PR 00274: verschil tussen versies
Geen bewerkingssamenvatting |
Geen bewerkingssamenvatting |
||
Regel 30: | Regel 30: | ||
!United Kingdom | !United Kingdom | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Diversification & dominance | |'''Diversification & dominance''' | ||
|Moderately diversified, defence still important | |Moderately diversified, defence still important | ||
|High diversified, focus on defence | |High diversified, focus on defence | ||
Regel 37: | Regel 37: | ||
|Highly diversified, quite balanced | |Highly diversified, quite balanced | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Multi-sector | |'''Multi-sector''' | ||
|Water sector and spatial planning gaining equal importance; water sector still important | |Water sector and spatial planning gaining equal importance; water sector still important | ||
|Multi-sector involvement & integrated by spatial planning | |Multi-sector involvement & integrated by spatial planning | ||
Regel 44: | Regel 44: | ||
|Multi-sector involvement & integrated by spatial planning | |Multi-sector involvement & integrated by spatial planning | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Multi-actor | |'''Multi-actor''' | ||
|Public (state dominant) | |Public (state dominant) | ||
|Public (state and federal states) dominant | |Public (state and federal states) dominant | ||
Regel 51: | Regel 51: | ||
|Public & private | |Public & private | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Multi-level | |'''Multi-level''' | ||
|Decentralised, tendency towards centralisation | |Decentralised, tendency towards centralisation | ||
|Central guidance & decentralization to federal state & local level | |Central guidance & decentralization to federal state & local level | ||
Regel 60: | Regel 60: | ||
'''4 What is the desired situation in relation to the flood risk challenges for the region?''' | '''4 What is the desired situation in relation to the flood risk challenges for the region?''' | ||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
| | |||
|'''Kent (UK)''' | |||
|'''Vejle (DK)''' | |||
|'''Wesermarsch (GE)''' | |||
|'''Alblasser waard (NL)''' | |||
|'''Reimerswaal (NL)''' | |||
|'''Denderleeuw (BE)''' | |||
|- | |||
|'''Time orientation''' | |||
|Mid-term/ long-term | |||
|Long-term | |||
|Mid-term/ long-term | |||
|Mid-term/ long-term | |||
|Mid-term/ long-term | |||
|Long-term | |||
|- | |||
|'''Knowledge of climate change impacts with business as usual''' | |||
|Yes, increased flooding, deaths, costs & risks | |||
|Yes, main sources of floods | |||
|Yes, floods and droughts. Focus on potential sectoral conflicts of adaptation measures | |||
|Yes, increased vulnerability to flooding & water shortage | |||
|Yes, increased risks of damaged infrastructure | |||
|Yes, but focus on heavy rain floods (T10 category) | |||
|- | |||
|'''Articulation of desired situation''' | |||
|Fundamental shift vulnerable communities in flood risk management | |||
|Shift to municipal focus in spatial planning | |||
|Shift to integrated planning approach (through tipping points) | |||
|Shift to integrated spatial planning; shift from protection to prevention | |||
|Shift to spatial planning with focus on resilient infrastructure | |||
|Shift to planning combining various actors in business, civic and public | |||
|} | |||
'''5 What are potential MLS-actions to enhance the flood resilience of your region?''' | '''5 What are potential MLS-actions to enhance the flood resilience of your region?''' | ||
Regel 67: | Regel 100: | ||
* Linked to area context to apply actions: coastal, fluvial, pluvial | * Linked to area context to apply actions: coastal, fluvial, pluvial | ||
* Linked to Diversification of Governance context to apply actions (or adaptation of FGRA required): low, medium, high | * Linked to Diversification of Governance context to apply actions (or adaptation of FGRA required): low, medium, high | ||
* Pilots can be used as examples | * Pilots can be used as examples: | ||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
|'''MLS actions''' | |||
|'''Layers''' | |||
|'''Area context (Coastal/ Fluvial/Pluvial)''' | |||
|'''Governance context (diversification Low/Medium/High)''' | |||
|'''Pilots''' | |||
|- | |||
|Improving zoning of developments in flood prone areas | |||
|1, 2 | |||
|C / F/ P | |||
|L / M / H | |||
|Dender, DK, Kent, Reimerswaal | |||
|- | |||
|Reducing surface flood risk from extreme rainfall via increasing storage capacity in private and public space | |||
|2, 3 | |||
|Pluvial | |||
|M / H | |||
|Great Yarmouth | |||
|- | |||
|Lowering flood risk for communities via nature based solutions upstream | |||
|2, 3 | |||
|F / P | |||
|High | |||
|Medway, Lustrum Beck, Southwell | |||
|- | |||
|Realizing a flood proof critical infrastructure | |||
