Banks-borders-bridges, Waterscapes as lines of contention or connection?

About: Design research into the waterscapes of Eindhoven

Collaboration with: Waterschap de Dommel

Research Associate: Isis Boot

–––

Historically, the meaning of waterscapes is twofold: where, on the one hand, water can form a strict border in the landscape, it can, on the other hand, be a connecting force that brings faraway places closer by.

In this way, waterscapes have strongly formed our environment and society. As can be recognised in cultures, when reading cartographic analyses, and even in electoral behaviour (ref: Josse de Voogd). How do lines in the land- and waterscape in the area of Waterschap de Dommel overlap with socio-economic, cultural and political lines that shape, in turn, the debate and policy around dealing with those very waterscapes and other relations to water?

At the same time, both water and land are not static. The landscape changes as it is affected by time, climate and its inhabitants. Each time and place with its own challenges and influences.

How will the waterscapes of the (near) future look like? What are the current factors of influence? How can we deal with them? And how will this shape our future ways of living together as a community or society?

When looking at the statistics, reading the news or following the media may signal that inequality in the Netherlands is increasing and that (public) debates are polarising. Meanwhile, climate activists and scientists have sounded the alarm bells. But opposing perspectives and opinions of different societal groups stand in the way of moving towards change and solutions.

Differences in position, reality or vision also lead to friction in the Dommel Water Board's flow- and operating area. Urban versus rural, farmer versus urban dweller, innovative exotics versus endangered native species. Social, political, cultural and ecological systems are under pressure. Positions and interests often seem to be at odds with each other, hindering innovation, solution-oriented action, and collaboration.

In order to move beyond differences, or even, make them productive, we need to better understand these differences and how they shape viewpoints and convictions and the relations to water and landscape, now and in the future. What can be learned from different groups each with their own experience and expertise? How can their positions be understood from existing practical relations to the environment, and water in particular? And, how do we ensure that this diversity of insights is productively and constructively included in the debate around water. An enrichment rather than a braking force.

Exploratory conversations with experts-by-experience from different perspectives and social groups (farmers, urban residents, activists, policymakers from the institutional world, and water professionals), made tangible through visual methods in the form of expert interviews (reference: Leeke Reinders, “Harde stad, zachte stad”, the drawing of experiential maps).

Targeted interventions in the landscape as (social) test setups and conversation starters. Such an intervention or installation serves multiple purposes: making outcomes of earlier explorations tangible, creating buzz and visibility, and generating new, broader, informal conversations. Spontaneous chats with passers-by often start out of curiosity, but provide a natural entry point for deeper discussions on important themes. Experience shows how surprisingly open people are, and how accessible conversations become through this approach. This yields valuable information and insights. Taken together, the experiences and documentation of the interventions form the empirical basis of the research.

Documenting perspectives on, and relationships with, water, the landscape, and the Water Board in collaboration with conversation partners. Playing with scale becomes part of this process > ref. Powers of Ten > at what level do you zoom in? When does something become a boundary or dividing line—or instead porous, connecting, bridging?