Vancouver's Water Narrative Learning from Copenhagen & Rotterdam

Vancouver’s Water Narrative Learning From Copenhagen & Rotterdam

Ronja Helleshøj Sørensen

Collaboration between an intern at ACT (the Adaptation to Climate Change Team), Faculty of Environment, SFU and the City of Vancouver’s Green Infrastructure Team ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank Wendy de Hoog, Melina Scholefeld, and the rest of the Green Infrastructure Team at the City of Vancouver for helping me come up with this research topic and for letting me dig deep into Vancouver’s transition path towards becoming a Water Sensitive City.

My deepest thanks goes to my interviewees. The valuable information you have given me has allowed me to produce this report.

I would like to thank Deborah Harford from ACT (the Adaptation to Climate Change Team) at Simon Fraser University, with whom I have been doing an internship in Vancouver. She put me in contact with the City of Vancouver, which launched this project.

Last but not least, a special thanks to my supervisor Maj-Britt Quitzau from Aalborg University, Copenhagen. Without her this work would not have become a reality. Thank you for spending your evenings on long-distance Skype calls with me and supporting me with all your great comments and ideas.

January 25th, 2019

2 CONTENTS

2 Acknowledgments 24 4.2.1 Living with water 4 Executive Summary 25 4.2.2 An architecture competition 6 1. Introduction and Background leading to immediate action 7 1.1 Research Aim 26 4.2.3 A global leader in urban water resilience 7 2. Water Sensitivity as a Concept 27 4.2.4 Benthemplein water square 7 2.1 Water Sensitive City 29 4.2.5 Lessons learned from Rotterdam 8 2.2 Urban Water Transition 30 4.2.6 Summary—Rotterdam’s water 9 2.3 Need for a Water Narrative narrative 10 3. Methodology 30 4.3 The City of Vancouver—a Water 10 3.1 Case Study Selection Sensitive City on the rise 10 3.2 Interviews Conducted 30 4.3.1 The need for shifting focus 11 4. Case Descriptions towards a holistic approach 11 4.1 Copenhagen—The City of 33 4.3.2 New ways of thinking emerging Cloudburst Adaptation 34 4.3.3 At the “why and what for” stage of 12 4.1.1 Changes in interpretations of the water sensitivity harbour 35 4.3.4 The Cambie Corridor project—a 14 4.1.2 A cloudburst leading to immediate game-changer? action 37 4.3.5 Summary—Vancouver’s emerging 15 4.1.3 Copenhagen’s Climate Adaptation water narrative Plan 37 5. Recommendations 16 4.1.4 The frst Climate-Resilient 39 6. Implications and conclusions Neighbourhood of Copenhagen 39 6.1 The challenge of reaching all- 21 4.1.5 Lessons learned from Copenhagen encompassing water sensitivity 22 4.1.6 Summary—Copenhagen’s water 40 6.2 Concluding remarks narrative 41 7. References 22 4.2 Rotterdam—the city living with water

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of Vancouver has begun an important transition journey in terms of its water management. The appointment of a Green Infrastructure Team, the research and development of the Rain City Strategy, the approval of a new Utility Service Plan, and the development of Rainwater and Groundwater Management Bulletins exemplify how Vancouver’s water management methods are changing. These initiatives are the result of City staff champions’ visionary and innovative work, as well as the City’s realization of the pressing need to fnd alternative solutions for handling rainwater in a growing city, and recognition of the adverse effects of climate change.

This report investigates how far Vancouver has come in its efforts to update its water management methods. It uses indicators associated with an Australian approach to defning a “Water Sensitive City” to assess the kind of advancements needed for Vancouver to practice truly holistic management of the urban water cycle. The Water Sensitive City concept advocates for holistic management of the urban water cycle in order to protect and enhance the health of receiving waterways, reduce food risk, and create public spaces that harvest, clean, and recycle water. This report draws on a comparative analysis of how the European cities of Copenhagen (Denmark) and Rotterdam (Netherlands) have achieved signifcant advancements in water management, in order to identify recommendations for how Vancouver could advance towards becoming a Water Sensitive City. Based on interviews with key stakeholders at the City of Vancouver and the comparative studies of Copenhagen and Rotterdam, the report recommends the following:

1. A compelling vision and clearly articulated narrative Copenhagen and Rotterdam each exhibit strong narratives that changed the city’s urban fabric and perspective towards water. These narratives are not necessarily specifcally focused on being water sensitive, but rather about improving quality of life for residents. These narratives make a compelling connection between the acute need to make extensive investments in water management systems, and the vision of creating a better city. Copenhagen and Rotterdam have clearly articulated narratives about how water can be handled in more sensitive ways that support creating more livable cities. In Vancouver, this narrative is in its early stages. Learning from Copenhagen and Rotterdam would involve developing more holistic thinking about how water resilience, water systems, and urban qualities go hand in hand. However, the narratives for each city are different, as the core drivers are highly contextual. The challenge for Vancouver, therefore, lies in identifying the broader holistic drivers for changing water management. 4 2. Alignment in organisational objectives, responsibilities, and capacities Extreme precipitation events have resulted in Copenhagen developing innovative solutions for adaptation to climate change impacts. For instance, parks are designed both as retention ponds during heavy rainfall and recreational urban spaces during normal weather conditions. Rotterdam has adopted similar planning and design practices supported by programs and strategies that aim to enhance urban resilience while increasing livability. Vancouver has, through the Greenest City Action Plan, become a front runner on numerous environmental practices. Yet water management, especially rainwater management, has been slow to develop as a City priority, partly due to numerous pressing issues including homelessness and affordability. City of Vancouver interviewees, and the Copenhagen and Rotterdam case studies, emphasize that it’s best to integrate water management with other City priorities. Vancouver could beneft from identifying these synergies and associated opportunities to develop a Water Sensitive City narrative.

3. Higher and broader professional capacities Climate change adaptation and associated design solutions are emerging, and cities will beneft from a willingness to experiment while accepting that some risks accom- panies these design solutions. Rotterdam has made itself a hub for knowledge and experience exchange with regard to making cities resilient, a strategic move that has resulted in engagement with cities worldwide. Copenhagen has invested in major pilot projects that function as good practice examples and are presented all over the world as successful ways to combine water management with livability. Interview results suggest that, even with extensive engagement and education, an internal understanding of integrated water management practices is limited in the City of Vancouver, and highlights the need for more education, capacity building and training sessions. Heightened literacy in this area could contribute towards developing the narrative needed to advance the City’s adoption of efforts to become more water sensitive. Furthermore, based on the Copenhagen and Rotterdam case studies, it appears that Vancouver could beneft from hosting water-related conferences and other focal events, raising awareness of the initiatives already being undertaken, as well as providing opportunities for Vancouver to broaden its professional capacities.

4. Greater interest from, and more engagement with, the community The pilot project examples from Copenhagen and Rotterdam describe in detail the importance of citizen engagement. Through small-scale demonstration projects in areas such as St. Kjelds in Copenhagen, citizens learned about climate adaptation through, for instance, making raingardens and learning about the benefts of nature and natural assets. Similarly, in Zoho, Rotterdam, school children were given the opportunity to offer input into the design of what is now a world-famous “water plaza,” Benthemplein, which functions as a showcase for the City’s water sensitive design. These two cases highlight that, in order for a water narrative to emerge, it would be helpful for Vancouver to invest in citizen education and engagement, as well as listen- ing to the interests and values of residents with regards to water management.

In conclusion, this report illustrates that in order for Vancouver and other cities to become truly water sensitive, staff must be aligned on integrated water management and water sensitivity, must practice capacity building within the industry, and must understand the benefts associated with an integrated water management approach. Only in these ways will true transformation occur.

5 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

With sea levels rising, projected increases in precipitation and heavy storm events due to climate change, plus urban growth and aging infrastructures, there is extreme pressure on aquatic ecosystems, water quality, food management, and urban water management more generally (IPCC, 2018). Traditionally, only one sector was responsible for handling sewage: sewer engineers. Many Western cities were designed with combined sewer systems, whereby stormwater and sewage are mixed in one pipe during heavy rain events, suggesting that sewer departments have typically also been responsible for handling stormwater (Liu & Jensen, 2018). However, as seen with the increase in urban food-related disasters, traditional water management approaches are no longer adequate, and cities are increasingly looking for alternative ways of keeping their cities safe and resilient to the adverse effects of climate change (Meerow & Newell, 2017). Numerous concepts have emerged in an attempt to come up with a unifying vision of an urban water management approach that not only meets a city’s water needs, but also delivers a range of associated benefts to enhance liveability and resilience.

This report considers the concept of the “Water Sensitive City,” which presents a holistic and all-encompassing way to manage the urban water cycle, whereby technological development and innovative urban designs, such as green infrastructure (GI) solutions, can help cities stay resilient (Brown, Rogers and Werbeloff, 2016). Green infrastructure is the “infrastructure of green spaces, water and built systems, e.g. for- ests, wetlands, parks, green roofs and walls that together can contribute to ecosystem resilience and human benefts through co-system services” (Derkzen et al., 2017:107). While cities are exploring innovative urban water management approaches, developing a compelling water narrative can help guide the transition process (fgure 1). The City of Vancouver is attempting to create such a water narrative, which will guide the city towards becoming water sensitive. However, the path towards water sensitivity is not easy; Wong and Brown (2009) claim that there is not yet an example of a truly Water Sensitive City in the world. Nevertheless, cities that lead on distinct and varying attributes of the water sensitive approach offer lessons for the City of Vancouver. Accordingly, this report presents two case studies in two cities that 6 have managed to create a compelling water narrative, guiding them towards water sensitivity. The report is structured as follows. First, it describes the concept of “Water Sensitive City” and presents the related Urban Water Transition Framework. A detailed description of Copenhagen and Rotterdam’s paths towards water sensitivity is then presented, followed by an examination of already-existing changes occurring in the City of Vancouver. Finally, the three cities are compared, and recommendations offered on how the City of Vancouver can reach a higher level of water sensitivity. These recommendations are based on the knowledge gleaned from the Copenhagen and Rotterdam case studies and insights from ffteen interviews with City of Vancouver staff.

1.1 Research aim Copenhagen in Denmark and Rotterdam in the Netherlands are world famous for their innovative water management approaches. Examining how their water narratives were constructed and how they have seeped into policies, plans, and actions in the daily work of city staff in Copenhagen and Rotterdam offers suggestions for how the City of Vancouver could continue its work towards greater water sensitivity.

2. WATER SENSITIVITY AS A CONCEPT

The following section focuses on how integrated water management is often understood as integration of different water management systems strategies and how environmental awareness, ecosystems, and water quality issues should be considered. However, a more advanced understanding of integration suggests an all-encompassing holistic approach in which urban design, land use planning, and the built environment are combined with water management – as suggested by the Water Sensitive City concept.

2.1 Water Sensitive City As stated with high confdence in the latest IPCC special report, “limiting the risks from global warming of 1.5°C in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication implies system transitions that can be enabled by an increase of adaptation and mitigation investments, policy instruments, the acceleration of technological innovation and behaviour changes” (IPCC, 2018: 29). These system transitions are immi- nently needed, and numerous researchers are attempting to address the complexity of adaptive systems when developing strategies for transitioning to more sustainable practices and more climate-proof cities (Fratini et al., 2012). If cities are to adapt to new ways of handling stormwater, they need to shift approaches to water management. Yet Werbeloff, Brown and Loorbach (2016) argue that there is much uncertainty about both how to achieve such sustainability-related transitions in practice, and what transition advocates and actors can do to catalyze and steer regime transformation. Here regimes are defned as strongly rooted systems that entail interrelated and stable structures characterised by established technologies, stocks of knowledge, user practices, norms and regulations (Werbeloff, Brown & Loorbach, 2016). A transition to sustainability relies on transforming the cultures, structures and practices of a system in terms of the dominant ways of thinking (i.e., shared narratives and paradigms), organizing (i.e., legal, organisational structures), and doing (i.e., pilot projects, infrastructure implementation) 7 (Geels, 2002; Werbeloff, Brown & Loorbach, 2016). Furthermore, there is a need for evi- dence of how transition is operationalised in order to better understand the practical dynamics of regime change (Werbeloff, Brown and Loorbach, 2016). In this context, many cities worldwide are struggling with the complexities of combining integrated water management with land use planning, and working to identify what water narratives are needed in order to support the transition towards becoming a Water Sensitive City. Various concepts aimed at helping water management transitions to occur have emerged, such as “One Water” and “Sponge Cities,” as well as the “Water Sensitive City” concept on which this study focuses. The concept of a “Water Sensitive City” is based on “holistic management of the integrated water cycle to protect and enhance the health of receiving waterways, reduce food risk, and create public spaces that harvest, clean, and recycle water” (Brown, Rogers and Werbeloff, 2016: 6). According to the founders of the concept, the Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities (CRCWSC, 2018), in a Water Sensitive City, one must interact with the urban water cycle in ways that provide water security, enhance and protect the health of all water bodies, mitigate food risk and damage, and create public spaces that collect, clean, and recycle water. As such, a Water Sensitive City is resilient, liveable, productive, and sustainable (CRCWSC, 2018). This concept supports the assumption that new narratives about urban development and water management, plus societal shifts and technological changes, are needed in order for a transition to occur.