|1, 2 | |||
|C / F/ P | |||
|L / M / H | |||
|Reimerswaal; Electricity Grid | |||
|- | |||
|Limit cascade-effects of critical infrastructure failure | |||
|4 | |||
|C / F/ P | |||
|H | |||
|Reimerswaal | |||
|- | |||
|Integrate emergency response planning in flood risk management (and vice versa) | |||
|1, 2, 3 | |||
|C / F/ P | |||
|M / H | |||
|W’marsch, Kent, Sloe | |||
|- | |||
|Improve strategies for preventive evacuation | |||
|1, 2, 3 | |||
|C / F | |||
|L / M / H | |||
|A’waard, Reimerswaal, Sloe | |||
|- | |||
|Develop alternative evacuation strategies (safe haven, shelters, vertical evacuation) | |||
|3, 4 | |||
|C / F/ P | |||
|M / H | |||
|Sloe; A‘waard; Dender; W‘marsch | |||
|- | |||
|Raising awareness for flood resilience measures | |||
|3 | |||
|C / F/ P | |||
|L / M / H | |||
|UK, Dender, W’ marsch, Sloe, A’waard | |||
|- | |||
|Involving communities in flood resilience measures | |||
|3 | |||
|C / F/ P | |||
|M / H | |||
|Sloe | |||
|- | |||
|Empower communities, including households and businesses to take measures themselves (self-reliance) | |||
|3, 4 | |||
|C / F/ P | |||
|H | |||
|W’marsch, UK, Dender | |||
|- | |||
|Apply adaptive planning to define pathways for diversified flood risk management strategies | |||
|1, 2, 3, 4 | |||
|C / F/ P | |||
|L / M / H | |||
|Denmark, Kent, Dender, A’waard | |||
|} | |||
'''6 What is the impact of potential (spatial) actions on systems and sectors in the region?''' | '''6 What is the impact of potential (spatial) actions on systems and sectors in the region?''' | ||
''Make sure to harmonize impact assessments with the national adaptation strategies'' | ''Make sure to harmonize impact assessments with the national adaptation strategies'' | ||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
|'''MLS actions''' | |||
|'''Layers''' | |||
|'''Relevant systems''' | |||
|'''Impact''' | |||
|'''Pilots''' | |||
|- | |||
|Improving zoning of developments in flood prone areas | |||
|1, 2 | |||
|land use, housing, economy, (critical) infrastructure, water, nature, agriculture, flood protection | |||
| | |||
|Dender, DK, Kent, Reimerswaal | |||
|- | |||
|Reducing surface flood risk from extreme rainfall via increasing storage capacity in private and public space | |||
|2, 3 | |||
|land use, housing, economy, (critical) infrastructure, water, nature, agriculture | |||
| | |||
|Great Yarmouth | |||
|- | |||
|Lowering flood risk for communities via nature based solutions upstream | |||
|2, 3 | |||
|land use, agriculture, nature, water | |||
| | |||
|Medway, Lustrum Beck, Southwell | |||
|- | |||
|Realizing a flood proof critical infrastructure | |||
|1, 2 | |||
|Critical infrastructure (energy, roads etc), land use, economy, crisis management, flood protection | |||
| | |||
|Reimerswaal; Electricity Grid | |||
|- | |||
|Limit cascade-effects of critical infrastructure failure | |||
|4 | |||
|Critical infrastructure, economy, society, crisis management | |||
| | |||
|Reimerswaal | |||
|- | |||
|Integrate emergency response planning in flood risk management (and vice versa) | |||
|1, 2, 3 | |||
|crisis management, healthcare, society, flood protection and spatial planning | |||
| | |||
|W’marsch, Kent, Sloe | |||
|- | |||
|Improve strategies for preventive evacuation | |||
|1, 2, 3 | |||
|crisis management, healthcare, society, flood protection and spatial planning | |||
| | |||
|A’waard, Reimerswaal, Sloe | |||
|- | |||
|Develop alternative evacuation strategies (safe haven, shelters, vertical evacuation) | |||
|3, 4 | |||
|crisis management, healthcare, society, flood protection and spatial planning | |||
| | |||
|Sloe; A‘waard; Dender; W‘marsch | |||
|- | |||
|Raising awareness for flood resilience measures | |||
|3 | |||
|Society, economy, land use | |||
| | |||
|UK, Dender, W’ marsch, Sloe, A’waard | |||
|- | |||
|Involving communities in flood resilience measures | |||
|3 | |||
|Society, economy, land use | |||
| | |||
|Sloe | |||
|- | |||
|Empower communities, including households and businesses to take measures themselves (self-reliance) | |||
|3, 4 | |||
|Society, economy, housing, agriculture | |||
| | |||
|W’marsch, UK, Dender | |||
|- | |||
|Apply adaptive planning to define pathways for diversified flood risk management strategies | |||
|1, 2, 3, 4 | |||
|land-use, water, critical infrastructure, economy, society, nature | |||
| | |||
|Denmark, Kent, Dender, A’waard | |||
|} | |||
'''7 Who should be involved and what level should participation be?''' | '''7 Who should be involved and what level should participation be?''' |
Versie van 18 sep 2019 11:56
The FRAMES Decision Support System, or DSS, can be used as a road map with the following 10 questions to help involved authorities identify how governance relates to the resilience of flood prone areas.
