Next Article in Journal
A Fuzzy-AHP Methodology for Planning the Risk Management of Natural Hazards in Surface Mining Projects
Next Article in Special Issue
Stakeholder Participation in the Planning and Design of Nature-Based Solutions. Insights from CLEVER Cities Project in Hamburg
Previous Article in Journal
Environmental Policy Making in Supply Chains under Ambiguity and Competition: A Fuzzy Stackelberg Game Approach
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 4
10.3390/su13042368
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

From Nature-Based to Nature-Driven: Landscape First for the Design of Moeder Zernike in Groningen

by
Rob Roggema
1,2
1
Cittaideale, 6706LC Wageningen, The Netherlands
2
Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University, Parramatta, NSW 2150, Australia
Sustainability 2021, 13(4), 2368; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042368
Submission received: 16 January 2021 / Revised: 16 February 2021 / Accepted: 18 February 2021 / Published: 22 February 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Greening Cities Shaping Cities: Pinpointing Nature-Based Solutions in Cities between Shared Governance and Citizen Participation)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Global climate change impacts the future of urbanism. The future is increasingly uncertain, and current responses in urban planning practice are often human-centered. In general, this is a way to respond to change that is oriented towards improving the life of people in the short term, often extracting resources from the environment at dangerous levels. This impacts the entire ecological system, and turns out to be negative for biodiversity, resilience, and, ultimately, human life as well. Adaptation to climatic impacts requires a long-term perspective based in the understanding of nature. The objective of the presented research is to find explorative ways to respond to the unknown unknowns through designing and planning holistically for the Zernike campus in Groningen, the Netherlands. The methods used in this study comprise co-creative design-led approaches which are capable of integrating sectoral problems into a visionary future plan. The research findings show how embracing a nature-driven perspective to urban design increases the adaptive capacity, the ecological diversity, and the range of healthy food grown on a university campus. This study responds to questions of food safety, and growing conditions, of which the water availability is the most pressing. Considering the spatial concept, this has led to the necessity to establish a novel water connection between the site and the sea.

1. Introduction

Climate change is one of humanity’s biggest problems [1], and this is largely part related to the ways in which humans live, even causing a new geological era, the anthropocene [2]. The climate’s impact on land use, productivity, and food security [3], ecology [4], livability [5,6,7], and safety, which is under pressure of accelerated sea level rise [8,9], is moving beyond planetary boundaries [10]. The question of whether policy responses can deal with these uncertainties is investigated in this article. It is clear that adaptation is inescapable [11,12].
Current spatial planning focuses on the past, reiterating former policies for novel problems [13,14]. New problems, however, cannot be solved with solutions derived from the actions that caused them. Contemporary policies in the Groningen political arena tend to ‘muddle through’ [15], and are focused on the near future and on well-understood problems [16,17].
Current achievable policy outcomes are rooted in an existing context of political negotiations and compromises in governance. Wicked problems cannot be dealt with using linear answers—a common mistake. A ‘negotiated average’ provides solutions for an already changed problem the moment the solution is brought forward, contradicting the long-term larger scale [18], forming an adaptation gap [19,20]. Planning that responds to emergencies is continuously ‘muddling through’ [15], while uncertainty and wicked problems [21] require ‘unsafe planning’ [22], bridging this gap (Figure 1).
Instead, climate adaptation requires innovation in spatial planning that bypasses short-term path-dependency. Therefore, coping with uncertainty [23] is essential, and short-term spatial policymaking needs to be replaced by applying the art of the long view [24] and unsafe planning [22], allowing us to leapfrog current policies.
Climate adaptation is viewed as a spatial challenge [25], positioning ‘design’ to discover holistic solutions [26,27,28]. This way, adaptation is designed for the Zernike campus, located on the northern fringe of the city of Groningen in the Netherlands (Figure 2). This university campus is home to two universities, several research institutes, and many enterprises and start-ups. It hosts approximately 30,000 people, including students and staff. The Moeder Zernike project is part of the design-manifestation of the Climate Adaptation Week Groningen, in which the task is to propose solutions for a 100-year future.
This article takes nature-based solutions (NBS) as the point of departure and investigates the potentialities of how to anticipate climate impacts.

2. Research Problem

2.1. Problem Definition

Climate adaptation is often practiced with a human-centred objective. In many cases, this leads to increased deterioration of ecosystems and biodiversity loss, puts pressure on agricultural systems, and leads to economic problems and foodborne diseases. Moreover, the lack of green space decreases the quality of life of humans, both physically as mentally.

2.1.1. Ecology

The worldwide decrease in biodiversity, up to 68% [29,30], has a negative impact on soil and water quality. This impacts the functioning of all kinds of natural processes. In 2007, populations of the black-tailed godwit, redshank, oystercatcher, and lapwing were 10–60% lower than in 1990 [31], and this decline in open farmland birds has not stopped (Figure 3). The numbers of the black-tailed godwit decreased by 40%, which is internationally important since the major breeding area in Europe is in the Netherlands [32]. As a result of intensified farmland and cattle farming, this trend has continued to decline since 1960 [31]. Biodiversity loss since the second half of last century is very high. This umbilical cord cannot be severed, as human life depends on nature.

2.1.2. Agriculture

A few crops, including potatoes, wheat, and sugar beet, and grassland dominate the current agriculture in Groningen [33], and these land uses lead to the dewatering of peatlands, causing carbon emissions constituting approximately 40% of the total Groningen emissions from agriculture [34]. The EU subsidizes agricultural production, and due to future reduction in these subsidies [35], farmer’s incomes are increasingly under pressure. Globally, food security concerns rise [36]. Groningen’s agriculture is not capable of feeding its own population, and it must therefore import food from around the globe. Food safety poses another serious risk [37], as it may cause illnesses, epidemics, or pandemics. Dewatering in combination with relative sea level rise causes soil subsidence and increasing salinity [38]. This problem has increased through recent droughts [39], creating additional risks for the fresh water-dependent crops. In Groningen, agriculture has undergone a transformation. As part of general developments in the Netherlands [40], land consolidation in the 20th century led to larger parcels (Figure 4), increasing the vulnerability to illnesses and economic change.
Agriculture finds itself at an intersection: will it follow existing pathways of increasing efficiency of production methods, using up all the natural resources and emaciating the landscape, or growing crops that enrich the soil, keeping nature healthy?

2.1.3. The Soil-Salinity Complex

The soil in the landscape of the Groningen area is subjected to a toxic mix of increasing salinity [41,42,43], soil subsidence resulting from dewatering the agricultural lands in conjunction with peat oxidation [44,45,46,47] and gas extractions [48,49,50], and the desiccation of the land [51,52], mutually exaggerating each other’s impacts. Dewatering of the land causes soil subsidence, increasing the influence of seepage from the sea, which is even more detrimental due to the land drying out as result of climatic droughts. Increasing differences between the level of the land and the rising sea strengthens salinification, which causes further dewatering, which, in turn, causes additional soil subsidence, subsequently exaggerating salinity. This vicious circle of land degradation leads to ever more compromised conditions for growing food, induces a strictly controlled and managed water system, causes further loss of biodiversity, and instigates an (assumed) need to raise dikes to prevent the land from flooding. The impact of this process on traditional forms of agriculture in the northern Netherlands makes it difficult for these farming types to stay economically viable. Salinity alone is leading to an economic loss of EUR 1166/ha for potato fields [53].

