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 - The netherlands is mainly above sea levels.
(until 1000) - Nature rules over culture.
- Private flood protection (wierden/terpen).
II Defensive water - Exploitation of territory through agriculture, which led to protection
state (1000-1500) by sea/river dikes, water ways, ditches, sluices, etc.
- First official water board (first from of democratic governance!)
III Offensive water - ‘Golden Age’: money to invest in water management.
state (1500-1800) - 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 - Malleability of society: complete control over nature, due to
water state specialization and scientification as key concepts to solve social
(1800-present) 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
,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: d
ue 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: l and 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)
1. 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.
2. Integrated → Horizontal integration: account for interdependency and
approach 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: c oordinated decision-making among different
geographical, hydrological, and jurisdictional scales.
→ Boundary planning ( → lecture 14).
GEWAPL - Summary lectures 2
, 3. Beyond structural → Development of measures addressing the whole ‘safety chain’:
measures - 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: t he content
and the way give meaning
to/derive meaning from
that content.
- Power and resources: t ools 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
, 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 (Rin ) + groundwater inflow (Gin ) =
Runoff as outflow (Rout) + groundwater outflow (Gout) + 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 (ETc)
ET that could occur if a crop had an ideal unlimited water supply
ETc= Kc x ETo
- Kc : crop coefficient, relies on crop height/aerodynamics, albedo of crop-soil surface, canopy
resistance, and evaporation from (exposed soil).
- ETo: reference evapotranspiration.
GEWAPL - Summary lectures 4
