Greener cities through Tile Taxing

People do not often consider cities to be an ecosystem. Yet when I saw a hedgehog rummage around the streets of city-center Amsterdam I realised that that really is what a city is, not unlike a dune area or a forest. A collection of flora and fauna delicately balanced and living off each other and with each other. A city is, perhaps, an entirely man-made ecosystem, in which we have control over even the smallest of details. Is it, then, not strange that we treat a city vastly different from a forest. Plants and trees have value and so do animals, not only for recreation, but also for productivity and regulation of extremes. All around the world we are noticing that urban areas are struggling with pests, heatwaves and floods. It is widely accepted by policymakers that vegetation, greenery and parks will counteract many of these problems. There is, however, difficulty in this as building more parks takes up a lot of space and would require tearing down many (monumental) residential buildings. For cities like Amsterdam, however, there could be an easy solution. It should become common policy in Dutch cities that 60% of back- and front-yards should be covered in vegetation. There are a number of great advantages to such a “tile taxing”, I will discuss these concisely. 

Decreasing urban heat islands

 Urban heat islands are caused by the heat uptake retention of concrete and other building materials to a much greater extent than for example water or vegetation. These urban heat islands account for sometimes up to a few degrees extra warming in certain areas of cities, causing higher risk of strokes and other health hazards, especially to the vulnerable parts of the population such as the elderly, disabled and young children. Parks have been shown to decrease the urban heat island effect and even a singular tree already makes a difference. They do this not only by providing shade, which is a more minor factor than one may expect, but also by less heat uptake and increased heat regulation through evaporation of moisture that was present in the vegetation. If tiles would be replaced by vegetation in all backyards it would create a similar effect. 

The effect of Urban Heat Island (UHI) 
Urban Heat Island Effect. Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-effect-of-Urban-Heat-Island-UHI_fig1_326316773

Retention basins for Heavy rainfall and drought

Flooding due to heavy rainfall already occurs a few times each year and in future climate scenarios this will only become worse. Weather extremes will become more frequent and both drought and heavy precipitation events will become less exception and more the rule each summer. This leads to great challenges in future city planning where heavier precipitation events may cause serious harm to infrastructure and people if flooding would occur regularly. One effective way to counteract flooding is to build retention basins. Retention basins are designated areas that can absorb water and delay the time it takes the water to reach the sewage system. Something that functions brilliantly as retention basins are parks and vegetation covered gardens. The plants ensure more initial evapotranspiration, causing a lower influx of rainwater and delay the time it takes the water to reach the surface. Once the water has arrived here it is partly soaked up by the soil and retained there. This process greatly reduces the stress on the sewage system and damages on infrastructure due to flooding. In case of drought quite the opposite occurs where the foliage cover reduces evapotranspiration causing more water to be retained in the soil. As well as the vegetation providing the cooling mentioned earlier.

How Rain Gardens Work
Retention basins through vegetation. Source: https://www.romi.gov/1333/How-Rain-Gardens-Work

Increased biodiversity

Biodiversity is often relatively low in cities. However, indigenous species such as hedgehogs, hares and foxes, as well as smaller species such as frogs, toads and newt could easily return to urban areas if larger portions were covered in vegetation. Not to mention insects (notably bees) and birds. This would not only help control pests such as mosquitoes, flies and mice but would also increase overall human happiness. As it has been shown that being exposed to nature increases happiness in people. 

Intelligent Tinkering” - How to Boost Biodiversity at Home ...
Garden Biodiversity. Source: https://www.firstlighthabitats.com/blog/intelligent-tinkering-leopolds-wise-words-part-2

Discussion and conclusion

Apart from the aforementioned reasons to ensure more greenery in urban gardens some other things include improved production, as company buildings next to parks are shown to be 10% more productive than those not exposed to vegetation. And increased real estate prices, since property in greener (yet otherwise identical) areas is more valuable.

