Regional climate change should not be seen only as a threat; changes to weather patterns could generate opportunities for large-scale innovations. About the challenges the Netherlands face in times of climate change

GJ van den Born

GP Können

Jeroen Aerts

Jeroen Veraart

P Kabat

PA Scott

Pavel Kabat

PCD Milly

Pier Vellinga

Wim van Vierssen

Kabat, P.

van Vierssen, W.

Veraart, J.A.

Vellinga, P.

Aerts, J.

NARCIS 

Editorial: Climate proofing the Netherlands

Regional climate change should not be seen only as a threat; changes to weather patterns could generate opportunities for large-scale innovations, say Pavel Kabat, Pier Vellinga and their colleagues. ©2005 Nature Publishing Group

Aerts, J.C.J.H.

Veraart, J.

van Viersen, J.

VU Research Portal

VU Research PortalClimate proofing The NetherlandsKabat, P.; Vellinga, P.; Aerts, J.C.J.H.; Veraart, J.; van Viersen, J.published inNature2005DOI (link to publisher)10.1038/438283adocument versionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordLink to publication in VU Research Portalcitation for published version (APA)Kabat, P., Vellinga, P., Aerts, J. C. J. H., Veraart, J., & van Viersen, J. (2005). Climate proofing The Netherlands.Nature, 438, 283-284. https://doi.org/10.1038/438283aGeneral rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.            • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.            • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain            • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ?Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.E-mail address:vuresearchportal.ub@vu.nlDownload date: 14. Sep. 2021© 2005 Nature Publishing Group  Vol. 438|17 November 2005COMMENTARY283Climate proofing the Netherlands Regional climate change should not be seen only as a threat; changes to weather patterns could generateopportunities for large-scale innovations, say Pavel Kabat, Pier Vellinga and their colleagues. Throughout human history, people inregions all over the world have learnt,mostly by trial and error, to cope withextreme-climate events. Based on limited cli-matic and hydrological data from past events,countries have developed infrastructure andlegislation to protect people from floods anddroughts. Protective measures differ widelybetween regions, countries and continents —as do the risks. In economically important anddensely populated parts of the Netherlands thestandards of flood defence are the highest inthe world; dykes protect delta regions from aflood event expected to occur once every10,000 years.But global climate change caused by green-house-gas emissions means that key climateand hydrological variables will change. Wecan no longer assume that the future climatecan be predicted on the basis of past patterns1.Climate change and sea-level rise presentmajor challenges to each of the world’s deltaregions, which together harbour about 70% of the world’s population and economicresources. We think the international scienceand policy communities should develop plansfor achieving future sustainability in thesevital areas of our planet, using a ‘climateproofing’ approach.Climate proofing does not mean reducingclimate-based risks to zero — an unrealisticgoal for any country. The idea is to use hardinfrastructure to reduce risks to a quantifiedlevel, accepted by the society or economy. Thisrisk can be further combated by ‘softer’ mea-sures, such as insurance schemes or, as a lastresort, evacuation plans. Such climate proof-ing should be driven by opportunities for technological, institutional and societal innovations, rather than purely by fear of the negative effects of climate change.Too little too lateThe high impacts of the recent US hurricanes(economic losses associated with HurricaneKatrina were in excess of $125 billion2),exposed the consequences of not takingenough precautionary measures to addresslow-probability but high-magnitude climateevents. Most levees in New Orleans, breachedby storm waters following Hurricane Katrina,were built to deal with floods that occur onceevery 30 years. Since Hurricane Katrina hitNew Orleans last summer, many have advo-cated increasing levee protections for NewOrleans and even for the entire Louisiana coast.However, a broader climate-proofing approachmay be a better long-term solution than simplyreinforcing and raising the levees.Globally, evidence is mounting for more frequent and intense climate extremes in thefuture, as a consequence of anthropogenic cli-mate change3,4. But these predictions, and thosefor specific regional impacts, remain uncertain,and deciding on the right strategy to prepare forthese events is not an easy task. In the Nether-lands, the government is already investing in climate proofing. In addition to the ongoingClimate Changes Spatial Planning Researchprogramme (KvR) scheduled for 2005–2009,which is costing €100 million (US$118 mil-lion), the government will soon launch a newinitiative called ARK (Adaptation Programmefor Spatial Planning and Climate). ARK will beseveral times larger than KvR, in both size and scope. It will develop, through