Green Infrastructure in Amsterdam : an analysis of current implementation, the potential benefits and the context-specific barriers affecting expansion of networks

(1)

URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING

Masters Thesis Assignment

Green Infrastructure in Amsterdam:

an analysis of current implementation, the potential

benefits and the context-specific barriers affecting

expansion of networks

Prepared for:

Dr Mendel Giezen

Graduate School of Social Sciences University of Amsterdam The Netherlands Prepared by: Christi Vosloo 11129042 Submission Date: 20 June 2016

(2)

Masters Thesis: Green Infrastructure in Amsterdam Plagiarism Declaration

Plagiarism Declaration

i) I know that plagiarism is wrong. Plagiarism is to use another’s work and pretend that it is one’s own,

ii) I have used the Harvard-UVA Convention for citation and referencing. Each contribution to, and quotation in, this report from the work(s) of other people has been attributed, and has been cited and referenced,

iii) This report is my own work,

iv) I have not allowed, and will not allow, anyone to copy my work with the intention of passing it off as his or her own work, and

v) I acknowledge that copying someone else’s work, or part of it, is wrong, and declare that this is my own work.

Name Student Number Date Signature Christi Katherine Vosloo 11129042 20/06/2016

(3)

Masters Thesis: Green Infrastructure in Amsterdam Plagiarism Declaration

(4)

Masters Thesis: Green Infrastructure in Amsterdam Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my mother and my father for allowing me the opportunity to receive an education and for seeing the value it holds for my future and fulfilment. Their support and encouragement throughout these past five years has meant everything to me and I am forever grateful. I would like to thank my brother and sister for standing by my side and for always being my greatest cheerleaders. I am grateful to my colleagues who made this international experience a memory that will last a lifetime. I would like to thank my supervisor Professor Mendel Giezen for his constant support and expertise throughout this process, thesis writing and researching takes an extended amount of time and without his guidance it would not have been possible. I would like to thank my masters lecturers Professor Willem Salet, Beatriz Pineda Rivella, Professor Federico Savini, Professor Tuna Tasan Kok, Professor Luca Bertolini and Professor Marco te Brömmelstroet for inspiring me to delve deeper, think critically and aim higher.

(5)

Masters Thesis: Green Infrastructure in Amsterdam Abstract

Abstract

In an urbanizing world, cities such as Amsterdam need to undergo a transformation to become climate adapted, prepared and robust. This transition is needed to address surface water runoff challenges caused by the effects of climate of change, increased frequency of extreme weather events and changing seasonality. In the city of Amsterdam permeable green space and permeable green infrastructure is limited despite a green roof subsidy provided by the government. This research investigates the current implementation, the potential green infrastructure holds in improving surface water runoff in the city and the current policy measures and policy instruments. The barriers to implementation and expansion of green infrastructure in existing buildings in Amsterdam are investigated, with the hope to offer potential solutions and recommendations for the city of Amsterdam.

This study focuses on the case study of Amsterdam by conducting two focused literature reviews and consulting experts from Waternet, Amsterdam Rainproof, De Dak Dokters, Deltares and Utrecht University. Citizens of Amsterdam were interviewed to ascertain their level of awareness and assess their perception of green infrastructure. Each expert respondent ranked the barriers in order of importance using Q-Methodology, with this mixed method approach offering a level of comprehensiveness that simply one approach may not attain.

The literature review and analysis indicated a clear under realization of permeable green infrastructures in Amsterdam with 14,9% of the study area consisting of permeable green space. Analyses by Rooftop Solutions indicated that less than 1% of rooftops in Amsterdam are green. The most important barriers as identified by the experts included the cost of installation and maintenance which remains twice as costly even when including the green roof subsidy, the lack of ‘know-how’ of citizens, the lack of policy, added technical measures needed to ensure safe installation, a lack of accurate data which is still needed to create a convincing business case and the soft benefits that are difficult to monetize, resulting in subjective decisions on a case by case basis. From the combined data analysis I concluded that one highly important barrier was a mismatch between policy instruments and implementation barriers in Amsterdam. The only currently implemented policy instrument is a green roof subsidy which only addresses the financial question while the barriers identified are a variety of financial, social and institutional factors. This mismatch results in important barriers remaining unchallenged. The citizen interviews indicated an extreme lack of awareness and ‘know-how’ with regards to green roofs in Amsterdam despite the positive attitude towards their presence.

I recommend that through strong political decision-making and support, effective policy could be implemented to ensure that that new developments will include a green infrastructure measure. Long-term educational school programs could help lead to generational change and encourage the youth to start their own initiatives and become involved. Deregulation of complex green roof regulations is necessary to ensure that there are fewer unnecessary and deterring spatial requirements. A more comprehensive approach is important

(6)

Masters Thesis: Green Infrastructure in Amsterdam Abstract in ensuring long-term climate adaption, with focus on purely rainproof measures possibly neglecting other important areas. I advocate for more green roof research quantifying the positive benefits and providing scientific data convincing for the business case.

(7)

Masters Thesis: Green Infrastructure in Amsterdam Table of Contents

List of Illustrations

List of Figures

Figure 2-1: Schematic illustration of Public Policy Choices and the Position of

Policy Instruments in Biased Options ...2-5 Figure 3-1: Conceptual Model illustrating relationship between policy instruments,

barriers and the outcome of implementation in green infrastructures in

Amsterdam. ...3-14 Figure 5-1: Map of the study area of in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. ...5-1

List of Tables

Table 2-1: Examples of Policy Instruments in Amsterdam and the given

assumptions ...2-6 Table 2-2: Comparison between Top-down and Bottom-Up Approaches ...2-10 Table 4-1: Approximate calculations of the current permeable green areas present

in Amsterdam (km2) ...5-7 Table 6-1: Q-Methodology results indicating the greatest and least important

barriers for each expert respondent. ...6-1 Table 6-2: A Summary of the barriers identified for implementing green roofs in

(12)

Masters Thesis: Green Infrastructure in Amsterdam List of Abbreviations

List of Abbreviations

GI Green Infrastructure NO2 Nitrogen dioxide PM Particulate Matter

UFORE Urban Forest Effects

UHI Urban Heat Island

(13)

Masters Thesis: Green Infrastructure in Amsterdam Introduction

1. Introduction

In developed countries the level of urbanization is still increasing and expected to reach 83% by 2030 (United Nations, 2002). Urbanization and development results in increasing replacement of croplands, grassland and open soil by impervious surfaces such as roads and paving, intensifying storm water runoff and water flows (Stone, 2004). Urbanization affects the urban hydrological system resulting in a highly fluctuating amount of surface water runoff (White, 2002), while climate change can potentially further increase these fluctuations (Mentens et al. 2005).