2.2 Urban water transition Based on research into the states through which Australian cities transition towards water sensitivity, Brown et al. (2009) propose a framework for underpinning the development of urban water transition policy and city-scale benchmarking at the macro scale. The Urban Water Transitions Framework (see Figure 1) identifes six distinct developmental states that cities move through on their path toward increased water sensitivity (CRCWSC, 2018).

Figure 1 Urban Water Transitions Framework (Brown et al., 2009 citied in Brown, Rogers & Werbeloff, 2016: 13) 8 The frst three states in the Urban Water Transitions Framework meet largely util- itarian expectations of supplying water, protecting public health, and mitigating the impacts of foods. However, the following three states mark a signifcant shift beyond survival needs toward a more sophisticated goal of greater water self-suffciency and reduced environmental impact (Brown, Rogers & Werbeloff, 2016). The “Cumulative Socio-Political Drivers” refect a shift in the normative (values and leadership) and regulative (rules and systems) dimensions of the hydro-social contract. The “Service Delivery Functions” represent the cognitive (dominant knowledge and thinking) response (Brown et al., 2009). While there exist numerous workshop ideas and guidelines developed by the Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities of how water sensitivity can be reached (CRCWSC, 2018), the concept seems limited in its explanation of why specifc transition paths are chosen rather than others. Here, the report presents a close examination of the water narratives of Copenhagen and Rotterdam, examining how these cities are striving towards water sensitivity and how the City of Vancouver could potentially learn from them.

2.3 Need for a water narrative The path towards becoming a Water Sensitive City is undoubtedly complex; there is no “one size fts all” approach to such transitions. Rather, “transformational change unfolds in context-specifc ways, depending on factors such as the existing city framework and environment, regime players and actor strategies” (Werbeloff, Brown & Loorbach et al., 2016: 124). For true transformational change, there needs to be a mutually reinforcing shift in the dominant cultures, structures, and practices of a system (Werbeloff, Brown & Loorbach, 2016: 127). Werbeloff, Brown and Loorbach et al. (2016: 127) present three different patterns of change:

• Culture-driven: a strong collaborative network of stakeholder representatives

• Structure-driven: actors in infuential positions driving transformational change

• Practice-driven: crisis or game-changing event that crystallizes the need for a new approach

However, this division of change patterns is arguably too simplistic. Transformations are rarely the result of a single driver of change, as will be exemplifed through the analysis of the Copenhagen and Rotterdam case studies, as well as that of the City of Vancouver, to some extent. Furthermore, as described in the CRCWSC Guidance manual for strategists and policy makers for moving toward Water Sensitive Cities:

“Narratives are a useful indicator of the dominant perception of current practices, and the change in narratives over time can usefully reveal a city’s current phase of transition. For example, in the early phases of a transition, the dominant advocating narrative may refect a realisation that stormwater pollution is causing poor waterway health, while the dominant contesting narrative rejects this assertion. By the end of a transition, the advocating narrative may be that improved stormwater management helps deliver enhanced liveability outcomes, while the contesting narrative may challenge the value of improved stormwater management by diminishing its ability to address society’s goals.”

(Brown, Rogers & Werbeloff, 2016: 16).

9 It would seem that the extent to which a city has reached a common understanding of the benefts associated with a holistic water management approach defnes the likeli- hood that it will transition towards becoming water sensitive. It can therefore be argued that a fundamental aspect of transitioning from traditional stormwater management towards the becoming a fully Water Sensitive City is to have a clear and compelling narrative with which everyone can identify, and which is interpreted similarly by all actors involved. The overall aim of the case descriptions of Copenhagen and Rotterdam is to show how their water narratives have indeed led towards transformations in water management. Insights from these cities are then used to develop recommendations for the City of Vancouver on the creation of their water narrative.

3. METHODOLOGY

This research is the result of a case study analysis of Copenhagen, Rotterdam, and Vancouver, conducted through analyses of key city reports and strategies, as well as interviews with relevant actors.

3.1 Case study selection The City of Vancouver can be characterized as an emerging Water Sensitive City in the early stages of transformative changes in the water management domain. According to Werbeloff, Brown and Loorbach (2016), a full transformation to water sensitivity can take up to thirty years; hence, it is diffcult to encompass the transition process in one case study analysis. However, examining contemporary cases of transformative change remains useful for generating timely insights that can inform unfolding transitions (Ibid.). The Copenhagen and Rotterdam cases have been chosen to inform this project based on their successful implementation of climate adaptation projects related to water management.

3.2 Interviews The three interviewees for Copenhagen and Rotterdam were selected based on their expertise and frst-hand experience working with climate adaptation projects in the two cities. Questions focused on signifcant turning points in the trajectory towards institutionalisation of the innovation, actor strategies, and the evolution of change across the culture, structure, and practice domains. It must be noted, that due to time constraints these interviews alongside a detailed document analysis of each city represent the basis of the data collection for the two cases. Further research into the two cities ought to be conducted in a future research but this was deemed outwith the scopes of this research. For the City of Vancouver, ffteen interviews were conducted with City staff across a wide array of departments and sectors. These were selected in collaboration with the Green Infrastructure team at the City of Vancouver who, prior to this research, carried out a screening process to identify which actors play a role in water management as well as those who should but might not be involved yet for various reasons. Hence, the interviews represent the opinions of individual staff across the spectrum. Interviewees were asked general questions with regard to their position and main tasks, as well as prompted to refect on whether water is part of their work. They were also asked about the main achievements and challenges in their work— not necessarily focused on water, but more generally. Lastly, all interviewees were asked to identify the main narrative

10 used in their work, to get a better understanding of the city’s current position in terms of constructing a water narrative.

4. CASE DESCRIPTIONS

The following section presents case studies of frst Copenhagen, then Rotterdam, analyzing the drivers for shifting perceptions of water in both cities. In both cases, the main catalysts for change are explored and their strategic transformation towards water sensitivity examined. The analysis then considers major events that are currently assisting a change in the City of Vancouver’s water narrative. Section 5 compares the three cities and make suggestions for the City of Vancouver based on the case study fndings.

4.1 Copenhagen—the city of cloudburst adaptation Copenhagen is the capital of Denmark, with a population of 569,557 in 2014 (Liu & Jensen, 2018). In 1993, the municipality of Copenhagen was nearly bankrupt, and the city was put under administration by the central government. In the 1990s, there were no long-term plans for Copenhagen’s development, which made the city unattractive to investors. Yet today Copenhagen is world-renowned for being a sustainable city with high ambitions. Midtgaard (2016) argues that the key drivers of change that transformed Copenhagen included a focus on long-term development, transition of post-industrial areas to housing and recreation, regeneration of deprived neighbourhoods, and new urban development, as well as strategic planning and high sustainability ambitions, combined agendas, and engaged citizens. Table 1 presents some of the main strategies and actions taken by the City towards this fundamental change.

Table 1 Timeline of relevant strategies and plans with regard to the changing water narrative in Copenhagen

When What

Industrial period The inner harbour was a main transportation corridor of raw materials and goods, leading to extensive contamination from oil spills, industrial waste, and algae

1971 Denmark’s Environment Ministry founded (frst of its kind in Europe)

Up until 1980s The inner harbour served as industrial infrastructure, being a transport corridor of industrial freight as well as a recipient of overfows from the wastewater infrastructure

Late 1980s–90s The municipality of Copenhagen was nearly bankrupt and the city was put under administration by the central government

1989 First municipal plan launched

2000 Harbour Plan launched

11 When What

2001 First Architectural Policy implemented

2002 First harbour bath opened

2008 Copenhagen was nominated the most liveable city by the lifestyle magazine Monocle; repeated in nomination in 2013 and 2014

2011 Long-term bicycle plan adopted

2011 Copenhagen’s Climate Adaptation Plan implemented

2012 Cloudburst Management Plan implemented

2013 Copenhagen’s Climate Adaptation Plan received the world’s largest design award, the INDEX: Award

2014 Copenhagen received EU Commission’s European Green Capital Award

2015 Copenhagen 2025 Climate Plan (CO2 neutral by 2025) launched

4.1.1 Changes in interpretations of the harbour

For Copenhagen, located by the sea, water has always played a major role. Through the industrial period, the inner harbour was a main transportation corridor of raw materials and goods, leading to extensive contamination from oil spills, industrial waste, and algae (IWA, n.d.). In the 1960s and early ‘70s, dead fsh were not an uncommon sight (Raidt, 2015). Furthermore, close to one hundred overfow channels fed wastewater into the harbour right up until 1995, contributing even further to the heavily polluted water (State of Green, 2018; Jensen et al., 2015b). As the city has a combined sewer system, a mixture of sewage and rainwater spilled into the harbour during heavy downpours. Water was perceived solely as a means of transporting goods along the harbour. Despite this challenging history, the frst public harbour swimming bath in the inner harbour of Copenhagen opened in 2002. In this section a closer examination of this transition is being discussed. According to Jensen et al. (2015a), the harbour of Copenhagen has gone through three major phases as it moved from being an industrial site towards being a showcase of urban liveability, exemplifying a shift in the city’s narrative about what water is and what it can be used for. Up until the 1980s, as noted above, the harbour served as industrial infrastructure, serving as a transport corridor for industrial freight as well as a recipient of overfows from the wastewater infrastructure. Water and the harbour were not associated with an urban space for people during this period. In Copenhagen’s 12 houses, no major windows overlook the waterfront, as there was nothing of importance there and nothing aesthetic to look at. From 1985 until 2002, the focus shifted towards seeing the harbour as an ecological habitat. The city embraced a new aim to achieve biological water quality standards with a ffty per cent reduction of overfows from sewers, clean-up for contaminated sediments, and development of retention capacity. This shift was precipitated by new environmental approaches that transformed the perception of the harbour as an industrial site into one of ecological habitat importance. In the late 1990s, these developments informed new visions of recreational wildlife experiences such as a harbour aquarium (Jensen et al., 2015a). The city’s water narrative began to evolve as a result of this new focus. Since 2002, the harbour has become a site of urban liveability. Numerous factors led to the opening of the frst harbour bath (Figure 2). One was a comment from the mayor of Stockholm, Sweden about how the water of Copenhagen was not as clean as the water in Stockholm, in which people can swim. Another important event was a diving show in the harbour that attracted great public interest and inspired the diving association to organize a Figure 2 The Islands Brygge harbour bath, the frst of the harbour baths signature campaign to promote a permanent diving and to open in the inner harbour of Copenhagen in 2002 (Alamy, n.d). swimming facility in the harbour basin. Instead of using the water of the city to provide nature-based experiences to escape urban life, swimming represented an integrated urban practice whereby the harbour would become “nature for the city” rather than “nature as an alternative to the city,” demonstrating yet another shift in the water narrative (Jensen et al., 2015a). Indeed, Jensen et al. (2015a) argue that, rather than offering an isolated experience of natural wildlife (i.e., nature in the city), the harbour baths integrated the water into a new, active, “green,” urban recreational activity (i.e., nature for the city). Interpretations of Copenhagen’s harbour have therefore changed considerably. By revitalizing the old industrial harbour into a site of urban living and recreation, the practice of swimming in the harbour has been crucial in combining and catalyzing a series of broader urban transformations relating to wastewater infrastructure, industrial activities, urban development, and international marketing of the city (Jensen et al., 2015a). The creation of the frst harbour bath was not the end result of an overall master plan, but rather the outcome of a contingent interplay between embedded actors’ myopic and navigational actions over a period of twenty years (Jensen et al., 2015a). Instead of seeing the water solely as a means of trans- Figure 3 Results of the July 2, 2011 cloudburst with combined sewers porting goods, Copenhageners now see water as an asset, inundating the main road out of the city (City of Copenhagen, 2012). a valued resource. Yet, the effects of climate change also 13 mean that Copenhagen needs to handle water and especially wastewater, elsewhere, not only in the harbour. Indeed, increasing precipitation, especially cloudbursts, have acted as powerful events leading to change, as section 4.1.2 shows.

4.1.2 A cloudburst leading to immediate action

Copenhagen experienced cloudbursts in 2010, 2011, 2014, and 2016 (Ziersen et al., 2017:338). Yet Denmark’s worst rainfall on record (i.e., since 1933) was recorded on July 2, 2011, when more than 50 mm fell in 30 minutes over Copenhagen and the surrounding areas (Ziersen et al., 2017). This destructive cloudburst left 50,000 homes without heat for a week, impacted over 90,000 insurance claims, and caused upwards of USD $1 billion (CAD $1.3 billion1) in property damage, transport delays, hospitals, production halts, and threatened emergency services (Asla, 2016; Jensen et al., 2015). The 2011 cloudburst was a game-changer in Copenhagen’s water narrative. It gained high political attention, both nationally and locally, and accelerated decision-making about the need to act. This led to the creation of the Cloudburst Management Plan with new service levels, planning for 100-year events, and changes in legislation on fnancing tools for surface solutions. In fact, with an increase in cloudbursts, it became evident that the cost of doing nothing would create losses of CAD $79 million a year (City of Copenhagen, cited in Asla, 2016). In the wake of the July 2011 cloudburst disaster, the City of Copenhagen and HOFOR, the metropolitan area’s utility company, agreed on a €1.3 billion (CAD $2 bil- lion2) Cloudburst Management Plan, with a twenty-year timeframe, designed to make Greater Copenhagen more resilient to cloudbursts in particular, and heavier rainfall in general (IWA, n.d; City of Copenhagen, 2012). Comprehensive site analysis led to establishing the Copenhagen Cloudburst Formula and a Cloudburst Toolkit of urban mitigation strategies and components (Asla, 2016). The Copenhagen Cloudburst Formula (Figure 4) is a good example of how the inter- pretation of “integrated water management” has changed, since the formula adapts interdisciplinary approaches, moving away from siloed thinking. A common vision aligned engineers, hydraulic experts, GIS and information technologists, architects, planners, biologists, economists, communication specialists, and landscape architects with local citizens, investors, and politicians (Asla, 2016). Although the Cloudburst Management Plan is presented as the new “state of the art” way of doing things in Copenhagen, the plan is not legally binding, per se for property owners, the utility company, nor city administration. To be effective, the contents of the plan must be incorporated into the administration’s general planning process, the municipal master plan, sectoral plans (e.g., wastewater plan), and local master plans, as well as in urban renewal plans and the local neighbourhood facelift scheme (City of Copenhagen, 2012). This complex solution required joint effort and close coordination between the utility company, the municipality, the water industry, research institutions, and consultancies in developing new, practical, and successful solutions that only became possible due to alignment of understanding about water and the need for action (Ziersen et al., 2017). Another city initiative that had signifcant infuence in this regard was the adoption of a climate adaptation plan.

