Framing Water Infrastructure for Climate Resilience: Governance Dimensions and Challenges

Abstract

As the effects of climate change become more acute, the search for solutions to a growing infrastructure crisis becomes increasingly important. In this commentary, we offer some approaches to guide our collective thinking about the importance of governance regimes related to water infrastructure, as well as a framework for ways to think about infrastructure solutions that move beyond traditional “gray” solutions to more natural solutions that can serve to increase resiliency to climate change.

Keywords

climate resilience infrastructure resilience comparative policy water governance institutional regimes

Introduction

Nations around the world are faced with the threats posed by climate change.¹ Decades, and even centuries, of climate patterns are now shifting into new and unpredictable patterns. The infrastructure built by humans over the centuries to harness water and to prevent catastrophic flooding is now threatened, inadequate, or made irrelevant by shifting climate patterns. This in turn causes stress to the built environment, as well as to humans, and creates new vulnerabilities to be addressed (Morris & Little, 2019). In fact, no institution has shown itself to be immune to such challenges as droughts, floods, and extreme weather events that are appearing in increasing frequency and intensity. Despite the growing challenges, there is significant variation in how institutions respond to such stressors and the infrastructure programs they implement in response to our changing climate. In short, climate change is creating new challenges across governments, sectors, and industries, and requires a concerted effort to address those challenges from a transdisciplinary perspective (Vinke- de Kruijf, et al., 2023).

Our total investment in existing infrastructure is unimaginably large. As climate patterns change, the existing infrastructure becomes either less capable of addressing its intended purpose or, in some cases, is threatened directly by a shifting landscape. Of particular interest is infrastructure designed to control water. Such infrastructure can be intended to capture water for various uses such as potability, irrigation, or recreation, or protect the built environment from inundation. Further compounding questions of infrastructure governance is that the answers are likely to involve a host of legal, political, and historical considerations layered on top of existing (even if largely irrelevant) infrastructure, methods (i.e., brick and mortar or more natural infrastructure), financing, local support and/or resistance, and other relevant legal requirements, i.e., permits/licenses/rules. It is important that these considerations are addressed before a single shovel hits the ground and are considered alongside the other challenges caused by climate change and limited resource availability (Fisk et al., 2023).

Climate change impacts populations in all parts of the world, to some degree. However, its effects are more acute in temperate zones with relatively high concentrations of population (and thus more built infrastructure). In continental Europe, for example, the Netherlands has fought a centuries-long battle to reclaim land from the sea and keep salt water out of both the landscape and the groundwater. Traditionally, dikes were constructed to block the sea, and then the land behind the dike was drained. Following the catastrophic storm of 1953 that inundated the southwest of the Netherlands, the Dutch government undertook to build a water control project across the Rhine River delta to prevent another flood (Rijkswaterstaat, 2023). Yet, also in the Netherlands, floods continue to come as a surprise as the evaluation of the beyond worst-case scenario flood that hit the south of the country in the summer of 2021 shows (NL Times, 2022). Since the early 21^st century, water problems in the Netherlands now also include the challenge of sufficient supply: years of sustained drought conditions have reduced the inflow of fresh water from rivers in Germany and Belgium, creating the need for water storage and reuse (Kuks, 2022; Zhong, 2022).

In the United States, climate change has resulted in nearly catastrophic drought conditions in the American West. The Colorado River system is under enormous stress, yet millions of Americans and numerous farming interests rely entirely on water from the Colorado River. In other areas of the US, climate change has threatened thousands of miles of coastline. Hurricane Katrina, which flooded New Orleans in August 2005, exposed the vulnerability of the existing levee system (Gordon & Little, 2009), and highlighted the impacts of the loss of thousands of square miles of protective marshes and delta land south of the city. Other parts of the US have suffered from catastrophic flooding; in July 2023 the American Northeast was inundated by a 1000-year flood event that overwhelmed entire cities (Reed, 2023). Still, there is a debate in the US about whether a national infrastructure policy is either possible or desirable (Morris et al., 2021), or whether the policy is best left to subnational governments (Netzer, 1992) or even non-governmental entities (Morris et al., 2019).