Tools for reducing runoff include storage reservoirs, ponds and green areas where water can infiltrate and evaporate (White, 2002). Scholars call for a rethinking of the urban hydrological system to ensure that it plays a positive role in the water cycle, by using green infrastructures to create a green urban fabric (White, 2002; Mentens et al. 2005). Unfortunately in cities, land prices are high and investors and developers are concerned with earning profit, and less so with greening the city. This creates an opportunity for green infrastructures, green walls and green roofs in previously unused space. Green infrastructures can contribute to (1) delaying the initial time of runoff due to the infiltration of the water, (2) reducing total surface runoff by absorbing water, (3) potentially mitigating the urban heat island effect, and (4) reducing the cost of heating and cooling in buildings (Mentens et al. 2005).

Amsterdam is a canalized city with many cobbled streets, canal water-ways, historic buildings and has great potential for further greening and expanding of current green infrastructures. Amsterdam, and the Netherlands which are low-lying areas, have a very rich history with water and its ties to the natural landscape. Due to the nature of the Netherlands and Amsterdam, more attempts should be made to focus on the potential green infrastructures can possess in terms of contributing to altering and delaying surface water flows in the city. Despite the provision of a green roof subsidy from government, the full potential of green infrastructure in Amsterdam is not being realized due to barriers of implementation and expansion. With increases in extreme weather events and precipitation, this becomes an issue of increasing urgency. This study aims to assess the potential of green infrastructures in the city of Amsterdam on surface water runoff, as well as to evaluate the barriers, policy instruments and challenges to implementation and expansion of green infrastructure networks in the city.

1.1 Problem Statement

In the current decade of climate change, there is potential for increased rainfall events, severe weather and alterations in seasonality. With increased urbanization, paving, roads and the creation of impervious surfaces, surface water runoff is increasing in volume and intensity. In a city surrounded by water, with many unused rooftops, minimal permeable green space, many impervious surfaces and a subsidy for green roofs it remains unanswered why there are not more green infrastructures, what potential they offer and the barriers to their implementation.

(14)

Masters Thesis: Green Infrastructure in Amsterdam Introduction

1.2 Research Goal and Objectives

This research aims to comprehensively assess the context specific barriers to implementation of green infrastructures in the city of Amsterdam. The potential of green infrastructures in Amsterdam will be explored in relation to surface water runoff and this vast potential provides the basis and urgency for promoting green infrastructure implementation to allow for this potential to be harnessed.

There are limited studies researching the challenges of implementation with regards to green infrastructures in European cities, with the only literature from a study in Hong Kong. This study aims to contribute to the gap in knowledge and the gap in the literature and provide a clear and succinct analysis of these challenges. It is hoped that the results of this research can aid the municipality in decision-making and policy writing procedures in order to improve and enhance the implementation process. This study will offer recommendations and potential solutions to the challenges, which could aid the municipality in improving the rate of implementation in Amsterdam.

1.3 Research Questions

In the city of Amsterdam, why is the full potential of green infrastructure networks not being realized?

i) What is the potential effect of green infrastructure in the city of Amsterdam on surface water runoff?

ii) What are the barriers to implementation and expansion of green infrastructures in the city of Amsterdam?

iii) Which policy instruments have the municipality implemented and how are they related to the barriers?

iv) What are the solutions and potential recommendations that can be made to improve policies and implementation?

1.4 Research Strategy

This study examines existing policy instruments, implementation challenges as well as the potential of green infrastructures in Amsterdam. It will also attempt to offer some recommendations and solutions to the existing barriers. This study uses the lens of implementation theory to ground this research and examine these factors in depth. Mixed methods are used to allow for comprehensive data gathering, with quantitative data collected

(15)

Masters Thesis: Green Infrastructure in Amsterdam Introduction through the use of Q-Methodology and qualitative data from a focused literature review and expert and citizen semi-structured interviews. This approach allows for in depth expert opinions as well as quantitative data from a 21 statement Q-Sort.

1.5 Study Outline

The study begins with an introduction to the context, setting and existing problem. The research questions and sub-questions are explained with a literature review of the main concepts. A conceptual model schematically illustrates the relations between concepts. Literature is used to explain the potential that green infrastructures possess in Amsterdam. The methodological chapter explains all data gathering methods, case selection as well as the data analysis and interpretation. The barriers identified from the focused literature review are explained followed by a discussion of the results gained through the semi-structured expert interviews. The study concludes with a discussion and recommendations for the municipality. I hypothesise that the greatest barrier to green roof implementation in Amsterdam is a lack of awareness of citizens, and a lack of ‘know-how’ to begin the implementation process.

