Page 1

The Blue Heart

A seascape approach to synergetic integration of climate actions in the North Sea

Changsoon Choi MSc Thesis Landscape Architecture Wageningen University


The Blue Heart

A seascape approach to synergetic integration of climate actions in the North Sea

Changsoon Choi

Colophon Š Changsoon Choi 2016 Landscape Architecture Group Wageningen University Contat Information

Droevendaalsesteeg 3 6708 PB Wageningen The Netherlands


Changsoon Choi Phone: +31 6 1764 0416 E-mail:


Dr. Ir. Sven Stremke

All rights reserved. Nothing from this publication is allowed to be used without written permission of the author or the Wageningen University Landscape Architecture Chairgroup.

Course: LAR-80436 Thesis Landscape Architecture

Author Changsoon Choi

Supervisor S (Sven) Stremke Assistant Professor Landscape Architecture Wageningen University

Examiner ir. R (Rudi) van Etteger MA Assistant Professor Landscape Architecture Wageningen University

Examiner A (Adri) van den Brink Professor and chair of the Landscape Architecture Group Wageningen University


Preface After the fruitful years in the Netherlands, this thesis marks the end to my study in Landscape Architecture and Planning at Wageningen University. As a landscape architect, I have deeply interested in water, which led me to the Netherlands, a country renowned for their accumulated expertise in water-space nexus throughout the history. As soon as I came here, I fascinated by landscapeenergy nexus, which has been regarded as two remote words to me. Naturally, the fascination in two climate-conscious topics allow me to explore the synergetic approach to adaptation and mitigation in an integrated manner. During the course of this thesis, I purely enjoyed seeing the unseen. As with many of us do, I have not acknowledged the scene beyond the coast. This is something exciting for me as a landscape architect to explore a seascape as if I were a seascape architect. A sea contains huge possibilities. In the Dutch part of the North Sea, if we build offshore wind farms in the 5 % of the whole area, the total electricity demands of the Netherlands can almost be provided by wind energy. But there are many challenges and steps to be taken towards that day. So there are what spatial planners and designers can and should do by holistically considering diverse and complex aspects at sea. The proposed seascape is so-called the Blue Heart, inspired from the Green Heart in the Netherlands. I hope the Blue Heart to be a place where people can have uncommon experience feeling the sublime and bare force of nature, and commune with marine life. This thesis is organized in four major parts. In part 1, the background of the project, the problem and the research purpose are introduced. In part 2, relevant theory and knowledge is studied by means of literature study. In part 3, seascape analysis is conducted to gain better understandings of seascapes in the North Sea and the Holland coast. In part 4, a seascape design for the Holland coast in the context of Amsterdam metropolitan region is illustrated. Lastly, in the part 5, critical discussion and evaluation are elaborated concluding the thesis project. Finally, I would like to thank my supervisor, Sven Stremke for his inspiring and motivational supervision even from the minor thesis to this final MSc thesis. I learned a lot from Sven what the research should be. It was also fun and helpful to discuss with fellow students in the NRGlab. I would also like to thank Rudi van Etteger for his valuable input during the green-light presentation and would like to thank Ingrid Duchhart for her warm but critical advice. Finally, I would like to show my gratitude towards Yookyung Ban and Sunghee Kim from deep in my heart. Without their supports, I would not finish the master study. I hope you will enjoy reading this thesis. Changsoon Choi


Abstract Currently, mitigation and adaptation measures are considered as two separate approaches due to differences between the two actions and segregated practices and policy. However, there is a growing interest that a synergetic approach can fascilitate integrated climate actions bringing substantial benefits to multiple sectors, while reducing the impacts of climate change. Nonetheless, efforts to promote synergies between adaptation and mitigation measures are rare and mostly limited to theoretical and conceptual level. There is also limited knowledge on how it can be planned and designed in a spatial-explicit manner. Thus, this thesis fills in the knowledge gap by exploring the potential role of a seascape approach for the synergetic integration of climate actions. It has increasingly acknowledged that spatial planning and design such as a landscape approach can function as a framework to integrate adaptation and mitigation with other socioeconomic desires promoting joint benefits. Given the increasing importance of marine environment in times of climate change, this thesis explores a seascape approach based on a systems thinking to a landscape approach. In this thesis marine environment is understood as the new spatial realm at which spatial planning and design can increase the effectiveness of adaptation and mitigation measures while integrating them with careful consideration of marine ecology. This is illustrated with a propositional concept of artificial islands in the Holland coast.


TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.Introduction 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8

10 Problem context............................................................................................................. 12 Problem description....................................................................................................... 12 1.2.1 The adaptation and mitigation dichotomy 14 1.2.2 Marine ecology 15 Knowledge gaps........................................................................................................... 15 1.3.1 Synergetic spatial integration of adaptation and mitigation 15 1.3.2 A seascape approach 15 Purpose statement......................................................................................................... 17 Research questions ..................................................................................................... 18 Theoretical framework................................................................................................... 18 1.6.1 The integration of climate change adaptation and mitigation 18 1.6.2 A seascape approach 19 Methodological framework............................................................................................. 20 Relevance......................................................................................................................

2. Theory & Knowledge

22 2.1 The Integrated climate actions ..................................................................................... 22 2.1.1 Climate change and responses 22 2.1.2 Adaptation and mitigation dichotomy 24 2.1.3 Differences between adaptation and mitigation 25 2.1.4 Historical developments of climate actions 26 2.2 Synergetic integration of climate actions....................................................................... 26 2.2.1 The inter-relationships of adaptation and mitigation 33 2.2.2 Potential role of a landscape approach 35 2.3 Seascape approach....................................................................................................... 35 2.3.1 The concept of a seascape 36 2.3.2 A seascape approach and analysis model 39 2.4 Precedent study on the artificial islands .......................................................................


3. Seascape Analysis 3.1 Analysis: the Dutch North Sea....................................................................................... 42 3.1.1 Abiotic analysis 42 3.1.2 Biotic analysis 51 3.1.3 Anthropogenic analysis 60 3.1.4 Integrated suitability analysis 66 3.2 Themed Analysis: the Dutch Coast .............................................................................. 76 3.2.1 Coastal analysis adaptation 76 3.2.2 Energy analysis: mitigation 82 3.2.3 Ecology analysis: non-climatic factor 86 4.1 Approach: offshore islands with synergy....................................................................... 90 4.1.1 Opportunities for the coast: adaptation 90 4.1.2 Opportunities for energy: mitigation 90 4.1.1 Opportunities for ecology: non-climatic factor 92 4.2 Vision .......................................................................................................................... 96 4.3 Guiding principles ........................................................................................................ 98 4.4 Designing protective seascape: adaptation.................................................................. 100 4.5 Designing energy seascape: mitigation........................................................................ 110 4.6 Growing with the time .................................................................................................. 115 4.7 Detail design................................................................................................................. 132 4.7.1 Building with the North Sea 132 4.7.2 The Blue Heart as ecological seascape 136 4.7.3 Three areas is the Blue Heart 140

4. Seascape Design

5. Conclusion 5.1 Evaluation..................................................................................................................... 156 5.2 Discussion..................................................................................................................... 156 5.2 Conclusion..................................................................................................................... 158 Reference Appendices

162 172


1.INTRODUCTION 1.1 Problem context Climate change impacts and actions It is obvious that human-induced climate change presents increasing challenges on human and natural systems. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report states that it is likely that the global warming and climate change impacts will further increase in the future, based on recent greenhouse gas (GHG) emission scenarios (Pachauri et al., 2014). In order to address climate change, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) highlights two fundamental options: (1) adaptation to climate change and (2) mitigation of climate change. Climate action may refer to any efforts or actions that organizations or governments can take in response to climate change such as adaptation and mitigation (Downing et al., 2001). However, throughout the history of climate policy, adaptation and mitigation have been considered as two different approaches for the same problem, neglecting the synergetic aspects between the two measures (Biesbroek et al., 2009). Rather, the emphasis of climate actions has changed from focusing solely on mitigation to, more recently, on adaptation (Laukkonen et al., 2009). Although adaptation and mitigation are seemingly separate measures at different values and scales where they operate, they are intrinsically connected (Klein et al., 2005). For example, it is imaginable to install an air back as a metaphor of adaptation and anti-lock brakes in a car as that of mitigation. The air back can prevents a serious damage if an accident

Figure 1.1 coastal areas are getting crowded, New York, USA. (Erkki Siirila, 2010).


happens (adaptation) whereas anti-lock brakes can reduce the probability of an accident (mitigation) and the magnitude of the accident if it takes place. Both measures are to prepare for one problem- a car accident, which can be comparable to climate change. There also exist potential synergies between adaptation and mitigation (Landauer et al., 2015). The potentials of combining both climate change options have only recently been discussed by scientific communities, and yet the synergetic efforts by integrating adaptation and mitigation together, especially with spatial implications, are still rare in climate change debates (see, e.g. Duguma et al., 2014; Berry et al., 2014; Klein et al., 2007; Burch and Robinson, 2007). However, it is desirable, if possible, to integrate both climate change measures to maximize efficiencies in reducing climate change impacts. Then how can they be integrated creating synergy in addressing climate change?

Oceans as climate change battleground Oceans show a potential in answering the question mentioned above. Glovally oceans are at the interconnections of climate change issues as ‘battleground’ with today’s metropolitan regionalization around coastal areas globally (see, e.g. figure 1.1). For example, climate change is likely to increase the threat to vulnerable coastlines in the coming decades. Rising sea levels and storm surges pose major challenges to cities as nowadays 40 % of the world’s population lives less than 60 miles from the coast and 80 % of the population lives in broad coastal areas (Small et al., 2003). The population density within 60miles of the

Figure 1.2 an offshore wind farm Middelgrunden provind energy to Copenhagen, Denmark (Larsen et al., 2005).

coastline is approximately 3 times higher than the global average density (ibid). In this sense, adaptation issues such as flood defense and coastal management have become highly significant urban agendas. Moreover, oceans have huge possibilities of renewable energy assimilation such wind and waver enregy. It can help cities around coastal regions achieve renewable energy transitions, thus mitigating climate change as Copenhagen, Denmark does, for instance (see, figure 1.2). A report by the European Wind Energy Association states that offshore wind farms could provide over four times the today’s electricity needs of EU countries (Arapogianni et al., 2013).

Oceans with challenges Oceans, however, have not only opportunities but also challenges if we are to utilize them for climate measures. As populations and economic activities around coastal areas increases, there are increasing pressures on coastal and marine environments, which can largely be illustrated with (i) the intensive use of oceans as a form of ‘ocean sprawl’ and (ii) the degradation of marine ecosystems. Oceans are more ‘crowded’ than we can normally imagine although they seem to have unlimited space (Beatly, 2014). For example, according to the policy document on the North Sea 2016 - 2021, the North Sea is one of the most ‘industrialized’ oceans in the world, with a high density of oilrigs, undersea cables and pipelines, mineral extraction, and growing number of wind turbines (VROM, 2015). Especially there have been and will be exponential growth in offshore wind farms in Europe such as the Gunfleet Sands project and London Arrary in UK. Together with this intensive sea use, busy shipping lanes, fishing boats, and military exercise areas are intertwined at seas, making oceans busy areas. Besides, the current way of human activities at sea adversly affect marine ecosystems, for example, over-fishing by bottom-trawling boats. Humaninduced climate change adds more pressures on marine ecosystems, harming marine life and their habitats (Beatly, 2014). For example, rising sea temperatures and uptake of carbon dioxide cause ocean acidification, changing environmental conditions of marine life and habitats (Feely, 2006). Humans’ reliance on fossil fuels has doubled the level of mercury in oceans, mainly due to the released water from power plants, over the past 100 years (UNEP, 2013). Therefore, these increasing challenges to marine environment require a systemic approach in a more

careful and ecologically sustainable way. Then, the question is how and in what ways to utilize the sea as productive environment for humans, while respecting and even enriching marine life and environment. In this regard of sustainable approach to both oceans and cosatal cities, it is essential to think beyond a terrestrial boundary and understand the coast and nearshore as transitional areas between (far-offshore) sea and land. Yet until now, little advancements have been made on this benefiticial approach both to sea and land. Most of current spatial planning and design in coastal cities focus on near shore or landsides of coastal areas, neglecting marine environment. The recent emergence of Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) can be helpful in understanding and planning various sea-use (Ehler & Douvere, 2009). But, MSP focuses mainly on management of maritime stakeholders and sea-use conflicts through ocean zoning.

Seascape approach One possibility to approach a sea as productive environment is employing conventional tools and knowledge in an unusual way, for instance, by applying a spatial approach to marine environment. There exist accumulated knowledge and practices on land. Similar progresses can potentially be made at sea. In this regard, spatially oriented disciplines such as landscape architecture and a landscape approach, in particular, have potential roles in searching for a new type of seascape approach. A landscape approach can be understood as a holistic one that understands the living environment as complex socio-ecological systems, thereby coordinating multiple socio-economic issues such as climate change with ecological objectives in a spatial-explicit way (e.g. green-infrastructure). Therefore, landscape approach can perform as a switchboard for adaptation and mitigation purposes as well as for the sustainable development of oceans. Considering the importance of oceans in times of climate change and global coastal urbanization, it is crucial to test the application of a landscape approach to coastal and marine environment as ‘a seascape approach.’ In this study, based on an widely accepted meaning of landscape from European Landscape Convention (2000), a working definition of seascape can be formulated as, an area, as perceivable by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/ or human factors (ELC, 2000). A seascape approach can be a promising and relevant concept to integrating climate actions while respecting marine ecosystems with spatial implications.


Case study area: the Holland Coast in Amsterdam Metropolitan Region (AMR), NL The Holland coast and the North Sea with the context of Amsterdam metropolitan region can be a relevant case in exploring a seascape approach to integrating climate change actions (see, figure 1.3). The Netherlands is a low-lying country, approximately 27% of the land is situated below average sea level and 55% is vulnerable to floods (Giardino et al., 2011). Moreover, the area below sea level has an extremely dense population, about 56% of the whole population of the Netherlands (ibid). Throughout history, the Netherlands has battled with the North Sea for their survival. Accordingly, climate change has a highly significant role in Dutch spatial planning and design with accumulated technology on climate change such as the sand motor and wind turbines. In this regard, the Holand coast and the Amsterdam metropolitan region, a city region at the North wing of Randstad (Alexander, 2002), provide the proper condition to examine a seascape approach to integrated climate actions.

1.2 Problem description 1.2.1 The adaptation and mitigation dichotomy Throughout the history, adaptation and mitigation are regarded as two fundamentally separate measures, framed by scientists and policy makers (Biesbroek et al., 2009). This has been described as ‘the adaptation and mitigation dichotomy’ (Klein et al., 2007). However, the dichotomy of adaptation and mitigation can be problematic because, for example, in a long term it is likely to have negative consequences in addressing climate change. One measure can have a positive effect of adaptation in a short-term, but in a long-term there might be more negative effects in terms of mitigation. Recently, there is growing awareness that adaptation and mitigation are erroneously considered as different approaches to the same problem, thus ignoring potential synergies by integrating them. This is probably because more and more attentions are given to the relationships of climate actions and space, for example, energyspace relationship (e.g. Stremke & Dobbelsteen,

Figure.1.3 the three sub-parts of the Dutch coast and Amsterdam Metropolitan region


2012; Sijmons et al., 2014). This also leads to the increasing awareness in spatial-related disciplines, such as landscape architecture and spatial planning, that it is the policy makers who cause the dichotomy, but indeed it is possible and desirable to integrate both climate measures together with other issues in spatial planning and design (Biesbroek et al., 2009). The adaptation-mitigation dichotomy can also be seen in the case study area. Currently, Amsterdam metropolitan region (AMR) has two primary climate change issues: coastal defense (adaptation) and a renewable energy transition (mitigation) (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2011). However, these two climate change actions have mostly been addressed separately, ignoring the potentials of synergetic situation and possible adverse impacts on climate change with a long-term perspective. In addition to the main problem of dichotomy in the case study area, there are specific challenges in each adaptation and mitigation issue. In order to achieve the climate change goals in an integrated way, these challenges should also be solved as specific objectives in this study, which are elaborated below.

(Brand et al., 2014). There are often two types of measure to protect coasts from flooding: a hard defense (e.g. groynes and sea dikes) and a soft defense (e.g. sand nourishments). For the Holland coast, the National Coastal Strategy relies largely on sand nourishment at foreshore, beach, and dunes in order to heighten the sand-barrier (Delta Programme, 2013) (figure 1.4). However, it requires an ever-increasing volume of sand to supplement sand dunes as sea level rise and land subsidence continue in the future (Broeze et al., 2004; Kersten et al., 2013). Moreover, a strict management of sand dune in the Holland coast has led to a rigid coastline, reducing biodiversity. Also, the height of dunes might disconnect people from the water as well as land from the sea, especially in a visual way (Kersten et al., 2013) (e.g. figure 1.5). Thus, instead of ever heightening and re-nourishing sand dunes as another form of ‘soft dike,’ a shift in coastal defense strategy should be explored to connect sea, land and people by embracing the sea.

Adaptation The Holland coast faces increasing challenges in terms of coastal management, and in this study, they can be described as the coastal squeeze, and ever re-nourishing ‘soft’ dike of sand. The North Sea level is expected to rise by 85cm until 2100 (Delta Programme, 2013). If the coast wants to keep hinterlands safe from flooding, the existing coastal foundation and defense structures should be modified to deal with higher sea levels (Kersten et al., 2013). In addition to a sea level rise, coastal erosion (-9.6x105 ㎥/year in the Holland coast) adds a more pressure on the coastal defense, which can be referred to ‘the coastal squeeze’ Figure 1.4 sand nourishment at the Holland coast (Deltares, 2010)

Figure 1.5 cross-section of the dune area in the Holland Coast (NHV & IAHS, 1998)



1.2.2 Marine ecology

Amsterdam desires to achieve a transition toward renewable energy sources in the future (Zwijnenburg and Bosman, 2014). The underlying motivation to this ambition is that, according to a document ‘De Circulaire Metropool Amsterdam 2014-2018’, the municipality Amsterdam plans to have 75% less CO2 emission per year in 2040 compared with 1990 (ibid) (see, figure 1.6). However, a policy document ‘Energy Strategy Amsterdam’ states that only 50% of the Amsterdam’s total electricity consumption can be supported by renewable energy sources until 2040 (Leguijt et al., 2010). In other words, Amsterdam is hardly self-sufficient in achieving a renewable energy transition. This is because of the increasing land-use pressures and public oppositions to renewable energy technologies due to harming urban landscape quality and visual impacts of large wind turbines (see, e.g. figure 1.7). Thus, in this study it leads to a challenge to provide 50% of the Amsterdam’s electricity needs in 2040.

In this thesis, a seascape approach is studied to explore the possibilities of integrating climate actions at the Holland coast and the North Sea, which should be sustainable both for man and marine life. Accordingly, it is important to consider ecological challenges in marine environment as another thematic issue. While there are numerous environmental challenges in the North Sea, here the focus is given to ecological habitats. The North Sea is an open marine ecosystem with rich nutrients. The sea also provides marine life breeding areas and migratory routes (Bos et al., 2011). According to a document that assessed marine ecosystems in the North Sea, the general ecosystem and biodiversity of the North Sea is still not in desirable status although there have been positive trends in the populations of marine fauna, especially sea mammals, during the last 15 years (ibid). Among sea mammals in the North Sea the representative ones are Harbour porpoise, Harbour seal, Grey seal, White-beaked dolphin, and Minke Whale, in descending order of populations (ibid) (figure 1.8). While Harbour porpoise, White-beaked dolphin, and Minke Whale have less spatial correlations with the North Sea as the range of their habitats are extensive under the water, Harbour seal and Grey seal have significant spatial interrelations in terms of their habitats within the North Sea (see, figure 1.9). However, there are lacks in habitats of Harbour Seal and Grey Seal with ’unfavorable conservation status’ according to the North Sea Spatial Agenda (2015). It can be a serious problem in that marine mammals require terrestrial habitats for reproduction and immigration.

Figure 1.6 Co2 reduction goals in Amsterdam (Leguijt et al., 2010).

Figure 1.7 wind turbines in the industrial port of Amsteradm for less land-use pressure and public opposition (Ritzen, 2011).


Figure 1.8 Harbour Seal on the sandy beach (Photo by Ed Young, 2010).

1.3 Knowledge gaps 1.3.1 Synergetic spatial integration of adaptation and mitigation The first knowledge gap addressed in this MSc thesis concerns the spatial integration of climate actions to create synergies. Adaptation and mitigation have been separated as two different approaches for the same problem, in spite of the shifts in focus from mitigation to adaptation throughout the policy development (Klein et al., 2007). Although there are some publications on the integration or inter-relations of both climate actions (e.g. Klein et al., 2005; Berry et al., 2015; Laukkonen et al., 2009; Goklany, 2007; Jones et al., 2007), it is rarely studied to integrate them with spatial implications in climate change debates (e.g. Biesbroek et al., 2009; Duguma et al., 2014).

1.3.2 Seascape approach The second knowledge gap addressed in this MSc thesis concerns the seascape approach, which can be explained by the application of the landscape approach to marine environment. Considering the importance of oceans with regards to climate change issues including potentials (e.g. renewable energy) and challenges (e.g. intensive sea-uses harming marine ecosystems and environmental degradation), it is important to utilize sea as productive environment for humans in addressing climate change, while respecting marine life. However, there are few studies regarding the spatial approach to coast and marine environment with relations to urban areas (Broeze et al., 2004). Most current spatial planning and design of cities neglect marine environment (Beatly, 2014). While marine spatial

Figure 1.9 a habitat map of Grey seal. The Dutch coast functions as a link between habitats (IUCN, 2008).

planning largely concerns management of maritime stakeholders and sea-use conflicts (e.g. Ehler & Douvere, 2009), for example, which might be comparable to the planning activity on land focusing political aspects. Thus, by applying the landscape approach to coastal and marine environment, the seascape approach is tested in addressing the first knowledge gap.

1.4 Purpose statement The purpose of this study is to explore the seascape approach to synergetic integration of climate change adaptation and mitigation with the case study of Holland Coast in the Amsterdam metropolitan region. This study intends to show possibilities of sustainable and fundamental solutions to current climate-related challenges in the Holland coast and Amsterdam, thereby fueling discussions. The result of this study should contribute to building a complementary and mutually sustainable relationship between human and marine life, based on the synergies of various offshore functions, which are not only climate actions, but also aquaculture, and tourism, for example. This is explored by means of a propositional concept ‘offshore artificial islands’ as a model to integrate climate actions (e.g. coastal defense and renewable energy).

Propositional concept of offshore artificial islands Offshore wind farms can hold a great opportunity in exploring climate change mitigation. If we use them as fundamental basis to build artificial islands or reefs, for instance, whether they are floating structures or fixed islands, they can be potential marine territory that needs a spatial design. And, as there are terms like landscape architecture and landscape approach, we may refer it as seascape architecture (or marine spatial design). That way, a seascape approach designing seascapes at a marine territory can be distinguished from marine spatial planning. There will be rapid growth in large offshore wind farms that already face public oppositions. However, by coordinating the development with that of other offshore projects, wind farms can create synergetic benefits and reduce oppositions. Thus, it is timely to discuss the potential multiple-functions of the offshore wind farms with artificial islands. They can perform various purposes such as flood defense, marine habitat, fishing nursery, aquaculture, and


recreational activities in addition to energy provision. This is evidently not the first spatial attempt of the so-called seaward approach. Rather, there have been interesting ideas on this issue recently. For example, an idea of offshore islands for flood defense ‘happy isles’ (WEST 8, 2006) (see, figure 1.10) was submitted to Government but rejected (Delta programme, 2008). It implies to the author that they have rooms for improvements. These previous ideas are examined during a precedent study in a later phase.

Operational objectives The topic of this study, integrating adaptation and mitigation in a synergetic manner from the perspective of seascape approach, has a more or less conceptual aspect. Thus it is important to have operational objectives in the case study so as to make the thesis and design results specific and evaluable in the conclusion part. Also, the successful integration of adaptation and mitigation means to achieve both goals of climate actions at the same time. Hence, the purpose of this study is achieved by addressing three operational objectives in the case study area as follows:

(1) Adaptation

As illustrated at the problem description section, it is required to envision a possible solution to the challenges of coastal squeeze and current ever increasing sand volumes in response of sea level rise (85 cm/century) and extreme storm surges. Cities tend to favor relatively short-term measures for flood defense, such as heightening dikes and nourishing a huge amount of sands, which need to be done repeatedly (Broeze et al., 2004). However, more integrated and seaward-based approach can be another alternative in a long-term perspective to explore innovative ways of coastal defense (2) Mitigation Assimilating renewable energy at sea can offer a solution for the challenges in achieving a transition to renewable energy sources. Considering landuse pressures in a city and public oppositions to large wind turbines, a seaward-based approach to harness wind energy at sea has possibilities for the renewable energy transition. Currently, the electricity consumption of Amsterdam is calculated to 4,596,566 MWh/year in 2013 (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2014). In 2040 the electricity consumption is expected to decrease by 3,677,253 MWh/year thanks to the efficient use of energy. Therefore, a total 1,838,627 MWh/year (half of the total demands) can be a target for renewable energy assimilation through offshore energy sources in this thesis.

Figure 1.10 previously suggested ideas for artificial islands mainly for flood protection (left: Happy Isles by WEST8, 2008) (right: Haakse zeedijk by Haak and Stokman, 2007)


(3) Ecology

The general biodiversity and marine ecosystem in the North Sea is still not desirable status (Bos et al., 2011). Although there has been positive growth in the populations particularaly in seals, their habitats are deficient, largely located at the Wadden coast. The general biodiversity and ecosystem should be maintained or enhanced. This can be achieved by providing habitat for marine life including the target species of Harbour seals and Grey seals.

1.5. Research Questions Based on the problem description and purpose statement, research questions are formulated. The aim of this thesis is achieved by answering the following research questions.

Main research question What are the opportunities and limitations of a seascape approach to synergetic integration of climate actions in the Holland Coast of the Amsterdam metropolitan region?

Sub-research questions 1. What are the possibilities of a seascape approach to synergetic integration of adaptation and mitigation in literature? 2. What constitute the current seascapes of the Dutch part of the North Sea, and how can they be analyzed? 3. What threats concern coastal protection and what opportunities emerge along the Holland coast? 4. What opportunities are offered by offshore wind energy potentials and what are the challenges concerning a renewable energy transition in Amsterdam municipality? 5. What opportunities and challenges are associated with marine ecology in the North Sea and the Holland coast to be sustainable for both human and marine life?

Design question What design approaches and spatial interventions can be made for synergetic integration of climate actions spatial-explicitly from a seascape approach in the Holland coast?


