Utrecht UniversityBachelor’s thesis

Human Geography and Planning29 June 2018

Pluvial flooding in Utrecht: on its way to a water-wise cityA study on the current urban watercycle characteristics and water governance capacities with respect to extreme rainfall in the municipality of Utrecht, the Netherlands

Student Romy Brockhoff5680794

Supervisor K.A.W. Snel

3

Student Romy Brockhoff5680794

SupervisorsK.A.W. Snel, MSc – Utrecht University S.H.A. Koop, MSc – Utrecht University and KWR Watercycle Research InstituteProf. C.J. van Leeuwen – Utrecht University and KWR Watercycle Research Institute

Utrecht UniversityBachelor’s thesis Human Geography and Planning29 June 2018

5

Preface

This thesis has been written on behalf of my graduation from the University of Utrecht for the bachelor’s programme of Human Geography and Planning. I have been fascinated by cities, water and climate adaptation for a long time and this research enabled me to enjoy the best of all worlds and to graduate in a field of science I would like to continue being engaged with. I worked on this study from February until the end of June 2018.

I have been in a favoured position to participate in writing my thesis as part of the City Blueprint programme, developed by KWR Watercycle Research Institute in Nieuwegein, the Netherlands. I would like to thank professor Kees van Leeuwen and Stef Koop (MSc) for supervising me during my assessment of the municipality of Utrecht. Their expertise and experience have contributed in creating a useful overview on Utrecht’s current urban watercycle and governance capacities.

This research gave me the opportunity to gain more in-depth knowledge on urban water governance of a city I have enjoyed studying in for the past three years. I am thankful for the many conversations I have had with various experts working within the field of water, who provided valuable information about Utrecht and thus important input for my thesis.

Moreover, I wish to thank my supervisor Karin Snel for her support, useful feedback and knowledge during the entire thesis period. Besides, I appreciate the efforts of my friend Erin Stanley for taking the time in her summer break to read and revise my thesis and my sister Nicky Brockhoff for helping me with the finishing touch.

Romy BrockhoffUtrecht, the Netherlands

29 June 2018

7

List of abbreviations

BGI Blue-green infrastructuresCBF City Blueprint FrameworkCSA Coalitie Spatial Adaptation (Coalitie Ruimtelijke Adaptatie Utrecht)EEA European Environment AgencyEIP European Innovation PartnershipsGCF Governance Capacity FrameworkGWP Global Water PartnershipHDSR Hoogheemraadschap De Stichtse Rijnlanden (regional water authority)IWRM Integrated Water Resources ManagementNEFU Nature and Environment Federation Utrecht (Natuur en Milieu Federatie Utrecht)RNMI Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI)SRU Safety Region Utrecht (Veiligheisregio Utrecht) Winnet Water Innovation Network (Water Innovatie Netwerk) WWT Wastewater treatmentOECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

9

List of tables and figures

TablesTable 3.1: Research frameworkTable 3.2: Overview of the performance indicators of the City Blueprint Framework Table 3.3: Overview of the Governance Capacity FrameworkTable 4.1: City Blueprint indicators for the municipality of Utrecht

FiguresFigure 2.1: Conceptual framework Figure 3.1: Location of the municipality of Utrecht in the NetherlandsFigure 3.2: Importance influence matrixFigure 4.1: City Blueprint performance and BCI – Municipality of UtrechtFigure 4.2: Performance of the nine GCF dimensionsFigure 4.3: Overview of the Governance Capacity in the municipality of Utrecht for the challenge of pluvial flood risk

10

11

Executive summary

Utrecht, the Netherlands, is currently facing rapid population growth and will experience more extreme rainfall as a consequence of climate change, which in turn will be exacerbated by impervious urban surfaces and a high density of buildings. Adequate urban water governance is necessary to cope with the risk of pluvial flooding. This research has 1) examined the main priorities of the physical state of the urban watercycle and 2) assessed the governance capacities of the local water network in Utrecht within the scope of extreme rainfall. Utrecht has a limited amount of green and blue spaces (21.8%) and an ageing sewer system which often lacks stormwater separation, impeding water storage and thus increasing the risk of pluvial flooding. With respect to the governance capacities, an overall encouraging result has been found in Utrecht. The community has sufficient knowledge on extreme rainfall and plenty of information is available. Besides, both the municipality and the regional water authority are adequately monitoring Utrecht’s watercycle, and the forthcoming climatic stress test will identify vulnerable places, including flood-prone areas. However, the governance analysis also revealed

findings that may deserve further consideration. To start, a low willingness to pay for flood adaptation measures have been found within the community in Utrecht, which may be explained by the limited awareness of pluvial flooding. Moreover, the use of policy instruments (financial incentives) is currently suboptimal as it does not effectively stimulate sustainable behaviour. A combination of financial incentives and more binding arrangements may be beneficial for the implementation of climate-adaptive policies to alleviate pluvial flood risk. Furthermore, extreme rainfall may currently not be one of Utrecht’s key priorities, however, this may change in the future. Adequate action plans, accompanied with more civic involvement may be helpful to prepare for this and will most likely have a positive effect on the limited awareness. The municipality of Utrecht is already making progress in adopting ambitions of sustainability and addressing the challenge of pluvial flooding would perfectly fit within their current strategy. Goals on climate adaptation and water-resiliency are recently formulated by the central government and these broad national guidelines now await further concretion on the local level.

13

3.3.2 Interviews and topic lists3.4 Stakeholder analysis3.4.1 Local authorities3.4.2 Private/market 3.4.3 Partnerships and civil society

4 | Results 4.1 City Blueprint Framework 4.2 Governance Capacity Framework4.3 Conclusion 5 | Conclusion 6 | Discussion 6.1 Methodological reflection6.1.1 Methodological approach 6.1.2 Validity of results 6.2 Contribution to the debate on urban governance of pluvial flooding6.3 Suggestions fur further research

References

Appendices

I Stakeholders list II City Blueprint FrameworkIII Governance Capacity FrameworkIV Comparative overview GCF three Dutch cities V Topic lists VI Transcriptions

Content

Preface

List of abbreviations

List of tables and figures

Executive summary

Content 1 | Introduction 1.1 Urbanization 1.2 Climate change and water challenges 1.3 Urban water management and governance1.4 Literature gap and research aim1.5 Research question 2 | Literature review 2.1 Water challenges2.1.1 Consequences of urbanization and urban sealing2.1.2 Water infrastructures 2.2 Sustainable and adaptive water management 2.3 Integrated Water Resources Management2.3.1 Definition and debate on IWRM2.3.2 Assesment of IWRM2.3.3 IWRM and water governance2.4 Water governance 2.4.1 Definition2.4.2 Barriers2.4.3 Enablers2.4.4 Water governance in the Netherlands2.5 Conceptual framework

3 | Methods 3.1 Research area 3.2 City Blueprint Framework 3.2.1 Data analysis and questionnaire3.3 Governance Capacity Framework3.3.1 Policy review

5

7

9

11

13

15151515

1617

181818

1819

19

202020212121222323

2424252526 27

2728282829

30303238

39

4040404040

41

42

49

515282

121

15

1 | Introduction

1.1 Urbanization

In 2016, over half of the world’s population (54.3%) lived in cities and by 2050, about 66% of the world’s population will reside in urban areas (World Bank, n.d.; United Nations, 2014). In the Netherlands, the rate of urbanization is generally levelling off. However, the Randstad remains an attractive region and will experience further urbanization and population growth by 2030 and 2050. This can be explained by the young composition of the population and a relatively high influx of immigrants to the region (Manders & Kool, 2015). The Randstad area includes the agglomeration of the four largest cities in the Netherlands, namely Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht. Relatively seen, Utrecht grew most rapidly from 2010 – 2017 (11.71%) and it is expected to continue growing at this rate (Statistics Netherlands, 2017).

1.2 Climate change and water challenges

Besides urbanization, cities will experience the divergent effects of climate change. In the Netherlands, these impacts are for example perceptible in the form of extreme rainfall as a result of changing atmospheric conditions. A warmer atmosphere enables clouds to contain more water vapor, which eventually leads to extreme rain events. It is extremely likely that a higher temperature in the Netherlands will lead to a rise in atmospheric humidity and thus heavier rainfalls (Lenderink, Van Oldenborgh, Van Meijgaard & Attema, 2011). On 28 July 2014, a part of the Netherlands, including the Utrecht area, was hit by the most severe rainfall ever recorded on a daily basis with measurements ranging from 75 to over 100 millimetres in 24 hours (Van Schaik, Boelhouwer & Harms, 2016; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [RNMI], 2014). Next to an increased intensity, rain has also tended to appear more frequently. Between 1910 and 2013, annual precipitation in the Netherlands rose by an estimated 26% (RNMI, as cited in Dai, Wörner & Van Rijswick, 2018). Urban areas in particular are highly vulnerable to climate change, as cities are

characterised by impervious pavements and a high density of buildings. In comparison to rural places, urban areas have less green spaces, which is further impeding the cooling process (Molenaar, Heusinkveld & Steeneveld, 2016). In the case of Utrecht, only 21.8% of the core city area is green (vegetation) or blue (water) (European Environment Agency [EEA], 2012). Moreover, the rise in heavy rainfall will increase the risk of urban flooding as the infrastructure (water bodies and sewerage) in Dutch cities often lacks capacity to deal with an increase in stormwater. Consequently, urban areas will face significant economic damage in years to come (Dai et al., 2018). Thus, extreme rainfall makes Utrecht susceptible to global warming and its concomitant water challenges both now and in the nearby future. .

1.3 Urban water management and governance

Urban water management is gaining attention in Dutch water governance as a result of the changing climatic circumstances described above (Dai et al., 2018). The Netherlands has a long history of water management as they started to tame water many centuries ago. Expertise on the terrain of water management is still useful in regards to extreme rainfall projections. However, the question remains to what extent Dutch water management is adequate enough to cope with current and future challenges. To tackle this, action is being taken on the national level, and in addition to this, urban areas are also taking the initiative to deal with climate change, including the ongoing challenges of extreme rainfall (Carter et al., 2015). This is not surprising given the fact that cities are among the most vulnerable places to the effects of climate change (Stern, as cited in Francesch-Huidobro, Dabrowski, Tai, Chan & Stead, 2017). Utrecht is also preparing for climate change and is recently ranked as the most sustainable municipality in the Netherlands (out of 42 large urban municipalities). Utrecht’s strict ‘environmental zone’ and concrete sustainability plans that are implemented in practice contributed to this high score (Lachmeijer, 2018).

16

At the beginning of the 21st century, a transition at local, national and European level was made within the scope of water management as governments moved towards the paradigm of Integrated Water Resources Management [IWRM] (Dai et al., 2018). This concept is defined as ‘a process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems’ (Global Water Partnership, 2017). IWRM has become a core concept within water governance and policymaking and aims for integration, cooperation and joint responsibility within fragmented governance systems (Lubell & Edelenbos, 2013). IWRM is embedded in Dutch urban water management, including the municipality of Utrecht and is focused on the interaction between water management and other policy domains and several governance levels (Dai et al., 2018; Verkerk & Van Buuren, 2013). Water governance in the Netherlands meets the pillars of ‘good governance’, i.e. legitimacy, subsidiary, effectiveness, efficiency and equity. However, a number of multi-level governance gaps are visible and may hinder the implementation of water policy (OECD, 2014). These challenges are recognized by Koop et al. (2017) as they argue that ‘a variety of stakeholders, sectors, and policies are involved, each with different time horizons and agendas’ (Koop et al., 2017, p. 3428).

1.4 Literature gap and research aim

In order to bridge governance gaps and implement adequate water policy, urban areas need to be well-informed about their capacity and limiting conditions. Adequate urban governance is needed to protect city dwellers from urban pluvial flooding as a consequence of heavy rainfall. Currently, a body of knowledge has been developed by scholars with respect to barriers and enablers of good environmental governance and climate adaptation. For instance,

Albers et al. (2015) analysed the Dutch Climate Proof Cities programme and argue that bringing water managers and urban planners together is important to address urban flooding. Another study concludes that a shift from soft policies towards more binding rules may be beneficial for the implementation of green infrastructures (Dai et al., 2018). Finally, Biesbroek, Klostermann, Termeer, & Kabat (2013) reviewed many scientific papers on the barriers of climate adaptation and found that many forms of hindrance do exist, institutional and social barriers being the most frequently reported. However, practice-based research with respect to urban governance capacity within the scope of climate-adaptive policies is often missing. Besides, the need for a collaboration between science and policy is endorsed by Hegger, Lamers, Van Zeijl-Rozema & Dieperink (2012) and a Science-Policy Interface [SPI] in supporting sustainable urban water management has proved to be successful in the city of Rotterdam, the Netherlands (Dunn, Brown, Bos & Bakker, 2017). SPI embodies the interaction of research-based knowledge and the expectations of policy actors. This interplay tends to be complex (Hegger et al., 2012). A comprehensive assessment tool on urban governance is necessary in order to improve the effectiveness of implemented climate-adaptive policies to deal with extreme rainfall. This research will integrally analyse the multiple governance domains in Utrecht in relation to the formulation of these policies. Scientific knowledge and practice will be combined and thus expand knowledge in the field of SPI. This city assessment is valuable with respect to its power to inform the municipality of Utrecht about the current state of its urban watercycle and its governance capabilities in the context of urban pluvial flooding. The overall aim of this thesis is to1. Identify the main priorities of Utrecht’s urban

watercycle characteristics that may impede the implementation of effective climate-adaptive policies to mitigate pluvial flood risk;

2. Gain new insights regarding urban water governance deficiencies that contribute to the SPI debate and to the city-to-city learning process (Koop & Van Leeuwen, 2015b).

17

This research limits to the administrative boundaries of the municipality of Utrecht. From now on, the terms ‘Utrecht’ and ‘municipality of Utrecht’ are used interchangeably to refer to this area.

1.5 Research questions

Based on the research aim, the following research question is formulated:

What are the main priorities and governance barriers and enablers for climate-adaptive policies to alleviate pluvial flood risk in the municipality of Utrecht, the Netherlands?

The main question is supported by three subquestions:

1. What are Utrecht’s main priorities regarding the physical state of the urban watercycle in order to successfully alleviate pluvial flood risk?

The first sub-question provides an overview on Utrecht’s current watercycle management. This gives an insight into the city’s performance on multiple water-related fields, e.g. wastewater treatment, stormwater separation and drinking water quality (Koop & Van Leeuwen, 2015b). Knowledge on this is important to determine suitable future investments and adaptation strategies within the scope of pluvial flooding.

2. To what extent does the governance structure in Utrecht form barriers to the capacity of the local water network to mitigate pluvial flood risk?

The second question addresses the barriers that Utrecht faces regarding water governance. Potential barriers that are present within Utrecht’s governance body that may impede the implementation of climate-adaptive policies in the context of extreme rainfall will be discussed.

3. To what extent does the governance structure in Utrecht form enablers to the capacity of the local water network to mitigate pluvial flood risk?

The third question addresses the enablers that Utrecht has regarding its water governance body. Strengths regarding climate-adaptive policies in the context of extreme rainfall within the municipality of Utrecht will be considered.

18

2 | Literature review

Urbanization and climate change are converging to affect the urban watercycle in multiple ways, as they both have a negative impact on this system. Nowadays, more and more people reside in urban areas and as a consequence of this, the quantity of water available to city dwellers will be challenged (Zhou, 2014). Climate change may exacerbate urban water issues as more extreme rainfall is projected for some parts of the world. As a result, water nuisance problems are threatening city dwellers. There is scientific consensus on the high vulnerability of the effects of climate change in cities and therefore, climate change adaptation on this level is a necessity (IPCC, 2014; Carter et al., 2015). Cities often take the initiative in adaptation strategies as the effects of climate change are primarily local and a substantial amount of economic assets in urban areas are exposed to the effects of climate change (Francesch-Huidobro et al., 2017). However, adequate adaptation plans are only partly embedded in cities throughout the world (Carter et al., 2015). This chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the scientific discourse on water management, climate adaptation and water governance in the context of extreme rainfall. First, the water challenges as introduced above will be shortly discussed. Second, adaptation and water management, including the concept of Integrated Water Resources Management, will be the focus. Subsequently, water governance and its barriers and enablers will be put in perspective. This chapter will conclude with a short discussion on water governance in the Netherlands.

2.1 Water challenges

2.1.1 Consequences of urbanization and urban sealingClimate change will have a far-reaching influence on the quantity of water. Although some cities may experience more periods of drought, the focus here will be on water excess caused by extreme rainfall. Many cities will face an increase in extreme precipitation, yet the extent of urban flood risk differs across urban areas. Major factors that influence this risk include urbanization and the accompanied process of urban sealing. Rising

population densities in cities result in both a rise in peak flows and an acceleration of runoff due to the impervious urban fabric (Zhou, 2014). As a consequence of increased intensity and frequency in extreme rainfall, cities may face substantial damage. Severe rainfall, sometimes in combination with storm surges, could lead to the damage of infrastructures and public and private properties (IPCC, 2014). Buildings and electricity switch boxes in particular are vulnerable objects to material damage. Moreover, business and traffic disruption may result in significant problems (Albers et al., 2015).

2.1.2 Water infrastructuresThe extent of water challenges often relies on the established drainage infrastructures in cities. These water infrastructures are perceived as a crucial system in cities as they collect and convey water out of the city. However, the challenge of constructing appropriate water drainage systems is growing due to climate change and urbanization as the increasing amount of water is threatening the capacity of drainage systems (Zhou, 2014). Traditionally, ‘a conveyance system of pipes and gutters, called grey infrastructure, was constructed to collect and remove stormwater quickly out of urban areas’ (Dhakal & Chavelier, 2016, p. 1113) in order to meet increased water discharges. This has many negative impacts on the environment, including groundwater depletion and flooding at downstream areas (Dhakal & Chevalier, 2016). Hence, it is necessary to improve and adapt the design of such systems in order to store higher water quantities. Traditional urban water infrastructures are subjected to great pressure due to excessive water, amplified by climate change and impervious pavement (EEA, 2012; Zhou, 2014). Particularly, combined sewer systems [CSS] that collect both stormwater and wastewater are prone to overload, intensifying the risk of urban flooding (EEA, 2012). These kinds of systems are typical for many Dutch cities as they have low separation rates (Koop & Van Leeuwen, 2015a), i.e. the ‘percentage of separation of the infrastructures for wastewater and stormwater collection’ (Van Leeuwen, Frijns, Van Wezel & Van de Ven, 2012, p. 2187). As mentioned before, low separation, or CSS, leads to overflow and urban drainage flooding; therefore,

19

collecting wastewater and stormwater separately can be seen as a way to make urban areas more water resilient (EEA, 2012; Van Leeuwen et al., 2012). Moreover, drainage infrastructures in high-income countries are ageing. These systems cannot keep up with urbanization, which may lead to overload during extreme rainfall. As a consequence of an outdated sewer system, the risk of water system leakages rises. Poor maintenance also has a negative influence on the quality of the sewerage (Parr, Smucker, Bentsen & Neale, 2016; EEA, 2012).

2.2 Sustainable and adaptive water management

A combination of extreme rainfall, urbanization, impervious urban surfaces and inadequate old water infrastructures are thus challenging city-dwellers, including policymakers and local authorities. Rethinking the water management strategies in urban areas is therefore crucial as traditional water management lacks coherence and is perceived as too technical and linear (Brown & Farrelly, 2009). Although the acknowledgement of the need for alternative technologies is fairly common, the implementation of sustainable urban water management is a slow process. Van de Meene, Brown & Farrelly (2011) argue for example that several socio-economic barriers (e.g. institutional fragmentation and inadequate community participation) hinder a city’s ability to introduce sustainable urban water management. Furthermore, there is no consensus on the most appropriate approach for achieving sustainable water management (Van de Meene et al., 2011). As Takala (2017) concludes, the focus in literature is mainly on socio-technical options rather than technical solutions for sustainable water management. Similarly, attention has been drawn for a better integration of social-cultural aspects and place-attached values in stormwater management (Cettner, Ashley, Hedström & Viklander, 2014; Kati & Jari, 2016). A recent study shows that the regional and urban planning system is an important factor in promoting the shift towards sustainable stormwater management (Goulden, Portman, Carmon & Alon-Mozes, 2018).

This demonstrates the gradual abandonment of solely technical stormwater management. In addition to sustainable management, the implementation of adaptive water management is necessary (Pahl-Wostl, 2009). More specifically, the need for climate adaptation and the introduction of resilient infrastructures in the water sector is evident. The implementation of blue-green infrastructures [BGI], i.e, water bodies and vegetation, is often advocated as a useful way to address pluvial flooding in vulnerable urban areas. The combination of blue-green measures is most effective for climate adaptation and alleviates the pluvial flooding risk as together these measures store excessive rainfall (EEA, 2012; Voskamp & Van de Ven, 2015). Although many countries face difficulties with implementing BGI, the concept is well-accepted in the Netherlands (Ghofrani, Sposito, & Faggian, 2017). Moreover, Dutch climate-adaptive polices share the principles of sustainability, long-term thinking, solidarity and flexibility (Dai et al., 2018). Water governance in the Netherlands will be discussed more extensively at the end of this chapter. Taken the aforementioned theories into account, it has become clear that urban areas need a shift towards a more integrated and cross-sectoral approach to deal with extreme water events (Csizmadia, Szilágyi, Balogh & Säumel, 2017). Therefore, an internationally accepted holistic form of water management will be discussed in the following section.

2.3 Integrated Water Resources Management

Water is essential in many ways and the management of this vital natural resource is crucial for good financial, social and political circumstances (Koop & Van Leeuwen, 2015a). Importantly, water management is nothing new, as an advanced and integrated approach of water management already arose many years ago. During the 20th century, various attempts were made to implement an integrated water management strategy, the concept of Integrated Water Resources Management [IWRM] eventually

20

being rediscovered in 1977 (Rahaman & Varis, 2005). Since this time, the concept has been in use for over 60 years, being mentioned even more explicitly in 1992 at the International Conference on Water and the Environment. Hence, given its successful use and popularity, the concept has been promoted by several international institutions (Rahaman & Varis, 2005; Biswas, 2008; Grigg, 2014).

2.3.1 Definition and debate on IWRMAlthough the exact meaning of IWRM has been debated, the most used definition is formulated by the Global Water Partnership [GWP], defining IWRM as ‘a process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems’ (GWP, 2017). The concept of IWRM aims to describe water-related climate change challenges and is a locally and internationally accepted management system (United Nations Development Program Cap-Net, 2009). Despite its global acceptance, the IWRM paradigm has been challenged by various scholars. To start, Jonker (2002) made an attempt to alter the GWP definition into ‘managing people’s activities’ instead of the ‘management of water’, as humans do not have any influence on natural processes. Second, Biswas (2008) criticises the GWP definition because it is ‘simply unusable, or unimplementable, in operational terms’ (Biswas, 2008, p. 9) and argues that this vagueness has contributed to its popularity and acceptance as it enables countries to continue to justify their former and current water practices. Third, Grigg (2014) mentioned that the GWP definition is open-ended, which may create inconvenience among people who prefer guidelines to implement IWRM step-by-step. In short, the common criticism on the IWRM concept addresses the gap between theory and practice (Rahaman & Varis, 2005; Jeffrey & Gearey, 2006; Medema, McIntosh, & Jeffrey, 2008).

2.3.2 Assessment of IWRMTo overcome the challenges of IWRM described above, some scholars have invented solutions. For instance, Rahaman & Varis (2005) proposed

seven points that could help foster the successful implementation of IWRM. For example, these points include privatization and the drawing on lessons learned from previous initiatives on the application of IWRM. A more recent and comprehensive attempt has been made by Van Leeuwen et al. (2012) who invented a framework for the assessment of IWRM in cities to overcome the complex character of the IWRM concept. Over the years, this framework, also known as the ‘City Blueprint Framework’ [CBF] has been subjected to changes and improvements (Koop & Van Leeuwen, 2015b). The CBF consists of a list of various indicators in order to obtain understanding on IWRM and aims at city-to-city learning by means of knowledge exchange. The CBF helps to gain insight into the IWRM performance of local authorities and gives an overview on the current urban watercycle characteristics (Koop & Van Leeuwen, 2015b). The framework has been used for the assessment of many cities, including Amsterdam and Rotterdam (Van Leeuwen, 2013; Koop & Van Leeuwen, 2015a).

2.3.3 IWRM and water governanceBesides the assumption that the concept of IWRM is difficult to implement, it appears to be hampered by governance limitations as well (Koop & Van Leeuwen, 2015a; Koop et al., 2017). These limitations are formulated in seven major governance gaps (e.g. information, funding and administrative gaps). Subsequently, twelve principles are invented to bridge those barriers (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], as cited in Koop & Van Leeuwen, 2015a). However, the principles focus on international and national water governance rather than on city-level (Koop et al., 2017). Therefore, the ‘Governance Capacity Framework’ [GCF] has been developed by Koop et al. (2017) and can be seen as an extension of the CBF. Whereas the CBF describes the current urban watercycle characteristics, the GCF assesses the barriers and enablers of adequate water governance. In the following paragraphs, the concept of water governance will be further discussed.

21

2.4 Water governance

Governance approaches tend to be the best manner of coping with water issues (Wuijts et al., 2018). Moreover, governance is perceived as a key aspect in enhancing a shift towards sustainability (Takala, 2017). However, what does the broad term of ‘governance’ imply in the scope of water management and what barriers and enablers does it entail? This paragraph will focus on these questions and will end with a perspective on Dutch water governance.

2.4.1 DefinitionGovernance in general and water governance in specific are both vast concepts. The former refers to the entire network of governments, institutions, societies and private sectors. In short, it includes every actor within and outside of governmental spheres (Dhakal & Chevalier, 2016). Furthermore, governance includes participatory and decentralized decision-making, transparency and accountability (Biswas & Tortajada, 2010). Water governance specifically, has been defined by several institutions, including the GWP and the OECD. The most recent definition includes (OECD, 2015):

Water governance is the range of political, institutional and administrative rules, practices and processes (formal and informal) through which decisions are taken and implemented, stakeholders can articulate their interests and have their concerns considered, and decision-makers are held accountable for water management. (p. 5)

An even more specific definition concentrated on water governance capacity has been formulated by Koop et al. (2017, p. 3430): ‘the key set of governance conditions that should be developed to enable change that will be effective in finding dynamic solutions for governance challenges of water, waste, and climate change in cities.’ Traditionally, governing water has been a predominantly technical field of study (Edelenbos, 2012). Moreover, the ‘old’ government approach tended to be hierarchical. However, a shift from

government to governance has changed this into a non-hierarchical character (Lange, Driessen, Sauer, Bornemann & Burger, 2013). In addition to this, Edelenbos & Van Meerkerk (2015) witnessed a transition to a more polycentric and horizontal approach, e.g. co-management. According to Dhakal & Chevalier (2016), the ‘paradigm shift’ from government to governance in the context of urban stormwater needs to encourage participation and collaboration. Likewise, Edelenbos (2012) advocates for a broad system-wide approach as many stakeholders are involved with water issues and have divergent viewpoints. However, water governance in cities faces many barriers as have been mentioned in paragraph 2.3.3. The main governance limitations will be discussed below.

2.4.2 Barriers A first inadequacy of water governance specifically has been presented by Dhakal & Chevalier (2016), who argue that the segments of the water system in cities are often controlled by various agencies (e.g. water suppliers, waste water plants, local authorities, etc.) and therefore describe water governance as ‘decoupled governance’. This issue has been endorsed by many scholars and is also known as ‘institutional fragmentation’, said to be hindering adequate control of water issues (Edelenbos & Van Meerkerk, 2015). Institutional fragmentation is especially a problem for water management as many levels and sectors are involved, e.g. infrastructure and spatial planning (Eisenack et al., 2014). Fragmentation may also be present within the knowledge and information base and can be seen as an impediment for an integral approach (Van Rijswick et al., 2014). Correspondingly, Hill, Furlong, Bakker & Cohen (2008) conclude that fragmentation is inappropriate to water governance. Other barriers for adequate water governance include limited local scientific and technical capacity, insufficient monitoring and a lack of stable funding and long-term strategic plans (OECD, 2011). Some scholars discuss barriers specific to the governance of climate change adaptation. For example, Termeer, Dewulf & Breeman (2012) argue that climate change evokes new questions, e.g. which policy domain is responsible for climate change adaptation and is it expected to be

22

managed on local, national or even international scale? These uncertainties are accompanied by 1) the inconvenience of different timescales of economic, physical and political processes, and 2) the required engagement from taxpayers on a short-term basis for the realization of long-term ambitions (Termeer et al., 2012). Importantly, barriers are often highly actor and context dependent, and the implementation of ‘good governance’ requires a long-term process of planning (Eisenack et al., 2014; Tortajada, 2010). However, a stable governance structure is necessary to achieve sustainability in urban areas in the long run (Koop & Van Leeuwen, 2017). Stimulating factors and conditions to realise this will be discussed below.

