Attachment 0

Ref.
Ares(2020)1278696 - 29/02/2020
“NAture Insurance value: Assessment and

Demonstration”
NAIAD
SC5-09-2016 Operationalising insurance value of ecosystems

Grant Agreement nº 730497
Deliverable 5.7
Guidelines for the definition of implementation and investment
plans for adaptation
Due date of deliverable: 31/01/2020

Actual date of submission: 06/02/2020
Start date of project: 01-12-2016

Duration: 42 months
Name of partner responsible for deliverable: UNESCO IHE
Authors: Van Cauwenbergh, N., Dourojeanni, P., Mayor, B., Altamirano, M., Dartee, K., Basco-Carrera, L.,
Piton, G., Tacnet, JM., Manez, M., Lopez-Gunn, E. (2020): Guidelines for the definition of implementation
and investment plans for adaptation with nature-based solutions. EU Horizon 2020 NAIAD Project, Grant
Agreement N°730497.
Dissemination Level
PU Public
CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) X
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under grant agreement No 730497.
The opinions expressed in this document reflect only the author’s view and in no way reflect the European
Commission’s opinions. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the
information it contains.
1
D5.7 Guidelines for the definition of implementation
and investment plans for adaptation
1 Edition information
V ERSION E DITION DATE MODIFICATION W RITTEN BY CONTROLLED BY

FIRST DRAFT J UNE 2018 DEMO GUIDELINES VAN CAUWENBERGH , LOPEZ GUNN , E .,
B ASCO CARRERA , L., MAYOR, B.,
P ITON , G., MAYOR B.,
SECOND J ANUARY 2019 PAP FRAMEWORK AND V AN CAUWENBERGH , K. DARTEE , K.
DRAFT TBI RL N., DOUROJEANNI P. P ENA
T HIRD DRAFT A PRIL 2019 TIMELINE ANALYSIS AND DOUROJEANNI , P., A LTAMIRANO , M.
MODIFIED FFA V AN CAUWENBERH ,
N.
E DITION 1 DECEMBER 2019 COMPILE DRAFTS VAN CAUWENBERGH , K RAUZE, K.
N .,D OUROJEANNI , P.
EDITION 2 F EBRUARY 2020 ELABORATION READINESS V AN CAUWENBERGH

LEVELS AND SELF CHECK N.
S UBMITTED F EBRUARY 2020 F ORMAT CO
TO THE EC
Keywords: climate adaptation, implementation, nature-based solutions, participatory

planning, integrated assessment, investment readiness, institutional readiness, natural
assurance value
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 2

INDEX
Edition information ....................................................................................................................... 1

Executive summary ....................................................................................................................... 6
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 7
2 Setting the scene – where we come from and where we want to go .............................. 9
2.1 Greening risk reduction for floods and droughts with NBS .......................................... 9
2.2 Drivers and barriers to implementation of nature-based solutions ........................... 13
2.3 Readiness for operationalising and mainstreaming NBS ............................................ 15
2.3.1 Technology readiness .................................................................................................. 16
2.3.2 Institutional readiness ................................................................................................. 18
2.3.3 Investment readiness .................................................................................................. 19
2.4 Implementation and investment plans ....................................................................... 23
3 Participatory adaptive planning ...................................................................................... 25
3.1 Methods at the crossroads of strategic planning and adaptive management ........... 25
3.1.1 Planning and management frameworks in the field of WRM, DRR and CCA ............. 26
3.1.2 Role of stakeholders and models and tools for integration ........................................ 29
3.1.3 Adaptive planning and management approaches ...................................................... 30
3.2 Proposed PAP framework and steps ........................................................................... 32
3.2.1 Key elements for PAP in NBS ....................................................................................... 33
3.2.2 A capacitation process to facilitate readiness............................................................. 35
3.2.3 Adaptive planning and institutional and legal frameworks ........................................ 35
3.2.4 The role of indicators, integration and monitoring and evaluation............................ 37
4 Case study - What can we learn from implemented NBS ............................................... 39
4.1 Method ........................................................................................................................ 39
4.1.1 Identification of different types of uncertainties ........................................................ 39
4.1.2 Timeline analysis of barriers and strategies to manage uncertainties ....................... 40
4.1.3 Case studies ................................................................................................................. 40
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 3

4.2 Results ......................................................................................................................... 41

4.2.1 Example of detailed uncertainty and timeline analysis – Rotterdam case ................. 41
4.2.2 Analysis of uncertainty and their management in policies, planning and
implementation of NBS ............................................................................................................... 47
5 Lessons learned from NAIAD demos and implications for NBS uptake .......................... 50
5.1 Success factors and challenges ................................................................................... 50
5.2 Implications for NBS uptake ........................................................................................ 51
5.3 Including strategies in the modified PAP + ................................................................. 52
6 Self check for planning and implementing climate adaptation with nature based
solutions ...................................................................................................................................... 58
7 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 61
8 References ....................................................................................................................... 63
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 4

List of Figures
Figure 1 : Disciplines and approaches toward nature-based solutions and water risks ............. 10
Figure 2 : Common concerns of climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction........... 11
Figure 3 : Barriers to implementation of NBS ............................................................................ 13
Figure 4 : Technology readiness level by EU H2020 innovation chain (left) and NASA (right) ... 17
Figure 5 : Investment readiness levels ........................................................................................ 20
Figure 6 : NAS business canvas – adopted from (Mayor, 2017) ................................................. 23
Figure 7 : Five Business cases underlying implementation and investment plans ..................... 24
Figure 8 : Strategic planning phases and link to data/models and stakeholder involvement .... 28
Figure 9 : Climate-ADAPT tool ..................................................................................................... 27
Figure 10 : Adaptation Pathways (AP) Map ................................................................................ 31
Figure 11 : Participatory adaptive planning process ................................................................... 32
Figure 12 : Creation of readiness and business cases through participatory adaptive planning 34
Figure 13: Uncertainties matrix according to type, object and time frame................................ 40
Figure 14 : Timeline of NBS planning and implementation in the Rotterdam demo ................. 44
Figure 15. Frequency of uncertainty detection in policy and planning frameworks for specific
cases ............................................................................................................................................ 48
Figure 16 : Key strategies to include in the Strategic Planning Framework for NBS
implementation........................................................................................................................... 57
List of Tables
Table 1 Similarities and differences between DRR, WRP and CCA contexts............................... 11
Table 2 Uncertainty situations in the implementation of NBS in the European context ........... 13
Table 3 Drivers or enabling factors for implementation ............................................................. 14
Table 4 Key aspects of Institutional Readiness for NBS. Adapted from (Webster & Gardner, 2019)
..................................................................................................................................................... 18
Table 5 Five phases of strategic water resource planning .......................................................... 26
Table 6 Case studies analysing uncertainty management in NBS planning and
implementation........................................................................................................................... 40
Table 7 Uncertainties, barriers, success factors and strategies for readiness in Rotterdam
demo ........................................................................................................................................... 44
Table 8 Integration of key strategies to cope with uncertainty in the Strategic Planning
Framework .................................................................................................................................. 52
Table 9 Checklist of activities and related questions for participatory NBS implementation and
investment planning.................................................................................................................... 58
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 5

2 Executive summary
We develop guidelines that help to translate the integrated assessment of socio-economic and
biophysical impact of different NBS alternatives into an action plan outlining which NBS will be
implemented and how. This means it provides an operational approach to generate action plans
that include business models from NAIAD WP7 as to generate investment plans. It also includes
definition of roles and responsibilities in the implementation, which links to benefit sharing and
liabilities.
This document describes how strategies, identified for the different demos, can be translated
into a stepwise implementation and investment plan, considering the enabling environment.
Robustness, adaptation to uncertainties, cost-effectiveness analysis of the strategy and its
implementatbility under existing or projected mandates, regulatory framework and risk culture
are hereby crucial. This document focuses on how the latter aspects are introduced in the
complex setting of players with multiple views and values. By describing the planning and
implementation process from the inception phase through the definition of action plans, their
implementation and monitoring and evaluation, we position participatory and adaptive
approaches in terms of their capacity to improve technology, investment and institutional
readiness for NBS implementation.
We draw lessons from literature and in-depth analysis of a number of NAIAD demos to
understand barriers and drivers to implementation and how they can be managed. Barriers to
implementation are often linked to uncertainties in the actual risk reduction that can be
achieved and the distribution of costs, benefits and responsibilities. These uncertainties are
related to unpredictability, incomplete knowledge and ambiguity; all of which are different
natures of uncertainty. Whereas (strategic) planning approaches address variability and
incomplete knowledge, approaches to deal with ambiguity are less developed. In order to better
integrate uncertainty, planning and implementation approaches must consider all the natures
of uncertainty. Balancing the natural, technical and social uncertainties is essential for successful
management strategies. Proper identification of uncertainties in the policymaking process aids
in getting this balance right, and to raise awareness and support for policy plan.
The results and analysis of literate and demo lead to an improved participatory adaptive
planning process, that generates the needed investment, institutional and technology readiness
for the operationalising and mainstreaming of NBS.
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 6

3 Introduction
This document discusses the negotiation and formulation of action, implementaiton and
investment plans for NBS-based strategies to deal with water related risks.
The document starts in chapter 2 with an overview of approaches to planning and

implementation of NBS coming from different disciplinary domains around NBS. In addition it
links to the multiple plans and planning processes existing in the urban and river basin context;
these are considered as the target for our implementation and investment guidelines. This
chapter then establishes the myriad of drivers and mainly barriers hampering the
implementation of NBS and establishes that as these barriers as related to uncertainty,
managing uncertainty is key to sucesful NBS implementation. We then move to the concept of
readiness, understood as the ability to manage uncertainty, and define this in 3 categories:
technology, investment and institutional.
A participatory adaptive approach is mobilized to address concerns for operationalizing and

mainstreaming NBS. We test the applicability and performance of this approach based on an ex-
post analysis of NBS implementation in empirical cases. Empirical analysis shows that
uncertainties related to unpredictability in the natural system is recognized in different planning
and polices frameworks of specific contexts. However NBS uptake is hampered mainly by
uncertainties related to ‘ambiguity’ and linked to the social system, confirming results of
previous studies (Barton, 2016; Kabisch, Frantzeskaki, et al., 2016; Thorne et al., 2018). This
analysis draws insight in the use of approaches to address uncertainties and propose strategies
to cope with prevalent uncertainties.
Literature and implementation of NBS in specific cases have identified and applied diverse
strategies to overcome these uncertainties. These are subsequently described and integrated
into the Strategic Planning Framework. In total, ten (10) key strategies were identified, and
linked to six (6) specific steps of the planning framework.
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 7

The results of the first 2 parts of this document lead to the formulation of guidelines on the
adaptive participatory planning. The guidelines support the participatory process from adaptive
planning towards investment planning and implementation through increasing not only the
technology, but also investment and institutional readiness. In doing so it links to NAIAD
deliverables D7.2 (Business Canvas) and D7.3 (Financing Framework for Water Security). The
applicability of this approach is discussed in some of the DEMOs. Guidelines link to the
participatory business modellling protocol which considers procedures and main criteria used in
the public (national investment systems), private (project finance and PPP’s) and climate finance
(e.g. green bonds) spheres. Our findings acknowledge that the formulation of implementation
plans is contextualized for local conditions, but also aligned with the legal and institutional EU
context for optimal reliability. Based on a comparative of the different implementation plans in
the DEMOs, this document presents an updated planning and implementation approach. The
latter is translated into a step-by-step guide documented in D9.4 and used in the NAIAD MOOC.
BOX: How to read this deliverable?
Readers interested in the participatory creation of readiness for NBS implementation and investment
plans check following chapters
1) Chapter 2: Defining the need for I, B, TR (relation to barriers, drivers)
2) Chapter 3: Identifying existing processes in which NBS can be integrated and how they deal
with the different barriers/uncertainties (elements that will need to be combined…so this is
integrated assessment, stakeholder management, decision support and then over to
action/implementation and investment planning) – analysis of PAP
3) Chapter 5: Define the PAP process that allows to generate I, B, T readiness and link (and that
can be used in the different domains of DRR, WRM, etc)
4) Chapter 6: Self check for cities/rural areas on their I,B, T Readiness
Readers looking for a practical guideline to improve NBS implementation in their urban or river basin
context, go to chapter 6 and follow links to previous chapters where needed.
Readers interested in uncertainty analysis and relation to implementation strategies, go to chapter 4

and annex.
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 8

4 Setting the scene – where we come from and where we want to go
Recognition of the limitations of grey infrastructure have led to an increased push for NBS to
deal with several natural hazards. Different disciplines have argued for the inclusion of green
infrastructure; e.g. in natural resources management (e.g. Keesstra et al., 2018), climate
adaptation (e.g. Calliari et al., 2019; Kabisch, Stadler, et al., 2016), nature conservation (e.g.
Pontee et al., 2016) and specifically for water in flood and drought risk management (e.g.
Denjean et al., 2017; Sahani et al., 2019; Stagakis et al., 2019), which is the focus of this
document. But in spite of the general consensus on the opportunities provided by NBS in
academia and the political support that has followed (e.g. Stagakis et al., 2019) , implementation
of NBS is still lacking behind.
We need to therefore understand the different knowledge frames that are existing in the
hydrological risk world, as this can guide the identification of common ground between the
disciplines and their associated institutions, budgets and protocols. Understanding existing
processes on hydrological risk reduction is key as to map where and how to insert NBS into
existing implementation and investment planning procedures.
This section introduces the different approaches to hydrological risk, identifies existing drivers
and barriers to the integration of NBS in climate adaptation and investment plans and finally
identifies key strategies to operationalize NBS.
4.1 Greening risk reduction for floods and droughts with NBS
Floods and droughts are managed across the accross scales (urban, river basin, national, EU)
through a myriad of plans and regulatory frameworks. As our objective is to green risk reduction
for floods and droughts with NBS, and our strategy to do so is to develop climate adaptation
implementation and investment plans. For these plans to gain traction, we have to understand
the background of the existing plans and planning processes first. This section aims to introduce
the
NAIAD mainly deals with issues coming from two worlds of hydrological risk addressed: Disaster
Risk Reduction (DRR) and Water resources management (WRM). Whereas both approaches look
at nature-based solutions to reduce hydrological risk, the larger framework in which NBS are
used differs. Understanding these differences matters, as each of the disciplines/paradigms
comes with its own set of institutions and procedures to guide decisions and investment.
Budgets are often earmarked for one or the other type of intervention and we are trying to
identify not only difference but also common goals to assure NBS can be used in a broader
context / to guide the inclusion of NBS in climate adaptation plans.
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 9

Main differences between DRM and WRM are in its objectives and scope as shown in Figure 1.
The distinction is important as it has implications on how problems are assessed and which kinds
of solution are proposed. The main aspects of DRM and WRM is given in continuation and
further elaborated in the next sections.
Local-municipal, Ex-ante approach

Ex-post focus
national (strategic planning) Mitigation and
(response)
Natural disasters adaptation
Multiple objectives
Water
Disaster Risk
Resources
Management
Management
DRM
WRM
Maximize socio- Identify and evaluate

Reduce loss Preparedness economic welfare alternatives
Recovery Reduce vulnerability
Figure 1 : Disciplines and approaches toward nature-based solutions and water risks.
Disaster risk management (DRM) is a framework used to respond to disasters at local, municipal,
and national level. The goals of DRM are to; (1) reduce or avoid losses from hazards, (2) assure
prompt assistance to victims, and (3) achieve rapid and effective recovery1. In order to achieve
these goals, DRM follows a process of four steps; which go from mitigation, preparedness and
response to recovery. DRM utilizes disaster risk reduction (DRR) and combines its principles of
mitigation and preparedness with a management perspective through an added principle of
response. DRM includes the management of risk and disaster, and is a framework to establish
policy and administrative mechanisms related to emergency response2.
Whereas the majority of the DRR activities focuses on response, and therefore presents a mainly
ex-post approach, strategic planning typical in water management is a forward looking or ex-
ante approach that aims at creating a strategic position in the future. This is based on
understanding of current challenges and identification of pathways and action plans to
overcome them. In water systems, strategic planning, or simply planning aims at reaching a
number of objectives linked to the social, economic and environmental dimensions of the water
system:
1
https://www.gdrc.org/uem/disasters/1-dm_cycle.html
2
https://www.unisdr.org/files/3769_ai504e00.pdf
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 10

• The main purpose is to ensure the sustainable exploitation of the water resources in
support of the production of goods and services required to meet national and regional
demand objectives;
• Systematic procedure to generate a synthesis of information in such a manner to gain
insight into the nature and consequences of possible management strategies;
• In a risk context, planning will target the present and future risks and develop strategies
for both mitigation and adaptation.
Figure 2 : Common concerns of climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction.
Adopted from EU guidelines on developing adaptation strategies (European Commission, 2013)
Table 1 Similarities and differences between DRR, WRP and CCA contexts
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) Water Resources Planning Climate change adaptation
(WRP) (CCA)
Differences
Mainly ex-post approach with Purely ex-ante, forward looking Combined responsive and
response and recovery as core approach, with combination of preventive action with both
activities development and adaptation short and long term effects of
actions CC
Objectives is reduction of disaster Objectives are multiple (and
risk possibly competing)
Minimizing risk at its core Maximizing benefits of the
water resources system at its
core
Similarities
Involving stakeholders
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 11

Use of models and tools to understand the water system

Cross-sectoral activities requiring understanding of institutional and stakeholder environment
Cyclical exercise
Look at combination of adaptation and mitigation Focus on adaptation
Main proposed benefit
Reduced risk Socio-economic welfare with Resilience
tripple bottom line
Key regulatory frameworks – focus on EU and global (Rica M. et al., 2018)
Sendai framework EU Water Framework Directive, Paris agreement, EU Adaptation
EU Floods Directive, River basin strategy, City-level climate
management plans, Drought adaptation plans
management plans, EU Urban
Water Agenda 2030
EU Strategy on Green Infrastructure, Nature Action Plan, Biodiversity Strategy to 2020
Common Agricultural Policy and Rural Development Plans
EU Urban Agenda3, Sustainable Development Goals
Table 1 summarizes main similarities and differences between the approaches. The differences
are mainly related to the scope, objectives and anticipating character (or not) of the approach.
Because of these differences in the objectives and approach between DRR and WRM, their
coordination is challenging. (Priscoli & Stakhiv, 2015) for example report major challenges in the
US federal system at both the watershed and metropolitan scale.
However, both approaches have in common that they deal with complex decisions and involve
multiple methods and actors. The latter is managed through the use of stake-holders'
engagement processes, use of multiple value capturing and method integration. Whereas these
are common approaches, large part of the integration approach in NBS will be coloured by the
context of a given case study. In terms of contexts, we distinguish:
• Time (e.g. rapid response to pulses vs strategic planning to address pressures

and drivers) and spatial scales;
• Decision-making contexts;
• Thematic focus;
• Institutional and business or investment readiness levels.
3In line with with the UN New Urban Agenda approved in Habitat II and supported by member states and cities in
Covenant of Mayors.
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 12

4.2 Drivers and barriers to implementation of nature-based solutions

Scholars such as (M Altamirano et al., 2013; Barton, 2016; Eggermont et al., 2015; Guerrin, 2014;
Holstead et al., 2016; Kabisch, Stadler, et al., 2016; Matthews et al., 2015; O’Donnell et al., 2017;
Sakic, 2015; Thorne et al., 2018; Waylen et al., 2017) establish a wide range of drivers and
barriers that enable of impede the implementation, uptake and mainstreaming of these sort of
solutions. Roughly, the barriers can be categorized into 4 groups: (1) institutional and regulatory
barriers, (2) absence of clear evaluation of NBS performance, (3) funding/financing barriers and
(4) knowledge and acceptance barriers (see Figure 3).
Figure 3 : Barriers to implementation of NBS
The set of barriers are intimately related to uncertainties, which can be classified in three major
themes: barriers related to uncertainties in the natural and technical system and those related
political-legal, economic/financial and institutional classification, or social system. Table 2
summarizes a numerous and diverse list of 27 uncertainties identified through relating barriers
in 8 peer reviewed journals to uncertainties. For a full list of barriers, we refer to (Dourojeanni,
2019) Annex 8.
Table 2 Uncertainty situations in the implementation of NBS in the European context
Unpredictability Incomplete knowledge Multiple knowledge frames

Natural - Impacts of - Insufficient data - Different standpoint and views over the
system natural hazards availability problem
and climate - Lack of knowledge
change
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 13

Technical - Future - Gaps in evidence based - Resistance to new concepts / Discomfort

system maintenance and (novelty of proposed with new approaches.
service techniques) - Pre-existing ways of tackling problems.
requirements. - Maintaining infrastructure Inertia/path-dependency at municipality level
performance and service - Silo thinking/lack of cooperation between
provision. sectors/departments
Social - Population - Lack of legal - Differing goals and interests of individual and
system growth. requirements, planning institutions.
- Urban and processes and appraisal - Resistance formal/informal institutional
economic systems. arrangements to change
development - Capital costs (of NBS) - - Complexities of co-ordination and
- Future land use Identifying and communication. Challenges in collaboration.
- Future quantifying/monetizing the - Leadership, political will and vision for Blue-
governance. multiple benefits. Green
- Behaviours and - Unknown responsibilities - Lack of institutional legitimacy to support
culture. and ownership. project
- Future funding - Establishing who benefits - Disconnection between short-term actions
availability. versus who pays. and long-term goals (NBS usually are long
term). Short-term pressures impede long-
term planning
- Valorisation of NBS solution
Adopted from (Dourojeanni, 2019, p. 58)
Drivers or enabling factors are fewer in number, but require a special consideration since they
are often linked to successful implementation of NBS. The following table presents a number of
drivers and strategies found in the literature, classified according to the system.
Table 3 Drivers or enabling factors for implementation
Technical drivers or strategies Social drivers or strategies
Definition of public and private sector roles Valuation and funding F

Locally-grown' solutions Public/private partnerships
Addressing biodiversity and social benefits Availability of funding earmarked for environmental projects
Communication/knowledge transfer Improving quality of communication and collaboration I
Pilot projects as examples of what can be done Identifying champions and leaders / Dedicated individuals
Cooperation with researchers Inclusive, integrated approaches
Valorising and exploiting existing tacit and Previous experiences with flooding or drought
expert knowledge
Identifying conflicting representations through Establishing and practicing collaborative governance approaches
a sociological study National environmental goals LI
Incorporation of related concepts into municipal planning policy
Engaged people P
Stakeholder involvement PI
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 14

F: Financial; I: Institutional; LI: legal/institutional; P: political; PI: political/institutional - Adapted from (Dourojeanni,
2019, p. 59)
Most of the enabling factors in Table 3 are set to tackle the barriers linked to the political, legal,
institutional and financial systems. Literature indicates that barriers about the social
implications of implementing NBS appear to be more relevant (van den Hoek, 2014), and are
found to have more influence in the decision making (Bosomworth & Gaillard, 2019;
Frantzeskaki, 2019; Thorne et al., 2018).
4.3 Readiness for operationalising and mainstreaming NBS

To capitalize on the above mentioned drivers of NBS implementation and overcome barriers
hampering their integration in climate adaptation plans, management of uncertainty is key. This
is echoed by (Nesshöver et al., 2017) who identify following key elements and drivers needed to
operationalize NBS and ensure its integration in climate adaptation plans:
 Dealing with uncertainty and complexity (setting the adaptive management approach
as an example)
 Ensuring the involvement of multiple stakeholders
 Ensuring the sound use of multi- and transdisciplinary knowledge
 Developing common understanding of multifunctional solutions, trade-offs and natural
adaptation
 Evaluate and monitor for mutual learning
More recently, a multiple case study analysis of NBS implementation in European cities by
(Frantzeskaki, 2019) highlights that NBS require multiple disciplines for their design, diversity (of
settings) for co-creation and recognition of the place-based transformative potential of NBS as
‘superior’ to grey infrastructure. The absence of clearly designed co-creative or participatory
planning processes as therefore seen as a bottleneck to achieve NBS implementation. Part of
the seven lessons drawn from the multiple case analysis, relate to all stages of proof-of-concept
and implementation of nature-based solutions in cities. These lessons are:
 experimenting with NBS requires trust in the local government and in experimentation
process itself
 co-creation of NBS requires diversity and learning from social innovation
 NBS require collaborative governance
 an inclusive narrative of mission for NBS can enable integration to many urban
agendas
 design NBS so as to learn and replicate them on the long-term
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 15

To manage uncertainty, overcome barriers and capitalize on existing drivers, NAIAD proposes
an improved planning process that leads to implementation and investment planning. Rather
than framing the process as one of overcoming barriers, we present it as a process to increase
readiness for the implementation of NBS. We further divide the readiness into 3 types:
- Technology readiness – linked to barriers on knowledge and performance (generation

of evidence) + inclusion of certain benefits such as aesthetic appeal in the design–
related to setting up an appropriate level of experimentation in a context of trust
- Institutional readiness – linked to barriers on acceptance, trust, handling uncertainty
and ambiguity, multi-functional solutions and coordination, as well as innovative
regulartory frameworks to deal with the inherent uncertainty of NBS and potential
liabilities
- Investment readiness – linked to capturing multiple values and valorizing the multiple
benefits in public-private-people partnerships
The following chapter describes the planning process that allows to generate this readiness,
focusing on Institutional and Investment readiness, while assuring that monitoring &
evaluation are contributing to building the evidence on TR.
4.3.1 Technology readiness

Technology readiness levels were developed by NASA in the 1970’s, as they needed a common
way to describe the maturity and state of flight readiness of their technology projects. NASA
invented a 9-step description of how ready a technology project was. They then mapped those
9-levels to a thermometer.
TRL is widely used in industrial sectors that want to gauge the development and prospective
market value of innovative developments as well as by potential investors or users of the
technology as it gives an indication of utility of reliability (Webster & Gardner, 2019). But TRL
are also used by funding agencies, as a guideline for researchers, developers and innovators to
de-risking their technology toward higher TRL. For example, the EU H2020 programme works
with TRL to describe the progress along the innovation chain (Figure 4).
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 16

Figure 4 : Technology readiness level by EU H2020 innovation chain (left) and NASA (right).
In the framework of the NAIAD project and the development of guidelines to mainstream NBS,
we define technology not only as the NBS itself, its bio-physical components and interaction
with the natural environment (and more specifically the hydrological cycle and related risks).
We also consider technology as a body of knowledge, therefore including aspects of acceptance,
as well as general perception of the multi-functional performance of NBS by diverse stakeholder
groups. This wider interpretation is in analogy with (Arthur, 2010), who considers 3 types of
technology: means to an end (‘things’ such as a phone), bodies of technology (such as
nanotechnology) and technology as a whole (where it’s said a culture possesses a certain
collective that can be called its technology).
In spite of using the latter and broader interpretation of technology, several barriers to NBS
implementation and mainstreaming remain unaddressed by the TRL concept. This is mainly
related to understanding the ‘natural and social’ factors that shape the development and
adoption of technology, and on how technologies are being “enabled, embraced, marginilised
or side-lined” (Webster & Gardner, 2019). In their work on aligning technology and institutional
readiness to the adoption of innovation in regenerative medicine, (Webster & Gardner, 2019)
suggest institutional readiness as a way to balance the supply-focused TRL concept with a better
understadning of the user-side perspecitve. They position IR development in the broader
conversation on science-policy processes and STS that step away from a stationary view on
readiness. Instead, innovations (such as NBS) are now re-configured by users as part of their
normalisation or mainstreaming. The innovative and multi-functional character of NBS do not
only calll for instiutional readiness to facilitate the needed cross-departmental and cross-
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 17

sectoral cooperation, it also requires investment readiness that secures the return-on-
investment to each of the actors involved (e.g. Droste et al., 2017).
We therefore include concepts of institutional readiness as well as investment readiness to

discuss and illustrate how cities and regions can increase their readiness and overcome barriers
to the integration of NBS in their climate adaptation plans.
4.3.2 Institutional readiness

We define the concept of Institutional Readiness (IR) following (Webster & Gardner, 2019) as a
combination of 8 categories that have to be fulfilled for readiness to be achieved: (1) demand
for technology, (2) strategic focus, (3) relative need and benefit of the new technology, (4)
(E)valuation processes in place, (5) IR enacted through specific enablers within and outside of
the organization, (6) receptivity, (7) adoptive capacity and (8) sustainability (see Table 4).
Originally developed in the field of philanthropic studies to understand which features and
characteristics are more likely to Improve the ‘success’ of an organisation (Barnes & R.E., 2006),
(Webster & Gardner, 2019) applied the concept to the field of regenerative medicine. In turn,
we use it for the mainstreaming of NBS as a novel technology/approach in climate adaptation.
Table 4 Key aspects of Institutional Readiness for NBS. Adapted from (Webster & Gardner, 2019)
IR Category Operationally defined

Demand for NBS Institution has key actors engaging with and identifying new NBS that meet
field/organizational needs in CCA, DRR and WRP
Strategic focus Institution has identified potential NBS and determined their relationship with existing
technologies and grey infrastructure to achieve water-related security and resilience
Relative need and benefit of Institution has key actors assessing the capacity to take-on and develop new technologies
NBS within current and future contexts
(E)valuation processes in Assessment of the (diverse) values of NBS are undertaken and shared
place
IR enacted through specific Key individuals/groups are formally tasked to enable adoption especially in regards to
enablers within and outside of meeting standards and regulatory requirements
the organization
Receptivity Novel institutional structures are created, in anticipation of expected
challenges/affordances presented by NBS. These structures reflect the need to retrain
staff, the construction of new innovation spaces and new technology platforms, etc.
Adoptive capacity NBS aligns with institutional priorities and organisational capacities. Initial problems and
unanticipated challenges/affordances are identified an seen to be manageable
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 18

Sustainability NBS is routinely produced/used/assessed within institution. Current institutional

arrangements and resources are sufficient for routine and ongoing production,
assessment and deployment
The eight categories shown in Table 4 are not sequential such as TRL; one is not necessarily
above the other. Rather, the categories may have different levels of maturity. Another key
aspect that differences IR and TRL is that implementation of novel technologies requires trial
and error, rather than solely the incorporation of an already working technology; adoption is via
normalisation rather than through the assessment of maturity of technology; and the materiality
of the technology is co-produced (Webster & Gardner, 2019). In essence institutional readiness
is about “marshalling trans-organisational expertise and participation in helping to ‘ready’
diverse actors to undertake more workable, doable technological innovation.” (ibid.)
To design successful implementation and investment plans for NBS, one key element is to
channel the multi-functional character of NBS toward single-objective institutions and their
regulatory and funding/financing frameworks. Limitations then exist in terms of regulatory
frameworks and budgets being earmarked for one specific target (e.g. Droste et al., 2017). This
means that in order to successfully integrate NBS in water related risk strategies, substantial
coordination across municipal or sectoral organizations is needed.
4.3.3 Investment readiness

The lack of funding/financing and bankeable projects is seen as one of the major barriers to
mainstreaming of NBS for climate adapation and resilience (e.g. Droste et al., 2017; Nesshöver
et al., 2017). We draw a parallel with the general world of research and innovation where
upscaling of innovative ideas and technologies is often hampered by a lack of investors appetite.
In a recent review of investment readiness for SMEs by (Fellnhofer, 2016), the concept of
‘investment ready’ refers to the capability of entrepreneurs or SME's managers to be aware of
the precise needs of investors and to be able to reply through adequate information and
preparation. A high level of trustworthiness determines the investor's decision-making process
to finance the SME. Low levels of investment readiness have been linked to a mis-match
between the concerns of investors at the supply side (who want to see a clear business case and
thrustwhorty return-on-investment) and the understanding of the investment rationale by
proposers of innovativion (such as NBS). Depending on whether the investor is public or private
the ROI will be improved profits (private sector) or improved productivity and service (public
sector) (Williams & Williams, 2004). We adopt the concept of investment readiness levels for
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 19

the mainstreaming of NBS by collectives of public authorities and private partners as it regards
the need for investment in novel technology/concepts for a market in expansion.
The important difference between investment readiness for SME and natural assurance
schemes (NAS) proposed by NAIAD, is that there is no fixed owner of the NBS-based NAS that
investment is sought for, nor a pre-defined legal entity that investors are familiar with. To date,
NBS projects and NAS are ‘owned’ by ad-hoc multi-stakeholder platforms composed by different
regional or municipal departments, private companies, community organizations and NGOs.
This means that investment readiness is intrinsically and narrowly linked to institutional
readiness, with for one the need to have a legal entity receiving the investment at the demand
side.
To make the concept of investment

readiness less dependent on intuitive
assessment by investors reported by
(Fellnhofer, 2016), we use the definition by
(Blank, 2013). He presents 8 levels of
investment readiness in analogy to NASA’s
TRL as a simple and visual way to share a
common understanding of investment
readiness status. We use this more tangible
definition of IvRL for the purpose of our
guidelines and discuss how - while being
developed for tech-based start-ups - it can
be used for consortia or PPP promoting
NBS-based NAS as well.
Figure 5 : Investment readiness levels
Adopted from (Blank, 2013), MVP = minimum viable

product, Canvas = business canvas
As can be seen in the different IVRL, the development of the business canvas is at the core of
generating investment readiness; the right side of the canvas is needed to overcome lower levels
of IvR whereas the left side of the canvas fosters the higher IvR levels needed to mobilize the
funds and finance. In this case the business canvas is the one developed by (Mayor et al., 2017,
see Figure 6).
The modified business canvas for NBS-based Natural Assurance Schemes or NAS by (Mayor,
2017) that underlies our investment readiness levels, addresses the growing interest of leaders
from philantropy, development and finance to mobilise capital to effectively solve social and
environmental issues (Höchstädter & Scheck, 2015). The idea of impact investing was founded
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 20

around 2007 as a hybrid concept, combining elements from traditional financial decision making
with philanthropic objectives linked to society and environment (Kvande Due and Lund, 2018).
Indeed, as shown in Figure 6, several of the boxes in the original canvas by (Osterwalder &
Pigneur, 2010) have been adapted to reflect the social and environmental nature of NAS, both
in terms of performance, the multiple actors involved and the wide range of (co-)benefits related
to ecosystem services generated. For a detailed description of the NAS canvas, we refer to
(Mayor, 2017).
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 21

H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 22

Figure 6 : NAS business canvas – adopted from (Mayor, 2017)
4.4 Implementation and investment plans

High levels of technology, institutional and invesetment readiness go hand in hand with the
development of concrete implementation and investment plans for NBS and are the pre-
condition for successful implementation and mainstreaming.
The implementation (or action) plan for NBS will typicall include following elements:
- Definition of responsibilities in implementation (Procurement, Construction, Quality

control, Monitoring and Evaluation)
- A timeline for the execution of prioritized NBS projects based on targeted end users
- A specification of multiple levels of services, captured by key performance indicators,
their assessment and activation of contingency/adaptive measures when these are not
reached
- Identification of funding sources and link to investment plan
- Definition of rules and responsibilities in contracting and liabilities
The investment plan for NBS is related to 5 Business cases in NAIAD’s “Handbook for the
implementation of nature-based solutions for water security” by (Altamirano et al., 2020).
Together they presents the justification of why the proposed investment optimizes the use of
scarce public and/or private funds.
Both plans are related to a set of evidence that shows that the proposed investment(s) in NBS
(and the way they will be procured) will optimize Value for Money. This evidence is generated
through the 5 Business cases: strategic, economic, management, commercial and financial
(Figure 7).
The (1) strategic case establishes the need for change; (2) the economic business case- shows
why the “preferred strategy” proposed will optimize the use of scarce public funds; (3) the
commercial business case establishes how to organize the program so as to make its
implementation achievable and attractive for market players (large companies as well as SMEs);
(4) the financial business case shows whether the program is affordable for the local and
national economy; and finally the (5) management business case establishes how these
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 23

concepts and the entire program can be delivered successfully and by whom (Public, Private,
Community players).
Figure 7 : Five Business cases underlying implementation and investment plans

– adopted from (Altamirano et al., 2020)
Some important considerations:
- The business cases are gradually built up throughout the planning process discussed in
the next chapter and will be further discussed there.
- The previous section presents the 3 readiness categories that are used to guide
implementing agents across scales to readiness for NBS mainstreaming. It is important
to note that while each of the readiness levels can be assessed (and increased)
separately, they have to jointly reach a high level for a NBS project to reach maturity. In
addition the non-technical readiness levels overlap; notably when looking at the need
of clear institutional and management arrangements in both investment and
institutional readiness.
- In these guidelines we put the emphasis on the process that allows cities and river basin
managers to generate the necessary readiness to develop implementation and
investment plans for NBS. We then relate this to the creation of the 5 business cases
that underly the investment case for blended finance of the NBS.
- The importance of a participatory process to increase readiness levels for innovation in
climate adaptation was acknowledged through the recent creation of the EU City Facility
in February 2020. The EUCF is a joint initiative by the EC and convenant of Mayors and
functions as a seed fund to allow the process of planning/capacityation/generation of
readiness for invesetment in energy conservation as part of climate adaptation efforts.
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 24

5 Participatory adaptive planning

Chapter 2 highlights the different approaches when dealing with (natural and water-related)
disasters and the existing urban and river basin planning processes they relate to. It also
highlights the multiple uncertainties related to socio-ecological systems and interventions
aiming at reducing risk. These uncertainties function as a barrier to the integration of NBS in
plans dealing with climate change and natural hazards. It is therefore important to carefully
design processes that manage these uncertainties. In this chapter we discuss a modified
strategic planning process that integrates a number of approaches to manage uncertainties. Two
key elements of the proposed approach are (1) its adaptive character, (2) its participatory and
integrated nature.
This section starts with an introduction of the rationale for the shift to participatory and adaptive
approaches. It then presents the key approaches currently used by the different fields in NBS for
hydrometerological risk reduction, focusing on WRM, DRR and CCA. Subsequently, more details
are given on the specificities of participation and adaptive planning and management. The role
of methods and tools, extensively described in NAIAD deliverable 5.4 (Tacnet et al., 2019)is
situated here. Finally this section presents the proposed NAIAD approach, highlighting its key
elements.
5.1 Methods at the crossroads of strategic planning and adaptive management

Planning presents a shift info us from ex-post reponse to ex-ante mitigation and/or adaptation.
Deep uncertainty over the future of socio-ecological systems under climate and other change,
as well as over the impact of NBS and their functioning, calls for adaptive capacity of the planning
and management itself.
In early calls for adaptive policy making, (Walker et al., 2001) argued: “When there are many
plausible scenarios for the future, it may well be impossible to construct any single static policy
that will perform well in all of them. It is likely, however, that the uncertainties that confront
planners will be resolved over the course of time by new information. Thus, policies should be
adaptive - devised not to be optimal for a best estimate future, but robust across a range of
plausible futures. Such policies should combine actions that are time urgent with those that make
important commitments to shape the future and those that preserve needed flexibility for the
future.” The adaptive planning and management will be further discussed in the next sections.
In addition, the multi-functional character of NBS requires cross-sectoral, cross-departmental

planning procedures where different vested interests may be balanced. This calls for
participatory processes involving different stakeholders, but also for planning for multiple
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 25

objectives as is typical in strategic water and natural resources planning as discussed in the
following section.
5.1.1 Planning and management frameworks in the field of WRM, DRR and CCA
At the basis of planning, lies a structured analysis of the system, aiming to (1) identify and
formulate feasible management actions; and (2) generate and present quantitative information
to enable better decisions on proposed actions for e.g. water resources management, disaster
risk reduction and climate change adaptation.
The Strategic planning framework approach is a forward looking or ex-ante approach that aims
at creating a strategic position for the future (Loucks & van Beek, 2017). This is based on the
understanding of current challenges in the identification of measures and action plans to
overcome them. In water systems, strategic planning aims at achieving numerous objectives
going to the socio-economic and environmental dimensions of the water system. It provides a
systematic procedure to generate a synthesis of information so we gain insights into the nature
and consequences of possible management strategies. Table 5 and Figure 9 present the five
phases of strategic water resource planning.
Table 5 Five phases of strategic water resource planning
Inception phase: Defines the boundary conditions and establishes the objectives and limitations are
specified. This requires the involvement of all decision makers, setting the circumstances
under which a solution or plan is created for the decision makers to discuss. The analysis
includes a thorough investigation into the existing policy mechanisms, institutional
frameworks, problems, measures of success and the available data. In this stage, the
stakeholder process is started and scope and boundary conditions of the planning are
defined.
Situation Analysis This phase makes the baseline assessment of the natural, socio-eoomic and institutional
system. It aims at a thorough understanding of problems (and potential solutions) through
an integrated system analysis. Focuses in data collection and modelling. Using the
conditions and frameworks from the previous step, the natural resource, socio-economic
and administrative system are developed. These systems components are usually
captioned in models, in close collaboration with stakeholders to ensure same system
understandings. A structured analysis is needed to identify present and future problems,
which provide the necessary tools to identify measures to address these problems. E.g.
scenario analysis is made, often linked to socioeconomic developments and climate
change, to prepare for problems that may arise in the future.
Strategy Building: Promising measures combines into strategies, which are assessed in detail. The results are
a set of selected strategies that are presented to decision-makers (in the following section,
the adaptive management analysis for the selection and evaluation of alternative strategies
will be further discussed).
Action Planning: After the selection of the preferred strategy, this phase focuses on its translation to
concrete actions. The involvement of various stakeholders needs careful planning and
coordination. Action planning is not intended to be static or prescriptive, leaving room for
decision-makers to further discuss in relation to their own responsibilities. This last point is
key, as this stage should assign concrete actions. This phase includes the funding and
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 26

budgetary requirements for implementation. It also includes detailed descriptions of roles

and responsibilities throughout the project implementation and operation. Finally risks,
liabilities and contract modalities are defined in this step.
Implementation: This phase focuses on the implementation of the strategies selected according to the action
plan devised. It includes the actual creation of construction measures and its subsequent
monitoring and evaluation.
These stages are not limited to strategic water resources planning. They mirror more general
problem structuring planning methods and are similar to the steps followed by the climate-
adapt tool proposed by the EU Climate adaptation community (Prutsch et al., 2014) shown in
Figure 8.
Figure 8 : Climate-ADAPT tool
Adopted from https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu
Important to note that the planning is a cyclical process and that the role of monitoring and
evaluation is crucial in adjusting the strategies and objectives as uncertainties manifest
themselves and knowledge and values evolve. Likewise, the stragegic framework by ( Loucks &
van Beek, 2017) is not a rigid framework, nor intend to be a logical sequence of steps for decision
making. Rather, the decision process is iterative, involving feedbacks from earlier steps when
changing conditions emerge. It focuses on continuous improvement (Warmink et al., 2017).
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 27

I – Inception
Setting-up
Objectives
Stakeholder
and Criteria
Process
II – Situation analysis
Natural Socio-
Resource Economic
s system system
Institu-
tional
system
Scenario
Stakeholders and Decision-makers / Capacity Building

Analysis
Problem
description
Potential Solutions
Data
and
III – Strategy Building (modelling)
Tools
Alternative
Strategies
Preferred
Strategy
IV – Action planning Governance mode

Financing framework
Funding strategy
Financing strategy
Procurement strategy
Action Plan
V– Implementation Monitoring construction

and service provision
Project delivery
(Implementation)
Evaluation
Figure 9 : Strategic planning phases and link to data/models and stakeholder involvement
(Source: Adapted from Loucks and Van Beek, 2017 - https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319442327 )
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 28

5.1.2 Role of stakeholders and models and tools for integration
The participatory nature of the proposed planning approach addresses broad societal and
scientific calls for democratizing decision making in disaster risk reduction (e.g. Okada et al.,
2018; Samaddar et al., 2017), climate adaptation (Cvitanovic et al., 2019) and natural resources
management (e.g. Grimble & Wellard, 1997; Van Cauwenbergh et al., 2018) in general. This is
particularly in the light of deep uncertainty on potentially disrupting socio-ecological dynamics.
This section briefly introduces the why and how of participation in the proposed framework.
Throughout the entire planning process involvement of stakeholders is key to a number of

issues. First of all it helps to assure a good understanding of the often complex issues and to
handle trade-offs in a societal acceptable way. But stakeholder involvement is also necessary to
anticipate and adapt to a number of implementation issues to avoid producing results that those
potentially impacted will not support. Stakeholder involvement brings both knowledge and
preferences to the planning process—a process that typically will need to find suitable
compromises among all decision-makers and stakeholders if a consensus is to be reached.
Choices about managing water and other natural resources trade-offs involve more than
hydrology and economics. They involve people’s values, ethics, and priorities that have evolved
and been embedded in societies over thousands of years (Priscoli, 2004). International policies
such as the Dublin principles and Aarhus convention drive governments around the world to
involvement of stakeholders as an explicit operationalization of involving people’s values, ethics
and priorities and in line with principles of democracy and transparency. These principles have
been adopted by the main policies and institutional frameworks in the fields of DRR, CCA and
NRM, such as the ones presented in Table 1 Similarities and differences between DRR, WRP and
CCA contexts
Understanding of complex issues is also aided through the use of data and modelling in the
situation analysis and strategy building steps. Different models are used in this step to cover the
socio-economic, political and bio-physical dynamics in the water system to be planned. These
dynamics are captured in indicators that provide comparable metrics between alternative
options. As different indicators are expressed indifferent units, and not all indicators can be
monitized toward a cost-benefit assessment, multi-criteria analysis is proposed to generate
integrated assessment of alternative strategies. For the models and tools to be useful in the
process and foster the readiness that is needed, participatory approaches with sufficient
attention to capacity building and fostering social learning are needed.
Integration of models, modelling with stakeholders (participatory collaborative modelling) and

issues around uncertainty are discussed in Deliverabe 5.4 (Tacnet et al., 2019).
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 29

