Decision Support System
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 an
d 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