PR 00274: verschil tussen versies

Geen bewerkingssamenvatting
Geen bewerkingssamenvatting
Regel 21: Regel 21:
''Table 1: Comparison of flood risk governance arrangements (FRGAs), adapted from {{Cite|resource=Bestand:Comparison-of-countries.pdf|name=Matzcak et al., 2016:72|dialog=process-file-dialog}}, completed for Germany and Denmark by using {{Cite|resource=Bestand:Buijs et al 2018.pdf|name=Buijs et al., 2018|dialog=process-file-dialog}}.''
''Table 1: Comparison of flood risk governance arrangements (FRGAs), adapted from {{Cite|resource=Bestand:Comparison-of-countries.pdf|name=Matzcak et al., 2016:72|dialog=process-file-dialog}}, completed for Germany and Denmark by using {{Cite|resource=Bestand:Buijs et al 2018.pdf|name=Buijs et al., 2018|dialog=process-file-dialog}}.''
{| class="wikitable"
{| class="wikitable"
|Characteristics of governance
|'''Characteristics of governance'''
|Belgium
|'''Belgium'''
|Germany
|'''Germany'''
|Denmark
|'''Denmark'''
|the Netherlands
|'''the Netherlands'''
|United Kingdom
|'''United Kingdom'''
|-
|-
|'''Diversification & dominance'''
|'''Diversification & dominance'''
Regel 58: Regel 58:


