Commitment, compliance and (in)coherence : an institutional analysis of the implementation nature-inclusive design (NID) within the municipality of Amsterdam

1

C

OMMITMENT

,

COMPLIANCE AND

(

IN

)

COHERENCE

A

N

-

(NID)

A

Valerie Deckers 11406585

Master thesis Urban & Regional Planning

Supervisor Prof. Dr. Maria Kaika

Second Reader: Prof. Dr. Pieter Tordoir University of Amsterdam

14 August 2018 Word count: 19841

2 I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Maria Kaika for guiding me through the process of this dissertation, both with generous inspiration as well as pragmatic advice.

Two years ago, I set off on the academic journey of this master’s degree, opening up a brave, new world to me. I want to make use of this occasion to thank all my professors of the master’s program for their stimulating and committed teaching, as well as my co-students for thought-provoking discussions, engaged collaborations, humour and friendliness. I have enjoyed the process thus far.

This master thesis would not have been possible without the compassionate moral and practical support of my friends and family. I am very grateful for the words and acts of kindness and encouragement.

This having being said, however, there is one person to whom I owe everything. Luca, this is for your patience, for your generosity throughout this whole journey but especially during the last few months. You are scientifically proven the best kid.

3

T

1 INTRODUCTION ... 6

1.1 POINT OF DEPARTURE ... 6

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT / RESEARCH PROBLEM ... 7

1.3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ... 8

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTION ... 8

1.5 RELEVANCE ... 9

1.6 OUTLINE RESEARCH ... 9

1.7 GLOSSARY ... 10

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 11

2.1 TRANSFORMATIONAL PARADIGMS TOWARD NATURE-INTEGRATIVE CITIES ... 11

2.2 URBAN GOVERNANCE & URBAN DEVELOPMENT ... 12

2.3 URBAN GOVERNANCE FROM AN INSTITUTIONALISTS’ PERSPECTIVE ... 15

2.4 TRANSFORMATIONAL CAPACITY OF GOVERNANCE AND PLANNING ... 16

3 RESEARCH DESIGN ... 19

3.1 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ... 19

3.2 COMPARATIVE MULTIPLE-CASE STUDY ... 20

3.3 DATA-GATHERING ... 20

3.4 QUALITATIVE DATA-ANALYSIS ... 23

3.5 TRUSTWORTHINESS ... 23

3.6 LIMITATION ... 24

3.7 ETHICS &REFLEXIVITY ... 24

3.8 OPERATIONALIZATION ... 24

4 RESEARCH RESULTS – HISTORICAL & ORGANISATIONAL CONTEXT .... 26

4.1 AMSTERDAM - FIVE-LOBED GREEN CITY ... 26

4.2 AMSTERDAM -ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE ... 27

4.3 VISIONS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS FOR URBAN NATURE AND NID ... 29

4.4 SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT TOOLS FOR URBAN NATURE AND NID ... 31

5 RESEARCH RESULTS ... 34

5.1 CASE STUDY TENDER ... 34

5.1.1 Chances and barriers for transformational capacity for nid... 35

5.2 CASE STUDY 2:AMSTEL III ... 36

5.2.1 Amstel III: Barriers & Chances for transformational capacity for nid ... 37

5.3 COMPARING RESULTS: MUNICIPAL ORGANISATION, TENDER & REDEVELOPMENT ... 38

5.3.1 Actors & interactive practices ... 38

5.3.2 Governance processes ... 40

5.3.3 Governance cultures: wider socio-cultural trends and values ... 48

6 ANALYSIS: TRANSFORMATIONAL GOVERNANCE CAPACITY FOR NID . 51 6.1 ACTORS & INTERACTIVE PRACTICES ... 51

6.2 GOVERNANCE PROCESSES ... 52

6.3 GOVERNANCE CULTURES: WIDER SOCIO-CULTURAL TRENDS AND VALUES ... 54

7 CONCLUSION ... 56

8 DISCUSSION ... 60

8.1 OPPORTUNITIES FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ... 61

4

A

Traditionally a green city, Amsterdam faces a challenge in maintaining and strengthening its urban nature with current ongoing densification. Nature-inclusive design (NID) as an emerging paradigm aims at integrating urban nature as an economic, social and ecologic asset into urban planning. In a novel approach, NID unifies buildings and public space as a congruent habitat for non-human species, incorporating a great diversity of plants and nesting features into buildings and (public) green space. Still a pioneering discourse, however, there is little scientific research on the implementation of NID. With 100,000 houses to be built by 2040, the municipality of Amsterdam has developed the ambition of embedding NID into its urban development policy as a means of keeping the densifying city green and habitable. The city of Amsterdam has historically had a strong steering role within urban development, realizing its ambitions through a system of ground lease and competitive tendering. Challenged with inner urban densification, however, in order to spare the surrounding rural landscape, residential areas are increasingly realized through the redevelopment of former industrial sites. As the ground lease rights have already been allocated to private investors, redevelopment has to be implemented by means of private-public co-operation. This research describes, first of all, how urban nature and NID is embedded within the policies and organisation of the municipality. Secondly, the implementation of NID within tender and redevelopment processes is explored. Thirdly, tender and redevelopment are compared and related back to municipal policies and organisation. The aim of this study is to investigate obstacles and possibilities for NID on an organizational and procedural level. To this end, fieldwork was performed in two urban development areas in Amsterdam. Framed as a qualitative research, participant observation and interviews were carried out. The embedment of urban nature and NID within policy documents and municipal organisation was investigated by means of desk research. From the research data, it emerged that, even though quoted as an asset, the implementation of NID is impeded by economical, socio-cultural and organisational obstacles. Within redevelopment projects, NID is not legally binding and therefore highly dependent on the advocacy and commitment of public and private investors. Insufficiently backed up by a coherent vision on NID and subdued by economic interest, advocates of NID struggle to make their voices heard. In contrast, however, compliant implementation of NID in a compulsory collaboration with a landscape architect in the tender led to a successful implementation of NID. The municipality lacks the legal tools necessary, however, to secure the long-term quality and sustenance of NID in the event that maintenance is neglected or a new owner decides to remove NID features. In

5 conclusion, even though the municipality shows the willingness and the capacity to adapt and innovate in order to become a green and compact city, organisational and procedural incoherencies weaken the position of urban nature and NID which impedes their efficient and long-term implementation. As a recommendation to the municipality, the creation of an organisational unit is suggested, responsible for the development, financing and implementation of a coherent vision on urban nature and NID in relation to the ambitions of sustainability, health and climate adaptation.

6

1 I

1.1 POINT OF DEPARTURE

“How do we keep our feet dry and clean our waters, the air and the soil? How do we make the city greener and keep the surrounding landscape open?”

Maarten van Poelgeest (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2011:7)

Challenged with a major densification task, the municipality of Amsterdam has adopted NID as an ambition to secure liveability of its city (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015). Traditionally a green city, the task of building 100,000 houses within the city borders to facilitate demographic growth puts spaces for urban nature under threat (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2011, 2015). Urban nature is seen as a major asset for social and economic well-being (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2011, 2013). Accordingly, “densification can only take place if paralleled by the creation of sufficient and high quality green” (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015:5).