1 Conversion rate USD $1 = CAD $1.32—same for all numbers to follow 2 Conversion rate €1 = CAD $ 1.52—same for all numbers to follow 14 Figure 4 Copenhagen Cloudburst Formula (Asla, 2016).

4.1.3 Copenhagen’s Climate Adaptation Plan

In 2011, Danish local governments agreed to formulate climate adaptation plans on a voluntary basis. The plans outlined risk analyses and suggested adaptation measures to counteract anticipated extreme weather risks (Engberg, 2018). In Copenhagen, the 2011 urban fooding incident elevated climate adaptation to the level of an important policy problem and political priority (Engberg, 2018). The City of Copenhagen’s 2011 Climate Adaptation Plan highlights that the focus ought not to be solely on minimizing the risks of future climate change, but also on taking advantage of the adaptation work to improve the overall quality of life for Copenhageners (Hinrichsen, 2016). The City thus looked for fexible solutions in which, for instance, water and heat management work synergistically with urban planning and design, and development of recreational areas (Hinrichsen, 2016). 15 Although the water narrative has arguably been essential in bringing these diverse actors together, fnancial laws around water management had to be altered in order to fnance such new fexible solutions, suggesting the need for other institutional and organisational changes. Climate adaptation initiatives in Copenhagen are fnanced by a combination of public and private investments—i.e., the city administration and the utility company via taxes and revenues from charges, and private homeowners (City of Copenhagen, 2012). Traditionally, utility companies were only allowed to fnance projects relating directly to wastewater handling. For example, if roads were used to drain pluvial foodwater, they could not be fnanced by revenues from charges under the old act, as urban space improvements had to be paid for by the city, not by the utility (IWA, n.d.). However, since climate change adaptation calls for solutions that are inventive and comprehensive, the Danish government issued new legislation in 2013 under which water utilities can fnance surface measures through consumer tariffs that facilitate transportation of daily rainfall or cloudburst run-off (Ziersen et al., 2017). As such, stormwater management solutions that also improve the urban space—so called “mixed projects”—may now be fnanced by the utility (HOFOR, which supplies water, wastewater management, district heating, district cooling and gas), while being owned, constructed, and maintained by the City (IWA, n.d.). Copenhagen’s Climate Adaptation Plan and the other abovementioned strategies and policies (see Table 1 for timeline) refect transformation processes involved in becoming a Water Sensitive City. In fact, Copenhagen is actively working on making the structural as well as systemic changes needed in order to have a fully integrated understanding of water management. Section 4.1.4 expands on how a good example of this integration has been applied within the urban fabric.

4.1.4 The frst Climate-Resilient Neighbourhood of Copenhagen

Copenhagen estimates that, over the next century, its combined traditional and dual-purpose stormwater measures approach will create a socioeconomic surplus of DKK 5 billion (CAD $1 billion3) in comparison to a situation in which the city does nothing. A defcit of DKK 4 billion (CAD $890 million) is projected for a solely traditional sewer-based approach (Engberg, 2018). Based on this, city planners, hydrologists, and climate experts have started to work on “blue-green” solutions for managing cloudbursts. The frst neighbourhood to be redesigned following this approach is located in the neighbourhood of Østerbro, in the north-central part of Copenhagen (Figure 5) (Hinrichsen, 2016: 45). The area, St. Kjelds Kvarter—St. Kjelds Quarter, is now known as “Klimakvarter,” the “Climate-Resilient Neighbourhood.” Parts of the overall masterplan for Klimakvarter are already fnished, such as the greenscaping of Tåsinge Plads in 2015 (Klimakvarter, n.d.). Other projects, such as St. Kjelds Plads (St. Kjelds Square), are still under construction, projected for completion in 2018.

3 Conversion rate: DDK 1 = CAD $ 0.20 – same for all to follow 16 St. Kjelds Quarter—from urban renewal to climate adaptation

Figure 5 This map shows where the neighbourhood of Østerbro is located in Copenhagen. St. Kjelds Quarter is a smaller area within Østerbro, and the area of Copenhagen’s frst Climate- Resilient Neighbourhood (City of Copenhagen, 2013).

The designation of St. Kjelds Kvarter (St. Kjelds Quarter) as a demonstration area for climate adaptation in Copenhagen emerged from an existing urban renewal project for the area. Notably, the climate adaptation aspects of the project only came after- wards. St. Kjelds Quarter, an area with about 24,000 residents in the neighbourhood of Østerbro (Figure 5), suffered from social housing problems, unemployment, and poverty issues (Klimakvarter, 2013). The area was known for its lack of identity, with the neighbourhood’s physical centre being St. Kjelds Plads (St. Kjelds Square), a plaza primarily described by residents as a roundabout for cars (Klimakvarter, 2013). Mads Uldall, the project manager of the urban renewal project at St. Kjelds Quarter, mentioned during an interview for this project that the initial focus was social and cultural, and about “raising the neighborhood” (Uldall, pers. comm.). “The focus of the project was on urban renewal, not on climate, it was all about the ‘healthy neighborhood’” (Uldall, pers. comm.). This is an interesting point considering the water narrative, as it suggests competing narratives, with a health narrative being prominent at the outset. However, as will be explained shortly, the water narrative “won.” Uldall and his colleagues entered the project to an architecture competition for young planners, asking participants to submit suggestions on ways to create interesting city spaces. The winners of the competition, Tredje Natur (Third Nature), a young architecture frm, specialize in incorporating climate adaptation in their work. This was a convenient match for Uldall and his team, as they saw the project as an opportunity to “add a whole new layer to the city—namely above-ground climate adaptation measures” (Uldall, pers. comm.). It is important to emphasize again that climate adaptation 17 was not the focus at the outset of the project but became so due to heightened political and public interest in developing a climate-resilient city. In fact, “climate is now what most people associate the whole project with, but it has actually all happened by sheer coincidence!” (Uldall, pers. comm.). This is an interesting point, suggesting different interpretations associated with the intentions of the project, and a dynamic and changing water narrative. Considering the different possible paths towards transition, one can argue that the changes happening in Copenhagen have been both structure-driven, considering the importance of Uldall and his colleagues as leading champions, but also practice-driven, as climate adaptation measures gained importance as a result of the damages associated with prior cloudbursts. Furthermore, luck and coincidence also seem to have played their part, as Tredje Natur emphasize connecting climate adaptation measures with creating more liveable cities (Uldall, pers. comm.). Clearly, there are many paths towards change, and cross-sectoral collaborations and innovative funding mechanisms have a signifcant part to play.

Figure 6 This fgure illustrates where the different projects, part of the overall Climate-Resilient Neighbourhood project, are located. These have been divided into urban spaces (pink); courtyard spaces (grey); citizen projects (green); perspective projects (dotted line); rainwater hinterland (black line). St. Kjelds Square is the pink area connected by the three city space project streets (Klimakvarter, 2013).

The integrated approach According to Lykke Leonardsen, who was head of the Climate Unit at Copenhagen City Council during the beginning of the project, “From the very beginning, we said that we don’t want to look at this as only solving problems, but as a way of creating 18 opportunities for urban development, for improving the quality of life in the city” (cited in Hinrichsen, 2016: 46). In order to combine urban renewal and climate adaptation measures, original project funds for the construction of attractive urban spaces in the neighbourhood were supplemented by municipal funds for green spaces and funds from HOFOR for climate adaptation, and this drove development of a number of examples of climate adaptation in Copenhagen (Uldall, 2015; Hofor 2016). The estimated cost for the whole Climate-Resilient Neighbourhood project is around DKK 200 million (CAD $41 million) (Klimakvarter, 2013). The overall goals of the project were to develop an adaptable and resilient neighbourhood that would resist damage from future cloudbursts, keep 30% of the daily rain out of the sewers, and improve public city life (Klimakvarter, 2013). Working with Tredje Natur, along with a number of other architectural and engineering frms, off- cials decided to tear up a number of the neighbourhood’s sterile asphalt streets and squares, and replace them with green areas consisting mostly of grass, trees, and small shrubs. The main streets are being turned into tree-lined boulevards with elevated sidewalks and bike paths on both sides, the intention being that rainwater would be absorbed by the green areas and pocket parks, while the main streets would function as canals, directing the water away from the squares and people’s cellars and into the harbor (Hinrichsen, 2016). Interestingly, the act of removing traditional urban materials, such as asphalt, suggests a radically different approach, indicative of a high level of achievement and suggesting that integrated water management allows for changes to the regime, whereby traditional infrastructures, such as asphalt, are no longer considered the only option. According to SLA, the architecture frm in charge of designing St. Kjelds Square and Bryggervangen (one of the main streets leading to the square) (Figure 6), “the project centers around climate adaptation, but the project is also about the extra benefts we get from climate adaptation: the blue, the green, the health, the active and the social. In short: all what makes life in the city worth living” (SLA, n.d.). As suggested by Uldall (pers. comm.), the perception and intentions of the original urban renewal project have shifted considerably from focusing primarily on urban renewal to portraying it primarily as a climate adaptation project. Still, SLA (n.d.) present the project as defning the distinctive urban nature of Copenhagen, learning from its characteristic biotopes. They claim that the result will be an “urban nature that is aesthetic and functional, biodiverse and sustainable, green and blue, climate adaptable, and creates a sense of community. An urban nature which gives Copenhageners a strong aesthetic feeling of nature right on their doorstep” (SLA, n.d.). Although there are strict requirements about the food-prevention abilities of the square and streets, this way of presenting the project shows that there is also a great emphasis on the urban life qualities such a project creates. Urban planning is connected with “bringing back nature” (as will be expanded upon later), with the recreational and hence health-related benefts, as well as the alleged strengthening of community and social cohesion benefts that come of doing a project in this integrated manner. Yet integration might mean different things depending on who is asked, which is why collaboration and clear communication about the project are crucial.

Emphasis on citizen engagement and common understandings The municipality of Copenhagen has a tradition of establishing a local secretariat in urban renewal projects. This secretariat provides the framework for the municipal planners’ cooperation with the residents and the establishment of a steering committee with representatives of residents, associations, and institutions in the area (Uldall, 2015). These secretariats can assist in ensuring a common understanding of the 19 topic at hand from the early stages of a project. In St. Kjelds Quarter, they chose to set up a steering committee as well as eight sub-project groups with representatives from the steering group, key stakeholders, and representatives from relevant departments in the municipality of Copenhagen with knowledge of, for example, traffc conditions (Uldall, 2015). Project teams were responsible for the thorough involvement of residents; for example, by holding workshops, citizen meetings, and temporary tests of various solutions. The Klimakvarter project focused on informing citizens about the projects via a website, newsletters, listings in real estate, etc., and showed a great openness to residents who had questions and proposals for the projects (Uldall, 2015). This method allowed a more fuid and dynamic project, as residents became very engaged as well as being able to go directly to their local politicians, thus going “around the system,” something the City staff are not able to do. As Uldall (pers. comm.) argues, this “gives a good connection between bureaucracy and democracy,” whereby lengthy bureaucratic moves could be avoided by having citizens use their rights for information but also for engagement. Citizen involvement has played a major role in this project and is likely a major factor in its success. The deep citizen engagement is a result of the City’s choice to create not only “big technical showcase solution projects,” such as Tåsinge Plads (another climate-adapted square in the neighbourhood) and St. Kjelds Plads, but to also give room (and a budget) to smaller projects in which citizens were the main players (Uldall, pers. comm.). While most of these smaller projects, such as rain gardens, green roofs on garbage sheds, and small city gardens functioning as water retention basins, might have low infltration capacity, these are “basic” enough for citizens to be involved. This offers opportunities for the project team to interact with citizens and get them to understand climate adaptation measures, and attain better acceptance of the project amongst locals (City of Copenhagen, 2014). According to Engberg, “the city-surface cannot be transformed without the consent and participation of residents in their roles as owners, users and local decision-makers” (Engberg, 2018: 14). As Uldall commented, some residents of Østerbro now promote the fact that they are living in a Climate- Resilient Neighborhood (Uldall pers. comm.). Other new local projects have started to include climate adaptation measures—examples include the renewal of a school playground that now serves dual purpose function as a retention pond during heavy downpours, and a housing block renovation project. In the latter case, contractors were very worried about residents’ acceptance of the design of the new kitchens and bath- room; however, during consultation, it emerged that all the key concerns were in fact about how water was being managed. The citizens requested that the buildings’ rainwater management be separated from the sewer systems (Uldall, pers. comm.). These examples illustrate how, through the active engagement of and with citizens, Uldall and his team succeeded not only in installing innovative water management solutions, but also in integrating infrastructure adaptation in such a way that there was no distinction between stormwater management and amenity value in terms of quality of life.

