

See Appendix 18. Commemorations 2005 and 2015.

These commemorations were organized randomly in the

evacuated areas. This means that I did not identify a

“Three weekends ago, here in the village there

was a theater group ‘De Plaats’ that

represented the evacuation of 1995. The story

was about a farmer who told how difficult was

to evacuate his 100 cows because he had a

car to transport only 10. He had to drive 10

times. It was very hard to go and come back

because the roads were full! The people from

Ooij transported the furniture and all their stuff.

It was very very nice!”

Mrs. Mieke van Eupen, Hoogwater Platform,

Resident Ooijpolder, 2017.

“After 1995, a statue of a frog with sandbags was built

and put close to the dike in Ochten. The legend

means Highest tide for Ochten. Thanks to those who

turned the tide on time. 1-2-1995.

Mrs. Gerry Jansen, Resident Ochten, 2017.

“As a remembrance of the high water of 1995, Zaltbommel has a statue of a young man showing the height of

the tide during those days. If you go there and stand next to it, you’ll see how high the water was!”

Mrs. Betzy, Resident Aalst, 2017.

28

pattern or any specific policy implemented by the government. Contrarily, these commemorations were

spontaneous and were organized by the authorities (municipalities, Rivierenland Water Board and

Rijkswaterstaat), newspapers and journalists, and civil society groups.

My research recognized two reasons for these

commemorations. On one hand, all the emotions that

resulted from the evacuation are still remembered by

the evacuated people. In this sense, the

commemorations are celebrations about overcoming

that experience that remind the residents their

feelings during those days. On the other hand, in the

Netherlands there is the need to tell the people,

particularly the ones that were not evacuated and the

new generations, that there is a risk of water. The

Dutch water system has been designed and improved in the last decades to manage and reduce the risk

of flooding, but there is not 100% safety. The authorities and some residents considered that it is

imperative that all the inhabitants in the Netherlands remember and/or recognize that it is possible that

high tides in the rivers happen again. Thus, they should always be prepared in case an evacuation is

declared.

All the interviewees agreed that young generations

are not aware of the risk that water represents in the

Netherlands, and that even older generations have

forgotten about it. Therefore, it is so important to

remind people. Dutch rely completely on technology

and trust the government and its water management.

One interviewee mentioned a curious common phrase

for Dutch engineers that illustrates this. It is a variety

of the Lord’s Prayer: ‘give us daily bread and a flood

every ten years’. This is translated in the idea that

when floods happen often, the water system is

continuously improved and people are aware and

prepared; but when floods do not occur for a long

time, people forget or do not give water management a priority.

4 Discussion

This section presents some key aspects that came out during the research. These refer to the

methodological design and the findings.

“The commemorations happen for two reasons.

The first reason is that the remembrance is very

important to give a place in people’s mind […] It is

very important that people are united. It’s an

experience that they went through, so you have to

remember that in a certain way. The second

reason refers to the idea that it is necessary to

show the new people in the region that events like

this can happen because it is more than 20 years

ago and it is not in the mind of the people in the

Netherlands […] It’s good for everybody that its

shown again.”

Mr. Eric Kuindersma, Water Board Rivierenland, 2017.

“The Authority is responsible of telling the people

what can happen, we have to be honest.

Authorities still talk about it because you never

have the total control, never! And now with climate

change we must adapt. We have to tell the story

and tell people that we are trying to make it safe,

but 100% safe does not exist [...] In the year 2005,

the Municipality of Gorinchem organized an

exposition about the high water of 1995 and Room

for the River […] The new generations remember

the event very remotely. It is supposed that in

1:10.000 years we have a flooding, but it can

happen this year and the next year too. Water is

our enemy but it is also our friend. Authorities

have to communicate that the risks are high and

help to prepare in case of emergency.”

Mr. Piet IJsels, Mayor Gorinchem in 1995, 2017.

29

4.1 Methodological design

The research proposal was the basis for the research and it was updated continuously according to the

context and the availability of the interviewees. The methodology proposed was adequate but some

adjustments were done to ensure the data collection during the fieldwork.

