Water and Soil as Guiding Principles: Working Towards Implementation in the Dutch Built Environment

Authors: Abdi Mehvar, Isabelle Snaauw, Tom Daamen

Introduction

As climate change and extreme weather events challenge traditional approaches to land use, a shift in how we plan for the Netherlands’ built environment is underway. Instead of continually adapting our land and water to suit our short-term needs and desires, the focus is now on allowing natural soil and water systems to drive long-term spatial development. This was underscored in the Dutch parliamentary paper ‘‘Water en Bodem Sturend’’ (WBS) in 2022, which emphasises the need to base spatial development guidelines on soil and water systems. For the past year and a half, stakeholders—including government agencies, project developers, banks, and insurance companies—have been actively discussing how to implement these guidelines.

WBS was a central topic in the third annual Red&Blue symposium, hosted at Utrecht University on 11 October 2024. The event provided an opportunity to bring the entire Red&Blue consortium together again, aiming at reflecting on the second year of the program, sharing insights and progress on the Red&Blue’s research agenda, and looking ahead to the future of the five-year program. The event also provided ample opportunity for the Red&Blue community to strengthen relationships, foster collaborations, and align research with the latest developments in policy and practice.

The participants, around sixty representatives from academia and various professional fields such as urban planning, property development, flood risk management, climate finance, real estate investment, climate adaptation, and spatial governance, actively engaged in meaningful discussions on ‘Water en Bodem Sturend’. In interactive sessions, consortium partners shared and exchanged insights on the key question: ‘‘How to embed WBS as guiding principle for spatial development in the Dutch built environment?’’. This report provides an overview of the event and the discussions.

Opening Remarks

‘‘Towards Collaborative Governance Approach’’ 

The symposium was opened by Ellen van Bueren, Professor of Urban Development Management at TU Delft and Red&Blue program lead. She provided an overview of the program, emphasizing its focus and accomplishments over the past two years while outlining the direction for the upcoming year. ‘‘While in the first year, we focused on recruiting researchers, forming teams, and getting to know each other, the second year shifted toward making climate science and learned lessons actionable.’’ She also outlined the focus for the program’s third year, which will be on developing a collaborative governance approach.

‘‘How can we coordinate our individual and collective efforts to adapt, mitigate, and prepare for the impacts of climate change?’’ – Ellen van Bueren

Keynote 1 

‘‘Embracing Knowledge and Collaboration for a Resilient Delta’’

Climate change challenges are growing, and we all experience their effects. Co Verdaas, Professor of Area Development at TU Delft and National Delta Programme Commissioner, highlighted this message in the opening keynote. He pointed out that, in the Netherlands, climate adaptation focuses on preventing damage and sustaining a vital and resilient delta, reinforcing trust in our future. This is a pre-condition for a vital and sustainable economy and society. ‘‘We have to adapt, and there is no easy way forward. Knowledge helps and guides us in designing new perspectives for the future of our cities, infrastructure, and society. It can help us to understand what strategy has (not) worked, and what potential solutions will work.’’

He highlighted Red&Blue as a collaborative platform for creating knowledge and practical insights. However, he also acknowledged key dilemmas: integrating multidisciplinary knowledge while addressing the interdependencies across various expertise and timelines and incorporating diverse perspectives into a cohesive, workable approach. To address these dilemmas, Verdaas advised that given their inherent complexity, ‘‘we cannot solve these challenges, we can only deal with them’’.

 “Share your dilemmas and ask for help. Only then can we come up with solutions together.” – Co Verdaas

Keynote 2 

‘‘Dutch Policy on Spatial Planning: Revisiting Water and Soil as Guiding Principles’’ 

René Vrugt, the Directorate-General for Water and Soil at the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, delivered the day’s second keynote. He began by outlining Dutch policy on climate adaptation, particularly emphasizing the role of water and soil as guiding principles for spatial planning. Citing the country’s rich tradition in water management, Vrugt remarked, ‘‘We learned from our historical floods about how to respond and, more importantly, how to prevent these hazards’’. He stressed the importance of shared responsibilities in managing water and soil systems across all levels of government. He highlighted the “Room for the River” initiative as a revolutionary step in building with nature in the Netherlands.  

