LC 00280: verschil tussen versies
Geen bewerkingssamenvatting |
Geen bewerkingssamenvatting |
||
| (4 tussenliggende versies door dezelfde gebruiker niet weergegeven) | |||
| Regel 1: | Regel 1: | ||
=== Specific outcomes === | === Specific outcomes === | ||
* The jointly created maps along with the MCA and the action plans are the most tangible outcomes of this pilot. Along with | * The jointly created maps along with the MCA and the action plans are the most tangible outcomes of this pilot. Along with this map, additional documentation on the potential use of the process and a guidance on how to run through the Dynamic Planning Process. See also {{External link|resource=Resource Hyperlink 00797|name=DCA's project website|dialog=process-linkwebsite-dialog}}. | ||
* A more general outcome of the project is the adjustment of the DAPP approach for the Danish context. | * A more general outcome of the project is the adjustment of the DAPP approach for the Danish context. | ||
* The | * The final report, "''Guide to dynamic planning of climate adaptation and management of the risk of flooding in municipalities; recommended process for identifying issues and taking decisions in an uncertain climate future''", can be downloaded {{Cite|resource=Bestand:Guide-to-dynamic-planning-of-climate-adaptation-and-management-of-the-risk-of-flooding-in-municipalities eng.pdf|name=here|dialog=process-file-dialog}}. | ||
==== Process results ==== | ==== Process results ==== | ||
The discussions that took place during the process towards creating the maps | The the valuable product of this project is the discussions that took place during the process towards creating the maps and the action plan: the different departments realized the similarities and dissimilarities between them, and are trying to find common ground. | ||
In the video below, the lessons learnt and outcomes of this pilot are summarized: | In the video below, the lessons learnt and outcomes of this pilot are summarized: | ||
| Regel 12: | Regel 12: | ||
=== Flood risk management strategies (FRMS) === | === Flood risk management strategies (FRMS) === | ||
The municipality of Assens would like to increase tourism and has many areas that can be developed for this purpose. However, it is important to incorporate protection for the area before developing it. At the same time, Assens is developing a vision for the future of the city, including protection without building a wall . Furthermore, the harbour is an important part of the town’s economy, so it has to be included in the shared vision (interview pilot manager, 2019). | |||
The table below shows the FRM strategies that were considered before, during and after FRAMES. | The table below shows the FRM strategies that were considered before, during and after FRAMES. | ||
| Regel 21: | Regel 21: | ||
|'''''After FRAMES''''' | |'''''After FRAMES''''' | ||
|- | |- | ||
|''''' | |'''''1 Flood protection''''' | ||
|Hard infrastructure: flood walls, dikes, and sluice gate (interview pilot manager, 2019) | |Hard infrastructure: flood walls, dikes, and sluice gate (interview pilot manager, 2019) | ||
|Adjust the DAPP tool to help municipalities to prioritize the protection measures (dike or a pop up sea wall, a dune landscape, raise the terrain or the road) considering climate change combine with their vision for the city. Measures are included in the DAPP map (interview pilot manager, 2019) | |Adjust the DAPP tool to help municipalities to prioritize the protection measures (dike or a pop up sea wall, a dune landscape, raise the terrain or the road) considering climate change combine with their vision for the city. Measures are included in the DAPP map (interview pilot manager, 2019) | ||
|The aim is to give | |The aim is to give municipalities the ownership of the Dynamic Planning approach in other projects and to adjust the flood risk management plans developed as part of the EU Floods Directive (interview pilot manager, 2019) | ||
|- | |- | ||
|''''' | |'''''2 Spatial adaptation''''' | ||
| | | | ||
|Adjust the DAPP tool to | |Adjust the DAPP tool to help municipalities prioritize spatial planning measures (flood the first floor, raise the terrain for new buildings or use poles) considering climate change combine with their vision for the city. Measures are included in the DAPP map to make the new construction areas flood proof (interview pilot manager, 2019) | ||
|The aim is to give | |The aim is to give municipalities the ownership of the Dynamic Planning approach in other projects and to adjust the flood risk management plans developed as part of the EU Floods Directive (interview pilot manager, 2019) | ||
|- | |- | ||
|''''' | |'''''3 Preparedness and response''''' | ||
| | | | ||
|Adjust the DAPP tool to help municipalities | |Adjust the DAPP tool to help municipalities prioritize emergency / response measures (evacuation plans, awareness raising campaigns, private local response team) considering climate change combine with their vision for the city. Measures are not included in the DAPP map, only in the action plan (interview pilot manager, 2019) | ||
