Urban resilience, planning and governance in Rotterdam, the Netherlands

The 4th Workshop on Adaptation Research in Social Sciences: Implementer, Networker, Governance Facilitator? challenges and conceptual frameworks of social sciences in interdisciplinary climate adaptation research URBAN RESILIENCE, PLANNING AND GOVERNANCE IN ROTTERDAM, THE NETHERLANDS Lu, Pei-Wen1 ABSTRACT The notions of urban resilience and the resilient city have gained considerable attention and interest over recent years, not only in relation to environmental management but also in terms of urban risk and disaster planning (Dudley, 2010). The notion of urban resilience is not just confined to academic discourses – it is increasingly prevalent in urban policy documents across the globe. This paper examines awareness and understanding of urban resilience in the planning policy arena in Rotterdam, The Netherlands, where planning has a long history managing risks related to water. Specific attention in the paper is paid to the issue of climate change and how planning processes in the city consider or deal with the risks that it presents. The ways in which the city assesses and prepares for these risks or threats form the two main areas of analysis. The paper concludes that evidence of resilient thinking can be found at all levels of decision making in Rotterdam, ranging from national to local levels. However, the notion of resilience is still quite fuzzy and does not necessarily feature as an explicit principle for policy-making. Keywords: flood, multiple levels of governance, spatial planning, Rotterdam (The Netherlands), urban resilience 1. INTRODUCTION Climate awareness has been arisen in spatial planning due to the increasing amounts of extreme-weather disasters happened in last decades. It leads to the rising attentions for some concepts like mitigation, adaptation, and urban resilience. The approaches are not only expected to prevent but deal with physical disturbances and socioeconomic loss in urban-regions. In The Netherlands, coastal regions generate about 65% of GNP (Commissie, 2008) but heavily threatened by uncertain risks. Flood risk is one of the uncertainties nearby. However, to what extend planning systems consider and react risks from climate impacts? Whether and how relevant concepts work in planning decision-making process? Similar questions result from the fragmental understandings and the lack of evaluable assessment for knowledge formation and communication. Currently, resilience concept is often used and overlapped with other concepts (e.g. sustainable development, adaptability). Planners and decision-makers make use of concept of resilience with their own sketchy and variable * Ph. D. Candidate, Department of Urbanism, Faculty of Architecture, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands Peiwen.Lu@tudelft.nl 1 The 4th Workshop on Adaptation Research in Social Sciences: Implementer, Networker, Governance Facilitator? challenges and conceptual frameworks of social sciences in interdisciplinary climate adaptation research understandings, and the lack of assessable criteria causes the difficulties to generate and evaluate resilient cities in planning strategies. Drawing upon the information from interviews, literature review and discourse analysis, the paper argues whether and how the concept of resilience has been considered and addressed on planning system in Rotterdam for flood risks (as one of the climate disturbances)? It will firstly highlight the understanding of urban resilience (especially the impacts in planning decision-making), move forward to the empirical study in Rotterdam, and finally argue the on-going debates of resilience concept as the conclusion. 2. URBAN RESILIENCE IN URBAN REGIONS Despite the concept of resilience began in ecological field from the 1970s, it is a relatively new concept for planning and represents a developing area of research in social sciences. In general, resilience is viewed as ‘a key idea to tackle risk, particularly in an uncertain arena (White, 2010). The simplest definition suggests that urban resilience is the ability for cities to absorb disturbance and still retain their functions and structures. It contains the flexibility to adapt new demands in strategic spatial planning. Because the scope of urban resilience is broad (covering economic, social and environmental aspects of resilience), this paper limits resilience concept only on its climate-related impacts and floods in particular. After summarising the development process of urban resilience in spatial planning, the author argues how urban resilience understood and used in planning strategy. Then indicates the methodology and criteria of resilience which will be testified in the study area (Rotterdam). 2.1 The overview of development process of urban resilience Resilience thinking started its empirical research in ecological equilibrium stability in the 1970s. Defined as ‘the system to absorb the disturbances between efficiency and persistence, constancy and change, predictability and unpredictability, in order to keep equilibrium continuously (Holling, 1973).’ Resilience argued the variability, rather than constancy, in terms of non-linear forms of the functional responses to reproduce the stable equilibrium by unceasingly changing. Socioeconomic scholars in the 1980s began to recognise that human society and culture system also should be resilience (Vayda and McCay, 1975). It was particularly emphasised on its timescale in cultural anthropology and environmental psychology as speed of return in a sense of excluding dynamics. Planners and urban analysts addressed on resilient studies after the late 1990s regarding as the movement of resilient communities that expect to be compatible with diversified changes by adjusting its social and institutional networks when disturbances happen (Mileti, 1999). However, strategies in this time mainly focused on physical and infrastructural improvements to prevent natural disasters (e.g. floods, earthquakes). Few of them were proposed also to adapt or recover from disturbances until the 2000s. 2 The 4th Workshop on Adaptation Research in Social Sciences: Implementer, Networker, Governance Facilitator? challenges and conceptual frameworks of social sciences in interdisciplinary climate adaptation research Scholars in the 2000s mainly argue the concept of social-ecological resilience in two: first, the ability to cross the threshold and move into a new regime (Holling, 2001, Walker et al., 2004, Folke, 2006, Gunderson, 2000), and second, the metaphor of adaptive cycles that states move variously according to the phases where the system lies ( e.g., Folke et al., 2004, Folke, 2006, Walker and Salt, 2006). From resilient perspectives, human societies today are ‘vulnerable’ because we lack of preparation to perform well once the society move cross the thresholds (Walker and Salt, 2006). A resilient city is therefore a sustainable network of physical systems and human communities to ensure city will be able to self-sustain through disasters (Godschalk, 2003). It would be composed of small, semiautonomous units to be able to conduct early fault detection by using their fail-safe strategies, and establish a comprehensive social network for uncertain disturbances (Godschalk, 2003, Fleischhauer, 2008). Comparing with the more well-known concept of sustainable development (see Table 1), both concepts began in ecological studies addressing on the environments (sustainable development) and certain species (resilient thinking), moved forward into social and economic fields in the late 1980s, and had been adopted in spatial planning since the late 1990s. However, sustainable development, maybe resulted from its basic awareness of environmental changes resulted from industrialisation, puts its efforts on extending the (mitigation) ability for long-term survival. While urban resilience is developed for enhancing the capability to adapt the uncertainty by ‘embracing changes (Walker and Salt, 2006).’ Table 1: A summary of main approaches of sustainable development and urban resilience Starting points Sustainable Development Urban Resilience Environmental protections The equilibrium stability of certain species Carry capacity: to slow down the rate of Key efforts in theoretical debates environmental changes in terms of Adaptive capacity: to learn by change, and to reasonable resource distribution and survive by embracing change management Mitigation and adaptation Mitigation Self-organisation Self-maintenance International The Rio Earth Summit agreements and Kyoto Protocol movements UNCCC conferences In developing Sustainable communities Spatial planning Resilient communities Sustainable cities Resilient cities Assessment indicators Risk management Energy-efficiency In terms of the increasing disturbances in climate uncertainty, a shifting paradigm from sustainability (self-sustainaing) toward urban resilience (self-adapting and reorganising) seems necessary. Resilient studies are more active on preparing and strengthening physical and social framework for uncertain extreme disturbances. In summary, a resilient city is 3 The 4th Workshop on Adaptation Research in Social Sciences: Implementer, Networker, Governance Facilitator? challenges and conceptual frameworks of social sciences in interdisciplinary climate adaptation research expected to be flexible and able to shift constantly to adapt the disturbances. The following argument highlights the major characters of resilient in planning strategy formation. 2.2 Understanding urban resilience in planning system Central to debate of resilience thinking is the notion of adaptive cycles. The adaptive cycle originally emerged from studying productive ecosystems (Gunderson and Holling, 2002). It indicates that dynamic systems (e.g. ecosystems, societies, economies) do not tend toward some stable or equilibrium condition. Instead, they repeatedly pass through these four characteristic phases as (i) growth and exploitation, (ii) conservation, (iii) collapse or release, and (iv) renewal and reorganisation. The shifting between phases is resulted from sequences of both gradual changes (exploitation, conservation, and reorganisation phases) and rapid changes by endogenous disturbances (collapse phase). As a shifting process, the trigger (extreme events that cause collapse) is considered instead of negative event but an opportunity to overall system’s health and self-regulation (Gunderson and Holling, 2002, Walker and Salt, 2006, Walker et al., 2004). In terms of planning decisions and policy-making, the adaptive cycle highlights, first, planning decision-making for climate awareness and disturbances is considered as a continuing framing process. Instead of the reactions in single time slides, a resilient approach strategically works on the process of knowledge transformation and implementation for urban regions. Second, adaptive cycle indicates the abstractness and fuzziness of resiliency (Pendall et al., 2010). Yet these characters are rather negative attributes but improving ability inwardly. Resilient cities emphasise on increasing adaptive capacity in terms of the self-reframing ability. Which can be indicated in terms of collaboration strategies in different levels of governance. Urban resilience also performs on the actions for disturbances in terms of time. Linnenluecke and Griffiths (2010) highlights resilience in socioeconomic perspectives as robustness and rapidity. Robustness indicates the carry capacity in place. For instance, how ‘strong’ a city is? How well can and does a city be able to ‘contain’ and ‘absorb’ unexpected disturbances? It addresses on the upward power to bear the uncertainty and keep the stability (balance) in the system. Rapidity focuses on ‘the speed to return (Pimm, 1984).’ How well can and does a city to reboot from disturbances and shift into a new stable paradigm? Fig. 2 indicates the concepts of resilience in timescale. Yet, the new stable paradigm may shift into a new circumstance rather than the previous status (not necessary back to the standards before triggers). It keeps social conditions remain fuzzy and flexible for planning decision-making. 4 The 4th Workshop on Adaptation Research in Social Sciences: Implementer, Networker, Governance Facilitator? challenges and conceptual frameworks of social sciences in interdisciplinary climate adaptation research Fig. 1. Resilience framework Source: Linnenluecke and Griffiths (2010) Compare with ecological field or resiliency, actors in socioeconomic system draw upon much more sets of complexity, such as the formulating strategies, or the externalised risks in legal and institutions. For planners, resilient approach presents a process-orientated decision-making rather than a fragment action for certain events, which seems to be useful in responding climate-related risks. Planners and decision-makers are aim not only to prevent disturbances or threats but manage and cope with changes as well (although the prevention of disturbances still remains part of the new approach). Instead of an extreme event, climate disturbances are regarded as part of decision-making process in timescale that may trigger and rescale the existing planning governance. Whether and how the concept of resilience is framed in regional governance and planning system? To argue this, Foster (2006) highlights the concept of resilience in urban region (see Fig. 2). She understands urban resilience in two properties: the preparation resilience for assessment and readiness, and the performance resilience as response and recovery when 1 passing the threshold (Foster, 2006) . A resilient city is capable to assess and prepare the possible disturbances beforehand, response properly, and eventually recover (come back to normal status, or shift into a new paradigm) efficiently. The adaptive cycle goes continuously to enhance cities’ probability for outward disturbances. The development progress for the 1 The concept of preparation resilience is related to Crichton (1999)’s interrelated risk elements as hazard, vulnerability, and exposure (R=H*V*E). And the performance resilience can be linked to Wamsler (2007) risk assessment as hazard* vulnerability lack of capacity to respond (R=HV*LC). 