UFM: Urban Flood Management

Transcription

Internationaal Leren met Water
Urban Flood Management
Managing residual flood risk in the urban environment: linking
spatial planning, risk assessment, communication and policy
Deel 0 Contact data
Projectnummer (niet invullen)
Verkorte titel van het project
(max. 25 karakters)
Volledige titel van het project (NL)
Volledige titel van het project (ENG)
Penvoerder namens het consortium:
• Organisatie
• Contactpersoon
• Postadres, postcode, woonplaats
• Telefoon (doorkiesnummer)
• E-mail adres
Urban Flood Management (UFM)
n.v.t.
Urban Flood Management:
Managing residual flood risk in the urban environment:
linking spatial planning, risk assessment, communication
and policy
Gemeente Dordrecht
Ellen Kelder
Spuiboulevard 300, 3300 AA, Dordrecht
+31 78 639 6461
[email protected]
Page 1 of 37
19/4/06
Number
1 (C)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Region
DOR
DOR
DOR
DOR
DOR
DOR
DOR
DOR
HAM
LON
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Name
City of Dordrecht
Waterboard Hollandse Delta
Rijkswaterstaat
Province of Zuid-Holland
Dura Vermeer Group
WL Delft Hydraulics
Progrez
UNESCO IHE
Technische Universität Hamburg-Harburgh
Environment Agency
Partners of related international chapters
Number
Region
Name
Behörde für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt Freie
HAM
Hansestadt Hamburg
HAM
HafenCity Universität Hamburg
HAM
Björnsen Beratende Ingenieure GmbH
LON
Greater London Authority
LON
TGW development corporation
LON
TGW London Partnership
LON
London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
LON
London fire & emergency planning authority
Page 2 of 37
Short name
COD
WSHD
RWS
PZH
DVG
WL
Prog
IHE
TUHH
EA
Short name
BSU
HCUD
BBI
GLA
TDC
TLP
LBBD
LFE
19/4/06
Summary
The Dutch have a long tradition of structural defences against flood disasters. To a lesser extent
the same holds true for the Germans and the English. There is a growing recognition that these
structural solutions alone may not be the optimal response to control future flood disasters.
Moreover, there is an increasing awareness that societal developments such as rapid
urbanisation and global climatic changes increase flood risks and thus call for long-term planning
strategies to manage these risks, in which sustainable water management is an important guiding
principle in the planning process. Areas of specific concern are the vulnerable, rapid growing ‘hot
spots’ in deltaic and coastal regions such as London metropolis (e.g. the Thames Gateway), the
Hamburg-region and the historical centre and it’s borders of the city Dordrecht.
Adoption of and effective implementation of flood risk management into urban planning practices
is hampered by the following main factors (International Expert Meeting UFM, 2004):
• Lack of understanding current and future risks and implications: flood frequency is likely to
increase during lifetime buildings
• lack of long-term planning, poor integrated and comprehensive planning
• inadequate steering role local and regional authorities conservative nature of the building
sector
1
In a special international session of ISFD3 (Nijmegen, May 2005) on UFM, which was organised
by the Netherlands Water Partnership and the Living with Water program, an initiative was
launched for a joint action between London (Thames Gateway), Hamburg and Dordrecht. These
cities share in part similar challenges such as envisaged or planned (re)development activities
and expansions in flood-prone outskirts and recognize the need for new planning approaches to
manage actual and future (residual) flood risks in these areas.
This proposal is the outcome of the abovementioned joint action that was brought further during a
‘definition and feasibility phase’ co-funded by LMW. From November 2005 to April 2006 the UFM
consortium partners enjoyed valuable exchange of experiences and knowledge resulting in the
attached report. The partners have confirmed their common challenges, alignment of interests,
and obtained: the (financial) commitment of Dutch partners, commitment of German and English
consortia, approval of RIMAX (BMBF) and initial interest of Interreg. The UFM initiative has
proven relevant and feasible and the framework and conditions for a European umbrella research
project were created.
The initiative consists of various national chapters (Dutch, German and English), which will be
2
scientifically steered and supervised by COST C22 (Urban Flood Management) . This proposal
presents the outline of the Dutch part of the umbrella. It aims at the development and
implementation (verification) of UFM strategies and methodologies in the city of Dordrecht.
Additionally, based on these unique experiences, UFM will contribute actively to national and
European policy making, such as input for the EU Flood Directive.
nd
This proposal requests LMW to co-fund the Dutch part of this 2 phase with 325k Euro. The
German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) already approved the German part in the
framework of their RIMAX programme.
1
International Symposium on Flood Defence, 25-27 May, 2005, Nijmegen
COST (European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research) Action C22
involves about 80 scientists from 15 European Member States in the field of Urban Flood
Management.
2
Page 3 of 37
19/4/06
Table of Contents
Summary................................................................................................................................................ 3
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................. 4
Part A: Project outline ........................................................................................................................... 5
Part B: Added Value for ´Leven met Water´ programme ................................................................. 31
Part C Legitimacy ................................................................................................................................ 33
Part D: Societal return/benefits .......................................................................................................... 35
Part E Knowledge Dissemination ....................................................................................................... 37
Page 4 of 37
19/4/06
Part A: Project outline
A.1/A.2 project background & societal relevance and state-of-the-art
‘Triggers’ for renewed attention to Urban Flood Management
The recent hurricane and consecutive flood in New Orleans (USA, August 2005) took over 700
lives and caused an estimated damage of over $ 125 billion; estimated insurance costs are over $
25 billion. Lives could have been saved and damage could have been lower with a proper
evacuation plan, communication strategy and holistic long term urban/spatial planning
considering the risk of flooding. As an expert put it (NRC, 15/09/05): at a few percent of the
present damage cost, the catastrophe could have been avoided. In the same month dramatic
floods affected large parts of rural and urban Central Europe.
