Meyer Nijhuis 2013 Deltaurbanismplanninganddesign

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/263159331
Delta urbanism: Planning and design in urbanized deltas - comparing the

Dutch delta with the Mississippi River delta
Article in Journal of Urbanism International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability · July 2013
DOI: 10.1080/17549175.2013.820210
CITATIONS READS
15 2,384
2 authors:
Han Meyer Steffen Nijhuis

Delft University of Technology Delft University of Technology
26 PUBLICATIONS 116 CITATIONS 64 PUBLICATIONS 283 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
The New Delta View project
Exploring Spatio-temporal Relationship in Urban Delta: a Case Study of Pearl River Delta in China View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Steffen Nijhuis on 03 September 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Steffen Nijhuis]
On: 02 October 2013, At: 06:53
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:
Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Urbanism: International Research

on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription
information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjou20
Delta urbanism: planning and design in

urbanized deltas – comparing the Dutch delta
with the Mississippi River delta
a b
Han Meyer & Steffen Nijhuis
a
Department of Urbanism, Delft University of Technology, Delft,
Netherlands.
b
Department of Urbanism, Delft University of Technology, Delft,
Netherlands.
Published online: 01 Oct 2013.
To cite this article: Han Meyer & Steffen Nijhuis (2013) Delta urbanism: planning and design in urbanized
deltas – comparing the Dutch delta with the Mississippi River delta, Journal of Urbanism: International
Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 6:2, 160-191, DOI: 10.1080/17549175.2013.820210
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2013.820210
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)
contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our
licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or
suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication
are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &
Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently
verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial
or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use
can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of Urbanism, 2013
Vol. 6, No. 2, 160–191, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2013.820210
Delta urbanism: planning and design in urbanized deltas – comparing

the Dutch delta with the Mississippi River delta
Han Meyera* and Steffen Nijhuisb
a
Department of Urbanism, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands; bDepartment of
Urbanism, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands
Planning and design approaches in urbanized deltas are in a process of fundamental

reconsideration. For a new approach, it is fruitful to consider the urbanized delta area as
a complex, layered system, based upon complex-systems theories and layer-based meth-
Downloaded by [Steffen Nijhuis] at 06:53 02 October 2013
ods. With this theoretical point of view, we can distinguish several development periods
of urbanized deltas like the Mississippi River delta and the Dutch Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt
delta. In the current period, both deltas find themselves in a transition between the
regime of the recent past and the new regime. In this transition process, the planning
and design of the infrastructural system will be crucial. In order to find the most
effective approach to infrastructure as a condition for urban development and water
management, it will be important to develop a method of research by design, based
upon strong collaboration between different disciplines such as urban design and
planning, hydraulic engineering, landscape architecture, and environmental sciences.
Keywords: deltas; system theories; complexity theories; layer approach; research by
design
1. Introduction
This paper is a reflection on two serious attempts to develop a new understanding of and
new approach to urban planning and urban design in delta cities, applied respectively to
the Mississippi River delta and the Dutch delta of the rivers Rhine, Meuse, and Scheldt.
Urban and economic development has resulted in the formation of important port cities
in both deltas: New Orleans (Figure 1) and Rotterdam (Figure 2). The two cities are
struggling with similar questions. How to combine the attractiveness of the delta for
urban and economic development with a maximum of safety from the dangers of the
same delta? How to combine the development of attractive urban waterfront sites and an
open and accessible port with solid protection against flooding? Two different deltas with
the same questions – is it possible to approach both deltas with the same analytical
framework and a comparable approach of integrated design and engineering?
The Dutch government created a delta committee, which recommended the develop-
ment of a fundamental update of the flood-defense system in the Netherlands (Delta
Committee 2008), which should result in a new “delta program.” One of the most urgent
problems to be solved in this delta program is the future of the Rotterdam region, where
flood defense, urban development, environmental issues, and port economy are
interwoven with each other in a complex way.
Parallel to this process, the Dutch Dialogues project was organized in New Orleans.
This was a collaboration of American and Dutch academics and professionals aiming to
develop a new sustainable urban and water management master plan for New Orleans
*Corresponding authors. Email: v.j.meyer@tudelft.nl
Ó 2013 Taylor & Francis

Journal of Urbanism 161
Figure 1. New Orleans between Mississippi river (right) and Lake Pontchartrain (left), looking to
the east, 2008.
Source: Joan Hoal H3 Studio.
after Hurricane Katrina (Meyer, Waggonner and Morris, 2009). The Dutch Dialogues
started with the idea that the rebuilding of New Orleans’s flooded districts would need a
“Dutch” approach, referring to the relatively high safety standards of the flood defense
and water management systems in the Netherlands and to the tradition of integration of
water management infrastructures in the urban fabrics in Dutch cities.
Both delta areas represent the complex character of many urbanized delta areas, where
port development, urban development, flood-defense policies and environmental issues
are interwoven and often conflicting with each other (Bucx et al. 2010). In planning and
design, sectorial approaches still dominate. Specialists from different disciplines consider
the development of the delta from different perspectives, using different languages and
organized into different institutions (Priemus and Rietveld 2009). In order to reach a sus-
tainable balance among these aspects of the delta, planning and design methods should
be reconsidered. This paper aims to contribute to a comprehensive approach to urbanized
deltas, involving different relevant disciplines.
The paper starts in Section 1, advocating a systems approach, which is relevant for
delta urbanism. In Section 2 we apply this approach to the two case studies, the Dutch
Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt delta and the Mississippi River delta. Finally we draw some
conclusions and offer suggestions for discussion in Section 3.
2. The urbanized delta as a complex layered system

2.1. Complex systems
In the late 1960s, scholars like Brian McLoughlin (1969) developed the systems approach
to complex urban regions. McLoughlin defines a system as a set of interconnected parts,
162 H. Meyer and S. Nijhuis
Figure 2. Rotterdam and river Nieuwe Maas, looking to the west, 2006.
Source: Dick Sellenraad Aeroview.
where each part may be seen as a system in itself, and where the whole system can be
considered as but one part of a larger system, as illustrated by himself in Figure 3.
Recent complexity theories have elaborated the systems approach and address the fact
that a complex system is never in balance in a stable way. Especially in ecosystems and
social systems, the different parts of a system are changing continuously, and these
changes of the different parts influence other parts (Batty 2005; Portugali 2000; Scheffer
2009). However, complex systems have a certain flexibility or resilience to deal with all
the changes of the different parts. Scheffer defines resilience as “the capacity of a system
to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essen-
tially the same function, structure, identity and feedbacks” (2009, 103). When a system is
pushed beyond its resilience, it will undergo a process of transition towards another
regime. The fundamental question for every system is when the resilience of the system
will be exceeded, forcing the system to change fundamentally to another regime, which
organizes the different parts in a fundamentally different way. In planning and design it
is important to understand and to recognize these “regime shifts” or “critical transitions”
(Scheffer 2009). One can prepare for the coming transition of a system by trying to stop
the transition process or by trying to influence it such that it will result in a better system,
with a new type of resilience.
Figure 3. A system of systems as represented by McLoughlin.