1.6 Theoretical framework The purpose statement and main research question includes theoretical building blocks in this study: (i) a seascape approach (ii) to synergetic integration of adaptation and mitigation in the Holland Coast of AMR that is sustainable to both human and marine life. In this section, each theoretical building block is introduced to illustrate how they are inter-related, forming the theoretical framework of this study (see, figure 1.10). They are further elaborated in a detail during the literature study section.

strengthen the dichotomy of two climate actions. Accordingly, they should be considered in exploring the integration of climate measures. Moreover, the inter-relationships of both climate measures can be explained with three types of interactions: positive (synergy), neutral, and negative (trade-offs) (Landauer et al., 2015). The term synergy is defined as “the interaction of adaptation and mitigation so that their combined effect is greater the sum of their effects if implemented separately� (Klein et al., 2007, p.749). In this regard, adaptation and mitigation measures should be integrated in a synergetic way, minimizing trade-offs

1.6.1 The integration of climate change adaptation and mitigation

1.6.2 A seascape approach

Adaptation and mitigation can be synergetic in addressing climate change. In this thesis, adaptation refers to any adjustments in human and natural system to reduce the vulnerability to actual or expected negative impacts of climate change, while mitigation means any activities for limiting climate change by reducing GHG emissions or enhancing carbon sinks (Fussel and Klein, 2002). In order to explore potential synergies, it is essential to understand their differences and interrelationships. Adaptation and mitigation are different from each other in, at least, three aspects: temporal scales, spatial scales, and involved stakeholders or sectors (Klein et al., 2005). These differences

In this thesis a seascape approach is suggested and explored as a methodological solution to integrating climate actions with synergy. A European Environmental Agency (EEA) report states that climate change on water aspect has enormous impacts (2006). The water-related sector can be the most relevant domain that has strong spatial relations to climate change (ibid). Also, common aspects of the synergetic interactions between adaptation and mitigation are mainly involved with environmental issues such as water management and ecological benefits (e.g. habitat and biodiversity) (Berry, 2015). In this way, a seascape approach can be a relevant starting point for the synergetic

Figure 1.11 a representation of theoretical framework with potential values in sustainability


integration. There is no strict definition of a landscape approach, but it is widely regarded as a holistic approach that coordinates various socioeconomic aspects based on ecological aspect (Koh, 2008). Therefore, the notion of a seascape approach is mainly explored by studying and applying a landscape approach to marine environment as a means of understanding, analyzing, and designing a seascape.

1.7 Methodological framework In order to answer the main research question “What are the opportunities and limitations of a seascape approach to synergetic integration of climate actions in the Holland Coast of the Amsterdam metropolitan region?”, two methods were used: (1) a literature study and (2) a seascape analysis on the Dutch part of the North Sea and the Holland coast with a relation to Amsterdam.

Literature study The first sub-research question (“What are the possibilities of a seascape approach to synergetic integration of adaptation and mitigation in literature?”) is addressed by the literature study. Specifically, the literature study is conducted to find out the following steps or theoretical building blocks: ● the reason of the dichotomy between adaptation and mitigation ● the differences of adaptation and mitigation strengthening the dichotomy to identify how they can be overcome ● the interactions of adaptation and mitigation to figure out when synergy and trade-offs occur ● the possible way of synergetic integration of adaptation and mitigation by overcoming the reasons for the dichotomy, maximizing synergies, minimizing trade-offs. ● a seascape approach is explored, based on a systems thinking, by a means of a landscape approach to know the concept of a seascape and an analytical framework of a seascape. ● as part of literature study, precedent study is conducted on the previously proposed artificial islands to examine their opportunities and limitations for the input of potential islands design during the design phase.

Besides, when addressing the first sub-question, specifically in exploring the interactions of climate actions (synergy & trade-offs), an empirical-based literature review is undertaken to gather evidence from the current practices on the interactions of adaptation and mitigation measures. This is explained in this part. A literature search was conducted in the database Scopus (accessed in July 2016) with the keywords: “adaptation” AND “mitigation” AND “synergy” OR “tradeoff”, resulting in 121 documents. After excluding irrelevant subject areas (e.g. medicine, nursing, material science, chemical engineering, biochemistry), 98 documents are left, of which 31 were selected on relevance by reading abstracts. Given the recently growing interest on the searched topic, there was no time preference, but mostly ranging from 2007-2015. Moreover, 14 documents were included while reading retrieved documents (snowballing). So a total of 45 documents was read and summarized, consequently important notions of each document were organized in the literature review. Interactions between adaptation and mitigation practices in the identified documents are summarized and classified into two types of interactions: positive interactions (beneficial impact) as synergy or negative interactions (detrimental impact) as trade-off. There are neutral interactions with no impact on each other, but ignored due to its little significance on the synergetic approach. Among the articles, some studies are especially helpful for including a study on cross-sectoral interactions (Berry et al., 2015) and a literature review on climate interactions (e.g. Berry et al., 2015; Landauer et al., 2015). The summarized results are interpreted in terms of frequent findings and common characteristics, which resulted in the typology of integrated climate actions (leading to the suggested concept of synergetic integration in later part) and guiding principles for the synergetic integration.

Seascape analysis The second sub-research question (“What constitute the current seascapes of the Dutch part of the North Sea, and how can they be analyzed?”) is answered by (i) the literature study on a seascape approach and (ii) a seascape analysis. Since there is a lack of knowledge in a seascape approach including an analytical framework, it is essential to


study first how a seascape can be analyzed during the literature study, and then the resulted analytical framework is used to conduct a seascape analysis in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This sub-question is important because it provides substantial knowledge to perform later phases (e.g. detailed analysis and design). That is, a seascape of the Holland coast (site area), which concerns the next sub-question, can only be understood with the bigger scale at (the Dutch part of) the North Sea. The seascape analysis is specifically performed in three aspects: abiotic, biotic, and anthropogenic factors. The third, fourth, and fifth sub-research questions is addressed by a seascape analysis of the Holland coast. After having understood from the bigger scale, the combined results lead to a seascape analysis of the Holland coast in three themes of this thesis: coastal protection (adaption), energy (mitigation), and ecology, which is specified as the sub-objectives.

1.8 Relevance

Implications for design

Academic relevance

The design question (“What design approaches and spatial interventions can be made for synergetic integration of climate actions spatial-explicitly from a seascape approach in the Holland coast?”) is answered during a seascape design phase based on the implications from the previous literature study and seascape analysis. As this thesis involves a propositional concept of artificial island to address the specified issues in the design question ‘synergetic integration of climate actions’, and ‘a seascape approach’- it is critical to first understand, during the literature study, how the synergetic climate integration can be made, providing guiding principles for the design and an analytical framework for the Holland coast seascape. Followingly, during the analysis phases at the two scales (North Sea and Holland coast), a suitable location for the propositional island is identified as well as design challenges and opportunities are explored in detail. Subsequently, the site-specific understandings from the seascape analysis and the results from the literature study are translated into implications for a spatial design in the Holland coast in such a way to integrate climate actions with synergies from a seascape approach. The figure 1.12 represents an abstract overview of methodological framework.

Both adaptation and mitigation aim to minimize the adverse impacts of climate change. However, they have been considered separately. Although there is a growing interest on the integrated climate actions, it is still hard to be implemented in practice and policy. This thesis can have an academic relevance in that it studies a different approach to integrate adaptation and mitigation with synergy from spatial perspective, a seascape approach in particular. There are few attempts that have been made so far in this approach. Hence, the thesis can contribute to an academic discussion on the synergetic integration of climate actions from a different approach.


Landscape architectural relevance As experts in spatial-related tasks, landscape architects have mostly focused on land, while overlooking a sea and its complex situation with spatial aspects. Based on a literature search in this thesis, it is found that there have been extremely rare attempts to analyze and design a seascape in the field of landscape architecture. Therefore, this study can have a significant architectural value by providing planner and designers with an analytical framework of a seascape and an exemplary design. In the near future, a sea will become complex more than before because of the growing installations of offshore wind farms. Landscape architects need to involve with this spatial task through the expertise in systemic planning and design. In that sense, this thesis can be an example showing the possibilities.

Social relevance

Amsterdam desires to be self-sufficient in energy in the near future. However, it is hardly possible, in spite of the efforts to assimilate renewable energy, due to land-use pressure and public oppositions. This thesis aims to offer alternative ways to achieve a renewable energy transition, and thereby carbonneutrality in the city of Amsterdam, which leads to a healthy living environment for the inhabitants. In addition, the thesis exploring the North Sea can have another social significance. A sea is of critical importance in our everyday life. From energy, food, and medicine to the biggest sinks of CO2, a sea benefits human in numerous ways. However, so far most people have unintentionally ignored the importance of a sea. We might have considered

a sea as merely a blank area. This thesis can have a social significance because it explores an opportunity, via the artificial islands, to understand a sea more than before. The proposed artificial islands can be a rare place to experience marine life and ecosystems in the middle of the North Sea. People can have recreational, and educational opportunities by visiting the islands, which will be designed by the thesis.

Figure 1.12 a representation of the thesis process with methods, which are iterative at any phases.


2. Theory & Knowledge In this chapter existing knowledge is elaborated on three major aspects, which are (1) integrated climate actions, (2) a seascape approach, (3) precedent cases on artificial islands.

2.1. Integrated climate actions 2.1.1 Climate change and responses It is widely recognized that climate change presents an increasing challenge, and that the impact of this change will have significant impacts on various terrestrial as well as marine and coastal ecosystems (IPCC, 2014). The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses the term ‘climate change’ to specifically refer to “a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer” (IPCC, 2014, p120). How to address climate change has become one of the most important issues to nations and cities (Xiao et al., 2011). The changes we face are caused by the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs), which trap long wave radiation in the upper atmosphere, thus raising atmospheric temperatures. These change the energy balance of the climate system, expressed as a form of ‘radiative forcing of climate’ (IPCC, 1990, p.41). Carbon dioxide is the most important of the gases and its atmospheric concentration has increased significantly since the industrial revolution due to fossil fuel consumption and land-use change (e.g. IPCC, 1990; Klein et al., 2005). In 1800, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide was about 280 parts per million (ppm). Today it is about 390 ppm and is on the rise (IPCC, 2014). According to the IPCC report (2007), the evidence for rapid climate change is evident in following six ways (see, figure 2.1): (1) Temperature rise: the global warming has occurred since the 1970s. Since 1981 there was the 20 warmest years with the 10 warmest years during the past 12 years. (2) Warming oceans: it is the oceans that have absorbed much of this increased heat. In the top 700 m of ocean shows warming of 0.302◦ Fahrenheit since 1969. (3) Ocean acidification: the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the


oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year. This caused increased in the acidity of ocean surface waters by about 30% since the Industrial Revolution. (4) Melting ice sheets: the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show that the Greenland lost 150– 250 km3 of ice per year between 2002 and 2006. And Antarctica lost about 152 km3 of ice between 2002 and 2005. Not only the thickness, but also the extent of Arctic sea ice has decreased rapidly over the last several decades. (5) Glacial retreat: glaciers have retreated in most part of the world including the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa. (6) Sea-level rise: sea level rose globally about 17 cm (6.7 in.) in the last century. However, the rate in the last decade has been doubled than that of the last century.

In order to minimize negative impacts of climate change on nature and human ecosystems, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and IPCC identifies two primary options: mitigation of climate change and adaptation to the impacts of climate change. According to the IPCC mitigation refers to “anthropogenic (human) intervention to reduce the sources or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases” (IPCC, 2014, p125). Through natural systems, carbon sinks can be enhanced through carbon sequestration, which are aimed at transforming low carbon stock storing capacity land to land with higher capacity for storing carbon (ibid). The IPCC also defines adaptation as “any adjustments in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities” (ibid, p125). Adaptation aims to enhance adaptive capacity and/or reducing vulnerability to climate change impacts while also taking advantage of the positive opportunities resulting from climate change (Duguma et al., 2014). An integrated framework on climate change illustrates the cause and effect relationships across anthropogenic climate change and climate actions, as depicted in Figure 2.2. The arrows show a clockwise cycle of cause and effect among the four quadrants.

Figure 2.1 (from the upper one) CO2 increase in the atmosphere causes the global temperature rise, resulting in the increase in the extent of oceans and, thus sea-level rise (Iniyan et al., 2012)

Figure 2.2 Schematic representation of climate change and the two responses as distinct measures in the two-way relationship between socioeconomic development paths (human activity) and climate change (Adapted from IPCC, 2001; Dang et al., 2003; Locatelli et al., 2010; Duguma et al., 2014).


2.1.2. Adaptation and mitigation dichotomy In spite of both actions aimed at minimizing the negative impacts of climate change on human and ecosystem, they are still handled separately, addressed by different groups of scholars, dealing with their own aspects of the two measures (Verchot et al. 2007 ; Locatelli et al. 2010; Ayers and Huq 2009). In fact, the two measures are different, for example, in their specific objectives, scope, time horizon, and level of collaboration required (Wilbanks et al. 2003). However, recently, there was a growing awareness that mitigation and adaptation were erroneously considered as two fundamentally different approaches to the same problem, thus ignoring possible synergies and trade-offs between the two climate actions (Klein et al., 2005). This can be described as the mitigation–adaptation dichotomy, a separated approach to address climate change (Biesbroek et al., 2009). The dichotomy can be problematic in that this could potentially lead to inefficiencies, unnecessary duplication, and further adverse consequences (Duguma et al., 2014; Berry et al., 2015). There are several explanations for the dichotomy, but researchers contends that it is mainly resulted from (1) the way knowledge is produced and used by the scientists and policy makers through the historical development of climate policy (e.g. Swart & Raes, 2007; Klein et al., 2005, 2007; Biesbroek et al., 2009) and (2) different characteristics between adaptation and mitigation (e.g. Tol, 2005; Klein et al., 2005; Biesbroek et al., 2009; Jarvis et al., 2011). Therefore, the reasons and factors that have contributed to separate the two approaches need to be identified and, more importantly, overcome so as to achieve a successful integration of climate actions with synergies, which is the aim of this thesis.

2.1.3 Differences in adaptation and mitigation The differences and thereby potential conflicts between the two approaches have been seen as a barrier that strengthened the dichotomy. In general, adaptation and mitigation are different from each other in three important ways: the differences in time, space and relevant actors involved (Dang et al., 2003; Tol, 2005; Klein et al., 2005; Biesbroek et al., 2009; Jarvis et al., 2011; Locatelli et al., 2010) (see, figure 2.3). The first difference between mitigation and adaptation is related the actors and stakeholders that are involved in mitigation and adaptation


practices. Mitigation and adaptation involves different types of stakeholders, which have their own specific desires and objectives. For mitigation practices aiming at reducing the GHGs emissions, major contributors need to be involved in the process, which primarily includes industries, the energy and transport sectors. In contrast, the stakeholders involved in adaptation are not only different from mitigation in their types, but also comprised with a wide range of sectoral interests, where more locally orientated domains take important roles, such as agriculture, water and coastal management, nature conservation, renewable energy, tourism, and heritage management (Swart & Raes, 2007; Swart, Robinson, & Cohen, 2003; Klein et al., 2005). In addition, there is a difference in the spatial scale on which they are implemented and effective (Klein et al., 2005; Biesbroek et al., 2009; Locatelli et al., 2010). Mitigation, by its nature, should be implemented at (inter)national orientated scale, although local mitigation practices should not be overlooked (Klein et al., 2007; Schipper, 2006; Schreurs & Tiberghien, 2007). Unlike mitigation, adaptation measures tend to be implemented at local or regional scale at the most, where the specific realities of climate change occur (Laukkonen et al., 2009). Accordingly, adaptation mainly works on the scale of an impacted system, which is mostly local and regional at best, whereas mitigation has global benefits (Adger, 2001; Fussel, 2007; Klein et al., 2007; Biesbroek et al., 2009). As Wilbanks et al. (2007) argued, from a cost-effectiveness perspective, the more localized the scale, the more attractive adaptation is (Wilbanks et al., 2007). The third difference is related to temporal scale between the two actions conditioned by the effectiveness of measures over time (Wilbanks et al., 2003; Jarvis et al., 2011; Klein et al., 2005). In general, adaptation measures are short-term efforts with short-term solutions to the impact of climate change and variability, whilst mitigation actions are short-term investments for long-term climate impacts (Goklany, 2007). This is because the benefits of mitigation activities carried out today will result in several decades due to the lag times of climate system, whereas many adaptation measures would be effective immediately and provide benefits by reducing vulnerability to natural variability (Biesbroek et al., 2009). Even if it is true that more mitigation would imply less adaptation, the results of mitigation on climate system will only be effective in a long period of time, this relationship is less relevant for the planning of adaptation measures in the coming decades (Klein et al., 2005).

dominated by fossil fuels. This was also reflected in the IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR), which was heavily focused on mitigation in addressing climate change, in particular through energy policy (IPCC, 1995; Kates, 1997). Adaptation was given little attention, handled separately from mitigation. A focus on adaptation was considered to be distracting attention away from mitigation (Swart and Raes, 2007). It is believed, especially in developed countries, that mitigation measures would be sufficient enough, not requiring intensive adaptation (van Noordwijk et al. 2011). Besides, climate change itself was understood as merely an environmental problem, such as ozone depletion or acid rain, which could be solved by setting targets and relevant actions (Munasinghe and Swart, 2004). Moreover, mitigation was considered as the problem resulted from developed countries, the main emitters, while adaptation was seen as the problem of developing countries as the main victims (Swart and Raes, 2007).

Call for adaptation in climate responses

Figure 2.3 differences between adaptation and mitigation

2.1.4. Historical developments of climate actions Mitigation as an initial climate action Although mitigation and adaptation are inherently linked in that both have the same objective: minimizing undesirable consequences of climate change, throughout the history of climate policy development, they have been separated in both scientific and policy discourses (Biesbroek et al., 2009; Klein et al., 2005; Davoudi et al., 2009; Laukkonen et al., 2009). In the early years of the international negotiations, such as UNFCCC and IPCC, the scientific and political attention was primarily focused on the mitigation of climate change. Indeed, climate policy has been largely synonymous with energy policy, with little attention to enhancing sinks or to adaptation (Kates, 1997). At that time, energy policy seems to be the logical entry for mitigation since the main source of anthropogenic GHGs is resulted from energy supply

Complex systems such as global climate process tend to maintain the states of equilibrium. Although it may take a longtime for some impacts caused by human-induced climate change to become apparent, the effects are sill likely to last (Davoudi et al., 2009). Indeed, the first impacts of climate change have been observed in natural systems (e.g., Parmesan and Yohe, 2003; Root et al., 2003). Even if concentrations of GHGs could be stabilized, increasing temperature and sea level will continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes. For instance, “major melting of the ice sheets and fundamental change in the ocean pattern could not be reversed over a period of many human generations� (IPCC, 2001, p.16). As a result, growing awareness that mitigation alone will not be sufficient strengthened the call for adaptation measures. Scientists and policy makers, due to the lag times in the climate system, recognized that adaptation is a necessity and started to pay more attention on adaptation (Stehr and von Storch, 2005; Parry et al., 1998; Burton, 2000; Pielke, 1998). This is reflected in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) illustrating the increased interest in adaptation (IPCC, 2001).


Moving towards an integrated perspective On the other hand, there was a concern that reliance on adaptation could lead to a certain degree of climate change which successful adaptation is impossible for some natural and human systems or only possible at very high social, economic, and environmental costs (Klein et al., 2005). Hence, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (FAR) acknowledged, “It is no longer a question of whether to mitigate climate change or to adapt to it. Both adaptation and mitigation are now essential in reducing the expected impacts of climate change on humans and their environment” (IPCC, 2007, p748). Bostello et al. argued that there would be no place for an adaptation and mitigation dichotomy in future climate policy (Bostello et al., 2013). Gradually, It is realized that the integrated approach to both climate actions could bring significant multiple benefits to cope with climate change (e.g. Laukkonen set al., 2009; Parry et al., 2001; Klein et al., 2007). Furthermore, there is a growing argument that climate change, considering the nature of human societies in the basic requirements for energy and food, should rather be considered as a development issue than as an environmental problem (Swart & Raes, 2007). This recognition has moved separated climate actions to activities that are essential in the broader sustainable development context (Klein et al., 2007). Thus, climate measures have evolved from being considered as mitigation to integrating or mainstreaming them into a broader sustainable development context. This is considerd in the IPCC FAR (2007) and again acknowledged in the recent Fifth Assessment Report (2014): “there are many opportunities to link mitigation, adaptation and the pursuit of other societal objectives through integrated responses (high confidence) (p.112).” The potentials of combining both approaches started to increase within the scientific community only in the last decade (Goklany, 2007; Jones et al., 2007; Klein et al., 2005, 2007; Swart and Raes,

2007). Nonetheless, there are growing evidences that the integrated approach can increase the cost-effectiveness of actions (Laukkonen et al., 2009; Giordano 2012) and political acceptability (Zimmerman and Faris, 2011) as well as co-benefits in involved multiple sectors (Thornbush et al., 2013; Berry et al., 2015). Tubiello et al. (2008) argued that the integrative nature of synergy from the integrated approach has the potential to be the core of climate policy at multiple scales in the future. Accordingly, the historical development of climate policy is summarized, mainly based on the policy mainstreams identified from the IPCC Assessment Reports, as depicted in the figure 2.4.

2.2. Synergetic Integration of climate actions 2.2.1 The inter-relationships of adaptation and mitigation Mitigation and adaptation have handled separately, to a large extent, resulted from their differences and developmental history in policy as discussed in the earlier sections. However, the two actions are inherently linked in addressing climate change. For example, a high degree of mitigation potentially requires less adaptation, and likewise, sufficient adaptation could lead to reduced mitigation efforts (Wilbanks et al., 2007). Increasingly it is recognized that adaptation and mitigation need to be addressed in an integrated manner in practice and policy, however, so as to maximize synergies and minimize trade-offs, their interrelationships need to be understood (Landauer et al., 2015; Tol, 2005; Smith and Olesen, 2010; VijayaVenkataRaman et al., 2012; Duguma et al., 2014;). Thus, it is crucial to study the interactions between the two measures in this section, helping to answer the following ‘WHAT’ questions that occur to the author’s mind in, partly, answering the first sub research question; “What kinds of interactions can be identified from (spatial-

Figure 2.4 the historical development of climate identified throughout the IPCC Assessment Reports


explicit) adaptation and mitigation practices?” and “What are their implications for achieving synergetic integration of adaptation and mitigation in this thesis (e.g. typology, concepts, and guiding principles)?”

The concepts and evidences of synergy and trade-off There are a number of definitions for synergy that indicate a predominantly positive relationship (e.g. Corning 1995, 1998; von Eye et al. 1998). In synergy, two or more elements work together to achieve a jointly defined goal that matches all agendas (von Eye et al. 1998). The underlying principle is the concept that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts as there is an enhanced outcome when the components interact with each other (Corning 1998 ; von Eye et al. 1998 ). In line with this, Klein et al. (2007) defined synergy as “the interaction of adaptation and mitigation so that their combined effects are greater than the sum effects if implemented separately” (p.749). The main motive behind such an approach is increasing effectiveness, minimizing costs, and ensuring continuity of production and/or service provision by minimizing risks (Duguma et al., 2014). Therefore, in this thesis, a synergy is understood as the case where adaptation measures support mitigation measures or vice versa, or a situation that enhances both measures simultaneously. In terms of the negative inter-relationship between adaptation and mitigation, researchers use different terms, mostly conflict or trade-off, to describe negative interaction (e.g. Landauer et al., 2015). Some studies considered the term trade-off as something neutral (e.g. balance, compromise) while the term conflict was used with negative meaning (e.g. Klein et al., 2007; Landauer et al., 2015; Berry et al., 2014; Moser, 2012). For example, Klein et al. (2007) defined trade-off as the “balancing of adaptation and mitigation when it is not possible to carry out both activities fully at the same time” (p. 749). Also, Berry et al. (2014) noted that trade-offs occur when the integration of the two fails partially or completely (e.g. either adaptation or mitigation is suffered) even if a balance between the two actions is pursued. Although trade-off is used to refer something neutral in many studies, it is still regarded as something to be minimized or avoided to promote synergy as much as possible. This is also reflected in the Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports of the IPCC dedicated sections on ‘synergies’ and ‘tradeoffs’ (IPCC 2007, 2014). In this sense, trade-off is understood in this thesis to describe a ‘potentially negative’ situation where mitigation measures

adversely affect adaptation measures, or vice versa, if not handled well. A range of spatial-related manifestations with positive or negative interactions is identified and summarized in Table 2.1(synergy) and Table 2.2 (trade-off) (next page). Moreover, a selection of identified practices is discussed to illustrate the types of interactions and common characteristics among identified practices, deriving guiding principles for the integrated approach promoting synergies.


Table 2.1 identification of synergy interactions between adaptation (A+) and mitigation (M+)


Table 2.2 identification of trade-off interactions with spatial implications between adaptation (A) and mitigation (M) in various sectors. Note: An adaptation (or mitigation) measure with negative impact as A- (or M-) and with positive impact as A+ (or M+)

Sources: 1. Bedsworth & Hanak (2008); 2. Klein et al. (2005); 3. Klein et al. (2007); 4. Moser (2012); 5. Viguie & Hallegatte (2012); 6. Hamin & Gurran (2009); 7. Scholz et al. (2006); 8. Shaw et al.(2009); 9. Swart & Raes (2007); 10. Bizikova et al. (2006); 11. Semadeni-Davies et al. (2008); 12. Ostro et al. (2010); 13. McEvoy et al. (2006); 14. Villarreal et al. (2004);15. Neufeldt et al. (2010); 16. Ostle (2009); 17. Li et al. (2010); 18. Sheppard et al. (2011); 19. Thornbush et al. (2013); 20. Barbhuiya et al. (2013); 21. Gupta & Gregg (2013); 22. Sugar et al. (2013); 23. Kirshen et al. (2008); 24. Walsh et al. (2011); 25. Laukkonen et al. (2009); 26. Hall et al. (2010); 27. DymĂŠn & Langlais (2013); 28. Williams et al. (2010); 29. Lima et al. (2008); 30. McCarl & Schneider (2001); 31. Rosenzweig & Tubiello (2007); 32. Zhang et al. (2012); 33. Wang et al. (2010); 34. Zou et al. (2012); 35. Truli et al (2007); 36. Luisetti et al (2011); 37. Kazmierczak et al. (2010); 38. Wilson et al. (2011); 39. Lusiana et al. (2012); 40. Howgate & Kenyon (2009); 41. Smits et al. (2006); 42. Robinson et al. (2003); 43. Trabucco et al. (2008); 44. Williams (1999); 45. Melia et al. (2011)


Synergy: examples & implications During the literature review, synergistic interactions at policy and organizational level are easily found, for example: promoting policies to support measures with synergy (e.g. tax breaks for urban greening) (Laukkonen et al. 2009); combining adaptation and mitigation in governance framework for vertical and horizontal integration of public policy outcomes (Norman 2009). Presumably it is because (i) climate actions are primarily handled and decided by policy makers at policy level, and (ii) existing organizational frameworks have a huge influence on decision-making processes in climate actions. The synergistic measures identified at policy or organizational levels are not included given their little spatial implications in forming the list of strategies. On the other hand, there is limited literature on practical measures promoting synergies with spatial implications mentioned explicitly in their documents. Most of them are mentioned implicitly, thereby meaning that synergies identified here are mainly potential synergies. Examples of such practices are found in urban sector (e.g. building and urban green measures) and water-related sector (e.g. infrastructural measures for water management and coastal defense), as well as energy, forestry, and agriculture sectors. From the list, it is especially important to derive common aspects to understand when synergy can happen in practical measures, potentially leading to guiding principles for achieving the synergetic integration. After carefully examining each strategy identified, it is concluded that there are two common characteristics frequently found in the synergetic interactions: (1) Firstly, synergistic interactions are likely to occur when adaptation or mitigation practices involve ecosystem-based measures. Due to the capture and storage of atmospheric carbon dioxide in biomass, any adaptation actions based on ecosystem services could enhance carbon sequestration, thus supporting mitigation. These include adaptation measures that enhance or restore ecosystems, to name a few, peatland and wetland restoration, afforestation, and reforestation. In this sense, numerous coastal adaptation measures based on ‘soft-approach’ (e.g. involving coastal wetland) can enhance mitigation. This can also be found in ‘green’ measures in the urban sector implemented for adaptation purpose, for instance, urban green areas, tree planning, and roof gardens. These strategies can reduce runoff and increase water storage, as well as reduce urban heat islands and


improve thermal comfort, while providing co-benefits to mitigation by reducing GHG emissions due to less energy use and enhanced carbon sinks. (2) Secondly, synergy between adaptation and mitigation is often promoted through multifunctionality in measures, whether it is inherently or intentionally manifested. This happens when functions or resources (e.g. land or infrastructure) are combined or partly shared in climate measures, providing multiple benefits to climate adaptation and mitigation as well as other sectors. For example, if coastal adaptation measures such as dams or storm surge barriers incorporate blue energy assimilations within infrastructures, they can support adaptation (e.g. reduced vulnerability to floods) and mitigation (e.g. renewable energy provision) simultaneously. Another example can be found in green-infrastructure measures. Due to inherent multifunctional values in ‘green’ ecosystem, if infrastructural adaptation measures are based on ecosystem or (partly) replaced with natural components such as open storm water drainage and wetland-based water treatment systems, these measures contribute to both adaptation (e.g. reduced runoff and urban heat island) and mitigation (e.g. carbon sequestration and decreased energy use) directly and indirectly through their multifunctional values. As discussed above, the common characteristics promoting synergies derived from various examples identified are of importance because they show what makes synergetic interactions, whether adaptation affecting mitigation or vice versa, resulting in guiding principles in envisioning the synergetic approach with spatial implications, as depicted in the below table 2.3.