4.1.1 Definition of the study area and locations for interviewees

The definition of the study area and the prioritization of locations and the interviewees required

modifications. At the beginning of the research, the study area corresponded to the Land van Maas en

Waal, that includes five municipalities: Beuningen, Wijchen, Heumen, Druten, and West Maas en Waal

(Regionaal Bureau for Toerisme Arnhem Nijmegen, 2017). However, after doing some document analysis

and talking with the stakeholders, I realized that the evacuated area was bigger including the

Rivierenland, the Dutch Duffelt and Gorinchem. Then, I decided to consider all the evacuated area

although it would probably require more time and effort to cover a larger territory because I wanted to give

an overall idea of what residents think and feel about living with water and the changes in their lives after

1995. In this sense, I changed the initial prioritization of 2-3 locations to all the area. This meant that I

traveled to the various locations that were evacuated and that I talked with residents without any

predefined location criteria. However, on purpose I combined urban and rural stakeholders and covered

all the territory (at least with one location). This gave me the opportunity to know almost all the evacuated

area with the similarities and differences between the locations, including landscapes, cultural issues, and

the perspectives from the people.

The document analysis gave me an initial idea of the locations but was not decisive for choosing the

locations. I noticed that some towns and villages got most of the attention because of the media instead of

the real risk or damages that resulted from the high water or effects from the evacuation. A key element

for the locations was the access by public transport.

4.1.2 Approaching the interviewees

The strategy to talk with the interviewees was also changed. The fieldwork started with trips to the

locations to know the place, collect visual material and to approach people in public spaces while relaxing,

such as walking on the dikes, sitting on the riverside or drinking a coffee in cafeterias. Still, after two visits

I realized that this was not an effective strategy to make the interviews because people did not have time

to talk during those moments, and/or they were not prepared to talk about the high water and evacuation

of 1995. Thus, I modified the strategy to arrange appointments with people recommended by academic

and personal contacts. I was lucky that my supervisors and professors knew people who were evacuated

and gave me their phones or emails. For instance, this made me realize that the evacuation was a big

event and that evacuated people were more common and closer than I expected.

30

I started with a few contacts that were interviewed first and through the snowball sampling method I

approached the rest of interviewees that were relatives, friends or neighbors. It was very interesting to

notice the difference between this strategy and the first one. Clearly, being referred by someone else and

arranging an appointment at their residence or work place made them willing to share their experiences.

Moreover, for my visit they were prepared with newspapers, booklets and other material published during

and after 1995. They spent some time talking with me and gave a lot of details about their experience.

This resulted in a lot of information that enriched my analysis and the research.

Nevertheless, this strategy had three limitations that could be elements for further research to complement

the results. First, the age of the interviewees. My interviewees were adults over 50 years old and half of

them were already retired. It would be interesting to know the point of view from evacuated people that

were children or young people in 1995. I did not focus in these groups because of time limitation and the

fact that the snowball sampling method referred to a certain network. Second, farmers were not

interviewed though I tried to talk with a few. Interviewees assumed that farmers were more affected by the

evacuation, but I am curious about their perspective. Third, the segment of the population that resulted

from the snowball sampling method was characterized by professionals and academics related with water,

and residents that belong to a certain educational level and social status because they could understand

and speak English. It would be interesting to know the perception of non-professionals who probably,

have less interest or access to information about water management.

4.1.3 Language barrier

As it was mentioned in the previous paragraph, the language was a limitation that was identified since the

beginning of the research. Most of the documents (news, articles, books and booklets) about the

evacuation were in Dutch because they resemble the stories and memories of the people. I translated key

parts of some documents using google translator to understand the main idea. However, I was not able to

understand details that probably would have been very useful for my results. This is the reason why I

decided to make the interviews the main source for my data collection.

In addition, I had to choose interviewees who necessarily understood English. In a few cases I needed

translation that was provided by other interviewee or friends of mine. Nevertheless, the quality and

quantity of information that I got after the translation was not as complete as if the conversation would

have been in English. I lost the control to question and paraphrase main ideas. Additionally, translation

required some logistics arrangements that were not always possible. Still, I think that the efforts that I

made trying to reduce this limitation were useful because some information in Dutch was gathered

confirming the perspectives of the English interviewees. Also, the documentary presents two short

interviews in Dutch with subtitles in English giving the ‘Dutch spirit’, which I considered necessary in a

research that was done in the Netherlands.