5.1.3 Adaptive planning and management approaches

Given the inherent uncertainty of NBS and their implementation, NAIAD proposes an adaptive
planning and management approach. This is to provide sufficient flexibility on the risk-benefit
transfers while providing needed investment security. This section explains the concept of
adaptive management and its planning. In a next section we explain how this can be applied in
the NAIAD approach.
Adaptive governance and planning emerged following an increased awareness of the complexity
of socio-ecological systems and the uncertainties bound to this intricacy (Pahl-Wostl, 2007).
Planning and management approaches have slowly shifted away from traditional – “options
aimed at accurate predictions and short term system equilibrium through top-down policies of
control and exclusion” (Dreiss et al. 2016; National Research Council, 2004) to adaptive
management approaches – “flexible decision making that can be adjusted in the face of
uncertainties as outcomes from management actions and other events become better
understood”(Agrawal, 2002; Dreiss et al., 2016). Literature indicates the benefits of this
approach to cope with uncertainties through increased system resilience (Nesshöver et al.,
2015, p. 1221) benefiting and supporting NBS implementation.
A 2013 review of planning approaches for adaptation under deep uncertainty reveals following
guiding principles for the design of sustainable adaptive: “explore a wide variety of relevant
uncertainties, connect short-term targets to long-term goals over time, commit to short-term
actions while keeping options open, and continuously monitor the world and take actions if
necessary” (Walker et al., 2013). One particular approach, the dynamic adaptive policy pathways
was devised by (Haasnoot et al., 2013) and describes the process of iterative cycles of exploring
alternative actions or pathways and their impact on the socio-ecological system. The proposed
Adaptive Pathways (AP) approach explores how alternative actions perform under a range of
changing conditions considering two criteria: robustness (insensitive to changing conditions) and
and flexibility (easily adaptable). The AP approach presents a sequence of possible actions, which
which are assessed continuously once implemented. AP links handling of uncertainty to ‘tipping
points’; moments where new conditions establish and the objectives set are no longer met (
Figure 10). Through scenario thinking, AP envisions a number of tipping points at which actions
become ineffective, too costly, technically unfeasible, or socially undesirable. Anticipating
potential tipping points throughout the uncertain implementation phase of the plan, AP then
also predetermines a number of alternative courses of actions. These actions would guarantee
a performant response to the system under the new conditions. In order to decide a strategy,
the costs, benefits and co-benefits of the constituting actions need to be taken into account.
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 30

When a tipping point is reached, the pre-defined alternative actions and measures are
considered.
Figure 10 : Adaptation Pathways (AP) Map
Adopted from (M Haasnoot et al., 2012; D.P. Loucks & van Beek, 2017)
By exploring the alternative actions or “pathways”, you can minimize future regrets by taking to
account costs and consequences of each pathway. This tool allows planners to “combine a
portfolio of measures, in order to assess their timely use under different scenarios”(Zandvoort
et al., 2018, p. 190). Robust strategies (e.g. dams, dikes) may appear to be more costly, but
implementation of flexible strategies may prove to be more expensive at the end. However, the
inclusion of co-benefits in the assessment, may facilitate the selection of strategies that include
more flexible actions and measures such as NBS. It is important to note that the AP approach
has a particular view of uncertainty, as it assumes that uncertainty can be reduced over time
(Zandvoort et al., 2018). This is related to the fact that the AP work discussed by (Walker et al.,
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 31

2013) was developed mainly with large-scale grey infrastructure for flood protection in mind
and does not explicitly connect to the concept of resilience, instead focus is on robust decision
making and uncertainties.
Recent analysis of climate change adaptation planning by (Bosomworth & Gaillard, 2019) shows
that the development of AP planning has focused on the understanding of tipping points and
preparation of alternative courses of action therefore. “It focused much less on the parallel need
for engaging with the challenge of ambiguity—that there are diverse, sometimes contending,
knowledges, values, and stakes involved.”
However, we consider that the AP approach can be modified to manage uncertainties

throughout the planning and implementation process. In this way it will provide the needed
flexibility to handle uncertainty related to NBS and the changing climate, while providing needed
investment security by pre-defining alternative courses of actions as will be discussed in the next
section. We aim to address this by making the process explicitely participatory in all its steps.
5.2 Proposed PAP framework and steps
To address the issues that were outlined above, and with the objective of overcoming barriers
to the integration of NBS in adaptation planning, we propose a participatory and adaptive
planning and implementation process. The framework outlining this process is shown in the
adaptive participatory framework in Figure 11
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 32

Figure 11 : Participatory adaptive planning process

adapted from (Loucks & van Beek, 2017) and (Haasnoot et al., 2013)
This PAP differs from the strategic planning approach discussed in the previous section (see
Table 5 and Figure 9)Figure 9 : Strategic planning phases and link to data/models and
stakeholder involvement in its strategy building and action planning steps. In PAP these steps
explicitly include series of alternative actions related to tipping points in the uncertain future
and the assessment procedures. In other words, the strategy building step where alternative
actions are assessed no longer aims to identify or negotiate and settle on ‘the preferred’ strategy
that then translates into an elaborated action plan. Instead, scenario analysis includes an
assessment of not only vulnerabilities but also tipping points (system or action thresholds) at
which an action no longer performs satisfactorily in relation to objectives.
Introducing flexibility in the planning of NBS for climate adaptation through the PAP framework
and the resulting implementation and investment plans, needs: careful facilitation and
capacitation, trusted evidence, clear definition of indicators and their monitoring as well as an
appropriate regulatory framework. These key elements are discussed in the following sections.
5.2.1 Key elements for PAP in NBS

At the core of the PAP approach is the recognition that for NBS to be integrated in climate
adaptation plans, the process needs to address not only technology readiness, but institutional
and investment readiness as well. To increase the readiness level of innovative technology such
as NBS, uncertainty needs to be managed. Given that the uncertainty is not only related to
variability and incomplete knowledge, but also to ambiguity in the diverse stakeholders
involved, management of and agreement on information transfer between parties is key.
Those elemens are structurally addressed in all the different steps of the process as to assure
the level of readiness is high enough when implementation and investement plans are
formulated. Uncertainty management is not limited to the steps of adaptive action planning and
implementation using adaptive pathways, it starts in the early phases of the planning by
recognizing ambiguity in problem framing, design of scenarios and potential measures, but also
in the interpretation of evidence (either from models or empirical evidence) in the integrated
assessment. .
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 33

TECHNOLOGY
READINESS 4 8
INVESTMENT Right side Left side Metrics

READINESS 1 canvas canvas 9
8
INSTITUTIONAL Demand for Strategic (E)Valuation Evaluation

processes in Enacted through
READINESS NBS focus Relative need & processes in
place enablers
benefit NBS place
PARTICIPATORY
ADAPTIVE Situation Strategy Action
PLANNING Inception Implementation
analysis building planning
PROCESS
Stakeholder engagement and capacity building
BUSINESS STRATEGIC
CASES
ECONOMIC
COMMERCIAL
FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT
Figure 12 : Creation of readiness and business cases through participatory adaptive planning
As discussed in chapter 2 and illustrated in Figure 12, Investment readiness is generated through
the generation of the NAS business canvas (Mayor, 2017) and can be translated in investment
plans built around the 5 business cases for water security proposed by (Altamirano et al., 2020).
When analysing the different boxes of the business canvas, it becomes clear how investment
readiness is generated in the planning process; from the start of the inception phase, throughout
situation analysis, strategy building and action planning. A clear understanding of the monitoring
and evaluation as well as how different parties of the public, private, and communities are
related to it, is further increasing investment readiness. Likewise, institutional readiness is
generated throughout the entire planning process.
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 34

5.2.2 A capacitation process to facilitate readiness

Capacity and readiness building is key for the creation of an implementable NBS Given the
multitude of stakeholders involved project and their multiple objectives and interests as well as
knowledge frameworks.
Different levels of capacitation will relate to different targets for the readiness (individual, group
and institutional). With the participatory process in PAP we are mainly aming is at capacity
building at group level (the multi-stakeholder platform) and at the institutional level (which
directly relates to instiutitonal readiness).
A conscience use of information and involvement of stakeholders in the framing of problems,

possible solutions and metrics to assess e.g. effectiveness will facilitate learning throughout the
different steps of the planning process. This means that consultants or experts involved in the
evidence generation and communication around NBS have to pay specific attention to the needs
of their audience when communicating information. This is also an essential part of managing
uncertainty in the form of ambiguity and avoids potential conflicts in the development of NBS-
based adaptation plans.
The importance of capacity building on NBS across organizations and througouth the entire
planning process is illustrated by (Droste et al., 2017). “The idea of NBS entails approaches where
natural ecosystems may provide services that man-made alternatives cannot supply as cheaply
or effectively. Since an engineer in the waste-water department may not be aware of nature-
based alternatives, integrated planning procedures are required, where feasible and
economically viable NBS are streamlined into the various urban planning procedures. However,
until now the concept of ecosystem services is not or only implicitly taken into account in planning
processes (Hansen et al. 2015).”
It is however important to note that stakeholders are not only recipients of capacity building,
they also build capacity either of other stakeholders or the very experts/managers mandating
the planning process. Different actors in the process can improve the system understanding, the
enabling environments, the problem definition, the potential solutions, how to assess
preferences and impacts, which implementation arrangements are feasible and how to monitor
and adapt when changes in performance are assessed.
5.2.3 Adaptive planning and institutional and legal frameworks

In this section we address the institutional readiness from the legal and regulatory perspective,
engaging with limitations highlighted by (Droste et al., 2017) and the issue of liabilities for green
infrastructure raised by (Denjean et al., 2017). NAIAD did not enter in regulatory and legal
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 35

arrangements beyond the ones created in the multi-stakeholder processes in the 9 Demos. To
go beyond the ad-hoc arrangements, we point at a number of developments in legal frameworks
for socio-ecological systems.
In connection to legal frameworks, (Garmestani & Benson, 2013) discuss resilience-based

governance of socio-ecological systems and suggest “expansive legal reform by identifying the
principles of reflexive law as a possible mechanism for achieving a shift to resilience-based
governance and leveraging cross-scale dynamics to provide resilience-based responses to
increasingly challenging environmental conditions”. This is relevant for the (adaptive)
participatory planning framework and how we can make it useful for NBS implementation,
taking into account the specificities of NBS (one of them being that NBS can increase resilience
of the systems they are implemented in). The PAP framework needs to be adaptive enough to
handle unknowns of climate/other drivers and NBS performance itself, while giving enough
certainty or procedural robustness for stakeholders involved to go through with implementation
of an uncertain measure in an uncertain context.
This resonates with what (Garmestani & Benson, 2013) link to reflexive law in an applied context:
“In an applied context, Nolon (2009:8) suggests that reflexive law might serve as a means by
which a legal system “imposes procedural, rather than substantive requirements that are
designed to trigger reflexive responses among those implicated in the problem that the
proscribed features are designed to solve.” (Garmestani & Benson, 2013)
One of the key issues discussed in the NAIAD demos and the multiple expert discussions, is the
one of liabilities. Whereas performance and liabilities are generally trusted for traditional grey
infrastructure (e.g. concrete dykes), (Denjean et al., 2017) mention limited trust and potential
concerns on liabilities linked to the actual protection granted by NBS in case of natural disasters.
This calls for clear frameworks or agreements that link the relative role of NBS
design/construction vs external changes such as climate change to NBS performance levels are
therefore needed. In that sense we refer to (West & Schultz, 2015) on adaptive governance, use
of different types of knowledge and harm and causation in their work on diffuse contamination
and the role of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Their work is relevant for the
discussion on NBS related liabilities, as we can translate findings on diffuse contamination to
NBS performance levels and flood/drought risk reduction.
“In cases of alleged environmental harm, the ECtHR initially determines whether the degree of
harm suffered is enough to constitute a violation of the human right in question, and then
whether a causal relationship exists between the harm suffered by the applicant and the alleged
harmful activity undertaken or permitted by the state. The court has recognized that
environmental harm will be to some degree relative rather than absolute, and therefore, that
establishing harm requires mediation between the subjectivity of individual environmental
experience, including social and environmental context, and medical assessment. In practice,
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 36

scientific evidence of direct causality is rarely established, in part because of the inherent
uncertainties of science and in part because of the subjectivities of environmental harm, and the
court has consequently been willing to infer causality from a sufficiently high, but loosely defined,
level of risk.” (West & Schultz, 2015)
To fill the knowledge gap on how to overcome legal constraints hampering adaptive
management that can promote NBS mainstreaming (Frohlich et al., 2018) analyse peer-reviewed
literature on the relationship between adaptive management and law in relation to social-
ecological systems. They highlight the need for innovative ways to balance the flexibility in
adaptive planning and management with the stability demanded by law. Caution should be
applied when improving legal flexibility as to avoid room for political and economic interferences
that could compromise the very intention of the institutional arrangements. Finally (Cosens et
al., 2018) calls for the specific approach to adaptive governance to be tailored to the contextual
setting in which it is employed.
5.2.4 The role of indicators, integration and monitoring and evaluation

Indicators are at the core of the proposed PAP framework to generate readiness for NBS
mainstreaming in CCA. In this section we discuss their link with the implementation and
investment plans.
As discussed earlier, evidence of effectiveness of NBS/technology and its implementation

arrangements are key to assure readiness for implementation and investment. NBS (Investment)
Effectiveness needs to be unpacked; effective for what/who/when etc? Whether something is
effective or not, depends on the objectives. These objectives can be systemic (maintaining
ecosystem services, e.g. EKLIPSE) or specific (e.g. reducing flood risk, making climate-proof
investment). Indicators are driven by objectives, depending on the objectives, different criteria
and related indicators will be used to assess the effectiveness of the NBS
interventions/investment. EU Policy is a source of common objectives across member states and
the NBS considered for implementation. However, municipalities and regions can have different
objectives. NAIAD overall considers following objectives 1) hydrological risk reduction, 2)
compliance with EU/national/local policy, 3) local needs/objectives (sometimes addressed as
co-benefits). It can also be argued that the creation of implementable NAS and bankable
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 37

interventions and socio-institutionally viable business models is an objective of its own. The
indicators related to these different objectives are different
A combination of bio-physical and socio-economic indicators are used in the integrated

assessment that provides the strategic case needed for the first technology, investment and
institutional readiness levels. Indeed, as specific, measurable, attributable, reliable and time-
bound indication of performance by NBS vs other alternatives, they allow comparison of
different options with pre-defined, trusted and agreed-upon metrics.
Integration can be done by cost-benefit and multi-criteria analysis. As shown by (Graveline et

al., 2017), co-benefits are often needed to provide a compelling business case for NBS as
reduced damage cost do not outweigh the costs of the intervention. The information on co-
benefits of NBS then becomes a decisive element to create favourable conditions for
investmenet for example across different departements (Droste et al., 2017). Each department
can highlight its own (co-)benefit and relate the results of the advanced cost-benefit analysis or
multi-criteria analysis to its own return-on-investment. The definition of departmental or
sectoral objectives early in the planning process and the relation to indicators that are used not
only in the assessment but also in monitoring and evaluation is key for these convincing
elements to be generated.
It is however important to consider that in practice, indicators are used for for different
purposes; 1) to compare and select most effective/performing measures ex-ante (mostly from
a system-viewpoint), 2) to assess effectiveness ex-post (in monitoring and evaluation) and allow
for changes in an adaptive governance context, 3) to certify/formalize investment and risk-
benefit transfers as key performance indicators. The indicators used for these different
purposes are not necessarily the same and efforts are needed to streamline some indicators
across EU, involving key implementation and funding partners such as insurance sector and EIB.
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 38

6 Case study - What can we learn from implemented NBS

This section is an extract of the 2019 study by Dourojeanni. The full version of this study can be
found in annex of the present document.
To test the potential of the PAP framework, we analysed the planning and implementation of
proxies to the NAIAD DEMOS. From the ex-post analyses of succeeded and failed
implementation of NBS, we draw further lessons for the planning framework and ensuing
guideliens to develop implementation and investment plans to integrate NBS in climate
adaptation plans.
6.1 Method
We used a number of case studies that were far advanced in the implementation of nature-
based solutions or had already concluded the NBS implementation. The analysis method
consists of 2 parts:
- Analysis of barriers and uncertainties

- Analysis of process and steps in the planning and implementation of the NBS
These methods are briefly introduced in the following sections. For full detail of the methods on
data collection, processing and analysis we refer to (Dourojeanni, 2019) (see annex).
6.1.1 Identification of different types of uncertainties

Based on classification of uncertainties by (Dourojeanni, 2019) an analysis of 3 types of
uncertainties (upredictability, incomplete knowledge and multiple knowledge frames) are
positioned in the technical, social and natural system as well as located on the timeframe of the
project life cycle (Figure 13).
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 39

Figure 13: Uncertainties matrix according to type, object and time frame
(source: Dourojeanni, 2019)
6.1.2 Timeline analysis of barriers and strategies to manage uncertainties

The timeline shows the following elements: how planning approach was used, barriers
encountered, key success factors, how information (indicaotrs/tools) was used and by whom,
how elements of implementation plan and business models are already prepared in early stages
of planning.
6.1.3 Case studies

The cases for this study were selected based on 2 conditions: (1) Cases with different main
objectives and outcomes sought and (2) Cases at different end results (implemented, not
implemented)
Three NAIAD (or related) cases selected: the Medina del Campo aquifer “El Carracillo” (Spain).
Rotterdam (The Netherlands), and Copenhagen (Denmark) (Table 6
Table 6 Case studies analysing uncertainty management in NBS planning and implementation
Location Name of the Urban/rural Main objective and Implementation

project outcome
Objective of drought
Spangen, Rotterdam Urban Water
Urban and flood risk Implemented
(The Netherlands) Buffer
reduction.
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 40

Medina del Campo Managed

Objective of drought Partially
aquifer “El Carracillo” Aquifer Rural
risk reduction. implemented
(Spain) Recharge
River Objective of flood Not yet
Copenhagen (Denmark) Urban
Restoration risk reduction. implemented
6.2 Results
This section presents an example of results obtained by the analysis method described above.
For full results, we refer to (Dourojeanni, 2019, see annex)
6.2.1 Example of detailed uncertainty and timeline analysis – Rotterdam case

Figure 14 : Timeline of NBS planning and implementation in the Rotterdam demoFigure 14
presents the timeline of the events in the project planning process of the Urban Water Buffer,
by using document analysis and interviews. The timeline if divided in main categories
established in the strategic planning framework discussed in chapter 2 and 3.
In its inception, various programs and plans of individuals and organizations set the diagnosis
and objectives for future development in the area. Several ideas were studied in this phase.
Parallel to the municipality analysis of the current situation of water resources in Rotterdam and
definition of climate adaptation objectives in policies and plans (1), a local community initiative
emerged in the neighbourhood for the increase of green spaces in the area (2). This request was
corresponded by the department of space development within the municipality, which had clear
urban development goals mainly due to the growing population and requirements for the spatial
development in the area (Field Factors, 2018). This initial ideas were put together by the Urban
Water Buffer consortium, headed by the KWR Water Cycle Institute, with the necessity of
climate proofing the city.
Interviewees point to two key aspects that achieved the integration of these objectives: the
existence of an innovation fund of the ‘Top Consortia for knowledge and innovation Scheme’
(TKI) of the Ministry of Economic Affairs - a public-private consortium that aims to conduct user-
oriented research that supports the implementation of innovative technologies - and the
presence of key players engaging with new technologies while meeting their own organizational
needs. The latter was key as to converge the different objectives of stakeholders and
organizations at initial stages of the process. (3) The TKI fund supported the process of
implementation, especially through studies for the location, the preliminary design and
estimated costs of the installation of the system (Field Factors, 2018). The integration of climate
adaptation measures and inclusion of various stakeholders and parties was supported by TKI
consortium, the Municipality of Rotterdam and water board Hoogheemraadschap van Delfland
(4). Prior to the idea of the project itself, various stakeholders shared concerns related to the
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 41

uncertainty of the response of an innovative solution and the funding mechanisms for long term
maintenance. The difficulty lay in integrating all these aspects in the design. In this stage,
organisational needs were put together through (5) the alignment of the expectations of
citizens, decision makers, and market through instances of dialogical learning and collaborative
decision making. In this sense, this work involved a creative and innovative process, which
attempts against the standard procedures and implementation paths of traditional solutions and
technologies. In this aspect, interviews pointed out to yet another barrier linked to uncertainty:
the unknown process of implementation.
(6) In addition to the inclusion of parties intending to fulfil the objectives of increase in retention
capacity (Municipality and Delfland water board) and increase in green areas (Municipality and
community), two other important actors were also involved. (7) Sparta Rotterdam stadium
integration to the project happened at an early stage through an invitation of the local
community. Since extreme rainfall provoked a series of problems for the stadium football pitch,
they saw an opportunity of reducing the level of risk from flooding and at the same time add a
new source of water for irrigating their football pitch. On the other hand, (8) (9) Evides
Waterbedrijf incorporation to this process also happened at an early stage, mainly triggered by
the presence of the Water Board in the initial stages of the process., which saw the opportunity
that this retained water could be incorporated into their system (10). The decision to follow a
business as usual planning process (11), or to push for an innovative solution that involves a
cross sectorial process was a difficult choice. (12) This was particularly a concern from within the
municipality, where departments had their own strategies. This behaviour is described by other
stakeholder as silo thinking and proved to be a barrier as no prior experience of implementation
of this sort of solutions was in place. This called out for an innovative process to be able to create
the communication channels and working grounds. In order for this to happen, two important
factors had to converge: (i) the TKI fund was key at assessing the capacity to take-on and develop
this new technology, and (ii) the commitment of a key actor formally tasked to enable the
adoption of the technology, especially in regards to meeting standards and procedures. Finally,
the construction of the UWB Spangen took place in 2018, but as we could evidence, the process
of implementation was not without any difficulties. Barriers and uncertainties were present
along the process of implementation, but they were managed by a different set of strategies
along the process, integrated in organizational setups.
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 42

H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 43

Figure 14 : Timeline of NBS planning and implementation in the Rotterdam demo
Table 7 Uncertainties, barriers, success factors and strategies for readiness in Rotterdam demo
Dimensi Coping strategies /

Uncertainty Key barrier Key success factor
on4 New strategies (in bold)
(1) What will be the response of Uncertainty of Test site to make visible the - Develop solutions robust to multiple possible futures.
T the NBS in events of high and low innovative compliance of the innovative NBS - Scalable projects to monitor and prove the technology in the largest range of
precipitation? solution toward different climatic scenarios variations
(2) What will be the response of Different Co-design and involvement of the - Take mitigation measures to reduce the negative effects of undesirable scenarios
Unpredictability
the community towards the problems/inte community. - Involvement of all stakeholders in instances of decision making.
solution? rests from
stakeholders
(3) Will the NBS comply with Uncertainty of Test site to make visible the - Install short cycles of monitoring and adjustment
S current and future regulations innovative compliance to current water quality - Pilot project for continuous learning and adaptation
regarding water quality? solution regulations
(4) What will be the future Unpredictable Not considered - Apply temporary adaptation strategies
economic and social conditions? future
scenarios
Knowledge
Uncertainty of Test site for monitoring and data More data gathering and research to complete lack of knowledge
Incomplet
(5) Will the solution respond to innovative gathering - Pilot project for continuous learning and adaptation
T
e
the current situation? solution
4
T: Technical. N: Natural. S: Social.
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 44

-Different - Champion, agent of change. - Use of expert opinion.

problems/inte - Involvement of stakeholders by - Improve communication between scientist and decision makers.
(6) Are all the stakeholders rests from other parties - Identification of new stakeholders, not only those that are directly related with
considered or involved in the stakeholders the project.
decision making process? - Improve communication and coordination between scientists’ decision makers
and stakeholders.
- Agent of change, mediator, and coordinator for the engagement.
Information - Attention to the interactions of the - More data gathering and research to complete lacking knowledge
silo knowledge, defined by the project - Dialogical learning and shared involvement
(7) Unknown holders of responsibilities - Identify the information channels and coordination among stakeholders
information and lack of (considering formal and informal channels)
information sharing (Silos) - Clear responsibilities, adding information sharing responsibilities
S
- Move from incomplete knowledge to multiple frames of knowledge, and accept
that stakeholders look at the situation from a different perspective.
Uncertainty of - Champion, agent of change. - Expert opinions
How should we implement this innovative - Objectives set in the Water Resilient - More data gathering and research to complete lacking knowledge
kind of solution? solution Rotterdam program - Involvement of key stakeholder (agent of change) to guide the implementation.
- Expert opinion to guide the process (in all stages)
Uncertainty of TKI project support and funding for - More data gathering and research to complete lacking knowledge.
How should this solution should
innovative the process of implementation. - Funds to support the process of implementation.
be financed?)
solution
Uncertainty of Workshop for identification of co- - Expert opinion
What are the co-benefits of this
innovative benefits - More data gathering and research to complete lacking knowledge
solution?
solution - Identification of co-benefits (should be in earlier stages).
Is the problem not enough green Different - Identification of problem and - Persuasive communication - Integration of concerns and problems of different
knowledge
Multiple
frames
areas, or hydro-meteorological problems/inte problem framing stakeholders. This is an opportunity, as it could bring up a mutual-gain type of
N
risk? rests from negotiation.
stakeholders
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 45

Should we build infrastructure as Uncertainty of Raising awareness and co-design - Persuasive Communication
we usually do (business as usual) innovative - Rather than focusing on different frames, gather information that can alter the
T
or pursue innovation (NBS)? solution nature of the discussion. (Move from Multiple Knowledge Frames to Incomplete
(Alternative solutions) Knowledge)
What are the criteria’s to monitor Different Definition of co-benefits and - Persuasive Communication and negotiation approach
and evaluate the co-benefits? problems/inte indicators - Definition of criteria at an early stage of the process (Inception), with expert
rests from elicitation. Necessary the integration of other stakeholders (community).
stakeholders - Dialogical learning approach should be considered to select criteria and raise
S
awareness
To whom should the management Uncertainty of Clear delimitation of responsibilities - Persuasive Communication and negotiation approach.
of the NBS be transferred? innovative and tasks at an early stage, involving - Definition of responsibilities and tasks, sharing of information about mandates,
solution all stakeholders. definition of end-users and funding.
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 46

6.2.2 Analysis of uncertainty and their management in policies, planning and implementation of
NBS
Policy and planning frameworks in specific cases reveal distinct approaches in dealing with
future water related risks. The cases of UWB Spangen and River restoration consists on adaptive
policies and planning approaches in urban environments, were there are strong relations
between climate adaptation and urban infrastructure. These strategies describe a series of
actions pointed out to reduce climate impacts based on the most likely scenarios for
development. On the other hand, the policies and planning approaches of the MAR project in
“El Carracillo” focus on both urban and rural environments, following a river basin management
approach. This approach aims to set a series of measures that are monitored and evaluated in
an iterative manner.
The analysis of policy and planning frameworks in specific cases allows us to identify the key
issues detected and identified in the uncertainty matrix, and the recognition these documents
give to specific natures of uncertainties. Based on the total number of uncertainties found in the
policy and planning frameworks for each individual case, Figure 15 depicts the frequency5 of
issues signalling the presence of uncertainty according to the uncertainty matrix.
5
The frequency (%) was calculated by the number of situations found for each cell in the uncertainty matrix, multiplied by 100, and
then divided by the total number uncertainty situations found.
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 47

Figure 15. Frequency of uncertainty detection in policy and planning frameworks for specific cases
In spite differences in the approach taken by the policy and planning frameworks in the three
study cases, the revision signal a similar recognition of uncertainties, mainly related to the
nature of unpredictability. Considering the nature of uncertainty of the key issues identified, the
policy and planning frameworks reviewed in the context of NbS UWB Spangen evidence a strong
recognition of uncertainty from the nature of unpredictability, accounting for 91% of the total
issues identified, whereas incomplete knowledge (9%) comprises the remaining. These policies
make evident the unpredictable behaviour of the natural (59%) and social system (25%). For the
policies and planning frameworks in the NbS MAR in “El Carracillo” region, a similar trend occurs.
In total, 79% of the total issues found in the documents are situated in the nature of
unpredictability, while 21% on incomplete knowledge. The case of NbS River restoration project
is similar, but points out to a more equal identification of key issues in the policy and planning
frameworks. While the presence of key issues in unpredictability accounts for 69% of the total,
other issues signal the identification of uncertainties in the social system (32%).
Of a total of 45 key issues identified signalling the presence of uncertainty in policy and planning
frameworks, a 73% of the issues are related to unpredictability, and 13% to incomplete
knowledge and 13% to ambiguity. With respect to the system, these policies make evident the
unpredictable behaviour of the natural system (42%).
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 48

The analysis of policy and planning at European level, and in specific cases supports initial
findings in the literature, were it is argued that while attempts to address both ontological and
epistemic uncertainty are found in policy and planning frameworks, ambiguity resulting from
multiple knowledge frames has been underdeveloped (Jensen & Wu, 2016; Zandvoort et al.,
2018). It is important to highlight that this does not imply that ambiguity is not considered in the
implementation of strategies and actions. As seen in ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la
referencia. the process signals settings in the institutional context that sets the necessary stage
to represent the different frames and values, or set the mechanisms necessary to resolve
conflicts and dispute through the planning process (Brugnach et al., 2008).
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 49

7 Lessons learned from NAIAD demos and implications for NBS uptake
This chapter presents the lessons learned from NAIAD and related demos based on an ex-post
analysis of successfully implemented NBS cases. We identified how uncertainties were
overcome and which agreements were made along the planning and implementation track. This
was done by (1) listing all types of uncertainties (barriers), and identified strategies to manage
them as a way to increase readiness, (2) creating a timeline analysis with key elements for
blocking or fostering NBS implementation and link them to the steps in the planning framework.
This analysis, in combination with elements from grey and academic literature on NBS
implementation, is then used to finetune our participatory adaptive planning approach and
identify a checklist of questions
The chapter ends with a revised planning framework, positioning ten (10) key strategies to
manage uncertainy and improve readiness, linked to six (6) specific steps of the planning
framework.
7.1 Success factors and challenges

When zooming in on the Rotterdam case study, among the key success factors found are
- The alignment of key stakeholders and their objectives (in the Rotterdam demo, a
window of opportunity was created by the TKI fund and seized by the different parties
involved)
- Clearly defined project boundaries  clear objectives and responsibilities
- Commitment of key stakeholders (champions and personal ambition)
However, this case study – being in essence a pilot study – present several challenges for
upscaling:
- Absence of other pilots (uncertainty of innovation) of similar funding (such as the TKI)
- Persisting silo approach in the governing bodies (in this case municipality and water
board) jeopardizes a cross-cutting resilience programme
- Alignment of stakeholders across the different departments of the municipality
remains an issue
These findings were echoed by the other DEMOS, with stakeholder coordination, commitment
and availability of existing funding and financing schemes as most mentioned issues.This
means that further efforts have to be made to assure coordination between multiple
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 50

municipal and water authorities departments to assure institutional and investment readiness.
The importance of a participatory process to increase readiness levels for innovation in climate
adaptation was acknowledged through the recent creation of the EU City Facility in February
2020. The EUCF is a joint initiative by the EC and convenant of Mayors and functions as a seed
fund to allow the process of planning/capacityation/generation of readiness for invesetment in
energy conservation as part of climate adaptation efforts.
7.2 Implications for NBS uptake

Our results also point to some important implications for NBS uptake. For one, our detailed
DEMO analysis showed that decision support models and tools were only marginally used
during the planning and implementation process. Government actors did not rely on the
extensive cost-benefit and multi-criteria assessments that were available, focusing on policital
and institutional issues instead. This is somehow contradicting (Droste et al., 2017), who
emphasises the importance of a comprehensive assessmenet of the multi-functionality of NBS
through elaborated cost-benefit or multi-criteria asessment methods. Findings suggest that for
NBS uptake it is far more important to have willingness and commitment from the key
stakeholders. Nevertheless the need for evidence on cost-benefit ratios of the NAIAD projects
was highlighted during a mock funding pitch at the January 2020 NAIAD meeting in
Copenhagen. The repetitive feedback of experts from the private and public funding and
financing community (such as TNC, EIB, and private investors) here was that costs and benefits
of the proposed projects should be better evidenced before investors. This indicates that
importance of evidence might arise at later stages of the NBS planning process and also
toward upscaling, calling for support by above mentioned methods and tools.
Secondly, we found that co-benefits can be a driver for success when the funding is available, a
clear owner of the NBS project exists and there is a concretized level of service. In the case of
Rotterdam, the NBS’ ability to generate cheaper water supply for the sport arena nearby,
leveraged the needed support for TKI funding and ownership, with flood reduction and
recreational value as co-benefits functioning as leverage for the willingness and acceptability
of the project by other stakeholders. In cases where the added value of the NBS is not clearly
linked to an existing operator, co-benefits have to play a stronger role. This was for example
the case of the Lez demo, where spatial quality was identified as potential mobilizer of
institutional support. However more in-depth analysis is needed in all demos to see whether
co-benefits can play this role in general.
Thirdly, we made a number of observations on the aspect of integration that underlies

successful planning and implementation of NBS. Case study analysis shows a reality where
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 51

objecties and related indicators are driven by sectoral interests. This makes that what is
defined as a benefit or co-benefit depends on the viewpoint of the stakeholders involved. In
the Rotterdam case, the decision making on the NBS was defined by the leading organization
(related to mandate and funding) and the clear risk/benefit cycle (involving Evides and
Stadium) proved crucial to facilitate that decision making (see point above). The case shows
that institutional coordination is a key barrier to implementation (and that this is happening
even within the municipatility). Finally we observed that in order to mainstream the NBS,
evidence of performance across (co-) benefits is needed. Howver, little to no monitoring
incentives or interest exists.
7.3 Including strategies in the modified PAP +

In this section we propose an improved version of the PAP based on our findings in literature
and in depth case study analysis. The PAP+ includes strategies used to deal with uncertainty and
those that enabled a correct implementation of NBS. We link these strategies to the different
stages and steps in the strategic planning process.
First and foremost a prominent role is given to the stakeholder engagement and capacity
building, which we place on top of the framework (see Figure 16). Indeed, our findings confirm
the importance of managing ambiguity and in order to do so stakeholders and decision makers
play a central role. In addition, we propose a horizontal depiction of the planning process as
timeline mapping evidenced that the implementation process does not follow a sequential order
of the planning steps, and often strategies found relate to one or more of these stages. The
horizontal placement of the strategic planning framework may be of aid to represent strategies
that are conducted by stakeholders and decision makers into the different stages along the
planning process.
Table 8 descibres the different implementation strategies at the different stages of the planning
framework. Although we related the different strategies to its main planning step, it is important
to note that the implementation strategies are interrelated and can be applied to more than 1
planning step. For better understanding, we recommend to read Table 8 and Figure 16 together.
Table 8 Integration of key strategies to cope with uncertainty in the Strategic Planning Framework
Strategies set before implementation (Support of the process).
Availability of funding to support the process of implementation.
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 52

Experiences in the study cases (e.g. the TKI consortium for Rotterdam, and the KLIKOVAND and
KLIMASPRING campaign), together with the literature (Barton, 2016; Cohen-Schacham et al., 2016),
reveal that funding to support the process is key for successful implementation of NBS. According to
the literature, processes need to support institutional spaces in open and transparent governance
processes to create cross-sectoral dialogues (Raymond et al., 2017) that provide legitimacy of
knowledge amongst stakeholders (Crowe K.; Collier, M.J., 2016; Kabisch, Frantzeskaki, et al., 2016;
Raymond et al., 2017), enabling public-private partnerships (Koppenjan, 2015) and knowledge sharing.
This process may result costly, but experiences from the case studies and the literature reveal that this
support may ensure that activities become “socially acceptable and defensible” (Raymond et al., 2017)
to various stakeholders, facilitating present and future implementation of NBS.
Champions and leaders. Dedicated individuals
Another important aspect identified both in literature and case studies seems the identification of a
key actor, agent of change or coordinator that guides the process of implementation (Barton, 2016;
Cohen-Schacham et al., 2016). This individual, or organization, is the mediator of conflicts among
stakeholders, and sets the necessary communication and coordination mechanisms to prevent certain
barriers to hamper the process, such as silo thinking, lack of intersectorial collaboration, un-identified
stakeholders and lack of funding mechanisms.
Inception
Setting-up Stakeholder Process
Stakeholder involvement for NBS implementation

The identification of all stakeholders in instances of decision making, including those that are not
typically involved in water related risk management (O’Donnell et al., 2017) is a key driver for its success
(or a key barrier for its failure if not given enough consideration), even when we accept the inherent
difficulties of embarking to this process. These difficulties include longer and more costly processes of
implementation, difficulties in coordination and communication between the wide range of
stakeholders and diverse and sometimes opposing interests, views and objectives.
According to (Nesshöver et al., 2017), stakeholder involvement brings three types of benefits for NBS
implementation: substantive, instrumental and normative: (i) ‘substantive’ benefits, as planning can be
improved as different perspectives, interests, conditions and knowledge are integrated (valorising tacit
and expert knowledge) (Kabisch, Frantzeskaki, et al., 2016); (ii) ‘instrumental’ benefits, as activities
become “socially acceptable and defensible” (Raymond et al., 2017); and (iii) ‘normative’ benefits, “as
stakeholder involvement increases the legitimacy of the process, and generally supports democracy”
(Nesshöver et al., 2017, p. 1221).Stakeholder involvement can be particularly critical if NBS involves
trade-offs, as the integration of stakeholder could benefit the value creation, specifically fruitful in
mutual gain type of negotiations. (see point (j) of the present table)
Quality of communication and collaboration
Complexities of communication, silo thinking (lack of communication between departments), and in
general, challenges in collaboration are barriers found critical for the engagement with multiple-actors
in the design and implementation of NBS in the case studies. The development of appropriate
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 53

institutional arrangements and spaces set to improve communication and coordination between
scientists, decision makers and stakeholders is recognized as a key driver to develop dialogical learning
and shared involvement processes. On the other hand, identifying the information channels and
coordination among stakeholders, considering both formal and informal channels, is a key first step to
set the stakeholder involvement process.
Objectives and criteria
Identifying conflicting representations.
Uncertainty situations found in this stage of the process have evidenced conflicting (and opposing)
views, interests and objectives from stakeholders. This opposing views manifested in different ways as
described in (Dourojeanni, 2019, sec. Appendix D). Examples of opposing views are in the
representations of the current situation or of the problem at hand, of the objectives to be pursued (e.g.
is aquifer recharge a good idea for socio-economic development) value attributiions; and the response
of the NBS (not all stakeholders trust the models). In some cases, these different representations have
increased the level of conflict in the area. In order to overcome these barriers, strategies in case studies
and literature point out to dialogical learning process and mutual negotiation approaches, based in
studies aimed to identify and understand this conflicting representations of different stakeholders
(Guerrin, 2014).
Situation analysis
Problem description
Understand the problems/interests of stakeholders

Similarly to point (e) in the present table, different understandings of the problem at hand, particularly
from those stakeholders not commonly involved in the implementation of measures for water-related
risks, are often linked to an increase in the level of conflict, hampering NBS implementation (see point
2.13 in (Dourojeanni, 2019, sec. Appendix D). Case study analysis confirm findings in literature (e.g.
O’Donnell et al., 2017) and evidence that an early recognition of this problem framings may guide to
the selection of unconsidered benefits which might be valued higher. The integration of concerns and
problems of different stakeholders is seen as an opportunity, as it could bring up a mutual-gain type of
negotiation.
Pilot projects as examples of what can be done.
A key barrier present in the literature is related to the uncertainty of an innovative solution(Barton,
2016; Kabisch, Frantzeskaki, et al., 2016; O’Donnell et al., 2017). This barrier is not only associated with
concerns among local actors about the unknown response of the solution towards future scenarios,
but also with, uncertain financial mechanisms, unknown cost/benefits (including maintenance),
operational unknowns, insufficient data availability and a fear of the unknowns in general (Kabisch,
Frantzeskaki, et al., 2016). An effective strategy in absence of examples of NBS solutions with similar
context, objective and characteristics, is to set up a pilot project (Barton, 2016). This allows to monitor
and prove the technology in a continuous learning and adaptation process. Communicating successful
case studies of implemented NBS in similar contexts can provide a strong basis to overcome the above
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 54

mentioned innovation barriers (Barton, 2016; Kabisch, Frantzeskaki, et al., 2016). However, it does not
guarantee upscaling of NBS, as highlighted by (e.g. Dijk et al., 2018)
Strategy building
Alternative and preferred strategies
Identify and consider benefits and co-benefits

In relation to the potential of NBS to provide multiple benefits in addition to ecosystem services (
(Dourojeanni, 2019, sec. 2.2), the very consideration and assessment of these co-benefits may provide
a bridge of environmental, social and economic interests among stakeholders (Raymond et al., 2017).
Indeed, the consideration and valuation may prove key for the selection of potential solutions and
preferred strategies, particularly when selection of strategies follow a multi-criteria analysis which is in
line with adaptive management approach (Nesshöver et al., 2015). (Droste et al., 2017) also calls for
the use of elaborated decision support tools such as multi-criteria analysis or environmentally extended
cost-benefit analysis (including co-benefits) due to the potential trade- offs and land-use conflicts.
Valuation and quantification of these co-benefits (and costs) can support the evidence for setting
strong business cases and selection of pathways in decision-making, accounting for the effectiveness
of this innovative measures and balancing or countering potential losses. This in turn could guide the
monitoring an evaluation, in order to demonstrate benefits after implementation.
Action planning
Governance mode, funding strategy, financing strategy, procurement strategy
Establishing and practicing collaborative governance approaches
NBS projects involve the collaboration across scientific domain through interdisciplinary work
(Nesshöver et al., 2017). Similarly to point (e) above, institutional setups prove to be important to
stablish collaborative governance approaches that appeal to a consensus oriented and deliberative
approach that focus on common interests (Kabisch, Frantzeskaki, et al., 2016). These processes are
highly dependent of the information at hand, which could provoke changes of the nature of the
discussion. In this sense, improving awareness, community engagement and communication can help
to tackle barriers related to lack of knowledge and multiple understandings (O’Donnell et al., 2017).
Implementation
Monitoring and evaluation
Setting criteria for monitoring and evaluation mechanisms
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 55

Literature indicates that the definition of criteria at an early stage of the process may aid to delimitate
the responsibilities and duties that help guide implementation and set the indicators for ecological,
social and economic effectiveness of the measure that will serve for future evaluation. Particularly for
NBS, these criteria should be set through participation processes to consider multiple views and values,
that might correspond to the deliberated trade-offs (O’Donnell et al., 2017), and specifically, the co-
benefits identified. However, current practices show that monitoring often resorts to easily measurable
criteria in detriment of more important but difficult to measure ones (Nesshöver et al., 2015).
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 56

Figure 16 : Key strategies to include in the Strategic Planning Framework for NBS implementation.
Source: Modified from Loucks and Van Beek, 2017 - https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319442327
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 57

8 Self check for planning and implementing climate adaptation with nature based solutions
In this section we present a list of activities and checklist of preparatory actions in the framework of participatory adaptive planning framework. We
integrate the guidelines on developing adaptation strategies by (European Commission, 2013) and complement them where needed for the specific
case of NBS-based adaptation. In addition we show how the PAP process relates the generation of readiness in the 3 categories discussed in chapter
2: technology readiness level (TRL), investment readiness level (IVRL) and institutional readiness (ISR). Finally we relate to the self-check of the 5
business cases related to public investment (HMTreasury, 2018) mobilised by (Altamirano et al., 2020). Together these elements are intended to help
municipalities, water authorities, or any entity facilitating the planning and implementation of NBS to attain the needed readiness for successful
implementation.
Table 9 Checklist of activities and related questions for participatory NBS implementation and investment planning
Phases Actions/Information to be gathered Check list questions (after European Commission, 2013; HMTreasury, 2018; Readiness
Altamirano et al., 2020)
Inception phase TRL IVRL ISR
Set up the   Support for adaptation guaranteed at high level
stakeholder process  A core team on adaptation in place
 Institutional cooperation set up
 All affected stakeholders involved
 Human and financial resources secured in the long term
 Target group-specific formats for awareness raising carried out
Define Objectives,  Based on prior assessment of risks and  Appropriate indicators developed
criteria existing policies, what are key objectives
of NBS in the hydro-social system
(combination of reducing
risk/vulnerability as primary
objective/benefit and increasing socio-
economic opportunities or co-benefits)
 Identification of criteria/yardsticks that
allow you to evaluate whether the
objectives are reached?
Situation analysis
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 58

Assess baseline  Description of natural, socio-economic  A first overview on climate-related impacts gained
Situation analysis and institutional system  Ongoing activities with relevance for adaptation identified
 Identification of problems and  Common understanding on climate change adaptation gained
controversies  A systematic overview on past weather events, their consequences and
 Stakeholder analysis, (DPSIR) response actions in place
 Assessment of ambiguity and risk  Understanding of future climate change gained
perception  Non-climatic stress factors identified and considered
 Main concerns are identified that require an adaptation response
 Transboundary issues taken into account
 Knowledge gaps and uncertainties in climate change summarized and
made explicit
Identify indicators,  Identification of quantitative and  An approach on how to deal with uncertainties developed
methods and tools qualitative assessment needed to
provide relevant information (related to
policy objectives and stakeholder
preferences)
 Checklist of available methods/tools
Scenarios  Storylines of possible futures (drivers of 
change, external to the system)
 List of drivers and translation into
quantitative scenarios to be modelled
Strategy building
Formulate solutions  Identification of  Gaps and barriers that hindered an adequate response in the past
(measures, interventions/measures/alternatives in identified and understood
alternatives) collaboration with key stakeholders  A full portfolio of adaptation options considered
 (Participatory) prioritization of promising  Measures considered are aligned with existing regulations and policy
measures that will be modelled prioirities (SBC)
Combine priority  Separation of interventions in  Suitable adaptation options were described in detail
measures into short/medium/long term  Clear scope of preferred solution (SBC)
strategies
Assess strategies  Quantification of indicators (including life  A prioritisation system of adaptation options developed in cooperation
under different cycle costs) with stakeholders
scenarios, including  Identification of no-regret interventions  Reliable information on hydrometeorological risk reduction by
capacity building (based on scenarios) measures (SBC)
 Possible synergies and conflicts identified and taken into account
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 59

