Science of the Total Environment 485–486 (2014) 776–784

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate /sc i totenv

The soil–water system as basis for a climate proof and healthy urbanenvironment: Opportunities identified in a Dutch case-study

Jacqueline Claessens ⁎, Dieneke Schram-Bijkerk, Liesbet Dirven-van Breemen, Piet Otte, Harm van WijnenNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), PO Box 1, NL-3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands

H I G H L I G H T S

• Underpinned guidelines for climate resistant planning do not exist.• The benefits of greenery are difficult to express in averages.• Finding communal interests will generate support for climate adaptation.• Goals regarding water storage can be linked with goals for cooling and well-being.

⁎ Corresponding author at: National Institute for Publ(RIVM), PO Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Te

E-mail address: Jacqueline.claessens@rivm.nl (J. Claess

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.02.1200048-9697/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 27 June 2013Received in revised form 27 February 2014Accepted 27 February 2014Available online 20 March 2014

Keywords:Water storage capacityHuman healthUrban areasGreen spacesClimate adaptationSoil

One of the effects of climate change expected to take place in urban areas in the Netherlands is an increase in pe-riods of extreme heat and drought. How the soil can contribute to making cities more climate proof is oftenneglected. Unsealed soil and green spaces increase water storage capacity and can consequently preventflooding. The planning of public or private green spaces can have a cooling effect and, in general, have a positiveeffect on how people perceive their health. This paper reviews existing guidelines from Dutch policy documentsregarding unsealed soil and green spaces in the Netherlands; do they support climate adaptation policies? Scien-tific literature was used to quantify the positive effects of green spaces on water storage capacity, cooling andpublic health. Finally we present a case study of a model town where different policy areas are linked together.Maps were made to provide insight into the ratio of unsealed soil and the number of green spaces in relationto existing guidelines using Geographical Information Systems (GIS). Maps marking the age and social-economic status of the population were also made. The benefits of green spaces are difficult to express in aver-ages because they depend on many different factors such as soil properties, type of green spaces, populationcharacteristics and spatial planning. Moreover, it is not possible to provide quantifications of the benefits ofgreen spaces because of a lack of scientific evidence at the moment. Based on the maps, however, policy assess-ments can be made, for example, in which site a neighborhood will most benefit from investment in parks andpublic gardens. Neighborhoods where people have a low social-economic status have for example fewer greenspaces than others. This offers opportunities for efficient adaptation policies linking goals of several policy fields.

© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Over the coming decades climate change is expected to result ingreater periods of heat and drought in The Netherlands as well as inmore intensive rainfall and flood risks. In urban areas this may havenegative effects on people's living environment and health. It is precise-ly in urban areas, where a large part of the land is sealed by buildingsand asphalt, that extreme weather conditions have a greater impact(EEA, 2012). In extreme weather events the water is not able to pene-trate into the soil and has to be eliminated through the sewage system

ic Health and the Environmentl.: +31302743783.ens).

and surface waters. Eight percent of land in The Netherlands is sealed,making it the country with the most sealed land in the EU after Malta(Prokop et al., 2011).

Until now, measures to mitigate the effects of e.g. climate change incities, focus mainly on infrastructural- and technical solutions withoutconcern for the natural soil–water system. However, sustainable useof soil-ecosystems offers a variety of opportunities to contribute to solu-tions for societal challenges. In practice, these opportunities are still un-derexploited. A recent study by the EEA recommends a combination ofdifferent measures – ‘gray’ measures such as technological and engi-neering projects, ‘green’ ecosystem-based approaches using nature,and so-called ‘soft’measures such as policies to change governance ap-proaches (EEA, 2013). The capacity of the soil as a carrier of greeneryplays thus an important role in climate-resistant planning.

777J. Claessens et al. / Science of the Total Environment 485–486 (2014) 776–784

Green infrastructure has a large number of environmental, economicand social benefits (EPA, 2010; Wong et al., 2012). These benefits varyfrom improvement of air quality, flood protection, improvement ofhuman health, encouragement of economic development, educationand urban heat island mitigation. Water storage, cooling and health ef-fects are the benefits we focus on in this study (Figs. 1 and 2). Greeneryprovides cooling (Döpp, 2011), as a result of which the so-called urbanheat island (UHI) effect is possibly reduced in towns and the quality oflife improved (EEA, 2012). In addition, greenery increaseswater storagecapacity (EEA, 2012) and several positive health effects have been de-scribed (e.g. de Vries and Verheij, 2003; Maas et al., 2009b; Mitchelland Popham, 2007; Lee and Maheswaran, 2011). However, evidence-based quantifications of the positive effects of greenery are – to ourknowledge – lacking.

The aim of this article is to demonstrate and discuss the potentialbenefits of green space and the natural soil–water system for contribut-ing to major societal challenges in urban environment with regard towater storage, cooling and health effects (Figs. 1 and 2). It is generallybelieved that climate change, among others, will undeniably affect thequality of urban life. The question is not only the scale and seriousnessof the effects but also how society will anticipate and which measurescan be taken now. Finding communal interests between the differentbenefits of greenery is an important aspect of successful adaptationpolicy.