partnershipbetween policy makers, researchers and otherstakeholders, a comprehensive agenda thatdeals with climate change across several sectorsof the society and economy.Lost at seaIn the Netherlands, many key decisions aboutfuture developments are being taken now, and incorporating climate-change risks andopportunities into these decisions, as wasrecently called for by the senate of the Dutchparliament, is essential. For the Dutch govern-ment, climate change is now accepted as anissue to address in many sectors and policies.But why is it politically acceptable to spendmillions of euros on climate proofing in theNetherlands, but not in most other countries?Sixty percent of the Netherlands territory islocated below sea level and 70% of the grossnational product is earned in these flood-prone areas. So it is quite likely that theNetherlands will be confronted with severaleffects of climate change, including increasedrisk of flooding and more frequent summerdroughts. The predictions for the Netherlands’Today the Netherlands is divided into severaldyke-protected regions which have differentflooding risks. A future floating city, orhydrometropole, could be further divided sothat different risk thresholds are matched tosuitable property insurance levels. Findingextra land to store surplus floodwater willrequire creative solutions. For example, greenhouse horticulturebusinesses place a high demand on water forirrigating their crops, and are sensitive toboth wet and dry climate extremes.Greenhouses and their water reservoirs alsocover large surface areas. So integratingwater reservoirs into the foundations ofgreenhouses could both save space andserve as emergency floodwater storage9.These ideas are already moving fromresearch ideas to pilot projects in the Dutchcity of Naaldwijk (see above).  Vision of the future: a hydrometropoleD. VERMEER17.11 Commentary_Kabat MH  11/11/05  5:13 PM  Page 283Nature Publishing Group© 2005© 2005 Nature Publishing Group  COMMENTARY NATURE|Vol 438|17 November 2005284climate in 2100 shown in the table5 cover therange of known modelling and emissionuncertainties. For most sectors of the Dutcheconomy and society, even the low tomedium climate-change impacts would haveserious consequences, such as a significantrise in sea level6. The Netherlands faces several climate-change tests. The first relates to how we copewith increased risk of flooding in regions thatare already vulnerable. The second relates tothe amount of time we have to adapt to climatechange; when does acting later become toolate? In our view, developing a climate-proof-ing strategy now is likely to be more cost effec-tive than taking drastic actions later. The thirdchallenge applies to the way different strategiesare being discussed, worked out and eventu-ally implemented and governed. Climateproblems call for true integration across scien-tific disciplines, economic sectors and stake-holder groups. But they also call for aparticipatory approach in which strategies arediscussed at all administrative levels, individ-ual citizens included. Water peoplePublic debate about how to cope with futurefloods, should climate change lead to a greaterrisk of flooding, was accelerated by two eventsin the 1990s. Because the Netherlands is situ-ated on the delta of three major Europeanrivers (the Rhine, the Meuse, and the Scheldt),it is especially vulnerable to increased peakdischarges. In the winters of 1993 and 1995,extreme discharge nearly overtopped the riverdykes, and 250,000 people were evacuated as aprecautionary measure. During the past 50 years, the Netherlandshas adopted highly visible policies and mea-sures for water management. After major seafloods in 1953, with economic losses estimatedat €1 billion and 2,000lives lost, the Delta planwas designed. This is acomprehensive system ofprotective dykes andsurge barriers. So far, theNetherlands has invested€13 billion in the Delta plan. Between 1986and 2005, the main storm surge barrier of theDelta plan has had to be closed more than 20times because of the threat of flooding.However, public debate after the 1993 and1995 floods focused on the potentially negativeconsequences to the landscape of further rais-ing the dykes. A new ‘living with water’ strategywas developed7, which argues that extreme-climate events should be accommodated ratherthan fought with heavy infrastructure. The ideais that instead of always reinforcing and height-ening the dykes along rivers, occasional flood-ing will be accommodated and carefullymanaged in specific designated areas. This newapproach, designed to deal with the medium-impact regional predictions for the Nether-lands (see Table), was adopted by the Dutchgovernment as national policy in 2000.The Netherlands is also starting to build upresilience to other climate changes, such asincreased frequency of summer droughts. Thesummer of 2003 was the hottest in Europe inmore than 500 years. In the Netherlands, theheat wave was linked to an estimated 500deaths, of mostly elderly people, which compared to 27,000 for Europe as a whole.According to some modelling