Over the last decades Europe has witnessed a growing number of floods in urban areas.
Flooding incidents in urbanised catchments and low lying areas can lead to great public concern
and anxiety; the economical impacts are severe. In Europe, the reported number of disasters
caused by floods has dramatically increased, from 31 in the period between 1973 and 1982 to
179 during the last decade. The total amount of reported damages from disastrous floods
amounts to 50bn Euro in the last three decades (Hoyois, 2003). These rather dramatic figures
highlight the importance of a renewed debate on Urban Flood Management (UFM) in all its
aspects and the need for an integrated interdisciplinary UFM plan has never been more apparent.
The dilemma: reduction of probability leads to increased vulnerability
Flood risk is usually described as a function of the probability of floods (return period) and the
effect of a flood (damage caused by floods). Current policies and measures concerning flood risk
management are predominantly based on the management of probabilities of floods (largely
dominated by engineers) and not on reduction of impacts of floods. However, the reduction in
probability is largely offset by the rapid growth of urban areas in flood-prone areas and the even
larger increase of investment levels in these areas. By only focusing on reducing the probability of
floods these policies thus fail to reduce flood vulnerability of the urban environment, and may
even provide the wrong kind of investment incentives. Climate change will exacerbate this trend.
Consequences of climate change such as sea level rise, increase of storm intensity and/or
duration, and increased peak flow of major rivers all contribute to the increase in probability of
floods. So, urban areas are facing a simultaneous increase in probability of floods and an
increase in potential economic and social damage.
In urban areas with high social and economic values, more focus on the reduction of the effects
of floods may provide important opportunities in flood risk reduction. New approaches need to be
developed to adapt the urban environment to climate change by enhancing the resilience of the
urban environment to floods and thus reducing its vulnerability. Keeping water out of urban areas
may either not be feasible (recent flood experiences show the flood risk beyond the design risk is
definitely not hypothetical) or it may not be the perfect solution; accepting and preparing for some
degree of flooding will in many cases be a more sensible solution, from technical and financial
perspectives, but also from social and environmental perspectives.
The need for integrated solutions
Solutions aimed at reducing vulnerability to floods have to address both short and long term
events. Climate change and change of land-use are gradual processes that require slow but
continuous adaptation. Intense local precipitation or dike breaches are sudden and often
unexpected, and result in acute impacts which require a vigilant flood accommodation and
defence policy.
Page 5 of 37
19/4/06
Due to the uncertainties we face, it is, therefore, prudent in long-term urban planning to
adopt/use a precautionary approach, considering the long-term benefits and consequences of
flood management strategies and actions: environmental and social impact assessment, costbenefit analysis, life-cycle costs, and risk analysis should be factored into the decision making
process to ensure the economic, societal and environmental costs and uncertainties are
considered and well balanced. Long-term urban planning calls for an integrated, area-oriented
approach: such integration requires that planners, water managers and designers adopt a system
approach. This approach addresses resiliency as an ongoing goal in every aspect of urban
planning and urban system investment.
Policy context
Traditionally, flood management policies in Europe were flood defence policies, dominated by
construction of dikes. Flood events in the 1990s in the Netherlands and Germany have given rise
to intense debate on the future direction of their flood management policies. It was realised that
one hundred percent safety cannot be guaranteed; furthermore, one cannot raise dikes
indefinitely. In the Netherlands this insights produced a new “triple-step” policy concept: in order
of priority, access water has to be accommodated in the region, if unfeasible it should be stored,
and finally the safe evacuation of water is a last resort measure. In other words, flood
accommodation now is part of the official flood management policy. Its immediate implication is
the need for more space for water, and the subsequent search for combinations of functions
related to land-use in a densely populated country.
In urban environment this policy has already resulted in creative, small-scale water
accommodation and retention solutions, related to the management of excess rainfall. The
question how to deal with major floods in urban areas has not received much attention yet; the
emphasis is on finding space for flood water in rural areas in order to protect the urban areas.
These experiences, nevertheless, are providing valuable experience for the development of
urban flood management strategies based on an integrated approach in which the resilience of
the entire system is enhanced.
Apart from the formal acceptance of floods in certain areas as a means to reduce the flood risk in
other areas, the residual risk (= flood risk beyond the design risk) still is an issue of major
concern. Furthermore, urban areas may also be situated outside the main line of defence. Many
authorities have a clear need for knowledge, concepts and experiences on strategies to deal with
residual flood risk. An example represented in this proposal is the Thames Gateway. The
Thames Gateway is Europe’s biggest regeneration project in a floodplain. Current Government
targets for 160,000 new homes by 2016 and the area has the potential for substantial further
development if the right supporting infrastructure is put in place. One of the biggest obstacles for
regeneration is that the Government is looking to the private sector for most of the investment
funding. PPS-constraints are:
•
long and uncertain planning applications;
•
the involvement of and inter-relationships between numerous organizations active in the
area (e.g. regional development agencies, Housing Corporation, Environmental Agency);
•
a call for a new flood management strategy (managing flood risk instead of managing flood
probability alone (focus on defending against flood)).
The Environmental Agency plays a key role in ensuring that developments in the Thames
Gateway are undertaken in a way that the flood risks are manageable. Several (innovative)
measures can contribute to risk reduction (ranging from control structures to adaptive behaviour,
warning and response). The Association of British Insurers recently published a guidance
Page 6 of 37
19/4/06
document that sets out good principles of development in flood prone areas. With the publication
3
of this document the ABI is also taking a radically new approach to flooding . .
Along similar lines the City of Dordrecht and Hamburg are facing the challenge of how to manage
the risks of urban floods in their redevelopment projects and expansions in flood-prone outskirts.