‘‘We have reached the boundaries of our system. It is no longer feasible to build anywhere in the country. We need to make strategic location choices.’’ – René Vrugt

In his presentation, Vrugt provided an overview of the seven WBS principles, focusing on the importance of solidarity and the need to avoid shifting responsibilities to future generations. He highlighted the necessity of integrating various approaches with spatial planning and fostering collaboration among stakeholders from different disciplines. He addressed key challenges in implementing these policies by discussing the wide-ranging policy choices within WBS, such as water quality and safety. He concluded that ‘‘future-proof housing requires water and soil to serve as guiding principles, not only in selecting locations but also in shaping design and construction methods’’. 

Vrugt also touched upon existing spatial assessment frameworks and national policy tools, including the ‘Green Climate Adaptation Building Policy’, which provides essential support for spatial planners by guiding location choices while considering climate risks. He noted that efforts are underway to implement these policy measures and decisions while also identifying the practical dilemmas, such as the costs of adaptation measures, the impacts of building location allocations, and challenges related to coordinating activities and governance. According to him, the new cabinet is actively discussing WBS and examining its implications for the country’s future direction of spatial planning. 

The discussion was followed by questions and reflections from the audience, for instance, about land subsidence affecting existing buildings in cities like Dordrecht and Gouda, as well as potential solutions. René acknowledged that ‘‘addressing this issue is very expensive and difficult. There are currently efforts being made by the local government to work on this issue and we should take action where problems are most severe. However, we do not yet have generic policy solutions’’. One of the main questions about land subsidence is ‘Who is responsible for the problem’?

During the discussion, Vrugt underscored the importance of strong cooperation among relevant governmental bodies to create a shared vision and identify actionable steps. He concluded with the ministry’s proactive approach to the question of ‘where and how to build?’: ‘‘We are actively looking for ways to integrate policies into regulations. It is crucial to use co-creative approaches with public and private partners, establish agreements, and foster mutual learning. This strategy marks a significant step forward in our collective efforts.’’

Panel Discussion – Part 1

‘‘Where and How to Build in New Urban Areas?’’  

The program was followed by an inspiring panel discussion led by Professor Ellen van Bueren. The discussion focused on the question of ‘where and how to build in new urban areas?’ Ellen started the session by asking the panel members a preliminary question: ‘What does WBS mean to you?’ 

In response to this question, Vylon Ooms from Verbond van Verzekeraars (the Dutch Association of Insurers) emphasised their goal of maintaining and expanding insurability and explained the importance of insulating buildings in light of changing weather conditions. The other panel member, Sophie Kraaijeveld, Real Estate Sector Banker at ING, highlighted that ING focuses primarily on the energy efficiency of real estate assets. However, they have asked their partners to conduct climate risk scans across the bank’s portfolio. Kraaijeveld noted that once these assets are clearly mapped, the following steps will involve identifying viable solutions to mitigate risks. From a different perspective, Joris Winters, Sector Leader of Property and Investment at Arcadis, highlighted the increasing costs associated with building sustainably in the Netherlands, particularly in new development areas. He reflected on the accompanying housing affordability issue, which he believes will remain a significant challenge in the country. He further highlighted his team’s approach to integrated area development, which incorporates mobility, residential area development, energy transition, and biodiversity improvements. Reflecting on the responsibility of area developers, Tobias Verhoeven, Director at Synchroon, acknowledged that while their team’s involvement in a project may be short-term, the impact and lifespan of the properties developed extend well beyond the development phase: ‘‘Therefore, our strategy is shifting away from locations that are clearly climate-sensitive’’. 

The discussion continued with the second question on whether actors are fully aware of their responsibilities in dealing with climate risks. In response to this question, Joris highlighted the importance of both individual and collective responsibilities in climate adaptation. 