2.1.4. Health-Problems

Resulting from the human-centred way in which we grow food and have organised our settlements, human and ecological health has come under increasing pressure. Urbanization is considered to be one of the most important health challenges of the 21st century [54], being associated with an increase in chronic and non-communicable conditions such as obesity, stress, poor mental health, and a decline in physical activity [55]. When a population becomes more urbanized, green space has a positive influence on mental health, social cohesion, and physical behavior [56,57]. In urban environments with a lack of reasonable amounts of accessible green spaces, health problems tend to increase, as the opportunities to exercise are limited, leading to higher chances of obesity [58,59,60,61]. More children living in these precincts suffer from attention disorder at school [62,63,64,65] or encounter ADHD and similar illnesses [66,67,68,69]. The influence of green space on children’s spatial working memory and their cognitive functioning is positive and strongly related to academic achievement in children’s performance [62,63]. Psychological problems amongst adults [70,71,72] cause higher levels of stress and domestic violence [73]. People living in areas without access to nature were 1.27 times more likely to experience symptoms of depression [74], and these areas were found to have higher crime levels compared to other areas [75]. Meanwhile, the health-related outcomes of living close to natural areas [76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83] and being able to undertake physical activity in nature [84,85,86,87,88] include reduced levels of morbidity [89] by reducing cardiovascular disease [90]. Patients with views of trees and greenery out their windows heal faster and need less medication [57], indicating the restorative influence of gardens in many different urban contexts [91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99]. Furthermore, green space provides cleaner air and mitigates heat, hence creating a healthier atmosphere in the city [100,101,102,103].

2.2. Research Objective and Question

The objective of this research is to explore whether taking a nature-driven approach to planning and design for climate adaptation brings benefits for liveability, productivity and ecology on the Zernike campus. The research question is: how can a nature-driven campus be designed that offers positive impacts in the face of the threat of future changes caused by climate change?

3. Methodology

The applied methodology is design-led [27,28,29]. The design results are continuously valued in a research-through-design process [104,105,106,107,108,109,110]. By applying ‘designerly’ explorations [111,112], out-of-the-box thinking and creativity are enhanced. This overarching methodological view is elaborated in detail in specific methods in every stage of the research process (Figure 5). In practice, these methods are intertwined:
  • The analysis of current impacts and threats resulting from climate change is undertaken through a literature review of the most recent academic results in the Netherlands, such as the climate scenario [113], the national delta-program [114], recent insights into accelerated sea level rise [9], and the novel risk of droughts [115].
  • During the second stage of the research, a comparative analysis [116,117] is undertaken into three specific viewpoints, defining the way to guide climate adaptation.
  • After the preferred viewpoint is chosen, the core question of how to design a campus that could be self-reliant is investigated. Through literature review of the concepts of self-reliant areas [118,119,120,121] and self-sufficiency [122,123,124], the programmatic contours for the design are formulated.
  • The program of demand for the growth of food, its spatial implications, and the required amounts and spaces for water are quantitatively analysed [125,126,127].
  • Once the quantitative consequences of a self-reliant campus become clear, the quest for a holistic design intervention, responding to this long-term view [25], is explored via futuring [128,129] and spatial visioning [130,131]. A design that responds to uncertainties regarding the future and leapfrogs current policy constraint backtracking [132], oriented towards creating a (spatial) tipping point [133], is applied to change path-dependency. Understanding the theory of complexity [19,134] and its processes of self-organisation and emergence [135] in an urban design context is essential. In order to include these concepts, a co-creative working method is chosen, through which collaborative design work can take place in a design charrette [136,137,138,139] approach.
  • The final stage of the research takes the integrated spatial view as the starting point for thematic spatial explorations of food-, eco- and waterscapes. The creative process is here mingled with analytical interactions, typical for a research by design method. The spatial propositions are permanently assessed, and new design questions are raised, which in turn lead to adjusted design explorations. In a cyclic process, the designs are tested and modified until satisfied. In the Moeder Zernike project, the thematic aspects are separated from each other using a layered mapping method [140], making it possible to quantitatively and qualitatively investigate the consequences of spatial choices.

4. Results

4.1. Ways to Respond

The main objective is to take nature as the basis for the urban transformation. In this sense, the city is seen as being part of nature. This could be a bold statement; however, the city of Rotterdam recently presented itself as a wilderness park because its urban wildlife is so abundant [141]. Being part of nature enhances the health not only of the urban wilderness, but also of its human inhabitants when living close to green areas [142]. Developing urban areas need to achieve balance in the exchange of materials, resources, and the potential to allow co-existential living systems, urban and natural, to emerge and evolve by creating regenerative cities [143,144,145,146]. However, cities, having extracted natural resources at a large scale ever since the industrial revolution, should become reciprocal [147]. Three gradations of responsiveness are distinguished (Figure 6): searching for human-centred contrast, establishing nature-driven contact, and striving for nature-driven contract [148].
When a perspective of the city is taken where urban life is seen in contrast with nature, the wilderness is the opposite of human life. This human-centered view aims to enhance human ability, overcome human limitations, and human preferences and concerns are explicitly considered in the design [149,150]. In such a human-centered view, nature has instrumental value [151], and according to Aristotle, “nature has made all things specifically for the sake of man” (cited in [152]). The human-centered approach considers basic human needs, motivations, and meaningful experiences in relation to green areas [153].
Nature-based solutions bring nature and the city into contact to improve urban sustainability [154]. ‘Nature-based solutions aim to help societies address a variety of environmental, social and economic challenges in sustainable ways. Nature-based solutions use the features and complex system processes of nature in order to achieve desired outcomes that ideally are resilient to change’ [155]. They are ‘solutions that are inspired and supported by nature, which are cost-effective, simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help build resilience. Such solutions bring more, and more diverse, nature and natural processes into cities, landscapes and seascapes, through locally adapted, resource-efficient and systemic interventions’ [155]. Hence, nature-based solutions are seen as deliberate interventions seeking to use the properties of nature to address societal challenges.
In contrast with the human-centered view on nature, a biocentric perspective considers humans as members of an interconnected ‘web of life’ [156,157]; nature and the city have a moral ‘contract’, with people seen as an integral part of nature, rather than its master or steward [151]. Current practice often starts with an economically driven program, after which green spaces are fitted in. A nature-driven approach [142,158,159] takes the ecological system as the foundation for the design within which other (urban) functions are embedded. The resilience and self-organising power of ecosystems safeguard their own existence, in which humans but also non-human organisms survive in the context of uncertain climatic conditions.
Choosing for a nature-driven future places humans within the wider natural system and allows the system to be guided by its own resilience and synergies. It opens the pathway towards an autonomously operating symbiosis of nature and man, but it also implies that all resources should and need to be supplied, used, and treated within those same boundaries.

