|
|
Regel 2: |
Regel 2: |
|
| |
|
| FRAMES' Decision Support System, or DSS, can be used as a road map to help involved authorities identify how governance relates to the resilience of flood prone areas by answering the following 10 questions: | | FRAMES' Decision Support System, or DSS, can be used as a road map to help involved authorities identify how governance relates to the resilience of flood prone areas by answering the following 10 questions: |
| | # What is the flood risk (sea, river, rainfall) and which are the flood risk challenges in your region? |
| | # What is the emphasis of the current Flood Risk Management Strategy (FRMS) applied in your area? |
| | # How is flood risk management organized in my country? |
| | # What is the desired situation in relation to the flood risk challenges for the region? |
| | # What are potential MLS-actions to enhance the flood resilience of your region? |
| | # What is the impact of potential (spatial) actions on systems and sectors in the region? |
| | # Who should be involved and what level should participation be? |
| | # How can the implementation process for MLS-pilots be organized? |
| | # 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? |
| | # Which capacities are key to foster adaptation towards a more diversified flood risk management strategy? |
|
| |
|
|
| |
| ====== '''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 (see the pilots in {{Internal link|link=FR_Country_00004|name=Denmark|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}} and the Netherlands ({{Internal link|link=FR PLT PR 00006|name=Flood proof electricity grid|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}, {{Internal link|link=FR PLT PR 00002|name=Reimerswaal|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}} and {{Internal link|link=FR PLT PR 00003|name=Sloe|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}))
| |
| * Fluvial flooding and coastal flooding/influence ({{Internal link|link=FR PLT PR 00004|name=Alblasserwaard|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}, {{Internal link|link=FR PLT PR 00009|name=Wesermarsch|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}})
| |
| * Fluvial flooding (see the {{Internal link|link=LC 00288|name=pilots in the UK|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}} and the {{Internal link|link=FR_Country_00002|name=pilots in Belgium|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}})
| |
| * Pluvial flooding: surface water flooding
| |
| ''When this is not clear, please make use of the following tools''
| |
| * Flood risk maps delivered for the {{Cite|resource=Resource Hyperlink 00498|name=EU Flood Directive|dialog=process-linkwebsite-dialog}}
| |
| * Pilots: Scenarios and other forecasting techniques to define future challenges
| |
| * Pilots: {{External link|resource=Resource Hyperlink 00559|name=IPCC reports|dialog=process-linkwebsite-dialog}} and {{External link|resource=Resource Hyperlink 00560|name=national adaptation strategies|dialog=process-linkwebsite-dialog}}
| |
| ''Discuss flood risk scenarios and define challenges for resilient areas and communities with relevant stakeholders''
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| ====== '''2 What is the emphasis of the current Flood Risk Management Strategy (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 {{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" style="font-size: 80%"
| |
| !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?''' ======
| |
| * Scenarios: look into different types of flood risk scenarios and consider what this would mean for the area
| |
| * Area visions (see for instance the pilot {{Internal link|link=FR PLT PR 00011|name=Denderleeuw|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}} in Belgium, where spatial planning for the valley was envisioned)
| |
| * Adaptive planning (in {{Internal link|link=FR_Country_00004|name=Denmark|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}, for instance, the {{External link|resource=Resource Hyperlink 00561|name=DAPP approach|dialog=process-linkwebsite-dialog}} was used)
| |
| * Interview decision-makers to gain insight in how they define the desired situation
| |
| ''Table 2: examples of desired situation in several pilots.''
| |
| {| class="wikitable" style="font-size: 80%"
| |
| |
| |
| !{{Internal link|link=LC 00031|name=Kent|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}} (UK)
| |
| !{{Internal link|link=FR PLT PR 00008|name=Vejle|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}} (DK)
| |
| !{{Internal link|link=LC 00416|name=Wesermarsch|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}} (GE)
| |
| !{{Internal link|link=LC 00270|name=Alblasserwaard|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}} (NL)
| |
| !{{Internal link|link=LC 00410|name=Reimerswaa|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}l (NL)
| |
| !{{Internal link|link=LC 00271|name=Denderleeuw|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}} (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.''
