An Analysis of the Decision Making Process in the

Expansion of Lelystad Airport

S. Jongerden - 4389409
EPA1423 3940 words
Department of Engineering and Policy Analysis (EPA), Delft University of Technology, Javalaan 5, 2628 BX, Delft, Netherlands

1. Introduction
Amsterdam Schiphol airport, as the 4th busiest airport in the world and the main hub of the Netherlands, is
continuously growing to meet with future international and national demand (Schiphol Group, 2014).
Schiphol airport, as the economic engine of the Netherlands, provides the country with 64,000 jobs and thus
the growth of Schiphol airport is of essential importance (NOS, 2013). However, the growth is restricted due
to sound regulations, limiting the amount of flight to 510,000 per year (Ministry of Infrastructure and
Environment, 2014). Nonetheless, the Dutch government perceives the expansion as vital for further economic
development of the Netherlands and requested for research into expansion alternatives (TNO, 2006).
Hans Alders, a former member of the Dutch parliament, investigated the expansion on request of the
Dutch government and came to the conclusion that the expatriation of flight to Lelystad and Eindhoven
airport were viable alternatives. This conclusion caused opposition from the local municipalities Dronen,
Zeewolde, Almere ,their respective inhabitants, local organizations and experts from within the aviation sector
(such as the Board of Airline Representatives In the Netherlands). These actors were concerned because they
would have to accept the consequences of deteriorating living standards, an increase in risk due to low
overflying aircraft and possibly health risk due to crop contamination (Binnenlands bestuur, 2012a).
On account of the opposition, the decision making process for the expansion of Lelystad airport
continued for a period lasting more than seven years. On 1st of June, 2014, the Dutch parliament supported the
plans for the expansion of Lelystad airport despite the fact that opposition was still resilient (Gemeente
Dronten, 2014). This decision was made because the benefits of the expansion outweigh the losses, since not
expanding would lead to missed opportunities in economic growth and would thus impact the Dutch economy
(Rijksoverheid, 2015).
Airports have been expanded in the past and records have shown that each expansion project is
exceptional due to unique circumstances in spatial planning and the concentration of inhabitants around the
airport etc. Further, the struggle of the Dutch government concerning nationwide economic growth and the
protection of the interest of the local municipalities and its inhabitants make this problem a wicked problem,
as defined by Rittel and Webber (1973). Subsequently, the wicked problem resulted in a augmented
problematic decision making process, especially when multiple parties, but also multiple levels of governance
1

S. Jongerden / An analysis of the decision making process

are involved. To further understand this problematic decision making process, the delay of the start of the
expansion of Lelystad airport will be investigated. Permissible that it may provide insights and options to
prevent project delays, cancellation or financial losses for organizations involved in future projects. For this
investigation the following research question will be used:
Which decision making strategies resulted in the delay of the start of the expansion of Lelystad airport
and how could such delays be prevented in the future?
For this analysis, this paper will first focus on the decision making theory and models that are available
in literature. Furthermore, an analysis will be performed on the decision making process, that caused the delay
for the expansion of Lelystad airport, by means of the round model. Sequentially, based on the conclusions
from the rounds model, the strategies used by actors causing the deadlocks in several rounds, will be analysed.
Finally, options that could have prevented delays within the decision making process of the expansion of
Lelystad airport will be given, so that these might support or benefit decision makers in the future.

2. The choice of decision making theory that applies to the expansion of Lelystad Airport
The decision making process for the expansion of Lelystad airport was delayed as a result of opposition. To
investigate this decision making process and what could have been the central reason for the delay, classic
decision making theories and pertinent models seem to be helpful (Groenleer, Jiang, de Jong & de Bruin, 2012).
When these decision making models are taken into consideration, it becomes clear that not all models apply to
all decision making processes and some apply better than others.
Table 1: Classical decision making models
Author
Stone, 1988