 Definition of no-regret strategies

Decision making  Communication of indicator results for  Cost-benefits of options assessed
(negotiation, choice different strategies  Reliable evidence of positive cost-benefit considering direct and
and compensation):  Use of different decision making indirect costs (EBC)
select preferred methods (e.g. MCA, CBA, scorecard,  Preferred adaptation options selected for implementation
strategy voting, …)  Adaptation strategy developed and politically adopted
 And (group) decision making aided by  Direct beneficiaries and willingness to pay identified (EBC)
the assessment scores provided in  Compensation for losers identified (EBC)
previous step
Action planning
Enabling  Discussion of role and responsibilities for  Action plan developed
environment, the implementation of the preferred  Steps for implementation set
develop business strategies  Timeline of actions and capital investment clearly defined (CBC)
plan and distribute  Timeline of actions  Risk and liabilities are clarified (CBC)
responsibilities  Identification of funding/finance  Identification of life-cycle cost (FBC)
 Development of business plan  Quantification of revenue streams considering tariffs, transfers and
Mobilize financing  Definition of service levels, performance taxes (FBC)
and funding indicators and contract negotiation  Access to funding or financial instruments to close funding or financing
 Risks and liabilities gaps (FBC)
 Funding/Finance strategy  Responsibilities of organizations in procurement, construction and
operation are clarified (MBC)
Implementation
Implement  Construction of green-grey infrastructure  Contracts needed and procurement strategy are clear (MBC)
and enforcing regulatory arrangements
Monitor and  Data collection on performance  Appropriate M&E provisions for both your adaptation policy´s
evaluate indicators objectives and selected adaptation options developed
 Communication of monitoring results  Appropriate indicators from step 1 checked and operationalized in
 Check of evolution monitoring levels with M&E plan
initially established service levels and
NBS objectives
SBC: Strategic business case, EBC: economic business case, CBC: Commercial business case, FBC: financial business case, MBC: management business case,
TRL: Technology readiness level, IVRL: investment readiness level, ISRL: institutional readiness level (darker colours represent a higher contribution of the PAP process to readiness
generation)
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 60

10 Conclusion
This document presents a structured analysis of planning and implementation of NBS,

highlighting key drivers, barriers and the role of stakeholders and information. In combination
with an extensive literature review of existing planning and climate adapatation approaches and
the experiences with those, it supports the presentation of the NAIAD approach in this
document..
When dissecting the NAIAD approach ex-post by analysing experiences in NAIAD demos, our
analysis shows that the barriers in NBS planning and implementation are overcome through a
combination of leadership, evidence and facilitating funds. This confirms the usefulness of the
planning approach for generation of appropriate levels of technology, investment and
institutional readiness. Further analysis of the NAIAD DEMOS will reveal more elements to shape
the PAP framework in the NAIAD approach.
Important to note that the process is long and in practice it is not as structured and sequential
as presented in the theoretical framework. However, case and literature analysis have shown
that all steps are needed for the planning and implementation to foster NBS integration. In
addition, further effort needs to be oriented to a concerted analysis of existing investment and
institutional readiness levels and introduction of capacitation efforst in the planning and
implementation process.
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 61

H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 62

11 References
Agrawal, A. . (2002). Transboundary protected areas and adaptive man-agement. In: Oglethorpe
J (ed) Adaptive management: fromtheory to practice. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, UK .
Altamirano, M, Van de Guchte, C., & Benitez Avila, C. (2013). Barriers for implementation of
green adaptation. Exploring the opportunities of private financing. World Water Week
2013. Oral presentation for the workshop Cooperation for Sustainable Benefits and
Financing of Water Programmes. Stockholm, Sweden.
Altamirano, Monica, Benitez-Avila, C., de Rijke, H., Angulo, M., Arellano, B., Dartée, K., Peña, K.,
Nanu, F., Mayor, B., Lopez-Gunn, E., Marchal, R., Pengal, P., Scrieciu, A., & Mori, J. (2020).
Handbook for the Implementation of Nature-based Solutions for Water Security: guidelines
for designing an implementation and financing arrangement. EU H2020 NAIAD project.
Grant Agreement N°730497.
Arthur, W. B. (2010). What is Technology and How Does it Evolve? (Book Excerpt). The New York
Academy of Sciences Magazine.
Barnes, M. L., & R.E., B. (2006). Institutional readiness and grant success among public recreation
agencies. Managing Leisure , 11, 139–150.
Barton, A. M. (2016). Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Contexts: A Case Study of Malmo,
Sweden. IIIEE Masters Thesis IMEN56 20161.
Blank, S. (2013). Is This Startup Ready For Investment? https://steveblank.com/2014/02/25/is-
this-startup-ready-for-investment/
Bosomworth, K., & Gaillard, E. (2019). Engaging with uncertainty and ambiguity through
participatory ‘Adaptive Pathways’ approaches: scoping the literature. Environmental
Research Letters, 14(9), 093007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab3095
Brugnach, M., Dewulf, A., Pahl-Wostl, C., & Taillieu, T. (2008). Toward a Relational Concept of
Uncertainty: about Knowing Too Little, Knowing Too Differently, and Accepting Not to
Know. Ecology and Society 13 (2), 30.
Calliari, E., Staccione, A., & Mysiak, J. (2019). An assessment framework for climate-proof
nature-based solutions. Science of the Total Environment.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.341
Cohen-Schacham, E., Walters, G., Janzen, C., & Maginnis, S. (2016). In: lucn (Ed.) Nature-based
Solutions to Address Global Societal Challenges. IUCN.
Cosens, B. A., Gunderson, L., & Chaffin, B. C. (2018). Introduction to the special feature practicing
panarchy: Assessing legal flexibility, ecological resilience, and adaptive governance in
regional water systems experiencing rapid environmental change. In Ecology and Society.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09524-230104
Crowe K.; Collier, M.J., P. R. . F. (2016). Operationalizing urban resilience through a framework
for adaptive co-management and design: five experiments in urban planning practice and
policy. . Environ. Sci. Policy 62, , 112–119.
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 63

https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.04.007
Cvitanovic, C., Howden, M., Colvin, R. M., Norström, A., Meadow, A. M., & Addison, P. F. E.
(2019). Maximising the benefits of participatory climate adaptation research by
understanding and managing the associated challenges and risks. In Environmental Science
and Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.028
Denjean, B., Denjean, B., Altamirano, M. A., Graveline, N., Giordano, R., Van der Keur, P.,
Moncoulon, D., Weinberg, J., Máñez Costa, M., Kozinc, Z., Mulligan, M., Pengal, P.,
Matthews, J., van Cauwenbergh, N., López Gunn, E., Bresch, D. N., & Denjean, B. (2017).
Natural Assurance Scheme: A level playing field framework for Green-Grey infrastructure
development. Environmental Research, 159.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.07.006
Dijk, M., de Kraker, J., & Hommels, A. (2018). Anticipating constraints on upscaling from urban
innovation experiments. Sustainability (Switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082796
Dourojeanni, P. (2019). Understanding the role of uncertainty in the mainstreaming of Nature-
Based Solutions for adaptation to climate change (Master’s thesis). . In Water
Management: Vol. MSc. IHE Delft.
Dreiss J.M.; Nathan, LR.; O’Connor, K.M.; Liberati, M.R.; Kloster, D.P.; Barclay, J.R.; Vokoun, J.C;
Morzillo, A.T., L. M. . H. (2016). Adaptive Management as an Effective Strategy:
InterdisciplinaryPerceptions for Natural Resources Management. Environmental
Management 59(2), 218–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0785-0
Droste, N., Schröter-Schlaack, C., Hansjürgens, B., & Zimmermann, H. (2017). Implementing
Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Areas: Financing and Governance Aspects.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56091-5_18
Eggermont, H., Balian, E., Azevedo, J. M. N., Beumer, V., Brodin, T., Claudet, J., & al., et. (2015).
Nature-based solutions: new influence for environmental management and research in
Europe. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 24, 243–248.
European Commission. (2013). Guidelines on developing adaptation strategies.
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/adaptation/what/docs/swd_2013_134_en.p
df
Fellnhofer, K. (2016). Literature review: Investment readiness level of small and medium sized
companies. In International Journal of Managerial and Financial Accounting.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMFA.2015.074904
Frantzeskaki, N. (2019). Seven lessons for planning nature-based solutions in cities.
Environmental Science and Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.033
Frohlich, M. F., Jacobson, C., Fidelman, P., & Smith, T. F. (2018). The relationship between
adaptive management of social-ecological systems and law: A systematic review. Ecology
and Society. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10060-230223
Garmestani, A. S., & Benson, M. H. (2013). A framework for resilience-based governance of
social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05180-180109
Graveline, N., Joyce, J., Calatrava, J., Douai, A., Arfoui, N., Moncoulon, D., Manez, M., Re Ryke,
H., & Zradvko, K. (2017). “DELIVERABLE 4.1 : General Framework for the economic
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 64

assessment of.
Grimble, R., & Wellard, K. (1997). Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management:
a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agricultural Systems,
55(2), 173–193.
Guerrin, J. (2014). A floodplain restoration project on the River Rhone (France). Analysing
challenges to its implementation. Regional Environmental Change, 1–15.
Haasnoot, M, Kwakkel, J. H., Walker, W. E., & ter Maat, J. (2012). Dynamic adaptive policy
pathways: A method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world. Global
Environmental Change 23, 485–498.
Haasnoot, Marjolijn, Kwakkel, J. H., Walker, W. E., & ter Maat, J. (2013). Dynamic adaptive policy
Environmental Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.006
HMTreasury. (2018). Guide to developing the project business case - better business cases for
better outcomes (J. Lowe (ed.)). HM Treasury.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachme
nt_data/file/749086/Project_Business_Case_2018.pdf
Höchstädter, A. K., & Scheck, B. (2015). What’s in a Name: An Analysis of Impact Investing
Understandings by Academics and Practitioners. Journal of Business Ethics.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2327-0
Holstead, K., Colley, K., & Waylen, K. (2016). Tackling the barriers to implementing natural flood
management in Scotland. The James Hutton Institute.
Jensen, O., & Wu, X. (2016). Embracing uncertainty in policy-making: The case of the water
sector. Policy and Society, 35(2), 115–123.
Kabisch, N., Frantzeskaki, N., Pauleit, S., Naumann, S., Davis, M., Artmann, M., Haase, D., Knapp,
S., Korn, H., Stadler, J., Zaunberger, K., & Bonn, A. (2016). Nature-based solutions to climate
change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: perspectives on indicators, knowledge
gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecology and Society 21(2):39.
Kabisch, N., Stadler, J., Korn, H., & Bonn, A. (2016). Nature-based solutions to climate change
mitigation and adaptation in urban areas. BfN-Skripten 446.
Keesstra, S., Nunes, J., Novara, A., Finger, D., Avelar, D., Kalantari, Z., & Cerdà, A. (2018). The
superior effect of nature based solutions in land management for enhancing ecosystem
services. In Science of the Total Environment.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.077
Koppenjan, J. K. M. (2015). Public–Private Partnerships for green infrastructures. Tensions and
challenges. Environmental Sustainability 12, 30–34.
Kvande Due, H., and Lund, C. (2018). Investing with dual objectives: The investment decision of
impact investors and their preferences for the business model of social ventures. Norwegian
School of Economics.
Loucks, D.P., & van Beek, E. (2017). Water resource systems planning and management: An
introduction to methods, models, and applications. In Water Resource Systems Planning
and Management: An Introduction to Methods, Models, and Applications.
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 65

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44234-1
Loucks, Daniel P., & van Beek, E. (2017). Water resource systems planning and management: An
introduction to methods, models, and applications. In Water Resource Systems Planning
and Management: An Introduction to Methods, Models, and Applications.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44234-1
Matthews, T., Lo, A. Y., & Byrne, J. A. (2015). Reconceptualizing green infrastructure for climate
change adaptation: Barriers to adoption and drivers for uptake by spatial planners.
Landscape and Urban Planning. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.010
Mayor, B. et al. (2017). Guidelines for the application of the NAS canvas to NBS strategies. EU
Horizon 2020 NAIAD Project, Grant Agreement N°730497.
National Research Council, ; (2004). Adaptive management for waterresources planning. .
National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
Nesshöver, C., Assmuth, T., Irvin, K. N., Rusch, G. M., Waylen, K. A., Delbaere, B., Haase, D.,
Jones-Walters, L., Keune, H., & al., et. (2017). The science, policy and practive of nature-
based solutions: An interdisciplinary perspective. Science of the Total Environment 579,
1215–1227.
Nesshöver, C., Prip, C., & Wittmer, H. (2015). Biodiversity governance: a global perspective from
the Convention on Biological Diversity. In: Gaspartos, A., Eillis, K.J. (Eds). Biodiversity in the
Green Economy. Routledge, London.
O’Donnell, E. C., Lamond, J. E., & Thorne, C. R. (2017). Recognising barriers to implementation
of Blue-Green Infrastructure: a Newcastle case study. Urban Water Journal.
Okada, N., Chabay, I., & Renn, O. (2018). Participatory Risk Governance for Reducing Disaster
and Societal Risks: Collaborative Knowledge Production and Implementation. International
Journal of Disaster Risk Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-018-0201-x
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business Model Generation - Canvas. Wiley.
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2007). The Implications of Complexity for Integrated Resources Management.
Environmental Modelling and Software, 22, 561–569.
Pontee, N., Narayan, S., Beck, M. W., & Hosking, A. H. (2016). Nature-based solutions: Lessons
from around the world. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Maritime
Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1680/jmaen.15.00027
Priscoli, J. D. (2004). What is Public Participation in Water Resources Management and Why is it
Important? Water International, 29(2), 221–227.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060408691771
Priscoli, J. D., & Stakhiv, E. (2015). Water-related disaster risk reduction (DRR) management in
the United States: Floods and storm surges. In Water Policy.
https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2015.004
Prutsch, A., Felderer, A., Balas, M., Konig, M., Clar, C., & Steurer, R. (2014). Methods and Tools
for Adaptation to Climate Change. A Handbook for Provinces, Regions and Cities.
Environment Agency Austria.
http://klimawandelanpassung.at/fileadmin/inhalte/kwa/pdfs/HANDBUCH_EN.pdf
Raymond, C. M., Frantzeskaki, N., Kabisch, N., Berry, P., Breil, M., Razvan Nita, M., Geneletti, D.,
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 66

& Calfapietra, C. (2017). A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of
nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environmental Science and Policy 77, 15–24.
Rica M., Marchal R., Zorrilla-Miras P., Piton, G., Nanu F., Groza I., Altamirano, M., Joyce J., Van
Cauwenbergh, N., Lopez-Gunn, E. (2018). Institutional analysis report: baseline analysis
and policy recommendations. EU H2020 NAIAD Project, Grant Agreement N°730497.
Sahani, J., Kumar, P., Debele, S., Spyrou, C., Loupis, M., Aragão, L., Porcù, F., Shah, M. A. R., & Di
Sabatino, S. (2019). Hydro-meteorological risk assessment methods and management by
nature-based solutions. In Science of the Total Environment.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133936
Sakic, R. (2015). From vision to reality: making cities flood resilient by implementing green
infrastructure strategies. The case of the City of Hoboken, New Jersey. . MSc Thesis IHE
Delft.
Samaddar, S., Okada, N., Choi, J., & Tatano, H. (2017). What constitutes successful participatory
disaster risk management? Insights from post-earthquake reconstruction work in rural
Gujarat, India. Natural Hazards. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2564-x
Stagakis, S., Somarakis, G., Poursanidis, D., Chrysoulakis, N., Enzi, S., Bernardi, A., Mortimer, N.,
Nikolaidis, N., Lilli, M., Goni, E., Van Rompaey, S., & Jurik, J. (2019). Policy proposals and
decision-making mechanisms for Risk Management and Resilience. EU Horizon 2020 Think
Nature.
Tacnet, JM., Van Cauwenbergh, N. & Gomez, E. et al. (2019). Integrative modelling framework
and testing in the. EU Horizon 2020 NAIAD Project, Grant Agreement N°730497.
Thorne, C. R., Lawson, E. C., Ozawa, C., Hamlin, S. L., & Smith, L. A. (2018). Overcoming
uncertainty and barriers to adoption of Blue-Green Infrastructure for urban flood risk
management. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 11, S960–S972.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12218
Van Cauwenbergh, N., Ballester Ciuró, A., & Ahlers, R. (2018). Participatory processes and
support tools for planning in complex dynamic environments: A case study on web-GIS
based participatory water resources planning in Almeria, Spain. Ecology and Society, 23(2).
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09987-230202
van den Hoek, R. E. (2014). Building on Uncertainty: How to cope with incomplete knowledge,
umpredictability and ambiguity in ecological engineering projects. Enschede: University of
Twente.
Walker, W. E., Haasnoot, M., & Kwakkel, J. H. (2013). Adapt or perish: A review of planning
approaches for adaptation under deep uncertainty. Sustainability (Switzerland).
https://doi.org/10.3390/su5030955
Walker, W. E., Rahman, S. A., & Cave, J. (2001). Adaptive policies, policy analysis, and policy-
making. European Journal of Operational Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-
2217(00)00071-0
Warmink, J. J., Brugnach, M., Vinke-de Kruijf, J., Schielen, R. M. J., & Augustijn, D. C. M. (2017).
Coping with Uncertainty in River Management: Challenges and Ways Forward. Water
Resour Manage 31, 4587–4600.
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 67

Waylen, K. A., Holstead, K. L., Colley, K., & Hopkins, J. (2017). Challenges to enabling and
implementing Natural Flood Management in Scotland. Flood Risk Management 11.
Webster, A., & Gardner, J. (2019). Aligning technology and institutional readiness: the adoption
of innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 31(10), 1229–1241.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2019.1601694
West, S. P., & Schultz, L. (2015). Learning for resilience in the European court of human rights:
Adjudication as an adaptive governance practice. Ecology and Society.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07190-200131
Williams, S., & Williams, N. (2004). Assessing BI Readiness : The Key to BI ROI. Business
Intelligence Journal.
Zandvoort, M., van der Vlist, M. J., & van den Brink, A. (2018). Handling uncertainty through
adaptiveness in planning approaches: comparing adaptive delta management and the
water diplomacy framework. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 20:2, 183–197.
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 68

ANNEXS
Edition information
V ERSION E DITION DATE MODIFICATION W RITTEN BY CONTROLLED BY
V ERSION 1 FEBRUARY 2020 VAN CAUWENBERGH ,

N .
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 69

Table of contents
D5.7 ................................................................................................ ¡Error! Marcador no definido.
ANNEXS ....................................................................................................................................... 69
Edition information ..................................................................................................................... 69
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 71
2 Demo guidelines on planning steps for implementation of NBS .................................... 72
2.1 Strategic planning framework: why and what is it? .................................................... 72
2.2 Workshop protocol ..................................................................................................... 72
2.3 Checklist of activities per workshop and steps in the framework of analysis ............ 73
3 Planning processes in the NAIAD demos ........................................................................ 76
4 Understanding the role of uncertainties in the mainstreaming of NBS for adaptation to
climate change ............................................................................................................................ 80
Abstract ................................................................................................................................... 80
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 70

1 Introduction
This document is the annex to Deliverable 5.7 – Guidelines for the definition of implementation
and investement plans for adaptation with nature-based solutions
The present document incorporates 3 different annexes
- DEMO guidelines on planning steps for implementation of NBS: internal guidelines

document explaining the planning framework used and how it helps to structure
stakeholder workshops in the demo site.
- Plannings steps and tools used in the 9 NAIAD demos
- Detailed study on “Understanding the role of uncertainty in mainstreaming nature-
based solutions for adaptation to climate change” by Paul Dourojeanni, Masters thesis
UNESCO-IHE / IHE Delft
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 71

2 Demo guidelines on planning steps for implementation of NBS

Audience: NAIAD consortium and DEMOS.
Preamble: A year before the finalisation of the projects, demos have already implemented the
Demo roadmap, stakeholder protocol and a number of actions on integration have been taken
(e.g. deliverable D5.4). To inform a comparative NAIAD approach on NBS implementation, we
now want to translate prior knowledge into operational guidelines for workshop protocol in the
different demo sites. Since different demos have used different methods and tools, an analysis
of these will allow us to identify in which stage of planning the demos are and how workshops 2
and 3 can be best prepared. As part of preparation of D5.5 and D5.7 we therefore communicate
present document as guidelines for an overarching/comparative approach between different
NAIAD demos.
2.1 Strategic planning framework: why and what is it?

In order to shift the focus in Disaster Risk Management from ex-post response to ex-ante
mitigation and prevention, we argue for the creation of risk adaptation plans and introduction
of the ex-ante approach typical in (strategic) planning in the NAIAD demos. The link between
DRR and strategic planning is explained in the video in this link:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1stP23ydGNynDeslQgJ1wqK6IvIcwrm6o
The backbone of strategic planning is the framework of analysis; a step-wise, structured

assessment to identify objectives, list problems, context and solutions and base selection of best
solutions on comparison of options and rational decision making. All steps in the framework
involve stakeholder participation and are supported by data and different types of methods and
tools.
Figure 1 shows the planning trajectory from inception to implementation. The next section will
detail how different NAIAD demos can use this framework in their workshop protocol,
considering differences in context and TRL.
2.2 Workshop protocol

Whereas demos are different in terms of context, TRL (Technology Readiness Level) and the
specific scientific methods and tools applied, the steps for the identification of socio-
hydrological dynamics, risks and the way NBS relate to them will be the same. Figure 1 below
shows the level of progress made in demos if different TRL is considered. Higher TRL demos (e.g.
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 72

Rotterdam, Copenhagen, Medina) will be focusing more on implementation, whereas lower TRL
demos are likely to focus more on assessment and strategy building and explore implementation
with less detail.
Figure 1: Key phases in planning cycle and level of progress (green colour) in demos depending
on starting point and TRL
2.3 Checklist of activities per workshop and steps in the framework of

analysis
Table 1 below lists the different planning steps and which kind of activities have to be done
before going to the next step. Demo leaders are requested to check whether activities have been
completed (either in NAIAD project or as part of previous activities and taken as input at start of
NAIAD). This initial assessment will help the Integration team to work.
Table 1 – checklist of activities per workshop
Phases Actions/Information to be gathered

Inception phase
Objectives, criteria  Based on prior assessment of risks and existing policies, what are the key
objectives of NBS introduction in the hydro-social system
These objectives are a combination of reducing risk/vulnerability and
increasing socio-economic opportunities (i.e. benefits and co-benefits
production). Given the multiple interests of different stakeholders as well as
ambiguity, objectives can often be conflicting and trade-offs exist.
 Identification of criteria/yardsticks that allow you to evaluate whether the
objectives are reached?
Situation analysis
Baseline assessment  Description of natural, socio-economic and institutional system
Situation analysis  Identification of problems and controversies
 Stakeholder analysis (SNA), (DPSIR)
Identification of  Identification of quantitative and qualitative assessment needed to provide
indicators, methods and relevant information (related to policy objectives and stakeholder
tools preferences)
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 73

 Checklist of available methods/tools

Scenarios  Storylines of possible futures (drivers of change, external to the system)
 List of drivers and translation into quantitative scenarios to be modelled
Strategy building
Formulation of solutions  Identification of interventions/measures/alternatives in collaboration with
(measures, alternatives) key stakeholders
 (Participatory) prioritization of promising measures that will be modelled
Combination of priority  Separation of interventions in short/medium/long term
measures into strategies
Assessment of strategies  Quantification of indicators (including life cycle costs)
under different  Identification of no-regret interventions (based on scenarios)
scenarios, including CB  Definition of no-regret strategies
Decision making  Communication of indicator results for different strategies
(negotiation, choice and  Use of different decision making methods (e.g. MCA, CBA, scorecard, voting,
compensation): selection …)
of preferred strategy  And (group) decision making aided by the assessment scores provided in
previous step
Action planning
Enabling environment,  Discussion of role and responsibilities for the implementation of the
development of business preferred strategies
plan and distribution of  Timeline of actions
responsibilities  Identification of funding/finance
 Development of business plan
 Definition of service levels, performance indicators and contract negotiation
 Risks and liabilities
Implementation
Implementation  Construction of green-grey infrastructure and enforcing regulatory
arrangements
Monitoring and  Data collection on performance indicators
evaluation  Communication of monitoring results
 Check of evolution monitoring levels with initially established service levels
and NBS objectives
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 74

Figure 2 : Strategic planning phases and link to data/models and stakeholder involvement
I – Inception
Setting-up
Objectives
Stakeholder
and Criteria
Process
Natural Socio-
Resource Economic
s system system
Institu-
tional
system
Scenario

Analysis
Problem
description
Potential Solutions
Data
and
Tools
Alternative
Strategies
Preferred
Strategy

Financing framework
Funding strategy
Financing strategy
Action Plan

Project delivery
(Implementation)
Evaluation
(Adapted from Loucks and Van Beek, 2017 - https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319442327 )
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 75

3 Planning processes in the NAIAD demos
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 76

H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 77

H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 78

H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 79

4 Understanding the role of uncertainties in the mainstreaming of NBS for

adaptation to climate change
Masters of Science thesis by Paul Dourojeanni Schlotfeldt, successfully defended in April 2019
Supervisor: Prof. Pieter van der Zaag, Mentor: dr. Nora Van Cauwenbergh
Abstract
Nature-based solutions (NbS) are promoted by the scientific and policy community as multi-
functional solutions in response to flood and drought risks and damages related to climate
change and natural disasters. NbS are seen as particularly interesting in the context of
uncertainty and change given their ability to enhance system resilience, achieving an alignment
of environmental and societal goals. Policy and planning approaches are developed to support
implementation of NbS, through inclusion of wider ecosystem objectives and provisions to
handle uncertainty. In spite of this support, experiences in the implementation of NbS have
identified a deficit in its mainstreaming.
Barriers to implementation are often linked to uncertainties in the actual risk reduction that can
be achieved and the distribution of costs, benefits and responsibilities. These uncertainties are
related to unpredictability, incomplete knowledge and ambiguity natures of uncertainties.
Whereas (strategic) planning approaches address variability and incomplete knowledge,
approaches to deal with ambiguity are less developed. In order to better integrate uncertainty,
planning and implementation approaches must consider all the natures of uncertainty.
Balancing the natural, technical and social uncertainties is essential for successful management
strategies. Proper identification of uncertainties in the policymaking process aids in getting this
balance right, and to raise awareness and support for policy plan (Warmink, Brugnach, Vinke-de
Kruijf, Schielen, & Augustijn, 2017). This research is intended to balance the recognition of
uncertainties in the implementation of Nature-based solutions.
This study presents an ex-post analysis of NbS implementation in empirical cases to draw out
insight in the use of approaches to address uncertainties and propose strategies to cope with
prevalent uncertainties. The empirical research covered three case studies in a European
context: Urban Water Buffer project in Rotterdam, a Managed Aquifer Recharge project in
Spain, and a River Restoration Project in Copenhagen.
While different planning and polices frameworks of specific contexts reveal a strong recognition
of uncertainties related to unpredictability in the natural system, the analysis of the process of
NbS implementation expose that their uptake is hampered mainly by uncertainties related to
‘ambiguity’ and linked to the social system, confirming results of previous studies (Barton, 2016;
Kabisch, Frantzeskaki, et al., 2016; Thorne, Lawson, Ozawa, Hamlin, & Smith, 2015).
Literature and implementation of NbS in specific cases have identified and applied diverse
strategies to overcome these uncertainties, being identified, described and integrated into the
Strategic Planning Framework. In total, ten (10) key strategies were identified, and linked to six
(6) specific steps of the planning framework. Results of the present research are intended to
contribute to the improvement of a context-specific assessment of method/processes of NbS
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 80
implementation, in order to close the documented implementation gap in the (strategic)

planning process.
Keywords: Nature-based solutions, uncertainties, ambiguity, strategic planning framework
H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 81

Understanding the role of
uncertainty in the mainstreaming of
Nature-Based Solutions for
adaptation to climate change.
Paul Axel Dourojeanni Schlotfeldt
MSc Thesis WMG.19-08-329527
27/03/2019
Understanding the role of
uncertainty in the mainstreaming
of Nature-Based Solutions for
adaptation to climate change.
Master of Science Thesis

by
Paul Axel Dourojeanni Schlotfeldt
Supervisor
Prof. Dr. Ir. Pieter van der Zaag.
Mentor
Dr. Nora Van Cauwenbergh
Examination Committee
Dr. Marcela Brugnach
This research is done for the partial fulfilment of requirements for the Master of Science degree at the
IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, Delft, the Netherlands.
Delft
27/03/2019
Although the author and IHE Delft Institute for Water Education have made every effort to
ensure that the information in this thesis was correct at press time, the author and IHE Delft
do not assume and hereby disclaim any liability to any party for any loss, damage, or
disruption caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from
negligence, accident, or any other cause.
© Paul Axel Dourojeanni Schlotfeldt, 2019.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0
International License
Abstract
Nature-based solutions (NbS) are promoted by the scientific and policy community as multi-
functional solutions in response to flood and drought risks and damages related to climate
change and natural disasters. NbS are seen as particularly interesting in the context of
uncertainty and change given their ability to enhance system resilience, achieving an alignment
of environmental and societal goals. Policy and planning approaches are developed to support
implementation of NbS, through inclusion of wider ecosystem objectives and provisions to
handle uncertainty. In spite of this support, experiences in the implementation of NbS have
identified a deficit in its mainstreaming. Barriers to implementation are often linked to
uncertainties in their hydrological performance, service delivery and lack of confidence
concerning their support and acceptance by decision makers and local communities.
These uncertainties are related to unpredictability, incomplete knowledge and ambiguity
natures of uncertainties. Whereas (strategic) planning approaches address variability and
incomplete knowledge, approaches to deal with ambiguity are less developed. In order to better
integrate uncertainty, planning and implementation approaches must consider all natures and
dimensions of uncertainty. Balancing the natural, technical and social uncertainties is essential
for successful management strategies. This study presents an analysis of NbS implementation
in empirical cases based on semi-structure interviews to draw out insight in the use of
approaches to address uncertainties. The empirical research covered three case studies in a
European context: Urban Water Buffer project in Rotterdam, Managed Aquifer Recharge
project in Spain, and River Restoration Project in Copenhagen.
While different planning and polices frameworks in specific contexts reveal a strong
recognition of uncertainties related to unpredictability in the natural system, the analysis of the
process of NbS implementation expose that their uptake is hampered mainly by uncertainties
related to ‘ambiguity’ and linked to the social system, confirming results of previous studies.
Findings indicate that adaptive approaches are suitable to support effective NbS implementation
when they are embedded in legal, institutional and/or governance contexts. While approaches
for NbS implementation in UWB Spangen and River Restoration project appear in these
contexts, the MAR case reveals a misfit of approaches, where the omission of strategies to deal
with ambiguity was seen crucial to impede its implementation.
Several specific strategies were identified: notably the identification and valuation of multiple
benefits and co-benefits of NbS; legal/financial support and practice of collaborative
governance approaches; and the integration of stakeholders (not usually associated with water-
risk related measures) for the formation of partnerships in the implementation of NbS.
Strategies used to cope with uncertainty in the literature, together with strategies that enabled a
correct implementation of Nature-based solutions in the case studies were integrated into the
strategic planning framework. In total, ten key strategies were identified, and linked to seven
specific steps of the planning framework. Research findings are intended to contribute to the
improvement of a context-specific assessment of NbS implementation, in order to close the
documented implementation gap in the planning process.
Keywords: Nature-based solutions, uncertainties, ambiguity, strategic planning framework
i
ii
Acknowledgements
This work would not be possible without the financial support of the NAIAD project.
This thesis has been a long but wonderful process. I would not have been able to get here
without all the support I received.
I would like to thank Dr. Nora, for your dedication, patience and guidance in this process. Dr.
Pieter, thank you for sharing your experience and pointing me in the right direction. Dr.
Marcela, for giving me your time and encouragement. All of you have taught me more than I
could ever give credit for here.
For all the people of the NAIAD project who guide me and gave me all the support I could
need.
For all the interviewees for opening your doors, your time and will to make this work possible.
For you Mother, thank you for your unconditional support, and for always being there when I
needed it.
Father, thank you for inspiring me to take this water path.
To my brothers and family, for their beautiful words in difficult times.
To my friends, thank you for your cheerfulness.
Especially for you Maria Jesus, for your untiring love, your support at all times, and your smile
that provided unending inspiration. Thank you for joining me in this process. Without you, I
would not be here.
iii
Table of Contents
Abstract ...................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................. iii
Table of Contents .................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures .......................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .......................................................................................................... vii
Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... viii
Introduction ...................................................................................... 10
1.1 Background and justification ..................................................................................... 10

1.2 Problem statement ..................................................................................................... 12
1.3 Research objectives ................................................................................................... 13
1.4 Research question ...................................................................................................... 13
1.5 Thesis Outline ............................................................................................................ 14
Literature Review ............................................................................. 15
2.1 Uncertainty ................................................................................................................ 15

2.2 Nature-based Solutions .............................................................................................. 20
2.3 Strategic Planning Framework and adaptive management. ....................................... 26
Research methodology ................................................................... 29
3.1 Research design ......................................................................................................... 29

3.2 Case study approach .................................................................................................. 29
3.3 Selection of cases....................................................................................................... 30
3.4 Data collection methods ............................................................................................ 30
3.5 Data analysis and results............................................................................................ 32
3.6 Methodological assumptions ..................................................................................... 36
Background of Study Cases ........................................................... 37
4.1 NbS UWB Spangen – Rotterdam, the Netherlands ................................................... 37

4.2 NbS MAR in “El Carracillo” region - Duero Basin, Spain ....................................... 41
4.3 NbS River restoration project – Copenhagen, Denmark ........................................... 45
Uncertainty in policy and planning ................................................ 48
iv
5.1 Policies and planning strategies in the European context.......................................... 48
5.2 Policies and planning strategies in specific contexts ................................................. 49
5.3 Summary of the findings ........................................................................................... 56
Approaches used to implement NbS in specific contexts ........... 58
6.1 Uncertainty situations and strategies in the literature ................................................ 58

6.2 Uncertainty situations and strategies in the process of implementation of NbS in
specific contexts ................................................................................................................... 60
6.3 Summary of the findings ........................................................................................... 79
Discussion and synthesis of uncertainty management ............... 82
7.1 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 82

7.2 Incorporation into the Strategic Planning Framework .............................................. 85
Conclusions and recommendations .............................................. 89
8.1 Findings ..................................................................................................................... 89

8.2 Limitations ................................................................................................................. 92
8.3 Recommendation for future research ........................................................................ 93
8.4 Reflection of own work ............................................................................................. 94
References .............................................................................................................. 96
Appendices ........................................................................................................... 102
APPENDIX A:LIST OF CONCEPTS RELATED TO NbS. ............................................ 102

APPENDIX B: LIST OF BARRIERS FOUND IN THE LITERATURE ......................... 103
APPENDIX C: SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS .................................................... 106
APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW SUBJECTS ........................................................................ 107
APPENDIX D: KEY UNCERTAINTY SITUATIONS AND STRATEGIES IN SPECIFIC
CASES ............................................................................................................................... 108
v
List of Figures
Figure 1. Characterization of uncertainties .............................................................................. 18
Figure 2. Range of Nature-based solutions .............................................................................. 22
Figure 3. Grey versus Green infrastructure for flood control: ................................................. 23
Figure 4. Grey versus Green infrastructure for flood control................................................... 23
Figure 5. Cost-benefit assessment between BAU and NAS strategy ....................................... 24
Figure 6. Strategic Planning Framework .................................................................................. 26
Figure 7. Adaptation Pathways Map ........................................................................................ 28
Figure 8. Research design ........................................................................................................ 29
Figure 9. Distribution and number of interviews ..................................................................... 31
Figure 10. Methodology ........................................................................................................... 33
Figure 11. Location UWB Spangen ......................................................................................... 37
Figure 12. UWB Spangen ........................................................................................................ 38
Figure 13. Components of the Urban Water Buffer ................................................................. 38
Figure 14. UWB Spangen ........................................................................................................ 39
Figure 15. Watersquare Bellamyplein ...................................................................................... 40
Figure 16. Location of the region of El Carracillo ................................................................... 41
Figure 17. Main stream network .............................................................................................. 43
Figure 18. Irrigation units and storage area .............................................................................. 44
Figure 19. Tåsinge Plads ......................................................................................................... 46
Figure 20. Priority map of adaptive measures .......................................................................... 47
Figure 21. Copenhagen flow routes. ........................................................................................ 47
Figure 22. Number of identified uncertainties - UWB Spangen. ............................................. 49
Figure 23. Number of identified uncertainties - MAR ............................................................ 52
Figure 24. Number of identified uncertainties - River Restoration project ject ....................... 54
Figure 25. Frequency of key issues signalling the presence of uncertainty in policy and planning
frameworks for specific cases .................................................................................................. 56
Figure 26. Timeline of UWB-Spangen NbS ............................................................................ 62
Figure 27. Salto de Abajo ......................................................................................................... 67
Figure 28. Timeline of MAR in “El Carracillo” region, Spain ................................................ 69
Figure 29. Timeline of NbS River Restoration in Copenhagen ............................................... 76
Figure 30. Frequency of barriers linked to uncertainty situations in the literature .................. 79
Figure 31. Frequency of barriers linked to uncertainty situations in specific cases ................. 79
Figure 32. Key strategies to include in the Strategic Planning Framework for NbS
implementation. ........................................................................................................................ 88
Figure 33. Overview of different concepts related to nature-based solutions. ....................... 102
Figure 34. Green village test site ............................................................................................ 108
Figure 35. Bio filtration system .............................................................................................. 108
Figure 36. Definition of Co-Benefits workshop ..................................................................... 113
Figure 37. Selection of indicators to measure the co-benefits ............................................... 116
vi
List of Tables
Table 1. Nature of Uncertainty and types of uncertain knowledge relationships .................... 17
Table 2. Objects of knowledge ................................................................................................. 17
Table 3. Uncertainty classification matrix ............................................................................... 18
Table 4. Strategies for dealing with uncertainties .................................................................... 19
Table 5. Five phases of strategic water resource planning ....................................................... 27
Table 6. Cases selected............................................................................................................. 30
Table 7. Documents reviewed for each case study .................................................................. 34
Table 8. Key issues signalling the presence of uncertainty ...................................................... 35
Table 9. Stakeholder description – UWB Spangen .................................................................. 39
Table 10. Stakeholder description – MAR in “El Carracillo” .................................................. 42
Table 11. Stakeholder description – NbS River restoration Copenhagen ................................ 45
Table 12. Uncertainties in the plans and policies - UWB Spangen. ........................................ 51
Table 13. Uncertainties in the plans and policies - MAR. ....................................................... 53
Table 14. Uncertainties in the plans and policies - River Restoration Project ........................ 55
Table 15. Uncertainty situations in the implementation of NbS in the European context. ...... 59
Table 16. Drivers or enabling factors for implementation ....................................................... 59
Table 17. Uncertainties in the UWB Spangen NbS study case ................................................ 63
Table 18. Landscape of uncertainties in the UWB Spangen project ........................................ 65
Table 19. Requested modification of water concession ........................................................... 68
Table 20. Uncertainties in the “El Carracillo” NbS study case ................................................ 70
Table 21. Landscape of uncertainties of the MAR project in "El Carracillo" region .............. 73
Table 22. Uncertainties of NbS River Restoration in Copenhagen .......................................... 77
Table 23. Landscape of uncertainties of the River Restoration project in Copenhagen .......... 78
Table 24. Main barriers related to uncertainties identified in the study cases ......................... 80
Table 25. Strategies to cope with uncertainty identified in the present research ..................... 81
Table 26. Integration of key strategies to cope with uncertainty in the Strategic Planning
Framework ............................................................................................................................... 87
vii
Abbreviations
DRE – Disaster Resilience Enhancement
DRR – Disaster Risk Reduction
EC – European Commission
EEA – European Environmental Agency
ES – Ecosystem Services
GBI – Green and Blue Infrastructure
IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IUCN – International Union for Conservation of Nature
NAID – Nature Insurance Value: Assessment and Demonstration project
NAS – Natural Assurance Scheme
NbS – Nature-Based Solutions
viii
ix
Introduction
In the present chapter, the reader will be introduced to the background and justification of the
research. This section will cover the guiding concepts and challenges the present project will address.
Following this introduction, the problem statement, the research objectives and questions will be
presented. Finally, a brief description and outline of the thesis will be provided.
1.1 Background and justification

Adaptation to climate change
Climate disruption and ecosystem degradation1 are changing the hydrological system at the same time
as population and infrastructures increase their dependence and exposure to it. The increasing
frequency, intensity and severity of extreme weather events (O'Gorman, 2015) resulting in a growing
magnitude of water related extremes such as droughts and floods (Mazdiyasni, 2015; IPCC, 2012)
has been well documented. This variability has not only a significant impact on human life, but also
in the socio-economic development that relies on it. In a recent report by the European Environmental
Agency (EEA, 2018), between 1980 and 2016, weather and climate-related extremes accounted for
around 83% of total monetary losses in the EU Member States, usually reflecting monetised direct
damages to certain assets. Presumably, this intensification in extremes will provoke greater losses,
not only because of the increased exposure of assets, but also on the increased value of them.
The future cost of climate-related hazards in Europe will depend on several factors, including the
resilience and vulnerability of society (EEA, 2018). In order to increase social, financial and
ecological protection, in the last decade scientists have focused on the high potential of ecosystem
service thinking (Ferraro & Simpson, 2002) in managing climatic variability and impacts. In this
sense, this concept has gained attention as it can contribute to reduce vulnerability to disaster through
the “delivery from and resilience of fully functioning ecosystems” (Denjean et al., 2017). Although
this is not a new idea, in the past years great efforts have been made to promote the maintenance,
enhancement and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems with the objective of increased resilience
of our systems (Augeraud-Verón, Fabbri, & Schubert, 2017; Baumgärtner, 2008).
Planning under uncertainty
Planning in a changing environment possesses great challenges, as future is uncertain (W. E. Walker
et al., 2003). We have made decisions relying on our understanding of natural, economic and social
system, which attempted to comprehend and predict the dynamic and multiple interrelationships
between them. This decision making processes did however not consider all set of unknowns and
complexities. Policy makers and scientists have understood that not taking into account the
irreducible uncertainties of the systems we need to manage may have serious consequences to our
development. In the last decades, natural resources management literature have focused its attention
1
Through for example land use change, land degradation and wetland loss.
10
on the concept of uncertainty (Brugnach, Henriksen, van der Keur, & Mysiak, 2009; Pahl-Wostl,
2007), further developing the term towards a set of different elements and understandings. This in
turn has led to an evaluation of the traditional (and technical oriented) ways in which natural systems
are managed (Gleick, 2003). The increased awareness of the future system dynamics and complexities
have supported the increased research and use on approaches such as adaptive management, which
respond to the need to adapt to unknown, variable and different framing conditions through the
creation of flexible solutions (Brugnach et al. 2008).
Although large part of the uncertainty literature concentrates its efforts to predict natural and technical
systems, uncertainties are not only associated with them (Brugnach et al. 2008). Conventionally,
uncertainty has been linked to two natures: limited knowledge and inherent variability of a system.
But from a different field, particularly that of social sciences, another kind of uncertainty has been
added and further investigated that associates with behaviour of people, institutions and
organizations. This nature of uncertainty is related to the simultaneous presence of multiple equal
valid frames of knowledge (Dewulf, Craps, Bouwen, Taillieu, & Pahl-Wostl, 2005), also referred in
the literature as “ambiguity’, and is not often considered in policymaking. In order to cope and select
courses of action considering all the uncertainties inherent to that choice (W. E. Walker et al., 2003),
is that adaptive and collaborative support systems are being developed to provide assistance to policy
and decision makers.
Nature-based solutions: improving adaptation to climate change
Along a set of different concepts that appeal to this matter, Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) have gained
notoriety, and has been increasingly utilized as an overarching framework in ecosystem management
for sustainability, societal benefit and human well-being (Nesshöver et al., 2017, p. 1226). In spite
further discussion of the selection of this particular concept over others, and understanding that its
definition often relates and overlap with other concepts used for ecosystem management, the general
overarching goal of its utilization is the development of a set of systemic approaches utilizing concrete
implementation of nature-based actions as solutions to address the impending pressures and risks
related to climate disruption and ecosystem degradation (NAIAD, 2018a). In contrast to more
traditional infrastructure-based approaches, NbS appear to have an advantage by promoting
interventions that fall under the “no regret” actions – actions that are cost-effective under current
climate conditions and are consistent to address risks of climate change, while not representing hard
trade-offs with other solutions (ClimateXChange, 2012). These measures are considered to have
increased adaptive capacities, while sustaining a positive impact regardless on how the climate
changes (IUCN, 2014). Literature shows an increased evidence on NbS characteristics to cope with
uncertainty of climate change: flexibility, cost effectiveness and multi- purpose (European
Commission, 2015c).
Despite the interest in policy circles (European Commission, 2015b) and the widely documented and
accepted advantages of NbS (Raymond et al., 2017), there are still difficulties in the uptake of NbS
and general acceptance by implementation partners as compared to other traditional actions. A
number of barriers have been identified, often linked to the concept of uncertainty. According to the
literature, two issues are highlighted: first, the lack of awareness, communication and knowledge on
evidence on the effectiveness of NbS (Kabisch, Stadler, Korn, & Bonn, 2016); and second, on the
need to “improve conditions in financing, the regulatory and legal environment and intersectorial
collaboration including harmonizing policies across development areas” (UN-Water, 2018).
Identifying and considering all natures of uncertainties in the planning approaches of NbS may aid
for the purpose of successful NbS implementation.
11
In addition to the selected concept of Nature-Based solution, and in particular to the last barrier
identified in regards to the need of increased viability of NbS, the concept of “insurance” emerges as
a key benefit and valuation method for these type of schemes (Denjean et al., 2017). Yet, the
application of this concept still needs a re-evaluation of its definition and implementation as a means
of social, financial, and ecological protection. The latter is a fundamental component of insurance as
climate disruption and land use pressures also have measured impact on biodiversity and lead to the
degradation of ecosystem services our society relies on (Denjean et al., 2017).
Regarding the applicability of this concept, the EU H2020 Nature Insurance value: Assessment and
Demonstration project (from now on NAIAD Project) was developed, aiming to “contribute to a new
comprehensive assessment, replicable methodology and framework that can operationalize the
concept of Insurance Value of Ecosystems (IVE) into risk decision via the concept of Nature Based
Solutions (NbS)” (NAIAD, 2018a). In its core, the overall objective is to demonstrate how nature can
play as an insurance system against the impacts of climate disruption, through Natural Assurance
Schemes (NAS).
This research forms part of this project, as it intends to discuss the difficulties in the uptake and
mainstreaming of NbS to contribute to the improvement of a context-specific assessment of
method/processes of NbS implementation, in order to close the documented implementation gap in
the (strategic) planning process.
1.2 Problem statement