Dutch policy makers expressed the need for a quantification of thepositive effects of green space to underpin their climate adaptation pol-icies. Commissioned by the DutchMinistry of Infrastructure and the En-vironment we (first) explored existing guidelines regarding unsealedsoil, green spaces andwater storage in theNetherlands; do they supportclimate adaptation policies? Secondlywe quantified the benefits of a so-phisticated green space soil policy with regard to water storage, coolingand health. Finally (three) we determined the availability of urban

Fig. 1.Water storage capacity and cooling effec

green, a key factor for the quality of urban life, for a Dutch model city.In this case study different policy areas are linked together. The resultsof this study are also presented in a Dutch report by Claessens et al.(2012).

2. Material and methods

2.1. The benefits of greenery and guidelines

Scientific literature was reviewed to describe the benefits of green-ery and a natural soil–water system for the quality of life in urbanareas. We focused at effects on water storage capacity, cooling andhealth. For health effects, we used 2 existing reviews: one by theDutch Health Council and Advisory Council of Environmental Planning(2004) and an update by Maas et al. (2009a) (both in Dutch). Somemore recent, international references have been added as the evidencefor health effects is rapidly emerging. In addition, a search was done inDutch policy documents to find guidelines for soil and greenery inurban areas.

2.2. Case study Hilversum

Using Geographical Information System (GIS) analyses for a modeltown, this study looked at the percentage of unsealed land, the locationof open green spaces and access to the green spaces at district level. Thiswas then linked to the age distribution in the various districts andthe mean monthly income (as an indicator of social-economic status).The differences between districts were investigated, and statisticaltests were done to see whether the differences were significant. ThePearson's correlation coefficients between the surface of green spaceand the age structure/socioeconomic status were calculated, using IBM

ts of green spaces in urban environments.

Fig. 2. Positive health effects of green spaces in urban environments. There is no direct evidence that greenery reduces heat stress in the elderly, but it has been shown that green spaceprovides cooling and that the elderly are vulnerable for heat stress.

778 J. Claessens et al. / Science of the Total Environment 485–486 (2014) 776–784

SPSS Statistics version 19. Prior to the analyses, the green space areawaslog-transformed.

2.2.1. Percentage unsealed soilThe ‘TOP10NL’ (the topographic map of the Netherlands, scale

1:10,000, made in 2009) was used to calculate the percentage unsealedsoil within Hilversum. TOP10NL is the most detailed dataset from theDutchNationalMappingAgency (Kadaster). The following land-use cat-egories were assumed to be unsealed soil:

• Row of trees• Cemetery• Grassland• Heathland• Deciduous forest• Coniferous forest• Mixed forest.

Parks and plantations were also set equal to unsealed soil. The map‘Districts and Neighborhoods’ that wasmade in 2010 by the Central Sta-tistical Office (CBS) was used to map neighborhoods within Hilversum.For each neighborhood within the village of Hilversum, the area un-sealed soil was divided by the total area of that neighborhood.

2.2.2. Location of public green spaceThe TOP10NL was also used to determine the location of public

green space within the village of Hilversum. Apart from the category‘rowof trees’, mentioned in the previous paragraph, the same categorieswere used. Besides the TOP10NL, the CBS-land-use map from 2006wasalso used in the selection (CBS — Statistics Netherlands, 2006). The se-lected categories are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1The selected categories from the two land-use maps.

CBS (2006) TOP10NL

Cemetery CemeteryForest Mixed forestDay recreational area GrasslandOpen dry natural area HeathlandPark plantation Deciduous forest

Coniferous forest

The location of the public green space in Hilversum derived from theCBS and TOP10NL land-use maps.

2.2.3. Access to green space within 500 mThe availability of public green within 500 m of a residence

was calculated similar to earlier calculations that were done by theCBS, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) andWageningen University and Research (WUR) center (http://www.compendiumvoordeleefomgeving.nl/indicatoren/nl0299-Beschikbaarheid-van-groen-in-de-stad.html?i=13-46accessed June24, 2013). For eachpublic green space polygon, the surface areawas cal-culated. All areas smaller than 10 m2 were neglected. Also, the publicgreen areas outside the village were neglected. To calculate the avail-ability of a public green space within 500 m of a residence, first a bufferof 500m is calculated around each public green area. Second, an overlayis made between the map with public green space and a map showingthe location of each address in Hilversum in 2008 (the map is calledACN— Adrescoördinaten Nederland). For each green area is then deter-mined which addresses are located within 500 m. Third, for each greenarea, the number of addresses within 500 m is counted. The surface ofeach green space is then divided by the number of addresses within500m. This results in the surface of public green that is available per ad-dress for each green area. Next, for each address the surface green areathat is available within 500 m is summed up. Also, it is determined inwhich neighborhood each address is located. Finally, for each neighbor-hood the surface of public green space per address is averaged. Thegreen that is located outside the village is explicitly not taken into ac-count. Hilversum has a relatively large area of public green space justoutside its village. Since only the public green space within the villageis taken into account in the analysis, an underestimation of the actualavailable public green space may occur, mainly at the outskirts of thevillage.