Assumption of model
One central decision maker

Reason why the model does not apply to the

Lelystad expansion case study
Multiple decision makers

Lindblom, 1959

Small steps

Fundamental change

Etzioni, 2001

Normative

Does not lend itself for descriptive analysis

No starting point

Stream model

Cohen, March, &

Olsen, 1972
Kingdon, 1995

The expansion process had a distinctive starting

point
No policy entrepreneur that tried to couple
streams

Rounds model

Teisman, 2000

Model
Rational model
Incremental model
Mixed scanning
Garbage can model

Streams and policy

entrepreneur
Rounds and interaction

Analysis of the features of these decision making models, as indicated in table 1, indicate that the rounds model
described by Teisman (2000), will suite best in assisting in the explanation of the decision making process for
the expansion of Lelystad airport, for the following reasons:

S. Jongerden / An analysis of the decision making process

1. According to the theory of the rounds model: many actors are involved in decision making and they
introduce their own perception of relevant problems, possible solutions and political judgement
(Teisman, 2000, p. 8). Within the decision making process for the expansion of Lelystad airport, this
holds true as the municipalities of Zeewolde, Lelystad, Almere and Dronten, their respective
inhabitants and organizations all introduced their concerns and preferences (Binnenlands bestuur,
2014)
2. According to Teisman (2000), the decision making process takes place within certain time periods
that have a distinctive starting and ending point. These time periods clearly become apparent when
the decision making process is observed in retrospect to time (Figure 1).
3. According to Teisman (2000), the interventions that occurred are the result from a series of decisions
made by different actors. Within the Lelystad airport expansion decision making process, these
interventions followed because of the opposition against the expansion, resulting in the Dutch
government having to collaborate in order to reach compromises (Nu.nl, 2011).

Due to the aforementioned reasons, the rounds model will be used in an attempt to create understanding of
the decision making process that led to the delay of the start of the expansion of Lelystad airport.
For the analysis of the decision making process of the Lelystad expansion case, desk research was
performed in combination with an analysis based on the theory of the rounds model. Additionally, based on
the outcome of the rounds model, the strategies of actors will be analyzed to provide options for the future
which may prevent decision making delays. The information required to perform this analysis was gathered
from both primary sources such as legal texts and policy documents, and secondary sources such as newspaper
articles and information available on the internet. However, it should be noted that the information that was
available, may be biased.

Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

Figure 1: Lelystad expansion timeline and decision making rounds

3

S. Jongerden / An analysis of the decision making process

3. Understanding the decision making process in the expansion of Lelystad Airport

To understand the decision making process for the expansion of Lelystad airport, the round model is employed.
Within the rounds model, the focus lies on the understanding of the starting and concluding point of decision
making processes, referred to as a decision making rounds. These decision making rounds are defined by the
most crucial decisions in retrospect that possibly influence the behavior of actors in the next round. The rounds
model can be used to determine which objectives, solutions and dynamics between actors let to the disruption
of the decision making round (Teisman, 2000).
Expansion plans for Lelystad airport were presented in the beginning of 2008, by the minister of
infrastructure, Camiel Eurlings. The decision making process on the expansion of Lelystad airport took seven
years and the involvement of many actors (see table 2) before a conclusive decision was made. Until this
conclusive decision, the decision making process was characterized by delays and some breakthroughs. The
following round were discovered in the decision making process for the expansion of Lelystad airport.
The first round started in the beginning of 2008 and included the Dutch Minister of Infrastructure,
the municipality of Lelystad, the board of the airport Lelystad and Hans Alders. At this time, Camiel Eurlings,
the Minister of Infrastructure, introduced plans for the expansion of Schiphol airport (Elsevier, 2007). To
further analyze the possibilities and consequences of such an expansion, Hans Alders, a former minister of the
Dutch parliament, was requested to give his advice on the matter. Hans Alders suggested that the growth of
Schiphol airport should remain limited to 510,000 flights per year, however to permit expansion, flight should
be expatriated to Lelystad and Eindhoven airport (Binnenlands Bestuur, 2012b). The board of Lelystad airport
and the municipality of Lelystad were very contend with this conclusion, as it proclaimed the legitimacy of the
airport. The Minister of infrastructure, Camiel Eurlings, stated at that time that: a lot of work still needs to
be done, and that the opinion of the involved parties should be heard before any action can be initiated
resulting in the end of the first round. (Omroep Flevoland, 2008).
Table 2: Key actors and their goals in the decision making process
Actors
Dutch Council of State
Dutch Parliament