Urban biodiversity is increasingly gaining attention as a socio-economic asset for climate adaptation, urban liveability and human wellbeing (Millard, 2010; Müller & Werner, 2010; Goddard et al., 2010; Botzat et al., 2016; Schwarz et al., 2017; Fischer et al., 2018). Throughout the last decade, the benefits of urban biodiversity have been researched extensively; its importance for the urban ecosystem and the functioning of its services for human physical and mental health as well as social cohesion and overall liveability have been made evident (Fuller et al., 2007; Sandifer et al., 2015; Scopelliti et al., 2012; Bratman et al., 2012, 2015; Carrus et al., 2015; Voigt & Wurster, 2015; Gunnarsson et al., 2017; Hoyle et al., 2017; Hansen

et al., 2015; McPhearson et al., 2015; Palliwoda et al., 2017; Qiu et al., 2013).

Animals and plants have always lived within the built environment finding safe and diverse habitat in walls, under roofs, gardens and parks (Reichholf, 2007; Vink et al., 2017; McDonnel & Hahs, 2015). The situation seems paradoxical: while urbanization and urban lifestyle are major factors for the depletion of biodiversity worldwide - already more non-human species live in urban areas than in homogenous and overexploited rural landscapes - the rural-urban dichotomy dissolves (Aronson et al., 2014; WWF, 2016; Ives et al., 2016; Seto et

al., 2012; Sol et al., 2013; Reichholf, 2007; Vink et al., 2017; Wu, 2014, Veen, 2010). In an

effort to spare surrounding natural areas and to become more resource efficient, cities need to facilitate demographic growth through inner urban densification instead expansion

(UN-7 habitat, 2011:94-95; Villasenor et al., 2017; Hansen et al., 2017; Gemeente Amsterdam, 2011). This approach, however, threatens the habitat of urban biodiversity through the reduction of green spaces (Vergens et al., 2014; Ishimatsu & Ito, 2013; de Jong, 2018). Additionally, fashionable glass facades lead to millions of bird deaths through collision on an annual basis, artificial lighting disorients avian flight routes and smooth facades leave no cavities for nesting (Parkins et al., 2015; Klem et al., 2009; Rich & Longcore, 2006; Haupt & Schillemeit, 2011). How can the city provide for both, people and nature?

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT / RESEARCH PROBLEM

“We have reached a rare momentum in history where societies and markets appear to be teetering between the status quo and a radical change in the way we live and the way we design our cities. […] The city is a means to a way of life. It can be a reflection of our best selves. It can be whatever we want it to be.” Charles Montgomery, 2013:6,10

By 2050, 80% of the global population will live in urban areas; as such, cities are rising as powerful nodes of economic and societal development (C40, 2005; UNDP, n.d; ICLEI, 2011; UN Habitat, 2011; Barber, 2013, 2017). Cities are now responsible for 60-80% of global energy consumption and 75% of worldwide CO2 emission, as well as the destruction and homogenization of landscapes and, as a result, the depletion of biodiversity (UN-Habitat, 2011; WWF, 2016; Ceballos et al., 2017; Bar-on et al., 2018; Wu, 2014; Seto et al., 2012; Aronson

et al., 2014; Pimm et al., 2014). Consecutively, there is a consensus within the sustainability

discourse that cities are the lever to bring about transformation toward a sustainable future for people and nature alike (Coenen & Menkveld, 2002; Wheeler & Beatley, 2010; Wu, 2014; ICLEI, 2011; UN Habitat, 2011; McCormick et al., 2013; Wamsler et al., 2013). More than ever befor, cities form the natural habitat of human species (Park, 1929; McCormick et al., 2013) and, as a result, they have an important impact on citizens’ worldview and behaviour (Dempsey et al., 2011; Leyden et al., 2011). Cities as “key laboratories of human-environment interaction” should not only solve problems in a technical way, but also “engage, attract and excite people about opportunities and lifestyles today and in the future” (McCormick et al., 2013:3; Ryan, 2013). This stream of thought is in line with Robert Park (1864-1944), one of the founding fathers of urban ecology, who stated that by making the city, wo/man is shaping her/himself (Park, 1929). Hence, as this coevolution of people, nature and their shared habitat

8 of the city continues “future cities will reflect who we are, what we value and how well we can remake the world” (Wu, 2014:219). However, even though urban governance and planning are appointed as key actors in bringing about this transformation toward nature-integrative cities, there are still major knowledge gaps concerning how to create transformative capacity within the institutionalised context of urban governance and planning (Kabisch et al., 2016; Wu, 2014; Steiner, 2014; Kronenberg, 2015).

How does the municipality of Amsterdam make the transformation to a compact and green city? What role does NID play in that transformation and how is it implemented?

1.3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The objective of this research is to explore the transformational capacity of urban governance toward a compact and green city investigating the implementation of the novel discourse of NID. Therefore, this research describes a.) how urban nature and NID are embedded within the organisation of the municipality of Amsterdam and represented in visions and policy instruments and b.) explore how NID is implemented within urban developments of tender and redevelopment to find c.) barriers and chances of transformational capacity of urban governance relating organisational structure and practices. Overall, this research aims to contribute to knowledge accumulation on the implementation of urban nature through NID and by that, contribute to urban planning literature.

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTION

How does the municipality operationalise its transformation toward a green and compact city through the implementation of nature-inclusive design in urban development of tender and redevelopment?

SUB QUESTIONS

1. What are the visions, policy instruments and agendas for urban nature and NID?

2. How is urban nature and NID embedded within the organisation of the municipality of Amsterdam?

3. What are the strategies and instruments applied for NID within urban development projects of tender and redevelopment?

9 1.5 RELEVANCE

With little scientific research carried out on NID, this research contributes to theoretical knowledge production on implementation of NID on a procedural and governance level. The theoretical relevance lies in the contribution made to the literature of urban planning & governance, urban ecology and urban sustainability. With an increasing urbanisation on local, national as well as global level, biodiversity becomes a key asset to secure a healthy urban ecosystem and its services for human wellbeing. Hence, the societal relevance of this research lies in bringing NID further into the scope of local and global decision makers as an intervention for securing liveable habitat for human and non-human species. The practical relevance of this research is its applicability within the Amsterdam case studies, but also within the municipality of Amsterdam. Searching for tools to achieve the ambition of NID, the results of this research provide recommendations for the planning practice in tender and redevelopment projects as well as on an organisational and procedural level.

1.6 OUTLINE RESEARCH

The following chapter places the subjects of NID and urban governance into the context of academic literature followed by an explanation of the chosen analytical framework of sociological institutionalism. Chapter 3 describes the qualitative research strategy and its comparative case study design. The methods of participant observation, interviews and desk research for data collection are elucidated, tools of operationalisation and data analysis are explained. Chapter 4 clarifies the position of urban nature and NID within the municipal context. Chapter 5 briefly presents the case studies before comparing the results from the case studies with the municipal context, pointing out barriers, challenges and chances of implementing a nature-inclusive planning approach. Chapter 6 then relates the findings to the analytical framework in order to analyse the transformational capacity of urban governance. The conclusion in chapter 7 answers the research questions and chapter 8 zooms out, critically reflecting on the results of the research and suggesting ideas for further research. The thesis ends with some recommendations proposed to the municipality of Amsterdam to make the transformation toward a nature-inclusive city.