|The aim is to give | |The aim is to give municipalities the ownership of the Dynamic Planning approach in other projects and to adjust their climate adaptation plans, development plans and, for some municipalities, their flood risk management plans developed as part of the EU Floods Directive(interview pilot manager, 2019) | ||
|- | |- | ||
|''''' | |'''''4 Resilient recovery''''' | ||
| | |Not the focus of this pilot | ||
| | |Not the focus of this pilot | ||
| | |Not the focus of this pilot | ||
|} | |} | ||
=== Lessons learnt so far === | === Lessons learnt so far === | ||
* | * The Dynamic Planning approach is very helpful for municipalities to define and prioritize diverse flood risk management decisions related to flood protection, flood prevention via spatial planning and preparation & response when an event happens. | ||
* | * When municipalities are taking decisions within different layers of MLS approach, the Dynamic Planning method could provide guidelines to prioritize these decisions. | ||
* When testing the Dynamic Planning approach, it was discovered that it is difficult to include soft measures, such as emergency planning, in the map, because the map does not show the direct impact – the water will still be there, it is not a measure that prevents water from flowing in. This is considered in the process, but not in the map, so the visualization is not representative of all possible measures and it should thus be explained in the action plan. | |||
* | * Different sources of flooding (river and storm surge) were also difficult to incorporate in the same dynamic measure map. Vejle experiences flooding from both the sea and the inland waters and both flood sources cannot be considered in one map. Moreover, not all the measures can reduce flood risks of both sources. The map only shows the measure having an impact on both systems in a positive way. The solution was to create two maps: one for every flood source. | ||
* There | * The participants expressed concerns about how to communicate dynamic measure maps and results from that to the policy makers (from the municipalities) as they are difficult to read and understand. The municipality chose to present the results in a more simplified version, not showing the dynamic measure maps, but showing the overall strategies identified from the maps. A different method, that can be used is to facilitate one-day workshop with local politicians on the different solution and doing an MCA, as an MCA is a known tool for many of them. | ||
* | * This process of going through the steps in the dynamic planning process may be difficult for the municipalities to run by themselves..A specialist on the method with the right capacities is needed to moderate, guide and steer the process. | ||
* There were uncertainties about the method itself because it was not tested before in assessing flood risk management strategies in the Danish context. | |||
* The officials in the municipalities are often very busy, so running this process will need prioritization from management. | |||
=== Dissemination and up-scaling of pilot results === | === Dissemination and up-scaling of pilot results === | ||
The aim is | The aim is to give municipalities ownership of this approach – they should engage in this process for flood risk management and climate adaptation. The DCA using some lessons learned from this method in their guideline for developing flood risk management plans for the EU Floods Directive. And the Dynamic Planning approach will be recommended true the guideline, meetings and newsletters with and to the municipalities. Up-scaling can also take place via workshops organized for other municipalities, where results are presented, explained and discussed. | ||
{{Light Context | {{Light Context | ||
Huidige versie van 1 jul 2020 om 09:45
Specific outcomes
- The jointly created maps along with the MCA and the action plans are the most tangible outcomes of this pilot. Along with this map, additional documentation on the potential use of the process and a guidance on how to run through the Dynamic Planning Process. See also DCA's project website.
- A more general outcome of the project is the adjustment of the DAPP approach for the Danish context.
- The final report, "Guide to dynamic planning of climate adaptation and management of the risk of flooding in municipalities; recommended process for identifying issues and taking decisions in an uncertain climate future", can be downloaded here.
Process results
The the valuable product of this project is the discussions that took place during the process towards creating the maps and the action plan: the different departments realized the similarities and dissimilarities between them, and are trying to find common ground.
In the video below, the lessons learnt and outcomes of this pilot are summarized:
Flood risk management strategies (FRMS)
The municipality of Assens would like to increase tourism and has many areas that can be developed for this purpose. However, it is important to incorporate protection for the area before developing it. At the same time, Assens is developing a vision for the future of the city, including protection without building a wall . Furthermore, the harbour is an important part of the town’s economy, so it has to be included in the shared vision (interview pilot manager, 2019).
The table below shows the FRM strategies that were considered before, during and after FRAMES.
| Layers of MLS | Before FRAMES | During FRAMES | After FRAMES |
| 1 Flood protection | Hard infrastructure: flood walls, dikes, and sluice gate (interview pilot manager, 2019) | Adjust the DAPP tool to help municipalities to prioritize the protection measures (dike or a pop up sea wall, a dune landscape, raise the terrain or the road) considering climate change combine with their vision for the city. Measures are included in the DAPP map (interview pilot manager, 2019) | The aim is to give municipalities the ownership of the Dynamic Planning approach in other projects and to adjust the flood risk management plans developed as part of the EU Floods Directive (interview pilot manager, 2019) |
| 2 Spatial adaptation | Adjust the DAPP tool to help municipalities prioritize spatial planning measures (flood the first floor, raise the terrain for new buildings or use poles) considering climate change combine with their vision for the city. Measures are included in the DAPP map to make the new construction areas flood proof (interview pilot manager, 2019) | The aim is to give municipalities the ownership of the Dynamic Planning approach in other projects and to adjust the flood risk management plans developed as part of the EU Floods Directive (interview pilot manager, 2019) | |
| 3 Preparedness and response | Adjust the DAPP tool to help municipalities prioritize emergency / response measures (evacuation plans, awareness raising campaigns, private local response team) considering climate change combine with their vision for the city. Measures are not included in the DAPP map, only in the action plan (interview pilot manager, 2019) | The aim is to give municipalities the ownership of the Dynamic Planning approach in other projects and to adjust their climate adaptation plans, development plans and, for some municipalities, their flood risk management plans developed as part of the EU Floods Directive(interview pilot manager, 2019) | |
| 4 Resilient recovery | Not the focus of this pilot | Not the focus of this pilot | Not the focus of this pilot |
Lessons learnt so far
- The Dynamic Planning approach is very helpful for municipalities to define and prioritize diverse flood risk management decisions related to flood protection, flood prevention via spatial planning and preparation & response when an event happens.
- When municipalities are taking decisions within different layers of MLS approach, the Dynamic Planning method could provide guidelines to prioritize these decisions.
- When testing the Dynamic Planning approach, it was discovered that it is difficult to include soft measures, such as emergency planning, in the map, because the map does not show the direct impact – the water will still be there, it is not a measure that prevents water from flowing in. This is considered in the process, but not in the map, so the visualization is not representative of all possible measures and it should thus be explained in the action plan.
- Different sources of flooding (river and storm surge) were also difficult to incorporate in the same dynamic measure map. Vejle experiences flooding from both the sea and the inland waters and both flood sources cannot be considered in one map. Moreover, not all the measures can reduce flood risks of both sources. The map only shows the measure having an impact on both systems in a positive way. The solution was to create two maps: one for every flood source.
- The participants expressed concerns about how to communicate dynamic measure maps and results from that to the policy makers (from the municipalities) as they are difficult to read and understand. The municipality chose to present the results in a more simplified version, not showing the dynamic measure maps, but showing the overall strategies identified from the maps. A different method, that can be used is to facilitate one-day workshop with local politicians on the different solution and doing an MCA, as an MCA is a known tool for many of them.
- This process of going through the steps in the dynamic planning process may be difficult for the municipalities to run by themselves..A specialist on the method with the right capacities is needed to moderate, guide and steer the process.
- There were uncertainties about the method itself because it was not tested before in assessing flood risk management strategies in the Danish context.
- The officials in the municipalities are often very busy, so running this process will need prioritization from management.
Dissemination and up-scaling of pilot results
The aim is to give municipalities ownership of this approach – they should engage in this process for flood risk management and climate adaptation. The DCA using some lessons learned from this method in their guideline for developing flood risk management plans for the EU Floods Directive. And the Dynamic Planning approach will be recommended true the guideline, meetings and newsletters with and to the municipalities. Up-scaling can also take place via workshops organized for other municipalities, where results are presented, explained and discussed.
Referenties
- Guide to dynamic planning Assens Vejle, Danish Coastal Authority, Danish Coastal Authority, 30 mei 2020.