The issue of making water infrastructure more resilient to climate change is not new, but the issue has taken on greater importance as nations around the world are experiencing the effects of climate change. Rising sea levels have become an ongoing priority in coastal areas but lost in the focus on sea level rise are a host of other water-related threats to infrastructure from climate change. On nearly every continent, drought conditions have created water supply challenges. In California, for example, the state has traditionally relied on large-scale infrastructure projects to move water from the water-rich areas of the state—northern California and the Colorado River basin—to both the southern California coastline and the Central Valley area. Most of the population of California is found on the coastline, and the Central Valley has been one of the most productive farming areas in the country. Yet, both are only possible thanks to a huge investment in infrastructure to transport water thousands of miles (Farley et al., 2024). When drought conditions threaten that water supply, there is no water to transport. These same issues have affected shipping on the Rhine River in Europe (STOWA, 2023) and the Mississippi River in the US (Associated Press, 2023), leading to additional issues of saltwater intrusion near the mouth of each respective river (Dennis, 2023).

The question at hand, then, is how best to address the changing climatic conditions, and protect both humans and the environment from catastrophic weather events. Historically, many societies have attempted to “engineer” their way out of potential problems by relying on large, expensive, and fixed, infrastructure designed to control water—the dikes and storm surges in the Netherlands, the levee system on the Mississippi River; large dams on the Colorado River, aqueducts in California, etc. All of these were constructed based on assumptions about the nature of the threat and the nature of the problem to be addressed. Climate change has invalidated many of those assumptions, yet our approach to infrastructure has failed to adapt to the new reality.

We suggest that an alternative is both warranted and necessary. Our approach to water infrastructure needs nothing short of a radical reexamination of a new series of threats and new solutions to deal with them. Moreover, these new engineering approaches must be coupled with alternative ways to think about governance, planning, policy, funding/financing, and goals. The goal is to reset conventional thinking not only about the infrastructure itself, but the ways in which we think of infrastructure and the setting in which decisions about infrastructure are made. These challenges intrude on an already-full agenda for policymakers – as they must also balance competing priorities and goals. Despite the exigent threat posed by extreme weather, there is a dearth of conceptual scholarship that categorizes the infrastructure options available to policymakers. Recognizing this gap, our goal here is to better understand the governance regimes related to infrastructure and the political dynamics that follow as a means to reframe the debate around infrastructure.

Institutional Resource Regimes (IRR) Framework

Institutions can be categorized in several ways. Among these schemes is work by Kissling-Näf and Kuks (2010) and Metz and Glaus (2019) who observed that institutions can be organized based on ideas centered around their extent and coherence. Extent describes the total number of goods and services regulated by the regime at a given time, whereas coherence refers to the degree of coordination between the different sets of rules, which regulate goods and services. Extent and coherence are linked, since over time, the number of regulated uses often increases in parallel with the number of regulations. With more regulations in place (extent increases), the overall regime tends to become more complex and less coherent (coherence decreases). Inconsistencies between regulations grow, unless effort is invested into coordinating the multiple regulations to achieve an integrated regime, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Institutional Alignment.

Extent		Coherence
		Low	High
	Low	Simple	Integrated
	High	Non-existent	Complex

By combining the dimensions of extent and coherence, four different types of regimes are possible:

• A nonexistent regime (low extent, low coherence) describes the situation when a resource’s goods and services are subject to limited or no regulation. A lack of regulation can indicate governments’ inattention to resource overexploitation, the failure to provide public services, or the denial of an ongoing challenge or problem.

• A simple regime (low extent, high coherence) indicates a limited quantity of goods and services, which are regulated in a coherent way. With a low number of regulations, the risk of non-coordination and incoherence is lower. Simple infrastructure focuses on one specific problem and offers one specific solution for that problem. It means low problem complexity with sectoral well-fitting solutions.

• A complex regime (high extent, low coherence) describes the situation of many regulations that incoherently regulate the use of the resource. The more goods and services regulated, the greater the likelihood for conflicts and incoherencies to occur between regulations. Complex fragmented infrastructure attempts to address many problems and offers a combination of sectoral solutions without rethinking it into an integrated (transformative) solution. In other words, it means high problem complexity with a combination of fragmented solutions.