2.4.3 EnablersGovernance is dynamic and thus needs to be updated regularly in consideration of the aforementioned governance barriers and because of the expanding scientific knowledge and changing socio-technical context (Dhakal & Chevalier, 2016). Some scholars have examined how adequate governance – in the broad sense – can be achieved. For example, Dang, Visseren-Hamakers & Arts (2016) proposed three elements for assessing governance capacity: enabling rules of the game (e.g. procedures and legislation), converging discourses (i.e. of various actors and their viewpoints) and facilitating resources (division of influence and power between actors). This triad is assumed to foster institutional capacity and governance performance (Dang et al., 2016). In the scope of climate adaptation, Ford & King (2015) suggested six essential factors: stakeholder engagement, the availability and usefulness of science, political leadership, funding, public support and institutional organization. More specifically, water governance has its own set of enabling factors. Although Biswas & Tortajada (2010) argued that little research and case studies had been done on good water governance in particular, progress has been made over the last couple of years. Several scholars present various conditions or stimulating factors for achieving adequate (urban) water governance. For instance, Grigg (2011) suggested a set of three main elements to foster water governance as he

advocates for policy, empowerment and control at local and higher level. A more comprehensive attempt has been made by Van Rijswick et al. (2014) who developed an integrated method in the context of sustainable water governance. This method consists of ten elements (in the article described as ‘building blocks’) divided over three main dimensions of knowledge, the organizational process, and implementation. The first dimension refers to the knowledge about principles, policy discourses, values and the water system (e.g. measuring and flood risk). The second addresses for instance stakeholder involvement, authority and regulations. The third discusses for example engineering of infrastructure and conflict prevention. All elements are interrelated and congruence between the dimensions and elements is perceived as a prerequisite for successful implementation. This approach incorporated knowledge derived from different disciplines and aims for the identification of strengths and weaknesses within the scope of water governance (Van Rijswick et al., 2014). The above-listed drivers for adequate water governance are valuable, yet specific insight on city-level is still lacking. Therefore, Koop et al. (2017) developed a framework for the water governance capacity in urban areas, the so-called ‘Governance Capacity Framework’ [GCF], which has been shortly mentioned in paragraph 2.3.3. This framework contains nine conditions for adequate urban water governance and is applicable for various challenges, including (pluvial) flood risk. The conditions include awareness, useful knowledge, continuous learning, stakeholder engagement process, management ambition, agents of change, multi-level network potential, financial viability, and implementing capacity (Koop et al., 2017). The GCF incorporated existing literature findings and frameworks, including the work of Van Rijswick et al. (2014) and Ford & King (2015) which have been discussed above (Koop et al., 2017). The GCF can thus be seen as an accumulation of knowledge, brought together under nine conditions and 27 indicators. Although models and frameworks may help acquire insight into the barriers and enablers of water governance, not one of these methods is a ‘one size fits all solution’ and each country, region

23

or city remains context-dependent (Van Rijswick et al., 2014; Koop et al., 2017). In the next paragraph, the specific context of water governance in the Netherlands will be put into perspective.

2.4.4 Water governance in the NetherlandsThe Netherlands is known for its excellent water management, but to what extent is the Dutch governance structure in the water sector suitable for dealing with the ongoing climatic challenges? Dutch universities and knowledge institutions launched the five-year Climate Proof Cities programme in 2010, which has improved knowledge on vulnerability, effective adaptation measures (e.g. blue-green infrastructures) and governance in Dutch urban areas (Albers et al., 2015). More recently, a special study on Dutch water governance in relation to pluvial flooding and climate-adaptive planning has been executed by Dai et al. (2018). This research assessed three Dutch municipalities (Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Utrecht) by means of the previously mentioned interdisciplinary model (Van Rijswick et al., 2014). The implementation of more binding rules instead of soft policies and a strong connection between knowledge, the organizational process and the implementation phase has been advocated in order to realize more effective and adaptive policy (Dai et al., 2018).

A comprehensive IWRM (i.e. insight into the urban watercycle characteristics) and governance capacity assessment for the municipality of Utrecht is however still lacking.

2.5 Conceptual framework

To summarise the main theories discussed in this chapter, a conceptual framework has been developed (see Figure 2.1). The urban watercycle is challenged by rapid urbanization, more extreme rainfall, impervious urban surfaces and inadequate old water infrastructures. These challenges all have a negative impact on the current state of the urban watercycle and can be addressed by 1) implementing sustainable features in the urban watercycle and 2) realising adequate water governance, which in turn can be achieved through various ‘enablers’ (see Figure 2.1). To what extent sustainable features (e.g. blue-green infrastructures and stormwater separation) are implemented can be assessed with the City Blueprint Framework. Next to a well-performing urban watercycle, adequate water governance is needed to cope with extreme rainfall. The Governance Capacity Framework is a suitable model to identify water governance barriers and enablers. Altogether, improving the current state of the urban watercycle through sustainable features and adopting the ‘enablers’ for adequate governance will contribute to implementing climate-adaptive policies to alleviate pluvial flood risk.

Figure 2.1: Conceptual framework

24

3 | Methods

In this chapter, the used methodology for each sub-question will be explained step-by-step. The research questions are:

What are the main priorities and governance barriers and enablers for climate-adaptive policies to alleviate pluvial flood risk in the municipality of Utrecht, the Netherlands?

1. What are Utrecht’s main priorities regarding the physical state of the urban watercycle in order to successfully alleviate pluvial flood risk?

2. To what extent does the governance structure in Utrecht form barriers to the capacity of the local water network to mitigate pluvial flood risk?

3. To what extent does the governance structure in Utrecht form enablers to the capacity of the local water network to mitigate pluvial flood risk?

Each subquestion [SQ] and their objectives and method(s) are presented in Table 3.1.

3.1 Research area

This study has been executed in the municipality of Utrecht, the Netherlands (see location in Figure 3.1). On January 1st 2018, this administrative area had approximately 347,574 inhabitants and it will reach 400,000 citizens by the year 2030 (Municipality of Utrecht, 2018). When comparing the four largest Dutch cities, Utrecht grew most rapidly from 2010 – 2017 (11.71% relatively seen) and it is expected to continue growing at this rate (Statistics Netherlands, 2017). Urbanization, in combination with extreme rainfall and other challenges, will most likely affect the current urban watercycle and thus, local information on this is necessary. However, a comprehensive assessment on the current urban watercycle characteristics and water governance capabilities is still lacking for Utrecht. Knowledge on this will contribute to the transition of Utrecht towards a water-wise city and will help local policymakers and other stakeholders to implement climate-adaptive policies.

Table 3.1: Research framework

25

3.2 City Blueprint Framework

SQ1 What are Utrecht’s main priorities regarding the physical state of the urban watercycle in order to successfully alleviate pluvial flood risk?

The first part of this research (SQ1, as stated above) will be answered by using the City Blueprint Framework [CBF], as developed by Koop & Van Leeuwen (2015b). As can be seen in Table 3.2, this framework consists of seven categories and 25 performance-oriented indicators. For each indicator, a performance score will be calculated. A definition of each indicator and a formula to calculate the corresponding score can be found on the European Innovation Partnerships [EIP] website1 and in Appendix II. The score for each of these indicators ranges from 0 – 10, in which 0 points indicates a poor score and 10 points implies an excellent score. In the end, the geometric mean of all 25 scores will provide the overall Blue City Index [BCI]. The BCI ranges from 0 (concern) to 10 (no concern) and indicates whether Utrecht has a good performance on urban Integrated Water Resources Management [IWRM]. A city with a BCI

score of 8-10 can be classified as a ‘water-wise’ city (Koop & Van Leeuwen, 2015a). The main objective of the CBF is to provide an overview of the city’s performance on IWRM. In other words, it shows the current physical state of the urban watercycle characteristics. Although some indicators of the CBF are of minor importance to answer the main question of this research, the framework will be assessed for the municipality of Utrecht entirely. By doing so, the Blue City Index can be calculated and this enables a comparison between assessed cities and thus city-to-city learning. On the other hand, some indicators may be of major importance and will be highly valuable.

3.2.1 Data analysis and questionnaire To determine each of the 25 scores, publicly available data and retrieved information from the municipality, water board and water company Vitens has been used. Other resources include local analyses on wastewater, annual reports or public municipal data. All gathered information (websites, documents or publications) on the 25 indicators is incorporated in the CBF ‘questionnaire’ (see Appendix II). After determining each single score, a spider diagram has been created in Excel to present the results visually. Moreover, the geometric mean of the 25 scores will estimate the BCI. The CBF is important to include in this research as it gives an initial overview of Utrecht’s urban watercycle characteristics. Data derived from the CBF can be used to inform and raise awareness among policymakers or other stakeholders, which will be interviewed for SQ2 and SQ3. In other words, the CBF gives input for the Governance Capacity Framework and these are thus complementary methods.

Figure 3.1: Location of the municipality of Utrecht in the Netherlands (www.overheidinutrecht.nl – adjusted)

1 EIP website - Documents - ‘The City Blueprint Indicators’ https://www.eip-water.eu/City_Blueprints

26

3.3 Governance Capacity Framework

SQ2 To what extent does the governance structure in Utrecht form barriers to the capacity of the local water network to mitigate pluvial flood risk?

SQ3 To what extent does the governance structure in Utrecht form enablers to the capacity of the local water network to mitigate pluvial flood risk?

SQ2 and SQ3 refer respectively to the barriers and enablers of the governance structure in Utrecht. To answer these questions, the Governance Capacity Framework [GCF], as developed by Koop et al. (2017), has been applied. The GCF is an empirical-based framework and forms an addition to the CBF, or more specifically, category seven (governance) (see Table 3.2). In other words, the GCF is an elaborative extension of the City Blueprint Framework’s last category: governance. The

main objective of the GCF is to ‘provide a deeper, integrated, and empirically-based understanding of the most important enabling conditions that determine the governance capacity needed to continuously solve governance challenges of water [emphasis added], waste, and climate change in urban networks’ (Koop et al., 2017, p. 3429). Next to the ‘enabling conditions’, limitations can be derived from this framework as well, which can be used for answering SQ2. The GCF analyses water-related governance challenges and can be used to assess the governance challenge of urban pluvial flooding. The GCF consists of three dimensions (knowing, wanting and enabling), and this triplet is also the guiding principle within in the Dutch Delta Plan Spatial Adaptation (Delta Programme, 2017). The GCF has, similar to the CBF, a list of indicators. A triad of indicators covers one governance condition, as can be seen in Table 3.3. For instance, the indicators ‘community knowledge’, ‘local sense of urgency’ and ‘behavioural internalization’ examine the condition awareness. The GCF has individual scores for each indicator, which range from very limiting (--) to very encouraging (++). This Likert-type scoring is based on an existing classification and has been used in previous studies (Koop et al., 2017; Schreurs, Koop & Van Leeuwen, 2017). Moreover, for each of the 27 indicators, a predefined ‘research’ question has been created to help assess the indicators. The scoring tables and predefined questions are published online2 and included in Appendix III. A detailed description of each condition and indicator can be found in Koop et al. (2017). In order to complete the GCF properly, a triangular method has been used. First, a policy review of relevant documents and reports has been executed to create prior knowledge on the 27 indicators (see paragraph 3.3.1). Second, interviews with a wide variety of stakeholders have been conducted, after performing a stakeholder analysis (see paragraph 3.3.2 and 3.4). Third, the policy review has been compared with the answers given by the interviewees. Based on the policy review and in-depth interviews, final scores were determined.

2 EIP website - Documents - ‘The Governance Capacity Indicators’ https://www.eip-water.eu/City_Blueprints

Table 3.2: Overview of the performance indicators of the City Blueprint Framework (Koop & Van Leeuwen, 2015b)

27

3.3.1 Policy reviewFor all 27 indicators, data (documents, reports, policy) have been gathered. This includes the first step of the GCF and provided prior knowledge on all indicators. This information gave additional information on the context of Utrecht and eased conducting the interviews. A list of the consulted sources for the policy review can be found at the end of Appendix III.

3.3.2 Interviews and topic listsInterviews form the second step of the Governance Capacity Framework. Beforehand, a stakeholder analysis (see paragraph 3.4) has been performed to create a selection pool for the face-to-face interviews. Since this research focuses on pluvial flood risk, people related to this topic in the Utrecht area have been approached. However, not every participant has to have knowledge on each of the 27 indicators. Therefore, a priority list of indicators has been made for each interview. For the purpose of better outcomes, the score for each indicator is at least underpinned by two or three interviews. In order to discuss the proper

indicator with the correct person, expertise and background are taken into account. As have been stated above, the interviews are used to obtain information on the predefined 'research' questions for every indicator (see Appendix III). The aim is to ask for examples in order to underpin the answers given by the interviewee. The interviews were semi-structured, in-depth and contained follow-up questions. Nine face-to-face interviews have been conducted and three stakeholders were approached by email to acquire specific data (see paragraph 3.4). All stakeholders are anonymised (e.g. stakeholder 1 = SH01) and a complete list can be found in Appendix I. For each interview, a personal topic list has been created, taking into account the knowledge and expertise of each interviewee. The interviews were conducted in Dutch and the individual topic lists are enclosed in Appendix V. In order to incorporate quotes from the interviews in the results (chapter 4), these have been translated to English as literally as possible. The topic lists were designed as a guideline and some questions have been added or dropped during the interview

Table 3.3: Overview of the Governance Capacity Framework (Koop et al., 2017)

28

and each interview lasted approximately one hour. Each interview started with introductory questions and thereafter, the relatively easy indicators, e.g. community knowledge or information availability, were addressed first to set the interviewee at ease. Which stakeholders have been selected, will be explained in the next paragraph.

3.4 Stakeholder analysis

For both the City Blueprint and the Governance Capacity Framework, specific information on the municipality of Utrecht is necessary. Although no face-to-face interviews have been conducted for the CBF, some stakeholders are asked by email to provide data on several CBF indicators, which cannot be found in policy documents or elsewhere. In order to find stakeholders for both frameworks, a stakeholder analysis have been performed. Urban water governance in Utrecht consists of a broad network of actors. For this analysis, the importance influence matrix has been the leading framework (see Figure 3.2) (Department for International Development [DFID], 2003). Influence can be defined as ‘the power a stakeholder has to facilitate or impede the achievement of an activity’s objectives’ and importance alludes to ‘the priority given to satisfying the needs and interests of each stakeholder’ (DFID, 2003, p. 2.3). The framework provides a graphical representation of interrelationships between and positions of stakeholders. The matrix composes of four classes, namely 1) subjects (high importance, low influence), 2) key players (high importance, high influence), 3) context setters (low importance, high influence), and 4) crowd (low importance, low influence). The matrix contains four societal layers and a call for integration between those layers has been made by Stafford-Smith et al. (2017). The position of each stakeholder with respect to the decision-making process of water and climate-adaptive policies is presented in Figure 3.2. This matrix forms a starting point and selection pool for the interviews. The identified stakeholders will be discussed below.

3.4.1 Local authoritiesTo identify all relevant public stakeholders within the municipality of Utrecht, information on ‘water duties’ has been used, which is provided online (Municipality of Utrecht, n.d. 1). At governmental level, both the province and municipality have their responsibilities for water control in the municipality of Utrecht. The former determines the leading policy frames on water management, which applies to every municipality and water board within the province. Moreover, the province sets out regulations on groundwater quality. The municipality is responsible for the collection and conveyance of wastewater from dwellings and businesses. Besides, the municipality regulates excess rainwater and groundwater (Municipality of Utrecht, n.d. 1). Next those two authorities, a pair of water boards is active in the area, of which one is of crucial importance: De Stichtse Rijnlanden [HDSR]. Water boards in the Netherlands are public bodies and in this case, in charge of wastewater treatment plants and water courses (canals, the ‘Crooked Rhine’) within their control area.

3.4.2 Private/marketWithin the private domain, one important actor has been identified for this research: Vitens. This water company is the major supplier of drinking water in the municipality of Utrecht and thus highly

High

Vitens

Low

Social layers

Subjects

Local authoritiesPrivate/market

PartnershipsCivil society

Low

High

Imp

orta

nce

Influence

Key players

Crowd Context setters

CRA

Utrecht2040

Province of Utrecht

Municipality of Utrecht

NMU

Citizens

State of Utrecht

HDSR

Winnet

Figure 3.2: Importance influence matrix

CSA

NEFU

29

relevant within the water governance structure. Vitens can be seen as a powerful organization as it is the only institution in the area that is responsible for providing drinking water to residents and businesses. This stakeholder has been selected for scoring specific CBF indicators, e.g. drinking water quality.

3.4.3 Partnerships and civil societyWithin the municipality of Utrecht, many partnerships within the scope of water do exist. First, the Coalition Spatial Adaptation [CSA], which is a cooperation of the municipality of Utrecht and five other municipalities, the province of Utrecht, HDSR and the Safety Region Utrecht [SRU]. CSA is founded in 2015 and addresses climate change challenges of heat, flooding and drought and takes the national Delta Decision on Spatial Adaptation – as part of the Delta Programme – as their leading principle (Van Schaik, Boelhouwer & Harms, 2016). Second, the Nature and Environment Federation Utrecht [NEFU] is an independent foundation, originally founded by several provincial residents’ associations and advocates for a liveable and sustainable environment, including urban areas (NEFU, 2014). Third, the State of Utrecht (Dutch: ‘Staat van Utrecht’) is a regional knowledge platform initiated by the province of Utrecht. This organisation has an observative and facilitative role and puts certain social themes on the agenda, including water challenges (State of Utrecht, n.d.). Fourth, Utrecht2040 is a provincial network of companies, authorities, knowledge institutions and social organisations and has strong connections with the State of Utrecht (Utrecht2040, n.d.). Fifth, the Water Innovation Network [Winnet] is a regional public partnership on wastewater management and consists of the municipality of Utrecht, 13 other municipalities, and the regional water authority HDSR. The civil society is often collaborating with the aforementioned partnerships. CSA and Winnet are the most important cooperations within the research area and also strongly interconnected, e.g. in performing the ‘climatic stress test’ which has been made compulsory by the national government. For the in-depth interviews, various stakeholders have been selected out of the actors discussed above. Most interviews have been

conducted with local authorities and partnerships. Again, a complete list of all stakeholders that have contributed to this study can be found in Appendix I.

30

4 | Results

In this chapter, the results of both the City Blueprint Framework and the Governance Capacity Framework for the municipality of Utrecht will be presented. Detailed calculations and descriptions for the CBF and GCF indicators can be found in Appendix II and III respectively. Note: ‘SHxx’ in this chapter refers to the stakeholders.

4.1 City Blueprint Framework

The City Blueprint performance framework has been executed for the municipality of Utrecht and the overall result is presented in a spider diagram in Figure 4.1 and in Table 4.1. The average of the 25 indicators led to an overall score, the Blue City Index [BCI]. For the municipality of Utrecht, the BCI is estimated at 6.3.

Subquestion 1What are Utrecht’s main priorities regarding the physical state of the urban watercycle in order to successfully alleviate pluvial flood risk?

As can be seen in Figure 4.1 and in Table 4.1, Utrecht has an excellent performance on certain indicators, e.g. secondary/tertiary treatment, water system leakages and drinking water quality. However, other elements leave room for improvement. The indicators scored <6.0 include nutrient recovery, energy recovery, green space, operation cost recovery, solid waste collected, average age sewer and stormwater separation. However, of those indicators, only green space, average age sewer and stormwater separation

Figure 4.1: City Blueprint performance and BCI – Municipality of Utrecht

Table 4.1: City Blueprint indicators for the municipality of Utrecht

The BCI for Utrecht is 6.3

31

are related to pluvial flooding and can thus be seen as the main priorities for the municipality of Utrecht. These urban watercycle priorities will be discussed below.

Green space – 1.8Although this indicator is called ‘green space’, it represents the share of green (vegetation) and blue (water) spaces in urban areas. For Utrecht, this share accounts for 21.8% (EEA, 2012). This is considerably low (e.g. for Amsterdam and Rotterdam, this percentage is respectively 34.9% and 33.6%; EEA, 2012) and therefore, this indicator scored poorly: 1.8. SH07 came up with a possible explanation for this, as this stakeholder argues that the implementation of blue and green spaces in development plans comes worst off and is often considered as less important:

‘Water and green often come at the bottom of the list. Parking lots have a higher status.’ – SH07

However, within the municipality of Utrecht, a special long-range policy plan for green spaces has been introduced, the so-called ‘Multiannual Green Programme 2017-2020’ (Dutch: Meerjaren Groenprogramma). Moreover, in March 2018, the municipality of Utrecht adopted a new policy plan, which incorporates the theme of a climate-proof city and this plan recognises the importance of green and blue spaces for water storage (SH08; Municipality of Utrecht, 2017).

‘Ten years ago, plans were formulated to realise green roofs here at the station. However, the spirit of age was not ready yet; I think we have a missed opportunity here.’ – SH07

Both SH07 and SH08 acknowledge that green space deserves some improvement. Although the new policy plan shows the growing attention for this on municipal level, it remains unclear to what extent green (and blue) spaces will increase in years to come.

Average age sewer – 5.0Stormwater separation – 5.2 The average age of the sewer system within the municipality of Utrecht is 35 years (SH12),

resulting in an indicator score of 5.0. The sewer age is influenced by the newly constructed neighbourhood Leidsche Rijn, which improves the overall score. This indicates that the average sewer age in the core city of Utrecht itself is slightly higher. The municipality used to renew its sewerage each 60 years, but stopped this regular maintenance and now only replaces the sewer if there is a reason to do so. Consequently, sewer replacement in Utrecht has been reduced from 6.5 kilometres per year to 5 kilometres. Besides, the expected life span of the sewer system has risen from 60 to 70 years. In 2015, only 8 kilometres of sewerage was older than 70 years (Municipality of Utrecht, 2015). Next to the moderate score on the average age of the sewer system, Utrecht has a relatively low performance on stormwater separation. This indicator is a measure of the proportion of the wastewater system for which sanitary sewage and stormwater flows are separated. The municipality of Utrecht has 630 km of combined sewers, 384 km of stormwater sewers and 288 km of sanitary sewers, resulting in an indicator score of 5.2. With respect to stormwater separation, SH03 describes the disparity between old and new parts of the city:

‘Generally speaking, city centres tend to have more combined sewers and new neighbourhoods are often characterised by more separated sewerage.’ – SH03

The municipality of Utrecht considers the separation of stormwater and sanitary sewers as a costly expenditure and therefore invests in alternative solutions, such as permeable surfaces to store rainwater (Municipality of Utrecht, 2015). Similarly, SH03 argues:

‘Sewer (re)placement is expensive and thus other options are taken into consideration, such as wadis.’ – SH03

However, ten or fifteen years ago, the municipality of Utrecht had a clear incentive to make an effort on stormwater separation, due to regulations set by the regional water authority. By the time these regulations were met, Utrecht became less

32

motivated to take further action (SH07). In addition to this, SH07 argues that it depends on the new Mayor and Executive Board to what extent measures on stormwater separation will be taken. However, some plans have been made already:

‘We are planning on constructing one pipe for wastewater as part of the renovation project in Kanaleneiland and the idea is to store and convey stormwater through green spaces.’ – SH06

To conclude, the municipality of Utrecht may consider to improve its urban watercycle on nutrient recovery, energy recovery, green space, operation cost recovery, solid waste collected, average age sewer and stormwater separation. However, in the context of pluvial flooding, green space, average age sewer and stormwater separation deserve most attention. Utrecht received a Blue City Index of 6.3, which is the average of the 25 indicators. This score belongs within the category of a ‘resource efficient and adaptive city’ (Koop & Van Leeuwen, 2015a, p. 4640).

4.2 Governance Capacity Framework

Next to the City Blueprint Framework, the Governance Capacity Framework has been applied to the municipality of Utrecht to provide an insight into the governance barriers and enablers for the challenge of pluvial flood risk. Each indicator is assessed and scored separately, from very limiting (--) to very encouraging (++) and a detailed

description of all individual 27 indicators can be found in Appendix III. The nine categories – or ‘conditions’ – of the GCF will be the guideline in this paragraph. For the discussion of each condition, both the results of the policy review and interview findings will be taken into account. Before moving on to this, some crucial interrelationships can be revealed. First, Utrecht has a fairly low willingness to pay (indicator 8.2) which may be explained by a limited awareness of pluvial flooding (condition 1) or the suboptimal use of policy instruments (e.g. financial incentives; indicator 9.1). Combining these instruments with more regulations (indicator 9.2) may raise awareness and the willingness to pay. Second, the issue of pluvial flooding in Utrecht is currently maybe not perceived as the number one priority, but it may be in the short term. To prepare for this (indicator 9.3), Utrecht may consider to develop a certain action plan in combination with higher civic involvement, which is currently not yet optimised (condition 4). In turn, more participation may also encourage behavioural change (indicator 1.3). Third, public actors (municipalities, water boards) are engaged with pluvial flooding through many cooperations, yet the private sector (e.g. businesses, housing corporations and citizens) is less represented in dealing with the water issue (condition 4 and 7). A broad overview of the nine conditions’ performances can be found in Figure 4.2. In the following section, the main findings of each condition will be discussed. This paragraph will conclude with the main barriers and enablers of water governance and provide an answer to subquestions 2 and 3.

Figure 4.2: Performance of the nine GCF dimensions

encouraging

33

Condition 1 – Awareness1.1 Community knowledge (++)1.2 Local sense of urgency (+) 1.3 Behavioural internalisation (0) A study on water governance in the Netherlands suggests that an ‘awareness gap’ is present among Dutch citizens due to a high level of governmental trust (OECD, 2014). In Utrecht however, local authorities (water board and municipality) and several networks (e.g. Coalition Spatial Adaptation [CSA] and the Water Innovation Network [Winnet]) are making an effort to raise awareness on pluvial flooding among the community. Examples include the Waterproof030 and the ‘water-friendly garden’ campaigns, which have been initiated by the municipality and the regional water authority (SH06 & SH07). In general, citizens in Utrecht have a good understanding of pluvial flooding and this knowledge is growing, according to SH01:

‘Broadly speaking, citizens know about it. You do not have to be very smart or to be a professional to understand the issue.’ – SH01

However, a sense of urgency is not yet omnipresent as people are only inclined to consider pluvial flooding as a priority if they have faced severe problems themselves, e.g. in Lombok and Zeeheldenbuurt (two vulnerable neighbourhoods) (SH01 & SH07). SH07 emphasized the need for another heavy downpour to increase attention and the urgency of the problem. In addition to this, both SH01 and SH02 stress that little is happening with respect to a change in behaviour. Civic participation in dealing with pluvial flooding is described as ‘looking for a needle in a haystack’, in other words, a hopeless task according to SH05. Although support is provided, measures are taken by local authorities and networks (e.g. campaigns, education, manuals) and the issue receives much media attention (SH01, SH03, SH05, SH07), there is room for improvement, especially on citizen level. In general, citizens know about the issue, but an overall sense of urgency is missing and behavioural change is sparse.

Condition 2 – Useful knowledge2.1 Information availability (++)2.2 Information transparency (++)2.3 Knowledge cohesion (+)

An abundance of information on pluvial flooding is available on national, regional and local level. Information can be retrieved from websites or policy documents (e.g. from the municipality). Moreover, the CSA’s action plan concludes that ‘governments have sufficient knowledge to address the issues’ (Van Schaik, Boelhouwer & Harms, 2016, p.6). SH02 concludes that if a person is willing to seek for information, one is able to find a sufficient amount of sources. In addition to this, SH05 argues that:

‘A person’s willingness to seek for information depends on the person’s interest and urgency. They for example start looking for information when a heavy downpour occurred.’ – SH05

Both the municipality and the regional water authority (HDSR) play an important role in providing transparent and understandable information. HDSR regularly visits schools to educate children (SH02 & SH04) and the municipality is offering tips on how to make dwellings and gardens waterproof (Municipality of Utrecht, 2016). It can be suggested that this contributes to the community’s awareness (condition 1). In short, information is transparent (SH01), easily accessible (SH05), and publicly available. Besides, knowledge on the municipal level is converging between the water and green departments (e.g. aligning goals), yet a cohesive ‘climatic vision’ is still lacking (SH07).

Condition 3 – Continuous learning3.1 Smart monitoring (++)3.2 Evaluation (+)3.3 Cross-stakeholder learning (+)

Monitoring systems are present at both the water authority (HDSR) and the municipality to manage the urban watercycle and to identify alarming situations (e.g. high water; SH03 & SH05). In addition to this, HDSR is currently developing a new coherent precipitation model with a predictive value (SH02 & SH04). Moreover,

34

current policy and implementation on municipal level are being evaluated (e.g. water and green policy, sewer system) and adjusted if necessary. Besides, differences between theory and practice in the sewerage are being identified (SH03) and improved:

‘I often observe differences between theory and practice, which is one of the reasons we started monitoring.’ – SH03

Similarly, conventional sewer management (based on theory and technical criteria) has been replaced by a new paradigm focused on actual needs (Municipality of Utrecht, 2015). Furthermore, an important statement has been made by SH05, who concludes that sewer pipes are only enlarged if standard precipitation norms are exceeded and not for extreme rainfall. If sewer pipe dimensioning is not part of Utrecht’s strategy during extreme rainfall, then what is? Does Utrecht have an action plan to deal with downpours and what does it include? This will be discussed later in dimension 9. Continuous learning is also enhanced by the presence of many networks and cooperations within the scope of water challenges (e.g. Winnet, CSA) and knowledge exchange is currently one of the main activities of the CSA (SH06). However, the value of certain partnerships is being doubted by various stakeholders (SH01, SH07 and SH08), due to overlap or insufficient effectiveness.