Table 2.3 guiding principles for achieving synergetic interactions of adaptation and mitigation, derived from the common characteristics of identified practices.

Moreover, another important notion that can be interpreted from a wide range of climate measures in Table 2.1 is that they are, in general, categorized into three types of interactions according to main agents creating co-benefits or synergy as follows: (1) adaptation affecting mitigation (A→M); (2) mitigation affecting adaptation (M→A); (3) adaptation and mitigation joint effects (A + M). Many adaptation options involving changes in landuse and land-cover contribute to mitigation directly (e.g. reduced GHG emissions resulted from less use of energy) and indirectly (e.g. carbon sequestration through increased biomass). On the other hand, the beneficial effects of mitigation on adaptation measures are comparatively small in most cases, except for some cases where forestry practices (e.g. forest conservation, afforestation and reforestation, urban forestry) are implemented for mitigation purpose, which can benefit adaptation by decreasing vulnerability to heat stress (IPCC, 2007). Unlike the two above mentioned types of interactions, there is another type of cases where adaptation and mitigation come together providing joint effects to both climate actions along with additional values to other sectors (e.g. recreation). These ‘joint effects’ occur mostly when adaptation and mitigation are incorporated into other sectors, but sometimes non-climate actions such as habitat restoration can bring benefits to the two climate actions. The third type of interaction includes measures like spatial planning and design in a broader sense (e.g. urban planning, watershed planning, and green and blue infrastructure planning), which are related to development pathways that encompass climate responses despite being implicit in most cases. In this case, climate actions are mainstreamed into more comprehensive practices such as spatial planning, which enable the wider potentials of climate actions for related cross-sectors to be considered. This can make simultaneous consideration of climate measures more significant and practical (Klein et al., 2007). Table 2.4 shows the three types of interactions with each related example examined from the Table 2.1

Table 2.4 typology of synergetic interactions.

As Table 2.4 illustrates, however, current practices put more emphasis on the first two types pursuing ‘ancillary benefits’ from one to another—i.e. adaptation providing co-benefits to mitigation and vice versa, rather than the ‘joint benefits’ for both actions. The practices related to the joint benefits are found sparsely during the literature review, implying that there is a limited knowledge on approaches achieving the aims of two climate actions simultaneously. Previous studies on the (synergetic) interactions between the climate actions are mostly limited to the links between the adaptation and mitigation in the ancillary benefit context through, specifically, their ‘optimal mix’ or ‘the best possible combination’ of the two climate responses (e.g. Dang et al., 2003; Klein et al., 2005, 2007; Swart & Raes, 2007; Stehr and von Storch, 2005; Laukkonen et al., 2009; Yohe & Strzepek; 2007). As Duguma et al. (2014) and Locatelli et al. (2015) noted, an explicit approach that considers such interactions has not been widely studied to date. In fact, the ancillary benefits approach (i,ii) can be solid and robust as this type of measures can often be seen in early attempts to the integrated approach (e.g. Klein et al., 2005, 2007; Laukkonen et al., 2009; Hamin and Gurren, 2009; Howard, 2009) because of their practicality to be implemented in practices. However, in the ancillary benefits approach, synergetic interaction is driven by one climate action as adaptation is used as an entry option while providing co-benefits to mitigation or vice versa. Contrary to this, in the joint benefits context (iii), an emphasis lies on the integration itself without prioritization of measures to promote simultaneous benefits with relations to other sectors’ interests (e.g. Duguma et al., 2014). The joint benefits approach considers synergies of climate actions as well as the interconnections between the two (A+M) and other practices/sectors (X) in a system-wide context, providing multiple benefits


beyond climate effects. Accordingly, the ancillary benefits approach can be regarded necessary but insufficient, and it is desirable to move from cobenefits to multiple benefits for promoting (more) synergies not only between climate actions but also potential synergies with non-climatic factors. This can be more proper way of promoting synergies from climate actions when considering the humaninduced climate change caused by socio-economic development pathways. In this way, climate actions can be more practical and engaging through explicit considerations of other sectors/stakeholders, potentially leading to more political and public acceptability. Therefore, synergies can be promoted among adaptation (A), mitigation (M), and nonclimatic factors (X) in an integrated manner as suggested by the illustrative model for the next step of climate responses in the figure 2.5.

Trade-off: examples & implications Contrary to positive interactions, there are cases where adaptation measures can have adverse effects on mitigation measures or vice versa. Similarly to synergies, many of the negative interactions are not explicitly mentioned in the literature. A list of the potentially negative interactions was identified in Table 2.2. There are many manifestations of trade-offs that adaptation hampers mitigation identified in water and coastal management sectors. For instance, adaptation options in coastal management sector (e.g. dykes, dams, storm surge barriers) often lead to increased energy use and associated GHG emissions (e.g. energy use for building and maintaining infrastructure), unless the energy is supplied from renewable energy sources. In addition, these coastal infrastructures sometimes degrade or reduce biomass and thus cause the loss

of carbon sinks. However, it is important to note that even if there are evidences of trade-offs for adaptation on mitigation, the embodied energy for adaptation-related construction comprises only a small part of the total energy use in construction. Also, another frequently mentioned examples of trade-offs could be found in the urban sector with regards to urban planning and design measures. Taking urban densification as an example, this measure certainly have a positive influence on mitigation by reducing transport fuel demand due to decreased commuter distances and providing opportunities for common energy strategies. However, it can increase heat stress and the likelihood of urban floods because of increased runoff, and also reduce the availability for urban green spaces that can benefit thermal comfort, all of which hamper adaptation efforts. This is also known as the ‘paradox of intensification’ (Melia, 2011). Moreover, assimilating various kinds of renewable energy, a mitigation strategy to replace fossil fuels, often increase competitions for land uses, which can be used for adaptation purposes, as they require large amount of land. According to Bryan et al. (2010), even though the first generation biofuels are attractive in their mitigation potential, they compete for available lands, for instance, with food production, thus causing trade-offs between other sectors. As table 2.2 implies, in negative interactions examples are less abundant compared to the positive one. It is probably because trade-offs are given limited attentions compared to synergy, as contended by Moser (2012). Whilst we should seek out synergy, the negative interactions (e.g. tradeoffs) should be considered and minimized, thereby ensuring more synergy and avoiding conflicts in climate practices. Thus, it is essential to understand the drivers of trade offs, and more importantly,

Figure 2.5 a suggested model of climate actions based on the joint benefit approach


how can they be avoided as much as possible in achieving the synergetic integration. Accordingly, two implications can be derived from the list of trade-offs in a way that the trade-offs identified from a wide range of examples can, in general, be minimized, leading to potential guiding principles for the synergetic integration (see, Table 2.5).

Table 2.5 guiding principles for minimizing trade-offs in climate actions based on the common characteristics of identified practices

2.2.2 Potential role of a landscape approach As having presented the reasons for the dichotomy, typology of interactions, and common characteristics of synergy and trade-offs, this thesis now turns to the potential role of a land(sea) scape approach so as to explore how climate actions can be integrated in a spatial explicit way. Based on the previous sections, it is suggested that for successful integration of climate actions it is important to (1) maximize synergies and (2) minimize trade-offs, (3) while overcoming the factors that has strengthened the dichotomy (4) through the joint benefits among adaptation and mitigation with relations to non-climatic aspects in a broad context. And in moving towards the synergetic integration, holistic approaches that can encompass diverse

development and conservation needs are required. It is argued in thesis that one of such approaches while capturing the identified guiding principles (Table 2.3) is a landscape approach as presented in Figure 2.6 at the below. There are three main reasons why a landscape approach can significantly contribute to achieving synergetic climate actions in an integrated manner. First, a landscape approach can be a strategic framework through which adaptation and mitigation measures are positioned as main components with relations to a number of other factors in shaping spatial developments (Locatelli et al., 2015) (see, e.g. figure 2.7). A landscape approach is often understood as a holistic approach that recognizes the interactions of spatial measures and coordinates different socio-economic objectives (Ahern & Cole, 2012). Hence, in planning and design process, synergies and trade-offs among climate actions and other involved sectors can be considered simultaneously.

Figure 2.7 a landscape as patchwork in Colza, France (photo by Laurent Malbecq, 2008)

Figure 2.6 a potential role of a landscape approach for the synergetic integration of climate actions based on the joint benefit approach


Second, the identified guiding principles for synergetic interactions (Table. 2.3) can easily be captured in a landscape approach. From the list of synergetic interactions, it is found that synergy is often created when measures are multifunctional and ecosystem-based. A landscape approach puts a strong emphasis on multi-functionality providing multiple benefits to involved components through, fundamentally, ecosystem-based interventions (Chia et al., 2016; Ahern & Cole, 2012). Indeed, according to De Groot et al. (2010), there is almost no difference between ecosystem services (i.e. provisioning, regulating, habitat, and supporting) and landscape functions. Third, the differences of adaptation and mitigation (e.g. involved stakeholders and temporal and spatial scales) that have separated the two and often brought up as sources of conflicts can be overcome in a landscape approach. For example, in order to overcome a mismatch in stakeholders involved in the two climate actions, Hall et al. (2010) noted that various coalitions of stakeholders should be mobilized to support integrated climate actions. Given a wide range of stakeholders often involved in landscape practices

that coordinate different interests and objectives in a synergetic way, the difference in actors involved can be collapsed in a landscape approach by establishing synergetic interactions among diverse stakeholders. Furthermore, although there is a difference in spatial scale between the two climate actions, landscape scale or ecosystem-based scale (e.g. watershed) beyond administrative scales can be a solution for this matter. There is no clear definition for a landscape scale, but it is often understood as a spatially heterogeneous area that shares common characteristics resulted from nature and human interactions (Forman et al., 1981; Locatelli et al., 2015). A landscape encapsulates diverse scales from local to (super) regional, but often consisted of multiple ecosystems in which causes and impacts of climate change can be addressed in an integrated manner (Ahern & Cole, 2012; Wu 2012). By recognizing the landscape scale in a spatially explicit way, it is possible to link small (e.g. adaptation) and large (e.g. mitigation) scales in implementing integrated climate actions. With regards to the temporal differences in adaptation and mitigation, the combination of short and long-term strategies should be acknowledged

Figure 2.8 three ways to overcome the differences in adaptation and mitigation that strengthened the dichotomy through a landscape approach


in planning and design to overcome the temporal difference (Laukkonen et al. 2009). Long-term processes like climate change need long-term perspectives. However, short-term interventions are required to integrate the two actions promoting synergies and avoiding trade-offs (Biesbroek et al., 2009). By mainstreaming the two climate measures into a landscape planning and design process, a mix of short-term actions to support long-term strategies can be devised. In this regards, process-conscious design can be helpful to incorporate the short- and long-term interventions. The above-mentioned ways to overcome the dichotomy resulted from three major differences in adaptation and mitigation is illustrated with the figure 2.8. Moreover, combined guiding principles for synergetic integration of climate actions from both synergy (Table.2) and trade-offs (Table.4) principles are suggested in the table 2.6 below.

Table 2.6 combined guiding principles for synergetic integration of climate actions from both synergy (Table 2.3) and trade-offs (Table 2.5) principles

2.3 A seascape approach 2.3.1 The concept of a seascape The term seascape is not a common word with a clear meaning as if we often neglect the importance of oceans and marine life on our everyday lives. In fact, it is rarely attempted so far to study seascapes in spatial planning and design terms. Although in ecology disciplines such as marine ecology, the term seascape can be found in some literatures (e.g. Pittman et al., 2011; Bostrom et al., 2011), the term seascape is used in a different setting (e.g. the seabed) and a meaning, which refers to marine

habitats only based on geophysical variables, such as temperature, salinity and substrate type (Roff and Taylor, 2000). Hence, if we are to view the sea as a spatial domain, it is essential to explore the meaning of a seascape, which is not limited to the abysmal marine habitats. However, in landscape ecology, there are a few efforts to apply its concepts to marine environment as seascape ecology (Pittman et al., 2011). Thus, the meaning of a seascape may be understood with that of landscape as a possible application to coast and marine environment, but with the consideration of similarities and differences between the two ‘scapes’ are required. In order to explore the concept of seascape, it is necessary to understand the meaning of a landscape and its characteristics. Landscape is a complex entity studied by a large number of disciplines. The meaning of the term landscape is hard to define although many have discussed the definition (Vroom 2006). The Oxford English Dictionary defines Landscape as “all the visible features of an area of land, often considered in terms of their aesthetic appeal” (2016). However, this view on the landscape strongly focuses on the visual aspects. In the field of landscape architecture, Kerkstra and Vrijlandt (1988) defined a landscape as the visible result on the surface of the earth resulted from the interactions between man and nature. Vroom (2006) discussed the meaning of a landscape from its origin in the Dutch word ‘landschap,’ a contraction of ‘land’ and ‘schap’ (2006). Land refers to “a territorial entity, to be analysed objectively in its components, such as soils, water, vegetation and land use” and ‘Schap’ is defined as “the landscape of our daily living environment.. ..what we see, with its meanings, and also with its stories of the past and the present, which raise our expectations and emotions” (ibid, p.177). According to Rogers (2001) a landscape is “altering with time, it can be read as palimpsests, documents in which nature’s own powerful dynamic and the changing intentions of human beings over the years inscribe a historical record” (p.20). The European Landscape Convention (ELC), a treaty adopted by the Council of Europe, provides a more holistic definition of a landscape, incorporating human perceptions in it: “an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors” (ELC, 2000, p.9). From the varied definitions of a landscape above, one common notion can be consistently found, which all definitions put an emphasis in the meaning of a landscape: various ‘elements’ and their ‘interactions’. According to Checkland (1999), a system can be defined as the whole consisted of system


components (e.g. elements) and the process (e.g. interactions) that have an effect on the behavior of the whole. In this way, a landscape can be understood as a system with ecologically homogeneous characteristics, comprised of subsystems and their components interacting each other (e.g. Zonneveld, 1989; Motloch, 2001). For example, various landscape models, including McHarg’s overlay method (1969) or a layercake model by Steiner (1991), are all based on an assumption that a landscape (i.e. a system) is composed of several layers (i.e. subsystems) with constituting sub-layers (i.e. subsystems components), which is based on the systems thinking. The systems thinking provides a means of understanding entities in a holistic manner (Murphy, 2005). The systems approach is essential for planners and designers to address the complex interactive relationships in a landscape holistically (ibid). From the perspective of the systems thinking, a seascape can also be understood in reference to the landscape concept applied to marine environments. The UK Marine Policy Statement also states that “There is no legal definition for seascape in the UK but…in the context of the European Landscape Convention (ELC) definition of landscape, references to seascape should be taken as meaning landscapes with views of the coast or seas, and coasts and the adjacent marine environment” (Paragraph, 2011). Accordingly, based on the widely accepted landscape definition by ELC, in this thesis the term seascape is defined as ‘an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors.’ However, unlike to landscape, ‘an area’ generally refers to the one in marine environments whether it is near- or off-shore. Like a landscape, a seascape reflects the relationship between nature and society, and people and place in shaping the setting to our lives (Natural England, 2012). Although there is often no inhabitant at a sea, it is a product of the interaction of the natural (e.g. marine life and geomorphology) and socio-cultural (e.g. human activities at oceans) factors, and how they are perceived and experienced by people. To avoid confusion, in this thesis focusing on spatial activities at sea surface and water column, the term seascape is differentiated from the concept of oceanscape, which may refer to a sea floor area of submarine canyons and abyssal plains (Wilson, 2015).


2.3.2 A seascape approach and analysis model Having presented the meaning of a seascape, it is meaningful to explore a seascape approach consistently with reference to a landscape approach. Despite its wide application, clear definitions of a landscape approach in practices are often lacking or vary across applied disciplines, just as the landscape definition does. (Freeman, et al., 2015). However, a landscape approach, in general, is regarded as a spatial-explicit approach considering a landscape as a medium to achieve human needs based on natural ecosystems providing multiple benefits (Horn & Meijer, 2015). In this context, a seascape approach can be understood as a spatial approach that utilize a seascape to achieve diverse desires of people or society (e.g. stakeholders), in a balanced and synergetic manner, based on the various characteristics of seascapes considering ecological integrity. Subsequently, in order to analyse and understand the characteristics of a seascape in a spatial-explicit way, an analytical model for a seascape is required. In UK, there is one of a few analytical approaches to the English seascapes performed to provide a ‘seascape character assessment (SCA)’ in marine areas (see, figure 2.9) (Natural England, 2011). Similar to the landscape, it views a seascape as a result of natural and cultural interactions, thereby analysing a seascape with natural factors and socio-cultural factors including aesthetic aspects (ibid). This analysis model provides a helpful basis in envisioning an analytical model to a seascape, in particular, by illustrating specific elements constituting natural and sociocultural factors. However, the analytical framework has many shortcomings as it aims to understand ‘characters’ of a seascape instead of a seascape itself. For example, it seems to nearly ignore biotic aspects in spite of their huge importance in potentially forming a seascape, and focus too much on the seascape features (e.g. rocks and groynes) at the same level of the anthropogenic use of a sea, while putting an emphasis on perceptual aspects as one of three main factors, unlikely to landscape analysis models. Therefore, partly based on this analysis model, it is required to envision a developed analytical framework to a seascape with the help of landscape models.

Figure 2.9 a framework for the seascape character assessment (Natural England, 2011)

A landscape is often comparable to a palimpsest, a parchment on which texts were rewritten or altered but still showing visible traces of old texts (Vroom, 2006). Similar to the deciphering of a palimpsest, landscape architects ‘read’ the landscape by analysing (sub-) systems or layers through landscape analysis models (Tress and Tress, 2006; Vroom, 2006). The theoretical notion of landscape analysis is basically originated from a layer-cake model of McHarg (1969) that distinguishes three layers in a landscape: the physical, the biological, and the social-cultural layers (Figure. 2.10). Being influenced by McHarg, Kerkstra et al., (1976) developed a triplex-landscape model, which is composed of three patterns: an abiotic (e.g. geology, water, and soil), a biotic (e.g. flora and fauna), and an anthropogenic patterns (e.g. land-use) (Figure. 2.11). The triplex landscape model has been a helpful concept for landscape architects, especially in the Netherlands, to understand the system elements and their inter-relationships in the complex landscape (Hidding, 2006; Roncken, 2003). These two similar models form the basis of the landscape analysis and still regarded valuable in practices (Van Schaick & Klaasen, 2011). Accordingly, they show possibilities of analyzing a seascape in this thesis. Specifically, the triplex landscape model (Kerstra et al., 1976) provides the analytical basis of a seascape as tangible spatial entities. Being understood as a result of interactions between nature and human factors as defined in this thesis,

a seascape can also be comprised of the three factors: abiotic, biotic, and anthropogenic subsystems. In comparison to the SCA analysis framework (Fig.2.6), abiotic and biotic factors of the triplex model are included in the natural factor of the SCA framework without a distinction between the two factors. However, given the fact that an abiotic factor (e.g. water and soil) has a huge influence on a biotic factor (e.g. living organisms), for instance, through habitats and population patterns, it is logical to separate the two factors as distinctive subsystems in a seascape. Furthermore, in applying the landscape analysis models, for a seascape analytical framework in this study, it is important to note several differences between the landscape and seascape. For example, a seascape is not terra firma, a dry land as distinct from the sea or air (OED, 2016). This requires a careful consideration in components of each three subsystem. In this case, the SCA framework is helpful to exemplify what subsystem elements (e.g. bathymetry and tide process) form a whole seascape. Also, in terms of an anthropogenic subsystem, there hardly exists inhabitants at a sea and thereby spatial changes resulted from long time transformations. Nonetheless, it is true that there are intensive human activities at oceans, showing certain patterns of sea-uses. Thus those sea-use patterns can be considered an anthropogenic pattern in a seascape, to name a few, oil and gas extractions, shipping, and wind farms. Additionally, since any human activities at a sea are usually perceived at sea surface or (low-altitude of) ‘aviatic’ space, another separate aerial layer was initially considered in addition to the three layers of a seascape analysis model. This is also because the author cast a doubt on the landscape models in that lacking an aerial layer might be a limitation or room for improvement. However, it seems unnecessary because the landscape and seascape analysis models are formulated based on the agents (e.g. flora, fauna, and human), not on the physical stratums (e.g. underground, earth surface, and sky). If the models are focused on the physical stratums, not only an aerial layer but also underground and water layers need to be added in a seascape analysis model for the same reason. Therefore, based on the layer-cake and triplex landscape models together with a framework for seascape character assessment as discussed in this section, a seascape analysis model is suggested in the figure 2.12. Accordingly, the analysis model leads to seascape anaysis and design phases (see,figure 2.13).


Figure 2.10 the layer-cake model of Ian McHarg (adapted from Steiner, 1991)

Figure 2.11 the triplex-landscape model (Kerstra et al., 1976)

Figure 2.12 a seascape model as an analytical framework in this study

Figure 2.13 a link from the seascape model, analysis to planning and design


2.4 Precedent study on the artificial islands for the Dutch coast In the last years, there have been many proposals for the artificial islands off the cost mainly for flood protection purpose. Thus, it can be useful to first examine these ideas of building artificial islands for the Dutch coast. Their opportunities and limitations can be valuable as the input of propositional island design during the design phase. For the precedent study, several documents are especially helpful, which are ‘De Kust in Ontwikkeling - inventarisatie & inspiratie’ (Dijkzeul, 2010), ‘Quick scan alternatieve veiligheidsmaatregelen’ (Terpstra et al., 2007), ‘Perspectieven voor Nederland’ (Aerts, 2008), and Marine parks: sustainability at sea (Van de Graaf & Doepel, 2004). In the below, a brief overview is illustrated on the selected ideas that are regarded relevant for this thesis based on the four reports. The projects are examined in the following aspects: (i) overview, (ii) strong points, and (iii) limitations.

a. Haakse zeedijk ● Overview: this project suggests a series of islands in front of the Dutch coast. The Haakse zeedijk functions as a seawall for a secondary coastline. Each seawall is connected by a strip of linear islands, which are around 20km off the coast. The construction period is predicted to 34 years. ● Opportunity: the islands can be a dike at sea, decreasing wave energy. It also regulates the river discharges and reduces salt-intrusion. Three large basins are created between the islands. The water level of the large basin is regulated by sluices and hydro pump stations. ● Limitation: this proposal interrupts shipping lanes in front of the coast. Also, this project does not take into consideration of other human activities at sea. It is hard to be implemented because of the potential public oppositions resulted from its negative ecological impacts and obstructed views on horizon. Also, it will require a great extent of cost and resources as it completely change the coastline.

Figure 2.14 Haakse zeedijk (Haak & Stokman, 2007)


b. Happy isles

c. Artificial reefs

● Overview: The Happy Isles suggests a series of sprayed-up sand islands. The islands will be created 5-25km off the coast Belgium and the Netherlands. The total surface reaches more than 150.000ha.

● Overview: It is submerged reefs at a distance of approximately 5 km from the coastline. The total length estimates 50 km2. The reef structure is constructed using hard rocky materials.

● Opportunity: The plan happy isles combines an agenda for safety and the necessity of new land. Combined with the engineered gullies, the sandy islands can break waves and storm surge, generating a calm environment in the leeside of the islands. This leads to a emerging mudflat area such as the Wadden Sea. It also benefits the fishing-industry because of the newly made spawning grounds at the gullies. The seaward expansion can provide space for human settlements.

● Opportunity: The artificial reef can decrease wave heights and strength. The horizontal views are not obstructed as the reefs are located a few meters below the water level. These reefs can also provide fish habitat and diving areas. The maintenance costs can be low since the artificial reefs are constructed using rocky materials. ● Limitation: Being located underwater, the effectiveness of wave attenuation is not certain. Also the large surface can be cost-inefficient give that the reefs mainly aim for wave attenuation.

● Limitation: sine the islands have a huge surface, the construction will need large amount of sand. Also, it would need constructed dikes to protect the islands from eroding, adding pressures to coastal protection tasks.

Figure 2.16 Artificial reefs (Royal Haskoning, 2005)

Figure 2.15 Happy isles (WEST 8, 2006)


d. Tulip island

e. Lee parks

● Overview: The purpose of this tulip island is coastal protection and energy assimilation. The tulip shape of this island can be understood as a metaphor.

● Overview: The proposal Lee park consists of a fixed structure made of sand and concrete. It is a multi-functional concept for coastal defence, nature development, fish production, recreation and logistical harbour functions at sea. The surface approximates a few hectares.

● Opportuniy: According to the statement of this project, 10 billion euro can be gained by creating 100.000 ha of land in the Sea. Land price on the island will be higher than that of mainland. Also, increased flood protection can be achieved through reduced wave energy. ● Limitation: Due to its shape, the construction can be very cost-inefficient. Construction of the island will require a great amount of sand and resources. Also, the island itself can be regarded as an extended land, instead of barrier islands because of its large surface. This will leads to another coastal protection efforts.

● Opportuniy: Its main objective is to reduce the impact of waves and tides on coastline, thus decreasing coastal erosion. The strengths of this idea are the multi-functional values such as breeding conditions for fish, fish farming, and development of natural environment. ● Limitation: As consistently identified in other proposals, this idea of building artificial islands also require substantial efforts to protect the island from erosion.


Figure 2.17 Tulip island (Innovatieplatform, 2008)

Figure 2.18 Lee parks (Graaf & Doepel, 2004)


3. Seascape analysis This chapter is based on the seascape analysis model identified during the previous chapter. This part of the thesis describes the results of a seascape analysis at the two scales: the Dutch part of the North Sea and the Dutch coast.

3.1 Analysis: the Dutch North Sea The Dutch part of the North Sea is a relatively shallow sea (up to 50 meters) that is rich in nutrients, characterized by interactions between climate, currents, nutrients, and sediments. It is the southern part of the North Sea, which shares with United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Germany, Norway and Denmark. The Dutch part of the North Sea, which is also called the Dutch Continental Shelf (DCS), is approximately 60,000 square kilometers in extent, nearly one and a half times the area of The Netherlands. Due to differences in water depth, nutrient richness, currents and types of the seabed, there is a strong interaction in the DCS between physical and chemical processes, providing shelters to diverse marine organisms. In the Dutch part of the North Sea, several areas can be distinguished with special ecological values as depicted in the figure 3.1 (Lindeboom et al., 2005). In this way, the whole DCS can roughly be described with important areas. Many of these areas have been designated as Natura 2000 areas for ecological protection purposes (Bos et al., 2000).