• An integrated regime (high extent, high coherence) regulates a variety of goods and services provided by the resource in a coherent way. Integrated infrastructure deals with a complex of problems and offers integrated resilient spatial solutions (landscapes). It means high problem complexity with integrated solutions.

The IRR framework posits a causal relationship between the regime type (i.e., extent and coherence) and the greater the likelihood of resource sustainability and effective governance (Kissling-Näf & Kuks, 2010; Metz & Glaus, 2019).

Infrastructure Regimes

We couple the IRR framework of Kissling-Näf and Kuks (2010) and Metz and Glaus (2019) with specific work on infrastructure politics. Fisk et al. (2023) note that infrastructure includes a wide variety of tangible (can physically touch or see) to intangible (digital) facilities. Moreover, infrastructure can range from highly technical and geared toward protection, to more resilience by inducing changes in behavior and decision-making. Fisk, et al. (2023) also contend that the choices relative to infrastructure leave decades-long imprints and can cost billions of dollars, such choices are often path dependent and influenced by a myriad of historical and contemporary institutional factors, constraints, and resources. As infrastructure investments require large investments, they also provide important opportunities for making forward-looking decisions, for example, by coupling long-term objectives for both water, safety and sustainability. Such forward-looking decisions are characterized by (1) anticipating future challenges; (2) a choice for robust or flexible solutions; and (3) consideration of long-term goals and multiple future scenarios (Pot et al., 2022).

Several additional dimensions further demonstrate the challenge of developing climate resilient infrastructure. Infrastructure goals, for example, can be organized along a continuum based on symptom control (infrastructure aimed at protection) versus adaptive (infrastructure aimed at resiliency, behavioral change, and flexibility). In this instance, the goals (and likely the resulting investments) differ dramatically. If the goal is largely protective, resulting infrastructure is likely to be designed to preserve the status quo and existing behaviors whereas resilient infrastructure aims at changes of behavior and priorities. Infrastructure scale, especially in the context of climate extremes, can also cover a wide range of options. Some projects are likely to involve highly technical, albeit straight-forward (physical infrastructure) solutions, whereas others are considerably more complex, nature-based, or take place at the landscape level. We note that infrastructure projects may have elements on both sides of the continuum and in-between positions are possible. Indeed, an under-explored element is the degree to which infrastructure systems might invoke a hybrid approach; that is, infrastructure that combine both “gray” (concrete) and “green” (natural) solutions. Most of the current debate takes place at the ends of the continuum, but there is likely much space between the end points to consider alternative solutions to increase resilience.

In a recent commentary for Public Works and Management & Policy, Kuks (2022) reminded readers that flooding (high water and sea level rise), freshwater scarcity (drought), and weather extremes (cloudbursts and heat stress) are stressing today’s infrastructure. Infrastructure could be applied as symptom control (protection) versus source control (resilience). Protective infrastructure aims at consolidation of behavior, while resilient infrastructure aims at change of behavior. By elucidating the various options available to stakeholders, the challenge of infrastructure governance comes clearly into view, as shown below:

Flood risk management

• Protective water infrastructure that follows up on spatial decisions and aims at turning away water; or

• Resilient water infrastructure that questions spatial decisions and aims at accommodating water.

Freshwater supply strategy

• Protective water infrastructure that compensates the shortage of freshwater without questioning water use; or

• Resilient water infrastructure that follows up on water use limitations and takes behavioral change as the starting point.

Spatial adaptation and resilience to weather extremes

• Protective water infrastructure that is subordinate to other functions in urban development (it aims to provide symptom relief for climate effects); or

• Resilient water infrastructure that promotes nature-based or hybrid solutions in urban development (it aims to reduce climate effects by means of preventive spatial measures).

Forward-looking decisions about resilient water infrastructure may lead to choices such as managed retreat (Hino et al., 2017; see also BBC.com, 2023), or the controlled flooding of low-lying coastal lands where the land is of relatively low value (e.g., farmland). We consider the phenomenon of infrastructural landscapes or landscape solutions to be another interesting direction for study. Thinking of the three appearances of climate resilience, we see literature on “flood landscapes,” on “sponge landscapes,” and on “urban landscapes” as a response to climate change (De Urbanisten, 2023; OECD, 2020; Ovink & Boeijenga, 2018; Pötz & Bleuzé, 2022; Rossano, 2021; Waldheim, 2016). As noted above, infrastructure designed for a single purpose is quite different in scope than restructuring a landscape to improve its resilience. In short, if stakeholders pursue restructuring landscapes for climate resilience (e.g., flood landscapes, sponge landscapes or urban landscapes), it provides an alternative problem perspective and goal ambition beyond that of a traditional flood control project.