A focus on nature The main public discourse for the project was “urban nature” as a solution strategy, targeting problems of pollution, overheating, and cloudburst management while offering citizens new recreational facilities (Engberg, 2018: 11). As Uldall explains, the project applied a “the greener, the better” approach, aimed at highlighting the multiple benefts of urban greenery, and green infrastructure solutions more generally (Uldall, pers. comm.). This discourse was further supported by the fact that hydraulic surface solutions are considerably cheaper than modernizing the city’s sewer system (Engberg, 2018: 11). 20 While citizens might associate urban greenery and parks with green grass, lush gardens, and fower beds, the reality is different, especially during winter, when plants die back. To address this, Uldall and his colleagues introduced the project “Vild Natur” (Wild Nature). As Uldall explains, “if citizens are expecting an aesthetically beautiful park all year round, climate adaptation projects would be extremely costly to make and especially to maintain, so we tried to say that a wilder nature was interesting, and the fact of getting nature back” (Uldall, pers. comm.). Instead of making beautiful fower gardens that are costly to maintain, therefore, they worked with “wild nature.” At one site in Klimakvarter, they let the grass grow and organized a public engagement project entitled “vild med vilje” (intentionally wild), whereby citizens could familiarise themselves with this new approach. Importantly, as Uldall emphasizes, the narrative for climate adaptation projects is not around water: “It is nature that is the main narrative” (pers. comm.). The discourse used with citizens focuses on the enhanced presence of nature rather than technological adaptation measures. “Water is not the narrative. That is just the way we do things. It might as well have been the heat island effect that we wanted to reduce, the outcome would have been the same” (Uldall, pers. comm.). Uldall further comments on the fact that, although the project focuses on climate adaptation, they decided to call it “Klimakvarter,” which directly translated is “climate neighborhood,” emphasizing that it is about more than just rainwater. These observations further illustrate how Copenhagen has applied innovative ideas in order to translate traditional water management into a new era which does not necessarily require water to be the central or sole driver of the narrative. The example provided demonstrates that a combination of technological innovation and new ways of understanding stormwater management can lead to numerous co-benefts.

4.1.5 Lessons learned from Copenhagen

While the success of Klimakvarter—Copenhagen’s frst Climate-Resilient Neighbourhood—represents a good example of how Copenhagen is advancing towards becoming a truly Water Sensitive City, in which water management is viewed in a holistic way, Uldall also comments on some of the challenges associated with the project, including the fact that “good citizen engagement takes time and money” (Uldall, pers. comm.). In fact, around DKK 10 million (CAD $2 million) of the project budget went to paying staff, a sum that some politicians found exorbitant. Yet, as Uldall states, “it is about the heightened experienced value of a climate-adapted square that makes it interesting” (Uldall, pers. comm.). Uldall argues that a climate-adapted urban space using green infrastructure has “higher experienced value” due to the presence of greenery and potential recreational values than a square made only of grey infrastructure such as concrete (Uldall, pers. comm.). This perspective showcases how a water narrative can assist in identifying these higher “experienced values,” with the result that politicians and citizens are likely to be more engaged and willing to spend money on water management solutions that will improve quality of life. However, Copenhagen as a whole still relies heavily on conventional concepts such as deep tunnels for rapid discharge (Liu and Jensen, 2017). The applied alternative solutions tend to be more engineering-based, such as detention-discharge plazas in Copenhagen, with green infrastructure–based solutions lagging behind. In fact, Nielsen and Jensen (2009) argue that “it takes more than technical skills to mobilise the cour- age to implement sustainable urban design solutions; it takes also practitioners’ capability to develop socio-technical networks and storylines to integrate sustainability in design and building processes” (Nielsen and Jensen, 2009: 4). According to Liu and

21 Jensen (2017), the main barriers for implementing green infrastructure solutions with greater sustainability potential are a combination of time constraints caused by exter- nal political pressures for rapid problem solving, a lack of routine processes to drive innovation and documentation of solutions for dense urban areas, and insuffcient multi-sectoral collaboration. These factors limit the propagation of alternative solutions and weight the balance of investments towards a conventional approach (Liu and Jensen, 2017). Despite this, water management and the way it is perceived in Copenhagen has undoubtedly gone through a transition that is ongoing. Morten Kabell, Copenhagen’s last Deputy Mayor in charge of Environment and Technology, is upbeat about Copenhagen’s approach: “There is no reason why Copenhagen could not be a model for other cities,” he says. “But context is a big issue when talking about adaptation and urban development. However, handling foods with surface solutions instead of using storm sewers and making cities greener is defnitely exportable” (cited in Hinrichsen, 2016). Recommendations drawn from Copenhagen’s transition are therefore applicable to the City of Vancouver, and these are expanded upon later in the report.

4.1.6 Summary—Copenhagen’s water narrative

Copenhagen has experienced a substantial shift in how the City and its citizens perceive water. Up until the late 1980s, the inner harbour of the city was used solely as a means of transporting heavy industrial goods and as a recipient of combined sewer overfows during heavy downpours. Yet citizen initiatives—such as a diving club asking for permission to swim in the harbour, and visioning processes regarding the harbour as a biological habitat—plus the work of champions at the City, led to the opening of the frst harbour bath in 2002. This development resulted in a substantial shift in Copenhageners’ perceptions of water, highlighting the recreational benefts of a clean inner harbour. The adverse effects of climate change further challenged Copenhagen in recent years, with an increase in cloudbursts leading to fooding and sewer overfows into the harbour. One cloudburst in particular, in July 2011, functioned as a catalyst for change, as the City realized that new water management methods were needed if it wanted to keep Copenhagen resilient. By applying innovative solutions, Copenhagen has been able to combine water management with infrastructure that promotes health and well-being, such as innovative recreational parks and urban spaces that function as retention ponds during heavy rainfall. The water narrative of Copenhagen, initiated by citizens and champions at the City, thus seems to be principally driven by the concept of a healthy, liveable city.

4.2 Rotterdam—the city living with water Rotterdam is a major port, international commercial hub, and the second largest city of the Netherlands, with a population of around 620,000 (Derkzen et al., 2017). The city is densely built, surrounded by water, with 90 per cent of its surface below sea level (Derkzen et al., 2017). Rotterdam has a long tradition of living with and respecting water. The tradition is amongst others caused by the city being in a delta, originated in 1280 at the Dam in the Rotte; the canals (Bes, pers. comm.) Another important event which has had an infuence, was the devastating food of 1953 that destroyed 50,000 buildings, left 300,000 people homeless, and resulted in 1,800 fatalities in the Netherlands (Aerts, 2009) This event accelareted the implementation of the “Delta Works”, whereby a Commission was installed to research the causes and develop measures to prevent such disasters in the future (Bes, pers. comm.). Although bolt measures such as investments in dams, sluices, locks, dykes and levees were put in place to protect the city 22 from future food events, as a delta city, Rotterdam is still very vulnerable to climate change. In fact, annual precipitation in the Netherlands rose by approximately 26 per cent between 1910 and 2013 (Dai et al., 2018: 652). In addition, the intensity of extreme weather events has signifcantly increased, making the city vulnerable to extreme rainfall as well as the creeping problem of sea level rise. These issues, combined with continuing growth and increasing city density, have highlighted a need for new measures, and above all, for a different vision of water management (Dunn et al., 2017). As a result, Rotterdam has emerged as a front runner with regards to innovative solutions to these challenges, with a wide range of plans and programs refecting this development (see Table 2). The Netherlands is a decentralized unitary state in which different governmen- tal levels share responsibilities for spatial planning and food risk management (Dai et al., 2018). Formal responsibilities and policy instruments are based on the Water Act, the Spatial Planning Act, and the Environmental Management Act. Water Boards (of which there are three in Rotterdam) are responsible for food control, water quality management, wastewater treatment, and surface water management (Dai et al., 2018). Municipalities are responsible for the sewer system, most of which is combined but increasingly being separated, and stormwater management (de Graad & van der Brugge, 2010).

Table 2 Rotterdam’s timeline of relevant strategies and plans with regard to the changing water narrative.

When What Impact

1953 Big food across the The food killed almost 2,000 people and caused widespread property dam- Netherlands age. It was an event that underscored the destructive power of the sea and spurred the modern food management industry in the country.

1989 Urban surface water man- The 3rd National Memorandum on Water Management proclaimed that the agement becomes the responsibility for urban surface water management was to be transferred responsibility of waterboards from the municipality to the waterboards. In Rotterdam the transfer only rather than municipalities occurred in 2001.

2001 First Water Plan Waterboards and municipality make inventory of the urban water system and discover that there are conficting spatial interests in the city, with water having a low priority.

2005 Water City 2035 project Initiated during the International Architecture Biennale Rotterdam (IABR): “The Flood.” Catalyst in changing the water narrative, as water managers, urban planners, engineers, and designers realize they must work together and create multi-functional land-use solutions.

23 When What Impact

2007 Second Integrated Water Plan This plan is a specifcation of Rotterdam Water City 2035 into offcial policy, focused on integration and the co-benefts of water-sensitive designs.

2008 Rotterdam Climate Initiative The objective of the RCI is to reduce CO2 emissions in Rotterdam by 50 per (RCI) cent in 2025, as compared with 1990.

2009 Rotterdam Climate Proof (part Program is based on three theme-transcending and mutually reinforcing of RCI) pillars: Knowledge, Actions, and Marketing Communication. Examples of outcomes is the international Connecting Delta Cities network.

2012 Rotterdam Climate Adaptation The strategy has three main activities: development of knowledge, imple- Strategy (part of RCI) mentation of climate change adaptation measures, and presentation of Rotterdam internationally as an innovative delta city.

2013 Water Square Benthemplein The typology of the water square was invented during the Water City 2035 project. The water square combines water storage with the improvement of the quality of the urban public space.

2014 Rotterdam Resilience As part of the 100 Resilient cities network, Rotterdam focuses on fghting Programme for a sustainable, safe, inclusive, and healthy future. The program aims at embedding resilience in the minds and actions of Rotterdam’s citizens—for their beneft and in cooperation with them.

2015 Water Sensitive Rotterdam Focused on presenting the urgency of climate change and to motivate peo- (WSR) Programme ple, organisations, and businesses to work together.

2016 Rotterdam Resilience Strategy Rotterdam’s frst resilience strategy, aiming to create a city in which resilience thinking has been anchored in daily life, as well as in the actions taken by companies, institutions, government, and citizens.

4.2.1 Living with water

The 1953 food represents an important turning point for how Dutch people perceive water. Living below sea level and on mostly peat-based land, Rotterdam – and indeed 24 the Netherlands in general – have learned to “live with water” (Aerts, 2009). Dikes, levees, and pumps are an important reminder of the major infrastructure that has been developed to keep people safe and food-free. However, these technological changes are not the only factor that has driven changes in water narratives in Rotterdam. De Graaf and Van der Brugge (2010) argue that the frst important institutional change that led to Rotterdam’s transformative water management approach took place in 1989. As a result of increased awareness about the need for integrative approaches, the 3rd National Memorandum on Water Management proclaimed that the responsibility for urban surface water management was to be transferred from the municipality to the Water Boards, suggesting a policy-driven shift towards an emerging water narrative. In Rotterdam, an attempt to transfer the responsibility was made in 1996; however, the three Water Boards operating in Rotterdam and the municipality were unable to agree on the price of assets. Consensus was eventually reached, and the municipality developed the frst water management plan (WP1), in consultation with the Water Boards, in 2001. The transfer of surface water management to the Water Boards was one reason for the development of the WP1, along with the need to replace and renew old sewer systems of the city. During the implementation of WP1, the Water Boards uncovered the fact that water retention was ranked as low priority in Rotterdam compared to other issues such as economic development, unemployment, and safety (De Graaf and Van der Brugge, 2010), which demonstrates that the water narrative was not strong at this point. Moreover, space for water retention was scarce and expensive. The Water Boards realized they had to cooperate and move towards multi-functional use of space to successfully achieve their objectives (De Graaf and van der Brugge, 2010). It would seem that the Water Boards realized that, in order for a transition to occur, water management and related co-benefts had to be better articulated in order to foster collective understanding—i.e., fostering a water narrative.

4.2.2 An architecture competition leading to immediate action

In Rotterdam, the visioning project called Rotterdam Water City 2035 is viewed as having been a major catalyst for change. The project was created as an entry for the 2005 International Architecture Biennale Rotterdam (IABR), a prestigious two-year architec- Figure 7 Rotterdam Water City 2035 ture and design event (De Graaf & van der Brugge, 2010). Rotterdam Water City 2035 (City of Rotterdam, n.d.). combined an integral future vision on urban design with a climate adaptation strategy that combined water and urban challenges. One of its key success factors is that it was a non-offcial policy process, which decreased political risk. Political approval was achieved by including politicians in composition of the preface for a book about the project, which did not present a technical water story, but a well-designed emotional and cultural story—i.e., a water narrative—which made it attractive for politicians (De Graaf and van der Brugge, 2010). Perhaps one of the most signifcant con- tributions of the Rotterdam Water City 2035 vision was a fundamental shift in the narrative surrounding water. Up to this point, water had been widely regarded as a nuisance: “one of the seven plagues in the city, like parking” (Dunn et

25 al., 2017: 73). Through this visioning process, a positive new attitude emerged in which water management was regarded as an opportunity to make the city more attractive and liveable, rather than as a threat (Dunn et al., 2017). The project contributed pow- erfully to creation of a positive water narrative, using imagery of and references to the co-benefts of integrated water management. The following quote from the fnal report is illustrative: “The water challenge is the urban map of opportunities. The result is not only that the water challenge will be solved but also new qualities are included in the city” (cited in De Graaf & van der Brugge, 2010: 1284).