31

4.1.4 Willingness to be recorded and filmed

My tool to collect the data was the interview. However, due to my two formats of presenting the findings, I

had to design the methodology for the technical report (common way of showing my results) and for the

documentary (innovative way of showing my results). Thus, the interviews required recording and filming

but I did not record and film at the same time. In other words, strategically I began the interview with the

recording that lasted between 45 minutes and 3 hours, depending on the interviewee. All the interviewees

agreed on being recorded. Afterwards, I asked the interviewee about the possibility to ask 2 or 3 specific

questions about what we already talked and film his responses to be included in my documentary. Most of

the interviewees agreed with being filmed so I had plenty material for the documentary. However, three of

the interviewees did not want to be film.

It was interesting to notice the reactions of the interviewees with the audio and visual methods. Being

recorded was not a problem for the interviewees and after a couple of minutes, they were used to the

recorder and forgot about it during the rest of the conversation. On the other hand, being filmed generated

a reaction on the interviewees. I realized that they felt nervous and in some cases, they told their answers

in way without compromising themselves or generating much controversy. Even though my topic was not

much sensitive, I noticed this issue. Thus, I decided to record first to give the interviewees more freedom

and make them feel more comfortable. And then, film them with more precise answers for the

documentary. Luckily, the filmed answers matched with the recordings.

In this sense, I had two sources for the findings in the report (recordings and videos) that were intertwined,

and for the documentary, the findings were exposed through the interviewees’ videos. In the cases were

interviewees did not want to be filmed, I included some of his quotes to show their points of views. At the

end, I think that the combination of videos and quotes gave a dynamic structure to the documentary.

4.2 Curious inputs from the findings

4.2.1 Not afraid of high water?

From my personal experience and background, it was a surprise that most of the interviewees expressed

that they were calm during the high water and evacuation and that only a few mentioned that the event

was scary. However, after the research I confirmed my premise which says that living with water is part of

Dutch culture, so from that perspective, Dutch are not afraid of water. There are many daily activities that

show that Dutch are used to water. For example, Dutch learn to swim in their first years of life and from my

experience, Dutch are good swimmers. Also, Dutch like very much to practice water sports, such as

sailing, kite surfing and swimming, or have fun with activities related with water like boat rides along the

canals.

A curious issue from my research is that the interviewees recognized that the others were nervous or

scared. I wonder what made the difference between being afraid or calm. One clear condition that resulted

32

from the research is that people who suffered the flooding of 1926 or the evacuation due to World War II

made immediately a correlation between these events and the high water and evacuation of 1995, getting

emotionally affected. Nevertheless, none of my interviewees experienced the events of the 20s and 40s to

confirm this. Besides this, I could not identify any other particular element that made the difference

between the calm interviewees and ‘the others’ that were afraid.

It could be that because twenty-two years have passed, people have forgotten the negative emotions that

they experienced during those days, and now, they only remember it as a nice experience because at the

end, there was no disaster and the relief sensation exploded in their minds. There are two elements that

called my attention and gave place to think that it was not necessarily a calm and nice experience, and

people were scared. First, the authorities explained that some residents evacuated before the official

evacuation request because the saw the high-water level for many days and that was not a good augury.

Second, many residents evacuated carrying their belongings including floors, kitchens, furniture, among

others, which meant that they did not want to lose them. In this sense, it could be that they were

unconsciously reflecting their fears in the others.

This idea is also shown in the results about the remembrance and commemorations. People remember

the evacuation because it was a special, unique emotional event. Commemorations happened to

celebrate life, give the event and its emotions a place in people’s mind, and to remind about the existing

risk of living in the Netherlands. However, some interviewees reflect that they are aware of the risk but the

others are the ones who need these commemorations (and not necessarily them). It highlights that the

evacuated people think they know about the risk, but the rest of the inhabitants do not. In summary,

interviewees were good recognizing the others’ experiences but probably, they forgot consciously or not

their own experiences. It could be that Dutch ‘block’ their experiences to live peacefully in the

Netherlands.

