Project outcomes and beyond
Specific outcomes
- A adjusted DAPP approach resulting in a DAPP map for Vejle, along with an explanation / examples of each step taken.
- An MCA 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.
In the video below, the lessons learnt and outcomes of this pilot are summarized:
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).
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 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) |
| 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 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) | 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.
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) | 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) |
| 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 so far
- 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.
- When municipalities are taking decisions within different layers of MLS approach, the DAPP 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 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.
- 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.