studies4, the2003 summer conditions could become aclose-to-normal summer by about 2050. Thiswill have major implications for many sectorsof the Dutch economy and society.For example, the extremely low freshwaterdischarge by the river Rhine in 2003 resultedin groundwater seepage of seawater to the low-lying delta, which in turn threatened largeareas of Dutch agri- and horticulture. Newcanals for bringing freshwater to the region,and additional summer storage facilities, arenow under study. The low 2003 water levels,and high surface-water temperatures, alsocaused serious shortages of cooling water forthe Dutch energy sector, with consequencesfor industrial productivity.Paid to protectWhat opportunities for climate proofing exist inthe agriculture sector? Current changes to therural policies of the European Union (EU)could be exploited by Dutch farmers wanting to prepare for future climate change. In June2005, the EU agreed to support the EuropeanAgricultural Fundfor Rural Develop-ment (2007–2013).This will helpreform the Com-mon AgriculturalPolicy and supportrural development. For many Dutch farmers,this could allow them to diversify their activitiesand move away from traditional agriculture,such as dairy farming on low-lying peatland. One possibility is to compensate farmers forlost income. We propose rewarding thosefarmers achieving lower greenhouse-gas emis-sions or who use their land as water-storagefacilities to combat summer dry spells and win-ter river discharges. The Dutch dairy farm iscurrently a significant source of carbon emis-sions (up to ten carbon dioxide equivalents8 perhectare per year). These emission rates couldbe reduced considerably, and such farms evenbecome a net carbon sink (of up to eight car-bon dioxide equivalents8 per hectare per year),if the farmland is transformed to a more natural state. Farming income could be substituted bycarbon credits for reduced emissions. The cur-rent emissions trading price under the KyotoProtocol is €23 per ton of carbon dioxide.Assuming that future emissions trading wouldcover all greenhouse gases and all sectors,which it does not do now, the farmer couldgenerate an income of €414 per hectare peryear. For comparison, an average Dutch dairyfarm today generates an income of some €670per hectare8 per year, one-third of which issubsidized by the EU. The Netherlands faces higher sea levels andmore extreme hydro-climatic events in thefuture. We think two basic approaches to cli-mate proofing could help combat thesethreats. In one, urban and industrial activities,including infrastructure, move from below sealevel to higher and drier lands, as found in theeastern Netherlands. The second approachinvolves the creation of a large ‘hydrometro-pole’, a world in which we have learned how tolive with — and make a living from — water(see ‘Vision of the future: a hydrometropole’).This would be a major urban, industrial andrural area with more than 15 million peopleliving and working in a world partly floatingon and surrounded by water. Given the historyof the Netherlands and the spirit of its people,this second vision seems more appropriate andattractive, but only time — and vigorous public debate — will tell what approach isfavoured. ■Pavel Kabat, Wim van Vierssen and JeroenVeraart are at Wageningen University andResearch Centre, Environmental Sciences Group,P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, TheNetherlands; Pier Vellinga and Jeroen Aerts areat the Faculty of Earth Sciences, Free University,Amsterdam, The Netherlands.See News Feature, page 275.1. Kabat, P. & van Schaik, H. Synthesis Report of theInternational Dialogue on Water and Climate 2–25 (ISBN9032703218, 2003).2. www.house.gov/transportation/water/10-20-05/10-20-05memo.html#PURPOSE3. Milly, P. C. D., Wetherald, R. T., Dunne, K. A. & Delworth, T.L. Nature 415, 514–517 (2002).4. Scott, P. A., Stone, D. A. & Allen, M. R. Nature 432, 610–613(2004).5. Können, G. P. Climate Scenarios for Impact studies in theNetherlands www.knmi.nl/onderzk/klimscen/scenarios/Scenarios2001.pdf (2001).6. Bouwer, L. M. & Vellinga, P. in Flooding in Europe: Challengesand Developments in Flood Risk Management (eds Begum,S., Hall, J. W., Stive, M. J. F.) (Springer, in the press).7. Tielrooy, F. (ed.) Water Management for the 21st century(the Hague, the Netherlands, 2000). 8. van den Born, G. J. et al. Climate Profit in Dutch Fen MeadowAreas: Assessment of Integrated Management Scenarios R-02/05 (Free Univ. Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2002). 9. ESPACE Guiding Models for Water Storage www.espace-project.org/reports.htm (2004).  Climate variableTemperatureAverage summer precipitationAverage winter precipitationSea-level riseLow-impact predictions+1 °C+1 %+6 %+20 cmRegional climate predictions for the Netherlands for 2100 (ref. 5)Mid-impact predictions+2 °C+2 %+12 %+60 cmHigh-impact predictions+4 to 6 °C+4 %+25 %+110 cm“Developing a climate-proofingstrategy now is likely to be morecost effective than taking drasticactions later.” 17.11 Commentary_Kabat MH  11/11/05  5:13 PM  Page 284Nature Publishing Group© 2005