====== '''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?''' ======
* Scenario’s: look into different types of flood risk scenario’s and consider what this would mean for the area (Reimerswaal: include toetspeil +1D en +2D; UK: climate scenarios)
* Area visions (Dender: spatial planning for the valley)
* Adaptive planning (Denmark: DAPP approach / AESOP paper / Workshop with STAR2Cs)
* Interview decision-makers to gain insight in how they define the desired situation
{| class="wikitable"
{| class="wikitable"
|
|
Regel 97: Regel 101:
* 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:
''Table 3: examples of some pilots on how the diversification of the governance context applies to action.''
{| class="wikitable"
{| class="wikitable"
|'''MLS actions'''
|'''MLS actions'''
|'''Layers'''
|'''Layers'''
|'''Area context (Coastal/ Fluvial/Pluvial)'''
|'''Area context'''
|'''Governance context (diversification Low/Medium/High)'''
''Coastal/ Fluvial/Pluvial''
|'''Governance context''' ''Low/Medium/High diversification''
|'''Pilots'''
|'''Pilots'''
|-
|-
|Improving zoning of developments in flood prone areas
|''Improving zoning of developments in flood prone areas''
|1,  2
|1,  2
|C /  F/ P
|C /  F/ P
Regel 111: Regel 116:
|Dender,  DK, Kent, Reimerswaal
|Dender,  DK, Kent, Reimerswaal
|-
|-
|Reducing surface flood risk from extreme rainfall via increasing  storage capacity in private and public space
|''Reducing surface flood risk from extreme rainfall via increasing  storage capacity in private and public space''
|2,  3
|2,  3
|Pluvial
|Pluvial
Regel 117: Regel 122:
|Great  Yarmouth
|Great  Yarmouth
|-
|-
|Lowering flood risk for communities via nature based solutions  upstream
|''Lowering flood risk for communities via nature based solutions  upstream''
|2,  3
|2,  3
|F /  P
|F /  P
Regel 123: Regel 128:
|Medway,  Lustrum Beck, Southwell
|Medway,  Lustrum Beck, Southwell
|-
|-
|Realizing a flood proof critical infrastructure
|''Realizing a flood proof critical infrastructure''
|1,  2
|1,  2
|C / F/ P
|C / F/ P
Regel 129: Regel 134:
|Reimerswaal;  Electricity Grid
|Reimerswaal;  Electricity Grid
|-
|-
|Limit cascade-effects of critical infrastructure failure
|''Limit cascade-effects of critical infrastructure failure''
|4
|4
|C /  F/ P
|C /  F/ P
Regel 135: Regel 140:
|Reimerswaal
|Reimerswaal
|-
|-
|Integrate emergency response planning in flood risk management (and  vice versa)
|''Integrate emergency response planning in flood risk management (and  vice versa)''
|1,  2, 3
|1,  2, 3
|C /  F/ P
|C /  F/ P
Regel 141: Regel 146:
|W’marsch,  Kent, Sloe
|W’marsch,  Kent, Sloe
|-
|-
|Improve strategies for preventive evacuation
|''Improve strategies for preventive evacuation''
|1,  2, 3
|1,  2, 3
|C /  F
|C /  F
Regel 147: Regel 152:
|A’waard, Reimerswaal,  Sloe
|A’waard, Reimerswaal,  Sloe
|-
|-
|Develop alternative evacuation strategies (safe haven, shelters,  vertical evacuation)
|''Develop alternative evacuation strategies (safe haven, shelters,  vertical evacuation)''
|3,  4
|3,  4
|C /  F/ P
|C /  F/ P
Regel 153: Regel 158:
|Sloe; A‘waard; Dender; W‘marsch
|Sloe; A‘waard; Dender; W‘marsch
|-
|-
|Raising awareness for flood resilience measures
|''Raising awareness for flood resilience measures''
|3
|3
|C /  F/ P
|C /  F/ P
Regel 159: Regel 164:
|UK,  Dender,  W’ marsch,  Sloe, A’waard
|UK,  Dender,  W’ marsch,  Sloe, A’waard
|-
|-
|Involving communities in flood resilience measures
|''Involving communities in flood resilience measures''
|3
|3
|C /  F/ P
|C /  F/ P
Regel 165: Regel 170:
|Sloe
|Sloe
|-
|-
|Empower communities, including households and businesses to take measures  themselves (self-reliance)
|''Empower communities, including households and businesses to take measures  themselves (self-reliance)''
|3,  4
|3,  4
|C /  F/ P
|C /  F/ P
Regel 171: Regel 176:
|W’marsch,  UK, Dender
|W’marsch,  UK, Dender
|-
|-
|Apply adaptive planning to define pathways for diversified flood risk management strategies
|''Apply adaptive planning to define pathways for diversified flood risk management strategies''
|1,  2, 3, 4
|1,  2, 3, 4
|C /  F/ P
|C /  F/ P
Regel 180: Regel 185:
====== '''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''
Table 4: examples of pilots and impacts of potential MLS-actions on systems and/or sectors.
{| class="wikitable"
{| class="wikitable"
|'''MLS actions'''
|'''MLS actions'''
Regel 187: Regel 194:
|'''Pilots'''
|'''Pilots'''
|-
|-
|Improving zoning of developments in flood prone areas
|''Improving zoning of developments in flood prone areas''
|1,  2
|1,  2
|land use, housing, economy,  (critical) infrastructure, water, nature, agriculture, flood protection
|land use, housing, economy,  (critical) infrastructure, water, nature, agriculture, flood protection
Regel 193: Regel 200:
|Dender,  DK, Kent, Reimerswaal
|Dender,  DK, Kent, Reimerswaal
|-
|-
|Reducing surface flood risk from extreme rainfall via increasing  storage capacity in private and public space
|''Reducing surface flood risk from extreme rainfall via increasing  storage capacity in private and public space''
|2,  3
|2,  3
|land use, housing, economy,  (critical) infrastructure, water, nature, agriculture
|land use, housing, economy,  (critical) infrastructure, water, nature, agriculture
Regel 199: Regel 206:
|Great  Yarmouth
|Great  Yarmouth
|-
|-
|Lowering flood risk for communities via nature based solutions  upstream
|''Lowering flood risk for communities via nature based solutions  upstream''
|2,  3
|2,  3
|land use, agriculture, nature,  water
|land use, agriculture, nature,  water
Regel 205: Regel 212:
|Medway,  Lustrum Beck, Southwell
|Medway,  Lustrum Beck, Southwell
|-
|-
|Realizing a flood proof critical infrastructure
|''Realizing a flood proof critical infrastructure''
|1,  2
|1,  2
|Critical infrastructure (energy,  roads etc), land use, economy, crisis management, flood protection
|Critical infrastructure (energy,  roads etc), land use, economy, crisis management, flood protection
Regel 211: Regel 218:
|Reimerswaal;  Electricity Grid
|Reimerswaal;  Electricity Grid
|-
|-
|Limit cascade-effects of critical infrastructure failure
|''Limit cascade-effects of critical infrastructure failure''
|4
|4
|Critical infrastructure, economy,  society, crisis management
|Critical infrastructure, economy,  society, crisis management
Regel 217: Regel 224:
|Reimerswaal
|Reimerswaal
|-
|-
|Integrate emergency response planning in flood risk management (and  vice versa)
|''Integrate emergency response planning in flood risk management (and  vice versa)''
|1,  2, 3
|1,  2, 3
|crisis management, healthcare,  society, flood protection and spatial planning
|crisis management, healthcare,  society, flood protection and spatial planning
Regel 223: Regel 230:
|W’marsch,  Kent, Sloe
|W’marsch,  Kent, Sloe
|-
|-
|Improve strategies for preventive evacuation
|''Improve strategies for preventive evacuation''
|1,  2, 3
|1,  2, 3
|crisis management, healthcare,  society, flood protection and spatial planning
|crisis management, healthcare,  society, flood protection and spatial planning
Regel 229: Regel 236:
|A’waard, Reimerswaal,  Sloe
|A’waard, Reimerswaal,  Sloe
|-
|-
|Develop alternative evacuation strategies (safe haven, shelters,  vertical evacuation)
|''Develop alternative evacuation strategies (safe haven, shelters,  vertical evacuation)''
|3,  4
|3,  4
|crisis management, healthcare,  society, flood protection and spatial planning
|crisis management, healthcare,  society, flood protection and spatial planning
Regel 235: Regel 242:
|Sloe; A‘waard; Dender; W‘marsch
|Sloe; A‘waard; Dender; W‘marsch
|-
|-
|Raising awareness for flood resilience measures
|''Raising awareness for flood resilience measures''
|3
|3
|Society, economy, land use
|Society, economy, land use
Regel 241: Regel 248:
|UK,  Dender,  W’ marsch,  Sloe, A’waard
|UK,  Dender,  W’ marsch,  Sloe, A’waard
|-
|-
|Involving communities in flood resilience measures
|''Involving communities in flood resilience measures''
|3
|3
|Society, economy, land use
|Society, economy, land use
Regel 247: Regel 254:
|Sloe
|Sloe
|-
|-
|Empower communities, including households and businesses to take measures  themselves (self-reliance)
|''Empower communities, including households and businesses to take measures  themselves (self-reliance)''
|3,  4
|3,  4
|Society, economy, housing,  agriculture
|Society, economy, housing,  agriculture
Regel 253: Regel 260:
|W’marsch,  UK, Dender
|W’marsch,  UK, Dender
|-
|-
|Apply adaptive planning to define pathways for diversified flood risk management strategies
|''Apply adaptive planning to define pathways for diversified flood risk management strategies''
|1,  2, 3, 4
|1,  2, 3, 4
|land-use, water, critical  infrastructure, economy, society, nature
|land-use, water, critical  infrastructure, economy, society, nature
Regel 271: Regel 278:
* Participatory process oriented (UK)
* Participatory process oriented (UK)
* Planning process oriented (DAPP Denmark)
* 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.''
''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?''' ======
====== '''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?''' ======

Versie van 18 sep 2019 12:50

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?
  • Scenario’s: look into different types of flood risk scenario’s and consider what this would mean for the area (Reimerswaal: include toetspeil +1D en +2D; UK: climate scenarios)
  • Area visions (Dender: spatial planning for the valley)
  • Adaptive planning (Denmark: DAPP approach / AESOP paper / Workshop with STAR2Cs)
  • Interview decision-makers to gain insight in how they define the desired situation
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

Table 3: examples of some pilots on how the diversification of the governance context applies to action.

MLS actions Layers Area context

Coastal/ Fluvial/Pluvial

Governance context Low/Medium/High diversification 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

Table 4: examples of pilots and impacts of potential MLS-actions on systems and/or sectors.

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?

Table 5: conditions for successful pilots and conditions for uptake (Van Buuren et al., 2018).

Element Conditions for successful pilots Conditions for uptake
Position of the pilot At a distance from home bases (freedom to explore novel ideas) Keeping connected: conscious strategy to create normative congruence
Resource distri

bution

Additional resources for the pilot to


enable creativity and exploration

Solutions fit within the existing system of resource-distribution and contribute to organizational aims of efficiency and risk reduction
Participants Coaling of (willing) boundary spanners Representativeness of involved actors from all relevant disciplines and stakes of the future implementation arena
Process design Learning environment, tailor-made collaborative process design Results ready for mainstreaming and broader embedding. Focus on where the results have to land.
Project design Limited scale to reduce risks and (financial) impacts, high quality (shared) monitoring and analysis Sufficient system understanding; outcomes considered representative and of high quality
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