4.2.2 Are water professionals aware of the risk?

Another curious result from my research is that even water professionals and academics were not aware

of the risk of high water in their locations. They were very surprised when the evacuation was requested

and at that moment, they got interested in knowing for example the elevation of their house. From my

perspective, this confirmed that Dutch are used to live with water and that they trust the government and

the water system against flooding.

How can I expect Dutch being aware of the risk due to water if even the water professionals and

academics who have access to more information are not? For me, this was a big surprise and I began

agreeing with the Dutch engineers’ variety of the Lord’s Prayer, that asks one flood every ten years. I

definitively concur with the idea that time helps people forget about the existing danger and risk. I think

that time has made Dutch forget what can happen when the water system fails and that is definitively

necessary to remind them, particularly because of climate change.

33

4.2.3 Water professionals speaking as residents

The academics and professionals who were evacuated spoke during the interview as citizens more than

from their professional profile. This focus was the one expected for my research, but I did not need to ask

that. Naturally, they began talking from their personal experience mentioning the technical aspects only

when needed. It was an interesting not expected coincidence that I had the opportunity to talk with people

who were residents and water related professionals. Maybe this constitutes a bias in some of the collected

data. But these results, do not defer much from the other interviewees answers. Contrarily, I think that this

was an advantage to reflect on additional elements.

Key stakeholders (authorities) were also contacted for understanding what happened in 1995 and to

contrast their perspective with the one from the residents. Their point of view was given definitively from

their position as authorities, which created a good combination in my research because of all the useful

background. Both types of interviewees: stakeholders (authorities) and residents had similar points of view

and complemented each other.

4.2.4 Contacting authorities a challenge

Authorities in the different levels: national, provincial and municipal, were considered key stakeholders for

my research and where the ones first contacted by email for interviews. I did not have specific names in

these organizations, so I wrote to the information email that appears in their website. However, I received

few responses and the information that I could get from them was very limited. For example, I contacted

the Gelderland Province and most of the Municipalities of the area, such as Nijmegen, Culemborg, Berg

en Dal, Maasdriel, Zaltbommel, Tiel, among others. Though I insisted sending more emails, making phone

calls and personal visits, I only received answers from the Nijmegen Municipality and the Province

apologizing because they the staff of 1995 was no longer working there. Consequently, they had no one

whom I can meet. Nevertheless, the Province sent me some reports about the event (in Dutch).

After the disappointing silence to my requests, I changed the strategy and searched possible contacts

through known people from Wageningen University, IHE Delft Institute and my personal life here in the

Netherlands. In this way I reached Rijkswaterstaat, the Water Board Rivierenland and the Mayor of

Gorinchem in 1995. I was able to solve this obstacle in my research but I kept thinking why it was so

difficult to reach the authorities, specially municipalities. I have three premises for this. First, they do not

have an ‘organizational memory’. In other words, they do not have documents from that time neither

someone from that time still working in the municipality. Anyhow, this is totally astonishing because the

event happened only two decades ago and from my living experience here, the Netherlands has well-

organized archives. Additionally, the evacuation was an important event in Dutch history. The second

premise refers to idea that the information service by email or phone, and the contact forms at the

organizations’ websites are inefficient for addressing these requirements that go beyond citizen’s

procedures. Maybe the technicians and directors are willing to talk about it because after 1995 a lot of

34

investment was done for strengthening the flood defenses in the country, but at the reception level they do

not know how to address effectively this type of requests or have the wrong perception that this issue will

disturb the decision makers. The last premise is that the authorities prefer to avoid the topic, particularly

for research purposes. This, could be because they think it’s a very sensitive topic and they are not willing

to talk about it since so many different points of views were expressed after it, especially regarding the

decision-making process.

4.2.5 Two events in a row

An interesting finding was the existing relationship in the mind of the Dutch between the high water in

December of 1993 and the one in January of 1995. When I began the research, I did not know about the

event in 1993. However, after talking with the first interviewees, I realized that there was a direct

relationship between both, at least in the mind of the Dutch. The fact that two high water events happened

in thirteen months worried authorities and citizens of the area, and the high water of 1995 was taken very

seriously. At the same time, the stakeholders interviewed mentioned that the evacuation in 1995 was

easier or even possible because after 1993 some municipalities prepared their evacuation plans in case of

an emergency.