4.2.3 A global leader in urban water resilience

The Water Sensitive Rotterdam Programme’s (2015) strategy was to enact measures on a small scale that would increase the city’s ability to absorb water and at the same time improve outdoor public spaces. This holistic approach and the increasing number of visible projects received much international attention. In 2015, more than eighty dele- gations visited the city, which resulted in more work for local businesses, among other benefts (Urban Green-blue Grids, n.d.). Knowledge institutes and businesses created the Centre for Resilient Delta Cities, which functions as a knowledge portal (Water Sensitive Rotterdam, 2015). These measures evidently contributed to a strengthened water narrative driven through policy, planning, and design measures. The City of Rotterdam is active in developing approaches and tools in response to the challenges of climate change and urbanisation, such as a new tool that includes several other monitoring systems for potential co-benefts; e.g., including health and safety criteria in the assessment of green infrastructure projects through an integrated approach (Raymond et al., 2017). The City has also developed the internationally-known computer program 3Di, used by the municipality to make water-related calculations (Delta Rotterdam, 2014, cited in Dai et al., 2018). Other tools include a climate adaptation barometer, a climate adaptation tool box, and a climate societal cost-beneft analysis assessment tool (Rotterdam Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, 2012). The climate adaptation initiatives are mainly fnanced through taxes, as the law on fnancing municipal water-related duties in the Netherlands enables municipalities to designate the revenue from taxes and levies to fulfl their duty of care with regard to their urban water tasks, and gives them the option to invest more in climate-adapted infrastructure (Dutch National Government, 2010 cited in Dai et al., 2018). According to the Dutch Water Authorities (2017), in 2016, a household in the Netherlands that owned its own home paid an average of €805 (CAD $1,225) in rates and taxes for water. This amount consists of regional water authority taxes (€321/CAD $488) and payments for sewerage charges (€ 190/CAD $289) and drinking water (€165/CAD $251). In addition, households contribute to the costs taken on by the state and the provinces by means of their state and provincial taxes (€129/CAD $179) (Dutch Water Authorities, 2017). Sewage levies thus largely fnance Rotterdam’s projects for the collection and processing of rainwater (Municipality of Rotterdam, 2016). As replacing sewage pipes is costly, the municipality reserves a set amount of money to ensure the program’s long-term effciency. It also receives fnancial aid from the national government for its Climate Initiative as well as the 100 Resilient Cities program, which Rotterdam belongs to. The municipality expects to invest €5.8 million (CAD $8.8 million) in rainwater collection and processing annually between 2016 and 2020 (Municipality of Rotterdam, 2016). Showcasing and presenting developed initiatives and ideas is an important strategy, not only for getting international attention, but also to gain political and public legiti- macy through demonstration of an important structure-driven pattern of change within

26 which Rotterdam can showcase its water narrative. The city now truly presents water as a resource, rather than a nuisance. In conclusion, it is clear that Rotterdam’s emergence as a global leader in urban water resilience has been achieved through this carefully orchestrated policy strategy (Dunn et al., 2017). According to Dunn et al. (2017), acknowledgment of the economic and social benefts of sustainable urban water management has been central to Rotterdam’s transition. The following case study of an integrated water management pilot project provides an excellent example of the benefts of this transformational approach.

4.2.4 Benthemplein water square

One of Rotterdam Water City 2035’s proposed innovations was a public square designed for water retention named Benthemplein in the district of Zomerhofkwartier (Zoho), completed in 2013. Benthemplein water square has become an internationally known example of a large, multi-functional public amenity that combines collection of rainwater with an attractively designed public outdoor area (De Urbanisten, n.d.). The designers, De Urbanisten, present the project as a dual strategy: The square makes the money that has been publicly invested in water storage facilities aesthetically pleasing, while also creating environmental quality and identity within a central space in a neighbourhood (De Urbanisten, n.d.).

The importance of citizen engagement Gemma Dunn is a water sustainability specialist, and authored a key study on water transitions in Rotterdam (Dunn et al., 2017) while she was a PhD candidate with the Collaborative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities, Melbourne. During an interview for this project, Dunn stated when they were looking at developing the frst water square plaza in Rotterdam a top-down approach was taken. Initially, three to fours squares that needed to be redone were identifed, and one of which was shortlisted as being the most feasible to turn into a water square. They developed the design for this square then showed it to local government and the local community. It transpired that the design was not a good ft for the local community. Lots of young children would play in the square and local families [mothers especially] pushed back over safety concerns. They were worried that children could drown when the square was storing water. Although the whole process took almost a year the project had to be aborted. The second time around they turned the strategy around, and took a different / bottom-up approach. This time they asked the citizens which area/community wanted their square redone, and that’s how they came to the Benthemplein water square and they got the local citizens involved in the design (Dunn, pers. comm.). This incident shows how pre-screening of an area and a deeper understanding of local needs is of crucial importance when planning urban projects. Elijan Bes, Water Management Policy Advisor from the Climate Adaptation team in Rotterdam’s water department, further emphasizes that citizen engagement takes time but is essential in order to realize benefts from public space improvements (Bes, pers. comm.). Indeed, De Urbanisten and the City invested heavily in citizen engagement. Stakeholders from the Benthemplein area worked together closely to produce the fnal design, including the Zadkine and Graphic College, a church community, a youth theatre, a sports school, and local residents (Rotterdam Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, 2012). During three workshops, all stakeholders agreed that the water square should be a dynamic place for young people, with lots of space for play and socializing, but also quiet green places. Lastly, there was consensus that the water ought to be dramatically visible while running over the square (De Urbanisten, n.d.). These requests demonstrate the importance of including citizen input in urban renewal projects from the very beginning. This new type of multifunctional 27 project will help to ensure that citizens, planners, architects, and engineers can work together jointly to create an end result that is both functional and has aesthetic and recreational value for citizens. Although citizen engagement takes time and is costly, Bes argues that the extra price is justifable through the boost in approval that public spaces receive as a result, and that the value of surroundings cannot always be calculated in monetary terms (Bes, pers. comm.). Furthermore, stakeholder engagement is important in Rotterdam due to the 40 per cent public and 60 per cent private divide of the city, which means that numerous climate adaptation measures must be coordinated with water boards, social enterprises, entrepreneurs, and other private entities (Bes, pers. comm.). While policy and City level initiatives are important, engaging the private sector and citizens is just as essential. According to Dunn (pers. comm.), the Benthemplein projects highlights how citizen engagement affects the success of individual projects but also impacts the broader goal of being a climate adaptive city. In Rotterdam (like many cities), the majority of land is privately owned, so a city’s capacity to become truly adaptive will be limited if water sensitive measures are only implemented in public (i.e. city owned) spaces. Dunn claims (pers. comm.) to become a truly climate adaptive, cities such as Rotterdam, Melbourne and Vancouver have to engage with citizens, with companies, with developers and other stakeholders in order to be able to implement lots of small scale solutions across the fabric of the city (Dunn, pers. comm.)

An example for future development The unique multi-functionality of Benthemplein means it has acted as a catalyst project for further development of the Zoho district. Rotterdam’s resilience offce is collating these experiences and scaling them up to other districts and the surrounding areas, using them as examples for ways to scale up green, creative solutions for water retention whilst strengthening community and building knowledge capital (Resilient Rotterdam, n.d.: 82). Clearly, the water narrative has been essential in aligning expectations among Rotterdam’s stakeholders.

The challenge of maintenance Figure 8 Benthemplein water Maintenance of an amenity such as a public square is usually a municipal responsibil- square (De Urbanisten, n.d.). ity. However, since Benthemplein also serves as a water storage facility during heavy

28 rainfall, it is the responsibility of the water board. In addition, because it contrib- utes to improved neighbourhood quality of life, the social housing corporations also have a stake (De Graaf & Van der Brugge, 2010). This fragmented governance structure has added to the square’s maintenance costs. The municipality carried out initial stakeholder involvement, but there has been a lack of consistency in those taking responsibility, such as students from the nearby school. Littering and clogging of pipes have become a serious problem, with cleaning costs higher than originally planned. It can therefore be argued that it is important to identify the pitfalls and lessons in terms of monitoring and maintenance at an early stage, in order to implement an adaptive governance approach. As stated by De Graaf and Van der Brugge (2010), the success of implementation, operation, and maintenance of pilot projects are all necessary conditions for the transformation of Rotterdam to a water city. The following section goes beyond these observations on Benthemplein to examine transformative practices in the city as a whole.

4.2.5 Lessons learned from Rotterdam

The Rotterdam case highlights that no single factor is responsible for infuencing a transition pathway; rather, the interplay between actor-related variables amongst the science and policy communities has expedited the transition process (Dunn et al., 2017: 78). According to van Rijswick et al. (2014, cited in Dai et al., 2018), multi-stakeholder involvement, the recognition of their interests and values, clear and transparently formulated agreements and regulations, a balance struck among social trade-offs, clearly articulated provisions for project funding, and suffcient clarity on division of responsibilities are all crucial factors for the successf of water-related climate adaptation projects. According to De Graaf and Van der Brugge (2010: 1290), the changes in Rotterdam’s water management were assisted by developments occurring at a variety of levels. Macro drivers, such as climate change, urbanization, and changes in European and national water policies, combined with regime receptivity for a new approach on a meso-level, and the policy niche of Rotterdam Water City 2035 on a micro level all reinforced one other and have led to development of a transformative perspective in urban water infrastructure policy. Yet despite the success of Rotterdam Water City 2035, integration of urban planning and water management is currently limited to a number of demonstration projects. This leads the authors to argue that one cannot yet say a transition has been achieved (De Graaf & Van der Brugge, 2010). Their research indi- cates that the Rotterdam urban water management organizations successfully achieved water policy innovation, but that the institutional mechanisms needed to realize, oper- ate, and maintain the proposed multi-stakeholder projects on a city-wide scale are still missing (Mackenzie, 2010), and that this is currently the predominant challenge for climate adaptation in terms of water sensitive urban development (De Graaf and Van der Brugge, 2010). Edelenbos et al. (2017) argue that, while for a long time Dutch water management was characterized by centralization and top-down intervention by the central agency, Rijkswaterstaat, there has been a cautious transition from this top-down and expert-led decision-making approach to network coordination and stakeholder engagement. This has largely been driven by the professionalization of interest groups and the emancipa- tion and activation of citizens. In this transition, not only has stakeholder participation gained momentum but new stakeholder engagement approaches have emerged; e.g., stakeholder-led and self-organized initiatives, such as the Rotterdam Climate Initiative, which is a citizen-driven platform in which citizens are able to play a proactive role (Van Buuren et al., 2012, cited in Edelenbos et al., 2017). Interestingly, it seems that the

29 building of a water narrative has led to the role of the municipality shifting from that of “initiator” and “orchestrator” to “facilitator” (Municipality of Rotterdam, 2013), once more underscoring the importance of citizens and their active involvement in climate adaptation projects.

4.2.6 Summary—Rotterdam’s water narrative

Rotterdam’s emergence as a Water Sensitive City is the result of deliberate policy strategies in which the economic and social benefts of integrated water management approaches have been diligently woven into the water narrative, resulting in the transition the City is currently going through. Although “living with water” has been part of Rotterdam’s DNA for decades, an signifcant shift occurred in the establishment of a water narrative as a result of the Biennale. The Rotterdam Water City 2035 project provided an opportunity for innovative ideas and collaboration between the public and private sectors, resulting in Rotterdam becoming a pioneer in climate adaptation solutions. Rotterdam functions as a showcase for its innovative designs such as the water plazas, as well as modelling programs and strategies such as the Water Sensitive Rotterdam Programme. Rotterdam’s water narrative is grounded in the understanding that we must “live with water,” valuing water as a resource as well as an asset that can lead to increased liveability if the management of water is well integrated within the urban fabric. The cases of Copenhagen and Rotterdam illustrate that some cities are striving towards water sensitivity and have compelling water narratives guiding them towards this transition. The following analysis focuses on the City of Vancouver and its current challenges, as well as opportunities for it to make the transition towards being a Water Sensitive City.

4.3 The City of Vancouver—a Water Sensitive City on the rise4 Vancouver is a coastal city in the Lower Mainland of southwestern British Columbia, Canada. The estimated population of Vancouver is 610,000 (in 2016), making it the eighth largest city in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2016). As a result of climate change, Vancouver is warming, with its periods of heavy precipitation projected to increase (PCIC, 2016; Metro Vancouver, 2016). Thanks to provincial climate leadership in the early 2000s, Vancouver – along with other municipalities in the province – has become a “living laboratory” in which to investigate the conditions, actors, knowledge, and new governance required for municipalities to take action on climate change (Shaw, et al., 2014), for instance through its “Greenest City Action Plan.” In 2009, a group of local experts were brought together to form former mayor Gregor Robertson’s Greenest City Action Team (City of Vancouver, 2015). They researched best practices from leading green cities around the world, and established goals and targets designed to make Vancouver the world’s greenest city.