The Politics of Infrastructure Governance

Bressers et al. (2016) argued that the politics of infrastructure as well as the governance inherent to a particular project involves five aspects: levels and scales of governance; actors and networks involved in governance; problem perspectives and goal ambitions; strategies and instruments applied for governance; responsibilities and resources to be organized for governance, as shown in Table 2. We note that each dimension of governance influences, and is influenced by, the other dimensions and speaks directly to the levels of extent and coherence.

Table 2.

Governance Dimensions and Infrastructure Politics.

Factors	Key Dimensions Shaping Institutional Alignment
Levels and scales	• Which administrative levels and units are involved and what are their goals?• How are they involved?• Is there a clear-cut hierarchy among or between levels and units?• What scales, i.e., watersheds, are considered, and in what ways? How do they overlap with anthropogenically created units, i.e., substate regions?• To what extent are there interdependencies, or are actors able to act productively and independently on their own?• To what extent do applicable agencies address risk?• Have any of these dynamics changed over time, or are likely to change in the foreseeable future?
Actors and networks	• Which actors are involved in the process, and how are they involved?• To what extent do they have network relationships outside the case or project in question?• Which actors stand to gain, and which stand to lose, in the particular project or case at hand? To what extent are gains and losses real or perceived?• What are the contemporary and historical conflicts among the various actors and networks of actors?• In what sorts of communication pathways and framing are the actors and stakeholders engaging?• Are there actors with a mediating role? Hierarchical/Oversight role? Are roles clearly understood and accepted?• Have any of these dynamics changed over time or are likely to change in the foreseeable future?
Problem perspectives and goal ambitions	• What are the various narratives, problem definitions, causal theories held by the actors?• What are their various goals? Are the goals generally compatible?• What levels or scales of possible disturbance are the goals designed to address?• What levels of risk are the various actors willing to accept? What service levels are the various actors willing to accept?• Have any of these dynamics changed over time or are likely to change in the foreseeable future?
Strategies and instruments	• What strategies and instruments are technically possible?• What strategies and instruments are administratively feasible?• What strategies and instruments are political palatable?• To what extent are available strategies and instruments reflective of a dominant problem/causal theory?• Have any of these dynamics changed over time (or are likely to change) in the foreseeable future?
Accountability and resources	• Which organizations are responsible for what task and under relevant policies and customs/rules?• To what extent are decision-making and responsibilities decentralized or shared among actors?• What legal authority and resources are available to stakeholders for the project or problem?• What are the modes of transparency and accountability at play for the varying actors?• Is there sufficient knowledge available?• What are the time horizons and scales?• Have any of these dynamics changed over time or are likely to change in the foreseeable future?

The five dimensions in Table 2 are interdependent and, ideally, will mutually adjust. On one hand this creates stability and continuation of a governance system that is likely to support path dependencies. On the other hand, if one of the five dimensions is changing, triggered by external conditions (as an example), it may result in changes along the other dimensions as well. In other words, a change in the extent on one of the dimensions leads to an adjustment within other dimensions. If the other dimensions can adjust, the system remains coherent (assuming all else remains equal), while a lack of adjustment on the other dimensions creates incoherence. Similarly, the addition of a new service or good will necessitate adjustments within the remaining dimensions (Bressers, et al., 2016).

Infrastructure for Climate Adaptation and Resilience

The five dimensions of governance in Table 2 serve to frame the challenges of building resilient and equitable infrastructure. Moreover, they also set the stage for a rigorous research agenda moving forward, with several examples for landscape solutions, listed below. ‘Landscape solutions' are considered the opposite of 'artificial solutions.' Hard engineering management involves using artificial structures, whereas soft engineering management is a more sustainable and natural approach. Although often hybrid solutions are applied, we note that soft engineering solutions might require another mode of governance that differs from that appropriate for hard engineering management.