(16)

Masters Thesis: Green Infrastructure in Amsterdam Theoretical Chapter

2. Theoretical Chapter

2.1 Urbanization in Relation to Surface Water Runoff

Urbanization is the process by which rural, natural land becomes built up or present urban areas become further intensified. This process has been on going since the emergence of agriculture nearly 5000 years ago (Gaston, 2010). Increasing urbanization and the hardening of the cities surfaces results in increased surface water runoff and water flow peaks. The creation and development of an urban area within an existing water catchment is a large change in land-use which ultimately affects the functioning of a hydrological cycle during a flooding event (Hollis, 1975). The creation of impermeable surfaces such as roads and pavements results in reduced area for interception and storage of precipitation causing increasing overland flow. In cities, the construction of an urban storm water system increases drainage density in a catchment and thus increases the speed with which with which the flow reaches a drainage line (Hollis, 1975). A well-designed storm water system is usually more efficient than natural hydrological channels and thus water speeds are usually higher and water from a much larger area is transferred more rapidly to the main river channel (Hollis, 1975). The result in cities is that there is a higher proportion of precipitation that becomes runoff, the runoff occurs quicker and the flood peak is higher than the previous natural catchment. Studies by James (1965), Martens (1968), Yücel (1974) and Brabec et al. (2002) have all found that urbanization has its greatest effect on smaller floods, but as the recurrence and size of the flood increases, the effect of urbanization becomes reduced. It has been explained that even in a rural catchment during extended rainstorms the ground becomes so saturated that it acts similar to an impervious surface and thus produces a flood type similar to its urban counterpart (Hollis, 1975). The main findings by Hollis (1975) indicate a drastic change in hydrological cycles due to urbanization with small floods increasing by 10 times due to urbanization, and floods with a return period of 100 years may double in size with 30% paving of a basin. Due to the thriving life and business in Amsterdam many people have migrated to the city, resulting in the city growing in size and an increasing number of buildings, extensive roads, paving and impermeable surfaces (Merriam-Webster, 2015). Cobble stone streets, canal houses, canals, bridges and very few permeable surfaces characterize the city of Amsterdam.

2.2 Green Infrastructure

For the purpose of this study green infrastructures are defined as natural or semi-natural vegetated areas, with permeable surfaces in the city of Amsterdam including parks, green walls and green roofs that offer a wide range of ecosystem services and benefits. Green infrastructure can be broadly defined as a strategically planned network of high quality natural and semi-natural areas with environmental features, which are designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services and protect biodiversity in both rural and urban settings (European Commission, 2013). Green infrastructure and natural permeable surfaces play an important role

(17)

Masters Thesis: Green Infrastructure in Amsterdam Theoretical Chapter in the absorption of surface water runoff during times of high rainfall. Green infrastructure is a broad term referring to the management of landscapes in a way that ecosystem services and human benefits are generated. Many municipalities have made attempts to utilize green infrastructure with aims to meet storm water management goals (Keeley et al. 2013).

Green roof systems are living vegetation planted on roofs that can have positive benefits such as mitigate the urban heat island effect and enhance buildings energy efficiency and usage (IGRA; Kumar & Kaushik, 2005; Niachou et al. 2001; Zhang et al. 2012). Green infrastructure provides the opportunity for developers, contractors, public officials and policy makers to reduce the negative effects of the development on the environment (Kingsley, 2008; Zhang et

al. 2012). The main goals include: long-term building performance, sustainability, reducing

operational costs and energy saving (Zhang et al. 2012). World wide, governments have been introducing new policies and regulations to try and promote green infrastructure with particular focus on current building projects (Zhang et al. 2012).

Germany is considered the world leader in the promotion of green roof innovations (Ngan, 2004; Zhang et al. 2012) with over 10% of households having implemented green roofs. France, Switzerland, Toronto and the United Kingdom are also making great strides in implementation and expansion of green infrastructure networks (Liu & Baskaran, 2005; Zhang

et al. 2012). There are two main types of green roof technologies: intensive green roofs which

have a depth of >6 inches to grow vegetation. This allows for diverse species of plants but is expensive and maintenance costs are high (Carter & Rasmussan, 2006; Zhang et al. 2012). There has been a shift from intensive green roofing to extensive green roofing which has a shallower soil depth, offers different plant choices and is lighter and thus has less structural requirements (Davis & McCuen, 2005; Zhang et al. 2012). Extensive green roofs are suited for lightweight buildings and the plants used are sedum and shrubs that self-generate, do not require a lot of maintenance and are lower in cost compared to intensive roofing (Hui, 2006; Zhang et al. 2012).

The green infrastructure literature has been heavily focused on the many positive benefits it can provide (Clark et al. 2005; Zhang et al. 2012) including reducing surface temperature of the roof membrane, improving energy use of buildings (Kumar & Kaushik, 2005; Zhang et al. 2012), retaining stormwater (Carter & Keeler, 2008; Zhang et al. 2011), and improving biodiversity and habitats in urban areas (Kim, 2004; Brenneisen, 2005; Zhang et al. 2012). These benefits are most often used as the main selling point (Spatari et al. 2011). Research by Pugh et al. (2012) determined that increasing green areas in street canyons in cities could reduce street level concentrations of NO2 by as much as 40% and particulate matter by 60% respectively. Economic research by Zhang et al. (2012), studied the economic benefits of rainwater-runoff reduction by urban green spaces in Beijing, China. The vast majority of literature focuses on green infrastructure from an engineering and environmental science perspective with less research focus on policies and implementation barriers.

A study by Carter and Jackson (2007) researched green roofs for stormwater management at multiple spatial scales in the United States. Investigations seldom focus on the

(18)

Masters Thesis: Green Infrastructure in Amsterdam Theoretical Chapter widespread impact of green roof application and its impact on water management in cities (Carter & Jackson, 2007). Stormwater retention data was used to model the effects of green roofing on the hydrological flows at many spatial scales. Results indicated that areas with added green roofing and less impervious surfaces would provide significantly more storm water storage. Modelling indicated that expanded green roof implementation would cause a significant reduction in peak runoff rates particularly during storm weather events (Carter & Jackson, 2007). A study by Nickel et al. (2014) identified and described the experience with ‘green’ storm water management practices in Germany with findings indicating that an integrated environmental planning approach aids the balance of environmental and urban development (Nickel et al. 2014). It was found that green infrastructure needs a long term, quantifiable goal with policies that will incentivize and support implementation. Nickel et al. (2014) specified that the transformation needs leadership from the authorities as well as active participation from all stakeholder organizations. An environmental psychology study by Baptiste (2014) assessed citizen’s opinion of a proposal for implementation of green infrastructure as a stormwater management technology in Syracuse, New York. Survey data was collected from 208 residents and a significant, positive relationship between environmental knowledge and willingness to implement green infrastructure was found (Baptiste, 2014).

