Increasing resilience to flooding is a complex process that requires horizontal and vertical coordination between institutions in policy making and implementation. This paper explores the effect of institutional coordination on managing flood risk in two cities plagued by flooding. Our results show that efforts on building urban flood resilience can be undermined by lack of proper coordination between urban development, water management and land use planning. We find that this complexity is magnified by the emergence of the concept of resilience as an urban development goal that is increasingly pursued by various authorities, but that is inherently contested in practice.@en

In February 1953, an extremely powerful northwest storm surge combined with spring tide led to serious floods in a number of countries around the North Sea. No country was hit as badly as the Netherlands. In the southwest of the country, dozens of dikes were breached, leading to over 1,800 casualties. At the time of the 1953 disaster, a government-appointed committee was working on an advisory report about the desired future spatial development of the most urbanized western part of the country, a region largely below sea level. Responding to the 1953 disaster, the committee discussed whether urban development in deep polders should be avoided. The conclusion was that what is best in terms of the desired urban morphology should prevail. This is indeed what happened when the government had to make a choice about where to develop new towns (1960s–1980s) and, in the next stage, where to locate new housing estates in and around cities (1990s–2000s). Near floods along the main rivers of the country in 1992 and 1995 opened a window of opportunity for a series of major changes in flood risk management and in spatial planning and design, respectively. A massive program called Room for the River was carried out, which included more than 30 projects designed by multidisciplinary teams of civil engineers, planners, and spatial designers. Parallel and follow-up programs were carried out in which spatial design again played a role. The concept of risk was redefined in law, leading to more stringent protection norms for densely populated areas—again, a spatial turn in flood risk management. When flood risk management started to take a decisive spatial turn in the 1990s, spatial planning began to change as well, becoming more sensitive to issues related to water management and flood risks. One of these changes involved the mandatory use of a water test in (local) plan making. The continuation of the trend to give greater weight to flood risks became interrupted as the multilevel arrangement of planning in the Netherlands started to change from 2010 onward. This was largely the result of the neoliberal ambition to decentralize and deregulate planning. One main effect was that the government no longer took a leading role in locational choices regarding where to build new housing estates outside cities and towns. By the end of 2021, the government-appointed Delta commissioner issued a stark warning that over 80% of the houses that will be built by 2030 are situated in less desirable locations. This and other effects of the downscaling of planning competencies made the government decide to start a trajectory to partly recentralize planning. There are two contradictory objectives, however, claimed by different government departments: the production of new homes as quickly as possible and the ambition to make water and soil leading in future choices. Bringing flood risk management and spatial planning together means that locational choices and the spatial design of localities have to move in tandem.@en

In February 1953, an extremely powerful northwest storm surge combined with spring tide led to serious floods in a number of countries around the North Sea. No country was hit as badly as the Netherlands. In the southwest of the country, dozens of dikes were breached, leading to over 1,800 casualties. At the time of the 1953 disaster, a government-appointed committee was working on an advisory report about the desired future spatial development of the most urbanized western part of the country, a region largely below sea level. Responding to the 1953 disaster, the committee discussed whether urban development in deep polders should be avoided. The conclusion was that what is best in terms of the desired urban morphology should prevail. This is indeed what happened when the government had to make a choice about where to develop new towns (1960s–1980s) and, in the next stage, where to locate new housing estates in and around cities (1990s–2000s). Near floods along the main rivers of the country in 1992 and 1995 opened a window of opportunity for a series of major changes in flood risk management and in spatial planning and design, respectively. A massive program called Room for the River was carried out, which included more than 30 projects designed by multidisciplinary teams of civil engineers, planners, and spatial designers. Parallel and follow-up programs were carried out in which spatial design again played a role. The concept of risk was redefined in law, leading to more stringent protection norms for densely populated areas—again, a spatial turn in flood risk management. When flood risk management started to take a decisive spatial turn in the 1990s, spatial planning began to change as well, becoming more sensitive to issues related to water management and flood risks. One of these changes involved the mandatory use of a water test in (local) plan making. The continuation of the trend to give greater weight to flood risks became interrupted as the multilevel arrangement of planning in the Netherlands started to change from 2010 onward. This was largely the result of the neoliberal ambition to decentralize and deregulate planning. One main effect was that the government no longer took a leading role in locational choices regarding where to build new housing estates outside cities and towns. By the end of 2021, the government-appointed Delta commissioner issued a stark warning that over 80% of the houses that will be built by 2030 are situated in less desirable locations. This and other effects of the downscaling of planning competencies made the government decide to start a trajectory to partly recentralize planning. There are two contradictory objectives, however, claimed by different government departments: the production of new homes as quickly as possible and the ambition to make water and soil leading in future choices. Bringing flood risk management and spatial planning together means that locational choices and the spatial design of localities have to move in tandem.@en

