Implementation process

By looking at the the activities, actors and methods or approaches used, this section will provide a better understanding of the implementation process of the MLS approach. We will describe the point of departure, who was involved (when, why and how) and what key decisions were made when and why.

Point of departure of FRM strategies

Roskilde web final.png

Figure 1: Current and desired score to reach per layer in this pilot (Baseline survey, 2019).

To measure the impact of FRAMES on improving the flood resilience of pilot areas, communities and authorities both a baseline and final monitoring survey have been conducted. The surveys were completed by pilot managers in consultation with key pilot stakeholders. The baseline survey included questions about the actual situation in 2017 (before the project started) and expectations for 2020 (see figure 1). The final survey contained similar questions, but about the actual situation in 2020 and expected situation for 2025, five years after the pilot projects are finished. All the scores for both surveys along with an interpretation, can be found in chapter 8 of the Transnational Monitoring and Evaluation Report.

Stakeholders involved

Role of key actors

The citizens were already bothered a lot by researchers and journalists after the flooding in 2013 and the expectations for the stakeholders to participate were low.  However, currently the local communities are very engaged. This may be influenced by the fact that people still suffer from the flooding. Moreover, the perception of flooding is also different on the west coast of Jutland. On the west coast people experience flooding more often, they learnt to live with the water. But the response rate was high and some people even approached the DCA to be interviewed.

The main purpose of the Danish Coastal Authority is to serve the Ministry of Environment and Food and make sure that the Danish population is aware of the flood risk, and to maintain some dikes on west coast as well. During FRAMES, the responsibility of the DCA is to advise authorities on risk reduction. There are several governmental units who know about FRM from the sea, regional advisors for municipalities, local emergency management, sewage companies. Not too much was done on response and recovery. However, the DCA decided to give more importance to this topic as well because of climate change: response and recovery should be part of risk reduction. In the risk reduction phase you should start planning for response and recovery already. Until now risk reduction was mainly taking prevention measures, layer 1. 

Other important actors in this pilot are:

• The Danish Storm Councill is an independent Council who handles cases concerning three types of natural catastrophes: storm surge, flooding from waterways and lakes and windfall. The Storm Surge Council in Denmark determines whether or not it is a flood surge or if it is just a storm. A flood surge should have a return period of 20 years event to make sure that communities get compensated by the insurance companies.

• Municipality needs to know what is its responsibility in the recovery process. Municipality informs communities about what do to in case of flooding and recovery.

• The Insurance & Pension Denmark (IPD) is the Danish trade association for insurance companies and pension funds. The insurance companies  process the claims of the damages and pay back the local communities to rebuild the houses.

• The Roskilde Fire Department has a specific role, very focused on response, once the water starts to retreat, they will leave the area. They are making at the moment some guideline made on how to manage the volunteers groups to make sure that they come for the right reason and if they are aware of the liability.

• The Danish Red Cross is involved in international projects but they also helped in the recovery after the flood in 2013. They can create local groups to help in the emergency planning. The Red Cross did a whole study on the psychological aspects of the flood. For instance, there was a warning this year and they did a survey to the local doctors. It seems that there is an increased in the number people of people visiting the doctor to ask for medication that can relax (sleeping piles) because they are nervous.

• Radius (electricity grid company)

Main activities

Step 1: draft + sent out questionnaire

Questionnaires were sent out by email in Feb 2019 to households including flooded houses (200-300) and not flooded. The questionnaire was sent out to 500 households. Replies were received from 155 respondents, which gives a general response rate of 31%. Of these, 64 had experienced their houses being flooded. A total of 268 houses were flooded in Jyllinge Nordmark after Storm Bodil

Some of the people who were not flooded called to ask if it was needed for them to answer the questionnaire. The purpose was to find out their experiences after the flooding, why the process was so slow, what went well and what didn’t go well and find out the barriers. Some questions were like this: did you know before the flood who could you contact, did you know what to do, did you know what you were allowed to do legally, where did you see improvements, which stakeholders would you like to see involve more, what information did you need, how would you prefer to get the information, who did you receive info from, where people live, how did you handle that, who handled it, what can be expected, if they were interested to be part of a local group of volunteers to help in recovery, if they received help from the Red Cross and if they would contact them again. The questionnaire also included questions about rehousing: who was in charge of doing it, what went well, what didn’t go well, how long were you rehoused and what could have been done to  shorten this time. There was not information about these issues, the barriers of having to live in a non-permanent house because some of them were living in construction containers.

The aim was to find out what kind of stakeholders citizens expect more from and also from which ones they received help. They were also asked who do you think is responsible of the recovery process. The answer was very interesting because they all believed is the Storm Surge Council responsible of it.