Condition 4 – Stakeholder engagement process4.1 Stakeholder inclusiveness (0)4.2 Protection of core values (0)4.3 Progress and variety of options (0)

As can be seen in Figure 4.2, this category is the least performing condition and thus requires special attention. To start, policy with respect to pluvial flood risk is entirely determined by the municipality of Utrecht, as SH07 explains:

‘With respect to decision-making for pluvial flooding, the municipality of Utrecht decides entirely on its own.’ – SH07

The only obligation is to ask for advice from the regional water authority (HDSR) and the province,

which sometimes occurs not until the end of the decision-making process (SH07). However, HDSR and the municipality of Utrecht developed so-called ‘neighbourhood water plans’ (Dutch: wijkwaterplannen) and several stakeholders, including active citizens, are involved in this planning process (Municipality of Utrecht, n.d. 2). Moreover, stakeholder inclusiveness is present within all partnerships (e.g. CSA and Winnet) as each partner has the possibility to participate (SH02 & SH05). However, involvement depends on the personality of each municipality’s representative and is not related to the size of the municipality (SH03 & SH05):

‘The question is whether various partners take the possibility to be involved; this is personal.’ – SH05

Although the presence of many cooperations is a good sign, it is no guarantee for active involvement. To date, only public parties are represented within the leading cooperations, which include CSA and Winnet. However, some knowledge institutions and companies are part of the Utrecht2040 network, but this partnership is less active (SH01). Increased participation on civic and private level thus leaves room for improvement. Moreover, when drawing up policy plans within the scope of pluvial flooding, earlier consultation and civic involvement may be desired which is likely to raise awareness at this level, including behavioural change (indicator 1.3). Stimulating active civic participation in combination with the formulation of a clear action plan to deal with pluvial flooding, now or in the future, may help to prepare for extreme rainfall (see also condition 9).

Condition 5 – Management ambition5.1 Ambitious and realistic management (+)5.2 Discourse embedding (+)5.3 Management cohesion (+)

On the national level, seven ambitions have been formulated on making the Netherlands water-resilient and climate-proof. In 2020, climate adaptation is expected to be embedded in policy and implementation and the overall goal is to be water-resilient and climate-proof in 2050 (SH09; Delta Programme, 2017). The seven national

35

ambitions are adopted by the CSA network (Van Schaik, Boelhouwer & Harms, 2015). Although national ambitions have been formulated, it is still unclear what it means to be climate-proof and water-resilient in 2050 and thus, the province and the municipality of Utrecht will have to make an effort to define these broad concepts (SH07 and SH09):

‘We have to define what it means to be climate-proof in 2050 and also, how do we succeed in this?’ – SH07

Besides, intermittent targets to reach the goal in 2050 are not formulated yet by local authorities, but SH07 and SH08 both agree that these targets are needed. Furthermore, sustainability is strongly embedded in Utrecht according to SH08 and SH07 expects the new Mayor and Executive Board to put this theme high on the political agenda. As have been mentioned before, goals for water policy and green policy on the municipal level are more or less aligned (SH07 & SH08) but an integrative vision on climate is still missing, and thus management cohesion (indicator 5.3) could be improved. SH09 emphasises that the topic of climate change and spatial adaptation is highly suitable for policy cohesion, as it involves multiple sectors. The new Environment and Planning Act (Dutch: Omgevingswet), which comes into effect in 2021, will undoubtedly encourage co-creation and inter-sectorial policies and thus foster cohesiveness.

Condition 6 – Agents of change6.1 Entrepreneurial agents (+)6.2 Collaborative agents (+)6.3 Visionary agents (0)

Agents of change, i.e. people that are highly motivated to alter current practices or approaches and are willing to take risks, play an important role in water governance (Koop et al., 2017). Within the municipality of Utrecht, multiple projects on water resiliency have been performed or are still in progress. Next to the renovation project in Kanaleneiland which has been mentioned before, the concept of climate-proof is part of the Merwede Canal District (Dutch: Merwedekanaalzone) project. SH08 argues that the bottom-up approach is fairly

well developed in Utrecht and in addition to this, SH07 concludes that citizens are very important stakeholders:

‘They [citizens] are the best ambassadors and the perfect example for their neighbours.’ – SH07

Moreover, as has been mentioned before, many water-related cooperations do exist in the municipality of Utrecht (e.g. CSA, Winnet, Utrecht2040, State of Utrecht and the Nature and Environment federation Utrecht). Both SH04 and SH09 stress that collaboration within the scope of extreme rainfall is prevalent and growing. Moreover, Utrecht has an advanced position with respect to visionary agents in the context of sustainability. However, leading figures with high aspirations within the scope of pluvial flooding are not (yet) visible within the municipality. In addition to this, SH07 indicates that the topic of extreme rainfall is currently not the mayor’s top priority. Both SH01 and SH02 state that they cannot think of any revolutionary individual in Utrecht on this theme.

Condition 7 – Multi-level network potential7.1 Room to manoeuver (++) 7.2 Clear division of responsibilities (++)7.3 Authority (+)

As water governance involves various stakeholders from different levels (e.g. government and organisations), working in networks contributes to effective solutions. Within the municipality of Utrecht, actors have the opportunity to start up cooperations – CSA is the best example of this – to cope with new challenges, including pluvial flooding, indicating a high room to manoeuver (indicator 7.1). Moreover, the responsibilities of the municipality of Utrecht with respect to water are clearly formulated in its policy plan and include for instance duties on wastewater, stormwater and surface water (Municipality of Utrecht, 2015). However, a striking dichotomy is visible within Utrecht’s water management – and also other parts of the Netherlands – as the municipality is responsible for the sewer system and the regional water authority for the protection of citizens from regional flooding. It can be disputed if this

36

fragmentation is optimal for adequate water governance. However, not only local authorities play a role in water management. SH09 argues for example that everyone should participate in tackling the challenge of pluvial flooding, from citizens to the national government. In line with this, SH06 stresses that:

‘Managing extreme rainfall is not only a duty for governments and water boards, as citizens and companies also have to make an effort.’ – SH06

Besides, on the national level, an authorative and experienced figure, the Delta Commissioner, is responsible for the implementation of the national Delta Programme, which includes a plan for spatial adaptation since 2017 (Delta Programme, 2017). To date, however, the municipality of Utrecht does not effectively use their authority to deal with extreme rainfall (indicator 7.3).

Condition 8 – Financial viability 8.1 Affordability (++)8.2 Consumer willingness-to-pay (0)8.3 Financial continuation (++)

To achieve adequate water governance, the allocation of financial resources is crucial. In Utrecht, low-income citizens qualify for waiving the water board tax (SH04) and homeowners of two flood-prone neighbourhoods in Utrecht have been compensated through a municipal funding scheme since 2017 (Municipality of Utrecht, 2017a). SH04 explains the regional water authority's (HDSR) financial strategy:

‘HDSR aims to operate cost-effective and is based on the solidarity principle, which means for instance that the entire control area pays for vulnerable areas.’ – SH04

Moreover, citizens are supported by several grants of local authorities. The municipality of Utrecht has for example a subsidy for green roofs and a grant scheme (Dutch: Initiatievenfonds) for other bottom-up initiatives, e.g. the replacement of pavements for greenery (SH08). These forms of financial assistance contribute to the affordability (indicator 8.1) of climate-adaptive measures to

alleviate pluvial flood risk. Furthermore, long-term financial continuation (indicator 8.3) is present. For example, the regional water authority developed a funding for municipalities and landowners which is partly devoted to water-related climate adaptation measures and amounts to €450,000 per year for the period 2018-2022 and perhaps longer (SH04). In 2017, the municipality of Utrecht received 200,000 euros, which is 44.4% of the total budget and thus a substantial amount (SH07). Although efforts are made to financially support citizens, their willingness to pay is rather poor (indicator 8.2). Recently, the Dutch Broadcast Foundation (Dutch: NOS) conducted a survey among 1700 Dutch citizens that have experienced serious pluvial flooding issues. Paradoxically, these people want the municipality to invest more in the sewer system, but only 25% of them is willing to pay more sewer tax (Meindertsma & Van Der Parre, 2018). A low willingness to pay among citizens may be explained by a limited awareness (condition 1) and an unbalanced use of policy instruments and regulations, which will be discussed in condition 9 below.

Condition 9 – Implementing capacity9.1 Policy instruments (0)9.2 Statutory compliance (+)9.3 Preparedness (+)

The last condition includes the implementation of policies, the compliance of agreements and legislation and assesses whether a city is prepared for sudden events or calamities. On the national level, a commission has started to investigate the future of the water board’s tax system. Currently, this tax system is based on the solidarity principle, however, the question has arisen on the national level whether this has to change to an user-pays/polluter-pays principle (SH04). In June 2018, this commission published a proposal in which the desire for user-pays and polluter-pays principles within the water board’s tax system is advocated in order to encourage sustainable behaviour (Association of Dutch Water Authorities, 2018). However, this plan is still in progress and the principles are not yet adopted by regional water boards throughout the country, including HDSR. Furthermore, SH07 explains that despite the

37

ability to do so, none of the Dutch municipalities has implemented the polluter-pays principle in the municipal sewer tax, due to significant administrative and maintenance costs (SH07). Another reason has been given by SH04, who states that:

‘It is easier to give out subsidies than changing the fiscal system.’ – SH04

Besides, SH08 concludes that the municipal subsidy for green roofs is not effective yet as citizens do not understand the added value of these roofs, which can be related to the low awareness among the community (condition 1). Thus, policy instruments (indicator 9.1) in the form of financial incentives are not optimised by local authorities to stimulate sustainable behaviour. Moreover, legislations are not yet implemented to stimulate sustainable behaviour (indicator 9.2). Thus, a well-balanced combination of financial incentives and regulations (e.g. % of all roofs must be green in 2025) is currently lacking. Both SH07 and SH09 wonder whether legislation on this topic is desirable. Indeed, this is also a political choice.Furthermore, as has been stated before, the issue of pluvial flooding in Utrecht is currently not the number one priority, however, it is likely to become more urgent in the future. To prepare for this, Utrecht may foster civic participation (condition 4) and formulate clear action plans (indicator 9.3) to

reduce pluvial flood risk. The central government obliged all Dutch municipalities to perform a ‘climatic stress test’ by 2019, which identifies vulnerable places during extreme rainfall. For Utrecht, this test is expected to be finished in June 2018 and may contribute in creating a sense of urgency and awareness (condition 1) for the water challenge. An adequate action plan to deal with extreme rainfall is however still missing.

The main findings of the GCF for Utrecht are now clear and thus, the corresponding subquestions (see below) can be answered.

Subquestion 2To what extent does the governance structure in Utrecht form barriers to the capacity of the local water network to mitigate pluvial flood risk?

Subquestion 3To what extent does the governance structure in Utrecht form enablers to the capacity of the local water network to mitigate pluvial flood risk?

The overall governance capacity for the municipality of Utrecht with respect to extreme rainfall has been presented in Figure 4.3. All 27 indicators are ranked clockwise from neutral (0) to very encouraging (++) and broadly speaking, Utrecht has a fairly good result as no limiting (--) or very limiting (--) scores are given. However,

Figure 4.3: Overview of the Governance Capacity in the municipality of Utrecht for the challenge of pluvial flood risk

38

all indicators assessed with a + or 0 are open to improvement. To start, condition 4 (stakeholder engagement process) is to a certain extent limiting as citizens are not involved in the municipal decision-making process. To raise more awareness (condition 1) for the topic of pluvial flooding, which is currently considerably low, it may be helpful to improve civic involvement. Moreover, it can be suggested that the observed low awareness among the community negatively influences the willingness to pay (indicator 8.2). The imbalance between effective policy instruments (e.g. financial incentives; indicator 9.1) and regulations (indicator 9.2) to stimulate sustainable behaviour may be another reason for a low willingness to pay. Although the governance structure in Utrecht leaves room for improvement on certain themes, this analysis also shows encouraging results. First of all, Utrecht's urban watercyle is adequately monitored by both the municipality and the regional water board. Besides, these local authorities are making an effort to raise awareness (e.g. through campaigns) and are financially supporting various initiatives, which contributes to the affordability of climate-adaptive measures. Moreover, financial resources at the municipal level are available, including long-term funding. Furthermore, the community has sufficient possiblities to seek and find information about extreme rainfall. Finally, actors have taken the opportunity to start up cooperations and especially CSA and Winnet are seriously addressing the challenge of extreme rainfall.

4.3 Conclusion

In this chapter, the key results of the City Blueprint and Governance Capacity Framework have been presented. The Blue City Index for Utrecht is estimated at 6.3 and the main priorities of the urban watercycle to successfully alleviate pluvial flood risk include attention for the sewerage, which is both ageing and a combined sewer system, and the implementation of blue and green spaces. Moreover, Utrecht is performing fairly well on its governance capacities to cope with extreme rainfall. With respect to this, it has become clear

that both the municipality and the regional water authority are making efforts to raise awareness (e.g. through subsidies, campaigns, information on the internet and in policy documents). However, a widespread sense of urgency and sustainable behavioural change among the community is not yet realised. Besides, the private domain, including citizens, is scarcely represented in the existing cooperations and partnerships. More civic involvement in the decision-making process may be a crucial step to stimulate awareness, and in turn, this will foster willingness to pay, which is currently rather low.

39

5 | Conclusion

Utrecht is the fastest growing city in the Netherlands and is expected to experience more extreme rainfall as a consequence of climate change, and this trend is exacerbated by the presence of impervious urban surfaces such as roofs, roads and other paved areas (EEA, 2012). In addition, it is often unclear what the main priorities, barriers and enablers are with respect to governing flood risk, in particular pluvial flood risk. In order to better address these challenges, this research has the following main question: What are the main priorities and governance barriers and enablers for climate-adaptive policies to alleviate pluvial flood risk in the municipality of Utrecht, the Netherlands?

A few priorities have been found with respect to the sewer system and urban planning. In particular, vegetation and water bodies that are intertwined in the urban infrastructure - referred to as blue-green infrastructures - are essential to absorb, store and slowly release excess rainfall (EEA, 2012; Voskamp & Van de Ven, 2015). Utrecht is an old densely populated city that has a limited capacity to implement the aforementioned processes. Like many other cities in Europe and North America, Utrecht has an ageing combined sewer system that is in the process of refurbishment. Similar to other Dutch cities, stormwater is not collected separately, leading to increased vulnerability for pluvial flooding and water pollution caused by combined sewer overflows (Koop & Van Leeuwen, 2015a). Separating the collection of stormwater can be considered as an important strategy to increase resilience to pluvial flooding that can be included in the sewer refurbishment activities over the coming decades. Utrecht's capacity to govern pluvial flooding was found to be relatively high. Utrecht excels in smart monitoring, the availability of information and in making climate adaptation affordable for citizens, including the lowest income groups. Dealing with extreme rainfall however, costs money whereas the willingness to pay among citizens was found to be considerably low. The latter might be explained by the observed limitations in awareness and low sense of urgency of citizens with respect to pluvial flooding.

Therefore, it might explain that behavioural change - such as permeable gardens, decoupling of gutters from the sewer or increasing the level of doorsteps - was found to be largely lacking amongst Utrecht's citizens. A better use of financial incentives may encourage sustainable behaviour. For example, a tax on paved gardens and a grant for water-friendly gardens could both ensure financial security to make the necessary long-term investments and may function as a means to raise awareness. Moreover, this study showed that various water-related cooperations in Utrecht address the issue of pluvial flooding. However, private actors - especially citizens - are underrepresented in Utrecht and hardly engaged in the municipal decision-making process, which is not in accordance with the broader trend where private actors are becoming more important in local decision-making and implementation (Van Rijswick et al., 2014; Ford & King, 2015; Koop et al., 2017). The theme of climate adaptation, including pluvial flood risk adaptation, is suitable for collaboration as it involves various policy domains and responsible actors. However, the value and effectiveness of some partnerships is currently being doubted by some stakeholders. Utrecht's implementation of climate-adaptive policies regarding pluvial flood risk is in progress due to the recently formulated national goals in the Delta Programme (Delta Programme, 2017). Together with the city's strong profile with respect to sustainability, this might pose a window of opportunity to improve its capacity to address challenges related to pluvial flooding.

Taken the main findings into account, some final recommendations for Utrecht can be made:• Implementing more green and blue spaces to store and slowly release excess rainwater• Collecting stormwater separately by decoupling gutters from the sewer and installing a separate sewer system• Stimulating sustainable behaviour and awareness by combining financial incentives with arrangements (e.g. 25% of all roofs must be green in 2025)• Rethinking the value of the existing cooperations and the possibilities to merge some of these partnerships

40

6 | Discussion

6.1 Methodological reflection

6.1.1 Methodological approachFor this research, two existing assessment methods have been used: the City Blueprint Framework [CBF] (Koop & Van Leeuwen, 2015b) and the Governance Capacity Framework [GCF] (Koop et al., 2017). Both frameworks required a considerable amount of time and to achieve a successful result, a strict planning was necessary. Moreover, the use of the two models was to a certain extent risky, due to a high dependency on the availability and willingness of stakeholders to provide answers (data for the CBF or input for the GCF). This dependency was even more complicated by the fact that both the province and the municipality of Utrecht currently have a limited amount of employees in the field of climate adaptation and urban water management. While the use of the GCF provided for a clear research guideline, it was also accompanied by some limitations as the GCF indicators are fairly specific which excluded unforeseen or new findings that did not directly fit within the framework. For instance, some stakeholders admitted that Utrecht could improve on city branding with respect to climate-adaptive measures. In other words, it has been said that Utrecht need to enforce the visibility of the implemented climate-adaptive measures. However, no appropriate indicator exists for this. Finally, as have been concluded before, each city is context-dependent and none of the existing governance assessment methods, including the GCF, is a ‘one size fits all solution’ (Van Rijswick et al., 2014; Koop et al., 2017).

6.1.2 Validity of resultsFor the calculation and assessment of all 25 City Blueprint indicators for Utrecht, predominantly municipal data have been incorporated in the framework. However, for the assessment of other Dutch cities (e.g. Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Nieuwegein) national data have been used for some indicators, due to the lack of adequate information on the city-level (Koop & Van Leeuwen, 2015a). This methodological discrepancy is hampering a meaningful city comparison. Using more precise, municipal data for the assessment of Utrecht sometimes resulted in poor results in

comparison to other Dutch cities which are scored with national data. Since local data is perceived as more valuable and useful, the evaluation of Utrecht has incorporated as much municipal data as possible. Moreover, the governance capacity framework is fairly comprehensive as it includes both a literature review and interviews. In-depth interviews have been conducted with a wide variety of stakeholders (see Appendix I) which contributed to the completeness and overall validity.

6.2 Contribution to the debate on urban governance of pluvial flooding

Adequate urban governance is needed to protect city dwellers from urban pluvial flooding as a consequence of heavy rainfall. Although various attempts have been made to develop assessment methods of water governance (e.g. OECD, 2015 & Van Rijswick et al., 2014), empirical-based research is scarce with respect to assessing governance capacity in cities regarding water-related challenges such as pluvial flooding. Moreover, the interaction between science and policy tend to be complex (Hegger et al., 2012). Therefore, this research aimed to contribute to the Science-Policy Interface [SPI] debate. By integrating knowledge from local organisations and different sectors, this study aimed to provide an adequate knowledge base for meaningful exchange of experiences and learning practices amongst the various actors involved in the urban water network in Utrecht but also with practitioners in other cities. In doing so, results have been presented in an understandable manner for people with a variety of backgrounds. In this way, this study has provided an important showcase in which way the SPI can be improved. This study takes a unique angle as it assessed both the urban watercycle characteristics and the governance capacities regarding pluvial flooding in the municipality of Utrecht. While other studies mostly focus on fluvial or coastal flooding in predominantly coastal cities (e.g. Francesch-Huidobro et al., 2017; Budiyono et al., 2015 and Tanner et al., 2009), this research has created new insights into pluvial flood risk governance in a non-coastal urban area.

41

This study has been executed during the early phases of a new climate adaptation initiative in cities throughout the Netherlands. The national government has recently formulated a goal to be ‘climate-proof’ and ‘water-resilient’ by the year 2050. However, their strategic guidelines do not specify what these broad concepts imply inpractice. Terms such as ‘climate-proof’ and ‘resilience’ can be seen as bridging concepts (Davoudi et al., 2012; Deppissch & Hasibovic, 2013). For example, Davoudi et al. (2012) give warning for 'resilience' to become a hollow concept, i.e. 'an empty signifier which can be filled to justify almost any ends' (p. 329). Local authorities need to make an effort to define these bridging concepts as they require further clarification in order to be applicable in practice. On the other hand, it may be important that the national government concretises these goals on the local level. In doing so, the implementation of more specific regulation may be one of the first steps. In fact, this study found that policy instruments (financial incentives) do not always have the envisioned outcome of stimulating sustainable behaviour. The call for more regulations is in line with Dai et al. (2018) who investigated several Dutch municipalities on water governance, and suggest to emphasise binding rules over soft policies. For example, a comparative study on the implementation of green roofs shows that arrangements are much more effective than awarding grants (Mees et al., 2013). In accordance, the current research presented here shows that municipal funding for green roofs in Utrecht is ineffective, and therefore, Utrecht may consider to shift towards more regulation to encourage sustainable behaviour. Utrecht has made progress on the topic of sustainability and has recently been ranked as the most sustainable municipality in the Netherlands (Lachmeijer, 2018), leaving the city in an exceedingly appropriate position to take advantage of its sustainable track record to cope with pluvial flood risk. In fact, blue-green infrastructures are easy to combine with other sustainability ambitions, e.g. improving air quality or reducing urban heat stress. Although extreme rainfall is perhaps not Utrecht’s number one priority, the city is likely to be challenged by more heavy rainfall in the future, and therefore, it is crucial to develop adequate action

plans. Simultaneously, Utrecht may consider to increase civic involvement to show them climate-adaptive opportunities, and to raise awareness. Increased awareness among citizens in turn may contribute to a higher willingness to pay for flood adaptation measures (e.g. the replacement of pavements by greenery). When comparing Utrecht’s governance capacity for flood risk to Rotterdam and Amsterdam, it becomes clear that these cities are performing better regarding the stakeholder engagement process (condition 4 in Appendix IV). On the contrary, community knowledge with respect to flood risk (indicator 1.1), was found to be more advanced in Utrecht. However, the assessment of Rotterdam and Amsterdam include coastal, fluvial and pluvial flooding, while this study in Utrecht only focused on pluvial flooding (Koop et al., 2018). Given this discrepancy in scope, further comparisons are somewhat limited.

6.3 Suggestions for further research

While this research offered insights into the current practices regarding pluvial flooding in the municipality of Utrecht, it might be interesting to further examine the strategies of other Dutch local authorities with respect to managing extreme rainfall. A national guideline or perhaps even regulations could be helpful in tackling this issue, yet crucial decisions are yet to be made on the local level (e.g. by provinces, municipalities and regional water boards). The transition to climate adaptation in the Netherlands is gradually taking place and this will likely result in different approaches, raising the question which strategy (e.g. a free-market, steering or mixed approach) is most appropriate or desired concerning pluvial flood risk. Besides, this study showed that many public networks have been developed, yet the private domain remains underrepresented. Future research may elaborate on the key drivers for private actors (e.g. businesses and citizens) to engage in climate adaptation initiatives in particular with respect to pluvial flooding in cities. This becomes even more relevant since the new Environment and Planning Act – expected to be in effect in 2021 – is extremely suitable for more interaction and collaboration between all levels of governance.

42

References

Albers, R.A.W., Bosch, P.R., Blocken, B., Van Den Dobbelsteen, A.A.J.F., Van Hove, L.W.A., Spit, T.J.M., … Rovers, V. (2015). Overview of challenges and achievements in the climate adaptation of cities and in the Climate Proof Cities program. Building and Environment, 83, 1-10. Association of Regional Water Authorities (2018). Voorstel bestuur Unie van Waterschappen tot aanpassing van het belastingstelsel van de waterschappen. Den Haag: Unie van Waterschappen.

Biesbroek, G.R., Klostermann, J.E.M., Termeer, C.J.A.M., & Kabat, P. (2013). On the nature of barriers to climate change adaptation. Regional Environmental Change, 13, 1119-1129.

Biswas, A.K. (2008). Integrated water resources management: is it working? Water Resources Management, 24(1), 5-22.

Biswas, A.K. & Tortajada, C. (2010). Future water governance: problems and perspectives. Water Resources Development, 26(2), 129-139.

Brown, R.R. & Farrelly, M.A. (2009). Delivering sustainable urban water management: a review of the hurdles we face. Water Science Technology, 59(5), 839-846.

Budiyono, Y., Aerts, J., Brinkman, J.J., Marfai, M.A., & Ward, P. (2015). Flood risk assessment for delta mega-cities: a case study of Jakarta. Natural Hazards, 75(1), 389-413.

Carter, J.G., Cavan, G., Connelly, A., Guy, S., Handley, J., & Kazmierczak, A. (2015). Climate change and the city: Building capacity for urban adaptation. Progress in Planning, 95, 1-66.

Cettner, A., Ashley, R., Hedström, A., & Viklander, M. (2014). Sustainable development and urban stormwater practice. Urban Water Journal, 11(3), 185-197.

Csizmadia, D., Szilági, K., Balogh, P.I., & Säumel, I. (2017). More than green: Implementation of multifunctional blue-green infrastructure in residential areas of European cities. Acta Horticulturae, 1189, 553-556.

Dai, L., Wörner, R. & Van Rijswick, H.F.M.W. (2018). Rainproof cities in the Netherlands: approaches in Dutch water governance to climate-adaptive urban planning. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 34(4).

Dang, T.K.P., Visseren-Hamakers, I.J., & Arts, B. (2015). A framework for assessing governance capacity: An illustration from Vietnam’s forestry reforms. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34(6), 1154-1174.

Davoudi, S., Shaw, K., Haider, L.J., Quinlan, A.E., Peterson, G.D., Wilkinson, C., … Porter, L. (2012). Resilience: a bridging concept or a dead end? “Reframing” resilience: challenges for planning theory and practice interacting traps: resilience assessment of a pasture management system in Northern Afghanistan urban resilience: What does it mean in planning practice? Resilience as a useful concept for climate change adaptation? The politics of resilience for planning: a cautionary note. Planning Theory & Practice, 13(2), 299-333.

43

Delta Programme (2017). Delta Programme 2018: Continuing the work on a sustainable and safe delta. The Hague: Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment & Ministry of Economic Affairs.

Department for International Development [DFID] (2003). Tools for development: a handbook for those engaged in development activity. United Kingdom: DFID.

Deppisch, S. & Hasibovic, S. (2013). Social-ecological resilience thinking as a bridging concept in transdisciplinary research on climate-change adaptation. Natural Hazards, 67(1), 117-127.

Dhakal, K.P. & Chevalier, L.R. (2016). Urban stormwater governance: the need for a paradigm shift. Environmental Management, 57, 1112-1124.

Dunn, G., Brown, R.R., Bos, J.J., & Bakker, K. (2017). The role of science-policy interface in sustainable urban water transitions: Lessons from Rotterdam. Environmental Science and Policy, 73, 71-79.

Edelenbos, J. (2012). Water governance and the importance of dynamic and adaptive management approaches. International Journal of Water, 6(3+4), 330-343.

Edelenbos, J. & Van Meerkerk, I. (2015). Connective capacity in water governance practices: The meaning of trust and boundary spanning for integrated performance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 12, 25-29.

Eisenack, K., Moser, S.C., Hoffmann, E., Klein, R.J.T., Oberlack, C., Pechan, A., … Termeer, C.J.A.M. (2014). Explaining and overcoming barriers to climate change adaptation. Nature Climate Change, 4, 867-872.

European Environmental Agency [EEA] (2012). Urban adaptation to climate change in Europe: Challenges and opportunities for cities together with supportive national and European policies. (EEA Report no 2 2012). Copenhagen: EEA.

Ford, J.D. & King, D. (2015). A framework for examining adaptation readiness. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 20(4), 505-526.

Francesch-Huidobro, M., Dabrowski, M., Tai, Y., Chan, F., & Stead, D. (2017). Governance challenges of flood-prone delta cities: Integrating flood risk management and climate change in spatial planning. Progress in Planning, 114, 1-27.

Gawlik, B.M., Easton, P., Koop, S., Van Leeuwen, K., & Elelman, R. (eds.) (2017). Urban Water Atlas for Europe. Luxembourg: European Commission.

Ghofrani, Z., Sposito, V., & Faggian, R. (2017). A comprehensive review of blue-green infrastructure concepts. International Journal of Environment and Sustainability, 6(1), 15-36.

Global Water Partnership [GWP] (2017). The need for an integrated approach. Accessed 15 May 2018. Retrieved from https://www.gwp.org/en/About/why/the-need-for-an-integrated-approach/.

Goulden, S., Portman, M.E., Carmon, N., & Alon-Mozes, T. (2018, in press). From conventional drainage to sustainable stormwater management: beyond the technical challenges. Journal of Environmental Management, 219, 37-45.

44

Grigg, N.S. (2011). Water governance: from ideals to effective strategies. Water International, 36(7), 799- 811.

Grigg, N.S (2014). Integrated water resources management: unified process or debate forum? International Journal of Water Resources Development, 30(3), 409-422.

Hegger, D., Lamers, M., Van Zeijl-Rozema, A., & Dieperink, C. (2012). Conceptualising joint knowledge production in regional climate change adaptation projects: success conditions and levers for action. Environmental Science & Policy, 18, 52-65. Hill, C., Furlong, K., Bakker, K., & Cohen, A. (2008). Harmonization versus subsidiarity in water governance: a review of water governance and legislation in the Canadian provinces and territories. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 33(4), 315-332.

IPCC (2014). Europe. In: V.R. Barros & C.B. Field (eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jeffrey, P. & Gearey, M. (2006). Integrated water resources management: lost on the road from ambition to realisation?. Water Science & Technology, 53(1), 1-8.

Jonker, L. (2002). Integrated water resources management: theory, practice, cases. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 27, 719-720.

Kati, V. & Jari, N. (2016). Bottom-up thinking - Identifying socio-cultural values of ecosystem services in local blue–green infrastructure planning in Helsinki, Finland. Land Use Policy, 50, 537-547.

