Mainstreaming innovations in urban water management faculteit/Afdelingen... · Mainstreaming innovations in urban water management - Case studies in Melbourne and the Netherlands

Mainstreaming innovations in urban water management Case studies in Melbourne and the Netherlands

Jeroen Rijke October 2007

Mainstreaming innovations in urban water management Case studies in Melbourne and the Netherlands Jeroen Rijke Delft, October 2007 Graduation Commission: Prof. dr. ir. N.C. Van de Giesen, Delft University of Technology Dr. ir. F.H.M. Van de Ven, Delft University of Technology Dr. R.R. Brown, Monash University Ir. R.E. De Graaf, Delft University of Technology Ir. D.J. Biron, Witteveen+Bos Dr. ir. J. De Koning, Delft University of Technology MSc thesis Water Resources Management, Civil Engineering, Delft University of Technology

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my parents, Reinier and Mieke Rijke, for always supporting me. I would like to thank Rebekah Brown and the National Urban Water Governance Program for offering me the opportunity of conducting part of this research in Melbourne and for giving me such a great time. I would like to thank Richard Roberts for showing me around in Melbourne. I would like to thank David Biron for offering me the opportunity to write this thesis at the Witteveen+Bos office in The Hague. I would like to thank all my supervisors for guiding me through the research process and all the interviewees for co-operating with this research. I would like to thank David Ehrhardt for making grammatical improvements to the text in this report.

Mainstreaming innovations in urban water management - Case studies in Melbourne and the Netherlands i

FOREWORD This report is a MSc thesis that is written to complete the MSc Water Resources management at Delft University of Technology. The duration of the MSc Water Resources Management is two academic years (120 ECTS). The final MSc thesis is awarded with 42 ECTS. This MSc thesis is written within the scope of co-operative research project between the Water Resources Section at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands and the National Urban Water Governance Program at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. The objectives of this project are: (1) to compare sustainable urban water management practice in new urban developments in Australia and the Netherlands; (2) to analyse and compare enabling conditions and obstacles for realizing sustainable urban water management in practice; (3) to make recommendations for realising more sustainable water management practices by improving the urban development process of building projects in both the Netherlands and Australia; (4) to make recommendations in order to realize an accelerated transition process towards more sustainable water management practices by improving the urban development process in both the Netherlands and Australia. Jeroen Rijke Delft, October 2007

Mainstreaming innovations in urban water management - Case studies in Melbourne and the Netherlands

ii

SUMMARY Introduction Urban water management practice across the world has increased in complexity over time. The number of involved actors has increased, systems have come under increasing pressure due to climate change and urbanisation and more demanding standards such as the European Water Framework Directive for water quality management in Europe. Instead of a technical solution alone, a more integral approach towards urban water management is required to deal with the conflicting interests of different stakeholders. Currently there is a transition taking place towards an approach that is more holistic and that takes more stakeholders into account. This thesis balances on the edge of conventional engineering and social science by studying a crucial part of this transition in-depth: the mainstreaming of innovations in urban water management. At this moment, Melbourne’s most important water issue is a water supply issue that results from drought and population/economic growth. Water quality of waterways and the ocean is also regarded as an issue. Technical innovations that address both issues are being incorporated in the concept of Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD). This is a holistic water cycle approach towards urban water management that integrates urban water management with spatial planning. For Melbourne, this thesis focuses on the mainstreaming of WSUD features such as wetlands, vegetated swales, rainwater harvesting and third pipe systems for the supply of recycled water. In the Netherlands, it is perceived that little suitable space for building is available. Groundwater causes nuisance in the densely developed urban areas. Surface water quality is also being regarded as an issue. There are trends in practice that aim at retaining the water if possible, before storing it or draining it to downstream areas. Innovations that aim at stormwater infiltration, disconnection of impervious surface from combined sewers and stormwater treatment are part of this trend and will therefore be researched in this thesis. The failed introduction of dual pipe systems in the Netherlands is also described in this thesis. The similarity between the innovations in Melbourne and the Netherlands that are being researched in this thesis is the fact that they all aim to improving current practice. Or in other words: they all aim to more sustainable practice. Research question What are enabling factors and obstacles for mainstreaming innovations that aim for a transition towards more sustainable urban water management in Melbourne and the Netherlands? Research objectives To answer the research question and to make recommendations for accelerating the transition, three objectives have been set up. Firstly, the context and common practice of urban water management in the Netherlands and Melbourne has to be analysed. The interaction of society with its environment is analysed with regards to available techniques, processes and governance. The second objective is to determine the pathway and the current state of the transition in urban water management in Melbourne and the Netherlands. The data on the current state and dynamics of the transition reveals what urban water management practice in Melbourne and the Netherlands could learn from each other and is used below to recommend how the enabling factors can be used and obstacles be removed to accelerate the transitions. The third objective is to determine the enabling factors and obstacles for successfully introducing innovations in urban water management on a broad scale in Melbourne and the Netherlands. Meeting this objective answers the research question. Transition pathways Figure s.1 shows the transition pathways of Melbourne and the Netherlands. Both transitions can be characterised by a transformation pathway, followed by a de-alignment and re-alignment pathway. An environmental macro driver, combined with events and developments at the micro level triggered the

Mainstreaming innovations in urban water management - Case studies in Melbourne and the Netherlands iii

transition in the 1960s in both cases. In Melbourne, after continuing environmental pressure from the macro and the micro level a protective space was created in the meso-level between different organisations to enable rapid expanding demonstration of stormwater treatment. The drought that started in 1997 and the worldwide increased awareness about climate change triggered a de-alignment and re-alignment pathway in the late 1990s, because these developments made clear that the existing regime could not sufficiently secure Melbourne’s long term water supplies. The drought and climate change driver did not only trigger the uptake of alternative water sources, but is also causing the evolution of the USQM transition into a holistic water management approach. In the Netherlands, the regime gradually responded to developments at the micro level and the persisting environmental macro-driver, but did not radically change until the floods of 1993 and 1995. After the floods of 1993 and 1995 it was widely acknowledged that the existing regime could not fully control the water. The awareness about climate change reinforced this public opinion. This opened a window of opportunity for technologies to emerge and caused the shift to the de-alignment and re-alignment pathway.

Transition pathway Melbourne

Transition pathway the Netherlands

Figure s.1: Transition pathways in Melbourne and the Netherlands (adapted from Geels and Schot (2007)) State of transitions Figure s.2 shows that the current state of the urban water transitions in Melbourne and the Netherlands is leaving the take-off phase and entering the take-off phase. For the Netherlands, the indicators that the transition is currently entering the acceleration stage are: • After the take-off stage, which was triggered after the 1993 and 1995 floods by the space that the

regime offered when it acknowledged that it could not fully control the water through the old regime, technologies emerged rapidly. This has resulted in a widespread implementation of technologies that integrate water management and spatial planning.

• The implementation of such technologies still faces many practical problems, such as cost allocation, maintenance and knowledge. The regime will therefore have to adapt to this to remove


iv

the incompatibilities between the strategies and the implementation before the stabilisation phase will be reached.

• At the national level, there are many strategic water visions, indicating that one unambiguous vision and strategy is not present at the meso-level.

Figure s.2: State of the transitions in Melbourne and the Netherlands The urban water transition in Melbourne consists of two components: a transition towards Urban Stormwater Quality Management (USWM) that has converted with an Alternative Water Sources (AWS) component towards a transition towards Water Sensitive Urban Design. The USQM component is nearing the stabilisation stage. Indicators for this are: • The USQM transition has been in the acceleration stage for the past 10 years. This has resulted in

a revised Clause 56 of the Victorian Planning Provisions that mandates on-site stormwater treatment for all new residential subdivisions.

• However, the USQM transition has not reached the stabilisation phase yet, because implementation of on-site stormwater treatment is only mandated in new residential developments and not yet in re-development of urban area or the development of commercial and industrial areas.

• Cost-allocation issues are still present and mainly developers and builders have insufficient knowledge for the correct implementation of on-site treatment systems.

The AWS component is entering the acceleration stage at this moment, which is indicated by the fact that: • Macro-drivers and developments at the micro level (mainly the third pipe system at Aurora Estate)

have pushed the regime in such a way that it started to respond by developing guidelines and regulation for the use of reclaimed water.

• This has resulted in the development of more projects with recycled water, such as the Hunt Club Estate.

• However, a common methodology of developing third pipe systems still has to be created. Also cost-allocation is an issue that needs to be addressed.

• An indication that could shift the diffusion into the acceleration phase is the fact that that the Victorian Government has mandated the uptake of recycled water schemes for 40.000 planned homes in Melbourne.

If the two components of the transition towards WSUD are combined, it could be concluded that the transition towards WSUD in Melbourne is entering the acceleration phase. Understanding the current state of the transition can be used to accelerating towards the next transition stages. The fact that the transitions in Melbourne and the Netherlands have similar pathway and face similar issues, makes it useful to learn from each other. Case studies Within the context of the transitions that are described above, three case studies have been conducted in Melbourne and five in the Netherlands to answer the research question. All cases include innovations that aim towards more sustainable water management. They are urban

Mainstreaming innovations in urban water management - Case studies in Melbourne and the Netherlands v

development or urban re-development projects that are developed on areas with no existing infrastructure. The cases in Melbourne include WSUD features, such as bio-filtration systems, wetlands, rain-/stormwater harvesting systems and third pipe systems for the supply of recycled water. The cases in the Netherlands mainly include measures to disconnect stormwater run-off from the sewerage system such as stormwater treatment and infiltration systems, but also the implementation of the third pipe system for the supply of non-potable water in Leidsche Rijn is studied. Key elements for mainstreaming innovations in urban water management From the case studies enabling and disabling factors have been revealed for successful implementation of innovative technologies in urban water management. The cases form Melbourne and the Netherlands provide similar factors. Therefore the enabling and disabling factors have been converted into key elements, which are presented in Table s.3.

Level General key elements

Macro • Climate

• Urban growth

• Socio-political capital and sustainability

Meso • Attitude of stakeholders

• Knowledge and trust

• Complexity of stakeholders

• Co-operation, involvement and communication

• Regulation, guidelines, agreements and contracts

• Cost and cost allocation

Micro • Added value

• Enthusiasm of individuals

• Location characteristics

• Construction, operation and maintenance Table s.3 Key elements for successfully mainstreaming innovations in urban water management in

Melbourne and the Netherlands Key lessons Based on the transition analysis and the case studies several key lessons have been revealed that could contribute to successful mainstreaming of innovations in urban water management. For Melbourne the key lessons are: • A good design does not automatically lead to a well functioning system. • Although the costs for a third pipe system are higher, a good business case is still possible for a

developer. • While cost is mentioned as a barrier, the real barrier is often cost allocation instead of cost. • To complete the transition, knowledge should be adapted in each organisational level. For the Netherlands the key lessons are: • Integral development approach can deliver increased quality and financial benefits. • Conflicting interests of local councils are inhibiting innovation. • A collective centrally directed approach enables innovation. • Ambitions or plans are not sufficient to safeguard implementation in practice. • Definition of quality and hand-over periods can improve the quality of urban development. • A system analysis of the current state of urban water management does not exist.


vi

Research reflection The final Chapter puts this research into perspective of research that is conducted at Monash University in Melbourne and Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. This reflection reveals that neither this study, nor the other researches represents a full insight in the transitions. The reason for this is that different background and different scopes are being used. The cultural differences between the Netherlands and Australia can be recognised from the focus of the research in both countries. In the Netherlands, which has a strong planning culture, research focuses on assessment of planning. The research from Monash University (Brown and Clarke, 2007) is directed towards creating an enabling space for innovation, which can be recognised in Melbourne’s water regime as well.

Mainstreaming innovations in urban water management - Case studies in Melbourne and the Netherlands vii

CONTENTS FOREWORD i SUMMARY ii READING GUIDE ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Motivation 1 1.2 Introduction 1 1.3 Problem Definition 2 1.4 Transition theory 4 1.5 Research Question and Objectives 8

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY 9 2.1 Step 1: Context description 10 2.2 Step 2: Case selection 11 2.3 Step 3: Case study 13 2.4 Step 4: Analysis, conclusions and recommendations 15 2.6 Step 5: Research reflection 16

CHAPTER 3: URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT IN MELBOURNE 17 3.1 Introduction 17 3.2 Melbourne’s water system 19 3.3 Institutional arrangements 22 3.4 Urban development in Melbourne 25 3.5 Water supply challenge 29 3.6 Water quality challenge 31 3.7 Water Sensitive Urban Design 32

CHAPTER 4: CASE STUDIES IN MELBOURNE 34 4.1 Introduction 34 4.2 Case study Melbourne Docklands 35 4.3 Case study Hunt Club Estate (Cranbourne) 41 4.4 Case study Aurora Estate (Epping North) 47 4.5 Conclusions for the Melbourne case studies 56

CHAPTER 5: TRANSITION ANALYSIS MELBOURNE 63 5.1 Introduction 63 5.2 Melbourne’s transition from the multi-level perspective 63 5.3 Melbourne’s transition from the multi-stage perspective 66

CHAPTER 6: URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE NETHERLANDS 69 6.1 Introduction 69 6.2 Urban water systems in the Netherlands 70 6.3 Institutional arrangements 72 6.4 Urban development in the Netherlands 74 6.5 Pressure on the urban water system 74 6.6 Urban water challenges in the Netherlands 76

CHAPTER 7: CASE STUDIES IN THE NETHERLANDS 80 7.1 Introduction to case studies in the Netherlands 80 7.2 Case study Het Funen (Amsterdam) 81 7.3 Case study ‘t Duyfrak (Katwijk) 89 7.4 Case study of the water system of Leidsche Rijn (Utrecht) 100 7.5 Case study of the third pipe system Leidsche Rijn (Utrecht) 110 7.6 Case study IJburg (Amsterdam) 115 7.7 Case study Lanxmeer (Culemborg) 121 7.8 Conclusions from case studies the Netherlands 127

CHAPTER 8: TRANSITION ANALYSIS THE NETHERLANDS 136 8.1 Introduction 136 8.2 The transition pathway between the 1960s and 2003 136 8.3 Current state of the transition 140

CHAPTER 9: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 142 9.1 Comparison of the urban water management transitions 142


viii

9.2 Comparison of the key elements 144 CHAPTER 10: CONCLUSIONS 148

10.1 Conclusions about the transitions in Melbourne and the Netherlands 148 10.2 Answers to the research question 150 10.3 Key lessons 150

CHAPTER 11: RECOMMENDATIONS 153 11.1 Recommendations for Melbourne (next steps) 153 11.2 Recommendations for the Netherlands (next steps) 155

CHAPTER 12: RESEARCH REFLECTION 157 12.1 Introduction 157 12.2 Comparison with the 3D assessment framework 158 12.3 Comparison with the 4C Assessment framework 159 12.4 Comparison with research Brown and Clarke (2007) 161 12.5 Conclusion 162

REFERENCES 164 Appendix A: List of interviewees Melbourne 171 Appendix B: List of interviewees in the Netherlands 172 Appendix C: The building process in Melbourne 173 Appendix D: Classes of reclaimed water in Victoria 177 Appendix E: Water restrictions Victoria 179 Appendix F: The urban development process in the Netherlands 180 Appendix G: 3D Assessment Framework 183 Appendix H: 4C Assessment framework 186 Appendix I: Summary of research Brown and Clarke (2007) 188

Mainstreaming innovations in urban water management - Case studies in Melbourne and the Netherlands ix

READING GUIDE The structure of the report is presented in the reading guide that is presented below. Readers with limited time are advised to read the Chapters that have been shaded: Chapter 1 for a description of the problem definition and research question of this report and then proceed to Chapter 10 for the conclusions of the research. Chapter 11 presents recommendations for completing the transitions in urban water management in Melbourne and the Netherlands. Readers with limited time that are only interested in the case studies are advised to read Chapter 4.5 Conclusions for the Melbourne case studies and/or Chapter 7.8 Conclusions from case studies the Netherlands.

Netherlands Melbourne

Introduction

Methodology (Ch. 2)

Introduction (Ch. 1)

Context Melbourne (Ch. 3) Context Netherlands (Ch. 6)

Case studies Melbourne (Ch. 4) Case studies Netherlands (Ch. 7)

Transition Analysis Melbourne (Ch. 5) Transition analysis Netherlands (Ch. 8)

Comparative Analysis (Ch. 9)

Conclusions (Ch.10)

Recommendations (Ch. 11)

Research Reflection (Ch. 12)


x

Mainstreaming innovations in urban water management - Case studies in Melbourne and the Netherlands 1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Motivation The main reason for choosing urban water management as the topic of my MSc thesis is the fact that all aspects of water management come together in urban areas. Firstly, almost every single different appearance of water is present in the urban water system: precipitation, evapotranspiration, stormwater runoff, surface water, groundwater, wastewater and drinking water all come together in complex processes in which both water quality and water quantity are important. Secondly, in order to be successful, urban water management does not only deal with technical aspects, but also with institutional, socio-economical and ecological ones. This makes urban water management sometimes quite complicated and consensus is not always present among water managers. The interpretation of what successful urban water management exactly is, and how it should be achieved changes over time. Currently, there is a transition taking place in the view of professional water practitioners towards how societies should deal with water issues. In the past, water managers often looked upon water issues as problems, whereas nowadays water issues are more and more considered as opportunities, for example to create an extra quality in spatial planning of urban areas. This transition from fighting against water as a threat towards an integral living with water approach is certainly not only taking place in the Netherlands. In Australia, Water Sensitive Urban Design is an integral approach of water management within urban planning and design. I think it is very important for countries to exchange their findings and developments to prevent re-inventing the wheel. I have considered it a great challenge to compare Australian sustainable urban water management practices with Dutch practices and give recommendations that could simplify and/or accelerate transitions towards more sustainable water practices in both countries. 1.2 Introduction Urban water management practice across the world has increased in complexity over time.1 The number of involved actors has increased, systems have come under increasing pressure due to climate change and urbanisation and more demanding standards such as the European Water Framework Directive for water quality management in Europe. Technical solutions alone are no longer sufficient to solve the complex problems in the urban water system.2 In the Netherlands for example, the climate problem could technically be tackled by lowering polder levels (more storage) and increasing pumping capacities. By doing this, other problems will rise, such as subsidence of (peat) soils, degeneration of foundations, lower agricultural benefits in adjacent rural areas etc. Instead of a technical solution alone, a more integral approach towards urban water management is required to deal with the conflicting interests of different stakeholders. Currently there is a transition taking place towards an approach that is more holistic and that takes more stakeholders into account.3 This thesis will balance on the edge of conventional engineering and social science by studying a crucial part of this transition in-depth: the mainstreaming of innovations in urban water management. For this study case studies will be conducted in the Netherlands and Melbourne (Australia). A large part of the Netherlands is located in polders below sea level, especially the western highly urbanised part. Groundwater levels are high in these areas and there is limited space available that is regarded as suitable for building new urban areas. Urban water systems in the Netherlands face increasing pressure from urbanisation, climate change and (European) legislation.4 Protection against river floods and groundwater floods (in the Netherlands the latter are often described as nuisance

1 Source: Geldof (2002, 2005) 2 Source: Biswas (2004) 3 Source: Van der Brugge et al. (2005), Brown and Clarke (2007) 4 Source: Commissie Waterbeheer 21ste eeuw (2000), VROM (2007)


2

instead of floods) and water quality issues receive most attention in the Netherlands. Recently, drought resulting in poor dike conditions and salinity problems also has become an issue. To face the issues in the Netherlands there has been a trend from a technocratic water management approach towards an integral and participatory water management approach that integrates urban water management with spatial planning.5 Melbourne’s most urgent issue is how to address the drought that causes a water supply problem. The water supply system has to face decreasing inflow due to climate change and increasing water demands due to population and economic growth.6 Water quality of surface water is also an issue.7 To address its challenges, Melbourne uses the concept of Water Sensitive Urban Design. This is a holistic water cycle approach towards urban water management that integrates urban water management and spatial planning.8 The process of the uptake Water Sensitive Urban Design is being described as a transition in urban water management across Metropolitan Melbourne.9 At first sight, it might look strange why exactly these two areas are being used in this thesis, because the physical environments in the Netherlands and Melbourne are completely different. However, climate scenarios for the Netherlands predict more extreme weather events that are common in Melbourne already.10 Moreover, for the mainstreaming process of innovations the influence of the physical context is less significant than the institutional settings.11 An advantage of using two completely different contexts is the fact that interactions between physical and institutional settings can be revealed. 1.3 Problem Definition The introduction briefly described transitions in urban water management in Melbourne and the Netherlands. The aim of the transitions in urban water management is directed towards more sustainable practice. Change is caused because the old systems have reached their thresholds and do not meet their increasing requirements anymore. A transition in urban water management results in a new dominant practice that consists of a new set of institutional arrangements and a new suite of available techniques. Nowadays the word sustainable is often used as something that should be achieved in many systems, not only the urban water system. Many institutions have their own definition that originates from their own interest. The use of the word ‘sustainable’ expresses that the demands on the urban water system are currently very diverse. See the intermezzo in the textbox for more about sustainability. Often ‘sustainable’ can be replaced by ‘better’. This implies that there is also worse or bad practice. Bad practice is subjective to the perception of society at a certain time. Perception towards urban water management practice changes over time because of new knowledge and changes in the environment. Situations in urban water management only become an issue when they are being perceived as an issue. If something is regarded as an issue, the practices at that time can be seen as ‘bad’ practices. In a transition a set of innovative techniques and new institutional arrangements is used to improve bad practice towards better practice (again, by the dominant perception of that time). The classic economist Joseph Schumpeter separated the process of technological change in three stages: invention, innovation and diffusion, in which invention is defined as the generation of new ideas, innovation as the development of the ideas into marketable products or processes and diffusion as spread of the new products and processes across the market.12 A transition has a broader scope of change than technology diffusion, because it involves the change of the dominant societal regime

5 Source: Van der Brugge et al. (2004) 6 Source: Howe et al. (2005), Department of Sustainability and Environment (2004) 7 Source: Wong (2006) 8 Source: Mouritz et al. (2006), Wong (2006) 9 Source: Brown and Clarke (2007) 10 Source: Van den Hurk et al. (2006) 11 Source: Brown (2004) 12 Source: Stoneman (1995)


which is a result from a co-evolution of cultural, institutional, economical, ecological and technological processes and developments on various scale levels (see also Chapter 1.4)13. The transition is complete when a new regime that is compatible with the macro-vision and practical implementation at the micro-level has irreversibly been established, including mainstream uptake of innovative technologies.14 Therefore, mainstreaming innovations is an important stage of a transition. This thesis focuses on mainstreaming of innovations that are regarded to contribute to better practice: i.e. innovations that are addressing the issues in Melbourne and the Netherlands. If it is known what the drivers and obstacles are, mainstreaming can be accelerated and the better practice can be achieved more rapidly. At this moment, Melbourne’s most important water issue is a water supply issue that results from drought and population/economic growth. Water quality of waterways and the ocean is also regarded as an issue. Technical innovations that address both issues are being incorporated in the concept of Water Sensitive Urban Design. This is a holistic water cycle approach towards urban water management that integrates urban water management with spatial planning. For Melbourne, this thesis focuses on the mainstreaming of WSUD features such as wetlands, vegetated swales, rainwater harvesting and third pipe systems for the supply of recycled water. In the Netherlands, it is perceived that little suitable space for building is available. Groundwater causes nuisance in the densely developed urban areas. Surface water quality is also being regarded as an issue. There are trends in practice that aim at retaining the water if possible, before storing it or draining it to downstream areas. Innovations that aim at stormwater infiltration, disconnection of impervious surface from combined sewers and stormwater treatment are part of this trend and will therefore be researched in this thesis. The failed introduction of dual pipe systems in the Netherlands is also described in this thesis. The similarity between the innovations in Melbourne and the Netherlands that are being researched in this thesis is the fact that they all aim at improving current practice. Or in other words: they all aim at more sustainable practice. Urban water systems are to a great extent interconnected with both above-ground and underground infrastructure and the spatial plan of an urban area. In order to minimise influence of existing water systems in developments, this thesis focuses on urban (re-) development projects that have no existing infrastructure at the start of development. Finally, this thesis focuses on residential areas because most relevant innovations in urban water management across the Netherlands and Melbourne are being demonstrated in those areas.

INTERMEZZO: Sustainable development The term sustainability became widely used in the 1990s and is nowadays included in many policy documents. Over the last three decades there have been many definitions for sustainable development. On of the most well known definitions is the definition of the Brundtland Commission: ‘Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’ 15 Examples of other definitions are: ‘Development that ensures that the use of resources and the environment today does not damage prospects for use by future generations.’16, or

13 Source: Rotmans et al. (2000) 14 Source: Van der Brugge et al. (2005) 15 Source: United Nations (1987)


4

‘Improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems.’17 Because there are so many different definitions, it is never exactly clear what the concept of sustainability means in practice. Often, sustainable development is called to encompass three general areas that have to be balanced out over a certain time: social, environmental and economical (or in other words: people, planet, profit). Rijsberman and Van de Ven (2000) argue that in definitions of sustainable development at least four definitions can be distinguished: (1) needs of the present generation; (2) needs of future generations; (3) carrying capacity of supporting systems and (4) maintaining ecological, environmental and hydrological system integrity. Many difficulties exist in balancing different factors of sustainability, because it is hard to give them a (numerical) value.

Figure 1.1: Four basic approaches to sustainability, according to Rijsberman and Van de Ven (2000)

Figure 1.1 shows four different approaches to sustainability, related to the aspects ‘people and environment’ and ‘norms and values’. In a people-driven approach, the desires, needs and objectives of people are the driving forces behind the perception of sustainability, while in an environment-driven approach, the possibilities and limitations of the environment are the driving force behind the perception of sustainability. An approach towards sustainability can be expressed and measured by norms (quantitative) or values (qualitative). This thesis will not argue whether or not a certain practice is sustainable or not. Instead it will focus on innovations that are being regarded by society as more sustainable than common practice. If the word sustainable is used, the case specific meaning will be explained.

Before proceeding with the research question and objectives of this thesis the transition theory will be explained in Chapter 1.4. The transition theory is considered as background information that is required for fully understanding this thesis. 1.4 Transition theory A transition is a structural change in the way a societal system (e.g. water management, energy supply, agriculture) operates, and can be described as a long-term process (25-50 years) that results from a co-evolution of cultural, institutional, economical, ecological and technological processes and developments on various scale levels.18 A transition can be described with the multi-stage concept and multi-level concept.

16 Source: Climate Change Central (2007) 17 Source: IUCN, UNEP, WWF (1991) 18 Source: Rotmans et al. (2000)


Figure 1.2 shows the S-shaped curve of the multi-stage concept. The curve shows the change in society over time. At all times, the societal system is in a certain state and moves into a certain direction. It is only possible to give a rough indication of the state and direction of the system in the present time for a society in transition. Moreover, it is impossible to predict the state of the system after the transition has been completed. For example, the transition in urban water management is directed towards more sustainability, but it cannot be known what this more sustainable system of the future will look like. However, transition theory is a useful tool to describe and explain changes in society in the past. Knowledge about the state of the transition and the dynamics that are taking place in the multi-level concept (see below) can be used to accelerate the process of transitions by adapting to those developments and lessons from the past. The transition is divided into 4 stages: the pre-development stage, the take-off stage, the acceleration stage and the stabilisation stage19. During the pre-development stage, there is a stable situation that does not visibly change on the surface. Slow social change or events (crises) can cause the system to reach its threshold and suddenly start to shift in the take-off stage. This sudden shift is highly non-linear and unpredictable. In the acceleration stage, socio-cultural, economical, ecological and institutional changes reinforce each other. This is a period of much instability and uncertainty in the system. If the changes are a success a new stable situation will occur in the stabilisation stage, where innovative processes and techniques have become mainstream. If not, the system could face a drawback that could result in a so-called lock-in (see Figure 1.2).

Figure 1.2: Multi-stage concept (Source: Rotmans et al. (2002)) The multi-stage concept of the transition theory is related to the theory of technology diffusion (see Figure 1.3). According to Schumpeter, technology diffusion encompasses the spread of product or process innovations across the market.20 The difference between transition theory and technology diffusion is the scope of the two theories, because transition theory involves the change of the dominant societal regime which is not only the result of technological change, but the result from a co-evolution of cultural, institutional, economical, ecological and technological processes and developments.21 In contrast, technology diffusion only focuses on market penetration of a technology and can therefore be expressed in a percentage. 19 Source: Rotmans et al., 2000 20 Source: Stoneman (1995) 21 Source: Rotmans et al. (2000)


6

Figure 1.3: Technology diffusion curve (Source: Stoneman (1995)) Figure 1.4 shows the multi-level concept, which distinguishes three scale levels in society: the macro-level, meso-level and the micro level22. At the macro-level, societal landscape is determined by relatively slow trends in economy, demographics, natural environment, climate, culture, politics and worldviews. At the meso-level, regimes are dominant patterns of artefacts, institutions, rules and norms that are being assembled to perform economic and social activities23. The regime is often installed to preserve the status quo and to encourage optimisation, protecting investments rather than system innovations24. At the micro-level, individual persons, organisations, projects and technologies are distinguished.

Figure 1.4: Multi-level concept (Source: Geels and Kemp (2000)) The multi-stage concept can be integrated with the multi-level concept. In the pre-development stage, the regime, which is installed to protect the bottom line, is often the inhibiting factor for change. Typically, it will seek to maintain social norms and belief systems and to improve existing technologies.25 The take-off stage is often initiated by developments at the macro-level that are sometimes reinforced with developments at the micro-level. In the take-off stage, different ideas and perspectives converge into one consistent paradigm that causes an increasingly changing regime that 22 Source: Geels and Kemp (2000) 23 Source: Berkhout et al. (2003) 24 Source: Van der Brugge et al. (2005) 25 Source: Van der Brugge et al. (2005)


modulates with innovative experiments at the micro-level. This is a highly uncertain period that possibly can result in a lock-in if the regime is not being pushed over the ‘edge’. If the result of the take-off stage is a changing regime, the regime enables acceleration through the application of large amounts of capital, technology and knowledge. Dominant practices change rapidly and irreversibly through reinforcements by the three different levels. In the stabilisation stage, a new regime slows acceleration down while resisting new developments. Processes and techniques that were innovative in the beginning of the transition process have become mainstream now. Thus, a new dynamic equilibrium is reached that could be the beginning of a new transition cycle. 26 Within this framework Geels and Schot (2007) describe four transition pathways that differ in timing and nature of multi-level interactions (see Table 1.2). They have constructed these pathways with the use of five types of environmental change that have varying frequency, amplitude, speed and scope (see Table 1.1).

Table 1.1: Types of environmental change (Source: Geels and Schot (2007), based on Suarez and Oliva (2005)) Pathway Description Transformation path Moderate pressure (disruptive change) from the macro-level at a

moment when innovations in the micro-level have not sufficiently been developed, resulting in actors at the meso-level that modify the direction of the development path and innovation activities.

De-alignment and re-alignment path

Divergent, large and sudden (avalanche) change at the macro level results in increasing problems that may cause the meso-level actors to lose faith in the regime. This leads to de-alignment and erosion of the regime. If there is no clear substitute available, because innovations at the micro-level are not sufficiently developed, a space is created for the emergence of multiple niche-innovations that co-exist and compete for attention and resources until one niche-innovation becomes dominant and forms the core for re-alignment of a new regime.

Technological substitution

Much pressure (specific shock, avalanche change or disruptive change) from the macro-level at a moment when innovations at the micro-level have developed sufficiently, results in the break-through of these innovations and replacement of the existing regime.

Reconfiguration pathway Symbiotic innovations at the micro-level are initially adopted in the regime to solve local problems, but subsequently trigger further adjustments in the basic architecture of the regime.

Table 1.2: Possible transition pathways according to Geels and Schot (2007) 26 Source: Ven der Brugge et al. (2005)


8

According to Geels and Schot (2007) it is likely that pressure from the macro-level with a disruptive character results in a sequence of pathways starting with transformation, leading to reconfiguration and possibly followed by substitution or de-alignment and re-alignment. 1.5 Research Question and Objectives The research question of this thesis follows from the problem definition and will be answered in the conclusions (Chapter 10) of this thesis.

Research Question: What are enabling factors and obstacles for mainstreaming innovations that aim for a transition towards more sustainable urban water management in Melbourne and the Netherlands?

To answer the research question and to make recommendations for accelerating the transition, three objectives have been set up. Firstly, the context and common practice of urban water management in the Netherlands and Melbourne has to be analysed. The interaction of society with its environment is analysed with regards to available techniques, processes and governance. The second objective is to determine the pathway and the current state of the transition in urban water management in Melbourne and the Netherlands. The data on the current state and dynamics of the transition reveals what urban water management practice in Melbourne and the Netherlands could learn from each other and is used below to recommend how the enabling factors can be used and obstacles be removed to accelerate the transitions. The third objective is to determine the enabling factors and obstacles for successfully introducing innovations in urban water management on a broad scale in Melbourne and the Netherlands. Meeting this objective answers the research question.

Research Objectives: • To analyse water management techniques, processes and governance in residential

(re-) developments in Melbourne and the Netherlands. • To determine the transition pathway and the current state of the transition in urban

water management in Melbourne and the Netherlands. • To reveal enabling factors and obstacles for successfully introducing innovations in

urban water management on a broad scale in Melbourne and the Netherlands.


CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY This chapter will discuss the methodology that is used to meet the objectives of this thesis and answer the research question. Figure 2.1 gives an overview of the methodology. The methodology can be separated in five steps.

Figure 2.1: Methodology

Step 4: Analysis

Step 1: Context description Literature Study Conversations with

Water Sector Field Trips

Theoretical Framework

Step 3: Case studies

Step 2: Case selection Selection Criteria

Case Selection

Case Study 1-3 AUS Case Study 4-6 NL

Analysis Case Studies

Comparison AUS-NL

Conclusions

Step 5: Research reflection

Recommendations

Research reflection


10

2.1 Step 1: Context description

Figure 2.2: Step 1: Context description The first step of the research is to describe the context of urban water management in the Netherlands and Metropolitan Melbourne (see Figure 2.2). Apart from the geographical difference, the physical environment and social environment differ between the both. Figure 2.3 shows that the urban water system cannot be regarded as an isolated system, because it interacts with other systems in society (e.g. aquatic environments and traffic systems). The interaction between the system and its context is erratic (non-linear): sometimes there is little interaction and sometimes (often unexpectedly) there is much interaction27.

Figure 2.3: The water system and its context (Source: Geldof (2002)) This thesis deals with two different contexts: the context of the urban water management system in Metropolitan Melbourne in Australia and the context of urban water management systems in the Netherlands. The theoretical framework will describe those parts of the contexts that are relevant for this thesis. This framework will function as a problem analysis and will help to understand the complexity of the urban water management system within its context. Only the most relevant aspects of the context will be described in the theoretical framework: 27 Source: Geldof (2002)

Step 1: Context description

Literature Study Conversations with Water Sector Field Trips

Context description

Step 2: Case Selection

Step 4: Analysis

Selection Criteria


Water system

Context (society)

Interaction


• The physical water system in Metropolitan Melbourne and the Netherlands • Stormwater system • Water supply and sewerage system

• Urban development in Metropolitan Melbourne and in the Netherlands • Common practice, including the building process

• Stakeholders • Governance • Co-operation and conflicts between stakeholders

• The challenges of the urban water system • Methods of facing the challenges

• Available techniques • Trends • Policies

The theoretical framework is constructed from literature study, field trips and discussions with people from the water sector. The reference list in the back of this report provides a list of people with whom urban water management in Metropolitan Melbourne and the Netherlands is discussed. After the theoretical framework has been constructed, selection criteria will be drawn up to select suitable cases for this research (Step 2: Case selection). The theoretical framework is used in the analysis (Step 4) to show how the context of society and environment results in specific actions (cases) and how these actions respond to issues and policies within the context. 2.2 Step 2: Case selection

Figure 2.4: Step 2: Case selection To ensure a significant outcome of the case studies, the selection criteria should be defined in such a way that the outcome of the case studies will meet the research objectives and that the cases can be compared successfully. The selection criteria are therefore constructed based on the research objectives and the theoretical framework in a way that the cases in both countries are comparable, without regard to different contexts. After setting the selection criteria, step 2 will be concluded with selection of cases and the actual case studies (see Figure 2.4). The selection criteria are explained below.

Step 2: Case selection Selection Criteria

Case Selection

Step 3: Case study

Step 1: Context description Theoretical framework

Case study


12

Innovations with the same aim The context of urban water management is different between Australia and the Netherlands. Different contexts provide different issues and a different focus of the development of innovations. In order to make the cases comparable between the Netherlands and Australia from a transition management point-of-view, cases will be compared that are driven by a sense of urgency or the limits of the existing system. This does not necessarily mean that the same techniques will be compared, but projects with the same aim: a transition towards more sustainable urban water management. In the Introduction the issues with the highest sense of urgency are described, as well as the techniques that currently are being regarded as most suitable to assist in the solution of these issues. All cases should encompass at least one of those techniques. Representative cases For the case study an in-depth qualitative research approach is used (this choice is explained in Chapter 2.3). The choice of using a qualitative approach means that the cases that are being researched should be representative for innovative practice in Melbourne and the Netherlands. In this report a case is regarded as representative when techniques used are new and not yet widely accepted, but the project does not stand on its own. Therefore, the cases should: • contain multiple involved stakeholders • have a certain level of faith in a future prospect for broad implementation • have connection with the surrounding environment (not in a completely isolated laboratory environment) Residential developments on greenfield sites In the problem definition it is explained that this report focuses on residential developments on sites with no existing infrastructure before development. Therefore, all cases should be located on greenfield28 sites or brownfield29 sites where all existing infrastructure is removed before the start of development. Furthermore, they should be (at least for a part) residential developments. (Nearly) completed projects For practical reasons it is preferred to study cases that are all (nearly) completed. If at least a part of the development is completed and in its operational phase, all development stages including operation and monitoring can be studied at the same time. This increases the outcome of the research. If the initiative for cases is at different times, there will be a variety in the state of technology, the faith and trust in technology, the uniqueness of the case in its time and the sense to act more sustainable. This has to be regarded, but is no selection criterion.

Summary Selection Criteria: 1. All the selected cases should aim towards improved or more sustainable urban water

management. 2. All cases should involve multiple stakeholders 3. For all cases, there should be a certain level of faith in the future prospect of broad

implementation. 4. All cases should be located in a non-laboratory like environment in society. 5. All cases should be located on sites with no existing infrastructure before development. 6. All cases should be (at least for a part) residential developments. 7. All cases should be (nearly) completed.

28 Greenfield sites (also broadhectare or broadacre land): land parcels that are non-urban and undeveloped. In some cases broadhectare sites are rural holdings and require a municipal rezoning before conversion to a residential use can occur. (Source: Department of Sustainability and Environment (2007)) 29 Brownfield sites: Areas of land previously used for industrial or other purposes available to be redeveloped for alternative purposes. (Source: Office of Urban Management, Queensland (2007))


2.3 Step 3: Case study

Figure 2.5: Step 3: Case study After selection, the actual case study takes place (see Figure 2.5). The objective of the case studies is to provide material to answer the research question. To meet this objective an in-depth qualitative research approach is used. A qualitative research approach is preferred over a quantitative statistic approach, because: • A quantitative statistical approach requires a large number of cases to apply statistics on. Due to time restrictions it was only possible to study 3 cases in Melbourne and 5 cases in the Netherlands. Statistics on just a few cases does not give a representative outcome and is therefore incompetent. • The fact that the number of demonstration projects is per definition limited makes a quantitative statistic approach incompetent. To gain complete insight in the cases, three different parameters will be analysed: • Timeframe • Stakeholders • Technologies Timeframe To start with, the timeframe of the whole process from the initiative for the case until the present will be analysed. This analysis includes a description of the different phases in the project and the activities that take place. This information is retrieved from stakeholders that have been involved during a large part of the process. Stakeholders The involvement of stakeholders will be described for each case study. This includes: • A description of the general activities of the stakeholders • The phase of involvement • The role of stakeholders in this project and their interests and responsibilities • Is it at all times clear who is responsible for what? • Risk management between stakeholders • Conflicts between stakeholders • Alliances between stakeholders

Step 3: Case study

Case Selection

Case Study 1-3 AUS Case Study 4-6 NL

Step 4: Analysis Analysis Case Studies

Step 2: Case selection


14

This information is retrieved from the involved stakeholders, mostly with the help of interviews. Technology Finally, technologies in urban development and implementing a new water system is analysed: • Description of the physical environment • Description of the implemented water system • State of the technology at the moment of design / implementation (thrust / faith in technology /

science). • Innovative techniques that are being used, and the reason for selecting those techniques Data collection The background information is gathered from documents like spatial plans, water plans, agreements between stakeholders etc. from the internet and via interviews. Background information of the projects, timeframe, stakeholders and technology is gathered from municipalities, project developers, water boards, consultants etc. This information is accessed from the Internet or via the stakeholders themselves. Interviews are concerned with the gathering of opinions and subjective information. For a full insight of the cases not only facts are important, but also opinions of stakeholders. Each stakeholder can have different opinions towards their involvement and the interaction with others. To get a full insight with viewpoints from different angles this case study aims at interviewing representatives of all involved stakeholders. As stated above, the approach for the case studies is an in-depth qualitative approach. This means that the interviews need to have a structure that allows the interviewer and the interviewee to go in-depth during the interview. To achieve this, the ‘Australian’ rule of thumb is used that says that in one interview the amount of main questions should never exceed 5 to 6. This means that after an introducing question about the role/function of the interviewee maximum 5 main questions are being asked. This provides the possibility for the interviewee to provide the interviewer new information that is outside his existing knowledge. Furthermore, the interview can be more in-depth by asking follow-up questions like ‘can you give an example?’, ‘can you explain that?’, ‘how?’, ‘what?’ etc. The same questions are asked to every stakeholder in each case. In order not to influence the answers of the interviewees, outcomes of previous cases or other actors have not been shared with them before or during the interview. The box below shows the interview questions that have been asked during the interviews in Melbourne. For the interviews in the Netherlands, the questions have been translated and modified.

Interview Questions:

1. What do you see as the biggest drivers for advancing the uptake of water recycling/water sensitive urban design in this project?

2. What do you see as the biggest barriers for advancing the uptake of water recycling/water sensitive urban design in this project?

3. As a representative of your company/institution where do you see your responsibility and influence begin and finish in the whole timeframe of this project?

4. Do you think current institutional arrangements can effectively enable the widespread practice of water recycling and/or water sensitive urban design?

5. In your opinion, what is needed to effectively mainstream the practice of water recycling and/or water sensitive urban design?


The case studies that are conducted in Melbourne are described in Chapter 4 and the case studies that are conducted in the Netherlands are described in Chapter 7. 2.4 Step 4: Analysis, conclusions and recommendations

Figure 2.6: Step 4: Analysis After collection, data have been analysed, resulting in the conclusions of this thesis (see Figure 2.6). The analysis can be divided in three parts: interaction with the theoretical framework, comparison with other cases in the same country and comparison of cases between Metropolitan Melbourne and the Netherlands. 1. Analysis of individual cases The analysis of an individual case is based on the interaction of the case with the theoretical framework (see Figure 2.7). The interaction between the context and the development project can be divided in two parts. Firstly, the influence of the context on the cases is analysed. Within the context something has happened that caused the initiation and implementation of the development projects. The way in which the context is translated towards the development projects in particular will be investigated. In other words, drivers and barriers for each individual case are revealed. Secondly, in influence (feedback) of the cases on the context is analysed. This part of the analysis focuses on the performance of the case within the transition perspective. For each individual case the contribution to the transition in urban water management is analysed. The focus is on the question whether the studied development project is a benchmark (is it possible to repeat the development project on a different location?) and on the question whether it can be done on a large scale in society.

Step 4: Analysis

Step 3: Case studiesCase Studies AUS & NL


Comparison AUS-NL

Conclusions

Step 5: Research reflection

Recommendations

Research reflection

Step 1: Context description Context description


16

Figure 2.7: Interaction between a development project and the context 2. Comparison with other cases in the same country After analysing each case individually, cases within the same country have been analysed. Within the same country the context of each case is comparable. Difference and similarity of implemented techniques, size, organisational processes, timeframe, and stakeholders are analysed firstly. Secondly, drivers and barriers are compared as well as success factors and reasons for failure. Finally, future prospects for broad implementation of the techniques and processes in the cases will be analysed. 3. Comparison of the cases between Metropolitan Melbourne and the Netherlands To conclude the analysis the Melbourne cases are compared with the cases in the Netherlands. This analysis is based on the same approach as for the comparison of cases within one country. However, for this comparison the contexts are different. The objective of the comparison between Melbourne and the Netherlands is to show what both countries can learn from each other. Finally, the conclusions of the analysis are used to set up recommendations to improve innovative practice in Metropolitan Melbourne and the Netherlands (see Figure 2.6). These recommendations have to be considered as a contribution or a next step that can be used to mainstream innovations in urban water management to a broad scale. The recommendations are being described in Chapter 11. 2.6 Step 5: Research reflection

Figure 2.8: Step 5: Research reflection The final step is a reflection that puts the conducted research into perspective of research from the Water Resources Section of Delft University of technology and the National Urban Water Governance Program of Monash University (see Figure 2.8). This thesis is written within the scope of a co-operative research program between both universities and the reflection indicates what both research groups could possibly learn from each other. The reflection also reveals what could be improved to this thesis according to research from both universities. The research reflection will be described in Chapter 12.

Step 4: Analysis Conclusions

Step 5: Research reflection Research reflection

Context

Project

Feedback Influence


CHAPTER 3: URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT IN MELBOURNE 3.1 Introduction Melbourne is the second largest city in Australia and the capital of the state Victoria. Melbourne is Victoria’s administrative, business and cultural centre and is inhabited by a population of 3,6 million (Estimation for 2004)30. For this thesis the study area of Melbourne encompasses the area of Metropolitan Melbourne. This area exists of 31 local government areas Victoria (see Figure 3.1). When the word Melbourne is used in this thesis, the area of Metropolitan Melbourne is referred to, unless mentioned otherwise.

Figure 3.1: Map of Metropolitan Melbourne (Department of Sustainability and Environment (2002)) Melbourne sprawls around Port Phillip Bay and is located south of the Yarra Ranges that are part of Australia’s Great Dividing Range. The developed area of Metropolitan Melbourne covers approximately 7695 km2 (31). From the most southern to the most northern point of Melbourne, the distance is about 100 km. Melbourne has a relatively dry climate with a yearly average rainfall of ca. 650mm and a yearly average potential evaporation of ca. 1200mm (see Figure 3.2). However, average rainfall varies from 400mm in the west to 1200mm east of the city (see Figure 3.3). Periods of drought are a part of Melbourne’s climate. A Drought is a prolonged, abnormally dry period when there is not enough water to meet normal or expected needs. It may include lower than expected water storage volumes and

30 Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics (2004) 31 Source: City of Melbourne (2007)


18

flows to reservoirs, and higher than expected demand for water caused by hot weather.32 Over the last 10 years, Melbourne has suffered from a prolonged period of drought. The average rainfall was never reached during this period. This has caused that the water levels in the drinking water storage reservoirs (see Chapter 3.5) have declined to 28% of the capacity in June 2007.33

Climatedata Melbourne

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

(mm

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

(Cel

sius

) Mean RainfallMean EvaporationMean max temperatureMean min temperature

Figure 3.2: Climate data Melbourne (Bureau of Meteorology (2004))

Figure 3.3: Distribution of annual average rainfall in greater Melbourne (Melbourne Water (2007a)) The average temperature varies between a minimum of 6 degrees Celsius in July and a maximum of 25 degrees Celsius in the summer months (December – February) (see Figure 3.2). At this moment Melbourne faces two important water challenges. At first, Melbourne faces a water supply challenge that is caused by a period of drought over the last ten years and the urban growth. Under these conditions, the available water sources are not sufficient to meet the growing water demand and therefore put limits to growth. At second, Melbourne faces a water quality challenge. The waterways in Melbourne do not have a good quality, which is mainly caused by the pollution load in 32 Source: Melbourne Water (2007b) 33 Source: Melbourne Water (2007c)


stormwater run-off. Chapter 3.5 explains the water supply challenge more in detail. Chapter 3.6 will further explain the water quality challenge. Chapter 3.7 shows that the concept of Water Sensitive Urban Design includes aspects that address both challenges. However, firstly Melbourne’s water system (Chapter 3.2), its institutional arrangements (Chapter 3.3) and urban development in Melbourne (Chapter 3.4) will be explained. 3.2 Melbourne’s water system This section describes the physical water system in Melbourne that has to deal with the challenges that are presented above. Chapter 3.3 will explain the institutional arrangements that are managing the challenges. The urban water cycle Figure 3.4 gives an overview of the urban water cycle in Melbourne. It shows that Melbourne has a completely separated stormwater drainage system and drinking water reticulation system. The stormwater system of Melbourne exists of a natural water system of natural waterways and groundwater that lead to the ocean and a human built stormwater system of pipes, overland drains, and wetlands that discharges into the natural system. Closed catchments provide drinking water reservoirs with water that needs minimal treatment. The bulk drinking water is being distributed by the reticulation system towards all individual users. After use, wastewater is collected in the sewage system before it is treated and the effluent is discharged into the ocean.

Figure 3.4: Melbourne’s water cycle (Water Resources Strategy Committee for the Melbourne Area (2002)) The natural water system The area of Metropolitan Melbourne is naturally sloping from the northeast towards Port Philip Bay. The area of Metropolitan has an extensive network of rivers and creeks (see Figure 3.5) of which the rivers Yarra and Maribyrnong are the largest. The area is naturally sloping in the direction of Port Philip Bay. Most of the closed catchments for drinking water supply (see below) are located in the most elevated area north east of the city. The catchments are closed for public and have relatively high water quality. Water quality decreases downstream the creeks and rivers towards the heavily


20

urbanised coastal areas. 25% of rivers and creeks are in good or excellent condition, 30% in moderate to poor condition and 45% percent of rivers and creeks are in poor to very poor condition. 34

Figure 3.5: Natural waterways in Melbourne (Source: Melbourne Water (2007a)) The soil types found in Melbourne are predominantly loams or sand over clay, or sands (with or without) lime in south-eastern coastal areas. Dark loams, clays and local sands occur on the flood plains and swampy areas.35 The geology of the area is primarily a basalt shelf. Groundwater quality and quantity are typically low in Melbourne and this water is considered as unsuitable for drinking water use. Groundwater occurs at depths across Melbourne, varying from less than 5m deep to greater than 100m. Also the quality of the groundwater can be very different, although in the biggest area of the Melbourne Region, groundwater is brackish and has Total Dissolved Solids concentrations between 3500 mg/l and 13.000 mg/l.36 In comparison: fresh water has a TDS concentration of <500 mg/l and sea water around 35.000 mg/l.37 The stormwater system The stormwater system in Melbourne is completely separated from the sewage system. On the allotment level the landowner is responsible for drainage to the stormwater drainage system. From there, stormwater management in Melbourne is based on a minor/major approach38. The minor

34 Source: Melbourne Water (2007a) 35 Source: National Urban Water Governance Program (unpublished) 36 Source: Department of Sustainability and Environment (2007) 37 Source: CRC Salinity (2007) 38 Source:Pilgrim (1987)


system exists of underground concrete pipes and the major system consists of overland flow paths, floodways, floodplains and retarding basins. The principle standards for drainage system designs in Melbourne are:39

• Underground drainage: 1-in-5 year capacity. • Overland flow paths, floodways, floodplains and retarding basins: 1-in-100 year capacity

without affecting public safety or increasing flood levels on upstream or downstream properties.

• Rivers and creeks: 1-in-5 year capacity capacity in the main channel. • Floor levels of buildings should have a margin of safety above the 1-in-100 year flood level. • Removal of 70% litter, 80% suspended solids. • Treatment to remove 45% of nitrogen and phosphorus loads.

Artificial open water in the urban area is very scarce. However it is not prohibited, there is not much open water in the city and suburbs because of the sloped landscape. The reticulation system Figure 3.6 shows a schedule of Melbourne’s water supply system. 90% of all drinking water is harvested in uninhabited and restricted access surface catchments. These catchments have the primary purpose of water harvesting and exist of over 157.000 ha of mountain ash forests and have been closed to public for over 100 years. It has priority that the water supply catchments are safeguarded from bushfires, erosion and unauthorised public entry.40

Figure 3.6: Melbourne’s water supply system 10% of the water supply is harvested from catchments that are subject to human and agricultural activity. This water requires more treatment than the water from the closed catchments (see Figure 3.6).