‘‘While each stakeholder has individual responsibility, certain climate risks such as heat stress require coordinated action between different actors and shared principles.’’ –  Joris Winters 

Kraaijeveld pointed out a fundamental dilemma in addressing this question, stemming from the varying perspectives on sustainability held by their international shareholders. She accentuated that the best approach is to involve all clients in this journey. Drawing on the example of energy labelling, she mentioned how attitudes have shifted over time. Initially, shareholders were hesitant about implementing energy labels, but they have since become more open to these measures. According to her, climate adaptation will follow a similar path, with increasing acceptance from clients and shareholders as the value of the adaptation measures becomes clearer.

Vylon continued the discussion by highlighting the availability of extensive risk information for clients, which enables proactive climate adaptation measures. However, he acknowledged that insurance, in general, is perceived as a low-interest product for customers, which can limit engagement with climate adaptation solutions. ‘‘As insurers, we are expanding our responsibilities by looking at how certain adaptation measures can be incorporated, for example, in building codes’’. He further mentioned that some flooded houses in the Netherlands are currently repaired exactly like they were before the event—we will need to change this if we want to prevent recurring damages.

During the discussion, the topic of uncertainties in climate risk assessments was prominently touched upon. Sophie discussed the “trial-and-error” methodology currently employed in estimating climate risks and impacts, highlighting the urgent need for high-quality data. She mentioned that ING has been actively collaborating with its partners to make informed assumptions about climate-related risks, underscoring the importance of data integrity in effective risk management. Additionally, she also brought attention to the preferences of residents regarding where they wish to live, which seems to be at odds with WBS policies if they become too restrictive.

‘‘Many people still choose to reside in high-risk regions, particularly in major cities in the western part of the country, despite the potential dangers. This ongoing trend complicates risk management efforts, as people remain resistant to relocating from these vulnerable areas.’’ –  Sophie Kraaijeveld

One of the audience members reacted to this observation by noting that investors are increasingly considering redirecting their focus towards development in the eastern regions of the country. However, this shift necessitates long-term investments. Joris reflected on this comment by noting that while residential preferences heavily lean towards the Randstad region, the affordability issue makes it difficult to keep developing and constructing dwellings with lush gardens there. He thinks a concerted effort is needed to raise awareness among potential residents about the housing shortage, including the implications of living in risky but high-demand regions. In response, one audience member noted that while there is currently a trend of moving from the Randstad towards the east and south, essential infrastructure such as drinking water supply, power systems, and other vital services should be put in place to facilitate this transition.

Regarding the relocation issue, Sacha Stolp, Director of Innovation for the Future Proof Assets Program of the City of Amsterdam, voiced her growing concerns regarding perceptions of safety in Amsterdam, particularly in light of looming climate-related shocks. She remarked: ‘‘It does not matter if we have an Amsterdam East or not; what truly matters is that we continue to experience these shocks. An increasing number of residents may start to feel that Amsterdam is no longer a safe place to live, leading some to consider leaving the city’’. She highlighted the alarming reality that vulnerable people are suffering and even dying from heat stress, but that this situation is not yet fully recognised in the absence of a significant climate event. 

‘‘While there are many ideas and plans for climate adaptation, a significant challenge lies in the lack of available funding to put all these initiatives into action.’’ –  Sacha Stolp

From a political point of view, Vylon raised his concerns about the debate on climate adaptation, specifically the challenge of identifying suitable locations for development. He pointed out that areas prone to frequent flooding may deter some insurers, thereby increasing vulnerability in those locations. He also referred to a conflict in the timelines of action between insurers, who often look at the insurability of houses year by year, and spatial planners who consider a much longer time span.   

The panel discussion concluded with a final question: ‘‘Do we all have a sense of urgency?’’. Winters acknowledged that while many participants share a sense of urgency, the issue of responsibility is closely linked to actions taken by the newly formed Dutch government. An audience member added: “Many scenarios exist for addressing climate risks, but clarity will only emerge once the new government makes definitive decisions on what scenario to plan for”.  