This part of the study consisted of questionnaires sent out to residents in Jyllinge Nordmark, who lived in the area that had been hit by flooding. The questionnaires were sent by ordinary post by the Danish Coastal Authority with an enclosed franked return envelope on 8 February 2019 and the last reply was received on 25 March 2019. The questionnaire was sent out to 500 households. Replies were received from 155 respondents, which gives a general response rate of 31%. Of these, 64 had experienced their houses being flooded. A total of 268 houses were flooded in Jyllinge Nordmark after Storm Bodil. This gives a response rate of 24% from this group,

The duration of the rehousing was very different among the 52 respondents who said that they were rehoused. The majority of the residents were rehoused for 7-9 months, but there was also one single instance where the rehousing lasted under a month, while 15 spent more than one year in a rehousing situation

The general picture generated from these comments is that there is a big difference between how the homeowners were treated by their insurance company, and what they were subsequently awarded in compensation. The responses give the direct impression that the insurance companies did not provide their policyholders with a uniform and transparent process.

Many mentioned in their responses that the process was far too slow and drawn-out, and that there were too many agencies involved, which resulted in poor or lacking communication between the parties. Some of them were also dissatisfied with the municipality and did not feel that they were visible enough.

Overall, the responses to the questionnaire, both open and closed, together with the two group interviews with residents, give a picture wherein the great majority whose homes were flooded experienced the subsequent rebuilding process as being difficult and frustrating. They experienced a lack of clarity in the delegation of responsibility and in communication generally, uncertainty about their insurance coverage and

were unsure as to what was expected of them.

Step 2: Stakeholder analysis

Based on the answers provided via the questionnaires, the DCA and University College Copenhagen did a stakeholder analysis.

Step 3. Interview the main stakeholders to get their side of it.

The University College Copenhagen carried out 10 interviews with professional stakeholders. Most of the interviews were with one person. Two were with several interviewees. A total of 13 people was interviewed. The questions were like:

(1) How was the rebuilding experienced?

(2) Which conditions were relevant to the rebuilding?

(3) Which learning points have led to new practice?

(4) Which problems have yet to be solved?

The following interviews were carried out:

  • Roskilde Municipality (Technical and Environmental Department)
  • Roskilde Fire Brigade (incident


commander during the flooding)

  • Roskilde Fire Brigade (on duty during the flooding)
  • Danish Storm Council (secretariat staff)
  • Danish Storm Council (head of claims management)
  • Insurance company 1
  • Insurance company 2
  • Insurance company 3
  • Red Cross
  • Radius (electricity grid company)

In addition, two focus group interviews with citizens in the area were conducted.

Step 4: Draft guidelines for future events

Develop a step by step guide using the questionnaire, the qualitative interviews and the focus group interviews. The guide is to make clear what do to in a flood recovery situation. These recommendations are directed at those responsible for coordinating or planning a rebuilding process in a residential area hit by coastal flooding.

The recommendations are directed primarily at those of you who work for an authority or organisation with responsibility for emergency preparedness or coordination in connection with flooding. It will also be useful knowledge however for others, e.g. members of voluntary organisations or resident groups, who wish to contribute towards a good rebuilding process should flooding occur.

When coastal flooding hits a residential area, it affects many people. Houses, gardens and roads are flooded and can be destroyed. When the water recedes and the damage becomes clearer, the residents are left in a situation where they have lost their home and their valuables. Their lives are completely changed – at least for a time. Their home has suddenly become uninhabitable, and they are affected mentally.

Ahead lies the process of rebuilding the hardest hit areas and returning the daily lives of the residents affected to how it was before the flooding. Here, a number of authorities and organisations play central roles: some tasks are clearly defined by law, while others are not – similarly, the delegation of responsibility is often unclear. Regardless, there is an expectation from residents that someone will take responsibility for the tasks which need to be done. These recommendations focus on those tasks that are not clearly anchored.

It is necessary in these cases for the relevant parties in the individual municipality or local neighbourhood to work together to delegate responsibility and assign roles – ideally before the need actually arises. The purpose of these recommendations is to contribute to this process.

The study’s conclusions offer many recommendations for professional planning work. Here, we have highlighted the nine most important. We have not listed those already defined by law. We have instead selected those ones that are characterised by lacking a clear anchoring and which therefore need to be brought into focus.

  • Make plans for the rebuilding
  • Create clear assignment of roles
  • Communicate with residents
  • Be physically present
  • The good rebuilding process
  • Practical assistance
  • Offer building advice
  • Offer psycho-social support
  • Create a network
  • Evaluate and implement new teaching























Referenties


Overgenomen van "https://kenniscentrumtoerisme.nl/wiki/index.php?title=LC_00340&oldid=71418"