39 Source: Melbourne Water (2007) 40 Source: Melbourne Water (2006)

Closed catchments 90% of total supply

River Yarra 10% of total supply

Full Treatment

• Coagulation • Clarification • Filtration • Disinfection (chlorination) • pH correction • Sludge processing • Fluoridation

Minimal Treatment

• Disinfection (chlorination) • Fluoridation • pH correction

Bulk Water Supply to Water Retail Companies 480.000 ML/yr

7 Reservoirs (Total Capacity 1.647.000 Ml)

Sugarloaf reservoir (Capacity 96.000 Ml)

Yan Yean Reservoir (Capacity 30.000 ML)


22

After treatment, the water is being distributed towards the consumers by the reticulation system. Melbourne Water is a state owned company that is in charge of the bulk drinking water supply. Closed Catchment Reservoirs outside the city provide for 90% of the bulk water supply. This water is treated and after that sold to one of Melbourne’s three water retail companies (the retail companies are state owned companies as well). The water retailers distribute the drinking water over their service areas and collect the sewage in the sewer system. On the downstream end of the system Melbourne Water is responsible for waste water treatment in two large sewage treatment plants. The water retailers also operate several small sewage treatment plants. At the two large treatment plants, a certain amount of the sewage is being recycled for non-potable uses, including agricultural, horticultural, industrial and open space use, as well as residential use. Household that are connected to a third pipe network (see Chapter 4.3: Case study Hunt Club Estate) are allowed to use the recycled water for toilet flushing and outdoor uses. 3.3 Institutional arrangements

Figure 3.7 Melbourne’s urban water institutional arrangements (Source: NUWGP (unpublished)) Figure 3.7 gives an overview of the institutional arrangements for urban water management in Melbourne. Below the role and responsibilities of these organisations will briefly be explained. Victorian Government:

• Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE): DSE is the State Government Department for managing water resources, climate change, bushfires, public land, forests and ecosystems. It provides support and advice to the Minister for Water and the Minister for


Environment and Climate Change.41 Through DSE, the Minister of Water has responsibility for State water policy and legislation. DSE is also responsible for regulating water resource allocation and environmental flows through bulk entitlement processes to the water authority (Melbourne Water).42 Furthermore, DSE co-ordinates groundwater management activities across Victoria.43 Within DSE, Sustainability Victoria is established to support, encourage and assist Victorian citizens to use to use resources more efficiently and reduce everyday environmental impacts in accordance with the vision and objectives contained in Victoria's Environmental Sustainability Framework.44

• Department of Human Services (DHS): DHS is the State Government Department for

health, community and housing services. DHS regulates the supply of drinking water and non-potable water and its main concern is the maintenance of safe drinking water and non-potable water, including monitoring and enforcement, public reporting of the performance of water suppliers and ensuring public awareness of the obligations of water authorities regarding disclosure of water quality information.45

• Environmental Protection Agency Victoria (EPA): EPA is the environmental regulator of

Victoria. It aims to protect Victoria’s environment through environmental laws, policies and regulatory controls and by working together as partners with communities and businesses. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1970, EPA has the ability to use work approvals and licences, Research Development & Demonstration Approvals, notices and enforcement to protect the environment and prevent pollution.46

• Essential Services Commission (ESC): ESC is the primary economic regulator of essential

utility services in Victoria, including electricity, gas, water and sewerage, ports, rail, export grain handling, statutory insurance and transport. For the water sector ESC regulates the prices and service standards of water supply businesses, sewerage and related services to residential, industrial and commercial, and irrigation customers throughout Victoria.47

• Port Phillip Bay and Western Port Catchment Authority (PPWCMA): The PPWCMA is the

regional catchment management authority. Its main concern is to prepare regional catchment strategies to ensure sustainable development of resource-based industries, the protection of land and water resources and the conservation of natural and cultural heritage. It also coordinates and monitors the implementation of the strategy.48

Water authorities:

• Melbourne Water: Melbourne Water is the water authority for the management of Melbourne’s water supply catchments, sewage treatment, rivers, creeks and major drainage systems throughout the Port Philip Bay and Westernport Region. Melbourne Water is owned by the Victorian Government under responsibility of the Minister of Water.49 As bulk water supply authority, Melbourne water is responsible for the harvesting of drinking water in closed catchments (see Chapter 3.2) and storage of the water in reservoirs before it is treated and transported through an extensive network of pipes to the distribution network of the water retailers.50

41 Source: Department of Sustainability and Environment (2007) 42 Source: Essential Services Commission (2004) 43 Source: Department of Sustainability and Environment (2007) 44 Source: Sustainability Victoria (2007) 45 Source: Department of Human Services (2007) 46 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Victoria (2007) 47 Source: Essential Services Commission (2007) 48 Source: Port Philip and Western Port Catchment Management Authority (2007) 49 Source: Melbourne Water (2007d) 50 Source: Melbourne Water (2007e)


24

At the end of the line, Melbourne Water is responsible for the treatment of most of Melbourne’s sewage and industrial waste after this has been collected by the water retailers. Treated waste water is discharged into Port Philip Bay or the Bass Straight or recycled for agricultural, horticultural, other industrial use, irrigation of open space and also residential use.51

As regional drainage, waterway and floodplain manager Melbourne Water is responsible for the health of the city’s waterways, bays and ocean. Therefore it is responsible for monitoring waterway health and quality and managing diverters that draw water from the catchments. Melbourne Water is also responsible for major drains that service catchment areas that are larger than 60ha. At the downstream end of those drains, Melbourne Water treats stormwater before it is discharged into Port Philip Bay.52

As a town planning referral authority, Melbourne Water is required to receive applications for urban subdivisions and other developments from local councils. Melbourne Water has the power to comment on applications and place conditions on town planning permits. Melbourne Water checks if the applications meet the drainage standards of Melbourne Water to make sure developments are safe from flooding without compromising the safety of other properties and do not have an adverse impact on waterway environments.53

• Water retailers: Within Metropolitan Melbourne, three state owned water retailers are active:

Yarra Valley Water (YVW), South East Water (SEW) and City West Water (CWW). The water retailers are responsible for the operation of water distribution (including recycled water) and sewage systems in three service areas in Melbourne.54 As explained above, most sewage is treated by Melbourne Water in the two main sewage treatment plants, but the water retailers also operate several small sewage treatment plants themselves. Before 1995, Melbourne Water and the water retailers operated as one organisation, but they disaggregated in 1995 to improve business performance by ‘competition by comparison’.55

• Southern Rural Water (SRW): Southern Rural Water is responsible for managing rural water

resources cross the southern half of country Victoria. In metropolitan Melbourne, SRW is responsible for managing the groundwater through licensing groundwater extractions. In conjunction with DSE, SRW is responsible for establishing Water Supply Protection Areas, Streamflow Management Plans and Groundwater Management Plans.56

Local Governments:

• Metropolitan Melbourne consists of 31 local governments. The local governments are responsible for public open space and street drainage and local drains (for catchments smaller than 60 ha) that feed the main drains that are owned by Melbourne Water.57 Local governments are also acting as planning authorities, which means that they are responsible for land use planning and development planning.58 The local governments check if plans of developers are in accordance with the Victorian Planning Provisions (see also Chapter 3.4).

Other:

• eWater Cooperative Research Centre: eWater CRC is a joint venture between 45 public and private water businesses and research groups which aims to develop tools for integrated

51 Source: Melbourne Water (2007f) 52 Source: Melbourne Water (2007d) 53 Source: Melbourne Water (2007g) 54 Source: Victorian Water (2007) 55 Source: Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission (2007) 56 Source: Southern Rural Water (2007) 57 Source: Melbourne Water (2007j) 58 Source: Local Government Victoria (2007)


water management on a demand-based basis. eWater CRC translates the needs of the 45 partners into research activities and product development including tools for operating rivers that optimise environmental and economic outcomes, integrated systems for efficient urban water management, tools for developing monitoring programs, models for joint management of surface and groundwater, and decision support systems for guiding investment in river and catchment restoration. eWater CRC is the result of the merger of two former CRCs that have been operation since the early 1990s: CRC for Catchment Hydrology and CRC for Freshwater Ecology.59

• VicUrban: VicUrban is the State owned residential land developer of Victoria. Its current

market share of land sales in metropolitan Melbourne is 12%.It works in partnerships with the public and private sector to establish urban developments across metropolitan Melbourne and regional Victoria that are in line with the Victorian Government urban development policies and strategies, including Melbourne 2030 and Securing Our Water Future Together. VicUrban is the result of a merger between the Docklands Authority and the Urban and Regional Land Corporation in 2003.

• Plumbing Industry Commission (PIC): The PIC administers the licensing and registration

system for plumbers and promotes and enforces plumbing standards across Victoria. The Plumbing Industry Commission has an important role in the development of recycled water schemes, because it licences the household connections with the third pipe network.60

3.4 Urban development in Melbourne This section explains urban development in Melbourne. Figure 3.8 shows that most areas have dwelling densities between 5-15 dwellings per hectare. 38% of all new dwelling approvals are located on greenfield sites, which are generally on the metropolitan fringe. On Greenfield sites detached housing is the dominant type of housing (36% of all new dwellings in 2001-2002). Together, this has been contributing highly to the urban sprawl in Metropolitan Melbourne. The next quote from Mark Twain shows that Melbourne was even already sprawling in 1891 when he visited Melbourne: “(The city) spreads around over an immense area of ground.”61 The Victorian Government developed the action plan Melbourne 2030 to decrease urban sprawl. Melbourne 2030 is a strategic 30-year plan that aims at managing growth and change across Metropolitan Melbourne and the surrounding region. It provides a framework for governments at all levels to respond to demographic developments until 2030. Melbourne 2030 aims to provide a comprehensive approach to the integrated management of growth, development, planning, and environmental protection. 62 For this thesis, the most important factors of Melbourne 2030 are the aim towards higher dwelling densities in existing and new urban areas and the indication of urban growth areas that have been designated for urban use (see Figure 3.9). Fringe development will be focussed in the growth areas. However, the growth boundaries are not legally binding. This makes development outside the growth areas not utterly impossible if developers can prove that a location outside a growth area is more suitable for development than a location within a growth area.

59 Source: eWater CRC (2007) 60 Source: Plumbing Industry Commission (2007) 61 Source: Twain (1897) 62 Source: Department of Sustainability and Environment (2002)


26

Figure 3.8: Dwelling densities in metropolitan Melbourne (Source: DSE (2006a))

Figure 3.9: Melbourne 2030 Urban Growth Areas63

63 Source: Department of Sustainability and Environment (2002)


The planning process Figure 3.10 shows the planning process for urban development in Melbourne. Firstly, the Victorian Government has set a policy for urban development in Melbourne. In this policy five Growth Areas are designated. Growth Area Framework Plans give long term strategic plans for the growth areas in particular. On a more detailed level, Precinct Structure Plans are being developed by developers in co-operation with local councils and other government agencies to set objectives to implement the Growth Area Framework Plans. Finally, developers make development plans for new urban developments that have to be approved by the Local Council before the physical (re-) development of an urban area.

Figure 3.10: The planning process in Melbourne Growth Area Framework Plans64 Growth Area Framework Plans are long-term strategic plans that provide a broad set of principles for the growth of outer suburbs. They provide a strategic basis for planning of infrastructure and services as well as sequencing and staging of land release. The Plans identify:

• long-term strategic direction of urban growth • location of broad development types such as residential areas, employment areas and mixed

use employment areas • transport networks • regional open space networks • strategic directions for individual growth areas

The Plans are set by the Victorian Government and have to be approved by the Minister for Planning. 64 Source: Growth Areas Authority (2007)

Phase 3 Realisation

Phase 4 Operation and Maintenance

Phase 2 Site Development and Design and Licensing

Phase 1 Policy development

Regional plan: Growth Area Framwork Plan

Structure plan: Precinct Structure Plan

Policy: Melbourne 2030

Development Plan

Land development

Construction of dwellings

Operation and Maintenance


28

Precinct Structure Plans (PSPs)65 Precinct Structure Plans are the primary means to implement Growth Area Framework Plans. They aim at long-term guiding of development of new communities and employment areas. PSPs are more detailed than Growth Area Framework Plans and are produced by developers, local councils and other government agencies together. PSPs set objectives for housing yields, choice and affordability so that new communities meet future housing demands. Furthermore, PSPs give developers and investors greater certainty about the outcomes sought by the Victorian Government from future developments in Melbourne’s growth areas. PSPs show:

• the boundaries of proposed residential housing and mixed use areas • the nature and scale of development for larger activity centres, together with the location of

smaller neighbourhood activity centres • strategic outcomes such as greater housing choice and type • community, employment and retail opportunities • anticipated dwelling and population yields • proposed locations and site areas for community facilities • proposed neighbourhood open spaces and parks • key environmental and heritage features • water conservation and other resource reduction measures

PSPs should be in place before land in growth areas is re-zoned for urban development. Development Plans and Permits66 Development plans are prepared by developers before commencement of the development. Planning approvals of development plans that result in building permits are detailed planning stages that take place concurrent or, mostly, after approval of Precinct Structure Plans. It is illegal for the developer to start development without a development permit. Besides showing that the development meets all the requirements set by the local council, it is also the developer’s responsibility that all involved stakeholders agree on the contents in the development plan before the local council approves. For example, the developer has to meet drainage requirements that are set by the drainage authority. Planning schemes are sourced and constructed from the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPPs). This reference document is a statutory device to ensure that consistent provisions for various matters are maintained across Victoria and that the construction and layout of planning schemes is always the same. If a development plan is approved by the local government, a building permit will be provided to the developer. This building permit includes specifications of the development and acts as a contract for taking over the assets in the public space after development. Clause 5667 The new revised Clause 56 of the VPP became into effect from 9 October 2006. Clause 56 is the Residential Subdivisions component of the VPP and the basis for all local council planning schemes across Victoria. In the new revised Clause 56 it is mandated for all new residential subdivisions to incorporate water sensitive urban design elements as part of the drainage system. The stormwater treatment standards that have to be met are: removal of 70% litter, 80% suspended solids and reduction of 45% of the dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus loads. The building process After the required permits have been retrieved, the actual building process starts. The building process is described in Appendix C.

65 Source: Growth Areas Authority (2007) 66 Source: Department of Planning and Community Development (2007) 67 Source: EPA Victoria (2007)


3.5 Water supply challenge Droughts, climate change, population growth, economic growth and ageing infrastructure put Melbourne’s water long term water supply under pressure. The Sustainable Water Strategy for the Central Region predicts a shortage of 205.000 Ml/year by 2055 for the greater Melbourne region.68 Below the different aspects that have effect on Melbourne’s water supply are being explained, as well as the strategy of the Victorian Government to face the water supply challenge. Climate change: Climate change is expected to result in the following trends towards 2050:69

• Mean increase in average summer temperatures of 1.4 C • Reduced rainfall of 4% • Reduced inflow of annual streamflow into Melbourne’s main water reservoirs of 18% • More extreme weather events

These trends will reduce the long term water supply of Melbourne. Urban growth: Population growth and economic growth result in an increased water demand. In an average year the total water consumption for metropolitan Melbourne is around 500 GL/year.70 Figure 3.11 shows the water use of Melbourne per sector in percentages. The Sustainable Water Strategy for the Central Region of the Victorian Government predicts that the population of the region of Melbourne and surroundings will increase from 4,2 million people in 2004 to 5,7 million people in 2055. This will result in an increased water demand for residential purposes. In 2002, the total water consumption of Melbourne was 311 l/person/day. Residential water use accounts for approximately 60% of this (208 l/person/day). Figure 3.12 shows the residential water use per purpose. The indoor residential water use is approximately 135 l/person/day. In comparison: in 2004 the average indoor residential Dutch water use was approximately 124 l/person/day.71 Economic growth also demands a larger quantity of water. At this moment the greatest industrial water user is the ‘food, beverages and tobacco’ sector, followed by the electricity and gas supply sector.72 It is assumed that industrial growth keeps pace with population growth.

Water use per sector 4%

8%

28%

60%

miscellaneous

leakage

commercial and industrial

residential

Figure 3.11: Melbourne’s water use per sector in 2004 (DSE (2006a)) 68 Source: Department of Sustainability and Environment (2006b) 69 Source: Howe et al. (2005) 70 Source: Melbourne Water (2007c) 71 Source: NIPO/VEWIN (2005) 72 Source: Department of Sustainability and Environment (2006a)


30

Residential water use

5%

15%

19%

26%

35%kitchen

laundry

toilet

bathroom

garden

Figure 3.12: Melbourne’s residential water use in 2004 (DSE (2006a)) Ageing infrastructure: Figure 3.11 shows that 8% of the supplied water is lost by leakage. According to various water experts in Melbourne the water supply infrastructure is ageing and needs upgrading in order to prevent increased leakage losses. Strategy to face the water supply challenge: The Victorian Government has an overarching water policy: the Government White Paper - Securing Our Water Future Together. The Sustainable Water Strategy for the Central Region is describes the strategy for the Melbourne Region. In the beginning of this section it was described that the Sustainable Water Strategy for the Central Region predicts a shortage of 205.000 Ml/year by 2055 for the greater Melbourne region. This State strategy includes several measures for facing this water supply challenge:

• Water conservation targets to reduce the total per capita water use by 15% by 2010 (compared to the average in 1990), increasing to 25% by 2015 and 30% by 2020. Measures such as installing water efficient appliances (e.g. water efficient shower heads, laundry machines), encourage planting of native vegetation in gardens should maintain current conservation culture and awareness of water users. Furthermore commercial and industrial customers that use more than 10 ML per year are required to develop plans to reduce water use and water authorities are enforced to improve the water distribution systems to reduce leaks and evaporation.73

• The uptake of alternative water sources is encouraged to complement the drinking water

supply. The Victorian government has set a water recycling target of 20% of total treated wastewater for industrial, agricultural, irrigation and residential purposes (see Chapter 4.3: Case study Hunt Club Estate) by 2010. In 2007 14% of the total treated wastewater was recycled.74 Furthermore, the Smart Gardens and homes Rebate Scheme is set up to reimburse purchases that are water efficient, harvest rainwater or grey water to reduce household demand.75 Victoria’s 5 Star Standard requires for all new homes to meet the standard by incorporating the installation of water saving measures and either a rainwater tank or a solar hot water service.76 Finally, a trial is to be conducted with aquifer storage for future recovery and re-use of recycled water.

73 Source: Department of Sustainability and Environment (2006b) 74 Source: Victorian Government (2007) www.ourwater.vic.gov.au 75 Source: Victorian Government (2007) 76 Source: Sustainability Victoria (2007)


• Large scale augmentation of water supply by upgrading existing water recycling schemes and the construction of a desalination plant77 complete the water supply strategy. The desalination plant that is planned has a capacity of 150 GL/year. Construction of the plant will commence mid 2009 and the desalination plant will start delivering water by the end of 2001.78

During times of drought water restrictions are being enforced by the Victorian Government to reduce water use. The restrictions restrict for example the water use for irrigation of gardens and public open space and car washing (see also Appendix E). Because residents are affected directly by the water restrictions, water is a hot public issue and therefore high on the political agenda. Water was the most important election issue in the Victorian State elections in the end of 2006. 3.6 Water quality challenge During the 1960s and 1970s the water quality of the most iconic river in Melbourne, River Yarra, was so bad that it attracted the saying that it was “too thick to drink and too thin to plough”. Because of several initiatives waterway quality improved slowly over time, but is still not optimal. Although the water quality in the closed catchments is very good, downstream the creeks and rivers towards the heavily urbanised coastal areas water quality deteriorates significantly. At this moment, Melbourne Water describes that 25% of rivers and creeks are in good or excellent condition, 30% in moderate to poor condition and 45% percent of rivers and creeks are in poor to very poor condition.79 Urban stormwater is a significant source of pollution in Melbourne’s waterways. Other sources are for example leaking sewers and overflowing sewers through emergency relief structures.80 Melbourne’s urban growth has a significant impact on waterway health, because this results in land use changes that cause increased stormwater runoff quantities with higher concentrations of pollutants. Melbourne Water is addressing the water quality challenge by treatment of stormwater run-off before discharge of the stormwater drains into the receiving waters. It has constructed wetlands to treat stormwater before discharge into receiving waterways and litter traps to remove litter from the waterways. Melbourne Water manages 99 wetlands that treat stormwater through sedimentation, biological and chemical uptake and pollutant transformation. Wetlands are shallow water systems that typically regularly fill and drain. Normally, wetlands are extensively vegetated with emergent aquatic macrophytes.81 An important step in improving waterway health was taken in October 2006 when the amendment of Clause 56: Residential Subdivisions in the Victorian Planning Provisions came into effect (see Chapter 3.4). From that moment it was mandated that WSUD should be incorporated in all new residential subdivisions in order to remove 70% litter, 80% suspended solids and 45% of the nutrient load in stormwater run-off. On-site stormwater treatment is achieved by wetlands, buffer strips, vegetated swales, bio-retention systems and infiltration systems that are incorporated in the allotment scale, streetscape scale or allotment scale. The functioning of those systems will be explained in the Chapters about the case studies of Melbourne Docklands (Chapter 4.2) and Aurora (Chapter 4.4). Melbourne Water plays a central role in meeting the water quality challenge. It does not only construct wetlands and litter traps, but also educates the water sector and facilitates WSUD demonstration projects across Melbourne. It has developed a website on which current WSUD case studies are listed. Figure 3.13 shows all listed WSUD projects in Melbourne that have voluntarily been listed by developers. At 8 October 2007 a total of 109 cases were enlisted.

77 Note: The development of a desalination plant was announced in June 2007, after conducting the case studies in Melbourne. The influence of this desalination plant will not be included in this report. 78 Source: Victorian Government (2007) 79 Source: Melbourne Water (2007h) 80 Source: Yarra Valley Water (2005) 81 Source: Breen et al. (2005)


32

Figure 3.13: WSUD projects in Melbourne, recorded in Melbourne Water’s online WSUD database (Melbourne Water (2007i))

3.7 Water Sensitive Urban Design The term Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) is commonly used across Australia to reflect a new paradigm that aims to achieve that water environment and infrastructure service design and management opportunities are being considered in the earliest stages of the decision making process that is associated with urban planning and design.82 The concept of WSUD is a holistic urban water management approach that encompasses all aspects of integrated urban water cycle management, including water supply, sewerage, and stormwater management.83, 84 The objectives of WSUD include:85

• Reducing potable water demand through water efficient appliances, rainwater and greywater re-use.

• Minimising wastewater generation and treatment of wastewater to a standard suitable for effluent reuse opportunities and/or release to receiving waters.

• Treating urban stormwater to meet water quality objectives for reuse and/or discharge to surface waters.

• Preserving the natural hydrological regime of catchments.

Basic design principles of WSUD include:86

82 Source: Wong (2005), Mouritz et al. (2005) 83 Source: Mouritz et al. (2005) 84 Note: In the Netherlands groundwater would be added to this. The author assumes that Mouritz et al. (2005) did not include groundwater, because groundwater tables are generally low in Melbourne. 85 Source: Wong (2005) 86 Source: Mouritz et al. (2005)


• Detention, rather than rapid conveyance, of stormwater • Capture and use of stormwater as an alternative source of water to conserve potable water • Use of vegetation for filtering purposes • Water-efficient landscaping • Protection of water-related environmental, recreational and cultural values • Localised water harvesting for various uses • Localised wastewater treatment systems

It could be concluded that WSUD offers possible solutions to Melbourne’s water supply challenge and Melbourne’s water quality challenge. Chapter 4 describes three case studies that incorporate WSUD.


34

CHAPTER 4: CASE STUDIES IN MELBOURNE 4.1 Introduction This chapter describes the case studies in Melbourne that have been selected in accordance to the selection criteria (see Chapter 2.2). Table 4.1 shows the three case studies that have been conducted in Melbourne. Case Development Function Scale Focus Docklands Brownfield Residential,

commercial 200ha, ca 20.000 residents, 30.000 employees, 20 million yearly visitors

On-site stormwater treatment, stormwater harvesting

Hunt Club Greenfield Residential ca 230ha, 2000 dwellings Water recycling

Aurora Greenfield Residential 650ha, 10.000 dwellings On-site stormwater treatment, stormwater harvesting, water recycling

Table 4.1: Cases in Melbourne Chapters 4.2 to 4.4 describe the cases, the enabling/disabling factors for each case and the prospects for WSUD based on the case study. Unless mentioned otherwise, the content of these Chapters is based on conducted interviews with stakeholders. The interviewees can only be used anonymously, because the author of this report did not have the opportunity to go through the procedure of the Ethics Commission of Monash University, that every researcher has to proceed before he or she is allowed to conduct interviews. The reason that he did not have the opportunity was that he only had limited time available to conduct the research. Therefore, in order to keep the interviewees anonymous, references have not been included in the text. Appendix A shows a list of all the conducted interviews in the back of this report. Chapter 4.5 presents the conclusions of the case studies in Melbourne. The conclusions will be used in Chapter 5 and Chapter 8 for the analysis of the transition in Melbourne and for the comparison between the case studies in Melbourne and the Netherlands.


4.2 Case study Melbourne Docklands

Figure 4.1: Melbourne Docklands; left project vision (Haycox (undated)) and right Docklands Park (author’s photograph) Introduction: Melbourne Docklands (see Figure 4.1) is Australia’s largest urban renewal project, covering an area of 200 hectares of land and water. Docklands is located at the waterfront adjacent to Melbourne’s Central Business District. After completion around 2020 it will be a new municipality that will be home to 20.000 residents, workplace to 30.000 employees and will receive 20 million visitors each year. At this moment Melbourne Docklands is Melbourne’s most iconic urban development project.87 From the beginning of the 20th century, the area of Melbourne Docklands has been an important industrial and transport hub. However, in the 1970s the site was virtually abandoned because changing cargo transportation and storage methods reduced the significance of the Docklands as a trading port. In 1996, the Docklands Authority was formed under the Docklands Act 1991 for the re-development and municipal management of the Docklands area.88 At the time of conducting this case study in the end of 2006, VicUrban was both the development authority and the municipality of the Melbourne Docklands development. In 2003, VicUrban became the development authority after a merger of the Docklands Authority with the Urban and Regional Land Corporation. VicUrban is a state owned development agency that is established under the Victorian Urban Development Authority Act 2003. In July 2007, VicUrban returned municipal responsibilities to the City of Melbourne, but will remain the responsible development authority until completion around 2020.89 ESD Guide: To meet environmental challenges of climate change and fossil fuel dependency VicUrban has committed itself to incorporate sustainability principles in its projects. Because Melbourne Docklands is the largest urban renewal project in Australia and therefore regarded as a very prestigious development, VicUrban says it provides a unique opportunity to test, realise and showcase a number of ‘Ecological Sustainable Design’ (ESD) principles and their commercial viability. The ESD principles for Melbourne Docklands are:90 1) conserve and protect natural resources 2) create long term value 3) maximise precinct opportunities 87 Source: VicUrban (2007a) 88 Source: VicUrban (2007b) 89 Source: VicUrban (2007b) 90 Source: VicUrban (2006a)


36

4) balance economic, social and environmental outcomes 5) set standards, requirements and benchmarks and continually review 6) develop a collaborative approach, and capture and communicate knowledge 7) promote alternative transport opportunities 8) create a healthy urban environment To ensure that these ESD principles are being incorporated in the Docklands development, VicUrban has established the Melbourne Docklands ESD Guide in 2002. This ESD Guide measures and rates environmental performance (including water, energy, the suitability of building materials and the quality of indoor and outdoor spaces) of developments in Docklands, based on performance indicators that award points for environmental performance.91 For example, 4 points are awarded for reducing water demand through water efficient appliances by 25%, while 8 points are awarded for reducing water demand by 50% (the maximum points to gain is 121 for residential developments and 111 for commercial developments). VicUrban has created a Sustainability Charter as an extension of the ESD Guide to incorporate the ESD principles also in all its other developments, such as Aurora (see Chapter 4.4).92 Development of Docklands: The development of Melbourne Docklands is not a masterplanned process, but a collaborative process between the development authority (VicUrban) and private developers, based on market demand. The development authority is the landowner of the area and opens parcels of land for bids (to the right for that land, not the ownership) to private developers. The development authority does not only consider the financial value of the offers, but also the quality of the design and environmental assessments based on the ESD Guide. The development authority gives the developers feedback on the bids and indicates how the bids can be improved to come to an agreement for development of a parcel. When the developer is allowed to develop a parcel of land, he cannot develop the whole parcel at once. Only parts of parcels can be developed at a time to safeguard the quality of the development (social, design, WSUD, etc.). After the development of a part of a parcel has been completed, this is evaluated by the development authority before the developer is allowed to continue the development of his parcel. This slow cyclic process is being used to improve the quality of the development and manage the risk of failure. If the complete area would be developed at once instead of stepwise, the cost for repairing or improving of potential failures could be very expensive. Another advantage of the cyclic process is that it delays revenue for the development authority. The development authority has indicated that if the development of surrounding parcels is a success, the price of land increases dramatically. The development authority has indicated that for some parcels the price for land has doubled in a period of six months. The development authority values good quality of public space, including WSUD, crucial to gain this financial benefit. WSUD features in Docklands: The development authority of Docklands has a strong commitment to incorporate WSUD in Docklands at a precinct scale coherent to the ESD principles. The objectives for WSUD in the area are93: • minimise water consumption • maximise stormwater re-use for open space irrigation • treat stormwater runoff to 80% reduction of total suspended solids, 45% reduction of total

phosphorus and nitrogen and 70% reduction of litter.94 In order to meet the WSUD objectives several WSUD features are being installed in Docklands. According to the engineer that made the design it was the first time that WSUD features were 91 Source: Haycox (undated) 92 Source: VicUrban (2006b) 93 Source: City of Melbourne (2005) 94 Note: This WSUD objective has later been included in Clause 56 of the Victorian Planning Provisions in October 2006.


implemented in such a high-density area in Victoria. The development authority hired an engineering company that is specialised in WSUD for setting the stormwater quality objectives. Afterwards, the same engineering company worked together with developers to meet the stormwater quality objectives. Firstly, to meet the water demand for irrigation of the 3,5ha Docklands Park, stormwater runoff from a catchment area of 4,8ha of roads and buildings is being harvested. Wetlands in the Docklands Park and at the forecourt of the NAB building treat the runoff before it is stored in three underground reservoirs of plastic crates (see Figure 4.2). The total storage capacity of the reservoirs is 500m3. This substantially helps to decrease the potable mains water consumption for irrigation of the park.95

Figure 4.2: Stormwater reservoir for irrigation of Docklands Park (Source: VicUrban, undated) Wetlands in the Docklands Park (see Figure 4.3, left) treat runoff from several large streets. Gross pollutant traps remove litter before the runoff flows to the wetlands (through gravity and pumping). The wetlands consist of three zones: an inlet zone for sedimentation of coarse sediment, a macrophyte zone that is a shallow heavily vegetated area for the removal of fine particles and the uptake of soluble pollutants and a bypass to protect the macrophyte zone during heavy rain events. Nutrients are removed by absorption of biofilms that grow on the vegetation. After passage of the wetlands 80% of the suspended solids and 45% of the nutrients is removed from the runoff.

Figure 4.3: Wetlands in Docklands Park (left) and before the NAB building (right)

95 Source: City of Melbourne (2005)


38

The wetland at the forecourt of the NAB building (see Figure 4.3, right) does not only treat stormwater runoff from the NAB roof and surrounding courtyard, but also provides the forecourt of a recognisable landscape feature because it has the shape of an exclamation mark. The runoff enters the wetland system in the dot of the exclamation mark, which is a sediment basin for removal of coarse sediment. After passage of the sediment basin, runoff flows through the wetland and further to the wetlands at the Docklands Park for further treatment. Bio-retention planter boxes and larger similar bio-retention systems treat stormwater runoff from several large streets for up to a 1-in-3 month storm96 and provide passive irrigation to street trees (see Figure 4.4, left). The water is treated by a vegetated soil media layer and collected through perforated pipes and being discharged to the Yarra River and Victoria Harbour through a conventional stormwater drainage system (see Figure 4.4, right). The bio-retention systems are not intended to be infiltration systems. The filter media has to maintain sufficient hydraulic flow, but also maintain enough water to support vegetation growth. Typically sandy loam is being used as filter media.97

Figure 4.4: Bio-retention planter boxes (Source: Melbourne Water (2007) and City of Melbourne (2005)) Construction of WSUD features: The implementation of the WSUD features was problematic according to the interviewees. They indicated that the contractors that constructed the systems did not have sufficient knowledge and commitment to construct the systems in a right way. The builders had little understanding of what they were building and had no experience of building it. The interviewees have mentioned several cases of construction errors. For example, the wetlands in front of the NAB building did not function hydraulically, because the wrong levels were used. Also wrong vegetation was being planted. The result was that the vegetation had to be replanted. However, the replanted vegetation contained weeds that caused trouble again. Therefore, vegetation had to be replanted for a second time. Another example of wrong construction is the level of the inlets of the storage reservoirs in Docklands Park. These were constructed higher than the wetlands. This made it impossible for the water to flow into the reservoirs. Similar problems took place with the construction of the bio-retention planter boxes, where the trees were planted at the wrong level. The construction errors made the implementation more expensive than necessary. They also made it clear to the development authority and the engineering company that only a good design was not sufficient. Follow up during the implementation phase was required in order to get a good result. 96 Source: Haycox (undated) 97 Source: City of Melbourne (2005)


Enabling factors: • Environmental and amenity drivers: Melbourne Docklands is regarded as an iconic project for

Melbourne and Australia. It is an advertisement to the world for both the city and the country. Therefore it should be as green as possible. According to the interviewees WSUD is a crucial concept to achieve high quality amenity and minimum environmental impact that would be well received by the public.

• Commitment of stakeholders: VicUrban has set up ESD Guidelines to achieve sustainable

development of Melbourne Docklands. Coherent to the ESD principles, the development authority committed to incorporate WSUD in the development of Docklands by enforcing developers to incorporate it in the urban area. The engineering company that set the objectives and worked together with the developers to achieve the objectives is specialised in WSUD. Their corporate policy is aimed to environmental protection. It proposed the WSUD features for Docklands and convinced the development authority of the value of WSUD.

• Financial incentives: There are several financial incentives for the uptake of WSUD in

Docklands. Firstly, overall it is cheaper to treat stormwater runoff before it is being discharged into the Victorian Harbour, than discharging it to the Yarra River and treatment afterwards in Port Philip Bay. This incentive is similar to the externality of the Aurora Case (see Chapter 4.4). Secondly, both the developers and the development authority have a financial incentive for creating high quality (green) open space. Good presentation of building sites influences future sales of adjacent developments. For the development authority it is important to have high quality developments, because this increases the price for land. Finally, also the local council has a (small) financial incentive to re-use water, because this decreases the potable mains consumption for irrigation of the parkland.

• Robustness: 2-Summer handover periods are being used to minimise the probability that failures

will occur after handover of the assets. The 2-summer handover period is a period of two years during which the builder of an asset is responsible for the maintenance before it is handed over to the local council (this is in the case of Docklands the same organisation as the development authority). The chance that there are still hidden shortcomings in the implemented assets that require extra capital investments is minimal after a period of this duration. Therefore, the reliability of the system is increased. At this moment there is still debate about the length of the handover period of the assets.

• Staged development: The development authority has deliberately chosen for staged

development of Docklands instead of development of the whole area at once. Also the parcels of land are being developed in stages. After a part of the development is developed, the development authority evaluates the result together with the private developer who has constructed it. Staged development requires more time, but has several advantages over development of the whole area at once. The quality of the development can be safeguarded better, because after each part has completed the outcome is evaluated. If a feature of the development has to be improved or removed and constructed again this only has to be done for a relative small part of the development, which could save a considerable amount of capital. Hence, staged development decreases the risk of wrong construction for the development authority and developers. This is particularly important for the introduction of innovative technologies such as WSUD. Furthermore, the delay is used by the development authority to speculate on increasing land prices that are caused by the success of the adjacent developments.

Disabling factors: • Lack of knowledge and experience: The main obstacle for implementing WSUD in Docklands

was the lack of knowledge about WSUD features of the people that were implementing it. According to the interviewees, they did not understand what they were building and how they should build it. The only stakeholder that had full understanding of WSUD was the engineering company. His task was limited to designing the WSUD features. After the designs had been made,


40

they were incorporated in the urban design by the landscape architect and then constructed by the builders. During these two steps errors could enter the design through not understanding of the technology, resulting in bad implementation in practice of a good design in theory.

• Lack of regulation: Lack of regulation has resulted in loss of capital for the developer of the

stormwater harvesting scheme. Because it was unclear for the developer of the stormwater harvesting scheme what the water quality requirements of the water were, the developer included a UV treatment step in the stormwater recycling scheme to be sure that the water could be used for irrigation of Docklands Park. Afterwards, this measure has appeared to be unnecessary.

• Lack of monitoring: The interviewees have indicated that limited monitoring made

implementation errors more likely to happen. The engineering company has indicated that it has learned from the experiences to stay longer involved to ensure that the details are being constructed properly. Nowadays, the engineering company is reviewing the plans of landscape architects and is also conducting on-site reviews of the constructions.

• Lack of commitment of builders: Builders of the system did not only lack understanding of what

they were constructing, but according to the interviewees they also did not really care about the outcome either. This has negative influence on the quality of the constructed features.

• Cost allocation: The interviewees have indicated that the cost allocation for WSUD is not fair at

this moment. The parties that have to make (extra) investments do not receive the full benefits from stormwater treatment at a precinct level. Melbourne Water is the one that receives the benefit of receiving lower stormwater loads, but does not have to do anything for this. The council, in contrary, has to maintain the systems, which means more work and cost.

Prospects for WSUD based on the interviewees of this case: The interviewees think that WSUD will become widespread practice in the future. In October 2006, Clause 56 of the Victorian Planning Provisions mandated the uptake of WSUD in all new developments of residential subdivisions. The interviewees believe that in the near future WSUD will also be mandated for redevelopments and developments of commercial areas. They agree on the fact that WSUD is more effective than cleaning the receiving waters. The interviewees have warned that there is a risk for the mainstreaming of WSUD if things go wrong because of bad implementation. Bad examples may lead to people blaming the technologies instead of bad construction. This could cause people to walk away from WSUD. Mandating WSUD increases this risk, because it enforces developers to implement WSUD but it does not explain them how they should implement it. Therefore it is not only a matter of setting targets, but also a matter of checking the implementation to meet the targets. The interviewees have experienced that knowledge is not widespread among developers and builders. However, with Clause 56 they are forced to implement WSUD. It is according to one of the interviewees therefore important that there are a large number of demonstration projects that show how WSUD works. Bottom line dwellers are more likely to incorporate tested concepts than untested features. Mandating WSUD in residential subdivision developments has impact on the budgets of the local councils, because they will have to maintain the systems. As it is explained above is the cost allocation according to the interviewees not divided in a fair way. This discussion will probably gain more momentum over time when more local councils are facing this problem in new residential developments.


4.3 Case study Hunt Club Estate (Cranbourne)

Figure 4.5: Hunt Club Estate: Access to recycled water during times of water restrictions (left) leads to green

lawns compared to the neighbours without access to recycled water (right). Introduction: The Hunt Club Estate is a residential development under construction of approximately 2.000 allotments in Cranbourne, 45km south-east of Melbourne’s Central Business District and within the Casey-Cardinia growth corridor that has been determined by the Victorian Government in Melbourne 2030. In 2000, a private developer commenced the development, which is planned to be completed in 2011. After completion the estate will be home to approximately 6.000 people. The Hunt Club Estate is the first estate in Victoria where in-home use of recycled water is applied. There are also two wetlands located in the estate for treatment of stormwater runoff. The wetlands also have an important landscape function, as they are centrally located in the estate.98 This case study will focus on the introduction of the third pipe system in the Hunt Club Estate. The interviewed stakeholders regarded this as a more special feature of the development and were very keen to talk about this. They only mentioned the wetlands briefly before they returned to the subject of the third pipe systems. Initiative for the supply of recycled water: The Hunt Club Estate is the first estate in Victoria where in-home use of recycled water is applied. Recycled water can for some purposes be a substitute for drinking water. According to the water company drinking water consumption can therefore be reduced by 40%. The main benefit for the use of recycled water for residents is the fact that recycled water is not subject to the water restrictions. This means that residents that have access to recycled water can always water their gardens and wash their cars, even in times of water restrictions. The Eastern Irrigation Scheme (EIS) is the source of the recycled water. The Eastern Irrigation Scheme recycles 3,5% of the treated wastewater from the Carrum (Eastern) Treatment Plant and has a capacity of producing 30 ML Class A water per day (see Appendix D for more information about the quality standards).99 After treatment the Class A water is distributed via a 60km pipeline network. Originally, the main purpose for the recycled water from the EIS was horticultural, recreational and industrial use. Since the launch of the system in the Hunt Club Estate in October 2006 it is also being used for residential purposes (toilet flushing, garden watering and car washing). The Eastern Irrigation Scheme is a joint project between Melbourne Water and EarthTech100. Melbourne Water is responsible for wastewater treatment and EarthTech has designed and built the 98 Source: Dennis Family Corporation (2006) 99 Source: TopAq (2007) 100 Source: TopAq (2007)


42

recycled water ultra-filtration treatment plant. The partnership of the two parties operates under the name TopAq. Because the state owned water company (from here: water company) was slow with introducing a recycled water scheme, this private company now supplies bulk recycled water. The water company has to buy the recycled water from TopAq before it can sell it to customers in its service area, like it buys bulk drinking water from Melbourne Water. In 2004, the developer of Hunt Club Estate approached the water company to supply the estate with recycled water. The developer saw the opportunity of supply of recycled water, because TopAq already had its infrastructure in place (see Figure 4.6). Supply of recycled water was used by the developer to differentiate the development in the market by supplying the estate with restriction-free water (see Appendix E for more information about the water restrictions). The developer asked the water company to construct a distribution network for the recycled water. The water company’s first priority is to sell drinking water. But it has a commitment to the Victorian Government to water recycling (20% of all treated water). Therefore it agreed to co-operate and pay for a part of the infrastructure. The developer pays for the remaining part, including the connection with the allotments.

Figure 4.6: Main pipe for trunk supply of recycled water passing the Hunt Club Estate (Source: Williams and

Clarke (undated)) Figure 4.6 shows that the area west of the pipeline is not being supplied with recycled water. This area was already developed before the pipeline was constructed in the area and therefore not connected to the third pipe network. While visiting the development a clear difference could be seen between the area with and the area without access to recycled water. In the area without access to recycled water the grass was yellow, because water restrictions prohibited water use for gardening (see Appendix E for more information about the water restrictions). Because the water restriction did not restrict the use of recycled water, the lawns in the area with recycled water were green (see also Figure 4.5). The third pipe system: The third pipe system exists of one watermain with recycled water from the Carrum Treatment Plant and one watermain with drinking water. The use of recycled water from the third pipe system is only

Pipeline


permitted for households for outdoor use and toilet flushing. In the Hunt Club Estate also fire hydrants are present that supply recycled water, but they are not in use yet, because the Country Fire Authority is afraid for back splashing of the water during fire fighting, because of higher concentrations of soluble particles in recycled water than in potable water. The recycled water has a Class A standard quality (see Appendix D). This is the highest standard of (waste water) treatment. However, the quality is not equal to potable water. According to one interviewee, it is expected that outdoor use of recycled water will result in a 5% larger nutrient load to the development. Therefore Melbourne Water has demanded that the additional nutrient load is removed by wetlands in the estate.

Figure 4.7: Schematic explanation of the third pipe system (Source: Plumbing Industry Commission (2005))

Figure 4.8: Water taps (left) and fire hydrants (right) for potable water (white) and recycled water (purple) Several measures have been taken to minimise the probability of cross-connection. All pipes and appliances for recycled water have a purple colour that differs from the blue pipes and meters for drinking water (see Figure 4.7 and Figure 4.8). Furthermore, the inlet and outlet threads of the water meter for recycled water are different to those for drinking water. All taps are purple coloured and have


44

a removable handle and a warning sign: “Recycled water, do not drink” (see Figure 4.7 and Figure 4.8) All plumbing work, including recycled water supply has to be done by a licensed or registered plumber, who is responsible for appropriate construction. All plumbing systems must be commissioned before handover to the consumer. The Environmental Protection Agency has required three inspections for recycled water systems before they can be commissioned: (1) from the meter to the dwelling101; (2) the roughing of pipework within the framework of the dwelling; and (3) a finalising commission inspection of closing the recycled water meter and opening all taps and vice versa. In contrary, control of plumbing works for drinking water is only executed for one in twenty cases. Certificates are being used for all work above $500. The database of the Plumbing Industry Commission randomly selects 5% of the certificates for inspection.102 The water company educates the users of the third pipe system on a weekly basis to ensure that recycled water is used properly. Information brochures are being distributed with information about the system, the purposes of the water, etc. In a later stage this will be brought down to a less frequent basis. Enabling Factors: • Supply-demand issue: The supply-demand issue that is caused by the drought is a driving factor

on the background for this case. The media and the water restrictions that limit outdoor water consumption influence the public perception of inhabitants of Victoria. This triggers the Victorian Government to take action. The Victorian Government has set a target for Melbourne Water in co-operation with the water retailers to achieve 20% recycling of wastewater by 2010.103 In order to meet this target, the water company has constructed the infrastructure towards the estate.

• Added value: Availability of restriction free water is very appealing for the public during times of

drought. The interviewees have indicated that there is public acceptance for water recycling and that in general the public is not afraid for health risks and does not care about the fact that the water is slightly discoloured, because it gives them green gardens in times of water restrictions. One interviewee illustrated this with: “If you go for a piss and you flush it down the toilet it still looks like piss. But people love it.” So far, the water company did not receive any negative feedback by customers.

The added value of the third pipe system for the developer is that it enabled him to differentiate himself in the market. Despite the extra costs for constructing the third pipe system, the developer is able to sell allotments in Hunt Club very quickly in comparison to other estates of similar stature. This has a positive effect on his balance. Furthermore, the developer hopes it makes sense on the long term by doing more sales in the future because of an improved position in the market.

• Location characteristics: The fact that a trunk pipe with recycled water was passing the Hunt

Club development enabled the implementation of the third pipe system. According to several interviewees, the third pipe system would never have been implemented if this would not have been the case, because it would be too expensive to construct. The availability of scale has also been mentioned by one of the interviewees as an enabling factor, because this makes it possible that the costs for infrastructure can be divided over many allotments.

• State of the technology: Although the technology of third pipe systems was new for the

stakeholders of the Hunt Club development, most of the stakeholders had trust in the technology. The interviewees indicated that the technology was available and well established. The reason for this is that the stakeholders had learned from experiences in Sydney and Adelaide where third pipe systems already had been implemented at the time before the development in Hunt Club. Only the health regulators were reluctant. According to an interviewee of the Department for

101 Note: In Melbourne, water meters should be located within 1m of the border of the allotment and easily accessible from the public space. 102 Source: PIC (2005) 103 Source: DSE (2004)


Human Services (DHS), the approach of DHS is based on validation of existing techniques. This means that although membrane filtration has existed over 20 years according to developers, it still has to be validated because the third pipe system is a new product for Melbourne that may affect public health.

A guideline for recycling sewage has been developed in 2003 by the Environmental Protection Agency in consultation of the water authorities, developers, planners, local councils, Department of Sustainability and Environment and DHS based on technical working groups.104 The development of this guideline was initiated by the development of the third pipe system in the Aurora Estate (see Chapter 4.4) and was completed before the Hunt Club scheme was initiated. The existence of guidelines enabled the developers and water company to develop the third pipe scheme easier. One of the interviewees explained that in contrary to guidelines for recycling of sewage, guidelines for recycling of grey water and stormwater do not exist yet. According to this interviewee, this may result in reluctance of developers to take action, because they do not know what the requirements are, or it may result in developers constructing schemes to insufficient standards that could lead to health risks and/or environmental risks, or unnecessary over dimensioning of the system, meaning inefficient use of capital.

Disabling factors: • Costs: All interviewees agree on the fact that the biggest barrier for third pipe systems is that they

do not pay for themselves. In the case of the Hunt Club, both the developer and the water company pay a part of the infrastructure of the third pipe system. The water company introduces the recycled water to a certain point in the estate, from where the developer pays for the connections with the allotments. The costs for the water company are not being fully covered by the return of the sales of recycled water. The price of recycled water is equal to the lowest tariff for drinking water: $0,81/m3. This price results in a small saving on the water bill for customers and does therefore not cover the additional costs for the third pipe network. This is acknowledged by the Victorian Government who is also prepared to finance a part of the additional costs. The rest of the extra costs that the water company makes will be charged to the whole service area of the water company. According to the water company this is fair, because the whole community benefits from a lower water consumption. The extra costs that the developer makes for connecting to the recycled water supply are directly being charged in the price of the allotments. A solution that is mentioned by some interviewees is that water companies should increase the price for drinking water to make third pipe schemes financially viable.

• Limited capacity of plumbers: The interviews revealed that most plumbing companies are small

companies with a small number of employees and limited capacity. This has been identified as a reason for the fact that plumbers accept change slowly. The plumbers are not happy with the third pipe systems, because this new technology demands time and extra effort. The three plumbing inspections that have to be executed for every connection to the recycled water network result in a logistical problem for the plumbers. For each inspection the plumber needs to ring a designated phone number to make an appointment for the checks. To gain more understanding about third pipe systems, the Plumbing Industry Commission educates the plumbers with meetings, brochures and letters.

• Operation phase: At the moment of interviewing, all stakeholders have trust in the technology

and are not afraid for cross-connections, because the system is constructed by certified plumbers and tested three times before use. However, the interviewees also admitted that there has been no anticipation yet for the upgrading of houses with recycled water. Upgrading of houses does not necessarily have to be done by certified plumbers, but can also be done by handymen without certifications. Several interviewees think that this may increase the risk for cross-connections, while one interviewee believes the purple colour should be enough at all times to prevent cross-connections.

104 Source: EPA (2003)


46

Prospects for the supply of recycled water based on the Hunt Club case: Most interviewees indicated that it would be too expensive to retrofit existing urban areas with third pipe systems. It is only considered feasible in new residential subdivisions. On 15 January 2007, shortly after conducting this case study, the Victorian Government announced that more than 40.000 new homes in the growth area between Cranbourne and Officer will be mandated to connect to the Eastern Irrigation Scheme for the supply of recycled water. The use of recycled water is regarded as a key part of the Government’s plan to secure Melbourne’s water supplies.105 Some interviewees have discussed the possibility of mandating in the interviews. They agreed it is one way to make supply of recycled water more mainstream practice. However, they also had some concerns about mandating water recycling schemes. At first, several interviewees had the opinion that mandating connection to recycled water is a sign of weakness. It means that water recycling is not an accepted norm yet. Even the connection of households to the drinking water network is not mandated, although it is unimaginable that households are not being connected to the drinking water network. At second, according to the interviewees the economics should be resolved first before it will successfully be implemented. They say that it will never come of the ground if there is a financial disadvantage between participants, not even if it is mandated. At third, widespread implementation of recycling schemes would be streamlined if the three metropolitan water companies were using the same approach towards recycled water. The developers and builders are complaining that each water company has different approaches and different requirements for recycled water schemes. This causes uncertainty for the developers and builders about the requirements they have to meet. At this moment the main focus is towards recycling of sewage. In general, recycling of grey water is regarded as too risky for public health. Recycling of stormwater for domestic purposes is regarded unsuitable because the availability of stormwater is irregular. However, there are some initiatives with the use of rainwater. For example, the Aurora Estate (see Chapter 4.4) includes rainwater harvesting systems at allotment scale.