3.1.1 Abiotic analysis Currents The current direction of the North Sea is mainly driven by a west wind although it can be altered temporarily by an east wind. This water direction in the North Sea is maintained in a fixed pattern under normal weather conditions without strong tidal and wind effects. There are two main routes where seawater enters the North Sea. The cold water of the Atlantic Ocean comes from the north along Scotland to the south. Another major inflow comes from the English Channel and flows along the Wadden Coast towards the German coast. As a result, the water in the northern half of the DCS is different from the water in the southern half. The inflow from the English Channel is smaller,


warmer and more saline than the northern inflow (Bolsius & Hemert, 2004). Moreover, various major catchment areas of European rivers such as the Rhine are introduced to the North Sea, carrying rich nutrients. These characterize the coastal waters in the southeastern part of the North Sea. Rich frontal systems can be found where these flows meet, such as coastal zones and the Frisian Front. The inflow of freshwater especially from the Rhine contains rich nitrogen and phosphorus, which are essential for algal growth at the basis of the productive marine food web. The total water volume of the North Sea is refreshed every three years (Stolk, 2003).

Geomorphological development During the last glacial period, approximately 9000 Before Present, current area of the North Sea was dry land and the north of the Dogger bank was the coastline (Berendsen, 2000). During this period, the Rhine and Thames flowed through a dry area, creating the morphological characteristics. Sliding glacial mass pushed up the Dogger Bank and Cleaver Bank and left stones and gravel in the area. Finally, when the earth’s surface has subsidized for millions years, the North Sea came into the area as it is now. In the southern part including the current DCS, the earth’s subsidizing has been compensated by enormous amounts of sediments supplied by rivers such as the Rhine and Thames (Bolsius & Hemert, 2004). From these morphological processes, there are a wide variety of shapes in the DCS seabed, strongly affected by rivers. A smooth slope underwater shore stretches from the coastline. In front of the tidal inlets, the slope is dominated by ebb deltas with deep gullies and shallow sand ridges at a depth of around 15 or 20 meters. Only northern parts of the DCS are deeper than 30 meters (Berendsen, 2000).

Sand banks The Dutch part of the North Sea has distinctive morphological units such as a deeper basin in the north, tidal sand banks, and shore-face connected ridges, and sand wave fields as illustrated by the Geology map (figure 3.2) and Bathymetry map (figure 3.3). An important morphological features identified from the DCS bathymetry is various sand wave fields that are typical for shallow sandy seas.

Figure 3.1 areas with special ecological values




Given the interest of this thesis in potential offshore islands, the presence of sand banks in the North Sea can be important factor, possibly providing a basis for building an island. According to the analysis on the bathymetry of the Dutch continental shelf by Knaapen (2009), several sandbanks areas can be clearly identified on the Dutch continental shelf, which marked in the Figure 3.2 as follows: (A) the Dutch Banks, (B) the shore face-connected ridges along the Dutch coast, and (C) the Zeeland Ridges. The sand banks along the Wadden Sea are a part of (A) the Dutch Banks. The sand wave fields in the Dutch part of the North Sea are, in general, the type of open-shelf ridges, which can be subdivided into tidal sandbanks (e.g. area B) and shore face-connected ridges (e.g. areas A & C) (van de Meene & van Rijn 2000). The height of the Dutch Banks (A) varies between about 7.5 and the 29 m. The shore face-connected ridges adjacent to the Dutch coast (B) reach heights of about 15 m. The Zeeland Ridges (C) reach heights of 15-20 m (Doornenbal & van Heteren, 2007; Doornenbal et al., 2007). Furthermore, from the bathymetry map (Figure 3.2), the distinctive transition between the sloping shore face and the deeper shelf can be identified in the Frisian Front at around the 30 m depth (Knaapen, 2009).

Sediment The seabed of the Dutch part of the North Sea is deposited during the Holocene, which mainly consist of sand, silt, gravel, and shells (Bolsius & Hemert, 2004). The grain size values are classified as fine sand (<150 μm), medium sand (150-210 μm), medium course sand (210-420 μm), and coarse sand (>420 μm). From the Sediment map (Figure 3.4), several distinctive patterns can be presented. For example, the seabed in shallower parts along the coast, consist of fine to coarse sands. Also, the southern part of the DCS outside the coastal zone is covered by mixed sand with medium to coarse grain sizes. In the center, such as the Oyster Grounds, very fine sand and silty sand exist at a depth of approximately 50 meters. A small area of seabed with gravel and stones can be distinguished in the Cleaver Bank (Lindeboom et al., 2005).

Wind speed The wind speed at turbine hub height is a decisive factor of the amount of energy assimilation in a wind turbine. Currently, the hub heights of offshore wind turbines in the Dutch part of the North Sea are mainly 60 meters. In five or ten years, however, the


dominant heights would increase to 150 meters. In this way, the average wind speed between 60 and 150 meter above mean sea level are mapped, which can be helpful for a rough estimate of the renewable energy provision (figure 3.5). The wind speed map is based on the second version of the Offshore Wind Atlas of the Dutch part of the North Sea (Donkers et al., 2011).

Integrated ecological habitats Based on the combinations of various abiotic factors (e.g. seabed compositions and bathymetry) studied in this section, the characteristic aquatic habitats are presented in the figure 3.6. This integrated abiotic map is of importance for a further biotic analysis considering the link between habitats and (potential) spatial patterns of marine life. At below, the different habitats are described in terms of areas with special ecological values previously identified in the figure 3.1, roughly from south to north through the DCS. ● The Coastal Sea: the coastal zone with a depth gradually increasing to 20 meters stretches widely from the Delta Coast, to the Holland Coast and the Wadden Coast. In this area, salt water comes from the English Channel, but strongly influenced by the inflow of fresh water from the major rivers. The mixed salt and fresh water in the shallow sea result in variable salinity and rich nutrients, forming an ideal habitat for many kinds of fish and birds. As a result of the strong tidal current and windgenerated waves, the sediment is mobile, causing limited transparency. A large part of the Coastal Sea has been designated as the Natura 2000 area for ecological preservation. Even though the water quality in this area has improved recently, it is still deficient due to the insufficient quality of sediment and nutrients (Bos et al., 2000). ● Frisian Front: it is a transition zone between the shallow sandy sea (~30m) in the southern half of the DCS and the deeper silty sea (40m~). There is a sudden dip in the seabed causing the water flow to slow down. Consequently nutrients deposit at the bottom of the sea providing important breeding grounds and nurseries for a variety of marine life. The Frisian Front is also a point where the English Channel water from the south and the Atlantic Ocean water from the north meet each other (Lindeboom et al., 2005). ● The Central Oyster ground: it is a predominantly silty area with the average depth of 50 meters,


Figure 3.2 geomorphology


surrounded by higher surfaces. In the past, extensive oyster-banks existed in the seabed, but have disappeared nowadays. The tidal current and wind-generated waves rarely reach the seabed. Because of this condition, the water above the Oyster Grounds is stratified from the seabed during summer, causing a limited exchange between them. As a result of this, the increased concentrations of nutrients at the seabed lead to increased phytoplankton (Lindeboom et al., 2005). ● The Cleaver Bank: it is an only reef area in the Dutch part of the North Sea. The Cleaver Bank has an average depth of over 40 meters. The seabed consists of gravel and scattered larger stones. It forms important spawning grounds and habitats for a wide range of fish species and benthic life, including a coral Dead man’s fingers (Bos et al., 2000). ● Dogger Bank: the Dogger Bank is located at a depth of more than 20 meters, which mainly consists of fine sand. The Dutch part of this sandbank is the area where the northern and southern fauna meet in the North Sea. This favorable condition for various species of fish also attracts seabirds and marine mammals including dolphins and whales. Porpoises are visible in this area throughout the year (Offringa, 2004). The water in this area is not strongly influenced by tidal current and very transparent, enabling the growth of microalgae on the seabed (ibid). ● Brown Bank: this high sandbanks surrounded by deep sea mainly consists of medium to course sand. It is not particularly rich in benthic fauna, but there are many porpoise and fish species, especially flatfish. In the southeastern part of the bank, seabirds are sighted with high densities during winter (Lindeboom et al., 2005). ● Borkum Riff: in this area several boulders have been identified recently. However, ongoing investigations will demonstrate the presence of reef structures at the seabed. This area functions as a feeding ground for seals, and porpoises have been visible (Bos et al., 2000).


Figure 3.3 Bathymetry map


48 Figure 3.4 sediment map

Figure 3.5 mean wind speed 49



Figure 3.6 Integrated marine habitats


3.1.2 Biotic analysis

Sea birds


Although birds are mobile species, spatial patterns can be distinguished in the figure 3.9. For example, the highest ecological values for birds can be found in the Coastal Sea. It is largely in line with the high values of fish in the Coastal Sea. Accordingly, it can be inferred that the accessibility of the food (i.e. fish) attracts sea birds to the coastal area. In fact, there are different species of gulls and terns that breed in the Dutch coastal area, and fish-eating species that migrate during winter (e.g. the red-throated diver, grebe and the little gull), as well as shellfish-eating species (e.g. common scoter and Eider duck) in the shallow coastal zone (Witbaard et al., 2013). For this reason, Delta Coast and Wadden Coast in the Coastal Sea are designated as NATURA 2000 areas.

Benthos shows clearly visible spatial patterns on the DCS, probably due to their sedentary lifestyle. Macrobenthos are the marine organisms living at the seabed, which are visible to the naked eye (e.g. bivalvia, seagrass, marine worms, corals, sea squirts, and shellfish), while megabenthos refers to large-size (more than 1cm) zoo benthos living on or in the seabed (e.g. invertebrates; mollusk, hemichordates, small fish living in or at the seafloor) (Witbaard et al., 2013). The macro benthos shows high values in the Northern part of the DCS, such as Central Oyster Grounds, Dogger bank and Cleaver Bank. The mega benthic community is focused in the Frisian Front and the Central Oyster Grounds. The two types of benthos are combined together to result in the ecological values for benthos map in the figure 3.7. In the combined benthos map, the southern part, in particular the Southern Bight, accommodate low values of benthic community in terms of density and biomass. The Coastal Sea generally shows moderate to high values in macro and mega benthos. All in all, the benthos map shows that the Frisian Front and the Central Oyster Grounds in the north parts of the DCS are of ecological importance in benthos. In contrary, in the southern west, Brown Bank and Southern Bight contains less ecological values with regards to benthic community probably because of the strong tidal current, which cause algal materials hardly deposit at the seabed for a long period of time (Witbaard et al., 2013).

Fish As presented in the figure 3.8, spatial patterns of fish in the DCS show less consistent patterns than those of benthos. It is probably because fish are very mobile species, migrating in certain periods of the year. Nonetheless, some patterns can be distinguished that the Coastal Sea in general shows the highest fish diversity. In the southern half of the DCS upper from the Coastal Sea has higher values than in the northern half. Fish species coming from warmer waters in the English Channel travels along the warmer Coastal Sea, which partly explains the high biodiversity in the Coastal Sea (Witbaard et al., 2013). Also, presumably, the strong influence of the river on the Coastal Sea play a key role for the high ecological values in the area.

Marine mammals Due to the low number of marine mammals that are sighted regularly in the DCS, the integrated map for the abundance of mammals in the figure 3.10 is strongly influenced by the distribution patterns of a few mammal species. The spatial patterns of harbor seal and grey seal are the decisive factors in the map, emphasizing the importance of the Wadden Coast, Delta Coast, Brown Bank, and the Cleaver Bank. The distribution of Harbour Seal and Grey Seal contain the most clear spatial patterns. They are sighted frequently when haulingout in the Coastal Sea, thus marking the highest densities in this part, in particular the Wadden Sea, although seals can use the whole part of the DCS as well. Also, Harbour Porpoise is common in the DCS. However, the number of sightings for harbour porpoise is too low to calculate densities and abundances specifically, which results in the even spatial pattern without differentiation across areas. Minke whales are hardly seen in the DCS. White-beaked Dolphins are also scarce on the DCS, although, within 10km from the coast, the Whitebeaked dolphins are rarely sighted (Camphuysen & Peet 2006). The White-beaked dolphins are identified the most along the western border of the DCS including the Brown Ridge, Clearer Bank and Dogger Bank (Brasseur et al., 2008).


Integrated natural values By combining a wide range of biotic factors examined earlier in this section, the integrated natural values are illustrated in the figure 3.11. This map is composed by overlaying all analysis maps after being allocated the same colors and the values (i.e. five degrees) in each map. Even if it might not completely scientific as the sub-layers (e.g. benthos, fish, birds, and mammals) are not investigated with the same criteria (e.g. diversity or biomass), it can be helpful to understand important areas with biotic values in the DCS from a comprehensive perspective. As consistently identified in the maps concerning benthos, fish, birds, and mammals, the integrated biotic analysis map shows the highest ecological values in the Coastal Sea, especially in the Wadden Coast and Delta Coast. This is probably because of the shallower bathymetry and plentiful nutrients coming from the rivers, enriching a food chain web in the coastal area. Also, several ecologically important areas, such as Brown Bank and Cleaver Bank, contain high values. In general, the abundance values of marine mammals show similar spatial patterns to birds, which their main prey, and as such, similar to the patterns of fish as well. What is striking, however, is that in the Coast Sea, the Holland Coast has much less ecological values compared to the other parts of the coast such as the Wadden and Delta, which are partly resulted from the lack of mammals in the area. In addition, based on the list of marine life living in the Dutch part of the North Sea (see, appendix 1) (Bos et al., 2011), the most typical, and thereby representative species of benthos, fish, sea birds, and marine mammals are identified on the basis of their population sizes in the DCS, which are illustrated in the figure 3.12.



Figure 3.7 benthos


54 Figure 3.8 ecological values in fish

Figure 3.9 seabrids values




Figure 3.10 marine mammals 56

Figure 3.11 integrated biotic values


Figure 3.12 most common marine life species in the North Sea 58


3.1.3 Anthropogenic analysis Commercial fishing (aquaculture & fish auction) In principle, commercial fishing can take place nearly everywhere in the DCS as seen from the figure 3.13, unless it hinders other important activities such as military exercise. Although the economic contribution of commercial fishing to the whole GNP of the Netherlands has been decreased significantly, it is still an important source of income for thousands Dutch households. In the Dutch part of the North Sea, there are mainly two types of fishing: beam trawler and relatively stationary fishing. The former, beam trawlers mainly fish for flatfish species (e.g. sole and plaice), and trawlers with freezer fish for pelagic fish species (e.g. herring and mackerel) in the northern part (e.g. Central Oyster Grounds). The trawling is the biggest part of the Dutch fleet, focused on the southern part of the DCS, for example, the Coastal Sea, the Frisian Front and the Cleaver Bank. The latter type of commercial fish includes shrimp fishing, mussel collection, and stationary fishing lines, taking place largely within the 12-mile zone. In particular, shellfish fishermen fish in the Delta Coast for mussels and clams such as cut trough shell (Spisula subtruncata) and American jack-knife clam (Ensis directus) (Lindeboom et al., 2005). According to the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (VROM) (2015), the Dutch marine fisheries sector is under increasing pressure for several factors. First, the fishing methods of beam trawling are not sustainable and very energyintensive. As a consequence, consumers, the Dutch government, and the EU bring a social pressure on the sector to fish in a more sustainable way. Also, the sector has reached an economic overcapacity and the Common Fisheries Policy limits maximum catch yields. Furthermore, the available space for fishing in the DCS is gradually decreasing due to, for instance, offshore wind farms and Natura 2000 areas. As a result, the abovementioned pressures lead to the estimated economic value of fishing in the Netherlands to decrease between 8% and 50%. Hence, so as to make the fishing sector more sustainable, measures are being undertaken to reduce bottom trawling and increase possibilities for aquaculture (e.g. fish farming and mussel cultivation) and mariculture (e.g. seaweed and algae cultivation). Moreover, experiments and pilot projects are currently carried out to examine the feasibility of


aquaculture and mariculture at sea in an industrial scale (VROM, 2014b).

Military In order to train defence activities and test resources, sufficient areas at sea are needed for military purposes (figure 3.14). The military areas located at the Coastal Sea and near-shore areas above the Wadden Coast. The military areas are specifically used for shooting ranges, flying zones, mine testing areas, former ammunitions dumping sites (Bolsius & Hemert, 2004).

Oil & gas Currently, the North Sea makes a huge contribution to the Netherlands energy use. Approximately 33% of the gas in the Netherlands is extracted from the North Sea, and for oil this figure reaches 85% (VROM, 2015). There are 161 offshore facilities at sea as shown in the figure 3.15, 93% of which extracts gas and 7% for oil (ibid). The oil and gas platforms are linked to a network of cables and pipelines for the distribution. However, there will only be a few new extraction areas in the North Sea. As fossil fuels will be depleted, the extractions in the North Sea are expected to be exhausted increasingly in a few decades (Verbeek, 2011). And the production units for oil and gas that are no longer in use should be decommissioned from the sea. Furthermore, energy provision from offshore is increasingly available, such as wind and wave energy. Consequently, this necessitates a renewable energy transition at sea with spatial considerations from a long-term perspective.

Tourism & recreation The Dutch coast is an internationally popular tourist attraction. The 250-km long sandy beach, seaside resorts and festivals, and the dune area with unique characteristics draw tourists. In principle, recreational and tourism can take place almost everywhere in the DCS, unless it interferes with other important activities such as shipping and military exercise. There are regular ferry traffics to and from the United Kingdom. Most of the recreational activities, however, appear close to shore within the 12-mile zone as seen from the figure 3.16. There is a rise in recreational sailing in the North Sea. This includes privately owned sailing boats, motorboats, and cruise ships. In addition to sailing, various water sports take place, including

Figure 3.13 fishing activitieis in the North Sea


swimming, kite surfing, diving, waterskiing, and snorkeling. Annually, 2.6 million people enjoy water sports or at the seaside once or more frequently each year. Moreover, recreational fishing (anglers) is on the rise using small boats or chartered boats, which exceeds 650,000 people each year (VROM, 2015).

Underwater wrecks & cables An extensive network of underwater wrecks and cables are laid on the seabed of the DCS, as depicted in the figure 3.17. The first cables on the seabed were transatlantic telecommunications cables between Europe and North America installed several decades ago (Bolsius & Hemert, 2004). Since the 19th century, a number of telecom cables have laid increasingly although for now it has stabilized. Moreover, the North Sea contains valuable archaeological heritage. Numerous ships have sunk to the bottom of the North Sea over the centuries. They can be considered remains of human activity, having valuable cultural heritage. Not only for a cultural value, the underwater shipwrecks have an important ecological value. In a sea, hard substrates provide a surface to which marine life can attach them. As such, they are distinctive habitats with significantly different species from those of the dominant sandy and silty seabeds in the DCS (Verbeek, 2011). In the late 19th century, over 20% of the bottom of the Netherlands part of the North Sea was covered by hard substrate (e.g. gravel or oyster). On the Oyster Grounds, surface areas on the seabed were filled with numerous flat oysters. However, the seabed with hard substrates shapely diminished, covering barely 1% of the seabed in the DCS nowadays. The hard substrate now only remains on the Cleaver Bank. On the other had, new hard substrates have also emerged: the Netherlands part of the North Sea is home to approx. 3,000 known shipwrecks, creating distinctive artificial habitats whose fauna overlaps little compared to that of the surrounding seabed (Lengkeek et al., 2013). The species composition on the artificial hard substrate is very similar to those on natural hard substrates. In this sense, the offshore wind turbines can also be a hard substrate, forming valuable habitats (Bouma & Lengkeek, 2012).

Shipping In terms of a shipping intensity, the North Sea is one of the most intensively used seas in the world with around 260,000 shipping movements a year (VROM, 2015), as illustrated in the figure 3.18. The


shipping sector has a huge economic value in the Dutch economy, largely due to the significance of seaports, of which Rotterdam is the largest port in the Europe. As transit ports for the Western Europe, the Dutch seaports are the hubs for global cargo flows including transport sectors (e.g. inland shipping, rail and road transport). There are three major routing measures for the systematic traffic movements in the Dutch part of the North Sea as shown in the shipping map (figure 3-16). Firstly, traffic separation schemes are made to regulate the traffic at busy waterways such as the North Sea, preventing a potential collision between ships. Secondly, there are clearways for normal traffic flows. Clearways functions as traffic-lanes indicating the direction of navigation in an area. As the name implies, clearways must be kept free from any offshore structures such as wind farms or artificial islands. Finally, anchorage areas are basically parking spaces for ships where they wait to enter seaports.

Coast & sand extraction Sand extraction takes place in a reserve area in between the continuous NAP -20m line and a 12-mile zone (figure 3.17). Due to the costeffectiveness, most sand extractions occur as close to the coast or on-shore locations as possible. Occasionally, sand has extracted in a deeper (more than 20m) and large-scale for hugely sand-requiring projects such as sand motor and the Maasvlakte 2 (VROM, 2015). In the long term, however, the sealevel rise will require sand extraction further outside the 12-mile zone for increasing demands of sand nourishment (Delta Committee, 2013). Among the countries around the North Sea, the Netherlands extracts the most sand. The amount of sand extracted from the DCS exceeds 25 million m3 per year (VROM, 2015). The total volume of sand extracted in the North Sea equates around half of the total annual sand demand in the Netherlands. The sand extraction in the North Sea includes several types of sand based on their purposes, which are replenishment sand, fill sand, and concrete and masonry sand. Replenishment sand is used for the purpose of coastal safety through sand nourishment. Currently, all replenishment sand is extracted from the North Sea. Fill sand and concrete and masonry sand are used for construction and infrastructure, while fill sand is also used for flood protection through, for example, dyke enhancement. Most fill sand is consumed in the western part of the Netherlands, where space for sand extraction is hardly found in an urban setting.

Figure 3.14 military area in the North Sea


Wind energy In the Dutch part of the North Sea, there are three operational offshore wind farms and one wind farm under construction, as illustrated in the figure 3.20. Their locations and capacities are described at the below table 3.1.

Table 3.1 offshore windfarms in operation and under construction in the DCS. (Note: 1 nautical mile (NM)= 1.825 km)

Furthermore, in the National Water Plan 20092015 (2009), four potential wind energy areas are designated where the permission of wind farm constructions can be granted, as indicated in the figure 3.17: (A) IJmuiden Ver, (B) Holland Coast, (C) Borssele, and (D) North of the Wadden Islands. The designated areas are continuously remained in the National Water Plan 2016-2021 (2015). The potential areas are located outside the 12-mile zone. However, the Dutch government also considers, due to the cost-effectiveness, an exception of a strip between 10 and 12 NM off the coast of NoordHolland and Zuid-Holland for additional wind energy areas (VROM & EZ, 2014). The designation of this strip has been under debate and not yet designated.

Integrated human activities at sea The North Sea is neither a blank area nor vast empty space, as it may seem to be when looked at from a land. A wide range of anthropogenic activities at sea is explored in the previous sections. As represented by the figure 3.21, these activities are combined to derive in the integrated map for human activities at sea. All in all, various sea-uses can be classified into three types of activities (Bolsius & Hemert, 2004). First, there are traditional activities that have taken place for a long time. This includes, fishing, shipping, and military exercises. Also, modern activities occur at sea, such as oil and gas extraction, the installation of cables and pipelines, and recreational activities, which can date from the middle of the 20th century. Lastly, the third type of activities came to a sea, due to the increasing


land-use pressure or pursuing more effectiveness, which originally took place at land. Sand and mineral extraction, and renewable assimilation from offshore wind energy can be examples of this type. As illustrated in the integrated map (figure 3.21), human activities intensively occur within the 12-mile zone or the territorial sea. While there are a variety of marine activities at sea, several major activities already cover the 51% of the total DCS, which includes the shipping, nature reserve, and designated wind energy area. In addition to current sea-uses, it is expected that in the coming decades an increasing human activities will take place in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This expectation are largely based on the growing demands of (1) building offshore wind farms, (2) the establishment of nature reserve, (3) sand extraction, and (4) recreational shipping. Although the amount of cargos, and subsequently, the number of vessels tend to increase in the shipping sector, the shipping movements would be limited within the existing clearways. In contrary, fishing activities are expected to decrease because of the social pressure on the sector (e.g. unsustainable fishing methods) and shrinking fishing areas, for instance, resulted from increasing wind farm areas (VROM, 2015). Also, the oil and gas extraction activities will significantly be decreased and eventually stopped in around 30 years as the oil and gas reserves will be exhausted (Verbeek, 2011). On the whole, there are increasingly foreseen developments even if some sectors will diminish and take less space in the North Sea. Consequently, this tendency will result in the escalating competitions for space use at sea. In fact, according to Cameron et al. (2011), the increasing sea-use pressure is already evident as illustrated by the potential overlapped area with other existing marine activities in planning offshore wind farms (figure 3.22). Notably, the Dutch part of the North Sea is even busier than the UK part. In the DCS, the competitions will be focused on the southern part, such as the Coastal Sea. This is because the relatively short distance to a land and the shallow depth in the coastal areas are often critical aspects of a measure at sea for economical reasons. This also requires a wise and efficient use of space through a systematic spatial approach.

Figure 3.15 oil and gas platforms in the North Sea


Figure 3.22 in the planning process, potential overlapped area of offshore wind farms with other marine activities are analyzed in the North Sea (Cameron et al., 2011).

3.1.4 Suitability analysis Based on the in-depth analysis of the Dutch part of the North Sea with regards to abiotic, biotic, and anthropogenic aspects, it is possible to examine the potential site locations for the propositional concept of an offshore island in the Dutch part of the North Sea (figure 3.23). Although the physical form or type of an island needs to be developed in the later part of the thesis, it is essential to explore suitable locations for building an offshore island addressing multiple issues including coastal protection (adaptation), renewable energy assimilation (mitigation), and ecological aspects and so on. Abiotic factors play an important role for analyzing the suitable location. For instance, the presence of sand banks can be a decisive factor in building an island at sea, providing a basis for sedimentation. Also, due to the cost-effectiveness, the depth of less than 30 meters are strongly preferred in developing offshore wind farms. The direction of current is another critical abiotic factor considering the possible morphological process of sedimentation and erosion around an island. For the purpose of flood protection, which is one of the sub-objectives in the thesis, an island should appropriately be close to a shore, in particular, in front of the locations where further adaptation measures are required such as the weak links identified by the Delta Committee (2015). In addition to the abiotic factors, biotic factors should importantly be considered. Notably, the NATURA 2000 and ecologically important areas


should be avoided given that any anthropogenic activity is prohibited or seriously considered within the areas. Additionally, various sea-uses are identified from the anthropogenic analysis in the Dutch part of the North Sea. If one wants to plan a measure at sea, the possible (spatial) interactions with existing activities should be considered for planning a suitable location. In this thesis exploring wind energy assimilation as one of the sub-objectives, the suitable area for artificial islands can be analyzed with reference to that of offshore wind farms. This is also because they are technically the same offshore structures when it comes to spatial implications on other activities in the DCS. For example, both are man-made structures (i) requiring large space at a sea, (ii) existing for a long time in the sea, and (iii) functioning as hard substrates built in the water column. In this sense, their potential spatial interactions with existing human activities in the planning process are similar to each other. Schillings et al. (2011) studied potential interactions of offshore wind farms on other human activities at sea to determine exclusion and inclusion criteria for suitable locations of the wind farms. Based on this, potential implications of an offshore island on other marine activities (e.g. positive, neutral, and negative) are examined with the upper right diagram in the figure 3.23. Notably, some types of activities should be avoided in the cases when artificial islands can significantly prohibit existing activities. These sectors include shipping, military exercise and oil and gas extraction. Contrary to this, it is desirable for the artificial islands to situate (at least partly)

Figure 3.16 tourism and recreational activities


in the designated wind energy areas where the development of wind farms is allowed. In this way, the criteria for analyzing the suitable location for the propositional offshore island is described with the Table 3.2. Finally, a location for potential islands is chosen (marked in red in the figure 3.23), parts of a designated wind energy area (in pink) in front of the Holland Coast as shown from the suitability analysis map (the figure 3.23). In fact, the identified site area is situated at a strip between 11 NM (18.5 km) and 12 NM zone (22.2 km), which is currently debated area within the Dutch cabinet for designating wind energy area, only possible if there is an exceptional reason. Nevertheless, it is selected because of the strong advantages according to the decision criteria (see, table 3.2), especially including the efficient energy provision and effective coastal protection due to relatively short distance to onshore. Interestingly, this area was once proposed to build artificial islands â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Happy Islesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; by WEST 8 (2008) for a flood protection purpose at the same distance, which might imply the sufficient distance for effectiveness of flood defense via offshore islands.