10 1.7 GLOSSARY

For matters of clarity and shared understanding, terms used within this research are defined and linked to literature examples.

Definition Literature examples

Biodiversity The variety of life at every hierarchical level and spatial scale of biological organisations: genes within populations, populations within species, species within communities, communities within landscapes, landscapes within biomes, and biomes within the biosphere. E. O. Wilson (1988)

Carson, 1963; Lovejoy, 1980; Wilson, 1988; CBD,1992; Purvis and Hector, 2000; Cardinale et al., 2012; IPBES, 2014; Pimm et al.,2014; Campbell, 2017; Ceballos et al., 2017; EU, 2018 Ecosystem The community of non-human living (biotic) and non-living

(abiotic) elements, such as water, air, soil, minerals. Various small ecosystems connect into one global ecosystem, dynamic and interconnected through nutrient cycles and energy flows.

Odum, 1983; Daily, 1997; Hassan et al., 2005; Hooper et al., 2012

Ecosystem services The different numerous benefits humans derive from ecosystems for free such as pollination, waste treatment, air purification, drinking water and cultural benefits for recreation and education.

TEEB, 2011; IPBES, 2013; Davidson et al., 2011, 2013; Sandifer et al., 2015

Urban ecosystem services

The benefits citizens derive of the specific ecosystem within the city, which is connected to wider ecosystems. A healthy urban ecosystem is important for liveability in the city and the wellbeing of its citizens.

Mc Phearson et al., 2015; Schwarz et al., 2017

Urban biodiversity The specific diversity of non-human species (plants, animals, abiota) within urban areas.

Goddard et al., 2010; Müller & Werner, 2010;Puppim de Oliveira et al., 2011; McDonnel & Hahs, 2015; Fischer et al., 2018

Urban nature Term used within this research describing the flora and fauna of the city.

Reichholf, 2007; Daalder & Langendijk, 2014; Voigt and Wurster, 2015; Vink et al., 2017 Ecosystem based

adaptation (EbA)

(EbA) has emerged as multifunctional and potentially cost-efficient form of climate change adaptation. It uses biodiversity and ecosystem services to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change. E. Brink et al., 2016

Daigneault et al., 2016; Geneletti & Zardo, 2016; Brink et al., 2016; Kasecker et al., 2018; Barkdull & Harris, 2018;

Nature-based solutions (Nbs)

As opposed to grey infrastructure or techno managerial solution, Nbs implement natural green and blue elements to tackle urban challenges such as extreme climatic conditions, pollution, health.

Kabisch et al., 2017; Xing et al, 2017; Lafortezza et al., 2018; Keesstra et al., 2018; Van den Bosch & Ode Sang, 2017

Green-blue networks

Aims at strengthening natural and semi-natural landscapes within the ‘grey’ infrastructure creating networks of waterways and flora.

Pötz, 2016; Lavadinho & Lensel, 2017; Linglart et al., 2016; Liénard and Clergeau, 2011

Green infrastructure planning

Strategically planned network of nature and semi-natural areas to deliver ecosystem services, enhance biodiversity and create jobs. Focus on natural solutions as opposed to grey infrastructure.

Dhakal & Chevalier, 2017; Jia et al., 2016; Gordon et al., 2018; Vandermeulen et al., 2011

Climate adaptive design

Public space as well as buildings designed resilient to a changing climate, now and in the future. Design concerned with buffering negative effects of (extreme) drought, heat and precipitation.

Chelleri & Schuetze, 2011; Tepecik Dis et al, 2011; Xue et al., 2016; Kluck et al., 2017; Dai et al., 2018; Siders, 2017;

Biophilic Urban Design & Architecture

Based on the Biophilia hypothesis of E.O. Wilson, saying that humans have a deep evolutionary connection with nature, Biophilic design acts from a love for and of human/nature, integrating as much nature as as possible into buildings and urban areas

Biophilic urbanism: Beatley, 2011, 2016, 2018; Beatley and Newman, 2013; Newman, 2014; Biophilic Architecture: Kellert et al., 2008, 2015; Green architecture Green architecture aims for minimal harmful effects on human

health and the environment; safeguarding natural resources by choosing eco-friendly building materials and construction practices, mainly ‘living’ or green walls and roof

Ken, 2008; Rettenwender et al., 2009; Francis & Lorimer, 2011; Huseynov & Fikret, 2011; Sheweka & Magdy, 2011; Ragheb et al., 2016; Vertical forests High-rise urban buildings covered with plants and trees,

“promoting the coexistence of architecture and nature in urban areas and the creation of complex urban ecosystems” Stefano Boeri

11

2 T

F

This chapter situates NID within the broader trend of an urban ‘shift to nature’ through different paradigms of nature-integrative planning. Thereafter, the role of urban governance and planning for operationalising a transformation toward NID is explained. Two different modes of public-private urban governance are presented and their relation to this research is made evident. Finally, sociological institutionalism is introduced as the analytical framework to investigate the transformative capacity of governance toward a nature-inclusive city.

2.1 TRANSFORMATIONAL PARADIGMS TOWARD NATURE-INTEGRATIVE CITIES

“The future of our species depends on our ability to coexist with the natural world. But what does this actually mean for human settlements?” Jennifer

Wolch (in Beatley, 2011)

Emerging from urban ecology and sustainability, nature-integrative approaches such as Nature-based solutions, Green infrastructure, Biophilic Urbanism and Ecosystem-Nature-based Adaptation use natural solutions for climate adaptation aiming to secure the wellbeing of human and non-human species within dense and compact cities (e.g. Kabisch et al., 2016; Gordon et al., 2018; Kasecker et al., 2018; Beatley, 2011, 2016, 2018; ICLEI, 2011; see also glossary). As opposed to techno managerial approaches such as dams, underground water retention basins or underground CO2 retention, challenges such as flooding, extreme precipitation, emissions, urban heat islands (UHI) are tackled through natural solutions such as green roofs, tree canopy, wadi’s, urban wetlands and riparian re-naturalisation which benefits biodiversity at the same time (ICLEI, 2011; Dyson & Yocom, 2015; Keesstra et al., 2018). Green and Biophilic Architecture have pushed the possibilities for natural features within buildings (Rettenwender

et al., 2009; Kellert, 2005, 2008). Cities such as London, Berlin and Paris have followed the

‘call for nature’ within urbanism and established citywide strategies catering for human and non-human needs (LNPC, 2017; Nagel et al., 2014; Mairie de Paris, 2018). In the Netherland, this trend has found its expression in the pioneering planning paradigm of NID (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015, 2017e; Vink et al., 2017). Instead of separating functions and spaces for human and non-human species, NID perceives the city and its buildings as places of equal cohabitation (Stiphout, 2014; Vink et al., 2017). Facilitating habitat through green networks

12 throughout the city, green roofs, walls and integrated nesting stones in facades, NID aims to realise “(…) an inclusive city that is home for people, plants and animals alike” (Vink et al., 2017:9). NID strives to overthrow the dualistic approach of architecture and nature promoting equal collaboration between architects, developers, urban planners, ecologists and landscape architects (Stiphout, 2014; Vink et al., 2017). However, the paradigm lacks a clear definition and practical experience as “(…) very few compelling examples of NID have been realized to date” (Vink et al., 2017: 23).