105 Source: Minister for Water (2007)


4.4 Case study Aurora Estate (Epping North)

Figure 4.9: Impressions from Aurora Estate, Epping North Introduction: The Aurora Estate in Epping North is a residential development under construction of approximately 650 ha and 10.000 lots (see also Figure 4.9).106 The estate is developed as a demonstration for sustainable urban design, including relatively high dwelling densities, energy efficient homes, public transport, social infrastructure, the implementation of fibre optic connections to each home and the implementation of water sensitive design features. The topography of the area is undulating and located on newer volcanic plains and consists of basalt plain interspersed with stony rises. A few small watercourses are running in the north south direction. The site also consists of cleared pastures scattered with remnants of red gum woodland. It contains remnants of native grassland, but this is severely degraded by weeds.107 Initiative: By the end of the 1990s, the former Urban and Rural Land Corporation (now VicUrban after a merger with the Docklands Authority) was looking for a new benchmark for sustainable urban design after completion of Roxburgh Park Estate, which was a benchmark for sustainable building in the 1980s and 1990s. In its search for a new benchmark for sustainable urban design the developer of Aurora Estate found the area of Epping North most suitable. At that time, Epping North was located between two growth corridors (Hume and Whittlesea) that were designated by the Victorian Government. However, Epping North was considered more suitable for development than the top ends of the Hume and Whittlesea growth corridors because it was closer to the existing public transport system, the area had less environmental value and the land was affordable. At this moment, Epping North is also one of the growth areas that are determined in Melbourne 2030. The area had no existing infrastructure, was affordable, had low environmental value and was relatively close to the existing public transport system. In 1998 the developer started land procurement procedures in Epping North. At that time the area was not serviced with any infrastructure before development. Because no infrastructure existed at the location, various options were considered to service the area in 1998. For one of the first times in urban development in Melbourne externalities were taken into account. It appeared that the construction of a new sewage treatment system, that also could provide Class A recycled water for outdoor purposes and toilet flushing, was financially advantageous compared to extending the existing sewage system in adjacent areas and treat the pollution of Port Philip Bay caused by the estate afterwards (the externalities in this case are the costs for treatment afterwards). The understanding of the financial value of these externalities was the main driver for the

106 Source: Coomes Consulting (2007) 107 Source: McLean (2004)


48

development of Aurora, because it made a new treatment plant the cheapest option. The sustainability commitment of the developer and the state government amplified this driver on the background. WSUD Goals: For the (conceptual) design of Aurora Estate the developer has adopted the Ecological Sustainable Development (ESD) principles (see also Chapter 4.2: Case study Melbourne Docklands). For Aurora these principles include the following components: water, housing density, energy use, public transport, social infrastructure, and information technology. Water Sensitive Urban Design principles were used to minimise the impact on the environment and meet the demands of the water component of the ESD principles. It was aimed to create a new WSUD benchmark that considered water supply, wastewater and stormwater as integral streams. The built form was included in the strategic planning of the project and WSUD techniques applied at the estate level, streetscape level and allotment level. The WSUD goals for Aurora were108:

• to minimise the amount of potable water imported to the site • to minimise the amount of wastewater generated from the development • to maximise the use of recycled wastewater • to maximise the use of rainwater for those end uses not considered acceptable to be supplied

by recycled water • to minimise the stormwater pollutant loads discharge from the site • to implement mimicked natural stormwater flows

In August 2006 a Sustainability Covenant is signed by the EPA Victoria, the developer, the water company and the local council. In this statutory agreement, which is formed under the Environmental Protection Act 1970, the actors agree to work together to increase the efficiency with which resources are used in Aurora and reduce the ecological impact of Aurora.109 In the Covenant for example the commitment of the developer to implement water saving appliances and WSUD features is determined. Relatively high dwelling density: Part of the sustainability principles for Aurora is achieving high dwelling densities in order to keep Melbourne as compact as possible. Therefore, the dwelling densities are significantly higher in the Aurora Estate than in other residential subdivisions across Melbourne. In Aurora the average dwelling density in the built area is 22 dwellings per hectare.110 The Victorian Government aims in Melbourne 2030 for 15 dwellings per hectare in new residential subdivisions, which is already higher than the average dwelling density in older residential subdivisions. The water system: Within the urban design of a relatively high dwelling density, the water system in Aurora is designed to meet the WSUD goals that are described above and consists of three important parts: demand management, wastewater treatment and re-use, rainwater harvesting and stormwater treatment. The indoor household demand is being reduced with 26% to 130 l/person/day by the implementation of water saving fittings and appliances in comparison to the average water demand. 111 This water consumption is being used in a water balance model called Aquacycle to calculate the water demand of the estate for different scenarios over a twenty year historical period using a daily time step to simulate the actual inflows and outflows of the system, including rainfall, evaporation, storage, irrigation and household demands. Aquacycle is being developed by the Co-operative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology to investigate the use of locally generated stormwater and reclaimed 108 Source: McLean (2004) 109 Source: EPA Victoria (2006) 110 Source: McLean (2004) 111 Source: McLean (2004)


water as a substitute for imported water.112 Figure 4.10 shows the water balance at the estate level of Aurora.

Figure 4.10: Water balance of Aurora at the estate level (Source: McLean (2004)) The water balance shows that potable water supply is partly being substituted by recycled water, raintank water and stormwater runoff in WSUD streetscape features. If this substitution is added to the demand reduction that can be achieved through household demand management, the volume of imported potable water can be reduced by 70% in comparison to a conventional development.113 Supply of recycled water: Recycled water is being supplied to each household in Aurora by a third pipe system. The third pipe system in Aurora is different to the third pipe system of the Hunt Club Estate, because the source of the recycled water comes from the development itself. A wastewater treatment plant, which is built near the Aurora development treats the wastewater of Aurora to Class B water. This is standard treatment of wastewater in Melbourne. After the first treatment step, the water is stored in a reservoir (dam) with a capacity of ca 300 ML before it is treated to Class A water. The Class A water is distributed through the third pipe system for outdoor purposes (gardening and car washing) and toilet flushing. With the storage reservoir the system has at all times sufficient resources to provide enough water when the demand is high (in summer). For the reticulation of the recycled water a similar system is used to the third pipe system in the Hunt Club Estate, including purple pipes, appliances and fittings, removable taps, warning signs etc. However, the water company uses a slightly different approach and requirements towards the development of the system than the water company in the Hunt Club Estate. For plumbers this means that some technical details have to be constructed differently.

112 Source: Mitchell (2000) 113 Source: McLean (2004)


50

Rainwater harvesting: Next to a connection to the third pipe system is every home supplied with rainwater harvesting systems that collect rainwater from roofs and store this in rainwater tanks with an operational capacity of 2.300 litres.114 The rainwater tanks are located underground and do not require any garden space. Before the rainwater is being used for domestic hot water use115 it is treated with a first flush device and UV disinfection unit. Rainwater harvesting systems have been tested in 2003. This test provides an indication of the likely Aurora environment in 10 to 15 years time and has produced optimistic results. Collection of rainfall of roofs is a technology of over 3000 years old. In Australia the use of rainwater tanks is an established technology and common practice in rural and remote areas. Regulation and guidelines exist for the use of this technology. In 2004 in Victoria, 13% of the households had rainwater tanks (3% in Melbourne and 36% of all households in the rest of Victoria), of which 11% used rainwater as the main source of drinking water.116 Stormwater treatment: Stormwater treatment features are being incorporated on different scale levels throughout the estate. The stormwater treatment features at the different level all function in similar ways: a soil passage before discharge of the runoff to the main stormwater drain. At the allotment level, raingardens that are located in back yards provide treatment of stormwater runoff from allotments before this is being discharged to the rear easement drain (see Figure 4.11). According to McLean (2004) typically 50% of stormwater runoff from allotments discharges to rear easement drains, which is a limitation for the ability of treatment features at streetscape level to sufficiently treat stormwater runoff. Without the incorporation of raingardens an end-of-line measure would be required to meet the treatment targets of Clause 56 (removal of 45% of total nutrients and 80% of suspended solids).

Figure 4.11: Raingardens in Aurora: photograph (left) and cross-section (right, Source: VicUrban (2007c)) At the streetscape level, vegetated swales and bio-retention strips provide treatment before discharge to the main stormwater drain (see Figure 4.12 and Figure 4.13). Vegetated swales treat road runoff, while the bio-retention strip in Figure 4.13 treats runoff from a car park. Besides removal of suspended solids and nutrients the bio-retention features at streetscape level are also capable of removing hydrocarbons and heavy metals. The WSUD features at the streetscape level are being designed for a

114 Note: In Australia a difference is being made between stormwater run-off and rainwater. Rainwater is precipitated water that is collected from roof surfaces. Stormwater run-off is precipitated water that has been flowed over other paved and unpaved surfaces, such as streets. 115 Note: In Australia hot water systems that provide hot water for cooking are existing in most kitchens. 116 Source: Australian Government (2004)


five year Average Return Interval (ARI). This is equal to the ARI that is used for the design of the streets.

Figure 4.12: Vegetated swales in Aurora: photographs (above) and cross-section (below, Source: VicUrban (2007c))

Figure 4.13: Bio-retention strip behind a car park in Aurora


52

Enabling factors: • Sustainability: The developer of Aurora wanted to create a new benchmark for sustainability. An

important aspect of sustainability in Aurora is reducing the water demand of the estate and minimising the pollution load from the development towards receiving waters. Also the Victorian Government and the water authorities had sustainability on the agendas. However, the sustainability driver was sitting on the background for the uptake of the third pipe system. The real driver for the uptake of the third pipe system was the lack of infrastructure at the site and the necessity to service the area.

• Location characteristics: The location characteristics determined that the Epping North was

chosen for the demonstration project for sustainable development. The location of Epping North for the development was favoured above the growth corridors of Hume and Whittlesea, because it was closer to the existing public transport system, had less environmental value and was affordable land.

The fact that the area was lacking infrastructure offered an opportunity for the installation of a new sewage treatment plant that could produce recycled water, because the area had to be serviced somehow. Two options were considered: connection to main sewer pipes in nearby areas, or installation of a new sewage treatment plant. Because of the acknowledgement of externalities (see below) the latter would be cost neutral and contribute to the sustainability drivers of reducing water demand and minimising environmental impact.

Furthermore, the availability of scale at the location was essential to keep the cost per allotment relatively low by dividing the extra costs for the third pipe system over many allotments. The cost of the treatment plant is relatively independent to its size.

Finally, the possibility to expand to future development increases the operational flexibility for the water company.

• Acknowledgement of externalities: For the choice between connecting the new development to

the existing sewer system in nearby areas and installing a new treatment plant that could also provide in recycled water externalities were taken into account for one of the first times in urban development in Melbourne. If waste water would be discharged to Port Philip Bay, Melbourne Water would have had to remove the N and P loads from this discharge. The costs for this would have been $2,7 million. In 2001 the extra costs for uptake of the third pipe system were approximately $2500 per allotment. The acknowledgement of externalities ($2,7M) made the uptake of a new treatment plant for Aurora therefore cost neutral.

• Commitment of stakeholders: According to the interviewees commitment and support from

especially the highest management levels was important to get things of the ground. For example, the development of Aurora was initiated by the general manager of the developer who was prepared to demonstrate the opportunity for innovation. Also the upper management of the water authorities and the governmental agencies supported the development of Aurora. To ensure the ambition of the highest management levels was taken over by lower levels within the organisations, the Environmental Protection Agency, local council, developer and water company have defined this commitment in the Sustainability Covenant. Lower organisational levels were also educated about the planned concepts for the same purpose (see below).

• Knowledge, experience, trust and education: Knowledge and experience resulting in trust of

the planned technologies are crucial factors for introducing innovations in Aurora. Various interviewees have mentioned that lack of knowledge and understanding of a third pipe system and its risk has resulted in agency reluctance. However, there has been a lot of education over the last few years to address this problem. In the development process of Aurora, the engineering company played a key role in educating the other stakeholders. The engineering company put all the stakeholders around the table and informed them about the options for Aurora. This has resulted in a document with all the plans and strategy for Aurora (“Integrated Water Management”). This document is being reviewed by leading water professionals across Australia. Also experiences from Sydney and Adelaide where third pipe systems already had been implemented assisted in removing agency reluctance.


The main concern for the regulators and water company were the potential health risks. This was also the case for the rainwater for hot water systems. To remove these concerns, trail systems were implemented under conditions that are similar to Aurora. The developer got all the stakeholders together to explain the outcome of the trails. By showing it was a viable option to introduce this technology in the urban area based on test results the developer changed the perceptions towards the risk. The results of these tests are taken up in a database of the Co-operative Research Centre for Water Quality that will assist in future decisions in relation to rainwater harvesting systems.

After decision makers have decided about the implementation of innovative technologies, it is also crucial that grass roots people that have to get the systems of the ground have full knowledge. According to the interviewees, this group of people will have to deal with understanding of the technology, implementation of the system, a testing regime to monitor the system, and how to deal with events or incidents. For Aurora, the engineering company has set up an education program to educate the people that are involved with the implementation of the new techniques, such as the third pipe system and the rainwater for hot water systems. Throughout the development process new knowledge is continuously being gained. Because Aurora is being developed in several stages, developments in earlier stages can be evaluated before they are included in next stages. According to the council, especially the raingardens will be carefully evaluated, because this de-central system is impossible to control by the local council. The council is afraid that the raingardens will be used improperly by the residents, so that they will not sufficiently be able to treat stormwater runoff anymore.

According to most interviewees, reluctance because of insufficient knowledge should not be an impediment anymore, because experiences and lessons are being shared among stakeholders and there is a more co-operative approach now between the Victorian water authorities. However, the interview with the council revealed that their conservative attitude towards WSUD may be caused by insufficient knowledge and understanding of the concept.

• Robustness of the system: Robustness of the implemented systems is important to minimise the

probability of failure. Several examples of creating robustness of the implemented systems can be found in Aurora.

At first, 2 summer handovers of the water treatment assets are being used to increase the robustness of the assets. After this period it is expected that possible hidden failures of the design of implementation have been revealed. The council who takes the assets over from the developer has therefore a lower risk of having to invest extra capital.

At second, the water company who is responsible for the supply of recycled water is seeking for methods to increase the robustness of the system to prevent calamities. The water company is confident that during construction everything is fine in relation to cross-connections, but not when the handyman takes over. Therefore it is working on something that gives users a direct warning if they drink recycled water. The water company has regarded three options: - Testing of users. This is being done (once per 5 years) in Sydney and Adelaide where older

and bigger schemes are present. However the water company believes this method is intrusive towards the users and does not guarantee that someone drinks recycled water the day after the test.

- Colouring. The water company does not think this is a good option either, because colouring can cause stains and does not look good in toilets.117

- Taste (salty or bitter). The water company is working together with the industry to find a suitable substance to put in the water, so that users that drink recycled water will spit it out immediately.

117 Note: The recycled water in Aurora is not expected to be coloured in contrary to the recycled water from the Eastern Irrigation Scheme that is used in the Hunt Club. The EIS also treats industrial waste, which causes the colour. In Aurora only domestic waste is treated. This is also the case in Sydney, where the recycled water is also colourless.


54

Disabling factors: • Public perception: In the initiative phase the developer was concerned how the

market/community would react to the use of alternative water sources. In the past people of Melbourne have been proud for their closed catchments that supplied the city high quality water. According to the developer, market research removed this concern by showing that people from Melbourne are increasingly aware of the drought and the effects this has on their lifestyle. However, according to other interviewees education of the public is still needed to change views on the use of alternative water sources.

One interviewed stakeholder is afraid that the public perception towards the raingardens is such that it will lead to abandoning of the raingardens and filling in of the raingardens, because the public does not does not like the fact that the raingardens claim a large part of the (small) gardens and they do not sufficiently understand the function of the raingardens.

• Cost and cost allocation: The water company was reluctant to downsizing the potable mains,

because this would result in decreasing revenues. The water company does not regard water recycling as its core business and would probably not have agreed to pay for the infrastructure of the third pipe network if the Essential Services Commission (ESC) would not have enforced the water company to pay for the infrastructure. There is no incentive for the water company to conserving water and the value of the externalities is not fully accounted for in the financial model with fees and charges for the development. Therefore, the cost of the infrastructure is a barrier for the water company.

Various interviewees explained that the fragmented institutional arrangements do not support a holistic water management approach. WSUD integrates different aspects of water, but separate organisations are responsible for these different aspects of the water. This makes it hard to set up a fair economic model for the costs and benefits of WSUD. Melbourne Water is responsible for the bulk water supply and sewage treatment, while the water companies are responsible for the reticulation of potable and recycled water. In the case of Aurora, the water company is also responsible for the treatment of the sewage from Aurora. The benefits of Melbourne Water for not having to pay for this treatment and for receiving a decreased nutrient flow towards Port Philip Bay are not refunded to the water company who makes extra investments. One interviewee illustrated this with: “The fundamentals need to change. The water system in Victoria is too fragmented.”

• Lack of regulation and guidelines: At first EPA and DHS were reluctant to make regulation for third pipe systems, because this was never done before in Victoria. Later EPA developed guidelines for the use of reclaimed water together with involved stakeholders. Before these guidelines were available, it was unclear for the developer to what standards the system should be designed. This was a barrier for the introduction of the third pipe system, because the developer and the water company did not know to what standards the system should be designed and how should be dealt with the system.

• Operation phase: According to the local council, de-central systems like the raingardens are not

easy to maintain. Because the raingardens are being located in the private domain, it is even impossible for the council to control the system. The council is afraid that people will use the raingardens improperly, because they claim a significant part of the space in the back gardens of residents. Therefore the council argues for a more central system. The council also wants a robust system that is easy to maintain, because it is responsible for the maintenance and has limited budget. Meanwhile, the developer wants to create an attractive living environment in order to make an improved financial return. However, the local council is the planning authority and requires an extensive design which is relatively cheap to maintain, but more expensive to construct.

• Available space: According to some interviewees, in Aurora the WSUD features will have to be

implemented in an urban area with ‘European’ densities. They argue that the available space for WSUD is therefore limited.


Prospects for WSUD based on the Aurora case study: According to the interviewees, drought will play a dominant role for mainstreaming WSUD and especially water recycling in Melbourne. In November 2006 when the case study was conducted, the Victorian State Elections were taking place. Water was one of the most important election issue. When the opposition leader Ted Baillieu of the Liberal Party was asked what was the most important election issue at the time, he answered: “Water, water, water”.118 The fact that water is so high on the political agenda offers new opportunities. However, it could also result in one big solution like the construction of a desalination plant or a new dam that would inhibit further developments of WSUD. According to the interviewees construction of a desalination plant would not be a sustainable solution, because it would not encourage the community in Melbourne to consume less water. In contrary, several interviewees believe that it would result in higher water consumption, because construction of a desalination plant would decrease the sense of urgency of the public. Construction of a new dam would also not be a sustainable solution for the water supply challenge according to the interviewees, because if there is no rain it will never fill anyway. Some interviewees believe that if the drought becomes worse, probably more initiatives will be taken to implement third pipe systems. They even predicted that water conservation measures would be mandated in the near future. In reality this is in fact what happened. At the time of the case study, the Sustainable Water Strategy of the Department of Sustainability and Environment required water recycling where it was feasible. However, it is hard to define what is feasible. In January 2007, the Victorian Government mandated water recycling in all new residential developments between Cranbourne and Officer (40.000 planned homes). This case learns, like the Hunt Club case, that the use of third pipe systems is only feasible at the fringe of the urban area and possibly in large scale urban redevelopment projects, because it is too expensive to retrofit third pipe systems in the existing urban area. Also the proximity to a treatment plant that provides Class A water is an important factor. For example rainwater tanks and implementation of water saving appliances are more suitable water conservation measures in the existing urban area, according to the interviewees. Recycling of grey water has also been mentioned as a possible contribution to the supply issue for existing areas, because this does not require an extensive infrastructure as for the supply of recycled sewage. However, in general the health risk is being regarded too high by the water companies and regulators to be actively involved with this technology. Furthermore, the interviewees mentioned that a more integrated approach is needed in order to effectively manage different aspects of the water system. While urban water management is increasingly developing to a more holistic approach (WSUD), separate organisations are dealing with different aspects of water. The fact that the water companies and Melbourne Water are responsible for different aspects of the water system and there is not one organisation that is responsible for the total water cycle is being regarded as a disjoint in the holistic water management approach. The fragmented situation in Melbourne is furthermore caused by the presence of three water companies that all have their own approach. For example, the introduction of third pipe systems could be streamlined if all water companies have the same approach and use the same requirements. Developers, builders and also the Department of Sustainability and Environment, Department of Human Services and the environmental Protection Agency are keen on one common methodology. They are working together with the water companies to achieve this.

118 Source: Baillieu, In press (2006)


56

4.5 Conclusions for the Melbourne case studies This section concludes the Melbourne case studies. From each case different key lessons have been learned. Furthermore, from all cases enabling and disabling factors have been revealed. These have been converted into key elements that contribute towards the transition in urban water management in Melbourne. Key lessons form the individual cases in Melbourne: From the case of Melbourne Docklands it was particularly learned that only a good design is not sufficient for a good outcome of the development of an innovative technology. The engineering company, who made the conceptual design of the WSUD features, was the only stakeholder with full understanding about the technologies that had to be implemented by others. The conceptual design was not appropriately implemented in the urban design because lack of understanding and commitment by especially the builders of the systems. The engineering company has learned from this that follow-up and monitoring is required during all development phases to safeguard the quality of the conceptual design. Because a staged development process is being applied in Melbourne Docklands, the development authority has the opportunity to evaluate the quality of the work before the development proceeds to the next stage. This has appeared to be useful, because of the problems with implementation of the WSUD features. In this staged process WSUD is also being used to present the building sites of the developers for adjacent developments in future stages. The case of the Hunt Club Estate showed that the supply of third pipe systems offers an opportunity for developers to differentiate in the housing market. The use of recycled water is not restricted by the water restrictions that were in place at the time of conducting the case study. This means that residents will be able to remaining watering their gardens and washing their cars during times of water restrictions and therefore will be able to maintain green lawns, while the lawns of their neighbours without access to recycled water are drying out. Because a private party saw an opportunity to supply recycled water to the estate and the water company was encouraged to co-operate by State policy an opportunity was created to supply households with recycled water for the first time in Victoria. However, the technology is still cost prohibitive, because benefits are not sufficiently being refunded to the actors that have to make costs for constructing and maintaining the infrastructure. For the developer this is not a real problem, because he can charge the costs for the infrastructure in the selling price of the dwellings. However, the water company can not cover the costs of the infrastructure with the price for recycled water. Also the price of potable water is not sufficient to cover the additional costs for the supply of recycled water. Because the core business of the water company is to sell water and not to conserve water resources, the water company does not have a real benefit by the supply of recycled water, except the statutory obligation towards the State to meet recycling targets. The State Government acknowledges this problem and is prepared to finance a part of the additional costs. The cost allocation problem for the supply of recycled water is also illustrated with the Aurora case. Furthermore, the Aurora case shows that the uptake of WSUD features for stormwater treatment also causes a cost allocation problem. In this case the costs are not being refunded sufficiently to the actor that has to invest either. While Melbourne Water benefits the most from on-site stormwater treatment because it does not have to treat the water wit an end-of-line measure, the local council pays extra costs for maintenance of the WSUD features. At this moment there is no proper solution for this problem yet. With the implementation of Clause 56 that mandates on-site stormwater treatment, this conflict is expected to become bigger if it is not being addressed. The Aurora case also reveals that the fragmented institutional arrangements do not support a holistic water management approach. WSUD integrates different aspects of water, while separate organisations are responsible for different aspects of the water. Melbourne Water is responsible for the bulk water supply and sewage treatment, while the water companies are responsible for the reticulation of potable and recycled water. In the case of Aurora, the water company is also responsible for the treatment of the sewage from Aurora. The benefits of Melbourne Water for not having to pay for this treatment and for receiving a decreased nutrient flow towards Port Philip Bay are not refunded to the water company who makes extra investments.


Key elements for proceeding the transition towards WSUD: For each case study enabling and disabling factors have been listed. Figure 4.14 shows the enabling and disabling factors that have been revealed from the case studies in Melbourne. The content of this Figure answers the Research Question from the perspective of the case studies that have been conducted in Melbourne.

Figure 4.14: Enabling and disabling factors for proceeding the transition towards WSUD in Melbourne In the case studies it was revealed that most factors can contribute both positively and negatively to the transition in urban water management. For example, commitment of stakeholders can be a driver for the uptake of an innovation in urban water management, while lack of commitment can inhibit innovation. Therefore the enabling and disabling factors can be converted key elements for introducing innovations in urban water management in Melbourne that can contribute to a transition in urban water management (see Table 4.2). The key elements are divided over the macro, meso and micro level of the multi-stage perspective of the transition theory.


58

Key element Short description M

acro

leve

l Climate Drought decreases Melbourne’s water resources and drives

initiatives for decreasing Melbourne’s drinking water demand.

Sustainability Environmental, amenity and water supply drivers. Urban growth Population and economic growth result in an increased

water demand and increased pollution discharges towards receiving waters. (Re-) development of urban areas offers opportunities for WSUD.

Public perception Can be a driver and/or obstacle for innovation.

Mes

o le

vel

Knowledge and experience

Creates trust in a technology, but lack of it could cause agency reluctance.

Cost and cost allocation The barrier for WSUD that has been mentioned most often is cost. However, it seems that the real barrier is unfair cost allocation among stakeholders.

Construction, operation and maintenance

A good design does not automatically lead to a good implemented system. Follow-up through all phases is needed to safeguard the quality of the system.

Regulation and guidelines

Act as facilitators, but do not actively encourage innovation. Regulation for on-site stormwater treatment is driving mainstreaming of WSUD. Lack of regulation or guidelines can result in agency reluctance.

Integral and standard approach

The fragmented system in Melbourne is a barrier to a holistic water management approach.

Commitment of stakeholders

Is a crucial factor for the introduction of innovations as well as the quality of the implemented systems.

Capacity of stakeholders Lack of capacity of organisations has been identified as a barrier for change.

Mic

ro le

vel

(Added) value Financial, environmental, amenity or water supply values have been identified. Especially financial value is important, because most innovation is driven by private actors.

Location characteristics The location characteristics offer opportunities and give requirements for the proposed systems. This could both enable and disable innovation.

Robustness Decreases the probability of failure and therefore increases the probability of widespread uptake of WSUD.

Table 4.2: Key elements for introducing innovations in urban water management in Melbourne Key elements at the macro level:

• Climate: The drought of the last decade has had a severe impact on Melbourne’s water supplies.

This has been an important driver for the uptake of water conservation measures, like the re-use of wastewater in for example the Hunt Club Estate and Aurora, rainwater harvesting in Aurora, re-use of stormwater runoff in Docklands and many other initiatives. Many interviewees were concerned that if the drought would not remain severe, water conservation initiatives would disappear. However, some interviewees also showed concerns about what would happen if the drought would become more severe in the next couple of years. They are afraid that this could result in the development of a desalination plant that would take away the sense of urgency and result in higher water consumption. In January 2007, it was indeed announced that in 2009 the construction of a desalination pant will be commenced. The future will reveal if the concerns are justified.

• Sustainability (Environment, amenity and water supply): WSUD aims to provide sustainable solutions for Melbourne’s water challenges that are being caused by climate and urban growth. If the interviewees of the cases in Melbourne were talking about sustainability, they referred to three aspects: minimising environmental impact, creating amenity and securing the future water supply. These three aspects are drivers for the uptake of WSUD.


Since the 1960s there has been a growing environmental concern. The cases of Melbourne Docklands and Aurora both illustrate the environmental driver. The ambition for both developments was to minimise discharge of pollutant loads to receiving waters.

The amenity driver is very well illustrated by the case of the Hunt Club Estate. Access to recycled water is being used as a sales argument, because it is not subject to water restrictions and can therefore make green lawns possible in times of water restrictions. Green parklands are also a requirement for Melbourne Docklands, because this is an iconic project for Melbourne and an advertisement to the world.

Water supply is currently a hot topic in Melbourne. Initiatives with the supply of recycled water such as in the Hunt Club Estate and Aurora are a direct result of this. Other initiatives to decrease the drinking water demand in Melbourne are for example the stormwater harvesting systems for irrigation of parkland (e.g. Docklands Park) and stormwater harvesting for domestic use such as the rainwater for hot water initiative in Aurora.

• Urban growth: Several interviewees have identified urban growth as one of the post-war drivers for development of water management, because urban development and urban re-development projects require a completely new infrastructure, including a new water system. This offers opportunities for the uptake of innovative technologies. Especially in combination with the effects of the drought of the last decade, urban (re-) developments have been an enabling factor for water conservation measures to be able to meet the future water demand of the growing metropolis. Urban growth also increases the pollution load towards the receiving waterways.

• Public perception: Public perception is crucial for the success of an innovation and may even be

the incentive to introduce an innovation. In the case of Aurora one stakeholder feared that the public does not understand the function of the raingardens. Because the raingardens claim a large part of the small backyards whose owners do not understand the function of this feature, it is likely that the raingardens will be used incorrectly and their effects reduced. This interviewee related public perception to knowledge and understanding of a concept. The case of Hunt Club shows that green lawns are so appealing that the public does not complain about the yellow colour of the recycled water. Access to this water can therefore be used by the developer to make quick sales. From this case it can be derived that public perception is closely related to the sense of urgency of the public to take action. If this sense of urgency exists among the public, their perception may lead to political initiatives and can therefore be an important driver for change. The media have a large influence on the public perception because they inform the public and therefore create knowledge and understanding.

Key elements at the meso level:

• Knowledge and experience: Knowledge and experience are important factors to create trust

about a technology. The cases of the Hunt Club Estate and Aurora show that the stakeholders gained trust in the third pipe technology, because of experiences in Sydney and Adelaide.

However, lack of knowledge and experience can cause agency reluctance. The environmental and health regulators have indicated that they use a conservative approach towards innovation to safeguard environmental quality and public health. The Department of Human Services that is the public health regulator uses a zero tolerance approach towards public health risks. Developers of new products have to prove that the product meets the safety requirements of the health regulator before introduction into society, even if the technology has existed for several years.

Lack of knowledge and experience can also lead to unexpected outcomes of a design. The case of Melbourne Docklands illustrated that a good conceptual design does not necessarily lead to a well-functioning system if the people who are implementing the system are lacking knowledge and understanding of the concept. In the case of Melbourne Docklands, several examples can be given about bad implementation of conceptual designs. This has lead to loss of capital.


60

The initiative for implementing WSUD features is in all the cases taken by higher management levels. The interviewees of all three cases have mentioned that there is a knowledge gap between the initiators and the people that have to implement the systems. This has resulted in obstacles for innovation such as reluctance to co-operate by lower management levels in case of the introduction of the third pipe systems in Aurora and Hunt Club or implementation errors in Melbourne Docklands. In order to make WSUD widespread practice, a certain degree of understanding should be embedded in all organisational levels. Education can be used to increase knowledge among stakeholders and within organisations. Therefore it can be a very effective method to take away agency reluctance. In the case of Aurora education played a key role in convincing all the stakeholders about the concept. In this case, the engineering company gathered all stakeholders around the table and informed about all the options for Aurora. Eventually, this process has resulted in an integrated water management plan that was supported by all stakeholders and included a water recycling scheme, stormwater harvesting and stormwater treatment. The engineering company educated the people that actually have to build and deal with the system about all the features of the planned system to prepare them for construction, but also to prepare them to deal with possible events or incidents and questions by the public.

• Cost and cost allocation: Cost and cost allocation have been identified as barriers for the uptake

of different aspects of WSUD. Supply of recycled water is still cost prohibitive, because the benefits of water recycling schemes are not sufficiently being refunded to the actor that pays for the costs of constructing and maintaining the infrastructure. Especially the water company is not able to fully cover the additional costs with the price of recycled and potable water. The only benefit of the water company is that it meets the statutory targets for water recycling. The State Government acknowledges this problem and is prepared to finance a part of the additional costs. Also for the developer the costs for the infrastructure of a third pipe scheme are higher. However, the developer charges these additional costs in the selling price of the allotments.

Also on-site stormwater treatment faces cost allocation issues. Melbourne Water benefits from on-site stormwater treatment, because this decreases the discharge of pollutants towards receiving waters. However, councils have to pay for the maintenance of the stormwater treatment features, because they are located in the public open space of the urban area. The benefits of the decreased pollutant flow towards receiving waters are not refunded towards the council. This is an obstacle for the uptake of WSUD and at this moment there is not yet a solution for this problem. Because on-site stormwater treatment has been mandated for new residential subdivisions since October 2006, this problem is expected to become bigger.

• Construction, operation and maintenance: Follow-up through all the development phases is important to safeguard the quality of the work. Good plans or designs are not automatically translated to good implemented systems. Above, the example of the Docklands case has already been used to explain that builders’ lack of understanding of stormwater treatment features resulted in incorrect implementation and loss of capital. Therefore, according to the involved engineering company, it is important to monitor through the whole development process. The supply of recycled water will have to be monitored in order to signal a possible contamination as quick as possible. The water companies have indicated that they are confident that no cross-connections will take place during the construction phase. However, they are not confident of this after the handyman takes over and upgrades a house. Monitoring and additional measures such as adding taste to the recycled water are required to signal contamination directly. The stormwater treatment features of WSUD have to be maintained by local councils. The fact that the councils have limited budgets available for maintenance of public open space causes a risk for good operation of the features.

• Regulation and guidelines: Regulation and guidelines are being regarded as facilitating factors for developing technologies. Regulation sets targets and is therefore a measure to safeguard the bottom line. For example, with the introduction of Clause 56, which mandates on-site stormwater treatment in new residential subdivisions it is ensured that in new residential developments 45% of phosphate and nitrogen and 80% of the total suspended solids are removed from stormwater


runoff. The interviewees have indicated that in Melbourne regulation only safeguards the bottom line and does not encourage innovation. However, although Clause 56 does not encourage innovation, it does encourage mainstreaming of on-site stormwater treatment. This is an important contribution to the transition in urban water management in Melbourne, but a risk to this transition at the same time. Mandating on-site stormwater treatment forces people to implement systems that they possibly do not understand. The case of Docklands showed that especially builders have insufficient knowledge and understanding of WSUD features. Lack of understanding among builders could lead to malfunctioning systems because of wrong implementation of the designs, like in Docklands. If malfunctioning systems happen on a large scale, the technology could be blamed for this instead of the bad implementation. This could lead to abandoning of the technology.

Guidelines provide assistance for developers about how to meet requirements. For on-site stormwater treatment guidelines exist, as for the use of reclaimed water. The existence of these guidelines has created trust among the developer, water company and plumbers of the Hunt Club Estate to implement the system. Lack of guidelines, such as those for re-use of stormwater has been identified as a cause for agency reluctance to co-operate with such a technology. In the case of Docklands, where stormwater is re-used for irrigation purposes, the developer has included UV treatment measure in the water treatment scheme to make sure that the system would meet the requirements. This treatment step appeared to be unnecessary and was thus loss of capital for the developer.

• Integral and standard approach: Many interviewees have indicated the fragmented institutional arrangements as a barrier for a holistic water management approach. Separate organisations are responsible for different parts of the water system in Melbourne. For drinking water and recycled water, Melbourne Water is responsible for the bulk water supply and treatment of sewage, while the drinking water companies are responsible for the reticulation of water and transport of sewage towards the treatment plants. For stormwater, councils have the responsibility for drainage of catchments smaller than 60ha, while Melbourne Water is responsible for larger catchments and waterways. A holistic approach is difficult because water authorities are only responsible for a part of the water system and have their own set of objectives and interests. The Aurora case gives an example of this: the water company pays for the treatment of the sewage for re-use in Aurora. The benefits of Melbourne Water for not having to pay for this treatment and for receiving a decreased nutrient flow towards Port Philip Bay are not refunded to the water company who makes extra investments.

For the introduction of recycled water supply, it has been mentioned by several interviewees that different water companies have different approaches towards re-use of wastewater. Mainly different requirements are applied for technical details. This inconsistency makes it harder for developers to implement the ‘right’ systems, because different requirements are used for similar systems in different parts of Melbourne. According to interviewees, one standard approach would be helpful for the developers and builders of third pipe systems.

• Commitment of stakeholders: Commitment of stakeholders is important for the introduction and proper implementation of innovative technologies. For example, commitment of the developing authority and the engineering company of Melbourne Docklands has resulted in the uptake of WSUD in Docklands. For the uptake of WSUD in Aurora commitment of the general manager of the developer to establish a benchmark for sustainable development was crucial. Also the upper management levels of the other stakeholders were committed to co-operate. They have secured the ambitions in a Sustainability Covenant to ensure that lower organisational levels took over their commitment. In the case of Docklands lack of commitment of builders together with lack of understanding of the technologies resulted in construction errors.

• Capacity of stakeholders: The case of the Hunt Club Estate showed that limited capacity of

plumbers is a reason that plumbers accept change slowly. Because they have limited capacity the extra time they have to invest in education about new technologies such as third pipe systems. The plumbing inspections for third pipe systems are also time consuming and cause a logistic problem for the plumbers.


62

Key elements at the micro level:

• Added value: From the case studies can be learned that the success of an innovation is dependent of its added value. Innovation in Melbourne is mainly driven by private actors. Therefore it is crucial that there is a business case for the developer to introduce innovations. However, the added value of the studied cases cannot only be expressed as financial benefits, but also as less environmental impact, increased amenity and as contribution to the water supply challenge.

In the Docklands case the uptake of WSUD decreases pollution loads towards the Victorian Harbour, decreases drinking water demand for irrigation of Docklands Park and it creates amenity in the public open space. The added amenity creates financial value for the developers and the developing authority, because it increases the value of land. Another financial driver for WSUD in Docklands is the fact that it is cheaper to treat stormwater runoff before discharge towards the Victorian Harbour instead of cleaning Victorian Harbour afterwards. In the Hunt Club Estate, the developer is able to sell the allotments quicker because of the access to recycled water in times of water restrictions. Another value for the developer is in terms of PR, because the development of a recycled water scheme gives him a ‘greener’ image. The fact that the scheme contributes to decreasing the drinking water demand is a reason for the water company to co-operate.

For Aurora it was one of the first times that the value of externalities was acknowledged. This made the water recycling scheme cost neutral, because the water recycling scheme causes a lower pollution load from the site towards Port Philip Bay. Other values of the system in Aurora are off course, lower drinking water consumption and a decreased environmental impact.

• Location characteristics: Location characteristics provide opportunities and requirements for the

water system. In the cases of Aurora and the Hunt Club Estate the locations offered opportunities for the supply of recycled water to the developments. In Aurora, there was no infrastructure in the near surroundings of the development. This offered an opportunity for the construction of a waste water treatment plant that could produce Class A water. In the Hunt Club Estate the proximity to the trunk water pipe that transports Class A recycled water made the third pipe scheme an attractive opportunity for the developer to build. In general, it has been identified by many interviewees that the development of third pipe systems is only feasible in urban developments at the fringe of the urban area in the proximity to recycled water mains or a treatment plant that produces Class A water.

• Robustness: Robustness of an implemented system is important to minimise the probability of

failure and therefore for increasing the probability of widespread uptake of the technology. From the case studies several examples can be given that increase the robustness of the implemented systems. Firstly, the two-summer handovers in Aurora and Docklands make the implemented systems more robust, because hidden failures will probably be revealed after a period of two summers. The probability that the council responsible for maintenance has to invest additional capital to correct hidden failures is therefore smaller. Secondly, in the case of Aurora the water company is assessing methods of increasing the robustness of the third pipe system such as adding colour, or taste to the recycled water.


CHAPTER 5: TRANSITION ANALYSIS MELBOURNE 5.1 Introduction This chapter describes the transition in urban water management that has been taking place in Melbourne since the mid-1960s. The case studies only offer an insight in current developments in urban water management in Melbourne. Therefore, a brief summary of the historical analysis of the transition for Urban Stormwater Quality Management that is made by Brown and Clarke will be used to give a historical overview of the transition and complement the findings of the case studies. Also some additional interviews with urban water experts in Melbourne (see Appendix A: List of interviewees Melbourne) and the description of the context have been used to complement the findings of the case studies. 5.2 Melbourne’s transition from the multi-level perspective Figure 5.1 shows the pathway of the Urban Stormwater Quality Management transition of Melbourne according to Brown and Clarke (2007). Brown and Clarke have divided the transition in four phases: (1) seeds for change; (2) building knowledge and relationships; (3) niche formation; (4) niche stabilisation. Below a brief summary of the transition of urban stormwater quality management that is described by Brown and Clarke is presented.

Figure 5.1: The urban stormwater quality management transition of Melbourne from the multi level

perspective (Source: Brown and Clarke (2007)) Phase 1: Seeds for change (1965-1989) In the first phase of the transition identified by Brown and Clarke, rapidly growing social activism in a period of “world wide awakening to environmentalism”, which challenged the government to improve the protection and rehabilitation of waterways and their passive recreation opportunities, destabilised the traditional waterway management approach. This macro-driver stimulated a number of key events and developments at the micro level that seeded the urban stormwater quality management transition. Phase 2: Building knowledge and relationships (1990-1995) Within the existing institutional regime at the meso-level a new institutional working space (the relationship between Melbourne Water and the CRCs (see Chapter 3.3) was developed during the second phase that has been described by Brown and Clarke. Also, innovation of new activities and technologies emerged at the micro-level. The new working space acted as protective space with the focus on advancing learning and shielding the emerging research towards on-site stormwater treatment and associated technologies (such as gross pollutant traps and stormwater treatment wetlands) from the then mainstream technologies. Phase 3: Niche formation and integration with other niches (1996-1999) According to Brown and Clarke, a strong and active connection between key stakeholders at the meso-level and the technological research and development activities at the micro-level were the base of the formation of a new niche for urban stormwater quality management. The protective space at the meso-level expanded with new relationships and co-ordination extended to include developers, planners and some local government authorities. The establishment of a nitrogen target and the subsequent creation of a stormwater interagency committee, the production of best practice guidelines


64

that were incorporated into policy, rapidly emerging science and its practical demonstration and additional strategic funding opportunities collectively galvanised the formation of the niche. Also during this period, urban stormwater quality management was reframed to water sensitive urban design. This illustrates the integration with other niches, because water sensitive design does not only include stormwater quality management, but is a holistic water management approach that also includes water supply aspects such as the uptake of alternative water sources (see also Chapter 3.7). This change is caused by the widespread acknowledgement of climate change in the end of the 20th century and the drought that started in 1997. In 1997 the impact of the drought was not as influential as several years later, because at that time the reservoirs were completely full. However, the ongoing drought has reduced the storage in the drinking water reservoirs to less than 30% of the capacity in 2007.119 Phase 4: Niche stabilisation (2000-ongoing) During the fourth phase described by Brown and Clarke urban stormwater quality management is attracting important institutional legitimacy. This is recognised now, but not fully integrated into the mainstream priorities of all dominant stakeholders at the meso-level, such as local governments. The stabilisation of the niche was supported through a range of activities such as: a strategic state-wide funding source dedicated to funding stormwater quality management practices; the development of an assessment tool for designers, planners and regulators; the launch of the first national WSUD conference series; the production of local, state and national guidelines; an innovative market-based offset scheme and dedicated industry training. Finally, mandating WSUD in all new residential subdivisions in Clause 56 (see also Chapter 3.4) of the Victoria Planning Provisions (October 2006) was an important component of the stabilisation of the urban stormwater quality niche. Although stabilisation of the niche has been taking place since 2000, the niche for urban stormwater quality management is not stable yet. Brown and Clarke describe that if a niche is stable it is able to withstand threats from other issues in the water sector that may result in re-direction of resources and/or professional interests away from the niche. An example of such a threat could be the niche for alternative water sources that is gaining more momentum by the persisting drought and essentially reinforces the already established institutional value of providing water supply security. However, all three cases show that the uptake of alternative water sources is being supported by on-site stormwater treatment features. In the case of Melbourne Docklands, stormwater treatment takes place before the stormwater run-off can be used for irrigation of Docklands Park. In the case of the Hunt Club Estate, the wetlands have to treat the increased nutrient load that is caused by the use of recycled water. And finally, in the case of Aurora the holistic water management approach also seems a viable option. These three cases show that stormwater quality management and alternative water resources can reinforce each other instead of being a threat to each other. However, the case studies show that the transition to WSUD has indeed not been completed yet. Most interviewees agreed that the on-site stormwater treatment aspect of WSUD will become widespread practice in the future and that the Clause 56 amendment is an important contribution towards mainstreaming. A possible threat that is illustrated by the Docklands case is the fact that implementation errors of WSUD features because of lack of experience or commitment of the builders, could cause people to walk away from WSUD because they blame the technology and not the implementation. The fact that this particular issue is being identified as a threat for WSUD shows that knowledge about the technology is not yet well-entrenched among builders and developers. Another issue that shows that the transition towards WSUD has not yet stabilised is the fact that there is discussion about cost allocation of maintenance of on-site stormwater treatment features. This indicates that the regime has not yet found a way to deal with the changed practice that is supported by all stakeholders. The niche for the uptake of alternative water sources has not stabilised either. This niche is driven by the persisting drought and climate change prospects that affect Melbourne’s long term water supply security. From the case studies it can be derived that this niche is currently early in the take-off stage in Melbourne. At this moment third pipe systems have only been implemented at a few developments. The case studies revealed that it is not likely that these systems will be implemented in existing urban

119 Source: Melbourne Water (2007)


areas, because it would be too expensive to retrofit existing infrastructure. However, the interviewees of the three cases agreed that third pipe systems could be an option for new urban developments if the economics are resolved. According to the interviewees, cost allocation of third pipe systems is at this moment is unfair, because the benefits are not going to the stakeholders who have to pay for the costs. This conflict requires a shift in the regime. Another indication that recycled water schemes are in the take-off stage is that the three water companies are all using a slightly different approach towards the implementation of such schemes. At this moment, the Department of Sustainability and Environment is working together with the water authorities and regulators to achieve a more integral approach. At the time of conducting the case studies, recycling of sewage is dominant in comparison to other alternative water sources. The case of Melbourne Docklands gives an example of stormwater harvesting, but this is not regarded as a good solution at large scale because the supply of stormwater run-off is not as continue as the supply of sewage. There are also concerns about a health risk for re-use of stormwater run-off amongst regulators. This is also the case for re-use of grey water. In January 2007, the Victorian Government announced that supply of recycled water will be mandated for more than 40.000 homes in the growth area between Cranbourne and Officer. It is likely that this measure will lead to the next transition phase (acceleration) for the alternative water sources niche in Melbourne. The case studies have revealed that the niche of alternative water sources receives much more attention than the stormwater quality niche, because the community of Melbourne is at this moment more aware of the effects of the water supply challenge than the effects of the water quality challenge. The drought has resulted in water restriction and people are affected directly by the effects of this, because they are not allowed to water their gardens anymore. In November 2006, water supply was the main election issue for the Victorian State Government Election. Because the niche for alternative water sources in not yet well-entrenched, an important question is what would happen if the drought, which is the main macro driver for alternative water sources, stops or becomes worse. At the moment the awareness of the public and politicians about the effects of the drought is high, but there is a risk that the attention will fade and initiatives with alternative water sources disappear. If the drought endures, it is likely that more initiatives for alternative water sources arise. On the other hand there is also a risk for the supply of recycled water if the drought endures or becomes worse and politicians choose large solutions such as the construction of a desalination plant. The risk of the construction of a desalination plant could be that the sense of urgency of the public for water conservation fades. This could result in high water consumption per capita and therefore does not offer a solution on the long term. It can be concluded that at this point the transition in urban water management consists of the developments of two niches. The niche of stormwater quality treatment is stabilising, while the niche for alternative water sources is gaining more momentum. Brown and Clarke describe that the niche of alternative water sources could be a threat for the stormwater quality niche, because the stormwater quality niche has not completely stabilised yet. However, the case studies show that the two niches can also reinforce each other. This could be the start of a new transition in urban water management in Melbourne towards a water management approach that integrates different aspects of the water cycle. The interviewees of the case studies indicated that a more integrated approach towards urban water management is needed to effectively manage different aspects of the water system. The concept of WSUD has evolved to a more holistic approach on the micro level, but now the institutional arrangements (regime) have to follow this development to be able to facilitate implementation of the concept of WSUD in the future. Transition pathway Figure 5.2 illustrates the transition pathway from the multi-level perspective. The transition in the Melbourne is configured by a transformation pathway that is followed by a de-alignment and re-alignment pathway. The transformation pathway was triggered in the 1960s by an increased environmental awareness at the macro level (disruptive change) and events and developments at the micro level. However niche innovations at the micro level were not yet established and could not replace the existing regime. Persisting environmental awareness and developments at the micro level resulted in modifications in


66

the regime and the establishment of a protective space for the development of USQM features in the early 1990s. After this protective space had emerged, demonstration of stormwater treatment rapidly expanded. The drought that started in 1997 (shock change) and the worldwide increased awareness about climate change (disruptive change) triggered a de-alignment and re-alignment pathway in the late 1990s, because these developments made clear that the existing regime could not sufficiently secure Melbourne’s long term water supplies. The case studies revealed that the state of technology for the supply of alternative water sources was not regarded as a barrier at that time, because in the 1990s a number of major water recycling projects was already initiated in other parts of Australia. However, a shift in the regime was needed first to enable the uptake of water recycling in Melbourne. It lasted until October 2006 that the first homes were supplied with recycled water. The drought and climate change driver did not only trigger the uptake of alternative water sources, but is also causing the evolution of the USQM transition into a holistic water management approach.

Figure 5.2: Melbourne transition pathway from the multi-level perspective (adapted from Geels and Schot

(2007)) 5.3 Melbourne’s transition from the multi-stage perspective Melbourne’s urban water transition consists of two components. Firstly, there is the Urban Stormwater Quality Management (USQM) component that represents a shift towards more ecologically oriented water management. Secondly, there is the Alternative Water Sources (AWS) component that represents the shift to a more holistic water management approach. Figure 5.3 shows the transition curve for the transition of urban stormwater quality management in Melbourne. Based on the description of the transition pathway above, Brown and Clarke argue that Melbourne’s Urban Stormwater Quality Management transition has been in the acceleration phase for the last 10 years, but has not reached a stable state yet (see Figure 5.3). The case studies confirm the argument of Brown and Clarke.

Figure 5.3: Possible USQM transition completion pathways for Melbourne (Source: Brown and Clarke, 2007)


Although stabilisation of the niche has been taking place, the transition itself has not reached the stabilisation stage, because the niche itself is not stable. Clause 56 mandates on-site stormwater treatment for new residential developments. Currently, DSE is working on mandating on-site stormwater treatment for all urban renewal projects as well. This would bring the stormwater quality management aspect of WSUD closer to completion of the transition. A final step could be to mandate on-site stormwater treatment for all developments, including industrial and commercial areas (see Figure 5.3). Although mandating WSUD for all developments would be an important contribution for mainstreaming Urban Stormwater Quality Management (USQM), it is not the only thing that is needed to stabilise the niche. It was identified in the case studies that knowledge among developers and builders is not widespread yet. Education of this group is therefore required to enable them to implement on-site treatment systems that are functioning well. The case studies also revealed that there are cost allocation issues over maintenance of WSUD features, because the councils have to maintain the systems while the main benefit of on-site treatment is for Melbourne Water. These need to be solved as well for completing the USQM transition. For the alternative water sources component, a similar curve can be drawn as for USQM. The transition component of alternative water sources is currently in the take-off stage (see Figure 5.4). It is explained above that the drought and acknowledgement of climate change and ongoing population growth have driven the uptake of alternative water sources to secure Melbourne’s long-term water security. This has resulted in several initiatives with the supply of recycled water and other alternative water sources. These initiatives are forcing the regime to shift, because it could not deal with these technologies yet. Therefore a set of guidelines and regulation has been developed for the use of recycled water. However, there is not one common methodology and the cost allocation for implementing and operating the systems is not crystallised either. At this moment it could be possible that the niche for AWS could enter the acceleration phase. An indication for this is the fact that the Victorian Government has mandated the uptake of recycled water schemes for residential use for 40.000 planned homes in Melbourne.

Figure 5.4: Transition curve for the alternative water sources component In Figure 5.5 the transition curves of both components are integrated into one figure. It can be seen that the transition towards USQM is almost completed, but the transition towards WSUD that also incorporates the uptake of alternative water sources and is aimed at a holistic water cycle approach is still in the take off stage, just like the diffusion curve for alternative water sources. It is important to note that the final goal of the transition cannot be known. During the early stages of the transition towards USQM it was also not suspected that it could possible evolve towards a holistic urban water management approach.


