Policy trends in river and flood management in the Netherlands since the 2010s - part 8 and final

This final part has an evaluation of the outcomes and limitations of the approaches and considers the topics of: water awareness of the general public (3), and the promise of green infrastructure (4). 

3)

When it comes to awareness of climate related risks and responsibilities, most citizens expect the government to solve everything for them and there is no culture of disaster awareness and mutual collaboration like in Japan, or even for individual preparation to survive 72 hours like on the US. Despite there now being campaigns to inform people of what to do and how to prepare, this is not taken up as a necessary action. The OECD Studies on Water, Water Governance in the Netherlands (2014)[i] summarizes this succinctly: “There is a striking “awareness gap” among Dutch citizens related to key water management functions, how they are performed and by whom. Similarly, the perception of water risks is low. Many people are not aware of the basics about evacuation policy, the origin of the water they drink or whether their property is built on a flood plain. This awareness gap is largely a result of a high level of trust in government and the successful avoidance of major flood disasters since 1953.” While there is consistent monitoring of this awareness, there is less of a concrete approach in how to change this awareness for the better.

 

Climate awareness item	2015	2016	2020	2024
People concerned about climate change	62%	67%
People concerned about a large regional flood	23%	30%	23-25%
People who expect pluvial flood in the coming 10 years				67%
People who have an evacuation package ready				9%
People who have more vegetation than tiles in their garden				54%

Table: Results from water awareness monitoring[ii],[iii], [iv]

 

This is also the case for other climate related hazards. The KNMI has already begun changing its heat warnings to more understandable language and actions[v], and there are maps available that visualize the linkage between heat stress and potentially vulnerable older adults[vi]. The drawback is that research has shown that mere information campaigns are insufficient and the perceptions people have regarding climate change should be targeted[vii]. This leaves not just a knowledge gap, but also a chance to enhance understanding and support for the finances and resources necessary to prepare for water related disasters among the general public, especially when it comes to what people can do in their own yard.

 

4)

A major policy trend in addressing climate change impacts has been greening the urban landscapes. Especially the inner cities have faced decades, if not hundreds of years, of construction above and below ground for infrastructure and services, resulting in large areas of impermeable pavement. Urban planners are eager to respond with green and blue transformations in the form of trees, retention areas, green walls and roofs, etc. that get most attention of their potential benefits, both for climate adaptation and beyond. While it is true that vegetation can help reduce local flood peaks, evaporate moisture up to 70%, and reduce temperatures, the exact amounts are often left vague, by both policy ambitions and quantifiable research results. The amount of irrigation required for vegetation to optimally function and provide these benefits is often also glossed over. As an overall beneficial impact appears to remain, the next question centers on species. The local Dutch climate is expected to shift the coming decades from an oceanic climate to include a humid subtropical climate.

There are guides available for urban planners that indicate which species are more resilient for certain types of climate stress[viii], [ix]. Still, this means that any urban vegetation planted to help adapt to climate change must be started to be grown in plant nurseries imminently, which brings with it the need for long term panning and investments spatially, species wise. The biggest challenge on the urban scale is that 50-70% of the inner urban areas are privately owned, meaning another awareness campaign and subsidy measures could have a large impact on how citizens can contribute to locally reducing negative climate change impacts.

 

---

[i] https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/water-governance-in-the-netherlands_9789264102637-en.html#page1

[ii] https://klimaatadaptatienederland.nl/publish/pages/163262/ons_water_onderzoeksresultaten_waterpeil_2017_wateroverlast-waterkwaliteit.pdf

[iii] https://klimaatadaptatienederland.nl/publish/pages/235211/34043-waterpeil-2024-rapportage-herziene-versie.pdf

[iv] https://www.hdsr.nl/publish/pages/103753/definitief_rapport_waterbewustzijn_240120.pdf

[v] https://www.knmi.nl/over-het-knmi/nieuws/de-ene-soort-hitte-is-de-andere-niet-daarom-is-er-nu-hittekracht

[vi] https://klimaatadaptatienederland.nl/actueel/actueel/nieuws/2020/hitte-eenzaamheidskaart/

[vii] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0371-y

[viii] https://bomentabel.nl/

[ix] https://bootendart.nl/toepassingen/#Klimaatbestendig

 

Extinction of Experience - part 1

As we write our paper on the walk-shops we have held at the UT, extinction of experience is a topic we need to address, as we hope to counter it through means of the walk-shops. Or at the very least, address it. 

