Search

The strategy of reconnecting rivers with their floodplains currently gains popularity because it not only harnesses natural capacities of floodplains but also increases social co-benefits and biodiversity. In this paper, we present an example of a successfully implemented nature-based solution (NBS) in the Dijle valley in the centre of Belgium. The research objective is to retrospectively assess cost and benefit differences between a technical solution (storm basins) and an alternative NBS, here the restoration of the alluvial floodplain. The method is a comparative social cost–benefit analysis. The case study analysis reveals similar flood security, lower costs, more ecosystem services benefits and higher biodiversity values associated with the NBS option in comparison to the technical alternative. However, the business case for working with NBS depends substantially on the spatial and socio-ecological context. Chances for successful NBS implementation increase in conditions of sufficient space to retain flood water, when flood water is of sufficient quality, and when economic activity and housing in the floodplain is limited. Supplementary Information The online version of this article contains supplementary material available at (10.1007/s13280-021-01548-4).

EU FP7 OpenNESS project deliverable D33 & D44

The objective of our research was to identify and understand the desired benefits and uses of an agricultural landscape in Belgium for different stakeholder groups. This research was in response to a question of the Flemish Land Agency (VLM) who wants to find ways to raise local support for the implementation of new nature in an agricultural landscape. Ecosystem services (ES) was considered a useful way to frame the human needs of the landscape. To elucidate local needs, a social valuation (also called ‘non-monetary valuation’) was used, which included an open interview, an ES photo ranking exercise and a mapping of desired ES. This resulted in an identification of a group of desired ES which were mentioned spontaneously by respondents, and a ranking of desired ES which were triggered by the pictures. These results proved to be very useful for the managers of the land use planning project. In a final step, the results of this social valuation will be compared with the results of a monetary valuation of the area.