English

Climate proofing The Netherlands

Crossref

Climate proofing the Netherlands

Vierssen, W., van

Wageningen Yield 

Viersen, J. van

DSpace at VU

© 2005 Nature Publishing Group 
 
Vol. 438|17 November 2005
COMMENTARY
283
Climate proofing the Netherlands 
Regional climate change should not be seen only as a threat; changes to weather patterns could generate
opportunities for large-scale innovations, say Pavel Kabat, Pier Vellinga and their colleagues. 
Throughout human history, people inregions all over the world have learnt,mostly by trial and error, to cope with
extreme-climate events. Based on limited cli-
matic and hydrological data from past events,
countries have developed infrastructure and
legislation to protect people from floods and
droughts. Protective measures differ widely
between regions, countries and continents —
as do the risks. In economically important and
densely populated parts of the Netherlands the
standards of flood defence are the highest in
the world; dykes protect delta regions from a
flood event expected to occur once every
10,000 years.
But global climate change caused by green-
house-gas emissions means that key climate
and hydrological variables will change. We
can no longer assume that the future climate
can be predicted on the basis of past patterns1.
Climate change and sea-level rise present
major challenges to each of the world’s delta
regions, which together harbour about 70% 
of the world’s population and economic
resources. We think the international science
and policy communities should develop plans
for achieving future sustainability in these
vital areas of our planet, using a ‘climate
proofing’ approach.
Climate proofing does not mean reducing
climate-based risks to zero — an unrealistic
goal for any country. The idea is to use hard
infrastructure to reduce risks to a quantified
level, accepted by the society or economy. This
risk can be further combated by ‘softer’ mea-
sures, such as insurance schemes or, as a last
resort, evacuation plans. Such climate proof-
ing should be driven by opportunities for 
technological, institutional and societal 
innovations, rather than purely by fear of 
the negative effects of climate change.
Too little too late
The high impacts of the recent US hurricanes
(economic losses associated with Hurricane
Katrina were in excess of $125 billion2),
exposed the consequences of not taking
enough precautionary measures to address
low-probability but high-magnitude climate
events. Most levees in New Orleans, breached
by storm waters following Hurricane Katrina,
were built to deal with floods that occur once
every 30 years. Since Hurricane Katrina hit
New Orleans last summer, many have advo-
cated increasing levee protections for New
Orleans and even for the entire Louisiana coast.
However, a broader climate-proofing approach
may be a better long-term solution than simply
reinforcing and raising the levees.
Globally, evidence is mounting for more 
frequent and intense climate extremes in the
future, as a consequence of anthropogenic cli-
mate change3,4. But these predictions, and those
for specific regional impacts, remain uncertain,
and deciding on the right strategy to prepare for
these events is not an easy task. In the Nether-
lands, the government is already investing in 
climate proofing. In addition to the ongoing
Climate Changes Spatial Planning Research
programme (KvR) scheduled for 2005–2009,
which is costing €100 million (US$118 mil-
lion), the government will soon launch a new
initiative called ARK (Adaptation Programme
for Spatial Planning and Climate). ARK will be
several times larger than KvR, in both size 
and scope. It will develop, through partnership
between policy makers, researchers and other
stakeholders, a comprehensive agenda that
deals with climate change across several sectors
of the society and economy.
Lost at sea
In the Netherlands, many key decisions about
future developments are being taken now, 
and incorporating climate-change risks and
opportunities into these decisions, as was
recently called for by the senate of the Dutch
parliament, is essential. For the Dutch govern-
ment, climate change is now accepted as an
issue to address in many sectors and policies.
But why is it politically acceptable to spend
millions of euros on climate proofing in the
Netherlands, but not in most other countries?
Sixty percent of the Netherlands territory is
located below sea level and 70% of the gross
national product is earned in these flood-
prone areas. So it is quite likely that the
Netherlands will be confronted with several
effects of climate change, including increased
risk of flooding and more frequent summer
droughts. The predictions for the Netherlands’
Today the Netherlands is divided into several
dyke-protected regions which have different
flooding risks. A future floating city, or
hydrometropole, could be further divided so
that different risk thresholds are matched to
suitable property insurance levels. Finding
extra land to store surplus floodwater will
require creative solutions. 
For example, greenhouse horticulture
businesses place a high demand on water for
irrigating their crops, and are sensitive to
both wet and dry climate extremes.
Greenhouses and their water reservoirs also
cover large surface areas. So integrating
water reservoirs into the foundations of
greenhouses could both save space and
serve as emergency floodwater storage9.
These ideas are already moving from
research ideas to pilot projects in the Dutch
city of Naaldwijk (see above).  
Vision of the future: a hydrometropole
D
. V
ER
M
EE
R
17.11 Commentary_Kabat MH  11/11/05  5:13 PM  Page 283
Nature Publishing Group© 2005
© 2005 Nature Publishing Group 
 