Panel Discussion – Part 2 

‘‘Land Subsidence in the Existing Built Environment’’

The second round of panel discussion was moderated by Wieke Pot, Assistant Professor at the Public Administration and Policy Group at Wageningen University and member of the Netherlands Scientific Climate Council. In this session, panel members delved into the complex issue of land subsidence, starting with the question of ‘who holds responsibility for addressing this pressing problem?’ All panel members agreed that addressing land subsidence is not solely a private responsibility, but instead, it requires significant public involvement.  

From a financial point of view, panel members reflected first on the question of ‘who should invest in measures to mitigate soil subsidence?’ Vylon Ooms stressed that property values do not reflect foundation problems and restoration costs. ‘‘The biggest challenge is raising awareness among home buyers and sellers about foundation conditions,’’ he remarked, emphasising the need for public sector support, including data-sharing from municipalities and waterboards. Hilbert Bouwman, Funds Manager at Stimuleringsfonds Volshuisvesting (SVn), confirmed this issue and noted the need to raise public awareness by providing information and data. Thuy Do, Senior Policy Advisor in Climate Adaptive Built Environment at the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations of the Netherlands, highlighted that addressing land subsidence is a complex, shared responsibility, given its origins in multiple interrelated factors. 

Ronnie Takens, Advisor in Urban Development and Liveability at the Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO) followed the discussion by stressing the urgency of developing an inclusive approach to engaging vulnerable citizens who may lack awareness of the risks or complete trust in government initiatives. He noted that there is no concrete plan for high-risk areas like Amsterdam yet. 

According to him, the first step should be collaborating with residents, raising their awareness, and openly discussing climate risk issues and potential adaptation strategies. Financial planning and cost-benefit analysis of adaptation measures should follow after a foundation of public engagement is established. 

Citizen awareness and expectations

The panel discussion emphasised the social dimensions of land subsidence, discussing ‘how to engage citizens in understanding and resolving the issue’. Hanke Haagsma, Strategic Advisor at the City of Rotterdam, explained the complexity of this process, noting that public awareness of land subsidence remains low and varies significantly across different groups of citizens. “It is crucial to communicate clearly with affected residents, especially in neighbourhoods like Bloemhof, where both homeowners and renters are impacted”, she said. While the problem is recognised, a concrete solution remains absent, according to her. Haagsma also pointed out that citizens’ expectations from the government are unclear due to their limited awareness of the issue, making collaboration with experts vital to create targeted strategies and support for the most vulnerable.

Subsequently, the panel members discussed the legal complexities involved in addressing land subsidence, expressing that while legal responsibility for soil subsidence falls on private property owners, public authorities have a duty of care to prevent damage in public spaces. ‘‘This division creates tension between public expectations for support and the legal obligations of municipalities and waterboards,’’ noted Martijn van Gils, a Researcher in Law at Utrecht University. Panel members also noted that the government has expressed a desire to take further action on addressing soil subsidence, with proposals to increase subsidies for homeowners and plans to lower groundwater levels to protect homes at risk. However, while specific strategies are being considered for designated areas, it remains unclear if there is a binding legal obligation to enforce these measures.

Private homeowner renovations

During the discussion, an idea was raised about a regular foundation check by homeowners. However, panel members stated that such inspections may raise concerns for sellers, especially if a property fails to meet foundation standards. Vylon Ooms pointed out that, given the pressing demand for housing, buyers may overlook potential structural issues in favour of securing a home, as seen in areas like Bloemhof, where properties continue to sell despite foundation risks. ‘‘In the current situation, not everyone benefits from knowing the actual state of the foundation,’’ he remarked, underscoring the challenge of balancing housing demand with transparency on foundation stability. 