68

Figure 5.5: Urban water transition in Melbourne towards WSUD after convergence of the stormwater quality

and alternative water sources niches


CHAPTER 6: URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE NETHERLANDS

6.1 Introduction This chapter gives a brief overview of urban water management in the Netherlands. In the book Water in the Netherlands; managing checks and balances (Huisman (2004)) describes water management in the Netherlands more extensively. The Netherlands is situated along the North Sea in Western Europe, bordering Belgium in the south and Germany in the east (see Figure 6.1). The country covers a land surface of 33.883 km2(120) and is inhabited by approximately 16,5 million people.121

Figure 6.1: Map of the Netherlands (Source: CIA (2007)) Most of the western and northern parts of the Netherlands are below mean sea level. The lowest point is near Rotterdam at 6,7m below mean sea level. There is little relief in the western and northern part of the Netherlands, but in the south-eastern and eastern parts hilly regions can be found with a maximum altitude of 322m above mean sea level near the point where the borders of the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany meet. Most of the country is situated in the deltas of the rivers Rhine, Meuse, Scheldt and Ems. If the country would not have been protected by dunes and dikes, 65% of the land surface would be flooded by the sea and rivers.122 There are generally three major zones with similar top soils in the Netherlands (see Figure 6.2):

• Elevated sandy areas that are geomorphologically formed during the Pleistocene era • Areas of the most recent accretions that are covered with clayey soils • A relatively low transition zone with peaty soils

120 Note: The total land surface of the Netherlands is half the size of Tasmania. 121 Source: CIA (2007) 122 Source: Huisman (2004)


70

Figure 6.2: Major soil types in the Netherlands (Source: Alterra (2007)) Figure 6.3 shows climate data from the Netherlands. The Netherlands has a mild maritime climate with mean temperatures varying between 0 ○C in winter and 22 ○C in summer. Per year the average precipitation in the Netherlands is 754,0 mm (predominantly rainfall) and the average evapotranspiration is 562,9 mm according to Makkink calculation method. Compared to Melbourne there is not much more rain in the Netherlands than in Melbourne. However, a reason that the Netherlands is being called a rainy country is the large number of days with (some) rain. In the Netherlands it is raining 50% of all days. Generally, rainstorms are not as intense as in Melbourne.

Climate data for the Netherlands

0,0

20,0

40,0

60,0

80,0

100,0

Jan Feb Mrt Apr Mei Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dec

Month

(mm

)

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

(Cel

sius

)

Average precipitation

Average evapotranspiration(Makkink)

Average maximum temperature

Average minimum temperature

Figure 6.3: Climate date for the Netherlands (KNMI (2007)) 6.2 Urban water systems in the Netherlands Figure 6.4 schematises urban water cycles in the Netherlands. The main differences between urban water cycle in the Netherlands and the urban water cycle in Melbourne are the influence of ground water, the abundance of surface water in the urban area and the fact that Melbourne has a completely separated sewer system. Table 6.1 gives an overview of the types of sewer systems in the Netherlands.


Figure 6.4: Urban water cycle in the Netherlands (Source: Van de Ven (2005a))

Sewer system type Km mains % of total Combined 49.000 44,9 Separated – wastewater 11.000 10,1 Separated – stormwater 12.000 11,0 Improved separated – wastewater 3.900 3,6 Improved separated – stormwater 4.400 4,0 Total gravity sewer systems 80.000 73,4 Pressure sewer systems 15.000 13,8 Rising mains municipalities 5.500 5,0 Total sewer system municipalities 101.000 92,6 Gravity sewer system water boards 350 0,3 Rising mains water boards 7.700 7,1 Total sewer system 109.050 100,0

Table 6.1: Types of sewer systems in the Netherlands (Source: Stichting Rioned (2005))


72

In Chapter 6.1 it was described that a large part of the Netherlands is located below Sea Level. In these areas, water is managed by polder principles. Figure 6.5 shows cross sections of polders during dry and wet periods.

Figure 6.5: Cross sections of polders in wet (left) and dry (right) periods (Source: Huisman (2004)) A polder is an area that is protected by dikes that are located below sea level. The excess water in polders is artificially removed by pumps. Due to difference of water levels outside and inside the polder upward seepage occurs. The seepage velocity depends on the differences in piezometric level and the resistance that the flow meets in the confining layers. Often a ‘boezem’ is located between the polder and the natural waterways, which acts as a intermediate storage areas.

6.3 Institutional arrangements • National government

• Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management: The Ministry of Transport,

Public Works and Water Management is responsible for flood protection and water management. The main goals of the Ministry are to protect the Netherlands against water and to ensure secure connections of international quality. The Directorate Water of this Ministry prepares policy for water management and flood protection. The latest policy document for water is the Fourth Policy Memorandum on Water Management, which was published in 1998 (see Chapter 6.6).123 The Ministry also supervises that the European Water Framework Directive (EWFD) for surface water quality is implemented correctly. The EWFD came into effect in December 2000.

• Rijkswaterstaat: The Directorate Rijkswaterstaat is a department of the Ministry of Transport

Public Works, and Water Management. The main responsibility of Rijkswaterstaat is to develop construct and maintain main infrastructure networks. Rijkswaterstaat is responsible for the management of primary waterways124 and protection against the sea. For smaller water

123 Source: Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat (2007) 124 Note: Primary waterways are: North Sea, Wadden Sea, the large rivers Rhine, Meuse, Eastern and Western Scheldt and Lake IJssel.


systems Rijkswaterstaat supervises implementation of the water policy by the water boards and Provinces.125

• Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment: The Ministry of Housing,

Spatial Planning and the Environment is responsible for general housing, land use planning and environmental policy. For urban water management the main responsibilities of the Ministry are: water quality standards and emission standards; laws concerning air, soil and groundwater protection, waste, noise, harmful substances, radiation, Environmental Impact Statements and external safety; drinking water and sewerage; and spatial planning (land use).126 The Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment has prepared the Fifth Policy Memorandum on Spatial Planning (see Chapter 6.6). The water quality standards that are being set by the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment originate from the EWFD.127

• Provincial government

• Provinces: The Kingdom of the Netherlands is divided in twelve Provinces that have their own Provincial Governments. One of the main responsibilities of the Provincial Government is spatial planning. The Province is responsible for formulating a Structure Plan that indicates what functions can be implemented in which area. This includes residential development, commercial and industrial development, agriculture, nature, recreation and also contains a Water Paragraph. The Province is also the approving authority for Land Use Plans that are prepared by the municipalities. The Provinces can formulate policies of their own, but they must stick to policies and directives of the national Government. Furthermore, Provinces must ensure that water boards and municipalities implement national and provincial policies.128 Based on the Water Management Act (Wet op de Waterhuishouding) the Province is responsible for the Provincial Water Management Plan in which the policy framework is being determined for the execution of the water tasks by water boards, municipalities and the Province itself. Based on the Groundwater Act, the Province is the responsible authority for groundwater extraction and infiltration.129 Finally, for water quality the Province regulates and monitors the quality of surface water that has a recreational or ecological function.130

• Regional and local authorities

• Water boards: The water boards are the oldest democratic institutions in the Netherlands. In the 13th century water boards became the competent regional water authorities. After the floods of 1953, the number of water boards has decreased dramatically from 2500 in 1946 to 27 in 2007.131 The water boards are responsible for maintaining polder levels and drainage of surplus water if necessary. Furthermore, the water boards are responsible for sewage treatment, surface water quality and the maintenance of waterways. The water boards are united in the Union of Water boards (UvW). The UvW prepares common views about flood control, water management and water related issues.132

• Municipalities: The water management task of municipalities is to manage the collection and

transport of sewage through sewer systems. Furthermore, the municipality is the planning authority for urban development. Municipalities prepare Land Use Plans that determine the functions in the area. The Land Use Plan is the only spatial plan that is legally binding. Municipalities often also act as developers, procuring land and instructing builders to implement their plans. For groundwater, the municipality does not have a strict legal obligation to implement drainage in the public domain. However, the municipality is responsible that

125 Source: Rijkswaterstaat (2007) 126 Source: Huisman (2004) 127 Source: VROM (2007) 128 Source: Interprovinciaal Overleg (2007) 129 Source: Beter Bouw- en Woonrijp Maken (2007) 130 Source: Interprovinciaal Overleg (2007) 131 Source: Huisman (2004) 132 Source: Unie van Waterschappen (2007)


74

public domain does not threat public health or give hindrance to users as a result of marshy soils.133

• Drinking water companies: The drinking water sector is a privatised sector, although

drinking water companies are owned by provinces and/or municipalities. There are ten drinking water companies at this moment operating in the Netherlands. In contrary to drinking water companies in Melbourne, the Dutch drinking water companies only produce and distribute drinking water and do not transport sewage to the treatment plant (this is the task of the municipality).

• Other:

• Research: At several universities research is being conducted towards water management and hydrology. Also several research institutions are specialised in water management, such as WL | Delft Hydraulics, Foundation Rioned (specialised in sewerage) and STOWA. Foundation Rioned and STOWA are both demand-steered research organisations. All involved organisation that are involved with sewerage are represented in Foundation Rioned, including local councils, water boards, provinces, private sector and educational institutions. STOWA conducts research that is demanded by regional water authorities, such as water boards, provinces, and local councils. Living with Water (Leven met Water) is a national knowledge arena that aims to develop knowledge that contributes to creating a sustainable water system against acceptable social costs. The Living with water program is based on a suite of projects about practice that aims to be a network for knowledge among all involved actors in the water sector.

6.4 Urban development in the Netherlands Urban development in the Netherlands is a masterplanned process. National policy for spatial planning is translated by the Provinces in Structure Plans for regional areas. The Structure Plans indicate which towns and villages are allowed to grow, where new roads are planned, and which space needs to be reserved for agriculture, nature and recreation. Structure Plans are the basis for the local Land use Plans that are being prepared by municipalities. These Land Use Plans are the only legally binding spatial plans and determine the land use functions of the land. Urban development in the Netherlands is only allowed if it is incorporated in the Land Use Plan of the Municipality. Since November 2003, a Water Assessment is required for all Structure and Land Use Plans. This Water Assessment is a process of interaction to ensure that water aspects are integrated into the spatial planning process from the earliest stages onwards to prevent negative effects of the spatial plan on the water system or to compensate the effects elsewhere. In the initiative phase, the spatial planning authority and water authority inform each other about the spatial plans and the existing water system. This results in assessment criteria that are being used after completion of the spatial plans to assess the plans.134 After development of the spatial plans, the construction process of the development is ready to start. The building process is explained more into detail in Appendix F. 6.5 Pressure on the urban water system Urban water management in the Netherlands faces several challenges. These challenges are being increased by three developments: climate change, urban growth and soil subsidence. The Dutch water challenges can be divided in a water safety challenge, a water quantity challenge (water nuisance and drought) and a water quality challenge. This section explains the pressures on urban water systems in the Netherlands. Chapter 6.6 explains the urban water challenges in the Netherlands that are caused by these processes. 133 Source: Beter Bouw- en Woonrijp Maken (2007) 134 Source: RIZA (2004)


Climate change The KNMI (Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute) has created four scenarios for climate change. Each scenario forecasts:135 • increased temperatures (between +1 ○C and +2 ○C), that result in a higher frequency of mild

winters and hot summers • More average precipitation in winters (between +4% and +14%) and also more intensive

rainstorms • More intensive rainstorms in summer, but lower number of rainy days . Precipitation could either

increase (up to +6%) or decrease (up to –19%), while potential evaporation increases (between 3% and 15%)

• Increasing sea level (between 15 and 35 cm) The most important predicted effects of the changing climate on water systems in the Netherlands are:136 • Increased probability of floods of the sea, rivers and large lakes • Increased frequency of water nuisance in urban and rural areas • Increased domestic water consumption in summer periods • Increased intrusion of salt in surface waters • Salifying groundwater sources • Drying out of groundwater sources

Figure 6.6: History of sea level change and land subsidence in the Netherlands (Source: Huisman (2004)) Soil subsidence Figure 6.6 shows that while the sea level is rising due to climate change, the soil is subsiding. Soil subsidence is being caused by movements in the earth crust and human activity. The North-western part of the Netherlands is subsiding between 3 and 9 cm per century, while the south eastern part is slowly rising. Human activity has a much larger effect on soil subsidence. Drainage by ditches, windmills and later pumping stations results in lower groundwater tables, which causes subsidence of especially peat layers. Oxidation of peat soils is a result of low groundwater tables. Because of subsiding soils, groundwater tables have to be lowered further, which results in more subsidence. In areas with peat soils, subsidence of 1m per century could take place as a result of drainage.137 135 Source: Van den Hurk (2006) 136 Source: Klimaat voor Ruimte, Leven met Water and Habiforum (2006) 137 Source: Huisman (2004), Hoogheemraadschap Hollands Noorderkwartier (2007)


76

Urban growth Figure 6.7 shows urban growth in the Netherlands from 1900 until 2005. Urban areas did not only expand during this period, but the land use in those areas did also intensify. Dwelling densities of 30-60 dwellings per hectare are not uncommon in new residential areas. Within areas with these densities, space is also required for infrastructure, green and water. Competition for space puts the water system under pressure. Another effect of urban growth on urban water systems is that land use change results in increased discharge of stormwater runoff that contains higher concentrations of pollutants. Although urbanisation is taking place rapidly, the supply of new housing stock stays behind the high demand for housing, especially in the lower market segments.138 This has resulted in the fact that many houses in new residential developments are being sold early in the development phase, often before construction of the development has started.

Figure 6.7: Urban growth in the Netherlands from 1900 until 2005 (Source: De Graaf (2005)) 6.6 Urban water challenges in the Netherlands Water safety challenge Protection against floods is the oldest challenge that water management in the Netherlands had to face. Figure 6.8 shows that floods in the Netherlands can have several different causes.

Figure 6.8: Flood mechanisms in polders (Source: Kok (2005)) 1. Water nuisance that is caused by precipitation that cannot sufficiently be discharged by the

drainage system. 2. Water nuisance that is caused by a high groundwater level.

138 Source: VROM (2006)


3. Water nuisance that is caused because the capacity of the sewage system is not sufficient to discharge stormwater runoff. This could also be caused by failing pumps.

4. Water nuisance caused by insufficient capacity of the canals in the polder or failing pumps. 5. Flooding caused by inflow of water from drainage canals (In Dutch: boezem) into the polder. This

could be caused by water flowing over the secondary dikes or by failing secondary dikes. 6. Flooding caused by inflow of water from primary waterways such as rivers. This can also be

caused by extreme water levels or failing dikes. 7. Flooding of floodplains that is caused by extreme water levels. Often a difference is being made between the flood mechanisms 1-4 and 5-7. Flood mechanisms 5-7 can cause life threatening situations, while flood mechanisms 1-4 are considered as nuisance, although they can cause damage. 139 The water safety challenge is dealing with flood mechanisms 5-7. The risk of floods is being increased by climate change and soil subsidence. Water quantity challenge Figure 6.8 shows that water nuisance can be caused by extreme precipitation, seepage of groundwater through the soil or flooding waterways. The KNMI has forecasted that climate change will probably result in a higher frequency of extreme precipitation events, which increases the probability of water nuisance because of precipitation. Research of Rioned among 203 Dutch municipalities has revealed that 90% of all municipalities have dealt with recent water nuisance in the public space. Water nuisance occurred only at a limited number of locations and has a small duration. 10% of the municipalities faces large scale rainwater nuisance. According to the research of Rioned the most important causes of rainwater nuisance are insufficient drainage capacity of the stormwater drainage system or sewage system (in case of a combined sewer system), clogged street gullies, overland flow towards lowest points of the urban area and floor levels that are located to low above street level. Extreme rainfall events that have resulted in floods in the summers of 2006 and 2007 have recently caused higher political and public attention for rainwater nuisance and decreasing public acceptation for water on the streets.140 Climate change, soil subsidence and land use change caused by urban development are expected to increase water nuisance. Urban water systems in the Netherlands are not only affected by an abundance of water, but sometimes also by a shortage of water. In the late 1990s it was acknowledged that drought also is a challenge for the urban water system. Especially during the summer months there is in the current situation a water shortage in the Netherlands. This mainly results in economic damage for agriculture, but also affects the water transport sector and energy sector. The total estimated economic damage is approximately €500 million per year. Also nature is affected by water shortage.141 Climate change is expected to increase water demand during summer periods. Economic growth increases the demand for fresh water and the potential economic damage that is caused by a water shortage. During times of drought, salt water can intrude further inland with effects for ecosystems and agriculture. Water quality challenge Water quality can be decreased by physical, chemical or biological change of the water. Examples of sources of pollution of urban water are sewer overflows, leaching building materials, traffic, pesticides, litter, polluted groundwater and rainwater, leaves from trees, animal excreta etc. Urban water can also be polluted by inlet of water from other water systems which is for example polluted by agriculture. Water quality of surface water and groundwater is affected by land use change. Climate change is also expected to increase the frequency of combined sewer overflows towards surface water. In 2000 the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) came into effect. The WFD contains standards and norms for water quality of surface water and groundwater that are being integrated in Dutch legislation. The WFD has set a time target to meet the standards by 2015. To meet the targets, catchment management plans are being prepared that indicate how the targets for chemical and ecological conditions of the water have to be reached. It is expected that measures are required that concern recovery and design of surface waters, decrease pollution loads by waste water treatment plants and sewer systems, decrease emissions from agriculture and industry and other diffuse 139Source: Kok, 2005 140 Source: Stichting Rioned (2007) 141 Source: RIZA (2003)


78

sources. For councils the WFD affects spatial planning, environmental policy and investments in the sewage system.142 Strategies to face the water challenges The challenges are being addressed by many national, regional and local policy frameworks, of which the Fourth National Memorandum on Water Management, WB21, the National Governance Agreement Water and the Fifth National Policy Memorandum on Spatial Planning are the most important. Because the causes of the different water challenges are similar, there is no difference being made in the measures that can be taken to address the challenges. • Fourth National Policy Memorandum on Water Management (1998)

This policy document, which is prepared by the National Government, continues where the Third Policy Memorandum on Water Management had stopped in 1989. The Third Policy Memorandum on Water Management was the first national policy document on water that mentioned integrated water management and acknowledged that all aspects of water are interconnected and influencing each other. The Fourth Policy Memorandum emphasises the importance of integrally considering different aspects of water such as safety, salinity issues, tides, erosion, recreation, fishing industry, drinking water supply and agriculture. It also uses the stand-still and polluter pays principles. Originally, the Fourth Policy Memorandum on Water Management was prepared for the period between 1998 and 2006. However, a Fifth Policy Memorandum on Water Management has not been released yet.143

• Water Policy 21st Century (2000)

After the floods of 1995 and 1998 and the awareness of the potential impacts climate change the National Government, Provinces, Municipalities and Water boards together have developed this policy to prevent that the pressure on the water systems leads to more floods or water nuisance. Key aspects of this policy are: • Anticipating instead of reacting on water • More space for water in addition to technological measures • Using the order retain-store-drain to minimise passing on of problems to other areas An important aspect of the Water Policy 21st Century is the Water Assessment, which is a planning procedure that enables water managers to participate early in the spatial planning process (see also Chapter 6.4).144 As a part of the Water Policy 21st Century the National Government, Provinces, Municipalities and Water boards have signed the National Water Covenant (Nationaal Bestuursakkoord Water) in 2003, which describes how, with what means and on what timeframe the involved actors will deal with floods, water nuisance and drought until 2015. Spatial planning is an important factor of the Covenant.145

• Fifth National Policy Memorandum on Spatial Planning (2001)

This policy document that is prepared by the National Government on spatial planning uses water as a guiding principle for safety against floods, prevention of water nuisance and water shortage and improvement of water and soil quality.146

As a result of all the policy frameworks, a range of innovations has emerged. Figure 6.9 shows some innovations in urban water management in the Netherlands: (1) separating relatively clean flows; (2) infiltration at the ground surface through for example vegetated swales or permeable pavement; (3) underground infiltration through for example infiltration crates or infiltration drains; (4) underground storage in for example basins or crates; (5) floating constructions; (6) keeping clean water as clean as possible, for example by prevention of leaching materials; (7) stormwater treatment features such as reedbed filters, wetlands, litter traps or coalescing plate pack separators; (8) rainwater harvesting for non potable purposes. Several of these applications will be further explained in the case studies (Chapter 7). 142 Source: VROM (2007) 143 Source: Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat (1998) 144 Source: Commissie Waterbeheer 21ste eeuw (2000) 145 Source: Rijk, IPO, UvW, VnW (2003) 146 Source: SenterNovem (2007)


Figure 6.9: Innovations in urban water management (Source: Hoogheemraadschap Hollands Noorderkwartier

(2007))


80

CHAPTER 7: CASE STUDIES IN THE NETHERLANDS 7.1 Introduction to case studies in the Netherlands This chapter describes the case studies in the Netherlands that have been selected in accordance to the selection criteria (see Chapter 2.2). Table 7.1 shows the five case studies that have been conducted in the Netherlands. Case Development Function Scale Focus 1. Het Funen Brownfield Residential 5,5ha, 565 dwellings Aquaflow

2. ’t Duyfrak Greenfield Residential 20ha, 800 dwellings BSP+, permeable pavement

3a. Leidsche Rijn Greenfield Residential, commercial

2100ha, 30.000 dwellings, 720.000m2 commercial

Disconnection of paved surface

3b. Leidsche Rijn Greenfield Residential, commercial


Third pipe system

4. EVA Lanxmeer Greenfield Residential, commercial

24ha, 250 dwellings, 40.000m2 commercial

Environmental initiative, participation

5. IJburg Land reclamation

Residential, commercial


Outcome of ambitions

Table 7.1: Cases in the Netherlands Chapters 7.2 to 7.7 describe the cases, the enabling/disabling factors for each case and prospects for the future of implemented techniques and/or organisation structures. Unless mentioned otherwise, the content of these Chapters is based on conducted interviews with stakeholders. In order to keep the interviewees anonymous, references have not been included in the text. Appendix B in the back of this report shows a list of all the conducted interviews. Chapter 7.8 presents the conclusions of the case studies in the Netherlands. The conclusions will be used in Chapter 8 and Chapter 9 for the analysis of the transition in the Netherlands and for the comparison between the case studies Australia and the Netherlands.


7.2 Case study Het Funen (Amsterdam)

Figure 7.1: Artist impressions of Het Funen (Source: Breedveld Landschapsarchitecten) Introduction In the late 19th century, the area where nowadays the residential development Het Funen is located was a marshalling yard of the Nederlandse Spoorwegen (Dutch Railway Company). After the Second World War, a transfer station for a large distribution company and later a storage area for cars that were towed away was located at this location.147 By the end of 1990 a private developer initiated the re-development Het Funen. The area had a size of 5,5 hectares and was owned by the Nederlandse Spoorwegen. In 1998 an architecture firm was assigned to design an urban development plan for the area148. A year after this, in 1999, the local council and the Nederlandse Spoorwegen agreed that the land would be sold to the developer for development of the area. At the same time, the local council and the developer agreed that the developed open space of the area would be handed over for a symbolic amount of money to the local council after completion of the project (planned in 2009). After completion, the development will cover an area of 5,5 hectares including a total of 18 apartment buildings of 3 to 6 building layers that locate 565 dwellings (see Figure 7.1). The open space of the area had to compensate for the high dwelling density of the plan. Therefore a landscape architect (Bram Breedveld) was assigned to design a plan for the public space. This plan incorporated a park surrounding the apartment buildings with footpaths that seemed randomly constructed of large concrete tiles (flagstones). The board of the local council strongly supported this plan. It perceived the development as a prestigious project. A technical problem The building site of Het Funen is located on a sand layer of 2-3m above a clay and peat layer.149 Previous land use has resulted in minor soil pollution (category 1). Therefore, a “living layer” technique was applied to the development. With this living layer technique the existing polluted soil is separated from the top-layer of soil with a permeable geotextile cloth. The top layer (0,50m) consists of compost earth.150 Figure 7.2 shows the urban plan of Het Funen. The large apartment blocks that surround the plan in the south and east of the plan also contain parking garages. Groundwater flows in southern and south-western directions. The parking garages that are located under the large apartment on the 147 Source: Bram Breedveld Landschapsarchitecten (2006) 148 Source: Van Dongen (2007) 149 Source: Van Well (2002) 150 Source: Van Duuren (2006)


82

border of the development cause back flows of the groundwater.151 Drainage is therefore necessary. The water board has set a groundwater norm within the municipal borders of Amsterdam that implies that groundwater levels should not be higher than 0,90m below ground level with a maximum frequency of 1 per 2 years and a maximum duration of 5 days152. To achieve this norm, the water board does not accept the use of drainage pipes, because of maintenance of the pipes.

Figure 7.2: Urban plan of Het Funen (Source: Bram Breedveld Landschapsarchitecten (2007)) During the physical preparation of the building site, the developer put a traditional separated stormwater sewer into the ground, because he knew that drainage would be necessary in the future. However, at the time of construction of the stormwater sewer the urban plan was not yet completed. Therefore, the developer only put main stormwater sewer pipes into the ground and waited for completion of the urban development plan. The urban development plan incorporated the use of flagstones (large concrete tiles, see also Figure 7.3). According to the interviewees, these flagstones cannot be used in combination with a sloping terrain because of their size. The apparently random design of the footpaths would result in uneven connection of various footpaths. This was not desirable for the developer and the local council. The fact that a gradient was not permitted resulted on the fact that a conventional drainage system with street gullies could not be applied anymore. Therefore the local council hired an engineering company to find a solution for the problem. Aquaflow as the only suitable solution To find a solution for the control of groundwater levels and collection and discharge of stormwater, the engineering consultant compared different options (See table 7.2). The outcome of the comparison was that an Aquaflow system was the only suitable solution for Het Funen, although none of the

151 Source: Advin (2001) 152 Note: This norm is valid for buildings with ventilation spaces as is the case in Het Funen. In case ventilation spaces are not applied, the maximum groundwater level is 0,50m below ground level.


stakeholders considered it as an optimal solution. The engineering consultant advised the local council and developer to implement this system in Het Funen.

Figure 7.3: Implementation of concrete ‘Flagstones’ (Source: Bram Breedveld Landschapsarchitecten, 2006) Options for control of groundwater level

Comments

Gravel beds • Acceptable for water board, council and developer

Vertical drainage with sand or gravel columns • Many gravel columns are needed because of limited permeability. This is not considered a good option by the engineering consultant, water board and council

Soil improvement • In order to deal with the polluted industrial soil, the

developer already had planned to separate the existing soil with a (permeable) geotextile from the top layer, which is to thin for this measure.

Open water • Acceptable for water board and developer

• Not acceptable for local council, because limited remaining space for park

Drainage pipes

• This method is not acceptable for water board for all new developments in the whole area of Amsterdam

Options for collecting and discharging stormwater

Comments

Street gullies Not possible in combination with Flagstones

Aquaflow Possible, but not optimal

Table 7.2: Options for the control of the groundwater level and for collection and discharge of stormwater (adapted from Kregting (2004))


84

An Aquaflow system is a patented construction153 of permeable pavement that is located on a foundation of two layers of broken stones that are being wrapped in a geotextile (see also Figure 7.4). Stormwater infiltrates into the system through the joints between the pavement of the street (in the case of Het Funen the joints between the Flagstones). The first layer that the water has to pass exists of fine broken stones that are separated with a geotextile filter cloth from the second layer of coarse broken stones. The whole package in wrapped in a second geotextile filter cloth that separates the system with the soil. In the case of Het Funen this geotextile is permeable, because the system is constructed to discharge surplus groundwater and stormwater. Another difference of the system in Het Funen with Figure 7.4 is the lack of side curbs in Het Funen. In Het Funen the level of the Flagstones is approximately 1cm above groundlevel of the surrounding parkland.

Figure 7.4: Standard Aquaflow system (Source: Aquaflow BV) Usually, micro-bacteria are sprinkled over the two layers of broken stones for treatment of the stormwater, but not in the case of Het Funen. In Het Funen the Aquaflow system is connected to the stormwater drain that was already present before designing the spatial plan. In the stormwater drainage system it will mix with stormwater from other sources. Treatment in Het Funen was therefore not considered as useful. The Aquaflow system in Het Funen only has a storage function and a connecting function towards the stormwater drain.154 Introducing Aquaflow After the determination of Aquaflow as the most suitable solution for water management in the area, meetings were arranged between the builder, the water board and the engineering company (representing the local council) to discuss the solution. At first, there was resistance by water board towards the use of the Aquaflow system. The water board was afraid that the water system would not operate anymore after a while because of clogging. The interviewees have indicated that because the Aquaflow system in Het Funen is the first where Flagstones are incorporated, there is not sufficient knowledge available yet about clogging and maintenance procedures for this system. Furthermore, maintenance of cables and pipes is an issue for both the water board and the local council. When cables and pipes have to be replaced in the future, the Aquaflow system will have to be broken open. If it is not replaced correctly and the Aquaflow is interrupted, the system will not be able to function anymore. Despite all issues and problems for the different stakeholders regarding the implementation of the Aquaflow, the system is constructed after all. The political driver was so strong that the requirements for the public space where such that there was no other suitable option available that could meet the requirements. 153 Note: Not the whole system is patented, but only the geotextile cloth that separates the two layers of coarse broken stones. 154 Note: Various interviewed experts have indicated that treatment will probably take place, because bacteria end up in the system through inflowing water. Furthermore, the Aquaflow system acts as a filter for suspended solids and litter.


Enabling factors for introducing Aquaflow in Het Funen Several factors are identified that have been enabling the uptake of the Aquaflow system at Het Funen: • Political driver: Het Funen is regarded as a prestigious project by local politicians. They required

compensation for the high dwelling density in the area by extra quality of public space with the integration of Flagstones. The developer, local council, water board and engineering consultant all shared the opinion that the implementation of the Flagstones was not optimal for drainage measures in the area, but were forced by politicians to find a solution for this.

• Added value: Investigation of the engineering company revealed that Aquaflow was the only

suitable solution for stormwater and groundwater drainage in the area that fitted the requirement for the Flagstones. Thus, the possibility of combining Flagstones and drainage with Aquaflow has created added value over the other options that were investigated. The added value is the aesthetic quality of the public space.

• Trust in the technology: The Aquaflow system is patented by the company Aquaflow. This

company has experience with the implementation of the system in other projects. They have conducted measurements in other locations that proved that the system works. This created trust in the system and was therefore important in the decision for the uptake of Aquaflow.

• Reliability of the system: To provide extra security in good operation of the system, the Aquaflow system is over-dimensioned and is provided with a back-up measure (overflow to a conventional stormwater drain). These measures were taken to convince the water board and the local council.

Disabling factors for introducing Aquaflow in Het Funen Below the disabling factors for introducing Aquaflow in Het Funen are described: • Bad planning: The spatial plan of the public open space was designed after construction of the

two large apartment buildings with the underground car parks. During the building phase, groundwater surplus was pumped away from the building site. After completion of these buildings drainage was necessary, but there was no plan available yet. The developer put a traditional main stormwater drain in the ground, because he assumed that a traditional drainage method would be used. Meanwhile, the urban design was developed by a landscape architect that was assigned by the council. As mentioned above this incorporated the Flagstones that cannot be combined with street gullies. This created a problem that would not have existed if plans were adjusted to each other.

The choice for Aquaflow was based too much on the operation of the system. Maintenance was not discussed enough into detail. Responsibilities for maintenance were not determined sufficiently. This resulted in later stages in ongoing discussion between the water board and the local council.

• Timing of involvement: The spatial plan for the public open space was developed by a

landscape architect that was assigned by the council. The department for spatial planning of the council made the requirements for the public open space without consulting the municipal department for public space. The latter is responsible for maintenance and acted too passive in the design phase. They relied too much on the department for spatial planning and thought that testing the design afterwards would be sufficient. However, in practice it is very hard to change plans when they have been completed. The department for public space has acknowledged this problem and will provide requirements for open space and drainage in an earlier stage for future projects.

The water board was also involved too late. They probably would never have accepted an Aquaflow system if they were involved in an earlier stage.


86

• Dispute over responsibility for maintenance: Normally, the council is responsible for road maintenance. The water board has a duty of care (not a legal responsibility) for preventing of and dealing with groundwater problems in Amsterdam (and thus for drainage). The council pays the water board to commit this duty. However, for maintenance the water board considers the Aquaflow system as a road, while the local council considers it as a drainage system. At the time of the interviews there was a discussion about the responsibility for maintenance of the system. Van der Veen (2006) and De Graaf (2006) suggest that the discussion should be held on a higher management level if the council and water board do not find a solution for this problem.

• Changing personnel: Changing personnel leads to loss of implicit knowledge that is only present

with the leaving staff members. Implicit knowledge is knowledge about a project or subject that is present with responsible people, but has not been written down. It disappears every time an employee is replaced by a new employee. The new employee has to learn about the location and about the operation and maintenance of innovative technique etc. Especially at the water board personnel was changing frequently. This led to loss of implicit knowledge (understanding of the situation in Het Funen) of the contact persons at the water board, which has especially frustrated the discussion about maintenance between the local council and the water board.

• Lack of experience with maintenance: Not only the new persons are lacking knowledge. All

interviewees indicated that they do not have sufficient knowledge about the maintenance of Aquaflow systems. The interviewees have indicated that there is a knowledge gap about clogging of the joints between the Flagstones and maintenance procedures and the effectiveness of these procedures. There is no experience yet with Aquaflow systems in combination with Flagstones from other locations.

However, the engineering consultant, builder and the company Aquaflow have provided information about maintenance procedures. This is not widely accepted yet within the local council and the water board. They are saying it is not sure if it will work and what the costs will be. This is being used in the discussion about the responsibility for maintenance.

• Conflicts with cables and pipes: Cables and pipes for public services are located underneath

the Aquaflow system. The fact that cables are not being placed in one cable pipe, means that every time that these cables and pipes have to be replaced, repaired, or upgraded, the Aquaflow system temporarily will have to be removed before maintenance can take place. This means that the layers of broken stones have to be removed and the geotextile filter cloths have to be cut open in order to reach the underlying cables and pipes. After maintenance of the cables and pipes, the geotextile filter cloths have to be put in place again as well as the layers of broken stones. If the Aquaflow system is not replaced correctly, clogging due to sand intrusion into the Aquaflow system is likely to occur. Furthermore, Flagstones could break if the layers of broken stones are not replaced evenly.

It is likely that cables and pipes will have to be replaced or upgraded, because the cable company needs to put new cables in the ground when a client is asking for this, the electricity provider has a supply obligation etc. Every time they need to upgrade their network, they will have to dig the Aquaflow system open. The local council tries to avoid failing systems due to bad replacement by contracting one contractor for all future maintenance works for all public services. This is no guaranty for success, but if only one contractor does the work, he will become experienced with Aquaflow systems, which decreases the chance of bad replacement. More important, in case of a failing system due to bad replacement it is possible to hold the contractor responsible. When more contractors are doing the removal and replacement it will be almost impossible to prove who did not do this correctly. In my opinion, it would be optimal if for all maintenance works the same contractor will be contracted as the builder of this system, because he already has knowledge about the system. However, time will learn if the local council will do this.

Prospects for Aquaflow Aquaflow is an invention that has originated in the UK in the 1990s. Since then, there have been over 2 million square metres of Aquaflow systems developed in more than 750 locations. Since 2002, there have been tens of projects with Aquaflow in the Netherlands. Aquaflow is mostly installed in car parks,


and quiet living streets.155 The benefits of an Aquaflow system over a traditional stormwater drainage system with street gullies are: • a larger ability to store stormwater run-off than conventional drainage • treatment of stormwater run-off • the possibility of multiple land use (water storage combined with a road/parking lot/other

pavement) • aesthetics of the pavement (no street gullies) From the number of projects where Aquaflow is installed, it can be derived that the benefits of Aquaflow are being acknowledged with increasing frequency. However, this case has showed that trust in the system is not widespread yet. Especially, maintenance seems an issue for the stakeholders. In other words, the regime does not know how to deal with Aquaflow yet and is offering resistance. From this it could be estimated that the technology diffusion of Aquaflow is currently in the take-off stage (see Figure 7.5).156 However, it is difficult to determine the size of the market for Aquaflow systems, because the potential market is theoretically consisting of all paved streets in the Netherlands. For this reason the theory for transitions is used to estimate the diffusion of the technology.

Figure 7.5: Diffusion curve for Aquaflow To proceed on the diffusion curve, it is important that trust in the technology is increased. To improve trust in the technology, the company Aquaflow could show experiences of systems in different locations. The company is already doing this, but at the time of development of Het Funen there was no similar situation available. The Aquaflow system has never been implemented in combination with Flagstones before. Especially for maintenance a lack of knowledge has been identified amongst different stakeholders. The engineering company and builder both had some idea about how to maintain the system, but did not have any experience with it. The local council and water board are using this lack of experience as a fake argument in their discussion about maintenance. In the future, the local council will probably have to accept that it is responsible for the maintenance of Aquaflow systems. However, according to the interviewees it is not likely that Aquaflow systems will completely replace traditional streets with street gullies in the future. Firstly, they are concerned that maintenance of cables and pipes conflicts with the functioning of the Aquaflow system. Secondly, the cost of an Aquaflow system (ca 65 Euro/m2) is significantly higher than the costs for a traditional system with

155 Source: Aquaflow (2007) 156 Note: A technology diffusion curve does not have a take-off stage. However, because transition theory is used to make this estimation, the terminology from the transition theory is used.


88

street gullies (ca 45 euro/m2 for a small street in a residential area).157 Therefore it is not likely that a complete transition will take place from traditional streets towards ‘Aquaflow streets’. Despite none of the interviewees sees a big future for a widespread implementation of the Aquaflow system in living streets in high-density areas, they have indicated that it could be an option in areas where cables and pipes are not located below the Aquaflow system. Therefore, an ‘incomplete’ diffusion, which stops when a certain market penetration is reached, could be possible for Aquaflow (see Figure 7.5). The interviewees have indicated as possible locations for Aquaflow could be: • Parking areas in high-density developments that do not interfere with cables and pipes. • Streets in low-density living areas on the countryside, where there is also no interference with

cables and pipes. However, in my opinion, cost would become an inhibiting factor, because in rural areas there is enough space available for cheaper options such as for example vegetated swales.

Another possibility that is mentioned is to construct the Aquaflow system above the sewage system. In Amsterdam the sewage system is replaced every 20-30 years. Sewer pipes are located in a cable-free zone. It could be a possibility to construct an Aquaflow system above this cable free zone and replace the complete system together with the underlying sewer pipe. In this case the Aquaflow system should be written off in 20-30 years. Finally, it is likely that the diffusion of Aquaflow stops in an early stage, because it is competing with ‘normal’ permeable pavement without geotextile filter cloths (see Case 2: ‘t Duyfrak). Aquaflow will probably lose this competition, because the price of the latter is lower, while the water quality output is similar. The use of the filter cloths makes Aquaflow more expensive than the system that is applied in ‘t Duyfrak. Their function is to capture and hold the micro-organisms that are responsible for organic treatment in the system and to prevent sand intrusion in the system. According to Aquaflow, these micro-organisms have to be added to the system during the construction phase. However, according to various interviewees these colonies of micro-organisms will emerge in the system automatically by the inflowing water. They say that their experience is that gravel beds without filter cloths give the same result in water quality. Furthermore, they experienced that sand intrusion is also not an issue.

157 Note: In this case cost was not an issue, because of the political support (and finance) for the urban plan which included the implementation of Flagstones.


7.3 Case study ‘t Duyfrak (Katwijk)

Figure 7.6: Artist impressions of ‘t Duyfrak (Source: Architekten Cie) Introduction: ‘t Duyfrak is a residential development in the municipality of Katwijk (see Figure 7.6). At January 1st, 2006, Katwijk merged with the smaller municipality of Valkenburg where ‘t Duyfrak is being developed. The mayor of Valkenburg initiated the development of Duyfrak in 2002. The local council was very ambitious to show it could do one last thing for their citizens before the municipality would merge with their larger neighbour Katwijk. Duyfrak covers an area of 20 ha and will accommodate approximately 800 dwellings after completion. Before the development of Duyfrak, Valkenburg accommodated 1300 dwellings, which means that Valkenburg is almost doubled by the development of Duyfrak. However, the local council did not only have a high ambition for the size of the development, but also for the quality of the development. The ambition for the urban design of Duyfrak was that it should be a village-like estate with much open water that is directly connected with larger waterways for recreation. Furthermore, problems with (groundwater) floods had to be prevented at all cost. New developments in nearby areas faced these problems. The council was afraid that this would affect the sales in the estate. Because the local council of Valkenburg had very little capacity, it had to hire a landscape architect for the urban plan, an engineering consultant for the civil engineering work, a plan economist and a project leader for the development. The aim was to make all the important decisions for the development before the merger of Valkenburg with Katwijk.


90

Building Site Preparation PLUS (BSP+): To minimise the risk of water nuisance and therefore to maximise the quality of the estate, the engineering consultant proposed to apply the philosophy of ‘Building Site Preparation PLUS’ (BSP+) to the whole building site of Duyfrak. He advocated this very enthusiastically amongst the other players in the development. The engineering consultant experienced during his MSc research project that often tasks and responsibilities are not logically divided amongst the stakeholders158. He argued that a cost optimisation could be reached if each task is executed by the most suitable player for this task. The philosophy of BSP+ aims that the council, developer and builder accomplish the preparation of a site for building and the landscaping of a project together rather than individually for parts of the development that they are traditionally responsible for. From the start of the project it is for each task asked who is the most suitable stakeholder to take action in order to get the best result. By doing this, costs and quality of the development are optimised. The PLUS in BSP+ could be explained as the extra efficiency and quality that are resulting from optimised distribution of tasks. Building site preparation is the physical preparation of building sites before development by creating sufficient bearing capacity of the soil and accessibility of the land (see also Appendix F). The building site preparation phase is a separate part of the building process. If drainage is required on the building site, this is traditionally only installed in public space during this phase. Developers or builders that will develop the allotments after the building site preparation phase have to install drainage at the allotments before they start to develop these areas. In the case of the Duyfrak project in Katwijk, drainage is applied to the whole building site including the allotments. Constructing drainage in the complete building site in de building site preparation phase creates higher efficiency because of benefits of scale. For example, start costs for renting a crane only have to be made once. Often it is also possible to obtain quantum discount for building materials. Furthermore, production is larger on a scale higher: ca. 300m2/day for the complete building site at once instead of ca. 25 m2/day for installing drainage at allotments159. Moreover, implementing drainage at once for the complete building site maximises the likelihood of well-functioning of the drainage system. Connections between a drainage system in the public space and drainage at allotments do not have to be made anymore in a later stage, which minimises the risk of a malfunctioning system. Another important result of the BSP+ approach that is applied in ‘t Duyfrak is that pipes and cables for public utilities are being put in the ground before construction of the dwellings. Traditionally, this is not part of building site preparation, but it takes place after construction of dwellings just before the permanent pavement is put in place. The most important advantage for installing cables and pipes during the building site preparation phase is the availability of space during this phase. This method is beneficial for logistics at the building site. However, it is feared that during the construction of dwellings, the cables and pipes will be damaged by the heavy traffic at the building site. Because there are several actors at the same time present at the building site during construction of the dwellings, it is very hard to point out the responsible person if there is damage. In the case of ‘t Duyfrak the local council is responsible for the complete land exploitation. This includes building site preparation and landscaping of the public space. It receives no return from the developer before the allotments with dwellings have been sold to the new residents. The return the council receives from the developer is a percentage of the selling price of the houses. Constructing all underground infrastructure in the building site preparation phase means that pre-investments have to be made in comparison to traditional practice. The council has to invest in drainage for the whole site and will receive no return before the houses have been sold.

158 Source: Biron (2004) 159 Note: The interviewees explain the higher production by better accessibility and therefore the possibility of using larger machines that are more productive and by higher production of the workforce because of psychological reasons.


The water system: Figure 7.7 shows the plot division of ‘t Duyfrak. The estate will have a high density (40 dwellings/ha). The estate contains limited public space; only the main roads, canals and embankments will be public space after completion of the development. After completion, the water system will consist of the canals, permeable pavement with gravel beds and IT drains (Infiltration Transport drains). The canals are in connection with the small river Old Rhine that borders the area in the east. ‘t Duyfrak is located on a layer of clay of approximately 2m above sand and clay. The permeability of the soil is 0,40m/day. The drainage system is being designed with a capacity of 5mm per day (in the final stage). The building site is elevated by the soil from the excavation of the canals. Underneath the roads, sand is used to improve the bearing capacity (In Dutch: ‘cunettenmethode’). There are no crawling space applied underneath the houses. Table 7.3 shows the drainage depths, soil permeability and discharge capacity that will have to be realised after completion of the development of ‘t Duyfrak.

Figure 7.7: Plot division of ‘t Duyfrak (Source: Witteveen+Bos (2005b))

level from NAP (m) drainage depth (m) street level 0,40 0,70 floor level 0,60 0,50 garden level 0,45 0,50 water level -0,60

soil permeability 0,40 m/day discharge 5 mm/day

Table 7.3: Surface levels after completion of the development (Source: Witteveen+Bos (2005b))


92

After completion of the project there will be 100% disconnection for stormwater discharge from paved surface in ‘t Duyfrak. Furthermore, flows of stormwater run-off are being separated. Clean run-off from roofs flows directly to surface water, while run-off from other surfaces flows via treatment facilities to the surface water. Table 7.4 shows the route stormwater run-off on different surfaces will have to take before entering the surface water. Surface Route to surface water Roofs: • of houses next to surface water Via trap for leaves in rain water pipe and sand

trap at border of allotment through drains pipes to surface water.

• of houses not next to surface water After trap for leaves and sand trap discharge via drainage system of IT drains.

Streets: • next to water with embankment > 3m Surface run-off and treatment via soil passage in embankments before discharge to surface water.

• next to water with embankment < 3m Idem as for streets with embankments > 3m, but compensation for shortage of embankment by infiltration through permeable pavement.

• next to water with no embankment Infiltration of run-off through permeable pavement.

• back streets Infiltration of run-off through permeable pavement.

• main street 1 (not next to water) Surface run-off via ditch and soil passage in embankments

• main street 2 (not next to water) Discharge via improved separated system. Unpaved surface: Infiltration and discharge via drainage system

of IT drains and gravel beds. Table 7.4: Disconnecting paved surfaces in ‘t Duyfrak (Source: Witteveen+Bos (2005a)) Where possible, run-off from roofs is being discharged directly to the surface water. If this is not possible, the roofs are connected to the drainage system. The drainage system consists of IT drains (Infiltration Transport drains) that are located below the surface water level (to prevent clogging of the drains by iron oxide). The IT drains are placed in a sand bed. Infiltrated water from unpaved surface is also being discharged by these IT drains. At places where the chance of damage to the drains is large, for example at borders of allotments160, gravel beds are applied instead. Pollutants have to be removed from run-off from streets before discharge to the surface water. If possible, this takes place through a soil passage in the embankments of the canals next to the streets. During the passage of embankments pollutants are being removed from stormwater run-off. The passage is a filter layer of soil of 0,3 - 0,5m. This layer consists of a mixture of 1/3 of sand and 2/3 of compost earth (In Dutch: ‘teelaarde’). The water board requires that the minimum width of such a passage is 2m and that the minimum permeability of the passage is 0,1m/day. For ‘t Duyfrak a minimum width of 3m and a minimum permeability of 0,4m/day will be realised. To streets that are not adjacent to a canal or where the width of the embankment is not sufficient (<3m) permeable pavement is (partially) applied. Stormwater run-off infiltrates through the joints of the pavement to a gravel bed, which is located underneath the street. Firstly, a layer of fine broken stones removes heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from the water. Secondly, in a layer of coarse broken stones organic treatment takes place by micro-organisms. The gravel bed has a large storage capacity161 and functions in the same time as a foundation for the street.

160 Note: It is common in the Netherlands to build a hoarding at the border of the allotment. The foundation of the hoarding could damage an underlying drainage pipe. 161 Note: because the waterboard does not acknowledge a gravelbed as a storage facility yet, the storage capacity of the gravel bed is not included in the water storage calculations for the area.


The permeable pavement in ‘t Duyfrak differs a bit from the Aquaflow system in Het Funen (see Chapter 7.2: Case study Het Funen). The main difference is that the gravel bed is not wrapped in geotextile filter cloths. The stakeholders in ‘t Duyfrak trusted that the system without geotextile filter cloths would provide sufficient treatment (the engineering consultant says a filter cloth is not necessary to capture the micro-organisms, but that the micro-organisms will end up in the system by themselves). Furthermore, the stakeholders trust that the system without filter cloths will not be clogged by sand intrusion (this makes the filter cloth that wraps the whole gravel bad unnecessary). In places where there is the embankment is not wide enough, permeable pavement with twice the length of this shortage compensates for the shortage in the embankment. And for streets that are not adjacent to surface water at all, such as all the back streets, all run-off infiltrates through permeable pavement. The back streets are the dead-end streets to the allotments (see also Figure 7.7). These streets will be in shared ownership of the owners of the allotments adjacent to these streets. This means that the residents of these dwellings are responsible for the maintenance of the permeable pavement in the backstreets. 50% of the embankments of the canals are ‘ecological’ embankments that improve water quality in the canals. For every canal, one side of the canal is ‘ecological’. Where allotments are bordering the canal, the ecological embankment is on the public space on the other side of the canal. Minimal depth of the canals is 1,20m to maintain water quality. Because growth of algae is not expected, pumps that provide water circulation are not applied. Finally, no soluble materials like copper and zinc are being used for the construction of the dwellings and bridges to prevent leaching towards the surface water. Co-operation between council and developer: Directly after the initiative for ‘t Duyfrak was taken, the council of Valkenburg started procurement of land in the area. Meanwhile, a consortium of local building contractors and regional developers strategically acquired small areas of land as well. The ownership of small strategic parts of land in the centre of the area of the consortium of developers was the basis for a co-operation agreement between the council and the developers162. This agreement was signed after the main development plan had been developed. This timing was chosen deliberately by the council, because they wanted to secure their ambitions. The consortium of developers is established by relatively small and medium sized local and regional players in order to have sufficient capacity for developing residential projects in the region of Katwijk with a size of Duyfrak. The Duyfrak development is their first mutual project. In the future the consortium hopes to re-develop (parts of) airport Valkenburg as well. Because this is the first development of the consortium, it depends on the success of this development and therefore accepts more from councils than established developers that are not dependent to the success of one development. For example, it can be questioned if an established developer of a larger size would have accepted that the backstreets are not public space, but owned by the residents (and therefore have to be maintained by the residents as well). Enabling Factors for introducing BSP+: The overview below lists the enabling factors for introducing Building Site Preparation PLUS in ‘t Duyfrak. These factors have been revealed after analysis of the interviews with the stakeholders. • Political driver for high quality development: The initiative for the development of ‘t Duyfrak

was taken by the mayor of Valkenburg. He wanted to do a last thing the citizens of Valkenburg before the merger of Valkenburg with Katwijk. The new development did not only have to add to the housing stock of the municipality, but also have to have good quality. Minimal possibility of water nuisance was therefore an important factor.

162 Note: Two housing corporations will also develop parts of ’t Duyfrak in later stages of the development, but their involvement is limited at the moment of this study (during the first stage of development of Duyfrak).


94

• Enthusiasm and commitment: The ambition of the local council was high and the councillors

were committed to make it a success. They wanted to show that Valkenburg was not inferior to the municipality of Katwijk. Because the development is so large and has a large impact on the municipality, the councillors were highly involved. The project was placed directly under supervision of the council and councillors thought along with the staff about the development on a very detailed level. The aim of the council of Valkenburg was that all the important decisions about ‘t Duyfrak had to be made before the merger between Valkenburg and Katwijk, so that the development could not be frustrated anymore by the involvement of new people. The local council was leading in making the plan. Developers were deliberately kept on a distance at the start of the planning phase. After decisions were made about main features of the plan, a co-operation agreement was signed with the developers to safeguard the ambitions. The engineering consultant was the initiator for the uptake of BSP+ in ‘t Duyfrak. His enthusiasm and commitment convinced the council that BSP+ would result in an estate with a higher quality and that the extra costs that the council had to pay for BSP+ would pay themselves back because of this. He made the council believe in the success of the concept and had therefore a key role in the introduction of BSP+.

• Added value of the product: The commitment and enthusiasm of the engineering consultant

alone would not have been sufficient if BSP+ did not have added value. If this were lacking, there would have been no real incentive for the council to try out BSP+. The benefits of BSP+ are higher quality of the development and lower total costs for building site preparation.