5 The 4th Workshop on Adaptation Research in Social Sciences: Implementer, Networker, Governance Facilitator? challenges and conceptual frameworks of social sciences in interdisciplinary climate adaptation research performance and preparation resilience is not always related. For instance, a region may get high marks for preparation resilience, carefully coordination information gathering, appropriately assessing and communicating vulnerabilities and strengths, while has low marks in performance resilience by failing to recover from an event or condition. In contrast, a city-region may be weak in disaster preparations but still performs well when disaster comes. Fig. 2. Framework for assessing regional resilience Source: Foster (2006) Foster’s (2006) argument gives an assessable position for planners to examine urban resilience in a place. The robustness in socioeconomic field is no longer abstract but considered as two criteria in planning studies: the assessment and readiness for preparation. So does the capable examine of the rapidity as a place’s performance for response and recovery. However, it argues the necessity for places to be both preparation and performance to become resilience, which may not always be true in planning perspectives. In contrast, a city can tackle climate disturbances (at least disturbances under certain level) in terms of its well preparation and then no needs to pass the triggers. Or cities may keep improve and strengthen the performance ability to response and recover efficiently in post-disaster era. The motivation and evaluation for cities (which emphasise on the preparation resilience) to shift in each stage could be scientific scenarios and simulations rather than real floods. Consequently, resilient cities are built within the shifting process. Planners and decision-makers can contribute on motivating the shifting process in many ways, for instance, the ways of planning governance, the implementation about scientific knowledge for risks, and the environmental attitudes for climate adaptation and mitigation. Resilient cities are not addressed either robustness (preparation) or rapidity (performance). Both qualities are important and the intangible links are fuzzy. 6 The 4th Workshop on Adaptation Research in Social Sciences: Implementer, Networker, Governance Facilitator? challenges and conceptual frameworks of social sciences in interdisciplinary climate adaptation research 2.3 Methodology and resilience assessments How to measure the impacts of resilience in planning decision-making? Drawing on literature review among studies in risks, vulnerability, climate adaptation and mitigation (Vale and Campanella, 2005, Holling, 2001, Godschalk, 2003, Walker and Salt, 2006, Fleischhauer, 2008, Gunderson and Holling, 2002, Adger, 2006), the paper generates and further-develops resilience criteria from Foster’s (2006) four stages of on-going process (see Table 2). Each stage has the overarching question and measurable indicators for assessment in study areas (Tasan-Kok et al., 2010). For empirical study, the discourse analysis is used together with semi-structured interviews among policy officers. It aims to understand (i) the importance and the awareness of resilience in planning strategies in particular on climate-related flood risks, and (ii) the policy-making process addresses on urban resiliency. Outcomes are shown and discussed in the next part of this paper. Due to the difficulties to measure Rotterdam’s resilient performance before it experiences real floods, the following paper limits on the measurement of the assessment and readiness stages in preparation resilience. Table 2. Criteria to assess a region’s resilience Stage Overarching Question Measures/ Indicators Assessment How well can and does city Does city have the capacity (actors, policies, processes, Criteria assess its vulnerabilities to relations and resources) to: disturbances and its capacity monitor current conditions such as land use, population, for responding to disaster? physical environment, urban context, social and economic value predict regional trends and patterns identify and assess the probability of risks and disturbances, such as through vulnerability diagrams, impacts and forecasting assess and learn lessons from prior experiences with disturbances and challenges set up ‘priorities’ based on risk assessments and probabilities invest and develop scientific scenarios for risk assessments establish relevant ‘trigger points’ signaling needs for regional response communicate findings (concepts, skills, actions) to entities capable of tacking actions collaborate decision-making in different levels of governance Readiness Criteria How well can and does city Does city have the capacity (actors, policies, processes, ready itself to response the relations and resources) to: assessments and potential forecast in advance disturbances? authorize and mandate readiness actions systematically (e.g., rescue command centre in different levels) coordinate readiness actions, like fixing infrastructure, filing organisational gaps, mitigating identified weaknesses and vulnerabilities, building effective networks and connections innovate readiness actions, such as new ways of land use, 7 The 4th Workshop on Adaptation Research in Social Sciences: Implementer, Networker, Governance Facilitator? challenges and conceptual frameworks of social sciences in interdisciplinary climate adaptation research new engineering infrastructures and building technologies establish engineering infrastructure imply and enhance readiness actions, like public awareness education, back up system Response Criteria How effectively, in absolute How well does city respond in terms of: and