4.2. Self-Reliance

A self-reliant area, in this case the Zernike campus, should therefore be able to function without substantial support from outside the system, e.g., the city, neighbourhood, or broader area. This means that all that is generated and wasted should stay and be used within the system boundaries. On top of this, the area, as part of its natural environment, needs to stay within its own ‘planetary boundaries’ [10], downscaled from the global level to the area of observation. The goal to design a nature-driven campus implies that natural systems determine the productivity on campus. In addition to preventing decreasing biodiversity [29], a nature-driven campus grows its own food, provides a cooling environment, generates sufficient renewable energy, and the water system, with its in- and outgoing flows, is bound to the area’s boundaries. The key question is whether a nature-driven, self-reliant campus, in the context of climate change, can grow sufficient healthy food for its consumers (students, staff, visitors and residents) and if enough space and water is available. Moeder Zernike transforms from a parasite, fetching its resource lifelines from outside, to an amoeba (Figure 7), self-sufficiently generating resources from within.

4.3. Quantifying Potentials

4.3.1. Food

Firstly, the amount of food required to provide the new diet [160], based on a per person estimation of food categories (Figure 8) applied to all consumers on campus (30,000 students and staff and an additional 10,000 of new residents), is calculated. These amounts are combined with the number of meals the different groups, students, staff, and residents, consume on campus, taking into account holiday periods. The total amount of food needed is almost 5.5 million kg per year.

4.3.2. Space

The area needed for growing all crops (Figure 9) adds up to an area of approximately 0.1 km2 (or 100,000 m2). Assuming the largest portion of these crops will grow inside, on rooftops, or clinging to the facades of campus buildings, using novel multiple harvest technologies, such as aqua- and aeroponics, the useable spaces of current buildings is calculated (Figure 10). Potentially 140,000 m2 of rooftop area and 90,000 m2 indoors is available. Additionally, inside existing buildings, almost 10,000 homes can be realised. The total area for growing food on Zernike is 230,000 m2, more than twice the required space.

4.3.3. Water

The total amount of water needed to grow all crops is almost 3.5 billion litres/year, equalling nearly 1400 Olympic swimming pools. On top of this, nearly 400 Olympic swimming pools (approx. 1 billion litres) of drinking water are required for daily use, totalling 1800 pools/year. Analysis of the expected amounts of precipitation on Zernike (Table 1) shows that, according the driest climate scenario, a little more than 2500 Olympic pools are available. Around 50% of this water evaporates [161], hence only 1250 will remain for usage. This implies that on a yearly basis, there is a shortage of 550 pools (1.4 billion litres) of water. Especially in the context of increasing droughts in the Netherlands [115], current rainfall will not suffice to grow all the crops on Zernike, and water from outside the campus is needed. In order to avoid extracting water from other users in neighbourhoods across the city, only one option remains: retrieve water from the sea.

4.4. Holistic Intervention

The crucial factor in the design for Moeder Zernike therefore is the supply of enough water to feed agriculture on campus. Out of the co-creative design process and analyses, one impactful proposition emerged, to establish a lifeline between campus and the infinite water source of the Wadden Sea. This is a large-scale long-term intervention benefitting a multitude of aspects: ecology, safety, food, and water. By establishing this tipping point, Moeder Zernike is suddenly placed in a new ecological context, where fresh water and saline influences collide. The saline influence also induces a spatial novelty in the form of an inversed wierde (a cultural relic found everywhere in the northern landscape), creating a freshwater reservoir (Figure 11).
As saltwater flows around the freshwater reservoir (Figure 12), it brings nutrients and sediment, leaving behind fertile soils, enriching agricultural potential and providing the dynamic environment for a steep increase in biodiversity.
The inversed wierde protects Moeder Zernike against outside influences, while a sandy membrane simultaneously filters saline water for use on campus. This provides the urgently needed water for growing food. Spatially, a coherent inner world emerges, in which the experimental life within Moeder Zernike takes place, while outwardly, the campus presents itself as a spatial entity within the surrounding landscape (Figure 13).

4.5. Design of Scapes

The fundamental choice of bringing water from the sea inland to provide the conditions to become self-reliant impacts ecology, food-, and waterscapes.

4.5.1. Foodscape

A rich diversity of growing conditions emerges (Figure 14), producing everything for the consumption of the new diet. Apart from the food production in existing buildings, the campus will contain fishing grounds in open water with salmon, eel, and sturgeon, have saline aquafarms at the campus edges for prawns and lobster, free-ranging cattle wandering the slopes of the wierde, while inside orchards nuts will be grown. In the terraced landscape, water is used multiple times, trickling down through fruit and berry plantations and rice paddies. Freshwater fish, carp and tilapia, live in the water reservoir, whilst the southern mound is home to caves for chicory and fungi, mushrooms and insects. On top of these, a publicly accessible picking garden is foreseen so urban residents can freely gather their lunch and dinner ingredients.

4.5.2. Waterscape

By connecting the campus with the sea, saline, brackish, and fresh water are all part of the waterscape (Figure 15). The protective sand edge purifies the saline water before it enters campus, at the same time protecting Moeder Zernike against the spring tide. All wastewater from buildings is filtered and cleaned in a helophyte system, making it usable for growing crops. During periods of heavy rainfall, the central lake fills up, is home to fish, provides the water for indoor crop growth, and cools the environment on hot days. The pond also functions as a heat exchanger, generating energy. Slowly growing peat is supplied with pre-purified household water from urban neighborhoods.

4.5.3. Ecoscape

Ecological qualities are enhanced, bringing brackish and saline waters together with freshwater conditions, kindling new gradients. A diverse range of ecotypes emerge (Figure 16), such as new islands and wetlands, occasionally flooding, while other parts permanently rise above the water level. The reed-lands of the helophytes are home to insects, small fish, and reptiles, in turn attracting all kinds of birds. An abundant range of species inhabit the inner side of the ridge. Built structures will offer a unique rock-biotope for specific plants, butterflies, bees, and nesting places for birds and bats. Finally, peatlands offer a habitat to water birds, insects, and a range of reed plants.

5. Discussion

The research presented in this article illuminates tensions between three forms of future planning. First, current short-term practices often plan for the known knowns, and decide on that basis, even if there is a chance of making bad decisions. The second way of acting, dubbed adaptive management, delays decisions until more knowledge or data are available. The third way proposes developing a long-term view then working towards that view with the understanding that the future is full of unknown unknowns. In this case, it is well-understood that the unknown unknowns are difficult to comprehend, especially regarding long-term or deep uncertainties, and imagining a far future could then guide the way forward.
In this article, a pledge is made for using imagination to plan for a desired future, as opposed to potentially making the wrong decision or postponing decisions until we know more. Therefore, the Zernike plan takes on the largest quests of our time—biodiversity, food supply and climate impacts—and unites them around an imagined long-term future, on the basis of which implications for current decisions can be derived. This not only gives direction—it also brings coherence and inspiration, and offers comprehensive spatial thinking for the campus grounds.
The question, however, is how policy making and political decision making may be diverted from the current practice of responsiveness, short-term orientation or the ever-apparent quest for more knowledge, data, and research. Indeed, more information is not always needed; instead, larger insights must emerge so that decision making can be based on wisdom rather than rationality.
Moreover, the process of creating an inspirational design is, in a way, magical, and can be used more profoundly. The magic happens when out of a set of problems and questions, at a certain moment, a vision comes forward, resulting from irreducible co-creative ways of drawing, building, talking, and exchanging ideas. This approach, in which interaction delivers tangible results, is often underestimated in planning processes. In practice, seemingly estimated policy boundaries limit approaches that explore the unexplored. Often, these are seen to undermine the current culture, put the intangible hidden agreements out in the open, or overhaul just adopted plans and policies. The fear of discovering something new, which is essential for an unknown future, is paralyzing the involved bureaucrats, planners, and policymakers. This rusty cultural constraint prohibits free and novel ideas from emerging. This could be dangerous, as continuing on a familiar pathway will hardly ever offer solutions for the unknowns. Three typical options remain:
  • Breaking the barriers in a way that is acceptable, by means of inspiration, future thinking, and offering a pleasant and plausible future that differs from the known world.
  • Experimenting on and developing small novelties in a controlled context that guide the way to what could be possible in the future.
  • Waiting for something to go terribly wrong, causing a tipping point for changing course. A disaster could overcome the fear of change, as it becomes clear to everyone existing approaches have caused the devastation.
Naturally, it is preferable to anticipate such disastrous events before they happen and be quick enough to change course before the worst occurs.