There has been a growing trend in the inclusion and consideration of different set of ecosystem-based
solutions towards the adaptation to climate change. This trend is supported by a general knowledge
of the advantages of these types of solutions, particularly due to the flexible characteristics in dealing
with risk due to the increase in system resilience. In this respect, this research builds on the
assumption that NbS are actions better fitted to deal with uncertainties due to their capacity to address
wider societal and environmental goals while reducing risks, and for this, will continue to be
implemented in the future
Although recent support by policy and planning approaches due to inclusion of wider ecosystem
objectives and presence of specific provisions to handle uncertainties, the experiences in the
implementation of Nature-Based Solutions through these approaches have identified a deficit in its
up-scaling and mainstreaming. These challenges are due mainly to perceived barriers often linked to
uncertainties. Literature points to the “need of study empirical cases to draw out insight in the use of
approaches to address uncertainties” (Zandvoort, van der Vlist, & van den Brink, 2018, p. 194), and
evidences that a more thorough analysis of uncertainties in policy-making process may aid to develop
more flexible and robust management strategies (Warmink, Brugnach, Vinke-de Kruijf, Schielen, &
Augustijn, 2017). For this matter, it is necessary to restructure existing (strategic) planning
frameworks to include a wider approach of the uncertainty concept, and project a move towards
resilience as a planning objective.
I argue that policies and planning frameworks and implementation processes that detect and consider
uncertainties in all its natures will facilitate the integration and implementation of Nature-based
solutions for reducing hydro-meteorological risks. Managing uncertainty needs to evolve from the
support of decisions under risk, to the decision under uncertainty, including the ambiguity and
12
resilience sphere. This not only would allow to improve current planning strategies, but also allow
the facilitation and mainstreaming of NbS.
1.3 Research objectives

The following research objective and sub objectives are formulated to expose the core of the present
research:
To understand how the experiences in the implementation process of Nature
RESEARCH Based Solutions (NbS) for reducing hydro-meteorological risks can be
OBJECTIVE translated to an operational framework for effective NbS implementation
strategy.
- To undertake a critical review of the policies and planning frameworks related

to risk reduction in dealing with uncertainty in specific contexts.
- To analyse, for different types of NbS cases, on what the context was, how the
decisions are made, and how the implementation ended up to be successful2 (or
SUB- not).
OBJECTIVES - To identify barriers and drivers to deal with uncertainty in the NbS planning
and implementation.
- Revisit the (strategic and adaptive) planning conceptual framework of the
specific projects to systematically include key NbS planning and
implementation strategies to deal with uncertainty.
1.4 Research question

The research question is set-up and formulated in regard to the overall objective and sub-objectives
of this study. The main research question and sub-questions that help guide and solve the main
questions are presented in the following table:
RESEARCH What is the role of uncertainty in planning and implementation of Nature

QUESTION Based Solutions?
1. How does policy and planning for water-related risk reduction deal with
uncertainty in specific contexts?
2. Which are the approaches used to implement NBS in specific contexts?
SUB-
2.1 What is the approach taken to deal with future uncertainties?
RESEARCH
2.2 Which are the key factors linked to uncertainty that enable or impede the
QUESTIONS
implementation of Nature Based Solutions?
3. How can NbS planning and implementation approaches integrate
uncertainty?
2
In this research, I define successful as the state on which study cases achieve the implementation of the NbS
13
1.5 Thesis Outline
The present research will be structured in 8 chapters.
Chapter 1 offers the introduction to the research topic.
In Chapter 2 , the reader is introduced to the literature and conceptual framework.
Chapter 3 presents the methodology, describing the research design, data collection and analysis and
research framework.
Chapter 4 will give a general overview by explaining the general context of each specific case study.
Chapter 5 and 6 will present the analysis and results according to the sub-research questions. Chapter
5 will present the results of the analysis of uncertainty situations in the policy and planning
frameworks in the European context and study cases. Chapter 6 will describe the process and
approach taken in the implementation of NbS in specific contexts, identifying the key uncertainty
situations, impeding and success factors and strategies to deal with uncertainty.
Building on the findings of the previous chapters, Chapter 7 will provide the discussion of the results
and a synthesis of the strategies found to cope with uncertainty.
Finally, Chapter 8 will present the conclusions and main findings of the study, together with the
limitations, recommendations and reflection of this work.
14
Literature Review
The literature review briefly describes the theoretical terminology and concepts that have been used
to investigate the topic of the thesis namely: Uncertainty, Nature-based solutions and Strategic
Planning Framework.
2.1 Uncertainty
Literature has pointed out the increasing difficulty of governing environmental issues, particularly
characterized by socio- ecological complexity and uncertainties (Dewulf & Biesbroek, 2018). Due to
this fact is that in the last decade there has been a considerable attention of uncertainty within the
environmental science and governance, particularly in the field of water resources management
(Brugnach, Dewulf, Pahl-Wostl, & Taillieu, 2008; Dewulf et al., 2008; Jensen & Wu, 2016; Van der
Keur et al., 2008). This literature have pointed out the need to design more robust and resilient policies
that are capable in dealing with uncertainties (Capano & Woo, 2017), while also indicating to the
increasing need of consider uncertainties not only associated to the physical and natural sources of
uncertainty, but also to human and behavioural uncertainties (Jensen & Wu, 2016).
According to Dewulf and Biesbroek (2018), literature has been biased in how uncertainty is
understood and conceptualized. In this respect, in a research conducted by Jensen and Wu (2016) on
policy-making under uncertainty in the water sector, three strands of systematic bias are detected.
First, as mentioned above, a more coverage of literature regarding natural sources of uncertainty
rather than human sources. Second, a certain tendency to treat sources of uncertainty as independent.
An third, a focus on tools to reduce or contain uncertainty, rather than accommodate to other levels
of uncertainty. These biases can be considered the weak links in the chain of the literature concerning
uncertainty (Dewulf & Biesbroek, 2018). Including different sources and natures of uncertainties,
understanding their interconnectivity, and developing strategies to accommodate irreducible
uncertainties may aid to the objective of creating more robust policies and plans.
The definition of uncertainty is varied, very much dependent on the discipline and domain of the
authors that have committed to its study (Brugnach et al.(2008)). In a research conducted by Walker
et al. (2003), a review of these different developments of the concept is studied. Particularly
concerned in the field of water resources management, uncertainty literature have focused in the
reduction of uncertainties particularly linked to complex system modelling of natural systems. For
example, Beck (1987) applied the concept specifically to model based water management, were its
focus was to reduce critical uncertainties related with the models variability.
Later work done by Funtowicz and Ravetz (1990) defined uncertainty as a situation of inadequate
information were three kinds of uncertainty could exist: inexactness, unreliability and border with
ignorance. This definition depicts the possibility of reduction through the increasing understanding
of the system. This is exemplified by Zimmerman, were he defines uncertainty as “the situation in
which a person does not dispose about information which quantitatively and qualitatively is
appropriate to describe, prescribe or predict deterministically and numerically a system, its behaviour
or other characteristic” (Zimmerman et al.(2000), as cited in Brugnach et al.(2008)). In the same line,
15
Walker (2003) defines uncertainty as “any departure from the unachievable ideal of complete
determinism”, where it can fall under two kinds of nature: epistemic uncertainty (epistemic) - that is
the uncertainty due to lack or imperfection of knowledge, and variability uncertainty (ontological) -
that is the uncertainty due to inherent variability or unpredictability of a system. Among authors there
is an agreement about these two distinctions of uncertainties (Brugnach et al.(2008).
Later work have shifted and re-evaluated the concept in order stimulate different solutions, not only
those that come from a technical standpoint. This shift was possible through the understanding that
the engineering and technical – command and control - approach was not the only option (Gleick,
2003). As discussed in section 1.1.2, this new understanding have pushed for the creation of more
flexible solutions in other to adapt to these unknown conditions, promoting the development of
approaches such as adaptive management, as well as solutions more adaptable to these changes, such
as Nature-based solutions. Krupnick et al. (2006) for example, taking this distinction further, breaks
down these two typologies (epistemic and ontological) into four primary “types” of uncertainty:
variability, parameter uncertainty, model uncertainty - which are related to these two uncertainty
distinctions -, adding a fourth type named ‘decision uncertainty’. Similarly, Newig et al. (2005)
defines uncertainty from a decision-maker stand point, distinguishing two types, informational and
normative. This last one (termed also as ‘decision uncertainty’), advocates to a more qualitative
parameter. These definitions have led to different conceptualizations of the term.
Parallel to the above definitions, Refsgaard et al. (2005), applying the terminology of Klauer and
Brown (2003) used a new conceptualization that emerged after discussions between social and natural
scientist, specifically for the applications of the concept in model based water management. This
notion of uncertainty is defined as “the lack of confidence a person has about the specific outcome of
an event or action” (Refsgaard et al., 2005), adopting a subjective interpretation of uncertainty in
which “the degree of confidence that a decision maker has about possible outcomes and/or
probabilities of these outcomes is the central focus” ” (Refsgaard et al., 2005). Later work developed
by van der Sluijs (2006) follows this statement, were he argues that uncertainty is not only numbers
and probabilities, but involves both quantitative and qualitative dimensions. Soon after, and based on
this work, a research developed by van der Keur et al.(2008) states that more qualitative uncertainties
are present in the IWRM policy development than those of statistical uncertainties.
Brugnach et al. (2008) incorporates this human dimension by associating uncertainty “with the
knowledge a decision maker has about the system managed”, and incorporating a third dimension of
nature referred as ambiguity. Considering ambiguity as a different nature of uncertainty allows to
address uncertainties that develop from multiple and valid frames (Brugnach et al., 2008). As
Brugnach explain, uncertainties cannot be reduced only by perfecting the knowledge of a system
(epistemic strategy) or accepting the inherent variability of a system (ontological strategy). Rather,
including and categorizing ambiguity as a nature may help to develop strategies to reduce these
uncertainties by strategies that aim to negotiate a mutually acceptable view, or finding a “workable
relation between the different views and actors” (Brugnach et al., 2008).
To cope with the different natures of uncertainties explained above, this research will adopt Brugnach
et al. (2008) definition of uncertainty for natural resources management, that is, “uncertainty refers
to the situation in which a decision maker does not have a unique and complete understanding of the
system to be managed” (Brugnach et al., 2008).
16
The literature shows that the concept of uncertainty has been further defined as different disciplines
have been included in the discussion. The evolution of the concept of uncertainty has clearly increased
the complexity and perspectives given. But in spite the greater complexity that this has brought, these
multiple perspectives have led to a range of strategies and solutions to cope with uncertainty, and
have supported the necessary reflection of the different aspects of the problems stakeholders and
decision maker’s face in a future that remains uncertain.
Natures of uncertainties
Based on different uncertainty natures described by the literature (ontological, epistemic, ambiguity),
Table 1 presents the definitions adopted for this research of each type of knowledge relationship, and
the kind of knowledge it represents.
Uncertain
Knowledge it
knowledge Definition Strategies to deal with uncertainty
represents
relationship
Epistemic Incomplete Imperfection of the In principle, uncertainty could be reduced or
knowledge knowledge about a even eliminated by carrying more research,
system. collecting more or better data, in order to
improve the description and understanding of
the situation.
Ontological Unpredictability Inherent variability of Accepting that it is not possible to make
the system. deterministic predictions about a
phenomenon and that doing more research
will not change this situation in the near
future.
Ambiguity Multiple Simultaneous presence Multiple and conflicting views about how to
knowledge of multiple frames of understand the system often represent
frames reference about certain different kinds of knowledge that are difficult
phenomenon. to reconcile or integrate.
Table 1. Nature of Uncertainty and types of uncertain knowledge relationships
Adopted on the definitions of (Brugnach et al., 2008; Dewulf et al., 2005; Refsgaard et al., 2005; W. E. Walker et al., 2003).
Objects of knowledge
For the present research, the description of objects of knowledge considered are based on the work
of Brugnach et al. (2008) that are the natural, the technical and the social system. This classification
has the intention of helping to distinguish to which part of the system the uncertainty refers,
understanding that they relate and coexists in a complex system (Brugnach et al., 2008).
Object of
Description
knowledge
Natural system Uncertainty concerning aspects such as climate impacts, water quantity,
water quality and ecosystems knowledge.
Technical system Uncertainty concerning technical elements and artefacts that are deployed
to intervene in the natural system knowledge.
Social system Uncertainty concerning economic, cultural, legal, political, administrative
and organizational aspects knowledge.
Table 2. Objects of knowledge
Adapted from Brugnach et al. (2008)
17
Uncertainty classification matrix
Adapted from Brugnach et al.(2008), van der Keur et al. (2008) and Dewulf and Biesbroek (2018),
the following table presents the description of the “uncertainty situations” in a 9-cell matrix, were
each cell describes a combination of both dimensions explained above.
Type of knowledge relation (nature)

Incomplete knowledge
Unpredictability Multiple knowledge
Imperfection of
Unpredictable behaviour of frames
knowledge, inexactness,
nature, humans or the Equally valid interpretations
approximations and
system. of a phenomenon.
ignorance.
Natural system Incomplete knowledge Multiple knowledge frames
Unpredictable behaviour of
Climate impacts, about the natural system about the natural system
the natural system.
water quantity, E.g. unreliable E.g. is the main problem in
E.g. what will be the highest
water quality, measurements of water this basin the water quantity
water level next year?
ecosystems levels. or ecosystem status?
Object of knowledge
Technical system about the technical Multiple knowledge frames
the technical system.
Infrastructure, system. about the technical system.
E.g. what will be the side
technologies, E.g. to what water level E.g. should we raise dikes or
effects of technology X?
innovations will this dike resist? create flood plains?
Social system Incomplete knowledge Multiple knowledge frames

Economic, cultural, about the social system. about the social system.
the social system.
legal, political, E.g. what are the E.g. do we need to impose
E.g. how strong will the
administrative and economic impacts of a insurance against floods or
reaction of stakeholders be
organizational flood for the different adapt the legal regulations
at the next flood?
aspects stakeholders? about spatial planning?
Table 3. Uncertainty classification matrix
Adopted from Brugnach et al.(2008), van der Keur et al. (2008), Dewulf and Biesbroek (2018)
Uncertainty situations are defined as those situations “in which a decision maker does not have a
unique and complete understanding of the system to be managed”. These situations fall under the
crossing between the type and object of knowledge, appearing in blue on the table above. This
research builds on linking uncertainty situations to
the stages in the planning process, as done by van
der Keur et al (2008). Figure 1 represents the
combination of the three natures of uncertainty. In
most barriers linked to uncertainty, all natures of
uncertainties are present simultaneously. This
interrelation causes that any strategy or action a
decision-maker utilizes will impact in all the
nature of uncertainties (Brugnach et al., 2009).
This provokes that to evaluate the real impact of a
strategy used to deal with a specific nature of
uncertainty, it is required a deeper analysis of the
Figure 1. Characterization of uncertainties impact of these actions to the others.
Source: Adopted from Brugnach et al. (2009)
18
Strategies to deal with uncertainty
Literature concerning the strategies to cope with uncertainty is varied3, although it has remained
particularly concentrated in the epistemic and ontological natures of uncertainty. In this section, and
based on the work done by van de Hoek (2014) and Brugnach et al., (2009), strategies to overcome
uncertainty considering the three natures will be depicted.
Most of the strategies depicted here are suggested in the field of adaptive management. This is not
intended to be an exhaustive list of strategies and guidelines.
Accepting not knowing  Develop solutions robust to multiple possible futures
UNPREDICT
(better)  Damage control

ABILITY
 Diversification of solutions
 Combine multiple strategies
 Apply temporary adaptation strategies
 Improvise
Work on improving  Range estimation (confidence intervals)
knowledge  More data gathering and scientific research to complete or
KNOWKEDGE
INCOMPLETE
improve factual
 knowledge base
 Use simulation models to evaluate implications of imperfect
knowledge
 Uncertainty propagation in models
 Use expert opinions
 Improve communication between scientist and decision makers
Learning to deal with  Cognitive problem solving
KNOWLEDG
MULTIPLE
E FRAMES
differences  Persuasive communication

 Dialogical learning
 Negotiation approach
 Oppositional mode of action
 • Making present/co-presenting
Table 4. Strategies for dealing with uncertainties
Adapted from Brugnach et al. (2009, p. 36)
Uncertainty in policy and planning frameworks for water-related risks

Climate change adaptation sets a number of difficulties for decision making under uncertainty. First,
as stated by Walker et al. (2003) policy makers no longer can expect scientist to provide certainties
to assess the outcome of alternative policies, as uncertainty is present in all the steps of decision
making process. In this sense, authors suggest that an explicit recognition and understanding of
uncertainties may increase the reliability of scientific knowledge from decision makers, and therefore,
improve policymaking (W. E. Walker et al., 2003).
Second, uncertainty exists in different dimensions and natures. In this respect, literature states that
while policy and planning frameworks address both ontological and epistemic uncertainty, ambiguity
resulting from multiple knowledge frames has been underdeveloped (Jensen & Wu, 2016; Zandvoort
et al., 2018). As a consequence of this, traditional approaches that focus on command-and-control
and intend to eliminate uncertainties have been unsuccessful to adapt to changing conditions,
3
See e.g. (Brugnach, Dewulf, Henriksen, & Van der Keur, 2011; Pahl-Wostl, 2007; Refsgaard, van del Sluijs, Hojberg,
& VanRolleghem, 2007; van den Hoek, 2014; Van der Keur et al., 2010; W. E. Walker, Haasnoot, & Kwakkel, 2013).
19
particularly those related to social integration and inclusiveness in managing climate change
(Brugnach & Ingram, 2012).
Lastly, and in order address these many problems that the future possess, authors agree that decision
making processes will have to lead an increasing interaction between different views and disciplines
which may result from a wider inclusion of stakeholders in the decision making process (Brugnach
& Ingram, 2012; Fleming & Howden, 2016). This implies that decision makers will have to deal with
the opposing views and ambiguities on understanding of multiple stakeholders (Brugnach & Ingram,
2012; Fleming & Howden, 2016). In this respect, embracing ambiguity in decision making may play
an important role on the effectiveness of policy and planning frameworks for present and future
challenges of climate change.
2.2 Nature-based Solutions

The understanding and recognition of the fundamental role of nature to the wellbeing of society have
shaped the way we relate to our environment. In the last decades, we comprehend that nature is not
only present to passively benefit human well-being, but also human can actively protect, manage and
restore natural processes and ecosystems to address major societal challenges, such as climate change,
water security and risk reduction. Notions such as ‘sustainable development’ defined by the United
Nations (UN) Bruntland Commission (Brundtland et al., 1987) and ‘ecosystems services’ (Gómez-
Baggethun & Muradian, 2010) proved to be influential in a change of paradigm in the relation
between people and nature.
Measures and actions to put in practice this new relation have been taken, mainly targeted to enhance
and harness nature’s benefits while preventing and protecting us from its negative impacts. This
actions are based on a variety of concepts, terminologies and approaches that are similar or compatible
to the ecosystem approach (UN-Water, 2018) that come from the field of ecology, such as adaptation
and resilience. Concepts such as ‘ecosystem and ecological restoration’, ‘ecological engineering’ and
‘ecosystem-based management and adaptation’, appeal to this matter, and have been widely used and
applied. This anthropocentric view of management of nature (Nesshöver, Prip, & Wittmer, 2015),
focusing on the benefits that nature may provide to humans (Díaz et al., 2015) has led to its increasing
use in policy agreements, programmes, research and practice (Nesshöver et al., 2017).
Comparatively to these concepts, Nature-based Solutions4 (NbS) is a relatively new term, and has
limited research to date (Eggermont et al., 2015; Maes & Jacobs, 2015). According to the
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the concept of NbS should not be seen as a
rival or comparable to these related approaches, but as an “umbrella” concept that encompass “the
whole range of ecosystem-related approaches all of which address societal challenges” (Cohen-
Schacham, Walters, Janzen, & Maginnis, 2016). In the past years, its diversification in policies and
planning has created a range of definitions that affect their use and application. As Nesshöver et al.
(2015) points out, this has provoked that the meaning of NbS might appear vague and unclear.
NbS is a concept “introduced to promote nature as a means of providing solutions to climate
mitigation and adaptation challenges” (Nesshöver et al., 2015) while at the same time provide benefits
4 A comprehensive list of different concepts related to NbS is done by Nesshöver (2017) is presented
in the Appendix A
20
and services to society. Its first appearance can be tracked to 2002, although its first explicit use was
in the ‘Millennium Ecosystem Assessment’ report in 2005. Since then, the concept has been utilized
in a variety of programmes and reports such as World Bank Report on ‘Biodiversity, Climate Change
an Adaptation’, 2010’s ‘Natural Solutions’ report and ‘Biodiversa NbS workshop’ in 2014 to embrace
the ecosystem approach rather than conventional “hard path” engineering approach. Particularly in
Europe, framework programmes for research and innovation, such as ‘Horizon 2020’ and the ‘EU
Research and Innovation policy agenda for Nature-Based Solutions and Re-Naturing Cities’ have
been developing and applying this concept increasingly (Cohen-Schacham et al., 2016).
Particularly, the IUCN has actively promoted the NbS concept since its 2009 position paper on the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) COP 15. In 2012, the IUCN
formally adopted NbS as an area of work within its 2013-2016 Programme (Cohen-Schacham et al.,
2016).
The IUCN defined NbS as:
“actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems, that
address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-
being and biodiversity benefits” (IUCN, 2012).
This definition and classification responds and embraces nature conservation norms (and principles),
and is considered by the organization as an encompassing or “umbrella concept for “biodiversity and
ecosystem stewardship” (Nesshöver et al., 2017). Their objectives are targeted for conservation, while
delivering benefits by the protection of the ecosystems.
Further definitions have broaden even further this notion to include “not only those that apply
solutions that use nature, but are also inspired and supported by nature” (Cohen-Schacham et al.,
2016). Particularly for the European Commission (EC), NbS is understood as actions that ‘aim to help
societies address a variety of environmental social and economic challenges in sustainable ways”
((European Commission, 2015c) as appears in (Nesshöver et al., 2017)).
The definition utilized by the European Commission states Nature-based solutions as:
“Living solutions that are inspired by, continuously supported by and using nature, designed
to address various societal challenges in a resource efficient and adaptable manner and to
provide simultaneously economic, social and environmental benefits.”(European
Commission, 2015b).
Perhaps one key aspect to remark by comparing these two definitions is that, while they share a
common objective (major societal problems), the IUCN definition at its core is about “manage, and
restore natural or modified ecosystems”, while the EC definition appeals to a broader aspect putting
emphasis on “solutions that are inspired and supported by nature”5.
This has been source of discussions, since the clear boundaries are not well delimited, and has made
unclear what could be considered an NbS, particularly on the wide range of Green-grey / hybrid
solution that can exist (Denjean et al., 2017; Ferraro & Simpson, 2002; Mittermaier et al., 2008).
These kind of measures rely on the definition of EC (solutions inspired or supported by nature), being
present in the overlap between conventional engineering interventions and green solutions that appeal
to conservation (Denjean et al., 2017; Ferraro & Simpson, 2002; Mittermaier et al., 2008). In general,
5
See (Nesshöver et al., 2017) for an extensive comparative analysis between these two definitions.
21
as stated by Nesshöver, NbS appear to be focused on “managing and providing multiple ecosystem
services, rather than at actions exclusively directed towards biodiversity conservation”(Nesshöver et
al., 2017).
Figure 2. Range of Nature-based solutions

Source: Author
One key element that is common to all of the classifications stated above is the overall goal of
“addressing societal challenges through the effective use of ecosystem and ecosystem services”
(Cohen-Schacham et al., 2016). On the other hand, there is an agreement on certain features of NbS
in the literature (Barton, 2016; Eggermont et al., 2015; European Commission, 2015b; IUCN, 2012;
Nesshöver et al., 2017):
 Utilize system and processes of ecosystems to deliver services.
 Provides multiple environmental, social and economic benefits simultaneously (and therefore
efficiently).
 Resilient to changing pressures.
 Adapted to local conditions.
 Require engagement with multiple actors.
 Provides co-benefits.
 Bridge social economic interests.
Comparing grey and Nature-based solutions

In spite the difficulties of separating conceptually these kinds of solutions, literature seems to be clear
when differentiating the concepts of NbS and grey infrastructure6. In recent years, there has been an
increased number of authors that refer to this issue, mainly because the uptake of these solutions is
challenged by pathways dependencies, traditional investment decisions, and supportive institutional
and governance structures that usually lead to the support of grey solutions (Altamirano, Van de
Guchte, & Benitez Avila, 2013; Denjean et al., 2017; Nesshöver et al., 2015). The referred literature
is particularly concerned in comparing the efficiency of grey vs green infrastructure7. Yet, literature
points out to the need to set standardized comparative analysis as to the advantages and disadvantages
of these types of solutions (Denjean et al., 2017). This is mainly due to the difficulty of valuing and
6
Understood as solutions that have been commonly applied when planning for water security, e.g. such as reservoirs,
dikes, aqueducts and treatment plants. These are hard infrastructure (appealing to its inflexibility - once implemented, its
removal imply high costs), with single defined objectives and beneficiaries, and high initial costs.
7
Research in this aspect is varied. Mathews et al. (2015) highlights the path dependency in decision making of spatial
planners towards green infrastructure. Mazzucato (2013) analyses the role and capacity of public institutions and civil
servants to innovate towards these type of solutions. In another work, Richardson (2016) identifies the obstacles of NbS
implementation linked to the norms and limited liability in a case of ecological restoration.
22
monetizing the direct, indirect and
(co-)benefits that NbS solutions
may give. The frameworks that
exist for co-benefits consideration
and assessment are few (Raymond
et al., 2017).
In a work done by Altamirano et al.
(2013) to comparatively evaluate
these solutions, two main criteria
were used, that is, investment and
operational expenses and time
required to achieve specified levels Figure 3. Grey versus Green infrastructure for flood control:
of services, as showed in Figure 3 Qualitative capital investment and operational expenses required.
Source: Altamirano et al. (2013)
and Figure 4 respectively.
As Figure 3 shows, initial investments of grey infrastructure are set to be high in the initial stages,
and reduced after its implementation. An important aspect of this type of infrastructure is that its
lifespan usually is long, and the operational expenses never reduces to that of ‘without any measure’.
In this case, the author
presents a comparison to
hybrid solutions. For this,
initial investments usually are
lower than that of grey
infrastructure. During the
operational phase, these type
of solutions require expenses
during a longer period. This
gives rise to the idea that
hybrid and grey solutions may
require similar levels of
Figure 4. Grey versus Green infrastructure for flood control expenses, but differently
Time required to achieve specified level of services.
spread over time. According to
Source: Altamirano et al. (2013) Denjean et al. (2017), hybrid
solutions, require lower cost
for their maintenance and operation in the long term than that of grey solutions.
With respect to the level of service of hybrid and traditional infrastructures, traditional solutions
usually maximize their level of service once the implementation phase is over. During operation,
these type of solutions tend to lower their level of service, due mainly to the deterioration of the
capacity of the infrastructure to comply with the objectives (e.g. sediments being accumulated on a
reservoir, reducing its capacity). On the other hand, NbS (hybrid) solutions require a longer period to
deliver the targeted level of service (Denjean et al., 2017) (i.e. mangroves require a long time to reach
the level of service of protection). According to these authors, it is expected that these type of
solutions provides a higher level of service in the long term.
23
Analysis of alternative solutions
Methods and approaches to comparatively analyse alternative strategies are used to aid decision
makers. While Multi-criteria decision analysis is gaining strength in the past years, the most
traditional and common approaches used correspond to economic assessment methods, such as Cost
Benefit Analysis (CBA) or Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA). Particularly CBA is used frequently
and has been adopted by several approaches (NAIAD Project been one of them), and its relevance
relies as it enables to compare strategies with different service levels while accounting for impacts.
In this sense, the levels of service can be expressed as benefits (or potential co-benefits), allowing to
link benefits with ecosystem services. This method serves to compare alternatives by accounting to
the benefits and costs of solutions and strategies (Graveline et al., 2017).
This last point is particularly important for selecting NbS, due to the importance of accounting co-
benefits and insurance value. In this sense, the idea of the approach is to be able to “compare the sum
of all direct and indirect costs and benefits (damage and benefits) that differ between situations to
illustrate the advantage of one respectively to the other” (Graveline et al., 2017). The principle of
comparison between costs and benefits is shown in Figure 5:
Figure 5. Cost-benefit assessment between BAU and NAS strategy

Source: (NAIAD, 2018a)
Aspects appear as key to account for the increase in benefits (by accounting co-benefits) and reduction
of damage costs (by accounting for the insurance value) that may guide to the selection of NbS as a
preferred strategy.
To understand the concept of insurance value of ecosystems (or nature), we have to first understand
the concept of resilience. Resilience of an ecosystem is understood as the ‘ability to maintain its basic
functions and controls while undergoing change and experiencing shocks’(Grimm & Wissel, 1997;
Holling, 1973; Primm, 1984) as appears in (Drupp & Baumgärtner, 2015). Walker (2004) defines it
as the “capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to
still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity and feedbacks”. The relevance of this
concept from an economical and societal perspective is that any drop in the ability of an ecosystem
24
to provide ecosystem services might entail a huge welfare loss (Baumgärtner & Strunz, 2014). As the
concept of insurance aims to protect us ‘against reaching a non-desired state’ (Mäler, 2008), it is
linked directly to the resilience of an ecosystem.
In other words, ecosystems and biodiversity act as ‘buffer shocks’, maintaining their capacity of
delivering ecosystem services (Green, Kronenberg, Andersson, Elmqvist, & Gómez-Baggethun,
2016). This ability to external disturbances may be linked to the concept of insurance in its economic
sense. To understand this link, Baumgärtner and Strunz (2014) adopted the definition of McCall
(1987), where insurance is ‘an institution that mitigates the influence of uncertainty on a person’s
well-being’ (Drupp & Baumgärtner, 2015). In this sense, Drupp and Baumgärtner (2015) defines
insurance value of an ecosystem as “the function of a resilience stock to reduce an ecosystem user’s
(income) risk from using ecosystem services, whose provision may be subject to regime shifts”. These
same authors have demonstrated that the capacity of ecosystems to reduce the damage is a key aspect
as they may reduce the price of insurance costs and price (e.g.. the premium). This aspect is key to
understand the insurance value of ecosystems, as the valuation of it may be a further incentive to the
protection, restoration and maintenance of ecosystems, and specifically NbS (Denjean et al., 2017).
Barriers and drivers in the implementation of NbS.
Through a review of the literature concerning NbS, it is possible to evidence a wide range of drivers
and barriers that enable of impede the implementation, uptake and mainstreaming of these sort of
solutions8. These set of barriers are intimately related to uncertainties, being possible to classify them
in three major themes: barriers related to uncertainties in the natural and technical system and those
related political, legal, economic, financial and institutional classification, or social system. Literature
reveals a greater number of barriers linked to the social system, and particularly referred to ambiguity,
which at the same time have been found to have the greatest adverse influences the implementation
of NbS solutions (Thorne et al., 2015).
Drivers on the other hand have received increasingly more attention as more NbS have been
implemented. These drivers have become effective strategies that have allowed the implementation
of these type of solutions. In this context, in a work conducted by Nesshöver et al. (2017), five key
elements and drivers for the operationalization of the NbS concept are depicted:
 Dealing with uncertainty and complexity (setting the adaptive management approach as an
example).
 Ensuring the involvement of multiple stakeholders.
 Ensuring the sound use of multi- and transdisciplinary knowledge.
 Developing common understanding of multifunctional solutions, trade-offs and natural
adaptation.
 Evaluate and monitor for mutual learning.
In Chapter 6, an analysis of this literature will derive into a classification of barriers and drivers linked
to uncertainties and strategies to cope with uncertainty. This initial classification helped to guide the
identification of uncertainty situations and strategies to cope with uncertainty in the specific cases. A
complete list of the barriers in a review of 8 peer reviewed scientific articles in the European context
is showed in APPENDIX B.
8
See Altamirano et al.(2013), Guerrin (2014) Mathews et al.(2015), Thorne et al.(2015), Sakic (2015), Eggermont et
al.(2015), Kabish et al.(2016), Holstead et al.(2016), Barton et al.(2016), O’Donnell et al.(2017) and Waylen et al.(2017).
25
2.3 Strategic Planning Framework and adaptive management.
Having an increased awareness of the complexity of a system, and uncertainties bound to this
intricacy is that new approaches have emerged (Pahl-Wostl, 2007). This has slowly shifted the way
from traditional approaches – “options aimed at accurate predictions and short term system
equilibrium through top-down policies of control and exclusion” (Dreiss, 2016; National Research
Council, 2004)-, to adaptive management approaches – “flexible decision making that can be adjusted
in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from management actions and other events become better
understood” (Agrawal, 2002; Dreiss, 2016)-. Literature indicates the benefits of this approach to cope
with uncertainties through increased system resilience (Nesshöver et al., 2015, p. 1221) benefiting
and supporting NbS implementation.
The strategic planning framework approach is a forward looking or ex-ante approach that aims at
creating a strategic position for the future (Loucks & van Beek, 2016). This is based on the
understanding of current challenges in the identification of measures and action plans to overcome
them. In water systems, strategic planning aims at achieving numerous objectives going to the socio-
economic and environmental dimensions of the water system. It provides a systematic procedure to
generate a synthesis of information so we gain insights into the nature and consequences of possible
management strategies.
I – Inception
Setting-up
Objectives
Stakeholder
and Criteria
Process
Natural Socio-
Resource Economic
s system system
Institu-
tional
system
Scenario
Analysis
Problem
description
Potential Solutions
Data
and
Tools
Alternative
Strategies
Preferred
Strategy

Financing framework
Funding strategy
Financing strategy
Action Plan

Project delivery
(Implementation)
Evaluation
Figure 6. Strategic Planning Framework
Adopted from Loucks and Van Beek, 2017 - https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319442327
26
As the authors suggest, this is not a rigid framework, nor intend to be a logical sequence of steps for
decision making. Rather, the decision process is iterative, involving feedbacks from earlier steps
when changing conditions emerge. It focus on continuous improvement (Warmink et al., 2017).
The five phases of strategic water resource planning are:
Inception phase: Defines the boundary conditions and establishes the objectives and limitations. This
requires the involvement of all stakeholders and decision makers, setting the
circumstances under which a solution or plan is created for the decision makers to
discuss. The analysis includes a thorough investigation into the existing policy
mechanisms, institutional frameworks, problems, measures of success and available
data.
Situation Focuses in data collection and modelling. Using the conditions and frameworks from
Analysis: the previous step, the natural, socio-economic and administrative system are
developed. These systems components are usually captioned in models, in close
collaboration with stakeholders to ensure same system understandings. A structured
analysis is needed to identify present and future problems, which provide the
necessary tools to identify measures to address these problems (e.g. scenario analysis
is made, often linked to socioeconomic developments and climate change, to prepare
for problems that may arise in the future).
Strategy Promising measures combines into strategies, which are assessed in detail. The results
Building: are a set of selected strategies that are presented to decision-makers (in the section
below, the adaptive management analysis for the selection and evaluation of
alternative strategies will be further discussed).
Action Planning: After the selection of the preferred strategy, this phase focuses on its translation to
concrete actions. The involvement of various stakeholders needs careful planning and
coordination. Action planning is not intended to be static or prescriptive, leaving
room for decision-makers to further discuss in relation to their own responsibilities.
This last point is key, as this stage should assign concrete actions. This phase includes
the funding and budgetary requirements for implementation.
Implementation: This phase focuses on the implementation of the strategies selected according to the
action plan devised. It includes the actual creation of construction measures and its
subsequent monitoring and evaluation.
Table 5. Five phases of strategic water resource planning
Source: Loucks and Van Beek, 2017
As stated by Loucks & van Beek (2016), the framework of analysis includes two blocks that are
essential to the fulfilment of the five phases of the framework, and are involved in all the steps of the
framework. First, data and modelling tools give the necessary information of the present and future
conditions, aiding in the understanding of the systems, identify measures and to evaluate and select
strategies. Still, as the author’s point out, data and modelling tools are not intended to be the sole
basis for policy decisions.
On the other hand, the acceptance and ownership of the plan by the stakeholders and decision makers
proves to be key for the success of the plan or measure. For this reason, it is indispensable for a
sustainable and correct implementation of strategies the inclusion of a participatory process along the
creation of the strategic plan. The definition of the participatory process is made through a stakeholder
analysis. Its design will depend in great measure in the definition of the level of participation of
various stakeholders. This process needs to take account the modelling tools to support decision
making under uncertainty. Also it has to consider the information and communication tools used for
disseminating the information emanated from the process, so they can be carried out in a participatory
manner.
27
Besides the strategic planning framework, another method to better respond to changing conditions
is the adaptive management approach, which is intended to give a dynamic strategy in dealing with
uncertain futures. It set for both short and long term planning periods a set of actions that considers
measures applicable in both temporalities. In order to reduce future regret measures (measures that
may appear overdesigned or unnecessary in the future), it incorporates future uncertainties in
boundary conditions in their design. As mentioned by Loucks & van Beek (2016), it not only gives
us the direction on what to do, but also what to do in alternative and unpredictable conditions.
In this last aspect, a method that has gained consensus in dealing with uncertainty is the Adaptive
Pathways approach. Developed by Hassnoot et al.(2012), this tool explores diverse conditions and
actions considering two criteria: robustness (insensitive to changing conditions) and flexibility (easily
adaptable). By exploring the alternative actions or “pathways”, you can minimize future regrets by
taking to account each pathway costs and consequences. It presents a sequence of possible actions,
which after implemented are assessed continuously. If conditions no longer meet the objectives set,
a “tipping point” emerges, that can guide to a change in the strategy or action applied. This tool allows
planners to “combine a portfolio of measures, in order to assess their timely use under different
scenarios” (Zandvoort et al., 2018, p. 190).
Figure 7. Adaptation Pathways Map

Adopted from Hassnoot et al. (2012)and Loucks & van Beek (2016)
This approach has a particular view of uncertainty, as it assumes that uncertainty can be reduced over
time (Zandvoort et al., 2018). In this sense, handling uncertainty has a close connection with ‘tipping
points’. In these moments, actions and measures are assessed according to their response of new
conditions. If actions are too costly, technically unfeasible, or socially undesirable, new actions can
be taken into consideration. In order to decide a strategy, the cost and benefits of these actions are
need to be taken account. Robust strategies (e.g. dams, dikes) may appear to be more costly, but
assessing the implementation of flexible strategies may prove to be more expensive at the end.
Assessing these strategies must take into account not only direct benefits and costs, but also the co-
benefits. This may facilitate the selection of strategies that include more flexible actions and measures
such as NbS.
28
Research methodology
3.1 Research design

The flow chart presented in Figure 8 denotes the different components of the present research design.
Based on information obtained from practitioners and professionals of the NAIAD project, three cases
were selected for which a qualitative analysis was carried out. This analysis is based on data obtained
from primary and secondary sources.
Figure 8. Research design
3.2 Case study approach

An exploratory case study approach is adopted for this research, which is a method particularly useful
for conducting social science research, and to study complex issues in real contexts, particularly when
the phenomenon studied and the context cannot be separated (Yin, 2009). The main goal of this
research is to gain insights on how current implementation strategies have led to effective (or not)
placement of NbS by studying the patterns of similarity and differences. This focus can best be
investigated in concrete cases of NbS implementation.
29
3.3 Selection of cases
This research applied an information-oriented selection of critical cases, in which single cases were
selected on the basis of an expectation of information contained through the experience of the
implementation of each case (Flyvbjerg, 2006). In this sense, we assume that logical deductions of
the experiences may help to guide similar implementation processes in the future.
The cases selected for this research were based on European NbS and NAIAD DEMO sites. The latter
presents an opportunity for the investigation of experiences regarding the planning and
implementation of NbS projects in Europe. Harnessing the rich and extensive experience of
professionals and experts that have worked on this project is an opportunity that can lead to the
improvement, not only of the NbS uptake and mainstreaming, but also to the current planning
frameworks being utilized.
The three cases selected were the Managed Aquifer Recharge in “El Carracillo” Region, Spain; Urban
Water Buffer in Rotterdam, the Netherlands; and River Basin Restoration project, Copenhagen
(Denmark).
Location Name of the Urban/rural Main objective Stage in the planning
project and outcome process
Objective of
Implementation,
Spangen, Rotterdam Urban Water drought and
Urban operation and
(The Netherlands) Buffer flood risk
maintenance
reduction.
Medina del Campo Managed Objective of
aquifer “El Aquifer Rural drought risk Planning and design
Carracillo” (Spain) Recharge reduction.
Copenhagen River Objective of flood
Urban Inception
(Denmark) Restoration risk reduction.
Table 6. Cases selected
3.4 Data collection methods

This research uses predominantly a qualitative approach to data collection and analysis, which was
suitable to explore complex subjects through individual experiences (Silverman, 1997) . Information
was collected through primary and secondary sources. Primary data sources correspond to field
observations, interviews conducted to NAIAD practitioners, professionals and stakeholders involved
in the implementation of NbS. Secondary sources correspond to information provided by stakeholders
and practitioners of the NAIAD project, as well as information from various documents, reports, and
peer reviewed articles. The content of these sources are discussed below.
30
Primary data sources
3.4.1.1 Interviews
Semi-structured interviews9 approach was adopted to allow respondents to talk around open ended
questions designed to elicit understandings of their perspectives around barriers, uncertainty
situations and enabling factors and/or strategies to cope with uncertainty in NbS implementation.
The interviews were conducted between 12th December 2018 and 24th of January 2019 with a sample
of 18 individuals. This sample consisted of a variety of stakeholders across private, public and
academia that are indirectly or directly involved and concerned with the implementation of NbS,
including experts and professionals involved in the NAIAD project. Their diverse expertise and
knowledge provided a wide range of perspectives. In order to maintain confidentiality, the respondent
are referred according to their employer, e.g. Field Factors. A complete list of interviewees is
presented in APPENDIX D, containing the coded number of reference for each interview. Figure 9
shows the distribution and number of interviews conducted.
Study Case Number of interviews
11% Rotterdam 6
28% Spain 6
17% Copenhagen 6
5%
39%
Figure 9. Distribution and number of interviews
Open-ended questions were read to all the interviewees, including questions about the implementation
process of the NbS, barriers and challenges associated with the implementation, main risks and
uncertainties in the process, and the success factors and drivers that allowed a correct implementation
of the NbS, seen in APPENDIX C.
The following steps were carried out for each case before conducting the interviews:
i. Introduction about the objective of the interviews and topic of the research.
ii. Seek permission to utilize the data collected.
iii. Assurance to the interviewee that the content of the interview will be kept confident and only
used for the purpose of this thesis.
iv. At any moment of the interview, the interviewee can stop the process to seek clarification or
to stop the process in totality.
3.4.1.2 Interviews carried out by NAIAD partners

Before and during the elaboration of the present research, interviews were carried out by NAIAD
specialists in the frame of the NAIAD project. In total, 9 interviews were considered for the present
research, conducted and recorded between November 2017 and December 2018. Although these
9
According to Silverman (2001) these type of interviews allows the interviewer to respond to changing conditions and
situations, and is particularly useful in following certain topics of interest.
31
interviews were done for different objectives10, they provide important insights for the identification
of barriers and strategies for NbS implementation.
3.4.1.3 Workshops
The assistance to two NAIAD workshops conducted on Medina del Campo and Copenhagen made
possible further collection of data on essential aspects such as background information, co-benefits
and barriers and drivers of NbS implementation.
The workshop in Medina del Campo was conducted in the city of Arevalo between the 11-12th of
December of 2018. The main activities of the workshop were: identification-development of new
indicators for NbS evaluation, presentation and validation of models (groundwater and water
allocation model and social network analysis & agent-based model model) and presentation of
scenarios, NbS strategies, co-benefits and value capture.
The workshop in Copenhagen was conducted on 15th of January 2019. The main activities were:
presentation of Urban River Restoration Demo case and Demo case pitch, discussion among
stakeholders over of co-benefits, presentation of the System Dynamic Model for Copenhagen, group
model building and validation of results and presentation of results and validation of the Social
Network Analysis.
Secondary sources
The data collection from secondary resources was based primarily on information retrieved during
the fieldwork and on online resources through a desk research. Online resources were collected
through the research to complement the information gathered through primary resources. The quality
of the data was ensured by the use of high quality sources of information, through the collection based
primarily on peer reviewed scientific literature. The following information was collected:
 Experiences in NbS implementation in the European context.
 Main barriers and drivers of implementation of NbS in the European context.
 Strategies for NbS implementation in the European context.
Information retrieved from fieldwork focused on the case studies selected. The following information
was obtained:
 Guidelines, reports and documents provided by the NAIAD project.
 Legislative documents of the European Commission regarding NbS adaptation.
 Current policies, programmes and strategies of NbS in specific contexts.
 Existing plans and policies elaborated by local authorities and project developers.
 Conceptual framework for the systematization of the use of NbS and Natural Assurance
Schemes (NAS).
3.5 Data analysis and results