More information on these two partner cities can be found in the Appendix.
Also the European Commission stresses the need for a new approach to flooding; a EU Flood
Directive is being developed. The draft recommends a 3 step approach: flood risk assessment,
flood risk map, integrated urban flood management plan. The UFM project follows this approach
and will apply it: one of the first real life examples of integrated (urban) flood risk management.
These experiences could be valuable input for the final definition of the EU Flood Directive.
Possible interactions with EC policy makers are currently being verified.
Existing and new concepts combined for the urban environment
A number of aspects of an integrated approach to urban flood management are relatively new to
the world of urban planning. The proposed project will provide relevant practical examples to
address these issues and will develop material for dissemination. The cities represented in this
proposal, London, Hamburg and Dordrecht, have relevant experience with one or more of these
issues; the combination of these experiences creates a strong and complete body of knowledge.
The main issues that need in-depth attention are:
•
Criteria for the selection of planning and design alternatives: the choice between reducing
the probability of floods by reinforcing protection works versus the reduction of potential
impact of floods by adaptation of the built environment (or a combination of both
measures) has to based on sound information. For the urban environment the tools to
assess potential flood damage are not ideal yet. Consequently it still is difficult to take
decisions, based on costs and benefits of different flood management solutions.
•
Risk perception and communication. Social psychology provides strong evidence that
knowledge of a risk much better prepares people for a flood events. Accepting the
potential occurrence of floods and better preparing a city on such an event creates a socalled risk-culture where people know what to do and loss of lives and property can be
minimised. Obviously, this requires balanced and continued communication activities,
aimed at the general audience as well as selected (more vulnerable) target groups.
Relevant scientific and practical experience on risk perception and communication needs
is available but has to be transposed to the context of urban flood management.
Emergency response planning (evacuation plans etc.) and flood preparedness of
population are major communication themes.
•
New approaches to urban planning. Moving through a period of top-down regulation and
linear mechanistic planning it becomes increasingly evident that new approaches should
be developed which embrace water management as an important guiding principle and
allow policy decision making at the local level and stakeholders involvement.
•
Stakeholder participation. In democratic societies with a well educated population the
need for more involvement of the population in general, and affected stakeholders in
particular, is becoming an accepted strategy. However, organising public participation in
the planning process appears to be a complex task. Experience with this approach has
already been obtained in several major flood management projects in the Netherlands
(e.g. Overdiepse polder)
•
Insurance and liability issues. Two main visions exist on who carries the burden when
floods occur. The dominant continental European view has been that flood risk and
3
It embraces amongst others the concept of Flood Resilient Construction: properties built in
those areas should have a higher degree of flood resilience incorporated into their design.
Page 7 of 37
19/4/06
damage are a public responsibility taken up by national or local government. Given the
increasing flood risk and regular re-occurrence of floods, the tendency now is to look for
ways to increase private responsibilities and create insurance mechanism where private
citizens have to take control over the level of risk they are willing to accept. On the other
hand, the predominant Anglo-Saxon view was predominantly stressing the responsibility
of the individual citizen. Recent events in the southern USA have clearly shown the limits
of this approach. Evidently new mechanisms have to be developed where the public and
private sectors each have their own responsibility.
Page 8 of 37
19/4/06
A.3 Project Objectives
The overall objective of the proposed umbrella project is to develop sound urban flood
management strategies. Emphasis will be laid on:
(i)
holistic approach, UFM as an integral component of urban planning (linking flood
management, planning and policy-making);
(ii)
methodologies for the assessment and management of residual flood risk
(including financial, socio-economic and technical aspects) in the urban environment;
(iii)
evaluate, compare and disseminate the results.
A.4 Type of project
This project can be labelled as applied scientific research directed to implementation of
innovative approaches (see A.3).
Page 9 of 37
19/4/06
A.5 Workplan (Approach & planning)
A5.1 Introduction and overview of objectives orientated work plan
UFM is an important step towards the use of water and floods as a design parameter for spatial
planning, to increase flood risk awareness and to develop practical strategies to cope with and
communicate residual flood risk. Thus from ¨Flood Defence¨ to ¨Flood Management¨. The
European Commission stresses this need for integrated, long term strategic, interdisciplinary
(urban) flood risk management plans in its draft flood Directive (COM2004) to:
• reduce the adverse impact of floods and the likelihood of floods,
• promote sustainable flood risk management measures, addressing all phases of the flood risk
management cycle, focusing particularly on preventing damage by avoiding construction of
houses and industries in present and future flood-prone areas or by adapting future
developments to the risk of flooding
• look for opportunities to work with natural processes and to deliver –if possible- multiple
benefits from flood risk management.
• inform the public and competent authorities about the flood risk and how to deal with it.
Currently there is hardly any practical experience with the development of long term integrated
Urban Flood Management plans, whilst there is a growing need and concern amongst
stakeholders. We believe an urban development/regeneration project such as Stadswerven is a
window of opportunity to address urban flood management. The UFM project aims to draw up
such an (urban) flood risk management plan for the pilot areas (Stadswerven), apply necessary
tools, and share its experiences with the EC (input Flood Directive) and other stakeholders.
Hence, we propose to launch a combination of efforts that include:
•
•
•
Innovative practical project, drawing up an UFM plan for a specific site facing residual flood
risk, Stadswerven in Dordrecht. This plan is partly made ex-ante before development, and
partly ex-post after development as parts of the Stadswerven development project have
already started. In Hamburg and London similar activities are conducted for sites in
Hafencity/Wilhelmsburg and the Thames Gateway in the framework of related research
projects.
Applied research on models, methodologies and concepts such as flood risk & vulnerability
assessment and flood risk maps, building and planning requirements and specifications
(including procedures), integration WB21/RO, to be used for the pilot project.