2.2.4. Age structure (children and 65+) and socioeconomic statusThe data of CBS from 2004 were used (CBS— Statistics Netherlands,

2004) to determine the age structure and socioeconomic status of theneighborhoods in Hilversum. The data were available for each zipcode area. The meanmonthly income taxwas used as a measure for so-cioeconomic status. The percentage of children younger than 15 yearsand the percentage of people older than 65 years were used to describethe age structure of the population. First, it was determined which zipcodes were located within a neighborhood. Second, the monthly

779J. Claessens et al. / Science of the Total Environment 485–486 (2014) 776–784

income tax and the age structure were then averaged for eachneighborhood.

3. Results

3.1. The benefits of greenery and open spaces in towns

3.1.1. Water storageIn practice technical interventions are often chosen to combat

flooding rather than the existing soil–water system. Model simulationsand practical studies (Haasse, 2009; Jeppessen et al., 2011; Kleidorferet al., 2009; Mansel and Wang, 2010) however show that the presenceof greenery and open spaces (unsealed soil) contributes significantly towater storage in urban areas. For example, an increase of 200 mm/yearin runoff is reported for the urban area of Leipzig with 40–60% sealedsoil compared to unsealed soil (Haasse, 2009). Another study showsthat an increase of 20% of rainfall intensity has the same effect on thewater balance of urban areas as an increase of 40% of sealed area(Kleidorfer et al., 2009). Although, the relation between water storagecapacity and sealing is clear, the quantitative contribution of greeneryto water storage depends on various factors, such as soil characteristics,weather conditions and town planning (e.g. Mansel and Wang, 2010).

Case studies from the US show that with low impact development(LID) strategies and practices, project costs can be reduced and environ-mental performance improved (EPA, 2007). These practices may varyform bioretention, reduction of impervious area, permeable pavement,wetlands and green roofs. Due to the reduction of impervious area orthe use of permeable pavementwatermay infiltrate in the soil resultingin a decrease of stormwater runoff (Fig. 1). In areas where the soil hasless infiltration capacity the water-storage capability can be increasedby the creation of wetlands (Fig. 1). The creation of green roofs(Fig. 1) is also a sensiblemeasure to increase thewater-storage capacity(e.g. Roehr and Kong, 2010). The extent to which this is the case de-pends on the thickness of the substrate layer of the green roof. In bothcases the soil or the substrate layer will retain the water resulting in adecrease of runoff. Another measure, to retain water in the local areaand relieve the sewer system, is the disconnection of sealed surfacesfrom the sewer system (Fig. 1). In Australia the governments have tofocus on the emerging challenge to secure reliable water supplies forurban areas due to drought conditions. In water sensitive urban design(WSUD) stormwater has become an alternative water source instead ofa nuisance (Wong et al., 2012). Under drought conditions stormwaterprovides an additional and abundant source of water to support thegreening of cities.

3.1.2. CoolingThe creation of green spaces in urban areas contributes to cooling

during hot periods (Döpp, 2011). A recent study in Rotterdam showedthat an increase of 10% in greenery results in a temperature reductionof 1 ºC (Klok et al., 2010). The temperatures in a park are lower thanthose outside the park (Figs. 1 and 2). Moreover, the presence of apark also reduces the surrounding temperature. The extent of these ef-fects depends on, among other things, the planning of the green spacesand weather conditions. The cooling effect of green roofs is limited(Döpp, 2011). Trees in streets and gardens also provide a limited coolingeffect by providing shadow (Fig. 1).

An important point of attention in the creation of green spaces is theavailability of water. In hot periods the availability is lower. Only withsufficient availability of water is there a cooling effect as a result of theevaporation from greenery.

3.1.3. HealthThere is sufficient proof of a relationship between green spaces in

residential environments and people's perceived health (Fig. 2). Thisrelation has been observed in large-scale studies carried out in TheNetherlands, in which factors such as socio-economic status and age

were taken into account (de Vries and Verheij, 2003; Maas andVerheij, 2006). This has been confirmed in studies in other countriesfor perceived health (Mitchell and Popham, 2007; Bjork et al., 2008;Sugiyama and Leslie, 2008) and well-being (White et al., 2013). Al-though there is proof of a relationship, it is still unclear whether this isa causal link. Is the improved perceived health the result of the numberof green spaces, or is it, for example, the absence of traffic noise in thoseareas that benefits health? There is a need for a better exposure charac-terisation in order to be able to distinguish the effects of green spacesfrom the effects of, for example, fewer local sources of air pollutionand noise. In addition, the indicator ‘green spaces’ needs to be better de-fined; what characteristics of green spaces play a role in the varioushealth effects? There is currently a European project ‘PHENOTYPE’being carried out into the positive effects of green spaces on health(http://www.phenotype.eu/ accessed June 24, 2013).