This report synthesises the testing of the ecosystem service and natural capital concepts in real world applications. All 27 OpenNESS case studies shared their experiences, which they gained up to November 2014. In total over 160 researchers contributed to the work conducted in the case studies, while the people involved through stakeholder participation are 2-3 fold this number. In over half (15) case studies, the research was organised in sub-projects, where the spatial area or stakeholder group were specific to the problem or issue addressed (total 67 issues reported i.e. subprojects). Each case study provided three types of information: (i) a 2-5 page narrative describing the aims, process and results in their case study so far and links to other WPs; (ii) answers to 27 questions designed to provide information on rationale for the study, stakeholders involved, tools tested and work planned for the coming year; and (iii) a matrix with numerical scores of the tools used, policy areas addressed and joint research activities between case studies. WP coordinators and CS research leaders were all consulted on the structure and the questions of these 3 type of reports. The results of these three inputs are integrated and summarized to provide a comprehensive understanding of the testing of the ecosystem service and natural capital concepts in the OpenNESS project so far. In this report we test approaches to collate the data, which will be utilised to create the final synthesis deliverable of WP5 i.e. D5.4 ‘Review paper reporting the case study representative’s and CABs assessment of the practical advantages and limitations of ES and NC assessment from the practitioners’ perspective’. This report (D5.2) is structured to provide a summary of the work completed in 27 case studies and 67 sub-projects. Case study research leaders could not report full details for all 67 case studies as some were not sufficiently advanced (e.g. the selection of some tools were not yet finalised with the stakeholders), therefore the number of sub-projects varies depending on the answers received. This report is arranged in three parts: 1. Typology of real-world applications tested 2. Stakeholders involved and the case study advisory board (CAB) 3. Tools used 4. Lessons-learned from the case studies The majority of the work conducted in OpenNESS was judged by the case study research leaders to have an element of awareness rising with 46% of the stated sub-projects reporting that awareness rising was a key purpose of the integrated assessment and valuation and another 30% reporting it was relevant in their case study. Priority-setting to determine future land use was considered a key priority in a quarter of the subprojects and an additional 42% considered this aspect relevant. Litigation/natural damage assessment was considered to be the type of assessment which requires the highest reliability and accuracy, but was not the key purpose of many sub-projects in fact 79% specifically reported that this purpose as not relevant in their case study. The short-term goal of each sub-project was quite specific, but themes were identified utilizing the most frequently used terms to assign one short- term goal to each sub-project. This analysis revealed that the short term goal of the majority of the sub-projects (82%) were either to map the ecosystem services of an area (30%), test the utility of specific tools (30%) or more generally improve management or town planning (22%). Similarly, synthesis of the long-term goals of the case studies found ‘long term sustainability of the case study area’ was the most commonly concluded long-term goal of the sub-projects (45%). The second most common long-term objective was ‘evaluation of the ES and NC concepts‘ (21%). Future reports will attempt to standardise reporting to ensure consistency of terminology. The key policy areas addressed were context specific to the case studies depending on the real world issue addressed. Across all the sub-projects reported the three most important policy areas were (i) Biodiversity 2020 strategy, (ii) Flora-Fauna Habitat Directive, and (iii) Green Infrastructure Strategy with 46, 35, and 41 sub-projects respectively reporting these policies or key or relevant policies. The Case Study Advisory Board (CAB) was designed to direct the research to real-world issues and problems and to evaluate the results of the research conducted in OpenNESS. Most case studies established a formal board which met and directed the researchers in the area of study, and who will be the primary user community when the evaluation of the research results. It was however, not always possible or indeed desirable for a single board to be established in some case studies, these case studies do however consult directly with local stakeholders (Case Studies 11, 14, 20, 22 & 25). More than half of the subprojects indicated that scientists and consultants (n=45), natural resources management authority (n=39) and municipality or local government (n=37) were involved in the case studies. Ten case studies indicated that all concerned stakeholders are represented in the CAB. When concerned stakeholders are not represented in the CAB, they are mostly local stakeholders (citizens, local farmers, local government, local NGOs, local stakeholders in general) and private businesses. Most common reasons for not including concerned stakeholders were: lack of interest from stakeholders’ side, stakeholders are involved in another way in the project, lack of contacts, or “the area is too big” to include all stakeholders in the CAB. In three case studies not all stakeholders are identified yet. The Spreadsheet/GIS, Bayesian Belief Networks (BBN) and ESTIMAP are the most common tools being tested in of the sub-projects followed by QuickScan and INVEST, while State Transmission Models (STM) and Global/European overview datasets are currently not being tested widely. It is recognised that the STM models are data demanding, while the Global/European model has only recently been finalized and available for testing. In addition this model is only relevant for case studies where land-use is highly impacted by import and/or exported biological goods. ES-mapping was the most popular valuation and decision-support method tested , followed by preference assessment. A wide spectrum of models, tools and methods (in different combinations) will be used in all the subprojects. Different reasons for the use of a particular method have been mentioned. These will be used to formulate a consistent typology for future evaluation. A more detailed (participatory) evaluation of the models, tools and methods will be necessary afterwards (e.g. when results are available and have been presented to CAB and/or other stakeholders involved) in order to see if the tools used were indeed the most appropriate ones for the purposes mentioned and to see what feedback is given to the results. For most of the subprojects, it was too early to draw robust conclusions about the use of the tools/methods. In other cases, there were some preliminary reactions reported. Positive first reactions and/or rather sceptical or critical (first) impressions from OpenNESS case study partners that have been gathered are summarized fully in the this report. The formulation of the feedback offered in this reporting period will be used to formulate a more consistent typology of responses enabling a synthesis across all case studies and sub-projects in future reports. The 27 case studies provide an excellent testing ground to operationalise the ES/NC concept. A great diversity of issues are being tested with a wide range of tools. It is too early to draw conclusions, but is clear that the stategy adopted in this report is providing the basis to allow syntheis across all 27 case studies at the end of the funding period. This report synthesises the testing of the ecosystem service and natural capital concepts in real world applications. All 27 OpenNESS case studies shared their experiences, which they gained up to November 2014. In total over 160 researchers contributed to the work conducted in the case studies, while the people involved through stakeholder participation are 2-3 fold this number. In over half (15) case studies, the research was organised in sub-projects, where the spatial area or stakeholder group were specific to the problem or issue addressed (total 67 issues reported i.e. subprojects). Each case study provided three types of information: (i) a 2-5 page narrative describing the aims, process and results in their case study so far and links to other WPs; (ii) answers to 27 questions designed to provide information on rationale for the study, stakeholders involved, tools tested and work planned for the coming year; and (iii) a matrix with numerical scores of the tools used, policy areas addressed and joint research activities between case studies. WP coordinators and CS research leaders were all consulted on the structure and the questions of these 3 type of reports. The results of these three inputs are integrated and summarized to provide a comprehensive understanding of the testing of the ecosystem service and natural capital concepts in the OpenNESS project so far. In this report we test approaches to collate the data, which will be utilised to create the final synthesis deliverable of WP5 i.e. D5.4 ‘Review paper reporting the case study representative’s and CABs assessment of the practical advantages and limitations of ES and NC assessment from the practitioners’ perspective’. This report (D5.2) is structured to provide a summary of the work completed in 27 case studies and 67 sub-projects. Case study research leaders could not report full details for all 67 case studies as some were not sufficiently advanced (e.g. the selection of some tools were not yet finalised with the stakeholders), therefore the number of sub-projects varies depending on the answers received. This report is arranged in three parts: 1. Typology of real-world applications tested 2. Stakeholders involved and the case study advisory board (CAB) 3. Tools used 4. Lessons-learned from the case studies The majority of the work conducted in OpenNESS was judged by the case study research leaders to have an element of awareness rising with 46% of the stated sub-projects reporting that awareness rising was a key purpose of the integrated assessment and valuation and another 30% reporting it was relevant in their case study. Priority-setting to determine future land use was considered a key priority in a quarter of the subprojects and an additional 42% considered this aspect relevant. Litigation/natural damage assessment was considered to be the type of assessment which requires the highest reliability and accuracy, but was not the key purpose of many sub-projects in fact 79% specifically reported that this purpose as not relevant in their case study. The short-term goal of each sub-project was quite specific, but themes were identified utilizing the most frequently used terms to assign one short- term goal to each sub-project. This analysis revealed that the short term goal of the majority of the sub-projects (82%) were either to map the ecosystem services of an area (30%), test the utility of specific tools (30%) or more generally improve management or town planning (22%). Similarly, synthesis of the long-term goals of the case studies found ‘long term sustainability of the case study area’ was the most commonly concluded long-term goal of the sub-projects (45%). The second most common long-term objective was ‘evaluation of the ES and NC concepts‘ (21%). Future reports will attempt to standardise reporting to ensure consistency of terminology. The key policy areas addressed were context specific to the case studies depending on the real world issue addressed. Across all the sub-projects reported the three most important policy areas were (i) Biodiversity 2020 strategy, (ii) Flora-Fauna Habitat Directive, and (iii) Green Infrastructure Strategy with 46, 35, and 41 sub-projects respectively reporting these policies or key or relevant policies. The Case Study Advisory Board (CAB) was designed to direct the research to real-world issues and problems and to evaluate the results of the research conducted in OpenNESS. Most case studies established a formal board which met and directed the researchers in the area of study, and who will be the primary user community when the evaluation of the research results. It was however, not always possible or indeed desirable for a single board to be established in some case studies, these case studies do however consult directly with local stakeholders (Case Studies 11, 14, 20, 22 & 25). More than half of the subprojects indicated that scientists and consultants (n=45), natural resources management authority (n=39) and municipality or local government (n=37) were involved in the case studies. Ten case studies indicated that all concerned stakeholders are represented in the CAB. When concerned stakeholders are not represented in the CAB, they are mostly local stakeholders (citizens, local farmers, local government, local NGOs, local stakeholders in general) and private businesses. Most common reasons for not including concerned stakeholders were: lack of interest from stakeholders’ side, stakeholders are involved in another way in the project, lack of contacts, or “the area is too big” to include all stakeholders in the CAB. In three case studies not all stakeholders are identified yet. The Spreadsheet/GIS, Bayesian Belief Networks (BBN) and ESTIMAP are the most common tools being tested in of the sub-projects followed by QuickScan and INVEST, while State Transmission Models (STM) and Global/European overview datasets are currently not being tested widely. It is recognised that the STM models are data demanding, while the Global/European model has only recently been finalized and available for testing. In addition this model is only relevant for case studies where land-use is highly impacted by import and/or exported biological goods. ES-mapping was the most popular valuation and decision-support method tested , followed by preference assessment. A wide spectrum of models, tools and methods (in different combinations) will be used in all the subprojects. Different reasons for the use of a particular method have been mentioned. These will be used to formulate a consistent typology for future evaluation. A more detailed (participatory) evaluation of the models, tools and methods will be necessary afterwards (e.g. when results are available and have been presented to CAB and/or other stakeholders involved) in order to see if the tools used were indeed the most appropriate ones for the purposes mentioned and to see what feedback is given to the results. For most of the subprojects, it was too early to draw robust conclusions about the use of the tools/methods. In other cases, there were some preliminary reactions reported. Positive first reactions and/or rather sceptical or critical (first) impressions from OpenNESS case study partners that have been gathered are summarized fully in the this report. The formulation of the feedback offered in this reporting period will be used to formulate a more consistent typology of responses enabling a synthesis across all case studies and sub-projects in future reports. The 27 case studies provide an excellent testing ground to operationalise the ES/NC concept. A great diversity of issues are being tested with a wide range of tools. It is too early to draw conclusions, but is clear that the stategy adopted in this report is providing the basis to allow syntheis across all 27 case studies at the end of the funding period.