When the results from both primary and secondary sources were attained, the next step was to analyse
the empirical data. In order to answer the research questions stated above, the following steps were
applied for each case study: (1) Document analysis: Identify and analyse the key policies and planning
frameworks used to implement NbS in specific cases (Chapter 5), (2) Document analysis: Identify
10
Selection of co-benefits, coordination mechanisms and data to feed a Social Network Analysis.
32
barriers and strategies linked to uncertainty in scientific articles of NbS implementation in the
European context (Chapter 6), (3) Interviews and time-line mapping: Identify the approach implement
NbS in selected cases (Chapter 6), (4) Matrix of uncertainties: Identify and categorize11 the
uncertainty situations to implement NbS in the selected cases (Chapter 6), (5) Identify key success
factors and strategies that made possible to overcome the uncertainty situations. (Chapter 6), and (6)
Integrate the strategies to deal with uncertainties with the Strategic Planning Framework (Chapter 7)
Figure 10. Methodology
The data obtained from the collection methods are linked to the sub-research questions depicted in
each chapter, as seen in Figure 10. The next section will describe the methods to analyse the data
obtained through the collection methods.
11
This categorization will be according to the Type of uncertainty, Object of knowledge and Time Frame (location) in
the steps of the planning process.
33
Document analysis of key policies and planning frameworks
According to Van der Keur el at.(2008), identifying the uncertainties and analysing the assumptions
and uncertainties of management plans is the first step to increase the flexibility of planning strategies.
First, an analysis of policies and planning strategies to implement NbS in specific contexts planning
collected by document analysis.
European level
Water Framework Directive.
Flood Directive 2007/60/EC (FD).
Urban Water Buffer (UWB) Spangen – Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Reviewed Waterplan II (2013).
Rotterdam Climate Proof Adaptation Strategy.
Rotterdam Climate Proof Adaptation Strategy: water safety report.
Rotterdam Climate Proof Adaptation Strategy: urban water system report.
Rotterdam Climate Proof Adaptation Strategy: climate report.
Rotterdam Climate Proof Adaptation Strategy: infrastructure report.
Rotterdam Climate Initiative.
Managed aquifer recharge in “El Carracillo” region– El Duero Basin, Spain.
Hydrological Plan of the Spanish part of the Duero hydrographic demarcation. 2015-2021.
Hydrological Plan of the Spanish part of the hydrographic demarcation of the Duero. 2015-
2021. Annex 13.1 Special Drought Plan.
Hydrological Plan of the Spanish part of the Duero hydrographic demarcation. 2015-2021.
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY.
Hydrological Plan of the Spanish part of the Duero hydrographic district. Environmental
Memory proposal.
River Restoration Project – Copenhagen, Denmark
Copenhagen Climate Adaptation Plan 2011.
Cloudburst Management Plan 2012.
Table 7. Documents reviewed for each case study
These key documents form the setting for the implementation of NbS in specific cases, and their value
relies on the support they give for the context of NbS implementation. Following the methodology
applied by van den Hoek et al.(2014), uncertainties were detected by the use of a list of several
keywords and topics, showed in Table 7. These were carefully analysed in order to identify key
uncertainty situations in the context of the written text.
Key issues signalling the presence of uncertainty
Issues were uncertainty or risk is explicitly mentioned (e.g. currently, it is highly uncertain what
the exact rise temperature will be until 2100);
Issues were assumption or an estimation is made (e.g. it is assumed that rise in temperature will be
1 C° until 2100);
Issues were (a) scenario(s) with a probability of occurrence is given (e.g. there is a 75% chance
that the temperature will rise more than 1 C°);
Issues where (a) scenario(s) with an idea of likelihood of occurrence is given (e.g. temperature is
more likely to rise 2.5 C° than 1 C° in 2100);
Issues were a (range of) possible scenarios without having an idea of likelihood of occurrence (e.g.
temperature will rise will be between 1 C° and 3 C° until 2100);
34
Issues where it is expressed that there is ignorance about the (future) situation (e.g. nobody has an
idea what will be the rise in temperature in 2100);
Issues where lack of knowledge is expressed but additional knowledge can be acquired (e.g. the
effect of a measure is currently unknown but it can be studied by a small-scale practical
experiment);
Framing or priority differences of stakeholders (e.g. while expert A states that climate change is
the cause of C, actor B claims that there is no evidence for climate change is the cause of C);
Other interesting issues that are suspected to be an uncertainty but not stated.
Table 8. Key issues signalling the presence of uncertainty
Adapted from van den Hoek et al. (2014)
.
Analysis of barriers and strategies linked to uncertainty of NbS implementation

in the European context
An initial set of barriers and drivers was identified by a literature review of 8 scientific peer reviews
articles. All the documents reviewed in this step are based in studies done in the European context12.
A list of 107 barriers and 22 drivers were found. After this initial identification, further analysis
allowed to classify and categorize them according to the uncertainty matrix (see Table 3), revealing
27 barriers linked to uncertainties, and 22 drivers linked to strategies to cope with uncertainty.
Interviews and time-line mapping
Following the interview protocol (see APPENDIX C), interviews were conducted in order to elicit
understandings of their perspectives around barriers, uncertainty situations and enabling factors
and/or strategies to cope with uncertainty in NbS implementation (see section 3.4.1.1. of the present
chapter for data collection methods).
This research used a timeline mapping (Kolar, Ahmad, May-Yee Chan, & Erickson, 2015) method
that guided and complemented the conduction of the interviews. This method intends to help the
conduction of the interviews, as well as to present the data obtained. Timeline mapping has a triple
purpose for the present research. The first purpose responds to the need of unravelling the decision
making process for the implementation of NbS. Its use allows the interviewer to organize the
information obtained through the semi-structured interviews in a chronological way, and in this sense
analyse the data and compare it with different experiences of the interviewees along the planning
process, to see if there are coincidences (reaffirming the data), or well gaps of information. On the
other hand through the visualization of the answers of the respondent, its utilization during the
interview helps the interviewer and interviewee facilitate the interview (Silverman, 2001). Lastly, this
visualization, “is one way to enhance the quality of the information obtained and they may offer
benefits for analysis and presentation” (Harper, 2002). The results of these steps give the necessary
data for the identification of uncertainty situations in the case studies.
Uncertainty matrix: Identification of uncertainty situations
Based on the information from the semi-structured interviews and time-line mapping, uncertainty
situations in the planning process were identified. Each uncertainty situation identified was then
classified according to the nature of uncertainty, object of knowledge and location in the planning
12
A complete list of the barriers in a review of 8 peer reviewed scientific articles is showed APPENDIX B: LIST OF
BARRIERS FOUND IN THE LITERATURE
35
process and structured in the uncertainty matrix. A final list of uncertainty situations is generated
based on this approach for each study case.
The uncertainty matrix enables to approach the issue of uncertainty in a structured way, allowing for
comparison between case studies (Dewulf et al., 2008). It allows the decision maker to select from a
range of diverse strategies to cope with uncertainty, depending on the nature, planning step and
system. Based on the potential subjectivity of the classification as reported by Imada (2017), this
research does not intend to objectively classify the uncertainty situations13. Rather, this identification
will be “bound to the interpretation of the researcher over the information provided by the
stakeholders, or the interpretation of the stakeholders” (Imada, 2017, p. 91). The process of relating
uncertainties from the collected data to the uncertainty matrix involves an interpretation of the
researcher from the data available. This step should be considered subjective, confirming earlier
observations by Imada (2017). In order to present results synthetically, the frequency14 of the
uncertainty situations was calculated, according to the total uncertainties found (see section 5.3) in
each case.
Identification of strategies and key success factors to deal with uncertainties
Based on the nature and system of uncertainty identified, and the strategies for coping in uncertainty
(depicted in Table 4), this step will identify the strategies in the literature to handle uncertainty. The
classification of uncertainties in the uncertainty matrix allows to determine the strategy needed. At
the same time, key success factors identified in specific contexts will be added as relevant strategies
to cope with uncertainty. This in turn will aid to add to the range of relevant strategies the decision
maker has to consider in order to deal with different uncertainties.
Adapting strategies to the strategic planning framework.
The main result of this step will be a proposal of strategies to be considered in the Strategic Planning
Framework. These strategies will be derived from the case studies, and how each case dealt (or not)
with uncertainty. These strategies will be added to the strategic planning steps as indications of
strategies to be considered that may aid the implementation and mainstreaming of Nature-based
solutions.
3.6 Methodological assumptions

There are some underlying assumptions made in the present research, particularly in what respects to
the collection of data and analysis of results. First, the selection of interviewees was done with the
intention of covering a wide arrange of viewpoints, assuming that this approach will be representative
of the experiences of implementation for each case study. Second, I assume the truthfulness in which
interviews will respond to the questions. In this respect, confidentiality and anonymity was preserved
to assure that interviewees will answer honestly according to their knowledge.
13
Further limitations of the uncertainty matrix framework will be presented in section Chapter 8 .
14
The frequency (%) was calculated by the number of situations found for each cell in the uncertainty matrix, multiplied
by 100, and then divided by the total number of uncertainty situations found in each case.
36
Background of Study Cases
The present chapter will provide general information, description of stakeholders involved in the
implementation process and background of studies and works for each case study.
4.1 NbS UWB Spangen – Rotterdam, the Netherlands

The case study is located in Spangen district, an urban area located in the west of the city of
Rotterdam. Rotterdam’s location is near one of the lowest parts within the Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt
River Delta at the North Sea. Its rapid urbanization in an area prone to flooding has provoked the
necessity of artificial drainage through pumps and the sewage system. In the past years, the capacity
of the sewage system appears to be overflowed when heavy rainfall events occur (De Greef, 2005),
which coupled with the lack of retention capacity has motivated several initiatives for reducing the
vulnerability of the city to these events.
This project, also known as Urban Water Buffer (UWB) – Spangen, focusses on the implementation
of a small scale urban NbS to manage storm water runoff to reduce the risk of both pluvial flooding
and drought. In this context, this NbS has been implemented with the main objective of increasing
the rainwater retention capacity in the area and avoiding its loss through the already overexploited
sewage system.
Figure 11. Location UWB Spangen

Source: Google Earth
37
Figure 12. UWB Spangen
Source: Field Factors
This project has several components as can be seen in Figure 13. (1) The precipitation under peak
events is collected from the surrounding area, especially that coming from the Sparta Rotterdam
stadium, which is diverted through pipes to a massive retention area built under a synthetic field. (2)
This storage area acts as a water buffer, storing the excess water that is then diverted to a (3) bio-
filtration system in an adjacent
green area15. This water is then
infiltrated (4) towards an aquifer
situated underneath a clay layer.
The aquifer is not confined laterally,
but its top an under layer make it
confined from the top soil. The
water accumulated in this aquifer is
then extracted (or reused) (5) for the
irrigation of the Sparta Rotterdam
Stadium needs. Each component is
managed by different stakeholders.
The municipality has in charge the
storm water and sewage (which
work on separate systems), the
storage facility and the bio-filtration
system. As the water enters the
aquifer, the water boards assumes Figure 13. Components of the Urban Water Buffer
the responsibility, having to
Source: Field Factors
monitor the quality of the
groundwater. Finally, the water supply company, EVIDES, supplies water from the aquifer back to
the Sparta Rotterdam stadium. KWR consortium together with Field Factors are in charge currently
about the monitoring of the water quality. This is only because it’s a pilot system. In a big scale, the
system should be controlled by the municipality. These stakeholders are further described in Table 9.
15
This component of the project corresponds to the Nature Based Solution.
38
Figure 14. UWB Spangen
From left to right. Johan Cruyff football court on top of the water buffer. Bio filtration system. Location of infiltration well. Sparta
Rotterdam football field.
Source: Author
Stakeholders involved in the implementation process

Table 9 presents a brief description of the stakeholders involved in the process of implementation.
Stakeholder Description
Municipality of Together with Delfland, the municipality is the main commissioner of the
Rotterdam project. The department of Water, Spatial Design and maintenance are part of
the municipality.
Water Authority Delfland Water Authority. Commissioner of the UWB-project and Co-investor of the
project.
VP Delta The Valorisation Programme Delta Technology & Water is a consortium of
educational and research institutes, (local) authorities and entrepreneurs in the
region of South-Holland to support Dutch Water and technology sector
innovations.
KWR Watercycle Water research institute. Involved as project managers of the UWB project.
Institute
TKI Consortium The TKI (Top consortia for Knowledge and Innovation) is a consortium of 9
sectors whose objective is to stimulate public-private cooperation. This
consortium provides funds for cooperation in the investigation and
implementation of innovative solutions for different sectors.
Field Factors Demo leaders of the NAIAD project. Initiator, realisation partner and
technology supplier of the project. Responsible of the bio retention and bio
filtration system.
BE de-Lier Responsible of the works of drilling, piping and ASR installations.
Evides Water utility company. Operator. Responsible of exploiting the source and
delivering freshwater to Sparta Stadium.
Sparta Stadium End-user. Pays for the use of the supplied water from the new source to Evides.
Natuurliikk Spangen Representative of local community. End users.
Civil society / Local residents. End users.
neighbourhood / local
community
Table 9. Stakeholder description – UWB Spangen
39
Background of studies and works
Rotterdam’s economy is very much dependent on the waterways and water system, but at the same
time very vulnerable and susceptible to its variations. This strong relation with the water system has
provoked the necessity to plan very carefully an equilibrium of the water – urban system. Pushed by
this idea, the municipality of Rotterdam has elaborated a series of studies, strategies and initiatives to
protect the city from climate related hazards, at the same time that tries to improve spatial quality of
the city. In the next section (see section 5.2.1) these initiatives will described, with a special focus on
the Rotterdam Climate Initiative, that later came to be the Rotterdam Adaptation Strategy.
Particularly in the area of Spangen, and pushed by the municipality, a series of projects came to be,
aimed to increase the retention capacity in the area. According to the NAIAD report (NAIAD, 2018b),
80% of the neighbourhood presents paved an impervious surfaces. This provokes that most of the
water that falls in the area is directed towards the sewage system, putting pressure to it. This situation
has been considered by municipal water plan that has focused on the need of “integrating small scale
solutions to increase 1.550 m3 retention capacity in the neighbourhood (NAIAD, 2018b). One of this
solutions can be seen in Figure 15, located in the Neighbourhood of Spangen.
Figure 15. Watersquare Bellamyplein

Source: Picture to the left (Author). Picture to the right (Rotterdam, 2009)
The current study case is part of these effort of increase retention capacity of the area. The project
takes place within the framework of the research project Urban Water Buffer (UWB-Spangen), which
“investigates how rainwater can be held longer and more effectively in the subsoil in urban areas”
(NAIAD, 2018b). It is planned as a pilot project for storm water collection, storage and reuse in the
area of Spangen.
40
4.2 NbS MAR in “El Carracillo” region - Duero Basin, Spain
El Carracillo" is a natural region of the "Tierra de Pinares" located in the northeast of the province of
Segovia, Spain. Its territory extends between the Cega, Malucas and Pirón rivers, covering some
35,000 hectares of surface. This region does not have its own legal and administrative entity, so its
territorial delimitation is imprecise. Historically, the municipalities and local entities that conform
this region are: Pinarejos, Sancochino, Gomezserracín, San Martin y Mudrian, Chatun, Campo de
Cuéllas, Arroyo de Cuellar, Narros de Cuellar, Chane, Fresneda de Cuellar, Navalmanzano, Samboal
y Navas de Oro, all of them circumsribed to the Community of Villa and Tierra de Cuelllar (Segovia).
Figure 16. Location of the region of El Carracillo
The wide territory presents some features and common characteristics of the natural region of "El Carracillo".
Source: Regantes del Carracillo
The following features and common characteristics define the natural region: the kind of soil (plain
formed predominantly by Quaternary sands of sedimentary origin), the type of predominant
vegetation (forests of pine trees) and locations of land interspersed among the pine forests intended
for intensive agricultural use with a common productive orientation (mainly vegetables) (ITACyL,
2018). The regions economy is dominated by a clear predominance of the agricultural and livestock
sector compared to the industrial sector and services (linked mainly to agriculture). Within the
agricultural activity, and taking advantage of the climatic and terrain features (sandy soils, little
evolved and deep), there is an extensive horticultural production of crops such as carrots, potatoes,
cabbages, leeks, lettuce and others. At the same time, in more extensive farms, the predominant crops
are forage and haymaking, followed by cereals. Also in the area there are several hatcheries that
produce both horticultural and strawberry plants that are sent to Andalusia and European countries
(Netherlands) for further growth and production.
41
Duero River Basin Authority Public entity that is attached to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and
(Confederación Hidrográfica del Environment of Spain as an autonomous organism dependent of the
Duero) Secretary of State for Rural environment and water.
Junta de Castilla y León Governing and administrative body of the Spanish autonomous
community of Castilla y León. Exercises the executive function and
regulatory authority.
Agricultural Technological Public entity circumscribed in the Junta de Castilla y León. The purpose
Institute of Junta de Castilla y of the Technological Institute is to promote the activity of the
Leon (Intituto tecnológico agricultural sector and its transformation industries. Acts in
Agrario Junta de Castilla y León) technological areas such as research, quality certification, infrastructure
development or the promotion of development initiatives.
Irrigators community (users Corporation of public law, attached to the river basin organisms. Are
organization) of “El Carracillo” responsible of organizing the use of surface and underground water from
(Comunidad de Regantes “El the community.
Carracillo”)
Civil society / neighbourhood / Local residents.
local community
Table 10. Stakeholder description – MAR in “El Carracillo”

The transformation in irrigation of the region was developed by private initiative in the 60’s and 70’s,
from the construction of wells, taking advantage of the surface quaternary aquifer, and deep wells to
use the waters of the tertiary detrital aquifer. The exploitation of these wells and deep soundings of
these two aquifers caused the economic boom of the region. Currently, the irrigable area covers a
potential irrigated area of close to 7,600 hectares, and maximum allowed of 3,500 hectares per
campaign (ITACyL, 2018).
Since the 1990s, several studies have noted an imbalance between the extractions and the capacity of
the quaternary aquifer, resulting in a negative balance between the volumes extracted from this
aquifer in an irrigation season and the recharge from rainwater, even reaching situations of risk for
activity in periods of prolonged droughts. This in turn caused that in certain areas of the irrigable
zone, and especially in those more sensitive to the decrease in levels, opted for the search for deeper
wells to capture water from the underlying tertiary aquifer. This aquifer has a series of drawbacks,
since it not only imposes higher costs of investment and exploitation, but also presents different
degrees of salt and arsenic contamination, causing a substantial loss in the chemical quality of the
water.
As a result of the above, in the 90's, an initiative of several actors related to the agricultural sector
arises that, in order to alleviate the drought years and guarantee water for irrigation in the summer
period, a derivation of the river could be carried out by means of a pipe, taking it to the sandy ground
- that makes up a large part of the region - for filtering and storage in the quaternary aquifer. As a
result, the Junta de Castilla y León commissioned the realization of a series of studies to know more
exhaustively the subsoil of the region.
42
At the same time that several studies were carried out to know the limits and capacity of the aquifer
and the constitution of the Irrigation Community of "El Carracillo", the President of the Organizing
Commission requests the Douro/Duero Hydrographic Confederation (DHC) for the processing of the
expedient record in order to obtain the concession of an exploitation of superficial waters of 1,300
l/s, coming from the Cega river.
Finally, and through Royal Decree-Law 9/1998, the DHC authorizes the derivation of the maximum
flow of 1,370 l / s during the months between January and April of each year, with a maximum annual
volume of derivation of 22.4 hm³, provided that it circulates in the river downstream of the intake site
and in the period referred a minimum flow of 6,898 l / s, in order to guarantee the ecological flow
and the flow for legalized uses located downstream. Article 2 of the Royal Decree-Law 9/1998
declares the project "Recharge of the aquifer of the Carracillo, works of taking, main conduction,
infiltration and adaptation of the irrigable zones (Segovia) of general interest. This triggered not only
the financing mechanisms of the project, but also the sufficient water for this measure to be effective.
Some attempts have been made in later years to raise this concession, but these have not endured.
Based on the various studies of hydrogeological prospecting done, together with the concession
described above, the works of the Aquifer Recharge Project of "El Carracillo" began in 2000. The
project as a whole had to be divided in three phases. The first phase, implemented between the years
2000 and 2004, corresponds to the diversion of water from the Cega River, and the pipeline of 20 km
that connects the intake with the irrigated area. The second phase corresponds to the connection from
the end of the 13 km pipe with the western zone of the region, projecting a distribution network to
channel these waters through the free aquifer, so as to favour the infiltration and winter recharge in a
uniform manner throughout the quaternary structure. The infiltration surface is obtained from the
conditioning of the existing streams and the recovery of the partially disappeared ones whose trace
runs from the municipalities of Gomezserracín, Chatún, Campo de Cuéllar, Narros de Cuellár and
Fresneda de Cuellar.
Figure 17. Main stream network

Tracing of the main stream network for the recharge of the western sector of the Arenales aquifer in the El Carracillo region
Source: (ITACyL, 2018)
A third phase still remains to be executed, in which it is intended to supply irrigation water to the
municipalities located in the northern area of the region of "El Carracillo" (Sancochuno, Arroyo de
Cuellar, Chane, Remondo and Fresneda de Cuéllar). In this area there is no quaternary aquifer, and
therefore, it does not have a recharge capacity, and where the uptake of the groundwater that supplies
the farms is done through deep wells until it reaches more than 200 meters deep. According to the
43
study “Recharge of the Carracillo aquifer, Works of water intake, transport, infiltration and adaptation
of the irrigable zones”, 1.560 hectares for irrigation campaign are expected to be covered by the water
from the Cega River (from the same concession given in 1999), expandable if the concession is
increased. The plan is to use these derived waters for the recharge of an area identified as Storage
Zone (Zona Almacén) located near Gomezsarracín, for their transportation through pipes to these
northern areas that do not allow recharge, as seen in Figure 18.
Figure 18. Irrigation units and storage area

44
4.3 NbS River restoration project – Copenhagen, Denmark
In the summer of 2011, Copenhagen was hit by one of the most intense cloudburst event in history,
causing severe infrastructure disruption and private damages. The special characteristics of this
extreme event provoked the concentration of rainfall in the city centre, which has the least number of
green areas were water could be absorbed, and with a drainage system that could not cope with the
amount of water. Most of the lower parts of the city centre, including roads, cellars, houses, shops
and offices were flooded, accounting for nearly 90,000 reports of damage and provoking losses of
nearly EUR 1 billion (Rasmussen & Hauber, 2013).
After the climate summit COP15 in 2009, and triggered by the high political attention to climate
change and impact, the city of Copenhagen initiated a series of climate adaptive measures in the City
Administration area. Shortly after the cloudburst event, the city council adopted the Copenhagen
Climate Adaptation Plan, and in 2012, the Cloudburst Management Plan. These two plans not only
had the objective of adapting to future climate conditions, but also on implementing measures that
would increase the quality of life of citizens. Section 5.2.3 will discuss these plans in more detail.
City of Copenhagen Copenhagen Municipality in the Greater (Capital) Copenhagen Region.
(Københavns Kmonnune) (Region Hovedstaden). The municipality is the main commissioner of the
project.
City of Frederiksberg Frederiksberg Municipality in the Greater (Capital) Copenhagen Region.
(Frederiksberg (Region Hovedstaden).
Kommune)
Geological survey of Research institute under the Ministry of Climate and Energy. GEUS elaborates
Denmark and Greenland the research in specific fields related to water, such as hydrogeology,
GEUS glaciology and climatology, among others. Works as an advisor for the project.
Miljøpunkt Nørrebro Is a fund that has the objective of supporting the implementation of
environmental and climate projects in the Nørrebro neighbourhood. It works
in parallel with the Nørrebro Local Committee, which provides the financial
support for interventions. Is the main promoter or the River Restoration
Project.
Kilkovand Organization composed of a cooperation among 22 municipalities and 13
utility services. Its main purpose is to support the process of implementation
of NbS through four important pillars: legal basis for cooperation between
municipalities and wastewater utilities, and the inclusion of private owners in
climate adaptation solutions; collect and exchange information and knowledge
among stakeholders; provide support for the decision making processes; and
improve the competencies of the stakeholders.
Citizens/Civil Local residents. End users.
society/neighbourhood
Table 11. Stakeholder description – NbS River restoration Copenhagen
45
Copenhagen depended greatly on traditional solutions to control high precipitation events, mainly
relying in the underground pipe system capacity of sewer for drainage. With the 2011 cloudburst
event, the city of Copenhagen realized that the expansion of the drainage system has become a less
viable option, due to increased costs linked to reduced availability of underground space. In this
decade, the city has opted for adaptive measures such as Blue-Green solutions, mainly directed to
improve surface conditions of the city for increased water retention and drainage capacity.
Figure 19. Tåsinge Plads

Copenhagen’s first climate-adapted urban space - Tåsinge Plads in the neighbourhood of Sankt Kjelds Kvarter
Source: Author
Today it is possible to appreciate how these plans have changed the landscape in the city of
Copenhagen. NbS have been implemented in different areas of the city through local plans, and
through synergies between three relevant actors: municipalities, water utilities and philanthropist
organizations. In turn, citizens, through acts of public participation, have been increasingly part of
the adequacy of municipal cloudburst strategies, being an important part in the gestation of these
changes.
The Climate Adaptation Plan (City of Copenhagen, 2011) pointed to two set of measures to avoid
pluvial flooding. The first set of solutions are target to increase pipe system capacity by separating
rainwater from waste water. The other set correspond to the implementation of adaptive measures to
increase water retention capacity. After the elaboration of the Cloudburst Management plan, and a
series of studies and new calculations, this method, also known as storage method or “Plan B”, was
proved inadequate on preventing pluvial flooding in large parts of the city. These studies pointed out
to the need of supplement water retention and storage areas with measures aimed to allow drainage
put to the sea via roads, waterways and subterranean tunnels. Still, as we mentioned above, surface
measures have been favoured due to their reduce costs, and ability to deliver improved living
conditions to the citizens.
Solutions on the surface vary in type and size in the city, ranging in four kings of typologies (City of
Copenhagen, 2012): retention spaces and cloudburst, retention and green roads. Retention spaces are
volumes in the terrain whose main hydraulic function is to retain and store water. These are usually
designed as multifunctional urban space elements, in parks, squares or sport fields, as seen in Figure
46
19. Cloudburst roads are roads that have the hydraulic function of discharging water. These are
mainly grey measures, and consist of increasing the volume of water able to be transported in the
road by changes to terrain or raising the kerb.
Retention roads have the function of retain and
store water. This is done by the integration of
various retention elements in the form of green
and blue elements that reduce the runoff
velocity. Green roads have a similar function,
but are of smaller size than retention roads,
usually located in private shared roads. There
function is to remove and retain water locally.
The Cloudburst Management Plan (2012)
established 26 local water catchment areas
based on flow routes of the city. This division
had the intention of prioritising solutions and
measures according to: risk, implementation,
and synergistic effect with urban planning and
development projects. As seen in Figure 20,
Copenhagen Centre administrative district has
Figure 20. Priority map of adaptive measures
been considered of high prioritization for these
Source: Copenhagen Cloudburst Management Plan 2012
measures. Particularly for this research, we will
focus on a project that is currently being discussed as a future measure for the city of Copenhagen:
the River Restoration Project.
The River Restoration project is on a period of
discussion and design, and has not been integrated in
any of the plans mentioned above. The initial ideas
for this project are recent (2018), and respond to the
necessity of improving the drainage capacity of the
city centre through a surface solution, by restoring
the flow route towards the artificial lakes (Skt.
Jørgens Lake, Peblinge Lake, and Sortedams Lake)
in the city centre. Currently, the flow rout is covered
by a highway, one of the main traffic routes from the
east to the city centre, as seen in red in Figure 21.
The design of the project contemplates the burial of
the highway under the bed of the river, which gives
way to a large green area on the surface where it is Figure 21. Copenhagen flow routes.
intended to return the channel to its natural state. Source: Copenhagen Cloudburst Management Plan 2012
This space would be equipped with urban parks and
put together with private properties. The current sewage and rainwater system would be maintained,
in order to offer a backup to the surface system. As mentioned earlier, the project is still in the design
phase, but has been widely publicized in the area. The discussion of this project in participative
instances has caused to pass from just an idea, to the planning and design stage of the implementation
process.
47
Uncertainty in policy and planning
In order to analyse the process of implementation, the present section presents a brief description of
the main policies and plans in the European context (European Water Framework and Flood
Directive), and for each specific case that form the framework for project implementation, with
special attention in key issues signalling the presence of uncertainty.
5.1 Policies and planning strategies in the European context

Since its enactment, the Water Framework Directive (WFD) has had a major influence in the
management of water resources, establishing ambitious environmental objectives in a long-term
perspective through an integrated management. As Mysiak and Sigel (2005) point out, one of the
main challenge decision makers and authorities have to address for the implementation of the WFD
is the necessity to make decisions without a reliable knowledge base, “usually forced to act and decide
under uncertainty” (Mysiak & Sigel, 2005).
Uncertainty is not referred as such in the WFD, but rather utilizes the expression ‘acceptable level of
confidence and precision’. According to Sigel, Klauer, and Pahl-Wostl (2010), this expression relates
to the level of ‘confidence’ and ‘precision’ an individual has towards the system, which shifts between
complete ‘certainty’ and ‘lack of knowledge’. Consequently, “uncertainty is situated within a
person’s horizon’. This has two connotations: (i) the WFD acknowledges that decision makers will
not have ‘certainty’ over decisions, but can make decisions from their level of ‘confidence’, which is
a subjective aspect of uncertainty.(ii) by accepting and recognizing lack of knowledge (or incomplete
knowledge), the WFD expressed that additional knowledge can be acquired, hence, uncertainty can
be reduced. In other words, the WFD recognizes incomplete knowledge nature of uncertainty, while
ambiguity, not explicitly recognized, is considered. As an example, and according to Sigel et al (2010,
p. 504) the Wateco16 guidance document calls uncertainty one of the “key issues” that “remain to be
explored”. The pressing methodological question of this document is: “How to deal with uncertainty:
which approaches can be proposed to water managers for integrating uncertainty into decision-
making and for developing adequate communication on uncertainty towards the public and
stakeholders?” (European Commission, 2003). These documents evidences a similar stance towards
uncertainty in the WFD, pointing our expressions such as ‘gaps in available data’, ‘research need’ or
‘information and knowledge needs’, pointing out the possibility of reducing uncertainty through
‘working on improving the knowledge’. This signals the strong recognition of incomplete knowledge
nature of uncertainty.
On the other hand, the Flood Directive (2007/60/EC) follows a similar understanding of uncertainty
as the WFD, but adds the explicit recognition of unpredictability from the natural system by stating
‘floods are natural phenomena which cannot be prevented’. This policy sets out a procedure to assess
and manage flood risks: Preliminary flood risk assessment, risk assessment (flood hazards and flood
16
Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive.
48
risk maps) and flood risk management plans, addressing uncertainty by strategies that are targeted to
reduce gaps of knowledge (incomplete knowledge), while understanding their unpredictability.
5.2 Policies and planning strategies in specific contexts

NbS UWB Spangen - Rotterdam, the Netherlands
The UWB Spangen pilot project is an initiative supported by different policies, strategies and plans,
both at national (e.g. such as the Adaptive Delta Management) and at European level. This research
will focus its attention on strategies developed at a city and municipality level, considering that these
circumscribe under those at higher scales, as discussed in section 4.1..
The municipality of Rotterdam has elaborated a series of water plans in the past decades, which were
built upon one another17: The Heriking (Reviewed) Waterplan II is a recalibration of the Water Plan
II, adapted to 2013. It deals with water-related themes such as flooding, flood risk management, in
accordance to the Water Framework Directive, maintaining the same vision and objectives as its
predecessors. It also directly relates with the Rotterdam Climate Proof Rotterdam (2008) and the
Water Act (2009). This plan describes in general terms how different stakeholders (municipalities
and water boards) want to deal with water issues in the city, such as water safety, water storage,
sewerage, water quality and groundwater. Its main objectives are to solve various water challenges,
while contributing to the attractiveness and climate-proof city. In practice, it sets a number of
responsibilities and objectives, together with a set of clearly defined projects (such as NbS) to be
developed in the city with a vision to 2030. Another relevant document is the Rotterdam Climate
Proof Adaptation Strategy (RAS) elaborated in 2012. The RAS aims to make Rotterdam a climate
proof city by 2025. At its core, it consists in four key elements: robust systems, adaptive approach,
working together and create added value, all coming from an adaptive management perspective. This
strategy has been sub-divided in four reports, concerned with different areas: water safety, urban
water system, climate and infrastructure.
After a revision of the (Readapted) Water Plan II and the Rotterdam Climate Proof Strategy reports,
we could evidence a number of key issues signalling the presence of uncertainty.
Figure 22. Number of identified uncertainties - UWB Spangen.
Uncertainty in policy and planning strategies are not only explicitly characterized, but also are
described in various points in the planning approach. These uncertainties are usually related to
unpredictability (91%), and particularly concentrated in the natural system, meaning that these
policies focus on ontological uncertainty, neglecting uncertainty from the epistemic and ambiguous
17
Waterplan I (2000-2005), Waterplan II (2007-2012), Herijking (Review) Waterplan II (2013).
49
nature. This aspect is visualized in the idea of increasing flexibility and adaptiveness of these
documents, particularly with respect of the premise that natural systems are complex and dynamic.
These documents make explicit the ontological uncertainty of the natural and social system, and
propose a number of measures applicable in time to diminish this nature of uncertainty.
An overview of the key issues present in the documents that signal the presence of uncertainty is
presented in Table 12.
50
Multiple knowledge frames
Unpredictability Imperfection of knowledge,
Equally valid interpretations of a
Unpredictable behaviour of nature, humans or the system inexactness, approximations and
phenomenon
ignorance
Natural system - What are the consequences of climate change? (1) (b)
Climate impacts, - Estimations of river discharge (2) (b)
water quantity, - What will be the increase in sea level? (sea level increases 35-85 cm. in 2100) (2)
water quality, (a)
ecosystems -There is a considerable margin of uncertainty (1) (b)
- Range of possible scenarios (5) (b)
- Dealing with these uncertainties is a task in itself. (1) (b)
- What will be the effect of warm days? (Estimations of increased salinity extreme
precipitation, drought and temperature, reduced biodiversity and water quality) (2)
(b)
Technical system -Uncertainty of polder and dike resistance (5) (b)
Infrastructure,
technologies,
innovations
Social system - What would be the damage if sea level rise? (Estimation of the qualitative and - Climate adaptation measures have
Economic, quantitative damage in the polder) (2) (b) to be financed and operated in a
cultural, legal, - What will be the socio-economic situation? (Estimation of number of inhabitants, cooperation between several
political, economic growth, % of urbanization, agricultural land, and % of nature in four stakeholders (9) (a)
administrative and scenarios (based in climatic scenarios)) (5) (b)
organizational - What will be the effect of warm days? (Estimation on labour productivity,
aspects energy consumption, health) (2) (b)
Table 12. Uncertainties in the plans and policies - UWB Spangen1819.
18
(1) Uncertainty or risk is explicitly mentioned. (2) Assumption or an estimation is made. (3) Scenarios with a probability of occurrence. (4) Scenarios with an idea of likelihood
of occurrence. (5) Range of possible scenarios without having an idea of likelihood of occurrence. (6) Expressed that there is ignorance about (future) situation. (7) Lack of
knowledge is expressed and cannot be decreased. (8) Lack of knowledge is expressed but additional knowledge can be acquired. (9) Framing priority differences of stakeholders.
19
(Readapted) Water Plan II (a) Rotterdam Climate Proof Strategy (b)
51
NbS MAR in “El Carracillo” region - Duero Basin, Spain
The Managed Aquifer Recharge project in el Carracillo region is a project driven and mandated by a
Royal Decree emanated from the executive power of the Spanish government. A Royal Decree is a
legal norm with the rank of a law, which establishes, among other things, a series hydraulic measures
to be implemented. This Royal Decree was published in 1998, three years before the publication of
the National Hydrological Plan, due to, “the possible delay in the approval of the National
Hydrological Plan” which according to the law “must not prevent the implementation of certain
hydraulic actions, demanded by broad sectors of the population” ("REAL DECRETO-LEY
9/1998,").
The regular conduct for the implementation of these type of actions can be stablished at two levels.
At national level, through the National Hydrological Plan, and through the River Basin Plans. The
institutional setup for the ratification of these plans are through an EIA. If this evaluation is approved,
the plans are ratified by Royal Decree. As we will discuss in Chapter 6, the implementation process
of this project is particular, and follows a command and control approach, were the State mandated
the implementation of actions to be realized.
For the analysis of the policies and planning strategies that apply for this specific case, it is necessary
to consider the Hydrological Plan of El Duero basin (CHD, 2015), done according to the National
Hydrological Plan of 200520. This document is composed by a Main Report, and a series of Annexes
of relevance for the present analysis such as Special Drought Plan and the Flood Risk Management
Plan, the Environmental Memoir and the Strategic Environmental Study of the Plan. After a revision
of these documents, we could evidence a number of key issues signalling the presence of uncertainty.
Figure 23. Number of identified uncertainties - MAR
Similarly as the case of Rotterdam, the uncertainties found in these documents relate to
unpredictability (79%), and incomplete knowledge (21%), particularly concentrated in the natural
and social system (as seen in Figure 23). Ambiguities are not addressed in the documents analysed.
A review of the institutional context for the implementation of measures in Spain point out to two
mechanisms to reduce uncertainties linked to this nature. First, a mechanisms set to represent the
different frames and values, mainly through the presentation of allegations in an Impact Evaluation
Assessment. And second, institutions dedicated resolve conflicts and disputes, particularly, through
tribunals and courts. It is important to consider that these two mechanisms are set to solve disputes
once selected the strategy, or when the measure is already in place. Table 13 presents an overview of
the key issues present in the documents that signal the presence of uncertainty.
20
The National Hydrological Plan is a modification of the 2001 plan.
52
Unpredictability Imperfection of knowledge,
Equally valid interpretations of
Unpredictable behaviour of nature, humans or the system inexactness, approximations and
a phenomenon
ignorance
Natural system - Estimation of the state of the basin (2) (b) - Uncertainty related to the
Climate impacts, - Scenarios for supply restriction (4) (b) environmental effects that would
water quantity, - Future emergency situations of drought (4) (b) provoke a reduction of the minimum
water quality, - Uncertainty in risks associated with contamination (1) (a) environmental requirements (1) (b)
ecosystems - Climatic scenarios with a probability of occurrence (3) (a) - Lack of existing information
- Uncertainty over the estimations for fulfilment of environmental objectives (1) (d) regarding environmental water
requirements (8) (b)
- Uncertainty can be reduced by
investigation and knowledge (8) (a)
Technical system - Estimation of future public policies, specifically on the production aid funds of
Infrastructure, the Common Agricultural Policy (2) (a)
technologies,
innovations
Social system - Estimation of the future water demands (2) (b) (c)
Economic, - Uncertainty in the estimation of economic sector (a)
cultural, legal, - Estimation of: population (housing), production, electric demand, employment,
political, urban development.(2)
administrative and - Uncertainty over the budgetary situation for fulfilment of the goals (1) (d)
organizational
aspects
2122
Table 13. Uncertainties in the plans and policies - MAR.
21
22
Hydrological Plan (Main Report) (a) Special Drought Plan (b) Strategic Environmental Study of the Plan (c) Environmental Memoir (d) Flood Risk Management Plan.
53
NbS River restoration project - Copenhagen, Denmark
As mentioned above, the Copenhagen Climate Adaptation Plan and Cloudburst Management Plan are
the two main initiatives that have set the strategic implementation framework of measures in the city
of Denmark. The Copenhagen Climate Adaptation Plan, developed in 2011 is a strategy for climate
adaptation based on the most likely scenarios for development. It incorporates levels of adaptation
according to the risk23 that prioritizes the selection of measures for climate adaptation. When there is
a high probability and costs involved, measures that prevent accidents are prioritized. If these
measures cannot be done due to technical or economic reasons, measures that reduce the scale of the
disaster are selected. Lowest priorities goes to measures that would lower the repair and maintenance
costs after an accident. The action plan is regularly revised to incorporate the best available
knowledge. The results of climate adaptation planning are then incorporated to other strategies, such
as local, municipal or emergency plans.
Cloudburst management plan is an offset of the Climate Adaptation Plan. It sets necessary framework
for the implementation of measures in the City by specifying the methods utilized to cope specifically
with these type of events, setting the priority and coordinating the main parties involved.
Figure 24. Number of identified uncertainties - River Restoration project ject
The revision of these documents signals a number of key issues signalling uncertainties in all natures
of uncertainty, particularly linked to the natural and technical system. Similar to the trend in the
previous study cases, these uncertainties are mainly related to unpredictability (70%), related to the
impact of climate change.
Ambiguity on the other hand is often being added upon uncertainties related to the application of
adaptive measures. Similar to the approach taken in the Netherlands, it is assumed that uncertainties
are reducible in time, or in other words, uncertainties on impacts are epistemic in nature. Following
and adaptive approach, these documents make explicit the ontological uncertainty of the natural and
social system, and propose a number of measures applicable in time to diminish ontological nature
of uncertainty through the elaboration of actions with the best available insights at the moment
(Dewulf et al., 2008).
23
Risk is equal to the probability of an event happening, times the costs of the event (City of Copenhagen, 2011).
54
Natural system - There is great uncertainty over the future development of climate (1) (a) - The vulnerability maps are - Give priority to flood risk
Climate impacts, - Expected changes in wind conditions over are generally marginal and subject to greater subject to some uncertainty hotspots and to areas
water quantity, uncertainty than is the case, for example, for temperature and precipitation (1) (a) —partly from the calculated where quick-response
water quality, - Assumptions in calculations of the consequences of torrential rain (2) (a) water flows and partly from mitigating action can be
ecosystems - The City of Copenhagen has used the IPCC’s A2 scenario as a basis for assessing spreading on the surface. effectuated (9) (b)
future climate impacts (3) (a) This makes the maps
- We have used the model to perform a calculation of a number of scenarios, partly as a suitable for assessing the
result of the planning of the runoff system by Copenhagen Energy and partly as a result floods at district level but
of the assessment of the damage caused by the floods by the City of Copenhagen. (2) (a) not at land register level (8)
-Uncertainty that an intense rainfall event will produce even bigger quantities of water (2 (a)
(a)
Technical system - Uncertainty on climate change entails a substantial risk at present of incorrect
Infrastructure, investments (1) (a)
technologies, - Service objectives of the sewerage utility are based on historical assumptions, technical
innovations standards and economic considerations (2) (a)
- The aim of the project is to climate-adapt the volume of wastewater conveyed to the
sewer, and consequently reduce the likelihood of flooding in the city (5) (a)
Social system - Uncertainty concerning the cost of damage expected to occur in the future, will - Who is actually to finance - Efforts to open dialogue
Economic, influence the prioritisation and scope of the necessary defensive measures (1) (a) and manage the investments with relevant stakeholders
cultural, legal, - Significant uncertainty with respect to the size of the investments to be made and when (management plan) (8) (a) (9) (a)
political, it is best to make them (1) (a) - new risk dimensioning - Climate adaptation
administrative and - The defensive measure can be regarded as the purchase of an insurance policy, where criteria must be determined measures have to be
organizational the probability of the damage occurring is uncertain, the extent of the damage is (8) (b) financed and operated in a
aspects unknown and the correct price of the insurance is uncertain. (1) (a) cooperation between
several stakeholders (9) (a)
Table 14. Uncertainties in the plans and policies - River Restoration Project2425
24
25
Copenhagen Climate Adaptation Plan (a), Cloudburst Management Plan (b), Climate Change Adaptation and investment statement (c).
55
5.3 Summary of the findings
Policy and planning frameworks in specific cases reveal distinct approaches in dealing with future
water related risks. The cases of UWB Spangen and River restoration consists on adaptive policies
and planning approaches in urban environments, were there are strong relations between climate
adaptation and urban infrastructure. These strategies describe a series of actions pointed out to reduce
climate impacts based on the most likely scenarios for development. On the other hand, the policies
and planning approaches of the MAR project in “El Carracillo” focus on both urban and rural
environments, following a river basin management or IWRM approach.
The analysis of policy and planning frameworks in specific cases allows us to identify the key issues
detected and identified in the uncertainty matrix, and the recognition these documents give to specific
natures of uncertainties. Based on the total number of uncertainties found in the policy and planning
frameworks for each individual case, Figure 25 depicts the frequency26 of issues signalling the
presence of uncertainty according to the uncertainty matrix.
Figure 25. Frequency of key issues signalling the presence of uncertainty in policy and planning frameworks for specific cases
In spite differences in the approach taken by the policy and planning frameworks in the three study
cases, the revision signal a similar recognition of uncertainties, mainly related to the nature of
unpredictability. Considering the nature of uncertainty of the key issues identified, the policy and
planning frameworks reviewed in the context of NbS UWB Spangen evidence a strong recognition
of uncertainty from the nature of unpredictability, accounting for 91% of the total issues identified,
whereas incomplete knowledge (9%) comprises the remaining. These policies make evident the
unpredictable behaviour of the natural (59%) and social system (25%). For the policies and planning
frameworks in the NbS MAR in “El Carracillo” region, a similar trend occurs. In total, 79% of the
26
The frequency (%) was calculated by the number of situations found for each cell in the uncertainty matrix, multiplied
by 100, and then divided by the total number of uncertainty situations found.
56
total issues found in the documents are situated in the nature of unpredictability, while 21% on
incomplete knowledge. The case of NbS River restoration project is similar, but points out to a more
equal identification of key issues in the policy and planning frameworks. While the presence of key
issues in unpredictability accounts for 69% of the total, other issues signal the identification of
uncertainties in the social system (32%).
Of a total of 45 key issues identified signalling the presence of uncertainty in policy and planning
frameworks, a 73% of the issues are related to unpredictability, and 13% to incomplete knowledge
and 13% to ambiguity. With respect to the system, these policies make evident the unpredictable
behaviour of the natural system (42%).
The analysis of policy and planning at European level, and in specific cases supports initial findings
in the literature, were it is argued that while attempts to address both ontological and epistemic
uncertainty are found in policy and planning frameworks, ambiguity resulting from multiple
knowledge frames has been underdeveloped (Jensen & Wu, 2016; Zandvoort et al., 2018).
57
Approaches used to implement NbS in specific
contexts
The present section will present the uncertainty situations and strategies identified in the literature
review and the field work. The first sub-chapter will present the identification of uncertainties and
strategies in peer reviewed scientific articles. The following sub-chapters will present the process of
implementation of each specific case accompanied with the respective timeline. Table 18, Table 21
and Table 23 identify the uncertainty situations, key barriers, success factors and coping strategies
for each case.
6.1 Uncertainty situations and strategies in the literature

Before the analysis of the process of implementation for each specific case, an analysis of the
literature regarding different cases in the European context was conducted. This review reveals a
number of barriers and drivers linked to uncertainty in the implementation of NbS in the European
context27. Uncertainties are numerous and diverse; 27 situations have been identified through the
revision of 8 peer reviewed documents. Each uncertainty was categorized according to the dimension
of uncertainty, which guided their classification in the uncertainty matrix.
Natural - Impacts of - Insufficient data - Different standpoint and views over the problem.
system natural hazards availability.
and climate - Lack of knowledge.
change.
Technical - Future - Gaps in evidence based - Resistance to new concepts / Discomfort with new
system maintenance and (novelty of proposed approaches.
service techniques). - Pre-existing ways of tackling problems.
requirements. - Maintaining Inertia/path-dependency at municipality level.
infrastructure performance - Silo thinking/lack of cooperation between
and service provision. sectors/departments.
Social - Population - Lack of legal - Differing goals and interests of individual and
system growth. requirements, planning institutions.
- Urban and processes and appraisal - Resistance formal/informal institutional
economic systems. arrangements to change.
development. - Capital costs (of NbS) - - Complexities of co-ordination and communication.
- Future land use. Identifying and Challenges in collaboration.
- Future quantifying/monetizing the - Leadership, political will and vision for Blue-Green
governance. multiple benefits. Lack of institutional legitimacy to support project.
- Behaviours and - Unknown responsibilities - Disconnection between short-term actions and
culture. and ownership. long-term goals (NBS usually are long term). Short-
- Future funding - Establishing who benefits term pressures impede long-term planning.
availability. versus who pays. - Valorisation of NbS solution.
27
A complete list of the barriers in a review of 8 peer scientific reviewed articles is showed APPENDIX B: LIST OF
BARRIERS FOUND IN THE LITERATURE
58
Table 15. Uncertainty situations in the implementation of NbS in the European context.
Drivers or enabling factors are fewer in number, but revert a special consideration since there are
often linked to successful implementation of NbS. Table 16 presents a number of drivers and
strategies found in the literature, classified according to the system.
Driver or strategy System
 Valuation and funding Financial (Social)
 Public/private partnerships Financial (Social)
 Availability of funding earmarked for environmental projects Financial (Social)
 Improving quality of communication and collaboration Institutional (Social)
 Identifying champions and leaders / Dedicated individuals Institutional (Social)
 Inclusive, integrated approaches Institutional (Social)
 Previous experiences with flooding or drought Institutional (Social)
 Establishing and practicing collaborative governance approaches Institutional (Social)
 National environmental goals Legal/Institutional (Social)
 Incorporation of related concepts into municipal planning policy Legal/Institutional (Social)
 Communication/knowledge transfer Organizational/Technical
 Engaged people Political (Social)
 Stakeholder involvement Political/Institutional (Social)
 Definition of public and private sector roles Technical/Administrative/legal
 Locally-grown' solutions Technical/Institutional
 Pilot projects as examples of what can be done Technical/Institutional
 Valorising and exploiting existing tacit and expert knowledge Technical/Institutional/Political
 Cooperation with researchers Technical/Organizational
 Addressing biodiversity and social benefits Technical/Political
 Identifying conflicting representations through a sociological Technical/Political
study
Table 16. Drivers or enabling factors for implementation
Adapted from Guerrin (2014), Sakic (2015), Cohen et al. (2016), Barton(2016), Kabisch et al. (2016), and Waylen et al. (2017)
Highlighted by the list above, most of the enabling factors are set to tackle the barriers linked to the
social system (Economic, cultural, legal, political, institutional, administrative and organizational
aspects). Literature indicates that barriers about the social implications of implementing NbS appear
to be more relevant (van den Hoek, 2014), and are found to have more influence in the decision
making (Thorne et al., 2015).
59
6.2 Uncertainty situations and strategies in the process of
implementation of NbS in specific contexts
NbS UWB Spangen – Rotterdam, the Netherlands
An apparently inherent difficulty of NbS implementation, described in Chapter 1 is the detection of
the multiple co-benefits. Whereas co-benefits are argued to provide leverage for funding and
investment, they also imply the need of bringing a number of different stakeholders into the process.
Different ideas by which the NbS is co-designed involve a number of actors, each with own frames
of knowledge, strategies, methods and objectives. The difficulty of an integrated project seems to be
both a key aspect for its success, and a main barrier. Studies of the water balance in the city, together
with climate scenarios pointed to the need of incrementing water retention in the area for flood and
drought risk prevention. For the case of Rotterdam, and in particular for the Spangen neighbourhood,
water retention strategies were tackled taking into consideration other two goals. On one side,
integrate to every project done in the city climate adaptation measures, and on the other, to integrate
all the parties that are involved in the co-design of measures for the development of the area.
An ex-post analysis of the implementation process of the UWB Project detected a series of difficulties
from the beginning of this process. The following narration of events will follow the numeration of
Figure 26, and are sought to be read together.
Parallel to the municipality analysis of the current situation of water resources in Rotterdam and
definition of climate adaptation objectives (1), a local community initiative emerged in the
neighbourhood (Naturlijk Spangen) for the increase of green spaces in the area (2). This request was
corresponded by the department of space development within the municipality, which had clear urban
development goals, mainly due to the growing population and requirements for the spatial
development in the area (Field Factors, 2018). This initial idea was put together with the necessity of
climate proofing the city. Two key aspects that achieved the integration of these objectives where the
existence of an innovation fund of the TKI consortium28 that supported the process for the elaboration
of an innovative project, and the presence of key players that brought the necessary parties and
stakeholders together.
(3) The TKI fund supported the process of implementation, especially in studies for the location, the
water balance, the preliminary design and estimated costs of the installation of the system (Field
Factors, 2018). The integration of climate adaptation measures and inclusion of various stakeholders
and parties was supported by TKI consortium, the Municipality of Rotterdam and Delfland Water
(4).
Prior to the idea of the project itself, various stakeholders shared concerns related to the uncertainty
of the response of an innovative solution and the funding mechanisms for long term maintenance.
The difficulty lay in integrating all these aspects in the design. This is where a key aspect for the
success of this initiative arises: (5) the alignment of the expectations of citizens, decision makers, and
market through instances of dialogical learning and collaborative decision making. In this sense, this
28
TKI fund has the purpose of propitiating the innovation scenario, delivering the necessary resources to support the
entire process of planning, design, operation, monitoring and management of the project (everything that is research
related). Through the interviews, it was established that the commitment of stakeholders, particularly Delftland
Waterboard and Rotterdam to pursue these funds in the TKI consortium was a key aspect to sustain the process.
60
work involved a creative and innovative process, which attempts against the standard procedures and
implementation paths of traditional solutions. In this aspect, interviews pointed out to yet another
barrier linked to uncertainty: the unknown process of implementation.
(6) In addition to the inclusion of parties intending to fulfil the objectives of increase in retention
capacity (Municipality and Delfland water board) and increase in green areas (Municipality and
community), two other important actors were also involved. (7) Sparta Rotterdam integration to the
project happened at an early stage through an invitation of the local community. Since extreme rainfall
provoked a series of problems for the stadium football pitch, they saw an opportunity of reducing the
level of risk from flooding and at the same time add a new source of water for irrigating their football
pitch. On the other hand, (8) (9) Evides incorporation to this process also happened at an early stage.
As a researcher points out29, it was triggered by the presence of the Water Board in the initial stages
of the process. They also saw the opportunity that this retained water could be incorporated into their
system (10).
(11) The decision to follow a business as usual planning process, or to push for an innovative solution
that involves a cross sectorial process was a difficult choice. (12) This was particularly a concern
from within the municipality, where departments had their own strategies. This behaviour is described
by other stakeholder as silos30 and proved to be a barrier as no prior experience of solutions needed
the involvement of more than one department. This called out for a new innovative process to be able
to create the communication channels and working grounds. In order for this to happen, two important
factors had to converge: (i) the pressure of the TKI fund to elaborate an innovative solution, and (ii)
the commitment of a key actor that pushed for this project. This last point is key to understand the
implementation of this project, as several stakeholders pointed to one stakeholder, which set in motion
the integration for this project to happen31, and who acted as a “champion”, an “agent of change”,
that “put together the necessary pieces of the puzzle” for this project to be implemented. In
retrospective, this stakeholder acted as a mediator, facilitating between the different departments and
stakeholders and assisting the parties to converge into one solution. Present along the process, this
agent created the necessary common ground for the stakeholders to work together, at the same time
that he pursued and pushed for the implementation of this solution.
Finally, the construction of the UWB Spangen took place in 2018, but as we could evidence, the
process of implementation was not without any difficulties. This (13) barriers and uncertainties were
present along the process of implementation, but they were managed by a different set of strategies
along the process. The next section will evidence the key uncertainty situations and the strategies
used to overcome them.
29
(D1-1)
30
(D1-2) Silo thinking is associated to the idea that a department (or sector) usually do not share information in the same
company (in this case the municipality) or there is a lack of communication or interaction channels.(Shaw & Frost, 2015).
31
(D1-1;D1-2;D1-4)
61
Figure 26. Timeline of UWB-Spangen NbS
Figure 26 reveals that the implementation did not followed a chronological and linear process, but rather as an iterative development that revisits
earlier components in advanced stages of the process.
62
Uncertainty situations and strategies to cope with them in the implementation of NbS UWB
Spangen
The key uncertainty situation identified in the implementation of the NbS are described according to
the nature of uncertainty, object of knowledge and location along the planning process32.
Unpredictability Incomplete knowledge
Unpredictable Imperfection of knowledge,
behaviour of nature, inexactness, approximations
phenomenon
humans or the system and ignorance
Natural system - (I) (11) Is the problem not
Climate impacts, enough green areas, or hydro -
water quantity, meteorological risk?
water quality,
ecosystems
Technical system - (PD) (1) What will be - (PD) (5) Will the solution - (PD) (12) Should we build
Infrastructure, the response of the respond to the current infrastructure as we usually do
technologies, NbS in events of high situation? (business as usual) or pursue
innovations and low precipitation? innovation (NbS)?
Social system - (PD) (2) What will be - (I) (6) Are all the stakeholders - (PD) (13) What are the criteria’s
Economic, the response of the considered or involved in the to monitor and evaluate the
cultural, legal, community towards the decision-making process? project?
political, solution? - (PD) (7) How should we
administrative and - (PD) (3) Will the NbS implement this kind of - (PD) (14) To whom should the
organizational comply with current solutions? (Unknown process management of the NbS be
aspects and future regulations of implementation). transferred?
regarding water - (PD) (8) How should this
quality? solution be financed?
- (PD) (4) What will be (Unknown financing
the future economic mechanisms).
and social conditions? - (PD) (9) What are the co-
benefits of this solution?
- (PD) (10) Unknown holders
of information and lack of
information sharing.
Table 17. Uncertainties in the UWB Spangen NbS study case
I: Inception – PD: Planning and design – Im: Implementation, operation and maintenance
Interviews have evidenced a series of uncertainties towards this project, linked mainly to the social
system. Ontological and epistemic nature of uncertainties related to the natural system did not appear
during the interviews. The process of implementation evidenced a series of strategies to cope with
incomplete knowledge and ambiguity. This strategies were often embedded in the institutional
context and governance structures, were deliberative principles and mechanisms are in place. Table
18 presents the summary of the uncertainty situations identified in the planning process 33. Strategies
used managed to cope with the main uncertainties detected along the implementation process.
32
I: Inception – SA: Situation analysis – SB: Strategy building – AP: Action planning – Im: Implementation
33
In APPENDIX D: KEY UNCERTAINTY SITUATIONS AND STRATEGIES , uncertainties identified in this specific case are
described, along with the strategies used to address them..
63
Dimen Key Coping strategies /
Uncertainty Key success factor
sion34 barrier New strategies (in bold)
(1) What will be the response - Uncertainty - Test site to make visible the - Develop solutions robust to multiple possible futures.
of the NbS in events of high of innovative compliance of the innovative NbS - Scalable projects to monitor and prove the technology in the largest
T
and low precipitation? solution. toward different climatic range of variations.
scenarios.
(2) What will be the response -Different -Co-design and involvement of the - Take mitigation measures to reduce the negative effects of undesirable
Unpredictability
of the community towards the problems/int community. scenarios.

solution? erests from - Involvement of all stakeholders in instances of decision making.
stakeholders
(3) Will the NbS comply with Uncertainty Test site to make visible the - Install short cycles of monitoring and adjustment.
S current and future regulations of innovative compliance to current water - Pilot project for continuous learning and adaptation.
regarding water quality? solution. quality regulations.
(4) What will be the future Unpredictabl -Not considered. - Apply temporary adaptation strategies.
economic and social e future
conditions? scenarios.
Uncertainty Test site for monitoring and data More data gathering and research to complete lack of knowledge.
(5) Will the solution respond of innovative gathering. - Pilot project for continuous learning and adaptation.
Incomplete Knowledge
T
to the current situation? solution.
-Different - Champion, agent of change. - Use of expert opinion.
problems/int - Involvement of stakeholders by - Improve communication between scientist and decision makers.
(6) Are all the stakeholders erests from other parties. - Identification of new stakeholders, not only those that are directly
S considered or involved in the stakeholders. related with the project.
decision making process? Improve communication and coordination between scientists’ decision
makers and stakeholders.
- Agent of change, mediator, and coordinator for the engagement.
34
T: Technical. N: Natural. S: Social.
64
Information - Attention to the interactions of - More data gathering and research to complete lacking knowledge.
silo the knowledge, defined by the - Dialogical learning and shared involvement.
project responsibilities. - Identify the information channels and coordination among
(7) Unknown holders of
stakeholders (considering formal and informal channels).
information and lack of
- Clear responsibilities, adding information sharing responsibilities.
information sharing (Silos)
- Move from incomplete knowledge to multiple frames of knowledge,
and accept that stakeholders look at the situation from a different
perspective.
Uncertainty - Champion, agent of change. - Expert opinions.
of innovative - Objectives set in the Water - More data gathering and research to complete lacking knowledge.
How should we implement
solution Resilient Rotterdam program. - Involvement of key stakeholder (agent of change) to guide the
this kind of solution?
implementation.
- Expert opinion to guide the process (in all stages).
Uncertainty -TKI project support and funding - More data gathering and research to complete lacking knowledge.
How should this solution
of innovative for the process of implementation. - Funds to support the process of implementation.
should be financed?
solution
Uncertainty -Workshop for identification of - Expert opinion.
What are the co-benefits of
of innovative co-benefits. - More data gathering and research to complete lacking knowledge.
this solution?
solution - Identification of co-benefits (should be in earlier stages).
Is the problem not enough Different - Identification of problem and - Persuasive communication
green areas, or hydro- problems/int problem framing. - Integration of concerns and problems of different stakeholders. This
N
meteorological risk? erests from is an opportunity, as it could bring up a mutual-gain type of negotiation.
stakeholders
Should we build infrastructure Uncertainty -Raising awareness and co-design. - Persuasive Communication.
as we usually do (business as of innovative - Rather than focusing on different frames, gather information that can
T usual) or pursue innovation solution alter the nature of the discussion. (Move from Multiple Knowledge
(NbS)? (Alternative Frames to Incomplete Knowledge).
solutions).
What are the criteria’s to Different -Definition of co-benefits and - Persuasive Communication and negotiation approach.
monitor and evaluate the co- problems/int indicators. - Definition of criteria at an early stage of the process (Inception), with
benefits? erests from expert elicitation. Necessary the integration of other stakeholders
stakeholders (community).
- Dialogical learning approach should be considered to select criteria
S and raise awareness.
To whom should the Uncertainty -Clear delimitation of - Persuasive Communication and negotiation approach.
management of the NbS be of responsibilities and tasks at an - Definition of responsibilities and tasks, sharing of information
transferred? innovative early stage, involving all about mandates, definition of end-users and funding.
solution stakeholders.
Table 18. Landscape of uncertainties in the UWB Spangen project
65
NbS MAR in “El Carracillo” region - Duero Basin, Spain
As pointed in section 4.1, in the 1990’s declining water levels and bad quality of the water denoted
the fragile situation of imbalance of the aquifer in the region. (1). At this point there were different
perspectives35 of the root of the problem. While most accused the extension of the irrigated land area
as the main driver, agricultural stakeholders pointed to long droughts. Independent to the root of the
problem, the government was alerted, not only on the consequences of future depletion of the aquifer
(and availability of water), but also to an alarming loss of production and soils due to an increased
presence of salts and arsenic of water from the tertiary aquifer.
At this initial stage, irrigation (the main economic activity in the region) also had objectives of their
own: the need of increase water availability of the region. Individual irrigators from the region called
for solutions. The water authority initiated a series of studies to close the knowledge gap over the
system, specifically over the characteristics of the tertiary aquifer. These studies gave the necessary
backup to offset the initial barriers being set, such as the lack of knowledge of the system. (2) These
studies pointed to an innovative solution for the time. (3) With the idea of a water transfer been set
as only way forward (and solution), two projects were initially thought. The most ambitious one
considered the construction of a dam in the Cega River (which is still in consideration). A second
option came from a geophysical prospection study of the area in 1993 that gave the idea of the
utilization of the quaternary aquifer as a mean to store water from a water transfer. Along the decade,
several studies entrusted to private companies by state agencies validated this idea (5). But without
available water, there was no possible technical solution that would meet the demand.
(4) Shortly after, an in order to gain political support for their requirements, the initial reaction of the
irrigators in the region was to organize themselves. Between the year of 1993 and 1994, irrigator’s in
the natural region of “El Carracillo” frequented several meetings to create a water users organization
(legally conformed in 1999) that could form unity towards the solution of the problem. This created
the necessary support (and pressures to the local government) towards any initiative been devised.
The studies elaborated were heavily supported not only by the State, through local governmental
offices of the Minister of Agriculture, but also by the new organized irrigation community along the
sector. As a stakeholder36 argue, this unity conforms a key milestone towards the implementation of
the solution.
(6) As mentioned in section 5.2.2, in 1998, and through a Royal Decree (Real Decreto-Ley 9/1998),
the State approved a series of hydraulic projects of special (general) interest for the nation. “Projects
of Special Interest” are works whose need (according to the State) are urgent, which must be
addressed and financed, in all or part according to the case, given its character of general interest of
the nation (ITACyL, 2018). The declaration of these type of works is special in many ways.
According to the Spanish law, this declaration of general interest defines explicitly the declaration of
public utility. In practice, this means that the State is mandated to execute this type of works, including
the necessary means to do it (such as expropriation). This gave the political and financial support of
this project.
35
(D2-4)
36
(D2-6)
66
This declaration was intended to solve the increasing
depopulation of rural areas, through the development
of agriculture of the region. This discourse can be seen
also in a series of documents and state organizations
that focus on rural development, and are mandated to
tackle with this issue. Still, this discourse was contested
at the time, and lingers until this day, as evidenced
through the interviews37.
(7) By February of 1999, after nearly a decade of
devising mechanisms to solve the situation in “El
Carracillo” region, and only one day after the legal
formation of the user’s organization, the Irrigators
Community of “El Carracillo” filled of a formal request
of 1.370 l/s concession from the Cega River to the river
basin authority. On 20 of December of the same year,
the water concession from the river basin authority38
was authorized. This situation not only allowed the
execution of a project (already approved), but also
allowed an increment of the water availability for
irrigation in the sub-basin, changing the course of the
water from the Cega River. At this point, opposition to
the project was presented from various interest of
downstream users.
In spite of protests, the project went ahead and the first
phase was constructed in 2000 (8) consisting on the
derivation and conduction of water from the Cega
River up to the recharge area through a pipe of nearly
20 km in length (as seen in Figure 27), was initiated in
2000, being delivered for the Irrigators Community of
Figure 27. Salto de Abajo “El Carracillo” on 2004. Parallel to the works, and
Weir for the derivation of water, water pipe for supported by the elaboration of a new study to further
transport and infiltration rafts characterize the “Los Arenales” quaternary aquifer (9),
Source: (ITACyL, 2018) the design of the second phase of the project was
initiated. At this point, another key factor supported the execution of the works. (10) The
Environmental Secretary39 publishes through a resolution that it is not necessary to submit the second
phase of the project to an EIA procedure. Shortly after, the construction of the second phase initiated,
being delivered to the Irrigators Community on 2006.
The third and last phase of the works contemplated in the Royal Decree of 1998 are yet to be
completed. In order to expand the initial concession (11) in 2007 a request for modification of the
water transfer concession was made by the Community. The request did not change the maximum
instantaneous flow left in the Cega River, but changed considerably the concession, as seen in Table
19. Requested modification of water concession. First, the modification of the period of water to be
37
(D2-6; D2-8). See Page 122.
38
Confederación Hidrográfica del Duero
39
Secretaria General del Medio Ambiente
67
diverted, augmented in two months. And second, the amount of minimum average flow of water
downstream from the site of the intake, as seen in the following table:
Water Concession from Requested modification to
Cega River (1999) concession (2007)
Period for water transfer January - April December - May
Total annual maximum 22.4 hm³ 14.4 hm³
volume
Local instantaneous 1.370 l/s 1.370 l/s
maximum flow
Total equivalent average 6.898 l/s 1.096 l/s
flow
Table 19. Requested modification of water concession
(12) In spite the initial notification of approval by the river basin authority on 2009, in 2013, the
National Hearing40 fails against the modification of the concession as it harms two concessions of
waterfalls for the production of electrical energy located downstream of the diversion dam”41. In this
years, a strong opposition to this third phase of the project resurged. This phase, unlike the first two,
was presented for a process of EIA (14). Since its publication and opening in the public process in
2018, it has received an important number of allegations and observations from a range of different
stakeholders. This observations have led to the stop of this third phase of the project.
40
Audiencia Nacional
41
(D2-5)
68
Figure 28. Timeline of MAR in “El Carracillo” region, Spain
69
Key uncertainty situations and strategies in “El Carracillo” region, Spain
The key uncertainty situation identified along the implementation of the NbS solution are described
according to the nature of uncertainty, object of knowledge and location along the planning process
in Table 20.
phenomenon
Natural system - (I) (1) What will be the - (PD) (3) What will be the - (PD) (10) What will be the future
Climate impacts, future volume of effect of the reduced availability of water?
water quantity, circulating water in the circulating flow downstream? - (PD) (11) What will be the effect
water quality, river? (PD) (4) What will the effect of of the recharge on the
ecosystems extraction of water from the surrounding area?
quaternary aquifer? - (PD) (12) What will be the effect
of water diversion of the Cega
river on the Natura 2000 sites42?
Technical system - (PD) (5) What will be the - (I) (13) Is this the best technical
Infrastructure, effect of climate change in the solution for the problem at hand?
technologies, feasibility of managed aquifer - (PD) (14) Are the models used
innovations recharge? reliable?
(PD) (6) What should be the
period of water diversion for
recharge?
Social system - - (PD) (2) What will be - (PD) (7) What is the impact of- - (PD) (15) Are there other benefits
Economic, the response of the lack of public information of from the aquifer recharge?
cultural, legal, community towards the project? - - (I) (16) Is aquifer recharge a good
political, this measure? - (PD) (8) What is the socio- strategy for the economic
-
administrative and economic impact of the development of the region?
organizational - - (PD) (17) What will be the social
measure in the region?
aspects impact (depopulation) of this
- (PD) (9) What is the effect of
measure?
public participation in the - (PD) (18) Does the diversion
process? going to affect other users
downstream?
Table 20. Uncertainties in the “El Carracillo” NbS study case
Interviews have evidenced a series of uncertainties towards this project. Uncertainties, and the
strategies used to solve them, appear under two distinct processes. Initial uncertainties towards the
implementation of phase 1 and 2 of the project, and those corresponding to the third phase.
The first two phases of the project were mandated from the State following a top-down and command
and control approach. Initial uncertainties were mainly directed towards the natural a technical
42
Natura 2000 network sites compromised are: LIC Banks of the Cega River (ES4180070) comprises from the limit of
the LIC and ZEPA Lagunas de Cantalejo to the confluence with the Douro River (455 ha LIC Laguna de Cantalejo
(ES4160106) partially overlaps with the Cantabrian Lagoons SPA (ES4160048) IBA-54 Río Cega-Tierra de Pinares-
Cantalejo (IBA = Important Area for the Conservation of Birds).
70
system, particularly concerned in reducing initial barriers related to the nature of unpredictability. In
this sense, strategies used to reduce this first set of uncertainties were mainly to improve the collection
of data and scientific knowledge, the use of simulation models to predict future scenarios and
implement interventions that can control and generate favourable conditions from the system
(particularly the natural and technical system). Particularly, the Managed Aquifer Recharge projects
in El Carracillo corresponds to a large-scale infrastructure to control the variations of the
unpredictable flow rate of the river. The objective of this intervention is targeted to increase water
availability for irrigation. Its implementation strategy is not comparable to an NbS, but rather to that
of grey infrastructure: high initial investment, strong political support for funding and
implementation, and single objective oriented - where co-benefits are not identified, and ecological
objectives come as external and uncontrolled benefits of the measure43.
Initial concerns over the transfer and recharge scheme revealed profound differences among the
stakeholders; not only in terms of what the actual problem was, but also in terms of potential impacts
over the ecological flow downstream (and the impacts over the protected ecosystem) and the interest
of downstream users. In spite these multiple views, the publication of the Royal Decree that mandated
the construction, the resolution of the Environmental Secretary withholding the project from an EIA
process and the delivery of the water concession permitted the construction and implementation of
the measure.
On the other hand, the third phase of the project had a very different implementation process. In spite
following the same rationale as the first two phases, being also was mandated by Royal Decree, its
implementation process highlighted the multiple and opposing positions stakeholders had. This is
manifested by the number of allegations that appeared in the public participation process of the EIA
process which at the end prevented its implementation. Table 21 presents the summary of the
uncertainty situations identified in the planning process44, along with the strategies used to cope with
these uncertainties.
43
Stakeholders depict these benefits as accessory, rather than as primary objectives.
44
In APPENDIX D: KEY UNCERTAINTY SITUATIONS AND STRATEGIES uncertainties identified in this specific
case are described, along with the strategies used to address them.
71
Coping strategies /
Dimension Uncertainty Key barrier
Unpredictability new strategies (in bold)
(1) What will be the future volume of circulating
- Control measures – interventions that generate
N water in the river? Unpredictable future scenarios.
favourable conditions.
(2) What will be the response of the community

Different standpoint and views
S towards this measure? - None.
over the solution.
(3) What will be the effect of the reduced circulating
Uncertainty of innovative - Correcting measures.
flow downstream?
solution. - Monitoring plan.
N
(4) What will the effect of extraction of water from
Uncertainty of innovative - More data gathering and research to complete lack
the quaternary aquifer?
solution. of knowledge.
(5) What will be the effect of climate change in the - Range estimations.
feasibility of managed aquifer recharge? Unpredictable future scenarios. - More data gathering.
- Use of expert opinion.

T
(6) What should be the period of water diversion for - Range estimations.
recharge? Unpredictable future scenarios. - More data gathering.
(7) What is the impact of lack of public information
of the project? - None.
over the solution.
- To collect more data or to carry out scientific
(8) What is the socio-economic impact of the Different standpoint and views
research to improve factual knowledge.
measure in the region? over the solution.
S
(9) What is the effect of public participation in the Different standpoint and views
process? over the solution.
72
Unpredictable future scenarios.
- Oppositional modes of action – Request of
(10) What will be the future availability of water? Different problems/interests
modification over the water concession).
from stakeholders.
Uncertainty of innovative
- Persuasive communication.
N (11) What will be the effect of the recharge on the solution.
- Oppositional modes of action.
surrounding area? Different problems/interests
from stakeholders.
(12) What will be the effect of water diversion of the Uncertainty of innovative - Persuasive communication.
Cega River on the Natura 2000 sites? solution. - Oppositional modes of action.
- Different problems/interests
(13) Is this the best technical solution for the problem from stakeholders. - Oppositional modes of action - stakeholders not
at hand? - Uncertainty of innovative considered.
T
solution.
Different problems/interests - Oppositional modes of action - stakeholders not
(14) Are the models used reliable?
from stakeholders. considered.
- (15) Are there other benefits from the aquifer
recharge? - None.
over the solution.
-
(16) Is aquifer recharge a good strategy for economic
Different problems/interests - Persuasive communication.
development the region?
from stakeholders. - Oppositional modes of action.
S- (17) What will be the social impact (depopulation) of
this measure?
-
(18) Does the diversion going to affect other users
downstream?
Table 21. Landscape of uncertainties of the MAR project in "El Carracillo" region
73
NbS River restoration – Copenhagen, Denmark
As mentioned in section 5.2.3, the cloudburst event in summer of 2011 is a key factor that triggered
a number of measures and initiatives towards climate adaptation in the city of Copenhagen (1). In
spite of actions for climate adaptation, such as the Copenhagen Climate Adaptation Plan being already
underway, this 2011 event triggered the political support for implementation and financing
mechanisms for solutions to cope with future climate scenarios. (2) The objectives of the Climate
Adaptation Plan (CAP) were set, mainly, to reduce the risk from extreme precipitation events while
increasing socio-economic opportunities through green and blue infrastructure. As part of this plan,
and in response to the growing necessity of increasing the capacity of the city of Copenhagen towards
cloudburst events, a Cloudburst Management Plan (CMP) was formulated. (3) The CMP plan
contains a prioritization of a set of adaptive measures based on a strong scientific basis. This plan not
only presents a number of initiatives, but also provides amendments for legislation, particularly
respect to the responsibility of implementation and monitoring, together with the financial
mechanisms to execute them. This roadmap set the necessary stage for private and public partnership.
(4) Through this partnership, municipalities, water utility services and private and public organization
were set to take the task of implementing these measures. Initial barriers were identified, particularly
with regard to legislation for NbS implementation, constrains for financial mechanisms and
stakeholder coordination. In order to address this initial set of barriers, a multi-stakeholder
organization involving 22 municipalities and 13 utility services was founded in 2012, called
KLIKOVAND45. Its main purpose is to support the process of implementation of NbS through four
important pillars: (i) legal basis for cooperation between municipalities and wastewater utilities, and
the inclusion of private owners in climate adaptation solutions; (ii) collect and exchange information
and knowledge among stakeholders; (iii) provide support for the decision making processes; and (iv)
improve the competencies of the stakeholders. In general, this organization provides the space of
gathering stakeholders in the catchment, identifying the barriers of implementation within the cross-
institutional organizations, and contribute to their solutions. This organization has given the necessary
support to overcome the initial barriers set, making possible the implementation of an important
number of NbS initiatives in the city of Copenhagen.
(5) Yet another important initiative mentioned by the interviews is the KLIMASPRING campaign.
This initiative is initiated and financed by a philanthropist organization, Realdania, and was carried
between 2013 and 2017. Its objective is to support to (commercial) development of solutions for
extreme rain events through green solutions, involving a direct work with business to develop added
value of innovative and sustainable approaches. Parallel to this campaign, the City of Copenhagen
presented the Climate Change adaptation and investment statement, document that intends to set in
motion the Cloudburst Management Plan by supporting the implementation of around 300 projects
and initiatives in Copenhagen. These two initiatives set in motion a number of measures not only
linked to infrastructure, but also to decision support tools, digital platforms and cooperation
agreements among stakeholders.
(6) Along these initiatives, the NAIAD project conducted a first workshop in Copenhagen in
November of 2017 with the idea of operationalize the nature insurance value of ecosystem. The
studies conducted in the area of Copenhagen, particularly those based on prior assessment of risk46,
45
KLIKOVAND is the acronym from the Danish words of Climate, Municipalities and Water.
46
Risk analysis based on biophysical / hydrological modelling using IPCC scenarios.
74
existing policies (Climate Adaptation Plan and Cloudburst Management Plan), together with the
description of the natural system47, gave the necessary scientific base for developing an economic
valuation framework of new initiatives. At this moment, the NAIAD project for the DEMO case in
Copenhagen focused on a basin approach, and not in a specific project as other DEMO cases.
(7) On summer of 2018, Copenhagen experienced a severe drought that provoked noticeable impacts
to water bodies particularly visible in the city centre. Although the CAP considers drought as a key
challenge, this event caught the attention of politicians and civil society, giving a new air to green-
blue initiatives in the city. From this event, a key initiative emerged from the Norrebro Local
Committee, Miljøpunkt Nørrebro (Environmental Point), proposing a set of environmental and
climate projects. Initial ideas were targeted to tap into groundwater to compensate for the increased
evaporation in drought events in order to maintain water bodies levels, which led to another project
to reduce risk of both floods and droughts, the River Restoration Project. As explained in section 4.3,
this project consists in recovering the surface water flow towards the artificial lakes, trying to recover
the historical qualities of the river. This idea has received important political support, and been further
discussed with both governmental and civil society.
(8) In the second NAIAD workshop conducted in the city of Copenhagen, this measure was discussed
with a range of stakeholders from public organizations48. Two main activities were conducted in the
workshop: the identification of co-benefits and a social network analysis. Although the project has
not been implemented, a series of uncertainties have been identified in the inception, planning and
design stages of the planning process.
47
Hydrologic and hydraulics model evaluation.
48
Assistants to the workshop: NAIAD partners, City of Copenhagen, City of Frederiksberg, Region of Greater
Copenhagen, KLIKOVAND Task Force, Miljøpunkt Nørrebro, GEUS, Danish Regions, Efedal Kommune and private
entities.
75
Figure 29. Timeline of NbS River Restoration in Copenhagen
76
Key uncertainty situations and strategies in the River Restoration Project in Copenhagen
Table 22 presents the summary of the uncertainty situations found in the field work, described
according to the nature of uncertainty, object of knowledge and location along the planning process.
phenomenon
Natural system - (I) (5) Is the framing of the
Climate impacts, problem similar among
water quantity, stakeholders?
water quality, - (I) (6) Are the understandings of
ecosystems the current situation equal among
stakeholders?
Technical system - (PD) (1) What will be - (PD) (7) Are all stakeholders in
Infrastructure, the response of the NbS agreement with the technical
technologies, in events of high and solution?
innovations low precipitation?
Social system - (PD) (2) What will - (PD) (4) How this solution - (PD) (8) What is the valuation of
Economic, be future legal should be financed? (Unknown the measure?
cultural, legal, conditions of financing financing mechanisms) - (PD) (9) What is the criteria’s to
political, mechanisms? monitor and evaluate the project?
administrative and - (PD) (3) Are all the
organizational stakeholders willing to
aspects implement the project?
-
Table 22. Uncertainties of NbS River Restoration in Copenhagen
Most uncertainties found toward this project are mainly related to the nature of ambiguity. Similarly
to UWB Spangen case, ontological and epistemic natures of uncertainties related to the natural system
did not appear during the interviews. Mechanisms for stakeholder deliberation have been identified
along the design and planning process, which have recognised among other things, the potential target
groups and possible co-benefits of the River Restoration Project. Moreover, measures have been
implemented effectively in the city through the KLIMASPRING campaign for risk reduction, been
identified by field observation. Table 23 presents the summary of the uncertainty situations identified
in the planning process49, along with the strategies identified to cope with these uncertainties.
49
In APPENDIX D: KEY UNCERTAINTY SITUATIONS AND STRATEGIES , uncertainties identified in this specific
case are described, along with the strategies used to address them
77
Nature / Coping strategies
Uncertainty Key barrier Success factors
System New strategies (in bold)
(1) What will be the response - Uncertainty of innovative - Design and projections - Develop solutions robust to multiple
T of the NbS in events of high solution. selected on the basis of possible futures.
Unpredictability
and low precipitation? best available knowledge. - Diversification of solutions.

(2) What will be future legal - Unpredictable future scenarios. - None. -Damage control.
conditions of financing
mechanisms?
S
(3) Are all the stakeholders - Different problems/interests from - Implemented NbS -Combine multiple strategies.
willing to implement the stakeholders. projects.
project?
- Uncertainty of innovative - Diversification of source More data gathering and research to complete
knowledge
Incomplete
(4) How this solution should solution. of funds and financial lacking knowledge.
S mechanisms. - Funds to support the process of
be financed?
implementation.
(5) Is the framing of the - Different problems/interests from -Information and - Dialogical learning.
problem similar among stakeholders. awareness campaigns. - Information and awareness campaigns.
stakeholders?
N
(6) Are the understandings of - Different problems/interests from - Deliberative mechanisms -Persuasive Communication.
the current situation equal stakeholders. in place.
among stakeholders? -Awareness campaigns.
(7) Are all stakeholders in - Different problems/interests from -Deliberative mechanisms -Persuasive Communication.
T agreement with the technical stakeholders. in place.
solution?
- (8) What is the valuation of - Different problems/interests from - None. -Persuasive Communication.
the measures? stakeholders. - Dialogical learning.
S (9) What is the criteria’s to - Different problems/interests from -Workshop meetings to Not applied yet.
monitor and evaluate the stakeholders. define co-benefits.
project
Table 23. Landscape of uncertainties of the River Restoration project in Copenhagen
78
6.3 Summary of the findings
This chapter presented the results of the identification of uncertainty situations in the literature and in
three case studies. Their classification in the uncertainty matrix allows to make further analysis over
the presence of uncertainty situations according to the three natures, and system of knowledge of
uncertainties.
Based on the total number of uncertainties
Literature
situations found in the literature review, Figure 30
Unp. I.K Amb. depicts the frequency of uncertainty situations
identified50. Considering the system of
N 4 7 4 knowledge, the barriers linked to uncertainty in
the literature evidence a strong presence of
uncertainty situations from the social system,
T 4 7 11 accounting for 63% of the total issues identified.
Regarding the nature of uncertainty (whereas
unpredictability was the most accounted for in the
S 22 19 22 policy and planning review), all three nature of
Legend
uncertainties represent a similar percentage:
% of total ambiguity accounts for 37%, incomplete
issues 0 1% - 9% 10% - 19% ≥20%
knowledge 33% while unpredictability a total of
Figure 30. Frequency of barriers linked to uncertainty
30%.
situations in the literature
In spite important differences in the process, the
three cases evidence similar recognition of uncertainties, mainly linked to ambiguity, and the social
system, as seen in Figure 31.
Figure 31. Frequency of barriers linked to uncertainty situations in specific cases
50
See section 3.5.1 for a description of the methodology.
79
The analysis of uncertainty situations in the case studies also reveal a similar trend to those identified
in the literature. A strong recognition of uncertainty from the social system, accounting for 57% of
total in this aspect, versus 65% in the literature. Regarding the nature of uncertainty, 45% of all
uncertainty is defined as ambiguity.
The study of specific study cases used to implement NbS reveal very distinct processes of
implementation, and approaches to deal with uncertainty. As seen in Figure 26 and Figure 29, the
process of implementation of UWB Spangen and River Restoration project respectively involved a
re-evaluation of the objectives of the measure as new situations emerged. UWB Spangen changed the
design of the project due to the inclusion of new stakeholders, having to revisit the main objectives.
The River Restoration project emerged not only through the objectives set by the CAP, but also as
new events, such as the drought in Copenhagen, arose. The flexibility of this approaches allowed the
setting of new objectives, adjusted as new events were better understood. On the other hand, the
objectives of the MAR project did not change in face of new events, .The exclusion of stakeholders
in the decision making process of this particular project still endures until this day, even though the
EIA process evidenced a strong opposition of the project. It is possible to appreciate through Figure
28 that no key event in the stage of inception (particularly involving the stakeholder process and
setting of objectives) occurred after 1999.
In spite different implementation process, results for specific study cases signal a similar recognition
of barriers, which corroborates initial findings in the literature where it is revealed that a greater
number of barriers in the implementation of NbS solutions are linked to the social system (Thorne et
al., 2015), and particularly referred to ambiguity. Table 24 presents the key barriers linked to
uncertainty most recognized in the reviewed case studies, in order of importance according to the
frequency of issues identified:
1. Different standpoint and views over the solution.

2. Uncertainty of innovative solution.
3. Unpredictable future scenarios.
4. Different problems/interests from stakeholders.
Information and sectoral silos – Complexities of coordination and communication;
5. multifaceted fields of responsibilities; or projects such as NbS often may not fit into existing
decision-making structures.
Table 24. Main barriers related to uncertainties identified in the study cases
Strategies to cope with uncertainty

While all cases identified similar barriers of implementation linked to the social system and
ambiguity, in some cases, this barriers have been considered and coped though different strategies.
Table 25 depicts the strategies considered by the interviewees (in bold) and from the literature as the
most important to cope with uncertainty in NbS implementation:
80
Pilot projects as examples of what can be done
- Develop solutions robust to multiple possible futures.
- Scalable projects to monitor and prove the technology in the largest range of variations.
- Pilot project for continuous learning and adaptation.
Stakeholder involvement in NbS processes.
- Involvement of all stakeholders in (as many) instances of decision making (as possible).
- Identification of new stakeholders, not only those that are directly related with the
project, in order to enhance the possibility of public/private partnerships (e.g.: communities,
insurance sector, private companies (stadiums), among others).
Champions and leaders. Dedicated individuals
- Involvement of key stakeholder to guide the implementation. Often mentioned as agent
of change, mediator, and coordinator for the engagement.
- Expert opinion to guide the process (in all stages).
Quality of communication and collaboration
- Improve communication and coordination between scientists, decision makers and
stakeholders.
- Dialogical learning and shared involvement.
- Identify the information channels and coordination among stakeholders (considering
formal and informal channels).
- Clear responsibilities, adding information sharing responsibilities.
- Cooperation with researchers.
- Communication/knowledge transfer.
Identify and consider benefits and co-benefits
- Identification of co-benefits in earlier stages.
- Addressing biodiversity and social benefits.
Establishing and practicing collaborative governance approaches
- Integration of concerns and problems from different stakeholders.
- Rather than focusing on differences, gather information that can alter the nature of the
discussion. (Move from Multiple Knowledge Frames to Incomplete Knowledge).
Evaluation and monitoring mechanisms
- Definition of criteria at an early stage of the process, with expert elicitation.
- Necessary the integration of other stakeholders (community).
- Dialogical learning approach should be considered to select criteria and raise awareness.
Availability of funding specifically for supporting environmental projects.
- Funds to support the process of implementation.
Table 25. Strategies to cope with uncertainty identified in the present research
In Chapter 7, and based on Table 25, strategies will be described and discussed.
81
Discussion and synthesis of uncertainty
management
Based on the results of the previous chapters, the present chapter will present the discussion of results,
and the synthesis of the strategies identified for enabling NbS implementation (Table 26), and their
location in the Strategic Planning Framework (Figure 32).
7.1 Discussion
Literature shows an increased evidence on how NbS features and characteristics cope with uncertainty
of climate change: flexibility, cost effectiveness and multi- purpose (European Commission, 2015c).
Despite these known advantages, uptake and implementation of NbS is hampered mainly by
uncertainties regarding hydrological performance and service delivery (O’Donnell et al., 2017), and
lack of confidence (Thorne et al., 2015) that often translates into conflicting views of decision makers
and stakeholders over the solution (shown in Table 24 ). Literature has pointed to adaptive
management approaches, that would help support effective NbS implementation (Nesshöver et al.,
2017) due to its increased capacity of adaptation to ongoing changes.
Results of this research did not provide a conclusive answer to the hypothesis that policy and planning
frameworks and implementation processes that detect and consider uncertainties in all its natures
will facilitate the integration and implementation of Nature-based solutions for reducing hydro-
meteorological risks. The results point out to a similar recognition of uncertainties in planning and
policy frameworks (see section 5.3) and implementation approaches (see section 6.3), in spite the
different end results, making difficult to draw a direct relation between identification of uncertainties
and project implementation.
First, in spite distinct approaches in dealing with water related risks, the analysis of policy and
planning frameworks in specific contexts (see section 3.3) identifies a similar recognition of
uncertainty related to the nature of unpredictability while not accounting for ambiguity, confirming
findings in the literature (Jensen & Wu, 2016; van den Hoek, 2014; Zandvoort et al., 2018). The cases
of UWB Spangen and River restoration consists on adaptive policies and planning approaches in
urban environments, were there are strong relations between climate adaptation and urban
infrastructure. On the other hand, the policies and planning approaches of the MAR project in “El
Carracillo” region focus on both urban and rural environments, following a river basin management
or IWRM approach. In both policy and planning approaches, uncertainties related to unpredictability
are explicitly mentioned and described in multiple steps in the planning process, while ambiguity
lacks attention.
Second, while the analysis of the process of implementation in specific cases revealed a similar
identification of barriers mainly linked to uncertainties in the social system and ambiguity sustaining
previous research (Thorne et al., 2015), strategies used to cope with this uncertainties differ greatly
in each context. While the process of implementation of UWB Spangen and River Restoration project
82
involved a re-evaluation of the objectives of the measure as new situations and knowledge emerged,
the objectives of the MAR project did not change even in face of new events. This relates to the
context of policy and planning paradigm, where in the first cases the flexibility of this approach
allowed the setting of new objectives through deliberative and participatory mechanisms and flexible
options adjusted as new events were better understood (Dreiss, 2016; Zandvoort et al., 2018). On the
other hand, the MAR project in “El Carracillo”, followed a top-down / command and control
approach, revealing strategies of control of outcomes and uncertainties, with presence of institutional
and governance structures that usually lead to grey solutions (see Table 21), with no adaptation of the
solution towards uncertainties, particularly to those related to multiple and opposing views. Strategies
used to cope with uncertainties in this nature relate to oppositional modes of action (see Table 21).
Strong opposition towards the project was detected by an important number of stakeholders and
interviewees51, evident after the resolution of the EIA process. In this case, the omission of strategies
of collaboration to deal with uncertainties linked to ambiguity was seen crucial to impede the
implementation of the NbS.
Ambiguity in specific cases is often considered an operational issue - mainly tackled through (i)
institutional setups such as participatory mechanisms for representation of different knowledge,
frames and values (e.g. workshops for collaborative co-design), or mechanisms to resolve conflicts
and disputes (e.g. EIA); and (ii) governance structures such as cooperation organisms (e.g.
KLIKOVAND) or consortiums (e.g. TKI consortium) – but needs policy provisions attention. While
policy and planning frameworks do not account for ambiguity, uptake and mainstreaming of NbS will
remain challenged.
Even though results from the present research revealed that the detection and consideration of
uncertainties in policy and planning frameworks and implementation processes is relevant, it is not
possible to draw a causal relationship between the identification of uncertainties and successful
implementation, since the omission of ambiguity did not hamper the implementation of NbS UWB
Spangen. On the other hand, results show that implementation processes in an adaptive management
approach that propose and supports NbS in institutional and governance structures facilitate the
implementation and uptake of NbS. Although adaptive planning documents and approaches lack
attention for ambiguity (see section 5.3), the mechanisms set for deliberation and conflict resolution
enabled the use of strategies that are capable in dealing with the main barriers found.
While based on the findings it is possible to confirm the hypothesis - the identification… of
uncertainties… facilitate the uptake and implementation of NbS -, this hypothesis lacks specificity.
Policy and planning approaches may not explicitly point out to all natures of uncertainties while the
concept of ambiguity remains considered operational. As mentioned above, ambiguity is often tackled
by institutional setups and governance structures in specific contexts, that while may be supported by
adaptive planning approaches, are not dependent on them. In this sense, it would be necessary to re-
adapt the hypothesis to make it more specific and explicitly consider the institutional context, being
formulated as: The identification of all natures of uncertainties in policies and planning frameworks
and consideration in governance and institutional structures will facilitate the implementation and
uptake of Nature-based solutions for reducing hydro-meteorological risks.
Stakeholder and decision makers play a central role in the strategies to overcome uncertainty. Results
point out to several specific strategies to overcome uncertainties inherent to NbS, notably the
51
Uncertainties related to this aspect point out to ambiguity, as seen in point 2.10; 2.11; 2.12; 2.13; 2.14; 2.15; 2.16; 2.17
and 2.18 in APPENDIX D: KEY UNCERTAINTY SITUATIONS AND STRATEGIES IN SPECIFIC CASES.
83
identification and valuation of multiple benefits and co-benefits of NbS; legal/financial support and
practice of collaborative governance approaches; and the integration of stakeholders (not usually
associated with water-risk related measures) for the formation of partnerships in the implementation
of NbS. Multiple benefits associated with NbS could contribute to fulfil policy and strategic
objectives of multiple parties, such as climate adaptation, urban development projects and ecosystem
protection. Valuation and quantification of these co-benefits (and costs) can support the evidence for
setting strong business cases and selection of pathways in decision-making, accounting for the
effectiveness of this innovative measures. This in turn could guide the monitoring an evaluation, in
order to demonstrate benefits after implementation. The support of governance processes of
collaboration and formation of partnerships for co-design and co-funding, may help advance the
implementation of NbS. Finally, active engagement with the community and decision makers based
on best available knowledge52 and explicit account for unpredictability may guide an increased
awareness and acceptance of the measures.
Findings reveal that adaptive approaches could support effective NbS implementation (Nesshöver et
al., 2017). In order for this planning approach better integrate uncertainty, further studies should
scrutinize in how this approach should be embedded in legal frameworks and institutional and
governances contexts, which corroborated the conclusion of Zandvoort et al. (2018, p. 194). While
adaptive approaches of cases in UWB Spangen and River Restoration appear to be embedded in
existing governance structures and local planning, the MAR case reveals misfit of approaches that
intend to integrate NbS in the institutional context. As Zandvoort points out, a “lack of attention for
the possible fit and misfit of approaches with the institutional context seems to be an important
omission to account for uncertainty” (Zandvoort et al., 2018, p. 195).
52
Through the reduction of natural and technical uncertainties linked to incomplete knowledge
84
7.2 Incorporation into the Strategic Planning Framework
Strategies used to deal with uncertainty in the literature, together with strategies that enabled a correct
implementation of NbS in the case studies have been identified according to the different stages in
the planning process. This allows to integrate the strategies into the Strategic Planning Framework
following the stages in the planning process.
The use of the Strategic Planning Framework proved useful to identify and link strategies to different
steps in the planning process of NbS implementation. In order to cope with ambiguity, a shift in the
orientation of the Strategic Planning Framework (see Figure 32) is proposed. Strategies found are
mainly concerned in coping with ambiguity, for which stakeholders and decision makers play a
central role. Timeline mapping evidenced that the implementation process does not follow a
sequential order of the planning steps, and often strategies found relate to one or more of these stages.
In this sense, a horizontal placement of the strategic planning framework may be of aid to represent
strategies that are conducted by stakeholders and decision makers into the different stages along the
planning process.
The following section will present the description and integration of the implementation strategies
into the Planning Framework. Each strategy is presented according to the main step it relates, although
strategies are interrelated and can be applied to more than one step, as seen in Figure 32. Table 26
and Figure 32 are sought to be read together.
Strategies set before implementation (Support of the process)

