PR 00274: verschil tussen versies
Geen bewerkingssamenvatting |
Geen bewerkingssamenvatting |
||
Regel 110: | Regel 110: | ||
* 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.'' | ''Table 3: examples of some pilots on how the diversification of the governance context applies to action.'' | ||
{| class="wikitable" style="font-size: 80%" | {| class="wikitable" style="font-size: 80%" | ||
Regel 116: | Regel 117: | ||
!Area context | !Area context | ||
''Coastal/ Fluvial/Pluvial'' | ''Coastal/ Fluvial/Pluvial'' | ||
!Governance context | !Governance context'Low/Medium/High diversification | ||
!Pilots | !Pilots | ||
|- | |- | ||
Regel 129: | Regel 130: | ||
|P | |P | ||
|M / H | |M / H | ||
|Great | |Great Yarmouth | ||
|- | |- | ||
|''Lowering flood risk for communities via nature based solutions upstream'' | |''Lowering flood risk for communities via nature based solutions upstream'' | ||
Regel 135: | Regel 136: | ||
|F / P | |F / P | ||
|H | |H | ||
|Medway, Lustrum Beck, Southwell | |{{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'' | |''Realizing a flood proof critical infrastructure'' | ||
Regel 141: | Regel 142: | ||
|C / F/ P | |C / F/ P | ||
|L / M / H | |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'' | |''Limit cascade-effects of critical infrastructure failure'' | ||
Regel 147: | Regel 148: | ||
|C / F/ P | |C / F/ P | ||
|H | |H | ||
|Reimerswaal | |{{Internal link|link=LC 00410|name=Reimerswaal|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}} | ||
|- | |- | ||
|''Integrate emergency response planning in flood risk management (and vice versa)'' | |''Integrate emergency response planning in flood risk management (and vice versa)'' | ||
Regel 153: | Regel 154: | ||
|C / F/ P | |C / F/ P | ||
|M / H | |M / H | ||
|Wesermarsch, Kent, Sloe | |{{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'' | |''Improve strategies for preventive evacuation'' | ||
Regel 159: | Regel 160: | ||
|C / F | |C / F | ||
|L / M / H | |L / M / H | ||
|Alblasserwaard, Reimerswaal, Sloe | |{{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)'' | |''Develop alternative evacuation strategies (safe haven, shelters, vertical evacuation)'' | ||
Regel 165: | Regel 166: | ||
|C / F/ P | |C / F/ P | ||
|M / H | |M / H | ||
|Sloe, Alblasserwaard, Dender, Wesermarsch | |{{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'' | |''Raising awareness for flood resilience measures'' | ||
Regel 171: | Regel 172: | ||
|C / F/ P | |C / F/ P | ||
|L / M / H | |L / M / H | ||
|Pilots in the UK, Dender, Wesermarsch, Sloe, Alblasserwaard | |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'' | |''Involving communities in flood resilience measures'' | ||
Regel 177: | Regel 178: | ||
|C / F/ P | |C / F/ P | ||
|M / H | |M / H | ||
|Sloe | |{{Internal link|link=LC 00289|name=Sloe|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}} | ||
|- | | | ||
- | |||
|''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 | ||
|H | |H | ||
|Wesermarsch, pilots in the UK, Dender | |{{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'' | |''Apply adaptive planning to define pathways for diversified flood risk management strategies'' | ||
Regel 189: | Regel 192: | ||
|C / F/ P | |C / F/ P | ||
|L / M / H | |L / M / H | ||
|Pilots in Denmark, Kent, Dender, Alblasserwaard | |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?''' ====== | ====== '''6 What is the impact of potential (spatial) actions on systems and sectors in the region?''' ====== |
Versie van 16 okt 2019 11:26
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:
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 Denmark and the Netherlands (Flood proof electricity grid, Reimerswaal and Sloe))
- Fluvial flooding and coastal flooding/influence (Alblasserwaard, Wesermarsch)
- Fluvial flooding (see the pilots in the UK and the pilots in Belgium)
- 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: Scenarios 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 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 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?
- 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 Denderleeuw in Belgium, where spatial planning for the valley was envisioned)
- Adaptive planning (in Denmark, for instance, the DAPP approach was used)
- Interview decision-makers to gain insight in how they define the desired situation
Table 2: examples of desired situation in several pilots.
Kent (UK) | Vejle (DK) | Wesermarsch (GE) | Alblasserwaard (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 | Denderleeuw, pilots in Denmark, Kent and Reimerswaal | ||||||
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 | 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 | Wesermarsch, Kent, Sloe | ||||||
Improve strategies for preventive evacuation | 1, 2, 3 | C / F | L / M / H | Alblasserwaard, Reimerswaal, Sloe | ||||||
Develop alternative evacuation strategies (safe haven, shelters, vertical evacuation) | 3, 4 | C / F/ P | M / H | Sloe, Alblasserwaard, Dender, Wesermarsch | ||||||
Raising awareness for flood resilience measures | 3 | C / F/ P | L / M / H | Pilots in the UK, Dender, Wesermarsch, Sloe, Alblasserwaard | ||||||
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 | Wesermarsch, pilots in the UK, Dender |
Apply adaptive planning to define pathways for diversified flood risk management strategies | 1, 2, 3, 4 | C / F/ P | L / M / H | Pilots in Denmark, Kent, Dender, Alblasserwaard |
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,
| |
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 (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) | 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