Source: McLouglin 1969.
2.2. The layers approach revisited as a complex-systems approach

The nineteenth-century founding fathers of geography like Alexander von Humboldt
(1769–1859) and Carl Ritter (1779–1859) recognized the landscape as a comprehensive
system of systems. The American landscape architect Ian McHarg introduced the “layer
cake model” for reasons of spatial analysis and planning in his seminal work, Design
with Nature (1969). He pleaded for a sound approach to landscape and ecology in plan-
ning major infrastructural work, using a layer approach to get a grip on the complex sys-
tem of the landscape. A variation on the layer-cake model specific to planning practice is
the “framework model” or “Casco concept” (De Bruin et al. 1987; Kerkstra and Vrijlandt
1988; Sijmons 1991). This more integrative approach is a plea for the design of strong
“frameworks” in the urban landscape. A framework can be regarded as a system of
natural and man-made structures (like rivers, roads, and forests) which can sustained for
a long time and which can adapt to varied urban programs and natural developments.
Within the planning context on the Dutch national level, these studies developed into
a comprehensive approach to the description and analysis of spatial developments known
as lagenbenadering, or the layers approach (RPD 2001; Van Buuren 2003). The layers
approach understands the landscape as a system of three layers, each with its own
dynamics.
(1) Substratum. At the bottom is the fundamental layer of the subsoil of the territory
itself, with its natural characteristics of soil, water, etc. Here the dynamic of
change is very slow: substantial changes take place in the course of centuries
(100–500 years).
(2) Networks. In the middle is the layer of infrastructural networks, which create condi-
tions for settlement, economic activities, and mobility. Because of the technological
complexity and expense of infrastructural works, the transformation rate (50 to
100 years) is much slower than the urban system, but faster than the natural system.
164
H. Meyer and S. Nijhuis
Figure 4. The delta as a layered (left) and complex (right) system. Drawing by authors.
(3) Occupation. At the top is the layer of human occupation: urban patterns, economic
activities, etc. The dynamic of this layer is usually very rapid: substantial
extensions or transformations can take place in 25 to 50 years.
Translated to the complex-systems approach, these layers can be regarded as the parts
of the system of an urbanized landscape – in our case an urbanized delta. Each layer can
be regarded as a system in itself. The layers are the parts, which are interconnected with
each other, but each layer is itself a set of interconnected parts. And the system of the
urbanized delta as a whole can be regarded as part of a larger system, the whole river
catchment area (Figure 4). When the layers of a system are related to each other in a spe-
cific way, we talk about a specific regime of the system. The change from one regime to
another means that the layers themselves are changing and developing a different
relationship to each other. We call this change a regime shift or transition.
Although the theory of the systems approach and especially the layer approach has
been developing since the 1960s, it is not frequently applied in the practice of planning
and design. It is true that the layer approach has been adopted as official Dutch planning
policy, which refers to the layer approach in documents like the Fifth Memorandum on
Spatial Planning (VROM 2001) and the Memorandum on Space (VROM 2006).
However, these documents use the layer approach mainly as part of an argument for
paying more attention to the landscape. An application of the approach in proposals for
spatial planning and design, based on an awareness of the interaction between the layers,
is lacking. That is a pity, because the layer approach is extremely relevant to the analysis,
planning, and design of spatial development in urbanized deltas. It offers a method for
both design research (analysis of implemented designs) and research by design
(investigation of possible future spatial configurations).
Considering the urbanized delta as a complex system, we will show that the layer
approach offers the possibility of addressing the question of how the different layers are
related to each other on different scales and how these relationships change over time.
With this perspective we can come to a more comprehensive planning and
design–oriented approach towards urban delta landscapes.
3. Two different urbanized delta landscapes as examples

3.1. The layers of the natural landscape
Our analysis of the delta as a complex system starts with a focus on the basic layer
which explains the natural system of the delta. This delivers the foundation for a delta
typology derived from coastal morphology and resulting in a systematic classification of
different deltas based upon the different natural conditions of the deltas in terms of
sediment input, wave energy, and tidal energy (Bird 2008; Bradshaw and Weaver 1995;
Hori and Saito 2007) (Figure 5). According to this typology, the Mississippi River delta
can be characterized as a river-dominated (fluvial-dominated) delta. The Dutch delta is
mainly a sea-dominated delta. The differences concerning sediment transport, river
discharges, and tidal currents (see Table 1) were essential to the creation of two very
different delta landscapes.
The situation of the Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt delta is defined by a relatively modest
transport of river sediments, combined with strong tidal movements and sea currents. The
result is a delta with a sand-barrier coastline of beaches and dunes in front of the alluvial
wetlands. This coastline has been formed by marine sediments, transported by the domi-
nating Gulf Stream and the tidal currents. Between this sand-barrier coastline and the
Figure 5. Delta typology based on the natural morphogenetic characteristics: wave energy,
sediment input and tidal energy. According to Bradshaw and Weaver.
Source: Bradshaw and Weaver 1995.
alluvial wetlands, a lagoon came into existence. The northern part of the Netherlands still
embodies this model of a lagoon behind a series of sand-barrier islands. During many
centuries, the western part of the lagoon was filled up by vegetation, resulting in layers
of peat four to six meters thick. This peat landscape was interwoven with a vascular net-
work of creeks and small rivers, which functioned as a natural drainage system (Van de
Ven 2004; Nijhuis and Bobbink 2010) (Figure 6).
Table 1. Quantitative analysis of the Mississippi and Rhine Rivers.