There aremany publications on the association between green spaceand physical activity (e.g. Bjork et al., 2008; Hillsdon et al., 2006;Kaczynski and Henderson, 2007; Kligerman et al., 2007; Maas, 2008).For adults, however, results are not consistent and sometimes evencontradictory (Maas et al., 2009a; Dutch Health Council and AdvisoryCouncil of Environmental Planning, 2004). For children, there are moreconsistent indications that green spaces increase physical activity(Fig. 2) and – thereby – potentially reduces obesity numbers (Maaset al., 2009a; Davison and Lawson, 2006), but the various studies aretoo wide-ranging to be regarded as ‘sufficient proof’ of a link. Moreover,it is unclear whether a green play environment has an added value com-pared with a non-green play environment. However, new evidence isemerging, especially for the positive effects in children of families withlow social-economic status (Evans et al., 2012; Lovasi et al., 2013) andtherefore, it is worth considering this group to provide insight in wherepotential health gains can be achieved.

Although there is sufficient proof of a link between green spaces and‘perceived health’, it is still unclear whether this link is causal (Lee andMaheswaran, 2011). Therefore, it is not possible to quantify the poten-tial increase in perceived health as a result of the creation of greenspaces at the moment. However, it is possible to indicate how manypeople would potentially benefit from, for example, the creation ofgreen spaces, for example viamaps, andwhere potential health benefitscould be achieved. It is particularly interesting to map the age distribu-tion and social-economic status of populations of different neighbor-hoods. Children (Fig. 2), especially those from families with low social-economic status would potentially benefit from green spaces (Evanset al., 2012; Lovasi et al., 2013) and the elderly (Fig. 2), because of the po-tential reduction of heat stress, for which they are vulnerable (Fischeret al., 2004). The positive effects of green space on perceived healthalso seem to be larger in groups with low social-economic status andthe elderly (Maas and Verheij, 2006), and therefore, it is worthwhile tocreate green spaces in those neighborhoods where these people live.

3.1.4. GuidelinesIn The Netherlands the Dutch Delta Programme aims to ensure that

current and future generations are protected against flooding and thatfresh water is sufficient available. The Delta Programme defines fiveDelta decisions. The Delta decision ‘spatial adaptation’ looks at the wayin which towns and villages should and can take water into account inspatial developments (Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environmentand Ministry of Economic Affairs and Agriculture and Innovation,2011). However, guidelines for climate adaptation policies have notbeen developed (yet).

Responsibility for spatial planning, as is proposed in the StructuralVision on Infrastructure and Space (Ministry of Infrastructure and theEnvironment, 2012), lies primarily with the municipalities, provincesand water authorities (Ligtvoet et al., 2011). Green spaces, water andsoil are part of the municipal development plans. An important topicin these plans is the creation of sufficient water storage capacity. Spatialplans that could have an effect on water management are obliged to

Table 2Guidelines found in literature.

Indicator Guideline Reference

Unsealed soil-highly urbanized 15% http://www.ruimtexmilieu.nl/index.php?nID=153#water/ accessed June 24, 2013Unsealed soil-urbanized 25% http://www.ruimtexmilieu.nl/index.php?nID=162#water/ accessed June 24, 2013Unsealed soil-water storage 50% Soil Protection Technical Committee (TCB) (2010)Green per residence 75 m2/residence Ministry of Housing and Spatial Planning and the Environment (2006)

780 J. Claessens et al. / Science of the Total Environment 485–486 (2014) 776–784

devote attention to water via the water test (http://www.helpdeskwater.nl/onderwerpen/water-en-ruimte/watertoetsproces-0/ accessed June 24,2013). The purpose of the water test is to guarantee that water-management objectives are explicitly taken into account in a balancedmanner. For example, monitoring is carried out to ensure that inurban areas flood water is not shifted to another neighborhood/district/area.

Several municipalities in The Netherlands have already drawn upobjectives for climate adaptation (Inspection by the Ministry forHousing and Spatial Planning and the Environment, 2010). Urban adap-tation in Dutch cities happens at an ‘ad-hoc’ fashion, with several goodexamples like in Rotterdam and Arnhem. These cities participate in anational research program called ‘Knowledge for Climate’ (http://knowledgeforclimate.climateresearchnetherlands.nl/ accessed June 21,2013). Several municipalities have policy documents regarding green(e.g. Municipality of Hilversum, 2011). In these documents no guide-lines are given but objectives are formulated to promote green spaces.In Table 2 the guidelines are summarized that were found in Dutch pol-icy documents and on websites that support spatial planning.

The guidelines were not based on scientific evidence, for examplewith regard of the positive health effects of green space per residence,but seem to be the results of pragmatic decision-making. They providetarget numbers and are not mandatory.

Map 1. The availability of open green spaces within 500

3.2. Case study Hilversum

The municipality of Hilversum has 85,000 residents and an area of46 km2. The area of green space per residence is 58.4 m2.