Despite the variety of benefits that green roofs and green infrastructure have to offer there are a variety of barriers that inhibit the application and implementation of green roofs (Carter & Fowler, 2008; Zhang et al. 2012) and green infrastructure, globally and in Amsterdam. Governments have shifted implementation policies to promote green urban space, green roofs and green infrastructure but challenges in the process still remain. It appears that there is limited application and effectiveness of green roofs in existing buildings in Amsterdam. Very few studies have focused on the major barriers hampering application and implementation except for a study by Zhang et al. (2012), which focused on a case study from Hong Kong. Green roofs have been identified as one of the best possible solutions for Hong Kong’s existing pollution problem (Zhang et al. 2012). Their study found that there was a lack of incentives from government and a failure to promote green infrastructure (Zhang et al. 2012). In Amsterdam the government provides a green roof subsidy to houses and companies for every square meter they implement. However, in many existing buildings implementation and effectiveness remains low, and this study aims to assess the barriers hindering the implementation. With rapid urbanization, and potential future climate change effects such as severe weather events, flooding and increased precipitation, there is urgency in terms of addressing and determining the factors that hinder the implementation of green roofs in Amsterdam. The municipality of Amsterdam could use results from this study in future decisions and policies.

These natural areas will form the focus of the study, as it is not only the size that is most important, but also the number of these areas and the network they form in a very dense urban area. In Amsterdam land is expensive and there is a high property demand and thus any area used for green space is of significance in this study. Please see the table Appendix C-1 in the

(19)

2.3 Surface Water Runoff

Surface Water Runoff also referred to as overland flow is the flow of water that occurs when excess storm-water, melt-water and other water sources flow over the earths surface (Beven, 2004). This usually occurs during periods of heavy rainfall, when soil is saturated at capacity, or when there is minimal absorption due to many impermeable surfaces (roofs, roads, pavements) that are unable to absorb the water and as a result the water runoff is sent to surrounding areas (Beven, 2004). In addition to surface water runoff causing pollution and soil erosion, it is also the primary source of urban flooding, which is a great safety hazard and can cause extensive property damage. Urbanization results in hardening of the earth’s surfaces causing increased surface water runoff in volume and intensity.

In Amsterdam, surface water runoff is the flow of water that occurs when excess storm-water, melt-water and other water sources flow over many of the impermeable city surfaces and collects in canals, pools and the storm water system. During a prolonged period of intense rainfall in the city of Amsterdam increased surface water can cause small areas of flooding and an over saturation of the drainage system which results in flooding in the streets (See Appendix

C-3).

2.4 Policy Instruments

In this study policy instruments are any tools used by government to achieve a desired policy directive. Problems find their way into the political agenda through political advocacy. The responses to these problems are dictated by available solutions and by resources (money, knowledge, political support and organizational capacity) (McDonnel & Elmore, 1987). Public policy instruments are a set of techniques through which governmental authorities display their power to ensure and garner support to create or prevent social change (Bemelmans-Videc et al. 1998). It is essential that that these tools are carefully selected to ensure goals are achieved. Often effective programs involve a unique mix of policy instruments to achieve optimal effectiveness. Policy makers need to be familiar with the policy instruments available to ensure that the combination is carefully chosen and strategic (Bemelmans-Videc et al. 1998).

2.4.1 The Choice Versus Resource Approach

In the choice versus resource approach, it is to be determined whether the instruments are classified from the perspective of the available choices government can make or whether the classification should be based on a situation the government has already decided and the categories are of the resources the government can then use (Bemelmans-Videc et al. 1998).

Anderson (1977) explains four broad choices the government has with regard to approaching a public problem: (1) allow market mechanisms to act on their own, (2) use

(20)

Masters Thesis: Green Infrastructure in Amsterdam Theoretical Chapter Public Policy Choices (Public Policy Strategies) Non-intervention Market

Mechanisms Civil Society Household

Intervention

Structured

Options Biased Options Regulation

Resource Approach

Choice Approach

structured options created by government, (3) use biased options, such as incentives and deterrents so that individuals can be guided voluntarily or (4) use direct control through regulation. Through the use of biased options, the government can guide citizens to act in line with public policy. It is voluntary, and the individual can defy public policy often at an added cost (Bemelmans-Videc et al. 1998). The degree of compulsion enforced by government in a situation has become one of the most important points for choices regarding public policy.

(Source: Adapted from Charles W. Anderson, Statecraft, 1977, pp. 56.)

Figure 2-1: Schematic illustration of Public Policy Choices and the Position of Policy Instruments in Biased Options

Policy instruments carry different assumptions about the problems and about the potential solutions. The four possible assumptions are: mandates, inducements, capacity building and system-changing. Mandates require action regardless of capacity, and action would not occur with desired frequency without this rule. In Inducements the valued good would not be produced with the desired frequency in the absence of additional money, the money elicits performance. Inducements assume that the capacity exists to achieve what is required, but it can be more readily achieved with monetary incentives. In Capacity-Building, knowledge, skill

(21)

Masters Thesis: Green Infrastructure in Amsterdam Theoretical Chapter and competence are required to produce future value. In System-Changing, existing institutions and existing incentives cannot produce desired results (McDonnel & Elmore, 1987).