Literature on urban sustainability and ecology underlines the importance of urban governance and planning in bringing about transformation toward nature-integrative cities (Kabisch et al., 2016; Wu, 2014; Steiner, 2014; Kronenberg, 2015). The next section elaborates on the shift from government to governance. The described modes of governance steer different motors of urban development, namely tendering and urban redevelopment. Both forms occur within the case studies of this research and will therefore be explained here.

2.2 URBAN GOVERNANCE & URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Operating at the nexus of economic, ecological and social resources and faced with retreating capital, city governments worldwide increasingly adopt forms of public-private collaboration (Khan, 2013; Kabisch et al., 2016; Buijs et al., 2016). These forms of collaboration characterise urban governance, a term that emerged in the 1990’s with the global shift towards neoliberalization as explained henceforth (Peck et al., 2009; Heurkens & Hobema, 2014; Tasan-Kok & Baetens, 2012). Tasks and responsibilities of the former welfare state were redistributed onto the market and austerity measures were introduced to cut budget costs of the governmental apparatus (Harvey, 1989; Peck et al., 2009; Raco, 2013). Confronted with the complexity of a globalizing world, the hierarchical and bureaucratic structure of government and planning were found ill fit to grasp the dynamic urban processes (Khan, 2013; Healey, 2004). In need of innovation, that is, new projects, stakeholders and policies to adjust to a non-standard urban situation, city governments opened up to market interventions and integrated the competitive and redistributive logics of neoliberalism to the traditionally regulatory role of government (Peck et al., 2009:51; Raco, 2013; Tasan-Kok & Baetens, 2012). The neoliberal turn of urban governments, or ‘new urban governance’ has been criticized for increasing socio-spatial inequalities, giving a platform to global capital mobility and with that a dominant role to economic interest above ecological and social needs (see e.g. Peck et al., 2009; Harvey, 1989).

13 Whereas some promote more space for market parties to become involved as carriers for innovation for i.e. climate adaptation or low-carbon urban development, others are concerned about the neoliberalisation of environmental policies and favour a strong government controlling market involvement (Picton, 2015; Harvey, 1989; Kaika & Swyngedouw, 2012; Raco, 2005).

This being said, market involvement and new urban governance is a reality in most urban settings and as such, the goal of urban planning has shifted from top-down intervention to collaborative transformation in an attempt to embrace innovation and economic feasibility (Heurkens & Hobma, 2014; Alexander, 2008; Healey, 2004a; Gonzales & Healey, 2004; Hajer & Wagenaar, 2003). Collaborative or network governance emerge with actors such as profit oriented businesses, but also NGO’s and citizens participating in policy making (Healey, 2004; Bogasson & Musso, 2006). For this research, only market parties are included. Network governance concentrates on the links between public and private actors, which can be both individuals and organisations (Khan, 2013:134). These links are characterized through interdependence as both parties need each other to carry out decisions and realise actions (Verma, 2007). However, these collaborations are not without conflicts as governments are traditionally hierarchically structured, operating through formal and bureaucratic procedures ideally serving public interest (Spaans et al., 2013; Baarveld et al., 2015). Opposed to that, markets operate as flexible and self-organizing entities with mostly informal and free transactions between actors serving their own economic interest (Khan, 2013:134). Regarding the different institutional contexts for private and public actors, cooperation and trust play an important role, but also power relations and conflict of interest (Bogasson & Musso, 2006). All parties have different motives and interests in joining the network and most probably, different preferences for the outcomes; hence, the collaboration is characterised by a process of deliberation and negotiation aimed at finding solutions upon which all parties can agree (Khan, 2013; Bogasson & Musso, 2006). Network governance entails formal and informal interactions. The latter is problematic for the aspect of accountability of actors as these interactions take place beyond public scrutiny and control (Khan, 2013). Network governance has been criticised for undermining democratic processes as the participating actors do not represent the social reality but often consist of powerful political or economical stakeholders (Raco, 2013; Swyngedouw et al., 2002; Harvey, 1989). Regarding this critique, political leadership is essential to secure democratic values of accountability and transparency on all levels (Campbell

14 characteristics and critique of network governance apply to the setting of Case Study 2, Amstel

III. In the following, network governance will be placed into the context of Dutch planning

practice alongside the top-down governance of tendering.

In the Netherlands, the neoliberal turn has taken on a moderate form compared to Anglo-Saxon countries. Nonetheless, there is an increasing practice of private-public collaboration (Heurkens &Hobma, 2014). As a result, network governance is a new form for urban development for the municipality of Amsterdam. Traditionally, urban governments have an active and strong position within urban planning steering on the quality of urban development through detailed land-use plans and active land development policies (Heurkens & Hobma, 2014). For the latter, the municipality has engaged in urban development, taking on a hybrid role of securing public interest as well as acting as a profit oriented entity, often in a joint venture with market parties (Mekkes et al., 2012; Needham, 2007; Klijn & Teisman, 2003). The failure and financial losses of projects within active land development policies has led municipalities to adopt more formal private-public collaborations (Heurkens & Hobma, 2014). A widely used example of formal private-public collaborations for urban development is tendering (Heurkens & Hobma, 2004). Tendering is a legal framework contractually dividing the roles and tasks of private and public actors, based on principles of transparency and public legitimacy, equality and competition (Heurkens & Hobma, 2014:352). In tendering, municipal land is given out in ground lease through a competitive process between developers. Establishing a set of requirements and ambitions to respond to, the municipality selects the winning party based on the quality and costs of their response (Leger et al., 2013; Heurkens & Hobma, 2014). In a regulatory role, urban governments and planning authorities adopt a more facilitating role toward market parties (Spaans et al., 2013; Baarveld et al., 2015).

Tendering applies when the municipality holds the ground lease rights. With inner city densification, urban development increasingly happens through redevelopment of existing industrial sites into residential areas (Spaans et al., 2013; Baarveld et al., 2015). Here, the ground lease rights are given out to businesses who transform their buildings into residencies or sell them on to developers. With no ground lease rights to give out, the municipality has less legal tools with which to steer urban development (Spaans et al., 2013). Market parties, however, need the municipality to change the land use plan in order to develop residential real estate (Baarveld et al., 2015). This leads to a situation of interdependence and a co-creation of urban development through network governance.

15 By means of the tender procedure and redevelopment, the municipality operationalises its ambition to become a compact and green city (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2011). For a deep understanding of transformational processes, the following section introduces sociological institutionalism as framework to analyse governance processes including the values and practices of its actors as well as the wider structuring forces of political and cultural trends.