3.2.1. Availability of green spacesFor the availability of open green spaces, the amount of green within

a distance of 500 m from a residence is determined (Map 1). The avail-able green is less than 20m2 per residence in the center and the adjoineddistricts on the east side. Also the districts on the south-west-side of thecenter do not meet the guideline of 75 m2 per residence. The availablegreen varies between 20 and 50 m2 per residence. The districts at thesouth and the north side of the municipality have sufficient green avail-able. The availability varies between 75 and N150 m2 per residence.

3.2.2. ChildrenThe districts where relatively a large number of children lives are

divided between the green districts (75–N150 m2/residence) at thenorth and the south side of the municipality and the less greendistricts (b20–50 m2/residence) at the east side (Electrobuurt, KleineDriftbuurt) and the west side (het Rode Dorp, Schrijverskwartier andBloemenkwartier) of the center (Map 2). Please note that in this mapthe percentage is given. In a densely build district the absolute number

m of the home in the various districts of Hilversum.

Map 2. The percentage of children (aged 0–14 years) in the various districts of the municipality of Hilversum.

781J. Claessens et al. / Science of the Total Environment 485–486 (2014) 776–784

of children will be larger than in a less densely build district with thesame percentage of children. The center and the surrounding districtshave a higher resident density than the districts at the edge of themunicipality.

3.2.3. ElderlyThe districts where relatively a large number of elderly live (22–

33%) are located at the edge of the municipality in the more green

Map 3. The percentage of elderly (65+) in the var

districts (75–N150 m2/residence) (Map 3). Only at the south-west-side are a couple of less green (20–50 m2/residence) districts(Staatsliedenkwartier and Zeeheldenkwartier) where a relativelyhigh number of elderly live.

3.2.4. Average fiscal monthly incomeThe districts with low average fiscalmonthly income (b1800–2000)

are located at the east side of the municipality (Map 4). These are

ious districts of the municipality of Hilversum.

Map 4. The average fiscal monthly income of the residents of the various districts of the municipality of Hilversum.

782 J. Claessens et al. / Science of the Total Environment 485–486 (2014) 776–784

largely the districts where the availability of open green spaces low is(b20–50 m2/residence).

3.2.5. Correlation between variablesThere was a significant correlation between the amount of green

space nearby and the percentage of elderly in the neighborhood(Table 3). Also, monthly income was significantly correlatedto the green space area. The percentage of children was notcorrelated.

4. Discussion

4.1. Guidelines

For the use of soil and greenery in climate resistant planningunderpinned, obligatory guidelines do not exist. The benefits of waterstorage capacity and green spaces are difficult to express in averages.The benefits depend on many different factors such as soil properties,type of green spaces and spatial planning. However, guidelines may beused to support climate policies. The guideline for unsealed soil with thepurpose of water storage varies from 15 to 50% of the surface in urbanareas (Table 2). The availability of green should be 75 m2/residence ac-cording to guidelines in Dutch policy documents. Perhaps new guidelineswill be developedwithin the framework of theDutchDelta Programme inthe near future.

The case study shows that for this municipality existing guidelines(Table 2) are not reached for most districts. The percentage of unsealed

Table 3Correlation between availability of green and children, elderly and monthly income.

Green area correlation coefficient Significance

Children 0.193 0.149 nsElderly 0.416 b0.01Monthly income 0.749 b0.01

soil, for example, is in the center mainly between 0 and 5% compared tothe guidelines of 15–50%. The percentage of unsealed soil (Map 1) ishowever underestimated because single trees and smaller green areas(for example backyards of houses) were not taken into account. Thiswas due to a lack of high resolution data. To make a better estimationof the percentage unsealed soil, a higher resolution map is needed,which also includes the category ‘backyards’. However, the degree oftiling of yards should then be included as well and gardens in the citycenter are generally relatively small. Possibly, aerial photographs or sat-ellite images (for example infrared images) may offer a solution.

4.2. Synergy or policy mainstreaming

For the use of land in urban areas for water storage it is importantthat synergy be sought between the different policy areas (EPA, 2010;Wong et al., 2012). Instead of limiting the scope of stormwater effortsto water related policy, the non-water benefits of green infrastructureshould also be considered. These benefits could be public health (seealso paragraph 3 and Fig. 2), community liveability, reduced infrastruc-ture construction, etc. One of the success factors of adaptation planningand implementation is horizontal collaboration between different sec-tors or policy departments, aswell as vertical collaboration between dif-ferent administrative levels (Kazmierczak and Carter, 2010; Pötz andBleuzé, 2012; Greater London Authority, 2008; Euroconsultants, 2011;EEA, 2012).