6. Conclusions

The Moeder Zernike research has illustrated how a nature-driven approach can be applied for designing a future oriented plan. By doing so, the plan is able to incorporate nature as the driving force and allows the emergence of a self-reliant and biodiverse urban precinct.
The distinction between human-centred, nature-based, and nature-driven may sound artificial, but it brings crucial questions to the debate. Do we, as humans, design for our own sake, to get better lives for ourselves, as the human species? Or do we offer nature-based solutions, that adjust urban environments so there is also place and space for natural processes? Does this, looking through human spectacles at nature, suffice for our survival in increasing constraining futures? Or do we need to start with nature and let nature drive the human behaviour of urban dwellers? This poses the question as to where humans fit in the natural environment surrounding them.
The plan for Moeder Zernike has shown that a plan that is driven by nature starts with understanding the landscape and its ecological, systemic features and characteristics. Starting the design process by firstly looking at the landscape guarantees a development of cities and urban contexts that are embedded in and embraced by nature. This offers humans the best proposition for sustainably surviving on the planet.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, investigation, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, R.R. The author has read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest. This work has been presented on Greening cities shaping cities symposium in October 2020, https://www.greeningcities-shapingcities.polimi.it/ (accessed on 1 October 2020).

References

  1. Pachauri, R.K.; Allen, M.R.; Barros, V.R.; Broome, J.; Cramer, W.; Christ, R.; Church, J.A.; Clarke, L.; Dahe, Q.; Dasgupta, P.; et al. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014; p. 151. [Google Scholar]
  2. Crutzen, P.J. Geology of mankind. Nat. Cell Biol. 2002, 415, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems; Summary for Policymakers; Approved Draft. IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/srccl/ (accessed on 10 August 2020).
  4. Díaz, S.; Settele, J.; Brondizio, E.; Ngo, H.T.; Guèze, M.; Agard, J.; Arneth, A.; Balvanera, P.; Brauman, K.A.; Butchart, S.; et al. Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; IPBES-Secretariat: Bonn, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  5. Roberts, W.O. Climate Change and the Quality of Life for the Earth’s New Millions. Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 1976, 120, 230–232. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/986562 (accessed on 21 December 2020).
  6. Mupedziswa, R.; Kubanga, K.P. Climate change, urban settlements and quality of life: The case of the Southern African Development Community region. Dev. S. Afr. 2016, 34, 196–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Liang, L.; Deng, X.; Wang, P.; Wang, Z.; Wang, L. Assessment of the impact of climate change on cities livability in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 726, 138339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lindsey, R. Climate Change: Global Sea Level. Climate.gov, 2018. Available online: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level (accessed on 27 July 2020).
  9. Haasnoot, M.; Bouwer, L.; Diermanse, F.; Kwadijk, J.; Van der Spek, A.; Oude Essink, G.; Delsman, J.; Weiler, O.; Mens, M.; Ter Maat, J.; et al. Mogelijke Gevolgen van Versnelde Zeespiegelstijging Voor het Deltaprogramma. Een Verkenning; Deltares: Delft, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  10. Rockström, J.; Steffen, W.; Noone, K.; Persson, Å.; Chapin, F.S.; Lambin, E.F.; Lenton, T.M.; Scheffer, M.; Folke, C.; Schellnhuber, H.J.; et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 2009, 461, 472–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Schipper, E.L.F.; Burton, I. (Eds.) Adaptation to Climate Change; Earthscan: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  12. Global Commission on Adaptation. Adapt Now: A Global Call for Leadership on Climate Resilience; Global Center on Adaptation: Gronningen/Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Washington, DC, USA; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  13. Schubert, D. Cities and plans—The past defines the future. Plan. Perspect. 2019, 34, 3–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Molotch, H.; Freudenburg, W.; Paulsen, K.E. History Repeats Itself, But How? City Character, Urban Tradition, and the Accomplishment of Place. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2000, 65, 791–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lindblom, C.E. The Science of “Muddling Through”. Public Adm. Rev. 1959, 19, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Roggema, R.; Genel Altinkaya, Ö.; Psarra, I. De Toukomst is al Lang Begonnen; Hanze University of Applied Sciences Groningen: Groningen, The Netherlands, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  17. Roggema, R. Bypassing the Obvious: Implementing Cutting Edge Ideas for Futuring Urban Landscapes. Urban Reg. Plan. 2021, 6, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Horstmann, B. Framing Adaptation to Climate Change: A Challenge for Building Institutions; Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik: Bonn, Germany, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  19. Roggema, R. Swarm Planning: The Development of a Methodology to Deal with Climate Adaptation. Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology and Wageningen University and Research Centre, Delft, The Netherlands, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  20. United Nations Environment Programme. Adaptation Gap Report 2020; United Nations Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2021; Available online: https://www.unep.org/adaptation-gap-report-2020 (accessed on 21 December 2020).
  21. Rittel, H.W.J.; Webber, M.M. Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sci. 1973, 4, 155–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Davy, B. Plan It Without a Condom! Plan. Theory 2008, 7, 301–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Merry, U. Coping with Uncertainty. Insights from the New Sciences of Chaos, Self-Organisation and Complexity; Praeger Publishers: Westport, CT, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  24. Schwarz, P. The Art of the Long View. Planning for the Future in an Uncertain World; Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  25. Roggema, R. Adaptation to Climate Change: A Spatial Challenge; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  26. Wrigley, C. Principles and practices of a design-led approach to innovation. Int. J. Des. Creativity Innov. 2017, 5, 235–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Balz, V.E. Regional design: Discretionary approaches to regional planning in The Netherlands. Plan. Theory 2017, 17, 332–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Yan, W.; Roggema, R. Developing a Design-Led Approach for the Food-Energy-Water Nexus in Cities. Urban Plan. 2019, 4, 123–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Almond, R.E.A.; Grooten, M.; Petersen, T. Living Planet Report 2020—Bending the Curve of Biodiversity Loss; WWF: Gland, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  30. Provincie Groningen. De Toestand van Natuur en Landschap in de Provincie Groningen Achtergronddocuent. 2017. Available online: https://destaatvangroningen.nl/uploads/toestand-van-natuur-en-landschap-achtergronddocument.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2020).
  31. CBS; PBL; RIVM; WUR. Boerenlandvogels, 1915–2018 (Indicator 1479, Versie 11, 5 Februari 2020). Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS), Den Haag; PBL Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving, Den Haag; RIVM Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu, Bilthoven; en Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen. 2020. Available online: www.clo.nl (accessed on 21 December 2020).