BSP+ gives better quality, because at the time of construction of the drainage system, there is only one player present at the building site: the builder of the drainage system. He is not disturbed by others. He also constructs the complete system at once, so that connections at allotments do not have to be made with the main drainage at a later stage. This minimises the risk of errors. The total costs for BSP+ are lower because of benefits of scale. However, the council pays more than usual because it pays for drainage for the total building site instead of only the public space. This results in 1 Euro/m2 extra costs for building site preparation (this is an estimate, based on a study for the Haarlemmermeerpolder that is conducted by Witteveen+Bos). The benefit for the council is the higher quality of the development. The council uses the extra costs to explain the high price for land. The study for the Haarlemmermeerpolder estimates that the developer saves more than 1 Euro/m2 and probably more than 2 Euro/m2, because he does not have to place drainage at the allotments anymore. The savings for the developer are higher than the extra costs for the council, because of benefits of scale. This benefit of scale is caused by a higher production of 300 m2/day for construction drainage for the complete building site instead of 25 m2/day for constructing drainage for the individual allotments (estimate based on a study in the Haarlemmermeerpolder). Furthermore, for large quantities it is possible to gain quantum discounts for building materials and start-up costs only have to be made once if the total system is constructed at once. Placing the public utilities in the ground before construction of dwellings is beneficial for the building logistics at the building site. Public services demand an empty building site when they place the utilities into the ground. This has to do with the availability of space. After the dwellings have been constructed, there is limited space left for heavy machinery to place the main cables and pipes. All involved stakeholders, including the public services (except their plan economists) agree that placing the utilities into the ground before construction of dwellings is beneficial. However, at the moment of conducting this study, there is no estimate available for the financial benefits of placing public utilities in the building site preparation phase.

• History of groundwater problems: Experience from nearby developments (e.g. Leidscheveen)

showed that sales of houses were problematic in areas with much (ground-) water problems. This triggered the council and added up to the ambition that already existed for ‘t Duyfrak. The council required that the estate should have a good quality and that groundwater problems were prevented.


• Small local council: The project manager of the local council of Valkenburg was the only staff

member for urban development that was working at the council at that moment. He was not inhibited by bureaucracy of a large engineering department at his council. The local council hired an urban designer for the spatial plan and an engineering company for the civil engineering aspects such as drainage. This was being done with a framework contract for the duration of the whole development. The fact that the organisation was small meant that only a limited number of people had to be convinced of the benefits of the plan. After the merger with Katwijk this would not have been as easy as for Valkenburg. A larger organisation also has bigger barriers between departments within the organisation.

• Co-operation between stakeholders:

The design decisions and daily issues during the development stage are being discussed in the periodic meetings of the building team. At the start of the planning process for ‘t Duyfrak the Building Team consisted of a representative of the council, a plan economist, a landscape architect and the civil engineering consultant. The interviewees indicated that those players co-operated really well. If the experts that were hired by the municipality of Valkenburg did not co-operate as well as they did, it limited capacity of the council would have been a barrier instead of an enabling factor. One reason for their good co-operation was the positive atmosphere that existed because of the commitment and enthusiasm of the players. After the council had signed co-operation contracts with the developers for the development of 't Duyfrak, the developers were also represented in the Building Team. The meetings of the Building Team have the character of a platform for questions and discussion between the instructing party and developers (with the landscape architect and civil engineering consultant as advisors of the council). The team members know each other very well, which makes it easier to contact each other in case of a question. However, because of the later involvement of the developer there is not a real team feeling within the Building Team. The developer has the feeling that it stands alone against the other team members, because they are all hired by the council to advise and represent them. The meetings of the Building team have also been used to inform and convince the new staff of the local council of Katwijk about the development after the merger with Valkenburg. The interviewees have indicated that this resulted in a fast understanding of the new staff about the development (see also the disabling factors below).

• Contracts: The local council uses a framework contract have been used for the development of ‘t

Duyfrak with the builder for the building site preparation and landscaping of the public space of the complete project. This framework contract describes the main features of all the work for the duration of the complete project. Usually, contracts are being set up for parts of projects. For a framework contract for a complete project only one tender procedure is required instead of more tender procedures. This saves time and gives the council security about the costs (total costs can be estimates based on indexed prices). Although the main features are defined in the framework contract, the exact work and the timeframe of the of the project are not exactly known yet. This is a risk for the building contractor. The building contractor, however, is certain of a turnover of 11 million Euro in approximately the next five years (for the work of the building site preparation and landscaping). The exact work is defined in subcontracts for parts of the development that are being used as verification of the framework contract. For building site preparation in ‘t Duyfrak, the expected outcome of the work is defined very precisely in these contracts. Often, for current practice in the Netherlands, it is not defined exactly what is included in building site preparation. Often building site preparation is described in one paragraph or one A4 and only includes the activities that have to be executed, but not the quality of the work or the expectations of the awarding authority. Not defining expectations and quality can result in bad quality of developments and water nuisance after completion. The benefit of describing the work precisely in contracts is that quality can be safeguarded relatively easily. If the work does not meet the requirements in the contract, it will not be taken over by the council.


96

After the council had decided on the main features of the project, a co-operation project was signed with the developers (the consortium and two housing associations). The timing of this was chosen deliberately by the council to safeguard the ambition for quality of the development. They were afraid that early involvement of developers would affect the quality of the development.

• Relatively flexible attitude of the developer: ‘t Duyfrak is the first mutual project of the

consortium of developers. Because the future of the consortium is dependent on the success of this project, the consortium is willing to accept more than usual. For example, the ownership of the backstreets would probably have been a larger issue if an established developer would be involved. The consortium wants to be a good partner for the council, because it aims at developing more projects in the area of Katwijk in the near future. In the near future, the re-development of the Airport Valkenburg (4.000 - 7.000 dwellings) will take place.

Disabling factors for introducing BSP+: Below the disabling factors for introducing BSP+ in ‘t Duyfrak are listed. The first two ‘disabling factors’ have not been identified as real barriers by the interviewees, but as possible obstacles that could have been an obstacle under different conditions. The last ‘disabling factor’ is causing a point of discussion at the moment of conducting this study. What the effect of this is, will be revealed in the future. • Risk of pre-investment: The council has extra investments in the building site preparation phase,

because it has to place drainage in the complete building site. The costs that have been made for the building site preparation will be charged to the developer when the developer sells the allotments to the new residents via a percentage of the selling price. The fact that there is some time between the building site preparation phase and selling of the allotments is a small risk for the council, because there is uncertainty about the selling price of the houses. However, the council does not regard this as a real barrier, because it trusts that the quality of the development will result in expected return from housing sales. At this moment this seems the case indeed, because taxation of the houses from the paper plans by real estate agents has indicated higher prices than was anticipated on in the land exploitation of the council.

Public utility companies want to place their infrastructure as close to the delivery of the dwellings as possible, because they do not receive return from their investment before this time. This is a barrier, but because this report focuses on water this report will not go into detail for this aspect.

• Changing personnel: The merger of the municipalities of Valkenburg and Katwijk caused several

changes of involved personnel. Because the municipality of Katwijk is larger than the municipality of Valkenburg, more people became involved with ‘t Duyfrak. These new people didn’t know the project in detail yet and the reasons for applying BSP+. They had to be convinced of the benefits. Especially the maintenance department of the council of Katwijk had questions about the functioning of the system in 5 years time. Especially directly after the merger much attention was given to involve and convince the new staff. Special meetings with the building team were organised with all the involved players to inform them. In the end the changing personnel was not a real barrier, because all decisions had already been made, so plans could not be changed anymore. However, if this would not have been the case, it could have frustrated the development process of ‘t Duyfrak.

• Damage to underground infrastructure during construction phase: During the construction of

the dwellings much heavy traffic is present at the building site. It is possible that this damages the underground infrastructure. This is especially an issue for the cables and pipes. If underground infrastructure is damaged during the construction of the dwellings, the consortium of developers is liable for the damage (for the first stage of ‘t Duyfrak). However, the consortium is during this period not the only actor that is present at the building site. There are also a couple small players present at the building site and therefore it is hard to point out who has caused the damage.

Enabling factors for introducing permeable pavement: For introducing permeable pavement, the same factors are enabling as for introducing BSP+. For introducing permeable pavement specifically, the following factors also have been enabling: • Reliability of the system: The developer was afraid that it would be blamed it the permeable

pavement on the backstreets, that will be owned by the residents, do not function well. Therefore


they demanded a back-up measure (an overflow) in case the drainage capacity of the permeable pavement is not sufficient. The overflows that function as built-in securities in the design have convinced the developer of the functioning of the system with permeable pavement.

• Cost of permeable pavement: The total cost of the permeable pavement in ‘t Duyfrak is 40

Euro/m2. A study for the Haarlemmermeerpolder estimates for a normal street of comparable size with street gullies total costs of 45 Euro/m2. This means that permeable pavement is in this case cheaper than a traditional system.

Disabling factors for introducing permeable pavement: For introducing permeable pavement, the next factors have been identified as obstacles. • Cost allocation of permeable pavement: Although the total costs for permeable pavement are

lower than for a comparable street with street gullies, the costs that the developer has to pay are not lower in the case of ‘t Duyfrak. The developer has to pay for the pavement of the street because it will be owned by the new residents. Permeable pavement is 8-10 Euro/m2 more expensive than pavement for traditional streets. Although the developer was complaining about the higher costs it was not a real obstacle. The developer paid the council for the construction of the backstreets. By doing this, he also shifted the responsibility for not sufficiently functioning of the permeable pavement to the council163, because he was not sure if the system would sufficiently be able to prevent water nuisance.

• Doubt about the well-functioning of system: At first, the developer (and also the maintenance

department of the municipality of Katwijk) was questioning the functioning of the permeable pavement. If the system will clog in the future and there will be water on the street, the developer is afraid he will be blamed for it. Therefore he demanded a back-up measure that discharges the water in case the drainage capacity of the permeable pavement is not sufficient. The uptake of this measure removed the obstacle for the developer.

• Maintenance: Because the permeable pavement is located on terrain that is owned by the

residents, it is also their responsibility to maintain the pavement. Their responsibility will be defined in the buying contracts for their houses, but it is uncertain how they will deal with this.

In my opinion this situation is not desirable because although the backstreets are private land, they have a public character. Therefore it is likely that residents are reluctant to take action and maintain the permeable pavement. The case of Het Funen has learned that the joints of the permeable pavement probably require different maintenance than conventional pavement, including removing and refilling the material in the joints. This requires more advanced machinery than just a broom, which the residents most likely will not own. Therefore it is likely that even if the residents take action, they will use the wrong method for maintenance that could increase the risk of clogging of the joints and therefore water nuisance. The reason that the council gave the ownership of the backstreets to the residents is the fact that it did not have sufficient budget to maintain public space. This has nothing to do with the fact that permeable pavement is implemented. The first phase of ‘t Duyfrak contains 80 bridges to allotments. These bridges are also being owned and have to be maintained by the residents, because budget of the council did not cover the cost of this.

Prospects for BSP+: BSP+ is still at the start of the diffusion curve, because ‘t Duyfrak is the first project where the concept of BSP+ is applied (see Figure 7.8). The demonstration of BSP+ in ‘t Duyfrak will have to prove that the concept of BSP+ works before it will become mainstream practice. Because of the benefits of the concept (higher quality at lower total costs) it has the potential to be applied for all new developments in the Netherlands. However, these benefits will have to become common knowledge before BSP+ will become mainstream practice.

163 Note: This only includes not functioning because of construction or design errors. Maintenance is the responsibility of the residents.


98

Especially, councils and developers will have to be convinced, because they are the stakeholders that invest capital for the development of new residential areas and can do this more efficient if they work together. Councils will have to be convinced that the extra quality of the urban area is worth the investment for BSP+. If councils and developers are getting convinced of the benefits and gain trust in the concept the diffusion of BSP+ could proceed into the take-off phase.

Figure 7.8: Possible diffusion curve for Building Site Preparation PLUS This case has learned that enthusiasm and commitment of individuals has been crucial for the introduction of BSP+ in ‘t Duyfrak. Making other people also enthusiastic about BSP+ could take place on a national scale by sharing experiences and knowledge via media, professional associations, publications, conferences etc. Experiences and knowledge could also be shared on a smaller scale within the organisations of the involved stakeholders. It is probable that people within one organisation have higher trust in something if they learn from the experiences of their direct colleagues than if they read an article in a journal. A possible threat to the diffusion of BSP+ is damage to cables and pipes at ‘t Duyfrak. Because the drainage in ‘t Duyfrak is very robust (the gravel beds can resist heavy loads) problems with damage to the drainage system are not expected during the construction phase of the dwellings. However, liability for damage to cables and pipes for public utilities is at this moment (before the start of construction of the dwellings) a point of discussion. The future will show what the results will be for ‘t Duyfrak. The results for BSP+ for the drainage system and the cables and pipes should be considered individually. It would already be an improvement to current practice if building site preparation in the future will include drainage for the complete building site instead of drainage for only public space. It would be a pity if there will be a complete lock-in for BSP+, should problems with cables and pipes arise. Prospects for permeable pavement: The prospects for permeable pavement as applied in ‘t Duyfrak are potentially better than for Aquaflow (see Chapter 7.2: Case study Het Funen). The system in ‘t Duyfrak has the same benefits as an Aquaflow system: • a larger ability to store stormwater run-off than conventional drainage • treatment of stormwater run-off • the possibility of multiple land use (water storage/drainage combined with a road/parking lot/other

pavement) • aesthetics of the pavement (no street gullies)


Furthermore, the system is a cheaper than an Aquaflow system: 40 Euro/m2 against 65 Euro/m2.164 The construction of the system is even cheaper than a traditional street with street gullies of a similar size. Knowledge about the cost of maintenance is not sufficiently available yet. The difference between the permeable pavement in ‘t Duyfrak and the Aquaflow system is that geotextile filter cloths have not been applied in ‘t Duyfrak. The function of the patented geotextile filter cloth between the two layers of broken stones is to capture the micro bacteria in the filter and to prevent sand intrusion. However, several interviewees indicated that their experience is that these micro bacteria will automatically end up in the gravel bed and that treatment results without the filter cloth is similar to the Aquaflow system. Furthermore, various experts have indicated that sand intrusion is not an issue. The experts indicate that gravel beds are a very robust drainage method.

Figure 7.9: Possible diffusion curve for permeable pavement In my opinion permeable pavement is currently in the acceleration phase of diffusion curve (see also Figure 7.9).165 It is not new anymore to apply permeable pavement and the benefits are well known. However, maintenance is still an issue. Traditionally the council is responsible for the public space, but for ‘t Duyfrak the council avoided having to deal with maintenance by giving ownership to the residents. This could result in water nuisance that is the outcome of not dealing well with the system instead of the drainage capacity of the system itself. The example of ‘t Duyfrak shows that the regime has not found a way yet to deal with the maintenance of permeable pavement. Permeable pavement will probably never become a substitute for traditional streets with street gullies. Therefore, the path of the diffusion curve will probably never be completed (see Figure 7.9). The case of Het Funen showed that an Aquaflow system is not desirable in high-density areas where it is conflicting with other underground infrastructure like cables and pipes. For the same reasons, permeable pavement as it is applied in ‘t Duyfrak is not desirable either in those areas. However, because of the lower price in comparison to traditional streets of a similar size, permeable pavement could be a substitute for traditional streets with street gullies in low-density areas. A comparative study about the prices and exact composition for a traditional street with street gullies and permeable pavement should be conducted to support this statement. Permeable pavement could also be an option for car parks.

164 Note: These numbers are estimates of Witteveen+Bos based on experiences in various projects, including Het Funen, Duyfrak and a study for Haarlammermeer. 165 Note: According to technology diffusion theory, a diffusion curve does not have an acceleration stage. Terminology of the transition theory has been used here to make an estimate for the current diffusion of permeable pavement. This is done, because it is hard to determine the size of the market for permeable pavement, which includes in theory all paved streets.


100

7.4 Case study of the water system of Leidsche Rijn (Utrecht)

Figure 7.10: Location of Leidsche Rijn (Source: Perlee Bouwbegeleiding (2007)) Introduction: Leidsche Rijn is at this moment the largest urban development project in the Netherlands. It covers an area of 2100ha and after completion in 2015 it will accommodate a total amount of 30.000 dwellings and 720.000 m2 of commercial area. The total number of residents will be approximately 80.000 and the number of people that will be working in Leidsche Rijn will be around 40.000. Leidsche Rijn is part of the city of Utrecht (see also Figure 7.10), which is the 4th largest city in the Netherlands after Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague with a population of 280.000.166 In 1993, the Fourth National Policy Document on Spatial Planning Extra (4e Nota Ruimtelijke Ordening Extra) of the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment indicated growth areas at the fringe of cities for mass development of residential areas to accommodate Dutch population growth (VINEX locations). These mass developments had to be compact and concentrated in or around cities. Another aim was to encourage more affluent people to live in the cities. Therefore, the developments had to appealing to live and easily accessible. The focus was on sustainable housing and public transport. Leidsche Rijn is one of those so-called VINEX locations. Because the initiative for development of the area was taken by the national government, a regional plan (which is normally made by the province) for the area has not been made.167 In 1994 the municipality of Utrecht gave the assignment to develop a Masterplan for the development of Leidsche Rijn. The Masterplan was presented in 1995 and was based on the concept of sustainable development. (Storm-) water management and energy efficiency were the two pillars for sustainability in Leidsche Rijn. The water system was used in the Masterplan as a structuring framework for the development. The water system had to be sustainable with an identity that fitted the characteristics of the location.168 Therefore the water system should:

• be a starting point for recreation • be a starting point for urban ecology (as far this is possible) • look good • be applied with knowledge that was present at the moment.

166 Source: Gemeente Utrecht (2007) 167 Source: VROM (1993) 168 Source: Projectbureau Leidsche Rijn (1995)


In 1997, the Taskgroup Water Leidsche Rijn created the waterplan that proceeded on principles of the Masterplan. The waterplan was the starting point for the water system in Leidsche Rijn. The ambitions of the Masterplan were translated into requirements of which an important requirement was to obtain a transparency of the water of 1m.169 Thus, water quality became the guiding principle of the development of the water system and not water quantity (this is more common in the Netherlands). Landscape characteristics: An old river bed is located in the central part of the area. In the past this sandy area was lower than the surrounding areas with peat soils (that are covered with a thin layer of clay). Because of drainage, the peat soils have subsided to a level that is lower than the sandy area in the centre. The area in the centre has a groundlevel of ca. NAP +1m, while the lower parts at the fringe have groundlevels of ca. NAP –1m. Figure 7.11 shows that the altitude map and soil map of the area give the same contours.

Figure 7.11: Altitude map (left) and soil map (right) (Source: Projectgroep Waterhuishouding (1997)) A closed water system: Because the water quality of the Amsterdam-Rhine Canal and in the River Leidsche Rhine is low, it is aimed to keep this water out of the system as much as possible. Therefore, the use of local water resources that are cleaner (rainwater and seepage) is maximised in the area. To keep these resources inside the system as much as possible and to prevent water inlet from surrounding areas as much as possible there is chosen to use a closed water system. A closed water system is a water system that is separated from surrounding surface water by dikes etc. It does not need surrounding areas to supply water and it does not need to pump water out of the system. The water system of Leidsche Rijn is designed to be able to store enough water, so that in a average hydrological year there will be enough water available in the system. To be able to store water, a fluctuation of the water level of 30cm is permitted. The winter level is 30 cm higher than the summer level, because there is a precipitation surplus (higher precipitation than evaporation) in the winter period and a shortage in summer.

169 Source: Projectgroep Waterhuishouding (1997)


102

The relief and the soil characteristics of the area have been used in the water system to close the water balance in the area. In the higher part, stormwater run-off infiltrates in the soil and will seep to the lower areas at the fringe. There is limited surface water in the higher part, but much in the lower parts at the fringe (see Figure 7.12). By pumping this seepage back to the higher areas instead of discharging it away from the system, much water is kept inside the system. The red arrows on Figure 7.12 show the flow directions in the system.

Figure 7.12: The water system of Leidsche Rijn (Source: Projectgroep Waterhuishouding (1997)) Disconnection of run-off from paved surface to the sewer system and storage of this water in the soil increases the amount of water that is stored in the system even more. Figure 7.13 shows that only polluted water is discharged to the sewer system. Relatively clean water is stored in the ground or is being drained directly to surface water. In total 80% of the paved surface is disconnected from the sewer system.

Figure 7.13: Disconnection of paved surface from sewer system (Source: Projectgroep Waterhuishouding

(1997))


Stormwater treatment within the system: Before development of Leidsche Rijn, the dominant land use in the area was agriculture. This has caused accumulation of nutrients in the soil. Seepage will therefore be a source of nutrient pollution in the area for the next 30 years. It is estimated that the nutrients will have disappeared from the soil after those 30 years. At this moment nutrients from this source are dominant, but in the future pets and death vegetation will be the main source of nutrients in the water. To maintain quality levels at a desired level, prevention and treatment measures are required. Firstly, prevention measures aim at minimising pollution:

• Building materials that leach, such as zinc gutters, are not allowed. • Polluted surfaces, including busy streets, bus stations and market squares, are connected to

the sewer system, which discharges the sewage to the treatment plant. • Inlet of water form surrounding areas is minimised. • Fertilising surfaces such as sports grounds and parkland is minimised. • The use of pesticides has to be prevented. • At source approach of animal faeces • Education of residents

Because stormwater run-off is disconnected from the sewer system there will be an additional pollution load towards the system. The water board has demanded that disconnection of stormwater run-off is permitted if the pollution load is equal to or smaller than the pollution load of a improved separated system with a storage capacity of 4mm and a discharge capacity of 0,3mm/h. Measurements have showed that pollution loads will be higher for a disconnected system. Therefore prevention measures alone are not sufficient and treatment measures that aim at removing pollution are required.170 All stormwater run-off passes an embankment or flows through a soil passage (sand body underneath permeable pavement, infiltration in shoulders of roads or vegetated swales) before it flows into receiving surface waters within the water system of Leidsche Rijn (see Figure 7.14). During this passage litter and suspended solids and attached pollutants (heavy metals, PAHs and nutrients) are removed. Shoulders should be minimal 3m wide to be sufficiently able to remove pollution from run-off from streets.171

Figure 7.14: Passage of soil and embankments (Source: Projectgroep Waterhuishouding (1997)) All small streets in Leidsche Rijn have permeable pavement. The pavement is constructed directly on a foundation of sand (In Dutch: cunet). The foundation of the permeable pavement is not constructed from coarse broken stones in contrary to the Aquaflow system in Het Funen and the permeable pavement in ‘t Duyfrak. For Leidsche Rijn the difference between the water level in winter and the groundlevel is approximately 1m. This is Stormwater will drain through the joints in the permeable pavement through the sand body to the groundwater and/or surface water. During the soil passage, 170 Source: Projectgroep Waterhuishouding (1997) 171 Note: For soil passage in ’t Duyfrak, a minimum width of 2m is required by the waterboard. It is probable that because this concept was newer in the time of development of Leidsche Rijn a safe margin was used, that was not regarded as necessary anymore in the time development of ‘t Duyfrak.


104

heavy metals, PAHs and nutrients are being removed. To prevent flooding in case of extreme storm events, the streets with permeable pavement should be sloping in one direction and connected to vegetated swales, or via embankments to the surface water. Vegetated swales172 (see Figure 7.15) treat run-off from minor polluted surfaces such as roofs and streets. Suspended solids with attached particles (mainly nutrients (phosphate) and heavy metals) are filtered out. Organic treatment by bacteria is also taking place in the layer of humus soil where oxygen is available. The vegetated swales also store the run-off to keep the water in the system as long as possible. Storage takes place in plastic boxes below the swale and in the filter material. The boxes are wrapped in permeable filter cloth to prevent clogging of the system. The vegetated swales are designed with a capacity for a storm event with a 1 per 2 years return period. In more extreme storms, water will flow to the surface water via an overflow structure.

Figure 7.15: Vegetated swales in Leidsche Rijn (Source: Photo archive D. Biron (2004)) After run-off has been discharged to the surface water, treatment also takes place in the canals themselves. Vegetation in the water maintains oxygen levels and removes nutrients, embankments are being made with a gradient as low as possible in order to have maximum vegetation for nutrient uptake. In the lowest part of the system is a large water body, where sedimentation of suspended solids takes place. Water is being pumped from the low areas to the high area to maximise the use of the water by keeping it inside the system. Because of the circulating water oxygen levels in the system are being maintained and nuisance by mosquitoes is minimised. Vertical reed bed filters: The treatment measures that are being described above are not sufficient for meeting the water quality requirement of the circulating water that is present in the system. Especially the phosphate levels remain too high. Therefore an end-of-pipe measure is required that removes extra phosphate from the circulating water (phosphate concentration of the surface water has to be decreased from 0,20 mg/l to 0,05 mg/l). Vertical reed bed filters are removing this phosphate from the circulating surface water as well as water that has to let into the system in a dry year. The vertical reed bed filters are actually sand filters that are covered by reed. The filters are reservoirs filled with sand and iron particles (1-4%) that coagulate with the nutrients in the water (see Figure 7.16). The reed that is growing on top of the filter is does not have a phosphate removal function, but keeps the filter material open, so that the water can easily flow in and out of the filter. The function of the top layer of broken stones is that the inflowing water stream does not wash out the sand filter near the inlet. The bearing capacity of the filter is big enough for the possibility of covering the filter with parkland. Multiple land use is therefore possible, but at this moment not applied yet.

172 Note: The function and operation of vegetated swales in the Netherlands are similar to those in Melbourne. There are only some differences in implementation. For example, the vegetated swales in Melbourne mainly have a treatment function and do not have plastic boxes for water storage like the vegetated swales in Leidsche Rijn.


Figure 7.16: Composition of the sand filter (Source: Zuiveringsfilter (2007)) The filter is operated automatically. At first the reservoirs are being filled with ‘polluted’ water at one inlet point. After a certain retention time of the water in the filter, the reservoir is emptied via one outlet point. The effluent of the filter contains a phosphate concentration of 0,05 mg/l (see Figure 7.17)

Figure 7.17: Functioning of the vertical reed bed filter. 1: inlet canal, 2: inlet in filter, 3: filter in operation, 4: filter effluent: treated water (Source: Zuiveringsfilter (2007))

1

3

2

4


106

According to the initiator of this filter, this is the first filter that is able to remove phosphate from water with already low phosphate concentrations on such a large scale. Existing filters were mainly used to treat water at a treatment plant where concentrations are much higher. The demonstration of the filter is subsidised by the European Union. Taskgroup Water: In 1997 the Taskgroup Water was installed to create the waterplan for Leidsche Rijn. After the creation of the waterplan, the Taskgroup was responsible for safeguarding the ambitions that were defined in the Masterplan and for the correct implementation of the waterplan in practice. The power of the Taskgroup is significant, because all plans have to be approved by the Taskgroup Water. If something is not approved, the proposed plan will not be executed. All water stakeholders are involved in the Taskgroup Water. Figure 7.18 shows the organisation structure of the Taskgroup Water.

Figure 7.18: Organisation structure of the Taskgroup Water The board of the water board and Projectbureau Leidsche Rijn (municipal developing authority for the development of Leidsche Rijn) are steering the project group that has a secretary existing of two persons: one representative of the water board and one ‘independent’ representative. The ‘independent’ representative of the secretary is an employee of the engineering department of the local council, so it can be questioned if he indeed performs his role completely independent. In the Taskgroup itself the developer, council, water board and province are represented. At the start of the project, there were also two engineering consultants involved in the Taskgroup, but they did not participate for a long time. Because all the important water stakeholders are involved in the Taskgroup from an early stage in the development process the Taskgroup performs as a platform for the communication between the stakeholders. The representatives of the organisations in the Taskgroup operated together as a team for the development of the water system in Leidsche Rijn. They had a shared vision for the water system of Leidsche Rijn, because they created the waterplan themselves. Because the Taskgroup was meeting on a regularly basis, the representatives could easily share their concerns or questions in the group. If necessary, these questions could be forwarded into an organisation via their contact person in the Taskgroup. Another responsibility of the Taskgroup is to keep all stakeholders enthusiastic. This is made possible, because of the fact that the Taskgroup functions as a team. The representatives in the group know each other well. Personal relations have seemed very important. With Leidsche Rijn it was one of the first times that a project team was used for the development of a new urban area. Nowadays, the government is using a more project approach at all levels (from local to national).


Enabling factors for introducing the water system in Leidsche Rijn: The overview below lists the enabling factors for introducing the water system in Leidsche Rijn. These factors have been revealed after analysis of the interviews with the stakeholders. Because all the features of the water system were introduced for the purpose of disconnection of stormwater run-off from the sewer system, this overview will not make a distinction between the different features of the system. Instead it will focus on the introduction of the water system and disconnection of run-off from the sewer system as a whole. • Housing driver: The direct driver for the development of Leidsche Rijn was housing shortage. In

1993, the National Government designated several locations for urban development on a large scale to accommodate population growth in the Netherlands. Leidsche Rijn is one of those so-called VINEX locations. A water system had to be constructed as well for this large urban development project.

• Sustainability driver: The Masterplan for Leidsche Rijn indicated that water and energy should

be the basis for sustainability in Leidsche Rijn. For water, this comprehended that water should be the basis for recreation, urban ecology and for the aesthetics of the new urban area. Therefore water quality was the main concern in the design of the water system. From this starting point in the Masterplan, the design of the system was made.

In concrete measures, the sustainability concept for water was translated into: allowing fluctuations in (ground-) water level as much as possible, disconnection of paved surface from the sewer system as much as possible, restricting inlet of water from outside the area, prevention of mixing of polluted water and cleaner water, concentrating pollution at well-manageable locations with low risks, preventing of accumulation of pollution at locations that are difficult to manage or have a high risk for public health, application of (natural) treatment for point discharges or inlet points, using natural treatment mechanisms for improvement of the water quality inside the system.173

• Safeguarding ambition: The ambition that was defined in the Masterplan and worked out in

detail for water by the Taskgroup Water was signed as a covenant by the water board, local council and province at the highest levels. This binding document was a solid start for the further development of the water system. The covenant was the start of the Taskgroup Water that included like-minded people. It is a responsibility of Taskgroup Water to actively safeguard the ambitions that have been made. All the plans have to be approved by the Taskgroup. If they do not meet the requirements, plans will be disapproved until they meet the requirements.

• Location made it possible: The landscape characteristics of the location made it possible to

construct a closed water system. Furthermore, in order to meet the requirements that were defined in the ambition, there better water quality was required than there was available. Therefore, a solution had to be found. This has resulted in the current water system.

• Involvement: The early involvement of the water stakeholders in the Taskgroup Water prevented

many difficulties in later phases of the development process, because all players where involved from the start of the project. For example, co-operation between the water board and council is not problematic because they are involved closely. Because the contact in the early phases is so intensive, the approval is just a formality instead of a decision making process.

However, at the start of the project the planning process went too quickly for the water board. Because of this, the water board came too late with requirements for maintenance. In the opinion of the water board, the spatial plan did not describe enough about how to deal with the system after it was finished. The main features of the system (such as profiles of canals) were adequately dealt with, but details (such as heights of bridges) were not designed properly according to the water board. The water board felt that it wasn’t involved actively enough to be able to prevent this. They were lacking capacity for the planning phase of Leidsche Rijn.

The water board solved this capacity problem by detaching two employees full time to the council. They are close to the construction and planning process, because their office is located at the

173 Source: Projectgroep Waterhuishouding (1997)


108

building site of Leidsche Rijn. Detaching employees to the council has been working really well for the water board.

• Communication: Another important aspect of the Taskgroup is that it operates as a platform for

communication. It does not only involve the stakeholders, but also makes it easier for the organisations to show their concerns or ask questions via the contact persons. The contact persons in the Taskgroup are working together as a team. They meet on a regular basis and know each other well. This improves the communication between the stakeholders.

Disabling factors for introducing the water system in Leidsche Rijn: Below the disabling factors for introducing the water system in Leidsche Rijn are described: • Housing versus public space: The council argues that vegetated swales are directly competing

with houses, because they both make a claim for the available land. In the opinion of the council vegetated swales do not give a financial return. Their added value is a higher quality living environment, but this does not result in a higher return from housing sales. However, the higher costs for constructing swales etc. results in a higher price of land, which has to be earned back in the price of land. The pressure of the developer to minimise the space for green and water is significant. The argument of sales reveals the intersection between public organisations and private enterprises and is a barrier because of conflicting interests.

• Lack of integral vision towards public space: The interviewees have indicated that an integral vision on public space is lacking at this moment. For example, vegetated swales are not completely being regarded as a supplement for green, although their appearance is the same. As a result of this, swales are making an additional claim for space, next to a claim for green space. This adds to the competition for space between housing and public space.

Another example of the lack of an integral vision towards public space is caused by conflicting interests between stakeholders. The council is responsible for the maintenance of public land such as streets and green space. In line with its responsibility the council is interested a public space with a good living quality. The water board is responsible for maintenance of the waterways. The interest of the water board is restricted to the maintainability and water quality of waterways. The developer is mainly interested in the sales of the development. After the allotments have been sold, the developer is only responsible for possible failures that occur due to construction errors. The interviewees have indicated that organisations are not very flexible in their thinking. This has been an obstacle during the whole process. However, because the Taskgroup Water operates as a team with a clear goal, this has not been a real barrier.

• Conflicting interests within the council: The Projectbureau Leidsche Rijn is the developer for Leidsche Rijn. Because the Projectbureau is part of the council and the council is also responsible for the public space in the area, there are conflicting interests within the council. On one hand the council develops houses on the area in order to make profit. On the other hand, the council is responsible for the living quality of the area and the quality of public space. Above it is explained that the competition for space between housing and public space is a barrier for implementing surface water or infiltration measures such as vegetated swales. The interviewees have indicated that this conflicting interest requires courage for the council to choose for public space instead of extra housing. It could also be said that the council should explain the value of public space differently, because a good living environment (which is dependent to high quality public space) increases returns from housing sales. In my opinion the council does not acknowledge this sufficiently.

Looking at the implemented system in Leidsche Rijn it seems that the conflicting interests within the council has not been a barrier in Leidsche Rijn. However, in other cases it could be a potential barrier. The responsibility of the Taskgroup Water for safeguarding the ambitions during the complete development process seems crucial.

• Regulation: Infiltrating water at the scale of allotments is an option that is mentioned by the interviewees that could be a solution to the problem of availability of space. By infiltrating at allotment scale, space does not have to be claimed for vegetated swales anymore. Therefore it


could contribute to the issue of housing versus public space. However, depending completely on infiltration on allotments is not being regarded as a good solution, because it cannot be legally enforced and controlled.

• Knowledge of builders: The road workers that implemented the systems did not understand the

systems that they were construction. This resulted for example in wrong implementation of overflows of the vegetated swales. Wrongly implemented systems had to be removed and constructed again, which caused loss of capital.

Prospects for disconnection of paved surface based on this case study: At the time of the initiative for developing Leidsche Rijn the implemented water system that is was state-of-the-art. Knowledge about disconnection of paved surface from the sewer system and treatment by vegetated swales and permeable pavement was not widespread yet. The water system in Leidsche Rijn was one of the first where the paved surface of the development was disconnected from the sewer system on such a large scale. Stormwater treatment measures were also not applied in common practice. However, at the moment of writing this report most techniques that are being implemented are not new anymore. Since the launch Fourth National Policy Memorandum on Water Management in 1998, disconnection of paved surfaces from sewerage systems is being encouraged by national policy and guidelines. In general, it could be stated that the purpose of disconnection of paved surface from the sewer system is becoming widely accepted at this moment. However, the available techniques are not being incorporated on a widespread scale yet. According to the interviewees it is a question of time that disconnection of paved surface from the sewerage system becomes the standard. They indicated that securing ambitions, good co-operation and education are key elements that contribute to the mainstreaming process. According to the interviewees of this case study, it is very important to secure the ambitions that are made in the beginning of the process to make sure that they will really be implemented. One of the interviewees remarked that it could be an option to label budget so that if an ambition disappears, the budget that is labelled to this ambition will disappear with it. Good co-operation was another key aspect of Leidsche Rijn that is crucial for the future according to the interviewees. For the development of Leidsche Rijn it was one of the first times that a project team approach was used. This project team has acted as a platform for discussion of problems and issues and gives easy access of knowledge between stakeholders, because they know how to contact each other. It was indicated that the project team approach contributed significantly to the like-mindedness of the team members and that this was important for safeguarding the ambitions. Such a project team approach is now more often being used by the government in other sectors as well. Finally, the interviewees indicated that education is needed for the people that implement infiltration and treatment features to make the risk for wrong implementation smaller.


110

7.5 Case study of the third pipe system Leidsche Rijn (Utrecht)

Figure 7.19: Third pipe system: water supply of two qualities of water Introduction: As described in Case 3a, sustainable development was an important starting point in the Masterplan of Leidsche Rijn. Water was one of the two pillars of sustainability in Leidsche Rijn (next to energy). Stormwater management was not the only water aspect of sustainability in the project. A third pipe system was also suggested to complement the supply of drinking water with a source of non-potable water for toilet flushing, laundry and various outdoor purposes. Because the interviewees for the case of Leidsche Rijn were not directly involved with the development of the third pipe system and it was hard to get in touch with persons that were involved with the third pipe system, this case study is mainly conducted as a desktop study and not based on interviews in contrary to the other cases. Initiative: In the early 1990’s the National Government took the initiative to search for possibilities for sustainable use of drinking water to prevent drying out of the soil. In the Province of Utrecht drinking water was retrieved from groundwater. As a result of this, the configuration and level of groundwater is changing. Using surface water instead of groundwater as a resource has less impact on drying out of the soil. The initiative to complement the supply of potable water with a non-potable water source was born out the idea of using a fit-for-purpose quality water resource. This demands a separated network for the supply of potable water and non-potable water. The Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) designated in the late 1990’s six locations for pilot projects with third pipe systems. Together, more than 4000 house connections to third pipe systems have been realised in these pilot projects. Leidsche Rijn was one of those pilot-locations with 30.000 planned connections. The reasons for choosing Leidsche Rijn as a pilot location were: 174

• The separated network was relatively easy to construct, because it was a new to build urban area.

• There was a suitable source of water available in the near surroundings of Leidsche Rijn.

174 Source: Oesterholt (2003)


The third pipe system: The third pipe system in Leidsche Rijn is similar to the third pipe systems that are being implemented in Melbourne. One pipe is for the supply of potable water and the other pipe supplies non-potable water. The use of non-potable water (In Dutch: ‘huishoudwater’) is by the Ministerial Decision Drinking Water Supply (In Dutch: Waterleidingbesluit) exclusively permitted for toilet flushing, laundry and gardening. The pipes have different colours (Figure 7.19 shows the green pipe for the supply of non-potable water and the other pipe for the supply of potable water) and taps for non-potable water are not compatible with drinking water appliances. The source of non-potable water in Leidsche Rijn is surface water from the Lek Canal. This water is being transported by a pipeline to the dunes in the Province North-Holland for the production of drinking water. Before transport, this water is pre-treated to minimise subsidence and bio-chemical processes during transportation. The quality of the transported water is better than normal surface water, but not sufficient for drinking. Regular tests show that the water from the Lek canal has swimming quality (before treatment). The third pipe system of Leidsche Rijn tapped water from the transport pipeline form the pre-treatment plant to the dunes that passed closely to Leidsche Rijn. Introducing the third pipe system in Leidsche Rijn: After the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment designated Leidsche Rijn as a pilot project for third pipe systems, a feasibility study was carried out in 1994 by the City of Utrecht and the water company. The main conclusions of this study were that a third pipe system with water from the Lek Canal as the source seemed financially feasible, the exact environmental impact could not be determined yet, it was believed that there was widespread public support for a third pipe system, the situation in Leidsche Rijn offered good opportunities that justified the further exploration of the development of a third pipe system.175 For the supply of drinking water in new estates, a framework is required for periodic water quality assessment. Because such frameworks did not exist yet for the supply of non-potable water, the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, the Inspection Authority VROM176 and the water company created in 1998 a policy framework for the appliance of non-potable water. The Inspection Authority VROM agreed early 1999 with the supply of non-potable water in Leidsche Rijn. In the meanwhile, starting from 1997, the design and construction of the third pipe system was started by the water company. This was taking place parallel to the development of the rest of Leidsche Rijn. In 2002, circa 3.000 houses were supplied with non-potable water. After the incidents (see below) it was decided that further construction of had to be stopped. Incidents: In December 2001, the water company discovered after complaints of residents about the taste of the water that 1000 households had been supplied with water that was contaminated with E-coli for several days. The water company directly advised the residents to boil the water before use until further notice. Furthermore, the contaminated pipes were flushed and cleaned. In the meanwhile, the water company executed pressure tests in the pipes together with the building contractor. These tests showed that the network for potable water was connected with the network for non-potable water by a temporary connecting hose. This hose had originally been used for flushing the non-potable water network with potable water before use. After the temporary hose had been removed, the advice for boiling the water was withdrawn.177 In January 2002, it was discovered (again after complaints by residents about taste) that 1 household had been drinking non-potable water for 17 months. Conduction tests that are able to perceive differences in salt concentrations proved that mixing of potable and non-potable water had been taking place in this dwelling. After the measurements, the water company dug open the service pipes, which connect the main pipes with the house, and found that cross-connections had been made between the

175 Source: Raad voor de transportveiligheid (2003) 176 Note: The Inspection Authority VROM is the responsible agency of the Department of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment for monitoring drinking water supply in the Netherlands. 177 Source: Raad voor de transportveiligheid (2003)


112

network for potable and non-potable water. Immediately after the discovery of this cross-connection, the water company decided in consultation of the Inspection Authority VROM to fill the network for non-potable water with potable water instead.178 In May 2002, the water company checked all service pipes (that are connecting the main pipes with houses) by adding salt to the water in the network for non-potable water. Adding salt increases conductivity of the water. Conduction tests have revealed four cross-connections in houses that were not yet inhabited.179 An investigation of the Health Service estimated that approximately 200 residents have suffered from stomach and intestinal complaints, because of the contamination in December 2001. However, a causal connection with drinking of non-potable water has not been proved. The complaints can also have a psychological cause. The residents of the household that had been drinking non-potable water for 17 months visited doctors with various health complaints.180 Again, a causal connection has not been proved, although it is likely that there is a relationship. Indirect cause of the incidents: The text above shows that in all cases a construction error was the direct cause of the incidents. The building contractor had made cross-connections between the network for potable water and the network for non-potable water. However, an investigation of the Dutch Safety Board also revealed several indirect causes181: • The water company had underestimated the risks for cross-connections resulting from the

combination of a drinking water network with a network for non-potable water. The result of the controlling of the risk was during the construction completely dependent to the people that were constructing the system. However, these people had never constructed a third pipe system before. The only difference between the two networks was the colour of the pipes. The risk of cross-connections could for example been decreased by using different diameters in the different networks, so that it would be physically more difficult to connect the two networks. Furthermore, the quality of the system was not being tested after completion. The water company had only one indication for quality and that was the fact that it only used certified building contractors. However, this has appeared to be not a guarantee for delivery of a system without any cross-connections.

• The Inspection Authority VROM was too closely involved with the development process of the third pipe system. The water company has the legal responsibility for the quality of water that is supplied by the reticulation network. The involvement of the Inspection Authority, however, has been so close from the beginning that the water company asked for approval of the chosen safety measures. Despite the benefits of this approval, it has led to a situation in which the Inspection Authority could no longer independently safeguard safety. Responsibility moved towards the Inspection, because the water company asked for approval for each part of the development of the third pipe system. This has resulted in inefficient use of capacity and intellectual ability of the employees of the water company. The capacity of the Inspection Authority did not match this displaced responsibility.

Prohibition of large-scale supply of non-potable water: In August 2003, large-scale supply of non-potable water by third pipe systems is prohibited in a policy letter from the Parliamentary State Secretary of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment. Only small-scale collection of rainwater or groundwater for toilet flushing is still allowed.182 The Parliamentary State Secretary regarded the health risks unacceptable while environmental benefits where too small. A study of the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment that was based on experiences in six pilot projects showed that health risks of proper use of non-potable water were higher than required and that the risk of unaware drinking of non-potable water was too high. 178 Source: Raad voor de transportveiligheid (2003) 179 Source: Raad voor de transportveiligheid (2003) 180 Source: Raad voor de transportveiligheid (2003) 181 Source: Raad voor de transportveiligheid (2003) 182 Source: Van Geel (2003)


Based on a life-cycle-analysis the same study showed that the benefit for the environment per household per year could be compared with a car ride of 80 km.183 The prohibition of supply of non-potable water by third pipe systems stopped various projects with third pipe systems in the Netherlands. This was for example taking place in IJburg and EVA Lanxmeer. In some cases the construction of third pipe systems had to be stopped (IJburg), but in other cases (EVA Lanxmeer) the system was already finished and ready for operation. For the latter the networks for non-potable water are being supplied with potable water instead of non-potable water. This is destruction of capital. The prohibition has led to a transition lock-in (see Figure 7.20), because it is not allowed anymore to develop third pipe systems. There is no chance left for improvement. The environmental benefit will not be achieved anymore and capital has been destructed. This has resulted in antipathy against third pipe systems in the Netherlands. The author of this report has experienced that people that have been involved with third pipe systems are not willing to share their experiences and talk about it. It is still a taboo to talk about third pipe systems in the Netherlands. The experiences in Leidsche Rijn did not throw the introduction and development of third pipe systems back to the start, but even further. This bad experience has been a barrier in itself in the Netherlands to start the discussion about fit-for-purpose water delivery again in the future.

Figure 7.20: Transition lock-in for third pipe systems in the Netherlands Also internationally the experience in Leidsche Rijn has had impact on the development of third pipe systems. The example of this case has been used by opponents of the third pipe system to prevent the construction of it. For advocates of the system, it has been used as a useful lesson and an example how it should not be introduced. The case of Leidsche Rijn has therefore influence on transitions that are taking place in other countries. This shows there is cohesion between transitions that are taking place in different place of the world. Conclusions: The author of this report did not succeed in interviewing any stakeholders of the third pipe system in Leidsche Rijn. It seems that there still is revulsion against the use of non-potable water in the Netherlands. A common argument that came up when requesting interviews was: “We do not need it, because we have got plenty of water available in the Netherlands. Why should we therefore invest in something that is expensive and has a health risk?” Because data from interviews are not available, below an overview of conclusions is listed that is mainly based on the Report of the Dutch Safety Board that investigated the contamination of the

183 Source: Oesterholt (2003)


114

drinking water in Leidsche Rijn in 2003. Firstly, the main driver for the uptake of third pipe systems in Leidsche Rijn will be explained. Secondly, the reasons for failure in Leidsche Rijn will be explained. Finally, the reasons for the transition lock-in that resulted from these incidents will be explained. Driver for the uptake of third pipe systems: • Sustainability: The driver for the uptake of a third pipe system in Leidsche Rijn was a political

initiative on a national level. Politics decided that drying out of the soil should be prevented in areas where water was extracted for drinking water purposes. Third pipe systems could complement drinking water resources for non-potable purposes. The location of Leidsche Rijn was designated as one of six pilot locations by the National Government. After it was regarded as financial feasible, it was decided by the water company to carry out the experiment in Leidsche Rijn.

Reasons for failure at Leidsche Rijn: In the text above it is explained that a construction error was in all cases the direct cause for contamination of the drinking water in Leidsche Rijn. Furthermore, underestimating of the risk for cross-connections, insufficient quality control, and unclear responsibilities have been indicated as indirect causes for failure. Reasons for transition lock-in: As a result from the incidents in Leidsche Rijn two factors were decisive for the complete transition lock-in for third pipe systems in the Netherlands. • Willingness of water company: Because the supply of non-potable water was not the core

business of the water company, it was easy for them to stop the pilot project. The water company was not willing to put the effort in something that had in their opinion a significant health risk. Other water companies took over this opinion and stopped with their pilot projects after the incidents in Leidsche Rijn in five of the six pilot projects184.

• Prohibition by National Government: Prohibiting third pipe systems by the National Government

made it impossible to proceed with experiments of third pipe systems. At this moment, water companies or other organisations would not even be allowed to conduct further experiments, even if they were willing to do this.

184 Source: Senter Novem (2003)


7.6 Case study IJburg (Amsterdam)

Figure 7.21: The first phase of IJburg under construction (Source: Wikipedia (2005)) Introduction: IJburg is a large residential development located on a land reclamation of 450 ha in the IJ-lake outside Amsterdam (see Figure 7.21). After completion, the new land will accommodate approximately 18.000 dwellings (45.000 residents) and a total commercial surface area of 213.000 m2 for employment of 12.000 people. At this moment, the first phase of IJburg is under construction. 6000 people are currently living in IJburg.185 The planning process for the second phase is also proceeding, but the development plan for this phase has been disapproved by the Council of Court186 on grounds of potential environmental impact and incompleteness.187 The first design for IJburg was being made in 1965 with the aim of accommodating population growth of the Amsterdam region. However, this plan was not realised. In 1991, IJburg was included in the Structure Plan Amsterdam that was made by the City of Amsterdam. Based on this plan, IJburg was included in 1993 in the Fourth Policy Document on Spatial Planning Extra. Therefore it would become a VINEX location for mass development to meet in population growth in the Netherlands that also aimed to be appealing development for people with a higher income (see also Case 3: Leidsche Rijn). The ‘Design for IJburg’ (Ontwerp voor IJburg) and a ‘Document of Starting Principles’ (Nota van Uitgangspunten) were created in 1996 by the municipality of Amsterdam and were the base for the further development of the plan.188 There was a lot of protest against the development, because it was a large land reclamation that would be against the concept of “Room for water” and it would affect the environment and ecology in the IJ-lake. In 1997 there was a referendum organised amongst the population of Amsterdam to prevent the development of IJburg. In this referendum a majority of the population (60% of a turnout of 41% of the population) voted in favour of the development of IJburg.189 To compensate the criticisms, Rijkswaterstaat190 and the City of Amsterdam agreed on the ‘stand-still principle’, which implied that the water quality of the IJ-lake should not be affected by the development of IJburg. This means that run-off from IJburg towards the IJ-lake should have equal or better quality 185 Source: Projectbureau IJburg (2007) 186 Note: The Council of Court is the country’s highest administrative court and advisises the Dutch government and parliament on legislation and governance. 187 Source: Gemeente Amsterdam (2007) 188 Source: Projectbureau IJburg (2007) 189 Source: Projectbureau IJburg (2007) 190 Note: Rijkswaterstaat is the operating agency of the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management.