1 What is the flood risk (sea, river, rainfall) and which are the flood risk challenges in your region?
Typical challenges for areas:
- Coastal flooding as main challenge (Zeeland, Denmark)
- Fluvial flooding and coastal flooding/influence (Alblasserwaard, Wesermarsch)
- Fluvial flooding (UK pilots, Belgium pilots)
- Pluvial flooding: surface water flooding
When this is not clear, please make use of the following tools
- Flood risk maps delivered for the EU Flood Directive
- Pilots: Scenario’s and other forecasting techniques to define future challenges
- Pilots: IPCC reports and national adaptation strategies
Discuss flood risk scenarios and define challenges for resilient areas and communities with relevant stakeholders
2 What is the emphasis of the current FRMS applied in your area?
- Apply multilevel and multi-actor to discuss regional flood risk management strategies
- Multilevel: EU, national, regional, local
- Multi-actor: government, private companies, NGOs, citizens.
3 How is flood risk management organized in my country?
Table 1: Comparison of flood risk governance arrangements (FRGAs), adapted from Matzcak et al., 2016:72, completed for Germany and Denmark by using Buijs et al., 2018.
Characteristics of governance | Belgium | Germany | Denmark | the Netherlands | United Kingdom |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Diversification & dominance | Moderately diversified, defence still important | High diversified, focus on defence | Highly diversified, focus on defence | Low diversification, defence dominant | Highly diversified, quite balanced |
Multi-sector | Water sector and spatial planning gaining equal importance; water sector still important | Multi-sector involvement & integrated by spatial planning | Multi-sector involvement (landowners and farmers have a say; landowners do not pay) | Water sector dominant | Multi-sector involvement & integrated by spatial planning |
Multi-actor | Public (state dominant) | Public (state and federal states) dominant | Public & private | Public (state dominant) | Public & private |
Multi-level | Decentralised, tendency towards centralisation | Central guidance & decentralization to federal state & local level | Central guidance & ongoing decentralization to local level | Both central and regional level | Central and local level |
4 What is the desired situation in relation to the flood risk challenges for the region?
Kent (UK) | Vejle (DK) | Wesermarsch (GE) | Alblasser waard (NL) | Reimerswaal (NL) | Denderleeuw (BE) | |
Time orientation | Mid-term/ long-term | Long-term | Mid-term/ long-term | Mid-term/ long-term | Mid-term/ long-term | Long-term |
Knowledge of climate change impacts with business as usual | Yes, increased flooding, deaths, costs & risks | Yes, main sources of floods | Yes, floods and droughts. Focus on potential sectoral conflicts of adaptation measures | Yes, increased vulnerability to flooding & water shortage | Yes, increased risks of damaged infrastructure | Yes, but focus on heavy rain floods (T10 category) |
Articulation of desired situation | Fundamental shift vulnerable communities in flood risk management | Shift to municipal focus in spatial planning | Shift to integrated planning approach (through tipping points) | Shift to integrated spatial planning; shift from protection to prevention | Shift to spatial planning with focus on resilient infrastructure | Shift to planning combining various actors in business, civic and public |