Arguments against tile taxing would be that it would be too time consuming for some hard-working people to take care of a green garden and that tiling a garden reduces maintenance cost and time. Solutions to this can be found however, both in community- and municipality-provided aid. The possibility of exemption in case of inability and education on low-effort green gardens that require little maintenance, but function nonetheless.  

Tile Taxing would reap a great many benefits and aid in climate-proofing cities for the future. While keeping a garden green and flourishing may require some effort of people who do not have the time or do not wish to put in the effort, it is of great importance to cities to ensure that there is enough vegetation cover. And solutions to this problem can easily be found through aid, exemption or education. While there are still some practical issues that need to be resolved such as the occasion of smaller backyards that are used as storage for bikes or other materials, solutions to this are easily introduced.

Additional reading:

KWR 2014: Risico’s van klimaatverandering voor de drinkwatersector

KNMI’14-klimaatscenario’s http://www.klimaatscenarios.nl/brochures/images/Brochure_KNMI14_NL_2015.pdf

Enhancing Resilience of urban ecosystems through green infrastructure

https://oppla.eu/groups/enroute

Meat: Our old friend and our new enemy

As we become more and more aware and concerned with the amount of carbon dioxide that is being emitted out into the atmosphere, countless fingers are being pointed at the livestock industry, which is responsible for 15% of total greenhouse gas emissions and which utilizes 70% of total agricultural land.

Specifically, red meat is incredibly energy intensive. It requires an enormous amount of resources and  livestock grazing contributes to soil erosion, desertification, water pollution, and loss of biological diversity. We have lost millions of acres of tropical forest in Latin America to cattle grazing.

Our Complex Past

The human relationship with grazing animals for consumption began around three to four million years ago, when our ancestors began to walk on two legs and move out into grasslands, allowing for their diets to change from plant-based diets to include meat for the very first time. Now, this doesn’t mean that we were carnivores. We have always been omnivores, or, as one author terms it, “adaptavores”. We simply adapt to eat what we must.

But we are not our ancestors. Around 10,000 years ago, we transitioned to agriculture, and we changed. We used fewer calories in a day and we consumed less meat. Our bodies became smaller and, to some extent, frailer. Today, most of us privileged enough to be living in the developed world aren’t worried about getting enough calories. A majority of people are actually eating too many calories per day, with obesity rates doubling over the past two decades. And the real kicker is, most people are getting more protein than they need also, except for a small portion of us who are extremely athletic.

Meat and Money

There has been a direct correlation seen between an increase in income and increase in meat consumption. It creates a sense of power. Even my own grandparents remember a time in which meat was a luxury and a status of wealth. Just in the past hundred years, it has gone from an expensive treat which would be consumed on holidays and celebrations to a staple in every meal. This can be seen especially in the American diet: sausages at breakfast, deli-meat at lunch, and a burger for dinner. Low income countries that have experienced recent economic growth like China have seen large increases in total meat consumption, with the average person more capable of buying expensive meat.

Our Bodies

The excess of fat and protein in meat which was so beneficial for our distant ancestors has proved to be disastrous in our own diets. Figure 2 shows the increase of risk in a plethora of diseases that are related to the consumption of red meat consumption. The high levels of fat and cholesterol have had a hand in making heart disease the leading killer of adults in the United States.

So why are we so stuck on meat?

Until fairly recently, a large portion of the world ate very little meat, and our diets revolved around vegetables and grains. Today, meat is likely related to the top killer of Americans, and people are getting far too much protein than they actually need. Why are we so stuck on meat? Why is it that public school lunches have a focus on meat and dairy and medical professionals cannot seem to decide whether or not meat is beneficial for you? It might be related to the enormous meat industry that is present in the United States and around the world. The production of meat in the United States is heavily subsidized. When the news first broke that meat was bad for hearts, the meat industry scrambled to find scientists to stir up doubt surrounding the science, and test the consensus. The meat industry is an area with an enormous amount of power.