4.3.1 The need for shifting focus towards a holistic approach

When the Greenest City Action Plan was conceptualized, its focus was mainly on water quality and less on stormwater management. This could suggest that Vancouver was initially relatively low on the Urban Water Transitions Framework compared to Copenhagen and Rotterdam, two cities that have been able to rise on the water

4 The sources used in this section are all from the City of Vancouver (2018), unless otherwise indicated (see detailed references in 7. References). 30 sensitivity ladder by focusing on the co-benefts of integrated water management (Figure 1). The Insurance Bureau of Canada states that there are 1.7 million Canadian households (19 per cent of Canada’s population) at risk of fooding, representing not only a signifcant economic concern but also a major challenge for Canadians’ physical and mental health (Moudrak et al., 2018). Vancouver faces signifcant challenges related to the management of water utilities: drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater (rainwater). These challenges, which stem from population growth, climate change, environmental degradation, and aging infrastructure, demand that utilities change how they are managed (Shaw et al., 2014). Traditional approaches to servicing will no longer be suffcient to respond to these increased pressures. In response, and in order to provide residents with long-term resilience and reliable services, Vancouver is looking towards new ways of managing water. For the past few decades, the Province of British Columbia, Metro Vancouver, and the City of Vancouver have approved numerous policies and strategies that support alternative water management methods (see Table 3). While the timeline refects the actions already taken, this report suggests that more work is needed on the creation of a water narrative that can assist Vancouver in becoming a truly Water Sensitive City. The following sections highlight the progress and gaps identifed through desk-based research and insights from ffteen interviews conducted with City of Vancouver staff.

Table 3 Timeline of Vancouver’s main strategies and plans relating to water management and climate adaptation measures.

When What Impact

2010 Metro Vancouver Provincially-approved plan that mandates the elimination of combined sewer Integrated overfows and the separation of combined sewer mains, the protection of Liquid Waste water quality in local receiving waters, and the implementation of a city-wide and Resource Integrated Rainwater Management Plan (IRMP). Management Plan

2011 Greenest City 2020 Addresses Vancouver’s environmental challenges, focusing on three overarching Action Plan areas: reducing carbon, reducing waste, and supporting healthy ecosystems. The plan has ten distinct goal areas and, through a set of measurable and attainable targets, puts the city on a path to sustainability, including the objective to protect the city’s waterways.

2012 Climate Change Details actions that will increase the resilience of city-wide programs, services, Adaptation and infrastructure to existing and anticipated climate extremes. Primary actions Strategy focus on incorporating adaptation as a consideration or key factor into existing (Updated in 2018) and planned projects.

31 When What Impact

2014 Healthy City Provides a comprehensive and integrated plan for social sustainability that com- Strategy plements the environmental sustainability focus of the Greenest City Action Plan.

2014 Biodiversity Approved by the Park Board, this strategy guides ongoing work to protect, Strategy enhance, and restore biodiversity throughout the park system, including the aquatic environment.

2015 Renewable City Aims to get 100% of Vancouver’s energy from renewable sources by 2050 and Strategy for new construction to be zero emissions by 2030. Priority actions include reducing dependence on fossil fuels as well as reducing energy use of new and existing buildings.

2016 Zero Emissions Aims to reach the City’s targets of 100 per cent reliance on renewable energy by Building Plan 2050 and for new construction to be zero emissions by 2030. Targets for different building types are specifed in the Vancouver Building By-law and in the Green Building Policy for Rezonings (2010). Further changes to City regulations and policies are anticipated.

2016 Integrated Aims to treat Vancouver’s abundant rainwater as a resource. It focuses on rain- Rainwater water management and restoring the role of urban watersheds to support urban Management Plan and natural ecosystems as well as supporting policies seeking to reduce the (IRMP) demand for potable water by encouraging benefcial reuse. Restoring the role of urban watersheds to support urban and natural ecosystems and provide clean water is also a goal.

Currently in Rain City Strategy Expands on the IRMP with a renewed focus on valuing rainwater as a resource, develop-ment and goals around water quality, resilience, and livability through healthy urban ecosystems. The plan, with an outlook to 2050, will defne a long-term, high-level implementation plan for green infrastructure. It will guide the application of sustainable urban rainwater management in future community and infrastructure planning, policy development, capital planning, design standards, operations and maintenance procedures, and asset management programs.

32 4.3.2 New ways of thinking emerging

A mandate by the Metro Vancouver Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan in 2010 required all municipalities in Metro Vancouver to implement a city-wide Integrated Rainwater Management Plan (IRMP), with Vancouver’s coming into force in 2016. The intention of the plan is to use integrated strategies to provide more cost- effective services in a way that yields benefts for other community objectives around resilience, natural systems, and livability. Vancouver’s IRMP establishes a long-term Green Infrastructure Strategy to protect and improve water quality in the water bodies surrounding the city. The IRMP requires volume reductions, including 24 mm capture of rainfall in 24 hours, reduction of the peak fow rate discharged to sewers from buildings and sites, and removal of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) from the frst 24 mm of rainfall to ensure water quality. The development of the IRMP is an important step towards an integrated water management approach for Vancouver. The plan could also be said to represent initial development of a water narrative, as the implementation of such a plan requires cross-sectoral collaborations and new ways of thinking about water. Indeed, the IRMP resulted in the recognition of the need for a dedicated Green Infrastructure team.

The creation of a Green Infrastructure team and the Rain City Strategy In an administrative report from April 19, 2016, the General Manager of Engineering Services sought Council’s support for the creation of a Green Infrastructure Team (GI Team) to develop an Implementation Plan with interim targets and milestones toward the long-term target. The report argues that the implementation of green infrastructure will improve water quality to protect the environment, support recreational water use, and meet current and emerging regulatory requirements. Furthermore, the report presents the outcomes of the IRMP and claims that to achieve the long-term goal and target of the IRMP, the Green Infrastructure Strategy needs to be planned through a focused and dedicated multi-departmental effort. The report thus argues that a GI Team and GI-related research is required to develop the Implementation Plan. Through elaborate research for the Rain City Strategy, the GI Team explored the potential of integrated water management and green infrastructure solutions for the city. According to interviewees, the creation of the GI Team and their research represents a crucial catalyst for changing the way water is perceived and understood, both internally at the City as well as with relevant stakeholders such as developers, businesses, and citizens. However, while almost all interviewees mentioned the importance of having a dedicated GI Team, some interviewees are unsure about the extent to which their work is contributing to the GI Team’s ambitions and goals. Hence, despite extensive engagement and outreach efforts conducted by the GI Team, it seems that further collaboration, and education about what GI solutions are and can do, is needed. Indeed, numerous interviewees mention the “need for a bigger toolkit,” suggesting that Vancouver is still in the early stages of a transition to water sensitivity. It is likely important that the City addresses such challenges, as uncertainty around how other departments might assist the GI Team in implementing GI solutions city- wide could lead to missed opportunities. Furthermore, the examples from Copenhagen and Rotterdam illustrate that stronger commitment and support for alternative water management methods will emerge if there is common understanding and appreciation of water and water management, and related co-benefts. It seems that this common understanding is still missing in Vancouver, as refected in the “pilot project” stage in which the city fnds itself.

33 4.3.3 At the “why and what for” stage of water sensitivity

For more than ten years, staff at the City of Vancouver have championed the implementation of public realm GI projects such as Country Lanes (2002–2004), the Crown Street sustainable street project (2006), Creekway Park (2013), and numerous rain gardens and infltration bulges (2004+). Comprehensive green infrastructure plans have also been developed at the neighbourhood scale for Olympic Village in southeast False Creek and the River District (East Fraser Lands) development. All of the above-noted projects have delivered world-class green infrastructure installations; however, without a comprehensive policy—and without a compelling water narrative— green infrastructure projects have mainly existed as staff-led pilot initiatives. Most GI projects in Vancouver were developed only when opportunities arose and resources were available, rather than being an integral component of City capital programs or development requirements. Interviewees mentioned that initiatives are still very much driven by champions and that Vancouver is mainly at a pilot project stage when it comes to GI solutions, yet implementation of the IRMP has arguably provided a basis the City could use to evolve from the pilot project approach to a performance-based, city-wide GI strategy. It is worth noting, however, that Vancouver did not develop its IRMP until a provincial ministry directive in 2014 required all cities to have their IRMP ready by 2016. Some interviewees see the reason for this delay as a result of weak provincial incentives and regulations, using the Clean Water Act in the United States as an example of successful enforcement of changes in water management practices. Others mention the prioritization problem that Vancouver is facing, as there are many pressing issues to be addressed, in particular the housing affordability crisis and homelessness, with water management being seen as a lower priority. As one interviewee observed, there seems to be a need to fnd synergies between priorities and opportunities to piggyback on each other’s projects. Siloed organisational structures and thinking seem to have hindered such initiatives. In the St. Kjelds Quarter example from Copenhagen, the project initially had a health and urban renewal focus, but the emergence of a strong water narrative elevated climate adaptation and the co-benefts of an integrated approach, as refected in the name for the area: Climate-Resilient Neighbourhood. Thus, one could argue that Vancouver might beneft from identifying co-benefts and synergies between City project priorities. The GI Team has hosted 23 internal workshops with 431 participants, done 19 edu- cational presentations with 346 staff, and collaborated with 32 other groups on actions or initiatives related to integrated water management. Despite these actions, many are still unsure of what it all means—clearly indicating the need for ongoing education and collaboration, as well as further defnition of the concept of “integrated water management” in contexts that extend beyond the Rain City Strategy, especially those related to integrated land use and water-sensitive urban design and infrastructure planning. One interviewee commented that Vancouver is at the “why and what for” stage of water sensitivity. There seems to be an urgent need for increased internal literacy around water, with deeper understanding of the interconnected role of sewers, groundwater, rainwater, and water quality. According to interviewees, Vancouverites themselves are relatively disinterested in water management issues, exhibiting very high rates of water consumption. This is partly due to the low cost of water and “myth of abundance,” whereby Canadians believe that they have access to an uninterrupted abundance of freshwater (WaterBucket, 2010; WEF, 2017), bad experiences with prior less successful GI solution projects, and, fortunately, the lack of catastrophic food-related events. While food events functioned as catalysts for shifting water narratives in Copenhagen 34 and Rotterdam, water is seemingly quite a low priority or concern in Vancouver. Interestingly, however, Vancouverites do associate with being a “rain city” and images of the late 1800s clearly show that Vancouver’s history evolved in a landscape of for- ests and streams. However, most of these are hidden or gone today, and visuals and real-life examples will be necessary to create the culture shift needed for a water narrative to emerge. Nevertheless, changes are occurring at the City of Vancouver. Numerous interviewees commented on the substantial turnover in City staff in the last few decades, with new employees bringing new ways of thinking and experiences from elsewhere. Furthermore, the City is undergoing major internal restructuring with formation of several new branches, suggesting an attempt to address the problem of siloes. Indeed, there seem to be numerous elements assisting the change in mindset needed internally at the City in order for an integrated water management approach to emerge and become part of business as usual. Vancouver’s IRMP’s objectives, the creation of a GI Team, and the Rain City Strategy are ambitious steps in the right direction towards water sensitivity. What is more, similar to Copenhagen and Rotterdam, Vancouver is experiencing a substantial shift in current practices through an important catalyst, namely the development of the Cambie Corridor project.

4.3.4 The Cambie Corridor project—a game-changer?

The biggest redevelopment project of the City of Vancouver, the Cambie Corridor project, is centred around Cambie Street and bounded by 16th Avenue to the north, the Fraser River to the south, Oak Street to the west, and Ontario Street to the east. The area covers 1,000 hectares, almost 9 per cent of the city’s total land area, and is home to 34,800 residents (approximately 6 per cent of the city’s population). The Cambie Corridor is the largest growth area in the city outside of downtown Vancouver, with an expected increase of between 45,800 and 51,500 new residents by 2041, more than doubling the current population, as well as new job space for over 9,000 employees. Throughout the three phases of the planning program for this initiative, the City of Vancouver has heard from more than 8,700 people at 122 public events and meetings. Interviewees suggest that the Cambie Corridor presents a tremendous opportunity for sustainable redevelopment in an area that is well-positioned in terms of amenities and services, with important potential for innovative water management due to the presence of locations with good infltration capacities and natural features such as the Quadra Sands aquifer. The next section explores how this opportunity for change has emerged.

The “aha moment” for Vancouver Just as Phase 3 of the Cambie Corridor plan was about to be approved by Council, the sewer department reported that projected population growth in the area would exceed the capacity for which it was designed and constructed in the 1950s–60s. Accommodating 50,000 new residents by 2041 would therefore require that the entirety of the sewer and drainage network and a signifcant portion of the water system be redesigned and reconstructed. It was estimated that rebuilding these networks to accommodate fully planned buildout in the conventional manner would take decades, at a cost estimated at over CAD $1 billion. Interviewees commented on how this realization of the limits to the sewer system functioned as a catalyst for change. Combined with this knowledge and the research done through the Rain City Strategy, it became apparent that new blue-green and grey approaches were necessary, and this was refected in the development of a new Utility Servicing Plan and Utilities Development Cost Levy.