The panel further emphasised that tackling the land subsidence issue demands a collaborative approach, with coordinated efforts between public and private sectors, even if much of the responsibility is deemed private. They concluded that innovative, area-specific solutions should address the socio-economic factors influencing location choices. Prioritising interventions in high-risk neighbourhoods, particularly those with low-income residents, the elderly, unemployed, and disabled individuals, was highlighted as essential for impactful solutions. However, it is also noted that the Netherlands’ highly regulated financial system could pose challenges in finding practical financial solutions for supporting these vulnerable communities.

The discussion turned to the appropriate time horizon for solutions such as foundation renovation. Panel members agreed that addressing soil subsidence requires considering both current challenges and future impacts, potentially over the next century. While many existing foundations were not designed to endure for 100 years, it is mentioned to be feasible to renovate houses to mitigate subsidence risks for the next 50 to 100 years. However, this would likely require tailored regulations for specific neighbourhoods. Experts explained that for standard foundation repairs, using concrete piles- which are low-maintenance and can last for up to a century- can be an effective, though costly, solution. Alternatively, lighter and intermediate restoration methods were proposed. 

Data and citizen science

The last part of the panel discussion focused on practitioners’ questions directed at the scientific community involved in the Red&Blue. Panel members began by noting the significant data gaps regarding land types and foundation conditions and the urgent need for detailed mapping of houses affected by land subsidence in various cities across the Netherlands. Given the severe impacts of subsidence on residents, a consensus was observed amongst the experts on the urgency of addressing the social dimensions of the subsidence issue in future solutions. 

Panel members also proposed several key research questions. One inquiry focused on exploring the organisation of subsidies for foundation restoration, specifically questioning how municipalities could share responsibility for these measures alongside homeowners. In the case of extreme rainfall, for example, could local governments play a more significant role in mitigation efforts? A geology-related research question was also raised, highlighting the need to understand how subsidence data would be used in policymaking. The discussion pointed out that data scarcity is a significant barrier, but data usage in policy development is another challenge even when available. Panel members emphasised the importance of leveraging citizen science to gather more localised data from residents.

Afternoon Parallel Sessions

The symposium continued with four parallel sessions, where the Red&Blue interdisciplinary research teams shared their latest findings with participants. These sessions offered a valuable platform for science-practice knowledge exchange. Here, we summarize some key issues discussed during the sessions:

Real Estate Climate Risk Management 

In this session, Mats Lucia Bayer and Philibert Weenink, PhD candidates, presented their latest research on flood risk and property price effects in the Netherlands. The discussion also explored the potential of risk labels to influence risk perceptions and drive stakeholder action.

Research findings revealed that properties in flood zones experienced an average price discount of 1.2%, with discounts increasing up to 4.4% for areas with higher risk. Findings also show that climate risk is partly reflected in the real estate market, though not uniformly across all markets and subgroups. The lack of discounts for properties in secondary and regional flood zones suggests that not all insurers have accounted for this risk in their pricing. 

Participants also discussed the challenges related to risk labels, focusing on how to develop, implement, and evaluate the potential societal impacts of these labels. While risk labels could provide transparent information about a property’s exposure to different types of risks (e.g., pluvial and fluvial floods), several challenges remain. These include determining how to create influential labels and considering first and second-order impacts on society. A strong consensus was also seen on the importance of including social equity considerations in developing risk labels, as this could facilitate broader adaptation strategies and lead to more inclusive solutions in the future.

Law and governance arrangements

This session addressed two pressing questions: ‘‘What are we going to do with all the rainwater in Amsterdam?’’ and ‘‘How do stakeholders understand land subsidence in Rotterdam?’’. The team presented their research findings and engaged the audience in discussions.

Richard Pompoes, PhD Candidate at Wageningen University, shared his research on how subsidence is understood in the Bloemhof neighbourhood in Rotterdam-Zuid. He explained the importance of documenting and analysing how stakeholders perceive the issue. Key insights were shared on how various groups in Bloemhof—such as social housing renters, homeowners, civil servants, and policy program officials—understand subsidence and their proposed solutions. Subsequently, Frank Groothuijse, Professor of Law, Economics, and Governance at Utrecht University, provided a legal perspective on water and soil as guiding principles, engaging the audience in an interactive discussion. Linking to the morning sessions, he outlined the legal meaning of Water en Bodem Sturend (WBS). He discussed current governmental debates that challenge these principles, particularly the recent statements advocating housing development as the top priority. 