Experience and knowledge exchange and dissemination between the partner cities, the
European scientific community through COST C22, and other professional and scientific
networks.
Project has proven feasible and is defined in more detail after WP1
The definition and feasibility study stressed that the 3 partner cities all have a ‘window of
opportunity’ as they are planning or executing urban (re)development projects in flood-prone
areas. They are facing common challenges:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
assess flood risk / vulnerability
revise planning procedures
consider resilient planning and building measures
understand governance: liabilities & responsibilities
communicate, raise awareness & emergency response
All partners agree that most effective way to face, and learn from these challenges is by practical
experience with the abovementioned development projects. Hence the pilot project will be leading
and several tools are (developed, customized and) applied for these pilots and experiences will
be shared. The original research proposal is further specified and slightly adjusted in approach to
address these challenges.
Page 10 of 37
19/4/06
The 5 challenges and related research questions intervene in different stages of a development
project: from planning procedures in its initiation phase, until resilient building measures in the
final design and implementation phase. This is illustrated in the figure below.
Of course this has consequences for the coordination of the UFM research project and the actual
development project Stadswerven. For one project envelope a masterplan could be drafted exante that could actually be implemented, whereas for other project envelopes an alternative
masterplan could -at most- be an ex-post evaluation. The policy component will be addressed in
a special WP, as UFM partners and the LMW scientific committee stressed its importance for
Stadswerven (procedures and governance) and future projects.
The common challenges and thus alignment of interest have led to the (financial) commitment of
Dutch partners, commitment of German and English consortia, approval of RIMAX (BMBF) and
initial interest of Interreg. The UFM initiative has proven relevant and feasible.
After the successful conclusion of this UFM project some of the most important obstacles will
have been removed through experience in collaboration of various public and private
stakeholders in real life cases, considering flood risk in a long term perspective. Then, in a
second and more extensive step (possibilities for follow up research are already being
considered, such as: interreg4), the UFM plans can be implemented in the partner cities ex-ante
for new development/regeneration projects or ex-post for already developed sites. Several similar
initiatives can be started in other regions and countries, following this consortium of international
leading players.
Page 11 of 37
19/4/06
A5.2 Structure and methodology
For a first overview, the logic of the project structure and methodologies is as follows:
WP1 ´Definition and Feasibility study´ started the whole programme. The UFM consortium
has presented a report with a comparison between the partner cities. Their common research
needs were presented and have been key input for this research proposal. The UFM consortium
found the exchange of experiences with colleague professionals and experts at regional and
international level very interesting and useful, especially during the workshops. Additional
partners such as RWS, PZH and Progrez have been incorporated in this project.
WP2 ´Risk assessment´ is focused on the adaptation, application, validation and evaluation of
existing methodologies for the pilot area Stadswerven in WP4. The objective of the work package
is to provide the urban planning process with the proper information about the water system. The
“urban planner’ should for example have sufficient knowledge about the behavior of the river and
of flooding risks. This requires the development of flood-risk maps for both fluvial and flash floods,
information about lead times of floods (how much time is available to take measures), prediction
of water levels, currents, water quality (sewerage systems, sedimentation from the rivers). During
the last ten years significant progress has been made in the development of “flood assessment”
tools and methodologies (modeling of floods, flooding maps), also in relation to water quality and
sedimentation, flood and weather prediction and decision support systems (toolbox). For this
project it is assumed that a lot of the required technology and knowledge is available but not to its
full extent applicable to urban planning. Besides tools and methodologies knowledge will also be
made available though the experts itself. Through co-operation, integration and knowledge
exchange (by working together) the urban planner will gain better insight in the risks and chances
associated with living in a flood-prone area while, at the same time, the water experts within in the
project will gain insight in the urban planning process. Thus making it possible to make a fit
between required and available knowledge and information. The main challenges of the project
are therefore to:
• exchange information and knowledge between the water managers (the water board)
and experts (delft hydraulics and HHUT) and the urban planners (city of Dordrecht).
• Adapt existing methods and tools for application in the urban planning process.
Activities to be carried out are:
• Determine present flooding risks (water level and frequencies) and developments over
the next 50 or so years;
• Develop flood risk maps
• Identify possible measures; prevention, construction, spatial planning, emergency
measures, information systems, evacuation etc;
• Evaluate measures (risk maps, information and warning systems)
• Adaptation of existing methods and tools for application in the urban planning process;
• Dissemination and exchange of knowledge (communication)
During the definition and feasibility study (WP1), the activities to be carried out will be determined
in detail. The result of the work package is exchange of knowledge and a set of tools or
methodologies (flood risk maps, warning systems, etc) adapted to and to be used during the
urban planning process (WP 3 through ...). Development of tools and software will be very limited
since the focus is on integration and knowledge exchange, it is however foreseen that some
adaptation is required.
The work package will provide input to spatial planning and support the process of prioritizing,
justifying and targeting investments in order to manage and reduce the risk to people, property
and the environment. In parallel these methodologies will be further developed and a longer-term
research agenda will be defined. Special attention will be paid to information and methodologies
(e.g. flood prediction) which will be used after the planning phase (see also WP 4)
Page 12 of 37
19/4/06
WP3
´resilient planning & building´ will also provide useful concepts to WP4 in terms of an
inventory of possible resilient planning & building measures. Especially concepts/measures to
reduce flood impact by individual flood proofing of buildings and infrastructure and resilient
reinstatement will be considered as alternatives for the pilot sites.
