LC 00287: verschil tussen versies

Versie van 2 jun 2020 12:43

Specific outcomes Vejle

An adjusted approach for dynamic planning resulting in a dynamic measure map for Vejle
A Multi-Criteria-Assesment for Vejle
Action plans for Vejle

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. Furthermore the action plan made for implementing the chosen pathways are valuable for the municipality and there further proces, where they are using the result in their Storm Surge Strategy.

In the video below, the lessons learnt and outcomes of this pilot are summarized:

General outcomes pilots for Denmark

An adjusted method for dynamic planning for flood risk management for Danish municipalities
A methodology report on the project
A guide on how to do the Dynamic Planning Process in the Danish municipalities

Flood risk management strategies (FRMS)

Vejle is facing many climate change uncertainties related to flood risk. In this project, the Danish Coastal Authority are facilitating a process for the Municipality of Vejle to help them identify the best measures for robust flood risk management for the city of Vejle. The focus lies both on short- and long-term planning and how this may lead to more flexible and robust solutions to the current and future challenges in the pilot (interview pilot manager, 2019).

Measures and instruments for flood risk management in relation to the MLS:

Layers of MLS	Before FRAMES	During FRAMES	After FRAMES
Protection/ defense	Hard infrastructure: flood walls, dikes, and sluice gate (interview pilot manager, 2019)	Adjust the DAPP tool to help municipalities to prioritize the protection measures (open storm surge barrier together with the sluice, recreation protection wall, protection wall where buildings can be built, raising terrain) 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 DAPP approach in other projects and to adjust the flood risk management plans developed as part of the EU Floods Directive.
Pro-action/ prevention via spatial planning	The old town is not flood proofed and is located within the flood plain. No pro-active spatial planning nor land use policies favoring keeping people away from water is present (interview pilot manager, 2018).	Adjust the DAPP tool to help municipalities to 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 DAPP approach in other projects and to adjust the flood risk management plans developed as part of the EU Floods Directive.
Preparation & response	Due to being identified as an APSFR in the EU Floods Directive , the municipality already has developed emergency response plans. This plan is continuously evaluated.They do not have an evacuation plan. They have implemented an early warning system in case of floods, high water level, extreme precipitation cloud burst and fluvial flow. Messages are sent out by text message, facebook and local radio (interview pilot manager, 2018)	Adjust the DAPP tool to help municipalities to 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 DAPP approachin 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
Recovery	The municipality currently has no plan in place concerning recovery. They do however secure critical infrastructure and in some instances pump excessive water. A dialog with affected locals occur after the event (interview pilot manager, 2018)	This is not considered in this pilot	This is not considered in this pilot

Lessons learnt

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 DAPP 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.