COMMENTARY NATURE|Vol 438|17 November 2005
284
climate in 2100 shown in the table5 cover the
range of known modelling and emission
uncertainties. For most sectors of the Dutch
economy and society, even the low to
medium climate-change impacts would have
serious consequences, such as a significant
rise in sea level6. 
The Netherlands faces several climate-
change tests. The first relates to how we cope
with increased risk of flooding in regions that
are already vulnerable. The second relates to
the amount of time we have to adapt to climate
change; when does acting later become too
late? In our view, developing a climate-proof-
ing strategy now is likely to be more cost effec-
tive than taking drastic actions later. The third
challenge applies to the way different strategies
are being discussed, worked out and eventu-
ally implemented and governed. Climate
problems call for true integration across scien-
tific disciplines, economic sectors and stake-
holder groups. But they also call for a
participatory approach in which strategies are
discussed at all administrative levels, individ-
ual citizens included. 
Water people
Public debate about how to cope with future
floods, should climate change lead to a greater
risk of flooding, was accelerated by two events
in the 1990s. Because the Netherlands is situ-
ated on the delta of three major European
rivers (the Rhine, the Meuse, and the Scheldt),
it is especially vulnerable to increased peak
discharges. In the winters of 1993 and 1995,
extreme discharge nearly overtopped the river
dykes, and 250,000 people were evacuated as a
precautionary measure. 
During the past 50 years, the Netherlands
has adopted highly visible policies and mea-
sures for water management. After major sea
floods in 1953, with economic losses estimated
at €1 billion and 2,000
lives lost, the Delta plan
was designed. This is a
comprehensive system of
protective dykes and
surge barriers. So far, the
Netherlands has invested
€13 billion in the Delta plan. Between 1986
and 2005, the main storm surge barrier of the
Delta plan has had to be closed more than 20
times because of the threat of flooding.
However, public debate after the 1993 and
1995 floods focused on the potentially negative
consequences to the landscape of further rais-
ing the dykes. A new ‘living with water’ strategy
was developed7, which argues that extreme-
climate events should be accommodated rather
than fought with heavy infrastructure. The idea
is that instead of always reinforcing and height-
ening the dykes along rivers, occasional flood-
ing will be accommodated and carefully
managed in specific designated areas. This new
approach, designed to deal with the medium-
impact regional predictions for the Nether-
lands (see Table), was adopted by the Dutch
government as national policy in 2000.
The Netherlands is also starting to build up
resilience to other climate changes, such as
increased frequency of summer droughts. The
summer of 2003 was the hottest in Europe in
more than 500 years. In the Netherlands, the
heat wave was linked to an estimated 500
deaths, of mostly elderly people, which 
compared to 27,000 for Europe as a whole.
According to some modelling studies4, the
2003 summer conditions could become a
close-to-normal summer by about 2050. This
will have major implications for many sectors
of the Dutch economy and society.
For example, the extremely low freshwater
discharge by the river Rhine in 2003 resulted
in groundwater seepage of seawater to the low-
lying delta, which in turn threatened large
areas of Dutch agri- and horticulture. New
canals for bringing freshwater to the region,
and additional summer storage facilities, are
now under study. The low 2003 water levels,
and high surface-water temperatures, also
caused serious shortages of cooling water for
the Dutch energy sector, with consequences
for industrial productivity.
Paid to protect
What opportunities for climate proofing exist in
the agriculture sector? Current changes to the
rural policies of the European Union (EU)
could be exploited by Dutch farmers wanting 
to prepare for future climate change. In June
2005, the EU agreed to support the European
Agricultural Fund
for Rural Develop-
ment (2007–2013).
This will help
reform the Com-
mon Agricultural
Policy and support
rural development. For many Dutch farmers,