Mississippi Rhine
Length 6,275 km (3,900 miles) 1,320 km (820 miles)
Depth (average) New Orleans: 60 m Arnhem: 8 m
(180 feet) (24 feet)
Discharge (average) 16,000 m3/s 2,000 m3/s (summer)
(500,000 ft3/s) (62,500 ft3/s)
Discharge (extreme) 48,000 m3/s(1,500,000 ft3/s) 12,000 m3/s(375,000 ft3/s)
Sediment transport 170 million t/y 0.4 million t/y
Sources: Rijkswaterstaat 2005; Thorne et al. 2001; Walker 1994.
Figure 6. Paleogeographic reconstruction of the Dutch delta in 800 A.D. (drawing by authors,
after Vos and Weerts, 2011).
Figure 7. The spatial development of the city of Rotterdam: from a wild marshland area (800), to
a system of ditches (1000), to the construction of dikes (dotted lines, 1340), to the urbanization of
the areas outside the dikes (1599 – 1626).
Source: Hooimeijer et al., 2005.
The situation of the Mississippi River delta is quite different. The combination of
much more river sediments with the absence of strong tidal or sea currents produced
another type of delta. The first important difference concerns the size of the fluvial wet-
lands formed by sediment transport, which are much larger than in the Dutch river delta.
The second difference concerns the absence of a sand-barrier coastline. The enormous
amounts of sediments lead to silting-up processes next to the river mouth, forming large
wetlands with a meandering coastline. These alluvial wetlands are largely covered with
mangrove forests, and interwoven with numerous creeks, which are the habitat of many
species of fishes, shellfish, and crustaceans (Figure 10).
3.2. The regimes of the delta systems until the nineteenth century
Concerning coastal defense in relation to safe places for human settlement, land use, and
urbanization, the two delta landscapes offered completely different conditions. In the
Dutch delta, the natural condition of the sand-barrier coastline was the most important
protection against flooding from the sea. Human settlement and land use became possible
upon and immediately behind the sand barriers. The first settlements (from Roman times
until the twelfth century) in the western part of the Netherlands could be found on the
natural elevations of the coastline (this was for instance the origin of The Hague) or on
the natural elevations of former sea inlets (like the city of Delft) or natural river levees
(like the city of Dordrecht). In this period we can say that the basic layer of the
substratum dominated and defined the patterns of occupation.
From the thirteenth century on, a new type of urban development took place in the
western part of the Netherlands. Landowners and local communities started to reclaim the
swampy peat lands by constructing drainage systems (Rutte 2007). This drainage
technology led to drastic subsidence of the land, because the drained and dry peat
oxidized, which resulted in shrinkage. During seven or eight centuries, some parts in the
delta area subsided six to eight meters due to drainage, resulting in the land resting five
to six meters below mean sea level (Van de Ven 2004).
To protect the subsided land from flooding by adjacent rivers or sea inlets, dikes were
constructed surrounding the drained land. At the local scale, the natural condition of the
landscape, offering natural heights and drainage structures, was used as the foundation
for the polder (Figure 7). The formation of this polder landscape was strongly related to
the formation of urban settlements at the most strategic sites of the polders: around the
dams, which can be found in the names of many Dutch cities, e.g. Amsterdam,
Rotterdam, and Schiedam. The cities played a main role in the water management of the
polder by controlling the water levels. This strengthened the position of the city as a mar-
ket place and harbour (Burke 1960).
Figure 8. Delta city Rotterdam, 1800, with the main flood defense indicated in white.
Source: Gemeente Archief Rotterdam.
Figure 9. The Dutch delta, around 1800: a collection of polders and polder cities (map by
authors).
During processes of urban expansion, the drainage system of the polder also became
the main framework of the urban pattern. In most city plans developed from the fourteenth
century through the early twentieth century, the grid of the original polder layout can be
recognized as the main spatial structure of the urban pattern: the Dutch city is an “urban-
ized polder landscape” (Heeling, Meyer, and Westrik 2001; Steenbergen et al. 2009).
The formation of this landscape of polders and polder cities created a sharp
distinction between the flood-protected land behind the dikes and the areas outside the
dikes. Remaining wetlands in areas outside the dikes were used for the rise of port-ori-
ented city districts (Meyer 1999; Sigmund 1989). This sharp difference between the regu-
lar pattern of the polder city and the irregular pattern of the outer dike area, with the dike
in between, is still a characteristic aspect of the urban form of many Dutch delta cities,
illustrated by the example of Rotterdam in Figure 8.
Figure 10. The Mississippi delta, 1800s: a wild marshland, with urban settlements and
plantations on the natural levees of the riverbanks (map by authors).
In the Mississippi River delta, the conditions for human settlement and protection
against floods were and are quite different. The alluvial wetlands themselves formed (and
still form) the most important barrier against storm surges from the sea. Human settle-
ment was possible on the higher grounds of natural river levees far behind the coastline,
with a large area of wetlands between urban settlement and the sea. Because of the rela-
tively modest scale of urbanization in this landscape, there was hardly any impact of
urbanization on the landscape, as expressed in Figure 10.
The French colonists founded New Orleans in the eighteenth century on the natural
levee of the Mississippi river, near the Lake Pontchartrain and at a distance from the
open sea. This place was regarded as relatively safe against flooding, and strategically
located to control the navigation on the Mississippi river. (Campanella 2006). Also dur-
ing the nineteenth century, urban extensions were developed along the river’s natural
levee – following the orientation of the area’s eighteenth-century plantation plots, as
shown in Figure 11 (Campanella 2006; Colten 2005). In this period, the conditions of the
substratum layer dominated and defined the process of urbanization.
The continuous supply of sediments played an important role during this first period
of urban settlement. After each period of high water in the Mississippi River, huge
amounts of mud were left behind on the riverbanks. This mud was considered a public
amenity; it was used for the elevation of streets and parks as well as of private parcels
and gardens, resulting in a gradual raising of the river embankments and the adjacent
urban areas, as illustrated in Figure 12. This special condition resulted in the unique pub-
lic character of the New Orleans riverfront. Unlike other American port cities such as
Figure 11. Delta city New Orleans, 1878: urban patterns in former plantations on the riverbanks.
Source: Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection.
New York and Philadelphia, it was forbidden to build on the quays or to use the embank-
ments for any private purpose (Kelman 2003; Upton 2008).
Summarizing, in the early nineteenth century, the situations in the two deltas were
quite different. Figure 9 shows the Dutch delta around 1800, as a mosaic of polders
which had transformed almost all the alluvial wetlands into an engineered landscape
defined by dikes, ditches, drainage arteries, and dams. Urban settlements were an integral
and crucial part of this engineered landscape. The natural conditions of the basic layer
were used as the foundation for the new infrastructural networks of dikes and drainage
canals, developed in combination with new urban structures. The location and composi-
tion of urban settlements were no longer completely dependent on the conditions of the
substratum layer.
At the same time, these new networks and occupation patterns influenced the
substratum layer strongly. The central part of Holland (around present-day Randstad) was
transformed from a wet lagoon into a drained and rationalized landscape, surrounded by
a main dike ring. The river channels and estuaries southwest and north of central Holland
were the leftover “wild” areas. In the Mississippi River delta, it was the other way
around. Urban areas were the exceptions in the general pattern of a wild deltaic land-
scape. As shown in Figure 10, the general pattern of the delta was formed by the alluvial
wetlands, which offered protection against hurricanes and storm surges from the sea, and
a lot of food. On the scale of the whole delta, the structure of these wetlands was not
touched by human intervention. Urban patterns were scanty and limited to some parts of
the riverbanks of the Mississippi, like the city of New Orleans.
Figure 12. Evolution of Mississippi river levees in New Orleans.

