12-11-2019 Introduction Van Ruiten Hartmann , Wiering Immink

  Lecture 1  12-11-2019 | Introduction | Van Ruiten & Hartmann (2016), Wiering & Immink (2006)     

We (the world) have a problem with water quality and water quantity, such as: 

-Sinking cities and countries;  -Increasing number of flood events;  -Continuous urbanization;  -Pressing water issues (too much (flood), too little (drought), or not clean).    → Cannot be solved by technical measures alone, but there is just a lack of space for water.  → ​Spatial problem​, which requires an integration between spatial planning and water management.    Phases of technocratization of Dutch water management  I Natural water state  (until 1000)  -The netherlands is mainly above sea levels.  -Nature rules over culture.  -Private flood protection (wierden/terpen).  II Defensive water  state (1000-1500)  -Exploitation of territory through agriculture, which led to protection  by sea/river dikes, water ways, ditches, sluices, etc.  -First official water board (first from of democratic governance!)  III Offensive water  state (1500-1800) 

-‘Golden Age’: money to invest in water management. 

-First engineers → proactive approach (such as windmill  power/technology) → creation of new polders 

-Birth of Rijkswaterstaat (1798): an ambition to create a centrally 

governed state, together with water protection being seen as  governmental responsibility, and the need for central coordination  to improve the river network.  -Rijkswaterstaat is nowadays charged with the  operation/maintenance of the main water system (water boards on  lower level).  IV Manipulative  water state  (1800-present) 

-Malleability of society​: complete control over nature, due to 

specialization and scientification as key concepts to solve social  issues.  -Large scale projects, e.g. closure of the Zuiderzee, Flevoland, first  round of Delta Works (south of Rotterdam after 1953), second round  of Delta Works (taking place now, “do not wait for another disaster.”) 

-Technocratic paradise​: Rijkswaterstaat was a holy institute, and had a 

lot of authority (‘State within the State’) as long as they protected the  Netherlands from flooding. They had a strong belief in their own  technical abilities/ability to shape Dutch society through intelligent  and perfect engineering.      GEWAPL - Summary lectures 1  1 / 4

  Waves of change  -Ecological awareness: ​from the 1970s onwards with the publication of “The Limits to Growth”  by the Club of Rome. Large water management project were more and more seen as  environmental catastrophes instead of engineering marvel.  -Democratization of society: ​due to citizens wanting more voice in decision-making processes,  Rijkswaterstaat’s authoritarian attitude and lack of responsiveness came under growing  criticism.  -Near river floods (1994-1995)​: increasing awareness about the potential impacts of climate  change, which causes us to give room to the river instead of fighting it. 

-Continuous development: ​land subsidence/urbanization. 

  The spatial turn  An increasing awareness of the limits of coping with flood risks by technical measures alone, causes us  to create more space for the water.  → ​Transition in water management → development of spatial flood protection measures/integrated  approach.  -Turning point is the year 2000 after an advice by the Deltacommissie (Commissie Veerman),  and the introduction policy of Room for the River in 2006.  -Caused by (near) floodings, international treaties, European guidelines, discussion about the  effects of climate change.    The spatial turn   Van Ruiten & Hartmann (2016) 

• Space for rivers → The dike is no longer the division between the responsibilities of the water 

manager and spatial planner.  → Adjustments in the physical landscape, and better coordination within the  institutional system, leading to new roles and responsibilities of actors.  -Include natural water retention measures (NWRM) such as  interception (retaining water in and on plants), increased plant  transpiration, improved soil infiltration, ponds and wetlands, and  reconnecting the floodplain. 

• Integrated 

approach 

→ ​Horizontal integration​: account for interdependency and 

interconnectedness between watershed functions. 

-Across the dike​: cooperation between water planners and spatial 

planners. 

-Along the river​: up and downstream development influence each 

other, and teaming up is therefore important, such as ‘fit-for-  purpose’ governance between different institutions. 

→ ​Vertical integration: ​coordinated decision-making among different 

geographical, hydrological, and jurisdictional scales.  → ​Boundary planning ​(→ lecture 14).  GEWAPL - Summary lectures 2  2 / 4

• Beyond structural 

measures 

→ Development of measures addressing the whole ‘safety chain’: 

-Proaction​: spatial flood management, such as inundation zones, 

retention basins. 

-Prevention​: ‘grey’ infrastructure, such as (mobile) flood barriers. 

-Preparation​: precautionary measures/’resilient’ city, such as 

adaptive building, individual risk protection/information, laws,  regulations, economic instruments, voluntary agreements. 

-(After)Care​: disaster management, such as effective/efficient actions, 

briefings, trainings of disaster forces.  → Transition from policies based on flood probability to risk based policies 

(flood risk: the probability of a flood x the potential impact of flooding). 

→ ​Technical & physical challenge, and institutional & governance challenge.    Policy arrangements for integration water management - spatial planning  Wiering & Immink (2006)    Policy arrangement  The consequence of a temporary  stabilisation of the ​content ​and  organisation ​of a specific policy  domain at a certain level of policy  implementation. 

-Discourse: ​the content 

and the way give meaning  to/derive meaning from  that content.  -Power and resources: ​tools with which an actors/coalition can exercise influence, such as  finances, knowledge, mobilisation by social movements.  -Rules of the game: ​institutional patterns and visions (e.g. Dutch polder model).    Safety/control paradox  A paradox that describes that  reinforcing dikes do not take away the  cause of the problem and partially  create new risks.    GEWAPL - Summary lectures 3  3 / 4

  Lecture 2  12-11-2019 | Water cycle and climate change | Robinson & Ward (2017) chapter 1/2      Water cycle  Almost every water cycle (average model 

over a long period) is shown without: 

-Dynamics on short term, e.g.  atmospheric processes and  human intervention​.  -Spatial variation, e.g. wetlands,  deserts.  -Temporal variation, e.g. more  drought/evaporation in summer.  → Does not capture influences of short  time periods.  → Know what and how the water cycle  changes when human/natural events  happen.    Precipitation (P) + runoff as inflow (R​ in​

• + groundwater inflow (G​

in​

) =  

Runoff as outflow (R​ out​

• + groundwater outflow (G​

out​

• + evaporation (E) + transpiration (T) + change in 

storage (DS)    Evapotranspiration (ET)  Evaporation (water released by soil, canopies, waterbodies) + transpiration (water released from  plants into the air).  -Combined because hard to measure what comes from what source.  -Influenced by soil moisture stress, soil water salinity, management induced stress, etc.    Potential crop evapotranspiration (ET​ c​)  ET that could occur if a crop had an ideal unlimited water supply    ET​ c​

= K​

c ​ x ET​ o  -K​ c ​ : crop coefficient, relies on crop height/aerodynamics, albedo of crop-soil surface, canopy  resistance, and evaporation from (exposed soil).  

-ET​

o​

: reference evapotranspiration.   

GEWAPL - Summary lectures 4 

• / 4