116

than the water of the IJ-lake. Furthermore new ‘nature’ would be developed for compensation of the loss of the nature in the IJ-lake. Ambitions: The stand-still principle resulted in a set of ambitions that was made in the Waterplan for IJburg in 1998. The Waterplan had the aim to realise a residential area with optimal integration of the water system. The ambition for IJburg was to create an environment with a high quality and a sustainable urban design. Therefore, a sustainable and integral water system had to be realised with a water quality that was at least equal to the water quality in the IJ-lake. In this case, the words ‘sustainable’ and ‘integral’ mean that different aspects of the water system are being regarded in cohesion instead of individual parts.191 To realise the water ambitions, stormwater run-off is disconnected from the sewer system to prevent the discharge of relatively clean water to the treatment plant. In order to meet the requirements of the stand-still principle it was aimed at the start of the project to implement at-source measures, separating flows of different quality, and use local opportunities for treatment. Also it was aimed to retaining stormwater run-off as much as possible and to minimise run-off from allotments. Planned at-source measures included prohibiting the use of materials that are leaching in stormwater run-off such as zinc, copper and lead. Another planned measure with the aim of minimising pollution at the source was education for (future) residents. Separating relatively clean flows from polluted flows was planned to treat polluted flows more efficiently. Relatively clean run-off from for example roofs does not require treatment, but more polluted run-off from for example streets requires some kind of treatment. Primary roads with much traffic had to be connected to an improved separated sewer system. Vegetated swales were planned to treat run-off from secondary roads. Furthermore, peak discharge from roofs was planned to be decreased by using vegetated roofs and infiltration at allotments.192 It was also planned to minimise the drinking water use of the residents in IJburg. Amsterdam has the largest drinking water use per capita of the Netherlands: 156l/day against an average of 128 l/day for the Netherlands. According to the water company in Amsterdam this difference is caused by the fact that: people in cities are using more water than people in the countryside, Amsterdam accommodates relatively many 1-person households and small families, the configuration of the inhabitants of Amsterdam is diverse and the fact that not everyone in Amsterdam has a water meter yet.193 IJburg is the first place in Amsterdam where water meters are being implemented at a large scale for individual households.194 195 Another measure to minimise the drinking water use in IJburg was a third pipe system that was planned for supply of non-potable water for toilet flushing and laundry. The source for non potable water was water from the IJ-lake that was planned to be treated by a membrane filter before use. Ambitions in practice: The ambition to minimise run-off from allotments was translated into infiltration of allotments and storage in vegetated roofs. The aim was to infiltrate / retain 80% of the run-off from allotments at the allotments.196 However, infiltration on allotments has seemed unfeasible. this was determined in the urban plan which is a public agreement. However, it was not included in the land contracts, which are private agreements. For the land exploitation is was not considered as important to include this feature in an allotment, so therefore the requirement could be cancelled by the land developer. Also much of 191 Source: Koedood (1998) 192 Source: Koedood (1998) 193 Source: Waternet (2007) 194 Source: Waterstad (2000) 195 Note: Currently the water company is installing water meters at a large scale. In 2002, only 100.000 households had a watermeter. In June 2007 200.000 watermeters had been installed and in the next year and a half another 25.000 watermeters will be installed. (Waternet (2007)) 196 Source:Ganzevles and Handgraaf (2002)


the vegetation roofs were not implemented. In Haveneiland Oost, which is part of the first phase, 30.000 m2 vegetated roofs have been constructed. This is 30% of all the roofs in this area. However, in the rest of the development vegetated roofs have not been applied. Collapse of the housing market in the early 2000s resulted in the fact that the upper segment of the market was more difficult to sell. Therefore, allotments were made smaller so that there would be more relatively cheap housing stock in IJburg. This created more revenue for the council and the developers. However, the increasing number of allotments came together with a higher demand for car parks. Hence, an extra claim on the available space was born. The extra claim for space by the car parks decreases the available space for vegetated swales. Vegetated swales are not being regarded as a complete substitute for green. Figure 7.22 shows the cross section of the roads where originally vegetated swales had been planned. Because more parking places were required, less space remained available for green and vegetated swales. At first, the Department for Spatial Planning suggested the implementation of an Aquaflow system (see Chapter 7.2: Case study Het Funen) as a possible solution. However, because neither the water board nor the council wanted to maintain the Aquaflow system, Aquaflow was not implemented.

Figure 7.22: Cross section of planned vegetated swales in IJburg (Source: Koedood (1998)) Finally, IT drains (Infiltration Transport drains) were introduced as an alternative for the vegetated swales. IT drains are porous drains that are located above the groundwater level (the required drainage depth in IJburg is 1m). Stormwater run-off is collected by street gullies and discharged to the drains. From the IT drains, the water infiltrates into the soil (sand). IT drains have a smaller demand for space than vegetated swales and their treatment efficiency is similar. The benefits of vegetated swales over IT drains are the storage capacity of vegetated swales and the better visibility of water management in the urban landscape. Because of the large percentage of surface water in the area (11,5%), storage was not an issue. Therefore, in the opinions of the stakeholders, the only reason for choosing vegetated swales instead of IT drains was the visibility of the treatment measure. This benefit lost it in the competition with the space benefit of IT drains. All stakeholders agreed to install IT drains instead of vegetated swales. In my opinion it is strange that the water board has agreed with IT drains in IJburg. IT drains are drains above the groundwater level. This allows them to infiltrate water into the ground. However, the same water board does not allow drains that are being located below the groundwater level for drainage of an area, because in their opinion the use of drains is not sustainable because they get damaged quickly. In 1998 the City of Amsterdam asked for an investigation of the effects of the third pipe system by the municipal water company that was planned in IJburg. The municipal water company the produced this report in 2002 and advised not to proceed with the implementation of the third pipe system in IJburg. The arguments that have been used were that the environmental benefits are minimal (and even possibly negative) and not in relation with the high costs. Furthermore, the report warned for a health risk because cross-connections cannot be excluded. This advice was taken over by the Projectbureau IJburg and later also by the board of the council. The decision for not proceeding with the third pipe


118

system in IJburg was made in June 2002 after the incidents in Leidsche Rijn, but before the national prohibition. 197 Enabling factors: • Housing demand: The City of Amsterdam initiated the development of IJburg in the early 1990s

to meet in the housing demand for the population of Amsterdam. In 1992, IJburg was included in the Fourth Policy Document on Spatial Planning Extra. This meant that IJburg was from then on officially a VINEX location (see also Case 3: Leidsche Rijn) for mass development to accommodate Dutch population growth that would also have to be appealing for the higher segment housing market.

• Stand-still principle: Because there was resistance against the plans by different environmental

groups, Rijkswaterstaat and the Municipality of Amsterdam agreed on a stand-still principle for the IJ-lake to mitigate environmental impact of the land reclamation. The stand-still principle meant that stormwater run-off from IJburg would have at least equal quality to the water in the IJ-lake. Stormwater treatment solutions had to be found, because discharge of stormwater was not allowed otherwise.

• Sustainability driver: Sustainability was the driver for the waterplan that was being made by the

Department of Water Management and Sewerage (DWR) of the council.198 DWR was the predecessor of the water board in Amsterdam. This organisation was operating department of the Municipality Amsterdam and the Water board Amstel, Gooi and Vecht. The definition of DWR for sustainability was to regard different aspects of water as one cohesive system instead of a system of individual parts.

• Good co-operation: Like in Leidsche Rijn a project approach is being used for the development

of IJburg. The project team consists of representatives of the Projectbureau IJburg (developing authority), water board, and various departments of the council, including the departments of spatial planning and public space. The Projectbureau IJburg was leading in all decisions, but no decision that affected the water system was being made without the consultation of the project team and approval of the water board.

A difference between this case and for example Het Funen is that the water board (which is the same organisation as the water board in Het Funen) has been involved from the start of the project. The water board was pro-active in making a waterplan including all the ambitions of the water board and the wishes of the municipal department of spatial planning into account.

The interviewees have indicated that there was a team spirit during the process, even when they disagreed with each other. This team spirit was for an important part caused by the fact that they knew each other well.

If one stakeholder had an issue or question it was easy to contact another member of the project team that probably could provide an answer. The water board had for example one overall manager for the whole development of IJburg and two island managers (for the first phase). Therefore it was always clear for the other stakeholders whom to contact if this was necessary. These three contact persons delegated the questions or problems in their organisation.

Disabling factors: • Conflicting interests council: This case shows how big the conflict in interests within the council

is. On one hand the Department for Spatial Planning wants to create a ‘sustainable’ development and sets ambitions to achieve this and on the other hand the developing authority of the council is mainly interested in the financial return of the development. A consistent integral view towards urban development is therefore lacking within the council. This conflict is an important reason in

197 Source: Gemeente Amsterdam (2002) 198 Source: Koedood (1998)


the fact that ambitions on higher management levels were not completely taken over in practice on lower levels.

• Power of developer: Projectbureau IJburg is the municipal developing authority for the

development of IJburg. Although all stakeholders are involved in the decision making process, the land developer, who is also for responsible for the cash flow, is leading in all decisions. Because the main interest of the land developer is to gain profit, for every requirement it was checked if it was really necessary and if it was written down in a contract. If not, there would be searched for alternatives for the ‘requirements’ or the ‘requirements’ would simply be put aside. This is for example the reason why visibility of the water system as a requirement did not make it. The water board could not enforce that this ambition remained included in the development.

• Attitude towards innovations: In practice the attitude of the water board did not match the

ambitions that were made by the same water board. The water board has a conservative view towards innovation. The interviewee of the water board has indicated that the primary interest of the water board is to create a robust well functioning water system. The main concern for IJburg of the water board was to therefore to create sufficient surface water and to meet the quality demands of the stand-still principle. An example that shows that the water board was not committed to their own ambitions was the removal of the requirement for infiltration at inner courts of building blocks. At first, these inner courts were private area and therefore not the responsibility of the water board. After the development authority decided to make the inner courts public, the infiltration system would have become the responsibility of the water board. The water board however, did not want to have the responsibility of maintaining the infiltration system and cancelled the requirement. By doing this it showed that it was not committed towards its own ambitions.

• Contracting: The ambitions were not sufficiently safeguarded by contracts or formal agreements.

The Document of Starting Principles and the Document of Requirements that were being made by the council did not have any legal value. The same was the case for the waterplan of the water board. All the ambitions in those documents and the ambitions that were not written down, were pealed off in the development process if they were not sufficiently protected with contracts or completely necessary. For example, one ambition was to infiltrate stormwater run-off from roofs on private land. This was also included in the spatial plan (public agreement), but not in the contract for the land (private agreement). Because it was not defined in the contracts, infiltration at private land could be cancelled if necessary. In fact this also happened, because the land developer did not regard it as important for the land exploitation.

• Housing market: According to the interviewees, the housing market was in the early 1990s ideal

for spending more money on public space, because the housing demand was so large that everything would be sold, regardless the price or quality. The waterplan for the development was at that time an example for how water management should be conducted in the Netherlands in order to achieve a ‘sustainable’ development. However, after the market for the higher segment collapsed while the demand for affordable housing remained high, higher segment housing in the plan for the development was exchanged for more affordable dwellings. This resulted in a higher dwelling density, because more dwellings could fit on the same area.

A side effect of this higher dwelling density was that a larger number of parking places was required in the public space to meet the parking demand for the new situation. Because of this less space became available for green and vegetated swales in the area. Finally, the vegetated swales were cancelled and replaced by IT drains that required less space, but have the same water quality output.

• No integral approach towards urban planning: Vegetated swales are not being regarded as a

full substitute for green in an urban area by the Department of Spatial Planning. When the claim for space increased, because of the increasing number of parking places, there was no space anymore for vegetated swales and a green area with trees. Because the Department of Spatial Planning did not acknowledge that vegetated swales were a substitute for green, a choice had to be made between vegetated swales (which were regarded as blue and green, but did neither contribute to the water storage capacity nor the quantity of green) and a green area with trees. In


120

order to meet the demand for green there was chosen to cancel the vegetated swales to keep space available for a green strip with trees.

• Complex organisation: The organisation structure for the development of IJburg is very complex, because many actors are involved. There are 5 consortia of 3-7 developers. This means that the paperwork is enormous. Furthermore, the ambitions of the stakeholders are not adjusted like in Leidsche Rijn. These factors make it merely impossible for individuals to bring innovation by themselves.

• Changing personnel: The interviewees have indicated that capacity problems and changing

personnel at the council in which IJburg is located could not sufficiently deal with the development project of IJburg. Therefore this council was not regarded as a serious partner for the other stakeholders.

Conclusion: Despite the ambitions that were made at the beginning did not seem feasible, all interviewees have indicated that they think that the outcome of the development has been a nice living area with a good water quality output. They all think that the result is sufficient, regarding to the circumstances of the collapsed housing market. A couple of key lessons can be learned from this case. The organisation structure is almost the same for IJburg as for Leidsche Rijn (Case 3). However, the outcome of the development process is that not all ambitions have been implemented in reality. This can possibly be explained by the differences between the two developments. The power of the land developers that is responsible for the land exploitation is different in IJburg and Leidsche Rijn. In IJburg the land developer has indicated that he is leading in all decision. In Leidsche Rijn the Taskgroup Water is safeguarding the ambitions that have been set up together at the start of the process. The land developer is not leading in Leidsche Rijn in decision making. Furthermore, the organisation structure is somewhat more complicated in IJburg, because the number of involved actors is larger than in Leidsche Rijn (there are more developers involved). This has resulted in an organisation that is less flexible towards innovation. The case of IJburg also showed that an integral approach towards urban planning is lacking. Despite the green appearance of vegetated swales, they are not being regarded as a substitute for green. For this reason not sufficient space was left for vegetated swales.


7.7 Case study Lanxmeer (Culemborg)

Figure 7.23: Impressions of EVA Lanxmeer in Culemborg (Source: Kaptein (2007)) Introduction: Lanxmeer (see Figure 7.23) is a residential development of 250 dwellings (and 40.000m2 commercial area) on 12ha that is located around a groundwater extraction area for drinking water. The complete area including the water winning area is 24ha.199 The area has a sandy clay soil. The development has been developed as a demonstration for a sustainable neighbourhood. An integral water system, sustainable energy supply (photovoltaic roofs) and urban agriculture are integrated in the development. Furthermore, existing landscape elements such as the groundwater extraction area, a water tower and an old farmhouse are being preserved and strengthened. Also the interaction and involvement of residents is encouraged by the allotment plan. Next to the allotments of the house owners and public space there is an area between public and private space that is owned by a group of residents. This communal land is a zone between private and public land and has to be maintained by the owners of the surrounding allotments. In line of this concept, hoarding is not allowed between allotments. Another important aspect of the development is that there are no through roads in the estate, but a central car park with a capacity of one car per household. Also a centre for education (EVA Centre) about sustainable building is being planned.200 Lanxmeer is located in Culemborg, which is located near the River Lek201 and had 27.158 inhabitants on 1 January 2006.202 The water system: Figure 7.24 shows a schematic overview of the water system of Lanxmeer. Flows of water are separated as much as possibly in order to maximise fit-for-purpose use and to minimise treatment of water:203

• Relatively clean run-off from roofs flows directly to retention ponds. • Run-off from streets and other pavement is conveyed to vegetated swales at the fringe of the

estate where it infiltrates towards the groundwater if possible. The remaining water is discharged to an infiltration pond.

• Grey water from laundry machines, showers and the kitchen is treated by reedbed filters (In Dutch: ‘helofytenfilters’) before discharge to the surface water (away from the groundwater extraction area).

199 Source: Stichting EVA (2007) 200 Source: Stichting EVA (2007) 201 Note: In 1995, this river nearly flooded and the complete community of Culemborg had to be evacuated. (Source: Jakobs and Saan (2006) 202 Source: Gemeente Culemborg (2007) 203 Source: Kaptein (2007), Stichting EVA (2007)


122

Black water from toilets etc. is discharged to the sewer system. In the original plans a biogas installation was planned to produce power from black water for the EVA Centre as well as a biological water treatment plant (Living Machine). At the moment of writing this report it is unclear if these will really be realised.

Figure 7.24: Schematic overview of the water system in EVA-Lanxmeer (Source: Kaptein (2007)) A third pipe system was constructed for the supply of non-potable water for laundry and toilet flushing. It did not supply non-potable water for outdoor use in contrary to the third pipe system in Leidsche Rijn, because the water company was afraid for misuse of outdoor water taps, because people are used to drinking water for outdoor taps.204 The network for non-potable water had a different colour than the drinking water network and the pressure in the non-potable water network was lower to prevent intrusion of non-potable water in the drinking water network in case of cross-connections between the mains of the two systems. The source for the non-potable water network was flushing water from the groundwater extraction plant. The quality of this water is better than groundwater, because it contains lower concentrations iron and manganese (these particles are being removed by the flushing water from the filter, but subside in a special retention reservoir before it is used). However, after the experiences in Leidsche Rijn the water company decided to stop the supply of non-potable water in Lanxmeer. It was also investigated to implement a central heating system for the whole estate. Relatively warm groundwater would have been pumped through the estate by the water company for heating of the houses. At first the water company was a bit reluctant, because heating is not a core business for the water company. The water company was convinced by the fact that it would be financially feasible to do so, because of the fact that ground water would have to be pumped up anyway for drinking water production and proximity of the estate to the groundwater extraction pump. After a merger of the water company, the new company decided to limit their business only on drinking water production and distribution, because of bad experience of this new company with secondary activities including the third pipe system in Leidsche Rijn. This meant the end of the plans for a central heating system.

204 Source: Van Vessem (2002)


Initiative: In 1994, the Foundation EVA was founded people with backgrounds in architecture, landscape design, energy, agriculture, higher education, health care and art with the aim to enhance consciousness about environmental issues and awareness about effects of our own behaviour and to involve residents and users to influence and create their own living environment.205 To set an example for a sustainable neighbourhood the foundation wanted to develop a demonstration, because it had the opinion that a demonstration project is far more powerful to reach society than writing publications. The incentives for starting the foundation were the Brundtland Report on sustainable development of the United Nations (1987), environmental ideology and the inability of national environmental policy to move society. The Foundation EVA wanted to be a link between the national government and experts and people in society. The foundation created a set of starting principles for the development of a demonstration project and called this the EVA Concept. The principles of the EVA Concept are:

• To preserve and/or strengthen the existing landscape qualities of the development location. • To close cycles of matter and energy as much as possible and make natural cycles visible as

much as possible. • To create an optimal connection between landscape elements and architecture. • To implement sustainable water management and sustainable energy supply in the urban

plan. • To design meeting places and setting preconditions for encouraging initiatives from residents. • Participation of future residents and users in the design and maintenance of the estate.

Furthermore, the foundation wanted to have a demonstration project of the size of a complete estate in order to show that sustainable living was possible in normal estates and not just in small-scale projects. Furthermore, several aspects of sustainability had to be integrated in one estate. If one aspect would have to be cancelled because of insufficient funding, the estate would still be a nice estate without the sustainable aspect. Other pilot projects with for example photovoltaic cells focus completely on one aspect. If a funding program by the government would be cancelled, and therefore the photovoltaic cells as well, the development does not have good quality anymore in some cases. In Lanxmeer the sustainability concept includes the aspects of water, energy, urban agriculture, landscaping and public participation. With the starting principles in mind, Foundation EVA was looking for a suitable location for a demonstration project. In 1994 the foundation found the City of Culemborg as a partner for the demonstration project. A partnership between a council and a private foundation for the development of an estate was uncommon at that time, but the plans of Foundation EVA matched the policy of the City of Culemborg. There was also a suitable location available for the development of Lanxmeer in Culemborg; a location near a groundwater extraction area. This location became suitable for development when the water company decided to extract the water from a larger depth and therefore building was permitted on a smaller proximity to the extraction area. In 1996 the council warned for a housing quota for the municipality of Culemborg that was set by the Province. Because of a large development in the north of Culemborg the quota for development in Culemborg was already reached and development of Lanxmeer would thus not be allowed by the Province. The Foundation EVA asked the Province for an exception of this quota for the development of Lanxmeer, because this would be a demonstration project for sustainable development. The Province agreed for a development of approximately 200 dwellings, with the requirement that from 1999 on every year 50 dwellings had to be realised. After approval by the Province, the council and the foundation started the design and planning process of the development on the location of Lanxmeer. 205 Source: Kaptein (2007)


124

Public participation: Public participation is a very important aspect of the development of the estate during the whole design and decision making process as well as the maintenance of the estate. Personal involvement of residents was being regarded as an important condition for a sustainable livelihood. The involvement of potential future residents started before the partnership between the council and the foundation with the creation of the EVA Concept. A group of potential residents worked on a programme for an ideal living and working area as part of the EVA Concept. This group of potential residents was gathered by mouth-to-mouth advertisement. In later phases, the potential residents of Lanxmeer that participated in the planning process had to meet certain requirements which were set up by the foundation and the council. No hoarding would be allowed between gardens, the car would have to be parked on a central car park (with a capacity of one car per household), it would not be possible to drive up to the house for unloading the car and the use of chlorine etc. was not allowed. With these requirements in mind, people could sign up to live in the neighbourhood. A list was made and the first ones on the list had the right to buy or rent a house in the estate. At the start of the project, there was much interest from people to live in Lanxmeer under the conditions that were made by the foundation and the council. When it was clear that the Province approved for the development of Lanxmeer and the City of Culemborg embraced the concept, a group of 60 households of different income groups was interested. This group formed an Association of Residents and has discussed about the plans intensively at meetings, lectures, and workshops. In early 1997 Foundation EVA organised workshops to inform the group of enthusiastic people about the EVA Concept. This resulted in a book in March 1997 that maintained the thinking and doings of the potential residents that was presented to the experts. After this in the spring of 1997, the Urban Design Atelier was an event were a group of potential residents presented the ideas and wishes of the residents. This was embraced by experts for further developments of the urban plan. The urban plan was presented in a masterclass in October 1997. Residents reacted on the plan during this masterclass. This led to a revised urban plan that was widely acknowledged. After design urban plan, residents were also influential in the design and layout of houses. The first houses of the development were realised in 2000. In 2004 the development was completed. Maintenance: In 1998 the local council approved de-central maintenance of the public space in Lanxmeer. This means that the residents take care for maintaining the public space in the estate. The residents are organised in an association that is responsible for maintenance. The residents conduct small maintenance activities, such as brushing the streets, mowing the grass and maintaining the green in public space, including the maintenance of the vegetated swales. The residents also maintain the communal space. The municipal department for maintenance of public space pays the residents for maintaining the area.206 It also checks the maintenance that is conducted by the residents. If the work is not being done sufficiently, the council communicates this with the residents. The end responsibility of maintaining the public space remains for the council. The council is responsible for large maintenance works such as the maintenance of the reedbed filters. Traditionally, this would be the responsibility for the water board, but the water board refused to take over the system in Lanxmeer. The water board demanded relatively large straight canals that can easily be maintained with large machines. However, this would not have fitted the concept of Lanxmeer and therefore the council made the choice to pay for the maintenance of this aspect.

206 Note: If the council would maintain the estate by itself, the cost of maintenance of the estate would therefore more or less equal.


Key lessons: Below the key lessons from this case are being described. Enabling factors: • Sustainability driver: The development of Lanxmeer is a demonstration project for a sustainable

neighbourhood, which is based on various sustainability principles. Water is being regarded as a pillar for sustainable development (especially to contribute to minimal environmental impact). The sustainability components of Lanxmeer fitted in national, provincial and municipal policy frameworks. The floods of the rivers Rhine, Meuse and Waal in 1993 and 1995 caused extra awareness and attention for water management. During the floods of 1995, this was especially the case for the evacuation of over 250.000 people from risk areas207, including all inhabitants of Culemborg because of the near flooding of the River Lek.208 These events had direct impact on policy making, but not on the development of Lanxmeer.

• Attitude of stakeholders: In this project all stakeholders acknowledged that the development was a demonstration project. Therefore they accepted higher costs and risks than they would normally have done. This attitude made development of this project possible. The council accepted for example higher costs of more underground infrastructure and the large quantity of green in the estate that did not produce a financial return. The Province accepted a larger number of houses that was developed in the area, because it was a demonstration project for sustainability.

• Commitment: Commitment of organisations and individuals was a basis for the relatively flexible

attitude of the stakeholders. The council was convinced quickly to co-operate with the Foundation EVA and investing in the development of Lanxmeer. Despite the water board refused to take over the water system in Lanxmeer, it thought along during the planning process. The water board financed the reedbed filters and the retention ponds. It was in the interest of the water board to do this, because the water system of Lanxmeer is connected to waterways outside the development.

The commitment of the initiator of the Foundation EVA to translate her ideals to a demonstration of a sustainable neighbourhood was the main driver for the development of Lanxmeer. She puts more effort in making the project a success than probably could be expected from an employee of a public organisation or private company. The professional partners of the foundation that have been approached for the design of Lanxmeer have also showed commitment and trust in the concept. They have been selected by the foundation based on the fact that the concepts for the development were also shared amongst them. It was deliberately chosen to co-operate with professionals and not with volunteers, in order to safeguard quality and credibility of the demonstration project.

Finally, the residents of Lanxmeer are also committed to live in the estate. On beforehand they have been informed about the requirements for living in the area. They have accepted the requirements and have chosen to put effort in the livelihood of the neighbourhood. In 2005 Lanxmeer won an Environmental award for the maintenance of the estate.209

• Location: The characteristics of the location made development of Lanxmeer possible. The fact

that the water company started to pump groundwater from an increased depth made development of the area possible.

• Public participation: Public participation is a very important aspect of the development process

of Lanxmeer. Future residents have been involved during the planning process from the setting up of the starting principles for the concept and the design of the urban plan, to the phase of operation and maintenance. Public participation has created support from the residents for the

207 Source: Koppejan and Hagelstein (1995) 208 Source: Jakobs and Saan (2006) 209 Source: Stichting Milieukeur (2007)


126

plans, but also a sort of moral ownership. As a result of public participation, a situation has emerged in the estate where residents show much activity and initiatives. Residents seem to be proud to live in Lanxmeer. This is important for maintaining the behavioural standards that have been required for the residents to be able to live in the estate such as abandoning the use of chlorine. If residents do not care about their living area, it is more likely that they will start to use chlorine.

Disabling factors: • Stakeholders that only think of own interests: Like in other cases, the fact that stakeholders

are only interested in their own interests and do not care about other interests, has been mentioned as a barrier in the case of Lanxmeer. An example is the fact that the water board did not want to take over the surface water in the development, because the embankments can not easily be accessed with large mowing machines. By doing this it was only interested in its own responsibility and not in the overall outcome of the development.

• Cost: According to the council, the cost for the infrastructure in Lanxmeer is higher than for a

standard development. The large amount of green in the area and low dwelling density (15 dwellings per ha) result in a limited financial returns for the council. The council has accepted this, because it regarded the project as a demonstration project. Therefore it has not been a real obstacle in this case, but it has indicated that it would have been an obstacle for other developments.

• Obligations for residents: The residents that are living in the estate have to meet certain

requirements. They have to park the car in a central car park, are not allowed to place hoarding in gardens and use of chlorine etc in the households. At the start of the project there was much interest of potential residents for living in the estate, but in later phases this interest faded out. Sales of the last allotments are not taking place as easily as the first allotments. A relation between the fading sales and the requirements has been made by one of the interviewees, but it is hard to prove this. It could indeed be the case that there is only a small suite of people that wants to live in an estate like Lanxmeer with its requirements. However, it could also be caused by other factors such as the situation at the housing market or the fact that current buyers do not have as much engagement in the planning process as the earliest group of residents.

Conclusions: The prospects for the various features of the water system have been discussed in the other case studies. Therefore they will not be discussed into detail again. From this case it can be learned that the attitude towards a demonstration project is different than for a normal development. The stakeholders were willing to accept more or make exceptions for the demonstration project. For the translation of this demonstration project towards widespread practice it has to be questioned if it is desired by society to give residents such a large responsibility. Especially the fact that residents have to meet requirements in order to be permitted to live in an estate and have to conduct the maintenance of the public space is in my opinion not desired by a large part of society. The abandonment of the third pipe system has resulted also in abandonment of other secondary activities of the water company. The water company decided to focus completely on the delivery of drinking water. From this it can be derived that a transition lock-in of third pipe system does not only have consequences for this technology, but also has influence on other technologies.


7.8 Conclusions from case studies the Netherlands This section concludes the case studies in the Netherlands. From each case different lessons have been learned. Furthermore, the enabling and disabling factors that have been revealed from all the case studies will be summarised to answer the Research Question from the perspective of the case studies in the Netherlands. The enabling and disabling factors have been converted into key elements that contribute towards the transition in urban water management in the Netherlands. Key lessons from the individual cases in the Netherlands: The case of Het Funen especially revealed the importance of good planning and co-operation between stakeholders. Bad planning and lack of good co-operation between stakeholders in the initiative phase resulted in a situation that could have been avoided. A relatively new technique was the only available solution to meet the requirements that were made by politicians. Although it was agreed by the stakeholders that the implementation of Aquaflow was the only suitable solution, none of them had the opinion that this solution was optimal. The case of ‘t Duyfrak shows that an integral development approach can deliver increased quality and financial benefits. If activities are being conducted by the most suitable stakeholder for that activity, a development with a higher quality can be achieved against lower overall costs. The philosophy of Building Site Preparation PLUS could possibly be a substitute for traditional building site preparation. However, the diffusion of this new approach is still in the take-off phase. In ‘t Duyfrak permeable pavement is used to disconnect run-off from paved surface from the sewer system. The permeable pavement is located at private land and has to be maintained by the residents. In the case of ‘t Duyfrak, the council is in my opinion not taking its moral responsibility to maintain the permeable pavement itself. This has nothing to do with the pavement, but with the fact that not sufficient budget was available for maintaining public space including the bridges to the allotments. However, if the residents are not maintaining the system properly the system could possibly be blamed instead of the way of dealing with it. This can possibly have a negative effect on the development for permeable pavement. The cases of Het Funen and ‘t Duyfrak concluded that Aquaflow is less developed as ‘normal’ permeable pavement. For both technologies it is unlikely that they will become a substitute for traditional pavement with street gullies, because of conflicts in the underground with cables and pipes in high-density areas. The permeable pavement as it is implemented in ‘t Duyfrak is cheaper than a street with normal pavement and street gullies. Together with its other benefits the price offers an opportunity for permeable pavement to proceed on the diffusion curve from the acceleration phase towards an incomplete transition.

Figure 7.25: Likely diffusion curve of Aquaflow and permeable pavement


128

If this development proceeds, a transition lock-in for Aquaflow is not unlikely. ‘Normal’ permeable pavement offers the same benefits as Aquaflow against a lower price. Figure 7.25 shows the likely technology diffusion pathways for ‘normal’ permeable pavement and Aquaflow. Leidsche Rijn shows the advantage of a project approach. A project team functions as a platform for communication. All the representatives in the project team know each other. This has resulted in a team spirit and low barriers for contacting each other in case of a question of problem. Another important aspect of the project team is that all relevant actors have been involved from the beginning of the project. They have set up the plans together. During the developing process this helps the safeguarding of the plans, which is also a function of the project team. The case of the third pipe system of Leidsche Rijn gives an example of a failing introduction of an innovation. The experiences with the third pipe system have resulted in a transition lock-in. At this moment the technology of third pipe systems is abandoned completely in the Netherlands and it is not likely that it will be taken up again in the near future. This is not only caused by a national prohibition, but also by the fact that water companies are not willing anymore to implement them if it would still be allowed. The lock-in of the third pipe system also has influence on the introduction of other innovative technologies by the water company that operates in the area of Leidsche Rijn and Lanxmeer. It is not investigated if this is also the case for other water companies in the Netherlands. The incidents in Leidsche Rijn have been used in other countries by opponents of the technology to oppose the introduction of third pipe systems in their countries. The case of IJburg shows that if there is ambition to implement something, this is not automatically translated into practice. Conflicting interests of the local council, the power of the developing authority, insufficient (legal) protection of the ambitions and the lack of an integral approach towards urban planning have resulted in a system that does not include many aspects of the original ambitions. However, according to the interviewees the system that is developed does meet the water quality requirements, although it does not include all planned features. The case of IJburg also showed that an integral approach towards urban planning is lacking. Despite the green appearance of vegetated swales, they are not being regarded as a substitute for green. For this reason not sufficient space was left for vegetated swales. Because the organisation structure of IJburg and Leidsche Rijn are almost the same and the outcome of the development process is different some key lessons can be learned. Firstly, the allocation of power is an important factor. In IJburg the land developer is leading in all decisions in contrary to Leidsche Rijn where the Taskgroup Water is safeguarding the ambitions that have been set up together at the start of the process. Secondly, organisations have to be committed towards the implementation of their ambitions. For IJburg the case study showed that that this was not really the case. The case of Lanxmeer shows that the attitude towards a demonstration project is different than for a normal development. The stakeholders were willing to accept more or make exceptions for the demonstration project. From this it can be learned that it can be very helpful to clearly communicate the fact a development includes a demonstration of an innovation. Key elements for proceeding the transition towards WSUD: For each case study enabling and disabling factors have been listed. Figure 7.26 gives a summary of the enabling and disabling factors in the Netherlands. This figure answers the Research Question from the perspective of the case studies in the Netherlands.


Figure 7.26: Enabling and disabling factors from the perspective of the case studies in the Netherlands From Figure 7.26 it can be derived that most factors contribute both positively and negatively to the transition in urban water management in the Netherlands. Furthermore, the figure only represents factors that have been revealed from the case studies and is thus not a complete overview. Therefore, the factors are converted into a list of key elements for introducing innovations in urban water management in the Netherlands that can possibly contribute to a transition in urban water management (see Table 7.5).


130

Key element Short description M

acro

leve

l Housing Housing demand drives urban (re-) development and offers

opportunities for implementing WSUD, because new water systems have to be created in these areas. The housing market is an obstacle for WSUD, because it does not offer a financial incentive to create high quality open space.

Sustainability Environmental, amenity and flood management drivers Political decisions Can offer opportunities or be a direct driver for

implementing innovations, but can also be the cause for total abandonment of a technology.

Mes

o le

vel

Attitude and approach of organisations

High ambitions, flexibility and commitment are enabling innovation. Inflexibility, only minding own interests, conservative approach and conflicting interests within the council are disabling innovation.

Co-operation, involvement and communication

Good co-operation, early involvement and good communication are crucial for successfully implementing water systems. In the cases a project team approach includes all three aspects. Bad planning and late involvement can lead to problems.

Complexity of organisations and process

Introducing innovations in larger organisations or organisations with many levels or departments is more difficult than in small organisations with few departments and limited management levels. If more stakeholders are involved it is relatively more difficult for an individual to introduce innovation.

Knowledge and experience

Lack of knowledge and understanding causes agency reluctance. Lack of experience can lead to bad implementation. Loss of knowledge can be caused by changing personnel. Education can increase knowledge.

Cost and cost allocation Higher costs for construction and maintenance are a barrier. Also lower financial return because of a claim for space is an issue. Cost allocation for maintenance of permeable pavement is point of discussion between council and water board.

Construction, operation and maintenance

Regarding all development phases, including the operation phase and maintenance is important to prevent future problems.

Regulation, agreements and contracts

Can enforce stakeholders to take action and can safeguard the quality of the result.

Mic

ro le

vel

Added value Financial benefits, higher water quality, lower claim for space, higher aesthetic value and educational benefits have been identified. Lack of added value can result in implementing other options.

Reliability and trust Are crucial factors for implementing innovative systems. Location characteristics Offer opportunities and set requirements. Locations

sometimes demand unconventional solutions. Enthusiasm and commitment of individuals

Is an important enabling factor. Enthusiasm of one individual can make other stakeholders enthusiastic as well.

Table 7.5: Key elements for introducing innovative urban water systems in the Netherlands Key elements at the macro level: • Housing: The demand for housing results in development of new urban areas that also require a

new water system. This provides opportunities for implementing new technologies (for example the Aquaflow system in Het Funen, or the water system in Leidsche Rijn which was state of the art in the late 1990s) or new ways of organising the development process (such as BSP+ in ‘t Duyfrak or the use of a project organisation in Leidsche Rijn).


The housing market, however, is an obstacle for broad implementation of water sensitive urban design. The demand for housing is so large that developers are able to sell everything they develop, regardless of the quality of the work. This means that developers have no (market) incentive to create a high quality environment. The case of IJburg illustrates that when the higher segment of the market collapsed in the early 2000s while the demand for the lower segment remained high the developer increased the number of cheaper allotments. This resulted in a higher claim for car parks that directly caused planned vegetated swales to be cancelled.

• Sustainability (Environment and public amenity): Sustainability is a driver that comes back in

all cases. However, in all cases sustainability has different meanings. In Het Funen the public space including the water system has to compensate for the high dwelling density and in ‘t Duyfrak water nuisance has to be prevented. Thus, in these cases the word sustainable can be replaced by public amenity.

For Leidsche Rijn, IJburg and Lanxmeer sustainability has explicitly been mentioned as an objective for the developments. For each case water is an important pillar for sustainable development. In Leidsche Rijn the aim for the water system is to become a basis for recreation, urban ecology and aesthetics. Therefore water quality the leading factor for this case. Water quality was also the leading factor for IJburg to meet the stand-still principle. For IJburg, sustainability is explained by integrating different aspects of water into one system. In the case of Lanxmeer integration of the water system in the urban design and public participation add to the water quality component. Finally, the driver for the third pipe system in Leidsche Rijn is to minimise impact of the development to the drought problem in the soils in the province of Utrecht. In this case sustainability refers to water quantity. In the cases of Leidsche Rijn, IJburg and Lanxmeer the main aspect of sustainability is minimising the environmental impact of the development.

• Political decisions: In all cases a political decision was very important to the implementation of

the water system. In the case of Het Funen a political decision (the choice for implementing parkland that included Flagstones) demanded a solution for groundwater and discharge of stormwater run-off. In the cases of ‘t Duyfrak, Leidsche Rijn and IJburg a political decision to develop the area initiated the project and supported a sustainable outcome (according to societal views of that time). In the case of Lanxmeer provincial politics offered an opportunity to build dwellings outside the housing quota and municipal politics actively supported the development.

The case of the third pipe system of Leidsche Rijn shows that political decision can also have an adverse effect. Firstly, a political decision forced the water company to implement a third pipe system. Later a ministerial decision prohibited further implementation and operation of third pipe systems and thereby made the transition lock-in of third pipe systems final.

Key elements at the meso level: • Attitude and approach of organisations: The attitude of organisations towards a project is

crucial for the outcome of a project. Attitude determines for a large part the approach that is chosen for developing the project and therefore the chance of a successful outcome.

The case of ‘t Duyfrak shows that the initiators of the development (the council) were very ambitious to make it a success. They carefully chose their partners matching their ambitions to make the plans. Later the developers joined the developing process based on land positions in the development area. The developers have a relatively flexible attitude, because of the prospect of a large development in the same municipality in a few years time. In Leidsche Rijn the predecessor of the Taskgroup Water set up the waterplan. This waterplan was signed as a covenant by the organisations that produced it. In later stages the responsibility of the Taskgroup Water is to safeguard this shared ambition. Because of the attitude that showed shared ambition amongst stakeholders these ambitions were indeed safeguarded.


132

In the case of Lanxmeer the initiator communicated clearly that the development was a demonstration for sustainable development. Therefore it was received differently than a normal development. The fact that for example the City of Culemborg regarded it as a demonstration project made more possible. It caused a more flexible attitude towards the development and also made a larger budget available. A negative attitude towards a project can have an adverse effect. In all cases it was mentioned by the interviewees that it is a barrier that most organisations only think of their own interest and do not see the bigger picture. A comment that returns repeatedly in all cases is that developers are bottom-line dwellers that are only interested in minimising their cost and maximising their profit. Therefore they want to build as much dwellings as possible with minimum public space. The interviewees have also indicated that the attitude of the water boards is conservative. Maintenance of the water system is their main concern. Their attitude is that if a water system does not meet their demands, they do not take over the system. In the opinion of the water boards they should design the water system, because they will have to maintain it in the future as well. However, maintenance is their main interest, and other values of water are being put on second place. The barrier of limited interest and lack of integral approach does not only exist between organisations, but also between different departments within organisations, especially the spatial planning and public space departments of the council. In the cases of ‘t Duyfrak, Leidsche Rijn, IJburg and Lanxmeer the council has a developer role and a role of designer and maintainer of public space. The council profits more by developing more houses, but is at the same time responsible for the quality of public space. The case of IJburg gives a good example that these conflicting interests inhibit an integral approach towards urban development within the council.

• Co-operation, involvement and communication: Good co-operation, early involvement and

good communication have appeared to be crucial factors for successfully implementing a water system in the case studies. The case of Het Funen shows that bad planning and late involvement of crucial stakeholders have resulted in a problem that could have been avoided. The cases of ‘t Duyfrak, Leidsche Rijn and IJburg show the benefits of a project team approach. Although there are differences between the teams in the three cases, the advantages of teams are that communication between organisations is better and that there is a good atmosphere between the representatives. The interviewees of IJburg and Leidsche Rijn indicated that there was a good team spirit that made it easier to contact each other in case of a question or a problem. This was also the case in ‘t Duyfrak, but there the developer indicated that he felt he had to oppose all the other team members because they were all representing the council. For all cases with a project team approach regular team meetings operate as a platform for issues and problems.

The case of Lanxmeer shows that public participation during the planning process contributes to the residents’ sense of responsibility for the estate. As a result, much activity and initiatives have emerged from residents.

• Complexity of organisations and process: The cases of ‘t Duyfrak and IJburg show that it is more difficult to introduce innovation if the number of involved stakeholders or individuals is larger. Communication takes place slower in large organisations. For ‘t Duyfrak the interviewees indicated that after the merger of the municipality of Valkenburg with the larger municipality of Katwijk processes within the council proceed slower. In the small organisation of Valkenburg, it was relatively easy to convince people of the concept, because less people had to be convinced. The case of IJburg illustrates the same issue on a larger scale. The fact that many stakeholders are involved (5 consortia of 3-7 developers) results in much paperwork and therefore slow processes. It was mentioned that it is impossible for one individual to introduce innovation by himself (e.g. in ‘t Duyfrak with BSP+).

• Knowledge and experience: The case studies have illustrated that knowledge and experience

are factors that, if lacking, often inhibit the introduction of innovations. Lack of knowledge (or understanding) makes stakeholders reluctant to invest in an innovation if they are not convinced it will work. In the case of ‘t Duyfrak, the developer was not sure that the system with permeable pavement would function well. He was afraid that he would get the blame for potential water on


the street. Therefore the developer demanded a back-up measure in which he had trust. After this was taken up in the plan, the obstacle of possible bad functioning of the system was removed.

Lack of experience can result in bad implementation of an innovation. This was what happened in Leidsche Rijn with the construction of the third pipe system. Lack of experience of the builders with constructing the combined network for potable and non-potable water resulted in cross-connections. Ultimately this led to total abandonment of the technology of third pipe systems in the Netherlands. Loss of knowledge due to changing personnel can frustrate the process. The case of Het Funen illustrates that changing personnel resulted in loss of implicit knowledge at the water board. The new contact persons for Het Funen at the water board had to learn again about the location, and the Aquaflow system. This frustrated the discussion about maintenance. In the case of IJburg the interviewees have indicated that they did not regard the council as a serious partner because of frequently changing personnel and other capacity problems within that organisation. In the development process of ‘t Duyfrak extra effort was taken to overcome the issue of changing personnel within the council after the merger between Valkenburg and Katwijk as soon as possible. Extra meetings of the building team that included all new involved people were initiated to inform them about the plan and convince them about the quality of the plan and the benefits of the approach.

• Cost and cost allocation: Higher costs have repeatedly been mentioned as a barrier. For

example, the costs in the case of IJburg the third pipe system were considered higher than the environmental value while the health risk was considered too big. The case of Lanxmeer gives another example. An interviewee of this case has indicated that the cost for the underground infrastructure was higher than for a conventional system. Because the development is considered as a demonstration project the higher costs are not seen as a problem, but this would have been the case if it were a normal development.

The cost argument can also be explained by the fact that for example vegetated swales require space. This means that less space remains available for allotments. This results in lower return for developers. In the cases of IJburg and Leidsche Rijn this has been identified as a barrier.

Also cost allocation can be a barrier. For example in the case of ‘t Duyfrak the cost of the permeable pavement is higher for the developer than it would be in case of traditional pavement. This is a barrier for the developer. However, the overall costs are lower.

The discussion about the responsibility for maintenance is actually a discussion about cost allocation for the maintenance. The water board does not want to maintain the Aquaflow system, because maintenance of pavements is normally the responsibility of the council. The council, however, thinks it is unfair that it has to finance the maintenance by itself, because the water board also benefits of the Aquaflow system because it is also a drainage system.

• Implementation and operation: All phases of the planning process are important for successfully

introducing an innovative water system. Practice has to show if the theoretical design has been good. In the operation phase it becomes clear if an innovation is a success or not. Insufficient acknowledging of the operation phase is perfectly illustrated by the case of the third pipe system of Leidsche Rijn. In theory, the system was good, but in practice the outcome was not as expected. Construction errors were made and monitoring was not sufficient. These factors resulted in the failure of the system.

However, if the operation phase is being regarded during the design phase, maintenance could become a barrier as well. The case of Het Funen illustrates that there is still discussion about the responsibilities for maintenance of Aquaflow. The fact that nobody wants to maintain the system is a barrier for introducing Aquaflow. Lack of experience with maintenance has also been mentioned as a barrier for introducing Aquaflow and permeable pavement in the cases of Het Funen and ‘t Duyfrak.


134

• Regulation, agreements and contracts: Regulation and agreements play a role in enforcing stakeholders to take action and safeguarding ambitions. The case of IJburg revealed that if an ambition was not written down in a contract, it was not implemented in practice. In contrast to this, in Leidsche Rijn the ambitions were safeguarded by the Taskgroup Water that checked all plans in accordance to the covenant.

In the case of ‘t Duyfrak the outcome of the work for building site preparation and landscaping was described precisely in a contract. This is unique for Dutch practice. Normally, only the activities that have to be executed are described, while the quality of the outcome is not defined. Defining the outcome of the work obviously safeguards the planned quality of the work better than defining the activities that have to be executed. In ‘t Duyfrak the council uses framework contracts for the entire development. This is more efficient than using different contracts for different parts of the work. A framework contract requires only one tender procedure and therefore saves much time. Another benefit is the certainty for the council about the costs and for the builder about his turnover in a certain period. However, a framework contract can only be used if the main features of the total project are determined. If not, a builder will probably not accept it because the uncertainties of the work are too big.

In Leidsche Rijn and IJburg it became clear that regulation could not enforce infiltration at allotments. The ambitions that were made to do this could therefore not be safeguarded.

Key elements at the micro level: • (Added) value: From the case studies it can be learned that the success of innovations is

dependent on their added value. An innovation needs to have value to be implemented, but also needs added value over traditional practice to become a substitute for or addition to traditional practice. Added value does not necessarily mean lower costs, but can also be higher water quality output, lower claim for space (IT drains versus vegetated swales in IJburg), higher aesthetic value (e.g. the Aquaflow system in Het Funen), educational benefits (e.g. vegetated swales that make water visible) etc.

The case of ‘t Duyfrak shows that a structural benefit can be achieved with another approach towards building site preparation. The philosophy of BSP+ can result in higher quality and higher cost efficiency than traditional practice. Because of these benefits it could potentially become a substitute for traditional practice. The case of ‘t Duyfrak also illustrates that added value in terms of lower costs for permeable pavement could result in an addition to traditional practice. In the case of permeable pavement it is unlikely that this technology becomes a full substitute for traditional streets with street gullies, because the technology is not suitable for every situation (for example existing high-density areas with many cables and pipes underneath the pavement). The case of IJburg shows that lack of relevant added value leads to abandonment of planned features. The IT drains give the same water quality output as vegetated swales, but have a higher claim for space. This resulted in cancelling the plans for vegetated swales and implementing IT drains instead.

• Reliability and trust: Reliability and trust in a technology are important factors for stakeholders to

include an innovative technology in a development. If they do not have sufficient trust in the technology they will not implement an innovation. However, additional robustness and back-up measures with conventional technologies can increase the reliability of the system and trust of the stakeholders in the system. Another option to increase trust can be established if the developer of the technology is liable for the operation of the technology.

In the case of Het Funen overflows as back-up measures and over-dimensioning of the Aquaflow system have convinced the council and water board of the reliability of the system. In Het Funen the stakeholders also chose to implement Aquaflow instead of normal permeable pavement. This is because the Aquaflow company has experience with the Aquaflow system and is liable for the


operation of the Aquaflow technology. This creates extra trust for the stakeholders as well. Also in ‘t Duyfrak the stakeholder who had doubts about the technology of permeable pavement (the developer) was convinced by an overflow to a conventional stormwater drain as back-up.

A robust system is not only an over-dimensioned system, but should also be constructed and operated properly in order to prevent failure. Several examples can be given that show how a system can become vulnerable during these phases. Firstly, in the case of ‘t Duyfrak the permeable pavement will be maintained by the residents. The fact that permeable pavement is a relatively new technology for which maintenance procedures are not the same as for standard pavement, increases the risk that the implemented system will not be maintained properly. This could cause water nuisance. Therefore, it could be questioned if application of this technology is suitable under these circumstances.

Secondly, for the third pipe system in Leidsche Rijn it could also be concluded that the implementation of the third pipe system was too vulnerable. The quality of the system was completely dependent on the builders. If the builders would have made a mistake, the whole system would fail. It was likely that the builders would make a mistake, because they were inexperienced. The vulnerability of the system because of inexperienced builders could have been decreased by testing the system before operation and monitoring of the system during operation.

• Location characteristics: Each location has different requirements and characteristics that offer different opportunities. In the case of Het Funen the situation demanded a solution that conventional technologies could not offer. In Leidsche Rijn the topography of the area offered opportunities for the closed water system and the pipeline with a source for non-potable water passed the area. In Lanxmeer the fact that groundwater was extracted from a greater depth made the location suitable for development and in IJburg the requirements of the stand-still principle demanded treatment of stormwater run-off. Because the requirements and characteristics of each situation are different, the optimal solution is different as well. Because of this, transition towards water sensitive urban design in the Netherlands will probably include the uptake of a wide range of technologies. Also the history of locations and their surroundings are influential to the development of a water system. The case of ‘t Duyfrak showed that an incentive for creating a water system with good quality was to avoid groundwater problems that occurred in nearby areas. However, history can also have a disabling effect on the development of technologies as the case of the third pipe system in Leidsche Rijn shows.

• Enthusiasm and commitment of individuals: Finally, the case studies have illustrated that

enthusiasm and commitment of individuals is very important to the successful introduction of innovations. Enthusiasm and commitment of one individual can give other stakeholders inspiration and make them enthusiastic as well. A good example is the role of the enthusiasm and commitment of the engineering consultant in ‘t Duyfrak. He was convinced that a different approach towards building site preparation could result in higher quality against lower overall costs and made it his personal mission to convince other people of this. His enthusiasm and commitment during the development of ‘t Duyfrak has made other stakeholders enthusiastic as well. The case of Lanxmeer also shows that the enthusiasm and commitment of the initiator of the concept has inspired others.


136

CHAPTER 8: TRANSITION ANALYSIS THE NETHERLANDS 8.1 Introduction This chapter presents an analysis of the transition in Dutch urban water management based on the outcome of the case studies. For historical developments in water management in the Netherlands research results from Van der Brugge et al. (2005) are being used. The analysis will show how the cases interact with the context of Dutch water management and how they support changing practice. Based on this, the transition for urban water management in the Netherlands will be put in the perspective of the multi-level and multi-phase concepts that have been explained in Chapter 1.4. 8.2 The transition pathway between the 1960s and 2003 This section describes the transition of water management in the Netherlands. It gives a summary the research of Van der Brugge, who has described the transition until 2003. Chapter 8.3 describes the current state of the transition in urban water management, based on the case studies that have been conducted in the Netherlands, and several general interviews that have been conducted with leading water professionals in the Netherlands. Phase 1: Seeds for change (1960s-mid 1970s)

Figure 8.1: Phase 1: Seeds for change (adapted from Van der Brugge (2005)) Van der Brugge describes that water management in the Netherlands was driven by a technocratic and scientific regime before and during the start of the construction of the Delta Works. In the 1960s the construction of the Eastern Scheldt storm surge barrier, one of the most prestigious dams of the Delta Works, commenced. The dams of the Delta Works had intense impact on aquatic ecosystems that changed from saltwater ecosystems to freshwater systems, with all the consequences to bio diversity. From this, the awareness arose on a local level that ecological and economical functions could directly harm each other. At the same time of these developments, a deep ecological concern was also present at a global level about the imbalance between the explosive population growth and ongoing economic development on the one hand and the exploitation of natural resources and the environmental pollution on the other. The report Limits to Growth (Meadows et al. (1972)), which was established by the Club of Rome, represented this concern in 1972. The growing environmental awareness on both a local (micro) and global (macro) level influenced the regime. Local protest against the Eastern Scheldt storm surge transformed into a national debate that resulted in changing the construction plan to a surge barrier with moveable panels in 1974. Furthermore, to prevent further ecological damage an environmental department was founded within the Delta Dienst210. Figure 8.1 (left) schematically summarises the global ecological concern (macro driver) and the awareness that resulted from the Delta Works (micro driver). These developments took place in the pre-development phase (see Figure 8.1, right). 210 Note: The Delta Dienst was founded within Rijkswaterstaat to implement the Delta Works to protect the Netherlands from floods such as the 1953 floods that inundated 175.000ha land and killed 1836 people in the Netherlands.