Source: Kelman 2003.
3.3. The regimes of the delta systems in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
From the second half of the nineteenth century, critical transitions took place in the
systems of both deltas. This was made possible especially by the rise of new conditions.
A most important condition for these interventions was the birth of the nation-state in
both Europe and North America. The brand-new nation-states of the Netherlands
(founded in 1814) and the United States of America (founded in 1776) considered their
deltas key to the national economy. Rotterdam was considered the most strategic place to
be developed as a transit port between the industrializing European mainland and the sea
(Meyer 1999). New Orleans was the natural main port of the United States, providing
access to the river catchment area of the Mississippi and its tributaries, which together
cover two-thirds of the US territory (Kelman 2003).
A second circumstance was that both early nation-states were threatened by frequent
river floods. The original riverbed of the Mississippi is extremely wide – in some places
more than 150 km. Once this was inhabited and used for agriculture, a river flood could
hit thousands of square kilometers of fertile farmland, leaving many thousands of farmers
without home or income (Barry 1997). In the Netherlands, the silting-up of the delta
resulted in frequent floods of the upstream river areas (Buisman 2011).
A third condition was created by the spectacular developments and innovations in sci-
ence and technology, which enabled engineers to build flood-defense constructions and
drainage systems on a gigantic scale (van de Ven 2004). In both the Netherlands and the
United States, the state took the lead in national projects concerning flood defense and
river improvements. In the Netherlands this was the Rijkswaterstaat (RWS, National
Water Management Agency), founded in 1798, during the Napoleonic period, as a civic
institute (Bosch and Van der Ham 1998). In the United States, the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) started to consider river management a case of federal interest from
the start of the nineteenth century, at first because of the role of the Mississippi as the
main artery for transport in the US. After the Civil War, flood defense for the national
coasts and great rivers was also increasingly regarded as a concern of the USACE (Barry
1998; O’Neill 2006).
Figure 13. The Dutch delta, 2000: the whole delta as a hydraulic fortification (map by authors).
The approach of the Dutch state focused on the creation of a new network layer at
the regional scale. The river system was reorganized by digging new channels like the
Nieuwe Waterweg in the nineteenth century; the coastline was shortened by the damming
of large estuaries in the twentieth century (Figure 13). This led to an artificial direction
of the main flow of the rivers through the Nieuwe Waterweg, resulting in an improved
accessibility to the port of Rotterdam, but also in an increased influence of the sea (and
of high water levels of the sea) on the city of Rotterdam (van de Ven 2008). This
national water management and flood-defense policy finally led to a reorganization of the
whole delta region. Estuaries were reorganized into fresh and saltwater lakes; the
combination of dams and storm-surge barriers with roads led to new road networks,
which created the conditions for new industrial and urban growth in the delta area itself.
The transformation of the estuaries into fresh and saltwater lakes meant a dramatic
change in the biotic part of the substratum layer. Many species of fish, shellfish, birds,
and plants disappeared (Saeijs 2006). An early sign of attention to the environment in the
Figure 14. Rotterdam, 1960: Different urban fabrics in the areas outside the dikes (in grey) and
inside the dikes.
Source: City Planning Department Rotterdam.
Netherlands was the changing concept for the East Scheldt storm-surge barrier in the
1970s, maintaining the East Scheldt as a brackish and tidal sea arm (Saeijs 2006;
Schipper 2008).
At the local scale, fundamental changes took place in the composition and orientation
of urban settlements. The strong relation of the cities to the water disappeared, replaced
by an orientation to road networks. In the urban area of Rotterdam, citizens regarded the
new dikes, constructed in the 1950s and 1960s, as a disastrous degradation of public
space, especially of the urban waterfront (Meyer 1999). The new dike system meant an
increased separation between city and river, and between urban and port landscape
(Figure 14). In the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the outer dike areas
have been raised to between 3.2 and 4.0 meters above average sea level. All together,
this development created the strange situation of a river-plain area with a large and rela-
tively high outer dike area, like an artificial “super levee,” containing port facilities and
some urban enclaves. Next to this “super levee” we find the urban and agricultural areas,
mainly below sea level. The result is the remarkable difference in elevations shown in
Figure 15.
Compared with the “totally engineered landscape” of the Netherlands of the nine-
teenth and twentieth centuries, the development of the Mississippi River delta shows
some similarities, but many more differences.
The river policy of the USACE was comparable with Dutch river policy; the aim was
to improve the navigability of the Mississippi and to avoid large-scale floods. The chan-
neling and dredging of the Mississippi had two major impacts on the delta. First, it
caused sediments to be dumped further out in the Gulf of Mexico, depriving the wetlands
Figure 15. Rotterdam region: elevations. The areas outside the dikes (mainly port areas) appear
to be the highest (map by authors).
Figure 16. The Mississippi river delta, 2000: wild but eroding marshlands, with ‘fortress New
Orleans’ in the centre (map by authors).
of material for dynamic replenishment and for the creation of new wetlands. The loss of
wetlands was accelerated by the construction of the Intracoastal Waterway through the
wetlands, linking the industrial ports of New Orleans and Houston and blocking the
movement of sediments to the coastline. In the twentieth century this canal system was
extended with canals to the east of New Orleans, providing open access from the indus-
trial and port areas of New Orleans to the ocean. Moreover, the large-scale collection of
gas and oil in the Gulf of Mexico resulted in an extensive network of pipelines through
the delta and contributed to the subsidence of the wetlands. These combined develop-
ments resulted in the erosion of wetlands from the Gulf Coast at an alarming rate. River
sediments added 21,000 km2 to the Mississippi River delta over 7000 years – yet 4900
km2 have been lost since 1900 (Gramling 2012). This loss of wetlands, combined with
the canals which created an “open door” from the ocean to New Orleans, increased the
vulnerability of New Orleans to hurricane-driven storm surge (Barras 2006; Day John
et al. 2007; Louisiana Recovery Authority 2007). Concerning the Mississippi River delta,
environmental scientists have warned since the 1970s of dramatic ecological
consequences from the decay of the wetlands (Barras 2006; Gramling 2012).
Figure 17. New Orleans, 2000: outfall canals as main barriers in the urban structure.
Source: Dutch Dialogues.
A second major impact of the river-channeling projects was the rise of water levels in
the river. Because of this, the natural levees were no longer high enough to protect the city
from flooding. Cities like New Orleans were confronted with the need to raise all the levees
along the Mississippi. In the beginning, this task was a responsibility of local levee boards.
After a big flood in 1927, and stimulated by the policy of the New Deal, levee construction
became regarded as a federal responsibility (O’Neill 2006). As a result, the New Orleans
waterfront was provided with a newly constructed levee, which protected the city from the
river but destroyed the original public character of the riverfront (Kelman 2003).
Figure 16 shows the influence of the layer of infrastructural networks on the other
layers in the Mississippi River delta. Channeling of the Mississippi River, canal construc-
tion in the delta, and the draining of lowlands in Greater New Orleans have resulted in
the serious decay of the wetlands and serious land subsidence in Greater New Orleans.
The urban area itself, protected with levees and intensively drained, is an incidental
exception, a “fortress” in the context of the whole delta.
Encouraged by the success of this introduction of mechanical power, it was thought to
be possible to expand the city in the lowest parts, adjacent to the natural levees. Especially
during the postwar decades, large-scale urban extensions took place in the swampy low-
lands between the natural river levees and Lake Pontchartrain (Campanella 2006; Lewis
1976). The result is an ongoing subsidence of the soil at approximately 1 cm per year,
which results in a need for increased pumping, leading to a vicious cycle (Stuurman 2009).
The drainage systems of the low parts of New Orleans were connected to a number
of outfall canals, with open access to Lake Pontchartrain, which is in direct connection
with the sea. Because of the chance of extreme high-water levels in the outfall canals (in
times of storm surge at sea), the outfall canals were lined with concrete flood barriers.
The outfall canals contribute substantially to the spatial fragmentation of the city,
isolating the neighborhoods on either side of these barriers from each other (Figure 17).
Summarizing, in both cases the dominating emphasis on regional flood-defense and
drainage systems led to substantial changes in the substratum layer, expressed by soil
subsidence, disappearing wetlands, and disappearing gradients of fresh and salt water and
of water and land. The result is not only a dramatic decrease in ecosystem biodiversity,
but also the disappearance of the relationship between the city and the water. Finally, the
result is increased vulnerability of the urban areas to flooding. The engineered landscapes
were not controlled so well as had been supposed. Two critical extreme high-water events
in the Dutch rivers in the mid-1990s accelerated public and political debate on water
management in the country. In New Orleans, 2005’s Hurricane Katrina dramatically
demonstrated the inadequacy of the existing flood-defense system.
3.4. Towards a “third regime” of the urbanized delta: research by design

