Managing boundaries over time in integrative planning processes. A process analysis of boundary work in two cases of multifunctional land use

Figures & data

Table 1. Boundary actions to manage boundaries in integrative processes, and their effects, identified in previous literature.

Main type of action	Subtype	Activities to span, draw or challenge boundaries in integrative processes, and their effects, identified in previous literature
Spanning	Developing more dense relationship and shared meanings	Communication and relationship building by boundary spanners who identify needs and facilitate shared problems and solutions (Klerkx, Aarts, and Leeuwis 2010; Tushman and Scanlan 1981; Williams 2002, Goodrich et al. 2020). Leaders or ‘reticulist’ can play an important role; engaged and powerful individuals who can construct cross-boundary coalitions (Degeling 1995). Making use of boundary objects that serve as a means of translation and communication between actors (Star and Griesemer 1989). By jointly producing boundary objects, actors can develop an understanding of the integrative idea and a discourse and symbolism that transcends own interests (Klerkx et al. 2012). Using safe spaces that facilitate interaction by encouraging two-way communication between actors, e.g. excursions or field visits (Clark et al. 2010).
	Creating coordinating structures	Developing new categorizations (e.g. working groups) through which actors can define themselves as a group in contrast to another, enable feelings of jointness and a shared sense of character of the group, and focus energy and resources on a collective task (Enayati 2002; Epstein 1992; Yan and Louis 1999). Creating (formal) coordination structures that facilitate interaction (Marshall 2003). Developing accountability arrangements as steering groups to make group decisions accountable to all (Clark et al. 2010).
Drawing and maintaining	Activating or perpetuating boundaries	Activating or drawing boundaries when groups meet, contrasting themselves with others (Tilly 2002). Perpetuation of boundaries from earlier situations. Boundaries may be perceived as real even before an integrated initiative starts, and shape actors’ actions (van Broekhoven et al. 2015). This can reflect a process of stereotyping: by identifying someone as belonging to a certain group (e.g. water manager), a stereotypical image is activated which affects people’s perceptions, attitudes and behavior and hence the interaction. Stereotypes are often negative and can result in avoidance or exclusion and hamper collaboration (Enayati 2002). Strategies to defend existing ways of working. Integrative initiatives as arenas where “sectoral players do whatever is necessary to protect their sector’s existing agendas, themes and patterns of resource allocation from threats that would arise if the concerns raised from within other sectors were taken seriously” (Degeling 1995, 295; Derkzen, Bock, and Wiskerke 2009).
	Creating task divisions	Functionalization/specialization to perform tasks more efficiently by dividing them between units focusing on a specific set of skills, knowledge or ways of working geared toward this task (Doorn 1956). Drawing boundaries as a useful strategy in multi-actor interactions to keep complexity manageable and structure actions (Hernes 2003; van Broekhoven et al. 2015), facilitate implementation by reducing dependencies (Sproule-Jones 2002). Specialization as a double edged sword: also creating differences, e.g. specific language and knowledge, leading to communication barriers (Tushman and Scanlan 1981).
Challenging and negotiating	Challenging existing practices	Challenging, changing and negotiating boundaries to overcome existing ways of working, policies, practices, and patterns of resource allocation that hamper the integrative initiative (Janssen, van Tatenhove, and H. S. Otter 2015; Van Broekhoven and Vernay 2018; Derkzen, Bock, and Wiskerke 2009).

Figure 1. Temporal sequences of boundary actions drawn from literature.

Table 2. Data collection.

	Case Westduinpark	Case Dakpark
Document analysis (e.g. project document, minutes of project group meetings, covenants between actors, documents of organizations involved in the project)	35 documents covering the studied period 2002–2014	48 documents covering the studied period 1998–2012
Observation of actors interactions	None	Observation of 5 meetings between May and November 2012
Interviews with actors from the different organizations involved in the project	7	16
Validation	Workshop with involved actors	Workshop with involved actors

Table 3. Key boundary actions Westduinpark.