5 What are potential MLS-actions to enhance the flood resilience of your region?
Overview of actions based on analysis pilot activities
- Linked to MLS layers
- Linked to area context to apply actions: coastal, fluvial, pluvial
- Linked to Diversification of Governance context to apply actions (or adaptation of FGRA required): low, medium, high
- Pilots can be used as examples:
MLS actions | Layers | Area context (Coastal/ Fluvial/Pluvial) | Governance context (diversification Low/Medium/High) | Pilots |
Improving zoning of developments in flood prone areas | 1, 2 | C / F/ P | L / M / H | Dender, DK, Kent, Reimerswaal |
Reducing surface flood risk from extreme rainfall via increasing storage capacity in private and public space | 2, 3 | Pluvial | M / H | Great Yarmouth |
Lowering flood risk for communities via nature based solutions upstream | 2, 3 | F / P | High | Medway, Lustrum Beck, Southwell |
Realizing a flood proof critical infrastructure | 1, 2 | C / F/ P | L / M / H | Reimerswaal; Electricity Grid |
Limit cascade-effects of critical infrastructure failure | 4 | C / F/ P | H | Reimerswaal |
Integrate emergency response planning in flood risk management (and vice versa) | 1, 2, 3 | C / F/ P | M / H | W’marsch, Kent, Sloe |
Improve strategies for preventive evacuation | 1, 2, 3 | C / F | L / M / H | A’waard, Reimerswaal, Sloe |
Develop alternative evacuation strategies (safe haven, shelters, vertical evacuation) | 3, 4 | C / F/ P | M / H | Sloe; A‘waard; Dender; W‘marsch |
Raising awareness for flood resilience measures | 3 | C / F/ P | L / M / H | UK, Dender, W’ marsch, Sloe, A’waard |
Involving communities in flood resilience measures | 3 | C / F/ P | M / H | Sloe |
Empower communities, including households and businesses to take measures themselves (self-reliance) | 3, 4 | C / F/ P | H | W’marsch, UK, Dender |
Apply adaptive planning to define pathways for diversified flood risk management strategies | 1, 2, 3, 4 | C / F/ P | L / M / H | Denmark, Kent, Dender, A’waard |
6 What is the impact of potential (spatial) actions on systems and sectors in the region?
Make sure to harmonize impact assessments with the national adaptation strategies
MLS actions | Layers | Relevant systems | Impact | Pilots |
Improving zoning of developments in flood prone areas | 1, 2 | land use, housing, economy, (critical) infrastructure, water, nature, agriculture, flood protection | Dender, DK, Kent, Reimerswaal | |
Reducing surface flood risk from extreme rainfall via increasing storage capacity in private and public space | 2, 3 | land use, housing, economy, (critical) infrastructure, water, nature, agriculture | Great Yarmouth | |
Lowering flood risk for communities via nature based solutions upstream | 2, 3 | land use, agriculture, nature, water | Medway, Lustrum Beck, Southwell | |
Realizing a flood proof critical infrastructure | 1, 2 | Critical infrastructure (energy, roads etc), land use, economy, crisis management, flood protection | Reimerswaal; Electricity Grid | |
Limit cascade-effects of critical infrastructure failure | 4 | Critical infrastructure, economy, society, crisis management | Reimerswaal | |
Integrate emergency response planning in flood risk management (and vice versa) | 1, 2, 3 | crisis management, healthcare, society, flood protection and spatial planning | W’marsch, Kent, Sloe | |
Improve strategies for preventive evacuation | 1, 2, 3 | crisis management, healthcare, society, flood protection and spatial planning | A’waard, Reimerswaal, Sloe | |
Develop alternative evacuation strategies (safe haven, shelters, vertical evacuation) | 3, 4 | crisis management, healthcare, society, flood protection and spatial planning | Sloe; A‘waard; Dender; W‘marsch | |
Raising awareness for flood resilience measures | 3 | Society, economy, land use | UK, Dender, W’ marsch, Sloe, A’waard | |
Involving communities in flood resilience measures | 3 | Society, economy, land use | Sloe | |
Empower communities, including households and businesses to take measures themselves (self-reliance) | 3, 4 | Society, economy, housing, agriculture | W’marsch, UK, Dender | |
Apply adaptive planning to define pathways for diversified flood risk management strategies | 1, 2, 3, 4 | land-use, water, critical infrastructure, economy, society, nature | Denmark, Kent, Dender, A’waard |
7 Who should be involved and what level should participation be?
- Stakeholder analysis examples by project
- Link to FRGA to support stakeholder analysis
- Analysis of multilevel and multi-actor setting, including participation level, during pilot implementation
- Analyse differences between pilot implementation and FRGA
8 How can the implementation process for MLS-pilots be organized?
There are three types of pilot implementation processes:
- Goal oriented (Reimerswaal, …)
- Participatory process oriented (UK)
- Planning process oriented (DAPP Denmark)
Differences are mainly based on the governance context, the organization in the lead in the pilot and the role in the FRGA.
9 What are potential barriers and success factors in the implementation of MLS actions and how can these be dealt with considering up-scaling of pilot results?
10 Which capacities are key to foster adaptation towards a more diversified flood risk management strategy?
- Analysis of adaptive capacities lacking, employed or emerging in pilots studies, based on pilot processes
- Provides on a more abstract level to decision-makers which capacities are needed for planning, implementation and up-scaling of MLS
- Roadmap for capacity building for pilots to become successful working on diversified FRM
Make sure to interview decision-makers about adaptive capacities