Phase 2: Regime response and niche formation (late 1970s-early 1980s)

Figure 8.2: Phase 2: Regime response (adapted from Van der Brugge (2005)) Van der Brugge et al. (2005) describe that modulation of growing environmental awareness at the macro and micro levels resulted in increased activity at the micro level and evoked a reaction of the regime in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This resulted in the formation of a niche for ecologically oriented water management. The research activities of the environmental department of the Delta Dienst led to a number of restoration projects, indicating the first signs towards a more ecological approach of the water regime. In the same time, between 1978 and 1982 environmental capacity was built within the Delta Dienst by employing an increased number of biologists. Another response of the regime took place in 1985 when the official policy memorandum Dealing with Water (RIZA (1985)) was launched. This memorandum represented a new policy approach to water in which water was considered an integral part of the ecosystem in relation to its community. This received a wide audience, partly because of ecological calamities that were evoked by the Delta Works. In 1986, the Delta Dienst removed and was integrated with Rijkswaterstaat (see also Chapter 6.3) in order to integrate water quality and water quantity policies in the organisation. The over one hundred biologists at the Delta Dienst were placed at strategic positions in Rijkswaterstaat, affecting the organisation with new ideas. However, at this time ecological water management was still a niche compared to the dominant perspective. Figure 8.2 schematically illustrates the regime response and the niche formation (left) that took place during the pre-development phase (right). Phase 3: Modulating niches and further regime response (late 1980s-early 1990s)

Figure 8.3: Phase 3: Modulating niches and further response of the regime (adapted from Van der Brugge

(2005)) In the late 1980s increased modulation between the three levels was being caused by a number of other niches. For example, in 1987 the Plan Ooievaar presented a new vision for the management of rivers, nature development and landscape architecture, that separated conflicting water functions such as nature development and agriculture and interweaving water functions that would reinforce each


138

other. This differed from the existing paradigm. Experiments were conducted at the micro level and at the meso level the minister embraced the plan in the debate about dike enhancement. In 1989, the Third National Policy Memorandum on Water Management integrated the principles of Dealing with Water and the Plan Ooievaar about the relation between ecological processes and different functions of water into official national policy. However there was little urgency about the implementation of the concept because a link was missing with the regime’s main duty of protecting the safety of people. In 1992 this link was created by the report Living Rivers of the World Wildlife Fund that focussed on the aquatic ecosystem of rivers. It proposed the idea of introducing side channels in river forelands (floodplains) to reinstall broken food chains and thereby offered an alternative to the planned dike enhancements by introducing side channels and excavation of clay layers in river forelands. This plan was embraced by Rijkswaterstaat and received broad support from the community. The Living Rivers plan also made a relationship between water management and spatial planning, which gained increased interest from the late 1980s. Figure 8.3 schematically illustrates the modulation of the ecologically oriented water management niche with the river management niche and the further response of the regime (left) that took place during the end of the pre-development phase (right). Phase 4: Shifting regime (early 1990s-1995)

Figure 8.4: Phase 4: Shifting regime (adapted from Van der Brugge (2005)) In the early 1990s, the Dutch Government was promoting decentralisation of the national government and liberalisation and privatisation. This trend also affected Dutch water management, because the shift of power was affecting Rijkswaterstaat and its top-down policy. The slow breakdown of the old regime provided opportunities for new professions to enter the regime of water engineering that could support the modulation of for example the ecological water management niche. In 1993 and 1995 river floods made instantly clear that the existing water management approach was not able to fully control the water and that dike enhancements could possibly result in higher damage if they would break. These floods have acted as a catalyst for modulating developments at the micro and meso level, because the concept of the floodplains that were presented in the Living Rivers plan were accepted now as an alternative strategy for guaranteeing safety. However, immediately after the floods the regime temporarily lapsed back into the old strategy of dike enhancement in the Delta Plan Rivers before integration of water and spatial planning were explicitly mentioned in the report Room for Rivers (Rijkswaterstaat (1995)). Figure 8.4 schematically illustrates the shifting regime (left). Van der Brugge et al. describe that the changes in this period represent the shift of the transition into the take-off stage (Figure 8.4, right).


Phase 5: Niche stabilisation (1995-2003)

Figure 8.5: Phase 5: Niche stabilisation (adapted from Van der Brugge (2005)) Similar to the report Room for Rivers (1995), the Fourth National Policy Memorandum on Water Management (1998) explicitly mentioned integration of water and spatial planning. It focussed on integral and participatory water management combined with a river management approach. The Fourth National Policy Memorandum on Water Management was created in an open planning process in which 3.000 people participated. This represents a significant shift in urban water management compared to 20 years before, when urban water management was hierarchical and had a closed technocratic approach. The Fourth National Policy Memorandum on Water Management also had a strong reference to the Fifth National Memorandum on Spatial Planning that was launched in 2001. In the same time of these developments, extreme precipitation resulting in significant economic damage made the Dutch Government aware of the possible impact of climate change on the long term and triggered it to question the competence of regional water management. The Commission Water Management 21st Century, that had to investigate future water management, concluded in 2000 that existing water management was not prepared to meet the future challenges. Therefore it proposed a participatory and anticipative river basin approach, a retaining-storing-draining strategy and no negative trade-offs to other river basins. It also promoted the ‘Room for Water’ policy by the introduction of a water test in spatial planning processes that enables water managers to participate early in the spatial planning process. The Dutch Government made these proposals official policy in 2001, when the Fifth National Memorandum on Spatial Planning positioned water as a guiding principle in spatial planning. This was reinforced by the European Water Framework Directive (2000), which required active involvement of all affected parties in the river basin management plan. Hence, the new macro-driver of climate change increased the sense of urgency and thereby amplified the modulation of the niche for integral water management and the regime and was an important step for starting the stabilisation process of the regime. However, the implementation of the technologies was behind to the developments at the meso-level. Since the late 1990s urban water systems were developed that integrated spatial planning with water management and also had a more holistic approach. An example of this is the case of Leidsche Rijn, where vegetated swales are incorporated in the streetscape of the developments to disconnect stormwater run-off from the sewage system in order to minimise the flow towards the treatment plant. Nevertheless, the implementation of such systems faced several issues with institutional arrangements (see Chapter 7: Case studies in the Netherlands). Especially the way the regime was organised was an issue. For example, one argument that was raised stated that the water board were old-fashioned and should be integrated with the provinces that have a mandate for spatial planning. This discussion gained momentum in 2003, when a local peat dike collapsed as a result of drought. This increased the awareness that water boards may not be able to control peat dikes, while climate change is likely to aggravate this problem in the future. Figure 8.5 (left) schematically illustrates the new macro driver, awareness about climate change, and the stabilisation of the niche for integral water management. Van den Brugge has the opinion that in 2003 the transition is entering the accelerating stage (Figure 8.5, right).


140

Transition pathway Figure 8.6 illustrates the transition pathway from the multi-level perspective. The transition in the Netherlands is configured by a transformation pathway that is followed by a de-alignment and re-alignment pathway. The transformation pathway was triggered in the 1960s by modulation of increased environmental awareness at the macro level (disruptive change) and calamities at the micro level. The regime answered to this pressure by embracing ecologically oriented water management and integration of spatial planning and water management. The transformation pathway was followed until the 1993 and 1995 floods and the increased awareness about the potential impacts of climate change that drove the transition into a de-alignment and re-alignment pathway. The floods (shock drivers) made instantly clear that the existing regime was not able to fulfil its task of fully controlling the water. Combined with the increased worldwide awareness about climate change (disruptive driver) this opened up the existing regime (de-alignment). This offered opportunities for technologies that integrate water quality quantity management with spatial planning to emerge from the micro level in the late 1990s. This re-alignment process is currently still taking place. In contrary to what Geels and Schot (2007) describe, is the de-alignment and re-alignment pathway in the Netherlands caused by shock drivers (floods), combined with a disruptive driver (the awareness about climate change) instead of an avalanche driver. However, because of these events it was acknowledged that the regime could not fully control the water and that water should be managed differently.

Figure 8.6: Transition pathway in the Netherlands from the multi-level perspective (adapted from Geels and

Schot (2007)) 8.3 Current state of the transition Chapter 8.2 concluded that the technologies for integral water quality and quantity management emerged after the regime opened up. At this moment it seems that policies in the meso-level aim towards integrating water management and spatial planning and implementing the retain-store-drain strategy at a large scale. Since the late 1990s integral water management systems have indeed been developed. However, also at the meso-level, it was revealed in the case studies that especially cost allocation issues for maintenance and knowledge are inhibiting the widespread implementation of the technologies that integrate water management and spatial planning, such as permeable pavement and vegetated swales. From this it could be concluded that the space that the regime has offered for the technologies at the micro level to emerge, has been the trigger for the take-off stage. The implementation of the set of technologies in line with the policies at the meso-level is becoming more widespread, although practical issues still arise frequently. Because the number of water systems that apply stormwater disconnection and treatment technologies is increasing rapidly, it could be argued that the transition has entered the acceleration phase (see Figure 8.7).


However, because there still is a discrepancy between the implementation of the systems and the institutional arrangements that should facilitate the implementation, further changes in the regime are needed to complete the transition, because as long as there are incompatibilities between these two factors irreversibility of the transition will not be reached.

Figure 8.7: Transition state of urban water management in the Netherlands in 2007 Additional interviews with various prominent water experts in the Netherlands revealed that the regime is very fragmented at the national level. According to the interviewees, there are too many visions towards ‘sustainable’ urban water management. One of the interviewees mentioned that there are at this moment 84 visions at a national level about water. This has resulted in a lack of one unambiguous vision and strategy. All experts stated that a system analysis of the current state of urban water is lacking and that policy is jumping to conclusions instead of basing the strategies on facts. An issue that results from the fragmented system is the fact that information is not centrally collected and stored and experience is lost or unavailable for others. Therefore, it is hard to keep track of developments of technologies and learn from experiences of previous developments.


142

CHAPTER 9: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS This chapter describes a comparative analysis between the transitions in urban water management in Melbourne and the Netherlands. Chapter 9.1 gives a comparison between the transitions in Melbourne and the Netherlands. In Chapter 9.2 the key elements for mainstreaming innovations in urban water management that have been revealed in the case studies will be compared. The comparison between the transitions in Melbourne and the Netherlands and the comparison of the key elements will be used in Chapter 10 to describe the key lessons for Melbourne and the Netherlands. 9.1 Comparison of the urban water management transitions

Transition pathway Melbourne

Transition pathway the Netherlands

Figure 9.1: Transition pathways in Melbourne and the Netherlands (adapted from Geels and Schot (2007)) In Figure 9.1 the transition pathways of the urban water transitions in Melbourne and the Netherlands that have been explained in Chapter 5 and Chapter 8 are repeated. It was concluded in Chapter 5.2 and 8.2 that both transitions started with a transformation pathway, followed by a de-alignment and re-alignment pathway. In both cases an environmental macro driver, combined with events and developments at the micro level started the transition. The fact that the environmental driver originated simultaneously in the Netherlands and Melbourne can be explained by the fact that environmental awareness increased on a global scale during the 1960s. Also, the climate change driver is a global process. The fact that the shock drivers (drought in Melbourne and floods in the Netherlands) took place in the same period is coincidence as the character of the shock driver in Melbourne is different from that of the shock driver in the Netherlands. Because the drought in Melbourne is persisting, the community is faced by the effects for a long time and the sense of urgency around the issue does not disappear. In the Netherlands, the floods only had a short duration, which increased the risk that the sense of urgency disappears.


In both Melbourne and the Netherlands, there was first a change in the regime before technologies emerged from the micro-level. However, the character of the change in the regime in both transitions is quite different. In Melbourne after continuing environmental pressure from the macro and the micro level a protective space was created in the meso-level between different organisations to enable technologies to emerge. In the Netherlands, the regime gradually responded to developments at the micro level and the persisting environmental macro-driver, but did not radically change until the floods of 1993 and 1995. After the floods of 1993 and 1995 it was widely acknowledged that the existing regime could not fully control the water. This opened a window of opportunity for technologies to emerge. The difference between Melbourne and the Netherlands is that in Melbourne the actors in the regime responded collectively, while in the Netherlands many individual actors addressed the change individually by creating their own policies and strategies. Although Melbourne and the Netherlands are facing completely different issues in some aspects, the state of their urban water transitions is not so different. Chapter 5 and Chapter 8 concluded that the state of both transitions is leaving the take-off phase and entering the take-off phase (see Figure 9.2). It seems that the transition in both Melbourne and the Netherlands develops from a technocratic approach towards a more integral and participatory approach that integrates water quantity management with water quality management and water management in general with spatial planning.

Figure 9.2: Melbourne and the Netherlands on the multi-stage transition curve (adapted from Rotmans et al

(2002)) Also the issues that both transitions are facing at the moment are to a great extent similar. The most significant issues that both transitions are facing are lack of knowledge among (certain) stakeholders, cost allocation and fragmented institutional arrangements. In Melbourne lack of knowledge is mainly a threat for the completion of the USQM transition, because on-site stormwater treatment is mandated in the Planning Provisions, while builders do not sufficiently understand the systems. This may lead to bad implementation on a large scale. This could be harmful for the completion of the USQM transition if the technology is blamed for the failures instead of the bad implementation. In the Netherlands, lack of knowledge among developers and builders is also an issue, as well as water boards and local councils. Cost allocation, especially for the maintenance of streetscape stormwater treatment systems, is both in the Netherlands and Melbourne a problem. In both cases the discussion about maintenance is between the local council and the water quality authority. In the Netherlands they discuss because it is unclear who is responsible for maintenance. In Melbourne the discussion is aimed about the fact that the water authority receives the benefits, while the council has to pay for the maintenance. Although in both Melbourne and the Netherlands the fragmented institutional arrangements are a barrier for the transition, it is a much larger barrier in the Netherlands. In Melbourne the transitioning process towards USQM is more or less centrally directed, while in the Netherlands so many actors are making their visions and strategies. The problem of the fragmented system in Melbourne mainly refers


144

to the existence of three water companies and a water authority within the city that are responsible for a different part of the water cycle. 9.2 Comparison of the key elements The key elements for introducing innovations in urban water management in Melbourne and the Netherlands have been presented in Chapters 4.5 and 7.8. Because most key elements are at least to some extent similar between the two areas a general list has been constructed from the key elements of the two countries. This is presented in Table 9.1. A distinction is made between key elements in the macro, meso and micro level. For some elements it can be disputed in which level they should be classified. For example cost allocation for one project would be classified in the micro-level, while cost allocation of an application in common practice (i.e. all projects) would be classified in the meso-level. The distinction that is made is not a ‘hard’ distinction, as the distinction between the three levels has been made to give structure to the list and make it therefore easier to understand.


Macro • Climate

• Urban growth











• Construction, operation and maintenance Table 9.1: General list of key elements for introducing innovations in urban water management, based on

case studies in Melbourne and the Netherlands Each key element will be briefly discussed below, based on the lessons from the case studies in Melbourne and the Netherlands. Key elements at the macro level:

• Climate: Especially for Melbourne this is an important driver for the uptake of WSUD. It is also a reason for a change of the concept of WSUD in Melbourne. It started with integration of water (quality) management and spatial planning and has evolved to a holistic water management approach that also included the use of alternative water sources such as waste water, rainwater and stormwater run-off. In the case studies in Melbourne climate was explicitly mentioned as a driver for WSUD in contrary to the case studies in the Netherlands. This is probably caused by the fact that the effects of the drought had direct impact on the population of Melbourne and are therefore better visible.

• Urban growth: Urban growth is a driver for the implementation of new water systems in urban

developments and urban re-development projects in both Melbourne and the Netherlands. The difference between the Netherlands and Melbourne is the housing market, which does not provide an incentive for developers in the Netherlands to create high quality developments,


because the housing demand is so high that everything that is built will be sold. In contrast, developers in Melbourne try to create a development with a high quality living environment in order to ensure sales.

• Socio-political capital and sustainability: When people in Melbourne talk about sustainable

water management, they refer to minimising environmental impact, creating amenity and securing future water supply. In the Netherlands, for sustainability it is mainly referred to minimising environmental impact, creating amenity and protection against floods and drought.

Public perception has more influence in Melbourne, because all residents of Melbourne are directly influenced for a long period in succession by the water restrictions that are a result of the drought. This creates a public awareness and sense of urgency that put water high on the political agenda. In the Netherlands this is not the case, because the challenges are not directly visible to the broad public. If the water challenges in the Netherlands are visible it is only for a small period. This has smaller impact than enduring visibility. Examples of this are the floods that have occurred in several parts of the Netherlands because of intense rain storms in the summer of 2007. Several months after the floods everyone seems to have forgotten about them. Public opinion can have significant influence on political decisions leading to innovation or stopping innovation. In the Netherlands, the government is involved differently with innovation than in Melbourne, because local governments play a more active role in driving innovations, while they often act as developers. In Melbourne most innovation is driven by private initiatives and facilitated by the government.

Key elements at the meso level:

• Attitude of stakeholders: The role of the attitude of stakeholders towards innovation in urban water management is similar in Melbourne and the Netherlands. Commitment of stakeholders towards introducing innovations in urban water management is a requirement while a conservative approach towards innovation can be a barrier for a successful introduction of an innovation. A barrier that is revealed in the case studies in the Netherlands is that organisations are only considering their own interests without seeing the ‘bigger picture’. This phenomenon also takes place between different departments of local governments in the Netherlands, because they have conflicting interests.

• Knowledge and trust: The role of knowledge and experience is similar in Melbourne and the

Netherlands. Knowledge and experience create trust and lack of it creates agency reluctance to co-operate with the introduction of an innovation. Reliability of technologies and trust of stakeholders in those technologies are important factors in both Melbourne and the Netherlands for stakeholders to co-operate with the introduction of innovative technologies. Robustness has been identified to increase the reliability of an implemented system and therefore to increase the probability of widespread practice. An important lesson from the cases in Melbourne is that it is important that knowledge should be present in all organisational levels and during all development phases. The case studies in the Netherlands revealed the importance of implicit knowledge that is lost if personnel changes.

In both Melbourne and the Netherlands, education is used to create knowledge among organisations and within different organisational levels. In Melbourne, the presence of bridging organisations that collect and store information has an enabling role for mainstreaming WSUD in Melbourne. The Netherlands could learn from this.

• Complexity of stakeholders: The role of this factor is similar for Melbourne and the

Netherlands. The ability and of stakeholders to cope with change is dependent to the complexity of the organisational structure. The case studies illustrated that complexity of an organisation is dependent on the size and capacity of the organisation, the number of different departments that are involved with the development of an urban water system, and conflicting interests between those departments.


146

• Co-operation, involvement and communication: Good co-operation between stakeholders, early involvement and good communication between stakeholders have appeared to be crucial factors in both Melbourne and the Netherlands. Early involvement is important to prevent conflicts or problems in later stages. The cases of the Netherlands show that a project team approach makes co-operation and communication easier. From the case of IJburg it can be learned that if many stakeholders are involved communication can be a slow process. This can be a barrier to innovation.

• Regulation, guidelines, agreements, and contracts: Regulation and guidelines are

facilitating factors for developing urban water systems. Regulation protects the bottom line and guidelines provide assistance for developers to meet the requirements. Regulation and guidelines can create trust for developers, because they know what to do and how to do it. In Melbourne WSUD features for on-site stormwater treatment are mandated for new residential developments. This accelerates mainstreaming of this part of WSUD in Melbourne. Although guidelines provide assistance for developers to design WSUD features, the case studies have revealed that there is still insufficient knowledge among builders about WSUD. This needs extra attention in the near future.

Contracts are binding factors that can play a role in securing ambitions and quality of the outcome of the work. Oral agreements have the same function, but have less binding value. A covenant between several stakeholders can be used to define and secure ambitions. A requirement for this is that all stakeholders should have a shared ambition. For example in the case of IJburg in the Netherlands, where the ambitions of the original plan were not shared among the stakeholders, insufficient contracting resulted in the abandonment of the original plans. In Melbourne contracts between the developer and the council for public open space define the outcome of the work. Often a hand-over period is used to reveal possible hidden failures. This decreases the probability that the council has to invest extra capital after take-over of the assets. The same takes place in the case of ‘t Duyfrak in the Netherlands, where the outcome of building site preparation is precisely defined for one of the first times in the Netherlands. Traditionally, only the activities that have to be conducted for building site preparation are described. This does not safeguard the quality of the work. The case of ‘t Duyfrak in the Netherlands also shows that framework contracts can be used to reduce bureaucracy, because only one tender procedure and one permission procedure is required for the development.

• Cost and cost allocation: Cost is mentioned frequently as a barrier for introducing innovative

technologies in urban water management in Melbourne and the Netherlands. However, cost allocation is often the real problem. In Melbourne the fragmented institutional arrangements are not constructed to support a holistic water management approach. This often causes benefits and costs for WSUD to be unfairly divided between the stakeholders. Water management practice in the Netherlands faces similar problems.

Key elements at the micro level:

• Added value: Added value is in both Melbourne and the Netherlands crucial for the success of innovations. If an innovation does not have added value over conventional technologies, it is not likely that it will become a substitute for this technology. Added value can take different forms: financial benefits, environmental benefits, amenity, water efficiency (Melbourne), reduced claim for space (NL), and educational values.

• Enthusiasm of individuals: Enthusiasm of individuals has been revealed as an important

factor that drives innovation, because it can convince their own organisations and other stakeholders to co-operate with the introduction of an innovative technology. This factor has been encountered in the case studies in the Netherlands, but it is likely that this is also a very important factor in Melbourne, because there is much research being done towards the role of


influential individuals that drive innovation. These persons are being referred to as ‘champions’.

• Location characteristics: The role of location characteristics is similar in Melbourne and the

Netherlands. Location characteristics offer opportunities and set requirements to the planned water systems. Variety in characteristics of different locations makes different solutions optimal. This results in the fact that the transition towards WSUD will probably include a wide range of technologies in both Melbourne and the Netherlands.

• Construction, operation and maintenance: Examples from both Melbourne and the

Netherlands have showed that all phases of the development process are important for successfully introducing an innovative water system. A good design is not automatically translated into a good implemented system, because mistakes can be made during the construction phase. And even if a system is being implemented correctly, things can still go wrong during the operation phase because of improper use or lack of maintenance. Follow-up through all phases is therefore important to safeguard the quality of the developed system.


148

CHAPTER 10: CONCLUSIONS This chapter presents the conclusions of this thesis. Firstly, conclusions will be presented about the state of the transition in Melbourne and the Netherlands in Chapter 10.1. Secondly, Chapter 10.2 will present the key elements for successfully mainstreaming the innovations in urban water management to complete the transitions. This is the answer to the research question. Finally, Chapter 10.3 describes the key lessons that can be learnt from this comparative case study for urban water management practice in Melbourne and the Netherlands. 10.1 Conclusions about the transitions in Melbourne and the Netherlands Conclusions about the state of the transitions: In Chapter 9.1 it was argued that the transitions in urban water management in Melbourne and the Netherlands are both leaving the take-off stage and entering the acceleration stage. For the Netherlands, the indicators that the transition is currently entering the acceleration stage are: • After the take-off stage, which was triggered after the 1993 and 1995 floods by the space that the

regime offered when it acknowledged that it could not fully control the water through the old regime, technologies emerged rapidly. This has resulted in a widespread implementation of technologies that integrate water management and spatial planning.

• The implementation of such technologies still faces many practical problems, such as cost allocation, maintenance and knowledge. The regime will therefore have to adapt to this to remove the incompatibilities between the strategies and the implementation before the stabilisation phase will be reached.

• At the national level, there are many strategic water visions, indicating that one unambiguous vision and strategy is not present at the meso-level.

For Melbourne, it was shown that the transition in urban water management can be built up from two transitions: at first a transition towards USQM that later converged with the uptake of alternative water sources towards WSUD under the influence of the climate (see also Chapter 5.3). It was concluded that the transition for USQM is nearing the stabilisation stage, but has not reached this stage yet. Indicators for this conclusion are: • According to the analysis of Brown and Clarke the USQM transition has been in the acceleration

phase for the last 10 years. So far, changes in urban development have resulted in the uptake of on-site treatment systems in the Victorian Planning Provisions (Clause 56) that mandate on-site stormwater treatment for all new residential subdivisions.

• However, the USQM transition has not reached the stabilisation phase yet, because implementation of on-site stormwater treatment is only mandated in new residential developments and not yet in re-development of urban area or the development of commercial and industrial areas.

• Cost-allocation issues are still present and mainly developers and builders have insufficient knowledge for the correct implementation of on-site treatment systems.

It was identified in Chapter 5.3 that the technology diffusion of technologies for supply of alternative water sources is at the take-off stage and possibly entering the acceleration stage. Indicators for this conclusion are: • Macro-drivers and developments at the micro level (mainly the third pipe system at Aurora Estate)

have pushed the regime in such a way that it started to respond by developing guidelines and regulation for the use of reclaimed water.

• This has resulted in the development of more projects with recycled water, such as the Hunt Club Estate.

• However, a common methodology of developing third pipe systems still has to be created. Also cost-allocation is an issue that needs to be addressed.


• An indication that could shift the diffusion into the acceleration phase is the fact that that the Victorian Government has mandated the uptake of recycled water schemes for 40.000 planned homes in Melbourne.

If the two components of the transition towards WSUD are combined, it could be concluded that the transition towards WSUD in Melbourne is entering the acceleration phase. Conclusions about the transition pathways: The results of this study indicate that despite the completely different physical environments and water challenges, the transition pathways of both transitions have mostly been similar. The transitions in Melbourne and the Netherlands are both a sequence of pathways that are described by Geels and Schot (2007) (see also Chapter 1.4). The pathway of the urban water transition in the Netherlands started with a transformation path under the environmental driver in the 1960s. This pathway was followed until the 1993 and 1995 floods that acted as shock changes and resulted in a de-alignment and re-alignment pathway that is currently being followed. In contrast to what Geels and Schot (2007) describe, the de-alignment and re-alignment pathway in the Netherlands was caused by shock drivers (floods), combined with a disruptive driver (the awareness about climate change) instead of an avalanche driver. However, because of these events it was acknowledged that the regime could not fully control the water and that water should be managed differently. Also in Melbourne the pathway started with a transformation pathway that is being followed by a de-alignment and re-alignment pathway. Environmental awareness was a disruptive driver for change since the 1960s, when niche-innovations were not established yet. This resulted in modifications of the regime until the drought that started in 1997. Together with the climate change driver that has a disruptive character the shock initiated the de-alignment and re-alignment pathway, because it was acknowledged that with the practice of the old regime Melbourne’s long-term water supply could not be secured. Figure 10.1 summarises the similarities and the differences of the two transitions (see Table 10.1).

Similarities Differences • Both transitions follow the transformation pathway,

followed by the de-alignment and re-alignment pathway • Macro drivers: environmental awareness, climate

change • Character and timing of all macro drivers • Micro drivers in pre-development stage • Facing same issues: cost-allocation, knowledge,

fragmented institutional arrangements • Both transitions are towards a more participatory and

holistic approach that integrates with spatial planning

• Macro drivers: Floods vs. drought • Timing of regime response: after shock change (NL:

floods) vs. without influence of shock change (Melb: for USQM)

• Character of regime response: emergence of many visions and strategies vs. creating protective space with unambiguous vision

Table 10.1: Similarities and differences between the transitions in Melbourne and the Netherlands Note: The fact that the transition in Melbourne is built up from two components (an ecological

and a holistic component) does not render it different from the Dutch transition. However, in the Netherlands the components cannot be revealed, because they are taking place at the same time with the introduction of one set of technologies. Stormwater treatment is a more holistic approach in the Netherlands, because when stormwater is discharged towards the surface water instead of the sewage treatment plant this results in a reduced wastewater flow. This is not an issue in Melbourne, because here the sewerage system is completely separated.

Because there are so many similarities between the two transitions and the two transitioning processes, it is useful for the two locations to learn from each other’s experiences. Especially the fact that the state of the transitions and the issues that projects with innovative technologies have to face are similar makes it useful to learn from each other.


150

10.2 Answers to the research question This section gives the answer to the research question as it was presented in Chapter 1.5:

Research Question: What are enabling factors and obstacles for mainstreaming innovations that aim for a transition towards more sustainable urban water management in Melbourne and the Netherlands?

Table 9.1 in Chapter 9.2 presented a list of key elements for mainstreaming innovations in urban water management that have been identified by the case studies in Melbourne and the Netherlands. It was concluded that this list is valid for both Melbourne and the Netherlands. The key elements represent both the enabling factors and (possible) obstacles for mainstreaming innovations in urban water management, because they can all be explained in a positive or a negative way. For example, if knowledge and trust in an innovation are widespread, this is an enabling factor. But if there is lack of knowledge and trust, this is an obstacle for the mainstreaming process. Climate change is the only exception, because this driver is considered as an enabling factor only. Below Table 9.1 with the key elements is repeated. For an explanation about the key elements, see Chapter 9.2.


Macro • Climate

• Urban growth











• Construction, operation and maintenance Table 9.1: General list of key elements for introducing innovations in urban water management, based on

case studies in Melbourne and the Netherlands 10.3 Key lessons From this research several key lessons can be learned for successfully mainstreaming innovations in urban water management in Melbourne and the Netherlands. These key lessons are presented below. Key lessons for Melbourne: • A good design does not automatically lead to a well functioning system: The case of

Melbourne Docklands showed that a good design does not automatically lead to a well functioning system. The engineering consultant learned from this that follow-up through the whole development process, including the start of the maintenance is very important to safeguard the quality of the design. Follow-up through the whole development process that includes the operation phase is also very important to the success of the development of other technologies


than on-site stormwater treatment systems, such as the third pipe networks that are being constructed at Hunt Club, Aurora and other developments. For the supply of recycled water three plumbing tests have to prevent cross-connections in new homes. However, if homes are upgraded and the plumbing is done by an uncertified plumber who does not conduct the test, prevention of cross-connections can no longer be guaranteed. This could lead to calamities a potential transition lock-in. This was illustrated by the experiences in Leidsche Rijn in the Netherlands.

• Although the costs for a third pipe system are higher, a good business case is still

possible for a developer: In Melbourne it has appeared that most innovations in urban water management are driven by the private sector. This increases the importance of a good business case for developers, because without it developers do not have a direct financial incentive to innovate. It is often complained that the costs for implementing WSUD are higher. However, the cases have shown that by implementing WSUD the price of land can be increased or quicker sales can be made. The case of Hunt Club illustrated that this lesson is not only true for stormwater treatment features, but also for third pipe systems. The developer is able to make quicker sales by providing restriction free water.

• While cost is mentioned as a barrier, the real barrier is often cost allocation instead of cost:

Cost is mentioned frequently in Melbourne as a barrier for innovation. However, the case studies indicate that it seems that the real problem is cost allocation instead of cost. The institutional arrangements are not sufficiently able to refund the benefits fairly to the actor who bears the costs. This is for example the case for maintenance of on-site stormwater treatment features on the streetscape level.

• To complete the transition, knowledge should be adapted in each organisational level: The

case studies in Melbourne showed that the initiative in all cases is taken by higher management levels. However, there is a knowledge gap between the initiators and the implementers. This has resulted in obstacles for innovation, such as reluctance to co-operate from lower management levels (in Hunt Club Estate and Aurora) or implementation errors (in Melbourne Docklands). To make WSUD widespread practice, a certain degree of knowledge should be embedded in all organisational levels.

Key lessons for the Netherlands: • Integral development approach can deliver increased quality and financial benefits: The

case of ‘t Duyfrak shows that in Dutch urban development projects an increased quality can be achieved against lower overall costs if an integral approach is used. This approach towards urban development can be applied to other areas in the Netherlands as well. The case of ‘t Duyfrak shows that a higher quality development can also result in a higher financial return as well.

• Conflicting interests of local councils are inhibiting innovation: Local councils in the

Netherlands often act as developers and also have to maintain public space after completion of a development. In the current housing market this double role often inhibits innovation, because the council often chooses for developing more dwellings instead of high quality public space. For example, the case of IJburg illustrates this. However, because the council often as a leading role during the development phase, it has the possibility and the power to drive high quality urban development instead of high quantity developments.

• Create enabling space for innovators: Melbourne’s response to the drought and climate change

was different from the Dutch one to the floods and climate change. Instead of collectively developing a strategy for facing the challenge, actors in the Netherlands responded with all developing their own strategies individually. By collectively addressing the problems Melbourne created a protective space for innovators to address the water issues. Such a space is important to prevent people from inventing the wheel over and over again. Bridging organisations that keep track of research, open databases with experiences of demonstration projects, and people who are currently working on specific projects could be helpful for urban water management in the Netherlands to accelerate the transition process.


152

• Ambitions or plans are not sufficient to safeguard implementation in practice: The Netherlands has a strong planning culture. However, the case studies showed that a good plan is not sufficient to implement a good water system. Especially the case of IJburg illustrated this. The ambitions and plans need to be shared among all important stakeholders and safeguarded. In Leidsche Rijn a Task Group Water was established that is responsible for safeguarding the ambitions for the whole duration of the project. Besides good contracting, this could be a good way to safeguard ambitions during the complete development process on a broader scale.

• Definition of quality and hand-over periods can improve the quality of urban development:

Land development in Melbourne is very structured (see Appendix C). The expected quality of works when the land is handed over is exactly determined in the contracts. Urban developments in the Netherlands often face groundwater problems because only the activities that have to be conducted for building site preparation are described in the contract, but not the quality of the result of those activities. These problems can be avoided by determining the quality of the work more precisely, like in Melbourne and in ‘t Duyfrak. Furthermore, in Melbourne hand-over periods are used after completion of the work in which the developers is responsible for the maintenance of those systems in order to prevent capital investments for the council to repair hidden failures.

• A system analysis of the current state of urban water management does not exist: A good

system analysis about the effects of disconnection of paved surface has not been established yet. It is widely accepted that disconnection should take place to reduce the quantity of water that has to be processed by the sewage treatment plant. However, according to various water experts, it is not known what the sources are of the waste water that is treated in the sewage treatment plant. This conclusion is sometimes used to oppose innovations in urban water management. However, lack of a system analysis should not be an excuse to do nothing if it is known that with relative small effort improvements can be made to current practice.

• Urban water innovations can also be implemented in urban re-development projects: The

case of Het Funen showed that technologies such as Aquaflow systems are not only being implemented in urban development projects, but also in redevelopment of urban areas. This means that the transition in urban water management is not only taking place in new residential developments, but also in redevelopment of urban areas.


CHAPTER 11: RECOMMENDATIONS 11.1 Recommendations for Melbourne (next steps) This chapter describes the next steps of the transition of urban water management in Melbourne. In Chapter 5 the urban water management transition in Melbourne is analysed. It was revealed that currently there are three developments taking place in Melbourne:

1. Stabilisation of the Urban Stormwater Quality Management (USQM) niche. 2. Take-off of the Alternative Water Sources (ASW) niche. 3. Possible convergence of the USQM and ASW niches.

1. Recommendations for the stabilisation of the USQM niche: For the stabilisation of the USQM niche it was analysed in Chapter 5 that the following is needed:

• Mandating of on-site stormwater treatment for all new developments • Knowledge among builders and developers and councils, knowledge through all

organisational levels of all stakeholders • A solution for the cost allocation issue

• Mandating on-site stormwater treatment for all developments: Mandating of the on-site

stormwater treatment has already been implemented for new residential developments. In my opinion it should be mandated for commercial and industrial developments as soon as possible. In those areas the risk of bad practice is significantly smaller, because the source of pollution in those areas in less diffuse than in residential areas and therefore easier to control. In residential areas, there are many different individual users of the water system that all can potentially use the system in a wrong way. In industrial areas misbehaviour can more easily be traced, because the number of users (companies) is significantly smaller. Also in my opinion, the step to mandate on-site stormwater treatment for residential re-developments should be taken as quick as possible. This step does not differ much from the mandate for residential areas that already has been taken.

• Capacity building among and within involved organisations: It was concluded that mandating

on-site stormwater treatment is not sufficient to complete the USQM transition. Capacity building is needed to spread knowledge about the concept through all involved stakeholders and through all organisational levels of those systems. For successful implementation it is crucial that developers and builder gain better understanding of the concept on-site stormwater treatment, because this group is enforced to implement such systems. For good maintenance it is important that the councils also fully understand the systems. One way to spread knowledge among developers, builders and councils is to organise conferences and workshops etc. to increase the overall level of understanding. However, the implementation of on-site stormwater treatment systems will be different in every location. In my opinion it is therefore very useful if the actor who makes the conceptual design (often the engineering company) monitors the translation of this into the landscape design (engineering company or developer), implementation (builder) and maintenance (local council) to safeguard the quality.

For mainstreaming on-site stormwater treatment it is not only important to spread knowledge among different stakeholders, but also within different levels of organisations that are involved with on-site stormwater treatment. Increasing knowledge over all organisational levels entrenches WSUD in the organisation. If WSUD is entrenched in all organisational levels the approach is becoming standard and the irreversibility of the transition is increased. With innovations often a limited number of people is involved with a project. If one of those people leaves the organisation for some reason implicit (tacit) knowledge will be lost. Therefore it is important to spread knowledge within an organisation.

• Solving the cost allocation issue: The cost allocation issue about the maintenance of WSUD

features for stormwater treatment will probably result in conflicts between Melbourne Water and the local councils in the near future. Local councils have a limited budget to cover the costs for maintaining WSUD in public open space. I would advise to create a financial mechanism between Melbourne Water who receives the main benefits of on-site stormwater treatment and the local councils who pays for maintenance to refund the benefits to the councils.


154

Finally, I would like to mention that water quality of the receiving waters should be monitored to measure the impacts of the legislative measure to mandate stormwater treatment. The regime has been changing over time in order to improve water quality of those waterways and therefore it has to be checked if the current set of measures sufficiently improves the waterway health in the existing public perspective. If not, other measures will have to be taken in order to meet quality standard that are sufficient in the perception of society. 2. Recommendations for entering the acceleration stage of the AWS niche: Take-off of the ASW niche can be accelerated by:

• Using a common methodology for implementing recycled water schemes and other technologies that supply alternative water sources.

• A solution for the cost allocation issue. • Steering from the Victorian Government for the uptake of alternative water sources. • Guidelines for implementation of stormwater and grey water re-use schemes

• Using a common methodology: It is concluded that a common methodology for implementing

third pipe systems is not established yet. This frustrates the development process of such systems, because the developers and builders of the third pipe systems have to meet different requirements that are set by the water retailers. A common methodology of the water authorities and other governmental agencies could be helpful to streamline the implementation process of recycled water schemes. For this common methodology diffusion of knowledge at all organisational levels is required to remove agency reluctance to co-operate.

• Solving the cost (allocation) issue: It has appeared that especially for the water retailers the

implementation of recycled water schemes is cost prohibitive. The current price for water does not cover the costs for the construction and maintenance of the infrastructure that is needed for recycled water supply. It should be investigated what would be the best way to cover the costs of recycled water schemes. Several options could be considered. Examples are: increasing the price of water, additional funding from the State Government to the water retailers, development charges for homes connected to the third pipe networks. For the choice for one of the options, it should be questioned who should pay: the users of recycled water only, the whole community of Melbourne or all Victorians.

• Steering from Victorian government: Strategy of the Victorian Government uses water recycling

targets and more recently also mandating of recycled water supply to encourage the uptake of recycled water. There are also initiatives to encourage the uptake of other alternative water sources such as rainwater, stormwater and grey water. Such initiatives are crucial, because it is unlikely that for the predicted future scenarios Melbourne’s water supplies will meet the demand. The Sustainable Water Strategy for the Central Region predicts a shortfall of 205.000 ML per year by 2055 if nothing changes in current practice. It is estimated that by this time 5,7 million people live in the Central Region. If the water use of those people would be reduced to Dutch standards of 2004 (124 litres per person per day), this would save 5.700.000 x (135-124) x 365 = 22.885,5 ML per year.211 This would not be sufficient to meet the shortfall. Even if all there would be permanent water restrictions for all outdoor uses the shortfall would not sufficiently been addressed: 5.700.000 x (208-124) x 365 = 174.762 ML per year.212 Therefore the uptake of alternative water sources is unavoidable to meet the future water demand. Besides setting targets, encouraging the use of water efficient appliances, measures such as developing a desalination plant or upgrading water recycling schemes and further development of stormwater and grey-water re-use, it is in my opinion also crucial to increase the price of water.

• Guidelines for implementation of stormwater and grey water re-use: At this moment several

initiatives have been taken for the re-use of stormwater and grey water. However, regulation and guidelines have not been developed yet. This inhibits the commissioning of stormwater and grey-water re-use schemes. This causes that the re-use schemes have to divert the treated water to the sewage system instead of re-using it. In my opinion the Victorian government should apply

211 Note: The average indoor water consumption per day is 135 l/person/day in Melbourne and 124 l/person/day (see also Chapter 3.2) 212 Note: Melbourne’s average household use including outdoor uses is 208 l/person/day (see Chapter 3.2).


their health standards on the stormwater and grey water re-use schemes and establish regulation and guidelines to encourage these initiatives.

3. Recommendations for convergence of the USQM and AWS niches: In Chapter 5.2 it was described that the attention for the water supply challenge could be a treat for the stabilisation of the USQM niche. However in my opinion there is a good chance that the two niches reinforce each other and converge with each other. Convergence of USQM and ASW niches can be achieved by:

• The fact that recycled water schemes produce a higher nutrient flow, which has to be removed as well.

• Initiatives like Docklands Park where stormwater is harvested and stored for irrigation of open space. This combines the water quality challenge with the water demand challenge.

11.2 Recommendations for the Netherlands (next steps) In Chapter 8 it was concluded that the transition in the Netherlands is currently entering the acceleration phase. Several recommendations can be made to accelerate the transition:

• Thorough action of local councils • Address the cost allocation issue and the responsibility for maintenance • Educate the water sector • Create an enabling space for innovators • Make sure ambitions and plans are implemented and define the outcome of the work • Make a system analysis

• Thorough action of local councils: The fact that local councils in the Netherlands act as

developers, but also have a maintenance responsibility offers opportunities for the implementation of ‘sustainable’ water systems. The council is leading during the whole development process and can therefore choose to implement ‘sustainable’ water systems. Councils need to show courage to make this choice instead of opting for short-term successes of developing a large housing stock. Therefore it is in my opinion important to educate councils about the values of ‘sustainable’ urban water systems. Emphasising of demonstration projects like ‘t Duyfrak could contribute to this.

• Address the cost allocation issue and responsibility for maintenance: It was concluded that

cost allocation and responsibility for maintenance are issues that need to be solved. A solution should be found for the responsibilities of the water boards and the local councils. In my opinion, the water boards having a very inflexible attitude towards urban development. Their main concern is the efficiency that they can achieve with maintaining the water systems. Although this is important, water systems have much more important values that sometimes conflict with efficiency of maintenance. Water boards should acknowledge this. However, there is also a responsibility for other actors that can assist water boards by showing them how to maintain water systems.

• Create enabling space for innovators: The Netherlands could learn from the way the regime

responded in Melbourne. One the State level, one vision was created to address the water challenges instead of 84 in the Netherlands. This helped to create an enabling space for innovators that protected the USQM niche and later the AWS niche. Bridging organisations assist in closing the gap between the public and private sector by doing demand based research to develop a solution for the water challenges. An important aspect is also the existence of central databases that keep track of demonstration projects. This helps water managers to prevent to invent the wheel over and over again.

• Educate the water sector: Lack of knowledge creates agency reluctance to invest in innovations or can cause wrong implementation. Education is therefore important to remove this barrier. Above it was explained that an enabling space with bridging organisations and central databases could offer demand based science and information about demonstration projects. This could be an important aspect of education. It was concluded that for proceeding the transition it is necessary that knowledge is spread among all involved organisations and also within all involved organisations. For spreading knowledge between organisations, networks like Leven met Water (Living with Water) play a central role, because they bring different groups together on a national


156

level. Also national associations of for example local councils (VNG) or water boards (UvW) could play a central role in education of their member. On a project scale it is important to involve the stakeholders as early as possible to give them time to understand the plans.

• Make sure ambitions and plans are implemented and define the outcome of the work: The Netherlands has a strong planning culture. However, it was concluded that plans alone are not sufficient for successfully implementing a water system. Therefore the ambitions that are included in the first plans need to be safeguarded through the whole development process. Good contracting can assist in safeguarding the ambitions. The contracts should define the quality of the outcome of the work instead of the activities that have to be conducted. If the outcome of the work is defined in the contracts, unexpected surprises can be avoided by checking the completed work before it is handed over.

• Make system analysis: One of the key lessons for the Netherlands was that a system analysis of

streamflows to the sewage treatment plant does not exist. Conducting such an analysis could offer more insight in the problem and could therefore help in creating an unambiguous water vision for the Netherlands. A system analysis could also remove the argument of opponents of stormwater disconnection and therefore support innovative technologies such as vegetated swales or permeable pavement.


CHAPTER 12: RESEARCH REFLECTION 12.1 Introduction This chapter reflects on the research that is described in the previous chapters of this report in order to indicate the added value of this research by putting it into perspective of existing research. Because this research is being conducted within the framework of the co-operative research program of the Water Resources Section of Delft University of Technology and the National Urban Water Governance Program of Monash University, it is chosen to use key research elements about the subject of sustainable water management of these two organisations to reflect on this thesis. From Delft University of Technology assessment tools for assessing the quality or sustainability of urban and water plans are used to reflect on this thesis. From Monash University research is used that has been conducted towards the transition in urban water management to WSUD in Melbourne. Comparing the research of this thesis with research from Delft and Melbourne does not only indicate the value of this thesis, but also indicates what research from the Delft University of technology and the National urban Water Governance program can learn from each other. It is very important to note that the four researches have been produced for different reasons and are developed from very different backgrounds. Table 12.1 summarises the purpose and origin of this thesis and the three researches. Because of this, each of the four researches has a different focus. However, each research identifies key elements that aim towards sustainable urban water management. Therefore, each research is aiming to contributing in its own way towards streamlining the transition in urban water management. Purpose Origin MSc thesis

To identify enabling and disabling factors for successfully mainstreaming innovations in urban water management.

Transition theories, water management, comparative case studies

3D tool To assess important aspects of development of vision and the design of planning processes for water plans and local water systems.

Water management, planning

4C tool To assess the quality and progress of urban development plans.

Urban planning, transition theories

Brown & Clarke

To identify key institutional change ingredients that will lead to the mainstreaming of WSUD across Melbourne.

Transition theories, social research

Table 12.1: Purpose and origin of this MSc thesis, the 3D and 4C assessment frameworks and research from

the National Urban Water Governance Program Chapter 12.2 will compare the key elements from this study with the 3D assessment framework for urban water plans and Chapter 12.3 compares the key elements with the 4C assessment framework for urban water plans that are both described by Van de Ven et al. (2005b). Chapter 12.4 compares the key elements with the key elements of the transition analysis of urban water management in Melbourne that is conducted by Brown and Clarke (2007). For all three comparisons it will be analysed how the key elements of this research are included in the other frameworks.


158

12.2 Comparison with the 3D assessment framework The 3D assessment framework assists water managers with the design and development of visions for water plans by assessing if the water plan is matching with the context; if the water plan is really executing its function; if the water plan is a result of the observations of the process and not a result from a handbook; and if the water plan is consistent and does not conflict with other processes. The 3D framework is also suitable for assessment of plans that already have been developed. Appendix G gives a more extensive explanation about the 3D assessment framework. Table 12.2 shows a comparison between the key elements that have been revealed in the case studies in this thesis and the 3D assessment framework.

Level General key elements Included in 3D

Macro • Climate Yes

• Urban growth Yes

• Socio-political capital and sustainability Yes, except public perception and political decisions

Meso • Attitude of stakeholders Yes

• Knowledge and trust Yes

• Complexity of stakeholders No

• Co-operation, involvement and communication Yes


Partially, regulation and guidelines are not mentioned.

• Cost and cost allocation Yes, but not explicitly mentioned.

Micro • Added value Yes, but not explicitly mentioned

• Enthusiasm of individuals No

• Location characteristics Yes

• Construction, operation and maintenance Yes Table 12.2: Comparison of research with 3D assessment framework The Table shows that most key elements of this thesis are also included in the 3D framework. However, there are some differences between the two researches. These are systematically discussed below. Macro elements: The macro elements are also included in the 3D assessment framework. The 3D assessment framework uses sustainability as a starting principle for assessing water plans. Part of the definition of sustainable water systems in the 3D framework is meeting the needs of the present and future generations, such as protection against floods and drought, reliable drinking water supply and sanitation and a good living environment. This is similar to the macro elements. However, the 3D framework does not really take public perception and political decisions into account. Public perception and political decisions are often an incentive for developing a plan and are therefore outside the scope of the framework. Meso elements: All key elements from this thesis return in the 3D framework. However, there are some differences. Regulation and guidelines, cost allocation and trust are not explicitly mentioned. The focus of the 3D framework is towards the interaction of stakeholders and the allocation of means that can possibly contribute to the planning process. Like in this thesis, knowledge is an important aspect of the 3D


assessment framework. In the 3D framework, knowledge is directly linked to communication and the structure of the discussion during the process. Because the case studies in this thesis focussed on the introduction of innovative technologies, knowledge was early in the planning process often only present at a limited number of stakeholders. Communication was therefore indeed a very important aspect during the process to increase trust in technologies among the stakeholders. This link could be expressed more explicitly in this thesis. Complexity of stakeholders is not explicitly mentioned in the 3D assessment framework. The 3D assessment framework assesses which actor has useful means that could contribute to the process and if those means are being brought in the process, but this does not say anything about the ability of actors to cope with change. Especially the cases in the Netherlands have revealed that this can be a barrier. Also the role of regulation and guidelines is not explicitly mentioned in the 3D framework, although they can have significant impact on the planning process. Cost allocation could also be a valuable addition to the 3D framework, because the case studies in the Netherlands revealed that cost allocation of new technologies is an issue in urban planning in the Netherlands. Micro elements: Added value of a technology is not explicitly being mentioned in the 3D framework, but it is included indirectly. The 3D framework assesses if the concept of the waterplan can be regarded as sustainable. If this is the case, the concept has certain added value. The role of individuals is the most important factor that is not included in the 3D assessment framework. The case studies of this report revealed that enthusiasm of individuals is a crucial factor for introducing innovative technologies in urban water management. The 3D framework only regards actors, which refers in this case to organisations. Individuals are the contact persons between different stakeholders and their relationships and capabilities are not being regarded in the 3D framework. Finally, an important aspect of the 3D framework is the plan area. In this thesis it was revealed that location characteristics offer opportunities for different technologies. The focus of the 3D framework is more towards consistency of the plan area with actors, their management areas, themes and the existing water system and other infrastructure. It can be concluded that the biggest difference between this thesis and the 3D framework is the role of individuals in the planning phase. Furthermore, the 3D assessment framework emphasises on the planning phase and on consistency and continuity of the plan. 12.3 Comparison with the 4C Assessment framework The 4C assessment framework is a tool for testing the quality and progress of urban development plans. This assessment framework has originated from urban planning and transition theories and is developed to answer the question to what account innovations in planning result in sustainable, integral and usable solutions for water management in urban development areas. It uses four perspectives (contact, concept, contract and continuity) with various criteria to determine if a planning process is successful and what can be learned and improved from the planning process. Appendix H gives a more detailed explanation about the 4C assessment framework. In Table 12.3 the general key elements are being compared with the 4C assessment framework. It can be seen that there are many similarities between this research and the 4C assessment framework. However, there are some differences. These are systematically being discussed below. Macro elements: The macro elements climate, urban growth and socio-political capital are not explicitly mentioned in the 4C assessment framework. However, these factors are often an incentive for the planning of urban development. Because the 4C assessment framework only assesses the plans, this is outside the scope of the 4C framework. Similar to the 3D assessment framework, the 4C framework aims towards sustainable development. It explicitly mentions keeping water clean and retaining water as well as visibility as guiding concepts for sustainable water management.


160

Level General key elements Included in 4C

Macro • Climate Yes, but not explicitly mentioned

• Urban growth Yes, but not explicitly mentioned

• Socio-political capital and sustainability Sustainability is included, socio-political capital not.