The loss or extinction of experience refers to the decrease of human interaction with nature, and is connected to the loss or extinction of knowledge of nature.

Several studies point out that reduced experiences in with nature have negative effects. These include reduced health and well-being, and reduced desire to support biodiversity or conservation actions and policies (Gaston and Soga, 2019[1]). To understand the extent of this problem, it is important to distinguish what we mean with these terms when we try to define or measure its extent.

For this we need to describe what we mean with nature, interactions, extinction, and how a changing human experience over a lifetime can be measured validly.

For the first term, Gaston and Soga (2019) state that nature is often described as wild, ‘free from human interventions such as cultivation or domestication. This would leave nearly entire countries in coastal areas as unnatural. For instance, the global map “Last of the Wild” shows the areas in the world where the Human Footprint Index is 10 or less (Gassert 2023[2]) https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/remote-sensing/articles/10.3389/frsen.2023.1130896/full), and it does not leave many areas in the urbanized parts of the world to experience wilderness. Then again, if there were humans to experience the wilderness, the footprint would increase and they wouldn’t be considered as wild anymore. It would also mean that all forms of green infrastructure do not count as nature experience. Gaston and Soga recommend a wider range of the term nature to include cultivated and domesticated species. There is also evidence that these forms of nature also bring about the desired benefits, so why not include more ‘unwild’ forms of nature.

For the second term, interactions, Gaston and Soga state that the debate is about what counts as an interactions, when these are direct or indirect. This is at best a vague scale. For instance: animals, plants, or even weather effects could interact with our bodies or senses directly, we could observe these in our direct vicinity, we could observe these through a window, or we could look at depictions on a screen or painting etc.. It has already been found that patients recovering in hospitals who observe nature, real or ‘fake’, recover slightly faster than those who don’t (Guidolin, 2024[3]). Again, here it appears prudent to include options, but indeed to be clear about what is included. It is also linked to a further term where they distinguish between interactions and experiences. Merely interacting, but not having any reflection or follow-up emotional, spiritual, or intellectual experience is stated to also need a distinction. This I think raises a myriad of questions. If you dream of nature, was it due to a nature interaction? It is less feasible to draw such a distinction as experiences can and most often are more private and immeasurable than interactions. Experiences could be self-reported by participants if answering the research question would be strengthened by it.

The third term of extinction is also on a type of scale. When is experience truly lost (and can be regained), when extinct (impossible to regain)? Gaston and Soga include people who live in highly urbanized areas (thus excluding the less wild versions of nature), house- or bed-bound people (again excluding less wild versions and images of nature), and people who are not particularly eager to interact with nature. Perhaps here extinction is too strong of a word and while knowledge can be regained, on average, for most people, so can experience.

In alignment with Gaston and Soga's call to be more specific (2019), the type of walk-shops we have organized mainly focus on countering the loss of experiences with living organisms.

 

---

[1]Gaston KJ, Soga M. Extinction of experience: The need to be more specific. People Nat. 2020; 2: 575–581. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10118

[2] Gassert F, Venter O, Watson JEM, Brumby SP, Mazzariello JC, Atkinson SC and Hyde S (2023) An operational approach to near real time global high resolution mapping of the terrestrial Human Footprint. Front. Remote Sens. 4:1130896. doi: 10.3389/frsen.2023.1130896 https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/remote-sensing/articles/10.3389/frsen.2023.1130896/full

[3] Guidolin K, Jung F, Hunter S, et al. The Influence of Exposure to Nature on Inpatient Hospital Stays: A Scoping Review. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal. 2024;17(2):360-375. doi:10.1177/19375867231221559