relative terms, does city react at appropriate (not under- or overreacting) level to respond to actual disturbance disturbances? contain and minimise physical, economic and social damage and other negative outcomes resulting from disturbance sustain viable, cost-effective levels of service delivery leverage and use effective networks of internal and external relations demonstrate effective leadership in authorising, coordinating, communicating and taking actions to response the disturbance perform capable relations to other places that have similar disturbances frame the nature and response to the disturbance in media and other communication outlets Recovery Criteria How effectively, in absolute How well does the region recover from disturbance in and relative terms, does the terms of: region recover from the repair systems damaged in the disturbance disturbance and learn from its the speed of return to expected levels of regional lessons and insights? functioning the quality of back-up systems needed to bridge recovery period Source: Adapted from Foster (2006), Tasan‐Kok et al. (2010) 2.4 Assumptions: resilience in spatial planning This section argues the concept of resilience developing in spatial planning. To conclude, firstly, urban resilience is an adaptive process changing constantly. A shifting paradigm from urban sustainability toward resilience indicates the way of approaching the natural disaster (climate-relevant issues) is changing from preventing disturbances or threats towards adapting to new urban conditions and managing and coping with change. Second, resilience performs in its robustness and rapidity (Linnenluecke and Griffiths, 2010). For resilient cities, robustness emphasises on the preparation capacity, and rapidity addresses on its performance. Foster’s (2006) argument offers an evaluable position for resilience addressing in planning strategies. Yet, the paper argues that, in principle, cities could be well-prepared and evaluated in terms of scientific scenarios instead of real floods. Thirdly, drawing upon literature review in climate-risk studies, this paper proposes resilience indicators in terms of the assessment, preparation, response and recovery stages (see Table 2). The proposed criteria will be implied subsequently to understand how well can and does planning governance do for dealing with climate-related flood risks. For Rotterdam, it is difficult to measure the city’s performance before it passes the trigger, so the paper assesses this time only in assessment and readiness criteria for preparation resilience. 8 The 4th Workshop on Adaptation Research in Social Sciences: Implementer, Networker, Governance Facilitator? challenges and conceptual frameworks of social sciences in interdisciplinary climate adaptation research 3. RESILIENCE ASSESSMENT: PLANNING GOVERNANCE IN ROTTERDAM FOR FLOOD RISKS Planning governance in Rotterdam has a long history managing in flood issues. In terms of planning policies, a shifting paradigm from preventing to adapting and living with flood risks seems taking place in the past years. However, the awareness and influences of urban resilience in planning policy-making remain blurred. The following argument starts from a short illustration of flood risks (especially climate-related flood risks) in Rotterdam, then moves forward to resilience assessments (two preparation measurements) from interviews and policy reviews. Finally, it analyses the engagement of resilience concept in multiple levels of governance in Rotterdam. 3.1 Flood risks in Rotterdam The flood risk has always been a big issue in The Netherlands (see Table 3), especially in the port city of Rotterdam. Urban policies have always been paying attention and invested in flood risks. Dutch cities advanced water management system further throughout the history, and have become one of the leading water engineering societies in the world. However, with the dramatic climate changes that are expected in the coming years the risks are expected to be higher. The KNMI (Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute) scenarios suggest a local sea level rise of 0.35 to 0.85 meters in 2100. If the local ground levels are included to this estimation, these numbers exceeds to 2.50-5.00 meters (3.25 meters in average), which is a serious number. The scenario indicates the increasing chance of flood in Rotterdam by 10 times, and the maximum rise of 1.30 meters increases the change 100 times. Meanwhile, with the sea level rise of 0.50 meters, the new stor surge barrier, the Maastluit, will no longer meet the requirements to properly protect the city, and the same goes for the Oosterschede surge barrier. The calculations indicate that the entire Rotterdam, or even Randstad is exposed in flood risks by 2100. Table 3: and overview of large floods in history Flooding Second Saint Elisabeth Flood Date Impact More than 2000 casualities reported, the 1421 Biesbosch tidal area is formed All Souls Flood Nov. 2nd, 1532 Second All Saints Flood Nov. 4th-5th, 1675 Flood Jan. 26th, 1682 Flood Jan, 1916 In particular the area around the Zuiderzee is flooded The water reaches an unprecedental level of 4.55 Storm surge disaster meter above Amsterdam Ordnance Datum (NAP) Jan. 31st- Feb. 1st, 1953 and there are 1835 casualities. A total of 141,000 hectares of land are flooded. Source: van de Ven (1996) 9 The 4th Workshop on Adaptation Research in Social Sciences: Implementer, Networker, Governance Facilitator? challenges and conceptual frameworks of social sciences in interdisciplinary climate adaptation research Taking the flood risk as a serious threat, the Delta Commission was established after the 1953 flood to deal with the delta works aiming at management of water-related risks. The Delta Committee indicates that floods in the Netherlands are caused by (i) sea level rising, and (ii) increasing water in rivers draining into the sea. While the interrelations may lead things go worse. For instance, rising sea level not only increase the difficulty for rivers to drain into the sea. The higher sea level drives up the water level in rivers resulted from the increasing sea level drives the heavier salty seawater underneath the fresh water in river basins especially in the periods of lower discharge. It eventually enhances large amounts of salt water penetrating into lands, and causes not only fatal floods (especially in the Randstad area) but also the problems of water supply for domestic, industrial and agricultural usage. This condition is particularly serious in the Western part of the Netherlands because large European rivers, which will have to carry more rainfalls and melt water, mostly drain into the sea here. Regard to flood issues, Dutch planning system is often highlighted its legal uncertainties, unclear responsibilities and various interests in different actors in general and Rotterdam in particular (Wardekker et al., 2009). It may be disadvantage but also advantage addressing on flood risks. Drawing upon interviews and policy review, the paper aims to understand (i) the importance and awareness of resilient concept in Rotterdam’s planning system, and (ii) the impacts of urban resilience in planning decision-making process. The measurement will assess only the first two stages as assessment and readiness (in preparation resilience). It is because the difficulties to measure the performance of current planning governance before floods happened. 