Koop, S.H.A. & Van Leeuwen, C.J. (2015a). Application of the improved City Blueprint Framework in 45 municipalities and regions. Water Resources Management, 29(13), 4629-4647.

Koop, S.H.A. & Van Leeuwen, C.J. (2015b). Assessment of the sustainability of water resources management: A critical review of the City Blueprint approach. Water Resources Management, 29, 5649-5670.

Koop, S.H.A., Koetsier, L., Doornhof, A., Reinstra, O., Van Leeuwen, C.J., Brouwer, S., … Driessen, P.P.J. (2017). Assessing the governance capacity of cities to address challenges of water, waste, and climate change. Water Resources Management, 31, 3427-3443.

Koop, S.H.A. & Van Leeuwen, C.J. (2017). The challenges of water, waste and climate change in cities. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 19(2), 385-418.

Koop, S.H.A., Monteiro Gomes, F., Schoot, L., Dieperink, C., Driessen, P.P.J., & Van Leeuwen, C.J. (2018). Assessing the capacity to govern flood risk in cities and the role of contextual factors. Sustainability (submitted).

Lachmeijer, R. (2018, 27 February). Utrecht duurzaamste gemeente van Nederland. Retrieved from https://www.duurzaambedrijfsleven.nl/infra/27415/utrecht-is-de-duurzaamste-gemeente- van-nederland. Accessed 13 June 2018.

45

Lange, P., Driessen, P.P.J., Sauer, A., Bornemann, B., & Burger, P. (2013). Governing towards sustainability – conceptualizing models of governance. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 15(3), 403- 425.

Lenderink, G., Van Oldenborgh, G.J., Van Meijgaard, E., & Attema, J. (2011). Intensiteit van neerslag in een veranderend klimaat. Meteorologica, 2, 17-20.

Lubell, M. & Edelenbos, J. (2013). Integrated Water Resources Management: a comparative laboratory for water governance. International Journal of Water Management, 1, 177-196.

Manders, T. & Kool, C. (2015). Toekomstverkenning Welvaart en Leefomgeving. Nederland in 2030 en 2050: Twee referentiescenario’s. The Hague: Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving en Centraal Planbureau.

Medema, W., McIntosh, B.S., & Jeffrey, P.J. (2008). From premise to practice: a critical assessment of integrated water resources management and adaptive management approaches in the water sector. Ecology and Society, 13(2).

Mees, H.L.P., Driessen, P.P.J., Runhaar, H.A.C., & Stamatelos, J. (2013). Who governs climate adaptation? Getting green roofs for stormwater retention off the ground. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(6), 802, 825.

Meindertsma, B. & Van Der Parre, H. (2018, 7 May). Burgers met natte voeten kijken naar overheid, maar willen niet meer betalen. Accessed 29 May 2018. Retrieved from https://nos.nl/ artikel/2230728-burgers-met-natte-voeten-kijken-naar-overheid-maar-willen-niet-meer- betalen.html

Molenaar, R.E., Heusinkveld, B.G., & Steeneveld, G.J. (2016). Projection of rural and urban heat thermal comfort in The Netherlands for 2050. International Journal of Climatology, 36(4), 1708-1723.

Municipality of Utrecht (n.d. 1). Water: wie doet wat?. Retrieved from https://www.utrecht.nl/wonen-en leven/milieu/water/water-wie-doet-wat/. Accessed 25 April 2018.

Municipality of Utrecht (n.d. 2). Wijkwaterplannen. Retrieved from https://www.utrecht.nl/wonen-en leven/milieu/water/oppervlaktewater/wijkwaterplannen/. Accessed 10 June 2018.

Municipality of Utrecht (2015). Plan Gemeentelijke Watertaken 2016-2019. Utrecht: Municipality of Utrecht.

Municipality of Utrecht (2016). Waterproof: Handleiding maatregelen aan de woning en tuin tegen wateroverlast. Utrecht: Municipality of Utrecht.

Municipality of Utrecht (2017). Actualisatie Groenstructuurplan 2017-2030. Utrecht: Municipality of Utrecht.

Municipality of Utrecht (2017a). Project ‘Lombok en Zeeheldenbuurt Waterproof’ vordert. Retrieved from https://www.utrecht.nl/nieuws/artikel/project-lombok-en-zeeheldenbuurt-waterproof- vordert/. Accessed 8 June 2018.

46

Municipality of Utrecht (2018). WistUdata. Totaal aantal inwoners + Bevolkingsprognose 2017-2040 Retrieved from https://utrecht.buurtmonitor.nl. Accessed 11 June 2018.

Nature and Environment Federation Utrecht [NEFU] (2014). Policy plan 2014 – 2017: Nature and Environment Federation Utrecht. Utrecht: NEFU.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2011). Water governance in OECD countries: a multi-level approach. Paris, France: OECD.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2014). Water governance in the Netherlands: Fit for the future? Paris, France: OECD Studies on Water.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2015). OECD principles on water governance. Paris, France: OECD.

Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change, 19(3), 354-365.

Parr, T.B., Smucker, N.J., Bentsen, C.N., & Neale, M.W. (2016). Potential roles of past, present, and future urbanization characteristics in producing varied stream responses. Freshwater Science, 35(1), 436-443.

Rahaman, M.M. & Varis, O. (2005). Integrated water resources management: evolution, prospects and future challenges. Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy, 1(1), 15-21.

Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [RNMI] (2014). News report – Buiige juli achtste warme maand op rij (in Dutch). Accessed 20 February 2018. Retrieved from https://www.knmi. nl/over-het-knmi/nieuws/buiige-juli-achtste-warme-maand-op-rij

Schreurs, E., Koop, S.H.A. & Van Leeuwen, C.J. (2017). Application of the City Blueprint Approach to assess the challenges of water management and governance in Quito (Ecuador). Environment, Development and Sustainability, 20(2), 509-525.

Stafford-Smith, M., Griggs, D., Gaffney, O., Ullah, F., Reyers, B., Kanie, N., … O’Connell, D. (2017). Integration: the key to implementing the sustainable development goals. Sustainability Science, 12(6), 911- 919.

State of Utrecht (n.d.). Over Staat van Utrecht. Retrieved from http://www.staatvanutrecht.nl/over-staat- van-utrecht. Accessed 25 April 2018.

Statistics Netherlands (2017). Population; development in municipalities with 100,000 inhabitants or more. Accessed 6 March 2018. Retrieved from http://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication/?DM =SLNL&PA=70748NED&D1=0&D2=0&D3=0&D4=5,15,24,26&D5=0,5,10,16-17&VW=T

Takala, A. (2017). Understanding sustainable development in Finnish water supply and sanitation services. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 6(2), 501-512.

Tanner, T., Mitchell, T., Polack, E., & Guenther, B. (2009). Urban governance for adaptation: assessing climate change resilience in ten Asian cities. Institute of Development Studies.

47

Termeer, C., Dewulf, A., & Breeman, G. (2012). Governance of wicked climate adaptation problems. In: J. Knieling & W. Leal Filho (eds.), Climate change governance (27-41). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

Tortajada, C. (2010). Water governance: some critical issues. International Journal of Water Resources Management, 26(2), 297-307.

United Nations [UN] (2014). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights. UN: Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

United Nations Development Programme [UNDP] Cap-Net (2009). IWRM as a tool for adaptation to climate change: Training manual and facilitator’s guide. Pretoria, South Africa: UNDP Cap-Net.

Utrecht2040 (n.d.). Over Utrecht2040. Retrieved from http://www.utrecht2040.nl/over-utrecht2040. Accessed 25 April 2018.

Van der Meene, S.J., Brown, R.R., & Farrelly, M.A. (2011). Towards understanding governance for sustainable urban water management. Global Environmental Change, 21(3), 1117-1127.

Van Leeuwen, C.J., Frijns, J., Van Wezel, A., & Van de Ven, F.H.M. (2012). City Blueprints: 24 indicators to assess the sustainability of the urban water cycle. Water Resources Management, 26(8), 2177- 2197.

Van Leeuwen, C.J. (2013). City Blueprints: baseline assessments of sustainable water management in 11 cities of the future. Water Resources Management, 27(15), 5191-5206.

Van Leeuwen, K., De Vries, E., Roest, K., & Koop, S. (2018). The energy and raw materials factory of the Dutch water authorities: its role in the circular economy of the Netherlands. Environmental Management, 61(5), 786-795.

Van Rijswick, M., Edelenbos, J., Hellegers, P., Kok, M., & Kuks, S. (2014). Ten building blocks for sustainable water governance: An integrated method to assess the governance of water. Water International, 39(5), 725-742.

Van Schaik, M., Boelhouwer, G., & Harms, M. (2016). Plan van aanpak ruimtelijke adaptatie. Utrecht: Coalitie regio Utrecht.

Verkerk, J. & Van Buuren, A. (2013). Integrated Water Resources Management in the Netherlands. Historical trends and current practices in the governance of integration. International Journal of Water Governance, 1, 427-452.

Voskamp, I.M. & Van de Ven, F.H.M. (2015). Planning support system for climate adaptation: Composing effective sets of blue-green measures to reduce urban vulnerability to extreme weather events. Building and Environment, 83, 159-167.

Wuijts, S., Driessen, P.P.J. & Van Rijswick, H.F.M.W. (2018). Governance conditions for improving quality drinking water resources: The need for enhancing connectivity. Water Resources Management, 32(4), 1245-1260.

48

World Bank (n.d.). Urban population (% of total). Retrieved from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS

Zhou, Q. (2014). A review of sustainable urban drainage systems considering the climate change and urbanization impacts. Water, 6(4), 976-992.

49

Appendices

50

51

Appendix I Stakeholders list

Employed at Position

Interviews (face-to-face)

SH01 - Nature and Environment Federation Utrecht (NEFU)

Coordinator Network Utrecht2040 and involved with State of Utrecht

SH02 - HDSR (water authority) - Water Innovation Network (Winnet)

Coordinator measuring and information service HDSR Stimulator Winnet

SH03 Winnet Data analyst wastewater system

SH04 HDSR (water authority) Daily board member

SH05* - HDSR (water authority) - Winnet

Asset management and advisor wastewater system

SH06 - HDSR (water authority) - Coalition Spatial Adaptation Utrecht (CSA)

Policy advisor

SH07 Municipality of Utrecht Policy advisor urban water

SH08 Municipality of Utrecht Senior advisor and manager green programme

SH09 Province of Utrecht Spatial adaptation

Email

SH10 Water company Vitens Senior advisor water quality (drinking water)

SH11 HDSR (water authority) Senior technologist wastewater treatment

SH12 Municipality of Utrecht Supervisor sewer system

. SH = stakeholder *SH05 also provided data by email, before conducting the interview

52

Appendix II City Blueprint Framework

Categories Indicators Score

I Water quality 1. Secondary WWT 10.0

2. Tertiary WWT 10.0

3. Groundwater quality 6.0

II Solid waste treatment 4. Solid waste collected 5.0

5. Solid waste recycled 8.7

6. Solid waste energy recovered 8.3

III Basic water services 7. Access to drinking water 10.0

8. Access to sanitation 10.0

9. Drinking water quality 10.0

IV Wastewater treatment 10. Nutrient recovery 0.0

11. Energy recovery 1.0

12. Sewage sludge recycling 10.0

13. WWT energy efficiency 9.0

14. Stormwater separation 5.2

V Infrastructure 15. Average age sewer 5.0

16. Water system leakages 9.4

17. Operation cost recovery 4.0

VI Climate robustness 18. Green space 1.8

19. Climate adaptation 9.0

20. Drinking water consumption 7.1

21. Climate-robust buildings 10.0

VII Governance 22. Management and action plans 7.0

23. Public participation 8.3

24. Water efficiency measures 7.0

25. Attractiveness 8.0

This framework has been published online1 and has been used in the following articles: Koop, S.H.A. & Van Leeuwen, C.J. (2015a). Application of the improved City Blueprint Framework in 45 Municipalities and Regions. Water Resources Management, 29, pp. 4629-4647. Koop, S.H.A. & Van Leeuwen, C.J. (2015b). Assessment of the Sustainability of Water Resources Management: A Critical Review of the City Blueprint Approach. Water Resources Management, 29, pp. 5649-5670. Koop, S.H.A. & Van Leeuwen, C.J. (2017). The challenges of water, waste and climate change in cities. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 19(2), pp. 385-418.

1 https://www.eip-water.eu/City_Blueprints

53

Category I – Water quality Indicator 1: Secondary WWT Principal:

Measure of the urban population connected to secondary waste water treatment [WWT] plants.

The focus on secondary treatment is chosen because primary treatment is considered rather

insufficient for BOD and nutrient removal.

Definition secondary WWT:

Secondary treatment: process generally involving biological treatment with a secondary settlement

or other process, with a BOD removal of at least 70% and a COD removal of at least 75%2.

Calculation method:

X = Percentage of population connected to secondary sewage treatment. We assume that there is

only tertiary treatment after secondary treatment has been done.

Score indicator 1 =X

10

Assessment:

According to SH05, all sewage plants that treat waste water from the municipality of Utrecht (four

in total), are characterised by secondary treatment. However, seven buildings are not connected to

the waste water system and six are equipped with a so-called ‘Individual Treatment of Waste Water’

(Dutch: IBA). These 13 buildings together include approximately 33 persons and the municipality of

Utrecht has a total of 343,038 inhabitants in 20173. Thus, the percentage of the population connected

to secondary sewage treatment is (343,038 – 33) * 100% = 99.99%.

Score indicator 1 =99.99

10= 10.0

2 OECD (2013) Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development: Environment at a glance 2013. OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/data/oecd-environment-statistics/wastewater-treatment_data-00604-en Accessed 23 March 2018 3 CBS (2017a). Population; development in municipalities with 10,000 inhabitants or more. Accessed 8 April 2018. Retrieved from http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=70748NED&D1=0,2,4,16,18,20,22,24&D2=a&D3=0&D4=a&D5=l&HD=090707-1905&HDR=T&STB=G4,G2,G1,G3

54

Indicator 2: Tertiary WWT Principal:

Measure for the urban population connected to tertiary waste water treatment plants. This

treatment step is important for water quality because much nutrients and chemical compounds are

removed from the water before it inters the surface water.

Definition tertiary WWT:

Tertiary treatment: treatment of nitrogen or phosphorous or any other pollutants affecting the

quality or a specific use of water (microbiological pollution, colour, etc.)4.

Calculation method:

X = Percentage of population connected to tertiary sewage treatment.

Score indicator 2 =X

10

Assessment:

According to SH05, all sewage plants that treat waste water from the municipality of Utrecht (four

in total), are equipped with nitrogen and phosphorus removal and thus can be classified as tertiary

treatment plants. Thus, all WWT plants within the municipality of Utrecht have both secondary

(indicator 1) and tertiary treatment (indictor 2). However, seven buildings are not connected to the

waste water system and six are equipped with a so-called ‘Individual Treatment of Waste Water’

(Dutch: IBA). These 13 buildings together include approximately 33 persons and the municipality of

Utrecht has a total of 343,038 inhabitants in 20175. Thus, the percentage of the population connected

to tertiary sewage treatment is (343,038 – 33) * 100% = 99.99%.

Score indicator 2 =99.99

10= 10.0

4 OECD (2013) Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development: Environment at a glance 2013. OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/data/oecd-environment-statistics/wastewater-treatment_data-00604-en Accessed 23 March 2018 5 CBS (2017a). Population; development in municipalities with 10,000 inhabitants or more. Accessed 8 April 2018. Retrieved from http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=70748NED&D1=0,2,4,16,18,20,22,24&D2=a&D3=0&D4=a&D5=l&HD=090707-1905&HDR=T&STB=G4,G2,G1,G3

55

Indicator 3: Groundwater quality Principal: Measure of relative groundwater quality. A lower indicator score is given for poorer quality.

Calculation method:

X = Number of samples of ‘good chemical status’

Y = Number of samples of ‘poor chemical status’

Score indicator 3 =X

(X + Y)× 10

Assessment:

To score this indicator properly, national data provided by the EEA have been used6. This results in

a groundwater quality score of:

X = 14

Y = 9

Score indicator 3 =14

(14 + 9)× 10 = 6.0

6 EEA (2012). WISE WFD Database – ‘Ground Water Viewer’. Accessed 28 March 2018. Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/wise_wfd

56

Category II – Solid waste treatment Indicator 4: Solid waste collected Principal:

Represents waste collected from/produced by households, small commercial activities, office

buildings, institutions such as schools and government buildings, and small businesses that threat

or dispose of waste at the same used for municipally collected waste7.

Calculation method:

X = kg/cap/year of collected solid waste. The min-max method is applied. Here the lowest and

highest 10% produced solid waste of all countries that are available is taken. These are respectively

136.4 kg/cap/year and 689.2 kg/cap/year.

Score indicator 4 = [1 −X − 136.4

689.2 − 136.4] × 10

Assessment:

According to Statistics Netherlands [CBS], domestic waste collected in the municipality of Utrecht

is estimated at 412.3 kg per capita in 20168. This amount of waste also includes waste produced at

small shops, since this collected at the same time as waste from households.

Score indicator 4 = [1 −412.3 − 136.4

689.2 − 136.4] × 10 = 5.0

7 OECD (2013) Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development: Environment at a glance 2013.

OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/environment-at-a-glance-2013_9789264185715-en Accessed 23 March 2018

8 Statistics Netherlands [CBS] (2017b). Municipal domestic waste per capita. Retrieved from

http://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=83452NED&D1=0&D2=0&D3=460&D4=l&VW=T Accessed 23 March 2018.

57

Indicator 5: Solid waste recycled

Principal:

Percentage of solid waste that is recycled or composted.

Calculation method:

This indicator represents the percentage of the total collected municipal waste that is recycled or

composted. However, when solid waste is used for incineration with energy recovery, it is not

possible to also use it for recycling while both practices are sustainable. Therefore the % solid waste

that is incinerated is subtracted from the total (100%) of collected municipal waste to obtain the

potential percentage of solid waste that can be recycled (in numerator). Thus, this indicator is

calculated as shown below.

Score indicator 5 = % recycled or composted

100% − % used for incineration with energy recovery × 10

Assessment:

To score this indicator properly, data from Statistics Netherlands have been used9. In the Province

of Utrecht, the percentage of total municipal waste that is recycled (or re-used) accounts for 31%.

In addition to this, 22% is composted. This results in a total percentage of 53% in 2016.

Currently, all Dutch waste incineration plants for domestic waste operate with energy recovery.

Incineration with energy recovery in the Province of Utrecht accounts for 39%.

Score indicator 5 =53%

100% − 39%× 10 = 8.7

.

9 Statistics Netherlands [CBS] (2017c). Municipal waste; amounts. Province of Utrecht. Retrieved from

http://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=83558NED&D1=173-174,176,183-184&D2=11&D3=l&HDR=T&STB=G1,G2&VW=T Accessed 28 March 2018.

58

Indicator 6: Solid waste energy recovery

Principal:

Percentage of solid waste that is incinerated with energy recovery.

Calculation method:

Score indicator 6 = % incinerated with energy recovery

100% − % recycled or composted × 10

Assessment:

To score this indicator properly, data from Statistics Netherlands have been used10. In the Province

of Utrecht, the percentage of total municipal waste that is recycled (or re-used) accounts for 31%.

In addition to this, 22% is composted. This results in a total percentage of 53% in 2016.

Currently, all Dutch waste incineration plants for domestic waste operate with energy recovery.

Incineration with energy recovery in the Province of Utrecht accounts for 39%.

Score indicator 6 =39%

100% − 53%× 10 = 8.3

10 Statistics Netherlands [CBS] (2017c). Municipal waste; amounts. Province of Utrecht. Retrieved from http://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=83558NED&D1=173-174,176,183-184&D2=11&D3=l&HDR=T&STB=G1,G2&VW=T Accessed 28 March 2018.

59

Category III – Basic water services Indicator 7: Access to drinking water

Principal:

The proportion of the population with access to affordable safe drinking water. A lower indicator

score is given where the percentage is lower.

Calculation method:

X = Percentage (%) of total urban population with access to potable drinking water.

Score indicator 7 =X

10

Assessment:

According to a database created by Unicef11, every Dutch citizen has access to affordable and safe

drinking water. Thus, X = 100%.

Score indicator 7 =100%

10= 10.0

11 UNICEF (2017). Water and Sanitation coverage. Drinking water, sanitation and hygiene database. Retrieved

from https://data.unicef.org/topic/water-and-sanitation/drinking-water/ Accessed 17 April 2018.

60

Indicator 8: Access to sanitation

Principal:

A measure of the percentage of the population covered by wastewater collection and treatment. A

lower indicator score is given where the percentage is lower.

Calculation method:

X = Percentage (%) of total urban population with access to proper sanitation facilities.

Score indicator 8 =X

10

Assessment:

In 2015, 99% of the Dutch population is connected to an urban wastewater collecting system12.

According to SH05, seven buildings (approximately 18 people) in the municipality of Utrecht are not

connected to the wastewater collecting system. In 2017, the municipality of Utrecht has 343,038

inhabitants13, thus (343,038 – 18)/343,038 * 100% = 99.99% of the population is connected to the

wastewater system that conveys water to wastewater treatment plants in the area.

Score indicator 8 = 99.99%

10= 10.0

12 OECD (2013) Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development: Environment at a glance 2013. OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/data/oecd-environment-statistics/wastewater-treatment_data-00604-en Accessed 23 March 2018 13 CBS (2017a). Population; development in municipalities with 10,000 inhabitants or more. Accessed 8 April 2018. Retrieved from http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=70748NED&D1=0,2,4,16,18,20,22,24&D2=a&D3=0&D4=a&D5=l&HD=090707-1905&HDR=T&STB=G4,G2,G1,G3

61

Indicator 9: Drinking water quality

Principal:

A measure of the level of compliance with local drinking water regulations. A lower indicator score

is given where compliance is lower.

Calculation method:

The result is expressed as a percentage of the samples meeting the applicable standards.

X = Total number of samples meeting standards

Y = Total number of samples

Score indicator 9 =X

Y× 10

Assessment:

Drinking water in the municipality of Utrecht is provided through several production sites, which are

managed by water company Vitens (SH10). In total, seven locations deliver drinking water to the

inhabitants of the municipality of Utrecht. From these sites, 1360 samples are taken and inspected

for quality on an annual basis. All of them comply with Dutch water laws (SH10).

Score indicator 9 =1360

1360× 10 = 10.0

62

Category IV – Wastewater treatment

Indicator 10: Nutrient recovery

Principal:

Measure of the level of nutrient recovery from the wastewater system.

Calculation method:

A = Wastewater treated with nutrient recovering techniques at the wastewater treatment plants

(Mm3 year-1)

B = Total volume of wastewater passing the wastewater treatment plants (Mm3 year-1)

Score indicator 10 =A

B×

% secondary WWT coverage

100× 10

Assessment:

According to SH05, the total volume of wastewater passing the four wastewater treatment plants

in the municipality of Utrecht in 2017 was approximately 34,750,018 m3, thus 34.75 Mm3 per year.

None of those WWT plants has recovery techniques, thus A = 0%.

Score indicator 10 =0

34.75×

99.99%

100× 10 = 0.0

63

Indicator 11: Energy recovery

Principal:

Measure of energy recovery from the wastewater system.

Calculation method:

A = Total volume of wastewater treated with techniques to recover energy (Mm3/year)

B = Total volume of water produced by the city (Mm3/year) or

B = Total volume of wastewater treated in wastewater treatment plants (Mm3/year)

Score indicator 11 =A

B×

% secondary WWT coverage

100× 10

Assessment:

Until the end of 2016, the WWT plant in the City of Utrecht operated with sludge fermentation

techniques (SH05). Currently, only the wastewater of WWT plant in De Meern, which is part of the

municipality of Utrecht, is treated with fermentation14 (SH11). De Meern received approximately

3,463,486 m3 in 2017 (SH11), which is about 10% of all waste water from the municipality of Utrecht.

As a result of fermentation, energy in the form of methane gas is recovered from this WWT plant.

The WWT in the City of Utrecht is currently under construction and there are initiatives to use

warmth for district heating (SH11).

A = 3,463,486 m3 = 3.46 Mm3

B = 34.75 Mm3 (see indicator 10), which results in a scoring of:

Score indicator 11 =3.46

34.75×

99.99%

100× 10 = 1.0

14 Fermentation takes place at a WWT plant in Nieuwegein, which is not a part of the municipality of Utrecht (SH11)

64

Indicator 12: Sewage sludge recycling

Principal:

A measure of the proportion of sewage sludge recycled or reused. For example, it may be thermally

processed and/or applied in agriculture.

Calculation method:

A = Dry weight of sludge produced in wastewater treatment plants serving the city (= 6,652,000 kg)

B = Dry weight of sludge going to landfill (= 0 kg)

C = Dry weight of sludge thermally processed (= 6,652,000 kg)

D = Dry weight of sludge disposed in agriculture (= 0 kg)

E = Dry weight of sludge disposed by other means (= 0 kg)

Score indicator 12 =C + D

A×

% secondary WWT coverage

100× 10

Assessment:

The four WWT plants serving the municipality of Utrecht produced 6,652,000 kg of dry sludge in

2017 (SH11). Legally speaking, reusing sewage sludge for agricultural purposes is not possible

(SH11), thus D = 0 kg. Although a tiny part of the sludge is reused for road construction (SH05), the

vast majority is incinerated, thus C = 6,652,000 kg. This is in line with CBS findings on provincial level,

which indicates that 100% of sewer sludge in the Province of Utrecht is thermally processed15.

Score indicator 12 = 6,652,000 + 0

6,652,000×

99%

100× 10 = 10.0

15 Statistics Netherlands [CBS] (2017d). Urban waste water treatment; by province and water

district. Retrieved from http://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=83434NED&D1=1&D2=a&D3= 11&D4=l&VW=T. Accessed 23 March 2018.

65

Indicator 13: WWT energy efficiency

Principal:

A measure of the energy efficiency of the wastewater treatment. A lower indicator score is given

where efficiency measures are more limited.

Calculation method:

Indicator score

Assessment

0 no information is available on this subject 1 limited information is available in a national document 2 limited information is available in national and local documents 3 the topic is addressed in a chapter in a national document 4 the topic is addressed in a chapter at the national and local level 5 a local policy plan is provided in a publicly available document 6 as 5 and the topic is also addressed at the local website 7 plans are implemented and clearly communicated to the public 8 as 7 plus subsidies are made available to implement the plans 9 as 8 plus annual reports are provided on the progress of the implementation

and/or any other activity indicating that this is a very high priority implemented at the level of the local community.

10 as 9 and the activity is in place for = 3 years

Assessment:

The municipality of Utrecht is served by four wastewater treatment [WWT] plants: De Meern,

Leidsche Rijn, Maarssenbroek and one in the city of Utrecht itself. The latter, which is the main WWT

plant, is currently under construction and is expected to start operating in 2019. This new plant will

use the so-called ‘Nereda’ technology, whereby water is filtered by bacteria in the shape of aerobic

granules (biomass)16. The new installation will have several benefits as it uses less chemicals, 30%

less energy and needs less space. Moreover, it will halve phosphate and nitrogen content in treated

water and reduces nuisance and unpleasant smells. The construction is commissioned by water

board De Stichtse Rijnlanden [HDSR]. In turn, this board receives money through the water board

tax (paid by citizens). However, the water board is not subsidised by the municipality. Thus, the

renewal of the WWT plant in the city of Utrecht is indirectly paid by the population that lives in the

HDSR area17. On the HDSR website, an abundance of information is provided on the project.

Moreover, the people living close to the WWT are receiving a newsletter twice a year on the

progress18.

Energy efficiency can be measured by kWh/i.e. (inhabitant equivalent). For the four WWT plants

within the municipality of Utrecht, energy efficiency is (SH05 & SH11):

- WWT plant Utrecht: 39 kWh/i.e.

- WWT plant Leidsche Rijn: 26 kWh/i.e.

- WWT plant De Meern: 27 kWh/i.e.

- WWT plant Maarssenbroek: 25 kWh/i.e.

16 National Nereda Research Programme (n.d.). The process. Retrieved from https://www.neredannop.nl/english/the-process/ 17 HDSR (n.d.). Belastingen. Retrieved from https://www.hdsr.nl/belastingen/ 18 HDSR (n.d.) Nieuwbouw rioolwaterzuivering Utrecht. Retrieved from https://www.hdsr.nl/beleid-plannen/projectenkaart/utrecht/vernieuwing-utrecht/

66

Energy efficiency for the WWT plant in Utrecht will be even better when the new WWT starts

operating. Also, energy use at the WWT plant in Leidsche Rijn has been lowered several years ago,

which saved 25% on total energy costs and use (SH05).

Score indicator 13 = 9.0

67

Category V – Infrastructure Indicator 14: Stormwater separation Principal:

A measure of the proportion of the wastewater system for which sanitary sewage and storm water

flows are separated. In principal, a separate system is better than a combined system as extreme

weather events may lead to sewer overflows into surface water. These sewer overflows are a major

source of pollution. Also flooding vulnerability is larger if stormwater separation ratio is low. A lower

Indicator score is given where the proportion of combined sewers is greater.

Calculation method:

A = Total length of combined sewers managed by the utility (km)

B = Total length of stormwater sewers managed by the utility (km)

C = Total length of sanitary sewers managed by the utility (km)

Score indicator 14 =B + C

A + B + C× 10

Assessment:

After approaching the municipality of Utrecht for numbers on sewer length, the following data has

been found19:

A = 630 km

B = 384 km

C = 288 km

Score indicator 14 =384 + 288

630 + 384 + 288× 10 = 5.2

19 Municipality of Utrecht (email of 26 March 2018).

68

Indicator 15: Average age sewer Principal:

The age of the infrastructure for wastewater collection and distribution system is an important

measure for the financial state of the UWCS (Urban Water Cycle Services).