Seeking synergy between the different policy areas can generate agreat deal of profit. A handy tool in this could be to make transparent,for example, the percentage of unsealed land or the availability ofopen green spaces on maps (see Section 3). Our case study demon-strates that in the districts with low average monthly income (Map 4)and the districts with a high percentage of elderly (Map 3) the availabil-ity of greenery is low (Map 1 and Table 3). These are precisely the pop-ulation groups in which potentially relatively large health benefits canbe achieved by the creation of more green spaces (Fig. 2). Investing inpublic green in these districts will favor the water storage capacity of

783J. Claessens et al. / Science of the Total Environment 485–486 (2014) 776–784

that area but also lead to benefits in health. Our study thus shows thatspace for water storage can be well combined with space for a healthyenvironment. In these districts investing in greenery provides possibili-ties for stormwater management but also may have positive effects onhuman health (Fig. 2).

The contribution by the policy area ‘soil’ to climate-resistant plan-ning is still often limited. Municipal soil management plans often putthe chemical quality of the soil at the center and devote less attentionto sustainable land use. In order to put the natural soil–water systemto optimumuse, ambitions in the field of water storage should be linkedto ambitions in the field of soil and green spaces. This is in line with theconclusion of the European Environmental Agency, which concludedthat Europe needs to ensure that adaptation is integrated in EU and na-tional policies. This is called ‘policymainstreaming’ (EEA, 2013). An im-portant part of sustainable land use is, for example, the water-storageability of the soil, which combats flooding but also drought. Workingwith nature, instead of working against natural processes, and usinggreen infrastructure offer sustainable solutions with multiple benefits(EEA, 2012).

4.3. Quantifying potential benefits

In the trade-off with other spatial interests climate adaptation ishowever assigned a lower priority because of the lack of an overviewof the costs and benefits and the lack of urban planning preconditions(Inspection by the Ministry for Housing and Spatial Planning and theEnvironment, 2010). This is also one of the conclusions of the EEA(EEA, 2013). Policy makers have expressed the need of a quantificationof the benefits of green space interventions in order to be able to per-form cost–benefit analyses. Quantification is relatively easy for mea-sures that relate to water storage and purification (financial benefits).For example, creating water storage means that sewage costs can beavoided. However, quantifying social benefits, such as the sustainableuse of soil ecosystems and health effects (see paragraph 3), is more dif-ficult, because they depend on many factors. For example, what is itworth to residents and municipalities to reduce the temperature intowns by 1 or 2° and to improve the quality of life? It is difficult to ex-press the benefits of green spaces or a better urban climate in generalfigures. The assessments of costs and benefits of adaptation actions atEuropean, national and local level is an emerging field of work. Morework is needed before these considerations can fully inform adaptationdecision-making (EEA, 2013).

4.4. Practical examples: possibilities in legislation

Even though it is difficult to quantify the benefits of greenery, thesebenefits are already taken into consideration in many climate adapta-tion projects (e.g. EPA, 2010; Wong et al., 2012). The motivation ofsuch projects is in many cases prevention of flooding (e.g. Vaessen,2006; Kazmierczak and Carter, 2010). Increasing numbers of local au-thorities are striving to achieve ‘no regret’measures such as decouplingsealed areas (Fig. 1) and granting subsidies for this to preventwater nui-sance. In doing this the municipalities want to relieve the sewers, whilethe water authorities aim to combat drought and save on purificationcosts. This can be achieved by the infiltration of rainwater into gardensor the creation of undergroundwater storage through theuse, for exam-ple, of infiltration crates. The possibilities provided by legislation andguidelines are also crucial with regard to the implementation of climatepolicy. The use of rainwater or the collection of rainwater on one's ownplot, for example, is far from commonplace in TheNetherlands,whereasin Germany this is obligatory (Ngan, 2004; Roer and Overmaas WaterAuthority, 2007). In Germany retaining water on one's own plot is en-couraged by a sewer tax linked to the size of the sealed area.

In Germany, green space policies can be supported by the ‘GermanIntervention Rule’, which is based on sections of the Federal BuildingCode, along with parts of the Federal Nature Conservation Act. In

essence interventions (intrusions) on nature or the landscape requirecompensation measures (counterbalances). Green roofs and greenspace are recognized as compensationmeasures inmanymunicipalities(Ngan, 2004). In Berlin, this has resulted in the regulation that plans forthe development of new buildings require a certain proportion of thedevelopment area to be left as a green space. The proportion of greenspace to the entire development area is referred to as the Biotope AreaFactor (BAF or BFF for Biotop Flachenfaktor) (Kazmierczak and Carter,2010).

5. Conclusions

• For the use of soil and greenery in climate resistant planningunderpinned guidelines do not exist in The Netherlands. However,policy making can be supported by making maps which show a city'sperformance with regard to existing guidelines in policy documentsfrom different policy fields.

• The benefits of green spaces in relation to water storage, cooling andhumanhealth, are difficult to express in averages. The benefits dependon many different factors such as soil properties, type of green spacesand spatial planning. Quantification of the benefits of measures thatrelate towater storage and purification (financial benefits) is relative-ly easy. Charting social benefits, such as the sustainable use of soil eco-systems and health effects, is more difficult.

• Finding communal interests will generate support for climate adapta-tion. Our case study shows, for example, that space for water storagecan be well combined with space for a healthy environment. Manyprojects have shown that finding communal interests is one of thesuccess factors of climate adaptation projects.