3.2 Analysing assessment criteria for preparation resilience in flood risks Bases upon the proposed indicators in Table 2, the assessment outcomes generate in Table 4. . The capacity to monitor current conditions The results show that the national, regional and local levels of governance are able to monitor current conditions (e.g., land use, population, physical environment and socioeconomic values). National level governance responses to overview present situation in national scale and recommend future directions. Regional and local policy-making is proposed under national directions. The collaboration between national and local authorities is intensive. Local policies (climate adaptive policies) are considered as pilot studies for developing climate adaptation strategies in national level. Regard to current circumstances, planning decision-making also refers to the knowledge-based collaborations between scientific and research institutes. The cross-sector collaborations are particularly close in national level strategies. . The capacity to predict regional trends and patterns The outcomes point out that planning governance in Rotterdam is able to predict regional trends and patterns. The comprehensive framework is established in the national level to cope 10 The 4th Workshop on Adaptation Research in Social Sciences: Implementer, Networker, Governance Facilitator? challenges and conceptual frameworks of social sciences in interdisciplinary climate adaptation research with the flooding issues. It collaborates with EU members and proposes strategies for lower levels. In regional level, proposals and experiences may give feedbacks to national authorities to revise in planning decision-making, but most of regional plans follow national concepts in planning implementations. Local planning authorities in Rotterdam also work on expending and generate the collaborative network. For instance, the municipality has close collaborations with cities which also work on flooding issues (e.g., delta metropolitans), especially in terms of knowledge exchanges and shared experiences. Rotterdam also collaborates with Dordrecht (also in Zuid-Holland Province) for climate adaptation strategies, flood risk assessments and local experiments. Both cities are eager to set up a practicable framework in regional scale (as river basin management). Scientific studies (in different scales) are crucial for future-trend predictions. In Rotterdam, the flood-related research projects grow rapidly. Except the scientific simulations (which addresses later on), research programmes for flood’s socioeconomic impacts are also increasingly recently. . The capacity to identify and assess the risk probability and disturbances The Netherland’s Planning system has a long tradition which gives flood issues the priority in planning policy-making. In terms of flood risks, more and more spatial strategies are engaged with engineering and research projects together for knowledge exchange and comprehensive decision-making. For instance, the national project, Planologische Kernbeslissing Ruimte voor de Rivier (the Room for the River) addresses not only on risk assessments for probable disturbances, but also for climate knowledge and the improvements in hydraulic engineering fields. Projects in provincial level emphasise on flood protection on coastal and riverfront areas. Most of them are engineering approach. For local authorities, except the detail plan-making for infrastructure improvements, planning policies focus on developing the adaptability for flood risks, for instance, new ways to redevelop risky places outside the dike (the Heijplaat). The pilot study aims to regenerate the vulnerable place in terms of resilient approach. . The capacity to assess and learn from the prior experiences with disturbances and challengues In terms of learning from prior experiences, most planning policies mention about the flooding in the 1953, and the near-flooding events in 1993, 1995. Despite most of policies conclude in hydraulic engineering approaches, prior disturbances contribute on increasing public awareness and enhancing new demands for climate knowledge. The shared experience from other cities also takes place. Interviewees in local authorities highlight the interlink collaborations and the capacity to learn from other’s experiences (e.g., Hamburg, Germany). . The capacity to set up ‘priority’ from risk assessments and probabilities 11 The 4th Workshop on Adaptation Research in Social Sciences: Implementer, Networker, Governance Facilitator? challenges and conceptual frameworks of social sciences in interdisciplinary climate adaptation research The outcome shows the flood’s socioeconomic impact has the priority for planning decision-making. The interview points out, instead of certain environmental disturbances, policy-makers consider flood risks focusing on the socioeconomic impacts (e.g., economic loss, social problems). The development of risk assessments and probabilities may also become a city’s benefit. Interviews in local authorities highlight that climate (flood) knowledge and experiences are become one of Rotterdam’s unique identity which may increase the city’s competitiveness in global scale (e.g., Rotterdam is a ‘safe’ place for global investments). . The capacity to invest and develop scientific scenarios for risk assessments Scientific investments and developments for risk assessments are mentioned on both policies and interviews in national, regional and local planning authorities. For instance, the national funded project ‘Kennis voor Klimaat (Knowledge for Climate).’ The Kennis voor Klimaat offers Rotterdam (one of the seven ‘hot spots’ in the Netherlands) a collaboration opportunity between academics (universities and research institutues), national planning authorities (e.g., VROM) and planning administrations in municipality. In local level, the interview indicates that the Kennis voor Klimaat project not only contributes on recommendations for local problems, but also the scientific outcomes which are useful for strategy-making in the future. In national level, the project’s outcomes in seven hotspots will become the reference for the national climate adaptation strategies. . The capacity to establish relevant ‘trigger points’ signaling needs for regional response Neither planning policies nor interviews address on the capacity to propose relevant ‘trigger points.’ Further discussion is needed. . The capacity to communicate findings and entitle capable actions Both policy reviews and interviews indicate the communications between planning authorities in different levels. In national level, planning authorities work both on the country scale and the EU scale (e.g., the Rhine river basin management). Zuid-Holland province mainly focuses on engineering-oriented strategies collaborating with upper level sectors (e.g., Rijkwaterstraat) and local infrastructural sectors (e.g., waterboards). Local authorities have collaborations with both provincial and national sectors in planning strategy-making and implementations. The city of Rotterdam also works together with other flood-awareness cities to share experiences and knowledge exchange. . The capacity to collaborate decision-making in different levels of governance Dutch planning system uses to work collaboratively regarding to planning decision-making for flooding issues. In national level, planning authorities not only work on strategies within The Netherlands but also actively contribute on cross-border decision-making with other EU members. The regional administrations address on infrastructures and engineering projects with the collaboration between national and local authorities. In local level, the municipality collaborates with upper levels and also other cities (delta cities) in American, Europe and Asia. 12 The 4th Workshop on Adaptation Research in Social Sciences: Implementer, Networker, Governance Facilitator? challenges and conceptual frameworks of social sciences in interdisciplinary climate adaptation research Rotterdam’s research outcomes of assessment criteria for preparation resilience are generated in Table 4. Table 4: Analysing assessment criteria for preparation resilience in Rotterdam Assessment Capacity to criteria Governance in National level Regional level Local level How well can monitor current Overview present Proposes (i) Follow the concepts and does conditions such as situations in larger scale regional plans from national levels, and Rotterdam land use, population, to recommend future which follow the also (ii) propose future assess its physical developments national development strategies vulnerabilities environment, urban directions (some proposals would to disturbances context, social and become national and its economic value strategies) capacity for responding to disaster? predict regional Create a comprehensive Proposes (i) Aim to enhance the trends and patterns framework for dealing regional safety of Rotterdam, and with flood risks development establish (ii) plans which collaborative works with follow the other cities like national Dordrecht directions identify and assess Establish (i) assessment Flood protection (i) Flood protections in the probability of and measurement strategies along details (ex: dike style, risks and systems, the coastal building technologies…), disturbances, such protection programmes, areas and the and (ii) consider the as through e.g., giving the riverfronts, most probability of urban vulnerability reasonable space for of them are development outside the diagrams, impacts water proposal along engineering dike (ex: Heijplaat) and forecasting rivers and the coastal projects (ii) flood regions, (iii) dike assessment and improvement programmes assess and learn Generally yes, most of Yes, in planning (i) Not mention in texts, lessons from prior policies and participants policies but illustrate in interview. experiences with mention the flood (ii) Interviewees also disturbances and disasters before mention about challenges Hamburg’s experience set up ‘priorities’ Generally Yes, Socioeconomic (i) Socioeconomic based on risk especially mention on impacts impacts (ii) City assessments and the socioeconomic probabilities impacts invest and develop Yes. Rotterdam is one of scientific scenarios the hotspot in national voor Klimaat’ for risk assessments ‘Kennis voor Klimaat programme together (Knowledge for climate)’ with academic competitiveness Do not mention programme establish relevant Yes, and work in ‘Kennis researchers Do not mention Do not mention Do not mention communicate Yes, and also work in EU Yes, with Yes, communicate with findings (concepts, level national and national level and other local levels. flood-considering cities ‘trigger points’ signaling needs for regional response skills, actions) to 13 The 4th Workshop on Adaptation Research in Social Sciences: Implementer, Networker, Governance Facilitator? challenges and conceptual frameworks of social sciences in interdisciplinary climate adaptation research entities capable of tacking actions collaborate Cross-actor coordination Provincial and (i) Coordination within decision-making in between national, local levels sectors in city level, and different levels of provincial and local also (ii) work with other governance levels. delta cities around the world * Actors, policies, processes, relations and resources Source: Adapted from (Vale and Campanella, 2005), Tasan‐Kok et al. (2010) 3.3 Analysing readiness criteria for preparation resilience in flood risks Bases upon the proposed indicators in Table 2, the evaluation outcomes for resilience readiness generate in Table 5. . The capacity to forecast Disaster forecasts are addressed both on national, provincial and local level of governance. For the city of Rotterdam, national and provincial forecasts focus on the coastal regions for tiding and sea level rising, and local forecast covers the riverfront areas and places outside eh dike (e.g., the Stadhaven area). . The capacity to authorise and mandate readiness actions The outcomes show planning governance has similar patterns to collaborate for readiness actions. In national level, planning authorities work on proposing national scale directions (for lower levels to follow) as well as the collaboration in the EU level. Planners and decision-makers in the province mainly work on planning implementations in engineering and infrastructural projects collaborating with national and local governance. Local authorities generate their contributions with other flood risky