  32. Teunissen, W.; Soldaat, L. Indexen en Trends van een Aantal Weidevogelsoorten uit het Weidevogelmeetnet. Periode 1990–2004; SOVON-Informatie 2005/13; SOVON Vogelonderzoek Nederland: Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  33. Available online: www.statline.cbs.nl (accessed on 21 December 2020).
  34. Van Well, E.; Rougoor, C. Landbouw en Klimaatverandering in Groningen; CLM: Culemborg, The Netherlands, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  35. Ministerie van LNV. Europese Landbouw-Beleid. Toelichting op de Betalingen in het Kader van het Gemeenschappelijk Landbouwbeleid in het Boekjaar 2019; Ministerie van LNV: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  36. Rosegrant, M.W.; Cline, S.A. Global food security: Challenges and policies. Science 2003, 302, 1917–1919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. World Health Organization. Food Safety Risk Analysis: A Guide for National Food Safety Authorities; WHO; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  38. Van Staveren, G.; Velstra, J. Verzilting van Landbouwgronden in Noord-Nederland in het Perspectief van de Effecten van klimaatverandering; Onderzoeksprogramma Klimaat voor Ruimte/Climate Changes Spatial Planning: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  39. De Vries, S. Increasing Drought: A New Enemy for The Netherlands. 20 August 2020. Available online: https://www.the-low-countries.com/article/increasing-drought-a-new-enemy-for-the-netherlands (accessed on 21 December 2020).
  40. Van der Woud, A. Het Landschap de Mensen. Nederland 1850–1940; Prometeus: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  41. Velstra, J.; Groen, J.; De Jong, K. Observations of salinity patterns in shallow groundwater and drainage water from agricultural land in the northern part of The Netherlands. Irrig. Drain. 2011, 60, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kroes, J.; Supit, I. Impact analysis of drought, water excess and salinity on grass production in The Netherlands using historical and future climate data. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 144, 370–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Raats, P.A. Salinity management in the coastal region of the Netherlands: A historical perspective. Agric. Water Manag. 2015, 157, 12–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Heuff, F.; Mulder, G.; Van Leijen, F.; Samiei Esfahany, S.; Hanssen, R. Dynamics of peat soils in the’Green Heart’of the Netherlands measured by satellite radar interferometry. In Proceedings of the 20th EGU General Assembly, Vienna, Austria, 4–13 April 2018; p. 17443. [Google Scholar]
  45. Stuyfzand, P.J. The impact of land reclamation on groundwater quality and future drinking water supply in the Netherlands. Water Sci. Technol. 1995, 31, 47–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. De Waal, J.; Roest, J.; Fokker, P.; Kroon, I.; Breunese, J.; Muntendam-Bos, A.; Oost, A.; Van Wirdum, G. The effective subsidence capacity concept: How to assure that subsidence in the Wadden Sea remains within defined limits? Neth. J. Geosci. 2012, 91, 385–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Erkens, G.; Van der Meulen, M.; Middelkoop, H. Historical land use caused carbon release in the Dutch coastal peatlands. In Proceedings of the EGU General Assembly 2010, Vienna, Austria, 2–7 May 2010; p. 12386. [Google Scholar]
  48. Schoonbeek, J.B. Land subsidence as a result of natural gas extraction in the province of Groningen. In Proceedings of the SPE European Spring Meeting, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 8–9 April 1976. [Google Scholar]
  49. Van Thienen-Visser, K.; Fokker, P.A. The future of subsidence modelling: Compaction and subsidence due to gas depletion of the Groningen gas field in the Netherlands. Neth. J. Geosci. 2017, 96, s105–s116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Pottgens, J.J.; Brouwer, F.J. Land subsidence due to gas extraction in the northern part of the Netherlands. Land Subsid. 1991, 200, 99–108. [Google Scholar]
  51. Suykerbuyk, W.; Govers, L.L.; Van Oven, W.; Giesen, K.; Giesen, W.B.; De Jong, D.J.; Bouma, T.J.; Van Katwijk, M.M. Living in the intertidal: Desiccation and shading reduce seagrass growth, but high salinity or population of origin have no additional effect. PeerJ 2018, 6, e5234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Boogerd, A.; Groenewegen, P.; Hisschemöller, M. Knowledge utilization in water management in The Netherlands related to desiccation. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 1997, 33, 731–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Tzemi, D.; Ruto, E.; Gould, I.; Bosworth, G. Economic Impacts of Salinity Induced Soil Degradation. In Baseline Study Final Report; University of Lincoln: Lincoln, UK, 2020; Available online: https://northsearegion.eu/media/14789/chap2-economic-analysis-of-salinization.pdf (accessed on 21 December 2020).
  54. World Health Organisation. Urban Health. 2015. Available online: www.who.int/topics/urban_health/en/ (accessed on 11 November 2016).
  55. Dye, C. Health and Urban Living. Science 2008, 319, 766–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Cox, D.T.C.; Shanahan, D.F.; Hudson, H.L.; Plummer, K.E.; Siriwardena, G.M.; Fuller, R.A.; Anderson, K.; Hancock, S.; Gaston, K.J. Doses of Neighborhood Nature: The Benefits for Mental Health of Living with Nature. BioScience 2017, 67, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Cox, D.T.; Shanahan, D.F.; Hudson, H.L.; Fuller, R.A.; Gaston, K.J. The impact of urbanisation on nature dose and the implications for human health. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 179, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Epstein, L.H.; Wing, R.R.; Penner, B.C.; Kress, M.J. Effect of diet and controlled exercise on weight loss in obese children. J. Pediatr. 1985, 107, 358–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Epstein, L.H.; Paluch, R.A.; Consalvi, A.; Riordan, K.; Scholl, T. Effects of manipulating sedentary behavior on physical activity and food intake. J. Pediatr. 2002, 140, 334–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Epstein, L.; Raja, S.; Gold, S.; Paluch, R.; Pak, Y.; Roemmich, J. Reducing sedentary behavior the relationship between park area and the physical activity of youth. Psychol. Sci. 2006, 17, 654–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Epstein, L.H.; Paluch, R.A.; Roemmich, J.N.; Beecher, M.D. Family-based obesity treatment, then and now: Twen-ty-five years of pediatric obesity treatment. Health Psychol. 2007, 26, 381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  62. Dovey, R. Can Parks Make Kids Better at Math? Next City, 11 September 2018. Available online: https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/can-parks-make-kids-better-at-math (accessed on 21 December 2020).
  63. Flouri, E.; Papachristou, E.; Midouhas, E. The role of neighbourhood greenspace in children’s spatial working memory. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2018, 89, 359–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Louv, R. Vitamin, N. The Essential Guide to a Nature-Rich Life: 500 Ways to Enrich Your Family’s Health & Happiness; Atlantic Books: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  65. Shore, R. Kids Need Access to Nature for Mental Health. Vancouver Sun. 17 April 2017. Available online: https://vancouversun.com/health/local-health/kids-need-access-to-nature-for-mental-health (accessed on 21 December 2020).
  66. Li, D.; Sullivan, W.C. Impact of views to school landscapes on recovery from stress and mental fatigue. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 148, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Sullivan, W.; Chang, C. Mental Health and the Built Environment. In Making Healthy Places; Dannenberg, A., Frumkin, H., Jackson, R., Eds.; Island Press/Center for Resource Economics: Washington, DC, USA, 2011; pp. 106–116. [Google Scholar]