Additionally a Flood
Resilience Index will be developed to support the assessment and comparison of several
measures using economical (also potential flood damage) and technical criteria. Insight will be
provided in existing technical, administrative, legal and political guidelines relevant for the pilot
area, such as permitting, insurability, attainability, warranties, certification, public health and
others. Input is expected from the LMW project p3076 guidelines for building in wet areas. Finally
a research on the marketability of projected resilient dwellings in Stadswerven will be conducted
WP4 ´Pilot: creation of an integrated urban flood risk management plan´ is the main part
of the project. In general UFM researchers and professionals will support the Stadswerven project
team and steering group with the incorporation of UFM components in the planning process
wherever relevant and desired. As Stadswerven consists of several areas such as: Lijnbaan,
Enecogebied, Kop van de Staart, Watertorenterrijn, Wantijbuurt and others that are in different
stages of planning and development. UFM envisages the creation of resilient design alternatives
for one of the areas, either ex post as an evaluation (what could we have done?) or ex-ante
presenting alternatives that can actually be implemented. Given the maturity of the planning
process in some areas ex-ante designs could mean optimizing the degree of resilience of an
area, but not designing the area from scratch. These urban plans will be developed, adopted,
reconsidered or simply evaluated using existing participative decision making methodologies that
in turn will be validated and evaluated. The flood maps developed in WP2 are used as input to
reconsider the spatial plans. Special attention is given to the process and procedures as well as
generic flood risk mitigation concepts, long term planning and land use policy.
WP5 ćommunication and emergency response´ aims at the definition of recommendations
for a communication strategy and a emergency response plan for the pilot area. Existing
communication means and strategies will be inventoried, selected and customized for
Stadwerven or Dordrecht as a city. The LMW projects ‘Omgaan met Overstromingsrisico’ and
‘Van hoogwater tot evactatie’ and international projects FLOWS (TUHH and Hamburg initiative)
and Floodscape (EA initiative) project are requested for input and suggestions. The LMW project
‘Evacuation’ could provide insight in different processes after flood recovery and they could
consider Dordrecht as a pilot for their project.
WP6 Policy & Governance
Creation of multidisciplinary pilot-related task force on policy and governance at 3 levels: regional,
national and European. The regional task force should give insight in procedures, the
responsibilities and liabilities as faced and established for the pilot area/project. This regional
team works in close cooperation with WP4. In parallel a multidisciplinary (inter)national task force
of experts and policymakers is created to define recommendations on policy/regulation, partly
based on experiences in UFM/Dordrecht (in dialogue with regional task force), and of course
considering national and European regulation and procedures. These recommendations will also
provide input for the definition of the EU Flood Directive.
WP7 Éxchange, Integration & Dissemination´ entails various activities to simulate and
facilitate the exchange of experiences and knowledge between the partners, workpackages,
partner cities, and national and international scientific and professional communities. Various
UFM workshops, conferences will be organised and planned to coincided with related
(inter)national events.. Dissimination of results will be done through the multiple networks of the
Page 13 of 37
19/4/06
project partners, publications and presentations at national and international conferences on
UFM.
WP8
´Management´
and
coordination
Page 14 of 37
activities
during
the
project
19/4/06
The workpackages, their interdependences and time frame are presented in the following PERT-like figure. Note: 2 new WPs due to partners’
explicit interest and recommendations of LMW programme (WAR, KM and direction)
Page 15 of 37
19/4/06
A5.3 Detailed work descriptions
WP1
1
Start month
1
End month
6
Definition and feasibility study
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
TOT
34
15
18
2
0
0
10
10
89
Objectives
1. further evaluate the constraints and challenges of UFM issues relevant to the three cities
involved
2. align their different research needs
3. compile a well balanced proposal for the proposed European umbrella project (including
research priorities and strategy, consortium, case-study per city, budgets and planning, and
financing (EU and national funding)
Workpackage n.
Workpackage title
Participant number
Person-days
Description of work
1a kick off
1b city analysis
1c international workshop
1d pilot project definition
1e definition WP2 & WP3, scientific modules, bouwstenen
1f workshop
1g definition of project plan
Expected results and deliverables
1.1 Motivated, committed and extended Dutch, German and English consortia
1.2 Knowledge exchange between cities: comparative study on cities and their UFM practices.
th
1.3 Well-balanced projectplan to be presented at 4 LMW tender round.
Page 16 of 37
19/4/06
WP2
2
Start month
8
End month
23
flood risk and vulnerability assessment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
TOT
5
30
10
50
0
10
0
105
Objectives
Conduct flood risk assessment
Develop flood map for Stadswerven and Dordrecht area
Provide input for planning process of Stadswerven (spatial solutions and flood defense)
Adapt existing methods and tools for application in the urban planning process
Workpackage n.
Workpackage title
Participant number
Person-days
1.
2.
3.
4.
Description of work
- Inventory of available technology and information (e.g. flood risk, water level, lead time)
applicable during the planning process or thereafter. This discussion and exchange of
information will result in application of this technology in the urban planning process.
- WL and TUHH combine, improve or develop and customize tools and methodologies for
Stadswerven, customization in dialogue with WSHD and RWS
- WL will conduct flood risk assessment and develop flood map for Stadswerven (Dordrecht)
area
- RWS and WL will verify the flood map and disseminate/publish the results
- flood risk map / result discussion and evaluation: cross disciplinary interpretation in workshop
(consequences for planning, building, liability, emergency response, communication) discussion
between WL and TUHH and local actors WSHD and RWS
2.1 Insight in flood risk/vulnerability of area Stadswerven
2.2 Flood risk map
2.3 Customized model for flood risk assessment (re-usable-> multiplier effect)
2.4 better insight in the water system (river and urban) by the planners, with a special focus on
available technology and information (besides flood risks).