References

Bjork J, Albin M, Grahn P, Jacobsson H, Ardo J, Wadbro J, et al. Recreational values of thenatural environment in relation to neighbourhood satisfaction, physical activity,obesity and wellbeing. J Epidemiol Community Health 2008;62(4):e2.

CBS— Statistics Netherlands. KerncijfersWijken en Buurten (Information on age structureand socioeconomic status). [In Dutch] http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/dossiers/nederland-regionaal/cijfers/incidenteel/maatwerk/wijk-buurtstatistieken/kwb-recent/default.htm, 2004.

CBS — Statistics Netherlands. Information on the land use map. http://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/5B353A4E-6B56-4756-A19C-4BF6AA520C65/0/BestandBodemgebruikProductbeschrijving.pdf, 2006. [In Dutch].

Claessens JW, Schram-Bijkerk D, Dirven-van Breemen EM, Houweling DA, van Wijnen H.Soil as basis for a climate proof and healthy urban area. RIVM Report 607050011.Bilthoven: RIVM; 2012. [in Dutch].

Davison KK, Lawson CT. Do attributes in the physical environment influence children'sphysical activity? A review of the literature. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2006;3:19.

de Vries S, Verheij RA. Natural environments–healthy environments? An exploratoryanalysis of the relationship between green space and health. Environ Plan 2003;35:1717–31.

Döpp S. Kennismontage Hitte en Klimaat in de Stad (Knowledge mounting heat andclimate in the city). [in Dutch] TNO rapport: TNO-060-UT-2011-01053. Utrecht:Climate Proof TNO; 2011.

Dutch Health Council, Advisory Council of Environmental Planning. Influence of nature onsocial, psychological and physical wellbeing. Den Haag: Dutch Health Council & Advi-sory Council of Environmental Planning; 2004 [in Dutch].

EEA. Urban adaptation to climate change in Europe Challenges and opportunities for citiestogether with supportive national and European policies. EEA report No2/2012.European Environment Agency; 2012.

EEA. Adaptation in Europe addressing risks and opportunities from climate change in thecontext of socio-economic developments. EEA report No3/2013. European Environ-ment Agency; 2013.

EPA. Reducing stormwater costs through low impact development (LID) strategies andpractices. EPA 841-F-07–006. Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protec-tion Agency; 2007.

EPA. Green infrastructure case studies: municipal policies for managing stormwater withgreen infrastructure. EPA 841-F-10-004. Washington, DC: United States Environmen-tal Protection Agency; 2010.

Euroconsultants. Municipality of Kalamaria. Adaptation action plan and political state-ment. GRABS deliverable 3.2. Thessaloniki: Euroconsultants; 2011.

Evans GW, Jones-Rounds ML, Belojevic G, Vermeylen F. Family income and childhoodobesity in eight European cities: the mediating roles of neighborhood characteristicsand physical activity. Soc Sci Med 2012;75(3):477–81.

Fischer PH, Brunekreef B, Lebret E. Air pollution related deaths during the 2003 heat wavein the Netherlands. Atmos Environ 2004;38:1083–5.

784 J. Claessens et al. / Science of the Total Environment 485–486 (2014) 776–784

Greater London Authority. East London Green Grid Framework. London Plan (Consolidatedwith Alterations since 2004). Supplementary Planning. London: Greater LondonAuthority; 2008.

Haasse D. Effects of urbanisation on the water balance — A long-term trajectory. EnvironImpact Assess Rev 2009;29:211–9.

Hillsdon M, Panter J, Foster C, Jones A. The relationship between access and quality ofurban green space with population physical activity. Pub Health 2006;120(12):1127–32.

Inspection by the Ministry for Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment.Doorwerking van klimaatadaptatie in ruimtelijke plannen. Een monitoring van degemeentelijke praktijk. VROM_inspectie (Effects of climate change adaptation in spa-tial planning. A monitoring of the municipal practice). [in Dutch] Den Haag:Publicatienummer 0011; 2010.

Jeppessen J, Christensen S, Ladekarl UL. Modelling the historical water cycle of the Copen-hagen area 1850–2003. J Hydrol 2011;404:117–29.

Kaczynski AT, Henderson KA. Environmental correlates of physical activity: a review ofevidence about parks and recreation. Leis Sci 2007;29:315–54.

Kadaster — Top10NL — topographic map of the Netherlands, scale 1:10,000 see: http://www.kadaster.nl/web/artikel/productartikel/TOP10NL.htm [In Dutch].

Kazmierczak A, Carter J. Adaptation to climate change using green and blue infrastructure.A database of case studies. Manchester: University of Manchester; 2010.

Kleidorfer M, Moderl M, Sitzenfrei R, Urich C, Rauch W. A case independent approach onthe impact of climate change effects on combined sewer system performance. WaterSci Technol 2009;60(6):1555–64.