@@ Regel 1: / Regel 1: @@
-=== Specific outcomes ===
+=== Specific outcomes Vejle ===
-* A adjusted DAPP approach resulting in a DAPP  map for Vejle, along with an explanation / examples of each step taken.
+* An adjusted approach for dynamic planning resulting in a dynamic measure map for Vejle
 * A Multi-Criteria-Assesment for Vejle
 * Action plans for Vejle
 ==== Process results ====
-The maps are not the only valuable product – the discussions that took place during the process towards creating the maps is as valuable, if not more so, than the maps: the different departments realized the similarities and dissimilarities between them, and are trying to find common ground.
+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. Furthermore the action plan made for implementing the chosen pathways are valuable for the municipality and there further proces, where they are using the result in their {{External link|resource=Resource Hyperlink 00765|name=Storm Surge Strategy|dialog=process-linkwebsite-dialog}}.
 In the video below, the lessons learnt and outcomes of this pilot are summarized:
 {{#widget:YouTube|id=u_8ipPU1KVg}}
+==== General outcomes pilots for Denmark ====
+* An adjusted method for dynamic planning for flood risk management for Danish municipalities
+* A methodology report on the project
+* A guide on how to do the Dynamic Planning Process in the Danish municipalities
 === Flood risk management strategies (FRMS) ===
-In Denmark, most of the cities are located at high risk areas. Flood risk awareness is low because devastating floods did not happen for a long time. The most recent big flood was in 1872. Vejle is facing many climate change uncertainties  related to flood risk. The Municipality of Vejle and the Danish coastal authority are working together to find out what are the best preventive measures in the long term and to plan for it. The focus lies on long-term planning and how this may lead to more flexible and robust solutions to the current and future challenges in the pilot (interview pilot manager, 2019).
+Vejle is facing many climate change uncertainties  related to flood risk. In this project, the Danish Coastal Authority are facilitating a process for the Municipality of Vejle to help them identify the best measures for robust flood risk management for the city of Vejle.  The focus lies both on short- and long-term planning and how this may lead to more flexible and robust solutions to the current and future challenges in the pilot (interview pilot manager, 2019).
 Measures and instruments for flood risk management in relation to the MLS:
@@ Regel 24: / Regel 29: @@
 |Hard infrastructure: flood  walls, dikes, and sluice gate (interview pilot manager, 2019)
 |Adjust the DAPP tool to  help municipalities to prioritize the protection measures (open storm surge  barrier together with the sluice, recreation protection wall, protection wall  where buildings can be built, raising terrain) 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 to use the DAPP approach in other projects  and to adjust the flood risk management plans based on the EU flood directive  (interview pilot manager, 2019)
+|The aim is to give  municipalities the ownership of  the DAPP approach in other projects  and to adjust the flood risk management plans developed as part of the EU Floods Directive.
 |-
 |'''''Pro-action/  prevention'''''
@@ Regel 30: / Regel 35: @@
 '''''via spatial  planning'''''
 |The old town is not flood proofed and is located  within the flood plain. No pro-active spatial planning nor land use policies  favoring keeping people away from water is present (interview pilot manager,  2018).
-|Adjust the DAPP tool to  help municipalities to prioritize spatial planning measures (flood the first  floor, raise the terrain for new buildings or use stick) 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)
+|Adjust the DAPP tool to  help municipalities to 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 to use the DAPP approach in other projects  and to adjust the flood risk management plans based on the EU flood  directive.
+|The aim is to give  municipalities the ownership of  the DAPP approach in other projects  and to adjust the flood risk management plans developed as part of the EU Floods Directive.
-DAPP provides support for  funding urban development plans (interview pilot manager, 2019)
 |-
 |'''''Preparation  & response'''''
-|Due to being appointed in the EU Floods Directive  as a Risk area, the municipality already has developed emergency response  plans. This plan is continuously reevaluated. It is unknown whether they have  a an evacuation plan. They have implemented an early warning system in case  of floods, high water level, extreme precipitation cloud burst and fluvial  flow. Messages are sent out by text message, facebook and local radio  (interview pilot manager, 2018)
+|Due to being identified as an APSFR in the EU Floods Directive , the municipality already has developed emergency response  plans. This plan is continuously evaluated.They do not have an evacuation plan. They have implemented an early warning system in case  of floods, high water level, extreme precipitation cloud burst and fluvial  flow. Messages are sent out by text message, facebook and local radio  (interview pilot manager, 2018)
 |Adjust the DAPP tool to  help municipalities to 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 to use the DAPP approach in other projects  and to adjust the flood risk management plans based on the EU flood directive  (interview pilot manager, 2019)
+|The aim is to give  municipalities the ownership of  the DAPP approachin 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
 |-
 |'''''Recovery'''''
@@ Regel 49: / Regel 53: @@
 === Lessons learnt  ===
-* The DAPP 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.
+* 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 DAPP method could provide guidelines to prioritize these decisions.
+* 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 DAPP 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.
+* 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 approach. 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 DAPP 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 risk type.
+* 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 DAPP 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 results to the policy makers (from the municipalities) and if they would be able to understand them correctly. A solution to facilitate the understanding of the results is to combine the maps with the MCA, because this is an already known phenomenon for them. A one-day workshop with local politicians should be enough to discuss/define the weighting criteria of the MCA. This is a way to make them feel part of the process from the beginning. The DCA does not have direct experience working with local politicians, only with the policy makers from the Ministry of Environment and Food.
+* 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.
-* Another challenge with the politicians is that the end product sent to them is very different from the initial one because it goes through many different departments and people. The DCA experienced that with writing something to the Department of Environment and Food which goes up to the Minister.
+* 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.
-* This process of going through the DAPP steps cannot simply be repeated by the DCA in other municipalities. Thus, a specialist on the method with the right capacities is needed to moderate, guide and steer the process. This could be someone from the DCA, but only if there is sufficient funding.
-* The storm surge barrier proposed as measure is very expensive, the municipality needs funding to implement it.
 * There were uncertainties about the method itself because it was not tested before in assessing flood risk management strategies in the Danish context.
-* There are uncertainties surrounding sharing/communicating the results of the map. The maps and messages are clear for stakeholders from the Municipality of Vejle participating in the workshop, the ones who were explained the approach and actively worked towards the final products. The question is if  others will intuitively understand what the maps are showing.
+* The officials in the municipalities are often very busy, so running this process will need prioritization from management.
-* Flood risk is not high on the Danish political agendas, so it has proven difficult to get local politicians and decision-makers engaged in the issue. An issue with implementation and up-scaling of the DAPP approach can be time and money though: someone has to at least clear seven days in his/her agenda per area to prepare this.
 === Dissemination and up-scaling of pilot results ===
-The aim is to give municipalities  ownership of this approach – they should engage on flood risk issues with their local politicians. The most efficient way to do this, would be to integrate the DAPP method into the current flood risk management plans. For instance, the DCA is making guidelines for the municipalities to adjust the flood risk management plans based on the EU Floods Directive. Thus, the DAPP method can be recommended in these guidelines However, this cannot be enforced, only recommended. Up-scaling can also take place via workshops organized for other municipalities, where results are presented, explained and discussed. To do so, an expert with the knowledge and experience on the DAPP approach is needed to guide municipalities throughout the process.
+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