2.5 adapted tools and methodology
Page 17 of 37
19/4/06
WP3
3
Start month
7
End month
20
Resilient planning and building
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
TOT
0
0
30
0
15
10
55
Objectives
an estimation of the economic losses that may occur during flooding (based partly on input
from WP2);
an assessment of the ‘resilience level and potential’ (Flood Resilience Index (FRI)) to deal
with a flood in the defined urban region (c.q. pilot) of Stadswerven;
a ranking of resilient measures to reduce (further) losses;
provide guidance for resilient planning process of Stadswerven.
provide insight into the marketability of resilient dwellings for the context of Stadswerven
Workpackage n.
Workpackage title
Participant number
Person-days
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Description of work
- DVG coordinates an inventory of measures based on desk research and possibly a
questionnaire amongst experts (UFM and C22). Existing building stock/urban plans (also
beyond UFM partner cities & countries) will be searched and analysed.
- Customize Flood Resilience Index for Stadswerven
- definition of design, planning and building guidelines for Stadswerven (in cooperation with
LMW project extension BMW2)
- Progrez coordinates an inventory and analysis of the marketability of projected resilient
dwellings in Stadswerven.
Ad; Building Stock Inventory, Flood Resilience Index (FRI): knowing the probability of a flood to
occur is necessary information but not sufficient. A risk is defined by the probability of
occurrence ánd the magnitude of the consequences. The damage resulting from a flood in an
urban environment depends on the value of the building stock and it’s vulnerability to floods.
Guidelines to assess the value and the potential damage of the actial and projected building
stock and a flexible/expandable database containing both technical data on state-of-the-art
adaptation measures to increase resilience (designs, constructions, materials etc) and economic
information involving the costs of implementation of these measures will be developed. This
information is in part already available within the COST C22 network and insurance industry
(BIA database), although scattered over a vast number of specialised companies and instititions.
Only when the value of potentially damaged property and the Flood Resilient Index (FRI) are
known, a weighed decision on flood proofing measures can be taken. The level of the FRI
reflects the potential to reduce the flood vulnerability of a projected building stock relative to the
actual or reference (traditional building) situation.
3.1 Catalogue of resilient measures, database
3.2 Cost benefit/FRI model
3.3 Cost-benefit/FRI comparison of different solutions/measures/designs proposed
Stadswerven
3.4 Report with guidelines
3.5 Market research of resilient dwellings in Stadswerven
Page 18 of 37
for
19/4/06
WP4
4
Start month
8
End month
30
Pilot creation of an integrated UFM plan
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
TOT
280
50
50
40
50
50
10
530
Objectives
1. Obtain experience with incorporation of UFM in the planning process of a (re)site
development projects in Stadshavens:
o Ex-ante: Consider and if desired incorporate UFM components (such as Flood
Resilience Index) in the planning process and designs using economical, political
and technical criteria: compile and compare options for a resilient masterplan for
Stadswerven (sub-)site / project envelope including a reference (traditional)
masterplan.
o Ex-post: draft a resilient masterplan for 1 Stadswerven (sub-)site / project envelope
as theoretical alterative for a site already in implementation or execution phase.
2. use participative design/decision making process.
3. use existing tools developed within UFM (WP2 and WP3) and in other projects such as:
RIMAX, FLOWS, Floodscape and Floodsite and combine WP6 activities.
Workpackage n.
Workpackage title
Participant number
Person-days
Description of work
Site developments usually involve local coalitions between policy-makers, urban planners, water
managers and project developers. A pilot will be conducted, using an existing context (c.q.
Stadswerven) and case (c.q. specific site development project envelope) to engage these local
actors in this new process. The pilot is considered as a learning environment in which three
distinct levels will be distinguished:
- conceptual level in which all relevant context independent factors will be assessed based on
generic flood risk mitigation concepts (e.g. prevailing and anticipated fundament risk
management strategies such as definition of acceptable level of risk, risk transferring
mechanisms) and long term planning and land use policy. Part of the activities at the
conceptual level are linked with those in WP6 (Governance issues). In WP4 emphasis will
be led on assessment and identification, whereas in WP6 the focus will be on dissemination
of knowledge and interaction/decision making at senior governmental/EU level.
- concrete site development level; a careful analysis of the interaction between different site
development options (on the basis of different sets of technical, social and economic
assumptions) and the consequences for flood resilience and flood risk will be conducted
(both ex ante and ex post analyses) resulting in master plans. Customized input will be
provide by WP2 (hydrologic and hydraulic info/flood risk assessments) and WP3 (Flood
Resilience Indices); The bulk of the personal effort at this level will be provide by the
municipality of Dordrecht.
- process level, is the level which deals with the process underlying the activities of the above
mentioned levels comprising consecutive brainstorming in sessions to allign stakeholders
interests and designing in workshops to ‘contextualised’ WP2, 3 and 6 results to produce
(resilient) masterplans. At the process level lessons learned in terms of procedures and
strategies will be extracted and disseminated as well. An external highly experienced
process manager (from e.g. Alterra) will be likely assigned to steer this process.
4a define generic flood risk management concepts/targets and achieve consensus for the
context of Stadswerven areas
4b design resilient masterplans ex ante/ex-post;
4b1 design workshop(s) – combined with events: Europan8, Japanese-Dutch collaboration
(WWF4), RIMAX (DE). Additionally the UFM consortium considers inviting the British designer
Barker to participate in UFM workshops. He previously participated in the Dutch session at
Page 19 of 37
19/4/06
WWF4
4b2 select designs + traditional solution + existing plan (if different)
4b3 elaborate / specify the 5 designs
4b4 cost benefit analysis of the 5 designs
4d extract and disseminate best practises (via ‘manifestatie Impulsteam’, workshops and
publications)
4.1 alternative masterplans
4.2 report with recommendations to improve resilience
4.3 support various to Stadswerven project team
4.4 report on procedures and best practices on how to incorporate UFM in site development
projects
Page 20 of 37
19/4/06
WP5
5
Start month
18
End month
Communication and emergency response
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
20
10
Objectives
WP5 ćommunication and emergency response´
1 develop ideas for flood risk communication strategy for Stadswerven
2 revise and optimise emergency response for Stadswerven/Dordrecht
3 use input from WP2 on flood risk (and lead time)
4 use methodologies and experiences from other projects (OmO, Floodscape, etc)
Workpackage n.