Lineage	Actors	Key boundary actions
(1) Developing management plan 2002-2014	Municipality Residents Water board Province Local nature organizations Advisor	(2002) Municipality develops a new nature management vision, which should include stakeholders. (2005/2006) Municipality hires external advisor to help with nature quality improvement and organize process. (2005-2007) Workshops, vision development and excursions organized with municipal actors from different departments and advisor. Leads to change in municipal approach toward nature management. (2005-2014) Municipality starts a regular management platform with stakeholders (later this becomes a project group and advisory group). (2006-2010) Presentations and field trips with alderman to raise political support for the project.
(2) Nature quality in relation to existing recreation 2005–2013	Municipality Residents Province Local nature organizations	(2005) Formal oppositions (45) to management vision, mainly on allowing dogs in the area ‘Bosjes van Poot’. (2006) Meetings in management platform and discussion group on Bosjes van Poot and dogs, aiming to come to a jointly supported proposal. (2009-2010) Excursion, field trips, discussing permit request cutting of trees, pressure through peers, to handle discussion with critical individual. (2010) Proposal for dog policy. Supported by most actors, but not by one involved organization. (2013) One-on-one communication with critical individual and peer group pressure to address objections.
(3) Preparing implementation: nature permits and communication 2005-2011	Municipality Residents Province Local nature organizations National government	(2007-2010) Communication process with residents: presentations, excursions, resident evenings, via management platform. First received skeptically, discussions and resistance. Later more positive. (2011-2012) Start implementation measures. In advance excursions and presentations are held for residents. (2011-2012) Conflict with national government on possible disturbance of bats. (2012-2013) Tensions between municipality and residents during implementation, despite participation in process, still objections and escalations to media. (2012-2014) Yearly a dozen excursions organized. Enthusiastic reactions of residents. Municipality sees the role of employees in area changed from controllers to hosts.
(4) Dynamic coastal management in relation to water safety permit 2007-2012	Municipality Water board Province	(2007-2008) Meetings between municipality, province and water board (2011) Water permit is rejected, as measures do not match with existing water safety policy. Surprise to municipality. (2011) Discussion on permit within water board: not all the right actors and departments were included. (2011) Meetings between municipality and water board. Discussion is escalated up. (2011) Support of politician from water board to find a solution. Helps internally to prioritize finding a solution. (2011) Coordinating activities of project managers water board, internally and toward municipality and province. Actors look for solutions. (2011) Condition for the permit is that municipality must monitor consequences of measures and if needed take mitigating measures. Monitoring plan is developed by external expert to gain support of water board.

Table 4. Key boundary actions Dakpark.