Table 3.2 decision criteria for potential site locations of an island based on the analysis of the DCS.


Figure 3.17 underwater heriatage and cables


70 Figure 3.18 shipping lanes in the North Sea

71 Figure 3.19 sand extranction for coastal protection

Figure 3.20 wind energy area


Figure 3.21 combined anthropogenic use of the North Sea 73

Figure 3.23 suitablity analysis for potential islands 74


3.2 Themed Analysis: the Dutch Coast The Dutch coast forms a natural barrier between the North Sea and a low-lying hinterland where 26% of the country is below sea level. Approximately 290km of the coast consists of dunes, of which 60km is protected by hard structures such as dikes and dams (Sistermans & Nieuwenhuis, 2004). In general, the Dutch coast can be subdivided in three parts: the Wadden coast, the Holland coast, and the Delta coast. (1) The Wadden coast is situated in the northern part of the Dutch coast, which consists of a com¬plex system of islands and intertidal zones with channels and mudflats. The Wadden coast is considered one of the world’s largest natural wetlands. (2) The Holland coast lies along Noord- and Zuid-Holland, which consists of sandy beaches and dunes characterised as a wave dominated coast. It reaches from Den Helder in the north to Hook of Holland in the south. The Holland coast is intersected only by the harbours at IJmuiden and Scheveningen. For most of its length, the fairly broad strip of coastal dunes offer a natural barrier to the sea. At several points where they are absent altogether, around Den Helder, Petten and Monster, artificial seawalls have been constructed. The Holland coast is prone to erode, and thereby, a naturally receding coast. (3) The Delta coast is located at the southern part of the Dutch coast with partly closed inlets and estuaries: the Eastern and Western Scheldt, the Veerse Meer and Grevelingen. In the last decades, these inlets are closed by dams and storm surge bar¬riers as part of the Delta Works. The Western Scheldt is the only open estuary where sediments and discharge of the Scheldt are not obstructed by hard structures. Whilst the Dutch coast can be divided into three parts influencing each other, it is important to understand them as one coast system in which waves, wind, and sediments have resulted in the present geomorphologic features. Likewise, although the site area at sea identified from the previous section is located in the Holland coast, it can only be properly analyzed when understood in the context of the three parts of the Dutch coast as a whole. Moving from the North Sea analysis, this zoomed-in


analysis of the Holland coast in relation to the whole Dutch coast is conducted with the three thematic focus of the thesis: adaptation, mitigation, and ecology. During the literature study on the synergetic integration of climate actions (see, section 2.2), it was suggested in this thesis that synergy should be promoted among adaptation (A), mitigation (M), and non-climatic factors (X) in an integrated manner. In this regard, the subtopic of ecology was chosen in this part as one of the representing non-climatic factors based on the seascape analysis so that a design proposal in the later section can pursue synergy from an integrated perspective.

3.2.1 Coastal analysis: adaptation Climate change and sea level rise The Holland coast is a 120 km-long continuous shoreline. The orientation of the coastline is around south-north with a slightly concave shape. Due to the concave shape, sand transport take place in long shore direction. The dominant wind comes from the southwest, while the storm wind and surge, if happens, come from the northwest. (Van Rijn et al., 2002). In a series of IPCC reports, climate change and the resulting sea level rise has been predicted at a growing rate in the next decades. In the most rapid scenario, a temperature rise of 4 ºC is predicted by the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute (KNMI, 2014), and a rise of 6 ºC by the IPCC (2014) until the end of this century. This can lead to a sea level rise of 55 m to 120 meters. (Delta Commissie, 2013). Together with the sea level rise, the range of wave climate is increasing such as heavy storms and the west part of the Netherlands has been subsidizing. However, it is uncertain that how fast the climate change will accelerate and when the significant impacts occur to the coast. For example, scenarios differ from 20 cm to 120 cm until 2100. If the Netherlands wants to keep the hinterland dry and safe in 2100, the existing coastal foundation and the coastal defense structures needs to be modified to deal with higher sea levels. In other words, current hard and soft flood defenses are not enough to cope with faster sea level rise (e.g. 85cm/century) on the long term until 2100 (Kersten et al., 2013).

The eroding coast The Dutch coast, including the Holland coast is a receding coast, which is subject to erosion. Coastal erosion refers to the process of wearing away material from a coastal profile (eurosion, 2004).

Coastal erosion can be classified as two types: structural erosion and dune erosion, as depicted in the figure 3.24 (Pilarczyk, 1990). A report by Deltares (2010) states that coastal erosion is mainly caused by (i) negative sediment supply balance and (ii) export of material in the form of scouring by strong waves, tides and storm surges (Marchand et al., 2010).

(i) the movement of tectonic plates since the last ice age, (ii) oil and gas extraction, and (iii) human settlements and drainage. As a result, without continuous efforts on the coast, the coastline would move an average of 1 m landward a year, exposing the western part of the country to destructive floods. Hence, the Dutch coastline is gradually receding and constant effort is required to keep the flood protection effective and to compensate erosion (see, figure 3.26).

Figure 3.25 long- and cross-shore transport of sediment causing structural and dune erosions (adapted from Pearson Prentice Hall, Inc., 2004)

Figure 3.24 classification of coastal erosion (adapted from van de Graaff, 2008)

In the Holland coast, the natural sand balance is negative (i.e. -9.6x105m2/year in the Holland coast) (Giardino et al., 2011). This is mainly resulted from little natural sediment supply from the rivers caused by human interventions in the coastal system (e.g. the IJsselmeer dike), resulting in structural erosion of the coast. Due to the convex stretch of the Holland coast, long-shore sediment transport also leads to structural erosion when the wind and tidal currents consistently transport sand from south to north along the Dutch coast (see, figure 3.25). In addition, the increasing sea level and waves cause dune erosion as a form of cross-shore sediment transport. What is worse, the negative impacts of the sea level rise are accelerated with inland subsidence resulting from

Figure 3.26 yearly averaged sediment transport at the -20 m depth contour in the Dutch Coast (Giardino et al., 2011)


The coastal protection Coastal protection involves building engineered structures or strengthening natural features to withstand current and expected coastline recession, storm surge, and sea level rise. The former, a hard approach includes seawalls, groynes, breakwaters, dikes, and storm surge barriers, for example. The later type of coastal defense can be described as a soft approach entailing sand nourishment to beach and foreshore (Gornitz, 2013). After the storm surge disaster in 1953, flood protection structures in the Dutch Coast such as the construction of dikes and storm surge barriers were carried out and still continue to this day (i.e. hard approach). However, since 1990, the flood defense measures have been adapted to sand nourishments that enable the coast to naturally cope with the sea level rise (i.e. soft approach) (Delta Committee, 2008). Additionally, as pressures on dike and dunes have increased, the weak links program identified weak parts in the Dutch coast so that they can be strengthened in the coming decades (ibid). For the nourishments, sand is extracted from the seabed at depths of more than 20 meters with suction-hopper-dredgers, bringing the sand to the coastal foundation zone through a pipeline or rainbowing (see, figure.3.27). The coastal foundation zone refers to the area between the inside edge of the dunes and the NAP (Amsterdam Ordnance Datum) -20m in the DCS. The aim of sand nourishments in the Dutch coast is to allow the coastal foundation zone, where erosions occur, to grow at the same level as the sea-level rise, keeping the coastline at its 1990 position (i.e. basal coast line). In the long term (e.g. 2100), reinforcement of the coastal foundation zone to keep up with the sea level rise is the most important task. The structure of the coast and the process of sand erosionnourishment are illustrated at a section in the Coastal Analysis (see, figure 3.28). Currently, coastal defense actions in the Holland coast are solely based on the sand nourishment (Delta Committee, 2013). This is because the sand nourishments are relatively cheap method and fits into the natural character of the sandy coast. The volume of sand for nourishment can be adapted based on the range of a sea level rise. That is to say, if a sea level accelerates, more volume of sand is required to maintain the dynamic equilibrium of the coastal foundation zone.


Figure 3.27 sand nourishment methods (Stronkhorst et al, 2013).

The challenges The Holland coast faces ongoing challenges in the coastal protection despite the current efforts of sand nourishments. The challenges can be described as (1) ever re-nourishing sand volumes, and (2) a rigid sand dune functioning as a ‘sand dike’. Firstly, the sand nourishments require an everincreasing volume of sand to supplement the coastal foundation zone (Broeze et al., 2004; Kersten et al., 2013) The receding Holland coast will further be eroded as a sea level rises with more heavy storms, and land subsidence continues in the future (Brand et al., 2014). For example, during the 1991-2001, an average of 6 million cubic meters of sand has been used for nourishment each year. However, in the time between 2002-2012, 12 million cubic meters of sand per year has been extracted for the same purpose (the Delta Committee 2008). Surprisingly, in 2008, the annual amount of sand volume was expected to double to 24 million cubic meters at around 2020 (ibid). At present, as expected, the sand nourishment requires about 20 million cubic meters in 2015 (Delta Committee, 2015b). Importantly, these two-fold increased sand volumes are required to keep pace with a sea level rise of 20 centimeters per century (i.e. moderate scenario). Then, if the sea level rises by 85 centimeters per century (i.e. rapid scenario), exponential volumes of sand will be needed. Moreover, this challenge is also manifested in the majority of ‘the weak links’ located in the Holland coast requiring more adaptation efforts. The bar diagram in the Coastal Analysis (figure 3.28) shows the volume of sand nourishment at corresponding locations in the Dutch coast approximately during the last 10 years (white), current 10 years (yellow), and expected amount of sand for the next 10 years (orange), changing at increasing rates of a sea level rise.

Secondly, the strict management of sand dunes in the Holland coast through nourishments has resulted in a rigid and straight coastline, turning them into a rather artificial line of sand dikes (Arens and Wiersma, 1994). Also, it has constrained natural coastal dynamics to the first sand dune facing the sea, which confines the introduction of pioneer species and biodiversity in general (Kersten et al., 2013). As a result, sand dunes in the Holland coast now suffer from overgrassing and depleted ecosystems (Lรถffler et al., 2008; Arens et al., 2012). In addition, the increasing height of dunes would disconnect people from the water as well as land from the sea, especially in a visual manner (Kersten et al., 2013). Therefore, instead of ever heightening and re-nourishing sand dunes as another form of barriers, a shift in coastal defense strategy should be explored to connect sea, land and people by embracing the sea.



Figure 3.28 coastal analysis


3.2.2 Energy analysis: mitigation

Renewable energy transition in Amsterdam

Climate change and renewable energy transition

The municipality Amsterdam plans to achieve an energy transition toward renewable sources in the future (Zwijnenburg & Bosman, 2014). According to a policy document â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;De Circulaire Metropool Amsterdam 2014-2018â&#x20AC;&#x2122; (The Circular Metropolis Amsterdam), Amsterdam desires to achieve a 75% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2040 compared to 1990 (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2014). In 1990, the municipality of Amsterdam emitted 3.420 kiloton CO2 per year, which is raised in 2012 to 4.580 kiloton CO2 per year (ibid). Amsterdamâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ambition is to have an annual CO2 emission of 2.050 kiloton in 2025, and 855 kiloton per year in at the most (see, figure 3.29). In order to achieve this, Amsterdam has been working on the Amsterdam Climate Programme on the basis of Trias Energetica concept (ibid). The Trias Energetica concept entails three main steps: (i) reducing energy demand, (ii) maximizing use of renewable energy, and (iii) supplying the remaining demand with fossil fuels cleanly and efficiently (Lyssen, 1998). Current total electricity consumption in Amsterdam estimates approximately 4596 GWh per year (Boogert et al., 2014). Regarding the first step of Trias Energetica, by 2020, Amsterdam plans to have 20% less electricity consumption compared to 2013 by reducing energy demands (Gemmente Amsterdam, 2015). With regard to the third step of Trias Energetica, the current share of renewable energy provision in Amsterdam is approximately 5.8%, which is 3% above the national average (Gemeente Amsterda, 2014). This is mainly supplied by (i) the use of biomass and other waste in the Waste and Energy Company, and (ii) wind turbines in the Port of Amsterdam. Nevertheless, the renewable share will significantly be increased by means of wind and solar energy provision (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2013). According to Wind Vision Amsterdam (2012), the wind energy provided by local wind turbines estimates merely 70 MW in 2012, but will grow to be 190 MW in 2025 and 370 MW in 2040. Also, the current amount of solar energy assimilation in Amsterdam only takes a marginal portion in the total renewable energy provision. However, there will be a substantial increase in solar energy assimilation, which plans to be 160 MW in 2020 and 1.000 MW in 2040 (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015).

Since the discovery of fossil fuels, the global energy consumption has increased more than ten times during the last century (Twidell & Weir, 2015). In the Netherlands, for instance, renewable sources contribute merely 5.6 % to the total energy consumption in 2015 (Statistics Netherlands, 2015), meaning that the current energy system is based on fossil fuels. However, an energy transition from conventional fossil fuels to renewable sources is indispensible in the near future. The renewable energy transition refers to a gradual transformation of energy systems from fossil fuels to renewable sources (Stremke & Koh, 2009). The transition to renewable energy sources is essential because of (i) the decreasing availability of fossil fuels such as oil and gas, and (ii) increasing CO2 emissions caused by fossil fuel use, enhancing negative impacts of climate change (Stremke et al., 2011; Sijmons, 2014). Furthermore, societies with fossil fuel based energy systems, including most of the European countries, import a huge amount of energy to meet the energy demand (Ptasinski et al., 2006). This estimates 50% of the total consumption across Europe (EIA, 2006), increasing dependency on foreign economies. For these reasons, the energy regime based on fossil fuels can hardly be regarded sustainable neither in economical nor ecological aspects (Stremke, 2008). Contrary to conventional energy sources, renewable energy sources does not emit GHG gases, in principle, and are not depletable as they are assimilated from unlimited flows of energy in the environment, such as wind and sun (Twidell & Weir, 2015). Consequently, a renewable energy transition has three major advantages: (i) to overcome fossil fuel depletions, (ii) to reduce GHG emissions, and thus negative consequences of climate change, and (iii) to decrease dependency on foreign economies. Given the above-mentioned problems of fossil fuel based energy systems, human societies need to make an effort towards renewable energy transitions in the near future.


Figure 3.29 CO2 emissions and goals per year (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2014)

The Challenges In the past, spatial organizations and locally available energy sources in the physical environment are closely related (Stremke, 2010). Given the fact that assimilating renewable energy requires space, the reciprocal relationship between energy and space becomes obvious again in achieving a renewable energy transition (Sijmons, 2014). However, due to properties and constraints of renewable energy utilization, Amsterdam faces significant challenges in achieving self-sufficiency in terms of energy. The challenges can be described as (1) increasing competitions on landuse and (2) public oppositions to renewable energy technologies. First, the inefficient rate of renewable energy conversion, compared to fossil fuels, require large areas to assimilate sufficient energy, potentially leading to land-use pressure with other functions in an area. An important constraint of renewable energy assimilation is their limited capacity to utilize primary energy sources (e.g. sun) into high enough quality of energy for human energy demands (Stremke, 2009). Thus, this influences the amount of space for energy conversion and storage. Taking wind energy assimilation as an example, the size of a single wind turbine itself is huge, for instance, with a rotor diameter of more than 100m and a height of more than 130m in wind turbines with a 3 MW capacity (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2012). And this will be larger and taller in the future. Moreover, when it comes to a wind farm, indirect use of space is much larger than the sum of each wind turbine. In order to be efficient, turbines need to be located with a spacing of 540 m from each other in building 3 MW wind turbines. In this sense, a wind farm with a large capacity necessitates a lot of space. The diagram below in the Energy analysis (figure 3.30) shows the

technological developments of wind turbines with respective rotor diameters and heights. Amsterdam mostly focuses on solar and wind energy assimilations for increasing its renewable energy share in the energy supply by 2040, as mentioned earlier (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2014). In the case of wind energy, however, almost 70% of the potential sites have already been utilized at present, which mainly located at the port and Amsterdam Noord. Until 2025, the last available site for wind turbines will be occupied. From 2025 to 2040, since there is no area available for wind turbines, it is only planned to replace existing wind turbine with larger and more efficient wind turbines. Importantly, as the case of wind turbines illustrates, only 50% of the Amsterdamâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s total electricity consumption can be supported by renewable energy sources until 2040 (Leguijt et al., 2010). In other words, Amsterdam is hardly self-sufficient in energy to achieve a renewable energy transition due to increasing land-use pressures. Second, the renewable energy utilization inevitably leads to changes in the spatial organizations and landscape qualities. This often leads to public oppositions to renewable energy technologies due to visual impacts of wind turbines on landscape quality. In the current energy systems based on fossil fuels, a large part of energy generation is hardly visible in an everyday life. For example, gas is transported silently underground and oil is extracted from subterranean pump or at sea. Fossil fuels are generated, in general, at industrial areas in a centralized manner. Contrary to this, as mentioned earlier, renewable energy utilization takes a large space in a decentralized way. Hence, the installation of wind turbines in a densely populated area such as the Netherlands causes substantial visual impacts, and consequently, opposed by local residents. The main reason for opposing wind turbines is the visibility of large wind turbines. Under favorable viewing conditions, wind turbines could be major sources of visual contrast from around 16 km away and visible at up to 32 km in an open landscape or on a sea (Sullivan et al., 2012). In these regards, for Amsterdam to achieve a renewable energy transition, the two identified challenges should be solved by innovative solutions, especially providing 50 % of the Amsterdamâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s electricity demands in 2040 estimating 2298 GWh per year.



Figure 3.30 energy analysis


3.2.3 Ecology analysis: non-climatic factor Ecological status of the Dutch coast The Dutch part of the North Sea is shallow and rich in nutrient-rich, embracing abundant species and a large biomass. This is generally result from the nutrients supply from the rivers discharging into the North Sea. The relatively limited depth of the Dutch Continental Shelf enables a strong interaction between water column and seabed, contributing to a variety of marine life. According to a policy document on the North Sea 2016 - 2021 that assesses marine ecosystems, the general ecosystem and biodiversity of the North Sea has been improved thanks to the conservation efforts in the recent decades, although it is still not in desirable status (VROM, 2015). Based on the biotic analysis in a previous section, the ecological values at coast scale are discussed in the following three parts of the Dutch coast: Wadden, Holland, and Delta coast, as illustrated in the Coastal Analysis (figure 3.28). The Wadden coast in the northern part of the Dutch coast is a Natura 2000 area. This area has highest values in benthos and birds among the three parts of the Dutch coast, and a relatively high value in fish as well. The Wadden coast is especially important for seals. This area has been the most important habitats for grey and harbor seals in the DCS since 1980’s (Bos et al., 2011). The Holland coast in the middle of the Dutch coast is not designated as NATURA 2000. This area is rich in benthos and fish and contains the highest bird values. However, the area has the least importance for seals among the other parts of the Dutch coast because the habitat type is rare (Bos et al., 2011). In the southern part, the Delta coast is protected as a Natura 2000. Although it shows relatively low values in benthos, fish and bird values are high in the Delta coast. This coastal zone contains relatively high values in marine mammals including grey and harbor seals compared to the Holland coast, but evidently less than the Wadden coast.

Seals in the coast One particular trend in the North Sea ecosystem is that there have been positive trends in the populations of marine mammals during the last 15 years (VROM, 2015). It is particularly important because the populations of harbour and grey seals fell drastically during the last century due to extensive hunting. Among sea mammals in the North Sea, the consistently identified species are


Harbour porpoise, Harbour seal, Grey seal, Whitebeaked dolphin, and Minke Whale, in descending order of populations (Lindeboom et al., 2005). Among them, Harbour porpoise, White-beaked dolphin, and Minke Whale have insignificant spatial patterns in habitats or sightings in the Dutch part of the North Sea, probably because the range of their habitats are extensive under the water and not limited to a certain area at the sea. Whilst Harbour seal and Grey seal have obvious spatial interrelations in habitats within the DCS. It is estimated that there are total 80,000 harbour seals in the sea of Northwestern Europe, about a tenth of which live in the Dutch part. The population of grey seals in the marine waters of Northwestern Europe estimates around 150,000, of which 2% has lived in the DCS (Bos et al., 2011). Within the Dutch marine water, the seals basically belong to the Wadden Sea – ‘the home to seals’ in the figure 3.31 (ibid). The Harbour and grey seals sighted in the Delta coast are the partial populations temporarily visiting for forage and hauling-out – ‘the hunting ground’ – which turn back to the Wadden to reproduce and breed. This can explain the highest values in seals on the Wadden coast, relatively low values in the Delta coast, and the lowest values in the Holland coast where they only pass by.

The challenge Positive developments can be observed in the Dutch part of the North Sea. For example, a number of commercially exploited fish species and marine mammals have been recovered than before. Also, pollution has decreased considerably (VROM & EZ, 2014). However, seals are still vulnerable with unfavorable conservation status in the DCS. Hence, this leads to a challenge in the North Sea ecosystem, which can be described as (1) a deficiency of seals’ habitat quality and quantity, and (2) the Holland coast as a disconnected ecological link in the Dutch coast. Firstly, in spite of the favorable trends of the population size, the conservation status of both species of seals is yet unfavorable under the Marine Habitats Directive (VROM, 2015). This is resulted from the fact that both the quality and quantity of their habitats has been regarded undesirable (ibid). The contrasting spatial patterns of seals in the Wadden, Holland, and Delta coasts can be considered unnatural. This can be even problematic if we think of (i) the increasing deficient of habitat quantity and quality associated with growing populations, and (ii) the importance of terrestrial habitat for seals to reproduce and breed. Under a

normal condition, the habitat patters of seals tend to be in line with that of their prey, fish. Presumably, unlike to the coasts in the northern and southern parts, the Holland coast has a concave shape, for example, without islands or any other hard terrain where seals can reproduce or breed. In addition, the three coastal zones have to be regarded as one entire system. In other words, the overall coastal parts should be understood from a wider perspective. In this regard, the Wadden and Delta coasts are vibrant ecological cores with marshlands, islands and tidal inlets, whilst the Holland coast acts a transitional region or ecological link between them (Bolsius & Hemert, 2004). However, in terms of seals, the Holland Coast can be deemed a disconnected ecological link. It is true that all parts of the Dutch coast do not need to be habitats to seals. Seals can favor some parts, for instance, due to prey richness or particular physical environment (e.g. rocky or sandy area). However, in a situation where they are growing in populations, and thus suffered from lack of habitats, this can be a challenge or missed opportunity.


Figure 3.31 ecology analysis



4. Approach & design 4.1 Approach: Offshore islands with synergy 4.1.1 Opportunities for the coast: adaptation The Holland coast sometimes faces severe storms. The combination of high tides and storm set-up can result in increased water levels of more than 5 m above Amsterdam Ordnance Datum (NAP) (Delta Committee, 2008). Climate change will cause sea level rise as well as storm and wave climate, increasing the high water levels during storms. Furthermore, combined with long, high waves, the increased water levels during storms will result in large-scale erosion of the foreshore, dunes, and beaches, imposing a greater pressure on the flood protection for the Holland coast. In extreme cases the hinterland may be flooded (Delta Committee, 2008). During the coast analysis (section 3.2.1), it is concluded that the Holland coast is mostly suffered from coastal erosion as with the most parts of the Dutch coast. Focusing on the erosion lines, there can be thee major ways involving sand nourishment (a soft approach) to reduce the burden on the coast as follows (Sistermans & Nieuwenhuis, 2004; Gornitz, 2013): (1) Hold the line: keeping pace with sea level rises, maintaining the current erosion lines. (2) Managed retreat: the inland scenario, shifting the erosion lines inland. (3) Move seaward: the offshore solution, moving the erosion lines offshore to reduce the erosion levels during storms. Up until now, coastal defense in the Holland coast mostly depends on the first type of sand nourishment. Whereas the sand nourishing for ‘holding the line’ was proven to be relatively efficient and effective, the challenges are also discussed during the coast analysis (section 3.2.1), such as the doubling volume of sand for nourishment, and the increasing height of dunes with a rigid management causing disconnections of ecosystems and people between the sea and inland. The second type of a measure ‘managed retreat’ have also been implemented along the Dutch coast through breach of flood defences, including De Kerf, Noard-Fryslan


Butendyk, Sieperdaschor, Breebaart, and Kroon’s polders (Stronkhorst & Mulder, 2014). Unlike the two types, the offshore solution (the third type) is seldom found. However, it is important to consider a wide range of measures in coastal protections, particularly considering the uncertainty in sea level rise (20 – 120 cm per century). Therefore, this study explores, instead of the first type of conventional measure, the other opportunity of flood defense action based on the third type: offshore solution. By building islands off the coast, the wave and storm energy can be attenuated, leading to a ‘calmer environment’ at the backside of the island. The Wadden coast partially exemplifies how it would be. The calmer environment brings substantially increased sediments to the coastal foundation zone in the Holland coast, as there is not enough energy to displace sand. Consequently, the volume of sand would not need to double any more in spite of the sea level rise. Rather, the artificial islands functioning as a detached breakwater can have a possibility to maintain or even decrease the amount of sand required for nourishment. Given the previous ideas of artificial islands denied by the Delta Committee (2008), the proposed islands in this study can be much more advantageous by pursuing synergies with different kinds of sectors in the North Sea as much as possible. Not only that, but the coastal protection via offshore islands can provide a better connectivity between seaward and landward for diverse species of flora and fauna. Also, being not limited to the shore, people can have an opportunity to experience a sea physically and mentally by watching and feeling marine life and the North Sea that they have had less awareness and understandings for a long time.

4.1.2 Opportunities for energy: mitigation As discussed in the previous analysis chapter, in order for Amsterdam to meet electricity demands based on renewable resources, renewable energy assimilations is planned to grow increasingly both on land and at sea by 2040. Currently, solar energy accounts only for an insignificant portion, but this will increase after 2020. Assimilating solar energy will mostly be made on land, for example, on the roofs. Another promising source of energy from wind will also be utilized mainly at the port of Amsterdam and other less-populated areas. However, due to the close relationship between renewable energy assimilation and landscape (e.g. space) and resulting visual impacts on landscape quality, the Amsterdam faces challenges in achieving a renewable energy transition (see, section 3.2.2). In short, despite of all the efforts, Amsterdam is hardly possible to fully rely on renewable energy provided within its territorial boundary unless there is a major technological breakthrough in the future. Hence, another approach needs to be pursued outside of Amsterdam and also other municipal boundaries. In searching for a solution, the North Sea can provide probably the biggest opportunity for supplying energy demand from renewable sources. In fact, a sea in the European context, including the North Sea, is regarded as an icon of sustainable energy generation with huge opportunities for massive-scale wind energy (see, figure 4.1). For the North Sea, the Dutch government formulated a target capacity of 6,000 MW from offshore wind energy by 2023. This estimates around 1,000 km2 of space at sea (VROM & EZ, 2014 a). Given the amount of energy provision from (i) existing two offshore wind farms (i.e. the Egmond aan Zee & Princess Amalia), (ii) two wind farms under construction (i.e. the Luchterduinen & the Gemini), and (iii) a recently permitted 950 MW of wind farm, additional 3,450 MW energy assimilations needs to be planned at sea (VROM & EZ, 2014 b). In the total designated wind energy areas of 2.939 km2 (5% of the DCS) electricity can be assimilated at a capacity of 17.634 MW, in principle. This estimated energy yield could supply most of the total electricity demands of the Netherlands, which is around 20,000 MW (IEA, 2015). In the long term, there is also an inter-governmental approach linking the North Sea energy grid among surrounding countries (VROM & EZ, 2014 b). Moreover, several proposals for building an offshore island for wind farm assembly and maintenance as well as possibly storing electricity are also under discussion in the Dutch cabinet (VROM & EZ, 2014 a).