35 New approach and new funding mechanisms Given the scale of required utility upgrades, the City decided to look at alternative servicing strategies compared to the current Utility Service Plan (USP), that would defer and/or reduce the cost of the current USP, and provide a holistic, integrated approach to water management that would beneft multiple long-term City objectives (e.g., affordability, livability, and environmental sustainability). A Cambie Corridor USP was developed with two main components: On-Site Water Management Requirements and Public Utility Infrastructure Upgrades. The cost of upgrading existing infrastructure to accommodate the growth in the Cambie Corridor is signifcant, with the 2019–2026 Cambie Corridor USP accounting for CAD $250 million. Similarly to Copenhagen and Rotterdam, new funding mechanisms had to be developed, and a new framework was proposed to fnance utility upgrades city-wide. The Cambie Corridor project resulted in creation of a city-wide Utilities Infrastructure Upgrade List that includes the Cambie Corridor Plan, and a new City- wide Utilities Development Cost Levy (Utilities DCL) to fund growth-related projects identifed on this list. The proposed Utilities DCL pays, not only for sewer, water, and drainage (as the current DCL does), but also covers specifc capital projects and full cost recovery, representing a fundamental institutional change that will enable funding for future GI projects city-wide. This is an important milestone for Vancouver; however, it was not the only change that has led to a different approach to water in the Cambie Corridor project, as is illustrated in the next section.

A pilot project leading to city-wide changes in water management practices Most urban water in Vancouver is currently treated as a waste product, to be conveyed away into pipes and local waters as quickly as possible, with groundwater, drinking water, wastewater, rainwater, and natural water bodies all managed separately. This alone clearly demonstrates that Vancouver still has some work to do if it wants to become a Water Sensitive City. However, as interviewees commented, new ideas and an internal culture shift at the City have resulted in the development of an integrated water management plan throughout the Cambie Corridor, with the intention of implementing effcient, resilient, and cost-effective water management measures in coordination with the 2019–2026 Cambie Corridor USP. The Integrated Water Management Plan sets two main requirements, applying to all multi-unit developments in the Cambie Corridor, related to onsite rainwater management and groundwater management. This plan resulted in Council’s approval in July 2018 of development of a Rainwater Management Bulletin and a Groundwater Management Bulletin. The Rainwater Management Bulletin is aimed at providing applicants for new developments with information on the process and required submissions related to onsite rainwater management that meets the city-wide IRMP requirements for retention, rate control, cleaning, and safe conveyance. The Groundwater Management Bulletin was a result of City staff insisting that, in order to preserve sewer capacity, reduce the risk of combined sewer overfows, and maintain wastewater treatment effectiveness, groundwater fows must be prohibited from entering the sewer system. According to numerous interviewees, the Cambie Corridor project is currently shifting the way water management is being perceived, not only by those directly involved in water management, but also more broadly across departments. Interviewees identify these bulletins as two of the main accomplishments, as they represent a substantial shift in water management practices and are arguably an important step towards an emerging water narrative for Vancouver.

36 4.3.5 Summary—Vancouver’s emerging water narrative

Vancouver is currently experiencing substantial changes in how water is perceived internally, largely due to work undertaken as part of the Rain City Strategy. The example of the Cambie Corridor project, the milestones reached, and the initiatives currently in progress should be seen as catalyzing an immense opportunity for the City to work even harder on implementing the Urban Water Transitions Framework (Figure 1) towards water sensitivity. Interviewees suggest that there is a “greenest city” narrative that is largely embraced by all departments, but that this does not constitute a water narrative. This could potentially be the result of a disconnect within the organization’s structuring around water, natural systems and environmental protection. However, although there are still some barriers to overcome, transformation is clearly underway, and this momentum must continue in order for Vancouver to develop the water narrative it needs to become truly water sensitive.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

As the Copenhagen and Rotterdam cases demonstrate, a combination of key factors is necessary to achieve a water management transition. Although the approach to becoming water sensitive differs for each city, there appear to be replicable strategies and initiatives that Vancouver could adopt. The following section compares the three cities and suggests possible recommendations for Vancouver based on interviews with key stakeholders at the City of Vancouver, the comparative studies of Copenhagen and Rotterdam, and recommendations provided by the Water Sensitive City Research Center (CRCWSC, 2016).

1. Create a compelling vision and clearly articulated narrative Copenhagen and Rotterdam each exhibit strong narratives that changed the city’s urban fabric and perspective towards water. These narratives are not necessarily specifcally focused on being water sensitive, but rather about improving quality of life for residents. They make a compelling connection between the acute need to make extensive investments in water management systems and the vision of creating a better city, which has led to clearly articulated narratives about how water can be handled in more sensitive ways that support the creation of more liveable cities. In Vancouver, this narrative exists but is in its early stages. Interviews show that, amongst Vancouver staff, there is a “greenest city” narrative that has largely been embraced by departments, but not a water narrative. This could be the result of a disconnect within the organization between management approaches to water and natural systems and environmental protection. Learning from Copenhagen and Rotterdam would involve developing more holistic thinking about how water resilience, water systems, and urban quality of life go hand in hand. However, the narratives for each city are different, as the core drivers are highly contextual. The challenge for Vancouver therefore lies in identifying the broader holistic drivers for changing water management. Hence, if the greenest city narrative is one they can relate to and embrace as a concept, perhaps one approach might be for Vancouver to further emphasize the link between GI and its “greenest city” objectives.

37 2. Alignment in organizational objectives, responsibilities, and capacities Extreme precipitation events resulted in Copenhagen developing innovative solutions for adaptation to climate change impacts. For instance, parks are designed both as retention ponds during heavy rainfall and recreational urban spaces during normal weather conditions. Rotterdam has adopted similar planning and design practices, supported by programs and strategies that enhance urban resilience while increasing livability. Through its Greenest City Action Plan, Vancouver has become a front runner on numerous environmental practices; however, water, and especially rainwater management, has been slow to rise as a City priority, partly due to the numerous pressing issues the City is currently dealing with. Homelessness and housing affordability are issues which are, and ought to be, top of mind; however, as the Copenhagen and Rotterdam cases show, focusing on one priority does not have to mean excluding another. Rather, the cases highlight how innovative design and planning can enable one project that can address numerous issues. In order for such initiatives to fourish, a common understanding of the water narrative is needed, as it requires joint effort across departments and collaboration with exter- nal stakeholders. Hence, Vancouver could beneft from identifying synergies in City priorities as an opportunity to develop a Water Sensitive City narrative. Another related challenge identifed by interviewees is the lack of resources, especially monitoring and modelling data for existing grey infrastructure. The Copenhagen and Rotterdam cases clearly show that detailed modelling and effective monitoring systems are essential to adoption of a watershed-based approach to creation of a climate-resilient city. The implementation of a Utility DCL and new Utility Service Plan show that Vancouver is working on development of innovative funding opportunities for GI solutions. Likewise, the Rainwater and Groundwater Management Bulletins further exemplify how Vancouver is moving towards water sensitivity.

3. Higher and broader professional capacities Climate change adaptation and its design solutions are an emerging feld and cities can beneft from a willingness to experiment while accepting that some risks accom- pany this approach. Copenhagen has invested in major pilot projects that function as good practice examples and are now presented all over the world as effective ways to combine water management with livability. Rotterdam has established itself a hub for knowledge and experience exchange with regard to making cities resilient, a strategic move that has resulted in engagement with cities worldwide. Interview results suggest that, even with extensive engagement and education/ outreach, internal understanding of integrated water management practices is still limited. Heightened literacy in this area could contribute towards developing the narrative needed to advance the City’s adoption of efforts to become more water sensitive. Numerous interviewees mentioned the fact that the Province of British Columbia has a huge role to play but is currently not taking the lead. However, while the Clean Water Act in the United States is a good example of successful top- down enforcement of changes in water management practices, the examples from Rotterdam and Copenhagen show that city-led initiatives and dedication are just as important, if not more essential, in order for local transformation to occur. Lastly, based on the case studies, it appears that Vancouver could beneft from hosting water-related conferences and other focal events, attracting attention towards the initiatives already being undertaken as well as providing opportunities for Vancouver to broaden its professional capacities.

38 4. Greater interest from, and more engagement with, the community The pilot project examples from Copenhagen and Rotterdam strongly illustrate the importance of including citizens at the very early stages of a project. Small-scale demonstration projects in areas such as St. Kjelds Quarter in Copenhagen educated citizens about climate adaptation through, for instance, engagement in making raingardens and learning about the benefts of nature and natural assets. Similarly, in Zoho, Rotterdam, school children were given the opportunity for input into the design of what is now a world-famous “water plaza,” Benthemplein, which functions as a showcase of the City’s water sensitive design. It seems that in order for a project to be successful, gain political leverage, and be replicated, it is essential to listen to and engage citizens in the process. A Water Sensitive City is a city where water management is so elegantly incorporated in all aspects of people’s lives that a water narrative does not need to be about water but can be about urban quality of life. Thus, in order for a water narrative to emerge in Vancouver, it would be helpful for the city to further invest in citizen education and engagement, as well as listen to the interests and values of residents with regards to water management.

6. IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

6.1 The challenge of reaching all-encompassing water sensitivity If the pilot projects in this research were examined in isolation, it might appear that Copenhagen, Rotterdam, and Vancouver to some extent, have already achieved the fnal stage of a truly Water Sensitive City on the Urban Water Transitions Framework. But these examples are pilot projects, meaning that the strategies and initiatives adopted are not yet fully refected city-wide in any of these cities. However, it is fair to say that Copenhagen and Rotterdam have reached a considerably higher stage of water sensitivity than Vancouver, mainly due to compelling water narratives, which have guided the two cities towards further integration of water management solutions within the urban fabric of the two cities. This report argues that pilot projects are of paramount importance for transitions in urban water management, as they represent real-life examples that people can interact with and learn from. Indeed, climate adaptation has now become an integral part of city planning in all three cases. The City of Copenhagen (2018) is currently making a full revision of its municipal plan, with special focus on a green, healthy, and sustainable city. In the 2019 budget, €9 million (CAD $14 million) has been allocated to ensure Copenhageners can experience nature in the city. The City of Copenhagen also reemphasizes the need for climate adaptation and cloudburst handling projects to be an integral part of improvements to public spaces, health, and nature in the city, wherever possible (City of Copenhagen, 2018). The budget for climate adaptation has, however, been cut by almost half for 2019, and the Climate Adaptation Team at the City of Copenhagen is currently prioritizing which projects to focus on (City of Copenhagen, 2018). This suggests that not all current projects in Copenhagen take a climate adaptation lens, nor are they all contributing to resilience, and a truly water sensitive transformation has not yet been reached. Rotterdam’s Climate Adaptation Team is going to put forward an ambitious document to the Council in 2019 containing a high fnancial request for climate adaptation projects and proces over the next three years (2019–22) (Bes, pers. comm.). As Bes (pers. comm.) stated, the chances that these requests will be approved are quite high, as the 39 sense of urgency seems to rise among all stakeholders. This shows that the benefts of integrated water management have become so ingrained within the organisation that the fnancial aspect of such projects are understood as delivering comprehensive value, rather than solving a single problem, suggesting a high level of transformational progress. The Vancouver case highlights how institutional policies and plans are having a con- siderable impact on water management practices. Current trends, as in the introduction of the utility DCL and the Rainwater and Groundwater Management Bulletins resulting from the Cambie Corridor project, suggest that positive change is underway. Vancouver is, however, still facing challenges, especially due to the infancy of its water narrative, which this research argues must be further developed to facilitate its transition towards water sensitivity.

6.2 Concluding remarks This report argues that, in order for a city to become resilient to the adverse effects of climate change, growing populations, and aging infrastructure, new ways of thinking about water management are needed. It demonstrates that, if water management can be mainstreamed throughout city development, a stronger and more rapid transition towards water sensitivity can be achieved. The cases of Copenhagen and Rotterdam illustrate that this goal is reached most effectively when a compelling water narrative is integrated in the design and function of city-wide development. Vancouver has developed a number of innovative institutional initiatives, such as the implementation of an integrated rainwater management plan, the creation of a Green Infrastructure Team, the Rain City Strategy, and approval of Rainwater and Groundwater Management Bulletins through the Cambie Corridor project, which are all assisting the City in becoming an emerging Water Sensitive City. Challenges have been identifed and recommendations given based on the Copenhagen and Rotterdam cases as well as insights from Vancouver staff interviews. In conclusion, this report strives to highlight that, in order for a city to successfully adapt an integrated water management approach, it’s necessary to have a compelling water narrative that is developed, understood and used by all.