Since the turn of the twenty-first century, both deltas have been subject to fundamental
changes. The dramatic environmental conditions became an issue of public and political
concern. Estuaries were discovered to be the most precious of all ecosystems in the world
(Costanza et al. 1997). The decay and disappearance of these ecosystems became a
central matter of attention for NGOs like the World Wildlife Fund.
Second, next to the dramatic events of floods and almost-floods, it became clear that
the effects of climate change such as sea-level rise and increasing peak discharges of riv-
ers will result in a larger vulnerability of all types of land use to flooding and salinization
(Reker et al. 2006). The necessity of a fundamental reconsideration of the land use and
spatial development of the deltas has been addressed by several national advisory boards
(Delta committee 2008; Louisiana Recovery Authority 2007).
Third, the role of the ports in both deltas is changing again. In both cases, ports are
moving from “stand-alones,” competing with each other, towards collaboration in
regional port networks, with the whole delta area as the main territory of interconnecting
navigation canals, pipelines, roads, and railroads (Notteboom and Rodrigue 2005;
Notteboom, Ducruet, de Langen 2009; Port of Rotterdam 2011).
All together, the system of the delta, dominated by modern engineering projects, has
reached a critical phase. The infrastructure of flood defense, channeled rivers, and canals
has played a decisive role for urban and economic development. These large-scale inter-
ventions in the middle layer (infrastructure) have resulted in drastic changes in the top
layer (occupation), as well as in the bottom layer (substratum). To reach a new, sustain-
able relationship among the layers, some essential changes in the system will be
necessary. A fundamental notion in theories of complex systems is the notion of
self-organization. Self-organization refers to the possibility of relatively autonomous
development in the parts of a system, which is relevant for systems in nature as well as
in society (Portugali 2000; Scheffer 2009). Regarding the three layers, we can say that
the most critical aspect in both deltas concerns the dramatic decrease of the original
self-organization in the bottom layer of the substratum as well in the top layer of the
occupation patterns. Natural and spatial development has become too much steered and
restricted by the network layers of flood-defense and drainage systems.
Originally, the self-organization in the substratum had three important characteristics:
• First, the original capacity of the soil to absorb and retain rainwater. This was
important in preventing rivers from becoming overloaded with rainwater too
quickly. With the transformation to a drained landscape, the emphasis has changed
to the discharge of rainwater to the rivers as quickly as possible. Furthermore, this
resulted in soil subsidence, which increased the need to intensify the drainage,
which resulted in increasing soil subsidence, and so on. The delta areas entered a
vicious circle of draining and subsiding.
• Second, the original characteristics of rivers, that they widen in times of high
discharge. The narrowing of riverbeds led to a drastic decrease in the discharge
capacity of the rivers. The channeled rivers are not able to accommodate the
volumes of water in times of extreme weather conditions and water discharges,
resulting in increased risk of flooding.
• Third, the transport of sediments towards the delta from the rivers as well as from
the sea, creating dynamic landscapes of wetlands, estuaries, and islands and a large
number of gradients of land and water and fresh and salt water. The decrease of
the sedimentation processes and the disappearance of the gradients resulted in fixed
and relatively poor ecosystems.
The diminished self-organization in the occupation layer concerns the reduced possi-
bilities for local communities but also for stakeholders who operate on the regional scale
(fishing farms, port authorities) to develop their own policies. Their ambitions concerning
spatial and economic development have become dependent on the network layer of flood
defense and drainage.
Attention to self-organization also means that different scales and their interrelation-
ships should be taken into consideration. During the twentieth century a hierarchic, top-
down planning policy has been implemented in both delta regions (from national to local
Figure 18. Two variations for main discharge river water of Rhine and Meuse. Left: ‘Closed
system’ with storm surge barriers and large storage capacity for river water. Right: ‘Open system'
with new open sicharge of rivers south ofthe Rotterdam region.
Source: Delta program.
Figure 19. Design study on possibilities of an open Nieuwe Waterweg. The figure shows the
situation in Rotterdam in case of extremely high water. Parts of the outerdike areas will be
flooded.
Source: TU-Delft, EMU study project 2010.
scales); self-organization supposes a more mutual influence of the different scales on each
other (de Roo and Rauws 2012).
All together, these considerations mean that the assignment for delta areas is how the
self-organization of the landscape can be restored in combination with new conditions for
Figure 20. Design study on possibilities in case of closing the Nieuwe Waterweg and main
discharge of rivers through Haringvliet, south of Rotterdam, by Kuiper Compagnons.
Source: Eo Wijers Stichting 2009.
Figure 21. Design study of possibilties in case of controlled flooding in polder areas.
Figure 22. Design study of possibilities of floodable polder edges around Haringvliet as new
land-water gradients.
self-organization of land use and stakeholder involvement. The two cases of the Dutch
delta and the Mississippi River delta show examples of attempts to reach these goals.
4. The Dutch delta: working together with water

In the Netherlands, the national government took the initiative for a new “delta program”
in 2008. This program should result in a new strategy for the Dutch delta, to be formal-
ized by the government in 2014. The starting document of this program is titled Working
Together with Water (Delta committee 2008), which shows the ambition to develop an
alternative to working against the water. However, it is clear that a total return to a
completely “natural” condition will not be possible in this densely populated delta. The
issue is to find a new balance between the natural character of the delta and human
engineering interventions.
Two fundamental questions play a role in the search for new concepts. The first is the
reconsideration of the whole river system. Is it necessary to maintain the artificially
controlled main water flow of the rivers through the Nieuwe Waterweg, or can the main
flow of the rivers be directed more southward, through the original estuaries of the delta,
resulting in an abandoning of the Nieuwe Waterweg as a discharge channel? The two
options are represented in Figure 18.
One option is to continue and extend the existing strategy, maintaining the role of the
Nieuwe Waterweg as the main discharge channel for the river water. Figure 19 shows a
Delft University of Technology student project in which this option was addressed by
enhancing the existing dikes and constructing strong dike rings around the urban enclaves
in the outer dike area, while the rest of the embankments can be flooded. This might be
very expensive and problematic, but could also lead to new opportunities for strengthen-
ing the special identity and self-organization of communities adjacent to the riverbanks
(EMU 2010).
The other option concerns the direction of the main river flow southward through the
estuary of the Haringvliet. With this approach the whole Rotterdam region would be
included in an extended Randstad dike ring, and the Nieuwe Waterweg closed with locks
or dams. This option creates a radically new relation between a protected and urbanized
area at the north of the Haringvliet and a “wilder” natural area at the south, where nature
development as well as large-scale port development could take place. The potential
effects of this solution are shown in the design project Blauw Bloed (Blue Blood,
Figure 20), a winning entry in a 2008 design competition (Eo Wijers Stichting 2008).
Because of the new condition of a controlled water level in the urban river area, new
opportunities would arise for the development of water-oriented urban areas in the city
port areas. Simultaneously, the delta area south of the Rotterdam region could be opened
for new estuarine dynamics. Also, the port of Rotterdam would be concentrated in areas
outside the new flood-defense wall.
The second fundamental question concerns reconsideration of the strong difference
between the polders behind the dikes and the outer dike areas. Research into this option
resulted in the designs of Figures 21 and 22 (also a TU Delft student project). Figure 21
shows a proposal to use the lowest parts of the polders as temporary storage areas for
river water in times of urgency. Figure 22 is a proposal to concentrate this approach in
Figure 23. Reinforcing ‘fortress New Orleans’: Initiatives of the USACE, state of the art 2011.
Source: US Army Corps of Engineers.
Figure 24. Mississippi river delta , proposed new situation (map by authors, after Coastal
Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana 2012).
the edges of the polders as new gradients between open water and protected land.
Both studies aim to create new conditions for the substratum layer of the delta, inter-
weaving river flows and sedimentation patterns again with the reclaimed land. Soil subsi-
dence would be stopped and new natural areas could be developed, with possibilities for
new types of urban environments (EMU 2009, 2011).
These design experiments show that both fundamental questions have strong implica-
tions at the national, regional, and local scales. Research by design means that proposals
which start with an approach at the large scale should be considered fully regarding the
consequences and possibilities at the local scale, and vice versa. In design, just as in deci-
sion making, an open approach is necessary in order to find the solutions which are most
satisfactory at the local as well as at the regional and national scales. The necessity of
this approach is taken seriously by the Delta program, which commissioned seven design
teams to develop different approaches concerning the mentioned fundamental questions,
and to show their implications at the different scales. The results of these designs will be
subjects of public debate in local communities, regional authorities, and central
government. The debate is in process as of this writing.
5. The Mississippi River delta: a new future for New Orleans