So what is the alternative to a diet that revolves around meat? I am not trying to argue that the entire human race should cut out meat completely from our diets. Meat consumption has strong cultural, emotional, and even spiritual implications in many communities. However, there is a better way to consume meat.

Putting the label ‘vegetarian’ or ‘vegan’ on things tends to strike fear into people’s hearts. Hearing words like that tends to make people imagine that they would never be able to have their favorite BBQ ribs or pot roast ever again. That is not the reality of the future we need to create.

I think it is important to note here that the concern about heart disease and the concern for the environment has had a notable impact on meat consumption in the past few years. Strides have been made and our culture is slowly changing, but it is not happening fast enough.

We need to create a society in which people understand that meat should not be the center of their plate, nor the center of their societies. American society, which stereotypically revolves around barbecues and hot dogs doesn’t have to be completely disbanded, but maybe we can start to look at meat in the way that humans did only half a century ago. We don’t have to start boycotting Christmas hams or the classic American Thanksgiving turkey. But we should start growing to appreciate vegetables and grains, and considering that the less meat we eat, the better we are doing for our hearts, and the better we are doing for our world.

Sources:

Brown, J (2020). We don’t need nearly as much protein as we consume. BBC Future. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180522-we-dont-need-nearly-as-much-protein-as-we-consume

Cox, P. (2003). You Don’t Need Meat. United States: St. Martin’s Publishing Group.

Green Meat? Sustaining Eaters Animals and the Planet. (2020). United States: MQUP.

Gossard, M., & York, R. (2003). Social Structural Influences on Meat Consumption. Human Ecology Review, 10(1), 1-9. Retrieved May 17, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24707082

Mann, N. (2018). A brief history of meat in the human diet and current health implications,

Meat Science. Volume 144. 169-179 ISSN 0309-1740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.06.008.

Murphey et al., (2018). Mortality in the United States, 2017. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. NCHS Data Brief No. 328 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db328.htm

Oppenheimer, G., Benrubi, D. (2014). McGovern’s Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs Verus the: Meat Industry on the Diet-Heart Question (1976-1977), American Journal of Public Health. 104, 50-69. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301464

Schroeder, T. Barkley, P & Schroeder, C (1996). Income Growth and International Meat Consumption. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 7:3, 15-30, DOI: 10.1300/J047v07n03_02

Wade, L. (2016). How Sliced Meat Drove Human Evolution. Science. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/how-sliced-meat-drove-human-evolution

Wolk, A. (2014). Potential health hazards of eating red meat (Review). J Intern Med 2017; 281: 106– 122.

Groundwater: a Test of Dutch Water Management

Due to groundwater-level lowering, street level drops. Further groundwater-level lowering is not possible because of the wooden poles some houses are built on. The exposure to oxygen causes them to rot. Image: iStock/TasfotoNL. Source: UU

The Netherlands is a country which has been continuously shaped by water throughout its history. A vital but less noticeable form of this water is groundwater, which plays roles in numerous natural, agricultural and industrial processes. These resources are managed through an intricate and specialized system of actors unique in the world, but what are some of the limitations of this system in face of future challenges?  

What is Groundwater and why does it matter?

Groundwater is water found in soil below the Earth’s surface, and the level of this groundwater influences various human and natural processes. Lakes, rivers and wetlands as well as natural plant growth are sustained by groundwater and agricultural crops are irrigated largely using groundwater. Various industrial processes depend on groundwater, and groundwater represents a large source of our drinking water (58%). The management of this groundwater is becoming increasingly important in recent years, as the quality and quantity of groundwater is being compromised. Drinking water production and various industrial activity currently extract water from the ground faster than natural mechanisms can refill the reserves. Pesticides, fertilizers, and industry are contaminating these water reservoirs, risking the security of this supply on all its fronts. The management and regulation of this groundwater therefore represents a challenge for Dutch water management authorities. How is this management currently structured?