Table 2-1: Examples of Policy Instruments in Amsterdam and the given assumptions

Policy Instrument Assumptions

Green Roof Subsidy

(Currently Implemented)

Inducement: the capacity exists for the implementation of more

green roofs, but with the financial incentives it can be more readily achieved.

Insurance Fee Reductions

(In Development)

Inducement: the additional money and financial incentives elicit

performance.

Tax Scheme

(In Development)

Inducement: the monetary incentives allow for the goals to be

2.5 Implementation Theory

Implementation is the actual process of putting a decision into effect or setting a plan into action. It is the act of execution. It is the realization of an application, idea or policy (Oxford, 2016). In this study the focus is on the barriers and challenges of implementation of green infrastructures, thus any act, action, policy or legislation that does not allow the plan to be put into effect acts as a barrier that challenges implementation.

Jackson (2001) describes implementation theory as a study of the relationship between the structure of the institution through which individuals interact and the outcome of the interaction. Implementation theory developed out of the public policy field and provides valuable direction on the conditions for the successful and effective implementation and frameworks for conceptualising the policy implementation process (De Gruyter et al. 2015). The theoretical implementation lens will be used to assesse how policy and policy instruments create conditions for conceptualizing policy directives. The implementation process differs greatly from the decision making process where a political decision is held, compared to implementation processes where this political decision is put into action (Palffy, 2010). Implementation research shows how the policy input is transformed into concrete actions and output. Policies are actively and continuously shaped by the implementers and street level bureaucrats, with influence on design and redesign.

(22)

Masters Thesis: Green Infrastructure in Amsterdam Theoretical Chapter Many early American studies analysed single case studies regarding the ability of governments to implement their policies and programs effectively (Bardach, 1974; Sabatier, 1986). These early approaches used the top-down perspective, starting with the policy decision and examining the extent that these legal objectives were implemented and achieved over time (Sabatier, 1986). In the 1970s a different approach emerged as a response to the weaknesses of the top-down perspective. This new approach began with analysing multiple actors that interact at the local level regarding a particular issue (Sabatier, 1986). This perspective focused on the actors and their strategies used to achieve the goals. Local actors can alter the programs towards their own objectives.

Bottom-upper and top-downers were motivated by different interests and concerns, and as result two very different approaches have developed. Top-downers focus on the effectiveness of governmental programs, and the way in which public officials can constrain the actions of target groups (Sabatier, 1986). Bottom-uppers are not concerned with the policy decision, but rather with the strategies of actors that are concerned with a particular policy issue and understanding the actor interaction (Sabatier, 1986).

2.5.1 Top-Down Implementation

The top-down approach focuses on the effectiveness of policies and the ability for the public sector to control the behaviour of the implementers and citizens (De Gruyter et al. 2015). The focus lies at the top of the organization and the hierarchical manner in which decisions are passed down. In this perspective one begins by focusing on the law and how it is implemented. The top-down approach has been criticized for failing to take into account actors who are not decision makers, but those in favour of the top-down approach argue that the chain of command comes from the top and thus street level bureaucrats are unimportant (Sabatier, 1986). This perspective can also be difficult to use if there is no dominant policy (Sabatier, 1986). The top-down approach has four main features, beginning with the policy decision by government officials and then the approach ascertains (Sabatier, 1986):

1. The extent to which the actions of implementation officials and target groups are in line with the objectives

2. The extent to which objectives were achieved over time 3. The main factors influencing the policy output and effect 4. The formulation of the policy over time (Sabatier, 1986)

(23)

Masters Thesis: Green Infrastructure in Amsterdam Theoretical Chapter Sabatier and Mazmanian (1981) constructed a framework of the six sufficient and necessary conditions for effective policy implementation. The first three conditions are addressed in the formulation of the policy, while the last three are often the result of external political and economic pressure altering conditions during implementation (Sabatier, 1986).

1. Clear and consistent objectives

2. Adequate causal theory on how the policy will stimulate social change 3. Legal structuring of the implementation process that enhances compliance 4. Skilful implementing officials

5. Support from public and target groups

6. Socio-economic changes in conditions do not undermine political support or causal theory

This frameworks strength is found in the emphasis and importance attached to the legal structure of the policy and implementation process, the six conditions are a useful checklist for analysis and understanding of implementation effectiveness and its evolution over time (Sabatier, 1986). This approach has been criticized as the focus on ‘clear and consistent objectives’ shows that many programs meet this standard and effectiveness varies. The main flaw is the perspective of decision makers that neglects other actors, ignoring strategic initiatives from the private sector, local implementers and policy subsystems (Sabatier, 1986). The top-down approach is difficult to apply to situations where there is no dominant policy but rather multiple actors present (Sabatier, 1986). This approach is criticised for underestimating how local implementers may alter policy to their own gain (Berman, 1978; Sabatier, 1986). Finally, policy formulation and implementation are distinct, however this distinction can over look that some organizations are involved in both.

Although there is no legally mandating policy regarding green roofs in Amsterdam, this perspective can be applied to this research as the green roof subsidy is a form of voluntary policy supplied and implemented by the government. This study aims to examine the effectiveness of the green roof subsidy and how it is implemented. The new round of green roof subsidies has recently been implemented in Amsterdam and thus examining the evolution of the subsidy will be premature, however one can still examine the actions of the implementers, their alignment with the policy objectives and the factors influencing the policy output and effect. The six necessary conditions developed by Sabatier and Mazmanian (1980) can be applied to the green roof subsidy to examine whether the necessary conditions are present to enhance effective implementation.

2.5.2 Bottom-Up Implementation

The bottom-up approach was initiated by the evident methodological weaknesses of the top-down approach (Sabatier, 1986). The approach used by Hjern et al. (1978) begins with network actor identification involved in service delivery and their goals, tasks, contacts and strategies are identified. The contacts are used to develop a network and identify the further local,

(24)

Masters Thesis: Green Infrastructure in Amsterdam Theoretical Chapter regional and national actor network involved in the various stages of governmental programs (Sabatier, 1986).