In this context, offshore wind energy assimilation in and/or near the artificial islands can have an opportunity to meet the Amsterdamâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s energy demands, if properly planned and designed. The proposed artificial islands would provide space for wind farms itself and in various ways (e.g. maintenance, assembly, and transmission etc.) as well as space for other forms of energy including wave energy and aquacultural biomass production (e.g. algae), for example. At the same time, wind farms would benefit artificial islands as well, for instance, by providing a fundamental hard basis in building phases of islands structure. Given the predicted explosion in far-offshore wind farms (at more than 30m depths) in the future, the artificial islands can be an advance base for further growth in wind energy at sea (e.g. the North Sea energy grid), partially satisfying the current proposals of building wind energy islands. Plus, in a chosen location located at 12-and 13-mile zone, wind energy assimilation can have the best efficiency due to a relatively short distance, and might also be benefit from existing transport cables near the site area.

Figure 4.1 annual installed and expected capacity of offshore wind farms in Europe during 2016 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2045 (adapted from IRENA, 2016)


4.1.3 Opportunities for ecology: non-climatic factor From the identified challenges based on the ecology analysis, it can be concluded that the efforts to enable the whole Dutch coast as a coherently connected habitat is required. This can be achieved by facilitating the Holland coast through artificial islands as a stepping-stone or an ecological corridor connecting the two ecological cores or large habitat patches – the Wadden and Delta coasts. This is illustrated with the ‘Ecological Seascape’ in blue lines (see, figure 4.2, next page). Whilst it can benefit numerous wild life species, grey and harbor seals are chosen as target species due to (i) their clear spatial patterns of habitats in the DCS, and (ii) obvious increased in the population among other marine life in the Dutch North Sea, and (iii) the deficient habitat quality and quantity. In this sense, the concept of habitat patch connectivity and population survival can provide a relevant opportunity to overcome the challenge (e.g. Fahrig & Merriam, 1985). The study concerning habitat connectivity is applied from the theory of island biogeography using actual islands as a model to examine the correlation between habitat patches (e.g. islands and mainland) (MacArthur & Wilson, 2015). Originated from the concept, in landscape and seascape ecology domains, it follows that the best way to enhance population vitality and biodiversity is to encourage migratory flows between habitats (e.g. Berges et al., 2011). This theory leads to the habitat connectivity and corridor concepts. The beneficial role of establishing ecological corridors to connect habitat patches is well studied, which can be expected through the propositional artificial islands, as follows (e.g. Berges et al., 2011): ● increase the population sizes of particular species ● decrease probability of extinction ● permit species re-establishment ● prevent inbreeding depression and maintain genetic diversity ●increase foraging area for wide-ranging species ●provide escape cover for movement between patches ●increase accessibility to various types of habitats ●provide alternative refugee from large disturbances Corridors can have different shapes, for example, linear, with nodes, with disconnected nodes (stepping stones) or a landscape mosaic (see, figure 4.3) (Bennett, 2003). Given the location of the site area at sea, the stepping-stones can be a suitable type of corridor for the proposed artificial islands.


In addition to the connection between the Wadden and Delta coasts, the artificial islands can provide an enhanced connectivity between the onshore and (further) offshore. The increased connection would contribute to increased movement of a variety of marine life as well as humans from mainland and dunes to the North Sea. This is of importance for humans in that they can have an uncommon opportunity to engage with marine life around them in the middle of the ocean, where we often ignore the importance in our everyday life.

Figure 4.3 the different structures of the ecological corridor (adapted from Bennett, 2003)


Figure 4.2 solution approach: artificial islands promoting synergy


4.2 Vision: the Blue Heart The Green Heart is considered the icon of the Dutch landscape (Kooij, 2010). This nature area may seem to have pastoral green image, however, it is largely a constructed landscape, providing a large green space with ecological, economical, recreational values for urban dwellers (van der Burg & Vink, 2008). It was originally developed to contain urban expansion and protect ecological values in the Randstad (de Regt & van der Burg, 2000). Located in the Randstad’s geographical center, the Green heart presents a huge opportunity of greenblue network, connecting green structures in the Randstad region (Burdett, et al., 2011). Inspired from the Green Heart, the Blue Heart can be the icon of the Dutch seascape, providing extending the connectivity to the North Sea (see, figure 4.4). Located in the middle of the sea – geographically the entrance of the Netherlands seen from a ship or an airplane – this place will provide anyone visiting the country with the first impression of ‘sustainability in an innovative way’ for the Netherlands. The Blue Heart can also offer not only the identity, but also concrete benefits to the Holland coast and the Amsterdam metropolitan region, namely renewable energy provision, coastal protection, ecological habitats, and recreational space. In a bigger perspective, the Amsterdam metropolitan region (figure.4.5) and Randstad structure vision 2040 (figure 4.6), currently limited in land, might stretches from the Green Heart to the Blue heart at sea, having the regional title ‘Delta Metropolis’ substantive and stronger in the future. Figure 4.4 suggested vision the Blue Heart (right) Figure 4.5 Randstad 2040 vision (adapted from Gemeente Amsterdam, 2011) (below left two) & AMR 2040 vision (adapted from VROM, 2008) (below right)



4.3 Guiding principles: the Blue Heart as synergetic seascapes During the literature study conducted in the section 2.2, it is suggested that for successful integration of climate actions three major aspects are important as follows: (1) maximize synergies and (2) minimize trade-offs, (3) overcoming the factors that has strengthened the dichotomy. Based on the common characteristics of existing practices with synergy and trade-offs, its resulting discussion has derived in the guiding principles for achieving synergetic integration of climate actions. Accordingly, the principles are used to guide spatial interventions during the design phases, which are illustrated in the figure 4.6 in the right

Figure 4.6 guiding principles for the Blue Heart as synergetic seascapes (right)



4.4 Designing the protective seascape: adaptation Although this thesis has used the term â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;propositional artificial islandsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; to refer the offshore structure, it is still essential to examine the suitable type of the mad-made structure at sea: a single island, archipelago consisted of several islands, or reefs underwater, for example. However, one obvious point in envisioning the offshore structure is that the value of coastal protection needs to be the primary aspect deriving in the shape and type of the potential structure. For this aim, this thesis puts emphasizes on the direct and indirect cause of coastal erosion, instead of merely protecting hinterland from the waves and surges. This is because the erosion is the fundamental problem of the sand-hunger Holland coast by 2050 and 2100, where, otherwise, the hinterland can be kept in safe thanks to the maintained sand dunes and dikes behind. As the Delta Committee puts, the current flood defense measures are sufficient at this moment, but will not match the future rise in sea level and extreme surges (2008). Whilst the increasing sea level, tides, and storm surges are challenging and their impacts should be minimized, that is mainly because they would cause massive coastal erosion in the coastal foundation zone. Therefore, in order to find an opportunity to manage coastal erosion in the Holland coast, the interplay of sediments, wind and water along the shoreline needs to be understood first. In principle, coastal evolution is basically determined by the supply and demand of sediments (Beets & Van der Spek, 2000). In a coast, sediment demand is governed by the rate of relative rise in sea level and the coastal morphology. Sediment supply is determined based on the sediment availability and the amount of transport by wind and water. Thus, the balance between sediment demand and supply leads to the evolution of the coast. When supply is greater than demand, the coast grows seaward, while the supply is insufficient, the coast tends to retreat. Likewise, if supply equals demand, the coast would maintain the dynamic equilibrium (ibid) (see, figure 4.7). In this sense, the offshore structure should aim for two aspects: (1) increasing sediment supply substantially to the Holland coast to prevent structural erosion, while at the same time, (2) decreasing the energy of waves to prevent dune erosion, particularly including extreme storm surges such as the one in 1953 for a higher level of safety. Since it is hard to bring sediments from rivers in the Holland coast, sand transport from the 100

North Sea should be trapped unless it is artificially supplemented.

Figure 4.7 coastal evolution governed by the sediment balance between demand and supply (adapted from Nicholls, 1989)

Artificial structure as offshore breakwater These favorable conditions can be formed ideally if the artificial structure functions properly as a detached breakwater. A detached breakwater is a man-made structure parallel to shore that protects an area between the structure and the coast by alleviating wave energy (i.e. the second condition above), and thus building up the volume of sediments (i.e. the first condition) (Reeve et al., 2004). In order to accommodate drawdown to the coast, breakwaters are detached to the shoreline. This leads to a calm area of decreased wave energy, which induces the sand deposition on the leeside (Stronkhorst et al., 2013). According to Burcharth & Hughes (2003), there is a wide array of breakwater types depending on several criteria: distance, cross-section, and layout. In order to design the offshore structure, several models are explored based on the three following factors: (1) size (e.g. a ratio of the structure length and a distance to shore), (2) cross-section (e.g. submerged or emerged), and (3) layout (singular or segmented).

The distance and size Firstly, a distance to shore is the decisive criteria in envisioning a breakwater because it determines the effects of coastal protection and littoral sediment transport. In this criterion, there are beach (i.e. attached), coastal, and offshore breakwaters. If a breakwater is relatively too close, it would lead to excessive sediments (e.g. salient or tombolo; shoreline connected to breakwater), and net-erosion in other parts of the coast, while if the position of the structure is too far from shore, there would be no significant effects for coastal protection (see, figure 4.8). The types of littoral transport for the ratio of a length of the breakwater (L), and a distance offshore from the coastline (D) are studied in the table 4.1.

Table 4.1 depositional patterns of breakwater based on the length and distance ratio (Kliucininkaite & Ahrendt, 2011; Van Rijn, 2013; Van der Baarn, 2013). Note: L= Length of the breakwater, and D= distance offshore from the coastline, V=L/D.

Given the potential negative impacts on ecosystems (e.g. on seabed) and other human activities in the coastal zone, the offshore structure as a detached breakwater should avoid significant changes in the littoral condition as a form of tombolo or large salient, possibly causing large net-erosions, while it needs to bring sediments to the Holland coast. Accordingly, approximately a ratio of 1 to 1 is selected for the breakwater size and considering the determined distance to shore during the suitability analysis, around 20 km - 22 km can be proper for the length of the offshore structure.

Islands or reefs

Secondly, two models of detached breakwaters exist in terms of cross-section: submerged (reefs) or emerged breakwater (Burcharth & Hughes, 2003), as presented in the figure 4.9. The emerged type

is a detached breakwater with a crest positioned above the still water level (Reeve et al., 2004). It has considerable wave reduction effects, thus bringing substantial sand into the lee zone. Due to its strong wave reduction, an emerged breakwater can be successfully applied to any types of tidal conditions. However, it might deteriorate visual quality seen from onshore and requires relatively high construction cost. Also, the submerged detached breakwaters, also known as reef-type breakwaters, are located below the still water level (ibid). In general, this type of breakwater has much less wave reducing impacts compared to the emerged one, especially, during extreme storm conditions with large surge levels (Kliucininkaite & Ahrendt, 2011). Thus, it is mostly used for sand trapping purpose in low-energy micro-tidal environments with relatively low cost. Thanks to its sand-catching attribute, submerged reefs have less erosion at the lee-side of the structure (ibid). Finally, in the figure 4.9, the two models are compared primarily based on the coastal defense effects, specifically in three aspects of (i) wave energy reduction, and (ii) sediment supply to the coast reducing erosion, as well as potential ecological benefits (e.g. marine habitat), and the availability of space provision for other functions (e.g. recreation and aquaculture). All in all, the emerged breakwater has more values for coastal reduction than the submerged one, while the submerged reefs can have more ecological value than the emerged breakwater for a wider variety of marine species including benthos and fishes. (see, e.g. Appendix 2).

Singular or archipelago Thirdly, the above discussions are related to single breakwaters, but there are other breakwater schemes such as segmented breakwaters on the basis of layout (see, figure 4.10). In this criterion, detached breakwaters can largely be classified into three types: single, segmented, and archipelago. In order to examining the three models, the interactions of structures with wave and sediment are considered to explore potential wave energy reduction effects, sediment transport, and score process of structures itself, which is based on hydrodynamic and morphological impacts models of an offshore structure (Karsten, 2013; Kuroiwa et al., 2012). Some of these basic hydraulic and morphodynamic characteristics are summarized as follows (Johnson, 2010; van Rijn, 2013; Karsten, 2013; Kuroiwa et al., 2012):


• Incoming wave energy is broken at the breakwater and then diffracted around the tips on both sides, causing sediment at the lee zone; • Non directly broken waves pass by the structure refracting on both sides; • As a result of the diffracted and refracted waves, circulation cells would be generated, causing erosion at the leeside; • Reduced wave energy results in sedimentation at the leeside, and arrive to the shoreline, but the long-shore transport in the shore significantly reduced; • The reduced wave energy and long-shore transport result in deposition of littoral sands in the coast; • Waves passing through inlets between breakwaters are diffracted and would generate recirculation cells at the both tips of the inlets; • In normal conditions of wave and wind, if sediment supply is sufficient, the structure grows in a form of drumstick with leeside sediment deposits. Whilst the singular, long breakwater (model A in the figure 4.10) would be the most efficient breakwater measure in reducing wave energy and coastal erosion, segmented and even archipelago types of breakwater are often used due to lesssignificant visual impacts on coastal landscape quality (Reeve, 2004). Although the specific designs of segmented breakwaters can vary considerably in the size of gaps (inlets), for example, the inlets and relatively short length of breakwater structures often result in increased erosion rates in the breakwater and thereby requiring more efforts to protect the structure itself compared to the singular one (ibid). Nevertheless, the disconnected space in the segmented breakwater or archipelago type might have more possibilities to provide diverse shelters to different kinds of marine life.

the possibilities of ample space provision for other potential functions on the islands. Nonetheless, if this coastal defense structure requires substantial efforts to protect itself from erosion, it would be excessive resource consumptions, thus decreasing its value and feasibility. Hence, to avoid this pitfall, another ancillary structure is also devised from a combination of the submerged breakwater (model 2) in cross-section criterion and the archipelago type (model C) in layout criterion. The main objective of the submerged-archipelago reefs is not wave attenuation, but sand trapping so that the eroded sandy materials from the primary breakwater can be maintained within an area between the two structures. The effectiveness of this ‘tandem breakwater design’ is also evidenced by Cox & Clark (1992). Additionally, considering the potential ecological value of artificial reefs itself (model 2), the type of archipelago (model C) is combined to provide various kinds of habitats to marine life. In doing so, coastal defense and space provision for potential activities in the artificial islands can be maximized through the primary structure. At the same time, this breakwater structure can maintain its dynamic equilibrium of sediment through the ancillary structure, providing rare ecological shelters in the North Sea lacking hard substrates.

Final model After having examined various models of detached breakwaters based on different criteria, a final model is selected for the concrete shape and type of the propositional offshore structure (see, figure 4.11). The final model is derived from a combination of strong points in several models, instead of choosing one model. First and foremost, the emerged breakwater (model 1) in cross-section criterion and the singular breakwater (model A) in layout criterion are combined to derive in the primary structure type as an emerged-singular breakwater. This is because of their high values in risk reduction, which should be considered the most important aspect, as well as

Figure 4.8 breakwaters and tombolo at Palling, Norfolk, UK. (photo by Pan, 2005) (up) breakwater types based on the distance to shore and the structure (below)


Text, but also text. And some more. Unsuspicious

Text, but also text. And some more. Unsuspicious

Figure 4.9 a breakwater model study: cross-section




Text, but also text. And some more. Unsuspicious


Text, but also text. And some more. Unsuspicious


Text, but also text. And some more. Unsuspicious

Text, but also text. And some more. Unsuspicious

Figure 4.10 a breakwater model study: layout




Text, but also text. And some more. Unsuspicious


Text, but also text. And some more. Unsuspicious


Text, but also text. And some more. Unsuspicious

Text, but also text. And some more. Unsuspicious

Figure 4.11 the final model


4.5 Designing the energy seascape: mitigation Wind farm planning After presenting the type and structure of offshore islands, it is essential to envision how the required amount of energy for Amsterdam’s self-sufficiency by 2040 can be provided from wind farms in and around the proposed islands. Although the public opposition to wind turbines on land is one of the motivations to plan wind farms at sea, it is also inevitable to consider visual impacts of offshore wind farms. Therefore, in order to minimize unobstructed views on the horizon, this thesis puts an emphasis on the visual aspects as wind farm sites planning and design criteria. First of all, viewshed analysis or visibility analysis is conducted to plan the potential wind farm area including the identified strip area for islands in between 11NM and 12NM zones and an adjacent designated area for wind energy. In this thesis, visibility is defined as the maximum distance at which an observer can discern the outline of an object (e.g. wind turbine) (Husar & Husar, 1998). According to An Introduction to Visibility (Malm, 1999), there can be many factors affecting visibility, which are: ● air clarity; ● meteorological effects; ● illumination of the overall scene due to sun lights ● object characteristics (e.g. color, form and size); ● acuity of the human eye; ● psychophysical responses The visibility can be reduced mainly by aerosol particles in the atmosphere including rain and fog, while in case where air clarity is very high the visibility would be considerably increased. Discussing all these factors, however, is not the scope of this part. This section concerns to what distance wind turbines can have significant visual impacts on seascape quality based on a selected wind turbine in normal conditions. In this way, the visual range can be limited by object characteristics and the curvature of the earth (Scott et al., 2005) (See, figure 4.12).

Figure 4.12 a fundamental visual limit caused by the curvature of the Earth (adapted from Scott et al., 2005).

Although existing offshore wind turbines in the Dutch wind farms have 2 or 3 MW capacity, in light of increasing capacity being installed in the European waters, it is logical to select 5 MW wind turbines with a height of 150 m in matt white color (object characteristics) as entry turbines for wind farms in this thesis. Moreover, the curvature of the Earth is also an important factor. Theoretically, an objective with 5m-height would be visible even at a distance of 50 km in a good weather condition (Hill et al., 2001). However, due to the curvature of the Earth surface, a fundamental limit on the visual range is made (see, figure 4.12). In line with the above conditions, Hill et al. (2001) studied the visibility from sea (a boat) looking back on the coast at different distances, as follows: ● 0 - 2km: people, individual buildings, cars, trees are visible; ● 2 - 10km: field patterns, clusters of buildings, woodlands, cliffs are visible; ● 10 - 24km: colors and textures representing towns and forests visible ● more than 24km: any detail on land is hardly recognizable. Having considered that the visibility from sea to land is different from land to sea, Cordah (2003) and Warren (2005) suggested the same results of visibility limits in a particular case of offshore wind farms, which are: ● 0 - 8km: high visual impact ● 8 - 13km: moderate visual impact ● 13 - 24km: low visual impact ● more than 24km: no significant visual impact Figure 4.13. viewshed analysis from major seaside villages along the coast (above) Figure 4.14 specific wind farm sites determined by vista from three points on island (below)



Text, but also text. And some more. Unsuspicious


Text, but also text. And some more. Unsuspicious


From the earlier studies, it can be assumed that there is no significant difference in the visibility from sea to land, and vice versa. Furthermore, a Dutch policy document also roughly stated the similar results with the two previous studies, which are based on a turbine with a height of 150 m (VROM & EZ, 2014a). That is, in normal weather conditions, a wind turbine at sea is not visible at the maximum distance of 35 km (19 NM). Whilst, a turbine located 22 km (12 NM) off the coast is visible on 19 % of the days in a year. Initially, the visibility of a wind turbine is calculated by the author based on the curvature of the Earth using the following formula: d12+r2 = (r+h1) 2 (Scott et al., 2005). However, the estimated figure of 42 km as a distance with insignificant visual impacts shows an obviously different result from the other studies, probably due to the weather condition. Accordingly, this distance is not applied in this thesis. Therefore, based on the identified visual limits, it can be concluded that roughly 20 - 22 km distances to the shore are preferably secured to avoid significant visual impacts on seascape quality. Given the determined distance of islands from the Holland coast, around 20 km, the artificial island is not the most desirable area to build wind farms, while it might possible to build smaller wind turbines (e.g. 3 MW) at the edge of the island. In this sense, viewshed analysis with the distance of 22 km (12NM) is conducted from the viewpoints of major seaside towns and resorts along the Holland coast (see, figure 4.13). Accordingly, some overlapped areas within the designated wind energy areas are excluded. In addition, this wind energy area is divided into four specific wind farm sites I a way that visual axis can be secured as much as possible from three major viewpoints on the island location (figure 4.14). It is important to note that the site B is a recently planned wind farm area Q4 and Q4 west. The shapes of these areas are preserved to be in line with the current wind energy plan, but layout of wind turbine is changed in accordance with other proposed wind farm sites in this thesis.

for maximized energy provision and for harmonious visual effects (ibid). Wind farm layout patters can vary with different settings in wind direction and geographical features. In this thesis, three frequently used models are considered, which are: basic grid, offset basic grid, and feathered grid (ibid) (see, figure 4.16). As the figure 4.16 illustrates, the offset grid can be determined to maximize potential energy assimilation through a large spacing and staggering rows. However, there is coalescence of turbines occurring at the center of the grid, blocking ‘a visual avenue’, if it is seen straightly from a viewpoint on shore. On the contrary, from the same viewpoint, the basic grid model can lessen the horizontal extent of the wind farm. In the feathered grid pattern, the visual impacts and potential energy output loss can vary significantly according to its position. For example, if a narrow side of a wind farm stands against wind direction and a viewpoint on land, it would have the least impacts on horizontal views from onshore, while the energy potential would be minimized as well. According to Cordah (2003), for wind farms to be more visually harmonious it should allow ‘avenues of visibility’ to the horizon through ‘avenues of turbines’. Since the wind farm sites identified in this thesis are located at around the 12 NM zone, minimizing impacts on views of the horizon from the coast are considered the most. Thus, a basic grid pattern is preferred in this thesis based on the viewpoints of major seaside towns. However, the southwestern wind direction in the Dutch part of the North Sea and the presence of several viewpoints along the Holland coast makes it difficult to strictly use the basic grid pattern. Thus, the chosen grid patter is only applied as much as possible if there are other significant constraints.

Wind farm design Wind turbines layout can significantly change visual impacts of wind farms when they are seen from onshore. However, inefficient turbine spacing can also lead to a reduced energy output. In most cases, spacing turbines with four to seven times the turbine diameter with staggering rows are desired to result in decreased output loss (Scott et al., 2005) (see, figure 4.15). Accordingly, the arrangement of wind turbines is generally a compromise between layouts


Figure 4.15 wind turbine staggering for reduced power output loss (adapted from SWIFT wind farm research center, 2013)

Figure 4.16 three layout models of a wind farm in plan view and an elevation as seen straightly from a viewpoint on land.

Also, the spacing between turbines need to be allocated with a distance of 720 m (6 times diameters) in consideration of the 120m of diameter in 5 MW wind turbines, together with 200 m access space around turbines for maintenance purposes (Rockmann et al., 2015). Therefore, with the abovediscussed conditions, the wind farm sites in the identified area are designed, as presented in the figure 4.17.

Figure 4.17 a designed wind farm layout in the identified wind energy area

Figure 4.19. a designed wind farm layout in the identified wind energy area.


Energy balance This section explains to what extent the proposed offshore energy seascape can provide electricity for the energy self-sufficiency of Amsterdam. In order to calculate the energy potential of wind farms, several factors are important as follows: ● Surface of wind farm sites (km2); ● Capacity of wind turbines per km2 (MW); ● Efficiency (%) of a wind turbine. For calculating the surface of identified wind energy areas including four specific wind farm sites, AutoCAD is used. In total, the planned wind energy area accounts for 159.6 km2, which includes specific four site areas, respectively: 42 km2 (Site A), 57 km2 (Site B; west 35 km2 & east 20 km2), 29.3 km2 (Site C), and 23.3 km2 (Site D). Among the designated areas, only 30% can be used due to turbines spacing and excluding zones around turbines for safety and maintenance reasons. Considering this condition, a policy document ‘white paper offshore wind energy’ (VROM & EZ, 2014a), use an assumption of 6 MW per 1 km2 in wind farms of 5 MW turbines. According to the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), wind turbines in Europe can assimilate electricity on average with 41% efficiency offshore (24% onshore) being operational 98% of the time throughout the year (EWEA, 2016). Accordingly, the potential electricity yield is calculated in the table 4.2, based on the fomula: ● Estimated energy yield (MWh/year) = surface (km2) x capacity (MW) per km2 x operational hours per year X operational factor (0.98) x efficiency factor (0.41)

Table 4.2 estimated electricity yield (MWh/year)


In total, the wind energy potential approximates 3,180,670 MWh/year. However, it is important to note that the estimated yield is merely to expect the energy potential for the proposed Blue Heart design in this thesis. Plus, 12 wind turbines (5 MW) operating on the island during the initial building phases is added to partially provide required energy for islands construction, while at the same time, the wind turbines combined with reused oilrigs can provide a fundamental basis of the islands facilitating (artificial and natural) sedimentation. This will be elaborated in detail in later section 4.7. At present, the total electricity consumption in Amsterdam municipality approximates 4,596,566 MWh/year (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2014). Based on a policy document Sustainable Amsterdam (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015), Amsterdam desires to have a 20% reduction in energy consumption by 2020 compared to 2013, which estimates 3,677,253 MWh/year. As discussed in the section 3.3, given the limitation of only 50% renewable energy supply by 2040 in the Amsterdam municipality, the other half of the total energy demand can be a target figure in this thesis, which are 1,838,627 MWh/ year. That is, in theoretical conditions, the electricity yield potential from the wind farm sites proposed in this study can provide a great deal more than the targeted electricity demand of the Amsterdam municipality.