2.3 URBAN GOVERNANCE FROM AN INSTITUTIONALISTS’ PERSPECTIVE

From the perspective of sociological institutionalism, governance is understood as a general phenomenon comprising both, governance as formal organisational and legal procedures and the informal values, norms and ideas that shape and are shaped by the discourse and actions of a social agent or of a social group (Healey, 2004:92). As such, it navigates between the scale of individual and collective action, understanding governance institutions as “(…) the regulation of individual behaviour in relation to wider social norms and the organisation of projects of collective endeavour.” (Healey, 2004:92). Formal and informal institutions are defined as the socially constructed and collectively accepted rules of the game, legal obligations, practices and procedures; it is the values, the meaning given to objects and events, the unwritten rules and codes of conduct that shape and are shaped by human behaviour and its routines (Hadler, 2015; Hall & Taylor, 1996, Salet, 2018; Healey, 2004). Institutionalism studies the way institutions originate, interact and affect societal behaviour and actions (Hadler, 2015; Verma, 2007; Salet, 2018; Hall & Taylor, 1996).

Within planning theory, sociological institutionalism is used to study the implementation of policies and practices taking into account the specific governance and geographical context (Gonzales & Healey, 2004:2057). Focussing on the relation between strategy and action and the interactive practice between actors and their context, sociological institutionalism subscribes to the internal and external structuring forces that form barriers or chances for the dissemination of practices and discourses (Gonzales and Healy, 2004; Verna, 2007; Salet, 2018). Transformation happens, when the micro-practices and the wider structuring forces put pressure on the routine of formal and informal institutions (Healey, 2004, 2004a).

16 2.4 TRANSFORMATIONAL CAPACITY OF GOVERNANCE AND PLANNING

Planning and urban governance are noted as key actors to disseminate the discourse of nature-integrative approaches in order to change cities for a sustainable future for people and nature alike (McCormick et al., 2013; Kabisch et al., 2016; Wu, 2014, Wu et al., 2014). As such, planning is endorsed for its “inherently hopeful conviction that a better future is possible” (Campbell, 2014:45). Besides this normative stance, planning also subscribes to the need for innovation and transformation as vehicles for change (Healey, 2004a, 2004; Forester, 1999). Innovation is the “search for new policies, new practices, new actors, new projects” to challenge an established routine (Healey, 2004:89). Innovative governance sustains its capacity to move with current challenges; this is considered as crucial for its economic competitiveness (Tepecik Dis et al., 2011). In opposition to this materialistic stance, innovation can also be related to societal wellbeing and quality of life including “all the moral connotations which this carries” (Healey, 2004:89). Innovative governance then is about creating “objects, events or situations of wonder and awe, enjoyment and pleasure” (Healey, 2004:89). Both definitions of innovation are relevant for this research as NID embraces the economic value of efficient climate adaptation, the spiritual and aesthetic value of nature experience and the moral connotation of reconnecting people to nature (Stiphout, 2014; Vink et al. 2017; Reichholf, 2007). Transformation then is “the action of changing in form, shape or appearance” (OED, 2018; emphasis added). Transformational governance capacity is the degree to which actors are capable to engage in the action of changing. Concrete examples of transformational governance capacity are, for example, facilitating pilot projects and providing space for experimentation; focussing on the learning process instead of merely results; an attitude for risk and acknowledging that experiments might fail; imagination and embracing uncertainty and also, benevolent patrons, i.e. team managers and directors supporting transformational actions and, ideally, also an ‘appreciative audience’, such as colleagues, residents, market parties who are positive about transformational action (Healey, 2004; 2006). Ideal conditions for transformative governance are tolerance toward diversity in opinions and actors, and generosity in empathy and understanding (Healey, 2004a). In the case of NID this notion of tolerance and empathy comprises including nature as actor into urban planning (see Vink et al., 2017; Stiphout, 2014).

Drawing on Healey (2004) and Gonzales and Healey (2004), sociological institutionalism provides a framework to identify and assess changes within urban governance and analyse their potential to transform existing patterns (Gonzales & Healey, 2004:2055). It analyses interaction between actors, including their respective worldviews and the meaning they attach to their

17 environment (Gonzales & Healey, 2004). These values, practices and actions are mutually constitutive processes; a deeper understanding of which enables power dynamics to be mapped; conflicts and struggles as well as potentialities of change (Gonzales & Healey, 2004:2058). By navigating between micro and macro scales in a dialectical and iterative process for theory building, sociological institutionalism aims to include all views and practices of the relevant actors. This holistic approach has been criticized by positivist social scientists for its lengthy and non-scientific narrative (Moulaert and Nussbaumer, 2005:2073). The essentialists’ definition of sociological institutionalism simplifies the complexity by using abstract categories in an ideal-positivist way, deriving generality from specific situations (Moulaert and Nussbaumer, 2005:2072). In order to analyse transformational governance capacity, Healey (2004) proposes a framework consisting of different categories and subcategories guiding the inclusive way of holistic investigation (see Table 1). The three-level analysis explores a.) the daily encounters and experiential processes of interaction between actors, their interests and capacities; b.) power processes, including coalition building, negotiation and trade-offs. At this level of ‘governance processes’ regulations and ideas are studied that frame the access to power and hence admittance to resource flows, influence on rules and policies (Healey, 2004). The first two levels represent the power dynamics between agency (a) and structure (b). These dynamics are influenced by ‘deeply embedded cultural assumptions’ about governance cultures, Level 3 (Healey, 2004:93). The latter forms the normative scale of whether a certain individual action is appropriate or not. It comprises the norms and values that frame the processes of governance in any context (Healey, 2004:94).

In summary, research within urban ecology and sustainability shows the importance of nature-integrative approaches such as NID as transformational paradigms toward sustainable cities for people and nature alike. Urban governance and planning are appointed as key actors to bring about the transformation toward nature-integrative cities. With the neoliberal turn toward urban governance, urban development is performed in collaboration with market parties. In the case of Amsterdam, the motors of urban development provide tender through top-down governance and urban redevelopment through network governance. Governance capacity for transformation is the ability to adapt to changes occurring within and between all levels of governance, that is the level of interactive practices, governance processes and governance cultures. The framework of sociological institutionalism allows the analysis of the transformational capacity of network and top-down urban governance operationalising the innovative paradigm of NID.

18 TABLE 1

Methodological framework for the analysis of transformative governance capacity

Note. Table made by the author adapted from Healey, 2004:93

Level Dimension

Actors &

interactions Actors: roles, strategies and interests _{Arenas: institutional sites}

Settings and interactive practices: communicative repertoire

Governance

processes Networks & coalitions _{Stakeholder selection processes}

Discourses: framing issues, problems, solutions etc. Practices: routines and repertoires for acting

Specifications of laws, formal competences, resource flows

Widersocietal trends

& values Range of accepted governance modes _{Range of embedded cultural values}

19

3 R

D

Starting with a desk research, policy and vision documents are consulted to explore the embedment of NID within the municipality. For the field research, two urban development areas in Amsterdam are chosen as cases for data collection. These case studies represent the current motors of urban development as tendering (top-down formalized standard procedure) and redevelopment (private-public partnership, non-standard procedure). Data is collected through semi-structured interviews. Further to this, an internship of six months in the planning department of the municipality of Amsterdam allowed immersion in the field including participation and observation in several workshops, meetings and conferences as well as daily work routine. The field notes of participant observation and the collected answers from the interviews form the data for this research.