The bottom-up approach focuses on the implementers and recognizes that policy is simply one of many influencers (possibly minor) on the behaviour of the implementers and citizens (Elmore, 1979; De Gruyter et al. 2015). Implementers, also known as street level bureaucrats, have various coping mechanisms and ways to simplify policy that often gains little attention (Lipsky, 1971; De Gruyter et al. 2015). In this perspective the action of the implementer is of importance. The action and service delivery shapes policy outcomes more than the actual design of the policy (Sabatier, 1986). The approach begins with focus on the actors at the local level who deliver services and by collecting information from them one can inform policy makers at the top of the hierarchical chain (Sabatier, 1986).

The approaches strengths lie in the replicable methodology used for the formulation of a policy network, beginning with the perceived problem and the strategies used to address this. By not focusing on the effectiveness of objectives, the approach is able to examine interesting unintended consequences of various governmental and non-governmental programs (Sabatier, 1986). It can examine a problem area and a multitude of involved organizations with the focus on multiple actors, allowing the approach to examine interactions over time more effectively. This is not to say this approach does not have weaknesses or a danger of overemphasizing the ability of the bottom up initiatives to alter implementation and underestimate the power of the centre to create social change and achieve goals (Sabatier, 1986). The distribution of preferences are assumed to be a given and there is little examination of the efforts of other actors to alter the process and it does not examine the ability of actors to affect the subject of their interest (Sabatier, 1986). The bottom-up approach focuses on local implementation structures and the dynamics of local variation (Sabatier, 1986). It is best suited where there is no dominant policy, but rather multiple actors without power dependency, or if the researcher is interested in local conditions and their dynamics (Sabatier, 1986).

The bottom-up approach can be applied to this study as it not merely the policies and policy instruments that are important, but rather their implementation and the action of the implementer (public officials and citizens) that is at the centre of this scope. Policy instruments play a role in implementation, but it is the local level actions, various non-governmental organizations and citizen awareness that have an effect on implementation. The bottom-up approach allows for the identification of a multitude of actors that play a role in green infrastructure implementation and their local dynamics and their interactions between citizens. This approach focuses on the perceived problem of a lack of green infrastructure implementation in Amsterdam then focuses on the actors and organization’s strategies and methods that are used to attempt to address this.

(25)

Table 2-2: Comparison between Top-down and Bottom-Up Approaches

Top-Down (Sabatier & Mazmanian)

Bottom-up (Hjern et al.)

Initial Focus (Central) Government decision,

e.g., new pollution control law.

Local implementation structure (network) involved in a policy

area, e.g., pollution control.

Identification of major actors in the process

From top down and from government out to private sector

(although importance attached to causal theory also call for accurate understanding of target

group’s incentive structure).

From bottom (government and private) up.

Evaluative criteria Focus on extent of attainment of

formal objectives (carefully analysed). May look at other politically significant criteria and unintended consequences,

but these are optional.

Much less clear. Basically anything the analyst chooses which is somehow relevant to

the policy issue or problem. Certainly does not require any

careful analysis of official government decision (s).

Overall Focus How does one steer system to

achieve (top) policy-maker’s intended policy results?

Strategic interactions among multiple actors in a policy

network.

(26)

Masters Thesis: Green Infrastructure in Amsterdam Barriers of Green Infrastructure Implementation Explained

3. Barriers of Green Infrastructure Implementation

Explained

The implementation of green roofs and green infrastructure can positively contribute to enhancing buildings energy performance, reducing the urban heat island effect, improving air quality, enhanced water storage, reduced surface water runoff and improved biodiversity in cities (Zhang et al. 2012). Although the variety of benefits seem to be well-known, barriers to implementing and applying small and large scale green roofs and green infrastructure remain (Carter & Fowler, 2008). There is great opportunity for policy makers, residents, building owners and developers to try and reduce negative environmental problems (Kingsly, 2008). Globally, governments have been implementing policies and regulations to mandate green roof and green infrastructure implementation particularly for new building projects (Zhang et al. 2012). However, in the Netherlands there is still no national policy mandating green roof or green infrastructure implementation.

Governments are focusing energy on solutions in the social and economic sectors to contribute to improved sustainable development (Zhang et al. 2011). Construction and real estate are considered major sectors where there is great potential for achieving improvements in development practices. In the United States, buildings contribute 38% of the total amount of carbon dioxide, and thus carbon reducing technologies are encouraged by government (Zhang

et al. 2011). This has resulted in the creation of sustainable practice certifications in

developments such as LEEDS and the creation of low carbon technologies to improve building performance (Zhang et al. 2011). Despite the evident barriers to green infrastructure implementation, there are very limited studies examining the barriers regarding the application of small and large-scale green infrastructures in new and existing development projects (Zhang

et al. 2011) and self-funded research it is often not available to the public.

3.1 Social Barriers

Within buildings containing multiple apartments and multiple ownerships, application of green roofs and management becomes complex (Zhang et al. 2012). The building could be comprised of renters and various owners. Situations regarding roof rights and roof access differ. These dynamics become complex and often the barriers cannot be overcome. There also may be various issues regarding who actually receives the various benefits of a green roof and issues of conflicts of interest may arise between various stakeholders (Zhang et al. 2011). Townshend (2007) discussed that poor utilities arrangement and enhanced complexity often acted as a barrier but not a major deterrent. In the case of Australia, Williams et al. (2010) found that the lack of an established local green industry could act as a barrier as easy to use materials were not easily accessible to the public and readily available for developers.