De Cirkel is een lokaal platform voor eigenaars, beheerders, besturen, bewoners, sociale-economiebedrijven,landbouwers, … om gezamenlijk na te denken over een duurzaam beheer voor het werkingsgebied van ruilverkaveling Jesseren.Er werd een maatschappelijke bevraging uitgevoerd om te achterhalen hoe bepaalde groepen belanghebbenden staan tegenover het werkingsgebied van de Cirkel (Kortessem, Borgloon). Het gaat om belanghebbenden die niet rechtstreeks betrokken zijn in het proces, maar toch belangrijke gebruikers (kunnen) zijn van de te verwezenlijken natuur in ruilverkavelingsgebied Jesseren. In totaal werden er 18 mensen individueel geïnterviewd.Bij het analyseren van de resultaten, konden we vier grote categorieën van landschapsgebruik en –beleving onderscheiden: Duurzame landbouw, een aangename leefomgeving, actieve recreatie en passieve beleving. Verder blijkt uit de resultaten 1) welke ecosysteemdiensten (ESD) de respondenten belangrijk vinden in hun omgeving, zowel nu als in de toekomst2) waar deze ESD zich situeren in het gebied3) welke ESD hand in hand (kunnen) gaan en welke tot conflicten (kunnen) leidenTot slot worden een aantal concrete voorstellen gedaan om van het gebied rond Jesseren een aangenamere omgeving te maken.