Dutch Government
Province of Flevoland
Municipality of Lelystad, Donten,
Almere and Zeewolde
Schiphol Group
The board of the airport Lelystad
BARIN
Local organizations
Local inhabitants

Interest
Equality
Employment
Economic growth
Equality
Employment
Economic growth
Local economy
Living standards
Local economy
Living standards
Profits
Profits
Aviation industry
Profits
Living standards
Health

Goals
Enforce judgement on matters of conflict
Ensure an economic growth while ensuring equality for the population

Ensure a sustainable growth for the aviation industry

Improve local economy while maintaining or improving current living standards
Improve local economy while maintaining or improving current living standards
Maintain profitable activity
Maintain profitable activity
Represent the aviation industry within the Netherlands
Maintain profitable activity
Keep current living standards and health

S. Jongerden / An analysis of the decision making process

In February 2009, the second round of decision making started and included the Dutch parliament,
the Dutch Government, Hans Alders, the province of Flevoland, the municipalities of Dronten, the respective
inhabitants and local organizations. Because Camiel Eurlings stated in the conclusion of the previous round
that the involved parties should be heard before any action can be initiated, the Dutch parliament requested
Hans Alders to investigate the consequences the expansion of Lelystad airport might have (Omroep Flevoland,
2009a). Hans Alders responded positively to this request and erected the Lelystadtafel at which discussion
concerning the expansion of Lelystad airport could take place.
Within these discussions the province of Flevoland indicated that there would not be much room for
further expansion due to the restrictions in the planologische kernbeslissing and thus opposed the expansion
plans (Omroep Flevoland, 2009b). The municipality of Dronten also opposed the expansion plans for Lelystad
airport, as the plans would lead to an unacceptable level of disturbance for the inhabitants (Omroep Flevoland,
2009c). Discussions on the expansion of Lelystad airport did not result in compromises and irrespectively, the
Dutch government published the luchtvaartnota on April 19th, 2009, in which there was hardly room for
alternatives regarding the expansion plans for Lelystad airport (Rijksoverheid, 2009). Actors that were involved
in the discussion indicate that the Dutch government put a lot of pressure on the province of Flevoland to push
for expansion (Omroep Flevoland, 2009d; Meijer, 2009).
As the Dutch government hardly left any room in the Luchtvaartnota for alternatives, the dispute
between multiple actors (see table 3) was brought to the attention of the Dutch Council of State (the
Netherlands highest general administrative court) to judge over the expansion of Lelystad airport. The Dutch
Council of Sate concluded on the 7th of December, 2011, that the expansion plans were unlawful according the
Dutch Luchtvaartwet on the following three topics1:
1.

It was too uncertain when the expansion plans for Lelystad airport would be executed;

2.

The departure and landing routes were not fixed and therefore could not provide municipalities with
the required information for spatial planning;

3.

Due to low flying aircraft there would be a possibility that airplanes might contaminate agricultural
zones.

The primary concerns of the Dutch Council of State was that the sketched scenario for the expansion indicated
the growth of a business airport for the general aviation but not an airport for regular intercontinental flights.
The Schiphol Group, as the owner of Lelystad airport, was disappointed with the conclusion from the Dutch
Council of State but could not appeal against this decision (Schiphol, 2011). Due to the conclusion from the
Dutch Council of State, the decision making process resulted in a deadlock and determined the second round.

HR 7 December 2011, 200909551/1/R1.