(27)

Masters Thesis: Green Infrastructure in Amsterdam Barriers of Green Infrastructure Implementation Explained

3.2 Institutional Barriers

Institutionally, despite efforts to focus time, energy and funds into promotion of green infrastructures, barriers remain at multiple stages. A major, fundamental barrier repeatedly recurring in the available literature is that there is a lack of promotion from government and social communities in the public and private sectors (Townshend, 2007). The lack of promotion from government combined with insufficient policy implementation efforts in Hong Kong can prove detrimental to progress (Zhang et al. 2011). In new development projects, there is also a lack of efficiency in implementing green building regulations and byelaws (Zhang et al. 2011). When developers and owners proceed with green infrastructure applications they often encounter lengthily planning and approval processes, which can delay construction or force developers to rethink their strategy or in the worse case scenario, cancel the entire project (Zhang et al. 2011). Williams et al. (2010) examined the case of green roof infrastructure application in Australia and found that there was a lack of standard or industry guidelines, which can result in construction of various qualities. Many new developments aim for sustainability ratings and certifications for reasons such as public image and positive recognition. These buildings standards are highly regulated and definitive with minimal inclusion of green roofs in the green star rating schemes which could act as a deterrent to implementation (Williams et al. 2010).

3.3 Economic Barriers

Depending on the type of development or owner of the existing building, economic barriers tend to be the greatest barrier to overcome. If the developer or owner does not have enough available funds for the project it becomes very difficult to proceed without the presence of a very lucrative and effective financial incentive. Getter and Rowe (2006) found that there is a lack of incentive for developers to implement a green roof as well as for owners of existing buildings. Green roofs often increase the design and constructions cost, as well as the maintenance cost (Steven & Chris, 1999; Ngan, 2004; Zhang et al. 2012), and in a project with low budgets, this makes it simply unfeasible. Zhang et al. (2011) found that often the materials needed are highly expensive. Added design features and green roof implementation involves risk due to changed practices, behaviours and possible project delivery dates which in large scale projects with many investors make the option impossible (Zhang et al. 2011).

3.4 Physical Barriers

Technical difficulty during the design and construction phase can prove highly problematic to green infrastructure and green roof implementation (Steven and Chris, 1999; Getter and Rowe, 2006; Zhang et al. 2011, Zhang et al. 2012). In countries where construction companies and developers are unfamiliar with implementation there could be possible construction delays, which can prove highly costly (Zhang et al. 2011). Physical issues such as the old age of

(28)

Masters Thesis: Green Infrastructure in Amsterdam Barriers of Green Infrastructure Implementation Explained buildings (Townshend, 2007), weak affordability to withstand wind (Steven & Chris, 1999; Getter and Rowe, 2006), poor structural capacity (Townshend, 2007) can all prevent implementation and application. Zhang et al. (2012) explains that in the high-rise buildings of Hong Kong, roofs with already small surface areas have the surface occupied by the existing building services making space for green roof implementation problematic.

In the Australian case studied by Williams et al. (2010) it was found that plants used in one hemisphere are often prohibited for use in another country or hemisphere, making replicability difficult. It was found that some substrate components and mixes were not readily available in certain countries and in drier climates the inability to use potable water for irrigation made it an impractical idea to implement (Williams et al. 2010).

3.5 Educational Barriers

Despite education, city living and widespread Internet access, there generally seems to be a lack of awareness of extensive green roof systems in both public and private sectors (Hui, 2006). The lack of awareness tends to be even among citizens despite their income and education level. Zhang et al. (2012) explain that there remains a lack of quantifiable data pertaining to the benefits of green roofs and green infrastructure. It is very often that these benefits are not easily quantified. There seems to be a clear lack of ‘know how’ of existing options in Hong Kong, preventing expansion when the foundation of knowledge does not exist (Zhang et al. 2011).

In the case of Australia, examined by Williams et al. (2010) there is a lack of scientific data available to evaluate the applicability to local conditions. There is a lack of experience, knowledge and connection among green roof industries creating issues with material access, availability and contractors trained in their application (Williams et al. 2010). A key factor is the clear lack of demonstration projects which have the ability to inspire developers and building owners. It also creates confidence among developers with regards to the feasibility and aesthetic appeal of green roofs (Williams et al. 2010). Exemplar projects create awareness, promote the concept and often inspire others to follow the same path. Without this example it can become difficult for some to visualize.

3.6 Conceptual Model

There are various barriers that prevent the implementation of large-scale green infrastructure networks in Amsterdam, as well as small-scale interventions in the historical inner city. Government, Waternet and Amsterdam Rainproof develop policy instruments (Green Roof Subsidy, Insurance Fee Reduction & Tax Scheme – that are both in development) to try and overcome these barriers. Well-developed, effective policy instruments allow for these barriers to be transcended, leading to implementation of green infrastructures. If policy instruments

(29)

Masters Thesis: Green Infrastructure in Amsterdam Barriers of Green Infrastructure Implementation Explained prove ineffective and poorly suited, often the barriers are largely unable be overcome to achieve the desired goals.

Figure 3-1: Conceptual Model illustrating the relationship between policy instruments, barriers and the outcome of implementation in green infrastructures in Amsterdam

Policy Instruments •Green Roof Subsidy •Insurance Fee Reduction •Tax Scheme Barriers To Implementation •Institutional Barriers •Social Barriers •Physical Barriers •Educational Barriers •Economic Barriers Implementation •Green Roofs •Green Walls •Parks

(30)

Masters Thesis: Green Infrastructure in Amsterdam Research Design

4. Research Design

4.1 Methodology

For this study a mixed method design will be used including the use of focused literature reviews, semi-structured in depth interviews and a quantitative Q-sort analysis. The combination of mixed methods allows for comprehensiveness as well as triangulation that gain results, which may not have been achieved using simply one method. The focused literature review allows for the implementation barriers to be identified, the interviews consolidate or dispel the results from the literature and identifies new barriers specific to Amsterdam. The Q-Methodology is a subjective testing method which will confirm the most important and least important barriers. The research includes qualitative analysis through the use of coding of repeated statements as well as quantitative analysis with the use of the Q-Methodology.