Calculation method:

The average age of the infrastructure is an indication of the commitment to regular system

maintenance and replacement. The method compares the average age of the system to an

arbitrarily maximum age of 60 years. Moreover, it is assumed that an age of <10 years receives a

maximum score since younger systems generally well maintained.

X = average age sewer

Score indicator 15 =60 − X

60 − 10× 10

Assessment:

According to an sewer expert at the municipality of Utrecht, the average sewer is 35 years old

(SH12). This number is influenced by the newly constructed neighbourhood Leidsche Rijn, which

improves the overall score.

Score indicator 15 =60 − 35

60 − 10× 10 = 5.0

69

Indicator 16: Water system leakages Principal: A measure of the percentage of water lost in the distribution system due to leaks (typically arising

from poor maintenance and/or system age).

Calculation method: Leakage rates of 50% or more are taken as maximum value and thus scored zero. A best score of

10 is given when the water system leakage is zero.

X = Water system leakages (%)

Score indicator 16 =50 − X

50 − 0× 10

Assessment: Water company Vitens is the main drinking water supplier in the municipality of Utrecht. According

to water company Vitens’ annual report of 201620, water system leakages account for 2.98% (10.8

Mm3 production losses / 362.8 Mm3 total water requiring processing × 100%). Thus, X = 2.98%. This

results in a scoring of:

Score indicator 16 =50 − 2.98

50 − 0× 10 = 9.4

20 Vitens (2017). Annual Report 2016. Zwolle, the Netherlands: Vitens.

70

Indicator 17: Operation cost recovery Principal:

Measure of revenue and cost balance of operating costs of water services. A higher ratio means

that there is more money available to invest in water services, e.g. infrastructure maintenance or

infrastructure separation.

Calculation method:

Only the operational cost and revenues for domestic water supply and sanitation services are

included.

Operating cost recovery (ratio) =Total annual operational revenues

Total annual operating costs

Assessment: Table 1: Operational revenues and costs in the municipality of Utrecht, in euros (2016)

Revenues Costs Balance

Sanitation services (sewerage) 21

Total 39,177

Maintenance 10,550 Replacement investments 11,900 Other 7,380

Total 29,830

9,347

Drinking water22 384,300,000 335,800,000 48,500,000

Total 384,339,177 335,829,830 48,509,347

Operating cost recovery (ratio) = Total annual operational revenues

Total annual operating costs=

384,339,177

335,829,830= 1.14

The ratio is >1, thus no 100% coverage of operating costs. The operating cost recovery (ratio) is 1.14

(114% operating costs are recovered). This number is standardised to a 0-10 score:

Score indicator 17 = 1.14 − 0.33

2.34 − 0.33 × 10 = 4.0

Note: for other assessed Dutch cities (e.g. Amsterdam, Rotterdam), national data on operating costs

of water services has been used as local data was lacking. The national score tends to be higher:

8.5. Therefore, the national score may be somewhat optimistic for some Dutch cities. For this

assessment of Utrecht, local data as presented above have been used, which result in a relative

low score of 4.0.

21 Municipality of Utrecht. Bill 2016. Retrieved from https://utrecht.begroting-2018.nl/p12719/openbare-ruimte-en-groen#goal-12726 . Accessed 22 March 2018. 22 Vitens (2017). Annual Report 2016. Zwolle, the Netherlands: Vitens.

71

Category VI – Climate robustness Indicator 18: Green space Principal:

Represents the share of green and blue area which is essential to combat the heat island effect in

urban areas (area defined as built-up area lying less than 200 meters apart).

Calculation method:

X = Share of blue and green area (%)

Score indicator 18 = X − 16

48 − 16 × 10

Assessment:

The core city area of Utrecht has a share of 21.8% of blue (water) and green (vegetation) areas23.

Thus, X = 21.8%

Score indicator 18 = 21.8 − 16

48 − 16 × 10 = 1.8

23 European Environmental Agency (2012). Urban adaptation to climate change in Europe: Challenges and

opportunities for cities together with supportive national and European policies – City data sensitivity (EEA Report no 2 2012).

72

Indicator 19: Climate adaptation

Principal:

A measure of the level of action taken to adapt to climate change threats. A lower Indicator score

is given where actions or commitments are more limited.

Calculation method:

Self-assessment of the measures and their implementation to protect citizens against flooding and

water scarcity related to climate change (e.g. green roofs, rainwater harvesting, safety plans etc.).

This self-assessment is based on information from public sources (national / regional / local policy

document, reports and websites of actors (e.g. water companies, cities, provincial or national

authorities).

Indicator score Assessment 0 no information is available on this subject 1 limited information is available in a national document 2 limited information is available in national and local documents 3 the topic is addressed in a chapter in a national document 4 the topic is addressed in a chapter at the national and local level 5 a local policy plan is provided in a publicly available document 6 as 5 and the topic is also addressed at the local website 7 plans are implemented and clearly communicated to the public 8 as 7 plus subsidies are made available to implement the plans 9 as 8 plus annual reports are provided on the progress of the

implementation and/or any other activity indicating that this is a very high priority implemented at the level of the local community.

10 as 9 and the activity is in place for 3 years

Assessment:

The Netherlands is vulnerable to water, due to its low-lying character. Hence, the national

government started the Delta Programme in 2010, which protects the country against flooding and

provides for sufficient freshwater supply. Moreover, the national Delta Programme focuses on

‘making the spatial design more water robust’24. The Delta Programme has five decisions, and one

of them includes the Delta Decision on Spatial Adaptation. The Delta Decision is based on a triplet

of analysis, ambition and action, which has been incorporated by a local initiative in Utrecht: the

Coalition on Spatial Adaptation. This group consists of six municipalities, province of Utrecht,

regional water authority (HDSR) and the Security District Utrecht (Dutch: Veiligheidsregio). Pluvial

flooding is one of the four themes in their Action Plan, which has been signed in 201625.

The Knowledge Agenda shows the progress on national level regarding spatial adaptation

in the Delta Programme26. At the district water board’s website, one can read the latest news,

meetings, results and ‘do-it-yourself’ advice for citizens. The Coalition Spatial Adaptation Utrecht is

collaborating with Winnet (waste water network) on executing the climate stress-test, which is

obligatory for all Dutch municipalities by 2019. For Utrecht, this test is expected to be finished by

24 Delta Programme Commissioner (no date). Spatial Adaptation Delta Decision. Accessed 8 May 2019. Retrieved from https://english.deltacommissaris.nl/delta-programme/delta-decisions/spatial-adaptation-delta-decision 25 Van Schaik, M., Boelhouwer, G., & Harms, M. (2016). Action Plan Spatial Adaptation. Utrecht: Coalition Utrecht 26 Delta Programme (2017). Delta Programme 2018. The Hague: Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment & Ministry of Economic Affairs.

73

June 2018 (SR01 & SR02). In 2015, the Coalition already performed an inventory climatic ‘quickscan’

stress-test of the region27.

Score indicator 19 = 9.0

27 HDSR (no date). Working on a climate robust Utrecht in 2050. Accessed 9 May 2018. Retrieved from https://www.hdsr.nl/info_op_maat/gemeenten/klimaatadaptatie/

74

Indicator 20: Drinking water consumption

Definition:

For this indicator, the authorized consumption as defined by the International Water Association

(IWA) has been used. This is the total volume of metered and/or non-metered water that, during

the assessment period (here: 1 year), is taken by registered customers, by the water supplier itself,

or by others who are implicitly or explicitly authorized to do so by the water supplier, for residential,

commercial, industrial or public purposes. It includes water exported. It is IWA code A14.

Subsequently, this number is divided by the city population.

Principal:

Measure of the average annual consumption of water per capita. A lower indicator score is given

where the volume per person is greater.

Calculation method:

X = m3/person/year drinking water consumption

Score indicator 20 = [1 −X − 45.2

266 − 45.2] × 10

Assessment:

Water company Vitens is the main drinking water supplier in the municipality of Utrecht. According

to Vitens’ annual report28, consumption per small customer connection accounted for 110m3 in 2016.

Score indicator 20 = [1 −110 − 45.2

266 − 45.2] × 10 = 7.1

28 Vitens (2017). Annual Report 2016. Zwolle, the Netherlands: Vitens.

75

Indicator 21: Climate robust buildings

Principal:

A measure of whether there is a clear policy for buildings to be robust regarding their contribution

to climate change concerns (principally energy use). A lower Indicator score is given where policies

are weaker.

Calculation method:

Self-assessment of the policies in place to promote energy efficiency for heating and cooling of

houses and buildings, including the use of geothermal energy. Assessment is based on information

from public sources (national / regional / local policy documents, reports and websites of actors,

e.g. water companies, cities, provincial or national authorities).

Indicator score Assessment 0 no information is available on this subject 1 limited information is available in a national document 2 limited information is available in national and local documents 3 the topic is addressed in a chapter in a national document 4 the topic is addressed in a chapter at the national and local level 5 a local policy plan is provided in a publicly available document 6 as 5 and the topic is also addressed at the local website 7 plans are implemented and clearly communicated to the public 8 as 7 plus subsidies are made available to implement the plans 9 as 8 plus annual reports are provided on the progress of the implementation

and/or any other activity indicating that this is a very high priority implemented at the level of the local community.

10 as 9 and the activity is in place for 3 years

Assessment:

Knowledge and network organisation Platform31 has, in collaboration with Wageningen

Environmental Research and other parties, organised a meeting in March 2018 on climate resilient

building projects. This event took place in Utrecht and the program is funded by national

ministries29.

Not only knowledge is shared in Utrecht, the city itself has climate adaptive ambitions as

well. The municipality of Utrecht aims to be climate-neutral by 2030, i.e. saving energy as much as

possible and generating energy by means of sustainable energy sources30. Together with 165

citizens, the local authority made a so-called ‘energy plan’ in 2015. Measures for energy efficient

living and working are included in the plan, e.g. district heating, collective initiatives for solar energy,

LED-lighting and energy efficient devices in dwellings and offices31.

Climate robust building in Utrecht is growing in interest. Several projects on climate

adaptive building are implemented in Utrecht neighbourhoods, including Kanaleneiland and

Merwedekanaalzone. In the former, Initiative Group Climate Robust Living is a key actor, as it

brought together the municipality of Utrecht, the province of Utrecht, a housing corporation and

29 Platform31 (no date). Action programme climate adaptive building projects. Accessed 9 May 2018. Retrieved from https://www.platform31.nl/bijeenkomsten/actieprogramma-klimaatadaptieve-bouwprojecten 30 Municipality of Utrecht (no date). Energy policy. Accessed 9 May 2018. Retrieved from https://www.utrecht.nl/bestuur-en-organisatie/beleid/omgevingsvisie/thematisch-beleid/energie/ 31 Municipality of Utrecht (2016). Utrecht: energetic centre of the country. Energy plan Utrecht. Utrecht: Municipality of Utrecht.

76

the district water board. The need for renovation of several apartment complexes in this

neighbourhood encouraged the debate on taking climate adaptive measures. These include for

example green roofs, disconnecting stormwater from the sewer system and infiltration measures32.

The latter, Merwedekanaalzone, is a new-construction plan aimed at health and climate adaptation.

The plan refers to cooling down measures, e.g. creating shadow by planting high trees and water

squares33.

Moreover, the province and municipality of Utrecht are investigating the use of geothermal

energy34. This interest has been endorsed by SH08. Six companies and knowledge institutions from

Utrecht, also known as ‘GOUD’, are elaborating the possibilities for generating geothermal energy

(and perhaps electricity in the future) at Utrecht Science Park and in Rijnsweerd. In June 2017,

several national ministries and companies signed the ‘Green Deal Ultra Deep Geothermy’, which

indicates the importance on national level35.

Score indicator 21 = 10.0

32 Initiative Group Climate Robust Living (Dutch: IKW) (2017). Climate robust neighbourhood approach in Kanaleneiland Utrecht: renovation as driver for climate adaptation. Utrecht: IKW. 33 LINT landscape architecture (2017). Merwedekanaalzone climate adaptive. Utrecht: LINT. 34 Municipality of Utecht (no date). Geothermal energy, a sustainable energy source. Accessed 9 May 2018. Retrieved from https://www.utrecht.nl/wonen-en-leven/milieu/bodem/energiepunt-bodem/geothermie-een-duurzame-warmtebron/ 35 GOUD Utrecht (30 June 2017). Press report from the Ministry of Economic Affairs. Accessed 9 May 2018. Retrieved from https://www.goudutrecht.nl/persbericht-van-het-ministerie-van-economische-zaken/

77

Category VII – Governance

Indicator 22: Management and action plans

Principal:

A measure of the application of the concept of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM)

in the city. A lower indicator score is given where plans and actions are limited.

Calculation method:

Self-assessment of local and regional commitments to adaptive, multifunctional, infrastructure and

design for IWRM as demonstrated by the ambition of the action plans and the actual commitments

by local authorities or utilities. The assessment should be based on information from public sources

(national/regional/local policy document, reports and websites of actors (e.g. water companies,

cities, provincial or national authorities).

Indicator score Assessment 0 no information is available on this subject 1 limited information is available in a national document 2 limited information is available in national and local documents 3 the topic is addressed in a chapter in a national document 4 the topic is addressed in a chapter at the national and local level 5 a local policy plan is provided in a publicly available document 6 as 5 and the topic is also addressed at the local website 7 plans are implemented and clearly communicated to the public 8 as 7 plus subsidies are made available to implement the plans 9 as 8 plus annual reports are provided on the progress of the implementation

and/or any other activity indicating that this is a very high priority implemented at the level of the local community.

10 as 9 and the activity is in place for = 3 years

Assessment:

Since 2015, the Coalition of Spatial Adaptation has been established, which is a regional

collaboration between several municipalities, the province, water board and Safety Region Utrecht

[SRU]. Although an Action Plan has been developed in 2016, the Coalition has a small budget and

is still exploring the possibilities and advantages of the partnership (SH06). As mentioned before,

the City of Utrecht is currently constructing a new waste water treatment plant and this plant will

be much more efficient than the former. Several tests have been executed and the new WWT plant

is expected to operate in April / May 2019 and each tax payer within the HDSR area contributes to

it by means of the water board tax (SH04). Moreover, the municipality of Utrecht itself is actively

involved in campaigns and supports local initiatives on adaptive measures, for example the

installation of green roofs by offering a grant (SH07 and SH08). Management and action plans are

present within the municipality of Utrecht but financial support is not fully implemented and still in

process. Therefore, this indicator is scored 7.0.

78

Indicator 23: Public participation

Principal:

A measure of share of people involved in, or doing unpaid work.

Calculation method:

X = involvement in voluntary work (percentage)

Score indicator 23 = X − 5

53 − 5 × 10

Assessment:

For this assessment, data on national level has been used. The share of people involved in or doing

unpaid work in the Netherlands accounted for 45% in 2012 36. Therefore, this score is:

Score indicator 23 = 45 − 5

53 − 5= 0.83 × 10 = 8.3

36 EFILWC (2012) European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions: Quality of life

in Europe: Impact of the crisis. Luxembourg. http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2012/quality-of-life-social-policies/quality-of-life-in-europe-impacts-of-the-crisis Accessed 22 March 2018.

79

Indicator 24: Water efficiency measures

Principal:

Measure of the application of water efficiency measures by the range of water users across the city.

A lower Indicator score is given where efficiency measures are more limited.

Calculation method:

Self-assessment based on information from public sources (national / regional / local policy

documents, reports and websites of actors (e.g. water companies, cities, provincial or national

authorities). It should consider plans, measures and their implementation to improve the efficiency

of water usage by e.g. water saving measures in taps, toilets, showers and baths, water efficient

design, or behavioral changes.

Indicator score Assessment 0 no information is available on this subject 1 limited information is available in a national document 2 limited information is available in national and local documents 3 the topic is addressed in a chapter in a national document 4 the topic is addressed in a chapter at the national and local level 5 a local policy plan is provided in a publicly available document 6 as 5 and the topic is also addressed at the local website 7 plans are implemented and clearly communicated to the public 8 as 7 plus subsidies are made available to implement the plans 9 as 8 plus annual reports are provided on the progress of the implementation

and/or any other activity indicating that this is a very high priority implemented at the level of the local community.

10 as 9 and the activity is in place for 3 years

Assessment:

The Netherlands has plenty of water, and thus water saving measures are not a very high priority in

policy documents. However, the use of freshwater has declined in the over the years despite

population growth. A reason for this can be found in efficiency measures, like water saving on toilet

flushing and more efficient devices (dishwashers and washing machines)37.

Water company Vitens, which is the main water supplier in the municipality of Utrecht, has

sustainable policy for different parts of the production chain. This company continues to innovate

its production and infrastructure in a sustainable way in order to contribute to a circular economy.

For instance, they reuse their waste flows in the agricultural sector. Although Vitens does not

advocate ‘an extreme reduction of freshwater usage’38, water usage rates declined from an average

of 190 liters in 1969 to 119 liters in 2013. Moreover, half of the Dutch households appears to use

water-saving shower heads39.

On city level, some citizens started bottom-up initiatives by installing rain barrels in their street. In

this way, stormwater is stored and will thus contribute to water nuisance problems and moreover,

the collected water can be reused. The initiators received municipal funding to implement their

37 Statistics Netherlands (25 January 2013). Water consumption is becoming more efficient. Accessed 9 May 2018. Retrieved from https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2013/04/watergebruik-steeds-efficienter 38 Vitens (no date). Point of view. View on water usage. Accessed 9 May 2018. Retrieved from https://www.vitens.com/pers-en-nieuws/standpuntenoverzicht 39 Vitens (no date). How much water do we use on a daily basis? Accessed 9 May 2018. Retrieved from https://www.vitens.nl/meer-informatie/hoeveel-water-gebruiken-we-per-dag

80

ideas and are thus supported by local authorities40. Moreover, 34% of the dwellings in the

municipality of Utrecht has a water-saving tap or shower head in 201741.

In short, Dutch households in general and Utrecht citizens in specific are making serious

efforts in taking water efficient measures. This indicator is therefore scored 7.0.

Score indicator 24 = 7.0

40 Utrecht Bankstreet starts with rain barrels, thanks to Ellen. Accessed 26 April 2018. Retrieved from https://www.ad.nl/utrecht/utrechtse-bankstraat-aan-de-regenton-dankzij-ellen~af4570d1/ 41 WistUdata (2017). % dwellings with water-saving tap and/or shower head. Accessed 9 May 2018. Retrieved from https://utrecht.buurtmonitor.nl//jive?presel_code=p635821653349428238

81

Score indicator 25 = 8.0

Indicator 25: Attractiveness Principal:

A measure of how surface water features are contributing to the attractiveness of the city and

wellbeing of its inhabitants. A lower indicator score is given where ‘attractiveness’ is less.

Calculation method:

Self-assessment of how surface water is supporting the quality of the urban landscape as

measured by the community sentiment/well-being within the city. The assessment should be

based on information (policy documents, reports or research articles, or documents related to

water-related tourism that deal with the sentiment of the citizens. Provide score between 0 (no role)

to 10 (water plays a dominating role in the well-being of citizens).

Indicator score Assessment 0 no information is available on this subject 1 limited information is available in a national document 2 limited information is available in national and local documents 3 the topic is addressed in a chapter in a national document 4 the topic is addressed in a chapter at the national and local level 5 a local policy plan is provided in a publicly available document 6 as 5 and the topic is also addressed at the local website 7 plans are implemented and clearly communicated to the public 8 as 7 plus subsidies are made available to implement the plans 9 as 8 plus annual reports are provided on the progress of the implementation

and/or any other activity indicating that this is a very high priority implemented at the level of the local community.

10 as 9 and the activity is in place for 3 years

Assessment:

The Netherlands has plenty of water, which contributes to touristic activities. A study on water

recreation and tourism in the Netherlands shows that 24% of total recreational and tourism-related

spending is, in some form or other, linked with water. This percentage includes both direct (actual

use of water) and indirect (attractiveness and perception)42. When zooming in to the regional level

(Province of Utrecht), one spent 96 million euros in 2014 on outdoor recreation, including water-

related activities. Expenses within this sector have been rising over the years: in 2005, this number

amounted to only 76.8 million euros43. Ongoing climatic trends like a rise in temperature stimulates

the recreational demand for water, e.g. swimming. Not surprisingly, utilizing water for this and other

purposes is one of the ambitions of the municipality of Utrecht44. The value of water is incorporated

in municipal green policy, described as ‘green-blue structures’, in order to improve the

attractiveness of the living environment. However, the focus in this policy plan is predominantly on

the implementation of green spaces45.

42 Verwey, T.R.C., Michielsen, K., & Otto, F. (2002). The denotation of water for recreation and tourism in the Netherlands. Utrecht: Rijkswaterstaat. 43 Province of Utrecht & Oosterman leisure (2016). Agenda recreation and tourism 2016-2019. Utrecht: Province of Utrecht. 44 Municipality of Utrecht (2016). Framework document quality of public space. Utrecht: Municipality of Utrecht. 45 Municipality of Utrecht (2017). Actualisation green structure plan 2017-2030. Utrecht: Municipality of Utrecht.

82

Appendix III Governance Capacity Framework

In this Appendix, the Governance Capacity Analysis will be outlined in detail per indicator. Both

policy documents, news articles and other literature and interview output will be used to determine

a score. This entire method has been developed by Koop et al. (2017) and has been published in a

scientific journal and is publicly available online through the European Innovation Partnerships

website46.

Dimensions Conditions Indicators Score

Knowing

1 Awareness 1.1 Community knowledge 1.2 Local sense of urgency 1.3 Behavioural internalization

++

+

0

2 Useful knowledge 2.1 Information availability 2.2 Information transparency 2.3 Knowledge cohesion

++

++

+

3 Continuous learning 3.1 Smart monitoring 3.2 Evaluation 3.3 Cross-stakeholder learning

++

+

+

Wanting

4 Stakeholder engagement process

4.1 Stakeholder inclusiveness 4.2 Protection of core values 4.3 Progress and variety of options

0

0

0

5 Management ambition 5.1 Ambitious and realistic management 5.2 Discourse embedding 5.3 Management cohesion

+

+

+

6 Agents of change 6.1 Entrepreneurial agents 6.2 Collaborative agents 6.3 Visionary agents

+

+

0

Enabling

7 Multi-level network potential 7.1 Room to manoeuver 7.2 Clear division of responsibilities 7.3 Authority

++

++

+

8 Financial viability 8.1 Affordability 8.2 Consumer willingness-to-pay 8.3 Financial continuation

++

0

++

9 Implementing capacity 9.1 Policy instruments 9.2 Statutory compliance 9.3 Preparedness

0

+

+

Koop, S.H.A., Koetsier, L., Doornhof, A., Reinstra, O., Van Leeuwen, C.J., Brouwer, S., … Driessen, P.P.J. (2017). Assessing the governance capacity of cities to address challenges of water, waste, and climate change. Water Resources Management, 31, 3427-3443.

46 https://www.eip-water.eu/sites/default/files/Indicators%20of%20the%20Water%20Governance%20Capacity%20Framework_0.pdf

83

Condition 1: Awareness Awareness refers to the understanding of causes, impact, scale and urgency of the water challenge.

Indicator 1.1: Community knowledge

Predefined question: To what extent is knowledge regarding the current and future risks, impacts, and uncertainties of the water challenge dispersed throughout the community and local stakeholders which may results in their involvement in decision-making and implementation?

++ Balanced awareness

Nearly all members of the community are aware of and understand the actual risks, impacts and uncertainties. The water challenge is addressed at the local level. Local communities and stakeholders are familiar with or are involved in the implementation of adaptation measures

+ Overestimation

The community is knowledgeable and recognize the many existing uncertainties. Consequently, they often overestimate the impact and probability of incidents or calamities. The water challenge has been raised at the local political level and policy plan may be co-developed together with local communities

0 Underestimation

Most communities have a basic understanding of the water challenge. However the current risks, impacts and frequencies are often not fully known and underestimated. Future risks, impacts and frequencies are often unknown. Some awareness has been raised amongst or is created by local stakeholders and communities

- Fragmented knowledge

Only a small part of the community recognizes the risks related to the water challenge. The most relevant stakeholders, have limited understanding of the water challenge. As a result, the issue is hardly or not addressed at the local governmental level

- - Ignorance

The community, local stakeholders and decision-makers are unaware or ignore the water challenge. This is demonstrated by the absence of articles on the issue in newspapers, on websites or action groups addressing the issue

An OECD study (2014) on water governance in the Netherlands showed that an ‘awareness gap’ is present among Dutch citizens (SH04), due to a high level of trust in the government (OECD, 2014). According to climatologist Hazeleger however, awareness on extreme rainfall exists (Van Dam, 2017). Both regional water authority De Stichtse Rijnlanden [HDSR] and the municipality of Utrecht play a prominent role in improving the level of awareness among its citizens (SH04), e.g. through campaigns or education. Examples include ‘the water-friendly garden’ (Dutch: ‘Watervriendelijke Tuin’) and a water table for educational purposes, which are both initiatives of the regional water authority (SH02, SH04). The water challenge is addressed at the local level, as the municipality developed a manual for citizens to make gardens and dwellings waterproof (Municipality of Utrecht, 2016a) and they started the Waterproof030 campaign to raise awareness (SH07). SH01 believes that the level of knowledge is rising among the community and concludes: ‘broadly speaking, citizens know about it. You do not have to be very smart or to be a professional to understand the issue’. Moreover, various interviewees mentioned the growing media attention on heavy rainfall and urban flooding (SH01, SH03, SH05, SH07), including a survey on water nuisance problems, published by the Dutch Broadcast Foundation (SH01, SH06, SH07). Overall, interviewees share the view that people in Utrecht are aware of pluvial flood risk (SH01, SH02, SH03, SH04, SH05, SH06, SH07) and therefore, this indicator is scored with a ++.

84

Indicator 1.2: Local sense of urgency

Predefined question: To what extent do actors have a sense of urgency, resulting in widely supported awareness, actions, and policies that address the water challenge?

++ Strong demand for action

There is a general sense of importance regarding the water challenge. There is continuous, active, public support and demand to undertake action and invest in innovative, ground-breaking solutions. This is evident, since the issue receives much media attention and action plans are implemented

+

General sense of urgency of long-term sustainability goals

There is increasing understanding of the causes, impacts, scale and urgency of the water challenge. It leads to the general sense of urgency of the need for long-term sustainable approaches. However, measures requiring considerable efforts, budget, or substantial change with sometimes uncertain results are often receiving only temporal support. The water challenge is a main theme in local elections

0 Moderate willingness for small changes

There is growing public awareness and increasing worries regarding the water challenge. However, the causes, impact, scale and urgency are not widely known or acknowledged leading to the support for only incremental changes. It is a side topic in local elections

- Raising of awareness by small groups

A marginalized group (e.g. the most vulnerable, environmentalists, NGOs) express their concerns, but these are not widely recognized by the general public. Adaptation measures are not an item on the political agenda during elections

-- Resistance

There is generally no sense of urgency and sometimes resistance to spend resources to address the water challenge. It is not an item on the political agenda during elections, as is evident from the lack of (media-) attention

Recently, during a radio broadcast, the Dutch Minister of Infrastructure and Water Management argued that she will discuss the urgency of pluvial flooding with her colleagues in The Hague after she had witnessed the issues in southern parts of the Netherlands (Dutch Broadcast Foundation, 2018). Moreover, a chapter within the national Delta Plan addresses the measures to make the Netherlands climate-proof and water resilient and underline the ‘growing urgency’ of spatial adaptation (Delta Programme 2018, 2017). This indicates the urgency on national level. Although understanding of pluvial flood risk is increasing within the municipality of Utrecht (SH01), the need for adaptation measures is not fully understood by every stakeholder within the municipality. SH01 believes that the urgency of water nuisance is ‘the bottleneck’ within the community and that people only feel the need and urgency where the problems are most accurate and severe. These places include for example neighbourhoods Lombok and the Zeeheldenbuurt in Utrecht, which are characterized with many semi-basement (‘souterrain’) dwellings (SH01; SH07; Municipality of Utrecht, 2017). SH06 argues that a sense of urgency and attention only occurs after a heavy downpour. Likewise, SH06 stresses that there has to be a (negative) reason, i.e. extreme downpour, to start looking for information. In addition to this, SH07 believes that a great part of the population in Utrecht does not perceive pluvial flooding as high priority. Moreover, SH07 emphasized the need for another heavy downpour to increase attention and the urgency of the problem. Also, SH06 believes that the municipal duty of performing a climatic stress tests before 2019 is contributing to the urgency. However, water nuisance problems are getting more media attention (SH01, SH03, SH05). The Dutch Broadcast Foundation (Dutch: NOS) has, in collaboration with local news agencies, investigated the issues that Dutch citizens experience as a consequence of heavy rainfall and thus pluvial flooding. Municipalities, including Utrecht, are making an appeal to fill out the survey (NOS, 2018; RTV Utrecht, 2018). Although the water challenges receives much media attention and is a topic on national level, a local sense of urgency in Utrecht is, to date, not fully present. Therefore, this indicator will be scored with a +.

85

Indicator 1.3: Behavioural internalization

Predefined question: To what extent do local communities and stakeholders try to understand, react, anticipate and change their behaviour in order to contribute to solutions regarding the water challenge?