this could allow them to diversify their activities
and move away from traditional agriculture,
such as dairy farming on low-lying peatland. 
One possibility is to compensate farmers for
lost income. We propose rewarding those
farmers achieving lower greenhouse-gas emis-
sions or who use their land as water-storage
facilities to combat summer dry spells and win-
ter river discharges. The Dutch dairy farm is
currently a significant source of carbon emis-
sions (up to ten carbon dioxide equivalents8 per
hectare per year). These emission rates could
be reduced considerably, and such farms even
become a net carbon sink (of up to eight car-
bon dioxide equivalents8 per hectare per year),
if the farmland is transformed to a more 
natural state. 
Farming income could be substituted by
carbon credits for reduced emissions. The cur-
rent emissions trading price under the Kyoto
Protocol is €23 per ton of carbon dioxide.
Assuming that future emissions trading would
cover all greenhouse gases and all sectors,
which it does not do now, the farmer could
generate an income of €414 per hectare per
year. For comparison, an average Dutch dairy
farm today generates an income of some €670
per hectare8 per year, one-third of which is
subsidized by the EU. 
The Netherlands faces higher sea levels and
more extreme hydro-climatic events in the
future. We think two basic approaches to cli-
mate proofing could help combat these
threats. In one, urban and industrial activities,
including infrastructure, move from below sea
level to higher and drier lands, as found in the
eastern Netherlands. The second approach
involves the creation of a large ‘hydrometro-
pole’, a world in which we have learned how to
live with — and make a living from — water
(see ‘Vision of the future: a hydrometropole’).
This would be a major urban, industrial and
rural area with more than 15 million people
living and working in a world partly floating
on and surrounded by water. Given the history
of the Netherlands and the spirit of its people,
this second vision seems more appropriate and
attractive, but only time — and vigorous 
public debate — will tell what approach is
favoured. ■
Pavel Kabat, Wim van Vierssen and Jeroen
Veraart are at Wageningen University and
Research Centre, Environmental Sciences Group,
P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The
Netherlands; Pier Vellinga and Jeroen Aerts are
at the Faculty of Earth Sciences, Free University,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
See News Feature, page 275.
1. Kabat, P. & van Schaik, H. Synthesis Report of the
International Dialogue on Water and Climate 2–25 (ISBN
9032703218, 2003).
2. www.house.gov/transportation/water/10-20-05/10-20-
05memo.html#PURPOSE
3. Milly, P. C. D., Wetherald, R. T., Dunne, K. A. & Delworth, T.
L. Nature 415, 514–517 (2002).
4. Scott, P. A., Stone, D. A. & Allen, M. R. Nature 432, 610–613
(2004).
5. Können, G. P. Climate Scenarios for Impact studies in the
Netherlands www.knmi.nl/onderzk/klimscen/
scenarios/Scenarios2001.pdf (2001).
6. Bouwer, L. M. & Vellinga, P. in Flooding in Europe: Challenges
and Developments in Flood Risk Management (eds Begum,
S., Hall, J. W., Stive, M. J. F.) (Springer, in the press).
7. Tielrooy, F. (ed.) Water Management for the 21st century
(the Hague, the Netherlands, 2000). 
8. van den Born, G. J. et al. Climate Profit in Dutch Fen Meadow
Areas: Assessment of Integrated Management Scenarios R-
02/05 (Free Univ. Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2002). 
9. ESPACE Guiding Models for Water Storage www.espace-
project.org/reports.htm (2004). 
 
Climate variable
Temperature
Average summer precipitation
Average winter precipitation
Sea-level rise
Low-impact predictions
+1 °C
+1 %
+6 %
+20 cm
Regional climate predictions for the Netherlands for 2100 (ref. 5)
Mid-impact predictions
+2 °C
+2 %
+12 %
+60 cm
High-impact predictions
+4 to 6 °C
+4 %
+25 %
+110 cm
“Developing a climate-proofing
strategy now is likely to be more
cost effective than taking drastic
actions later.” 
17.11 Commentary_Kabat MH  11/11/05  5:13 PM  Page 284
Nature Publishing Group© 2005


https://research.vu.nl/files/2066621/181181.pdf

Climate proofing The Netherlands

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NARCIS

VU Research Portal

Crossref

NARCIS

Wageningen Yield

DSpace at VU