The session concluded with a presentation by Lilian Karnenbeek, a Postdoctoral Researcher at Utrecht University, who discussed the legal responsibilities of dealing with precipitation. She explores where property owners’ responsibilities for rainwater, snow, and hail begin and where public responsibilities end. She highlighted legal debates on precipitation status within water systems, referencing the Weerproof Amsterdam program, municipal rainwater regulations, and water board guidelines from Amstel, Gooi & Vecht.

Climate Risk and Resilience Analysis 

In this session, the team presented their research progress on developing flood, wind, and hail risk maps, along with resilience indicators. Maria Fonseca, PhD Candidate at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and Marco Hoogvliet, Expert in Urban Water and Soil Systems at Deltares, shared their findings, which included flood and wind-driven hazard maps. Additionally, Tony Hung, PhD Candidate at Maastricht University, presented his latest research findings, discussing the application of the Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities (BRICs) framework, which has been utilized to assess resilience and social vulnerability throughout the Netherlands.

Participants then discussed the usefulness of the products above for stakeholders, as well as potential changes that they might desire. They concluded that increasing the spatial resolution of the resilience indicators to postal code 6 will support actual decision-making in the neighborhood. ‘‘As the BRICs framework defines many different components for resilience, we can then identify which components need to be improved where,’’ participants noted. Another concluding remark highlighted the usefulness of combining hazard and resilience maps to provide an integrated analysis. An advice from the discussion was also to combine it with insurance and CBS data to target actions better. ‘‘After defining resilience components and hazards for postal code 6, we can better target improvements in resilience. This way, we can define action perspectives’’, participants declared. Creating a viewer or dashboard was another idea proposed in the session, potentially as a support tool for decision-makers. 

The research team reported that they are already in contact with practice partners to integrate the wind and hail maps in the klimaateffectatlas (which already include floods). This could further be expanded to include resilience indicators. The research team was advised to apply the hazard and resilience framework to specific case studies to showcase its value and practicality.  

Technical Climate Risk Management Strategies  

This session focused on the flood risks in both embanked and un-embanked areas and the use of risk labels. Matthijs Kok, Professor in Flood Risk, and Ties Rijcken, Postdoc Researcher at TU Delft, presented the latest research findings of their team, primarily focusing on flood exposure in un-embanked areas in Rotterdam. The findings indicated that flood exposure in 2150 could increase 4 to 8 times compared to 1996, based on the KNMI’23 projections, largely due to real estate development and the expansion of housing in these areas.

The discussion highlighted the high levels of trust in the system, which leads people to care less about whether their home lies inside or outside embanked zones. The research also revealed that 45% of the current housing stock is built below the building level agreement (uitgiftepeil). Key questions were raised surrounding topics such as the legal and financial implications of flood damage: should adaptation measures be implemented at the object level (individual properties) or at the system level (broader infrastructure)? The team also presented a water labels map that categorises flood risk based on flood depth and return periods. This map shows that 70-80% of the Netherlands is in the safest water label category, while the highest class is not yet visible.

The session further explored the roles of the public and private sectors in managing flood risks. Participants questioned whether un-embanked flood risks might be incorporated into national policymaking despite the lack of formal obligations, as is the case for embanked areas. Additionally, discussions focused on whether water boards could share responsibility for managing these risks by creating water storage solutions combined with nature development. Participants concluded that the current models for calculating the labels, the benchmarks used, and the options for homeowners to act on these labels are currently still problematic.  

Plenary Session

‘‘Towards Integrated Urban Climate Risk Management Strategies: Navigating Complexities in Dutch Area Development’’

With a presentation by Tom Daamen, Associate Professor in Urban Development Management at TU Delft, the symposium continued by outlining the complexities of navigating climate risk challenges in area development across the Netherlands. 