++ Full internalisation

Because actors are fully aware of the water challenge, their causes, impacts, scale and urgency, the it is integrated into long-term and joint strategy, practices and policies. All actors are encouraged to participate. At this point, the water challenge is integrated into everyday practices and policies

+ Moderate internalisation

Awareness has evolved to mobilization and action. There are various incentives for actors to change current practices and approaches regarding the water challenge. The water challenge, however, is not yet fully integrated into clear strategy, practices and policies

0 Exploration

There is a growing awareness, often as a result of local, exploratory research regarding the causes and solutions of the water challenge. There are only incremental changes in actions, policy and stakeholder’s behaviour

- Recognized as an external pressure

The water challenge is partly recognized, mainly due to external pressure instead of intrinsic motivations. There is no support to investigate its origin or to proceed to action or changing practices

-- Unawareness There is unawareness of the water challenge with hardly any understanding of causes and effects or how current practices impact the water challenge, the city or future generations

On every level, serious action and behavioural change is needed (SH06). SH01, SH02 and SH06 believe that on average, citizens expect the local authorities (water board and municipality) to take measures. Citizens have the knowledge about the issue, but do not understand that they can contribute to solving the problem (SH01). In addition to this, SH02 states that citizens may think: ‘what can I do?’. SH02 argues that many people are still paving their gardens. Little is happening with respect to a change in behaviour among Utrecht citizens (SH01, SH02). However, some communities are starting initiatives to minimize pluvial flood risk in their street by placing rain barrels (Willemsen, 2018). SH07 indicates that this kind of local initiatives are the best initiatives because it will easily spread to neighbours. Furthermore, some people are willing to install green roofs. However, SH07 argues that this sustainable option is not really popular yet – despite the possibility of a subsidy – as people do not understand the added value of it. SH07 outlined a clear example of behavioural internalization in Lombok (a neighbourhood in the western part of Utrecht). As mentioned before, this neighbourhood is characterized by the many semi-basement (‘souterrain’) dwellings and thus prone to pluvial flooding (Municipality of Utrecht, 2017a). Half of these dwellings (total = 68) is willing to make shared investments with the municipality (SH07). This case indicates that people who face issues related to pluvial flooding are willing to make an effort. On network level, Winnet is organizing a meeting in the near future specially focused on behavioural change among citizens (SH02). Also, municipalities (with the help of water boards and the province) are making an attempt to raise awareness among citizens (SH06). However, civic participation on this topic is described as ‘it is like looking for a needle in a haystack’, a hopeless task (SH05). Thus, while various platforms are making an effort to raise awareness and are supporting initiatives, more behavioural internalization is needed among citizens. This leaves room for improvement and therefore, this indicator receives a neutral (0) score.

86

Condition: 2 Useful knowledge This condition describes the qualities of information with which actors have to engage in decision-making.

Indicator 2.1: Information availability

Predefined question: To what extent is information on the water challenge available, reliable, and based on multiple sources and methods, in order to meet current and future demands so as to reveal information gaps and enhance well-informed decision-making?

++

Comprehensive information enabling long- term integrated policy

A comprehensive and integrated documentation of the issue can be found on local websites and policy papers. It is characterized with adequate information, an integrated description of social, ecological and economic processes regarding the water challenge, as well as goals and policies. Furthermore, progress reports on effective implementation can be found

+ Information enhancing integrated long- term thinking

Strong effort is put in providing integrated information from various fragmented sources. Information gaps are identified and attempted to be bridged. This may be clear from extensive documentation on the long-term process. Also citizen knowledge may be taken into account

0 Information fits demand, limited exploratory research

Information on the water challenge is available. Knowledge on understanding or tackling the water challenge is progressing and is produced in a structural way. Knowledge gaps are hardly identified due to lock-in into existing disciplines and policy. This is apparent from the quantity of factual information, but the causes, risks and impacts of long-term processes are lacking behind

- Information scarcity and limited quality

Limited information is available which does not grasp the full extent of the water challenge. In some cases not all information is of sufficient quality to generate a comprehensive overview

-- Lack of information

No information on the water challenge can be found. Or the scarce available information is of poor quality

On the national level, an abundance of information on pluvial flooding or climate adaptation is available. An example of this includes the knowledge portal on spatial adaptation47, which shares knowledge and experiences on these topics. An useful part of this portal includes the Climate Impact Atlas to gain insight into the effects of climate change. According to SH05, this atlas is an easily accessible service. Recently, a free smartphone application called ‘Water on the Street’ (Dutch: Water op straat) has been developed to check whether someone will experience nuisance after heavy rainfall (HKV, 2018).

On the regional level, the Coalition Spatial Adaptation [CSA] has published a publicly accessible online magazine – The Smart Climate – in which they provide information and news on climate (adaptation). An additional comment on this has been made by a member of the Provincial Executive, who concludes that within the Utrecht area, plenty of knowledge on climate is available and considers the online magazine as a useful medium to share knowledge (Province of Utrecht, 2017). The CSA Action Plan is in line with this view, as it states that governments have ‘sufficient knowledge to address the issues’ (Van Schaik, Boelhouwer & Harms, 2016, p. 6). In addition to this, SH06 argues that sharing knowledge between different CSA partners is currently one of their main activities.

Both the local water authority (HDSR) and the municipality provide useful information on their websites (Municipality of Utrecht, n.d. 1; HDSR, n.d. 1). SH01 argues that an effort is sometimes needed to find the proper information on websites. If people are willing to seek for information

47 www.ruimtelijkeadaptatie.nl/en

87

depends on the person’s interest and urgency (e.g. when pluvial flooding occurs) (SH05). Similarly, SH02 stresses that ‘if someone is willing to know, he or she is able to find a sufficient amount of information’.

On the local level, the Plan on Municipal Water Duties is the leading policy document within the water domain. This is a comprehensive document and provides much information on the urban water system, including water nuisance problems. It also incorporated a set of goals and discusses which measures the municipality takes (Municipality of Utrecht, 2015). According to SH07, this document is easy to find on the internet. Next to this, the municipality has published a manual with several tips to make dwellings waterproof (Municipality of Utrecht, 2016a). This is especially for the neighbourhoods which are prone to pluvial flooding, e.g. Lombok and Zeeheldenbuurt. Due to the abundance of information available, this indicator is scored with a ++.

88

Indicator 2.2: Information transparency

Predefined question: To what extent is information on the water challenge accessible and understandable for experts and non-experts, including decision-makers?

++ Easy access to cohesive knowledge

Information is easily accessible on open source information platforms. There are multiple ways of accessing and sharing information. Information is often provided by multiple sources and is understandable for non-experts

+ Sharing of partly cohesive knowledge

All interested stakeholders can access information. Action has been taken to make knowledge increasingly understandable. Still, it is a time-consuming search through a maze of organizations, protocols and databases to abstract cohesive knowledge and insights

0 Sharing of very technical knowledge

There are protocols for accessing information; however, it is not readily available. Although information is openly available, it is difficult to access and comprehend because it is very technical. The water challenge is reported on local websites and reports

- Low sharing of fragmentized knowledge

Information is sometimes shared with other stakeholders. However, information is inaccessible for most stakeholders. Furthermore, knowledge is often technical and difficult to understand for non-experts. The water challenge may be addressed on local websites

-- Not transparent and inaccessible knowledge

Information is limitedly available and shared. sharing may be discouraged. The information that is available is difficult to understand. The water challenge is not addressed on local websites

All information and policy documents on the topic of pluvial flooding are easiy accessible through the internet. Both the municipality and the regional water authority [HDSR] are making an effort to make information clear and understandable for its citizens. HDSR for instance regularly visits schools to educate children about water by means of a ‘water table’ (SH02). Moreover, HDSR uploaded a simple but clear video on their website and YouTube to explain the consequences of extreme rainfall (HDSR, 2016). Besides, the municipality offers tips on its website for their citizens about making gardens and dwellings waterproof (Municipality of Utrecht, n.d. 1). A Climate Impact Atlas has been developed online48 to gain information on various topics (e.g. flooding, heat stress, drought) for your own city or municipality. SH05 describes this as an easily accessible service but wonders to what extent citizens are triggered to make an effort to find this kind of information. Moreover, SH03 argues that plenty of maps on precipitation are available, which are understandable for everyone. SH01 in addition stresses that ‘understanding’ is a subjective term and points to the fact that still many people in Utrecht cannot read or do not have digital skills to access the internet. However, SH01 perceives information as transparent and considers the municipality’s website straightforward. As information is understandable, easily accessible and publicly available, this indicator is scored with a ++.

48 http://www.klimaateffectatlas.nl/nl/

89

Indicator 2.3: Knowledge cohesion

Predefined question: To what extent is information cohesive in terms of using, producing and sharing different kinds of information, usage of different methods and integration of short-term targets and long-term goals amongst different policy fields and stakeholders in order to deal with the water challenge?

++ Implementation of cohesive knowledge

Stakeholders are engaged in long-term and integrated strategies. Information can be found that is co-created knowledge and will contain multiple sources of information, multiple and mixed methods taking into account the socio-, ecological and economic aspects of the water challenge

+ Substantial cohesive knowledge

Sectors cooperate in a multidisciplinary way, resulting in complete information regarding the water challenge. Besides multiple actors, multiple methods are involved to support information. Too many stakeholders are involved, sometimes in an unbalanced way. Knowledge about effective implementation is often limited

0 Insufficient cohesion between sectors

Data collection within sectors is consistent and is sustained in multiple projects for about two to three election periods. Knowledge on the water challenge, however, is still fragmented. This becomes clear from different foci of the stakeholders as stated in their organisation’s strategies and goal setting

- Low-cohesive knowledge within sectors

Information that is found is sector specific and information is inconsistent within and between sectors

-- Non-cohesive and contradicting knowledge

A lack of data strongly limits the cohesion between sectors. Information that is found can even be contradictory

According to SH06, the Coalition Spatial Adaptation is currently highly active on sharing knowledge between all involved parties (water board, six municipalities, province and Utrecht Safety Region [SRU]). Knowledge exchange is also present between all Winnet partners, yet SH02 stresses that there is always room for improvement. SH05 mentioned the collaboration between the municipality and HDSR when executing specific studies on heavy rainfall. Within these studies, the sewer system, surface level and surface water are taken into account. Subsequently, these factors are integrated into one model (SH05). For Utrecht, this study is expected to be performed in 2019 (SH05). Moreover, SH02 and SH03 argue that when investigating the water system, individual objects are studied first (e.g. to determine the specific location of the problem). Afterwards, this data is used to examine the system in coherence (SH02 & SH03). On municipal level, goals in the blue (urban water management) and green (nature, vegetation) sectors are more or less aligned. When drawing up policy plans, the green department takes into account the objectives of the water department and vice versa (SH07 & SH08). Although in development, a special climate vision is currently still lacking at both the provincial and municipal level (SH07 & SH09). In addition to this, both SH04 and SH09 argue that more co-creation will occur when the new Environment and Planning Act (Dutch: Omgevingswet) comes into effect. Moreover, SH09 emphasizes that the topic of climate change and spatial adaptation is highly suitable for collaboration, as it involves multiple sectors.

As the water system is studied in an integrated way and municipal goals within several policy domains are more or less aligned, yet no overarching policy document is formulated this far (e.g. climate vision), this indicator is scored with a +.

90

Condition 3: Continuous learning Continuous learning and social learning is essential to make water governance more effective. The level of learning differs from refining current management, critical investigation of fundamental beliefs or questioning underlying norms and values.

Indicator 3.1: Smart monitoring

Predefined question: To what extent is the monitoring of process, progress, and policies able to improve the level of learning (i.e., to enable rapid recognition of alarming situations, identification or clarification of underlying trends)? Or can it even have a predictive value?

++ Useful to predict future developments

Monitoring system is adequate in recognizing alarming situations, identifying underlying processes and provides useful information for identifying future developments. Reports of monitoring will display discrepancies between fundamental beliefs and practices. The monitoring is changed in order to act upon these findings by altering the fundamental beliefs. Often regulatory frameworks are changed, new actors are introduced, new risk management approach are used

+

Useful to recognize underlying processes

The abundant monitoring provides sufficient base for recognizing underlying trends, processes and relationships. Reports of monitoring will display discrepancies between assumptions and real process dynamics. Acting upon these findings by altering the underlying assumptions characterizes this level of smart monitoring. Often also system boundaries are re-defined, new analysis approach introduced, priorities are adjusted and new aspects are being examined

0 Quick recognition of alarming situations

Monitoring system covers most relevant aspects. Alarming situations are identified and reported. This leads to improvement of current practices regarding the technical measures. There is only minor notification of societal and ecological effects

- Reliable data but limited coverage

Monitoring occurs, however the monitoring system does not cover all facets of the water challenge, with sometimes incomplete description of the progress and processes of technical and policy measures. Monitoring is limited to singular effectiveness or efficiency criteria and cannot identify alarming situations

-- Irregular, poor quality or absent

There is no system to monitor the water challenge or monitoring is irregular

As the city of Utrecht has a strategic position regarding its physical character (‘high and dry on a sandy soil’), no significant water system problems are present (SH06). Monitoring systems are, however, present at both the water authority (HDSR) and the municipality to manage the urban watercycle. The municipality of Utrecht has monitoring systems to control the sewerage and all pumping stations are equipped with alarm systems for high water or extreme high water (SH03 & SH05). A warning system for extreme rainfall in the province of Utrecht can be found online49. Moreover, HDSR has knowledge on how much precipitation will fall and anticipates to this. Extreme rainfall however is harder to predict and is often local (SH06). However, HDSR is currently developing a new system which incorporates water levels in combination with groundwater and surface water data. This system will even have a predictive value (SH02 & SH04). Winnet has a department for groundwater monitoring and one for asset management to control and maintain infrastructures within the wastewater system (SH05). Moreover, Winnet has a special department for measuring and monitoring. For example, precipitation data from the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (Dutch: KNMI) is used for Winnet’s monitoring system. In this context, both primarily validated data (which is available within 24 hours) and more reliable data after 6-12 weeks is used (SH03). Differences between theory and practice are perceived and therefore, Winnet has started monitoring (SH03; Winnet, 2017). Differences between theory (sewer

49 http://alarm.noodweercentrale.nl/utrecht-regen.html

91

calculations) and practice are adjusted by dimensioning sewer pipes, but this enlargement of the sewer system only occurs if standard precipitation norms are exceeded and not for extreme rainfall (SH05). Next to monitoring systems, the climatic stress test – which all Dutch municipalities are expected to perform before 2019 – will contribute to identifying vulnerable locations in the region (SH02 & SH09). Winnet and the Coalition Spatial Adaptation are collaborating to execute this test for all participating municipalities (SH02, SH05 & SH06). As the municipality, HDSR and Winnet all have adequate systems to monitor sewer systems and precipitation, and new forecast models are being developed, this indicator will receive a score of ++.

92

Indicator 3.2: Evaluation

Predefined question: To what extent are current policy and implementation continuously assessed and improved, based on the quality of evaluation methods, the frequency of their application, and the level of learning?

++ Exploring the fitness of the paradigm

Frequent and high quality evaluation procedures fully recognize long-term processes. Assumptions are continuously tested by research and monitoring. Evidence for this is found in sources (primarily online documents) that report on the learning process and progress. Uncertainties are explicitly communicated. Also, the current dominant perspective on governance and its guiding principles are questioned.

+ Changing assumptions

There is continuous evaluation, hence continuous improvements of technical and policy measures and implementation. Innovative evaluation criteria are used. This is evidenced by reports containing recommendations to review assumptions or explicitly indicating the innovative character of the approach.

0 Improving routines

The identified problems and solutions are evaluated based on conventional (technical) criteria. Current practices are improved. This becomes clear from information of the used and existing criteria, the small changes recommended in reports and short-term character.

- Non-directional evaluation

Evaluation is limited regarding both frequency and quality. Evaluation occurs sometimes, using inconsistent and even ad-hoc criteria. Also the evaluation is not systematic. There is no policy on the performance of evaluations, only the evaluation(s) itself are reported.

-- Insufficient evaluation

There is no evaluation of technical or policy measures regarding the water challenge. Otherwise it is not documented.

On the national level, an interim evaluation of the Delta Decision on Spatial Adaptation (as part of the Delta Programme 2018) has taken place. This chapter in the Delta Programme is specially focused on making the Netherlands climate-proof and water-resilient. The interim evaluation describes that the implementation of spatial adaptation has started well. However, the current approach appears to have insufficient incentives for actors (e.g. municipalities, provinces, central government) to realize that spatial adaptation has to be strongly embedded in policy and implementation by 2020. Moreover, an earlier evaluation of the Delta Act showed that spatial adaptation is often perceived as noncommittal and as a consequence large differences exist between municipalities. Besides, the national government obligates all municipalities to execute a climatic stress test to get insight into regional vulnerabilities. This test will be repeated every six years (Delta Programme, 2017).

Climate-adaptive policies in the municipality of Utrecht can be divided over water and green policy, and both documents contain an evaluation chapter on the previous term (Municipality of Utrecht, 2015; Municipality of Utrecht, 2017b). The implementation of green policy is being justified annually. How often and when policy is being evaluated depends on the agreements made in the particular policy plan (SH08). Moreover, the implementation of the ‘long-range green programme’ (Dutch: Meerjaren Groenprogramma) is being reported every year (SH08). Moreover, a shift within sewer management on municipal level has been witnessed. This type of management in the municipality of Utrecht is traditionally based on experience. However, the conventional approach (technical/theoretical) has been replaced for a strategy that is more flexible and focused on emerging needs. For instance, cleaning or the replacement of sewer pipes only takes place if there is a reason to do so. The municipality expects to increase its efficiency with this new management approach (Municipality of Utrecht, 2015). Furthermore, evaluation of the sewer plan (Dutch: basisrioleringsplan) takes place. The regional water authority monitors this plan and decides whether it is time to renew or adjust it. Normally, this occurs every 10 year, but sometimes already after 5 years, due to certain changes. An example of this includes the incorporation of an extreme rainfall event (e.g. the heavy downpour in Utrecht in 2014). In short, the

93

sewer plan is being updated regularly (SH03). In addition to this, Winnet has a special department on asset management, which aims for the optimization of capital equipment (SH05).

Not only policy plans and sewer management are being evaluated. Regularly, an interim joint-reflection of the Water Innovation Network [Winnet] takes place, executed by an independent organisational consultancy firm (Westerweel & Schwarz, 2015; SH02). This evaluation is based on the quality of the collaboration and how to improve this. In the near future, an evaluation cycle takes place and during this session, everyone can express his or her opinion (SH02). Also, at HDSR, executed projects are being shortly evaluated afterwards. However, when bigger issues are identified, a more formal evaluation takes place in a report (SH02). Similarly, the Coalition Spatial Adaptation [CSA] evaluates its activities, yet in an informal manner and SH06 describes this as a consultation between parties (Dutch: intervisie). Lessons are drawn from CSA’s main projects and are being evaluated and discussed (Van Schaik, Boelhouwer & Harms, 2016).

As evaluation takes place within partnerships and sewer evaluation is not based on conventional (technical) criteria, and water policy and green policy are being evaluated on a regular basis, this indicator is scored +.

94

Indicator 3.3: Cross-stakeholder learning

Predefined question: To what extent are stakeholders open to and have the opportunity to interact with other stakeholders and deliberately choose to learn from each other?

++

Putting cross- stakeholder learning into practice

There is recognition that the water challenge is complex and that cross-stakeholder learning is a precondition for adequate solutions and smooth implementation. This is evidenced by broad support for policy measures and implementation. Moreover, continuous cross-stakeholder learning programs are in place or may be institutionalized.

+ Open for cross- stakeholder learning

Stakeholder interaction is considered valuable and useful for improving policy and implementation. Various initiatives for cross-stakeholder learning have been deployed, yet the translation into practice appears difficult. The programs may not be structural and the learning experience may not be registered and shared.

0 Open for stakeholder interaction

Stakeholders are open to interaction, though not much learning is going on due to the informative character of the interaction. Often, a number of stakeholders, that do not necessarily share interests or opinions, are involved in the decision-making process.

- Small coalitions of stakeholders with shared interest

Interaction occurs in small coalitions based on common interests. Opinions of those outside the coalition are generally withheld. Only information for the shared point of view is sought. This is evidenced by the finding of only one perspective regarding the water challenge or few perspectives that are supported by means of circle-referencing.

--

Closed attitude towards cross- stakeholder learning

There is no contact with other parties, contact may even be discouraged. This is apparent from limited sharing of experience, knowledge and skills. No information is shared outside organisation and sector, nor is external information used.

On the national level, the Delta commissioner stresses that in the context of spatial adaptation ‘it is important to learn from each other and to know what is effective and what is not’ (Spatial Adaptation, 2018). This call for cross-stakeholder learning has been answered within the Utrecht area. The recognition of the water challenge is visible as many partnerships and corporations on this theme do exist in the municipality of Utrecht (e.g. Coalition Spatial Adaptation [CSA], Winnet, Network Utrecht2040, State of Utrecht, Nature and Environment federation Utrecht). Thus, various initiatives have been deployed. SH01 argues that as a consequence of the Delta Programme, the search for collaboration has increased. Moreover, cross-stakeholder learning is facilitated by meetings for sharing knowledge and cases, for example organized by the CSA (SH01). According to an independent evaluation report, Winnet’s value is positively assessed by each Winnet partner (17 municipalities and regional water authority). However, Winnet appeared to be unable to translate ambitions into visible results (Westerweel & Schwarz, 2015). This critique has been endorsed by SH02 and SH03, yet Winnet has been working on the visibility the last couple of years. Moreover, SH02 states that open communication is present between partners in the Utrecht region and states that cross-stakeholder learning exists. SH07 admits that the municipality of Utrecht is not an active partner within the Winnet network, partly due to a small amount of employees.

The urgency for mutual cooperation within the CSA has been recognized (Van Schaik, Boelhouwer, & Harms, 2016). However, this partnership has been questioned by the municipality of Utrecht due to a certain overlap with its own municipal activities and low ability to participate in each collaborating process (SH06). However, all partners are involved in knowledge sharing, which is currently one of the CSA’s main activities (SH06).

Both SH07 and SH08 take the view that currently, too many networks exist within the Utrecht area. In short, cross-stakeholder learning is strongly embedded in the Utrecht region through many networks and collaborations. Yet, many of those partnerships are still exploring possible ways of working together and the municipality of Utrecht has its doubts about the

95

effectiveness and the amount of networks present. This leaves room for improvement and therefore, this indicator is scored with a +.

96

Condition 4: Stakeholder engagement process Stakeholder engagement is required for common problem framing, gaining access to a wide variety of resources and creating general support that is essential for effective policy implementation. Indicator 4.1: Stakeholder inclusiveness Predefined question: To what extent are stakeholders interact in the decision-making process interaction (i.e., are merely informed, are consulted or are actively involved)? Are their engagement processes clear and transparent? Are stakeholders able to speak on behalf of a group and decide on that group’s behalf?

++

Transparent involvement of committed partners

All relevant stakeholders are actively involved. The decision-making process and the opportunities for stakeholder engagement are clear. It is characterised by local initiatives specifically focussing on water such as local water associations, contractual arrangements, regular meetings, workshops, focus groups, citizen committees, surveys.

+

Timely, over- inclusive and active involvement

Stakeholders are actively involved. It is still unclear how decisions are made and who should be involved at each stage of the process. Often too many stakeholders are involved. Some attendants do not have the mandate to make arrangements. Stakeholder engagement is abundantly done for often overlapping issues.

0 Untimely consultation and low influence

Stakeholders are mostly consulted or informed. Decisions are largely made before engaging stakeholders. Frequency and time-period of stakeholder engagement is limited. Engagements are mainly ad hoc consultations where stakeholders have low influence on the end-result.

- Non-inclusive involvement

Not all relevant stakeholders are informed and only sometimes consulted. Procedures for stakeholder participation are unclear. If involved, stakeholders have but little influence

-- Limited supply of information

No stakeholders are included, or their engagement is discouraged. Information cannot be found on the extant decision-making process.

On municipal level, the formulation of water policy is an autonomous process. SH07 states that within the context of pluvial flooding, decisions are entirely made by the municipality of Utrecht. A plan has been drawn up, sent to the bench of Mayor and Aldermen and is adopted by the council subsequently. The only obligation is to ask for consult from the regional water authority and the province (SH07). Since 2008, however, the regional water authority (HDSR) and the municipality of Utrecht decided to draw up neighbourhood water plans (Dutch: wijkwaterplannen). Several stakeholders, including the ‘neighbourhood council’ which includes active citizens, are involved in the planning process (Municipality of Utrecht, n.d. 2). When taking the various networks into consideration, stakeholder inclusiveness is more prevailing. SH02 and SH05 argue for example that every partner has an equal vote and access to Winnet’s decision-making process. This is in line with an evaluation report, which concludes that all Winnet partners indicate that they all have equal possibilities to influence the decision-making process (Westerweel & Schwarz, 2015). The same report, however, states that active balanced commitment between the partners of Winnet is lacking (Westerweel & Schwarz, 2015). As SH03 and SH05 explain, involvement differs from person to person and is not related to the size of a municipality. In short, Winnet partners have the possibility to be involved, however not every stakeholder takes the advantage of this (SH05). Both the Coalition Spatial Adaptation [CSA] and Winnet are easily accessible (SH05). However, these cooperations only consist of public parties and no private actors are involved.

As have become clear, stakeholder inclusiveness differs at municipal level and within networks (e.g. Winnet and CSA). The municipality leaves no room for active involvement and only asks for advice. Within partnerships, every partner has the right to be involved and use their vote but this depends on the personality and capabilities of each partner (SH05). Therefore, this indicator receives a neutral score (0).

97

Indicator 4.2: Protection of core values

Predefined question: To what extent 1) is commitment focused on the process instead of on early end-results? 2) do stakeholders have the opportunity to be actively involved? 3) are the exit procedures clear and transparent? (All three ensure that stakeholders feel confident that their core values will not be harmed.)

++ Maximal protection of core values

Stakeholders are actively involved and have large influence on the end-result. There are clear exit possibilities and leading to more stakeholders more committed to the process. The participation opportunities and procedure of implementation are clear.

+ Requisite for early commitment to output

Stakeholders are actively involved and expected to commit themselves to early outcomes in the process. Hence relevant stakeholders may be missing in contractual arrangements as they do not want to commit themselves to decisions to which they have not yet contributed. At this point involved stakeholders have influence on the end-result and therefore the output serves multiple interests

0 Suboptimal protection of core values

As stakeholders are consulted or actively engaged for only short periods, alternatives are insufficiently considered. Influence on end-result is limited. Decisions comply with the interests of the initiating party primarily. There are no clear exits in the engagement process

- Non-inclusive and low influence on results

The majority of stakeholders is engaged, but the level of engagement is low (informative or sometimes consultative). There is a low influence on the result which invokes resistance, for example on internet platforms and newspapers

-- Insufficient protection of core values

Because stakeholders are hardly engaged or informed, core values are being harmed. Implementation and actions may be contested in the form of boycotts, legal implementation obstructions and the invoking of anti-decision support. There may be distrust and an absence of participation

Although the municipality of Utrecht decides autonomously on water policy, it does take into account various interests. This is for instance visible in Tuindorp, a neighbourhood in the north-eastern part of Utrecht, where Utrecht has recently opened a newly-constructed park (SH07). Different ideas for water storage, vegetation and recreation are taken into consideration and combined into the end-result. SH08 emphasizes that especially blue and green policies can be combined properly. The initiative came from the neighbourhood council ‘North-East’. For the realization of the park, several interest groups (e.g. active citizens, garden association) collaborated and formulated a plan, which has been sent to the municipality. Eventually, also the HDSR was involved to optimize water storage in the area (Neighbourhood Council North-East Utrecht, 2013; DUIC, 2018). Within Winnet, SH05 states that each partner’s values are taken into account and larger municipalities do not have a more important vote than smaller municipalities. Each partner has the opportunity to participate in the process and to be actively involved but it depends on the actor’s willingness to what extent this ‘right’ is used (SH05). In addition, SH02 argues that Winnet takes into account each partner’s values as this is a crucial part of a collaboration. Taken the aforementioned into account, this indicator will receive a neutral score (0).

98

Indicator 4.3: Progress and variety of options

Predefined question: To what extent are procedures clear and realistic, are a variety of alternatives co-created and thereafter selected from, and are decisions made at the end of the process in order to secure continued prospect of gain and thereby cooperative behaviour and progress in the engagement process?

++

Active engagement with choice selection at the end of the cooperation

There is active engagement of all relevant stakeholders and clarity of participation procedure and realistic deadlines. The range of alternatives is fully explored and selection of the best alternatives occurs at the end of the process. Reviews of stakeholder meetings provide the alternatives addressed. Stakeholders are engaged throughout the whole process as specified in contractual agreements.

+ Active involvement with abundant choice variety

Stakeholders are actively involved and there is sufficient room for elaborating alternatives. Procedures, deadlines and agreements are unclear. There is no or few specification on deadlines in terms of dates. Due to inexperience with active stakeholder engagement, decisions are taken too early in the process leading to the exclusion of argument and solutions. Hence, decisions may not be fully supported.

0 Consultation or short active involvement

There is a clear procedure for consultation or short active involvement of stakeholders, but the opportunities to consider all relevant alternatives is insufficient. Decisions are therefore still largely unilateral and solutions suboptimal. The suboptimal character of a solution can be observed from evaluations or difference in opinions

- Rigid procedures limit the scope

Informative and consultative approaches are applied, according rigid procedures with low flexibility. The period of decision-making is short with a low level of stakeholder engagement. These unilateral decision-making processes may lead to slow and ineffective implementation. The latter can be observed from critique via public channels

-- Lack of procedures limit engagement and progress

The lack of clear procedures hinder stakeholder engagement. This unilateral decision-making limits progress and effectiveness of both decision-making and implementation. It might result in conflicting situations. Often, much resistance can be found online and implementation may be obstruct

The municipality has the freedom to choose at what point during the decision process they ask for consultation. SH07 gives an example of a moment when consultation took place at the end, and admits that those actors consulted were not happy about that. Therefore, the municipality will start to handle this differently (SH07).