Water Management: the structure

Water management in the Netherlands, including the management of groundwater, consists largely of the actions of decentralized public authorities called water boards (“waterschappen”) who manage regional waters. These water boards have tasks outlined by Dutch law, are supported by their own financial system, and have members who are elected every four years. Water boards therefore function as their own political entity, in a system that is unique in the world. Alongside these boards, the ‘Rijkswaterstaat’ (RWS, the centralized water governance authority) manages major waters such as the sea and rivers and takes care of coastal protection and flood management.
Though this system may appear orderly and coordinated at first glance, at closer inspection it quickly becomes clear that this system is quite chaotic. Responsibilities and tasks of the water boards often overlap with or are shared with those of other actors in the country’s water management: three separate ministries; provincial management of the 12 provinces; various departments of the RWS; the sewage system management on a municipal level; and finally, waterworks companies.

The system is further complicated by the political nature of the management structures. Farmers that own a large amount of land have a large influence in the local water boards due to their decentralized nature, allowing farmers to influence decisions in their favor. I recently spoke with a man who had lived in his house for half a century, who complained about the low groundwater level in his surroundings, pushed by farmers for whom the low level enabled them to use heavy machinery on their land. The effects were noticeable in the reduced growth of the vegetables in his garden, as well as in changes in the growth of surrounding nature. These dynamics can affect the stability of the management structure, and lead to outcomes not in the best interest of society.

The importance of groundwater management

It is essential that (ground)water be managed responsibly. Low levels of groundwater can have devastating consequences. Many natural ecosystems are at a greater danger of drying out, bringing risks of environmental damage. The drying out of peat lands for example, makes the large quantities of carbon stored in these lands vulnerable to emission into the atmosphere as CO2. Urban areas also suffer from a low groundwater level: low water levels expose the wooden foundations of buildings, causing rot. Groundwater related soil subsidence, the sinking of land due to removal of groundwater in the earth, represents a threat to buildings and other structures. Land subsidence can also cause elevation changes in land, increasing risks of flooding. A lower level of groundwater also leads to a decrease in the quality of the water, as sea water can more easily contaminate these reserves with salt. This decrease in quality puts natural areas, industrial processes and the water that we drink at risk.

Subsiding houses in Amsterdam. Image: iStock/Digital21. Source: UU

The rising of sea levels due to global warming further increases the importance of ground water management: the weakening of natural and man-made coastal protection infrastructures by low ground water level can greatly increase the risk of flooding.  

Changes in the management structure?

Though reduction of the complexity of the water management structure is underway (2,500 water boards in 1950, to 48 in 2003, to 21 in 2018), the system is still limited by its complexity as well as its political nature. An increase in the coordination by a central authority (such as the RWS) may allow the tasks and responsibilities in and around (ground)water management to be performed more effectively, with a clearer overview, and with more direction towards the best interest of society. I further believe that water management can be disadvantaged if it is included in spheres of politics, where agendas of specific groups can be pushed over collectively good outcomes, doubly so in the case of the widely important groundwater.

An argument against the distributing of tasks and responsibilities to central authorities is that local power to make these management decisions enables a system more capable of dynamic problem solving – that is, with respect to local concerns. Furthermore, the existence of water boards extends the democratic power of Dutch citizens. Though I agree with some of the points of this argument, I do believe that objectives that serve the interest of society as a whole should be prioritized, and I am skeptical that a locally managed system (always) leads to those outcomes in practice.

References

https://nos.nl/artikel/2294538-boeren-wijken-uit-naar-grondwater-door-aanhoudende-droogte.html

https://www.uu.nl/en/news/5-million-for-ground-breaking-research-into-soil-subsidence-in-the-netherlands

http://content.alterra.wur.nl/webdocs/ilri-publicaties/special_reports/Srep9/Srep9-h9.pd

https://dutchwaterauthorities.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/The-Dutch-water-authority-model-2017.pd

https://www.rug.nl/staff/p.h.pellenbarg/artikelen/publicaties/28.%20water%20management%20challenges%20in%20the%20netherlands.pd

https://www.government.nl/topics/water-management/water-management-in-the-netherlands