Water Robust Building CcSP COM23
In the future the urbanisation process in The Netherlands will continue, resulting in a higher economic and societal value of the urban area. This will therefore lead to an increased vulnerability of this urbanized area to extreme weather conditions. Drought, heat and stress due to excess water can have major consequences for the economy, environment and public health. The negative societal impact to which these situations lead are inevitable.
On top of that, the climate is changing, resulting in an increase in extreme weather conditions. The Netherlands can expect an increase in damage due to these conditions if these effects are ignored. To prevent these kinds of damages, now and in the future, additional focus is needed for spatial planning and urban land management.
The results of the definition study
Water resilient building is a methodology which is widely recognized as an effective way to ensure our environment is able to cope with climatic changes. Read the project final report or look at potential measures for Water Robust Building in the Dutch book 'Waterrobuust bouwen'.

Three step approach
Three steps structure the negotiation and design process that parties have to go through to select an appropriate set of measures to make a specific urban area more water robust. These three steps are outlined in the figure above.
- Step 1: Vulnerability analysis. A quantitative assessment of the effects and consequences of climate change and of ongoing urbanization on the local system. This local system is analysed with help of the Layers Approach
- Step 2: Decide on a comprehensive strategy to deal with the adverse effects and consequences assessed in Step 1. This strategy is based on the theory of the Vulnerability Framework
- Step 3: Selecting an appropriate set of measures from a catalogue of measures, using the results of Step 1 and Step 2. With help of the instruments and insights developed in Step 1 the effect of this set of measures can be assessed. And if the effect is considered insufficient a new set of measures is to be drafted
Although it is technically possible to reiterate the three step approach a full reprise is not recommended because of the strategic choice made in Step 2. This choice is based on fundamental considerations and it is hard to renegotiate these. Most common will be a long and difficult dialogue in Step 3 on the appropriate set of measures and on the funding.