3.1 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

With little prior research existing on the implementation of NID, an inductive qualitative research is best suited as it generates data rather than testing existent theory (Bryman, 2016:36). In qualitative research, as opposed to a quantitative approach, knowledge is accumulated through the interpretation of words rather than numbers. As such, it accepts knowledge as being generated through interpretivism, or “understanding the social world through examination of the interpretation of that world by its participants” (Bryman, 2016:375). This research underpins Max Webers’ definition of verstehen, or the attempt to explain the causes and effects of social action through an interpretative understanding of those involved (Weber, 1947). As a strategy to investigate the interaction between actors and their capacity of inducing action, the interpretivist stance of symbolic interactionism (Blumer, 1962) is applied. The latter defines interaction as a dynamic process in which the individual is constantly interpreting the meaning of their environment, including the behaviour of others and consecutively, adapting his or her behaviour to it (Bryman, 2016:27). This recounts the theoretical framework of institutional analysis arguing that i.e. informal institutions such as new values, ideas and beliefs are formed and spread through the interaction of individuals (Healey, 2003, 2004; Verma, 2007; Salet 2018). Consequently, this research subscribes to the ontology of constructionism describing social properties as “outcomes of interactions between individuals rather than phenomena ‘out there’ and separated from those involved in its construction.” (Bryman, 2016:375). Understanding through observing the others’ interpretation of the world also positions the

20 researcher within the process as the interpreter of someone else’s interpretation of the world (Bryman, 2016:28). With this, the two aspects of theory building are tied together, namely data collection and analysis. Herein, the research follows an iterative approach as outlined by grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Glaser, 1992). Data is subdued to the interplay of interpretation and theorizing, which by means of the process may lead to adaptation of research questions and further collection of data. Data collection is done through a comparative multiple-case study approach. By comparing two contrasting modes of urban development, social phenomena can be understood in more detail, which facilitates dense theory building (Bryman, 2016:65, 67).

3.2 COMPARATIVE MULTIPLE-CASE STUDY

As a framework for data collection anchored in time and space, a comparative multiple-case study design is applied (Yin, 2009; Gerring, 2007; Bryman, 2016:67). Within the chosen cases, the unit of analysis are the private and public actors. Two cases are chosen as appropriate settings for the data collection. Firstly, an urban development project representing the traditional top-down governance of tendering, Sloterdijk Centrum. Secondly, an urban redevelopment project under non-standard network governance, Amstel III.

The multiple case-study approach is useful to understand governance processes between public and private actors under different procedural, legal and administrational circumstances and illuminate the key dynamics (Bryman, 2016:62; Yin, 2009). An in-depth examination of each case study will be done based on the mixed methods approach as explained henceforth and following the analytical framework of sociological institutionalism. After revealing their respective features, the case studies are compared to one another.

3.3 DATA-GATHERING Mixed-methods approach

Qualitative data is collected using a mixed method approach, consisting of three elements: Firstly, a literature review of scientific research concerning nature-integrative approaches, urban nature, urban biodiversity, urban ecosystem is done. Academic literature is consulted via the online search engine web of science and via the library of the University of Amsterdam. The emerging literature stems from the academic disciplines of urban sustainability, urban ecology, urban planning and landscape planning. For the theoretical framework, literature

21 searched by keywords of urban governance, institutionalism, institutional change and transformation was consulted. The keyword of nature-inclusive design delivers no results within academic literature. Secondary sources of practice oriented literature for architects and landscape architects are consulted, e.g. the book ‘Making urban nature’ written by a group of forerunners of NID, architects Jacques Vink, Piet Vollard and ecologist Niels de Zwarte (Vink

et al., 2017). Another source of information is the website next city set up by another pioneer

of NID, landscape architect Maike van Stiphout (Stiphout, 2014; Stiphout, n.d). Furthermore, twitter accounts of several Dutch urban ecologists were followed as well as national organisations or individuals that are concerned with urban nature, such as rainproof, rooftop revolution, healthy city / gezonde stad. Finally, policy and vision documents concerning NID and urban nature of the municipality are revised as well as from the national government and other European cities.

Secondly, being an intern at the municipality allowed for the ethnographic method of participant observation to be used in a closed, non-public setting in the overt/covert role of a researcher (Bryman, 2016:425; Atkinson & Hammersley, 1994). The role of a participant observer is to be described as “participating in group’s core activities but not as a full member” (Bryman, 2016:435). Even though employed as a student intern and not as a researcher, my intention of conducting research on the topic of NID was communicated; being immersed within the field during six months, I was looked upon as a working intern not as a researcher. This position allowed me to approach public actors and to be approached by them informally. Also, it made possible the observation of daily routines, dynamics and procedural conflicts without respondents feeling observed or altering their behaviour. The internship provided me with access to valuable information as well as a networks of actors. During the fieldwork, I attended different municipal working sessions with policy makers, planners and ecologists on internal strategies for NID as well as working sessions with private and public actors on the implementation of NID. Beyond the context of the municipality, I participated in different conferences and workshops on NID for national policymakers, planners, architects and developers (see Appendix for an overview).

Thirdly, semi-structured interviews were conducted (Beyers et al., 2014; Trinczek, 2009). Based on the research questions an interview guide was established covering a set of standard questions in order to collect comparable data whilst leaving sufficient space for open ended questions (Beyers et al., 2014; Trinczek, 2009). In aagreement with the interviewees, all

22 interviews were anonymized for privacy reasons. In order to gain insight into the national policy for NID, a representative of the national government involved in policy design for urban planning was approached. A national forerunner of NID, involved in one of the case studies was interviewd to investigate the status quo of NID in the Netherland. On a municipal level, a policymaker, a landscape architect and three ecologists were interviewed to understand the institutional embedment of NID. Finally, for each case study public and private actors of different functions were interviewed, comprising urban planners, architects, landscape architects and developers. In total, 16 semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted each lasting an average of 45 minutes.