It was noticeable that all the interviewees mentioned the high water of 1993 and apparently, this first event

pressured them to evacuate in advance on January of 1995, and increased their emotions towards it or

made people more confident about the resistance of the dikes. For the water sector, two events in a row

were the tipping point to improve the water policies and to design a programme to strengthen the water

system. Since then, Room for the River exists and all the improvements in the dikes and changes for

addressing flooding are justified with the high water of 1995.

4.2.6 The decision making for the evacuation

The research gave me the opportunity to know more about how the decision to evacuate was made.

Although it was not a specific research question due to time limitation, I asked the interviewees about it

because I was interested in understanding this. While defining the scope of my research with my IHE

supervisor, we discussed about this because we found documents stating that the evacuation was not

necessary. From the literature review, I realized that the evacuation resulted from a complex decision-

making process where many stakeholders and individuals were involved. Residents remembered little

about this issue but they stated that the decision was made by the Mayor of Nijmegen.

After talking with the interviewees and reading about it, I concluded that the decision to evacuate was a

result of a sum of decisions to evacuate in the different areas. In the region, the Mayor of Nijmegen was

responsible and was the first one who declared the evacuation after the water boards were not sure if the

dikes would hold the pressure of the amount of water for many days. Then, the Commissioner of the

Queen of the Province of Gelderland requested the evacuation of other areas. The local level was also

35

implicated in the decision. For example, the Mayor of Gorichem declared the evacuation in his jurisdiction.

The Minister of Interior got also involved allowing people return home, six days after (February 5, 1995).

The Finally, the fact that some people began evacuating before the decision was officially made put

pressure on decision making.

The previous description is one of the versions of the story, where there was a technical justification for

the evacuation. All the interviewees agreed with this version. But there is a second version that takes into

consideration important elements in socio-institutional processes such as power and individual interests.

This second story is detailed in the book ‘Hoogwater’, written by Mr. Rudie van Meurs and published in

1996. In summary, the book describes some elements that were not necessarily taken into account in the

other version. The first one is the lack of knowledge about the stability of the dikes. The second one refers

to the role of the different authorities that were in some way competing for competences, and specially few

individuals that made the decision following their own interests, the desire for power and to show their

abilities to make fast decisions for protecting he citizens. I found Rudie’s website and contacted him for an

interview. In despite of this, I could not talk with him because in a strange way, he did not attend the three

appointments previously arranged (conversations by skype). It would have been very interesting to have

his inputs in my research. It could be a topic for further research.

4.2.7 No evacuation in Germany

The interviewees from the Dutch Duffelt, particularly the ones living in the border with Germany mentioned

an additional element that affected directly their emotions and perspective about the evacuation of 1995.

They referred to the fact that Germany did not order the evacuation although the situation in the rivers was

similar crossing the border. This generated confusion and doubts in the inhabitants of the Duffelt area.

Some residents thought that it was necessary to evacuate but other said it was useless. They felt

disappointed and curious because they had to evacuate and their relatives and friends living some meters

upstream stayed in their houses. For example, they mentioned that it was strange to see that Millingen

aan de Rijn was empty but a couple of streets to the East, crossing the border, the German villages were

as usual and people continued with their lives.

The Duffelt area includes Dutch and German territory. The Duffelt is a low floodplain located to the east of

Nijmegen that goes until Kleve in Germany. The northern boundary of this area is the Waal. In this sense,

Dutch and Germans living in the Duffelt feel identified as being part of this particular area; the border is a

merely jurisdictional division that in most of the cases, it not in the mind of the inhabitants.

The people from the border explained that historically, there have been strong relationships between the

Dutch and the Germans in that area. There are family relationships between Millingen aan de Rijn and the

Ooijpolder (Dutch side), and Kleve in Germany. Also, some Dutch live in the German border and they

drive every day to work in the Netherlands. This is because Germany is cheaper. In other words, at the

local level there is collaboration and communication between the Dutch Duffelt and the German side.