Over the past decade there has been a substantial increase in the use of market based and voluntary financial instruments to address environmental issues. Using price premiums and/or financial incentives, these instruments try to achieve desirable land use practices and sustainable resource management. In recent years PES (Payment for Ecosystem Services) emerged as such an instrument with high potential. Roughly speaking, PES aims to issue incentives and compensations for extra costs induced to ecosystem owners and managers (e.g. farmers, water companies, etc.) for maintaining a stable or increased supply of ecosystem services. Although this seems a quite straightforward approach, much confusion arose about what PES really is, and how it can be defined. We explore why it is important to come to a single definition of PES for Flanders (Belgium) and identify in which setting PES would be an efficient and desirable alternative to current policy instruments. Additionally we compiled a series of 20 key conditions and success factors for PES instruments based on a thorough review of international (practical) experiences and state of the art literature. Based on these success factors, we critically examined and evaluated a series of financial, “PES-like”, instruments currently used in Flanders (e.g. agri-environment measures). For that purpose 3 case studies were conducted in the areas of Gent (Gentse Kanaalzone), Leuven (Doode Bemde) and Sint-Truiden (Melsterbeek) and focussed on a series of financial instruments (mainly subsidies) and their impact on ecosystem services and stakeholders. The ISEP project resulted in a guideline for the identification of ESD stakeholders and an opportunity analysis to manage and enhance additional ecosystem services with current financial instruments. We concluded that some existing financial instruments show great potential to mainstream a PES approach, which could greatly improve their ecosystem service output. Also participation to voluntary financial instruments can be substantially increased with a better understanding of the links, in terms of ecosystem services, between stakeholders and land use practices promoted by voluntary financial instruments.