1. Levels and scales: do landscape solutions require less top down and more bottom-up approaches in decision-making? If landscape solutions are less blueprinted, do they require a more interactive and collaborative way of decision-making? Do they also require the consideration of large-scale factors with more spatial impact as compared to traditional infrastructure?

2. Actors and networks: do landscape solutions require a greater number and diversity of actors? Do they rely more on participatory consensus-building as compared to other approaches? Do landscape solutions lean less on technical engineering and more on social engagement skills?

3. Problem perspectives and goal ambitions: does a landscape solution require different, perhaps more future oriented, policy ambitions for which a political context that allows a more future-oriented vision is required? Do technical engineered solutions with a single purpose generate greater levels of political support in a setting in which short term results and performances are more highly valued?

4. Strategies and instruments: do engineered solutions, based on a strategy to mitigate risk (public duty of care) and, therefore, justify more public expenditure (higher public investments) create more trust? Do landscape solutions require more risk acceptance from citizens?

5. Responsibilities and resources: do landscape solutions require a different organizational capacity with a different knowledge base and expertise (more understanding of the landscape environment, more social skills), and a different financial capacity (maybe less maintenance costs due to the potential of natural resiliency)? Does the US (where risk insurance and litigation are more common) model have a different impact than the Rhineland model in the Netherlands (where risk insurance and litigation are less common)?

These are just some of the questions intended to better understand how the mode of infrastructure and the mode of governance are related, and to understand how a governance context could be less, or become more, coherent with a change of extent.

Conclusion

A 21st century infrastructure endeavor aimed at climate resilience and adaptation must investigate the different modes of governance and how they facilitate and/or impede the different modes of infrastructure and related goals. By doing so, stakeholders avoid the trap of “one-size fits all” solutions as well as the pitfalls of unilateral policy adoption. In other words, it avoids a problem-solving approach that posits ex ante that landscape solutions are inherently the better ones. In fact, there are plenty of circumstances in which the more technical solutions or hybrid solutions are indispensable and best able to accomplish the goals established by disparate actors. The interesting question, however, is, what governance conditions are needed if communities and jurisdictions desire another mode of infrastructure.

We also contend that this question is most effectively addressed through a concerted effort on the part of researchers, practitioners, policy makers, and citizens. Whether the solutions considered are ‘landscape solutions’ or ‘artificial’ solutions, or forward-looking or reactive, the existential threats are both real and pressing. While there are challenges to be overcome in such a complex decision and management context (see Vinke-de Kruijf, et al., 2023), a broad-based effort that disregards historical siloes and engages all relevant stakeholders must be part of the process.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Jonathan M. Fisk

Stefan M. M. Kuks

John C. Morris

Note

Author Biographies

Jonathan M. Fisk is an associate professor of political science at Auburn University. His research interests include environmental policy, infrastructure policy, and governance.

Paul A. Harris is a professor of political science at Auburn University. His research interests include comparative policy, climate change, and resilience.

Stefan M.M. Kuks is a professor of water policy innovation and implementation at the University of Twente (Netherlands), and chairman of the Dutch water authority Vechtsromen. His research interests include climate resilience, infrastructure, and water governance.

John C. Morris is a professor of political science at Auburn University. His research interests include water infrastructure, climate resilience, governance, and collaboration.

Joanne Vinke-de Kruijf is an associate professor of Civil Engineering and Management at the University of Twente (Netherlands). Her research interests include multi-actor collaboration, integrative solutions, and climate resilience.

References

Associated Press . (2023). “Saltwater intrusion” threatens Louisiana farmers, orchards. Associated Press. https://www.al.com/news/2023/10/saltwater-intrusion-threatens-louisiana-farmers-orchards.html.

BBC.com (2023). Managed retreat: Advantages and disadvantages. British Broadcasting Corporation. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z2234j6/revision/3#:∼:text=Managedretreatisthecontrolledfloodingoflow-lying,isoflowvalue%2Cforexamplefarmland

Bressers

Kuks

Larrue

(2016). The governance assessment tool and its use. In Bressers

Bressers

Kuks

Larrue

(Eds), Governance for drought resilience: Land and water drought management in Europe (pp. 45–65). Springer.