5

S. Jongerden / An analysis of the decision making process

Table 3: Actors within the dispute over the expansion of Lelystad airport with the Dutch Council of State
Actors

Position on the expansion plans

appellant living in Zeewolde,

Opposing

de vereniging Belangenvereniging Almere-Hout

Opposing

het college van burgemeester en wethouders van Dronten,

Opposing

het college van burgemeester en wethouders van Zeewolde,

Opposing

appellant and others living in Zeewolde,

Opposing

appellant gevestigd living in Lelystad,

Opposing

de colleges van burgemeester en wethouders van Elburg, Ermelo, Harderwijk, Oldebroek en Putten,

Opposing

de stichting Stichting CDO Lelystad Airport

Opposing

appellant living in Dronten,

Opposing

The minister of infrastructure

In favor

The minister of housing, spatial planning and environment

In favor

The secretary of infrastructure and environment

In favor

Four months later, the third decision making round commenced, including the Dutch government,
the Dutch parliament, Hans Alders, the province of Flevoland and the municipality of Dronten, Zeewolde,
and Lelystad. On the 1st of March, 2012, Hand Alders presented an adapted plan for the expansion of Lelystad
airport, taking into account the concerns from the Dutch Council of State.
These new plans resulted in mixed responses, as the province of Flevoland and the municipality of
Zeewolde and Lelystad were now in favor of the expansion while the municipality of Dronten was not (Omroep
Flevoland, 2012a). Dronten responded to the expansion plans by lobbying for the rotation of the runway, as
this would prevent aircraft from flying directly over the city and thus reducing the level of disturbance. Dronten
was supported in their opposition as an organization, representing the inhabitants that live in the proximity,
requested the Dutch Council of State to judge over these new expansion plans. On the 8th of August, 2012, the
Dutch Council of State rejected the opposition and stated that: the expansion plan is not in conflict with the
spatial planning regulation of the province of Flevoland2.
On the 11th of September, 2012, the Dutch government replied to the request of Dronten by stating
that: the benefit of the rotation of the runway do not outweigh the cost (Ministry of Infrastructure and
Environment, 2012, p. 6) and second that by elevating the point of intercept3 to 3000 ft, the disturbance for
the inhabitants of Dronten could be further reduced (p. 6). Since this conclusion, the municipality of Dronten
withdrew its opposition since it had the believe Hans Alders would seriously look for alternatives regarding
their concern (Omroep Flevoland, 2012b). As the municipality of Dronten withdrew its opposition, steps to
make progress on the expansion of Lelystad airport were swiftly taken. This came as a shock for the municipality

2
3

HR 8 Augusts 2012, 201009511/1/R2

The point at which the aircraft intercepts with the glideslope for the approach towards the runway
6

S. Jongerden / An analysis of the decision making process

of Dronten as they, on 24th January, 2013, could not influence the expansion plans for Lelystad airport any
further.
As the development of Lelystad airport has been a turning point for the municipality of Dronten and
the Dutch government, airlines such as Transavia and Corendon started to lose interest in flying to Lelystad
airport (Z24, 2014). Furthermore, on the 5th of March, 2014, the BARIN stated that the expansion of Lelystad
airport would no longer be required as the current flight growth figures of Schiphol airport were lower than
expected. Additionally, Camiel Eurlings, the initiator of the expansion, openly stated that: The expansion
plans come too early, Schiphol still has enough capacity for years to come (BARIN, 2014, p. 1). Nevertheless,
the Schiphol Group replied that, since an agreement has been made, the expansion of Lelystad airport would
continue and presented the expansion plans in April of 2014 (BARIN, 2014):
Nonetheless these concerns, on the 1st of June 2014, the expansion of Lelystad passed the final
judgement of the Dutch parliament, stating that, the expansion plans fit within the coalition agreement and
tried to convince the still protesting parties (the municipality of Biddinghuizen, Zeewolde, and Dronten) of
their decision by means of the following evidence (Rijksoverheid, 2014).
1.

The expansion of Lelystad airport has significant macro-economic effects for the entire Dutch
population.

2.

The governing authority has the opinion that the areas of noise production hardly house any
inhabitants and could therefore be neglected (Luchthavenbesluit Lelystad, 2015, p. 86).

3.