4.2 Case Selection

The case chosen for this study is the city of Amsterdam, with the area demarcated in Figure

5-1. This case has been chosen due to the complexity of the combination of historical and aged

buildings with rigid, consolidated layouts in the inner city combined with newer more open areas further from the city centre. The city is largely paved and built up with a lack of permeable ground and soil that can be infiltrated. Land prices are high and thus there are a few open green permeable areas. Due to the nature of the landscape many back gardens have subsided, have water drainage issues and are largely already saturated, making these areas unable to act as a sink for excess surface water runoff. This city has unique challenges stemming from the combination of old historical areas and new open areas further from the city centre. This study can be generalized to similar, historical European cities which have a combination of monumental buildings, newer open areas, similar climate and lack a dominant green infrastructure policy.

4.3 Focused Literature Review

Two focused literature reviews were conducted, the first focuses on the existing literature regarding the potential of green infrastructures in mitigating peak flows and excess surface water runoff, with the aim to find quantification for the existing roof area available. The second focuses on the existing literature regarding barriers to implementation and expansion of green infrastructures in cities, particularly in existing buildings. In the inner city of Amsterdam, focus will be placed on implementation in existing buildings, small and large scale as well as both lighter extensive roofs and deeper intensive stratum green roofs.

(31)

Masters Thesis: Green Infrastructure in Amsterdam Research Design

4.4 Semi-structured Interviews

Expert semi-structured interviews were used to gain insight and in-depth knowledge of green infrastructures in Amsterdam from the perspective of experts and stakeholders who are involved with the day-to-day planning and execution of activities. A total of sixteen interviews were conducted with eight expert interviews that were over an hour in length, with a set of guideline questions used to keep the interview focused and on track (See Appendix A). Each interview was fully recorded and transcribed verbatim for later analysis (See email). Interviewing experts provides invaluable contextual knowledge regarding the case of Amsterdam and this source of personal first hand information can often not be obtained through the relevant literature. This combination of literature, first hand personal experience and Q-Methodology allows for triangulation covering all sources of available data. Eight citizen interviews were conducted with citizens living in Amsterdam to ascertain their level of awareness regarding green infrastructure and rainproof measures.

4.4.1 Selection of Respondents

In order to cover a wide range of opinions and expertise, representative respondents, and interviewees were chosen from each field or type of organization. Experts from Waternet, Amsterdam Rainproof, De Dak Dokters, Stadgenot, Deltares and an academic from Utrecht University were interviewed to gain a wide variety of expert opinions in different fields. Citizens living in the city of Amsterdam were also interviewed to ensure that public perception and opinion was taken into account. The citizens were of upper income and higher educational levels.

4.4.2 Transcribing, Coding and Analysing

The 8 expert semi-structured interviews and 8 citizen interviews were transcribed verbatim in order to help with coding of repeated statements and opinions needed for analysis (See email). Repeated statements and highlighted barriers were given a code and placed into a table of collected data with each corresponding reference for analysis (See Table 6-2). Other important findings were highlighted so that the quotes could be used in later discussion.

4.5 Q- Methodology

This study makes use of Q-methodology, which was developed by William Stephenson in the 1930s (McKeown & Thomas, 1988; Coogan & Herrington, 2011). It was developed to allow respondents to represent their subjective opinion for further inspection and comparison. This methodology does not test the participants but rather asks the participants to illustrate a vantage point that is meaningful from their perspective (Coogan & Herrington, 2011). Sets of evaluations are produced which are then analysed which reveals the experts who have ranked

(32)

Masters Thesis: Green Infrastructure in Amsterdam Research Design the perspectives in the same sequence. These overall correlations are then correlated to form connections between experts, their opinions and their expertise. Q-methodology is ideal for this study as it can be conducted directly after the expert interview and it involves ranking experts opinions of which they believe is the greatest barrier to implementation of green infrastructures in Amsterdam. This helps consolidate the findings from the literature and also gives an indicator of the experts in each field and their varying perspectives (Coogan & Herrington, 2011).

4.5.1 Design Concourse

The Q-methodology is designed with a bell-curved distribution grid known as the Q-grid and a set of statements are produced with each one representing a different factor making sure to include all sub-issues within the topic (Coogan & Herrington, 2011). Only by ensuring all areas of the topic are included can one be sure that they are covering all subjective viewpoints possible (Coogan & Herrington, 2011). A set of 21 statements (See Appendix B-1) was produced, each containing a different statement of a perspective, which the respondent can either agree or disagree with. Statements are carefully chosen to be representative of the literature and not to include repetition. It is only once the respondent sorts the statements that they gain meaning (Watts & Stenner, 2005).

4.5.2 Selecting Respondents

The respondents for the Q-Method will be the same as the respondents that were interviewed. After each semi-structured interview, the Q-method will be conducted in order to gain quantitative data regarding their opinion. It is a tactile and engaging method, which provides a good conclusion to the interview. In order to cover a wide range of opinions and expertise, representative respondents, were chosen from each field or type of organization. Experts from Waternet, Amsterdam Rainproof, De Dak Dokters, Deltares and an academic from Utrecht University were interviewed to gain a wide variety of expert opinions in different fields.

4.5.3 Q-Sorting

In sorting the statements, the respondent’s subjectivity is shown (Coogan & Herrington, 2011). The terms of reference for sorting are given: strongly disagree, neutral and strongly agree. The 21 statements are given to the respondent who is advised to first sort them into three piles as per the terms of reference. The Q-Grid (See Appendix B-2) is arranged with fewer rows in the furthermost tails (-5 and +5) and the neutral column (0) having the majority of rows. They are first asked to select the statements to fill the furthermost column and then methodically fill the grid from left (strongly disagree) to right (strongly agree). Once each statement has been placed on the Q-grid, the results are then recorded in a data entry sheet.

Green Infrastructure in Amsterdam : an analysis of current implementation, the potential benefits and the context-specific barriers affecting expansion of networks

URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING

Masters Thesis Assignment