PR 00274

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?

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

Referenties

• FRAMES: Policy recommendations for an integrated approach to flood management, FRAMES, FRAMES, 31 maart 2020.

HZ Kenniscentrum Kusttoerisme
Edisonweg 4
Postbus 364
4380 AJ Vlissingen
kenniscentrumtoerisme@hz.nl

• linkedin
• facebook

Blijf op de hoogte!

Meld je aan voor onze nieuwsbrief:

Aanmelden

Copyright 2024 HZ Kenniscentrum Kusttoerisme | Disclaimer | Cookieverklaring | Privacyverklaring