  68. Taylor, A.F.; Kuo, F.E.; Sullivan, W.C. Views of nature and self-discipline: evidence from inner city children. J. Environ. Psychol. 2002, 22, 49–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Van Dijk-Wesselius, J.; Maas, J.; Hovinga, D.; Van Vugt, M.; Van den Berg, A.E. The impact of greening schoolyards on the appreciation, and physical, cognitive and social-emotional well-being of schoolchildren: A prospective intervention study. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 180, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Husqvarna Group. Global Green Space Report 2013. Exploring Our Relationship to Forests, Parks and Gardens around the Globe; Husqvarna AB: Stockholm, Sweden, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  71. Mennis, J.; Mason, M.; Ambrus, A. Urban greenspace is associated with reduced psychological stress among adolescents: A Geographic Ecological Momentary Assessment (GEMA) analysis of activity space. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 174, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Thompson, C.W.; Roe, J.; Aspinall, P.; Mitchell, R.; Clow, A.; Miller, D. More green space is linked to less stress in deprived communities: Evidence from salivary cortisol patterns. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 105, 221–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. Mapping Rates of Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders (ADVOs). NSW Government. Available online: www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Pages/bocsar_news/ADVO-Rates.aspx (accessed on 21 December 2020).
  74. Min, K.-B.; Kim, H.-J.; Kim, H.-J.; Min, J.-Y. Parks and green areas and the risk for depression and suicidal indicators. Int. J. Public Health 2017, 62, 647–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Wright, T. Western Sydney, Where Pollies Would have you Think Crime Control is at Sea; Sydney Morning Herald: Sydney, Australia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  76. Jackson, L.E. The relationship of urban design to human health and condition. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 64, 191–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Gidlöf-Gunnarsson, A.; Öhrström, E. Noise and well-being in urban residential environments: The potential role of perceived availability to nearby green areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 83, 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kaplan, S. The restorative effects of nature—Toward an integrative framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 1995, 15, 169–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kaplan, R.; Kaplan, S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  80. Maas, J.; Verheij, R.; Groenewegen, P.; De Vries, S.; Spreeuwenberg, P. Green space urbanity, and health: How strong is the relation? J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2006, 60, 587–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Maas, J.; Verheij, R.; De Vries, S.; Spreeuwenberg, P.; Schellevis, F.G.; Groenewegen, P.P. Morbidity is related to a green living environment. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2009, 63, 967–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  82. Maller, C.; Townsend, M.; Pryor, A.; Brown, P.; St Leger, L. Healthy nature healthy people: ‘contact with nature’ as an upstream health promotion intervention for populations. Health Promot. Int. 2006, 21, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  83. Thompson, C.W.; Aspinall, P.; Roe, J. Access to Green Space in Disadvantaged Urban Communities: Evidence of Salutogenic Effects Based on Biomarker and Self-report Measures of Wellbeing. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 153, 10–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Bird, W. Natural Thinking, Investigating the Links between the Natural Environment, Biodiversity and Mental Health; Royal Society for the Protection of Birds: Sandy, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  85. Carrus, G.; Scopelliti, M.; Lafortezza, R.; Colangelo, G.; Ferrini, F.; Salbitano, F.; Agrimi, M.; Portoghesi, L.; Semenzato, P.; Sanesi, G. Go greener, feel better? The positive effects of biodiversity on the well-being of individuals visiting urban and peri-urban green areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 134, 221–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Marselle, M.; Irvine, K.; Warber, S. Examining group walks in nature and multiple aspects of well-Being: A large-scale study. Ecopsychology 2014, 6, 134–147. [Google Scholar]
  87. Pretty, J.; Peacock, J.; Sellens, M.; Griffin, M. The mental and physical health outcomes of green exercise. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2005, 15, 319–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Tzoulas, K.; Korpela, K.; Venn, S.; Yli-Pelkonen, V.; Kaźmierczak, A.; Niemela, J.; James, P. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 81, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Mitchell, R.; Popham, F. Greenspace, urbanity and health: Relationships in England. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2007, 61, 681–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Gascon, M.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Martínez, D.; Dadvand, P.; Rojas-Rueda, D.; Plasència, A.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. Residential green spaces and mortality: A systematic review. Environ. Int. 2016, 86, 60–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Söderback, I.; Söderström, M.; Schälander, E. Horticultural therapy: The ‘healing garden’ and gardening in reha-bilitation measures at Danderyd Hospital Rehabilitation Clinic, Sweden. Pediatric Rehabil. 2004, 7, 245–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Marcus, C. Healing gardens in hospitals. Interdiscip. Des. Res. e-J. 2007, 1, 1–27. [Google Scholar]
  93. Lau, S.S.Y.; Yang, F. Introducing Healing Gardens into a Compact University Campus: Design Natural Space to Create Healthy and Sustainable Campuses. Landsc. Res. 2009, 34, 55–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Lottrup, L.; Grahn, P.; Stigsdotter, U.K. Workplace greenery and perceived level of stress: Benefits of access to a green outdoor environment at the workplace. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 110, 5–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Krasny, M. and Tidball, K. Civic Ecology: Adaptation and Transformation from the Ground Up; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  96. Pudup, M.B. It takes a garden: Cultivating citizen-subjects in organized garden projects. Geoforum 2008, 39, 1228–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Kuo, F.; Sullivan, W. Environment and Crime in the Inner City: Does Vegetation Reduce Crime? Environ. Behav. 2001, 33, 343–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Kuo, F.; Bacaicoa, M.; Sullivan, W. Transforming inner-city landscapes: Trees, sense of safety and preference. Environ. Behav. 1998, 30, 28–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Okvat, H.; Zautra, A. Community gardening: A parsimonious path to individual, community, and environmental resilience. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2011, 47, 374–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Abhijith, K.; Kumar, P.; Gallagher, J.; McNabola, A.; Baldauf, R.; Pilla, F.; Broderick, B.; Di Sabatino, S.; Pulvirenti, B. Air pollution abatement performances of green infrastructure in open road and built-up street canyon environments—A review. Atmos. Environ. 2017, 162, 71–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Kumar, P.; Druckman, A.; Gallagher, J.; Gatersleben, B.; Allison, S.; Eisenman, T.S.; Hoang, U.; Hama, S.; Tiwari, A.; Sharma, A.; et al. The nexus between air pollution, green infrastructure and human health. Environ. Int. 2019, 133, 105181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Zupancic, T.; Westmacott, C.; Bulthuis, M. The Impact of Green Space on Heat and Air Pollution in Urban Communities: A Meta-Narrative Systemic Review; David Suzuki Foundation: Vancouver, ON, Canada, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  103. Hewitt, C.N.; Ashworth, K.; MacKenzie, A.R. Using green infrastructure to improve urban air quality (GI4AQ). Ambio 2020, 49, 62–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  104. Conversano, I.; del Conte, L.; Mulder, I. Research through Design for accounting values in design. In Proceedings of the 4th Biennial Research through Design Conference, Delft, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 19–22 March 2019. [Google Scholar]