The governing authority stated that: the positive social impact significantly outweighs the negative
impact on safety and health (Luchthavenbesluit Lelystad, 2015, p. 87).

4.

Regarding the slow growth of the aviation industry, the governing authority stated that: based on the
actual growth, the governing authority does not see any reason to deviate from the advice given by
Alders in 2012 (Luchthavenbesluit Lelystad, 2015, p. 86).

By means of this evidence the Dutch government made a unilateral decision on the expansion of Lelystad
airport. This action led to a breakthrough in the decision making process for the expansion of Lelystad airport
and brought an end to the third round of decision making. On the 1st of April 2015 the Luchthavenbesluit
was initiated and Lelystad airport would be expanded in phases, in which the airport, in the first phase, should
be able to accept 25.000 flight per year (NOS, 2015). The actual construction for the expansion is expected to
start in 2016.

S. Jongerden / An analysis of the decision making process

4. Decision making strategies and their effect on the delay within the expansion process
This paper set out to determine which factors had an influence on the delay in the decision making process for
the expansion of Lelystad airport, and more explicitly how these factors can explain deadlocks within the
decision making rounds. By means of the rounds model and the empirical synopsis presented in the prior
chapter, a number of factors were determined that caused delays and resulted in deadlocks within the decision
making process.
After the first decision making round, which resulted in a breakthrough by means of agreement on
the expansion of Lelystad airport, the second round introduced multiple new actors with different opinions
and power (see table 4), increasing the complexity of the decision making process. These new actors had
different perceptions of the problem than what the Dutch government had conveyed. As the expansion of
Lelystad airport would provide economic benefit to the region, which was in line with the interest of the
municipalities Dronten, Zeewolde, Lelystad and Almere, these parties perceived the expansion as problematic
and causing disturbance for the respective inhabitants. Delineating the problem in this fashion, made it less
attractive for other actors to participate in finding solutions, as they did not recognize the problem (De Bruin
& Heuvelhof, 2008).
While negotiations were still ongoing, the Dutch government acted strategically, as they overestimated
their power, and published the announcement of the expansion of Lelystad airport in the Luchtvaartnota on
the 19th April, 2009. This announcement aggravated the negotiations and made it seem as the Dutch
government was playing chess on two boards at the same time, utterly affecting the trustworthiness of the
Dutch government and making it debatable if the Dutch government had ears for the concerns of the opposing
stakeholders. These actions resulted in the collaboration of opposing stakeholders, blocking the expansion
plans for Lelystad airport via the Dutch Council of State, concluding the second round in a deadlock.

Table 4: Actors and their respective power position

Proponents

Opponents

Fence sitters

Actors with production power

Dutch Government (Authority)
Dutch Parliament (Legislative
power)
Schiphol Group (Ownership)
The board of the airport Lelystad

Actors with blocking power

Dutch Parliament (Legislative power)

Actors with a diffuse power position

Province of Flevoland (Legislative power)

Municipality of Dronten (Legislative power)
Municipality of Almere (Legislative power)
Municipality of Zeewolde (Legislative power)
Local organizations (Media, reputation)
Local inhabitants (Media)

Municipality of Lelystad (Legislative

power)

Dutch council of state (Authority)

S. Jongerden / An analysis of the decision making process

The Dutch government employed strategies to prevent opposition for the expansion of Lelystad
airport, as the Dutch Council of State revealed that the expansion plan was framed as a business airport while
the plans indicated an airport for regular intercontinental flights.
The Dutch government learned and when the third round commenced, was able to resolve opposition
with the municipalities of Zeewolde and Lelystad and the province of Flevoland, however, the dispute with the
municipality of Dronten remained. Not long after, the dispute with Dronten was also resolved as both parties
participated in a giving and taking strategy, resulting in a compromise and making the municipality of Dronten
to withdraw their opposition.
On the 1st of June, 2014, there was still some opposition from minorities regarding the expansion plans.
The Dutch government however, employed unilateral decision making as cooperation failed and the decision
was already agreed upon by the main actors (the Schiphol Group and the Dutch government). This strategy
was accepted by the opposing parties as they knew that it would not be possible to reach compromises by
voluntary negotiation, resulting in the end of the third round.
Within the decision making process for the expansion of Lelystad airport, the delays were caused by
the main factors presented in table 5. This paper indicates that the disagreement on the problem formulation,
the use of strategic behavior and failing to play by the rules of the game caused the delay in the decision making
process.
Table 5: Causes, factors and consequences of strategies used by the Dutch Government
Causes
Social
Social & Cognitive
Cognitive
Social

Main factors
There was no mutual agreement on the problem
formulation
Overestimating of power (strategic behavior) and
playing chess on two boards at the same time
Framing of the expansion plans
Using unilateral decision making after failed cooperation

Concequences
Disagreement on the solutions proposed, resulting in
opposition from actors
Opposing parties blocking the expansion by the Dutch Counsel
of State
Unmasking by the Dutch Counsel of State resulting in a loss in
trust from opposing parties
Ending the debate in the favor of the decision maker without
taking into account the wishes of opposing parties

5. Learning from previous mistakes and providing options for the future.
A remedy for delays within the rounds model is the use of process management. Within process management,
the focus lies on the process of decision making and not necessarily the content (De Bruin & Heuvelhof, 2008).
There is an understanding that each party within the network has his or hers legitimate interest and that these
interests are respective. Clearly, presented by the rounds model and used strategies, there was no agreement on
the problem definition between the Dutch government and the opposing stakeholders. Further strategies used
by the Dutch government, such as strategic behavior and framing the solution, did not alleviate the problem
but aggravated it, resulting in the delay in the decision making process of the expansion of Lelystad airport.
In order for the Dutch government to reduce the chance on delays within decision making processes,
an option would be to make use of a hybrid strategy; Unilateral action as an incentive for a flying start to
9

S. Jongerden / An analysis of the decision making process

decision making as described by de Bruin and Heuvelhof (2008). Within this strategy, the Dutch government
should first, widen the agenda, then, initiate a multi-issue process and last, refrain from fixating the solution in
an early stage. If the Dutch government would use this open attitude, stakeholder should be informed
unilaterally, to ensure participation in the decision making process, otherwise the process may contain so much
uncertainty that stakeholders refrain from contributing. In this strategy, the initiator of the project decides to
use an open attitude, expecting that only then, interaction between parties can emerge and parties can arrive at
joint decision making (Bruin and Heuvelhof, 2008).

6. Conclusions on the Lelystad expansion decision making process

In the beginning of 2008, the expansion of Lelystad airport was proposed as a solution to the development
problem of Schiphol airport. The start of the expansion of Lelystad airport was delayed because the
municipalities Dronten, Lelystad, Zeewolde and its respective inhabitants opposed the expansion plans. The
opposition against these plans caused a delay of seven year, seriously postponing the start of the expansion of
Lelystad airport.
By means of the round model, the decision making process was analyzed to determine what caused the
delay and which preventive actions might be employed to prevent interruptions in the future. This analysis
resulted in the conclusion that the delays were caused by an incongruity in the problem formulation, strategic
behavior of the Dutch government and sequentially, the blockage of the expansion plans by the Dutch Council
of State.
To provide options to prevent future decision making delays, the Dutch government could have
employed a strategy referred to as Unilateral action as an incentive for a flying start to decision making. This
strategy widens the agenda, initiate a multi-issue process and refrains from fixating the solution in an early stage.
Furthermore, this strategy takes into account that opposing actors have the power to block decision making
and explicitly allows room for maneuvering and negotiation from the early start, providing that the initiator
and the opposing parties can come to a general understanding and solutions that benefit all stakeholders.