Experiences in the study cases (e.g. the TKI consortium for Rotterdam, and the KLIKOVAND and
KLIMASPRING campaign), together with the literature (Barton, 2016; Cohen-Schacham et al., 2016) reveal
that funding to support the process is key for successful implementation of NbS. According to the literature,
processes need to support institutional spaces in open and transparent governance processes to create cross-
sectoral dialogues (Raymond et al., 2017) that provide legitimacy of knowledge amongst stakeholders
(Crowe, 2016; Kabisch, Frantzeskaki, et al., 2016; Raymond et al., 2017), enabling public-private
partnerships (Koppenjan, 2015) and knowledge sharing (Raymond et al., 2017). This process may result
costly, but experiences from the case studies and the literature reveal that this support may ensure that
activities become “socially acceptable and defensible” (Raymond et al., 2017) to various stakeholders,
facilitating present and future implementation of NbS.
Champions and leaders. Dedicated individuals.
Another important aspect identified both in literature and case studies (Refer to point 1.6 and in APPENDIX
D) seems the presence of a key actor, agent of change or coordinator that guides the process of
implementation (Barton, 2016; Cohen-Schacham et al., 2016). This individual, or organization, is the
mediator of conflicts among stakeholders, and supports the necessary communication and coordination
mechanisms to prevent certain barriers to hamper the process, such as silo thinking, lack of intersectorial
collaboration, un-identified stakeholders and lack of funding mechanisms.
Inception
Stakeholder involvement for NbS implementation.
85
The identification of stakeholders not typically involved in water related risk management (O’Donnell et
al., 2017) in instances of decision making is a key driver for its success (or a key barrier for its failure if not
given enough consideration), even when we accept the inherent difficulties of embarking to this process
(e.g. longer and more costly processes of implementation, difficulties in coordination and communication
between the wide range of stakeholders and diverse and sometimes opposing interests, views and
objectives).
According to Nesshöver (2017), their involvement is thought to bring three types of benefits for NbS
implementation: substantive, instrumental and normative: (i) ‘substantive’ benefits, as planning can be
improved as different perspectives, interests, conditions and knowledge are integrated (valorising tacit and
expert knowledge) (Kabisch, Frantzeskaki, et al., 2016) . (ii) ‘instrumental’ benefits, as activities become
“socially acceptable and defensible” (Raymond et al., 2017); and (iii) ‘normative’ benefits, “as stakeholder
involvement increases the legitimacy of the process, and generally supports democracy” (Nesshöver et al.,
2017, p. 1221). Stakeholder involvement can be particularly critical if NbS involves trade-offs, as the
integration of stakeholder could benefit value creation, specifically fruitful in mutual gain type of
negotiations (see point (j) of the present table).
Quality of communication and collaboration.
Complexities of communication, silo thinking (lack of communication between departments), and in
general, challenges in collaboration are barriers found critical for the engagement with multiple-actors in
the design and implementation of NbS in the case studies (see Chapter 6 ). The development of appropriate
institutional arrangements and spaces set to improve communication and coordination between scientists,
decision makers and stakeholders is recognized as a key driver to develop dialogical learning and shared
involvement processes. On the other hand, identifying the information channels and coordination among
stakeholders, considering both formal and informal channels, is a key first step to set the stakeholder
involvement process.

Uncertainty situations found in this stage of the process have evidenced conflicting (and opposing) views,
interests and objectives from stakeholders. This opposing views manifested (seen in APPENDIX D) on:
different representations of the current situation (e.g. see point 3.6); of the problem at hand (e.g. see point
1.11); of the objectives to be pursued (e.g. see point 2.16); value attributions (e.g. see point 3.7); and the
response of the NbS (e.g. see point 2.13). In some cases, this different representations of decision makers
and community have increased the level of conflict in the area. In order to overcome these barriers, strategies
in case studies and literature point out to dialogical learning process and mutual negotiation approaches,
based in studies aimed to identify and understand this conflicting representations of different stakeholders
(Guerrin, 2014).
Situation analysis
Problem description
Understand the problems/interests of stakeholders.

Similarly to point (e) in the present table, different understandings of the problem at hand, particularly from
those stakeholders not commonly involved in the implementation of measures for water-related risks, are
often linked to an increase in the level of conflict, hampering NbS implementation (e.g. see point 2.13 of
APPENDIX D). Literature and case studies, evidence that an early recognition of this problem framings
may guide to the selection of unconsidered benefits which might be valued more highly (O’Donnell et al.,
2017). The integration of concerns and problems of different stakeholders is seen as an opportunity, as it
could bring up a mutual-gain type of negotiation.
86
A key barrier present in the literature is related to the uncertainty of an innovative solution (Barton, 2016;
Kabisch, Frantzeskaki, et al., 2016; O’Donnell et al., 2017). This barrier is not only associated with concerns
among local actors about the unknown response of the solution towards future scenarios, but also with,
uncertain financial mechanisms, unknown cost/benefits (including maintenance), operational unknowns,
insufficient data availability and in general, a fear of the unknowns (Kabisch, Frantzeskaki, et al., 2016). In
this sense, a strategy, when there are no NbS solutions that are found to be similar in context, objective and
characteristics, is the setting of a pilot project (in small scale) (Barton, 2016). This allows to monitor and
prove the technology in a continuous learning and adaptation process. Communicating successful case
studies of implemented NbS in similar contexts can provide a strong basis to overcome these barriers
(Barton, 2016; Kabisch, Frantzeskaki, et al., 2016).
Strategy building
Identify and consider benefits and co-benefits.

In relation to features of NbS to provide multiple benefits in addition to ecosystem services as explained in
section 2.2, consideration and assessment of co-benefits may provide a bridge of environmental, social and
economic interests among stakeholders (Raymond et al., 2017). Their consideration and valuation may
prove key for the selection of potential solutions and preferred strategies, particularly when selection of
strategies follow a multi-criteria analysis which is in line with adaptive management approach (Nesshöver
et al., 2015). Valuation and quantification of these co-benefits (and costs) can support the evidence for
setting strong business cases and selection of pathways in decision-making, accounting for the effectiveness
of this innovative measures. This in turn could guide the monitoring an evaluation, in order to demonstrate
benefits after implementation.
Action planning
Governance mode, funding strategy, financing strategy, procurement strategy
Establishing and practicing collaborative governance approaches.

NbS projects involve the collaboration across scientific domain through interdisciplinary work (Nesshöver
et al., 2017). Similarly to point (e) of the present table, institutional setups prove to be important to stablish
collaborative governance approaches that appeal to a consensus oriented and deliberative approach that
focus on common interests (Kabisch, Frantzeskaki, et al., 2016). These processes are highly dependent of
the information at hand, which could provoke changes of the nature of the discussion. In this sense,
improving awareness, community engagement and communication can help to tackle barriers related to lack
of knowledge and multiple understandings (O’Donnell et al., 2017).
Implementation
Monitoring and evaluation
Setting criteria for monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.
Literature indicates that the definition of criteria at an early stage of the process may aid to delimitate the
responsibilities and duties that help guide implementation and set the indicators for ecological, social and
economic effectiveness of the measure that will serve for future evaluation. Particularly for NbS, this criteria
should be set through participation processes to consider multiple views and values, that might correspond
to the trade-offs deliberated (O’Donnell et al., 2017, and specifically, the co-benefits identified This
selection often means easily measurable criteria in detriment of more important but difficult to measure ones
(Nesshöver et al., 2015).
Table 26. Integration of key strategies to cope with uncertainty in the Strategic Planning Framework
87
Figure 32. Key strategies to include in the Strategic Planning Framework for NbS implementation.
Source: Adopted from Loucks and Van Beek, 2017 - https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319442327
88
Conclusions and recommendations
8.1 Findings
The research objective of the present research intended “To understand how the experiences in the
implementation process of Nature Based Solutions (NbS) for reducing hydro-meteorological risks
can be translated to an operational framework for effective NbS implementation strategy.” For this
purpose, the main research question proposed is as follows:
What is the role of uncertainty in planning and implementation of Nature Based Solutions?
Three research question were stablished, and can be answered:
1. How does policy and planning for water-related risk reduction deal with
uncertainty in specific contexts?
The analysis of policy and planning frameworks in specific cases allows us to identify the recognition
these documents give to uncertainty. Policy and planning frameworks in specific cases reveal very
distinct approaches in dealing
with future water related
risks. While Copenhagen and
Rotterdam policies were
based on an adaptive
approach, the Spanish case
revealed an IWRM and basin
management approach.
In spite of these differences, a
critical review of these
documents evidence a similar
tendency of recognition of
uncertainty from the nature of
unpredictability, accounting
Frequency of key issues signalling the presence of uncertainty in policy and planning
frameworks for specific cases (addressed in section 5.3)
on average for 79% of the
total issues identified,
53
whereas incomplete knowledge (12%) and ambiguity (9%) comprises the remaining . These policies
on average account particularly for uncertainties in the natural (57%) and social system (20%). These
results confirms and supports previous studies (Jensen & Wu, 2016; van den Hoek, Brugnach, &
Hoekstra, 2014; Zandvoort et al., 2018), were it is stated that large part of the policy and planning
frameworks concentrates its efforts to recognize the uncertainties linked to the natural and technical
systems, particularly concerning the nature of unpredictability.
53
See section 5.3 for results in each specific case.
89
2. Which are the approaches used to implement NBS in specific contexts?
2.1 What is the approach taken to deal with future uncertainties?
2.2 Which are the key factors linked to uncertainty that enable or impede the
implementation of Nature Based Solutions?
The study of specific cases used to implement NbS reveal very distinct implementation processes and
approaches to deal with uncertainty. The study cases in Rotterdam and Copenhagen correspond to an
adaptive approach to deal with uncertainty, avoiding control by utilizing strategies such as
identification of multiple future scenarios, the diversification of measures, scalable interventions and
the combination of multiple strategies. On the other hand, the Spanish case reveal a more traditional
approach that emphasize in controlling processes and outcomes (command and control).
In spite substantial
differences in the
process of
implementation of NbS
(see section 6.3), the
analysis of uncertainty
situations reveal a
similar recognition of
uncertainty in all cases:
considering the system
of knowledge, the
uncertainty situations
found in specific cases
Frequency of barriers linked to uncertainty situations in specific cases (addressed in section evidence a strong
6.3)
recognition of
uncertainty situations in
the social system, accounting in average 57% of total in this aspect. Regarding the nature of
uncertainty, in average 45% of all uncertainty situations found correspond to ambiguity nature of
uncertainty.
The following list presents the main barriers related to uncertainties found in the study cases.
Key factors linked to uncertainties that impede the implementation of NbS.
1. Different standpoint and views over the solution.
2. Uncertainty of innovative solution.
3. Unpredictable future scenarios.
4. Different problems/interests from stakeholders.
Information and sectoral silos – Complexities of coordination and communication and
5. multifaceted fields of responsibilities that often do not fit into existing decision-making
structures.
Key factors and strategies that enabled NbS implementation are mainly linked to the ambiguity nature
of uncertainty, in accordance to the main barriers found. These strategies served as basis for
answering the third sub-research question of the present research.
90
3. How can NbS planning and implementation approaches integrate
uncertainty?
Results of the present research confirms and supports previous studies. were it is stated that large part
of the policy and planning frameworks concentrates its efforts to recognize the uncertainties linked
to the natural and technical systems, particularly concerning the nature of unpredictability (Jensen &
Wu, 2016; Zandvoort et al., 2018), while uncertainties related to ambiguity are particularly “apparent
during development”(van den Hoek, Brugnach, & Hoekstra, 2014), and have been found to have the
greatest adverse influences the implementation of NbS solutions (Thorne et al., 2015).
Results show that implementation processes in an adaptive management approach that propose and
supports NbS in institutional and governance structures facilitate the implementation and uptake of
NbS. Although adaptive planning documents and approaches lack attention for ambiguity (see section
5.3), the mechanisms set for deliberation and conflict resolution enabled the use of strategies that are
capable in dealing with the main barriers found.
Findings reveal that adaptive approaches should be embedded in legal frameworks and institutional
and governances contexts in order to support effective NbS implementation (Nesshöver et al., 2017)..
While adaptive approaches of cases in UWB Spangen and River Restoration appear in institutional
and governance structures, the MAR case reveals misfit of approaches and where the omission of
strategies of collaboration to deal with ambiguity was seen crucial to impede its implementation.
Several specific strategies were identified: notably identification and valuation of multiple benefits
and co-benefits of NbS; legal/financial support and practice of collaborative governance approaches;
and the integration of stakeholders (not usually associated with water-risk related measures) for the
formation of partnerships in the implementation of NbS. Strategies used to deal with uncertainty in
the literature, together with strategies that enabled a correct implementation of Nature-based solutions
in the case studies were integrated into the Strategic Planning Framework. In total, ten (10) key
strategies were identified, and linked to the seven (7) specific steps of the planning framework. This
set of strategies aid to cope with the most relevant barriers and uncertainty situation found through
the present research.
Key strategies to cope with uncertainty in the Strategic Planning Framework
Strategies outside the
1 Champions and leaders. Dedicated individuals.
planning process.
2 Stakeholder involvement.
Inception Quality of communication and collaboration.
3
Problem description
Situation analysis 4
Understand the problems/interests of stakeholders.
Strategy building 5
Identify and consider benefits and co-benefits.
Action planning Governance mode, funding strategy, financing strategy
6
Establishing and practicing collaborative governance approaches.
Implementation Monitoring and evaluation
7
Setting criteria for monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.
91
8.2 Limitations
There are certain limitations regarding the data collection process. Whilst I assume that the sample of
interviews conducted is representative of experiences in each case study, there is a limitation on this
one-on-one interview approach, as one person experience may limit the representation of multiple
viewpoints (Flyvbjerg, 2006). In addition, time constraints limited the window of interviewing,
particularly in countries abroad. This mainly affected the number of interviews, the depth and
validation of results. Moreover, NAIAD specialists presented concerns over a fatigue of stakeholders,
since the project already had conducted a series of interviews to a similar sample.
On the other hand, and following the work of Imada (2017, p. 91), there are main limitations regarding
the matrix of uncertainty. First, the high level of subjectivity of the interpretation of the researcher
over the information provided by the stakeholder in the identification and classification of
uncertainties and coping strategies. Second, interviews were not familiarized with concept of
uncertainty in all its natures, particularly ambiguity, which proved to be a difficulty in the
identification of uncertainties54. And third, the impossibility of situating an uncertainty situation that
relates to two (or more) systems (natural, technical, social) (Imada, 2017).
Lastly, certain limitations in the selection of case studies was found, since cases selected were not in
the same stage of implementation. This provoked difficulties in case comparison and analysis. Future
research may preferably opt for NbS cases that are completely implemented, or where there has been
a final decision against them. The novelty of NbS and lack of example cases makes difficult this
selection. In spite this limitation, case studies provided key insights on the process of NbS
implementation. The MAR case study proved that traditional IWRM approaches and adaptive
planning approaches have a similar recognition of uncertainty, and that the identification of
uncertainty should also consider institutional and governance structures in place. Similarly, the
Copenhagen case, proved the importance of institutional and governance approaches in dealing with
uncertainties, and how this are embedded in urban planning and development. This results made
possible to validate and reaffirm the results of UWB Rotterdam, in order to develop conclusions that
may help to guide similar implementation processes in the future.
54
Alternate words – such as barriers/challenges/limitations - had to be used in order to improve the response of the
interviewee.
92
8.3 Recommendation for future research
Research findings draw aspects that could be considered and analysed further.
Future studies should focus in understanding how adaptive planning approaches are embedded in
legal frameworks, institutional contexts, governance structures and participatory processes, as this
could account for strategies in dealing with uncertainty.
On the other hand, the vagueness of the NbS concept is it in itself a main barrier for NbS
implementation. Literature agrees that the NbS meaning and characteristics can appear vague
(Kabisch, Frantzeskaki, et al., 2016; Nesshöver et al., 2017; Sekulova, 2017). Moreover, Nesshöver
et al. (2017) mentions the “risk of oversimplification by selling positive ‘solutions’ using a notion of
‘nature’ as something helpful and likeable without properly evaluating their socio-environmental
impact” (Sekulova, 2017). A key research area should pursue a comprehensive formulation of the
NbS concept in order to attain the important opportunities this concept has to the management of
natural resources (Nesshöver et al., 2017), particularly in relation to the multiple objectives and co-
benefits this sort of solutions are characterized for.
Following this idea, the analysis of ambiguity after the implementation of NbS can reveal important
lections. In this sense, indicators and selected criteria for monitoring and evaluation process should
account for the multiple objectives, values and benefits different stakeholders have and expect. An
ex-post assessment accounting for people’s reactions and perceptions to the measure may guide the
selection of indicators and help collaborative and participatory mechanisms for co-benefit selection
in the future.
Finally, future research may adopt a relational approach to uncertainty (Brugnach et al., 2008), as this
analysis could evaluate the impacts used to deal with specific natures of uncertainties, and contribute
to the understanding of the impact of these actions to the others. In this aspect, a theory to be
considered is the cascade of interrelated uncertainties (Imada, 2017; van den Hoek, Brugnach,
Mulder, & Hoekstra, 2014).
93
8.4 Reflection of own work
Looking back, the process of writing this thesis has been insightful and extremely enjoyable. As any
process, at the end, it is a learning process. In order to conclude this work it is important to give one
step back, and reflect on the steps I have made to reach this end result.
This thesis is framed in the NAIAD project, and based on Demo cases of NbS in the European context.
A thesis research based on an ongoing project has many benefits: the knowledge and experience of
the people working on it, the amount of information I could access, and the necessary support I had
to do the necessary field work. I am very grateful for this possibility. This proved to be really helpful
to further define my research topic and to get interesting insights and information that allowed me be
more precise in my analysis.
While the research topic of NbS was clear, difficulties rely on the selection of research question and
objectives. For this, long meetings and sessions with my mentor and supervisor helped me to further
define it. The concept of uncertainty came in one of these sessions. In that moment I had my
preconceived ideas of the concept. But I never imagined what researching for this concept was going
to bring – much like opening Pandora’s Box. Investigating its definition and conceptualization made
me understand its multiple applications, and the varied literature that has covered it, even going back
to 1921 Knight’s book of Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. In this moment, and having this two concepts
together I started putting the pieces together. But what really made possible to grasps this concept
and lowering them into a sound methodology was meeting Marcela Brugnach and Pieter van der
Keur, in itself a truly enriching experience. The method I applied in the present thesis came out
through these conversations. As I got more involved in this topic, I encountered experiences of NbS
implementation and articles discussing this cyclical relation between these two concepts. At this
point, I had a better idea of what I was looking for, while also delineating my assumptions.
Reading about the cases in the literature and documents was important, but I never truly understood
the context until I visited the case studies. Preparing those visits involved a lot of desk work, not only
to prepare interviews, but also to make the necessary calls (sometimes a little incisive). Talking with
a wide range of stakeholders, and experts of different fields was very instructive for me and helpful
for my research. On the other hand, taking advantage of NAIAD workshops in these DEMO cases
proved to be key. Once I managed to get back with a couple of full notebooks, I started to arrange
these ideas.
The process of organizing the data is long but proved to be very important, while analysing the
findings and drawing the results showed to be an iterative process. More often than not, I had to revisit
my conceptual framework, my method, my case studies and even my research questions along the
process. The final conclusions involved this revisit to my notes and to the literature.
These experiences and knowledge add to the wide range of insights I have gained by studying at IHE
Delft. This experiences have made me look very differently my position as a professional,
understanding the impact of my work. Moreover, what I have learned extends much more than solely
to my career: it extends to my family, my friends and my environment.
94
95
References
Agrawal, A. (2002). Transboundary protected areas and adaptive man-agement. In: Oglethorpe J (ed)
Adaptive management: fromtheory to practice. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge,UK
Altamirano, M., Van de Guchte, C., & Benitez Avila, C. (2013). Barriers for implementation of green
adaptation. Exploring the opportunities of private financing. World Water Week 2013. Oral
presentation for the workshop Cooperation for Sustainable Benefits and Financing of Water
Programmes. Stockholm, Sweden.
Augeraud-Verón, E., Fabbri, G., & Schubert, K. (2017). The Value of Biodiversity as an Insurance
Device.
Barton, A. M. (2016). Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Contexts: A Case Study of Malmo, Sweden.
IIIEE Masters Thesis IMEN56 20161.
Baumgärtner, S. (2008). The insurance value of biodiversity in the provision of ecosystem services.
Natural Resource Modeling Volume 20, Issue 1.
Baumgärtner, S., & Strunz, S. (2014). The economic insurance value of ecosystem resilience.
Ecological Economics 101, 21-32.
Beck, M. (1987). Water Quality Modelling: A Review of the Analysis of Uncertainty. . Water
Resources Research, 23(8), 1393-1442.
Brugnach, M., Dewulf, A., Henriksen, H. J., & Van der Keur, P. (2011). More is not always better:
coping with ambiguity in natural resources management. Journal of Environmental
Management 92 (1), 78-84.
Brugnach, M., Dewulf, A., Pahl-Wostl, C., & Taillieu, T. (2008). Toward a Relational Concept of
Uncertainty: about Knowing Too Little, Knowing Too Differently, and Accepting Not to
Know. Ecology and Society 13 (2), 30.
Brugnach, M., Henriksen, H. J., van der Keur, P., & Mysiak, J. (2009). Uncertainty and Adaptive
Water Management Concepts and Guidelines. Osnabrück: University of Osnabrück, Institute
of Environmental Systems Research.
Brugnach, M., & Ingram, H. (2012). Ambiguity: the challenge of knowing and deciding together.
Environmental Science and Policy 15 (1), 60-71.
Brundtland, G., Khalid, M., Agnelli, S., Al-Athel, S., Chidzero, B., & Fadika, L. (1987). Our Common
Future ('Brundlant report'). Retrieved from
Capano, G., & Woo, J. J. (2017). Resilience and robustness in policy design: a critical appraisal.
Policy Sciences 50, issue 3, 399=426.
CHD. (2015). Plan Hidrológico de la parte española de la demarcación hidrográfica del Duero.
2015-2021. Retrieved from Valladolid:
City of Copenhagen. (2011). Copenhagen Climate Adaptation Plan. Retrieved from Copenhagen:
City of Copenhagen. (2012). Cloudburst Management Plan 2012. Retrieved from Copenhagen:
ClimateXChange. (2012). Examples of 'no-regret', 'low regret' and 'win-win' adaptation actions.
climatexchange.org.uk. Retrieved from
https://www.climatexchange.org.uk/media/1611/adaptation_noregret_actions.pdf
Cohen-Schacham, E., Walters, G., Janzen, C., & Maginnis, S. (2016). In: lucn (Ed.) Nature-based
Solutions to Address Global Societal Challenges. Galnd, Switzerland (pp. xiii + 97): IUCN.
Crowe, P. R. F., K.; Collier, M.J. (2016). Operationalizing urban resilience through a framework for
adaptive co-management and design: five experiments in urban planning practice and policy.
. Environ. Sci. Policy 62,, 112–119. . doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.04.007
96
De Greef, P. (2005). Rotterdam Waterstad 2035. Retrieved from Rotterdam:
Denjean, B., Altamirano, M., Graveline, N., Giordano, R., van der Keur, P., Moncoulon, D., . . .
Bresch, D. (2017). Natural Assurance Scheme: A level playing field framework for Green-
Grey infrastructure development. Environmental Research, 24-38.
Dewulf, A., & Biesbroek, R. (2018). Nine lives of uncertainty in decision-making: strategies for
dealing with uncertainty in environmental governance. Policy and society.
Dewulf, A., Craps, M., Bouwen, R., Taillieu, T., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2005). Integrated management of
natural resources: dealing with ambiguous issues, multiple actors and diverging frames.
Water, Science and Technology, 52, 115-124.
Dewulf, A., Francois, G., Brugnach, M., Isendahl, N., Taillieu, T., Pahl-Wostl, C., & Moellenkamp,
S. (2008). The Role of uncertainty, ambiguity and framing in transition to adaptive
management. About knowing to little, accepting not to know and knowing too differently.
Deliverable of the EU 6th FPNeWater project (www.newater.info). Retrieved from
Díaz, s., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., & al., e. (2015). The IPBES
conceptual framework - connecting nature and people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14, 1-
16.
Dreiss, L. M. H., J.M.; Nathan, LR.; O’Connor, K.M.; Liberati, M.R.; Kloster, D.P.; Barclay, J.R.;
Vokoun, J.C; Morzillo, A.T. (2016). Adaptive Management as an Effective Strategy:
InterdisciplinaryPerceptions for Natural Resources Management. Environmental
Management 59(2), 218-229. doi:10.1007/s00267-016-0785-0
Drupp, M. A., & Baumgärtner, S. (2015). Estimating the insurance value of ecosystem resilience:
Evidence from the Australian Goulburn-Broken Catchment.
Eggermont, H., Balian, E., Azevedo, J. M. N., Beumer, V., Brodin, T., Claudet, J., & al., e. (2015).
Nature-based solutions: new influence for environmental management and research in
Europe. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 24, 243-248.
European Commission. (2003). Economics and the Environment – The Implementation Challenge of
the Water Framework Directive. Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework
Directive, Guidance Document No. 1. Retrieved from
European Commission. (2015b). 'Nature-Based Solutions and Re-Naturing Cities. Retrieved from
Brussels:
European Commission. (2015c). Towards an EU Research and Innovation Policy Agenda for Nature-
based Solutions & Re-naturing Cities - Final Report of the Horizon 2020 Expert Group.
Retrieved from Brussels:
Ferraro, P. J., & Simpson, R. D. (2002). The cost-effectiveness of conservation payments. Land Econ.
78, 339.
Field Factors (Producer). (2018, 11 20). TKI Urban Water Buffer. Field Factors. Retrieved from
ieldfactors.com/work/tki-urban-waterbuffer
Fleming, A., & Howden, S. M. (2016). Ambiguity: A new way of thinking about responses to climate
change. Science of the Total Environment 571, 1271–1274.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry., 12 (2),
219-245. doi:10.1177/1077800405284363
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1990). Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Gleick, P. H. (2003). Global Freshwater Resources: Soft-Path Solutions for the 21st Century. Science
28, 1524-1528.
Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Muradian, R. (2010). The history of ecosystem services in economic theory
and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1209-1218.
Graveline, N., Joyce, J., Calatrava, J., Douai, A., Arfoui, N., Moncoulon, D., . . . Zradvko, K. (2017).
“DELIVERABLE 4.1 : General Framework for the economic assessment of.
97
Green, T. L., Kronenberg, J., Andersson, E., Elmqvist, T., & Gómez-Baggethun, E. (2016). Insurance
Value of Green Infrastructure in and Around Cities. Exosystems 19, 1051-1063.
Grimm, V., & Wissel, C. (1997). Babel, or the ecological stability discussions: an inventory and
analysis of terminology and a guide for avoiding confusion, . Oecologia 109:, 323–334.
Guerrin, J. (2014). A floodplain restoration project on the River Rhone (France). Analysing
challenges to its implementation. Regional Environmental Change, 1-15.
Haasnoot, M., Kwakkel, J. H., Walker, W. E., & ter Maat, J. (2012). Dynamic adaptive policy
Environmental Change 23, 485–498.
Harper, D. (2002). Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies, 17, 13-26.
Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecoloy and
Systematics 4, 1-23.
Holstead, K., Colley, K., & Waylen, K. (2016). Tackling the barriers to implementing natural flood
management in Scotland. The James Hutton Institute.
ICUELLAR. (2016). Allegations towards the request of the Community of Irrigators the Carracillo
of the modification of characteristics of the concession of the use of water of the river Cega.
Retrieved from http://www.iucuellar.org/2016/documentos/AlegacionesCarracillo_CHD.pdf
Imada, R. (2017). What do stakeholders have to say about sand nourishments? The use of
uncertainties to cope with the gaprs in water governance in the context of dutch adaptation
to climate change. Retrieved from
ITACyL. (2018). Estudio de impacto ambiental del proyecto para la gestión hídrica del sector
oriental del acuífero cuaternario y obras de mejora del regadío en la zona norte de la
comarca de "El Carracillo". Retrieved from Segovia:
IUCN. (2012). The IUCN Programme 2013-2016. Gland: IUCN.
IUCN. (2014). Ecosystem based Adaptation: Building on No Regret Adaptation Measures. Paper
presented at the 20th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC and the 10th
session of the Conference of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, Lima, Perú.
Jensen, O., & Wu, X. (2016). Embracing uncertainty in policy-making: The case of the water sector.
Policy and Society, 35(2), 115–123.
Kabisch, N., Frantzeskaki, N., Pauleit, S., Naumann, S., Davis, M., Artmann, M., . . . Bonn, A. (2016).
Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas:
perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecology
and Society 21(2):39.
Kabisch, N., Stadler, J., Korn, H., & Bonn, A. (2016). Nature-based solutions to climate change
mitigation and adaptation in urban areas. Retrieved from Germany:
Klauer , B., & Brown, J. (2003). Conceptualising imperfect knowledge in public decision making:
ignorance, uncertainty, error and ‘risk situations’. Environmental Research, Engineering and
Management.
Kolar, K., Ahmad, F., May-Yee Chan, L., & Erickson, P. G. (2015). Timeline Mapping in Qualitative
Interviews: A Study of Resilience With Marginalized Groups. The International Journal of
Qualitative Methods 14(3), 13-32.
Koppenjan, J. K. M. (2015). Public–Private Partnerships for green infrastructures. Tensions and
challenges. Environmental Sustainability 12, 30-34.
Krupnick, A., Mongenstern, R., Batz, M., Nelson, P., Burtraw, D., Shish, J. S., & McWilliams, M.
(2006). Not a sure thing: making regulatory choices under uncertainty. Resources for the
future.
Loucks, D. P., & van Beek, E. (2016). Water Resource Systems Planning and Management. An
introduction to Methods, Models, and Applications. Delft: Springer.
98
Maes, J., & Jacobs, S. (2015). Nature-based solutions for Europe's sustainable development. Conserv.
Lett.
Mäler, K. G. (2008). Accounting for ecosystems. Environ. Resourc. Econ 42 (1), 39-51.
Mathews, T., Lo, A. Y., & Byrne, J. A. (2015). Reconceptualizing green infrastructure for climate
change adaptation: barriers to adoption and drivers for uptake by spatial planners. Landsc.
Urban Plan. 138, 155-163.
Mazzucato, M. (2013). Financing innovation: creative destruction vs destructuve creation. Ind. Corp.
Change 22, 851-867.
Mittermaier, R. A., Totten, M., Pennypacker, L. L., Boltz, F., Mittermieier, C. G., Midgley, G., . . .
Langrand, O. (2008). Climate for Life. Washington DC: Conservation International.
Mysiak, J., & Sigel, K. (2005). Sources of uncertainty in economic analysis of the Water Framework
Directive. Water Science and Technology 52, 161-166.
NAIAD (Producer). (2018a). NAIAD 2020 Nature Insurance Value: Assesment and demonstration.
Retrieved from http://naiad2020.eu/
NAIAD. (2018b). "NAture Insrance value: Assessment and Demonstration": Rotterdam Demo
Characterization Report. Deliverable 6.1 of the EU Horizon2020 NAIAD project. Retrieved
from Delft:
National Research Council. (2004). Adaptive management for waterresources planning. . National
Academies Press, Washington, DC.
Nesshöver, C., Assmuth, T., Irvin, K. N., Rusch, G. M., Waylen, K. A., Delbaere, B., . . . al., e. (2017).
The science, policy and practive of nature-based solutions: An interdisciplinary perspective.
Science of the Total Environment 579, 1215-1227.
Nesshöver, C., Prip, C., & Wittmer, H. (2015). Biodiversity governance: a global perspective from
the Convention on Biological Diversity. In: Gaspartos, A., Eillis, K.J. (Eds). Biodiversity in
the Green Economy. Routledge, London, pp. 289-308.
Newig, J., Pahl-Wostl, C., & Sigel, K. (2005). The role of public participation in managing
uncertainty in the implementation of the water framework directive. Eur Environ 15, 333-343.
O'Gorman, P. A. (2015). Precipitation extremes under climate change. Current Climate Change
Reports, Vol. 313, No 5790, 49-59.
O’Donnell, E. C., Lamond, J. E., & Thorne, C. R. (2017). Recognising barriers to implementation of
Blue-Green Infrastructure: a Newcastle case study. Urban Water Journal.
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2007). The Implications of Complexity for Integrated Resources Management.
Environmental Modelling and Software, 22, 561-569.
PBI Netherlands Environmental Assesment Agency. (2013). Guidance for uncertainty assesment and
communication. Second edition. Retrieved from The Hague:
Peña, K., Dartée, K., Kok, W., & Snoek, M. (March, 2018). Urban Waterbuffer Spangen. Report
IRSA. Stakeholders Workshop. Retrieved from Delft:
Primm, S. L. (1984). The complexity and stability of ecosystems. Nature 307, 321-326.
Rasmussen, J., & Hauber, G. (2013). Climate Adaptation. Retrieved from Copenhagen:
Raymond, C. M., Frantzeskaki, N., Kabisch, N., Berry, P., Breil, M., Razvan Nita, M., . . . Calfapietra,
C. (2017). A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based
solutions in urban areas. Environmental Science and Policy 77, 15-24.
REAL DECRETO-LEY 9/1998, 20676, BOE núm. 207 Cong. Rec.
Refsgaard, J. C., van del Sluijs, J. P., Hojberg, A. L., & VanRolleghem, P. (2007). Uncertainty in the
environmental modelling process—a framework and guidance. Environ Model Softw 22,
1543–1556.
Refsgaard, J. C., van der Sluijs, J. P., Hojberg, A. L., & Vanrolleghem, P. (2005). Harmoni-Ca
Guidance Uncertainty Analysis., 1-46.
Richardson, B. J. (2016). Resourcing ecological restoration: the legal context for commercial
initiatives. Restor. Ecol, 1-6.
99
Rotterdam, G. (Producer). (2009). Inventarisatie Funderingsproblematiek Rotterdam. Retrieved from
http://www.rotterdam.nl/DSV/Document/Fundering/Risicokaart.pdf
Sakic, R. (2015). From vision to reality: making cities flood resilient by implementing green
infrastructure strategies. The case of the City of Hoboken, New Jersey. . MSc Thesis IHE
Delft.
Sekulova, F. A., I.;. (2017). The Governance and Politics of Nature-Based Solutions. Retrieved from
https://naturvation.eu/sites/default/files/news/files/naturvation_the_governance_and_politics
_of_nature-based_solutions.pdf
Shaw, R. L., & Frost, N. A. (2015). Breaking out of the silo mentality. The Psychologist. 28., 638-
641. .
Sigel, K., Klauer, B., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2010). Conceptualising uncertainty in environmental
decision-making: The example of the EU water framework directive. Ecological Economics
69, 502–510.
Silverman, D. (1997). Qualitative Research, Theory, Method and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA, US:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text, and interaction
(2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Thorne, C. R., Lawson, E. C., Ozawa, S., Hamlin, S. L., & Smith, L. A. (2015). Overcoming
uncertainty and barriers to adoption of Blue-Green Infrastructure for urban flood risk
management. Journal of Flood Risk Management.
UN-Water. (2018). The United Nations World Water Development Report 2018: Nature-Based
Solutions for Water. Retrieved from Paris:
van den Hoek, R. E. (2014). Building on Uncertainty: How to cope with incomplete knowledge,
umpredictability and ambiguity in ecological engineering projects. Enschede: University of
Twente.
van den Hoek, R. E., Brugnach, M., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2014). Shifting to ecological engineering in
flood management: Introduciong new uncertainties in the development of a Building with
Nature pilot project. Environmental Science and Policy 22, 85-99.
van den Hoek, R. E., Brugnach, M., Mulder, J. P. M., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2014). Analysing the
cascades of uncertainty in flood defence projects: How ‘‘not knowing enough’’ is related to
‘‘knowing differently’’. Global Environmental Change 24, 373–388.
Van der Keur, P., Brugnach, M., Dewulf, A., Refsgaard, J. C., Zorilla, P., Poolman, M., . . . Mysiak,
J. (2010). Identifying Uncertainty Guidelines for Supporting Policy Making in Water
Management Illustrated for Upper Guadiana and Rhine Basins. Water Resources
Management 24, 3901-3938.
Van der Keur, P., Henriksen, H., Refsgaard, J.-C., Brugnach, M., Pahl-Wostl, C., Dewulf, A., &
Buitveld, H. (2008). Identification of major sources of uncertainty in current IWRM practice.
Illustrated for the Rhine Basin. Water Resoures Management 22 (11), 1677-1708.
Van der Sluijs, J. P. (2006). Uncertainty, assumptions and value commitments in the knowledge base
of complex environmental problems. In: Pereira, Ä.G, Guedez Vaz, S., Tognettu, S. (Eds.),
Interfaces Between Science and Society. Green Leaf Publishing, pp. 67-84.
Walker, B. H., Holling, C. S., Carenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and
transformability in social-ecologycal systems. Ecology and Society 9(2):, 5.
Walker, W. E., Haasnoot, M., & Kwakkel, J. (2013). Adapt or perish: a review of planning approaches
for adaptation under deep uncertainty. Sustain 5(3), :955–979.
Walker, W. E., Harremoes, P., Rotmans, J., Van Der Sluijs, J. P., Van Asselt, M. B. A., Janssen, P.,
& Krayer Von Krauss, M. P. (2003). Defining uncertainty. A Conceptual Bases for
Uncertainty Management in Model-Based Decision Support. Integrated Assesment 4 (1), 5-
17.
100
Warmink, J. J., Brugnach, M., Vinke-de Kruijf, J., Schielen, R. M. J., & Augustijn, D. C. M. (2017).
Coping with Uncertainty in River Management: Challenges and Ways Forward. Water Resour
Manage 31, 4587–4600.
Waylen, K. A., Holstead, K. L., Colley, K., & Hopkins, J. (2017). Challenges to enabling and
implementing Natural Flood Management in Scotland. Flood Risk Management 11.
Wild, T. C., Henneberry, J., & Gill, L. (2017). Comprehending the multiple 'values' of green
infrastructure - Valuing nature-based solutions for urban water management from multiple
persepectives. Environmental Research 158, 179-187.
Yin, R. I. (2009). Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE
Publications.
Zandvoort, M., van der Vlist, M. J., & van den Brink, A. (2018). Handling uncertainty through
adaptiveness in planning approaches: comparing adaptive delta management and the water
diplomacy framework. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 20:2, 183-197.
Zimmermann, H. J. (2000). An application oriented view of modeling uncertainty. European Journal
of Operational Research, 122, 190-198.
Cover Images:
Couleur – Ilona
https://pixabay.com
101
Appendices
APPENDIX A: LIST OF CONCEPTS RELATED TO NbS.
Problem solving techniques Approaches to management
Concept Ecological Engineering (EE) and Green/Blue Infrastructure Ecosystem Approach (EA) Ecosystem-based Ecosystem Services Natural Capital (NC)
Catchment Systems Engineering (CSE) Adaptation//Mitigation (EBA) Approach/Framework (ES)
Definition The earliest definition of Ecological ‘A strategically planned and managed, A strategy for decentralised, ‘The adaptation policies and measures An approach to understand how natural Natural capital is the stock of living and
Engineering came from Odum, with spatially interconnected network of participatory and systemic natural that take into account the role of systems can benefit humans, by non-living parts of the natural system
‘those cases in which the energy multi-functional natural, semi-natural resource management. ‘It is based ecosystem services in reducing the ‘linkages between ecosystem structures that directly and indirectly yield benefits
supplied by man is small relative to the and man-made green and blue features on the application of appropriate vulnerability of society to climate and process functioning and consequent to humans. Definitions vary in their
natural sources, but sufficient to including agricultural land, green scientific methodologies focused on change, in a multi-sectoral and multi- outcomes which lead directly or scope and focus (Wackernagel and Rees,
produce large effects in the resulting corridors, urban parks, forest reserves, levels of biological organization which scale approach. EBA involves national indirectly to valued human welfare 1997): e.g. Daily et al. (2011, p. 3) define
patterns and processes’ (Odum, 1962, as wetlands, rivers, coastal sand other encompass the essential and regional governments, local benefits (gains or losses)’ (Turner and ‘living natural capital’ as ‘Earth's lands
cited in Mitsch and Jørgensen, 2004, p. aquatic ecosystems’ (European processes, functions and interactions communities, private companies and Daily, 2008, p. 27). hese goods and and waters and their biodiversity‘ whilst
25). It has since been redefined as ‘the Commission, 2013a, p. 3). Green among organisms and their NGOs in addressing the different services rovided by ecosystems are other definitions include geological and
design of sustainable ecosystems that infrastructure (land-based) can include, environment. It recognizes pressures on ecosystem services, ‘Ecosystem services (ESs)’. They include biophysical components (e.g.(Natural
integrate human society with terrestrial protected areas, field margins that humans, with their cultural including land use change and climate provisioning services (e.g. food, water, Capital Coalition, 2016) or may explicitly
its natural environment for the benefit in intensive agricultural land, ecoducts diversity, are an integral component of change, and managing ecosystems to heating and building material from encompass interactions and processes
of both (Mitsch and Jorgensen, 1989, p. and tunnels for animals, parks and green ecosystems. It is implemented via 12 increase the resilience of people and ecosystems), cultural services (e.g. that form natural systems (Natural
365). It has also been defined as ‘actions roofs in cities. Blue infrastructure (water principles that are “complementary and economic sectors to climate possibilities for recreation, tourism, Capital Initiative, 2016). Definitions
using and/or acting for nature’ (Rey et related) includes coastal areas, rivers, interlinked” (UNEP/CBD, 2000); section change’ (Vignola et al., 2009, p. 692). education, sense of place), regulatory usually include both renewable and non-
al., 2015 p. 1336). CSE developed by lakes, wetlands but also designed B, paragraph 6), that include: services (e.g. protection against flood or renewable resources (Daly and Farley,
Quinn et al. (2010), is defined as ‘an elements such as artificial channels, 1) The objectives of management of erosion, climate regulation) and 2011). Costanza et al. (1998) also
interventionist approach to altering the ponds, water reservoirs, retention basins land, water and living resources are a supporting services (e.g. soil formation include the information stored in natural
catchment scale runoff regime and and tanks as well as urban waste water matter of societal choice. or nutrient cycling) (Alcamo et al., 2003; systems. Some scholars (e.g.Berkes and
nutrient dynamics through the networks(CEEWEB and ECNC, 2013; 3) Ecosystem managers should consider MA, 2005). If natural capital is the stock Folke, 1992) consider the services
manipulation of hydrological flow European Commission, 2013b; Haase, the effects (actual or potential) of their of assets, ecosystem services are the provided by the natural system as part
pathways to manage water quality and 2015; Naumann et al., 2010). activities on adjacent and other flows of benefits derived from those of the stock as well, but this is normally
quantity sustainably’ (Wilkinson et al., ecosystems. assets (Daily et al., 2011). separated.
2014) p. 1247). In an even broader 5) Conservation of ecosystem structure
context, the concept and practice of and functioning, in order to maintain
ecological restoration can be linked here ecosystem services,
as well (Aronson et al., 2007). should be a priority target of the
ecosystem approach.
6) Ecosystems must be managed within
the limits of their functioning.
7) The ecosystem approach should be
undertaken at the appropriate spatial
and temporal scales.
9) Management must recognize the
change is inevitable.
Figure 33. Overview of different concepts related to nature-based solutions.
Source: C.Nesshöver et al. / Science of the Total Environment 579 (2017) 1215-1227)
102
APPENDIX B: LIST OF BARRIERS FOUND IN THE LITERATURE
Barriers in the literature