  105. De Jong, T.M. Kleine Methodologie voor Ontwerpend Onderzoek; BOOM Uitgevers: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  106. Hauberg, J. Research by Design—A research strategy. Rev. Lusófona Arquit. Educ. Archit. Educ. J. 2011, 5, 46–56. [Google Scholar]
  107. Milburn, L.-A.S.; Brown, R.D. The relationship between research and design in landscape architecture. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 64, 47–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Roggema, R. Research by Design: Proposition for a Methodological Approach. Urban Sci. 2016, 1, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Rosemann, J. The Conditions of Research by Design in Practice. In Proceedings of the Research by Design: International Conference Faculy of Architecture Delft University of Technology in Co-Operation with the EAASE/AEEA, Delft, The Netherlands, 1–3 November 2000; Delft University Press: Delft, The Netherlands, 2001; pp. 63–68. [Google Scholar]
  110. Swann, C. Action Research and the Practice of Design. Des. Issues 2002, 18, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Chamberlain, P.; Bonsiepe, G.; Cross, N.; Keller, I.; Frens, J.; Buchanan, R.; Meroni, A.; Krippendorff, K.; Stappers, P.J.; Jonas, W.; et al. Design Research Now. In Design Research Now; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 41–54. [Google Scholar]
  112. Hocking, V.T. Designerly ways of knowing: What does design have to offer. In Tackling Wicked Problems through the Transdisciplinary Imagination; Brown, V.A., Harris, J.A., Russell, J.Y., Eds.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2010; pp. 242–250. [Google Scholar]
  113. Van den Hurk, B.; Siegmund, P.; Klein Tank, A. KNMI’14: Climate Change Scenarios for the 21st Century—A Netherlands Perspective; Scientific Report WR2014-01; KNMI: De Bilt, The Netherlands, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  114. Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu. Deltaporgramma 2021. 2020. Available online: https://dp2021.deltaprogramma.nl (accessed on 21 December 2020).
  115. INFRAM. Rapport Eerste Fase Beleidstafel Droogte; Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  116. Van de Vijver, F.; Leung, K. Methods and Data Analysis of Comparative Research; Allyn & Bacon: Boston MA, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  117. Denk, T. Comparative multilevel analysis: Proposal for a methodology. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2010, 13, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Barton, H. Eco-neighbourhoods: A review of projects. Local Environ. 1998, 3, 159–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Mougeot, L.J.A. For self-reliant cities: Urban food production in a globalizing South. In For Hunger-Proof Cities: Sustainable Urban Food Systems; Koc, M., MacRae, R., Mougeot, L.J.A., Welsh, J., Eds.; International Development Research Centre: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1999; pp. 11–25. [Google Scholar]
  120. Morris, D. Self-Reliant Cities; The New Rules Project: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  121. Shuman, M. Going Local: Creating Self-Reliant Communities in a Global Age; Routledge: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  122. Storey, J.B.; Baird, G. Towards the Self-Sufficient City Building. Trans. Inst. Prof. Eng. N. Z. 1999, 26, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  123. Tait, M. Urban villages as self-sufficient, integrated communities: A case study in London’s Docklands. Urban Des. Int. 2003, 8, 37–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Núñez-Ríos, J.E.; Aguilar-Gallegos, N.; Sánchez-García, J.Y.; Cardoso-Castro, P.P. Systemic Design for Food Self-Sufficiency in Urban Areas. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Karnib, A. A Quantitative Assessment Framework for Water, Energy and Food Nexus. Comput. Water Energy Environ. Eng. 2017, 6, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  126. Yang, Y.J.; Goodrich, J.A. Toward quantitative analysis of water-energy-urban-climate nexus for urban adaptation planning. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 2014, 5, 22–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Soininen, J. Spatial structure in ecological communities–a quantitative analysis. Oikos 2016, 125, 160–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Fry, T. Design Futuring; Zed Books: London, UK, 2009; pp. 71–77. [Google Scholar]
  129. Cornish, E. Futuring: The Exploration of the Future; World Future Society: Chicago IL, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  130. Shipley, R.; Newkirk, R. Vision and visioning in planning: What do these terms really mean? Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 1999, 26, 573–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Gaffikin, F.; Sterrett, K. New Visions for Old Cities: The Role of Visioning in Planning. Plan. Theory Pract. 2006, 7, 159–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Roggema, R. Adaptation to climate change: Does spatial planning help? Swarm planning does! Manag. Nat. Resour. Sustain. Dev. Ecol. Hazards II 2009, 127, 161–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  133. Gladwell, M. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference; Little, Brown and Company: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  134. Roggema, R. Swarming Landscapes: The Art of Designing for Climate Adaptation; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; p. 260. [Google Scholar]
  135. Portugali, J. Self-Organisation and the City; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  136. Condon, P.M. Design Charrettes for Sustainable Communities; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  137. Lennertz, B.; Lutzenhiser, A. The Charrette Handbook. The Essential Guide for Accelerated Collaborative Community Planning; The American Planning Association: Chicago, IL, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  138. Roggema, R.; Martin, J.; Horne, R. Sharing the climate adaptive dream: The benefits of the charrette approach. In Proceedings of the ANZRSAI Conference, Canberra, Australia, 6–9 December 2011; AERU Research Unit: Canterburry, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  139. Roggema, R. The Design Charrette: Ways to Envision Sustainable Futures; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; p. 335. [Google Scholar]
  140. McHarg, I.L. Design with Nature; Natural History Press: New York, NY, USA, 1969. [Google Scholar]
  141. Reumer, J. Wildpark Rotterdam. De stad als Natuurgebied; Historische Uitgeverij: Groningen, The Netherlands, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  142. Roggema, R. Landscape First! Nature-Based Design for Sydney’s Third City. In Nature-Driven Urbanism. Contemporary Urban Design Thinking; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; Volume 2, pp. 81–110. [Google Scholar]
  143. Girardet, H. Creating Regenerative Cities; Routledge: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  144. Girardet, H. Regenerative Cities. In Studies in Ecological Economics; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 183–204. [Google Scholar]
  145. Du Plessis, C. Towards a regenerative paradigm for the built environment. Build. Res. Inf. 2012, 40, 7–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Thompson, G.; Newman, P. Urban fabrics and urban metabolism–from sustainable to regenerative cities. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 132, 218–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Roggema, R. ReciproCity, Giving Instead of Taking. Inaugural Lecture; Hanze University of Applied Sciences: Groningen, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  148. Sijmons, D. Contrast, Contact & Contract, Pathways to Pacify Urbanization and Nature. In Nature-Driven Urbanism. Contemporary Urban Design Thinking; Roggema, R., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; Volume 2, pp. 9–42. [Google Scholar]