Limitations
One can somewhat be confident in the conclusions drawn from rational choice theory or theory of institutions.
But the fact remains that social sciences, due to the point that inductive regularities are only distinctly
phenomenal law and not governing regularities, are not reliable on the basis for prediction (Little, 1993). As of
such, the conclusions from this paper can only provide options for comparable cases, not solutions, as the results
are not generalizable.
Second, sources for the analysis of the decision making process of the expansion of Lelystad airport are
based on primary but also on secondary sources. Both these sources might be biased in some manner and wont
10

S. Jongerden / An analysis of the decision making process

allow analysis further than the presented information. Sequentially this also applies for the analyst, as the
analyst is limited by bounded rationality and can only perform the analysis from one singular perspective.

11

S. Jongerden / An analysis of the decision making process

References:
Board of Airline Representatives In the Netherlands (2014). Luchtvaartsector: Lelystad Airport nog niet nodig.
Retrieved from http://www.barin.nl/show_pubnews.php?publ_id=3497
Binnenlands Bestuur. (2012a). 'UITBREIDING LELYSTAD AIRPORT KOMT ER NOOIT' [Press release].
Retrieved from http://www.binnenlandsbestuur.nl/ruimte-en-milieu/nieuws/uitbreiding-lelystad-airportkomt-er-nooit.4901819.lynkx
Binnenlands Bestuur. (2012b). LELYSTAD AIRPORT KAN TOERISTISCH WORDEN [Press release]. Retrieved
from http://www.binnenlandsbestuur.nl/ruimte-en-milieu/nieuws/lelystad-airport-kan-toeristischworden.4900663.lynkx
Binnenlands Bestuur. (2014). DRONTEN TEGEN UITBREIDING LELYSTAD AIRPORT [Press release].
Retrieved from http://www.binnenlandsbestuur.nl/ruimte-en-milieu/nieuws/dronten-tegen-uitbreidinglelystad-airport.9439279.lynkx
De Bruijn, J. A., & Heuvelhof, E. F. (2008). Management in Networks: On multi-actor decision making. Routledge.
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative science
quarterly, 1-25.
Elsevier. (2007). Eurlings: Schiphol kan uitbreiden op Lelystad [Press release]. Retrieved from
http://www.elsevier.nl/Nederland/nieuws/2007/4/Eurlings-Schiphol-kan-uitbreiden-op-LelystadELSEVIER121073W/
Etzioni, A. (2001). Humble decision making. Harvard Business Review on Decision Making,(Harvard Business School
Press: Boston, MA, 2001), 45-57.
Gemeente Dronten. (2014). Ontwikkeling Lelystad Airport [Press release]. Retrieved from
http://www.dronten.nl/actueel/nieuwsoverzicht_19/item/ontwikkeling-lelystad-airport_17900.html
Groenleer, M., Jiang, T., de Jong, M., & de Bruijn, H. (2012). Applying Western decision-making theory to the study of
transport infrastructure development in China: The case of the Harbin metro. Policy and Society, 31(1), 7385.
HR 7 December 2011, 200909551/1/R1.
HR 8 Augusts 2012, 201009511/1/R2
Kingdon, J. W. (1995). The policy window, and joining the streams. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies, 165-195.
Lindblom, C.E. (1959), The Science of Muddling Through, Public Administration Review, reprinted in: Shafritz, J.M.
and A.C. Hyde, Classics of Public Administration, Third Edition, Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont,
pp. 224-235.
Little, D. (1993). On the scope and limits of generalizations in the social sciences. Synthese, 97(2), 183-207. (23 pp.)
Luchthavenbesluit Lelystad 2015 s. 130 (NL)
Meijer, C. (2009). De actuele waarheid over Lelystad Airport [Blog post]. Retrieved from
http://frankpels.blogspot.nl/2009/01/de-actuele-waarheid-over-lelystad.html
Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment. (2012, September 11). Reactie op Aldersadvies Lelystad [Press release].
Retrieved from http://www.alderstafel.nl/uploads/1/4/1/3/14138220/20120911-reactie-stas-opaldersadvies-lelystad.pdf