In particular, he reflected on where the country’s housing demand intersects with increasing climate risks, affordability concerns, and issues surrounding house insurance and societal-political debates. Connecting to the morning sessions, one key issue he highlighted was decision-making regarding the location choices for new developments. He says stakeholders, including government officials and area developers, face ongoing debates and sometimes disagree on where and how to build responsibly considering climate risks. Daamen also pointed out the role of the media in shaping these discussions, noting that we can easily be distracted by different interpretations based on a few headlines in the media.  

‘‘In light of these challenges, there is an increasing demand to integrate community input around area development into research initiatives like Red&Blue. This way, knowledge can be made more actionable. One objective can be to connect area development with the Water and Soil Principles (WBS), exploring how WBS-informed planning can support sustainable and climate-resilient urbanisation’’, he noted.

‘‘Red&Blue aims to integrate financial considerations into the area development process to understand the mechanisms for funding long-term area developments, especially when adaptation measures for climate risks are introduced. Often, these measures add costs to the project, posing challenges for area developers who need to balance adaptation costs against the project’s revenue potential given affordability concerns. This difficulty is compounded by different market dynamics responding to climate risk, which influence business cases in area development, and financial feasibility at every stage—from land development and housing construction to long-term management’’, Daamen highlighted. 

In addition to financial integration, it was noted that the focus should not solely be on housing demand but also on addressing other key issues like energy use and mobility, which may vary across regions due to their distinct spatial needs. According to Tom, ‘‘Governance integration has become increasingly essential, as public participation plays a more prominent role in planning, particularly in redevelopment projects in cities like Amsterdam where residents are actively involved.’’

‘‘In the Red&Blue program, we aim to exemplify our integrated approach by piloting urban use cases, to test integrated, real-world solutions for area development.’’ –  Tom Daamen

Achieving this goal requires addressing key ‘how’ questions, as further stressed by Zac Taylor, Assistant Professor in Climate Finance at TU Delft and Academic Lead at Resilient Delta Initiative. He highlighted the complexity of the issue, which involves considering the diverse types of risks, perspectives, solutions, and spatial scales. Taylor pointed out that solutions must account for a broad range of challenges, including stakeholders’ varying expectations, goals, and objectives across different sectors and regions. ‘‘Governance responses are already underway, involving multiple sectors and actors, each with different time horizons and considerations in both Dutch and international contexts. Experts are developing interventions from various fields, but clarity is needed regarding the roles and responsibilities of each party involved. At the core of this approach is integrating understandings—consolidating a shared definition of the problem, fostering mutual recognition among stakeholders, and acknowledging the interdependencies of their efforts’’.

He further highlighted that ‘‘as we move forward with the Red&Blue program, the priority lies in carefully selecting case studies and clarifying key questions to guide our approach. Revisiting our theory of change, we will re-evaluate the program’s assumptions and focus on clear focal points to ensure alignment in our work’’. 

‘‘With an emphasis on leveraging shared insights, the Red&Blue team seeks to co-identify synergies where complementary expertise can enhance overall societal impact. This forward-looking strategy also involves refining our organisational structure, optimising time, capacity, and focus, and building new capacities, particularly through our research-practice collaborations.’’ – Zac Taylor

The session continued with reflections from the Red&Blue research team working on urban use cases, who shared their observations and lessons learned from their ongoing case studies. Ted Veldkamp from the Rotterdam Greater Area Living Lab team emphasised the importance of considering the people affected by certain risks and identifying measures to help alleviate their situation. She stressed that, in collaboration with the cities of Rotterdam and Dordrecht, our participatory approach seeks to foster trust and create action-oriented solutions informed by local voices. ‘‘By examining real-world urban cases, we see that municipalities desire tailored solutions and actionable perspectives for their communities, yet often lack the resources to implement them at large scale. Our main question is, ‘How can we organise that tailored approach?’ Our strategy begins with listening to residents, gathering insights from their opinions and experiences, and learning from them. A critical challenge remains: how to make sure with all the scientific and practice partners on board that we avoid vulnerable people living in risky areas? We can do that by integrating our in-house knowledge and expertise, but we need to start from these real-world examples’’ Ted concluded.