4.6 Growing with the time By comparing the energy potential and consumption, it is concluded that in principle Amsterdam can be an energy-neutral city in 2040 if the city turns an attention to offshore. However, there are still things to consider for the envisaged energy provision from the North Sea – potential visual impacts. In other words, if the proposed wind farms were to be built at one time, it would hugely impact the seascape quality, especially as seen from land, facing intensive public oppositions. Furthermore, the suggested offshore island structures, both the island and submerged reefs, necessitate enormous amount of resources (e.g. sand) and time. Hence, it is wise to progress one step at a time in a long-term perspective. This process-oriented approach is carried out in five phases. The time span of each phase is set as ten years due to the life cycle of wind turbines (around 20 – 25 years). During the phases, each wind farm site is built one after another so that their operations can be overlapped for ten years respectively, enabling timely provision of energy consistently. After the peak energy assimilation in the phase 3, in the fourth and fifth phases, electricity supply is designed to be slowly decreased based on an assumption that there will be major developments in offshore wind turbine technology further offshore at deeper depths providing much more energy than the suggested wind farms. The energy provisions at each phase are calculated below: (bracket: provision ratio to the desired amount of energy) ● Phase 0 (- 2020): no additional wind farms in operation; ● Phase 1 (2020 - 2030): site A + I = 908 GWh/year (49 %); ● Phase 2 (2030 - 2040): site A + I + B = 2070 GWh/ year (113 %); ● Phase 3 (2040 - 2050): site B + C + D = 2273 GWh/year (124 %); ● Phase 4 (2050 - 2060): site: C + D = 1111 GWh/ year (60 %); ● Phase 5 (2060 -): no wind farms in operation. Moreover, the artificial island is constructed for a long period of time so as to minimize potential adverse impacts on marine ecosystem by not only nourishing sandy materials, but also promoting natural sand deposits as much as possible. The formation process is illustrated in detail from the figure 4.18 to 4.23. (next pages) together with a masterplan during the fourth phase (figure 4.24). 115




Figure 4.19. a designed wind farm layout in the identified wind energy area











Figure 4.24 masterplan during the fourth phase


Figure 4.25 an aerial impression of the Blue Heart as seen from an airplane to Schipol 130


4.7 Detail design 4.7.1 Building with the North Sea (platforms): an energy-infra transition

Notably, a major constraint in building the proposed combined breakwater system (i.e. the primary breakwater and ancillary reefs) is that they require a great deal of expense and resources. In order to overcome this constraint, the proposed artificial structures need to be constructed resource-efficiently in both construction and maintenance process. Hence, this thesis suggests the utilization of oil and gas platforms waiting to be decommissioned in the North Sea. Currently, 715 platforms are operational in the North Sea, 140 platforms of which are located in the Dutch part of the North Sea (Decom North Sea, 2014) (see, figure 4.12). However, as gas and oil fields will be depleted or economically insufficient in a few decades, the offshore rigs and platforms that are no longer in use must be decommissioned from a sea under the Petroleum Act implemented by OSPAR Decision 98/3. Up until now, only 12 % of the total platforms are decommissioned, and the dismantling rates will be accelerating significantly (Decom North Sea, 2014). Given the old age of the oil and gas rigs, which is 25 years on average, the dismantling rates will be accelerating drastically and end up in 2050 (Verbeek, 2011). Generally the oilrigs are taken to shore for recycling or disposal as waste. However, the cost of carrying out this decommissioning process in the North Sea has been estimated to be, astonishingly, one hundred billion dollars (Callahan, 2016). To search for a cost-effective way, there have been wide debates on the reuse of decommissioned platforms as artificial reefs (Rigs to Reefs; RTR) with only partial removal or completely left-in place (see, figure 4.13). As already demonstrated in other parts of the world and in the North Sea as well, RTR can offer economically, and environmentally feasible option (e.g. Macreadie et al., 2011; Soldal et al., 2002). Nonetheless, the program is still blocked by the OSPAR, which has jurisdiction over North Sea oil development, and also opposed by, for example, bottom-trawling fisherman, leading to ongoing debates. 132

Then, instead of leaving oilrigs as artificial reefs here and there all over the North Sea, how about reusing them collectively at one place in the sea? Unlike the RTR program, reusing rigs for the basis of suggested primary (breakwater islands) and ancillary (submerged reefs) structures, which otherwise need basis in any case, would be in accordance with OSPAR decisions. This can provide marine habitats in a form of hard substrates as evidenced in a case in Gulf of Mexico (California, USA) where 470 platforms are already converted to artificial reefs (Love et al., 2007). In addition to providing a valuable reef ecosystem artificially, it can also yield economical benefits to stakeholders involved in the North Sea, such as municipalities, oil and gas companies, and the general public. For example, it costs 800,000 dollars per structure for the RTR program in Gulp of Mexico saving over 4 million dollars, 50% of which are allocated to the state of California for financing marine research and state parks (Jackson & Callahan, 2016). Likewise, ideally the cost possibly saved by reusing offshore platforms in the North Sea can be used for the artificial islands construction or marine research. It is true that not all types of the oilrigs can be recyclable. However, fortunately, 82 % of the total 715 platforms (i.e. 586 platforms) are fixed steel platform types, which is the only candidate to be reused for other purposes. Therefore, this study suggests reusing the steel jacket platforms as building materials for the artificial island and diverse small structures for activities in it. The reusing process can be conducted with thee major parts: topsides, large steel jackets, and small steel jackets. Specifically, as the figure 4.12 shows, a topside part with building structures on it can be reused for ‘an offshore hotel’, providing islands visitors with iconic accommodation. Moreover, large steel jackets can be partially removed or merely relocated to the site location to form the ancillary structures (submerged reefs; RTR) in front of the primary islands. Like the preceding, the large steel jackets can be transformed into a ‘Mega-gabions’ filled with e-concrete or geo-tubes, functioning as islands basis. Combined with wind turbines, the Mega-Gabions can provide a fundamental structure for building the island in which sandy

materials are nourished to facilitate sedimentation. Even though it is hard to avoid a great deal of resource-use and resulting carbon footprints during the islands construction process, resource-efficient and environmentally-friendly ways of building structures should be pursued as much as possible working in line with the natural dynamics. In addition, small steel jackets can be transformed into relatively small pieces providing different forms of structures for diverse activities on the islands. For instance, this can be combined with shipping containers to be remodeled as an observation tower (RTO). Also, in the same way of reusing large steel jackets as Mega-Gabions, the small steel jackets can be transformed into groynes (RTG), or seals habitats combined with rocks or e-concretes. If the small jackets are removed into smaller pieces, they can be used for modular structures for aquaculture, for example. Finally, with the abovementioned efforts, the hundreds of old, decommissioned platforms in the North Sea can fulfill a new role at sea, leading to another chapter of energy-infrastructure In the North sea.

Figure 4.26 building with the North Sea platforms (next page). Figure 4.27 different methods of Rigs to Reefs Program (Dauterive, 2000) (left)



Figure 4.26 building with the decommissioned platforms


4.7.2 The Blue Heart as the ecological seascape

As a constructed nature, the Blue Heart can provide a variety of habitats ranging from artificial reefs and inter-dunal swale in the front, as well as salt marsh and tidal flat in the leeside. Particularly, the submerged reefs (RTR) are the rare type of hard substrate habitats, which only exist at the Cleaver Bank in the whole Dutch part of the North Sea (e.g. see, abiotic analysis in the section 3.1.1). These artificial reefs in the Blue Heart can be an especially valuable marine habitat. For example, in the Gulp of Mexico (California, USA), the artificial reefs reused from decommissioned oilrigs (RTR) are investigated to contain twice abundant marine life than natural habitats (Love et al., 2006; 2007). Also, some spe-


cies, such as cold-water coral, can only be found in the artificial reefs (e.g.Lophelia Pertusa, Gass & Roberts, 2006). Claisse et al. (2014) claims that the Oilrigs as artificial reefs are one of the most healthy marine fish habitats in the world. Another important man-made habitat on the island is seals habitats reused from oilrgs filled with rocks or e-concrete (RTG). While these groynes are located in the front for sand trapping, some of them in certain parts of the island can also be favorable conditions to grey and harbor seals, which are on the Red List animals based on a treaty Seal Covenant signed by three Wadden Sea countries. As discussed in the section 3.2.3, there are deficient of sealsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; habitat quantity and quality in the DCS in spite of the increasing trend in sealâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s population. The trend

is resulted from the returning of seals back to the Dutch coast, where heavily hunting in the past nearly leads to extinction in the coast. Seals habitats have close relationships with terrain characteristics. According to previous studies (Bradshaw et al.,1999; Trukhanova et al., 2013), it is suggested that seals, especially pups, prefer a terrain with many small rocks since small rocks can provide crevices where pups can find the shelter for thermoregulation. And better shelter leads to higher survival rates, thereby densities. The seals habitat made from decommissioned oilrigs (RTG) are designed in a way to provide such a favorable condition to seals. In the area where seals habitats are located, seals are prevented from disturbing by tourists through a designed spacing in between them

(see, figure 4.36). In most areas of the Blue Heart, normal vessels such as bottom-trawling ships are not allowed to enter legally thanks to the wind turbines and the island. It is important for seals because the presence of bottom-trawling fishermen has the most adverse impact on seal presence probably due to the proximity and availability of food sources (Brasseur et al., 2010). Collectively, the Blue Heart can be a home to a myriad of marine life. In the cross-section below illustrates how the newly man-made nature can provide habitats to the representative flora and fauna in the Dutch part of the North Sea, which are identified during the biotic analysis (section 3.3). Figure 4.28 the Blue Heart as ecological habitats (below)



Three areas in the Blue Heart

Figure 4.29 three focal areas with differently focused values in the Blue Heart


4.7.3 Three areas in the Blue Heart The designed synergetic seascapes Blue Heart includes three major areas with respectively focused on (A) recreational, (B) ecological, and (C) productive values (figure 4.29). These areas are, however, not strictly distinctive from each other, rather a continuum that are gradually transitional in the island only with each focal point. The focused values in each area are closely related to the terrain characteristics of the island resulted from the sediment model of ‘a drumstick’ (see, section, 4.5), enabling multiple use of space on it. The suggested diverse activities and programs are derived from analysis and design phases, which are listed below. Additionally, the Dutch governmental plan on prospective activities in the North Sea (VROM & EZ, 2014a) is also considered. • Multi-functional wind farms including energy provision, mariculture (e.g. seaweed cultivation) aquaculture (e.g. mussel beds), wind farm tourism, and marine habitat); • Other forms of renewable energy assimilation including wave energy and biomass from algae and seaweed; • Algae farming (in the front) and aquaculture (in the frontal open sea and poles at lee sides) • A self-contained system for fish cultivation; • An offshore hotel transformed from decommissioned gas platform; • Visitors’ centers near shipping docks; • Facilities for wind turbine maintenance and other industrial activities; • Recreational opportunities at beach, dune, forest, underwater reefs, wind turbines, wetland, frontal open water, and calm water; • Educational programs on flora and fauna information and energy provision • Diverse constructed nature for marine life and human experience • Sustainable non-trawl fishing • Observation towers made from decommissioned oilrigs (RTO); • Piers on groynes made from decommissioned oilrigs (RTG): • Seals habitats on groynes made from decommissioned oilrigs (RTG):


Figure 4.30 the first focal area: A. recreational area

A. Recreational area In this area, there exists a wide sandy beach resulted from the sediment deposit patterns of the island as a drumstick shape. The wind sandy area allows huge opportunities for leisure activities. Being located the closest to land, there is a regular ferry coming from IJmuiden to the shipping dock in this area. Close to the small harbor, offshore hotel â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;the windowâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; is situated providing accommodation to the visitors. People can enjoy the panoramic views both to sea and land on the observation tower (RTO). At the beach, piers on groynes (RTG) are accessible for visitors to walk seaward.


Figure 4.31 the second focal area: B. ecological area

B. Ecological area Due to the shape of the island, the extent of beach is relatively small in the ecological area compared other parts. Contrary to beach, wetland at the leeside are well developed with the largest surface among three areas. The terrain characteristics allow relatively sedentary leisure activities such as hiking, while facilitate more intensive activities by marine life. In particular, groynes in this area is not covered by upper wooden deck, but only filled with small rocks so that seals can enjoy their shelter (RTG). On the sea there are multi-functional wind turbines where active mussel and seaweed cultivation take place between turbines and underwater. People can visit wind farms by boats touring the avenues of turbines having educational opportunities of how food and energy can be provided from a sea in a sustainable manner.


Figure 4.32 the third focal area: C. productive area

C. Productive area Since the productive area is positioned further from land, there are relatively fewer visitors in this area, while industrial activities occur more intensively than the other parts. At the leeside, several facilities (e.g. for wind farm and algae farm maintenance) exist and other productive activities are appeared such as aquaculture using poles in the wetland. In the front, space for algae farming and fish cultivation are attached to the piers (RTG) where people can access to walk seaward and experience the production process. Algae farms and aquaculture are to produce biofuels (refining), methane (fermentation) and pharmaceutical and cosmetic products. Here the productive activities exemplify the evolution of human sea-use from huntinggathering to farming. Although normal vessels are not allowed to access to most of the area due to wind turbines, registered non-trawl vessels can enjoy the sedentary fishing in this area. Typically, island visitors first arrive in the island from the southern shipping harbor and enjoy the recreational, ecological, productive activities at the three focal areas in consecutive order to a northern direction. They finally leave the island at a shipping dock in the productive area. The typical tour program would take two days in the weekend. In the next pages, several impressions illustrate the series of programs and activities in the Blue Heart.














5. Conclusions 5.1 Evaluation In this section the design results suggested in this thesis are evaluated in terms of the operational objectives as discussed in the introduction part (see, section 1.4). Firstly, a sub-objective regarding adaptation aspect was to provide coastal protection in the Holland coast in response to 85 cm rise in sea level until 2100. For this aim, the offshore island working as a detached breakwater and submerged reef for ancillary structure was proposed. The artificial island can significantly attenuate wave energy and thereby bring sediments to the coast. This can reduce structural erosion by means of increased sand supply and decrease dune erosion by alleviating wave energy. Probably one may question about the effectiveness of coastal protection through the artificial island, because its location seems relatively far from the mainland (i.e. 18.5km). However, if the length of an offshore structure (L) is sufficient compared to the distance to coastline (D), it can have enough protective effects to the coast. In this sense, with the around 1:1 ratio, the island as breakwater is expected to have considerable coastal defense values. Nevertheless, the specific calculation of the effectiveness requires a relevant models and program-based simulation in a quantitative way, it is not certain that the designed island and reefs satisfy the required level of protection against sea level rise. This is obviously a limitation of this thesis, and further research is needed to quantify the sea-defense potential of the island. Secondly, a sub-objective regarding mitigation aspect was to provide around 1,838 GWh/year of electricity to Amsterdam. Based on the energy potential calculation in the total wind farm areas, the electricity yield of 3180 GWh/year is estimated, which exceeds the enough energy to meet the target figure. However, due to vast resource consumption, potential adverse ecological impacts, and the consequences on visual quality of horizon views, the wind farms are planned to build in five phases. Until 2030, 49% of the targeted energy (908 GWh/ year) can be provided. However, the amount of energy provision increases to 113% of the expected


demands (2070 GWh/year) by 2040 and by 2050 this is further escalated to 124 % (2273 GWh/year). Therefore, Amsterdam can fully rely on renewable energy in principle by 2040, which is the aim of this thesis in terms of energy provision. Lastly, a sub-objective regarding ecological aspect was not determined quantitatively. However, the suggested new nature Blue Heart can have diverse types of habitat for marine life. For Grey and Harbour seals, which are the target species, special habitat was designed in accordance with their favorable habitat conditions. Moreover, the artificial islands and reefs can provide an ecological link along the Dutch coast, thus strengthening the accessibility from the Wadden coast to Delta coast as well as from offshore to coastal dunes in mainland. Therefore, it is hard to conclude that the design results can provide habitats in a certain extent although considerably positive contribution to marine habitat provision both in quality and quantity can be expected.

5.2 Discussion This thesis explored a seascape approach to the synergetic integration of climate actions in a spatialexplicit manner. As a result, a design result of the Blue Heart is suggested as a vision for the Holland coast in the context of Amsterdam metropolitan region. In this section, the results of this thesis are being reflected and critically discussed in the three ways as follows: (1) the similarities and differences between the designed island in the thesis and previously suggested designs on artificial islands for the Dutch coast in terms of space programs, (2) the main reasons of rejections in the previously proposed artificial islands to the Dutch government and whether the designed island in this thesis can overcome the reasons or not, and (3) significance and limitations of the explored seascape approach and design results. First of all, based on the precedent study, a few designs are added to form the identified list of artificial islands proposals for the Dutch coast. Accordingly, a comparison of the Blue Heart and previous islands designs is made by means of major space programs in chronological order in the table 5.1:

Table 5.1. Major programs suggested in the artificial islands proposals for the Dutch coast

As identified from the list, most artificial islands are suggested for coastal protection purpose, which is similar to the Blue Heart. However, an obvious difference between this thesis result and other designs is urban development purpose, which is frequently appeared (6 times). This is probably because of (i) expanding available land due to land-use pressure and (ii) compensating the cost used for island construction by selling newly made land for urban development purposes. While the use of islands for urban development has the above-mentioned strong points, it inevitably leads to additional flood defense measures for the island itself. Thus, it devalues the main drivers of artificial islands – coastal protection. In other words, if we have to make substantial efforts to protect the protective islands from erosion or floods, why do we need the resource-requiring structures at sea? Therefore, this thesis does not intend to provide space for major urban development and human settlements. Another main difference is the provision of renewable energy, which is sparsely found in the previous designs. In the Blue Heart, energy assimilation is one of the motivations to build island. This may be because of the increasing threat of climate change and thereby growing rate of offshore wind farm installations more recently. In fact, the main drivers of this thesis – integrated climate

actions pursuing synergies – enables the design results to accommodate a wide range of functions, such as wind farm-aquaculture combination, to create synergies as much as possible. Given the increasingly complex use of space at sea, the synergy approach is of importance for an efficient (marine) spatial use. By doing so, the feasibility to construct islands can substantially increase. Secondly, according to the Delta committee (2008), the Dutch cabinet considered the ideas for building islands off the coast mainly for coastal protection purpose. However, they are rejected and not implemented for the coastal defense measures. The Delta Committee mentioned the reasons of refusal in two major ways (ibid): (i) additional efforts required to protect the islands itself, and (ii) a great deal of cost required for building the islands. To be specific, the Committee states that it is true that the offshore islands can significantly contribute to flood protection, but “But, like the existing coast, the islands too will need protecting, leading to considerably more maintenance of the primary coastal defences” (Delta Committee, 2008, 53p). In order to address this, this thesis suggested a combined system of islands consisted of a primary island as a detached breakwater and ancillary submerged reefs as a sand-trapper while helping wave attenuation, rather than a single island. In


tandem, the islands system can maintain its dynamic equilibrium in sediment balance with minimized additional efforts. The effectiveness of the tandem breakwater design is also evidenced by Cox & Clark (1992). Nonetheless, this type of islands system would accelerate the second reason of the refusal, which is the cost-inefficiency compared to beach nourishment. However, this thesis also suggests a possible solution for this. By reusing the decommissioned oil and gas platforms in the North Sea for building basis of the islands and structures for activities on the island, a considerable amount of cost can be saved, while having ecological values. And the saved cost can also be used for the island construction or maintenance. Importantly, even if the Committee refused the island proposals, they recognized thealues of the islands off the coast and still leaves a room for future improvements, stating as follows: “The North Sea offers many opportunities for integrated development, such as energy generation...(omit)…or seaweed and algal production. The sustainable development of fish farming and aquaculture also offers promise. Islands may possibly play a role in these functions. The Committee recognizes the possibilities of integrated development in the North Sea, but given its mandate makes no further recommendations on the subject.” (Delta Committee, 2008, 53p). In this regard, this thesis might be a response for the remarks from the Delta Committee. Last but not least, from a reflection on the thesis results, the significance and limitations of this study are found. Being regarded as a framework, a seascape approach shows the possibilities to plan and design spatial interventions at sea, based on a seascape analysis, for integrated climate actions with synergy between marine-related sectors as well as adaptation and mitigation aims. However, there is also a limitation of a seascape approach in envisioning such integrated climate actions. The advantage of a seascape to holistically consider diverse aspects as well as adaptation and mitigation issues might lead to the excessively complex process of planning and design. It is essential to pursue synergies and multiple-use of space at sea among various sectors for achieving the successful integration of climate actions. However, if there are too many sectors and stakeholders involved and considered, which is likely to be the case at sea, it would increase the complexity of planning phases, and thus lead to failure of a plan.


5.3 Conclusion In this section the conclusion of the thesis is elaborated by answering the research questions. In order to answer the main question, several sub research questions were made together with the design question. The sub questions are formulated and respectively answered in the following paragraphs. 1. What are the possibilities of a seascape approach to synergetic integration of adaptation and mitigation in literature? In order to answer this question, literature study was conducted in two ways: integrated climate actions with synergy and a seascape approach. Regarding the former, so as to the successful integration of adaptation and mitigation, it is essential to maximize synergies, minimize tradeoffs, and overcome the difference between the two climate actions strengthening the dichotomy. To achieve these conditions, the joint benefits (e.g. A + M) should be pursued, instead of the ancillary benefits (e.g. M→A or M→A). And since creating synergies by the joint benefit approach should consider interactions between not only adaptation and mitigation, but also other non-climatic factors in a system-wide context, a seascape approach being considered as a holistic approach can have possibilities for the synergetic integration of climate actions. For example, a seascape approach can consider diverse factors including adaptation and mitigation, providing integrated climate actions with synergies. Particularly, given that a sea can be regarded as a battleground in times of climate change where the challenges and opportunities of climate change can be found, a seascape approach is of especially importance in that the approach makes it possible to analyze, plan, and design a seascape. This can promote synergies among climate actions and non-climatic actions in an integrated manner. 2. What constitute the current seascapes of the Dutch part of the North Sea, and how can they be analyzed? During the literature review, it is found that there is few study in the literature. Thus, this thesis explored a seascape approach by applying a landscape approach because the two approaches are based on the same ground- a systems thinking. As a result, the thesis suggested an analytical framework for a

seascape, which allow a seascape analysis in three subsystems: abiotic, biotic, and anthropogenic. Therefore, the analysis model leads to a seascape analysis of the Dutch part of the North Sea, providing substantial information and understandings for later phases. 3. What threats concern coastal protection and what opportunities emerge along the Holland coast? According to the thematic coastal analysis, the fundamental problem of the Holland coast is identified to be coastal erosion, which are specifically structural erosion and dune erosion. Also, coastal erosion is resulted from (i) a deficiency in sediment supply due to anthropogenic development in the coast causing structural erosion, and (ii) (negative) sediment transport due to wave and wind energy leading to dune erosion. What is worse, coastal erosion will be worsened by accelerating sea level rise and extreme storm surges in the future combined with land subsidence. However, current measures almost fully relying on sand nourishment contain several challenges and limitations, which are (i) ever-increasing volume of sand and (ii) increasing dune heights causing physical and visual disconnection. Thus, in order to find a solution, an opportunity was found with the offshore approach in the form of artificial island. The suggested offshore seascapes can attenuate wave energy and facilitate natural sediment deposits to the Holland coast, thus significantly reducing coastal erosion. 4. What opportunities are offered by offshore wind energy potentials and what are the challenges concerning a renewable energy transition in Amsterdam municipality? The city of Amsterdam aims to achieve a renewable energy transition motivated by a considerable amount of CO2 reduction in the near future. For this aim, Amsterdam plans to assimilate renewable energy mainly focusing on wind and solar energy in the city boundary. However, with all the efforts, the energy supply from renewable sources faces challenges due to land use pressure and public opposition, limiting the predicted renewable energy provision to 50% by 2040. In order to overcome the challenges, this thesis found an opportunity from offshore wind farms at sea. Thus, based on the energy potential calculation, a total of 3180 GWh/year electricity can be provided exceeding the required energy demands for Amsterdam to be energy-neutral by 2040. Moreover,

a process-oriented plan is suggested to build the wind farms in five phases. Consequently, the energy yield can be increased until 2050, making Amsterdam even an energy-exporting part of the Netherlands. After 2050, the energy provision will be decreased and eventually stopped in around 2060. However, the reduced energy provision from the designed wind farms can be compensated by farther offshore wind farms according to several assumptions grounded by current North Sea plans. 5. What opportunities and challenges are associated with marine ecology in the North Sea and the Holland coast to be sustainable for both human and marine life? In the past decades, there have been efforts to enhance marine ecosystems. As a result, the ecosystem status has significantly increased, although it is not in favorable status yet. One of the most remarkable trend in the North Sea marine ecosystem is the recovery of seals population, which was nearly disappeared from the Dutch coast due to intensive hunting. However, the increase in harbor and grey sealsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; populations leads to a deficiency in habitat quality and quantity, which is identified as the challenge in ecological aspect. In a wide context, it is found from coastal analysis that the Holland coast functions as a disconnected ecological link. Thus, based on this analyzed challenge or missed opportunity, the thesis suggested an offshore islands and submerged reefs to strengthen the connectivity stretching from the Wadden coast to Delta coast through the Holland coast. In doing so, marine life including seals in the Dutch part of the North Sea can find new habitats as well as new possibilities to extend their foraging and breeding grounds thanks to the enhanced accessibility. Moreover, in relation to the sub-research question, the design question was formulated as follows: â&#x20AC;&#x153;What design approaches and spatial interventions can be made for synergetic integration of climate actions spatial-explicitly from a seascape approach in the Holland coast?â&#x20AC;? From the literature study on a seascape approach, a seascape analysis model is suggested, thereby allowing a seascape analysis of the Dutch North Sea. And then, the analysis results lead to a thematic analysis of the Holland coast in thee major ways: adaptation, mitigation, and ecology. This results in challenges and opportunities in envisioning the synergetic integration of climate actions with


a consideration of marine ecosystem in the case study area. In order to overcome the challenges and seize the opportunities, a vision of the Blue Heart was proposed as synergetic seascapes in the North Sea. Followingly, for the design process to progress in a way to achieve the synergetic integration of climate actions, the design was guided by several principles, which was derived from literature study on the integrated climate actions with synergy. In the Blue Heart, detailed design was illustrated with the two major aspects of adaptation (protective seascape) and mitigation (energy seascape) planned in five-phased steps. The designed seascapes can be achieved resource-efficiently and environmental-friendly as much as possible by reusing decommissioned oil and gas platforms in the North Sea. Finally, after having answered the sub-research questions, the main research question can be answered, which was: â&#x20AC;&#x153;What are the opportunities and limitations of a seascape approach to synergetic integration of climate actions in the Holland Coast of the Amsterdam metropolitan region?â&#x20AC;? The negative impacts of climate change can be heavily found with sea. However, at the same time, opportunities to mitigate and adapt to climate change can also be found at sea. Nevertheless, it is not simple and easy to utilize a sea for productive purposes. This is because more human activities will be accompanied by increasingly complex spatial use of a sea, and its consequences on marine ecosystem. In this sense, a seascape approach was suggested and examined throughout the thesis to achieve adaptation and mitigation objectives simultaneously while creating synergy. The seascape approach can allow planners and designers to analyze and understand a sea in three ways of abiotic, biotic, and anthropogenic aspects, thereby planning and designing a seascape. Therefore, a seascape approach can provide a framework through which spatial interventions can be made at sea for integrated climate actions with synergy among different kinds of sectors along with adaptation and mitigation purposes.



Reference Ahern, K., & Cole, L. (2012). Landscape scale – towards an integrated approach. ECOS, 33(3/4), 6-12 Arapogianni et al. (2013). Deep water - the next step for offshore wind energy, European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), Brussels, Belgium, ISBN: 9782. Beatley, T. (2014). Blue Urbanism. Island Press, Center for Resource Economics. Berendsen, H., J., A. (2000). Rivers and the sea: how science went wrong explaining the formation of the Netherlands’ coastal plain. The Netherlands and the North Sea. Dutch Geography, 2004, 56-63. Beets, D. J., & Van der Spek, A., J. (2000). The Holocene evolution of the barrier and back-barrier basins of Belgium and the Netherlands as a function of late Weichselian morphology, relative sea-level rise and sediment supply. Geologie en Mijnbouw, 79(1), 3-16. Berry, P. M., Brown, S., Chen, M., Kontogianni, A., Rowlands, O., Simpson, G., & Skourtos, M. (2015). Cross-sectoral interactions of adaptation and mitigation measures. Climatic Change, 128(3-4), 381-393. Biesbroek, G. R., Swart, R. J., & Van der Knaap, W. G. (2009). The mitigation–adaptation dichotomy and the role of spatial planning. Habitat international,33(3), 230-237. Bolsius, E., & Hemert, P. (2004). ensuring our future at sea through spatial planning, the Netherlands and the North Sea: Dutch geography 2000-2004. Boogert, G. den, Hakvoort, L., Heit, R., Le Fèvre, S., Lemmens, B., Mantel, B., Voerman, R. & Vries, B. de (2014). Energy Atlas Amsterdam Southeast, available: wonen-leefomgeving/klimaatenergie/ energieatlas/ [accessed 3 September 2016]. Bos, O. G., Witbaard, R., Lavaleye, M. S. S., Moorsel, G. W. N. M., Teal, L. R., Hal, V. R., ... & Dijkman, E. M. (2011). Biodiversity hotspots on the Dutch Continental Shelf: a marine strategy framework directive perspective.