This paper builds on the outputs of the book “Ecosystem Services – Global Issues, Local Practices” (Jacobs et al. 2013) with contributions from more than 80 authors from the BEES (Belgium Ecosystem Services) community of practice. In this context, we recently performed a (non-exhaustive) review of how the ecosystem service (ES) concept could be useful to Belgian and international policy actors. As the ultimate goal of ES valuation is to improve the well being of every individual now and in the future (MEA, 2005), this paper intends to elaborate on the concept of ES valuation and how it could (not?) reach the intended goal. A clear tension appears between policy actors’ desire to acquire tools for monetary valuation and the risks posed by monetary valuation (e.g. commodification of nature, neglect of other values…). On the one hand, there is the need for ‘proof of concept’, and the availability of economic tools and mainstream character of ‘money talk’ is a pragmatic choice. On the other hand, we note a strong reluctance and critical attitude towards the culture of ‘math and money’ at all levels: it is perceived as one of the main causes of social and ecological unsustainability. Several actors therefore urge for more collaborative approaches of ES valuation, e.g. to build trust between providers and beneficiaries, as monetary valuation alone is not relevant in their working context.Among the suggested solutions are the development of alternative new valuation methods and practices - amongst others using social debate and including relations between humankind and nature - as well as methods to integrate different types of values (e.g. economic, heritage, and biodiversity value) in decision making. In particular, several actors point out the necessity to account for environmental thresholds and ecological values, to consider socio-ethical values, and to deal with uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in decisions and actions. In the first part of this paper, we expand on the main outcomes and challenges, while in the second part some tools and test cases are presented. We conclude that integrated valuation of ES could start reconciling human viewpoints on nature and pave the way forward to the intended social and ecological sustainability, but there is still a long way to go. This paper builds on the outputs of the book “Ecosystem Services – Global Issues, Local Practices” (Jacobs et al. 2013) with contributions from more than 80 authors from the BEES (Belgium Ecosystem Services) community of practice. In this context, we recently performed a (non-exhaustive) review of how the ecosystem service (ES) concept could be useful to Belgian and international policy actors. As the ultimate goal of ES valuation is to improve the well being of every individual now and in the future (MEA, 2005), this paper intends to elaborate on the concept of ES valuation and how it could (not?) reach the intended goal. A clear tension appears between policy actors’ desire to acquire tools for monetary valuation and the risks posed by monetary valuation (e.g. commodification of nature, neglect of other values…). On the one hand, there is the need for ‘proof of concept’, and the availability of economic tools and mainstream character of ‘money talk’ is a pragmatic choice. On the other hand, we note a strong reluctance and critical attitude towards the culture of ‘math and money’ at all levels: it is perceived as one of the main causes of social and ecological unsustainability. Several actors therefore urge for more collaborative approaches of ES valuation, e.g. to build trust between providers and beneficiaries, as monetary valuation alone is not relevant in their working context.Among the suggested solutions are the development of alternative new valuation methods and practices - amongst others using social debate and including relations between humankind and nature - as well as methods to integrate different types of values (e.g. economic, heritage, and biodiversity value) in decision making. In particular, several actors point out the necessity to account for environmental thresholds and ecological values, to consider socio-ethical values, and to deal with uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in decisions and actions. In the first part of this paper, we expand on the main outcomes and challenges, while in the second part some tools and test cases are presented. We conclude that integrated valuation of ES could start reconciling human viewpoints on nature and pave the way forward to the intended social and ecological sustainability, but there is still a long way to go.

Over the past decade there has been a substantial increase in the use of market based and voluntary financial instruments to address environmental issues. By using price signals or incentives, these instruments try to achieve desirable land use practices and resource management. In recent years PES (Payment for Ecosystem Services) emerged as such an instrument with high potential. Roughly speaking, PES aims to issue compensations for extra cost induced to ecosystem owners and managers (e.g. farmers, water companies, etc.) for maintaining a stable or increased supply of ecosystem services. Although this seems a quite straightforward approach, much confusion arose about what PES really is, and what it is not. We explore why it is important to come to a single definition of PES for Flanders (Belgium) and identify in which setting PES would be an efficient and desirable alternative to current policy instruments. Additionally we compiled a series of 20 key success factors and conditions for PES instruments based on a thorough review of international (practical) experiences and state of the art literature. Based on these success factors, we critically examined and evaluated a series of financial, “PES-like”, instruments currently used in Flanders (e.g. agri-environment measures). For that purpose 3 case studies were conducted in the areas of Gent (Gentse Kanaalzone), Leuven (Doode Bemde) and Sint-Truiden (Melsterbeek) and focussed on a series of financial instruments (mainly subsidies) and how they affect ecosystem services and stakeholders. This research project resulted in a guideline for the identification of ESD stakeholders and an opportunity analysis to manage and enhance additional ecosystem services with current financial instruments. We concluded that some existing financial instruments show great potential to mainstream a PES approach, which could greatly improve their ecosystem service output. Also participation to voluntary financial instruments can be substantially increased with a better understanding of the links, in terms of ecosystem services, between stakeholders and land use practices promoted by voluntary financial instruments.