The flood of 2005 accelerated debate on the necessity of change in the management of
the Mississippi River delta in relation to a strategy of spatial development of cities and
urban settlements. This change concerns a fundamental reconsideration of the relation-
ships among the three layers of substratum, networks, and occupation patterns. This
Figure 25. Dutch Dialogues: New Orleans with vascular water management network, outfall
canals as central urban arteries.
reconsideration concerns three elements: first, reconsideration of the flood-defense system

of New Orleans, in order to create safer conditions for urban development and for a
closer relationship between the city and the delta landscape; second, halting the decay of
the wetlands, in view of their role as a natural buffer between open sea and urbanized
areas, and of their environmental and ecological importance; and third, improvement of
the drainage system in the Greater New Orleans area, with special attention to the
threefold role of the outfall canals in New Orleans (as essential elements in the drainage
system, as open water bodies with flood defenses, and as corridors in the urban system).
The remarkable situation of New Orleans is that reconsideration of these three
elements is taking place at the local and regional scales, but not at the national scale.
At the national scale, the USACE maintains a policy focusing on enhancing “Fortress
New Orleans” as a protected urban area within a wild delta area (USACE 2010). This
policy includes the reinforcing of existing floodwalls, the construction of storm-surge bar-
riers in the mouths of the outfall canals, and the construction of large-scale storm-surge
barriers in the industrial canals on the east side of the city of New Orleans (Figure 23).
Figure 26. Outfall canal New Orleans. Top: existing situation. Bottom: impression of future
situation.
At the regional scale, the state of Louisiana initiated reconsideration of the main river
flow of the Mississippi. After a 1927 flood, a spillway policy was developed which
successfully prevented New Orleans from flooding. Until now, these spillways have been
used only in times of extreme floods. More frequent use of the spillways and introducing
bypasses for the Mississippi River around Greater New Orleans might have a double
effect. First, there would be an input of sediments to the wetlands, slowing the process of
erosion of the wetlands. The importance of restoration of the natural supply of sediments
from the river to the wetlands has been addressed by scientists (Day et al. 2007; Gram-
ling 2012), by the US National Wetlands Research Center (Barras 2006), and by NGOs
like American Wetlands (American Wetlands). Restoration of sediment transport into the
wetlands will contribute to a return of the wetlands as an area important for nature and
wildlife, as well as for the protection of the city against the power of floods and hurri-
canes (Barras 2006; Day 2007; Gramling 2012). Figure 24 shows the possible impact of
this spillway approach to the repair of the wetlands.
Second, using the spillways in a structural way could result in the redundancy of the
levees along the Mississippi River. This would create the possibility of a new balance of
urban densities in the urban territory: more urbanization with higher densities alongside
the river, with a restoration of the public character of the riverfront, and less urbanization
with more space for water in the lowlands near Lake Pontchartrain.
At the local scale, citizens of the city of New Orleans took their own initiative to
reconsider the urban drainage system. This element is the main issue which was
addressed by the Dutch-American workshops, the Dutch Dialogues (Meyer, Waggoner
and Morris, 2009), and which has become a call for an “integrated and comprehensive
water management strategy” issued by the Greater New Orleans Regional Economic Alli-
ance and implemented by a consortium of the participants in the Dutch Dialogues (Dutch
Dialogues website). The main ambition of this strategy is to change the existing drainage
infrastructure to a new “vascular” surface-water system which will prevent ongoing subsi-
dence and store rainwater during heavy rainstorms. The introduction of this new system
could also contribute to an improvement of the spatial structure of the urban fabric. Next
to the integration of surface water in public spaces like boulevards and parks and in
private parcels, the transformation of the outfall canals would play a key role in this strat-
egy. Instead of floodwall-lined corridors separating the urban districts, which are oriented
with their backs to the canals, the floodwalls would be torn down and the canals trans-
formed into attractive public spaces (Figure 25). This important improvement to the spa-
tial structure of the city has become possible because of the construction of storm-surge
barriers in the mouths of the canals by the USACE. The outfall canals themselves could
be reorganized as central public parks, unifying instead of separating the adjacent districts
(Figure 26).
It seems obvious to combine this strategy with the initiatives of the state of Louisiana
to restore the wetlands, which would result in a new situation for New Orleans, becoming
more a part of the delta landscape instead of an exception to it. But this option is difficult
to discuss at the moment. The dominating policy of the USACE and established interests
of the port companies to the west of New Orleans (taken together, the second-largest port
in the US) prevent serious consideration of this option. However, an elaboration with
research by design and a confrontation with future scenarios, comparable with the Dutch
experiments, might show that this option can deliver an attractive perspective with respect
to all these different requirements: river management, urban development, port develop-
ment, and the environmental quality of the delta.
6. Discussion and conclusions