Boström, C., Pittman, S. J., Simenstad, C., & Kneib, R. T. (2011). Seascape ecology of coastal biogenic habitats: advances, gaps, and challenges. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 427, 191-217. Bouma, S. & Lengkeek, W. (2012). Benthic communities on hard substrates of the offshore wind farm Egmond aan Zee (OWEZ), report Bradshaw, C. J., Thompson, C. M., Davis, L. S., & Lalas, C. (1999). Pup density related to terrestrial habitat use by New Zealand fur seals. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 77(10), 1579-1586. Brand, N., Kersten, I., Pot, R., & Warmerdam, M. (2014). Research by Design on the Dutch Coastline: Bridging Flood Control and Spatial Quality. Built Environment, 40(2), 265-280. Brasseur, S. M. J. M., van Polanen Petel, T., Aarts, G. M., Meesters, H. W. G., Dijkman, E. M., & Reijnders, P. J. H. (2010). Grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) in the Dutch North Sea: population ecology and effects of wind farms (No. C137/10). IMARES. Broeze, J., Simons, A. E., Ketelaars, J. J. M. H., Bethe, F. H., Loohuis, R. O., de Graaf, J., ... & de Wilt, J. G. (2004). Mariene parken: duurzaam in zee (No. 04.2. 070, p. 36). InnovatieNetwerk Groene Ruimte en Agrocluster. Burcharth, H. F., & Hughes, S. A. (2003). Types and functions of coastal structures. In Coastal Engineering Manual. Coastal Engineering Research Center. Burch, S., & Robinson, J. (2007). A framework for explaining the links between capacity and action in response to global climate change. Climate Policy, 7(4), 304-316. Cabrera, D., Colosi, L., & Lobdell, C. (2008). Systems thinking. Evaluation and program planning, 31(3), 299-310. Cameron, L. R., Van Stralen, J., & Veum, K. (2011). Scenarios for offshore wind including spatial interactions and grid issues (No. ECN-E--11-049). Energy research Centre of the Netherlands ECN. Callahan, E. (2015). Harvesting the Unlikely Fruits of Oil and Gas, National Geographic Ocean Views [online], available at: http://voices.

unlikely-fruits-of-oil-and-gas [accessed 10 Oct 2016] Callahan, E (2016). Removing Oil Rigs from the North Sea – is Europe up for the Challenge? [online] Available at: http://voices.nationalgeographic. com/2015/08/10/removing-oil-rigs-from-the-northsea-is-europe-up-for-the-challenge/ [accessed 13 Oct 2016] Caldwell, I. R., & Gergel, S. E. (2013). Thresholds in seascape connectivity: influence of mobility, habitat distribution, and current strength on fish movement. Landscape ecology, 28(10), 1937-1948. CBD. (Convention on Biological Diversity) (2004). The ecosystem approach: The Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. CBD. (Convention on Biological Diversity) (1993). Tractatenblad (Treaty Series), no. 54. Checkland, P. (1999). Systems thinking, systems practice. John Wiley and Sons. New York. Claisse, J. T., Pondella, D. J., Love, M., Zahn, L. A., Williams, C. M., Williams, J. P., & Bull, A. S. (2014). Oil platforms off California are among the most productive marine fish habitats globally. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(43), 15462-15467. Clifford, J. E. (Ed.) (1996). Advances in Coastal Structures and Breakwaters, Proceedings of the International Conference Organized by the Institution of Civil Engineers and Held in London on 27-29 April 1995 (Vol. 7). Thomas Telford. Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention), Tractatenblad (Treaty Series), 1993, no. 141. Cordah, B. M. T. (2003). Offshore Wind Energy Generation: Phase 1 Proposals and Environmental Report. Report to DTI: Cordah/DTI, 9(01.06), 2003. Cox, J. C., & Clark, G. R. (1992). Design Development of a Tandem Breakwater System for Hammond Indiana. In Proceedings, Coastal Structures and Breakwaters Conference, Thomas Telford, London (pp. 111-121). Dauterive, L. (2000). Rigs-To-Reefs policy, progress, and perspective.

Decom North Sea (2014). Decommissioning in the North Sea, Review of Decommissioning Capacity. Delta Committee (2008). Working together with water–A living land builds for its future. The Hague Delta Commissie. Delta Committee (2009), The National Water Plan 2009-2015, The Hague Delta Commissie. Delta Programme (2013). National Coastal StrategyCompass for the Coast, the delta programme Coast Streeing Group, available: [accessed 11 Nov 2015] Delta Committee (2015a), The National Water Plan 2016-2021, The Hague Delta Commissie. Delta Committee (2015b). Working on the Delta. Dutch House of Representatives, 2014-2015 session, 34 000 J, no. 4. De Groot, R.,S., Alkemade, R., & Braat, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7:260–272. Downing, T. E., Butterfield, R., Cohen, S., Huq, S., Moss, R., Rahman, A., ... & Stephen, L. (2001). Vulnerability indices: climate change impacts and adaptation. UNEP Policy Series, UNEP, Nairobi. De Regt, A., & van der Burg, A. (2000). Randstad Holland: The Delta Metropolis. Informationen zur Raumentwicklung, H, 11, 691-703. Dijkzeul, D. (2010). De Kust in Ontwikkeling: inventarisatie en inspiratie. Parliament, E. (2008). Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). Official Journal of the European Union L, 164, 19-40. Doornenbal, P., & van Heteren, S. (2007). Bathymetric range map of the Dutch Continental Shelf (NCP). Doornenbal, P., Schokker, J., Maljers, D., Van Der Wal, J. T., & Van Heteren, S. (2007). Worked example Marine-Landscape Map of the Dutch Continental Shelf.


Donkers, J. A. J., Brand, A. J., & Eecen, P. J. (2011). Offshore wind atlas of the Dutch part of the North Sea. EWEA 2011 Annual Event, Brussels. DTI, (2005). Guidance on the Assessment of the Impact of Offshore Wind Farms: Seascape and Visual Impact Report. DTI, London. Duguma, L. A., Minang, P. A., & van Noordwijk, M. (2014). Climate change mitigation and adaptation in the land use sector: from complementarity to synergy. Environmental management, 54(3), 420432. Duchhart, I. (2007). Designing Sustainable Landscapes From Experience to Theory; A Process of Reflective Learning from Case-study Projects in Kenya (p. 224). Wageningen University, The Netherlands.; p.194 Ehler, C., & Douvere, F. (2009). Marine spatial planning, a step-by-step approach towards ecosystem-based management. Eurosion (2004), A guide to coastal erosion management practices in Europe, Coastal erosion – Evaluation of the needs for action, Directorate General Environment, European Commission EWEA. (The European Wind Agency Association) (2013). The European offshore wind industry - key trends and statistics 2012

Gemeente Amsterdam (2015). Sustainable Amsterdam, Agenda for renewable energy, clear air, a circular economy and a climateresilient city. Gemeente Amsterdam (2011). Amsterdam: a different energy- 2040 energy strategy, the city of Amsterdam Giardino, A., Mulder, J., Ronde, J. D., & Stronkhorst, J. (2011). Sustainable development of the Dutch coast: Present and future. Journal of Coastal Research, 166-172. Gornitz, V. (2013). Rising seas: past, present, future. Columbia University Press. Goklany, I. M. (2007). Integrated strategies to reduce vulnerability and advance adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12(5), 755-786. Hall, J., Dawson, R., Barr, S., Batty, M., Bristow, A., Carney, S., Dagoumas, A., Ford A, Harpham, C., & Tight, M. (2010). City-scale integrated assessment of climate impacts, adaptation and mitigation. In: Bose R (ed) Energy efficient cities: assessment tools and benchmarking practices. World Bank, Washington, pp 43–64 Hidding, M. (2006). Planning voor stad en land (p. 295). Coutinho.

Fahrig, L., & Merriam, G. (1985). Habitat patch connectivity and population survival. Ecology, 66(6), 1762-1768.

Hill, M. et al. (2001). Guide to Best Practice in Seascape Assessment. Countryside Council for Wales.

Feely, R., A., Christopher L. S.,, & Victoria J. F. (2006). Carbon dioxide and our ocean legacy, marine life 1

Horn, S., van der, & Meijer J. (2015). The Landscape Approach, The Hague: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

Freeman, O. E., Duguma, L. A., & Minang, P. A. (2015). Operationalizing the integrated landscape approach in practice. Ecol. Soc, 20(1), 24. Forman RT, Godron M. Patches and structural components for a landscape ecology. BioScience 1981, 31:733–740.

Howgate, O., R., & Kenyon, W. (2009). Community cooperation with natural flood management: a case study in the Scottish Borders. Area 41(3):329-340

Füssel, H. M., & Klein, R. J. (2002). Assessing vulnerability and adaptation to climate change: an evolution of conceptual thinking. In UNDP Expert Group Meeting on ‘Integrating Disaster Reduction and Adaptation to Climate Change’, Havana, Cuba (pp. 17-19).


Husar, R., B., & Husar, J., D., (1998). Global Distribution of Continental Haziness (Draft), Center for Air Pollution Impact and Trend Analysis, Washington University. IH Cantabria (2016). Simulation models on wave Interaction with vertical breakwater & short crested

sea state breaking on an artificial reef, available at: coastalstructures [accessed 05 Sep 2016]

Karsten, M. (2013). Detached breakwaters. available at: breakwaters [accessed 18 Sep 2016]

International Energy Agency (IEA) (2015). Key World Energy Statistics, available at: http://www. [accessed 12 September 2016]

Kleefmann, F. (1984). Planning als zoekinstrument.

International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) (2016). Innovation Outlook: Off shore Wind, International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) (2008). Halichoerus grypus. In: IUCN 2015. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. [accessed 25 Sep 2015]

Klein, R. J., Schipper, E. L. F., & Dessai, S. (2005). Integrating mitigation and adaptation into climate and development policy: three research questions. Environmental science & policy, 8(6), 579-588. Kliucininkaite, L. & Ahrendt, K. (2011). modelling different artificial reefs in the coastline of probstei, different positions and shapes of artificial reef, its impacts on sediment transport, affects on marine fauna. impacts analysis on increase of diving recourses, radost journal series report no. 5

Jackson, A. & Callahan, E. (2016). Costs of Rigs-to-Reefs?, Web, available at: http://www. [accessed 18 Sep 2016].

Klein, R. J., Huq, S., Denton, F., Downing, T. E., Richels, R. G., Robinson, J. B., & Toth, F. L. (2007). Inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation.

Johnson, H. (2010). Guidance for outline design of nearshore detached breakwaters on sandy macrotidal coasts.

Knaapen, M., A. (2009). Sandbank occurrence on the Dutch continental shelf in the North Sea. Geomarine letters, 29(1), 17-24.

Jones, R. N., Dettmann, P., Park, G., Rogers, M., & White, T. (2007). The relationship between adaptation and mitigation in managing climate change risks: a regional response from North Central Victoria, Australia. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12(5), 685-712.

Kooij, P. (2010). How the Netherlands got a green heart and lost it again. Historia Agriculturae, 42, 195208.

Kazmierczak, A., & Carter, J. (2010). Adaptation to climate change using green and blue infrastructure. A database of case studies. Interreg IVC Green and blue space adaptation for urban areas and eco towns (GRaBS). Manchester, UK. Available at: Accessed: July 2012 Kersten, I., Hoekstra, J., Bergen, J. van., Warmerdam, M., Brand, N., & Pot, R. (2013) Safety and quality of the Dutch Coast: towards 2100 : research by design on the Dutch coast, the result of two years Coastal Quality Studio, Atelier Kustkwaliteit Kersten, I., Hoekstra, J., van Bergen, J., Warmerdam, M., Brand, N., Pot, R., ... & Brand, N. (2013). Safety and quality of the Dutch Coast: towards 2100: research by design on the Dutch coast, the result of two years Coastal Quality Studio toon extra info.

Koh, J. (2008). On Landscape Approach to Design and an Eco-Poetic Approach to Landscape. ECLAS: Alnarp 2008 Session A – Design in new urban contexts Landauer, M., Juhola, S., & Söderholm, M. (2015). Inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation: a systematic literature review. Climatic Change, 1-13. Larsen, J. H., Soerensen, H. C., Christiansen, E., Naef, S., & Vølund, P. (2005). Experiences from Middelgrunden 40 MW offshore wind farm. In Copenhagen offshore wind conference (pp. 1-8). Lako, P. & Beurskens, L.W.M. (2010). Windenergie op zee als onderdeel van de duurzame energiedoelstelling. Informatie ten behoeve van een PlanMER Noordzee van het Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat ECN-E{10-052, Energy research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN).


Laukkonen, J., Blanco, P. K., Lenhart, J., Keiner, M., Cavric, B., & Kinuthia-Njenga, C. (2009). Combining climate change adaptation and mitigation measures at the local level. Habitat International, 33(3), 287292. Leguijt, C., Groot, M.I. & Bles, M. (2010). Energiestrategie Amsterdam 2040: Brug naar een duurzame energievoorziening [online], 10.3116.10, available: publicatie/amsterdam_energy_transition_2040_/1080 [accessed 12 November 2016]. Leatherman, S., P. (1982). Barrier island handbook. Coastal Publications. Lengkeek, W., Coolen, J. W. P., Gittenberger, A., & Schrieken, N. (2013). Ecological relevance of shipwrecks in the North Sea. Ned Faun Meded, 40, 49-58. Lindeboom, H., van Kessel, J. G., & Berkenbosch, L. (2005). Areas with special ecological values on the Dutch Continental Shelf. Report RIKZ/2005.008, Alterra Report, (1203). Li, Z,, Boyle, F., & Reynold, A. (2010). Rainwater harvesting and greywater treatment systems for domestic application in Ireland. Desalin 260(1):1-8 Smith and Olesen 2010. Love, M., S., Schroeder, D., M., & Lenarz, W. (2006). Potential use of offshore marine structures in rebuilding an overfished rockfish species, bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis). Fish B-NOAA 104: 383–90. Love, M.S., Brothers, E., Schroeder, D.M., & Lenarz, W.H. (2007). Ecological performance of youngof-the-year blue rockfish (Sebastes mystinus) associated with oil platforms and natural reefs in California as measured by daily growth rates. Bull Mar Sci 80: 147–57. Luisetti, T., Turner, K.,R., Bateman, I.J., MorseJones, S., Adams, C., & Fonseca, L., (2011). Coastal and marine ecosystem services valuation for policy and management: Managed realignment case studies in England. Ocean & Coast Manag 54:212224 MacKenzie, M. (2004). Nova Scotia Grey Seal Hunt, available: greysealhunt.htm [accessed 1 Nov 2015]


MacArthur, R. H., & Wilson, E. O. (2015). Theory of Island Biogeography.(MPB-1) (Vol. 1). Princeton University Press. Macreadie, P. I., Fowler, A. M., & Booth, D. J. (2011). Rigs‐to‐reefs: will the deep sea benefit from artificial habitat?. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(8), 455-461. Malm, W.. C. (1999). Introduction To Visibility, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA), Colorado State University. ISSN 0737–5352–40. Marchand, M. (Ed.) (2010). Concepts and Science for Coastal Erosion Management. Concise report for policy makers. Deltares, Delft. Melia, S., Parkhurst, G., Barton, H. (2011). The paradox of intensification. Transp Pol 18(1):46-52. Millennium Assessment Report (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington Motloch, John, L. (2001). Introduction to Landscape Design, Second Edition, New York: John Wiley and Sons Murphy, M. D. (2005). Landscape architecture theory: an evolving body of thought. Waveland Press. Natural England (2012). An Approach to Seascape Character Assessment © Natural England 2012. Netherlands Hydrological society (NHV); Netherlands Natioanl Committee of the International Association of Hydrological Scoiences (IAHS) (1998), Water in the Netherlands. Nicholls, M., M. (1989). Sediment accumulation rates and relative sea-level rise in lagoons. Marine Geology 88 201-219. OSPAR Commission (2015). 2015 Update of the inventory of Oil and Gas Offshore Installations in the OSPAR Maritime Area. Ostle NJ, Levy PE, Evans CD, Smith P (2009) UK land use and soil carbon sequestration. Land Use Pol 26:S274-S283

OED. (Oxford English Dictionary) (2016). Oxford English Dictionary [online], available at: http://www. [18 Feb 2016] Pachauri, R. K., Allen, M. R., Barros, V. R., Broome, J., Cramer, W., Christ, R., ... & van Vuuren, D. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Pittman, S. J., & Brown, K. A. (2011). Multi-scale approach for predicting fish species distributions across coral reef seascapes. PloS one, 6(5), e20583. Quéré, C. L., Andres, R. J., Boden, T., Conway, T., Houghton, R. A., House, J. I., ... & Andrew, R. M. (2013). The global carbon budget 1959–2011. Earth System Science Data, 5(1), 165-185. Reeve, D., Chadwick, A., & Fleming, C (2004). Coastal engineering-processes, theory and design practice. New York: Spon Press. Pilarczyk, K., W. (Ed.) (1990). Coastal protection. Rotterdam: AA Balkema. RWS. (Rijkswaterstaat) (2012). Nederlandse kust. Rapport nr. 2012/OBN166-DK, Directie Kennis en Innovatie, Ministerie van EL&I/Rijkswaterstaat Waterdienst, Den Haag. Rosenzweig, C., & Tubiello, F., N. (2007). Adaptation and mitigation strategies in agriculture: an analysis of potential synergies. Mitig & Adapt Strateg for Glob Change 12(5):855-873. Robinson, M., Cognard-Plancq, A.L., Cosandey, C., et al. (2003). Studies of the impact of forests on peak flows and baseflows: a European perspective. For Ecol and Manag 186:85-97. Roff, J. C., & Taylor, M. E. (2000). National frameworks for marine conservation—a hierarchical geophysical approach. Aquatic conservation: Marine and Freshwater ecosystems, 10(3), 209-223. Rockmann, C., Stuiver, M., van den Burg, S. W. K., Zanuttigh, B., Zagonari, F., Airoldi, L., & Schouten, J., J. (2015). Multi-use platform solutions in the North Sea, Baltic Sea, Atlantic and Adriatic Sea. European Union.

Scott, K. E., Anderson, C., Dunsford, H., Benson, J. F., & MacFarlane, R. (2005). An assessment of the sensitivity and capacity of the Scottish seascape in relation to offshore windfarms. Inverness, Scottish Natural Heritage. Scholz, M., Corrigan, N.L., & Yazdi, S.K. (2006). The Glasgow sustainable urban drainage system management project: Case studies (Belvidere hospital and Celtic FC stadium areas). Environ Eng Sc 23(6):908-922. Schillings, C., Wanderer, T., Cameron, L., van der Wal, J. T., Jacquemin, J., & Veum, K. (2012). A decision support system for assessing offshore wind energy potential in the North Sea. Energy Policy, 49, 541-551. Semadeni-Davies, A., Hernebring, C., Svensson, G., Gustafsson, L. G. (2008). The impacts of climate change and urbanisation on drainage in Helsingborg, Sweden: Suburban stormwater. J of Hydrol 350(1):114-125. SDI (Sustainable Development Internation) & UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) (2015). Climate action 2015-2016 [online], available: http:// [accessed 2 Dec 2015]. Sistermans, p., & Nieuwenhuis, o. (2004). Holland Coast (The Netherlands). EUROSION Case Study. DHV group. Sijmons, D., Hugtenburg, J., van Hoorn, A., & Feddes, F. (Eds.). (2014). Landscape and Energy: Designing Transition. Sijmons, D., & Feddes, F. (2002). Landkaartmos en andere beschouwingen over landschap. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010. Small, C., & Robert, J. N. (2003). A global analysis of human settlement in coastal zones.” Journal of Coastal Research: 584-599. Smits, A., Nienhuis, P. H., & Saeijs, H. L. F. (2006). Changing Estuaries, Changing Views. Hydrobiologia 565(1):339-355. Soldal, A. V., Svellingen, I., Jørgensen, T., & Løkkeborg, S. (2002). Rigs-to-reefs in the North Sea: hydroacoustic quantification of fish in the vicinity of a “semi-cold” platform. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil, 59(suppl), S281-S287.


Stronkhorst, J., & Mulder, J. (2014). Considerations on managed realignment in The Netherlands. In Managed Realignment: A Viable Long-Term Coastal Management Strategy? (pp. 61-68). Springer Netherlands. Steiner, F. (1991). Landscape planning: a method applied to a growth management example. Environmental Management, 15(4), 519-529. Stremke, S. & Dobbelsteen A.V. D. (2012). Sustainable Energy Landscapes: Designing, Planning, and Development, Taylor and Francis. Stremke, S., & Koh, J. (2009). Sustainable energy transition: Properties and constraints of regenerative energy systems with respect to spatial planning and design. Statistics Netherlands (2015), Renewable Energy 2015, available at: [accessed 13 Sep 2016] Stronkhorst, J., van der Spek, A., & van Maren, B. (2013). A Quickscan of Building-with-Nature Solutions to Mitigate Coastal Erosion in Colombia, Deltares. Sullivan, R. G., Kirchler, L. B., Lahti, T., RochĂŠ, S., Beckman, K., Cantwell, B., & Richmond, P. (2012). Wind turbine visibility and visual impact threshold distances in western landscapes. In National Association of Environmental Professionals 37th Annual Conference, May (pp. 21-24). SWIFT wind farm research center (2013). Wind turbine spacing and power output loss, available at: wind-power/wind_plant_opt/ [accessed 18 Oct 2016]. Terpstra, S., Zbinden, S., Knip, C., & Schunck, R. (2007). Quick scan alternatieve veiligheidsmaatregelen. Twynstra Gudde, Amersfoort, The Netherlands. OSPAR Commissions (2000). Quality status report 2000. Region II, the Greater North Sea, OSPAR Commissions, London, 136. Trabucco, A., Zomer, R. J., Bossio, D. A., van Straaten, O., & Verchot, L. V. (2008) Climate change mitigation through afforestation/reforestation: A global analysis of hydrologic impacts with four case studies. Agric Ecosys & Environ 126:81-97.


Trepte, A. (2015). A picture of harbour seal, available: [accessed 1 Dec 2015] Trulio, L., Callaway, J., & Crooks, S. (2007). White Paper on Carbon Sequestration and Tidal Salt Marsh Restoration, 4pp. Trukhanova, I. S., Gurarie, E., & Sagitov, R. A. (2013). Distribution of hauled-out Ladoga ringed seals (Pusa hispida ladogensis) in spring 2012. Arctic, 417-428. Turrell, W. R. (1992). New hypotheses concerning the circulation of the northern North-Sea and its relation to North-Sea fish stock recruitment. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 49, 107-123. Van der Valk, A., & van der Knaap, W. (2006). Merging past and present in landscape planning: introduction. In Multiple Landscape; Merging Past and Present (pp. 9-19). NWO/WUR-Land Use Planning Group/ISOMUL. Van de Graaff, J. (2008): Types and background of coastal erosion. Available at http://www.coastalwiki. org/wiki/Types_and_background_of_coastal_ erosion[accessed 11 September 2016]. Van der Burg, A. J., & Vink, B. L. (2008). Randstad Holland towards 2040-perspectives from national government. Van der Baan, A. L. (2013). Developing a design criterion for the shoreline response to multiple submerged breakwaters (Doctoral dissertation, TU Delft, Delft University of Technology). Van de Graaf, J., & Doepel, D. (2004). Marine parks: sustainability at sea, the Transition to Sustainable Agriculture (Vital Clusters) programme, available at: http://www.innovatieagroennatuur. nl/sitemanager/downloadattachment. php?id=2pOPgNtjSK4R3eYMznSwDv [accessed 10 Sep 2016]. Van Rijn, L., C. (2013). Design of hard coastal structures against erosion, available at: www. [accessed 13 Sep 2016]. Van Schaick, J. & Klaasen, I. (2011). The Dutch Layers Approach to Spatial Planning and Design: A Fruitful Planning

Tool or a Temporary Phenomenon?, European Planning Studies. Van der Valk, A., & van der Knaap, W. (2006). Merging past and present in landscape planning: introduction. In Multiple Landscape; Merging Past and Present (pp. 9-19). NWO/WUR-Land Use Planning Group/ISOMUL. Van de Meene, J. W., & van Rijn, L. C. (2000). The shoreface-connected ridges along the central Dutch coast—part 1: field observations. Continental Shelf Research, 20(17), 2295-2323. Verbeek, S. (2011). Ecosystems and North Sea oil and gas facilities, IMSA. VijayaVenkataRaman, S., Iniyan, S., & Goic, R. (2012). A review of climate change, mitigation and adaptation. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(1), 878-897.

Islands. VROM (The Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment) & EZ (The Ministry of Economic Affairs) (2014b). North Sea 2050 Spatial Agenda, available at: [04 Jun 2016]. VROM (Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment) (2015). Policy Document on the North Sea 2016-2021, available at: [04 Jun 2016]. Wang, J., Huang, J., & Rozelle, S. (2010). Climate Change and China’s Agricultural Sector: An Overview of Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation, ICTSD–IPC Platform on Climate Change, Agriculture and Trade, Issue Brief No.5, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland and International Food & Agricultural Trade Policy Council, Washington DC, USA.

Villarreal, E. L., Semadeni-Davies, A., Bengtsson, L. (2004). Inner city stormwater control using a combination of best management practices. Ecol Eng 22(4):279-298.

Warren, C. R., Lumsden, C., O’Dowd, S. & Birnie, R. V. (2005). Green on green: Public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, vol 48, no 6, pp853–875.

Viguié, V., & Hallegatte, S. (2012). Trade-offs and synergies in urban climate policies. Nat Clim Chang 2:334–337.

Williams, K. (1999). Urban intensification policies in England: problems and contradictions. Land Use Pol 16(3):167-178.

Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General systems theory: Foundations, development, applications.

Wilson, M. (2015). Seascape Ecology - Evolutions of Perception and Practice, conference proceedings, ialeUK conference Seascape ecology: connecting land, sea, and society.

Vroom, M. (2006) Lexicon of Garden and Landscape Architecture, Birkhäuser. VROM (The Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment) (2008). Structuurvisie Randstad 2040. Den Haag: Ministerie VROM. VROM (Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment), (2012). Marine Strategy for the Netherlands part of the North Sea 2012-2020, Part I, available at: images/Marine%20Strategy%20for%20the%20 Netherlands%20part%20of%20the%20North%20 Sea%202012-2020,%20Part%201_683.pdf [accessed 03 Feb. 2016]. VROM (The Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment) & EZ (The Ministry of Economic Affairs) (2014a). White Paper on Offshore Wind Energy - Partial review of the National Water Plan Holland Coast and area north of the Wadden

Wilson, L., Wilson, J., Holden, J., Johnstone, I., Armstrong, A., & Morris, M. (2011). The impact of drain blocking on an upland blanket bog during storm and drought events, and the importance of sampling-scale. J of Hydrol 404:198-208. Witbaard, R., Lavaleye, M., Duineveld, G. C. A., & Bergman, M. J. N. (2013). Atlas of the megabenthos (incl. small fish) on the Dutch continental shelf of the North Sea. Zhang, Y.S., Cai, R.S., Fu, L.L., Liu, L.J., & Dong, H.F. (2012). Greenhouse gas emissions from major agricultural activities in China and corresponding mitigation strategies. J of Zhejiang Univ (Agric & Life Sci.) 38(1):97-107.


Zonneveld, I. S. (1989). The land unit - a fundamental concept in landscape ecology, and its applications, Landscape Ecology 3 (2): 67-86. Zou, X.X., Li, Y.E., Gao, Q.Z., Wan, Y.F. (2012). How water saving irrigation contributes to climate change resilienceâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;a case study of practices in China. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 17:111-132. Zwijnenburg, D. & Bosman, F. (2014). De Circulaire Metropool Amsterdam 2014-2018 [online] available: wonen-leefomgeving/ klimaat-energie/publicaties/ [accessed 25 Aug 2014].



Appedix 1





Appedix 2



The blue heart_Changsoon Choi  

MSc thesis

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you