Dennis

(2023). The Mississippi River’s saltwater intrusion problem, explained. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/09/29/saltwater-intrusion-louisiana-drinking-water/

De Urbanisten (2023). Twente 2075. City and water. https://www.urbanisten.nl/work/twente2075

Farley

Fisk

Morris

(2024, forthcoming). The drought dilemma: Pathways to innovation for a water-stressed future. Routledge.

Fisk

Mayer

Morris

(2023). Introduction to the symposium: Redundant, abandoned, idled, and neglected infrastructure: Problems and solutions for the 21st century. Public Works Management & Policy, 28(1), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724x221128816

Gordon

Little

(2009). Rethinking flood protection: Options and opportunities for New Orleans. Public Works Management & Policy, 14(1), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724x09341846

Hino

Field

Mach

(2017). Managed retreat as a response to natural hazard risk. Nature Climate Change, 7(5), 364–370. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3252

10.

Kissling-Näf

Kuks

(Eds), (2010). The Evolution of national water regimes in Europe: Transitions in water rights and water policies. Springer.

11.

Kuks

(2022). Commentary for the RAIN symposium: Dutch water infrastructure challenged by climate change. Public Works Management & Policy, 28(1), 89–100.

12.

Metz

Glaus

(2019). Integrated water resources management and policy integration: Lessons from 169 years of flood policies in Switzerland. Water, 11(6), 1173. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11061173

13.

Morris

Little

(2019). Symposium issue: Climate change and infrastructure—the coming challenge. Public Works Management & Policy, 24(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724

14.

Morris

McNamara

Belcher

(2019). Building resilience through collaboration between grassroots citizen groups and governments: Two case studies. Public Works Management & Policy, 24(1), 50–62. https://doi.org/10.117

15.

Morris

Williamson

Meiburg

(2021). Contours of a national infrastructure policy for the new millennium. Public Works Management & Policy, 26(3), 200–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724x211016618

16.

Netzer

(1992). Do we really need a national infrastructure policy? Journal of the American Planning Association, 58(2), 139–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369208975789

17.

NL Times (2022). Limburg flood was beyond worst case scenario: Report. NL Times. https://nltimes.nl/2022/01/24/limburg-flood-beyond-worst-case-scenario-report

18.

OECD (2020). Nature-based solutions for adapting to water-related climate risks. Policy Perspective. OECD Environmental Policy paper no. 21. OECD Publishing.

19.

Ovink

Boeijenga

(2018). Too big. Rebuild by design: A transformative approach to climate change. NAI010 Publishers.

20.

Pot

W. D.

de Vaan

Dewulf

(2022). Institutions for long-term problems: The influence of the Dutch delta programme on forward-looking climate adaptation responses at the local level. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2022.2153331

21.

Pötz

Bleuzé

(2022, revised edition). Green-blue grids: Manual for resilient cities. Atelier GROENBLAUW.

22.

Reed

(2023). US faces deadly floods in north-east and longer heatwaves in south and west. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/10/us-weather-floods-heatwave-climate-crisis-alerts

23.

Rijkswaterstaat (2023). The flood of 1953. Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management. https://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/en/water/water-safety/the-flood-of-1953#:∼:text=Thefloodtookthelives,buildingsanddamaged43%2C000more

24.

Rossano

(2021). Floodscapes. Contemporary landscape strategies in times of climate change. NAI010 Publishers.

25.

STOWA (2023). Delta facts: Salt intrusion. https://www.stowa.nl/deltafacts/zoetwatervoorziening/delta-facts-english-versions/salt-intrusion

26.

Vinke- de Kruijf

Verbrugge

Schröter

den Haan

Cortes Arevalo

Fliervoet

Henze

Albert

(2023). Knowledge co-production and researcher roles in transdisciplinary environmental management projects. Sustainable Development, 30(2), 393–405. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd

27.

Waldheim

(2016). Landscape as urbanism: A general theory. A definitive intellectual history of landscape urbanism. Princeton University Press.

28.

Zhong

(2022). They’re ‘world champions’ of banishing water. Now, the Dutch need to keep it. NY Times.com. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/10/climate/netherlands-drought-climate-change.html