Lineage	Actors	Key boundary actions
(1) From conflicting claims to a joint project 1998-2000	Municipality Harbor company Residents External advisor	(1998) Lobbying by residents to develop a park instead of business development. (1998) Submission of idea to combine park and business destination to a planning contest. Presents the plan as connection between harbor and city. (1999) Municipality organizes ‘mini-conferences’ with residents, railroad company, harbor, civil servants and politicians. (1999-2000) Residents start a residents’ organization, which takes part in the discussions on the future use of the area. Residents feel everything needs to be fought for. (2000) External advisor is hired to facilitate the process and communication with residents. Start substantive exchange and reflection with residents and municipal departments.
(2) Resident participation 2000-2012	Municipality Residents External advisor Project developer Landscape architect	(2001) Residents provide independent advice on three competing proposals of project developers. This advice is summarized into eight ‘commandments’ for the design of the park. The commandment that there should be one meter of soil later becomes a symbol for the residents. (2001) The developer’s plan originally includes a design for the park. However, the municipality decides the park will be a task of the municipality, the building of the developer. (2002-2003) Meetings, presentations, workshops, debates on o.a. park design, choice for landscape architect. (2002) Two-day excursion to Paris with municipality, developer, designers, and residents. (2003) Residents approve the masterplan sufficiently incorporates the eight commandments. (2006-2012) Start Dakpark Cafe, a regular information evening for residents. External advisor translates between ‘professionals’ (municipality and developer) and residents, e.g. through small interviews with professionals.
(3) (de)Rail 2000-2008	Railroad company Municipality Harbor company Harbor businesses	(2002-2004) Discussion about how many rail tracks should be maintained. (2005) Decision all tracks will be removed. Contracts will be annulated. One company is still not agreed. (2005-2007) Meetings municipality and rail company on removal of tracks, polluted spoil and financing, continuing over years.
(4) Demarcation/ interfaces 2001-2009	Municipality Project developer Municipal departments External advisor	(2001-2011) Start joint project group, involving municipal departments, project developer, locality, and advisor resident participation. Developer and municipality closely work together. (2001-2005) Discussions on what the ‘excessive costs’ (costs of having park on building) are. These are used as instrument to calculate the financial division between municipality and project developer. (2006-2009) Many meetings between developer and municipality to discuss the roofing between building and park. Central topic: how to deal with leakage. Actors divide responsibilities in detail, delineating who is responsible for which layer of roofing material. Similar discussions take place on the elevator and stairs. (2008-2009) Internal discussions on roofing in municipality.
(5) Water 2001-2011	Municipality Water board Project developer	(2001) Start meetings water board bilaterally with actors of engineering department municipality. Departmental project manager then informs the joint project group. (2001) Articulations that municipality perceived from the start that the levee needs to be respected, as the water board guards the levees and no work on it would be allowed. (2007) Water permit contains conditions: building and park must be removed if the levee should need to be heightened. (2007) Developer does not want to continue with project under these conditions. Leads to impasse. (2007) Meeting alderman and head of water board. Alderman takes over the risk of developer and guarantees that building will not be adjusted within 50 years
(6) Energy company 2001-2012	Municipality Energy company Water board	(2001) Bilateral meeting between energy company and municipal departments. (2012) Meetings between energy company and municipal engineering department about possible solutions for city heating problem. Sometimes with water board. Focus is on jointly discussing technical problems and solutions. (2012) Discussions on financing. Energy company claims municipality should finance. (2012) Meetings between between energy company and municipality are scaled up to managerial level. (2012) Municipality states energy company is responsible for consequences of city heating problems in time and costs.
(7) Retail 2005-2009	Municipality Project developer Province City region (REO)	(2005) Discussion on retail destination within municipality: new retail destination of building does not match retail policy. (2006-2007) Province and regional economic group (REO) need to agree with retail destination. Resistance and discussion in REO, and within municipality. (2006-2007) Decision by alderman to enable Dakpark. Alderman convinces provincial politicians. (2006-2007) Discussion on possible solutions. Actors develop a detailed list of what type of retail is allowed, and work out conditions for this.

Table 5. Comparison of sequences and intermediate outcomes.

	Boundary discussion	Boundary actions over time				Matches with patterns from literature	Intermediate outcomes
		time
Westduinpark	(1) Developing management plan	Span	little drawing			Spanning
	(2) Nature quality in relation to existing recreation	Draw	Span + draw	Draw	Span + draw	Maintaining +  spanning	+/- Increased support, but discussions continue over time, formal objecctions (one actor)
	(3) Preparing implementation: nature permits and communication	Span –	Draw	Span + draw		Maintaining +  spanning	+/- Initial skepticism, later positive reactions residents. During implementation again criticism and later positive reactions.
	(4) Dynamic coastal management in relation to water safety permit	Span	Challenge +  draw	Span +  challenge +  draw	Span +  draw	Internal discussion +  negotiating change + maintaining +  spanning	+ Respondents state discussions move from ‘talking to a wall’ to more understanding of different positions and responsibilities.
Dakpark	(1) From conflicting claims to a joint project	Challenge +  draw +  span	Draw + span			Maintaining +  spanning	+ Moving from competition to increased support for MLU idea
	(2) Resident participation	Draw + span	Span			Maintaining +  spanning	+ Results in positive interaction process
	(3) (de)rail	Draw	Draw + some span			Maintaining +  spanning	- Difficult interaction
	(4) Demarcation, interfaces	Span +draw	Challenge +  span + draw	Span		Living together apart + internal discussion	+ Divisions of tasks seen as needed to develop project
	(5) Water	Draw	Draw + change agent	Draw		Maintaining	- Actors stay apart, sensitive topic
	(6) Energy company	Draw	Span + draw	Span + draw		Maintaining +  Spanning	+/- Despite disagreement positive reflection on interaction
	(7) Retail	Challenge +  draw +  span	Draw			Internal discussion +negotiating change