| |
| {| class="wikitable" style="font-size: 80%"
| |
| !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
| |
| |{{Internal link|link=LC 00172|name=Denderleeuw|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}, pilots in {{Internal link|link=FR Country 00004|name=Denmark|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}, {{Internal link|link=FR PLT PR 00005|name=Kent|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}} and {{Internal link|link=FR PLT PR 00002|name=Reimerswaal|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}
| |
| |-
| |
| |''Reducing surface flood risk from extreme rainfall via increasing storage capacity in private and public space''
| |
| |2, 3
| |
| |P
| |
| |M / H
| |
| |Great Yarmouth
| |
| |-
| |
| |''Lowering flood risk for communities via nature based solutions upstream''
| |
| |2, 3
| |
| |F / P
| |
| |H
| |
| |{{Internal link|link=FR PLT PR 00016|name=Medway|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}, {{Internal link|link=LC 00261|name=Lustrum Beck|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}, {{Internal link|link=LC 00262|name=Southwell|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}
| |
| |-
| |
| |''Realizing a flood proof critical infrastructure''
| |
| |1, 2
| |
| |C / F/ P
| |
| |L / M / H
| |
| |{{Internal link|link=LC 00274|name=Reimerswaa|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}l, {{Internal link|link=LC 00225|name=Electricity Grid|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}
| |
| |-
| |
| |''Limit cascade-effects of critical infrastructure failure''
| |
| |4
| |
| |C / F/ P
| |
| |H
| |
| |{{Internal link|link=LC 00410|name=Reimerswaal|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}
| |
| |-
| |
| |''Integrate emergency response planning in flood risk management (and vice versa)''
| |
| |1, 2, 3
| |
| |C / F/ P
| |
| |M / H
| |
| |{{Internal link|link=LC 00416|name=Wesermarsch|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}, {{Internal link|link=LC 00031|name=Kent|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}, {{Internal link|link=FR PLT PR 00003|name=Sloe|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}
| |
| |-
| |
| |''Improve strategies for preventive evacuation''
| |
| |1, 2, 3
| |
| |C / F
| |
| |L / M / H
| |
| |{{Internal link|link=LC 00270|name=Alblasserwaard|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}, {{Internal link|link=LC 00274|name=Reimerswaal|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}, {{Internal link|link=FR PLT PR 00003|name=Sloe|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}
| |
| |-
| |
| |''Develop alternative evacuation strategies (safe haven, shelters, vertical evacuation)''
| |
| |3, 4
| |
| |C / F/ P
| |
| |M / H
| |
| |{{Internal link|link=FR PLT PR 00003|name=Sloe|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}, {{Internal link|link=LC 00270|name=Alblasserwaard|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}, {{Internal link|link=LC 00271|name=Dender|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}, {{Internal link|link=LC 00416|name=Wesermarsch|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}
| |
| |-
| |
| |''Raising awareness for flood resilience measures''
| |
| |3
| |
| |C / F/ P
| |
| |L / M / H
| |
| |Pilots in the {{Internal link|link=FR Country 00006|name=UK|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}, {{Internal link|link=LC 00271|name=Dender|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}, {{Internal link|link=LC 00416|name=Wesermarsch|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}, {{Internal link|link=LC 00275|name=Sloe|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}, {{Internal link|link=LC 00276|name=Alblasserwaard|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}
| |
| |-
| |
| |''Involving communities in flood resilience measures''
| |
| |3
| |
| |C / F/ P
| |
| |M / H
| |
| |{{Internal link|link=LC 00289|name=Sloe|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}
| |
| |-
| |
| |''Empower communities, including households an
| |
|
| |
| d businesses to take measures themselves (self-reliance)''
| |
| |3, 4
| |
| |C / F/ P
| |
| |H
| |
| |{{Internal link|link=LC 00291|name=Wesermarsch|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}, pilots in the {{Internal link|link=LC 00292|name=UK|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}, {{Internal link|link=LC 00293|name=Dender|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}
| |
| |-
| |
| |''Apply adaptive planning to define pathways for diversified flood risk management strategies''
| |
| |1, 2, 3, 4
| |
| |C / F/ P
| |
| |L / M / H
| |
| |Pilots in {{Internal link|link=FR Country 00004|name=Denmark|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}, {{Internal link|link=LC 00294|name=Kent|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}, {{Internal link|link=LC 00301|name=Dender|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}, {{Internal link|link=FR PLT PR 00004|name=Alblasserwaard|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}
| |
| |}
| |
|
| |
| ====== '''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.''
| |
| {| class="wikitable" style="font-size: 80%"
| |
| !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
| |
| |
| |
| |Wemarsch, Kent, Sloe
| |
| |-
| |
| |''Improve strategies for preventive evacua
| |
|
| |
| tion''
| |
| |1,
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| 2, 3
| |
| |Crisis management, healthcare
| |
|
| |
| , society, flood protection and spatial planning
| |
| |
| |
| |Alblasserwaard, Reimerswaal, Sloe
| |
| |-
| |
| |''Develop alternative evacuation strategies (safe haven, shelters, vertical evacuation)''
| |
| |3, 4
| |
| |Crisis management, healthcare, soc
| |
|
| |
| iety, flood protection and spatial planning
| |
| |
| |
| |Sloe; Ablasserwaard
| |
|
| |
| ;
| |
|
| |
| Dender; Wesermarsch
| |
| |-
| |
| |''Raising awareness for flood resilience measures''
| |
| |3
| |
|
| |
| |Society, economy, land use
| |
| |
| |
| |Pilots in the UK, Dender, Wesermarsch, Sloe, Alblasserwaard
| |
| |-
| |
| |''Involving com
| |
|
| |
| munities 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
| |
| |
| |
| |Wesermarsch, pilots in the 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
| |
| |
| |
| |Pilots in Denmark, Kent, Dender, Alblasserwaard
| |
| |}
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| ====== '''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 (pilots in the 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?''' ======
| |
| * Interviews will reveal lessons learnt
| |
| * Analyse the internal/external success factors and barriers in the implementation of pilots and up-scaling; see table 5 below.
| |
| ''Table 5: conditions for successful pilots and conditions for uptake ({{Cite|resource=Resource Hyperlink 00558|name=Van Buuren et al., 2018|dialog=process-linkwebsite-dialog}}).''
| |
| {| class="wikitable" style="font-size: 80%"
| |
| !Element
| |
| !Conditions for successful pilots
| |
| !Conditions for uptake
| |
| |-
| |
| |''Position of the pilot''
| |
| |At a distance from home bases (freedom to explore novel ideas)
| |
| |Stay connected: conscious strategy to create normative congruence
| |
| |-
| |
| |''Resource distribution''
| |
| |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
| |
| * Road map for capacity building for pilots to become successful working on diversified FRM
| |
| ''Make sure to interview decision-makers about adaptive capacities''
| |
| {{Project config}} | | {{Project config}} |
| {{Project | | {{Project |