Planning for land use and the built environment is critical for flood resilience. Communities that acknowledge and plan for hazards throughout an integrated network of plans are generally more resilient than those where guidance conflicts and hazards are downplayed. Through the spatial evaluation of a community's network of plan documents, a Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard (PIRS) analysis helps reveal where and how plans are coordinated or in conflict, and where opportunities exist to strengthen resilience. Originally developed in the United States, the method was applied in Rotterdam, Nijmegen, and Dordrecht as part of a National Science Foundation Partnerships for International Research and Education grant. The studies were an occasion for comparisons and knowledge-building, testing the PIRS in a new hazard and planning context, facilitating its continued development, and providing a novel perspective on Dutch plan integration and resilience as the country adjusts to new planning and water management challenges.@en

Planning for land use and the built environment is critical for flood resilience. Communities that acknowledge and plan for hazards throughout an integrated network of plans are generally more resilient than those where guidance conflicts and hazards are downplayed. Through the spatial evaluation of a community's network of plan documents, a Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard (PIRS) analysis helps reveal where and how plans are coordinated or in conflict, and where opportunities exist to strengthen resilience. Originally developed in the United States, the method was applied in Rotterdam, Nijmegen, and Dordrecht as part of a National Science Foundation Partnerships for International Research and Education grant. The studies were an occasion for comparisons and knowledge-building, testing the PIRS in a new hazard and planning context, facilitating its continued development, and providing a novel perspective on Dutch plan integration and resilience as the country adjusts to new planning and water management challenges.@en

The incentive for this publication was to expand the realm of enquiry around the topic of Building with Nature (BwN), for two main reasons. First to gain an interdisciplinary, and therefore deeper, understanding of BwN as an object of study. Secondly, but no less important, is an understanding of how different forms of knowledge contribute to our learning regarding BwN. When we understand the contribution of several academic disciplines and knowledge from practice, we may eventually get to the point where we can identify how they can collaborate successfully to contribute to BwN as an interdisciplinary field.@en

Along with unprecedented urbanization in the last few decades, cities have experienced rapid social and economic transformation in China. A major challenge facing urban authorities in the immediate future is how to plan and govern cities such that they can serve as inclusive systems where everyone is enabled and empowered to fully participate in and contribute to socioeconomic life. A first step towards realizing this is to conceptualize an integrated framework that allows analysts and decision-makers to delineate, evaluate, and guide the development of these cities towards inclusiveness. In this study, we conducted a conceptual analysis of urban inclusiveness and then proposed a multidimensional framework for the evaluation of inclusive development. This is followed by the presentation of the case of Xiong'an, for which inclusive development indicators (IDIs) were selected. By comparing the state before the establishment of Xiong'an with its current development progress, and analyzing the area's management structure and policy measures, the inclusive development challenges are identified. Subsequently, suggestions are given on how to direct Xiong'an toward higher levels of inclusiveness, including offering equal access to public services and employment opportunities, preserving environmental health and sustainable use of natural resources through waste recycling, and encouraging public participation in decision-making to bring higher levels of inclusion within reach.@en

Problem, research strategy, and findings: In this study we analyze plan integration for flood resilience in the city of Nijmegen, the site of the largest Room for the River project in The Netherlands. Little is known about the degree to which local and regional plans are coordinated with the national Room for the River program or about the cumulative influence of plans on flood vulnerability. To effectively investigate these issues, we use and build upon the Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard (PIRS) concept and method, which analyzes the consistency and effects of networks of plans on community vulnerability. We expand the scope to include plans from multiple administrative scales and the focus to include environmental vulnerability. Using a three-phase evaluation process, we demonstrate that Room for the River policies are well integrated in Nijmegen’s network of plans, particularly with respect to flood safety and natural protection. However, we also find that policies at different administrative scales lack consistency in some places, some socially vulnerable neighborhoods receive comparatively little policy attention, and local plans often prioritize development over flood resilience, though higher tier plans sometimes make up for these policy gaps. Flood resilience is still finding its way in the Dutch planning system. Takeaway for practice: The PIRS offers planning practitioners a method to assess how networks of plans influence community vulnerability and, as demonstrated in this analysis, to determine the degree to which plans at multiple administrative scales target the most physically, socially, and environmentally vulnerable geographic areas. It can be used to support the ambitious goals of a program like Room for the River and align them with local development priorities.

@en

This report is the result of a symposium organised by the department of Urbanism of the Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment of the TU Delft on May 14 2018. with the objective to discuss ideas, methodologies and challenges of a planning and design education for water resilient cities.@en

This report summarises the findings of the JPI Heritage Plus PICH Project’s nvestigation of the impact of the reform of urban planning on the historic built environment. The project team conducted twelve in-depth case studies in Italy, the Netherlands, Norway and the UK covering three settings: the built heritage of historic urban cores, former industrial areas and the urban landscape. The findings are more fully reported in three comparative reports which compare findings for each setting in the four countries; in four national reports which look across the three settings in one country; and 12 case study reports.@en

Rising damages from hazard events have led to calls for innovative research on resilience. Consistent integration of mitigation policies throughout a community's network of plans is increasingly seen as essential for effective resilience planning. To better understand coordination and conflicts in policy responses to flood hazards, this study evaluates a district in the city of Rotterdam, the Netherlands, using the Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard method. An internationally recognized leader in resilience and water management, Rotterdam is nevertheless vulnerable to flooding, especially in a changing climate. Findings demonstrate that even a place as proactive in resilience policy as Rotterdam can benefit from the perspective gained using the scorecard technique. Although resilience is generally supported throughout the study area, conflicts remain. The scorecard reveals inconsistencies and opportunities to further reduce flood vulnerability by ‘mainstreaming’ resilience policies in the most influential plans.

@en

On August 25, 2017, Hurricane Harvey made landfall near Rockport, Texas as a Category 4 hurricane with maximum sustained winds of approximately 200 km/hour. Harvey caused severe damages in coastal Texas due to extreme winds and storm surge, but will go down in history for record-setting rainfall totals and flood-related damages. Across large portions of southeast Texas, rainfall totals during the six-day period between August 25 and 31, 2017 were amongst the highest ever recorded, causing flooding at an unprecedented scale. More than 100,000 residential properties are estimated to have been affected in southeast Texas. It is likely that Harvey will rank among the costliest storms in U.S. history. In the wake of Hurricane Harvey, Delft University of Technology has initiated a Harvey Research Team to undertake a coordinated multidisciplinary investigation of the events with a focus on the greater Houston area. This ‘fact-finding’ research is based on information available from public sources during and in the first weeks after the event. Results are therefore preliminary, but aim to provide insight into lessons that can be learned for both Texas and the Netherlands. As part of the investigations, a hackathon with more than 80 participants was organized to collect and analyze available public information. Houston was especially hard hit by flooding. During the event, all 22 watersheds in the greater Houston area experienced flooding. Many of Houston’s creeks and bayous exceeded their channel capacities, reaching water levels never before recorded. Across large portions of Harris County, rainfall totals exceeded the 1000-year return period. In addition, the water from the two reservoirs protecting downtown Houston (Addicks and Barker) were opened on August 28 to prevent catastrophic damages to the dams and further flooding in upstream communities. The releases exacerbated flooding in the areas downstream of the dams and an estimated 4,000 homes in neighborhoods downstream of the dams were impacted by flooding. The consequences of the event in the greater Houston area have been characterized in terms of economic damages, loss of life and impacts on critical infrastructure, airports and industry. In total, more than 100,000 homes were affected more than 70 fatalities were reported in the greater Houston area. The event highlighted the vulnerability of industrial facilities, as several cascading impacts (releases of toxic materials and explosions) were reported. Emergency response has been assessed. No large-scale mandatory evacuation was ordered before or during Harvey. However, it appeared that several local evacuations were ordered for areas with specific risks and circumstances. During the event, many people were trapped by rising waters necessitating a major rescue operation. In total, more than 10,000 rescues were made by professional and volunteer rescuers. Social media played an important role during the event and recovery, as an additional source of information, to inform emergency managers and as a means to organize community response e.g. for clean-up. Also, messages were conveyed through social media, e.g. a report of a levee breach that appeared to be incorrect afterwards. Major flooding is a problem that has multiple causes from both physical and social origin. Based on the investigations, recommendations for future research and lessons for flood management have been formulated. A better understanding of the issues studied in this report is expected to contribute to a knowledge basis for further in-depth investigations and future directions for flood risk reduction. Data collection and Report production funded by DIMI and DSys Special Case 'Houston Galveston Bay Region, Texas, USA' Project 'Harvey hackathon' and follow-up research @en

Galveston Island is a barrier island with a population of approximately 60,000, located between Galveston Bay and the Gulf of Mexico on the Texas coast. Due to its location, Galveston is not only on the front line of hurricane-induced storm surges coming from the Gulf, it is also a key site for any flood defense aiming to protect the entire Houston- Galveston Bay region. The island and its namesake city’s history have been marked by devastating storm surges, most notably the 1900 Great Galveston Hurricane, and Hurricane Ike in 2008. The 1900 hurricane left an estimated 6-8000 dead and prompted the elevation of the entire city by approximately 10 feet, plus the construction of the Galves ton Sea Wall on the Gulf-side (Bellis Bixel & Hayes Turner, 2000; Wright-Gidley & Marines, 2008). The back and west end of the island remain unprotected, and as a result were flooded during Hurricane Ike in 2008.@en

When the MFFD program took off in 2012, its general goal was to gain a deeper understanding of multifunctional flood defenses, in order to provide a solid foundation for their design, assessment and management. As a point of departure, it assumed that a new generation of explicitly multifunctional flood defenses was the product of a need to accommodate competing spatial claims, and, perhaps, contribute financial savings by combining functions. Flagship projects like the Scheveningen Boulevard and Katwijk’s ‘hybrid’ parking garage complement an older generation of multifunctional flood defenses, the traditional example being dikes with sheep grazing or a road on top. The contemporary multifunctional flood defense was viewed as a complex but desirable phenomenon: the answer to multiple needs, and therefore best studied from a multidisciplinary perspective. @en

Various interesting tools were used and/or developed to stimulate knowledge integration in the Multifunctional Flood Defenses program. This chapter will present a diverse collection of these tools, hopefully stimulating others to consider using some of them in future.@en

The aim of this survey is to give a concise overview of the pre- and post-barrier functioning of the Eastern Scheldt estuary. The survey builds upon the Eastern Scheldt Memo (dated March 2016), which explored possible sources and shortlisted leading publications, key institutes and contacts. In response to the memo’s reception by the commissioner of this study, the Severe Storm Prediction Education and Evacuation from Disasters (SSPEED)-centre, the survey has focused on two fields of interest:1. The first field targets key environmental changes in the estuary after 1986. These have been grouped under five main categories: hydrodynamics, morphology, benthos & primary production, fish & aquaculture, and wader bird population. These include topics like salinity, channel alignment and (re)location of aquaculture plots.2. The second field describes contemporary management- and mitigation efforts aimed to preserve the functioning of the estuary’s ecosystem.For a full view, the two parts of this study are to be read in concert, as the survey (part 2) only elaborates on selected issues from the memo (part 1).@en

The aim of this survey is to give a concise overview of the pre- and post-barrier functioning of the Eastern Scheldt estuary. The survey builds upon the Eastern Scheldt Memo (dated March 2016), which explored possible sources and shortlisted leading publications, key institutes and contacts. In response to the memo’s reception by the commissioner of this study, the Severe Storm Prediction Education and Evacuation from Disasters (SSPEED)-centre, the survey has focused on two fields of interest:1. The first field targets key environmental changes in the estuary after 1986. These have been grouped under five main categories: hydrodynamics, morphology, benthos & primary production, fish & aquaculture, and wader bird population. These include topics like salinity, channel alignment and (re)location of aquaculture plots.2. The second field describes contemporary management- and mitigation efforts aimed to preserve the functioning of the estuary’s ecosystem.For a full view, the two parts of this study are to be read in concert, as the survey (part 2) only elaborates on selected issues from the memo (part 1).@en

This book is a collection of recent PhD papers from the Department of Urbanism, TU Delft. Urbanism is the academic discipline concerned with understanding the spatial organisation and dynamics of urban areas. The quality of the urban environment is a determining factor in the social, economic and environmental performance of societies and the life of citizens. The TU Delft Department of Urbanism seeks to influence the processes of urban change and transformation through explicit design and planning interventions, underpinning practical action to shape the urban environment in a sustainable way. The strong tradition of urbanism in the delta of the Netherlands is a strong factor influencing this major contribution to knowledge and education in the field. Further developments which build on this experience are necessary to address the great challenges of sustainable development, not least with regard to the problems of climate change in delta areas, transformation of brownfield sites and the making of high-quality public space. Of interest to all those committed to building a better urban environment, some of the topics covered in this book include: adaptive environments for human habitats, searching for good urban form, mixed use index (MXI) as a tool for urban planning and analysis and pattern formation in planned urban peripheries.@en

This book is a collection of recent PhD papers from the Department of Urbanism, TU Delft. Urbanism is the academic discipline concerned with understanding the spatial organisation and dynamics of urban areas. The quality of the urban environment is a determining factor in the social, economic and environmental performance of societies and the life of citizens. The TU Delft Department of Urbanism seeks to influence the processes of urban change and transformation through explicit design and planning interventions, underpinning practical action to shape the urban environment in a sustainable way. The strong tradition of urbanism in the delta of the Netherlands is a strong factor influencing this major contribution to knowledge and education in the field. Further developments which build on this experience are necessary to address the great challenges of sustainable development, not least with regard to the problems of climate change in delta areas, transformation of brownfield sites and the making of high-quality public space. Of interest to all those committed to building a better urban environment, some of the topics covered in this book include: adaptive environments for human habitats, searching for good urban form, mixed use index (MXI) as a tool for urban planning and analysis and pattern formation in planned urban peripheries.@en