  149. Rouse, W.B. Design for Success: A Human-Centered Approach to Designing Successful Products and Systems; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  150. Harland, R.G.; Santos, M.C. From greed to need: Notes on human-centred design. In Proceedings of the AHRC Postgraduate Conference 2009, Loughborough, UK, 1–2 July 2009; pp. 141–158. [Google Scholar]
  151. Brennan, A.; Yeuk-Sze, L. Environmental Ethics. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall Edition); Zalta, E.N., Ed.; Stanford University: Stanford CA, USA, 2011; Available online: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/ethics-environmental (accessed on 21 December 2020).
  152. Davoudi, S. Climate Change, Securitisation of Nature, and Resilient Urbanism. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 2014, 32, 360–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  153. Stoltz, J. Perceived Sensory Dimensions: A Human-Centred Approach to Environmental Planning and Design. Ph.D. Thesis, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  154. Mccormick, K. Cities, Nature and Innovation: New Directions; Lund University: Lund, Sweden, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  155. European Commission. Towards an EU Research and Innovation Policy Agenda for Nature-Based Solutions & Re-Naturing Cities; Final Report of the Horizon 2020 Expert Group on ‘Nature-Based Solutions and Re-Naturing Cities’; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxemburg, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  156. Simpson, S.; Marshall, P.; Crumley, C.L. Nature’s Web: Rethinking Our Place on Earth. Environ. Hist. 1996, 1, 106–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Capra, F. The Web of Life: A New Synthesis of Mind and Matter; HarperCollins: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  158. Roggema, R.; Tillie, N.; Keeffe, G. Landscape first: Thriving nature-based urbanism in Western Sydney. Land. forthcoming.
  159. Roggema, R. (Ed.) Nature-Driven Urbanism; Contemporary Urban Design Thinking, Volume 2; Springer: Dordrecht, Switzerland; Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany; London, UK, 2020; 359p. [Google Scholar]
  160. Willett, W.; Rockström, J.; Loken, B.; Springmann, M.; Lang, T.; Vermeulen, S.; Garnett, T.; Tilman, D.; DeClerck, F.; Wood, A.; et al. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 2019, 393, 447–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Schuetze, T.; Chelleri, L. Integrating Decentralized Rainwater Management in Urban Planning and Design: Flood Resilient and Sustainable Water Management Using the Example of Coastal Cities in The Netherlands and Taiwan. Water 2013, 5, 593–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Sustainability 13 02368 g001 550
Figure 1. The adaptation gap and wicked problems [19].
Figure 1. The adaptation gap and wicked problems [19].
Sustainability 13 02368 g001
Sustainability 13 02368 g002 550
Figure 2. Zernike campus in the northern fringe of the City of Groningen.
Figure 2. Zernike campus in the northern fringe of the City of Groningen.
Sustainability 13 02368 g002
Sustainability 13 02368 g003 550
Figure 3. Trends in bird populations open farmland in the Netherlands (in blue) [31].
Figure 3. Trends in bird populations open farmland in the Netherlands (in blue) [31].
Sustainability 13 02368 g003
Sustainability 13 02368 g004 550
Figure 4. Landscape change in the Marne area as a result of land consolidation, from 1925 to 1975.
Figure 4. Landscape change in the Marne area as a result of land consolidation, from 1925 to 1975.
Sustainability 13 02368 g004
Sustainability 13 02368 g005 550
Figure 5. Methodology.
Figure 5. Methodology.
Sustainability 13 02368 g005
Sustainability 13 02368 g006 550
Figure 6. Relationships of nature and the city [148].
Figure 6. Relationships of nature and the city [148].
Sustainability 13 02368 g006
Sustainability 13 02368 g007 550
Figure 7. The Zernike amoeba, regenerating its material flows.
Figure 7. The Zernike amoeba, regenerating its material flows.
Sustainability 13 02368 g007
Sustainability 13 02368 g008 550
Figure 8. Amounts of food for a healthy diet, recalculated for the Dutch context. Based on [160].
Figure 8. Amounts of food for a healthy diet, recalculated for the Dutch context. Based on [160].
Sustainability 13 02368 g008
Sustainability 13 02368 g009 550
Figure 9. Area needed to produce food in m2.
Figure 9. Area needed to produce food in m2.
Sustainability 13 02368 g009
Sustainability 13 02368 g010 550
Figure 10. Area available for food production in and on buildings.
Figure 10. Area available for food production in and on buildings.
Sustainability 13 02368 g010
Sustainability 13 02368 g011 550
Figure 11. Moeder Zernike embraces fresh and saltwater, creating an inversed wierde for freshwater storage.
Figure 11. Moeder Zernike embraces fresh and saltwater, creating an inversed wierde for freshwater storage.
Sustainability 13 02368 g011
Sustainability 13 02368 g012 550
Figure 12. Cross-section, showing the different environments and water features.
Figure 12. Cross-section, showing the different environments and water features.
Sustainability 13 02368 g012
Sustainability 13 02368 g013 550
Figure 13. Moeder Zernike as a freshwater reservoir in a saline landscape.
Figure 13. Moeder Zernike as a freshwater reservoir in a saline landscape.
Sustainability 13 02368 g013
Sustainability 13 02368 g014 550
Figure 14. Foodscape of Zernike.
Figure 14. Foodscape of Zernike.
Sustainability 13 02368 g014
Sustainability 13 02368 g015 550
Figure 15. Waterscape of Zernike.
Figure 15. Waterscape of Zernike.
Sustainability 13 02368 g015
Sustainability 13 02368 g016 550
Figure 16. Ecoscape of Moeder Zernike.
Figure 16. Ecoscape of Moeder Zernike.
Sustainability 13 02368 g016
Table
Table 1. Calculation of rainwater amounts for the Zernike campus.
Table 1. Calculation of rainwater amounts for the Zernike campus.
Current Climate
(1981–2010)		2085 Wl Scenario Based on 2019 Weather (+3.5 Degrees/No Changes in Currents)2085 Wl Scenario Based on 2019 Weather (+3.5 Degrees/No Changes in Currents)2085 Wh Scenario Based on Climate Data (+3.5 Degrees, +Changes in Currents)2085 Wh Scenario Based on 2019 Weather (+3.5 Degrees, +Changes in Currents)
MonthRain (In Olympic Pools)Cumulative
Jan710710580807.2660.3660,3937937768768
Feb40011102101269.7247.8908.155014873031071
Mar39015008801732.81016.81924.9571205812082279
Apr−1301370−2801635.5−269.81655.1−1341924−3021977
May−2401130−5601436−567.51087.6−251.81672.2−610.213,668
Jun−1101020−2001389.6−149.9937.7−105.41566.8−206.21160.6
Jul−140880−7501123.6−845.592.2−468.81098−938.5222.1
Aug10890−1401022.5−243.6−151.4−292.5805.5−408−185.9
Sep340123010201275.5899747.671.8877.3595.4409.5
Oct55017808201862.6874.651622.25621.41498.7923.81333.3
Nov74025205502651.25586.32208.558312329.7618.21951.5
Dec76032805203460.9554.052762.6852.23181.9583.42534.9
3280 3460.9 2762.6 3181.9 2534.9
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Roggema, R. From Nature-Based to Nature-Driven: Landscape First for the Design of Moeder Zernike in Groningen. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2368. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042368

AMA Style

Roggema R. From Nature-Based to Nature-Driven: Landscape First for the Design of Moeder Zernike in Groningen. Sustainability. 2021; 13(4):2368. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042368

Chicago/Turabian Style

Roggema, Rob. 2021. "From Nature-Based to Nature-Driven: Landscape First for the Design of Moeder Zernike in Groningen" Sustainability 13, no. 4: 2368. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042368

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop