PR 00274: verschil tussen versies

Geen bewerkingssamenvatting
Geen bewerkingssamenvatting
 
(74 tussenliggende versies door 5 gebruikers niet weergegeven)
Regel 1: Regel 1:
[[Bestand:Roadmap to resiliency.png|miniatuur|gecentreerd|600x600px]]
{{#set:Imagename=6_Frames_DSS_final_kleur.jpeg}}


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:
==== Decision support for resilient authorities working on MLS strategies ====
The uncertainty of climate change is a major challenge for flood managers to make robust decisions about flood management options in the North Sea Region countries. In addition, the governance settings of each country adds to the complexity of  joint decision making for climate change adaptation to increase flood resilience. A so-called decision support system, or DSS, can assist authorities to identify the best options to increase flood resilience in their region.


The DSS is an integrated framework harmonized with the National Adaptation Strategies of the FRAMES countries, to support authorities during their decision-making process concerning more diversified and balanced strategies for flood risk management in their region. 


====== '''1 What is the flood risk (sea, river, rainfall) and which are the flood risk challenges in your region?''' ======
The DSS has been jointly developed by the FRAMES consortium as a learning evaluation of the pilot activities; the experiences from all pilots have been integrated in the framework and local and regional contexts, climate, socio-economic, and hydraulic drivers were considered.  Via the learning evaluation in FRAMES relevant target groups for the DSS have been involved in the development: local/ regional/ national authorities from involved regions, infrastructure and (public) service providers, interest groups (NGOs) and higher education and research centres. Based on the interviews with pilot managers, transnational focus groups and monitoring of pilot outcomes, the DSS brings together the transnational learning and knowledge from 16 FRAMES pilots into the MLS approach. The lessons learnt were also translated into {{Cite|resource=Bestand:200407-frames policy recommendations a4 v4.pdf|name=policy recommendations|dialog=process-file-dialog}}. <imagemap>
''Typical challenges for areas:''
File:20200702 Frames DSS final kleur.jpg|center|900px|20200702 Frames DSS final kleur
* 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}}))
rect 756 984 1045 1128 [[LC 00262]]
* 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}})
rect 1575 571 2244 879 [[LC 00275]]
* 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}})
rect 62 573 696 877 [[LC 00239]]
* Pluvial flooding: surface water flooding
rect 756 426 1035 573 [[LC 00332]]
''When this is not clear, please make use of the following tools''
rect 1143 653 1430 798 [[LC 00329]]
* Flood risk maps delivered for the {{Cite|resource=Resource Hyperlink 00498|name=EU Flood Directive|dialog=process-linkwebsite-dialog}}
rect 1144 361 1429 499 [[LC 00291]]
* Pilots: Scenario’s and other forecasting techniques to define future challenges
rect 1820 1220 2000 1319 [[LC 00363]]
* 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}}
rect 290 1220 470 1319 [[LC 00363]]
''Discuss flood risk scenarios and define challenges for resilient areas and communities with relevant stakeholders''
rect 290 161 470 260 [[LC 00363]]
rect 1820 161 2000 260 [[LC 00363]]
rect 828 62 1460 359 [[LC 00292]]
rect 820 1129 1469 1410 [[LC 00289]]
rect 1143 876 1428 1005 [[LC 00330]]
rect 1577 882 1859 1000 [[LC 00303]]
</imagemap>''Figure 1: Decision Support System - click on the boxes to find out more.''




====== '''2 What is the emphasis of the current FRMS applied in your area?''' ======
====== In this DSS, we link the knowledge gained from the 16 pilot projects to the layers of the MLS approach. By '''clicking on the boxes in the figure above''', the following information will be provided: ======
* Apply multilevel and multi-actor to discuss regional flood risk management strategies
* A description of the action
* Multilevel: EU, national, regional, local
* The application of this action in FRAMES
* Multi-actor: government, private companies, NGOs, citizens.
* Inter-dependencies with other MLS actions
* Lessons learnt in FRAMES
* Relevant adaptive capacities
* Tools applied in FRAMES
Based on the experience in FRAMES, the highlighted actions in the DSS framework provide:
* Authorities responsible for flood resilience: an overview and relevant knowledge in exploring a variety of MLS actions for enhancing FRM strategies.
* National/regional authorities: support for regional/local authorities in the adaptive planning of their area, taking into account climate change uncertainties and flood proof design and planning of spatial investments.
* Local and regional authorities: the possibility to conduct area based studies and explore additional actions to fine tune FRM strategies in their area or catchment.
* NGOs involved in natural flood management (NFM) and community resilience: the possibility to align their activities with mainstream FRM strategies
* NGOs and interest groups: strategies and tools to empower local communities to have a voice in FRM.
* Infrastructure and service providers: a position in the field of flood resilience.
* Higher education and research centres: available knowledge and cases on diversification of FRM and flood resilience.
Note that these actions, links and insights are the outcome of the pilot projects of the specific regions selected for FRAMES. Using this DSS for other regions will provide more insight into the possibilities and linkages of the MLS approach, but the exact recipe for successfully implementing MLS measures in other regions requires additional information about the governance context, the current flood risk management strategies, current and future flood scenarios and socio-economic development.


 
''For questions, remarks or other comments, feel free to contact the researchers of the HZ University of Applied Sciences by clicking {{External link|resource=Resource Hyperlink 00712|name=here|dialog=process-linkwebsite-dialog}}.''
 
====== '''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
{| class="wikitable" style="font-size: 80%"
|
!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
''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
|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
 
''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
|
|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,  De
 
nder,  W’ marsch,  Sloe, A’waard
|-
|''Involving commu
 
nities 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?''' ======
* Interviews will reveal lessons learnt
* Analyse the enternal/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)
|Keeping 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
* Roadmap 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
|Name=Decision Support System
|Supercontext=PR 00069
|Supercontext=PR 00069
|Project type=Standaard
|Topcontext=PR 00069
|Topcontext=PR 00069
|Name=Decision Support System
|Start date=2016/10/01
|Start date=2016/10/01
|End date=2020/04/30
|End date=2020/04/30
|Summary=A road map with 10 questions to help involved authorities identify how governance relates to the resilience of flood prone areas.
|Summary=A road map to help involved authorities identify how governance relates to the resilience of flood prone areas.
|Show summary=Nee
|Show summary=Nee
|Show navigation tree=Nee
|Show extra=Nee
|Show navigation tree=Ja
|Show new page button=Nee
|Show new page button=Nee
|Show sub projects=Nee
|Show sub projects=Nee
Regel 353: Regel 60:
|Show sources=Nee
|Show sources=Nee
|Is homepage=Nee
|Is homepage=Nee
|Show edit button=Ja
|Show edit button=Nee
|Show VE button=Ja
|Show VE button=Ja
|Show sidebar=Nee
|Show sidebar=Nee
|Show category label=Nee
|Show category label=Nee
|Show title=Ja
|Show title=Ja
|Project type=Standaard
}}
}}

Huidige versie van 30 mei 2024 om 09:51


Decision support for resilient authorities working on MLS strategies

The uncertainty of climate change is a major challenge for flood managers to make robust decisions about flood management options in the North Sea Region countries. In addition, the governance settings of each country adds to the complexity of  joint decision making for climate change adaptation to increase flood resilience. A so-called decision support system, or DSS, can assist authorities to identify the best options to increase flood resilience in their region.

The DSS is an integrated framework harmonized with the National Adaptation Strategies of the FRAMES countries, to support authorities during their decision-making process concerning more diversified and balanced strategies for flood risk management in their region.

The DSS has been jointly developed by the FRAMES consortium as a learning evaluation of the pilot activities; the experiences from all pilots have been integrated in the framework and local and regional contexts, climate, socio-economic, and hydraulic drivers were considered.  Via the learning evaluation in FRAMES relevant target groups for the DSS have been involved in the development: local/ regional/ national authorities from involved regions, infrastructure and (public) service providers, interest groups (NGOs) and higher education and research centres. Based on the interviews with pilot managers, transnational focus groups and monitoring of pilot outcomes, the DSS brings together the transnational learning and knowledge from 16 FRAMES pilots into the MLS approach. The lessons learnt were also translated into policy recommendations. 

LC 00262LC 00275LC 00239LC 00332LC 00329LC 00291LC 00363LC 00363LC 00363LC 00363LC 00292LC 00289LC 00330LC 0030320200702 Frames DSS final kleur
Over deze afbeelding

Figure 1: Decision Support System - click on the boxes to find out more.


In this DSS, we link the knowledge gained from the 16 pilot projects to the layers of the MLS approach. By clicking on the boxes in the figure above, the following information will be provided:
  • A description of the action
  • The application of this action in FRAMES
  • Inter-dependencies with other MLS actions
  • Lessons learnt in FRAMES
  • Relevant adaptive capacities
  • Tools applied in FRAMES

Based on the experience in FRAMES, the highlighted actions in the DSS framework provide:

  • Authorities responsible for flood resilience: an overview and relevant knowledge in exploring a variety of MLS actions for enhancing FRM strategies.
  • National/regional authorities: support for regional/local authorities in the adaptive planning of their area, taking into account climate change uncertainties and flood proof design and planning of spatial investments.
  • Local and regional authorities: the possibility to conduct area based studies and explore additional actions to fine tune FRM strategies in their area or catchment.
  • NGOs involved in natural flood management (NFM) and community resilience: the possibility to align their activities with mainstream FRM strategies
  • NGOs and interest groups: strategies and tools to empower local communities to have a voice in FRM.
  • Infrastructure and service providers: a position in the field of flood resilience.
  • Higher education and research centres: available knowledge and cases on diversification of FRM and flood resilience.

Note that these actions, links and insights are the outcome of the pilot projects of the specific regions selected for FRAMES. Using this DSS for other regions will provide more insight into the possibilities and linkages of the MLS approach, but the exact recipe for successfully implementing MLS measures in other regions requires additional information about the governance context, the current flood risk management strategies, current and future flood scenarios and socio-economic development.

For questions, remarks or other comments, feel free to contact the researchers of the HZ University of Applied Sciences by clicking here.































Referenties


Onderwerpen

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

Blijf op de hoogte!

Meld je aan voor onze nieuwsbrief:

Aanmelden

Copyright 2024 HZ Kenniscentrum Kusttoerisme | Disclaimer | Cookieverklaring | Privacyverklaring

Overgenomen van "https://acpt.projectenportfolio.hz.nl/wiki/index.php?title=PR_00274&oldid=100227"