40 7. REFERENCES

Aerts, J., Major, D.C., Bowman, M. J., Dircke, P., & Aris, M. (2009). Connecting Delta Cities. VU University Press. Asla. (2016). The Copenhagen Cloudburst Formula: A Strategic Process for Planning and Designing Blue-Green Interventions. Retrieved from https://www.asla. org/2016awards/171784.html, accessed 12.12.2018. Bes, E. (pers. comm.) Water Management Policy Advisor, Climate Adaptation team at the City of Rotterdam. Interviewed via skype on 19.12.2018. Bijker, W. & Law, J. (1994). Shaping Technology/building Society – Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Bowen, G. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), pp. 27–40. Brown, R., Farrelly, M., & Loorbach, D. (2013). Actors working the institutions in sustainability transitions: The case of Melbourne’s stormwater management. Global Environmental Change, 23(4), pp. 701–718. Brown, R., Keath, N. and Wong, T. (2009). Urban water management in cities: historical, current and future Regimes. Water Sci. Technol. 59(5), 847–855. Brown, R., Rogers, B., & Werbeloff, L. (2016). Moving toward Water Sensitive Cities: A guidance manual for strategists and policy makers. Melbourne, Australia: Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities. City of Copenhagen. (2012). Cloudburst Management Plan 2012. Retrieved from www. kk.dk/climate, accessed 13.12.2018. City of Copenhagen. (2014). Projektbeskrivelse Bryggervangen og Skt. Kjelds Plads. Projektnr. 01188. City of Copenhagen Press: November, 2014. City of Copenhagen. (2018). Verdensby med ansvar - Forslag til Kommuneplanstrategi 2018’, Frederiksberg Bogtrykkeri A/S. City of Vancouver. (2015). Greenest City Action Plan 2020 – Part two: 2015–2020. City of Vancouver. (May 1, 2018). Cambie Corridor Plan. City of Vancouver. (July 11, 2018). City-wide Utilities Financing Growth Strategy and Cambie Corridor Utilities Servicing Plan – Policy Report. City of Vancouver. (July 11, 2018). Groundwater Management Bulletin. City of Vancouver. (July 11, 2018). Rainwater Management Bulletin. City of Vancouver. (July 24, 2018). Amendments to the Zoning Development By-Laws – Policy Report. City of Vancouver. (July 27, 2018). RFP: Cambie Corridor Integrated Water Management Phase I: Visioning and Opportunities Assessment. City of Vancouver. (November 1, 2018). RFP: Hydrogeological Consulting Services for Oakridge Groundwater Management Project. CRCWSC (CRC Water Sensitive Cities). (2016). Shaping Perth as a Water Sensitive City. Dai, L, Wörner, R., & van Rijswick, H. (2018). Rainproof cities in the Netherlands: approaches in Dutch water governance to climate-adaptive urban planning, International Journal of Water Resources Development, 34:4, 652–674. Dale, A., Robinson, J., Herbert, Y., & Shaw, A. (2013). Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation: An Action Agenda for BC Decision-Makers. MC3 research http://mc3.roy- alroads.ca/sites/default/fles/webfles/MC3%20Climate%20Action%20Agenda.pdf. 41 Dammann, S. (2004). Environmental indicators for buildings. A search for a common lan- guage. Ph.D. thesis. By og Byg. De Graaf, R. & Van der Brugge, R. (2010). Linking water policy innovation and urban renewal: the case of Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Water Policy; 12 (3): 381–400. De Urbanisten. (n.d.). Water Square Benthemplein. Retrieved from http://www.urbanisten.nl/wp/?portfolio=waterplein-benthemplein, accessed 24.10.2018. De Vaus, D. A. (2001). Research Design in Social Research. London: SAGE Publication. Derkzen, M. L., van Teeffelen, A. J. A., & Verburg, P. H. (2017). Green infrastructure for urban climate adaptation: How do residents’ views on climate impacts and green infrastructure shape adaptation preferences? Landscape and Urban Planning, 157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.027. Dunn, G. (pers. comm.). Water sustainability specialist, and a former PhD candidate with the Collaborative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities, Melbourne. Interviewed in person on 30.10.2018. Dunn, G., Brown, R. R., Bos, J. J., & Bakker, K. (2017). The role of science-policy interface in sustainable urban water transitions: Lessons from Rotterdam. Environmental Science & Policy, 73, pp. 71–79. Edelenbos, J., Van Buuren, A., Roth, D., & Winnubst, M. (2017). Stakeholder initiatives in food risk management: Exploring the role and impact of bottom-up initiatives in three “Room for the River” projects in the Netherlands. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60:1, 47–66. Engberg, L. A. (2018). Climate Adaptation and Citizens’ Participation in Denmark: Experiences from Copenhagen, in Hughes, S, Chu, E.K. and Mason, S.G (ed.) Climate Change in Cities: Innovations in Multi-Level Governance, Springer International Publishing, 2018. Fratini, C. F., Elle, M., Jensen, M. B., & Mikkelsen, P. S. (2012). A conceptual framework for addressing complexity and unfolding transition dynamics when developing sustainable adaptation strategies in urban water management. Water Science and Technology, 66(11), 2393–2401. Geels, F. (2005). Co-evolution of technology and society: The transition in water supply and personal hygiene in the Netherlands (1850–1930)—a case study in multi-level perspective. Technology in Society, 27(3), pp.363-397. Geels, F. W. (2011). The multi-level perspective on sustainability transition: Responses to seven criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(2011), 24–40. Geels, F.W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. Policy 31, 1257–1274. Gehl Institute. (2018). Public Life and Climate Adaptation Planning. Retrieved from https://gehlinstitute.org/news/climate-adaptation-planning-and-public-life/. Harboe, T. (2006). Indføring i samfundsvidenskabelig metode. Kap. 4: Kvalitative og kvantitative metoder. Forlaget Samfundslitteratur, pp. 31–39, 4. udgave., Frederiksberg. Harford, D. and Raftis, C. (2018). Low Carbon Resilience: Best Practices for Professionals - Final Report. ACT, SFU: Vancouver, BC. Mees, H., Driessen, P., & Runhaar, H. (2012). Exploring the Scope of Public and Private Responsibilities for Climate Adaptation. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 14:3, 305–330. Hinrichsen, D. (2016). Copenhagen Prepares. Scandinavian Review, Spring 2016. 42 HOFOR. (2016). Pure water unique to Copenhagen harbour. Retrieved from www.hofor. dk, accessed 25.10.2018. IPCC. (2018). Global warming of 1.5 °C. Summary for Policymakers. UNEP. IWA. (n.d.). Greater Copenhagen Water Utility, HOFOR A/S Long-term supply solutions that are green, safe and inexpensive. Retrieved from http://www.iwa-network.org/ greater-copenhagen-water-utility-hofor-as/, accessed 18.10.18. Jensen, J. S., Fratini, C. F; & Cashmore, M. A. (2015b). Socio-technical Systems as Place- specifc Matters of Concern: The Role of Urban Governance in the Transition of the Wastewater System in Denmark, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning. Jensen, J., Lauridsen, E., Fratini, C., & Hoffmann, B. (2015a). Harbour Bathing and the Urban Transition of Water in Copenhagen: Junctions, Mediators, and Urban Navigations. Environment and Planning A, 47(3), pp. 554–570. Klimakvarter. (2013). Klimakvarter projekt katalog. København Ø, DK. Klimakvarter. (n.d.). Skt. Kjelds Plads. Retrieved from http://klimakvarter.dk/en/projekt/ skt-kjelds-plads-2/, accessed 6.11.2018. Liu, L. & Jensen, M. (2018). Green infrastructure for sustainable urban water management: Practices of fve forerunner cities. Cities, 74, pp. 126–133. Liu, L., & Jensen, M. (2017). Climate resilience strategies of Beijing and Copenhagen and their links to sustainability. Water Policy, 19, 997–1013. Mackenzie, Linnie. (2010). Rotterdam: The Water City of the Future. Water and Wastewater International, retrieved from https://www.waterworld.com/articles/ wwi/print/volume-25/issue-5/editorial-focus/rainwater-harvesting/rotterdam-the- water-city-of-the-future.html accessed 23.10.2018. Madsen, H. M., Brown, R. R., Elle, M., & Mikkelsen, P. S. (2017). Social construction of stormwater control measures in Melbourne and Copenhagen: A discourse analysis of technological change, embedded meanings and potential mainstreaming. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 115, 198–209. Meerow, S., & Newell, J. P. (2017). Spatial planning for multifunctional green infrastructure: Growing resilience in Detroit. Landscape and Urban Planning, 159. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.10.005. Metro Vancouver. (2016). Climate Projections for Metro Vancouver report. Meyer, U. & Schulz-Schaeffer, I. (2006). Three forms of interpretative fexibility. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, 2. Midtgaard, S. (2016). Copenhagen’s remarkable journey to liveability. Retrieved from LeaderLab, http://leaderlab.com/liveability-recomendation-copenhagen/, accessed 26.10.2018. Municipality of Rotterdam. (2013). Rotterdam’s climate initiative. Retrieved from https:// www.rotterdamclimateinitiative.nl/documents/2015-en-ouder/Documenten/RCI- RAS-2013-NL-LR.pdf. Municipality of Rotterdam. (2016). Gemeentelijk rioleringsplan, Planperiode 2016–2020: Voor een gezonde en aantrekkelijke stad met een robuust stedelijk watersysteem. Rotterdam: Municipality of Rotterdam. Retrieved from https://www.rotterdam.nl/ Clusters/Stadsbeheer/15bb7815_Gemeentelijk_rio. Newman W. (2014). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Pearson Education Limited.

43 Nielsen, S. B., & Jensen, M. B. (2016). Towards sustainable urban water governance in Denmark: collective building of capabilities in local authorities. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 10(2), 103–119. PCIC. (2016). Climate Impacts Summary for the City of Vancouver. Pacifc Climate Impacts Consortium. Raidt, D. (2015). Why Copenhagen Has Almost Perfect Water. https://www.citylab.com/ environment/2015/12/why-copenhagen-has-almost-perfect-water/421728/. Raymond, C. M., Frantzeskaki, N., Kabisch, N., Berry, P., Breil, M., Nita, M. R., & Calfapietra, C. (2017). A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefts of nature- based solutions in urban areas. Environmental Science and Policy, 77. Reimagining the civic commons. (Sep 11, 2018). Top 10 Lessons from Copenhagen. Retrieved from https://medium.com/reimagining-the-civic-commons/top-10-lessons-from-copenhagen-dcf3a20ce7db, accessed 25.10.2018. Resilient Rotterdam. (n.d.). Objectives for Resilient Rotterdam. Retrieved from: https:// www.resilientrotterdam.nl/en/objectives, accessed, 28.12.2018. Rotterdam Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. (2012). Retrieved from https://www.rotterdamclimateinitiative.nl/documents/2015-en-ouder/ Documenten/20121210_RAS_EN_lr_. Rotterdam Climate Initiative. (2009). Rotterdam Climate Proof – 2009 Adaptation Programme. Rotterdam Climate Initiative. (n.d.). Rotterdam climate initiative. Retrieved October 15, 2018, from https://www.rotterdamclimateinitiative.nl/. Rowley, J. (2002). Using case studies in research. Management Research News. Vol. 25, pp. 16–18. Shaw, A., Burch, S., Kristensen, F., Robinson, J., & Dale, A. (2014). Accelerating the sustainability transition: Exploring synergies between adaptation and mitigation in British Columbian communities. Global Environmental Change, 25, pp. 41–51. SLA. (n.d.). Bryggervangen and Skt. Kjelds Plads. Retrieved from https://www.sla.dk/en/ projects/bryggervangen-sktkjelds/, accessed 6.11.2018. State of Green. (2018). Adapting to the future climate. Retrieved from https://stateofgreen.com/en/partners/city-of-copenhagen/solutions/ adapting-to-the-future-climate/?_cldee=cm9uamEuc29yZW5zZW5AZ21haW- wuY29t&recipientid=contact-d4bff2061fb0e711a82b000d3ab53dec-59fe72e4d- 08a4b58999ac5c5087bdd27&esid=2ef0c411-63e2-e811-a846-000d3ab4df3e, accessed 12.12.2018. Statistics Canada. (2016). Population of Vancouver, retrieved from http://worldpopula- tionreview.com/world-cities/vancouver-population/, accessed 03.01.2019. Tredje Natur. (n.d.). The frst Climate District. Retrieved from https://www.tredjenatur. dk/en/portfolio/the-frst-climate-district/versie_4.pdf, accessed 12.12.218. Uldall, Mads. (pers. comm.). Project Manager of the urban renewal project at St. Kjelds Quarter, City of Copenhagen. Interviewed via skype on 13.11.2018. Uldall, Mads. (2015). Case 1: Klimatilpasning, byrum og borgerinddragelse in Hoffman, B., Elle, M., Dahl-hansen, J. and Wejs, A. (eds.). (2015) Innovativ klimatilpasning med borgere - Håndbog til bæredygtig omstilling. Center for Design, Innovation og Bæredygtig Udvikling, Aalborg Universitet.

44 Urban Green-blue Grids. (n.d.). Water Sensitive Rotterdam, retrieved from https:// www.urbangreenbluegrids.com/projects/water-sensitive-rotterdam/, accessed 23.10.2018. Water Sensitive Rotterdam. (n.d.). Water Sensitive Rotterdam programme, retrieved from https://www.watersensitiverotterdam.nl/, accessed 23.10.2018. WaterBucket. (March 23, 2010). The Canadian Myth of Abundance: Canadians’ water con- servation efforts declining. Retrieved from http://waterbucket.ca/wuc/2010/03/23/ the-canadian-myth-of-abundance-canadians/, accessed 15.12.2018. Werbeloff, L., Brown, R. R., & Loorbach, D. A. (2016). Pathways of system transformation: Strategic agency to support regime change. In Environmental Science and Policy. 66, pp. 119–128. Wong, T. and Brown, R. (2009). The water sensitive city: principles for practice. Water Science & Technology, 60 (3). Ziersen, J., Clauson-Kaas, J., & Rasmussen, J. (2017). The role of greater Copenhagen utility in implementing the city’s cloudburst management plan. Water Practice and Technology, 12(2), pp. 338–343.