36

Contrarily, the interviewees from the Dutch Duffelt explained that there is no regional cooperation between

the Arnhem-Nijmegen Region and the German neighbor region (Düsseldorf) although they are in the main

water system. They said that the Arnhem-Nijmegen Region is more oriented to the West part of the

Netherlands which has created a feeling of isolation in the Dutch Duffelt. In this sense, the Dutch Duffelt

residents feel closer to the German side.

5. Conclusions

I can conclude that the internship was successfully completed because I achieved the expected learning

outcomes and objectives. Moreover, I think that my internship was unique and outstanding because it had

three complementary elements that definitively strengthened my professional profile. First, it enforced my

research skills with my study about the high water and evacuation of 1995, giving me the opportunity to

adapt to the context, redefine strategies and solve problems in advance. Second, I could participate in

additional activities at IHE like seminars, debates and a summer course, which put me in contact with

interesting scientists, academics that work directly with water, and students interested in my same topics.

These spaces were very rich and gave me the chance to analyze and discuss important actual topics

such as the Sustainable Development Goals. Third, I acquired more knowledge than expected in the

social sciences with the communicational aspect of my research. I learned about visual methods for doing

research, and I realized that a documentary is not only a way of communicating the findings, but also a

way of doing research.

Regarding my research project and its results, I was surprised by what I found. However, after analyzing

the information, it has sense that in general, Dutch are not afraid of high water because they are used to it

(old generations) or they have not been exposed to high risk situations in the last two decades. The lives

of the residents of the Riverland, the Dutch Duffelt and Gorinchem did not change significantly after the

evacuation of 1995. Some residents were emotionally affected, others got aware of living in a risky area,

others became more involved in water management or more active citizens. For most of them, life just

continued because flooding did not happen. There is a diversity of points of view that do not denote a

specific pattern. The only element that apparently influences the emotional effects is the life experience of

the evacuation during World War II and the flooding of 1926 in the same area, which was a disaster in the

Dutch history. Thus, I can say that many criteria are intertwined, such as age, personal experience and

background, but as I said before, there are no specific patterns. Their lives did not change, but they

definitively remember the high water and the evacuation. This was a big and special event, unique for the

Netherlands, so people remember it because they celebrate that nothing happened and/or leaving your

house with uncertainty about what is going to happen creates emotions that last for a life-time. The

commemorations happened to give a place in people’s heart but also, to remind Dutch that the risk of

flooding exists although it is well managed.

37

This study gives interesting inputs to the project Hydro Social Delta about human flows due to flooding. It

would be very interesting to compare these results with other countries or even with other areas in the

Netherlands that had also suffered flooding. For example, I remember the results from the Minor thesis

about the flood risk in Zeeland; both studies coincide that flood risk is not in the mind of most part of the

Dutch, and that Dutch rely and trust completely on the government and technology.

Additionally, I think that the internship was a great opportunity to get in touch with another Dutch academic

and research organization that gave an added value to my studies about water governance and water

management. For example, I had a brief introduction to the two disciplines Socio hydrology and Hydro

social analysis, which provided me other perspectives about the social aspect in water issues.

It is worth it to mention that the fieldwork was a great experience because traveling to the study area

meant discovering so many picturesque villages, interesting towns, beautiful natural areas, historical sites,

and getting in contact with the Dutch culture. The landscapes shaped by rivers, polders and dikes were

the best way to get in touch with Dutch water management and to understand what I learned and read

about flood defenses. Furthermore, the research was the perfect occasion to read more about flooding

management in the Netherlands, and to learn about some technical and political-institutional guidelines. I

asseverate that this internship was the best way of finishing my studies in water management in the

Netherlands.

38

References

Culemburg Courant. (2015). Evacuation 1995: share your stories and photos. Culemburg Courant. Retrieved from http://culemborgsecourant.nl/lokaal/evacuatie-1995-deel-uw-verhalen-en-fotos-27141

de Persgroep Nederland BV. (2017). The measures after the high tide of 1995. Retrieved from https://www.gelderlander.nl/overig/de-maatregelen-na-het-hoogwater-van-1995-graphic~a365e72c/

IHE Delft Institute for Water Education. (2017a). About IHE Delft. Retrieved October 2, 2017, from https://www.un-ihe.org/institute

IHE Delft Institute for Water Education. (2017b). Hydro-social Deltas project.pdf. Retrieved October 2, 2017, from http://hydro-social-deltas.un-ihe.org/welcome

IHE Delft Institute for Water Education. (2017c). Water Governance. Retrieved October 2, 2017, from https://www.un-ihe.org/chair-groups/water-governance

Kaufmann, M., Lewandowski, J., Choryński, A., & Wiering, M. (2016). Shock events and flood risk management: A media analysis of the institutional long-term effects of flood events in the Netherlands and Poland. Ecology and Society, 21(4). http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08764-210451

Kumar, R. (2014). Research Methodology. (Katie Metzler, Ed.) (Fourth edi). London: SAGE Publications.

Netherlands Hydrological Society. (1998). Water in the Netherlands.

Parmet, B., & Burgdorffer, M. (1995). Extreme discharges of the Meuse in the Netherlands: 1993, 1995 and 2100 - Operational forecasting and long term expectations. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 20(5–6), 485–489. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-1946(96)00017-1

Pilarczyk, K. W. (2007). Flood Protection and Management in the Netherlands. Extreme Hydrological Events: New Concepts for Security, 385–407.

Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., … Stringer, L. C. (2009). Who’s in and why ? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Environmental Management, 90, 1933–1949. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001

Regionaal Bureau for Toerisme Arnhem Nijmegen. (2017). Welcome to the “Land van Mass en Waal.” Retrieved from http://www.arnhemnijmegenregion.com/land-van-maas-en-waal

Rijkswaterstaat. (2011). Water Management in the Netherlands.

Rivierenland, R. (2017). Rivierenland.pdf. Retrieved from https://www.rivierenland.nl/ontdek-rivierenland/ontdek-rivierenland/

Scratch, J. (2015). Floods 1995: the biggest evacuation after the war. Well-Informed Circles. Retrieved from http://www.welingelichtekringen.nl/samenleving/417200/hoogwater-1995-de-grootste-evacuatie-na-de-oorlog.html

UNESCO-IHE. (2017). Hydro-social Deltas. Retrieved from http://hydro-social-deltas.unesco-ihe.org/

van Duin, M. J., & Bezuyen, M. J. (2000). Evacuation during the 1995 Netherlands Floods. In D. J. Parker (Ed.), Floods Volume 1. Great Britain: Routledge. Retrieved from https://books.google.nl/books?id=Tv1R03tNEtoC&pg=PA353&lpg=PA353&dq=evacuation+during+the+1995+netherlands+floods&source=bl&ots=M2XnCF1A8_&sig=xBCoVlQ-aIKt3iXUVKPReXXqw80&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjDy6vezvfTAhXHChoKHbUPDqQQ6AEIMDAA#v=onepage&q=evacuation duri

van Heiningen, H., & van de Ven, G. (1995). The evacuation of Tiel was not necessary. NRC. Retrieved from https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/1995/02/07/de-evacuatie-van-tiel-was-niet-nodig-7255783-a1061790

39

Appendixes

Appendix 1. IHE Trainee Agreement

Appendix 2. WUR Internship Contract and Learning Agreement

Appendix 3. Research proposal

Appendix 4. Programme Course Visual Methods for Water Communication

Appendix 5. Certificate Course Visual Methods for Water Communication

Appendix 6. Script for documentary Once in a life-time

Appendix 7. Copyrights Approval

Appendix 8. Abstract for the documentary

Appendix 9. Meetings and workshops with IHE

Appendix 10. Internship presentation

Appendix 11. Semi-structured interview

Appendix 12. List of interviews

Appendix 13. Interviewees’ stories

Appendix 14. Reflection Report

Appendix 15. Gratitude demonstrations from evacuated people

Appendix 16. Newspapers collected by evacuated people

Appendix 17. Books and booklets with the stories from evacuated people

Appendix 18. Commemorations high water and evacuation 1995