Klerkx, L., N. Aarts, and C. Leeuwis. 2010. “Adaptive Management in Agricultural Innovation Systems: The Interactions between Innovation Networks and Their Environment.” Agricultural Systems 103 (6): 390–400. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2010.03.012.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tushman, M. L., and T. J. Scanlan. 1981. “Boundary Spanning Individuals: Their Role in Information Transfer and Their Antecedents.” The Academy of Management Journal 24 (2): 289–305. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/255842.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Williams, P. 2002. “The Competent Boundary Spanner.” Public Administration 80 (1): 103–124. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00296.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Goodrich, K. A., K. D. Sjostrom, C. Vaughan, L. Nichols, A. Bednarek, and M. C. Lemos. 2020. “Who Are Boundary Spanners and How Can we Support Them in Making Knowledge More Actionable in Sustainability Fields?” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 42: 45–51. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.01.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Degeling, P. 1995. “The Significance of ‘Sectors’ in Calls for Public Health Intersectoralism: An Australian Perspective.” Policy & Politics 23 (4): 289–301. doi:https://doi.org/10.1332/030557395782200518.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Star, S. L., and J. R. Griesemer. 1989. “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39.” Social Studies of Science 19 (3): 387–420. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Klerkx, L., S. van Bommel, B. Bos, H. Holster, J. V. Zwartkruis, and N. Aarts. 2012. “Design Process Outputs as Boundary Objects in Agricultural Innovation Projects: Functions and Limitations.” Agricultural Systems 113: 39–49. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2012.07.006.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Clark, W. C., T. P. Tomich, M. van Noordwijk, N. M. Dickson, D. Catacutan, D. Guston, and E. McNie. 2010. Toward a General Theory of Boundary Work: Insights from the CGIAR’s Natural Resource Management Programs. HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series RWP10-035. Cambrdige, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

 Google Scholar

Enayati, J. 2002. “The Research: Effective Communication and Decision-Making in Diverse Groups.” In Multi-Stakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability: Beyond Deadlock and Conflict, edited by Minu Hemmati, Jasmin Enayati, Jan McHarry, and Felix Dodds, 73–95. London: Routledge.

 Google Scholar

Epstein, C. F. 1992. “Tinkerbells and Pinups: The Construction and Reconstruction of Gender Boundaries at Work.” In Cultivating Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequality, edited by M. Lamont, and M. Fournier, 232–256. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 Google Scholar

Yan, A., and M. Louis. 1999. “The Migration of Organizational Functions to the Work Unit Level: Buffering, Spanning, and Bringing up Boundaries.” Human Relations 52 (1): 25–47. doi:https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016968332082.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Marshall, N. 2003. “Identity and Difference in Complex Projects: Why Boundaries Still Matter in the ‘Boundaryless’ Organisation.” In Managing Boundaries in Organizations: Multiple Perspectives, edited by N. Paulsen and T. Hernes, 35–55. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

 Google Scholar

Tilly. 2002. Stories, Identities, and Political Change. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

 Google Scholar

van Broekhoven, S., F. Boons, A. van Buuren, and G. Teisman. 2015. “Boundaries in Action: A Framework to Analyse Boundary Actions in Multifunctional Land-Use Developments.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 33 (5): 1005–1023. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X15605927.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Derkzen, P., B. B. Bock, and J. S. C. Wiskerke. 2009. “Integrated Rural Policy in Context: A Case Study on the Meaning of ‘Integration’ and the Politics of ‘Sectoring’.” Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 11 (2): 143–163. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/15239080902920126.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Doorn, J. A. A. 1956. Sociologie van de Organisatie: Beschouwingen over Organiseren in Het Bijzonder Gebaseerd Op Een Onderzoek van Het Militaire Systeem. Leiden: Kroese.

 Google Scholar

Hernes, T. 2003. “Enabling and Constraining Properties of Organizational Boundaries.” In Managing Boundaries in Organizations: Multiple Perspectives, 35–55. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

 Google Scholar

Sproule-Jones, M. 2002. “Institutional Experiments in the Restoration of the North American Great Lakes Environment.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 35 (4): 835–857. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423902778463.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Janssen, S. K. H., J. P. M. van Tatenhove, and H. S. Otter. 2015. “Greening Flood Protection: An Interactive Knowledge Arrangement Perspective.” Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 17(3): 309–331. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2014.947921.

 Google Scholar

Van Broekhoven, S., and A. L. Vernay. 2018. “Integrating Functions for a Sustainable Urban System: A Review of Multifunctional Land Use and Circular Urban Metabolism.” Sustainability 10 (6): 1875. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061875.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar