As climate risks become more frequent and severe, real estate developers are increasingly expected to incorporate climate adaptation into their projects. However, within Dutch practice, it remains unclear whether – and how – physical climate risks such as heat stress, water nuisance, flooding, and foundation issues are accounted for in development decisions. This thesis investigates how climate risks are currently addressed in Dutch real estate development and identifies the key factors shaping developers' responsiveness. Based on twelve semi-structured interviews with developers, investors, a municipality, and a bank, the research reveals a fragmented governance context, where stakeholder priorities diverge and early-stage incentives for adaptation are often lacking.
A synthesis of stakeholder perspectives shows that while public and financial actors are becoming more aware of climate risks, their capacity and willingness to act vary significantly depending on the risk in question. A stakeholder–risk matrix was developed to illustrate these diverging positions. In addition, a visualisation of the developer’s trajectory identifies critical phases in which climate risks could be embedded more proactively. The findings indicate that adaptation is rarely considered during the initiative and feasibility stages – when flexibility is highest – unless it is enforced through regulation or financial conditions.
The research concludes that successful integration of climate risks requires not only technical
solutions or financial means, but timely alignment across key actors. Developers can play a pivotal role by initiating early engagement with municipalities, investors, and banks, tailored to their respective concerns regarding specific climate risks. By embedding adaptation measures early in the process, developers can avoid costly late-stage revisions and external pressures. The study offers practical recommendations for developers and public actors to improve early-stage climate risk integration in the built environment.

The increasing densification in cities in the Netherlands has led to a growing competition for space, which places significant pressure on urban public and green spaces. Evident in Amsterdam, this raises questions concerning the city’s ability to sustain the wide range of benefits public green spaces can provide. However, with limited horizontal space still available, the city should explore innovative solutions to create new space in the urban landscape. In this context, retrofitting existing rooftops has sparked significant interest and the concept of rooftop parks has emerged as the ultimate solution. This study explores the suitability of the existing roof stock in Amsterdam for retrofit into rooftop parks, as an elevated layer of public urban green space. Employing a mixed-method approach, it defines the concept of rooftop parks within the city’s context, establishes guiding principles for rooftop parks, presents a holistic framework to assess roof suitability based on 11 key building and urban contextual criteria and analyses the application of this framework. In this way, an answer is ultimately provided as to the extent to which roofs in Amsterdam are suitable for rooftop park retrofitting. Adding to existing rooftop development perspectives, findings support informed future decision-making, ultimately contributing to Amsterdam’s commitment to creating a more sustainable, liveable and climate-resilient city for all residents.

Climate risk assessment estimates the risk of physical climate hazards, and it is increasingly relevant for stakeholders involved in Dutch urban climate governance where floods, heat and drought are becoming more frequent and severe. However, its future role in climate governance and stakeholders' information needs. While previous research analyzed the role of technical tools in decision-making for climate adaptation, it does not identify the needs of the involved stakeholders. This research aims to contribute towards more effective and rapid implementation of urban climate adaptation measures in the Netherlands by identifying the role of climate risk assessment in the climate governance arena of Amsterdam as the case study. This is done by producing risk maps of Amsterdam’s Watergraafsmeer area as sample and using them in eleven semi-structured interviews with advisory, financial and municipal stakeholders. Preference was found for methods that estimate the financial implications of hazards at the neighborhood scale because it supports the identification of risk hotspots, understanding the costs of inaction, and accelerating the implementation of adaptation measures. These findings enhance the understanding of stakeholder information needs in Dutch climate governance arenas and support further development of risk assessment tools that estimate the financial consequences of physical climate hazards.