Maged Elsamny, a Postdoctoral Researcher from the Amsterdam Living Lab team, further reflected on the Amsterdam urban use cases, highlighting three distinct area types—existing, transformative, and future city areas. According to him, in the existing city, areas like Watergraafsmeer, which are situated below sea level, are being studied with a focus on post-flood recovery plans in close collaboration with the city of Amsterdam. For the transformative area of Schinkelkwartier, a (re)development project aims to build 11,000 new homes, with considerations around land elevation to mitigate flood risk. However, challenges persist with this approach, such as how this solution might unintentionally affect other areas. ‘‘To support these efforts, a climate damage calculation tool is in development, aiming to provide insights into the costs and benefits of climate adaptation measures across these distinct urban areas,’’ Maged noted. 

From a governance point of view, Lilian van Karnenbeek joined the session and reflected on her team’s research agenda, focusing on financing land development within area development projects and exploring different time horizons in land developments. ‘‘Recognizing that climate adaptation measures incur management costs, we are exploring if we can combine land and property developments and create an integrated business model for the area development,’’ Lilian stated.      

The session concluded with closing remarks by Zac Taylor, who extended an open invitation to all participants to collaborate in setting the right tables, asking key questions, and optimising the consortium’s collective capacity. ‘‘We are open, eager to be in dialogue with you, and excited to learn from each other as we navigate these challenges together. Your insights and contributions are crucial to our shared success, and we look forward to engaging with you more in the coming years.’’

Closing Session

‘‘Looking Ahead to the Spatial Planning in the Netherlands’’

The closing session was led by Paul Gerretsen, lead of the Deltametropolis Association, who provided an overview of the future of Dutch spatial planning, exploring different political perspectives and thinking on the subject. He highlighted the complexity inherent in spatial planning at the national level, acknowledging the urgency to invest in order to change national environmental vision and planning. He gave some historical accounts of how leading planning icons in the Netherlands have tried to address the environmental damage caused by human society and imagine a more sustainable and nature-based spatial development of the country (see Figure 1). 

Referring to the morning sessions, Gerretsen also pointed out the increasing pressure on space in the Netherlands, re-emphasizing that not all plans can be implemented everywhere anymore. He stressed the importance of looking ahead to the distant future, though he acknowledged that it is difficult for politicians to do so. ‘‘This longer time horizon requires more interactions between different governmental scales for which relationships between national and regional government should be strengthened’’. He also mentioned the variety of spatial proposal formats used by provinces. However, these plans are not yet aligned.   

‘‘Problems are known, but solutions are not clear yet,’’ Gerretsen continued. He also referenced the current lack of clarity in spatial planning policy due to recent changes in the government, insufficient cooperation, and the limited coherence between national programs.  

‘‘We are not yet in the action mode, and existing plans are still mismatched with the scale of the challenge.’’ –  Paul Gerretsen

Fig. 1  Four historical scenarios of Dutch spatial planing: zorgvuldig; dynamisch; kritisch; ontspannen

‘‘The spatial puzzle is that provincial plans seem to begin with negotiation with the national government. This should not be seen as negotiation, but rather as collaboration’’. Paul concluded with some positive news, stating that addressing the significant challenges in spatial planning and climate adaptation in the Netherlands has led to a shift toward a content-driven agenda. According to him, cooperation among ministries has been strengthening, and regional and local solutions are gaining more attention. ‘‘Provinces and municipalities are becoming more influential, recognising the need to broaden the focus beyond national strategies and foster stronger connections across all levels of government. While regional collaboration is rising, a clear and cohesive approach to integrating these efforts is still demanding,’’ Gerretsen noted.