With the analysis of the deltas of the Mississippi River and of the Rhine, Meuse, and
Scheldt Rivers as complex, layered, and dynamic systems, we have shown that this
approach contributes substantially to a better understanding of spatial processes in these
deltas and to discussion of what is possible, desirable, and undesirable in relation to the
design, engineering, and planning processes in these delta areas. By using the complex
layered systems approach in a method of design research, it becomes clear what the
essence is of the “regime” of the system in different periods, and why a regime comes to
its end and needs a transition to another regime. This approach shows that the dynamics
of the urbanizing delta are to be found in the complex and changing interrelations of the
different layers and the impact of interventions on this process. It shows especially that
developments in the infrastructure layer play a crucial role in the system’s transition from
the one regime to another.
The fundamental problems in creating a sustainable relationship among the different
layers of the system are the differences in time as well as in scale of the changes in the
different layers.
Concerning the difference in time, the layer of occupation patterns is strongly deter-
mined by societal developments, which are relatively fast and very difficult to predict –
in spite of the many attempts of planners and designers to define the future. Ten years
ago nobody was able to predict the financial and economic crisis which now significantly
influences spatial and real estate developments. The layer of the substratum is strongly
determined by soil and water conditions and by the climate, which are changing rela-
tively slowly. In between, the layer of networks influences and has to take account of
both processes: the fast social processes and the slow natural processes.
During the twentieth century, planning and design in delta areas became dominated
by the idea that it was possible to determine all three layers simultaneously. However, the
only layer which has been developed more or less according to the original plans and
designs, and which is still maintained, is the layer of the hydraulic networks. These net-
works substantially influenced the occupation layer as well as the substratum layer, but in
a different way from that originally foreseen. Also, in the present situation the network
layer forms the core of our technical system for influencing and manipulating the natural
and urban conditions and their changing relationships.
We have showed that the two delta areas are very different from each other – not only
in terms of landscape, climate, and the influence of rivers and sea, but also in terms of
urbanization patterns. Nevertheless, we can see some important similarities concerning
the present problems and possible design solutions: a recovery of the “self-organization”
power of the substratum layer and the occupation layer is important in both deltas for the
long term – for the repair of the ecosystems in the deltas, as well as for improved safety,
and for the creation of new conditions for attractive urban patterns which are oriented to
and related to water structures. This emphasis on the self-organization of the delta can be
regarded as the essence of the development of a sustainable urban delta.
The main conclusion is that the key to the development of a sustainable urban delta
is careful reconsideration and redesign of the infrastructure layer. The (technical) interac-
tion between the layers is especially important because here we can intervene strategically
in order to set conditions for sustainable spatial development. This means that urban
designers, urban planners, landscape architects, environmental designers, and ecologists
should be aware of this meaning of hydraulic infrastructure and should find a way to
build fruitful communication and knowledge exchange with hydraulic engineers and insti-
tutions. It also means that hydraulic engineers should be aware of the potential meaning
of hydraulic systems for the quality and structure of urban patterns, landscapes, and eco-
systems. Despite all the differences between the two deltas, this necessity of communica-
tion and the integration of different domains is equally crucial for both the Mississippi
River delta and the Dutch delta.
Communication and integration are especially necessary in order to relate large-scale
interventions with small-scale opportunities. Surprisingly, the two cases exhibit two very
different “methods” in this process. In the Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt delta it is the Dutch
national delta program which took the initiative for research by design in order to start a
public debate on the most adequate approach. In the Mississippi River delta, the local
initiative of New Orleans citizens most directly addresses the need for an integrated
approach of different disciplines and of different scales. In both cases the final result is
still uncertain.
For both the Dutch delta and the Mississippi River delta it is possible to define
different options for the future approach to the infrastructural systems. In both cases, each
option can be tested concerning the effects on the substratum layer, as well as concerning
the conditions for the developments in the layer of occupation. By applying this method,
the effects of new interventions in one layer on the other layers can be shown. This
method can play a role in discussion of proposed options for interventions in delta areas
in the academic, professional, political, and public arenas.
Acknowledgements
The authors want to acknowledge the collaboration of the institutions who made available their
images: Joan Hoal H3 Studio, Dick Sellenraad Aeroview, Gemeente Archief Rotterdam, Perry-
Castañeda Library Map Collection, City Planning Department Rotterdam, Eo Wijers Stichting.
Notes on contributors
Han Meyer is professor urban design at the Department of Urbanism, Faculty of Architecture of
the Delft University of Technology. His research focus is on the fundaments of the discipline of
urban design and on urbanism in delta areas. He is (co)author of a number of books such as City
and Port (Utrecht: International Books, 1999), Atlas of the Dutch Urban Block (Bussum: Thoth
2005), Atlas of Dutch Water Cities (Amsterdam: SUN, 2005), Dutch Dialogues: New Orleans-
Netherlands. Common Challenges in Urbanized Deltas (Amsterdam: SUN 2009), Delta Urbanism:
The Netherlands (Chicago: American Planning Association, 2010).
Steffen Nijhuis is Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture at the Department of Urbanism,