Unlike the municipal level, the decision-making process within the Winnet partnership is well-organized. SH02 describes that when taking decisions, opinions of each partner are asked at the beginning. During the whole decision-making process, adjustments can be made. The final decision is taken at the end (SH02). SH06 emphasizes the importance of different viewpoints and methods, especially in the context of climate adaptation and extreme rainfall, and stresses that there is not one way to reach the goal. A reason for this is the rich diversity of municipalities within the Coalition Spatial Adaptation and Winnet (SH05 and SH06). In addition to this, SH05 describes the process as iterative and organic. This indicator will receive a neutral score (0).

99

Condition 5: Management Ambitions Policy ambitions assesses if current policy is ambitious, feasible, well-embedded in local context and if it forms a cohesive set of long-term and short-term goals within and across sectors.

Indicator 5.1: Ambitious and realistic management

Predefined question: To what extent are goals ambitious (i.e., identification of challenges, period of action considered, and comprehensiveness of strategy) and yet realistic (i.e., cohesion of long-term goals and supporting flexible intermittent targets, and the inclusion of uncertainty in policy)?

++ Realistic and ambitious strategy

Policy is based on modern and innovative assessment tools and policy objectives are ambitious. Support is provided by a comprehensive set of intermittent targets, which provide clear and flexible pathways. Assessment tools and scenarios analyses identify tipping points that may be found in policy documents.

+ Long-term ambitious goals

There is a long-term vision that incorporates uncertainty. However, it is not supported by a comprehensive set of short-term targets. Hence, achievements and realistic targets are difficult to measure or estimate. Visions are often found online as an organisation’s strategy. They often entail a description of the water challenge and need for action.

0 Confined realistic goals

There is a confined vision of the water challenge. Ambition are mostly focused on improving the current situation where unchanging conditions are assumed and risk and scenarios analyses are lacking.

- Short-term goals Actions and goals mention sustainability objectives. Actions and goals are “quick fixes” mainly, not adhering to a long-term vision or sustainable solutions. Uncertainties and risks are largely unknown.

-- Short-term, conflicting goals

Goals consider only contemporary water challenges, are short-sighted and lack sustainability objectives. Goals are arbitrary and sometimes conflicting and the character of policy is predominantly reactive.

On the national level, seven ambitions have been formulated on making the Netherlands water-resilient and climate-proof. In 2020, climate adaptation has to be embedded in policy and implementation and the overall goal is to be water-resilient and climate-proof in 2050 (SH09; Delta Programme, 2017). The seven national ambitions are adopted by the Coalition Spatial Adaptation [CSA] network. In their Action Plan, CSA proposed several short-term goals for 2016, 2017, 2020 and after 2020 (Van Schaik, Boelhouwer & Harms, 2015). Moreover, SH09 stresses that the national government has set goals, but did not provide information on how to reach these goals. On the provincial level, intermittent targets are under development (SH09). Likewise, it is still unclear what it means to be climate-proof in 2050 and thus, the province and municipality of Utrecht are making an effort to define this (SH07 and SH09). The municipality has published an integral policy document for public spaces. Within this document, several ambitions are formulated, including ‘future-proof’ and ‘climate-proof’ (SH07; Municipality of Utrecht, 2016b). Furthermore, municipal green policy is described as progressive and ambitious (SH08). Both SH07 and SH08 agree that the municipality of Utrecht could improve the promotion of its actions. According to SH07, Utrecht does, in comparison to Amsterdam and Rotterdam, not ‘sell’ its climate ambitions.

Ambitious goals and a long-term vision are present in both the green and water policy plans (Municipality of Utrecht, 2015; Municipality of Utrecht, 2017b). Although intermittent targets are not formulated yet, both SH07 and SH08 agree that those targets are needed. In addition to this, SH07 hopes that the new Bench of Mayor and Aldermen – which has been installed in June 2018 – will put the formulation of these targets high on the agenda. SH09 takes the view that the national target for 2050 is feasible if all parties are making an effort. To date, it is hard to say whether goals are ambitious or not, as intermittent targets and definitions still have to be made (SH09). Therefore, this indictor is scored +.

100

Indicator 5.2: Discourse embedding

Predefined question: To what extent is sustainable policy interwoven in historical, cultural, normative and political context?

++ Embedding of sustainable implementations

Local context is used smartly to accelerate policy implementation. Innovations are subdivided into suitable phases which are more acceptable and effectively enables sustainable practices. Effective policy implementation is enabled by a general consensus that long-term integrated policy is needed to address the water challenge

+ Consensus for sustainable actions

There is a consensus that adaptation is required, but substantial effort is necessary as there is little experience in addressing the water challenge in a long-term integrated approach. Furthermore, the decision-making periods are long as trust relations with new unconventional partners need to be built

0

Low sense of urgency embedded in policy

Current policy fits the local context. The water challenge is increasingly identified, framed and interwoven into local discourse, but the disregard of uncertainty prevents a sense of urgency that is necessary to adopt adequate adaptation measures. Decision making often results in very compromised small short-term policy changes

- Persistent reluctance and poor embedding

Actors feel reluctant to execute current policy as it conflicts with their norms and values. Policy hardly takes the local context and existing discourses into account. And the policy does not correspond with societal demands. This may lead to distrust between actors, inefficient use of resources and ineffective overall implementation

-- Policy mismatch Cultural, historical and political context is largely ignored, leading to arduous policy implementation. Actors may not understand the scope, moral or to whom it applies or how to implement it (total confusion)

According to several stakeholders, the municipality of Utrecht has a favourable position as water is flowing down towards the Amsterdam-Rhine canal: a natural drain (SH01, SH06, SH07, SH08). SH06, SH07 and SH08 state that the city has a well-functioning water system. SH06 describes the location of Utrecht as ‘high and dry on a sandy soil’ and concludes that the city has no direct water system threats. However, this may be the case for coastal or fluvial flooding, but for pluvial flooding, Utrecht is no exception and may experience water on streets. Although its ‘luxury position’, climate change is strongly embedded in the Utrecht area, according to the Smart Climate magazine, published by the province of Utrecht (Province of Utrecht, 2017). SH09 endorses this viewpoint and adds that sustainability has been on the political agenda for several years. Similarly, SH08 argues that sustainable policy has been strongly embedded within the municipality of Utrecht.

Both SH06 and SH08 mentioned the Healthy Urban Living programme, aiming at a green, healthy and sustainable living environment in Utrecht. The municipality is preparing the city for climate change and is recently ranked as the most sustainable municipality in the Netherlands (out of 42 large urban municipalities), partly due to its strict ‘environmental zone’ and concrete sustainable plans that are implemented in practice (Lachmeijer, 2018). The statement that adaptation is needed has been answered by the Coalition Spatial Adaptation Utrecht network [CSA]. They conclude that local authorities have sufficient knowledge yet little experience to address certain climatic themes, for example the implementation in public spaces. Therefore, a decision has been made to join forces and start the CSA in 2015 (Van Schaik, Boelhouwer & Harms, 2015). Given the recent establishment of the CSA, they are still exploring the most effective ways of collaboration between all participating partners (SH06).

The political context is of crucial importance for developing sustainable policies. SH08 stresses that some politicians give preference to regulations (for example on green roofs), while others advocate for a free market approach. For instance, SH09 personally prefers stimulation over regulation. SH07 expects that the new Bench of Mayor and Aldermen – which has been installed in June 2018 – will put the topic of sustainability high on the agenda. Taken the aforementioned into account, this indicator is scored with a +.

101

Indicator 5.3: Management cohesion

Predefined question: To what extent is policy relevant for the water challenge, and coherent regarding 1) geographic and administrative boundaries, and 2) alignment across sectors, government levels, and technical and financial possibilities?

++ Cohesive synergetic policies

Policies are coherent and comprehensive within and between sectors. There is an overarching vision resulting in smooth cooperation. Goals are jointly formulated, evaluated and revised to adapt to new challenges. This is evidenced by thematic instead of sectoral approaches. Many inter-sectoral meetings, interdisciplinary reports and cohesiveness in goals and strategies are formulated

+ Overlapping comprehensive policies

There is cross-boundary coordination between policy fields to address the water challenge. Policies are cohesive, but have not yet resulted in broad multi-sectoral actions. Efforts to harmonize different sectors are evident by employee functions or assignments and protocols

0 Fragmented policies Policy is fragmented and based on sector’s specific scope and opportunities for co-benefits are hardly explored. However, effort may be made to balance the resource allocation between sectors

- Opposing sectoral policies

Overall water and climate adaptation policy is characterized by fragmentation and imbalance between sectors. The majority of resources is spent on the dominant policy field and overlap between sectors lead to inefficient use of resources

-- Incompatible policies Policies between and within sectors are strongly fragmented and

conflicting. This is evidenced by contradicting objectives and the squandering use of resources

SH01 believes that coherence is missing between several municipal sectors (e.g. the departments of water, green infrastructures, public spaces) which makes the governmental structure ‘sectoral’. On the contrary, SH05 argues that colleagues from the water and sewer departments within the municipality of Utrecht are strongly connected. Moreover, SH06 refers to the Healthy Urban Living programme and Merwedekanaalzone (Utrecht) project, whereby water and green values are combined, i.e. ‘combining different interests’ (Dutch: ‘meekoppelende belangen’). On municipal level, goals in the blue (urban water management) and green (nature, vegetation) sectors are more or less aligned. When drawing up policy plans, the green department takes into account the objectives of the water department and vice versa (SH07 & SH08). A special climate vision is currently still lacking at both the provincial and municipal level (SH07 & SH09), yet a desire to make this is present. In addition to this, SH09 argues that more co-creation will occur when the new Environment and Planning Act (Dutch: Omgevingswet) comes into effect. Moreover, SH09 emphasizes that the topic of climate change and spatial adaptation is highly suitable for collaboration, as it involves multiple sectors. SH07 stresses that the municipality of Utrecht is aware of the fact that separate policy programmes do not work. Therefore, Utrecht developed an integral policy plan for public spaces (Dutch: Kadernota Kwaliteit Openbare Ruimte) and combined several domains (e.g. climate change and mobility) (Municipality of Utrecht, 2016b).

To date, no overarching policy has been developed by the Coalition Spatial Adaptation as this is arranged independently by each participating municipality (SH06). SH05, SH06 and SH07 question the added value of a regional policy due to large differences between municipalities. The basic ideas are however widely adopted (SH05). As the municipality of Utrecht has witnessed the important link between green and water policies and goals are aligned, yet no overarching climate vision has been developed, this indicator is scored +.

102

Condition 6: Agents of change In order to drive change, agents of change are required to show direction, motivate others to follow and mobilize the resources required.

Indicator 6.1: Entrepreneurial

Predefined question: To what extent are the entrepreneurial agents of change enabled to gain access to resources, seek and seize opportunities, and have influence on decision-making?

++ Long-term support for entrepreneurship

There is recognition of the need for continuous innovation, hence applied research is enabled that explores future risk management and supports strategy formulation. The experiments yield increased benefits and new insights. This is recognized by other actors, thereby providing access to new resources. Continuous experimentation is secured by long-term and reliable resource allocation

+ Tentative experimental entrepreneurship

There is a growing understanding of the water challenge’s uncertainty, complexity and need for innovative approaches that entail a certain level of risk. Tentative experimental projects set in but are paid by conventional resources. Projects are small-scale pilots

0 Conventional and risk-averse entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurial agents of change are better able to seize low-risk opportunities. Therefore opportunities for innovative approaches and synergies are hardly pursued. Small changes can be observed

- Room for short- sighted entrepreneurship

Agents of change struggle to gain access to resources to address imminent water challenges. Windows of opportunity to identify and to act upon perceived risks are limited. Opportunities to address stakeholders with potential access to resources are rarely seized

-- Insufficient entrepreneurship

Ignorance for risk and threats leads to ineffective rigid governance and lack of opportunity for entrepreneurial agents to enable improvements. Moreover, distrust by other actors and potential investors, further decrease access to resources

Agents of change play an important role in water governance. Within the municipality of Utrecht, multiple projects on water resilience have been performed or are still in progress. An example includes a renovation project in Kanaleneiland, a neighbourhood in Utrecht. Plans have been made for the implementation of green roofs, infiltration measures (e.g. wadis), porous pavements and trees (Initiative Climate Proof Living, 2017). To date, this project has still not been executed and SH07 argues that the housing corporation in question fails to recognize the value of green infrastructure. However, SH06 emphasizes the importance of housing corporations as significant results can be achieved if large-scale renovation are combined with climate-adaptive measures. Other pilots include the restructuring of the Merwede Canal District (climate-proof) and a rain barrel initiative by city dwellers (Regional Water Authority, n.d.; Willemsen, 2017). The importance of the latter is endorsed by SH05 as this interviewee argues that neighbourhood initiatives could spread unchecked (‘spread like an oil stain’). In line with this, SH07 argued that citizens are very important stakeholders: ‘they are the best ambassadors and the perfect example for their neighbours’. Another initiative includes the installation of a green roof on a primary school in Oog in Al – a neighbourhood in Utrecht (Province of Utrecht, 2017). According to SH08, ‘the bottom-up approach is fairly well developed in Utrecht’.

The campaigns Operatie Steenbreek and the ‘Water-friendly garden’, initiated by the regional water authority and the municipality of Utrecht, support entrepreneurial experiments by giving out funding (e.g. for the removal of pavements). However, the governmental funding of green roofs is limited to 40,000 euros annually and a 20 square meter roof is a prerequisite (SH01). A citizen in Wittevrouwen (neighbourhood) wanted to apply for a green roof subsidy but found out that she did not qualify for subsidy because her roof was too small. However, a collaboration with her neighbours resulted in the required amount of m2 and thus received the municipal green roof subsidy (Province of Utrecht, 2017). This example shows that the current legislation is not always

103

supporting bottom-up initiatives, yet with some creativity and a sense of community, change may be achieved. Hence, and because many projects are small-scale pilots and housing corporations – which are a very important actor – do not yet understand the need for innovative approaches, this indicator is scored with a +.

104

Indicator 6.2: Collaborative agents

Predefined question: To what extent are actors enabled to engage, build trust-collaboration, and connect business, government, and sectors, in order to address the water challenge in an unconventional and comprehensive way?

++ Agents of change enhances wide-spread synergetic collaboration

There is on-going build-up of productive and synergetic collaborations. Facilitators may even be administered to coordinate this through mediation and authority. There is a conception of the ideal collaboration composition.

+

Agents of change can push for collaboration between new stakeholders

There is an understanding that water challenges requires long-term and integrated solutions. Hence, wide-spread collaborations between a variety of stakeholders and sectors are being established. New collaborations with unconventional actors, result, more and more, in valuable new insights and effective networks.

0 Agent are enabled to enhance conventional collaboration

Traditional coalitions are preserved to maintain status quo. There is trust within these coalitions. There is limited space to create new collaborations. If new collaboration occurs solutions are still mostly sectoral and short- to mid-term.

- Insufficient opportunities for collaborative agents

There is insufficient opportunity for agents of change to go beyond conventional collaboration. The current collaborations are deemed sufficient to deal with the water challenge whereas the vision is limited to ad hoc command and control approaches.

-- Lack of collaborative agents

Collaboration is discouraged, because of a strong hierarchical structure. There is distrust between stakeholders and the willingness and thereby opportunities for collaborative agents are largely lacking.

Many water-related collaborations do exist in the municipality of Utrecht (e.g. Coalition Spatial Adaptation [CSA], Winnet, Network Utrecht2040, State of Utrecht, Nature and Environment federation Utrecht [NMU]). There is a widespread recognition of the importance of collaborations (SH02 & SH06). In addition to this, SH09 emphasizes that collaboration fits perfectly within the scope of climate adaptation due to its intersectoral character. Winnet, a collaboration between 17 municipalities, including Utrecht, and regional water authority Stichtse Rijnlanden [HDSR], is perceived as a ‘natural partnership’ as they approach the water cycle as ‘one system’. The value of the platform is positively assessed by each Winnet partner (Westerweel & Schwarz, 2015). Moreover, HDSR is often collaborating with the municipalities in its control area as they are executing projects and campaigns (e.g. water-friendly gardens or the removal of pavements) in collaboration with the municipality in question (SH06). Although the CSA has been established in 2015, it is still exploring effective ways of collaboration between all partners (SH06). Winnet and CSA are working together in performing the ‘climatic stress test’ which is compulsory for all Dutch municipalities by 2019 (Delta Programme, 2017). SH02 even mentioned that the CSA and Winnet partnership will possibly merge, due to a certain overlap. However, this idea is still in development and thus, the ideal collaboration composition has not been realised yet. Similarly, SH08 takes the view that currently too many networks exist, which indicates room for improvement. Although many partnerships exist and collaborate, effectiveness could be improved and therefore, this indicator is scored +.

105

Indicator 6.3: Visionary agents

Predefined question: To what extent are actors in the network able to manage and effectively push forward long-term and integrated strategies which are adequately supported by interim targets?

++ Long-term vision supported by short-term targets

Visionary agents of change in different positions and with different backgrounds actively and successfully promote a sustainable and long-term vision regarding the water challenge, that is communicated clearly. Short-term targets fit the long-term visions. There is interest and employment in trend analysis.

+ Long-term vision with flawed communication

There is a clear long-term, integrated and sustainable-oriented vision. There is still some discrepancy between short-term targets and implementation strategies and the long-term vision from visionary agents of change. This means that agents are not always clear in their formulation regarding the effect and impact of envisioned strategies

0 Defense of status quo The visions of the existing agents of change are limited to promoting the business as usual. They do not oppose nor promote long-term, integrative thinking. Interest or employment in trend analysis is limited

- Unilateral and short-term vision

There is a unilateral vision regarding the water challenge, which considers a limited groups of actors. The vision often has a short-term focus, with a maximum of 3 to 4 years

--

Deficient sustainability vision and short- term focus

There is a lack of visionary agents that promote change towards a long-term, sustainable vision regarding the water challenge. Diverging expectations and objectives of stakeholders are the result. This may be evidenced by indecisiveness or even conflicts. Long-term and integrative initiatives may also be blocked

On national level, the Delta Commissioner is an important visionary agent of change. The national Delta Programme 2018 comprised for the first time a chapter on spatial adaptation (climate adaptation), which proves the urgency of this theme. The “Analysis – Ambition – Action” approach (Dutch: weten – willen – werken) is characterized by a long-term vision (Delta Programme, 2017). However, on the provincial and municipal level, short-term targets are still to be formulated (SH07 & SH09). Both SH06 and SH07 argue that Rotterdam invested in the promotion of their water square, a climate-proof measure. As SH06 concludes, Utrecht simply does not need this kind of infrastructure due to its favourable position (‘high and dry’). However, SH07 agrees that Utrecht may need some improvement with respect to the promotion of their actions. An example of a visionary, innovative design includes the ‘Wonderwoods’ project in Utrecht, which has been mentioned by several stakeholders (SH06, SH08). The project has been commissioned by the local authority and is a perfect example of sustainable urban development and healthy urban living. The construction of this futuristic building, which could be best described as a ‘vertical forest’, will start in 2019 and will most likely put Utrecht in the spotlight as it already receives international attention (SH08). Wonderwoods has been published in several magazines and newspapers and may stimulate other developers (SH08). Utrecht recently hosted the EU GreenWeek and the mayor, Jan van Zanen, has opened this event which highlights for example sustainability, green spaces and climate change (SH08; EU GreenWeek, n.d.). However, SH07 believes that the mayor does not perceive this theme as one of his priorities.

Visionary projects within the municipality of Utrecht are still in its infancy and short-term targets are currently missing while having a sustainable vision. Moreover, Utrecht may have visionary agents for sustainability in the broad term, but not yet for pluvial flood risk in particular. Therefore, this indicator receives a neutral (0) score.

106

Condition 7: Multi-level network potential Urban water governance involves a plethora of actors and interests from all levels of government, organizations and (private) stakeholders. For sustainable solutions, working in networks is an essential determinant for effective solutions.

Indicator 7.1: Room to manoeuver

Predefined question: To what extent do actors have the freedom and opportunity to develop a variety of alternatives and approaches (this includes the possibility of forming ad hoc, fit-for-purpose partnerships that can adequately address existing or emerging issues regarding the water challenge)?

++ Freedom to develop innovative solutions

There is a common and accepted long-term vision for dealing sustainably with the water challenge. Within the boundaries of this vision, actors are given the freedom to develop novel and diverse approaches and partnerships, resulting in continuous improvements and exploration. These partnerships are most likely institutionalized

+ Redundancy to address uncertainty

There is recognition that a high degree of freedom is necessary to deal with complex situations in the form of experiments and looking for new unconventional collaborations. There is a dynamic mix of cooperative partnerships and a redundant set of diverging alternative solutions. A clear overall vision to steer research is however lacking

0 Limited room for innovation and collaboration

Actors are given the means to perform predefined tasks for dealing with problems that are framed with a narrow, short-term and technical-oriented scope. There is limited room to deviate. Solutions are sought in own sectoral field and expertise

- Limited autonomy Only a few actors receive some degree of freedom, there are limited opportunities to develop alternatives, and there is hardly any opportunity to form partnerships with unconventional actors

-- Strictly imposed obligations

The actions of stakeholders are strictly controlled and there are rigid short-term targets. Freedom to form new partnerships is strongly limited as actor network composition is fixed and small. There are no resources made available for exploring alternatives that might be more effective or efficient whereas many actors that are affected by the water challenge do not have a voice

On national, provincial and municipal level, a long-term sustainable vision on pluvial flood risk exists (Delta programme, 2017; Municipality of Utrecht, 2015; SH09). The national government formulated overall goals on climate adaptation, namely to be climate-proof and water-resilient by the year 2050 (Delta programme, 2017). Local authorities adopted these guidelines, yet the exact definition of climate-proof and water-resilient is still to define by provinces and municipalities (SH07 & SH09). In this context there are not yet concrete intermittent targets, and also no targets that limit the room to manoeuvre of actors to seize opportunities. Similarly, SH06 stresses that the Delta Decision – as part of the Delta Programme – is only a guideline, and local authorities are not legally bound to follow up these directions. Moreover, how to perform the ‘climatic stress test’ and what to include in it is not formally prescribed and regions can thus decide themselves on how detailed they will be (SH05 & SH06). This shows the freedom local authorities have. Moreover, the freedom to develop partnerships is visible as many institutionalized corporations on this theme do exist in the municipality of Utrecht (e.g. Coalition Spatial Adaptation [CSA], Winnet, Network Utrecht2040, State of Utrecht, Nature and Environment federation Utrecht). Especially Winnet and CSA are working together (for example in executing the climatic stress test on regional level) and may merge in the future due to a certain overlap (SH02). As the province, municipalities and partnerships have a lot of freedom and room to manoeuvre, this indicator is positively assessed with a ++.

107

Indicator 7.2: Clear division of responsibilities

Predefined question: To what extent are responsibilities clearly formulated and allocated, in order to effectively address the water challenge?

++ Dynamic, fit-for- purpose cooperations

There are many synergetic cooperations within the urban water network that can provide solutions for the water challenge. The roles and responsibilities are clearly divided amongst actors. These cooperations are dynamic and result in fit-for-purpose problem solving necessary to solve complex, multi-level and unknown challenges

+ Innovative cooperative strategies

Actors recognize that knowledge and experience are scattered within the local network. Therefore, extra effort is made to bundle the scattered expertise and to reach fit-for-purpose division of clear roles and responsibilities. New cooperation compositions are explored

0 Inflexible division of responsibilities

Responsibilities are divided over a limited set of conventional actors. Opportunities for new cooperation and more effective division of responsibilities are not seized or even recognized. Sometimes conventional actors get more tasks to deal with new water challenges

- Barriers for effective cooperation

Authorities are fragmentized or they lack interest. Moreover, miscommunication and lack of trust are causes that block effective water governance

-- Unclear division of responsibilities

There is an unclear division of responsibilities and often the relationships are over-hierarchical. Everybody expects someone else to make required effort and trust is hardly found

Within the Delta Decision on Spatial Adaptation, different stakeholders are mentioned and those are expected to be involved in making the Netherlands climate proof and water resilient by 2050. These actors include municipalities, water boards, provinces and also private institutions and social services. Each actor has its own capabilities and responsibilities. Municipalities for instance, invested in sewer pipes and decoupled rain water from these systems and created more space for water by introducing ‘wadis’. Water boards developed more locations for water storage and invested in effective drainage (Delta Programme, 2017). This division is a notable finding as pluvial flood risk is both linked to sewer management (municipal duty) and water storage, which in turn is a duty for the regional water authority. From a national perspective, water boards tend to be most advanced regarding spatial adaptation (Delta Commissioner, n.d. 1). In line with this, SH06 states that water boards are perceived as initiator and SH07 assumes that the regional water authority has a large part of the responsibility in the time of extreme rainfall.

SH06 concludes that the challenge of extreme rainfall goes beyond current norms and also outside the scope of authorities. Besides, SH06 emphasizes that everyone has to take action, i.e. governments, companies and citizens. Moreover, SH09 argues that pluvial flood risk is an issue that involves many actors and thus, everyone should participate in tackling the challenge, from citizens to the national government.

The municipal website provides clear information on water duties, divided amongst the national government, province, municipality, water boards, citizens and companies (Municipality of Utrecht, n.d. 3). The responsibilities of the municipality of Utrecht with respect to water are clearly formulated in its policy plan and include for instance duties on wastewater, stormwater and surface water (Municipality of Utrecht, 2015). These municipal water duties are determined through national legislation: Act Municipal Water Duties (Association of Netherlands Municipalities, 2007).

Winnet and Coalition Spatial Adaptation [CSA], which are both cooperations within the Utrecht area, are collaborating in performing the climatic stress test (which is an unknown activity as this is the first time municipalities are asked to execute this) on regional level. Fourteen municipalities, including Utrecht, joined in for the purpose of knowledge sharing (SH05 & SH06). SH02 argues that this collaboration is advantageous as it leads to one cohesive result. Taken the aforementioned in account, this indicator is scored with a ++.

108

Indicator 7.3: Authority

Predefined question: To what extent are legitimate forms of power and authority present that enable long-term, integrated and sustainable solutions for the water challenge?

++ Strong well- embedded authority

Long-term, integrated approaches regarding the water challenge are well embedded in policy and regulatory authorities. Authoritative figures receive much support both politically and by society. Their opinions and statements also receive much media attention

+ Stirring authority

There is recognition of the need for long-term and integrated approaches by both the public and the political arena. Sustainability approaches regarding the water challenge are now implemented as declarations of intent and sustainability principles in policy and regulation. Legitimate authorities are assigned to coordinate long-term integrated policy and implementation

0 Restricted authority

The water challenge is addressed as long as the status quo is not questioned. Long-term policy visions are limited and new policy mainly needs to fit into existing fragmentized structure. This means small (technical) changes are occurring

- Unfruitful attempts

The water challenge is put forward by individuals or a groups of actors, but there is only little interest which is also fragile due to poor embedding of sustainability principles in current policy mechanisms, interests, and budget allocation. The challenge may have been mentioned in reviews or reports but left unaddressed

-- Powerlessness The addressing of the water challenge is regularly overruled with contradicting and competing interests and so it is hardly included in policy, regulation or administrative principles

The influence of many authorities is present in Utrecht: the national government, the province of Utrecht, the municipality of Utrecht and the regional water authority (HDSR). On the national level, a long-term goal has been formulated, namely ‘to make the Netherlands climate-proof and water-resilient by 2050’ (Delta Programme, 2017). Both the province and the municipality of Utrecht have adopted this national goal and SH09 admits that a common goal exists. On the provincial level, a long-term vision for 2040 has been formulated on a sustainable living environment and climate adaptation (Province of Utrecht, 2011). The municipality of Utrecht discusses the topic of pluvial flooding in its water policy plan and endorses the national goals (SH07; Municipality of Utrecht, 2015).

Delta Commissioner Wim Kuijken takes, since February 2010, the responsibility for the national Delta Programme and has been reappointed in February 2017. This authorative figure appears in the media regularly (Delta Commissioner, n.d. 2). An overarching long-term goal is strongly embedded within all authorities and an experienced person is responsible for the national Delta Programme. To date, however, the municipality of Utrecht does not effectively use their authority to cope with extreme rainfall and therefore, this indicator will receive a score of +.

109

Condition 8: Financial viability Sufficient financial resources are crucial for good water governance. Willingness to pay for water challenge adaptation services is important to gain access to reliable funding for long-term programs. At the same time, water and climate adaptation services need to be affordable for everyone including poor people or people being disproportionally affected.

Indicator 8.1: Affordability

Predefined question: To what extent are water services and climate adaptation measures available and affordable for all citizens, including the poorest?

++ Climate adaptation affordable for all

Programs and policies ensure climate adaptation for everyone. This includes public infrastructure and private property protection. The solidarity principle is clearly percolated in policy and regulation

+ Limited affordability of climate adaptation services

Serious efforts are made to support climate adaptation for everyone, including vulnerable groups. There is often recognition that poor and marginalized groups are disproportionately affected by the water challenge. This is increasingly addressed in policy and regulation

0 Unaffordable climate adaptation

Basic water services are affordable for the vast majority of the populations, however poor people and marginalized communities have much difficulty to afford climate adaptation measures to protect themselves against impacts such as extreme heat, flooding or water scarcity.

