Habitat fragmentation caused by urbanization and climate change are important drivers of biodiversity decline and ecosystem degradation (McKinney, 2002). Governmental inaction results in cascade effects, such as the extinction of species and the weakening of ecosystem services that citizens depend on. Alarming studies show the continuing loss of nature within European cities as they densify further to meet the demand for housing (Balikçi et al., 2022). The housing market is currently impacted negatively by economic factors and municipalities often respond by scaling back their sustainability ambitions. To avoid cosmetic greening of cities, the eco-social value of urban developments and their contribution to climate-change adaptation need to be made measurable. Developing nature-based urban areas offers opportunities to increase socio-ecological resilience (McPhearson et al., 2015; Spanjar et al., 2022).In the two-year Nature-Based Area Development study researchers at four Dutch universities collaborated with planning professionals in cities, regions and companies to investigate how nature-based urban development can become a forceful reality. The study applied a combination of methods such as co-research sessions with consortium partners, in-depth interviews with experts and a multiple case study analysis of best practices in the Netherlands and abroad. Malmö and Stockholm are frontrunners in applying innovative green planning instruments such as Green Area Factor to meet high environmental ambitions (Kruuse, 2011). These instruments were also analysed and compared with eco-city projects in the Netherlands to identify their effectiveness in fostering nature and ecosystem services.The analysis shows barriers in governance and spatiality between public and (semi-)private developments. Policy silos and ownership divisions often lead to standalone interventions that negatively impact social and ecological connectedness and projects’ potential for climate-change adaptation. Nature-based urban developments require a proactive effort to understand the precise ecological demands across scales and how they can be harnessed effectively in these complex planning processes. The results of the study provide key lessons and inspiration to enable authorities to implement more effective nature-based planning instruments.
MULTIFILE
Worldwide, rivers face challenges due to human and climatic pressures. Floods, droughts, pollution, damming and hydropeaking are only a few examples of these pressures, and influence the way rivers flow. Climate change adaptation projects increase the incentive to domesticate rivers, often legitimised through expert views on (future) vulnerability and risk. This emerging river imaginary dominates current debates in many rivers in our world. River imaginaries reflect spatially bound hydrosocial territories in which multiple actors on multiple scales from multiples sectors operate to reach varying objectives. They include water flows, ecological systems, climate conditions, hydraulic infrastructure, financial means, institutional arrangements, legal frameworks and information/knowledge hubs. In the context of climate change adaptation, river imaginaries are strongly dependent on the extent to which climate change is expected to influence rivers through a mixture of probable, possible, desirable or preferable versions of a (future) river. As such, knowledge-structures of future making are scrutinised in this research by emphasising on the role of change, the role of futures and the role of experts. This presentation aims to elucidate how river imaginaries have influenced river management under climate change adaptation that resulted in large infrastructural projects. Through a study of the Meuse river, a concrete case of a imaginary came into being in the Dutch-Belgian Border-Meuse trajectory. Moreover, preliminary result from adaptation projects in the marshlands of the lower Magdalena in Colombia strengthen the dominate imaginary of technocratic and ecocentric approaches to climate change adaptation where an expert view on local knowledge dominates.
LINK
The role of expert knowledge of the environment in decision-making about urban development has been intensively debated, largely in terms of a so-called ‘science-policy gap’. Most contributions to this debate have studied the use of knowledge in the decision-making process from the knowledge providers’ point of view. In this paper, we reverse the perspective and try to unearth how decision-makers use scientific knowledge in decision-making about an urban plan. We confronted municipal administrators, responsible for local urban development, with conceptions of the use of knowledge that were derived from the literature on this issue. From the reactions obtained, we conclude that, in the context of urban redevelopment, local administrators hardly perceive a barrier between themselves as decision-makers and experts – both environmental scientists and urban designers. They do, however, acknowledge that experts and decision-makers have distinct roles: unlike experts, local administrators have to balance all interests relevant to an urban plan. It is argued, therefore, that experts should engage in providing better decision frameworks rather than more or better knowledge.
Climate change is increasing the challenges for water management worldwide. Extreme weather conditions, such as droughts and heavy rainfall, are increasingly limiting the availability of water, especially for agriculture. Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) offer potential solutions. They help to collect and infiltrate rainwater and thus play an important role in climate adaptation.Green infrastructure, such as rain gardens (sunken plant beds) and wadis (sunken grass fields for temporary storage of rainwater), help to restore the urban water balance. They reduce rainwater runoff, stabilize groundwater levels and solve problems with soil moisture and temperature. Despite these advantages, there is still much ignorance in practice about the possibilities of NBS. To remedy this, freely accessible knowledge modules are being developed that can help governments and future employees to better understand the application of these solutions. This research, called GINA (Green Infrastructure in Urban Areas), aims to create more sustainable and climate-resilient cities by developing and sharing knowledge about NBS, and supports local governments and students in effectively deploying these green infrastructures.
Living walls are increasingly becoming tools for green climate adaptation in the urban context, but distribution efforts are dampened by high investment and operational costs. Those costs are derived mainly from designing and manufacturing unique equipment for such new projects. A system using wastewater could relieve some of these costs by decreasing their irrigation and fertigation needs. Muuras is developing helophyte filters integrated into living wall systems that can readily be attached to any wall surface, with the ultimate purpose of local water recycling. Additionally, based on the fact that Muuras is a pre-engineered company, their product is modular, which means that a considerable advantage is recognized regarding the decreased capital cost. To realize scalable implementation of such a system, research with regards to the purification capabilities of lightweight substrates and small wetland plant species is imperative. In SoW & FloW, the NHL Stenden Water Technology Professorship proposes a collaboration between two SME’s (Muuras, Greenwave Systems) and a company (DeSaH), to evaluate a selection of substrates and endemic plant species based on their capability to use domestic wastewater as an irrigation source.