TABLE 2

List of interviews conducted for data collection

Case study Public or private Respondents profession m/f No. of interviews Abbreviation code Date

Amstel III Public actor Urban designer M 1 UD,mun, A3 13.03.2018 Amstel III Public actor Landscape architect F 1 LA, mun, A3 19.03.2018 Amstel III Private Actor Developer M 1 Dev, A3 29.03.2018 Amstel III Private actor Landscape architect F 1 LA, A3 28.03.2018 Sloterdijk Public actor Urban designer F 1 UD, mun, SDC 26.03.2018 Sloterdijk Public actor Landscape architect M 1 LA, mun, SDC 28.02.2018 Sloterdijk Private actor Developer F 1 Dev, SDC 22.03.2018 Sloterdijk Private actor Landscape architect F 1 LA, SDC 16.03.2018 Sloterdijk Private actor Developer and

builder M 1 Dev-b, SDC 28.02.2018

Municipality Public actor Landscape architect F 1 LA, mun 27.02.2018 Municipality Public actor Policy maker green M 1 PM, mun 28.03.2018 Municipality Public actor Engineer

infrastructure M 1 E, mun 28.03.2018

Municipality Public actor Urban ecologist F 1 UE1, mun 20.03.2018 Municipality Public actor Urban ecologists M 1 UE2, mun 22.03.2018 Municipality Public actor Urban ecologists M 1 UE3, mun 13.03.2018 National

Government Public actor Policy maker M 1 PM, nat.gov. 22.03.2018

Total interviews 16

23 3.4 QUALITATIVE DATA-ANALYSIS

Following an iterative approach (Bryman, 2016:381), the interviews are first read thoroughly several times, categorizing chances, barriers and challenges expressed toward governance processes and instruments and toward nature and NID. Based on the framework of analysis for transformative capacity, the data is labelled according to the three levels of governance dimensions. Firstly, the interests, motivations and capacities of actors are labelled as well as interaction and experiences. Secondly, governance processes are labelled, such as regulations, rules, laws, informal strategies. Thirdly, the wider structuring forces of societal trends, values, norms and ideas are labelled. Data from the interviews was compared with the literature review. Based on the findings per case study, a comparative analysis was effected between tender and redevelopment and their relation to the organisation of urban nature and NID within the municipality.

3.5 TRUSTWORTHINESS

This research strives to meet the criteria of validity for qualitative research as defined by Lincoln and Guba (1985):

Credibility (internal validity): This research intends to meet the criteria of credibility through

the following: Research was conducted following the principles of good practice (Bryman, 2016). All respondents received the transcriptions of interviews as well as research findings to confirm correctness. Furthermore, the chosen mixed method approach allowed data to be cross-checked by different sources, i.e. the findings from participant observation were controlled through interview questions.

Transferability (external validity): Even though these cases exemplify Dutch planning

practice, the research outcomes are not externally valid due to the limited number of cases and being both situated in Amsterdam. However, the thick description of the cases could provide “others with a database for making judgements about the possible transferability of findings to other milieus” (Bryman, 2016:384, quoting Lincoln and Guba, 1985)

Dependability (reliability): The replicability criteria are difficult to meet as this would mean

reproducing the exact same setting and circumstances of the initial research (Bryman, 2016:383). Lincoln and Guba (1985) proposed an audit trail recording all the phases of the research process, but that was not undertaken for this research.

24

Confirmability (objectivity): The research has been conducted in good faith with no intentions

to allow personal values and theoretical inclinations interfere with the objectivity of the research.

3.6 LIMITATION

Due to the limited time available for this research, the case studies chosen are situated in Amsterdam. With very few examples of NID realised, the scope of this research is limited to the documentation and critical evaluation of the implementation process of NID. The citizens’ perspective on NID will not be taken into account as both case studies are former business areas with very few to no residents.

3.7 ETHICS &REFLEXIVITY

Interviews are conducted with an appropriate explanation of the research. Interviewees sign a consent formular agreeing to the use of the interview exclusively for the present research. The form also states that the anonymity of the interviewee will be preserved. Interviews are conducted exclusively with adult professionals and experts. Reflecting on the data collection and my role as a researcher, I am critically aware of the line between participant and observer being blurry. However, this position also allowed me to observe the target groups and their interrelational dynamic in their natural setting without having to set up an artificial meeting. As participant-observer within the subject of research, I am the main instrument of data collection. The commonly expressed criticism of qualitative research being subjective and impressionistic applies here. However, being aware of this friction, I questioned my impressions and convictions during the research process and put great effort into the selection of interview candidates, finding an equal amount of private and public actors for the case studies, interviewing advocates as well as critical voices of NID.

3.8 OPERATIONALIZATION

The following operations are chosen to measure the concept of transformative governance capacity of the municipality of Amsterdam toward becoming a nature-inclusive city. Transformational governance within sociological institutionalism is a broad holistic concept aiming to take into account the views of all actors (Moulaert & Nussbaumer, 2005). In order to operationalise it, an essentialist ‘simplification’ is applied (Moulaert & Nussbaumer, 2005:2072). From the literature on transformational governance, I obtain the following indicators to trace transformational capacity:

25 INNOVATION

Indicators for innovative governance are i.e. non-routine actions, changes in policy, creation of new policies and governance instruments, pilot projects (Tepecik Dis et al., 2011; Healey, 2004:89). Another indicator for innovative governance are statements about the aesthetic, spiritual or moral value of NID, such as pleasure, wellbeing, nature-experience, beauty (Healey, 2004).

INTERACTIONS AND ACTORS

The presence of benevolent patrons and appreciative audiences will be investigated (Healey, 2004) as well as the tensions, conflicts, misunderstandings and congruences within daily encounters of actors. Underlying motivations, interest and capacities of actors toward NID and urban nature are explored.

GOVERNANCE PROCESSES

The instruments and policies regarding the implementation of NID in tender and redevelopment are mapped and their affect on power processes is studied. Indicators of governance processes are negotiation, trade-off’s, coalition building and all practices that include or exclude actors and consecutively, shape their admittance to resource flows, influence on rules and policies. (Healey, 2004).

GOVERNANCE CULTURES

Indicators for this level are values, norms and beliefs individual actors, groups of actors or even society holds on nature, biodiversity, architecture and urban planning. These informal institutions establish the normative scale of whether a certain behaviour is appropriate or not and can enlighten about the acceptance of NID or its disapproval. Within the data, I will search for references to local history and wider societal or political trends relevant for NID.

26

4

R

–

&

C

This chapter describes the embedment of urban nature and NID within the organisation and the policies of the municipality to locate and understand dynamics of transformational change within its institutional and historical context.

4.1 AMSTERDAM – FIVE LOBED GREEN CITY

From a planning perspective, Amsterdam has a long tradition of nature-integrative urbanism. What started in the 17th _{century with structurally planting trees along the canals became a} planological framework in 1935 with the General Expansion Plan /Algemeen Uitbreidingsplan (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017c:62). Expanding the city like the five-lobed leaf of a horse-chestnut tree allowed the natural landscape to reach deep into the urban structure, as showed in Figure 1 (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015, 2017c).

With this, Amsterdammers are often only a 10 to 15minute bicycle ride away from open landscapes and the intra-urban biodiversity benefits from genetic exchange with its rural fellow-species (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2011). The concept of Amsterdam as five-lobed city defines its spatial limits; and even though under debate, the dominant opinion is to keep the natural landscape between the five lobes open and densify the existing built environment instead (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2011: 20).