cities in the international level for knowledge exchange and experiences sharing. . The capacity to coordinate in readiness actions The national administrations promote and work on integrated projects generating planning decision-making, research and engineering approaches, for instance, the Planologische Kernbeslissing Ruimte voor de Rivier (the Room for the River). In regional level, the Zuid-Holland province authoritises and collaborates with national and local planning authorities for projects along the coastal regions (e.g., the Weak Links, the Sand Engine, the Integrated Development of the Delfland Coast). In spite of the shifting from totally engineering approach to integrated strategies, most of the projects emphasise on the mitigation aspects of urban resilience. Different from the mitigation strategy in provincial level, local planning administrations focus on the capacity of city’s adaptability (including its coordination with other delta cities) with relevant engineering projects and research programmes. . The capacity to innovate readiness actions 14 The 4th Workshop on Adaptation Research in Social Sciences: Implementer, Networker, Governance Facilitator? challenges and conceptual frameworks of social sciences in interdisciplinary climate adaptation research The innovated readiness actions are addressed in the national and local planning authorities but few in the regional level. Except the investment for hydraulic engineering and infrastructural improvements, the national authorities also fund for finding new ways for dealing with flood risks in climate knowledge (e.g., the Kennis voor Klimaat) and innovative dike system (e.g., the WINN). In local level, planning authorities are working on innovative strategies for land use and urban regeneration studies that may not be accurately prevent but able to cope with flood risks (e.g., the Hijplaat project). Regional governance seems absence in terms of innovative actions for readiness. The results show planning policies in provincial level mainly address on protective strategies for flood risks and the consideration of land use. . The capacity to imply and enhance readiness actions The results show the awareness of flood readiness actions is taking place in the three levels. National authorities work not only projects in The Netherlands but also collaborate in the EU level. The provincial governance addresses mainly on engineering approach projects and infrastructural improvements, especially along the coastal regions. In local level, planners and decision-makers focus on city’s adaptability for flood risks. Local authorities aim to enhance and establish the international networks with other delta cities for knowledge exchanges and sharing experiences. Instead of only dealing with physical impacts from flood risks, climate (flood) studies in local level are also part of Rotterdam’s identity for socioeconomic competitiveness. Research outcomes for readiness criteria for preparation resilience are summarised in Table 5. Table 5: Analysing readiness criteria for preparation resilience in Rotterdam Readiness Capacity to criteria Governance in National level Regional level Local level forecast in advance Yes Yes Yes Rotterdam authorize and mandate Horizontal and Follow concepts (i) Have horizontal ready itself to readiness actions vertical coordination from national coordination with respond to systematically (e.g., level, and guide Rotterdam, and (ii) other assessments rescue command centre to local level delta cities and potential in different levels) disturbances? coordinate readiness Yes, invest for Yes, with Yes, research and actions, like fixing research and engineering engineering infrastructure, filing engineering investments for programmes organisational gaps, programmes infrastructures innovate readiness Yes, new ways of Not mention actions, such as new thinking (e.g., WINN) How well can and does mitigating identified weaknesses and vulnerabilities, building effective networks and connections ways of land use, new Yes, local adaptation strategies (e.g., new ways of land use, new 15 The 4th Workshop on Adaptation Research in Social Sciences: Implementer, Networker, Governance Facilitator? challenges and conceptual frameworks of social sciences in interdisciplinary climate adaptation research engineering events along/in the river, infrastructures and and new building building technologies as floating technologies house). imply and enhance Yes, with the Yes. readiness actions, like collaboration in EU Yes, especially in networking in city scale, public awareness level and works on climate education, back up knowledge market as system Rotterdam’s unique identity and city competitiveness * Actors, policies, processes, relations and resources Source: Adapted from (Vale and Campanella, 2005), Tasan‐Kok et al. (2010) 3.4 Summary The empirical study assesses the resilient preparation of Rotterdam’s planning in terms of the assessment and readiness actions. In summary, resilience preparation has been addressed on national, regional and local governance for coping with flooding issues. The integrated collaboration is taking place from cross-national level (the EU level) to the network in city scale. In terms of flood risks, Dutch national planning authorities work on the collaborations with regional and local administrations, as well as the cross-border decision-making with EU members. Except the engineering collaborations, knowledge-based studies are considered also crucial for both flood adaptation and mitigation. Regional level governance mainly addresses on engineering-approach planning implementations, for instance, planners and decision-makers in the Zuid-Holland province have closely collaboration with national (e.g., Rijswaterstraat) and local sectors (e.g. the waterboards) for flood mitigation strategies. Except following the directions from upper levels, planning decision-making in local level governance works on Rotterdam’s adaptability for coping with uncertain disturbances from flood risks. In terms of climate knowledge studies, local authorities have integrated projects collaborating with national planning sectors (e.g., the Kennis voor Klimate) and international network with other delta cities for knowledge exchanges and experience sharing. In terms of planning implementations, local policy-makers address on enhancing the city’s adaptive capacity with innovative ways of actions (e.g., the Hijplaat project). From local perspectives, climate knowledge and adaptation policy-making are not only for managing the impacts of flood risks but also strategically contribute on city’s identity and characters. Climate (flood) adaptation is considered as one of the crucial characters in Rotterdam for urban development and socioeconomic competitiveness. 