-

Limited affordability of basic water services

A share of the population has serious difficulty to pay for basic water services such as neighbourhoods with low-income or marginalized groups. There is hardly any social safety net regarding water services, let alone for climate adaptation measures

-- Unaffordable basic water services

Basic water services are not affordable or even available for a substantial part of the population. This may be due to inefficient or obsolete infrastructure, mismanagement or extreme poverty

Annually, all citizens in Utrecht pay sewer levies to the municipality and a water board tax for the activities of the regional water authorities. As SH04 explains, low-income citizens may be eligible for a waiver, conform municipal tax regulations. Moreover, the regional water authority (HDSR) is currently financially supporting municipalities and other landowners to collaborate on climate adaptation (HDSR, n.d. 2). Furthermore, HDSR has since January 1st 2017 a subsidy scheme (Dutch: Regeling Blauwe Burger Initiatieven) for private initiatives to stimulate sustainable water management, aiming to raise awareness and to emphasize that water management is not only a governmental duty. This grant amounts to 5,000 euros per request (SH04). In addition to HDSR’s support, the municipality of Utrecht has since 2009 a financial incentive for its citizens to install green roofs (SH08). Besides, Utrecht is funding other bottom-up initiatives (Dutch: Initiatievenfonds), e.g. the replacement of pavements for greenery (SH08). Two neighbourhoods within the municipality of Utrecht are, in comparison to other parts of the city, prone to pluvial flooding due to the presence of semi-basement (‘souterrain’) dwellings. For these homeowners, a special funding scheme has been developed in 2017 by the municipality (Municipality of Utrecht, 2017a). All in all, climate adaptation is affordable for everyone and therefore, this indicator receives a score of ++.

110

Indicator 8.2: Consumer willingness to pay

Predefined question: How is expenditure regarding the water challenge perceived by all relevant stakeholders (i.e., is there trust that the money is well-spent)?

++ Willingness to pay for present and future risk reductions

The water challenge is fully comprehended by decision-makers. There is political and public support to allocate substantial financial resources. Also expenditure for non-economic benefits is perceived as important. There is clear agreement on the use of financial principles, such as polluter-pays- and user-pays- or solidarity principle.

+ Willingness to pay for provisional adaptation

Due to growing worries about the water challenge, there are windows of opportunity to increase funding. However, the perception of risk does not necessarily coincide with actual risk. Financial principles, such as polluter-pays principle, may be introduced. Due to inexperience, implementation is often flawed. Focus groups decide on priority aspects regarding the water challenge, but there is confusion regarding the extent and magnitude of the water challenge.

0 Willingness to pay for business as usual

There is support for the allocation of resources for conventional tasks. There is limited awareness or worries regarding the water challenge. Most actors are unwilling to financially support novel policies beyond the status quo. Generally, there is sufficient trust in local authorities.

- Fragmented willingness to pay

Willingness to pay for measures addressing the water challenges are fragmented and insufficient. The importance and risks are perceived differently by each stakeholder. Generally, their estimates of the cost are substantially lower than the actual costs.

--

Mistrust and resistance to financial decisions

There is a high level of mistrust in decision making of resource allocation. At this level financial decisions are based on prestige projects, projects that benefit small groups or specific interests. As expenditures often do not address the actual water challenges, there is a high degree of resistance regarding resource allocation.

Due to climate change and required adaptation measures, prices for water services and management are likely to increase. In addition to this, SH02 explains that wastewater treatment will be more costly in the future as it is more polluted. SH04 explains that if the regional water authority would like to invest in urban water projects, the water board tax will rise, as HDSR does not receive any funding from municipalities or the province. Both SH06 and SH07 mentioned a recent survey conducted by the Dutch Broadcast Foundation (Dutch: NOS) among 1700 Dutch citizens that have experienced serious issues with pluvial flooding. This study shows that this group wants the municipality to invest more in the sewer system, but only 25% of these people is willing to pay more for sewer tax (Meindertsma & Van der Parre, 2018). SH07 was astonished by this finding. On the contrary, SH04 believes that a great willingness is present to pay for the water board tax. However, there is room for improvement regarding willingness to pay. Therefore, this indicator receives a neutral (0) score.

111

Indicator 8.3: Financial continuation

Predefined question: To what extent do financial arrangements secure long-term, robust policy implementation, continuation, and risk reduction?

++ Long-term financial continuation

There is secured continuous financial support for long-term policy, measures and research regarding the water challenge. These costs are included into baseline funding. Generally, both economic and non-economic benefits are considered and explicitly mentioned

+

Abundant financial support with limited continuation

Abundant financial resources are made available for project based endeavours that are often exploring new solutions but lack long-term resource allocation or institutionalized financial continuation. Hence, long-term implementation is uncertain

0 Financial continuation for basic services

Financial resources are available for singular projects regarding basic services of the water challenge. The allocation of financial resources is based on past trends, current costs of maintenance and incremental path-dependent developments. Costs to deal with future water challenges are often not incorporated. Limited resources are assigned for unforeseen situations or calculated risks

- Inequitable financial resource allocation

There are potential resources available to perform basic management tasks regarding the water challenge, but they are difficult to access, are distributed rather randomly and lack continuity. No clear criteria can be found on the resource allocation. Resources allocation is ad hoc and considers only short-time horizons

-- Lack of financial resources

There are insufficient financial resources available to perform basic tasks regarding the water challenge. Financing is irregular and unpredictable leading to poor policy continuation

The regional water board does not receive any state funding, yet levies taxes: the water board tax (Kroeze et al., 2018; SH04). Thus, all costs made by the water boards are paid by the tax payers, i.e. citizens and companies within their control area. SH04 explains that HDSR aims to operate cost-effective. HDSR is currently realizing a new water treatment plant in Utrecht, which will be much more efficient and sustainable. The costs for this project is estimated at €145 million. To be able to pay for this, HDSR increased tariffs by 1.5% during the last four years, to prevent a substantial tariff increase when the new plant starts operating in 2019 (SH04). The regional water authority HDSR has for the period 2018-2022 an annual budget of €450,000 for water and climate adaptation measures (HDSR, n.d. 2). Before 2018, this budget was only €300,000. The increment of €150,000 can be seen as complementary budget to deal with extreme rainfall and to raise awareness (Boelhouwer & De Burger, 2017). However, as SH07 argues, the majority of this budget is devoted to improve the water quality. HDSR invites municipalities and other stakeholders within their control area to make use of the funding, aimed at the implementation of water-related climate-adaptive measures. The municipality of Utrecht always tries to take the full advantage of this arrangement. Last year, Utrecht requested for €1.3 million and eventually received 200,000 euros (which is 44.4% of the total budget; SH07).

The various cooperations that are active within the Utrecht area also need resources to finance their activities. Financial resource allocation is vulnerable at the Coalition Spatial Adaptation [CSA] and thus exploring the possibilities to receive money (SH06). SH06 stresses that a collaboration between Winnet and Coalition Spatial Adaptation is, besides other advantages, also valuable with respect to request funding from the national government or European Union. Likewise, Winnet faced financial difficulties as it initially did not have a special contribution for the implementation of projects. From now on, they reserved an annual budget for this (SH05). As sufficient financial support is available for the long-term (e.g. HDSR funding from 2018-2022, perhaps longer), this indicator is scored with a ++.

112

Condition 9: Implementing capacity Implementing capacity is about the effectiveness of policy instruments with respect to the water challenge. Part of the effectiveness is also due to the level of compliance to policy and regulation and the familiarity with (calamity) action plans.

Indicator 9.1: Policy instruments

Predefined question: To what extent are policy instruments effectively used (and evaluated), in order to stimulate desired behaviour and discourage undesired activities and choices?

++ Effective instruments enhance sustainable transformations

There is much experience with the use of policy instruments. Monitoring results show that the current use of instruments proves to be effective in achieving sustainable behaviour. Continuous evaluation ensures flexibility, adaptive capacity and fit-for-purpose use of policy instruments

+ Profound exploration of sustainability instruments

Instruments to implement principles such as full cost-recovery and polluter-pays principle, serve as an incentive to internalize sustainable behaviour. The use of various instruments is explorative and therefore not yet optimized and efficient. The use of instruments is dynamic. There are a lot of simultaneous or successive changes and insights

0 Fragmented instrumental use

Policy fields or sectors often have similar goals, but instruments are not coherent and may even contradict. Overall instrumental effectiveness is low and temporary. There is sufficient monitoring and evaluation leading to knowledge and insights in how instruments work and actors are getting a more open attitude towards improvements

- Unknown impacts of policy instruments

Instruments are being used without knowing or properly investigating their impacts on forehand. The set of instruments actually leads to imbalanced development and inefficiencies that are hardly addressed

-- Instruments enhance unsustainable behaviour

Policy instruments may enhance unwanted or even damaging behaviour that opposes sustainability principles, e.g., discount for higher water use stimulates spilling and inefficiency. There is hardly any monitoring that can be used to evaluate the counterproductive effects of these policy instruments

The topic of pluvial flooding is currently embedded in ‘Plan Municipal Water Duties 2016-2019’50 (Municipality of Utrecht, 2015) and is also being addressed in green policy51 (Municipality of Utrecht, 2017b). As SH08 and SH07 describe, goals in these policy plans are aligned. Another policy plan, aimed at public spaces52, incorporated a chapter on climate change and mentioned the challenge of extreme rainfall (Municipality of Utrecht, 2016b). According to SH07, this is one of the first attempts on making such an integrated document, and to combine several themes. Moreover, SH08 states that this policy plan is (already) largely conform the new Environmental and Planning Act53. Currently, on the provincial level, a policy document has been developed for soil, water and the environment54. SH09 states that policy on spatial adaptation is still in development as it is a relatively new theme. Similarly, SH07 really hopes that a climatic vision will be drawn up on municipal level, as this is currently lacking. Thus, both the province and municipality are exploring the possibilities for special climate policy.

Financial instruments (incentives) to support citizens to install green roofs are present, however not really effective yet as SH08 argues that people do not realize the added value of having green roofs. SH07 agrees and states that the municipality is still exploring the best way of supporting this behaviour. Also, households that produce less wastewater than others as a result of green roofs or rain barrels are not rewarded by lower sewer levies. 50 Dutch: Plan Gemeentelijke Watertaken 2016-2019 51 Dutch: Actualisatie Groenstructuurplan 2017-2030 52 Dutch: Kadernota Kwaliteit Openbare Ruimte 53 Dutch: Omgevingswet 54 Dutch: Bodem-, Water- en Milieuplan 2016-2021

113

A study on Dutch water governance showed that financial incentives (e.g. polluter-pays-principles) are necessary to make the Dutch citizen aware of water (OECD, 2014). As a consequence of this, the Commission Klavers (CAB55) is investigating the future of the water board’s tax system. Currently, this tax system is based on the solidarity principle, however, the question has arisen on the national level whether this has to change to an user-pays/polluter-pays principle (SH04). To date, only the pollution tax (Dutch: zuiveringsheffing) – as part of the water board tax – is based on this principle: companies pay more taxes if their wastewater is more polluted. However, the municipality does not have to pay more when overflow occurs within the sewer system (i.e. wastewater that flows to surface water) (SH04). In addition to this, SH07 stresses that municipalities do have the opportunity to disadvantage polluters and advantage people that store stormwater by changing the regulation. However, none of the Dutch municipalities has changed this, as it involves considerable administrative and maintenance costs (SH07). It is easier to give out subsidies than changing the fiscal system (SH04).

To date, the focus is on stimulating rather than commanding specific behaviour (enforcement), and SH07 emphasizes that this is a political choice. Thus, sustainable behaviour in the context of pluvial flooding is not fully optimized yet. Therefore, this indictor receives a neutral score (0).

55 Dutch: Commissie Aanpassing Belastingstelsel

114

Indicator 9.2: Statutory compliance

Pre-defined question: To what extent is legislation and compliance, well-coordinated, clear and transparent and do stakeholders respect agreements, objectives, and legislation?

++ Good compliance to effective sustainable legislation

Legislation is ambitious and its compliance is effective as there is much experience with developing and implementing sustainable policy. Short-term targets and long-term goals are well integrated. There is a good relationship among local authorities and stakeholders based on dialogues.

+ Flexible compliance to ambitious explorations

New ambitious policies, agreements and legislations are being explored in a “learning-by-doing” fashion. Most actors are willing to comply. Some targets may be unrealistic and requires flexibility.

0 Strict compliance to fragmentized legislation

Legal regulations regarding the water challenge are fragmented. However, there is strictly compliance to well-defined fragmentized policies, regulations and agreements. Flexibility, innovations and realization of ambitious goals are limited. Activity may be penalized multiple times by different regulations due to poor overall coordination

- Moderate compliance to incomplete legislation

The division of responsibilities of executive and controlling tasks is unclear. Legislation is incomplete meaning that certain gaps can be misused. There is little trust in local authorities due to inconsistent enforcement typically signalled by unions or NGO’s

-- Poor compliance due to unclear legislation

Legislation and responsibilities areunclear, incomplete or inaccessible leading to poor legal compliance by most actors. If legislation is present it enjoys poor legitimacy. Actors operate independently in small groups. Fraudulent activities may take place

On the national level, the Delta Programme has been developed that addresses water safety, freshwater supply and – since 2017 – spatial adaptation (Delta Programme, 2017). Statutory agreements on this programme have been included in the Delta Act, which also states that the Delta Programme needs to be updated annually (Central Government, n.d.). SH06 explains that no regulation has been formulated by the national government and that local authorities have the freedom to develop their own form of implementation regarding spatial adaptation. However, all Dutch municipalities are expected to perform a climatic stress test before 2019. Again, no formal description has been formulated on how to execute this (SH05 & SH06).

While policy on spatial adaptation on the national level exists, new policies and legislations on this topic are explored on provincial and municipal level. SH09 wonders whether legislation on this is desirable, yet agrees that this is an important topic for discussion. Similarly, SH07 states that the question remains if more obligation on this theme is necessary or desired. Both SH08 and SH09 stress that two (political) visions are possible: a free market approach (stimulating) or a normative approach (regulating). Which direction will be adopted on municipal level depends on the beliefs of the new Bench of Mayor and Aldermen, which has been installed in June 2018 (SH07).

Moreover, SH09 argues that, due to its broad character, the theme of climate adaptation fits perfectly within the new Environmental and Planning Act56, which is expected to be in effect in 2021. SH09 states that as a result of this, more possibilities may occur regarding legislation. It remains however unclear to what extent this will be implemented in 2021.

Since climate adaptation and pluvial flooding are relatively new themes, there is little experience on formulating and implementing policy and legislation on this. This topic is currently being explored on both provincial and municipal level in Utrecht. Furthermore, the cooperation Coalition Spatial Adaptation [CSA] states in its action plan that they expect to operate in a ‘learning-by-doing’ fashion after 2020. Taken the aforementioned into account, this indicator will receive a score of +.

56 Dutch: Omgevingswet

115

Indicator 9.3: Preparedness

Predefined question: To what extent is the city prepared (i.e. there is clear allocation of responsibilities, and clear policies and action plans) for both gradual and sudden uncertain changes and events?

++ Comprehensive preparedness

Long-term plans and policies are flexible and bundle different risks, impacts and worst case scenarios. They are clearly communicated, co-created and regularly rehearsed by all relevant stakeholders. The required materials and staff are available on short-term notice in order to be able to respond adequately. Evaluations on the rehearsals or reviews on dealing with calamities are available

+ Fragmented preparedness

A wide range of threats is considered in action plans and policies. Sometimes over-abundantly as plans are proactive and follow the precautionary principle. Awareness of risks is high, but measures are scattered and non-cohesive. They may be independent or made independently by various actors. Allocation of resources, staff and training may therefore be ambiguous

0 Low awareness of preparation strategies

Based on past experiences, there are action plans and policies addressing the water challenge. Actions and policies are clear but actual risks are often underestimated and the division of tasks is unclear. They are not sufficient to deal with all imminent calamities or gradually increasing pressures. Damage is almost always greater than is expected or prepared for

- Limited preparedness

Action plans are responsive to recent calamities and ad hoc. Actual probabilities and impacts of risks are not well understood and incorporated into actions or policies. Reports can be found on how the water sector deals with recent calamities

-- Poor preparedness

There are hardly any action plans or policies for dealing with (future) calamities, uncertainties and existing risks. The city is highly vulnerable.

The central government obliges all Dutch municipalities to perform a climatic stress test for their area before 2019 (Delta Programme, 2017). This may help to raise a sense of urgency and gives an insight into the vulnerable places within an area (SH03, SH06 and SH09). The national government only provided a guideline on how to execute it, not on what exactly to include (SH05 and SH06). According to SH02, the stress test for the region of Utrecht contains different scenarios for heavy rainfall, including extreme scenarios. In 2015, the Coalition Spatial Adaptation [CSA] already performed a ‘quickscan stress test’ for an initial overview (SH02; Van Schaik, Boelhouwer & Harms, 2016). Furthermore, The Smart Climate magazine, published by the CSA, states that due to a variety of knowledge (e.g. from HDSR and the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [KNMI]), the Utrecht area is well-prepared for the worst scenario (Province of Utrecht, 2017). However, only knowledge is most likely not enough to be prepared. Moreover, SH02 believes that the regional water authority has a key responsibility regarding extreme rainfall and takes the view that HDSR is well-prepared to deal with this, especially in Utrecht as this region does not directly have a problem due to its favourable position (‘high and dry on a sandy soil’) (SH06, SH07). Both SH02 and SH04 mention the presence of a ‘calamity department’ on within HDSR and their special action plan57. Within this plan, the risk of extreme rainfall and its consequences has been mentioned (HDSR, 2015, p. 7). SH04 explains that this organization, which consists of approximately 100 employees, operates conform certain impact levels. A higher level indicates a need for more adequate measures and the involvement of managers (SH04). A newly developed system contributes to the monitoring of precipitation within the regional water authority (SH02 and SH04). Besides multiple municipalities, HDSR and the province of Utrecht, also the Safety Region Utrecht [SRU] is a partner within the CSA network. The SRU is currently exploring their responsibilities when extreme rainfall occurs (SH09). Both SH04 and SH07 agree that the SRU needs to make an significant effort on the topic of pluvial flooding. SH07 argues that a sense of urgency is missing within this organization, but also at municipal level at the

57 Dutch: Calamiteitenplan 2015-2018 – HDSR

116

safety department. Each municipality has its own action plan and Utrecht is currently exploring the development of an adequate action plan for pluvial flooding (SH03 and SH07). However, the occurrence of an extreme event is needed to set one in motion (SH07 and SH08). Moreover, the municipality of Utrecht currently has a low capability regarding its number of employees in the field of water management and climate adaptation, i.e. only one person on a topic (SH03, SH05, SH07, SH09). Compared to Amsterdam or Rotterdam, Utrecht has a limited capacity (SH05). This may hamper preparedness. Although various action plans are present within the region, a strategy for pluvial flood risk is however in its exploration phase at the municipality of Utrecht. Moreover, the sense of urgency for these plans is sometimes lacking. This leaves room for improvement and therefore, this indicator is scored with a +.

117

References Governance Capacity Analysis Association of Netherlands Municipalities (2007). Van rioleringszaak naar gemeentelijke watertaak:

de Wet gemeentelijke watertaken toegelicht.

Boelhouwer, G. & De Burger, M. (2017). Incremental impulse regulation 2018-2022. Climate

adaptation in the city. Implementation guidelines and framework. (Dutch: Verbrede

Impulsregeling 2018-2022. Klimaatadaptatie in de stad. Uitvoeringsrichtlijnen en -kaders).

Houten, the Netherlands: HDSR.

Central Government (n.d.). Organisation of the Delta Programme – Delta programme and Delta

Act. Retrieved from https://www.government.nl/topics/delta-programme/organisation-

of-the-delta-programme. Accessed 16 June 2018.

Delta Commissioner (n.d. 1). Spatial Adaptation. Retrieved from

https://www.deltacommissaris.nl/deltaprogramma/gebieden-en-generieke-

themas/ruimtelijke-adaptatie Accessed 29 May 2018.

Delta Commissioner (n.d. 2). Deltacommissaris in de media. Retrieved from

https://www.deltacommissaris.nl/organisatie/deltacommissaris-wim-kuijken/in-de-

media. Accessed 15 June 2018.

Delta Programme (2017). Delta Programme 2018: Continuing the work on a sustainable and safe

delta. The Hague: Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment & Ministry of Economic

Affairs.

DUIC (2018, 16 March). Nieuw park geopend in Utrecht: De Groene Kop. Retrieved from

https://www.duic.nl/algemeen/nieuw-park-geopend-utrecht-de-groene-kop/

Dutch Broadcast Foundation (NOS) (2018, 7 June). Wat kunnen we doen tegen wateroverlast?

[audio file]. Retrieved from

https://www.nporadio1.nl/nos-radio-1-journaal/onderwerpen/458723-wat-kunnen-we-

doen-tegen-wateroverlast. Accessed 7 June 2018.

EU GreenWeek (n.d.). Official Opening event: Utrecht - a green and healthy city to live, work and

stay in. Retrieved from https://www.eugreenweek.eu/session/official-opening-event-

utrecht-netherlands. Accessed 13 June 2018.

HDSR (2015). Calamiteitenplan 2015 – 2018. Houten: Hoogheemraadschap de Stichtse

Rijnlanden.

HDSR (2016, 30 November). Animatie Wateroverlast [video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLG0K5bbXdk&feature=youtu.be#t=0m00s

HDSR (n.d. 1). Omgaan met wateroverlast. Retrieved from https://www.hdsr.nl/beleid-

plannen/waterbeleid-0/omgaan-wateroverlast/ Accessed 25 April 2018.

118

HDSR (n.d. 2). Financial impulse for climate adaptation. Retrieved from

https://www.hdsr.nl/info_op_maat/gemeenten/financiele-impuls/ Accessed 30 April

2018.

HKV (2018, 21 February). Nieuwe app: water op straat. Retrieved from

https://www.hkv.nl/nl/actueel/249-nieuwe-app-water-op-straat.html. Accessed 8 June

2018.

Initiative Climate Proof Living (2017, April). Climate proof approach in neighbourhood

Kanaleneiland Midden – Utrecht: Renovation as driver for climate adaptation. Retrieved

from

https://ruimtelijkeadaptatie.nl/publish/pages/122395/klimaatbestendige_wijkaanpak_op

_kanaleneiland_renovatie_als_aanjager_voor_klimaatadaptatie_1.pdf. Accessed 26 April

2018.

Kroeze, A., Russchen, A., Cloo, C., Wegerif, C., Borghouts, L., & Groenbos, S. (eds.) (2018). Water

works 2018. Retrieved from http://hdsr.instantmagazine.com/hdsr/bijsluiter-2018

Accessed 30 April 2018.

Lachmeijer, R. (2018, 27 February). Utrecht duurzaamste gemeente van Nederland. Retrieved

from https://www.duurzaambedrijfsleven.nl/infra/27415/utrecht-is-de-duurzaamste-

gemeente-van-nederland. Accessed 13 June 2018.

Meindertsma, B. & Van der Parre, H. (2018, 7 mei). Burgers met natte voeten kijken naar overheid,

maar willen niet meer betalen. Retrieved from https://nos.nl/artikel/2230728-burgers-

met-natte-voeten-kijken-naar-overheid-maar-willen-niet-meer-betalen.html. Accessed 15

June 2018.

Municipality of Utrecht (n.d. 1). Prevent water issues: Waterproof030. Retrieved from

https://www.utrecht.nl/wonen-en-leven/milieu/water/wateroverlast-voorkomen-

waterproof030/ . Accessed 30 May 2018.

Municipality of Utrecht (n.d. 2). Wijkwaterplannen. Retrieved from https://www.utrecht.nl/wonen-

en-leven/milieu/water/oppervlaktewater/wijkwaterplannen/. Accessed 10 June 2018.

Municipality of Utrecht (n.d. 3) Water: wie doet wat? Retrieved from

https://www.utrecht.nl/wonen-en-leven/milieu/water/water-wie-doet-wat/ Accessed

15 June 2018.

Municipality of Utrecht (2015). Plan Gemeentelijke Watertaken 2016-2019. Utrecht: Municipality of

Utrecht.

Municipality of Utrecht (2016a). Waterproof: Handleiding maatregelen aan de woning en tuin tegen

wateroverlast. Utrecht: Municipality of Utrecht.

119

Municipality of Utrecht (2016b). Kadernota Kwaliteit Openbare Ruimte: een integrale benadering

van gebruik, inrichting en beheer. Utrecht: Municipality of Utrecht.

Municipality of Utrecht (2017a). Project ‘Lombok en Zeeheldenbuurt Waterproof’ vordert.

Retrieved from https://www.utrecht.nl/nieuws/artikel/project-lombok-en-

zeeheldenbuurt-waterproof-vordert/. Accessed 8 June 2018.

Municipality of Utrecht (2017b). Actualisation Green Structure Plan 2017-2030 (Dutch: Actualisatie

Groenstructuurplan). Utrecht: Municipality of Utrecht.

Neighbourhood Council North-East Utrecht (2013). De Groene Kop. Retrieved from

http://www.wijkraadnoordoost.nl/projecten/de-groene-kop/.

OECD (2014). Water governance in the Netherlands: fit for the future? OECD Publishing.

Province of Utrecht (2011). Utrecht2040: Samen zorgen voor een duurzame en aantrekkelijke regio.

Utrecht: Province of Utrecht.

Province of Utrecht (2017, 13 September). Magazine ‘Het slimme klimaat’ online. Retrieved from

https://www.provincieutrecht.nl/actueel/nieuwsberichten/nieuwsberichten/september-

2017/start-online-magazine-slimme-klimaat/ . Accessed 8 June 2018.

Regional Water Authority De Stichtse Rijnlanden (n.d.). Leading projects climate resilient city.

Accessed 26 April 2018. Retrieved from

https://www.hdsr.nl/info_op_maat/gemeenten/klimaatadaptatie/koploperprojecten-0/

RTV Utrecht (2018, 17 April). Do you experience water nuisance problems within the region?

Retrieved from https://www.rtvutrecht.nl/nieuws/1754873/ Accessed 28 April 2018.

Spatial Adaptation (2018, 29 May). Working regions Spatial Adaptation commenced. Retrieved

from https://ruimtelijkeadaptatie.nl/actueel/actueel/nieuws/2018/werkregio/

Accessed 29 May 2018.

Van Dam, T. (2017, 28 September). Nederland kwetsbaar voor wateroverlast bij extremere

weersomstandigheden. Accessed 6 June 2018. Retrieved from

https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2195233-nederland-kwetsbaar-voor-wateroverlast-bij-

extremere-weersomstandigheden.html

Van Schaik, M., Boelhouwer, G., & Harms, M. (2016). Plan van aanpak ruimtelijke adaptatie.

Utrecht: Coalitie regio Utrecht.

Westerweel, J.W. & Schwarz, G. (2015). Evaluation partnership Winnet: assistance to the

professionalization of Winnet. Amersfoort, the Netherlands: Twynstra Gudde.

Willemsen, C. (23 October 2017). Utrecht Bankstreet starts with rain barrels, thanks to Ellen.

Retrieved from https://www.ad.nl/utrecht/utrechtse-bankstraat-aan-de-regenton-

dankzij-ellen~af4570d1/ Accessed 26 April 2018.

120

Winnet (2017). Pitch themagroep: Meten & monitoren. Retrieved from

https://www.winnet.nl/nieuwsberichten/berichten/2017/thema-meten/. Accessed 9

June 2018.

121

Appendix IV Comparative overview GCF three Dutch cities

58 Gomes Monteiro, F.F. (2017). Helping cities to govern flood risk: a comparative case study to identify the barriers and enablers imposed by national policy (Master thesis, Utrecht University). Retrieved from https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/362924 59 Koop, S.H.A., Koetsier, L., Doornhof, A., Reinstra, O., Van Leeuwen, C.J., Brouwer, S., … Driessen, P.P.J. (2017). Assessing the governance capacity of cities to address challenges of water, waste, and climate change. Water Resources Management, 31, 3427-3443.

Conditions Indicators

Governance capacity of flood risk

The Netherlands

Utrecht Rotterdam58 Amsterdam59

1 Awareness 1.1 Community knowledge ++ 0 0

1.2 Local sense of urgency + + ++

1.3 Behavioural internalization 0 0 ++

2 Useful knowledge 2.1 Information availability ++ ++ ++

2.2 Information transparency ++ + 0

2.3 Knowledge cohesion + ++ 0

3 Continuous learning 3.1 Smart monitoring ++ 0 ++

3.2 Evaluation + 0 ++

3.3 Cross-stakeholder learning + 0 ++

4 Stakeholder engagement process

4.1 Stakeholder inclusiveness 0 ++ ++

4.2 Protection of core values 0 + ++

4.3 Progress and variety of options 0 + ++

5 Management . ambition

5.1 Ambitious and realistic management + ++ +

5.2 Discourse embedding + ++ +

5.3 Management cohesion + + +

6 Agents of change 6.1 Entrepreneurial agents + + +

6.2 Collaborative agents + 0 +

6.3 Visionary agents + + ++

7 Multi-level network . potential

7.1 Room to manoeuvre ++ 0 +

7.2 Clear division of responsibilities ++ + ++

7.3 Authority ++ ++ ++

8 Financial viability 8.1 Affordability ++ + +

8.2 Consumer willingness to pay 0 0 +

8.3 Financial continuation ++ ++ +

9 Implementing . capacity

9.1 Policy instruments + ++ +

9.2 Statutory compliance + ++ ++

9.3 Preparedness + + +

122