Design quality of room-for-the-river measures in the Netherlands: role and assessment of the quality team (Q-team)

Abstract

In the 1990s, the Netherlands government changed its policy on river flood management, away from recurrently raising embankments and towards, in contrast, making more room for the rivers. When the design discharge in the Rhine River was revised in 2001, this new policy necessitated the selection of a number of physical measures, which would lower the flood water levels in the Rhine River branches by about 0.3 m. In a so-called ‘Spatial Planning Key Decision’, 39 measures were decided on at the national level, but their implementation was decentralized to local or regional authorities or private parties. It was also decided that the measures should achieve a second goal, namely enhance the spatial quality. In order to ensure that this goal was met, a Quality Team (Q-team Room for the Rivers) was established, commissioned to coach the planners and designers, to peer review the designs and plans, and to report to the minister about the Spatial Quality achieved. Almost all plans have now been finalized and are being implemented until 2015. This allows an assessment of the final designs, as well as of the merits of working with a Q-team. In this paper, we report on our approach and experiences: the procedures we followed, the criteria we used, the interaction with the designers and the evolution of the plans. We argue that a Q-team can be an effective means to secure that designs result in enhanced spatial quality, provided that certain preconditions are being met for its functioning.

Keywords:

• Room-for-rivers
• spatial planning
• landscape architecture
• design quality
• flood management

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to Willem de Visser, secretary of the Q-team for 5 years until his retirement in 2012, who diligently organized our meetings and kept track of all the material handed in by the design teams; to Regina Havinga, senior advisor spatial quality of the Programme Directorate, who continuously defended our case against those who preferred rapidity of progress over quality of design; and to the many landscape architects and urban designers, who translated often vaguely put ideas into marvellous designs.