Workpackage title
Participant number
Person-days
28
10
10
TOT
50
Description of work
- inventory of existing awareness-raising strategies and instruments that could be used for
Stadswerven. Inventory coordinated by WSHD and input expected from EA. Input is requested
from the EC projects Floodscape and FLOWS, and the LMW projects ‘Omgaan met
overstromingsrisico’s’ and ‘van dreigend hoogwater t/m evacutie’ (their ‘handreiking
risicocommunicatie’)
- draft recommendations for communication strategy for Stadswerven
- analyse existing emergency response plan (for floods) and identify black spots/questions
- WSHD will compile and address the partners’ inquiries related to emergency response plan.
E.g. use input from the LMW’s project ‘Evacuation’ on e.g. tasks and roles of various
stakeholders and use output from WP2 on flood risk and lead time. WSHD will organise a
workshop with involved professionals from CoD, RWS and PZH to formulate possible
improvements (and necessary research) for the emergency response plan.
During the project the UFM consortium will consider a project extension as proposed by HKV:
- interaction (influence) flood preparedness and (on) masterplanning of the Stadswerven area
- flood preparedness: development of scenario for flood, recovery and return of population
5.1 ideas for communication strategy stakeholders Stadswerven
5.2 revision of emergency response plan
Page 21 of 37
19/4/06
WP6
6
Start month
12
End month
28
Policy & Governance
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
TOT
30
30
10
30
10
10
120
Objectives
1. Provide insight in procedures, liabilities, responsibilities for Stadswerven pilot
2. Provide insight in regulation and policy at national and European level
3. Develop policy recommendations, partly based on the UFM project experiences. Also for the
EU flood directive.
Workpackage n.
Workpackage title
Participant number
Person-days
Description of work
- an executive team of CoD, with WSHD, RWS and PZH will analyse policy and legal
documents, conduct interviews and organise workshops on regulation and procedures in force,
established liabilities and distribution of responsibilities (roles & tasks) over stakeholders.
Especially professionals inside their own organisations involved with development projects as
Stadswerven will be addressed. The analysis will be concluded with SWOT analysis.
- PZH will organise workshops with local UFM Dordrecht team, Stadswerven project team, and
national taskforce of policy makers. The national task force is due to be created by the Province
and RWS.
- provide overview of regulation, procedures, liabilities, responsibilities (roles & tasks) in the
Netherlands, Germany and UK by RWS, TUHH (in cooperation with CoH) and EA respectively.
- CoD organises a workshop of the (inter)national taskforce (using input of regional task forces
of the 3 partner cities, Dordrecht, Hamburg and Londen)
- definition of regional, national and European recommendations on policy and governance
6.1 SWOT analysis on procedures, liabilities, responsibilities (roles & tasks) for/in Stadswerven
6.2 report on EU and national regulation, procedures, liabilities, responsibilities (roles & tasks)
for the Netherlands, Germany and UK
6.3 regional, national and European recommendations on policy and governance
Page 22 of 37
19/4/06
WP7
7
Start month
8
End month
Exchange, Integration & Dissemination
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
15
10
10
5
5
10
5
25
15
Objectives
- exchange experiences between partner cities
- increase interaction between workpackages 2, 3, 5, 6 and the pilot WP4.
- exchange with (inter)national professional and scientific communities
- analyse, compare and integrate project outcomes
- disseminate project outcomes
- obtain support and commitment (for co-funding) for follow-up activities
Workpackage n.
Workpackage title
Participant number
Person-days
32
10
15
TOT
115
Description of work
- organisation of UFM internal multidisciplinary workshops
- creation, launch and maintenance of web portal with public and partner area to disseminate
project findings and facilitate exchange of information/progress between partners and
workpackages, respectively. The creation of the web portal will be subcontracted by the city of
Dordrecht.
- IHE will co-organise international events with COST C22. It is envisaged that one meeting in
2006 and two meetings in 2007 of C22 will coincide with international UFM-meetings. C22
organizes several consecutive events such as workshops, management meetings and
conferences. The COST C22 experts are considered as an important vehicle for evaluation and
dissemination of the research findings.
- analysis and comparison of local project outcomes (Dordrecht, Hamburg, London) to be
published and coordinated by IHE. Input is expected from all partners.
- IHE will organize a final event to present the project outcomes.
7.1 web portal with public and partner area
7.2 several (inter)national workshops and seminars
7.3 report on best practices
Page 23 of 37
19/4/06
WP8
8
Start month
1
End month
Management
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
100
10
10
Objectives
1. Overall management and co-ordination issues at project and pilot level.
2. Communication with the LMW programme
Workpackage n.
Workpackage title
Participant number
Person-days
32
10
10
TOT
130
Description of work
- progress and quality control by steering committee
- Legal and contractual management of the consortium (consortium agreement)
- Financial and administrative management (allocation of funds, financial surveillance)
- Co-ordination at consortium level of knowledge management, especially to ensure the
exchange and dissemination of knowledge
- Obtaining audit certificates by each of the participants if required by the LMW programme
Page 24 of 37
19/4/06
A5.4 planning
This ambitious international umbrella project will be carried out from November 2005 until the half 2008. Project continuation after 2008 is foreseen
under other research programmes such as Interreg. A general planning is presented in the GANTT chart below. The project events and related
milestones/deliverables might be subject to slight adjustments in order to coordinate/coincide UFM project events with other events such as COST
C22 meetings.