Kligerman M, Sallis JF, Ryan S, Frank LD, Nader PR. Association of neighborhood designand recreation environment variables with physical activity and body mass indexin adolescents. Am J Health Promot 2007;21(4):274–7.

Klok L, ten Broeke H, van Harmelen T, Verhagen H, Kok H, Zwart S. Ruimtelijke verdelingen mogelijke oorzaken van het hitte-eiland effect (Spatial distribution and possiblecauses of the heat island effect). [in Dutch] TNO rapport: TNO-034-UT-2010-01229_RPT-ML. Utrecht: TNO; 2010.

Lee ACK, Maheswaran R. The health benefits of urban green spaces: a review of the evi-dence. J Public Health 2011;33(2):212–22.

Ligtvoet W, Franken R, Pieterse N, van Gerwen OJ. Een delta in beweging. Bouwstenenvoor een klimaatbestendige ontwikkeling van Nederland (Building blocks for aclimate resilient development in the Netherlands. A delta in motion). [in Dutch]Den Haag: Planbureau voor de leefomgeving 978-90-78645-72-6; 2011.

Lovasi GS, Schwartz-Soicher O, Quinn JW, Berger DK, Neckerman K, Jaslow R. Neighbor-hood safety and green space as predictors of obesity among preschool childrenfrom low-income families in New York City. Prev Med 2013;57(3):189–93.

Maas J. Vitamin G: green environments — healthy environments. Utrecht: University ofUtrecht; 2008.

Maas J, Verheij RA. Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation?J Epidemiol Community Health 2006;60(7):587–92.

Maas J, Verheij RA, Breuning N. State-of-the-Art Natuur en Gezondheid (State-of-the artnature and health). [in Dutch] Eindadvies natuur op Recept— Communicatiestrategie.Nijmegen: NovioConsult BV; 2009a.

Maas J, Verheij RA, de Vries S, Spreeuwenberg P, Schellevis FG, Groenewegen PP. Morbid-ity is related to a green living environment. J Epidemiol Community Health 2009b;63(12):967–73.

Mansel M, Wang S. Water balance modelling in Glasgow and Beijing. Proc Inst Civil Eng2010;163(5):219–26.

Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment. Nota Ruimte; ruimte voorontwikkeling. Deel 4; tekst na parlementaire instemming (Note spatial planning). [inDutch] Den Haag: Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Enviroment; 2006.

Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment. Structuurvisie Infrastructuur en Ruimte.Nederland concurrerend, bereikbaar, leefbaar en veilig (Vision on Infrastructure andspatial planning). [in Dutch] ; 2012. Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment,Den Haag.

Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment and Ministry of Economic Affairs,Agriculture and innovation. Werk aan de delta. Maatregelen van nu, voorbereidingvoor morgen (Delta Programme 2012: Working on the delta. Measures of today, pre-paring for tomorrow). [in Dutch] ; 2011.

Mitchell R, Popham F. Greenspace, urbanity and health: relationships in England. JEpidemiol Community Health 2007;61(8):681–3.

Municipality of Hilversum. Kenschets Groenbeleidsplan (Characterization green policy).[in Dutch] ; 2011.

Ngan G. Green roof policies: tools for encouraging sustainable design. Saskatoon; 2004.Pötz H, Bleuzé P. Groenblauwe netwerken voor duurzame en dynamische steden

(Urban green-blue grids for sustainable and dynamic cities). 2012 [ISBN:908188040].

Prokop G, Jobstmann H, Schonbauer A. Overview of best practices for limiting soil sealingor mitigating its effects in EU-27. Environment Agency Austria; 2011.

Roehr D, Kong Y. Runoff reduction effects of green roofs in Vancouver, BC, Kelowna, BCand Shanghai, P.R. China. Can Water Resour J 2010;35(1):53–68.

Roer and Overmaas Water Authority. Nota stedelijk waterbeleid Waterschap Roer enOvermaas (Urban water). [in Dutch] ; 2007.

Soil Protection Technical Committee (TCB). Randvoorwaarden afdekken bodem in hetstedelijk gebied (Preconditions for soil sealing in urban areas). [in Dutch] TCBA063; 2010.

Sugiyama T, Leslie E. Associations of neighbourhood greenness with physical and mentalhealth: do walking, social coherence and local social interaction explain the relation-ships? J Epidemiol Community Health 2008;62(5):e9.

Vaessen V. City of Freiburg — case study 93. Toronto: ICLEI-Local Governments for Sus-tainability; 2006.

White MP, Alcock I, Wheeler BW, Depledge MH. Would you be happier living in agreener urban area? A fixed-effects analysis of panel data. Psychol Sci 2013;24(6):920–8.

Wong THF, Allen R, Beringer J, Brown RR, Deletic A, Fletcher TD, Gangadharan L, GernjakW, Jakob C, O'Loan T, Reeder M, Tapper N, Walsh C, editors. Blueprint 2012 —stormwater management in a water sensitive city. Melbourne, Australia: Centre forWater Sensitive Cities 978-1-921912-01-6; 2012 [March].