• Co-operation, involvement and communication Yes

• Regulation, guidelines, agreements and contracts Yes

• Cost and cost allocation Yes

Micro • Added value Yes

• Enthusiasm of individuals Yes

• Location characteristics Yes

• Construction, operation and maintenance No Table 12.3: Comparison of research with 4C assessment framework Meso elements: The 4C framework includes contact moments between stakeholders and interests and perceptions of stakeholders, but does only to a lesser extend consider the ability of stakeholders to co-operate in the planning process. Complexity of stakeholders, the financial means of stakeholders and transferring knowledge between different organisational levels are not being regarded. However, an important aspect of the 4C framework is the role of collective memory and (implicit) knowledge of the actors in the development process. This was also an important conclusion from the case studies. An important statement from the 4C assessment framework is that solid agreements create safety for stakeholders that encourage co-operative behaviour. The case studies only revealed that the contracts were important for safeguarding the ambitions of a plan. Micro elements: The 4C assessment framework does not really consider the value of technologies. However, it considers the interests of stakeholders. The case studies have illustrated that the value of a technology can be different for different stakeholders. Unlike the 3D assessment framework, the 4C framework gives attention to the role of individuals in the planning process. The 4C framework defines change-agents that protect the objectives of the development during all plan phases and make other individuals enthusiastic. The 4C framework describes that the change-agents can have negative impact on the process if the progress is heavily dependent on the change-agent and he suddenly disappears from the project. An important difference between the 4C framework and this thesis is the fact that the 4C framework only regards the planning phase, while the case studies revealed that for successfully introducing sustainable water systems the construction and operation phase are crucial phases as well. It can be concluded that the complexity of stakeholders, construction, operation and maintenance and the importance of transferring knowledge through different levels of organisations are elements that could improve the 4C assessment framework. The insight from the 4C framework that could improve this thesis is the fact that contracts do not only safeguard ambitions, but also encourage co-operative behaviour.


12.4 Comparison with research Brown and Clarke (2007) Table 12.1 in the introduction of this chapter shows that the purpose and background of the research of Brown and Clarke is more similar to this research than the 3D and 4C assessment frameworks. However, there are some differences. The method that is used for this research is to conduct comparative case studies at the level of a residential subdivision, while the scale level that is used by Brown and Clarke is the city of Melbourne as a whole. The research that is conducted by Brown and Clarke aims to identify key transition factors that will lead to the mainstreaming of WSUD in Melbourne. In a historical analysis Brown and Clarke have identified that interplay between enabling context variables and champions in the water industry have provided structure and acceleration to the urban water transition in Melbourne. Appendix I explains the research of Brown and Clarke more in detail. Table 12.4 shows the differences between the key elements that have been identified in this thesis and the research that is conducted by Brown and Clarke. The similarities and differences will be discussed below.

Level General key elements Included in Brown and Clarke

Macro • Climate Yes, not explicitly mentioned

• Urban growth Yes, not explicitly mentioned

• Socio-political capital and sustainability Yes




• Co-operation, involvement and communication No

• Regulation, guidelines, agreements and contracts Yes

• Cost and cost allocation Yes

Micro • Added value Yes

• Enthusiasm of individuals Yes

• Location characteristics No

• Construction, operation and maintenance No Table 12.4: Comparison of research with Brown and Clarke (2007) Macro elements: Because the report of Brown and Clarke only focuses on the transition of stormwater quality management and does not include the water supply challenge, urban growth and climate are not being included in Brown and Clarke as drivers for change. In this thesis it is described that in Melbourne the concept of WSUD has evolved from the water quality challenge to a holistic water cycle approach that also includes the water supply challenge. Similar to this thesis, Brown and Clarke include socio-political capital in their report. However, Brown and Clarke do not only explain the role of public the public and politics, but also of the media. The sustainability aspects that are being covered in Brown and Clarke are improved waterway health, amenity and recreation. Meso elements: The different scope of the research of Brown and Clarke and this thesis reveals some interesting differences in success factors. The research of Brown and Clarke identifies the importance of bridging organisations that act as facilitators for new science or policy relationships by bringing key stakeholders from multiple sectors together and facilitating collaboration and learning between


162

different agencies and professions. In a way the bridging organisations can on a smaller scale be compared with the project teams in the case studies in the Netherlands. These also bring different stakeholders together. In the same way the role of agreements and contracts can be compared with binding government targets for government water agencies that formalise the responsibility of water authorities in Melbourne. Strategic funding is an aspect of the research of Brown and Clarke that could possibly solve cost allocation issues. Brown and Clarke distinguish external and internal strategic funding. External strategic funding consists of external resources or grants and internal strategic funding are organisational financial measures such as charges or fees. Brown and Clarke indicate that demonstration projects and training provide knowledge. This thesis focuses on projects that include innovative technologies and does therefore not include this factor. An important factor that is revealed in this thesis and that is not explicitly mentioned in the research of Brown and Clarke is the complexity of stakeholders and their ability to deal with change. It has been revealed in the case studies that internal conflicts between departments, knowledge gaps between different management levels and capacity problems can be barriers for change. Also communication and early involvement of stakeholders in the planning process are not mentioned explicitly by Brown and Clarke. This can be explained by the fact that Brown and Clarke do not focus on individual projects. Micro elements: The role of added value is similarly described by Brown and Clarke to this thesis. Brown and Clarke emphasise the financial aspect of the added value, because private initiatives are an important driver for innovation in Melbourne. Brown and Clarke have also identified the role of individuals as key transition factors. They have identified a list of qualities that champions in urban water management in Melbourne possibly have. This list is presented in Appendix I. Location characteristics are not included in Brown and Clarke. This is probably caused by the fact that they did not regard individual developments, but the transition of urban water management in Melbourne as a whole. However, also for the scale level of metropolitan Melbourne location characteristics are influential. For example, widespread implementation of third pipe systems in existing urban areas is not financially feasible, but on the fringe of the metropolis this could become a viable option. Another factor that is not included in Brown and Clarke because their focus is on a different scale level is the importance of regarding all developing phases early in the planning process. For introducing innovative technologies it is not sufficient to make good designs, but follow-up of the design is required to ensure the planned outcome. It can be concluded that the different scope provides different insights to transitions that are complementing each other. From Brown and Clarke it can be learned that bridging organisations, strategic funding and the qualities of champions are key transition elements that have not been included in this thesis, while this thesis reveals that complexity of stakeholders, communication and co-operation between stakeholders, location characteristics and follow-up through all development phases are key elements that could be added to the research of Brown and Clarke. 12.5 Conclusion This final chapter reflected on thesis by comparing it with the outcomes of important research from the Netherlands and Australia. The purpose of the researches differs and the researches use perspectives from different scale levels. However, it is still valuable to put this research in perspective of other researches, because it reveals the added value of this thesis by showing knowledge gaps in key research tools in both Australia and the Netherlands. From the comparison with other research it can be concluded that the research that is presented in this thesis does not give a complete list of key elements for successfully mainstreaming innovative technologies in urban water management. This can be explained by the fact that this thesis has concentrated on a limited number of residential development projects. Using a different scope would reveal additional information, such as the value of bridging organisations or strategic funding that has been revealed by the research that is conducted by Brown and Clark that used a complete city as a case study instead of residential developments. Another important aspect that could be improved to this thesis is the role of individuals in the transition process and development processes. In this thesis the enthusiasm of individuals was identified as an important enabling factor. Also the role of implicit knowledge, which is not written down but present in


the minds of individuals, was explained. The research of Brown and Clarke emphasises the role of individuals or champions. According to them and others, champions play a very important role in the transition process in urban water management in Melbourne. From the comparison with the 4C assessment framework it is learned that the role of contracts is not only to safeguard ambitions or quality of the outcome of the work, but also to encourage co-operative behaviour by offering security for stakeholders. The 3D and 4C assessment frameworks emphasise on the planning phases and the consistency of the plans with the involved actors, location, etc. However, these tools do not give much attention towards the implementation and operation of a plan. This thesis has revealed that planning only is not sufficient for successfully introducing innovative water systems and that follow-up through the implementation and operation phases is crucial for the quality of the outcome of the plans. Another aspect that could improve the 3D and 4C assessment frameworks is emphasising the role of individuals. This is completely lacking in the 3D framework, although it is mentioned in the 4C framework. The research reflection has also identified that an important aspect of the transition is the ability to cope with change that relates with the organisational complexity of the stakeholders. This is not explicitly being mentioned in either the 3D and 4C assessment frameworks or the research of Brown and Clarke. Other elements that could be an addition to the research of Brown and Clarke are communication and co-operation between stakeholders, location characteristics and follow-up through all development phases. While in the Netherlands the focus is towards planning, in Melbourne the focus is towards creating an enabling environment for individuals to introduce innovative water systems. This difference in culture is also illustrated by the different focus of research from both countries. The lessons from both countries should be used to combine the best of both worlds.


164

REFERENCES Advin (2001) Geohydrologysch onderzoek woonplan “Het Funen” te Amsterdam, Advin, assigned by IBC Vastgoed BV. Alterra (2007) www.bodemdata.nl, accessed 17 October 2007. Aquaflow BV (2007) www.aquaflow.nl, accessed 11 July 2007. Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004, Regional Population Growth Australia: June 2004, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. Australian Government (2004) Guidance on use of rainwater tanks, enHealth Council, Australia, ISBN 0 642 82443 6. Baillieu, T., (2006) In press: More Water, less tax: Baillieu, The Age, 13-11-2006. Berkhout, F., Smith, A. and Stirling, A. (2003) Socio-technical regimes and transitions contexts, SPRU electronic working paper series, Brighton (106). Biron, D.J. (2004) Beter bouwen woonrijp maken: Een verkennend onderzoek naar het bouwen woonrijp maken in de Nederlandse praktijk en de problematiek rondom wateroverlast op de bouwplaats. TU Delft, Januari 2004. Biswas, A.K. (2004) Integrated water resources management: a reassessment, Water International, Vol. 29, No. 2, p248–256. Bram Breedveld Landschapsarchitecten (2006) Het Funenpark, assigned by Heijmans Vastgoed and Stadsdeel Amsterdam-Centrum. Bram Breedveld Landschapsarchitecten (2007) Terreinplan Funenpark Amsterdam, assigned by Heijmans Vastgoed, February 2007. Breen, P., Wong, T. and Lawrence, I. (2005) Constructed Wetlands and Ponds, In Australian Runoff Quality; A guide to Water Sensitive urban Design, Engineers Australia. Brown, R. (2004) Local Institutional Development and organizational Change for Advancing Sustainable Urban Water Futures, Keynote Address in Proceedings of the International Conference on Water Sensitive Urban Design: Cities as Catchments, 21st-25th November, Adelaide, Australia. Brown, R.R. and Clarke, J.M. (2007) Transition to water sensitive urban design: The story of Melbourne, Australia, Report No. 07/1, Facility for Advancing Water Biofiltration, Monash University, June 2007, ISBN 987-0-9803428-0-2. Bureau of Meteorology (2004) www.bom.gov.au, accessed 13 march 2007. CIA (2007) The World Factbook, available from: www.cia.gov, accessed 9 October 2007. City of Melbourne (2005) Water Sensitive Urban Design Guidelines. City of Melbourne (2007) Melbourne – a snaphot, available from: www.melbourne.vic.au, accessed 17 October 2007. Civilink Engineering (2006) Project “Het Funen” te Amsterdam; Ontwerp drainagevoorzieningen fase II, Civilink Engineering, assigned by Heijmans Wegenbouw BV. Climate Change Central (2007) http://www.climatechangecentral.com/, accessed 3 May 2007.


Commissie Waterbeheer 21ste eeuw (2000) Waterbeleid voor de 21ste eeuw; Geef water de ruimte en aandacht die het verdient. Coomes Consulting (2007) web.coomes.com.au, accessed at 28 August 2007. CRC Salinity (2007) http://crcsalinity.com.au/, accessed 3 October 2007. De Graaf, R.E. (2005) Transitions to more sustainable urban water management and water supply, MSc thesis, Delft University of Technology. De Graaf, R.E. (2006) Waterstad in praktijk. Kansen en obstakels voor water bij stedelijke vernieuwing in de Rotterdamse wijken Zuidwijk en Pendrecht. Delft University of Technology, Delft. Dennis Family Corporation (2006) Hunt Club Estate Brochure, Dennis Family Corporation, Melbourne, Australia. Department of Human Services (2007) www.health.vic.gov.au, accessed 2 October 2007. Department of Sustainability and Environment (2002) Melbourne 2030. Department of Sustainability and environment (2007) Can groundwater provide a secure water supply in the Melbourne region?, available at www.dse.vic.gov.au, accessed 3 October 2007. Department of Sustainability and Environment (2004) Our Water Our Future: Securing our water future together, DSE, Victorian Government. Department of Sustainability and Environment (2006a) Melbourne Atlas 2006. Department of Sustainability and Environment (2006b) Sustainable Water Strategy for the Central Region. Department of Sustainability and Environment (2007) www.dse.vic.gov.au, accessed 3 October 2007. Environmental Protection Agency (2003) Guidelines for Environmental Management; Use of reclaimed water, EPA Victoria, June 2003. Environmental Protection Agency Victoria (2007) www.epa.vic.gov.au, accessed 2 October 2007. EPA Victoria, VicUrban, Yarra Valley Water and City of Whittlesea (2006) Sustainability Covenant, August 2006. Essential Services Commission (2004) Economic Regulation of the Victorian Water Sector, Consultation Paper No. 1, February 2004, Melbourne, Australia. Essential Services Commission (2007) www.esc.vic.gov.au, accessed 2 October 2007. eWater CRC (2007) www.ewatercrc.com.au, accessed 3 October 2007. Ganzevles, P.P.G. and Handgraaf, S. (2002) Waterneutraal bouwen in IJburg, Dienst Waterbeheer en Riolering, Amsterdam. Geels, F. and Kemp, R. (2000) Transities vanuit sociotechnisch perspectief, International Centre for Integrative Studies, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Geels, F.W. and Schot, J. (2007) Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways, Research Policy 36, p399-417. Geldof G.D. (2002) Omgaan met complexiteit bij integraal waterbeheer (Coping with complexity in integrated water management), PhD dissertation, University of Twente.


166

Geldof, G. D. (2005). Interactive implementation, Conference proceedings 10th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Copenhagen. Gemeente Amsterdam (2002) www.amsterdam.nl, accessed 22 August 2007. Gemeente Amsterdam (2007) www.amsterdam.nl, accessed 21 August 2007. Gemeente Culemborg (2007) www.culemborg.nl, accessed on 7 August 2007. Gemeente Utrecht (2007) www.utrecht.nl, accessed 17 July 2007. Haycox, M. (undated) The Melbourne Docklands ESD Guide – A step towards an urban and sustainable future, VicUrban, Melbourne, Australia. Hoogheemraadschap Holland Noorderkwartier (2007) www.hhnk.nl, accessed 17 October 2007. Howe, C., Jones, R.N., Maheepala, S. and Rhodes, B. (2005) Melbourne Water Climate Change Study; Implications of Potential Climate Change for Melbourne’s Water Resources, CSIRO Urban Water, CSIRO Atmospheric Research, Melbourne Water, March 2005. Huisman, P. (2004) Water in the Netherlands, managing checks and balances, Netherlands Hydrological Society, Utrecht, ISBN 90-803565-6-5. Interprovinciaal Overleg (2007) www.provincies.nl, accessed 9 October 2007. IUCN, UNEP, WWF (1991) Caring for the Earth; A Strategy for Sustainable Living. Jakobs, Y. and Saan, H. (2006) Kleine geschiedenis van Culemborg; Voor iedereen die meer wil weten over de historie van de stad, City of Culemborg. Kaptein, M. (2007) EVA-Lanxmeer; Pilotproject for sustained urban development, Stichting EVA- Lanxmeer. Klimaat voor Ruimte, Leven met Water, Habiforum (2006) Routeplanner; Naar een klimaatbestendig Nederland, December 2006, ISBN-10 90-376-0504-4. KNMI (2007) Klimaatatlas van Nederland, available from www.knmi.nl, accessed 9 October 2007. Koedood, J. and Blaauw, M. (1998) Waterplan Haveneiland en Rieteilanden IJburg, Dienst Waterbeheer en Riolering, Amsterdam. Kok, M. (2005) Een waterverzekering in Nederland: mogelijk en wenselijk?, HKV Lijn in Water. Koppejan, J.F.M. and Hagelstein, G.H. (1995) Wateroverlast 1995, Bestuurskunde, 1995 issue 8, p. 338-342. Kregting, G.J. (2004) Advies voorkomen wateroverlast in ‘Het Funen’, Witteveen+Bos, assigned by Stadsdeel Amsterdam Centrum. McLean, J. (2004), Aurora – Delivering a sustainable urban water system for a new suburb, Water Sensitive Urban Design Conference 2004, Adelaide. Melbourne Water (2006) Water Supply Catchments, available at www.melbournewater.com.au, accessed 9 October 2006. Melbourne Water (2007) www.melbournewater.com.au, accessed 10 March 2007. Melbourne Water (2007a) Rivers and Creeks, available at www.melbournewater.com.au, accessed 18 April 2007.


Melbourne Water (2007b) Living with Drought, available at http://drought.melbournewater.com.au/, accessed 2 October 2007. Melbourne Water (2007c) Conserve Water, available at http://conservewater.melbournewater.com.au/, accessed 2 October 2007. Melbourne Water (2007d) www.melbournewater.com.au, accessed 3 October 2007. Melbourne Water (2007e) Factsheet Melbourne’s Water Supply System, available at www.melbournewater.com.au, accessed 3 October 2007. Melbourne Water (2007f) Factsheet The sewerage system, available at www.melbournewater.com.au, accessed 3 October 2007. Melbourne Water (2007g) Factsheet Planning Property Information, available at www.melbournewater.com.au, accessed 3 October 2007. Melbourne Water (2007h) River Condition, available at www.melbournewater.com.au, accessed 3 October 2007. Melbourne Water (2007i)) Water Sensitive urban Design Online Database, available at http://wsud.melbournewater.com.au, accessed 3 October 2007. Melbourne Water (2007j) The drainage system, available at www.melbournewater.com.au, accessed 3 October 2007. Melbourne Water (2007k) Factsheet Drainage Schemes, available at www.melbournewater.com.au, accessed 8 October 2007. Minister for Water (2007) First mandatory recycled water for Melbourne, Media Release, 15 January 2007. Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat (1998) Vierde Nota Waterhuishouding, available from www.waterland.net. Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat (2007) www.verkeerenwaterstaat.nl, accessed 15 October 2007. Mitchell, V.G. (2000) AQUACYCLE: An Urban Water Balance Model for Assessing Stormwater and Wastewater Reuse Options – User Manual, CRC for Catchment Hydrology. Mouritz, M, Evangelisti, M. and McAlister, T. (2006) Water Sensitive Urban Design. In: T.H.F. Wong (ed.), Australian Runoff Quality: A Guide to Water Sensitive Urban Design, Engineers Australia, Canberra. National Urban Water Governance Program (unpublished) Draft Context Report City of Melbourne. NIPO/VEWIN (2005) Enquête huishoudelijk waterverbruik 2004. Vereniging van Waterbedrijven in Nederland, Rijswijk. Local Government Victoria (2007) Guide to local government; Planning and Building, available at www.localgovernment.vic.gov.au, accessed 3 October 2007. Oesterholt, F.I.H.M. (2003) Beleidsonderbouwende monitoring huishoudwater; Onderzoek naar de kwaliteit van huishoudwater en de effecten van het gebruik op het milieu en de klant. Kiwa Water Research, assigned by Ministry of Housing and Spatial Planning and the Environment. Office of Urban Management (2007) http://www.oum.qld.gov.au/, accessed 7 May 2007. Perlee Bouwbegeleiding (2007) perlee.info, accessed 17 July 2007.


168

Pilgrim, D.H. (ed) (1987), Australian Rainfall & Runoff – A guide to Flood Estimation, Institution of Engineers Australia, Barton. Plumbing Industry Commission (2005) Recycled Water Plumbing Guide, Plumbing industry Commission in association with the Victorian Water Authorities, January 2005, Melbourne, Australia. Plumbing Industry Commission (2007) www.pic.vic.gov.au, accessed 8 October 2007. Port Philip and Western Port Catchment Management Authority (2007) www.ppwcma.vic.gove.au, accessed 3 October 2007. Projectbureau IJburg (2007) www.ijburg.nl, accessed 31 July 2007. Projectbureau Leidsche Rijn (1995) Masterplan Leidsche Rijn. assigned by Municipalities of Utrecht and Vleuten-de Meern. Projectgroep Waterhuishouding (1997) Nieuwe Stad, Schoon Water. Assigned by Projectbureau Leidsche Rijn. Raad voor de Transportveiligheid (2003) Verontreiniging drinkwater Leidsche Rijn. Rijk, IPO, UvW, VnW (2003) Nationaal Bestuursakkoord Water, available from www.ipo.nl. Rijkswaterstaat (2007) www.rijkswaterstaat.nl, accessed 15 October 2007. Rijsberman, M.A. and Van de Ven, F.H.M. (2000) Different approaches to assessment of design and management of sustainable urban water systems, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20 p333-345. RIZA (2003) Nationale Droogtestudie, available from www.droogtestudie.nl, accessed 16 October 2007. RIZA (2004) Water Assessment in the Netherlands, available from www.watertoets.net, accessed 15 October 2007. Rotmans, J., Kemp, R. and Van Asselt, M.B.A. (2000) Transitions and transition management, The case of an emission-free energy supply, International Centre for Integrative studies, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Rotmans, J., Kemp, R. and Van Asselt, M.B.A. (2001) More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy, Foresight, Vol. 3 No. 1: pp15-31. Senter Novem (2003) Huishoudwaternet is onvoldoende veilig, 22-08-2003, www.senternovem.nl, accessed on 25 July 2007. SenterNovem (2007) Water en ruimtelijke ordening, available from www.duurzaambouwen.senternovem.nl, accessed 19October 2007. South East Water (undated) Green Gardening, Education brochure, South East Water, Melbourne, Australia. Southern Rural Water (2007) www.srw.com.au, accessed 3 October 2007. Suarez, F.F. and Oliva, R. (2005) Environmental change and organizational transformation, Industrial and Coporate Change 14 (6), p1017-1041. Sustainability Victoria (2007) www.sustainability.vic.gov.au, accessed 2 October 2007. Stichting EVA (2007) www.evalanxmeer.nl, accessed on 7 August 2007.


Stichting Milieukeur (2007) www.milieukeur.nl, accessed at 22 August 2007. Stichting Rioned (2005) Urban drainage statistics 2005-2006, ISBN 90 73645 42 5, available from www.riool.net. Stichting Rioned (2007) Onderzoek regenwateroverlast in de bebouwde omgeving, August 2007, available from www.riool.net, accessed 16 October 2007. Stoneman, P. (1995) Handbook of the innovation of the economics of innovation and technological change, Oxford, Blackwell publishers, ISBN: 9780631197744. TopAq (2007) www.topaq.com.au, accessed 12 April 2007. Twain, M. (1897) More Tramps abroad, Chatto & Windus, London. Unie van Waterschappen (2007) www.uvw.nl, accessed 12 October 2007. United Nations (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, General Assemble Resolution 42/187. Van den Hurk et al. (2006) KNMI Climate scenarios 2006 for the Netherlands, KNMI Scientific report 2006-01, KNMI, De Bilt, The Netherlands. Van der Brugge R., Rotmans, J. and Loorbach, D. (2005) The transition in Dutch water management, Regional Environmental Change, Vol.5: pp164-176. Van der Veen, B. (2006) Leerpunten 100 miljoen projecten. Wat ging er goed en wat ging er minder goed bij de uitvoering van projecten die met behulp van subsidie van de 100 miljoen regeling zijn bewerkstelligd? RIZA, Lelystad Van de Ven, F.H.M. (2005a) Lecture notes CT5510, Water management in urban areas, Delft University of Technology, February 2005. Van de Ven, F. et al. (2005b) Water in drievoud; benaderingen voor stedelijke waterplannen, Eburon, Delft, ISBN 90-5972-096-2. Van Dongen, F. (2007) Het Funen, Amsterdam, de Architekten Cie. Van Duuren, F. (2006) Bestek: Woonrijp maken Funenpark Amsterdam. Van Geel, P.L.B.A. (2003) Beleidsstandpunt inzet huishoudwater, Letter to the Second Chamber, BWL/2003057326, Dictoraat-Generaal Milieu, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment. Van Timmeren, A. (2006) Autonomie & Heteronomie, PhD Dissertation, Delft University of Technology. Van Vessem, N. (2002) Water .. om te drinken, te wassen en te verwarmen, Rivierenland Business Magazine, Waterbedrijf Gelderland, April 2002. Van Well, B.W.M. (2002) Geohydrologisch onderzoek en principe ontwerp infiltratievoorziening, Gebruiksfase Funen terrein aan de Cruquiuskade te Amsterdam, Vermeer Milieutechniek, assigned by Heijmans IBC Vastgoedontwikkeling B.V. Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission (2007) Issues paper: Inquiry into reform of the metropolitan retail water sector, August 2007. Victorian Government (2007) www.ourwater.vic.gov.au, accessed 3 October 2007.


170

VicUrban (undated) Docklands Water Sensitive Urban Design, Powerpoint presentation, VicUrban, Melbourne, Australia. VicUrban (2006a) Melbourne Docklands ESD Guide 2006, VicUrban, Melbourne, Australia. VicUrban (2006b) VicUrban Sustainability Charter 2006, VicUrban, Melbourne, Australia. VicUrban (2007a) www.docklands.com.au, accessed on 4 September 2007. VicUrban (2007b) History of Melbourne Docklands. Available from: www.docklands.com.au, accessed on 4 September 2007. VicUrban (2007c) www.vicurban.com.au, accessed at 28 August 2007. Victorian Water (2007) www.vicwater.org.au, accessed 3 October 2007. VROM (1993) Vierde Nota Ruimtelijke Ordening Extra. VROM (2006) Ruimte geven, bescherming bieden; een visie op de woningmarkt, available from www.vrom.nl. VROM (2007) Dossier Kaderrichtlijn Water, available from www.vrom.nl, accessed 15 October 2007. Waternet (2007) www.waternet.nl, accessed at 22 August 2007. Water Resources Strategy Committee for the Melbourne Area (2002) Final report; WSAA, 2003, WSAAfacts 2003. Waterstad, IJburgermaatschappij, IJdelta en Gemeente Amsterdam (2000) Stedebouwkundig plan Haveneiland en Rieteilanden West. Wikipedia (2005) http://nl.wikipedia.org/, accessed at 25 July 2007. Williams, M. and Clarke, R. (undated) Dual Pipe Schemes – Achievements and Challenges, Presentation, Dennis Family Corporation and South East Water, Melbourne, Australia. Witteveen+Bos (2005a) Afkoppelen van verhard oppervlak binnen ‘t Duyfrak. In opdracht van Gemeente Valkenburg, 18 mei 2005. Witteveen+Bos (2005b) Civieltechnisch basisplan; Waterhuishoudings- en drainageplan. In opdracht van Gemeente Valkenburg, 17 mei 2005. Witteveen+Bos (2005c) Civieltechnisch basisplan ‘t Duyfrak. In opdracht van Gemeente Valkenburg, 23 mei 2005. Wong, T.H.F. (2006) Introduction. In: T.H.F. Wong (ed.), Australian Runoff Quality: A Guide to Water Sensitive Urban Design, Engineers Australia, Canberra. Yarra Valley Water (2005) Sewage – stormwater systems, available at www.yvw.com.au, accessed 8 October (2007) Zuiveringsfilter (2007) www.zuiveringsfilter.nl, accessed 17 July 2007.


Appendix A: List of interviewees Melbourne Allison, R., Ecological Engineering, 12-12-2006 Allworth, A., Department of Sustainability and Environment, 15-11-2006 Beatty, J., Department of Sustainability and Environment, 15-11-2006 Breen, P., Ecological Engineering, 5-10-2006 Chesterfield, C., Melbourne Water, 2-11-2006 Coulthurst, C., South East Water, 22-11-2006 Davison, J., Environmental Protection Agency, 6-12-2006 Dedman, R., Department of Human Services, 7-12-2006 Dooling, T., Dennis Family Corporation, 13-12-2006 Engert, C., City of Whittlesea, 11-12-2006 Fletcher, T. Monash University, 10-10-2006 Francey, M., Melbourne Water, 12-10-2006 Gan, M., Yarra Valley Water, 7-12-2006 Haycox, M., VicUrban, 14-12-2006 Hodgetts, L., City of Casey, 6-12-2006 Holt, P., Ecological Engineering, 4-10-2006 Hunter, D., Coomes Consulting, 30-11-2006 McCulloch, J., Plumbing Inspection Commission, 4-12-2006 Moore, B., Delfin Lendlease, 23-11-2006 Pamminger, F., Yarra Valley Water, 9-10-2006 Rawlings, J., City of Whittlesea, 11-12-2006 Wheelahan, M., Department of Sustainability and Environment, 15-11-2006 Williams, B., VicUrban, 15-11-2006 Williams, M., Dennis Family Corporation, 10-10-2006 Williams, M., Dennis Family Corporation, 12-12-2006


172

Appendix B: List of interviewees in the Netherlands Bes, K., Stadsdeel Amsterdam-Centrum, 12 June 2007 Blaauw, M., Waternet, 6 July 2007 Biron, D., Witteveen+Bos, 7 May 2007 Blok, J., Heijmans Wegenbouw, 6 June 2007 Breedijk, E., Van Zessen Claer, 1 June 2007 Dooijeweert, G., Gemeente Culemborg, 14 June 2007 Geldof, G., Tauw, 23 March 2007 Hooijer, D., Gemeente Culemborg, 14 June 2007 Jacobs, E., Waternet, 4 April 2007 Jonker, J., Gemeente Katwijk, 31 May 2007 Kaptein, M., Stichting EVA, 14 June 2007 Kok, S., BAM Wegen, 29 May 2007 Koppenaal, K., Gemeente Valkenburg, 30 May 2007 Marshall, M., Projectbureau IJburg, 15 June 2007 Mobach, M., Provincie Utrecht, 4 July 2007 Nijburg, C., Leven met Water, 21 March 2007 Palsma, B., Stowa, 22 March 2007 Palsma, M., Gemeente Utrecht, 11 June 2007 Ponten, J., Waternet, 5 June 2007 Smorenburg, J., Waterschap Stichtse Rijnlanden, 11 June 2007 Stigter, J., Dienst Ruimtelijke Ordening, Gemeente Amsterdam, 6 July 2007 Van Loosdrecht, TU Delft, 13 April 2007 Van Ringelenstein, H., Gemeente Utrecht, 11 June 2007 Verhoeven, C., Gemeente Utrecht, 16 May 2007 Wouwenaar, B., Witteveen+Bos, 23 May 2007


Appendix C: The building process in Melbourne Figure c.1 shows the dominant building process in Melbourne. Below the dominant building process is described.

Figure c.1: The dominant building process in Melbourne 1. Land development of broadhectare land: After the development plan has been approved and the building permissions are provided to the developer, the developer is allowed to start with the development of the area. Figure c.2 shows a typical greenfield in the Melbourne area: relatively plane, limited vegetation and some rocks in the soil. If the terrain contains many rocks, it has to be excavated and filled up with gravel or other soil before development. Otherwise, removal of rocks and vegetation is adequate.

Figure c.2: The building site before development


174

After this, the underground infrastructure is put into the ground, as shown in Figure c.3. This includes all permanent infrastructure, such as cables and pipes, stormwater drainage, and the sewage system. At this stage building roads have not being constructed yet. When the groundwork is finished, tarmac roads are being constructed. This phase is called the streetscaping phase (see Figure c.4): the constructed roads are permanent and will be supplied with lighting and will also be connected to the stormwater drainage system. All roads in the urban area are typically made from tarmac. Most pavements are made from concrete that is poured in-situ. Side-curbs are made from prefab elements.

Figure c.3: Construction of underground infrastructure

Figure c.4: Streetscaping


The final part of the land development is the landscaping phase (see Figure c.5). During this phase all public open space is finished off with vegetation. If stormwater infiltration systems are being incorporated in the spatial plan of the development, they are constructed during this phase as well. The result of land development is an estate without dwellings, but with all infrastructure and vegetation.

Figure c.5: Landscaping If the terrain meets the requirements that are set in the building permissions, there is a take-over of all assets. Sometimes it is agreed amongst developer and customer that the developer is responsible for the assets for a certain hand-over period. This is a safeguard for quality for the customer for invisible faults. All public assets will become property of the local council, cables will be owned and maintained by the cable company, stormwater drainage by the local council and the reticulation system will be handed over to the water retailer. 2. Construction of dwellings: When the land development phase is finished, only the allotments have not been developed yet. Sometimes the same developer as the land developer, but sometimes a different developer or builder is developing the lots. Figure c.6 shows the construction of dwellings that are typical for Melbourne. Timber framed houses are dominant. Because structures are light for this building method, there is little heavy traffic at the building site.


176

Figure c.6: Construction of dwellings Finally, the dwellings are being sold to the new residents. Figure c.7 shows typical dwellings in a suburb in Melbourne, which are detached single-storey dwellings.213

Figure c.7: Typical dwellings in a Melbourne suburb

213 Source: Department of Sustainability and Environment (2002)


Appendix D: Classes of reclaimed water in Victoria Source: Environmental Protection Agency (2003) Guidelines for Environmental Management; Use of reclaimed water, EPA Victoria, June 2003.


178


Appendix E: Water restrictions Victoria Source: Victorian Government (2006) Our Water Our Future, Water Restrictions for Cities and Towns; Fact Sheet – Stage 1 to Stage 4, accessed at www.ourwater.vic.gov.au, 28 November 2006

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Lawns • manual watering only between 6am-

8am and 8pm-10pm on alternate days

• automatic watering only between midnight-4am*

Watering not allowed Watering not allowed Watering not allowed

Gardens • manual watering only between 6am-8am and 8pm-10pm on alternate days*

• automatic watering only between midnight-4am

• manual watering only between 6am-8am and 8pm-10pm on alternate days

• automatic watering only between midnight-4am

• a manual dripper can be used only between 6am-8am and 8pm-10pm on alternate days*

• an automatic dripper can be used only between midnight-4am**

Watering not allowed

Hand-held hoses can be used any time can be used any time to water gardens

Can be used between 6am-8am and 8pm-10pm to water gardens**

Not allowed

Vehicle washing • Hand-held hose permitted for pre-rinse and rinse only

• A bucket, high pressure cleaning device or commercial car wash can be used.

• Hand-held hoses not allowed • A bucket, high pressure cleaning

device or commercial car wash can be used.

• Hand-held hoses not allowed • Bucket can be used to clean

windows, mirrors, lights and spot-remove corrosive substances

• Commercial car wash can be used

• A vehicle may only be washed for health and safety reasons

• Bucket can be used to clean windows, mirrors, lights and spot-remove corrosive substances

• This applies for commercial car wash as well

Pools and Spas Water conservation plan needed for approval by local water business of filling new or existing pool/spa of 2000l or more. This plan must show that the volume of water required to fill the pool will be or has been offset by water saved around the house.

Water conservation plan needed for approval by local water business of filling new or existing pool/spa of 2000l or more. This plan must show that the volume of water required to fill the pool will be or has been offset by water saved around the house.

• New pools/spas cannot be filled • Water conservation plan needed

for approval by local water business of filling existing pool/spa of 2000l or more. This plan must show that the volume of water required to fill the pool will be or has been offset by water saved around the house.

• New pools/spas cannot be filled • Water conservation plan needed

for approval by local water business of filling existing pool/spa of 2000l or more. This plan must show that the volume of water required to fill the pool will be or has been offset by water saved around the house.

*alternate days means that even numbered houses can water on even numbered dates of the month, odd numbered houses can water on odd numbered dates of the month. **even numbered houses can water on Saturday and Tuesday, odd numbered houses on Sunday and Wednesday. Watering is not permitted at Mon, Thu, Fri.


180

Appendix F: The urban development process in the Netherlands This appendix explains the development process of residential areas in the Netherlands. Figure f.1 shows gives a schematic overview of the development process in the Netherlands.

Figure f.1: Development process in the Netherlands (Source: Biron (2004)) Phase 1: Policy development and site development The national government establishes the national policy regarding spatial planning in the Policy memorandum on Spatial Planning. This document describes globally for each area in the Netherlands what function is desired (living, industry, business activities, nature etc). Based on the Policy Memorandum on Spatial Planning, provinces formulate regional plans that describe the allocation of functions more into detail. Based on the regional plans, a land use plan is developed by the municipalities. The land use plan is the only plan that is obligatory to both authorities as citizens. Often, the land use plan is based on a municipality vision on spatial planning or a provincial Regional Plan. Phase 2: Design and licensing of the building plan Urban areas are often developed by municipalities, housing associations, or building contractors. These actors assign architects for the design of the dwellings. Furthermore, the municipality assigns engineering companies or municipal engineering departments for the design of the infrastructure. This results in a final design and tender specifications of both the public space and allotments Permits for

Phase 3 Realisation

Phase 4 Operation and Maintenance

Phase 2 Design and Licensing Building plan

Phase 1 Policy development and Site development

Provincial Regional Plan

Municipal Land use plan

National Policy

Design Building Site / spatial plan

Design Dwellings

Physical preparation of building site

Construction of dwellings

Landscaping

Operation and Maintenance


the developments of the final design have to be acquired before the realisation of the estate can be commenced. Phase 3: Realisation After the licensing procedure and the tender assignment of a building contractor, the actual constructing of the project will start. In the Netherlands the realization phase can be divided into three different phases. At first, the terrain has to be physically prepared for the construction of infrastructure and dwellings. In the Netherlands this phase is named “building site preparation”. The goal of building site preparation is to bring the terrain in such a condition that it is ready for construction of buildings.214 To be able to construct buildings the terrain has to be sufficiently accessible and have sufficient bearing capacity. A building site is sufficiently accessible if construction vehicles are able to manoeuvre on the terrain without danger of subsiding or jamming and building materials can be supplies, stored and processed on the building site without damage is being caused. A building site has sufficient bearing capacity if the loads of constructions and storage materials the subsoil can be conveyed into the subsoil without the risk of subsidence. No national standards or norms and no quality requirements do exist for building sites The quality of delivered terrain differs per municipality: in the one municipality a prepared building site means that the building contractor can directly start with the construction of the buildings and in the other municipality building roads and drainage have to be constructed before the start of construction of the buildings. The buyer of the terrain cannot expect anything form the terrain; he gets what he sees and if something is wrong, the costs are for his account. There is one exception: building sites have to be located on clean locations. Polluted soils are a danger for the public health and therefore not convenient for urban development.

Figure f.2 Building site preparation (Source: Photo archive D. Biron)

Figure f.3 Construction of dwellings (Source: Photo archive D. Biron)

214 Source: Biron (2004)


182

When the terrain is ready for construction, the realisation of the dwellings can be started (see figure f.3). Landscaping of public space takes place after the dwellings have completed. Figure f.4 shows a building site in which the dwelling are completed and inhabited by the new residents, while the landscaping of the estate still has to take place. This includes construction of streets, car parks and other public open space. This means that after dwellings are completed and sold to the first residents, the development of the estate has not yet been completed. This often causes nuisance for the new residents in the first period after they have bought their new home.

Figure f.4 Estate before (left) and during (right) landscaping (Source: Photo archive D. Biron) Phase 4: Operation and Maintenance After the project has been delivered, the new urban area will be used by the public and maintained. In the Netherlands this phase typically takes a period of 50 years before the structures are being written off and being replaced by new structures or drastically renovated.

Figure f.5 Completed residential development in the Netherlands (Source: Photo archive D. Biron)


Appendix G: 3D Assessment Framework Source: Van de Ven, F. et al. (2005b) Water in drievoud; benaderingen voor stedelijke waterplannen, Eburon, Delft, ISBN 90-5972-096-2

The 3D assessment framework helps water managers with the design of processes and the development of visions by systematically assessing important aspects. The 3D tool is a framework for a planning process for a sustainable water system. The 3D assessment framework has originated from water management practice. For this tool sustainable water management has to consist of the next aspects:

• Water management has to meet the needs of the present generation, such as protection against floods and drought, reliable drinking water supply and sanitation and a good living environment.

• Water management has to take the needs of future generations into account. • Water management has to aim to maintaining and developing partial systems (rivers and

lakes, but also systems of countries in which groundwater and soil moisture. • Water management has to aim at maintaining the cohesion of the system ( the water cycle as

the basis for ecological, economical and social cohesion in catchments) • Water management has to aim at an honest division. Water problems are not allowed to be

averted to others, nor in space (upstream and downstream) nor in time (future generations).

The 3D assessment framework distinguishes three dimensions (concept, arena and knowledge). Within those dimensions four aspects (process phase, continuity, system perception and starting principles) are existing (see also Figure g.1).

Figure g.1: Dimensions and aspects in the 3D assessment framework (Source: Van de Ven et al. (2005)) Dimensions:

• Concept: The concept of a plan or design is the underlying idea of a solution that is developed during the planning process. The concept refers to the character of the solution, gives direction to design choices and excludes variants.

For the dimension concept the 3D assessment framework checks if:

o The concept is matching the local water system and other relevant systems in the plan area;

o The concept offers insight in the nature of problems, possible solutions and relations between different systems;

o The concept is relevant in relation with the goals and theme of the plan; o The concept is consistent (does not include contradictions);

Concept

Knowledge

Arena

Pro

cess

pha

se

Sta

rting

prin

cipl

es

Sys

tem

per

cept

ion

Con

tinui

ty


184

o The concept includes the elements of sustainable water management that are explained above.

• Arena: The arena consists of all items and issues that identify who are involved in the

process. With the arena, choices are being assessed for the role and adjusting of themes, actors and areas and relations between them.

For the dimension arena, the 3D assessment framework checks for:

o Internal consistency of the actors, themes and plan areas; o The relevance of the central themes for the central problem and the plan or design; o The consistency of the involved actors with the planning process. Power, means,

moral right of involvement, process organisation and relations between actors are therefore assessed.

o The consistency of the plan area and the study area with the rest of the arena. This includes the division of the plan area and setting the borders of the plan in relation with the water system, management areas of the involved actors, the themes in the area and the interests of the actors.

• Knowledge: The dimension knowledge consists of the origin of knowledge, verification of

results of the process and the documentation of the process and the results. Knowledge originates and is being exchanged in the dialogue between actors.

For the dimension knowledge, the 3D assessment framework checks the following criteria:

o Communication: Are the stakeholders trying to maximise their own benefits or the mutual benefit during discussions? Furthermore, communication can be aimed at looking for differences (dialectic communication) or aimed for similarities (constructive communication).

o Openness of the process for new information, ideas, actors and changing process. o Internal inspiration that is caused by communication between stakeholders. o External inspiration that is caused by outsiders. o Steps in the planning process o Place and treatment of non-negotiable knowledge o Structure of the discussion o Verification of knowledge o Acceptation of uncertainty o Reporting of progress o Documentation of agreements

Aspects:

• Process phase: Developments take place in different phases of the process. Themes and roles of actors are changing if the process develops from the initiative to implementation and use.

• Continuity: Continuity is necessary to make progression in the process. Leaving individuals

or changing responsibilities causes process delays and could mean a risk to premature ending of the process.

• System perception: The argumentation for certain choices and the reporting of results is

dependent to an actor’s perception of a water system. Each actor perceives the water system in relation to other systems and has his own image of the relative importance of certain aspects. Understanding of the perception of the system can explain choices.

• Starting principles: Starting principles influence the pathway of the process and the choices

that have been made during the process.

Table g.1 summarises the 3D assessment framework for planning processes.


Perspective Criteria Concept • Matching local systems • Perception of systems, problems and solutions • Relevance for theme and goals of the plan • Consistency • Matching sustainable development Arena • Internal consistency • Relevance of themes • Relevance and consistency of involved actors • Consistency of area plan, study and operational areas Knowledge • Matching communication • Openness towards new information and inspiration • Structuring of process • Accurate verification • Accurate documentation Aspects • Matching structure of process phases • Continuity • System perception • Starting principles

Table g.1: Summary of the 3D assessment framework for planning processes


186

Appendix H: 4C Assessment framework Source: Van de Ven, F. et al. (2005b) Water in drievoud; benaderingen voor stedelijke waterplannen, Eburon, Delft, ISBN 90-5972-096-2 The 4C assessment framework is a tool for testing the quality and progress of urban development plans. This assessment framework has originated from urban planning and transition theories and is developed to answer the question to what account innovations in planning result in sustainable, integral and usable solutions for water management in urban development areas. It uses four perspectives (contact, concept, contract and continuity) with various criteria to determine if a planning process is successful and what can be learned and improved from the planning process. Contact: From the perspective of contact a planning process is assessed for how co-operation between actors is stimulated. It is therefore important that structural co-operation is possible during contact moments and that stakeholders with no direct contribution to the planning receive opportunities to do so or at least be informed frequently. The criteria to test this are:

• Early engagement of all relevant public and private actors. Relevant actors are actors of which a successful completion of the planning process is dependent. To engage them in an early stage leaves a wider range of opportunities than engagement in a later stage.

• Structural engagement of perceptions and interests of all relevant actors. Input of stakeholders can be stimulated during contact moments by giving attention explicitly to the motivation and local demands and needs of the stakeholders. Structurally organising contact moments increases the mutual understanding between stakeholders and the creation of support.

• Transparent planning process. For each contact moment the proceedings of the process need to be clear and there should be sufficient opportunities for actors to give input. Decisions should also be communicated clearly to the involved actors.

Concept: From the perspective of concept the planning process is assessed for how changes in water management are being facilitated. The concept represents the starting principles for a design, gives direction for possible solutions and excludes variants at the same time. It provides the conditions for change. If a mutually supported concept is missing, planning and implementation will be obstructed. The criteria for assessment from the concept perspective are:

• Keeping water clean and retaining water. National water management policy in the Netherlands aims at keeping flows of water as clean as possible to prevent unnecessary treatment. Also retention or storage is desired above discharge of water in order to minimise shifting problems to downstream areas.

• Visible structuring of space with water, matching the local identity of the urban area. If water is retained and kept clean it can contribute to the identity of the urban area. Local characteristics can be used to achieve this. It is also argued that visibility of water contributes to responsible behaviour of residents.

• Separated and/or intertwined co-operation between experts and stakeholders. Keeping water clean and retaining it can also strengthen the commitment of stakeholders if plans are technically adequate and feasible.

Continuity: From the perspective of continuity way of stimulating the effects of change are being assessed. Continuity means that ambitions carry over in the behaviour of stakeholders and in the implementation and operation of the plan. Continuity is dependent to the flexibility and resilience of the process and the way for stimulating progression. The criteria for assessment from the perspective of continuity are:

• Proceeding from variety of contents to selection. At the start of a process it is important that there is a wide suite of concepts and options which can be selected in later stages. The larger the suite of options, the larger the chance for a learning process for the stakeholders. The freedom of choices and learning process are incentives for the stakeholders to keep participating.


• Increasing resilience of the planning process. The resilience of the process is determined by the development of a collective memory. A cyclic learning process that stores and shares implicit (tacit) and explicit (codified) knowledge creates the collective memory. The collective memory carries knowledge through different planning phases.

• Encouraging progression in all planning phases. Progression can be encouraged by a change agent, initiating demonstration project and organising extra contact events such as an excursion. A change agent is a person that safeguards the goals and makes other contact persons also enthusiastic. Change agents can also negatively influence the process if the process is too much dependent on the change agent and stagnates when the change agent leaves the process. Demonstration projects make results visible and therefore motivate and stimulate involved actors.

Contract: Contracts influence the proceeding of the planning process, because they decrease the threshold for participating in the planning process by offering security. Making formal agreements about uncertainties that accompany innovations in the planning process results in a ‘safer’ environment for innovation. The criteria for assessment from the perspective of contract are:

• Soft agreements. Soft agreements define actions on the short term in relation with long-term goals. These agreements need to be flexible, because the conditions can possibly change. However, soft agreements can also offer the possibility for reducing strategic behaviour of stakeholders and therefore reduction of uncertainties.

• Hard agreements. Hard agreements make sure that goals and ambitions are being implemented in reality. They allocate the costs and make actors liable for certain aspects of the process. Hard agreements are therefore safeguarding the outcome of (parts of) the process.

• Sufficient security. Sufficient security for stakeholders means that the interests of stakeholders are protected sufficiently to fully commit to the process. Sufficient security encourages co-operative behaviour between stakeholders

Table h.1 shows a summary of the 4C assessment framework for planning of urban developments. Perspective Criteria Contact (stimulation of co-operation between actors)

• Early engagement of all relevant actors • Structural engagement of perceptions and interests of all relevant

actors • Transparent planning process

Concept (conditions for change)

• Preserving of principles: retaining water and keeping it clean • Ordening principle: Visible ordening of space, matching identity of

estate • Co-operation of stakeholders and experts

Continuity (stimulation of continuation of change)

• Availability of a large suite of options and concepts • Increasing resilience of process: development of collective memory by

increasing of knowledge concerning the content • Encourage progression in all plan phases

Contract (making and registering of agreements)

• Securing of long-term goals in planning process • Legal and financial binding agreements • Registering of safety and responsibilities of stakeholders

Table h.1: Summary of 4C assessment framework for urban developments


188

Appendix I: Summary of research Brown and Clarke (2007) Source: Brown, R.R. and Clarke, J.M. (2007) Transition to water sensitive urban design: The story of Melbourne, Australia, Report No. 07/1, Facility for Advancing Water Biofiltration, Monash University, June 2007, ISBN 987-0-9803428-0-2. The research of Brown and Clarke that is described in the report ‘Transition to Water Sensitive Urban Design; The story of Melbourne, Australia’ aims to identify the key institutional change ingredients that will lead to the mainstreaming of WSUD in Melbourne and other cities. They have conducted a historical analysis about the urban water transition in Melbourne from the 1960 until 2006. One of their most important conclusions is that interplay between the context and individuals has provided structure and catalyst for the transition. The context variables that are important for enabling the transition are presented in Table i.1. Key Variables Description Socio-political capital Aligned community, media and political concern for

improved waterway health, amenity and recreation. Bridging organisation Dedicated organising entity that facilitates collaboration

across science and policy, agencies and professions, and knowledge brokers and industry.

Trusted and reliable science Accessible scientific expertise, innovating reliable and effective solutions to local problems.

Binding targets A measurable and effective target that binds the change activity of scientists, policy makers and developer.

Accountability A formal organisational responsibility for the improvement of waterway health, and a cultural commitment to proactively influence practices that lead to such outcome.

Strategic funding Additional resources, including external funding injection points directed to change effort.

Demonstration projects and training

Accessible and reliable demonstration of new thinking and technologies in practice, accompanied by knowledge diffusion initiatives.

Market receptivity A well articulated business case for the change activity. Table i.1: Enabling context variables for the Melbourne urban stormwater quality management transition

(Source: Brown and Clarke (2007)) The enabling context shaped, constrained and provided opportunities for individuals to take action. Brown and Clarke refer to these individuals as champions. Taylor (2007)215 has defined project champions and executive champions that often act as a tandem for promoting innovations. Project champions act as change agents on a daily basis within an organisation at any organisational level and relies on personal forms of power. An executive champion is an executive who has influence over resource allocation and uses his power to provide resources to new technical innovation. Executive champions do not normally promote innovations on a daily basis. The qualities of the champions in urban water management in Melbourne are presented in Table i.2.

215 Taylor, A.C. (2007) Sustainable urban water management champions: What do we know about them? Proceedings of the Rainwater and Urban Design 2007 Conference, incorporating the 13th International Rainwater Catchment Systems Conference & the 5th International Water Sensitive Urban Design Conference. 21-23 August, Sydney, New South Wales.


Key variables Description Vision for waterway health A ‘common vision’ for protecting waterway health through

pursing a largely co-operative, rather than directive, approach for enabling change.

Multi-sectoral network A network of champions interacting across government, academia and the market.

Environmental values Strong environmental protection values with a ‘genuine’ agenda for improving Melbourne’s waterways.

Public good disposition An orientation to advocating and protecting ‘public good’. Best practice ideology Being more pragmatic and finding ways to help industry to

implement best practice thinking. Learning-by-doing philosophy Wanting to foster and trial new ideas, and valuing the

rapid adoption of ongoing scientific insights. Opportunistic Continually thinking ahead and creating opportunities

through strategic advocacy and practice. Innovative and adaptive Prepared to challenge the status quo, and concentrating

efforts using an adaptive management philosophy. Table i.2: Qualities of champions involved with the Melbourne Urban Stormwater Quality Management

transition (Source: Brown and Clarke (2007))

Documents

Mainstreaming innovations in urban water management faculteit/Afdelingen... · Mainstreaming innovations in urban water management - Case studies in Melbourne and the Netherlands