12

S. Jongerden / An analysis of the decision making process

Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu (2014). Actieplan omgevingslawaai Schiphol periode 2013-2018. Rijksoverheid.
Retrieved from:http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/bestanden/documenten-enpublicaties/rapporten/2014/02/10/actieplan-omgevingslawaai-schiphol/actieplan-schiphol-2013-2018.pdf
NOS. (2013). Schiphol blijft 'economische motor' [Press release]. Retrieved from http://nos.nl/artikel/474411schiphol-blijft-economische-motor.html
NOS. (2015). Retrieved from nos.nl/artikel/2027295-lelystad-airport-mag-definitief-uitbreiden.html
Nu.nl. (2011). RvS blokkeert uitbreiding vliegveld Lelystad [Press release]. Retrieved from
http://www.nu.nl/economie/2687296/rvs-blokkeert-uitbreiding-vliegveld-lelystad.html
Omroep Flevoland. (2009a). Alders onderzoekt uitbreiding vliegveld [Press release]. Retrieved from
http://www.omroepflevoland.nl/Nieuws/56862/lelystad-alders-onderzoekt-uitbreiding-vliegveld?dossier=4
Omroep Flevoland. (2009b). Geen ongebreidelde groei vliegveld [Press release]. Retrieved from
http://www.omroepflevoland.nl/Nieuws/56882/lelystad-geen-ongebreidelde-groei-vliegveld?dossier=4
Omroep Flevoland. (2009c). Dronten tegen komst vliegveld [Press release]. Retrieved from
http://www.omroepflevoland.nl/Nieuws/58797/dronten-dronten-tegen-komst-vliegveld?dossier=4
Omroep Flevoland. (2009d). Kabinet zet Flevoland onder druk [Press release]. Retrieved from
http://www.omroepflevoland.nl/Nieuws/58922/lelystad-kabinet-zet-flevoland-onder-druk?dossier=4
Omroep Flevoland. (2012a). Gemengde reacties op advies Alders [Press release]. Retrieved from
http://www.omroepflevoland.nl/Nieuws/89752/flevoland-gemengde-reacties-op-advies-alders?dossier=4
Omroep Flevoland. (2012b). Gemeente trekt bezwaar uitbreiding vliegveld in [Press release]. Retrieved from
http://www.omroepflevoland.nl/Nieuws/96967/dronten-gemeente-trekt-bezwaar-uitbreiding-vliegveldin?dossier=4
Rijksoverheid. (2009). Luchtvaartnota (Concurrerende en duurzame luchtvaart voor een sterke economie).
Rijksoverheid. (2014). Lelystad Airport kan zich verder ontwikkelen [Press release]. Retrieved from
http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/nieuws/2014/06/13/lelystad-airport-kan-zich-verder-ontwikkelen.html
Rijksoverheid. (2015). Lelystad Airport krijgt ruimte om te groeien [Press release]. Retrieved from
http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/nieuws/2015/03/31/lelystad-airport-krijgt-ruimte-om-te-groeien.html
Rittel, H.W.J. & Webber, M.W. (1973), Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning, Policy Sciences, 4, 155-169
Schiphol. (2011). Statement Directie Schiphol Group uitspraak Raad van State aanwijzingsbesluit Lelystad Airport
[Press release]. Retrieved from
http://www.schiphol.nl/SchipholGroup1/NieuwsPers/Persbericht/StatementDirectieSchipholGroupUitspra
akRaadVanStateAanwijzingsbesluitLelystadAirport.htm
Schiphol (2014). Schiphop Tarieven en Voorwaarden. Schiphol: Schiphol Group Amsterdam Airport
Stone, D. (1988), Policy Paradox and Political Reason, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, pp. 184-206. (23 p.)
Teisman, G. R. (2000). Models for research into decisionmaking processes: on phases, streams and decisionmaking
rounds. Public administration, 78(4), 937-956.
Z24. (2014). Verkassen naar vliegveld Lelystad? Dat willen ArkeFly en Correndon liever niet [Press release]. Retrieved
from http://www.z24.nl/ondernemen/verkassen-naar-vliegveld-lelystad-dat-willen-arkefly-en-corendonliever-niet-473235

13