1 Resistance to new concepts. 53 Impacts of climate change.
2 Differing goals and interests of individual and institutions. 54 Appropriate responses to the impacts of climate change.
Resistance formal/informal institutional arrangements to
3 55 Maintaining infrastructure performance and service provision.
change.
4 Pre-existing ways of tackling problems. 56 Public preferences.
5 Difficulties in allocating resources. 57 Stewardship of Green Infrastructure.
6 Challenges in using evidence and handling uncertainty. 58 Including climate change in policy/design criteria.
7 Complexities of co-ordination and communication. 59 Securing effective leadership.
8 Difficulties accessing funding and resources. 60 Effective future governance.
9 Constraints of place and infrastructure. 61 Delivering future maintenance and service.
Securing community buy-in and ownership of Blue-green
10 Gaps in evidence base. 62
infrastructure.
11 Formal and informal expertise. 63 Ensuring social equity while delivering and maintaining BGI.
12 Discomfort with new approaches. 64 Leadership, political will and vision for Blue-Green.
13 Challenges in collaboration. 65 Future infrastructure maintenance requirements.
14 Statutory processes, planning and appraisal systems. 66 Community perceptions and understandings of BGI.
15 Difficulties in working over long term. 67 Community buy-in.
16 Negative past experiences. 68 Social equity.
17 Low priority and/or competing priorities. 69 Willingness to pay/sell.
18 Future land use and climate. 70 Climate change and downscaling climate projections.
19 Political leadership and champions. 71 Modelling physical processes and future events.
20 Lack of available space. 72 Natural hazards.
21 Responsibilities and ownership. 73 Population growth.
22 Institutional capacity and expertise. 74 Urban / economic development (and impact on physical processes).
23 Behaviours and culture. 75 Economic resilience to climate change.
103
24 Physical science/engineering uncertainties. 76 Lever of inter-agency working.
25 Legislation, regulations and governance. 77 Capital costs (of BG and grey infrastructure).
26 Identifying and quantifying/monetising the multiple benefits. 78 Recognition of multiple benefits of BGI.
27 Maintenance and adoption. 79 Using climate science in policy-making.
28 Issues with partnership working. 80 Multiple risk management.
29 Ineffective/lack of communication. 81 Delivering infrastructure.
30 Funding and costs. 82 Keeping BGI on the agenda and promoting inter-agency working.
31 Lack of knowledge, education awareness. 83 Communicating effectively.
Reluctance to support novel/new approaches / change
32 84 How to change policy to support BGI.
practices.
33 Short-term pressures impede long-term planning. 85 Impact of natural hazards.
34 Planning and Building Act. 86 Future population (size, demographics, climate change refugees).
35 Intertie/path-dependency at municipality level. 87 Future land-use.
36 Silo thinking/lack of cooperation between departments. 88 Future governance of BGI.
37 Lack of prioritization. 89 Inter-agency fragmentation.
38 Over-reliance on point-based systems e.g. GFS. 90 Establishing who benefits versus who pays.
39 Uncertainty about cost/benefit. 91 Operation and maintenance.
40 Lack of knowledge. 92 Insufficient data availability.
41 Lack of planning tools. 93 Novelty of proposed techniques.
42 Fear of the unknowns - operational unknowns. 94 Design guidelines.
Disconnection between short-term actions and long-term 95 Available space.
43
goals (NBS usually are long term). 96 Property ownership.
Discontinuity between short-term action and how they 97 Magnitude of intervention.
44
relate or build up to long-term plans and goals. 98 Insufficient data availability.
Sectoral silos. Multifaceted fields of responsibilities or 99 Land value.
45 projects such as NbS often may not fit into existing decision-
100 High design and construction costs.
making structures.
46 Paradigm of growth. 101 Absence of incentives.
47 Lack of institutional legitimacy to support project. 102 No steady funding source.
104
48 Lack of legislative flexibility. 103 System ownership.
49 Insecurity of the outcome of the project. 104 Education.
Lack of empowerment on local actors (to reinforce 105 Outdated ordinances.
50 legitimacy of the leading institution and enable local
106 Lack of legal requirements.
support).
Hydraulic uncertainty provoked concerns among the local
51 107 No authority for storm water fee.
actors.
52 Different standpoint and views over the problem and solution.
Sources:
(1-7) - Waylen, K., Holstead, K., Colley, K., & Hopkins, J. (2017). Challenges to enabling and implementing Natural Flood Management in Scotland. Flood
Risk Management 11.
(8-15) - Holstead, K., Colley, K., & Waylen, K. (2016). Tackling the barriers to implementing natural flood management in Scotland. The James Hutton
Institute.
(16-32) - O’Donnell, E., Lamond, J., & Thorne, C. (2017). Recognising barriers to implementation of Blue-Green Infrastructure: a Newcastle case study.
Urban Water Journal.
(33-41) - Barton, A. M. (2016). Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Contexts: A Case Study of Malmo, Sweden. IIIEE Master’s Thesis IMEN56 20161.
(42-46) - Kabisch, N., N. Frantzeskaki, S. Pauleit, S. Naumann, M. Davis, M. Artmann, D. Haase, S. Knapp, H. Korn, J. Stadler, K. Zaunberger, and A. Bonn.
2016. Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and
opportunities for action. Ecology and Society 21(2):39. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239
(47-52) - Guerrin, J (2014) A floodplain restoration project on the River Rhone (France). Analyzing challenges to its implementation. Regional
Environmental Change.
(53-90) - C.R. Thorne, E.C. Lawson, C. Ozawa, S.L. Hamlin and L.A. Smith (2015) Overcoming uncertainty and barriers to adoption of Blue-Green
Infrastructure for urban flood risk management. Journal of Flood Risk Management.
(91-107) - Sakic, R. (2015) From vision to reality: making cities flood resilient by implementing green infrastructure strategies. The case of the City of
Hoboken, New Jersey. MSc Thesis IHE Delft.
105
APPENDIX C: SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS
Interview protocol
I would like to thank you once again for being willing to participate in this research. As
mentioned before, the main objective is to document the possible barriers linked to uncertainty
in the implementation process of different NbS, in order to device a set of strategies to overcome
them.
Our interview will last approximately one hour during which I will be asking you about your
experience in relation to the process of implementation of this NbS, the uncertainties or barriers
you faced, how the project overcome them, and ideas you might have that you think it’s
important to highlight.
Before we begin the interview, do you have any questions?
If any questions (or other questions) arise at any point in this interview, feel free to ask them at
any time.
Definition of uncertainty: Uncertainty refers to the situation in which there is not a unique
and complete understanding of the (natural, technical and social) system to be managed.
i. Short introduction of the interviewee
a. Can you do a short introduction about yourself, you profession, and you workplace
(position)?
b. Can you briefly describe your role (related to the case study)? How long have you been
related to this project? How were you involved in the implementation of the NbS?
ii. Main questions
a. Can you describe me what has the process of implementation of this NBS project been
like?
b. Did you faced an uncertain situation (situation in which there is not a unique and complete
understanding of the system to be managed) during the process of implementation of this
project? Do you think of any barriers/problems/challenges that where presented during
the implementation of this project?
c. How did you manage to overcome them (or not)?
d. Do you think of any strategy to improve this in the future?
iii. Ending question
a. Before ending, are there additional thoughts you would like to share with me concerning
NbS? Do you think of any other researcher or stakeholder involved in the process whom
I may contact?
106
APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW SUBJECTS
Interviews conducted (in bold) and interviews done by NAIAD partners, adopted for the present
research.
Code Urban Water Buffer Spangen – Rotterdam, The Netherlands
D1-1 Field Factors - NAIAD partner
D1-4 KWR Watercycle Institute
D1-5 Municipality of Rotterdam
D1-8 Water board Delfland
D1-9 Westervolkshuis – House of the District
Managed Aquifer Recharge - “El Carracillo” region, Spain
D2-1 ICATALYST – NAIAD partner
Chief of Service - Office of Hydrological Planning – Duero River Basin
D2-4
Authority
Head of Planning Area, Technological Development and Engineering of
D2-5
ITACYL
D2-6 President Community of Irrigators "El Carracillo"
D2-7 River Basin Authority. –(Confederación Hidrográfica del Duero)
D2-8 Private consultant
River Restoration Project – Copenhagen, Denmark
D3-1 GEUS – NAIAD partner
Centre for material and coastal research (Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthact – NAIAD
D3-2
partner
D3-3 Ístituto di Ricerca sulle Acque – NAIAD partner
D3-4 Ístituto di Ricerca sulle Acque – NAIAD partner
D3-5 Center Manager - Miljøpunkt Nørrebro
D3-6 Water specialist - Miljøpunkt Nørrebro
D3-7 Copenhagen Climate Adaptation Plan project leader- City of Copenhagen
D3-8 Lundgrens advokater
D3-9 Smith innovations
D3-10 Kilkovand
D3-11 Citizens/Civil society/neighbourhood
107
APPENDIX D: KEY UNCERTAINTY SITUATIONS AND
STRATEGIES IN SPECIFIC CASES
In this section, the uncertainties identified along the implementation process of specific case
studies is described, along the strategies used to address them.
1. NbS UWB Spangen, Rotterdam

1.1. What will be the response of the NbS in events of high and low precipitation?
Concerns over the response of this
system were set in initial phases of
the design and selection of this
innovation, particularly with regards
with the capacity and performance
of the bio-filtration system.
In order to reduce the technical

uncertainty regarding the response
of the innovation in events of high
precipitation and drought is that a
prototype was constructed in the test
site at The Green Village, in TU
Delft. This prototype is a small scale
pilot constructed in similar climatic Figure 34. Green village test site
conditions while presenting the same Source: Field Factors 2018
characteristics to that of the NbS,
been monitored continuously to assess its system performance.
1.2. What will be the response of the community towards the solution?
One of the key triggers of the initiative was the local interest of incrementing green areas in
the neighbourhood. Interviewees expressed certain concerns with respect to the response of
the community towards the end
project and solution, particularly
for the fulfilment of the
requirements the community
claimed towards green areas in
the final design of the project.
To reduce the possibility that the
community reacted negatively to
the final solution, the
implementation phase considered
the involvement of the
community in the co-design,
through a series of instances
Figure 35. Bio filtration system where the community
Source: Author (27 December, 2018)
organization (Natuurlijk
Spangen) expressed their wishes,
108
needs and insights of the project55. This is a key aspect as the process created awareness and
ownership, reducing or mitigating the possible opposition towards the process.
When asked about the role of the local community in the development of the UWB, an
interviewee56 mentions:
“Delfland has been working together with the local community around Spangen and
initiated the project brief. Aside we work together to raise awareness about the
important of increasing buffer capacity in the neighbourhood. They have been
actively engaged, expressing their wishes and concerns, and co-designing the
implementation of the solution”.
Another interviewee57 stated “we had regular meetings with residents, but the planning of
the project led to us having to make decisions at a certain moment”. As we can see, although
the process involved a community, at the end the community was not considered for project
decisions. The interviews done to neighbours58 in the local community evidenced an
ownership. They clearly understood the purpose and technical components of the NbS. But,
as a local neighbour59 stated, the initial purpose of greening the area was not complied, stating
a negative reaction towards the solution.
1.3. Will the NbS comply with current and future regulations regarding water quality?
A concern stated by one of the stakeholders from Rotterdam’s municipality60 is that it “would
ultimately be very unfortunate that the water to be supplied does not meet the desired water
quality for Sparta”. As stated above, the small scale pilot was constructed in order to
determine the capacity of the bio filtration system to treat rainwater in order to comply with
the regulations. This was still an initial concern from the beginning, as one researcher 61
mentions:
“An issue of implementing NbS, is that we need to comply with certain regulations
regarding water quality.., so you need first to test or prove that you comply with those
regulations”.
Another concern stated by an officer62 of the municipality of Rotterdam is that “risk may be
that the requirements for supplying water become stricter”, meaning that a possible change
in regulations that provoke increased requirements for supplying water may cause that the
current project may not be suitable for delivering water to the end user.
Through the use of the test site previously explained, water quality was monitored over a
year in order to comply with current regulations of water quality. According to the company
in charge of building both the prototype and the NbS in Spangen, in order to comply with
current regulations, he mentions63:
55
(D1-3)
56
(D1-7)
57
(D1-5)
58
(D1-9;D1-10)
59
(D1-10)
60
(D1-4)
61
(D1-1)
62
(D1-4)
63
(D1-1)
109
“So we have been testing here for a year (Green Village Test Site), and now we have
implemented in Sparta. It will be monitored for a year, and then we will compare the
system performance of the system”.
1.4. What will be the future economic and social conditions?

According to an interview64, no socio/economic scenario was done in the situation analysis,
therefore this was unpredictable. In this sense, in this stage of the process there was no
knowledge of future economic scenarios. In itself, this didn’t hampered the implementation
of the solution. The lack of a specific study for future socio-economic conditions did not
hampered the implementation of the UWB Spangen solution.
1.5. Will the solution respond to the current situation?
The response of the UWB system is something unknown, since there are no previous
experiences in the area with this type of technology. The novelty of the proposed solution
provoked a barrier of implementation of this specific solution. Asked for the effectiveness of
the UWB to deal with impacts, the interview answered “I do not know”. Similarly to the
strategy used to deal with the future conditions regarding water quality conditions (3), the
response of these solutions towards current conditions was supported by the test site results.
1.6. Do all the stakeholders considered or involved in the decision-making process?

One initial concern of the strategy of implementation of theses solutions was to involve all
the stakeholders and parties that may have an interest on the solution in its design. Not
considering other stakeholders in the process may be an opportunity cost which may produce
a barrier in the implementation of the solution. Initial concerns over financing mechanisms
and space availability pushed for the inclusion of other stakeholders, such as the water utility
company Evides and Sparta Rotterdam.
According to the interviewees, the identification of stakeholders was a key concern, so

strategies were done to detect them since the inception. This proved to be a success factor,
since their incorporation was key to achieve the funding and the necessary support for
implementation. Interviewees pointed out to one stakeholder that formed part of the
municipality, which set in motion the integration of them65. This person acted as a
“champion”, an “agent of change”, that “put together the necessary pieces of the puzzle” for
this project to be implemented. As an interviewee66 mentions:
“There was a key player gathering all of this. Andre Rodenberg who pushed
everything together. A workshop was done, and the main point, or takeaway idea, is
the importance of the people. It all comes down to identify all the stakeholders, and
specifically the agents of change…The role that this character had was very
important since he identified this window of opportunity, and also he put together all
the different ideas the stakeholders had in one…. He worked in the engagement”.
Other parties were brought to the project by the initiative of other stakeholders. As an
interviewee67 mentioned for example, “Sparta was invited by the community.” The
64
(DI-F)
65
(D1-1;D1-2;D1-3)
66
(D1-2)
67
(D1-1)
110
integration of this key stakeholder proved at the end to be essential to the project, as Sparta
Rotterdam would be the end-user of the solution, financing part of the NbS. This leads to a
key strategy to the implementation of NbS solution, as stakeholders may aid in the
identification of other parties to the solution.
This is a key aspect, since the interviewee68 puts much importance on the agenda and the will
of the stakeholders to pursue the objective, even mentioning that if the stakeholders were not
involved, maybe the project wouldn’t end up in the same way.
A set back of the strategy conducted, as stated by an interviewee, is that the community was
not considered in the process. As he mentions:
“I think the involvement of the community could have had more positive influence on
the project, by better integrating the community wishes and insights. But
participatory processes are usually time consuming and there is not always a clear
understanding in between project leaders and the community representatives. In the
case of the UWB, the involvement of the community is at the end not been taken in
consideration in the project decisions, which is a missed opportunity. It might lead
future problems in future projects where the municipality needs the community”.
As understood by other uncertainties, the stakeholders involved in the decision making

process were those that: had a responsibility for the operation of the solution, were involved
in the funding or that had a governmental mandate (public organizations) to implement and
operate the solution. These stakeholders established the objectives that the solution should
comply with regards as their interpretation of the main problems at hand. The decision for
the final solution was made mainly according to the concerns towards the lack of retention
capacity.
This led, as discussed above, that the final solution partly complied with the problems that
the community had. According to an interviewee69, the final decision of the project had to
me taken with a reduced number of stakeholders (mainly those with responsibilities assigned)
“we had regular meetings with residents, but the planning of the project led to us
having to make decisions at a certain moment”.
In this sense, the community was not integrated on the decision making process of the final
design of the solution, but this did not hampered the implementation process. But there
involvement could be beneficial for future projects. In this sense, maintaining relations with
the community proved to be necessary, but due to time constraints this communication was
kept to inform. As one stakeholder70 puts out: there is a “lack of sharing information about
the impact of these solutions for all stakeholders involved during the process”. Further
information gathering and distribution could prove useful to reduce this uncertainty.
1.7. How should we implement this solution? (Unknown process of implementation)

These specific solution demanded a cross sectorial involvement in the implementation
process. This situation provoked an uncertainty on how to involve different sectors, with
different objectives and ideas together, particularly concerned on the process of
68
(D1-2)
69
(D1-5)
70
(D1-7)
111
implementation of this solution. One statement from an interviewee from the Water
Authority of Delfland71 set as an initial concern an “unclear project organization”.
The implementation of an innovative solution possess great challenges, since there are no
past experiences that could be used to follow. In this case, traditional or standard ways of
implementing are utilized, and modified. As an interviewee72 mentions:
“The technical performance is important, but institutional wise that are concerned
with the implementation, who is the care piece, how does it fit with the current
standard way of implementing the project, but also operational wise and
maintenance”.
The key success factor for the implantation of this solution, as stated above are two. First,
the support from the TKI funds for the process of implementation of this project, especially
in what corresponded to the study for the selection of the location, the water balance, the
preliminary design and estimated costs of the installation of the system(Field Factors, 2018).
And second, the commitment of a key actor that pushed for this project. In this regards, a
stakeholder73 puts out:
“The role that this character had was very important since he identified this window
of opportunity, and also he put together all the different ideas the stakeholders had
in one”.
After a discussion with the interviewees, it’s understood that the motivation of this key
stakeholder was pushed by the commitment to the objectives of the Water Resilient
Rotterdam Program.
1.8. How should this solution be financed? (Unknown financing mechanisms)
Financing mechanisms for NbS solution are different in each case. The wide variety of NbS
types, depending on their scale, components, location, and other characteristics, pose as a
barrier to achieve to finance mechanisms.
The TKI project call for innovation was essential for the support and finance of the process
of implementation of the project. It gave the necessary funding to support critical aspects
such as the “study for the selection of the location, the water balance, the preliminary design
and estimated costs of the installation of the system”(Field Factors, 2018), as well as the
funding for the participation process. The financing of this specific project was supported by
the TKI project, as an interviewee74 mentions:
“TKI project called from innovation for water sector. So they received funding partly
for the investment. And that was a trigger”.
Another stakeholder75 puts out:
“The financing was really important for this project as a pilot one”.
71
(DI-7)
72
(D1-2)
73
(D1-2)
74
(D1-1)
75
(D1-2)
112
The funding came as the components were added to the design, the benefits were valued, the
responsibilities were assigned, and the stakeholders were added to the process. In spite an
initial concern was set out in the beginning of the process, the funding for the process gave
the time necessary to bring the parties to present funding mechanisms necessary for the
project.
1.9. What are the co-benefits of this solution?
The identification of Co-benefits happened in a late stage, after the direct benefits were
identified. This in itself didn’t hamper the implementation of the NbS. The identification of
the direct benefits was key, as an interviewee76 point out:
“To achieve this, the most important thing is the commitment of all the parties, the
personal commitment of the stakeholders to some of those benefits…The economic is
really important, what it costs, but also what it delivers”.
The involvement of several stakeholders, each with their own concerns and objectives,
together with the design of the NbS guided the detection of benefits and co-benefits.
Stakeholders interviewed77 realized that their identification could have facilitated the
implementation.
Along the NAIAD project, a workshop was set out to identify, select and define the co-
benefits. The co-benefits selected were: Spatial quality betterment, increase water awareness
and improve (ground) water quality (Peña et al.(March, 2018). This was done in the presence
of a range of experts78
Figure 36. Definition of Co-Benefits workshop
Source: Peña et al. (March, 2018)

79
Another concern regarding the co-benefits, as an interviewee mention is that:
“Just the principle of the co-benefits is much uncertain already, because we proclaim
they have those benefits, but it’s hard to put a number to it, or to provide proof of the
causal relation between the projects and the benefits”.
76
(D1-2)
77
(D1-1;D1-2)
78
Background of participants: KWR (Water Research Institute), Wareco (Engineering company), Gem. Rotterdam
(Municipality of Rotterdam), Evides (Water Utility Company), HHR Delfland (Water Authority), VP Delta
(Valorisation Programme Delta Technology & Water), GEUS (NAIAD-partner) and Deltares (NAIAD-Partner).
79
(D1-2)
113
This was complemented by another interview80, mentioning that “co-benefits are vague”. In
this aspect, the identification of co-benefits can be set by the stakeholders, but the value that
the co-benefits bring to the implementation are yet to be discussed. Without valorisation of
the co-benefits, their identification, as a stakeholder points out, may seem trivial. This did
not hampered the implementation of the project, as direct benefits were properly valued.
1.10. Unknown holders of information and lack of information sharing
Information about the impacts of the current solution was present, but not shared among the
stakeholders. This uncertainty was mentioned by an interviewee from the water board81 that
stated that one of the limits of the interaction network among different stakeholders was a
“lack of sharing information about the impact of these solutions for all stakeholders involved
during the process”.
In order to reduce this uncertainty, responsibilities were assigned to the stakeholders in order
to share information. Formal channels were created, as an interviewee82 states, “interactions
have been defined by the project responsibilities”. Also, informal channels were considered,
“especially with the community and end-users”.
1.11. Is the problem not enough green areas, or hydro - meteorological risk?
While the spatial planning department, along with the Narturlijk Spangen community saw
mainly the lack of green areas as the main concern, other stakeholders, TKI consortium
focused on the lack of water retention in the area. As an interviewee83 puts out:
“The community had the idea of greening. So the combination of both, one the
greening of the project, and on the other, the will of the consortium to support these
kind of projects, was the trigger. So there was a little battle with the two ideas.”
The inclusion of other stakeholders such as Evides and Sparta Rotterdam proved to be key
in the implementation, although their inclusion brought other concerns from their perspective
of the current situation.
Another example of this is how different stakeholders frame the problem. After a
consultation on which are the main water related risks that could affect the Spangen area,
while some interviewees responded over the shortage on retention capacity84 and risks of
flooding85, other pointed out to the quality and source of water for the end user86. Even, other
interests were set out, as an interviewee mentions: “Mixed interest of a large group, from
spatial quality up to parking until a resilient underground retention capacity”
As we saw in a section above, the inclusion of different stakeholders in the situation analysis
was key in order to understand the initial concerns of the stakeholders. These multiple
understandings of the current problem were identified in the beginning, as stakeholders came
involved in the process. In theory, NbS are solutions that answer to a set of different
problems, hence, would be more prepared to deal with multiple problems. Asked on how
80
(D1-1)
81
(D1-7)
82
(D1-3)
83
(D1-2)
84
(DI-3;D1-5)
85
(D1-3;D1-7)
86
(D1-4;D1-5)
114
the initiative started, an interviewee87 explained that two main positions were put on the table,
mainly, the greening of the area and the plan to increase retention capacity.
It is because the whole initiative came actually from the citizens. They were in contact
with the water resilience Rotterdam, to bring green to the area. It was more a match
of interests. Even the water board was involved. There was a plan to increase water
retention in the neighbourhood. So it was a combination between what the citizens
wanted, and the municipality.
These initial concerns were identified and added upon the solutions, as a window of
opportunity arise, as an interviewee88 explains:
“It’s almost a coincidence on how it all came together that well, but that’s also the
biggest challenge of upscaling these type of systems. You need all the different
parties, NGO’s, the citizens. It’s hard to do it because it need to have a window of
opportunity exiting in a specific area to be able to do this kind of system.”
The strategy applied here was the integration of these two measures into one solution.
Although an ex-post assessment evidenced the priorization of one (retention capacity) over
the other (greening), this was done through a process of persuasive communication between
the stakeholders.
1.12. Should we build infrastructure as we usually do (business as usual) or pursue
innovation for implementation?
This uncertainty relates to the unknown process of implementation. While some stakeholders
saw this as a possibility to innovate, other stakeholders seem reluctant to the incorporation
of this solution mainly due to the difficulties that its implementation may imply. This
provoked a division among stakeholders that wanted to pursue innovation, and those that
preferred a traditional implementing procedures. This standard way meant to develop the
solution through components, according to the responsibilities and mandates of each
department and party involved, instead of developing an integrated solution through a
collaborative design.
An example of the difficulty of integration, as one interviewee89 comments, is that even
within the same municipality each department had its own objectives, set of solutions and
implementation strategies. According to one of the interviewees90the interaction between the
Spatial Planning department, the Water department and the water supply company is usually
not coordinated (only coordinating in these types of projects), stating that:
“Even with all those parties involved and those objectives set, there was still a
challenge from within the municipality… you have the different units, and they
discussed among each other. So if we need retention, there is sufficient. …. That is
when the Water Resilient commented that they had, kind of a desire for innovation.
…the technical performance is important, but institutional wise that are concerned
with the implementation, who is the care piece, how does it fit with the current
87
(D1-1)
88
(D1-1)
89
(D1-3)
90
(D1-2)
115
standard way of implementing the project, but also operational wise and
maintenance. And how does it fit with the standard process with the municipalities”
As mention above, the current standard way of implementing was applied, since specific
mechanisms to coordinate and co-design this kind of solutions did not exist. This did not
hampered the implementation of the project.
1.13. What are the criteria’s to monitor and evaluate the project?
Setting the criteria will depend
in various factors, but its
definition is key to establish the
indicators of the system
performance. Its hierarchy and
definition is a task that depends
on several factors, such benefits
and co-benefits detected, as
well as the technical
capabilities for monitoring the
criteria. Still, its definition
depends on great measure on
the stakeholders that are tasked Figure 37. Selection of indicators to measure the co-benefits
Source: Peña et al. (March, 2018)
to identify them.
Particularly for this uncertainty,
each stakeholder will sustain a different hierarchy of criteria. The final set of criteria will be
based on a negotiation, usually, when the system components, beneficiaries and
responsibilities are known.
For the present project, the hierarchy of criteria and selection of indicators for the
measurement of indicators happened at a late phase. This selection was made through a
workshop conducted by Field Works within the NAIAD framework, with a number of
experts and NAIAD-partners. The strategy used was a dialogical leaning together with a
negotiation approach. It involved a vote of the most important indicators to select.
1.14. To whom should the management of the NbS be transferred?
Similar to the initial concerns over green areas or risk reduction, the framing of current
situation in the situation analysis brought different problems that had to be considered when
designing the solution. Initial concerns over greening the space, coupled with the TKI funds
that pushed for innovation and the water plan that demanded increased water retention
capacity made this initial situation a challenge for design and governance structures. As a
stakeholder91 points out:
“So since we use the underground to supply water, we have different parties that are
responsible for an element that is one system. So for the operation you need multiple
parties, with multiple responsibilities, but it’s hard to say, here the line, because what
happens in one part may affect the other one.”
The assignment of responsibilities and tasks over the system to be management was an
ongoing process that is parallel to identification of stakeholders, selection of alternatives and
design of the solution. As mentioned in the background information, this specific solution
91
(D1-2)
116
involved a series of components, each with a different set of responsibilities according to the
mandate of a public and private organizations. As an interviewee mentions:
“So there are a couple of parties involved. The storm water and sewage, which had
a separated system from that of the rainwater, which is operated by the municipality.
That includes the storage facility. The bio-filtration system is operated by the
municipality as well, as part of their mandate (but it’s still been monitored since it’s
in it pilot phase). As soon as it enters the aquifer storage the water board is
responsible for it (the water board responsibilities are larger bodies of water, such
as rivers and groundwater), having to monitor the quality of the groundwater. So the
water board regulation is the one that allows the infiltration to happen. A third party
is involved (the water supply company EVIDES) which supplies water to the SPARTA
stadium. KWR together with Field Factors are in charge currently about the
monitoring of the water quality. This is only because it’s a pilot system. In a big scale,
the system should be controlled by the municipality.”
The clear definition of responsibilities and tasks is key for many aspects. On one side, their
delimitation increase the engagement of the stakeholders, and increase the support for the
implementation. On the other hand, information sharing and mandates are better defined once
the parties have identified these responsibilities. This also is helpful for the compliance of
the policies and regulations.
The strategy applied in this case corresponds to a dialogical learning approach, were
stakeholders learned through the process the mandates and responsibilities of each
stakeholders, as well as a negotiation approach, particularly in the phase of definition of the
end user, as well as for the definition of funding.
2. NbS MAR in “El Carracillo” region – Duero Basin, Spain
2.1. What will be the future volume of circulating water in the river?
Managed aquifer recharge depends on the availability of water for infiltration. As an
interviewee92 points out, “the project depends on the availability of water in the Basin.
Without excess water, it cannot be recharged.”. Control measures have been taken to control
the flow of water from the Cega River, but still rely on the availability of water. This is an
uncertainty associated with unpredictability of future climate scenarios. On medium and long
term, these estimations are not feasible, making this situation unpredictable.
2.2. What will be the response of the community towards this measure?
This uncertainty associates to unpredictable disposition of stakeholders towards the solution.
No measures were considered to address this uncertainty in the implementation of the third
phase of the project. As explained above, the previous phases of the project were
implemented from a command and control approach, not requiring addressing this
uncertainty. This uncertainty was key for the failure of implementation of the third phase of
the project.
2.3. What will be the effect of the reduced circulating flow downstream?
This uncertainty is related to the need to improve the knowledge of the degree of affection of
reduced circulating flow downstream. The water concession proposed to make effective the
third phase of the project bases it viability through an environmental report. This report
recognizes there is a lack of understanding of the current state of the river and its surrounding
92
(D2-4)
117
downstream of the derivation, and therefore will apply corrective measures during the
operation of the project.
2.4. What will the effect of abstraction of water from the quaternary aquifer?
This uncertainty relates to the lack of knowledge of the system. Strategies to reduce this
uncertainty were sought to be applied once the project was implemented, particularly
concerning the monitoring and control of the impact of abstraction over the aquifer. No test
or pilot project was applied in the area.
2.5. What will be the effect of climate change in the feasibility of managed aquifer
recharge?
Associated with the first uncertainty (1), climate change main driver is the increased in mean
temperatures. Given the impacts that are associated to this increased temperature, such as
increased or decreased precipitation, evaporation, desertification and loss of soil, impact on
vegetation, and other effects, it is still unknown the feasibility of this technique in this
situations due to uncertainties related to climate change.
2.6. What should be the period of water diversion for recharge?
Estimations over the amount of precipitations in the future are unreliable, and the change of
yearly patterns are yet unknown. Variability of precipitations along the seasons possess a
problem when trying to decide the period to divert water from the river. Range estimations,
data gathering and expert opinion were the strategies used to cope with this uncertainty.
2.7. What is the impact of lack of public information of the project?
According to the interviews, channels for communicating the project are done through
governmental and official channels. Information regarding the project remains very technical.
Communication is mainly between scientists and decision makers, not involving other
stakeholders. No strategies were used to cope with this uncertainty.
2.8. What is the socio-economic impact of the measure in the region?
This uncertainty relates to the lack of knowledge regarding the real socio-economic impact
of the measure in the region. Studies that evidence the impact in agriculture are various. But
there has not been a study that measures the impact in other areas and sectors, in order to
compare the benefit of this intervention against other measures.
2.9. What is the effect of public participation in the process?
The first two phases of the project were conducted without a public participation process.
Uncertainties over the effect of public participation in the third phase of the project were
manifested by various stakeholders93. Expert opinion was used to cope with this uncertainty.
2.10. What will be the future availability of water?
This ambiguity relates to the different conception stakeholders have with future availability
of water. While some stakeholders affirm that there will be enough water in the future, other
stakeholders are concerned of present and future reduction on water availability. Oppositional
modes of action were applied to cope with this uncertainty.
2.11. What will be the effect of the recharge on the surrounding area?
This ambiguity relates to the position different stakeholders have towards the impact of the
solution. While stakeholders from the irrigation94 and public sector95 are confident that the
degree of affection to the surrounding area, particularly to the Pinares forest is minimum,
93
(D2-4;D2-5;D2-6)
94
(D2-6)
95
(D2-4;D2-5)
118
other stakeholders, particularly from NGO’s, environmental movements and community fear
that the over abstraction and sequent flooding of the recharge area may provoke water stress
and water logging respectively, which would greatly affect the forest. Persuasive
communication and oppositional modes of action were applied to cope with this uncertainty.
2.12. What will be the effect of water diversion of the Cega river on the Natura 2000
sites96?
Similar to the ambiguity above (11), the position of stakeholders diverge into the degree of
affection of the Natura 2000 sites downstream of the intake. While studies conducted by the
government, entrusted to private companies, mention that downstream environmental uses
will not be compromised since the ecological flow will be maintained, other collectives and
associations presented their concerns of the degree of affection. This affection, according to
an interview, is not only due to the reduced water flow downstream, but also the
“homogeneous regime” that may have consequences for the whole ecosystem. Oppositional
2.13. Is this the best technical solution for the problem at hand?
This ambiguity relates to the different framings of the problem at hand. While the irrigator
sector accuses the lack of water for agriculture as the main concern, other stakeholders, such
as the environmental groups and community point to the “abusive over abstraction of water
for irrigation” that have provoked “irreparable damages to the ecosystem”. As an interviewee
point out:
“there is a lack of knowledge (from different stakeholders) about how the system will
react. This responds more to how the different stakeholders will value the water in
the river, versus the value of putting that water in use, particularly agricultural. There
are other stakeholders who also had an interest in using the waters”.
Oppositional modes of action were applied to cope with this uncertainty, creating a rise in
the conflict with no foreseen resolution.
2.14. Are the models used reliable?
Various models to calculate the ecological flow downstream were conducted, although their
reliability is variable depending of the stakeholders. While the irrigation sector, as well as the
public departments that have conducted this studies show the strong basis on which said
models were elaborated, hence their reliability, other stakeholders question this models. No
stakeholders were considered in the elaboration of the models, and a strategy of oppositional
modes of action was utilized. This mistrust have provoked that more models and information
are not conducive to the reduction of this uncertainty.
2.15. Are there other benefits from the aquifer recharge?
The present project has a clear objective: increase the availability of water in the quaternary
aquifer to augment the water for irrigation. Other benefits from this project, according to the
interviews97, are: the reduction of abstraction of (poor quality) water from the tertiary aquifer
and economic development of the region (to stop the process of de-population). From the
96
Natura 2000 network sites are: LIC Banks of the Cega River (ES4180070) comprises from the limit of the LIC
and ZEPA Lagunas de Cantalejo to the confluence with the Douro River (455 ha LIC Laguna de Cantalejo
(ES4160106) partially overlaps with the Cantabrian Lagoons SPA (ES4160048) IBA-54 Río Cega-Tierra de
Pinares-Cantalejo (IBA = Important Area for the Conservation of Birds)
97
(D2-6)
119
interviews98, there is no account for other benefits of this measure, and even some99 question
the real impact of the aforementioned benefits. This different views have created a greater
opposition to the project, which have question the real social benefit of this solution. There
is no valorisation of possible co-benefits of this measure. No strategy was applied to cope
with this uncertainty.
2.16. Is aquifer recharge a good strategy for economic development the region?
A revision of the literature concerning the third phase of the project, particularly of the
allegations done to the project, point out to two opposing views. While favourable allegations
points out as the main benefit the positive impact it will have for the development of the
region, other allegations presented to the water authority concerning the modification of the
water concession mentions that:
“the economic development of the Carracillo is something fictitious, the great

benefits are taken by the companies dedicated to the transformation and
commercialization of horticultural products, whereas the jobs that are generated are
temporary and precarious”(ICUELLAR, 2016).
These two opposing views over the same problem at hand evidence the very distinct and
conflicting views of the impact of the solution. Persuasive communication and oppositional
2.17. What will be the social impact (depopulation) of this measure?
One of the main problems the region face is de-population, and rural-urban migratory
movement. Similarly to the uncertainty mentioned above (16), while some stakeholders look
to this project as the best solution for the increasing problem of migration in the region, others
do not seem so confident. As an interviewee100 points out:
“Measures for de-population should not be focused on increment water availability
for irrigation, but should be on the main issue: young people are not finding regular
jobs. They are not willing to work on the agricultural sector due to the conditions that
those jobs have. Better measures could be the improvement of intercity connections,
or even, improving internet connections in the region”.
Persuasive communication and oppositional modes of action were applied to cope with this
uncertainty.
2.18. Does the water diversion going to affect other users downstream?
Similarly to the uncertainty mentioned in point (12), there are different positions towards the
degree of affection to downstream uses. Persuasive communication and oppositional modes
of action were applied to cope with this uncertainty.
3. NbS River restoration – Copenhagen, Denmark
3.1. What will be the response of the NbS in events of high and low precipitation?
This uncertainty relates to the unpredictable future conditions, and the ability of this solution
to cope with a range of possible scenarios. The two very distinct events of flooding in 2011
and drought in 2018 possess a great problem for technical solutions. In this matter, NbS have
98
(D2-6)
99
(D2-3)
100
(D2-8)
120
to be able to cope to both extreme situations, while delivering the services and co-benefits it
is intended for.
3.2. What will be future legal conditions of financing mechanisms?
This uncertainty relates to the future legal conditions of financing mechanisms. As an
interview101 points out:
“The utilities had the possibility just a few years ago, for financing solutions on the
surface. So they got this possibility (with the intention of handling water in the
surface), just as long the solutions in the surface are not more expensive than the
solutions that they usually do in the subsurface. Since it was cheaper that subsurface,
they wanted to finance this solution. This was a huge opportunity, and provoked the
implementation of many measures. Then the State removed that possibility. Now,
utilities could only finance 75%. But that is a big difference. This last 25% has to
come from somewhere else. Municipalities have different agendas. You don’t see
many municipalities doing that. You have this issues that has stop collaboration and
many actions between the municipalities and the utilities.”
Future legal conditions, although remain relatively constant, may shift to situations that
hamper NbS implementation.
3.3. Are all the stakeholders willing to implement the River Restoration project?
At an implementation stage, many uncertainties arise linked to the actual construction and
maintenance process. The implementation of this specific project has huge impacts for
surrounding area, such as traffic diversion, air pollution and noise pollution, among others.
This uncertainty relates to the unpredictable behaviour of stakeholders for project
implementation.
3.4. How this solution should be financed?
NbS require different financial models than grey infrastructure, for example due to
differences in the construction time and cyclical performance(Denjean et al., 2017). This
uncertainty relates to the incomplete knowledge into what respect to the optimum time of
investment, level of investment, size and frequency of the damage risks and who is actually
to finance and manage the investments (management plan) of measures (City of Copenhagen,
2012) and particularly, maintain an adequate funding for long time maintenance.
3.5. Is the framing of the problem similar among stakeholders?
As we discussed in other case studies, this uncertainty relates to the multiple knowledge
frames people have towards the problem at hand. The description on how the problem is
defined by each stakeholder and how it is defined by the end users and third parties is a first
step to identify what are the interests and goals from each party (PBI(2013). Once identified
the set of problems (if they are not the same), it is necessary to know how they interconnect.
Specifically for the present case, there are a number of problems in the area, not only related
to hydro-meteorological risks. Issues such as traffic, pollution, heat island effects, lack of
recreational areas, low estate and land value may be more pressing issues than those related
to risk. Understanding these problems while increasing awareness of other issues among the
stakeholders may guide the design of a more inclusive project, facilitating its implementation.
3.6. Are the understandings of the current situation equal among stakeholders?
As an interviewee102 point out “people do not understand what is going on”. Similarly to the
situation stated above (4), this uncertainty relates to the knowledge base stakeholders could
have for the current situation. While some stakeholder have a greater understanding of current
situation (usually those that develop the studies of the system, or situation analysis), knowing
101
(D3-8)
102
(D3-7)
121
its deficiencies and/or limitations, other stakeholders with a different technical background
may have no or diverse understandings. Poor communication among stakeholders about the
current situation, especially in what respect to the deficiencies and limitations of the
knowledge base may cause controversies, damaging the process of implementation.
Strategies to cope with this uncertainty usually relate to a dialogical learning process or
persuasive communication.
3.7. Do all stakeholders in agreement with the NbS River Restoration project?
There is a serious political risk of resistance of residents, users, pressure groups and local
governments against (infrastructure) projects (Koppenjan, 2015), provoking a refrain for
private investors to invest in public projects. This ambiguity relates to the diverse interest
stakeholders, from those pursuing this initiative, to others that have no interest for them.
Strategies to cope with this uncertainty are aimed to align private and public stakeholder
interests.
3.8. How should the measure be valued?
Valuation of NbS is a contested subject (Wild, Henneberry, & Gill, 2017). Although literature
usually refer to cost-benefit analysis as the most common way to value, this sort of valuation
is questioned. This uncertainty relates to the different values stakeholder puts into the
solution.
In this case, the calculation for the reduce risk in a cost-benefit analysis is the value of avoided
damages (Altamirano et al., 2013). Although calculation have been made in different scales,
local residents value differently those “reduced damages” than other stakeholders (such as
public authorities). This happens for each stakeholder that is called to be involved in the
implementation process. As an interviewee points out into what respect to private ownership
of adaptation measures:
“Valuation of these solutions is one of the greatest issues. What is a solution worth?
The thing is, you cannot celebrate it… meaning that you cannot say “I saved so much
money”, because the success of the solution is that nothing happen. So for a politician
selling this, is like “look, nothing happened”... It does not sell.”
This type of valuation is usually estimated by “willingness to pay” by residents. But the
problem appear where there is no stakeholder willing to pay for the solution. Strategies to
cope with this uncertainty are mainly associated with stakeholder management and
participation (Koppenjan, 2015). Often, the financing mechanisms come from stakeholders
that have a greater value of the solution.
3.9. What are the criteria’s to monitor and evaluate the project?
Setting the criteria will depend in various factors, but its definition is key to establish the
indicators of the system performance. Its hierarchy and definition is a task that depends on
several factors, such benefits and co-benefits detected, as well as the technical capabilities
for monitoring the criteria. Still, its definition depends on great measure on the stakeholders
that are tasked to identify them.
Particularly for this uncertainty, each stakeholder will sustain a different hierarchy of criteria.
The final set of criteria will be based on a negotiation, usually, when the system components,
beneficiaries and responsibilities are known.
122

Attachment 0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Attachment 0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ref.

“NAture Insurance value: Assessment and

SC5-09-2016 Operationalising insurance value of ecosystems

Due date of deliverable: 31/01/2020

Start date of project: 01-12-2016

V ERSION E DITION DATE MODIFICATION W RITTEN BY CONTROLLED BY

EDITION 2 F EBRUARY 2020 ELABORATION READINESS V AN CAUWENBERGH

Keywords: climate adaptation, implementation, nature-based solutions, participatory

H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 2

Edition information ....................................................................................................................... 1

H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 3

4.2 Results ......................................................................................................................... 41

H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 4

H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 5

H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 6

The document starts in chapter 2 with an overview of approaches to planning and

A participatory adaptive approach is mobilized to address concerns for operationalizing and

H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 7

BOX: How to read this deliverable?

Readers interested in uncertainty analysis and relation to implementation strategies, go to chapter 4

H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 8

4 Setting the scene – where we come from and where we want to go

H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 9

Local-municipal, Ex-ante approach

Maximize socio- Identify and evaluate

H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 10

H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 11

Use of models and tools to understand the water system

• Time (e.g. rapid response to pulses vs strategic planning to address pressures

H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 12

4.2 Drivers and barriers to implementation of nature-based solutions

Unpredictability Incomplete knowledge Multiple knowledge frames

H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 13

Technical - Future - Gaps in evidence based - Resistance to new concepts / Discomfort

Adopted from (Dourojeanni, 2019, p. 58)

Technical drivers or strategies Social drivers or strategies

Definition of public and private sector roles Valuation and funding F

H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 14

4.3 Readiness for operationalising and mainstreaming NBS

H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 15

- Technology readiness – linked to barriers on knowledge and performance (generation

4.3.1 Technology readiness

H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 16

H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 17

We therefore include concepts of institutional readiness as well as investment readiness to

4.3.2 Institutional readiness

IR Category Operationally defined

H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 18

Sustainability NBS is routinely produced/used/assessed within institution. Current institutional

4.3.3 Investment readiness

H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 19

To make the concept of investment

Adopted from (Blank, 2013), MVP = minimum viable

H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 20

H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 21

H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 22

Figure 6 : NAS business canvas – adopted from (Mayor, 2017)

4.4 Implementation and investment plans

- Definition of responsibilities in implementation (Procurement, Construction, Quality

H2020 NAIAD GA nº 730497 23

Figure 7 : Five Business cases underlying implementation and investment plans

Some important considerations: