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 | ||
''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 | |'''Area context''' | ||
|'''Governance context | ''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
|
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