Faculty of Architecture of the Delft University of Technology. His Ph.D.-research, entitled GIS in
landscape design research, focuses on the application of Geographic Information Science in
landscape architecture research and design. He is (co)author of various publications such as:
Composing landscapes (Munchen: Birkhauser, 2008), The polder atlas of the Netherlands
(Bussum: Thoth, 2009), Delta Urbanism: The Netherlands (Chicago: American Planning
Association, 2010), Exploring the visual landscape (Amsterdam: IOS press, 2011).
References
American Wetlands. http://www.americaswetland.com/.
Barras, J. A. 2006. Land Area Changes in Coastal Louisiana after the 2005 Hurricanes. Lafayette,
LA: National Wetlands Research Center.
Barry J. M. 1997. Rising Tide. The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and How It Changed
America. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Batty, M. 2005. Cities and Complexity. Understanding Cities with Cellular Automata, Agent Based
Models and Fractals. Cambridge (Mass): MIT Press.
Bird, E. 2008. Coastal Geomorphology. An Introduction. 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley &
Sons.
Bosch, A., and W. van der Ham. 1998. Twee Eeuwen Rijkswaterstaat (1798–1998). Zaltbommel:
Europese Bibliotheek.
Bradshaw, M., and R. Weaver. 1995. Foundations of Physical Geography. Boston, MA: Wm.C.
Brown Publishers.
Bucx, T., M. Marchand, B. Makaske, and C. Van de Guchte. 2010. Comparative Assessment of the
Vulnerability and Resilience of 10 Deltas. Delft: Delta Alliance.
Buisman, J. 2011. Extreem Weer! een Canon van Weergaloze Winters & Zinderende Zomers, Hagel
& Hozen, Stormen & Watersnoden. Franeker: van Wijnen.
Burke, G. L. 1960. The Making of Dutch Towns. A Study of Urban Development from the Tenth to
Seventeenth Centuries. New York: Simmons-Boardman Publishing.
Campanella, R. 2006. Geographies of New Orleans. New Orleans: Urban Fabrics Before the
Storm.
Colten, C. E. 2005. An Unnatural Metropolis. Wresting New Orleans from Nature, Batton Rouge:
Louisiana State University Press.
Committee, Delta. 2008. Working together with Water. The Hague: Ministry of Infrastructures.
Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, et al. 1997.
“The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital.” Nature 387: 253–260.
Day John, W. Jr., Donald F. Boesch, Ellis J. Clairain, G. Paul Kemp, Shirley B. Laska, William J.
Mitsch, Kenneth Orth, et al., 2007. “Restoration of the Mississippi Delta: Lessons from Hurri-
canes Katrina and Rita” Science 315 (5819): 1679–1684.
De Bruin, D., D. Hamhuis, L. Van Nieuwenhuijze, and D. Sijmons. 1987. Ooievaar. De toekomst
van het Rivierengebied. Arnhem: Stichting Gelderse Milieufederatie.
Dutch Dialogues. http://dutchdialogues.com/.
EMU (European post-Masters of Urbanism). 2009. Delta Archipelago. Strategy and Vision for the
Rhine Scheldt Delta and Rijnmond. Delft: TU-Delft.
EMU (European post-Masters of Urbanism). 2010, Constructing the Sustainable Delta-City. The
Future of Rotterdam’s Riverfronts. Delft: TU-Delft.
EMU (European post-Masters of Urbanism). 2011. Transitional Territories. Urban Strategies for a
Dynamic Delta. Delft: TU-Delft.
Gramling, C. 2012. “Rebuilding Wetlands by Managing the Muddy Mississippi.” Science 335
(6068): 520–521.
Heeling J., V. J. Meyer and J. Westrik. 2002. Het Ontwerp van de Stadsplattegrond. De Kern van
de Stedebouw in het Perspectief van de 21ste eeuw, Deel 1. Amsterdam: SUN publishers.
Hooimeijer, F., H. Meyer, and A. Nienhuis. 2005. Atlas of Dutch Water-Cities. Amsterdam: SUN-
publishers.
Hori K., and Y. Saito. 2007. “Classification, Architecture, and Evolution of Large River Deltas.”
In Large Rivers. Geomorphology and Management, edited by A. Gupta, 75–96. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Kelman A. 2003. A River and Its City. The Nature of Landscape in New Orleans. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Kerkstra, K., and P. Vrijlandt. 1988. Het landschap van de zandgebieden. Probleemverkenning en
Oplossingsrichting. Utrecht: Staatsbosbeheer.
Lewis, Peirce F. 1976. New Orleans: The making of an urban landscape. Cambridge, MA: Ballin-
ger Publishing Company.
Louisiana Recovery Authority. 2007. Louisiana Speaks Regional Plan. New Orleans: Louisiana
Recovery Authority.
McHarg, I. 1969. Design with Nature. New York: The Natural History Press.
McLouglin, B. 1969. Urban and Regional Planning, a Systems Approach. London: Faber & Faber.
Meyer H. 1999. City and Port. Transformation of Port-Cities – London, Barcelona. New York,
Rotterdam, Utrecht: International Books.
Meyer H., D. Morris, and D. Waggonner, eds., 2009. Dutch Dialogues: New Orleans-Netherlands.
Common Challenges in Urbanized Deltas. Amsterdam: SUN Publishers.
Meyer H., I. Bobbink, and S. Nijhuis, eds. 2010. Delta Urbanism. The Netherlands. Chicago &
Washington: American Planning Association.
Nijhuis, S., and I. Bobbink. 2010. “The Dynamics of the Delta.” In Delta Urbanism. The Nether-
lands, edited by H. Meijer, I. Bobbink, and S. Nijhuis. Chicago & Washington: American Plan-
ning Association: 3–19.
Notteboom, Theo E., and J.-P. Rodrigue. 2005. “Port Regionalization: Towards a New Phase in
Port Development.” Maritime Policy and Management 32 (3): 297–313.
Notteboom B., C. Ducruet, and P. de Langen, eds. 2009. Ports in Proximity. Competition and
Coordination among Adjacent Seaports. Aldershot: Ashgate.
O’Neill K. M., 2006. Rivers by Design. State Power and the Origins of U.S. Flood Control.
Durham: Duke University Press.
Port of Rotterdam. 2011. Port Compass 2030. Port of Rotterdam: Direct the future. Start today.
Rotterdam.
Portugali, J., ed. 2000. Self-Organization and the City. Berlin: Springer.
Priemus, H., and P. Rietveld. 2009. “Climate Change, Flood Risk and Spatial Planning.” Built
Environment 35 (4): 425–431.
Reker, J., J. Vermaat, A. Van Winden, M. Eleveld, R. Janssen, W. Braakhekke, N. de Reus, and
N. Omzigt 2006. Deltas on the Move. Making Deltas Cope with the Effects of Climate Change.
Climate changes spatial planning program, Report Nr 001/2006. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.
Rijkswaterstaat, 2005. Veiligheid Nederland in kaart. Hoofdrapport Onderzoek Overstromingsrisi-
co’s, The Hague: Rijkswaterstaat.
de Roo, G., and W. Rauws. 2012. “Positioning Planning in the World of Order, Chaos and
Complexity: On Perspectives, Behaviour and Interventions in a Non-Linear Environment.” In
Complexity, Theories of Cities Have Come of Age – An Overview with Implications to Urban
Planning and Design, edited by J. Portugali, H. Meyer, and E. Stolk. Berlin: Springer.
RPD. 2001. Ruimtelijke Verkenningen 2000, het Belang van een Goede Ondergrond. Den Haag:
VROM.
Rutte, R. 2007. “Projectontwikkelen in de Zuiwestelijke Delta.” In Landschap in Ruimte en Tijd,
edited by J. Beenakker. Amsterdam: Aksant.
Saeijs, H. L. F. 2006. Turning the Tide. Essays on Dutch Ways with Water. Delft: VSSD.
Scheffer, M. 2009. Critical Transitions in Nature and Society. New Jersey: Princeton University
Press.
Schipper, P. de. 2008. De slag om de Oosterschelde. Een reconstructie van de strijd om de open
Oosterschelde. Amsterdam/Antwerp: Atlas.
Sigmund, J. P. 1989. Nederlandse Zeehavens Tussen 1500 en 1800. Amsterdam: De Bataafchse
Leeuw.
Sijmons, D., 1991. Het Casco-Concept. Een Benaderingswijze voor de Landschapsplanning.
Utrecht: Ministery of LNV.
Steenbergen, C. M., W. Reh, S. Nijhuis, and M. Pouderoijen. 2009. Polder Atlas of the
Netherlands. Pantheon of the Low Lands. Bussum: Thoth publishers.
Stuurman, R. 2009. “Subsurface Conditions for the Reconstruction of New Orleans.” In Dutch
Dialogues: New Orleans-Netherlands, Common Challenges in Urbanized Deltas, edited by H.
Meyer, D. Morris, and D. Waggonner, 41–50. Amsterdam: SUN Publishers.
Thorne, C. R., O. P. Harmar, and N. Wallerstein. 2001. Morphodynamics of the Mississippi River.
Pentagon-Report A236064. Washington, DC: Storming Media.
Upton, D. 2008. Another City, Urban Life and the New American Republic. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
USACE (US American Corps of Engineers) 2010. http://www.usace.army.mil/.
Van Buuren, M. 2003. “Ruimtelijke Concepten op Waterbasis.” In Ruimte en Water.
Planningsopgaven voor een Rode Delta, eds. M. Hidding and M. Van der Vlist, 117–138. Den
Haag (Reeks Planologie 5): Sdu uitgevers.

Van de Ven, G. P. 2004. Man-Made Lowlands, History of Water Management and Land Reclama-
tion in the Netherlands. Utrecht: Matrijs.
Van de Ven, G. P. 2008. “De Nieuwe Waterweg en het Noordzeekanaal. Een Waagstuk.” Ond-
erzoek in opdracht van de Deltacommissie.
Vos, P., and H. Weerts. 2011. Atlas van Nederland in het Holoceen. Amsterdam: Aksant.
Walker N. D. 1994. Satellite-Based Assessment of the Mississippi River Discharge Plume’s Spatial
Structure and Temporal Variability. Gulf of Mexico OCS Region: U.S. Department of the Inte-
rior – Minerals Management Service.
View publication stats

Meyer Nijhuis 2013 Deltaurbanismplanninganddesign

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Meyer Nijhuis 2013 Deltaurbanismplanninganddesign

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Delta urbanism: Planning and design in urbanized deltas - comparing the

Han Meyer Steffen Nijhuis

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The New Delta View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Urbanism: International Research

Delta urbanism: planning and design in

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2013.820210

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Delta urbanism: planning and design in urbanized deltas – comparing

Planning and design approaches in urbanized deltas are in a process of fundamental

*Corresponding authors. Email: v.j.meyer@tudelft.nl

Ó 2013 Taylor & Francis

2. The urbanized delta as a complex layered system

Figure 3. A system of systems as represented by McLoughlin.

2.2. The layers approach revisited as a complex-systems approach

3. Two different urbanized delta landscapes as examples

Table 1. Quantitative analysis of the Mississippi and Rhine Rivers.

Figure 12. Evolution of Mississippi river levees in New Orleans.

3.4. Towards a “third regime” of the urbanized delta: research by design

4. The Dutch delta: working together with water

5. The Mississippi River delta: a new future for New Orleans

reconsideration concerns three elements: ﬁrst, reconsideration of the ﬂood-defense system

6. Discussion and conclusions

Steffen Nijhuis is Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture at the Department of Urbanism,

Haag (Reeks Planologie 5): Sdu uitgevers.

View publication stats

You might also like