•Doel: Een methode die op een eenvoudige, relatief snelle en realistische wijze de belanghebbenden m.b.t. ecosysteemdiensten (ESD) van een gebied kan identificeren.•Output: Een matrix van geïdentificeerde belanghebbenden in relatie tot ESD, en een duiding van deze resultaten.•Voor wie?: Iedereen die voor een onderzoek of een projectplan in een bepaald gebied nood heeft aan het identificeren van de ESD belanghebbenden.•Tijdsinvestering: 2-5 dagen, afhankelijk van het aantal belanghebbenden, aantal relevante ESD, en diepte van de gewenste analyse.

The river Dijle south of Leuven (Belgium) is one of the few remaining meandering rivers in Flanders region, and the valley area covers about 2000 ha. The area is rich in biodiversity and is protected under the European Habitat Directive. The diverse landscape makes it attractive for soft recreation, especially for urban dwellers. However, as the city of Leuven and the University campus is prone to flooding, there is need for flood protection. Two options were discussed among involved organisations: an infrastructural solution (i.e. the construction of three reservoirs plus related equipment), or a natural solution (i.e. natural flood control by using the floodplains). As hydrological models showed that both solutions could provide the same protection for a peak storm which happens only once in 100 years, the natural flood control option was selected in combination with one downstream reservoir (for safety reasons). We tried to complete this analysis by evaluating the effect on other ecosystem services, which are affected by these two solutions. Our methodology is based on a societal cost-benefit analysis, and the necessary data were collected from literature, a Flemish model to asses monetary benefits of ecosystem services (i.e. “Natuurwaardeverkenner”) and expert knowledge. The costs of the infrastructural solution were much higher than the natural solution (4.4 million €/30 years), while the natural scenario resulted in a societal benefit between 14 and 125 million € over a period of 30 years. The ecosystem services which responded differently on the two scenarios are: denitrification, carbon sequestration, air quality improvement and recreation. The contrasting impacts are controlled by the change in water table and the modification of the landscape by the reservoirs. Considering the total societal costs and benefits, the natural scenario was far more beneficial compared to the infrastructure solution. However, such conclusions depends a lot on context of the location (e.g. legal status of the land, population pressure around the area, landscape) and cannot be generalized without verification of the costs and benefits.

In deze studie wordt een methode uitgewerkt om te kunnen antwoorden op de onderzoeksvraag “In welke gevallen kan groene infrastructuur (= natuur die maatschappelijk-relevante ecosysteemdiensten levert) een valabel alternatief zijn voor technologische oplossingen?”De uitgewerkte methode is toegepast op één gevalstudie, nl. overstromingsbescherming in de Dijlevallei ten zuiden van Leuven. De ecologische oplossing houdt een natuurlijk overstromingsgebied in, en is de huidige situatie in de Dijlevallei. De technologische oplossing is gebaseerd op de constructie van drie wachtbekkens in de vallei. In een uitgebreide maatschappelijke kosten-baten analyse (MKBA) werden verschillende ecosysteemdiensten vergeleken tussen beide scenario’s. De ecologische oplossing scoorde beter op de ecosysteemdiensten koolstofopslag in de bodem, denitrificatie, afvangen van fijn stof, regulatie van sedimentatie en recreatie en beleving. De technologische oplossing had enkel een hogere waarde voor de ecosysteemdienst koolstofopslag in vegetatie. Uit deze gevalstudie blijkt dat de ecologische oplossing minder investeringskosten vergt en meer ecosysteemdiensten levert dan de technologische oplossing.Uit deze case studie kunnen we niet concluderen dat een ecologische oplossing altijd “beter” is dan een technologische oplossing, omdat een dergelijke vergelijking steeds contextafhankelijk is. Wel kan de uitgewerkte methode gebruikt worden in andere case studies indien er a) voldoende achtergrondgegevens aanwezig zijn voor beide scenario’s, en b) het verschil tussen beide scenario’s groot genoeg is om beleidsrelevante uitspraken te kunnen doen.