4. CONCLUSION The paper aims to understand the importance and awareness of resilience in planning policy-making for dealing with environmental uncertainty as flood risks. It generates resilience 16 The 4th Workshop on Adaptation Research in Social Sciences: Implementer, Networker, Governance Facilitator? challenges and conceptual frameworks of social sciences in interdisciplinary climate adaptation research concept in spatial planning and assess the measurements (resilient indicators) in the case of Rotterdam. To conclude, first, in spite of different approaches and considerations, the concept of urban resilience has been addressed on Rotterdam’s planning decision-making among national, provincial and local levels. The national authorities work on collaborations with other EU members in terms of the joint projects (e.g., the Rhine river basin management). Except the traditional collaboration funded for engineering projects, national administrations also work together with lower levels for knowledge-based studies and scientific research for climate (e.g., the Kennis voor Klimaat). Different from the provincial strategies focusing on flood mitigation and environmental safety, local policy-making emphasises on the city’s adaptive capacity and possible ways for actions. The municipality works on climate knowledge studies together with national governance and research institutes. It also sets up in the international network with other cities threatened by flood risks. Second, to what extend the concept of resilience gives the impacts on the planning actions? Rotterdam’s case indicates that the multi-level collaboration seems to be the central issues for resilient-approach planning. Instead of a certain ‘solution’ for flooding issues, planning decision-making looks for ‘an applicable way’ to adapt the uncertain disturbances and remain the city’s functions. In terms of the multi-level collaborations, planning decision-making is no longer fixed but keeps open for new changes. In Rotterdam’s case, the local administrations are active in establishing the national (knowledge-oriented projects), provincial (mainly on engineering projects), and international (for empirical knowledge sharing and experience exchanges) collaborations, in order to increase the city’s adaptive capacity. The multi-level collaboration makes the planning system becomes robustness from flood risks through embracing changes. Finally, how well can and does spatial planning do to deal with flood risks? Rotterdam’s case shows an example for integrated collaborations between research, hydraulic engineering and spatial planning. Instead of being considered as an environmental threat, flooding issue is increasing important in its socioeconomic impacts. The paper concludes the necessity of spatial planning to involve and participate in decision-making to cope with flood risks in a comprehensive way. It addresses particularly important in local strategy-making for city’s adaptability. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study is partly based on research carried out for the URBAN-NET project (www.urban-net.org), which was funded from 2006 to 2011 by the European Commission’s Sixth Framework Programme. The author is grateful to this support. REFERENCES ADGER, W. NEIL 2006. Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16, 268-281. COMMISSIE, DELTA 2008. Working together with water- A living land builds for its future. 17 The 4th Workshop on Adaptation Research in Social Sciences: Implementer, Networker, Governance Facilitator? challenges and conceptual frameworks of social sciences in interdisciplinary climate adaptation research DUDLEY, M. (2010). Resilience. In: Cohen, N. (ed.) Green Cities: An A to Z Guide. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (CA). FLEISCHHAUER, MARK 2008. The Role of Spatial Planning in Strengthening Urban Resilience. In: H. J. PASMAN, A. I. A. K. (ed.) Resilience of Cities to Terrorist and other Threats. Springer. FOLKE, CARL 2006. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16, 253-267. FOSTER, KATHRYN A. 2006. A Case Study Approach to Understanding Regional Resilience. In: FOSTER, K. A. (ed.) Annual Conference of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, Fort Worth. Texas. GODSCHALK, DAVID R. 2003. Urban Hazard Mitigation: Creating Resilient Cities. Natural Hazards Review, 4, 136-143. GUNDERSON, LANCE H. 2000. Ecological resilience-in theory and application. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 31, 425-439. GUNDERSON, LANCE H. and HOLLING, C.S. 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems, Washington, DC, Island Press. HOLLING, C. S. 2001. Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems. Ecosystems, 4, 390-405. HOLLING, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Ssstematics, 4, 1-23. LINNENLUECKE, MARTINA and GRIFFITHS, ANDREW 2010. Beyond Adaptation: Resilience for Business in Light of Climate Change and Weather Extremes. Business & Society, 49, 477-511. MILETI, D. 1999. Disasters by Design, Joseph Henry Press. PENDALL, ROLF, et al. 2010. Resilience and regions: building understanding of the metaphor. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3, 71-84. PIMM, STUART L. 1984. The complexity and stability of ecosystems. Nature, 307, 321-326. TASAN-KOK, TUNA, et al. 2010. Shifting from sustainability to resilience? planning strategies, climate change and flood risk in Rotterdam. The 24th AESOP Annual Conference. Helsinki, Finland. VALE, L.J. and CAMPANELLA, T.J. 2005. The Resilient City: How Modern Cities Recover from Disaster, Oxford, Oxford University Press. VAYDA, A. P.and MCCAY, B. J. 1975. New Directions in the Ecology and Ecological Anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 4, 293-306. WALKER, BRIAN, et al. 2004. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and society, 9 .5 WALKER, BRIAN and SALT, DAVID 2006. Resilience thinking: sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world, Washington DC, Island Press. 18 The 4th Workshop on Adaptation Research in Social Sciences: Implementer, Networker, Governance Facilitator? challenges and conceptual frameworks of social sciences in interdisciplinary climate adaptation research WARDEKKER, J. ARJAN, et al. 2009. Operationalising a resilience approach to adapting an urban delta to uncertain climate changes. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. WHITE, IAIN 2010. Principles of intervention. Water and the city, risk, resilience and planning for a sustainable future. Oxon: Routledge. 19