Figure 1; map of Amsterdam visualising the concept of the five-lobed city (L) within the metropolitan landscape (M), the open landscape reaching into the city (S) the ring with major urban parks (R) and the dense city centre (C). Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015:33

27 4.2 AMSTERDAM -ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE

The municipality is organised in seven district committees, four clusters and a politically elected city council. Policies are accredited by the council but designed and initiated in interaction with the clusters and district committees. Until 2014, the city districts had a far more self-steering role. In an act of reorganisation toward a centralised municipality, their task reduced to execute policies, advice the council and act as “ears and eyes of their district” (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018b; 2017c). Importantly, the maintenance of urban nature still falls under the responsibility of city districts as does the advising urban ecologist. Only this year (2018), the board has accorded the creation of a new centralised cluster for maintenance of public green spaces (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018a). Urban ecologists work in their districts, but there are also several urban ecologists within the department of Spatial Planning & Sustainability (3 pers.) and the Engineering office (1 pers.).

The design and realisation of policy concerning public space and urban nature are primordially organised in the cluster of Spatial & Economical Planning (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018b). In cooperation with citizens, businesses and the council, the cluster aims to keep Amsterdam accessible, sustainable and liveable while facilitating ideal economic development (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018b). The cluster of Spatial & Economic Planning consists of 13 departments, see Figure 2. The departments of Spatial Planning & Sustainability, Traffic & Public Space, Groundlease & Urban real estate development and the Engineering Office are directly concerned with policy design and implementation of urban nature and NID. There is no department for urban nature. Policy design for green and its implementation is distributed over different departments, see Figure 3. Within the engineering office, 1 fulltime equivalent (fte) position coordinates the realisation of urban nature within engineering projects. Within the department of Traffic & Public Space, 1 fte is responsible for the implementation of urban nature policies. Spatial Planning & Sustainability is structured into different teams implementing urban nature policies and designing urban nature within their respective spatial projects. There is a regular monthly meeting between different colleagues from the Cluster Spatial & Economic Development that are more intensely than others concerned with the realisation of urban nature policies. The following figure illustrates the distribution of responsibility for urban nature within the organisation.

28 Figure 2; Organisational structure of the cluster Spatial and Economic Development Amsterdam, Figure made by the author based on Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018c

Figure 3; Illustrating the distribution of responsibility for urban anture and NID within Cluster of Spatial and Economic Development Amsterdam, Figure made by the author based on data collection

Traffic & Public Space

Engineering Office

1 fte implementing and realizing urban nature policies

Spatial Planning & Sustainability

1 fte coordinating urban nature within engineering projects

1 urban ecologist

3 planners designing and realizing policy for urban nature and NID

3 urban ecologists

14 teams designing urban nature and implementing urban nature policies in respective spatial projects

29 4.3 VISIONS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS FOR URBAN NATURE AND NID

Aware of the negative effect densification can have on urban nature, the municipality asserts that interurban densification “can only take place if paralleled by creation of sufficient and high quality green” (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015:5). With that, the council underlines the importance of public green spaces for human and non-human species; NID is considered as a possibility to provide habitat for biodiversity within buildings. Therefore, the Agenda Green 2015-2018 aims to “investigate which interventions are the most effective to stimulate Nature-inclusive design” (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015:22). This led to a pilot project within a residential development on Ijburg in 2016 (Denters and Corporaal, 2016), increased lobbying from urban ecologists and a request from the Christian Party to make NID a legal demand for new building projects in 2017 (Stadswerk, 2017; Kester, 2017). As NID concerns the public space as well as architecture and is dependent on ecological infrastructures on a broader scale, the following section describes the policies found on multiple levels that are concerned with urban nature and hence relevant for NID.

Established in 2011, the Structural Vision Amsterdam 2040 sets out the strategic lines for planning and urban governance on the long term and defines the position of Amsterdam in relation to the regional and national scale (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2011). Emerging from the latter are then visions on spatial aspects such as ecology, public space, water and mobility, still established for the long-term of 10 to 25 years. The visions are translated into legal frameworks or agendas for the electoral period of four years (sometimes 10 years) with concrete targets and a yearly monitor. The agendas are then operationalised through programs and handbooks with a time span of 1 to 3 years. See Figure 4 for visualisation. When following the hierarchy, certain policies are relevant for NID within each level.

On the strategic level, the Structural Vision 2040 pays a tribute to the tradition of the five-lobed city and with that, erects the planological pillars of a compact, green city for sustainability (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2011:25-26). Operationalised through innovation and public-private collaboration, urban nature is next to densification, mobility, energy and public space one of the levers to become “economically strong and sustainable” (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2011:8-11, 25-27). Based on the latter, a vision with sustainability and biodiversity conservation at its core was established by members of the Left-Green party in 2012 under the name of “Green 2025” (PM mun, personal communication March 22, 2018). Due to a lack of political support, the line of ‘Green 2025’ was not pursued (see Figure 4). Instead, the more

30 general Compass 2025 was established, operationalising the Structural Vision focussing on economic growth and quality of urban life (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016:4). From the Structural Vision also emerged the Ecological Vision aiming at strengthening and enriching local biodiversity by securing habitat, migration and genetic exchange with biodiversity on a broader scale (Timmermans and Daalder, 2012). All urban projects have to respect the Ecological Vision and it serves as vision and measurement tool for spatial interventions (Timmermans and Daalder, 2012:7).

Urban nature and NID are also important assets within the Vision on Public Space (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017d). Public space needs to become greener and climate adaptive (ambition 2.2, p.51 & ambition 3.3, p.52). The vision also underlines the need for public-private collaboration for public green spaces (ambition 5.2 & 5.3, p. 54). Priority is given to recreation, walking and cycling instead of car infrastructure (ambition 1.1, p.50). With that, the Vision on Public Space relates to the Mobility Strategy as present car infrastructure takes in a lot of space otherwise potentially used for green. With public space becoming scarce, the car infrastructure is tackled through discouraging individual car ownership, reducing parking norms and for new urban development required integration of car parking within the buildings (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018g). On a tactical level, Agenda Sustainability and the Agenda Green are relevant as they frame above mentioned ambitions by targeting urban nature as a tool for biodiversity (Agenda Green) or climate adaptation (Agenda Sustainability) and overall, liveability (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015, 2015a). Agenda Green, established for the first time in 2015, has set the goal to “protect, enrich and monitor urban nature” (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015:3). Agenda Sustainability does not mention NID as such, however, green roofs and green public space are targeted for water retention. Green roofs are the point of contact between the two agendas: Agenda Green has set the goal of facilitating and subsidizing an additional 50.000m2 of green roofs by 2018 (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015:8,17). Next to water retention, green roofs also fulfil the aim of conserving and strengthening urban biodiversity, hence are mentioned as possibility of “making buildings more nature-inclusive” (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015:22). The initiative of stimulating NID lies with the alderman of land use and development and is financed through incomes from ground lease exploitation (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015). The Main Green Structure, Main Tree Structure and the Ecological Structure Amsterdam (ESA) are established to protect urban nature networks as valuable asset for liveability in a dense city (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017c:60-67). The Ecological Structure Amsterdam (ESA) protects local green routes and aims at solving all physical barriers that obstruct habitat,