In 2011, Adaptive Delta Management (ADM) was introduced in the Dutch Delta Program as a policy development method to incorporate uncertainty in decision making transparently. Currently, little is known over the functioning of ADM in practice, while this is determining its success. The study explores the application of ADM in Dutch practice. Starting from the scientific foundation of ADM is being researched how ADM is shaped in practice using interviews with actors on the strategy level and the implementation level. The results are analyzed to explore what they mean for the adaptiveness of coping with sea-level rise by Dutch delta management. The research shows that the application of the greater part of the instruments of Adaptive Delta Management (ADM) is not coherent with how they should be applied according to theory. The first difference observed is that adaptation pathway maps in practice are far simpler than prescribed in theory; they only contain the preferential strategy instead of multiple strategies, and no signposts and transfer stations are defined. Secondly, adaptation tipping points are more flexible in practice than is prescribed in theory. The final difference observed is that evaluating strategies in practice has a fixed rhythm, while according to theory, continuous evaluation and recalibration should occur whenever new information comes available. The main implication of these differences is that ADM in practice provides less guidance to policymakers on when and which adjustments of strategies are needed than in theory. Based on the analysis of the similarities and differences between theory and practice, the research found that currently, the governance of ADM in practice in the Netherlands does not enhance adaptation to sea-level rise. The study stresses the importance of taking action to keep the Netherlands safe from sea-level rise now and in the future. Therefore, several recommendations inspired by the theoretical foundation of ADM are proposed to ensure adaptation to sea-level rise is enhanced. The first recommendation aims to ensure that policymakers get insight into the solution space to cope with sea-level rise and understand what measures need to be taken today to keep the long-term solutions open. Furthermore, actors involved in the implementation of strategies (such as regional water authorities, municipalities and water utility companies) should obtain insight into the possible consequences of sea-level rise for their area and know how to incorporate this in decision making.