Page 25 of 37
19/4/06
A.6 Expected Deliverables
The expected deliverables follow the Workpackage structure from a flood risk map for the pilot
area Stadswerven, catalogue of resilient building measures, via masterplan designs and
communication strategy for the pilot, until policy recommendations and dissemination of results.
2.1 Insight in flood risk/vulnerability of area Stadswerven
2.2 Flood risk map
2.3 Customized model for flood risk assessment (re-usable-> multiplier effect)
2.4 better insight in the water system (river and urban) by the planners, with a special focus on
available technology and information (besides flood risks).
2.5 adapted tools and methodology
3.1 Catalogue of resilient measures, database
3.2 Cost benefit/FRI model
3.3 Cost-benefit/FRI comparison of different solutions/measures/designs proposed for
Stadswerven
3.4 Report with guidelines
3.5 Market research of resilient dwellings in Stadswerven
4.1 alternative masterplans
4.2 report with recommendations to improve resilience
4.3 support various to Stadswerven project team
4.4 report/ideas on procedures: how to incorporate UFM in development projects politically
5.1 ideas for communication strategy stakeholders Stadswerven
5.2 revision of emergency response plan
6.1 SWOT analysis on procedures, liabilities, responsibilities (roles & tasks) for/in Stadswerven
6.2 report on EU and national regulation, procedures, liabilities, responsibilities (roles & tasks) for
the Netherlands, Germany and UK
6.3 regional, national and European recommendations on policy and governance
7.1 web portal with public and partner area
7.2 several (inter)national workshops and seminars
7.3 report on best practices
Page 26 of 37
19/4/06
A.7 Quality of the consortium and project team
Our UFM project gathers a selected number of partners in the key consortium with a wellbalanced distribution over type of organisation and expertise. The key consortium consists of 10
partners from 3 European countries, related to the partner cities Dordrecht, Hamburg and
London. There are local, regional and national authorities: City of Dordrecht, Province ZuidHolland and the Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management for Zuid-Holland:
RWS, a waterboard (Hollandse Delta), the UK Environmental Agency, 3 leading international
research institutes (Delft Hydraulics, UNESCO-IHE and Technical University Hamburg), an
experienced developer/contractor (Dura Vermeer Group) and a housing corporation (Progrez).
Given the nature and ambitions of the UFM project RWS and the Province of Zuid-Holland were
invited to contribute to the project. The institutional context and policy component is broadly
covered in this second phase, as suggested by the LMW programme. Also the housing
corporation Progrez showed interest to add the perspective of the end-user and marketability of
developments in the flood plain. The non-Dutch consortia are also extended and prepare
equivalent national research. As for the LMW part of UFM, cooperation is coordinated with the
other national project leads, TUHH and EA.
The key consortium has a critical mass on scientific, technological and political expertise
necessary for the successful realization of the project. The consortium is build up with highly
experienced partners (considering the current state of the art), which have the required different
complementary skills and expertise, such as:
- Profound scientific knowledge on Urban Flood Management (WL, TUHH, DVG);
- Experience in urban planning and participative decision making (CoD, PZH, CoH);
- Experience in flood risk assessment and asset management (EA);
- Long-time experience in flood defence and water management (WSHD, RWS, EA);
- Knowledge and experience in flood proofing constructions, civil works and financial
engineering (DVG);
- Experience in knowledge development and exchange (WL, TUHH, IHE).
The 6 main workpackages (WP2-WP7) are led by 6 different partners, confirming the
complimentarily of the UFM partners.
Partners´ contact information
1. Gemeente Dordrecht
Drs. E.T.G. Kelder MPA
Spuiboulevard 300, 3300 AA, Dordrecht
+31 78 639 6461
[email protected]
2. Waterschap Hollandse Delta
ir. J.M.J. Hans Waals
Johan de Wittstraat 40, Postbus 469, 3300 AL DORDRECHT
+31 78 639 73 82
[email protected]
Page 27 of 37
19/4/06
3. Rijkswaterstaat Zuid-Holland
Drs. J.W.M. Jos Kuijpers
Boompjes 200, Postbus 556, 3011 XD Rotterdam
+31 10 4026200
[email protected]
4. Provincie Zuid-Holland
ir. Huub Goumans
Postbus 90602, 2509 LP DEN HAAG
+31 070 4417143
[email protected]
5. Dura Vermeer Business Development BV
Dr. ir. Chris Zevenbergen
Kruisweg 835, Postbus 3098, 2130 KB Hoofddorp
+31 23 569 2380
[email protected]
6. WL / Delft Hydraulics
Dr. ir. A.G. Toon Segeren
Rotterdamseweg 185, Postbus 177, 2600 MH Delft
+31 15 285 85 85
[email protected]
7. Progrez
Drs. P.B. Jos van Dorresteijn
Callistolaan 2, Postbus 8008, 3301 CA Dordrecht
+31 78 654 8888
[email protected]
8. UNESCO-IHE
Ms. Caroline Figueres
Westvest 7, P.O. Box 3015, 2601 DA Delft
+31 15 2151 769
[email protected]
9. Technische Universität Hamburg-Harburgh TUHH
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Erik Pasche
Denickestrasse 22 - room 1039, D-21073 Hamburg, Germany
+49 40 428 78 34 63
[email protected]
10. Environment Agency
Peter Borrows
Kings Meadow House, Kings Meadow Road, READING BERKS RG1 8DQ, United Kingdom
+44 118 953 5303
[email protected]
Page 28 of 37
19/4/06
A.8 Project Budget & project financing.
Through international collaborative research and knowledge exchange with complementary
partners, this UFM project is highly efficient in reaching its objectives. A part from this LMW
proposal, foreign funding is requested and has partly be granted for this project; e.g. the budget
has the approval of the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) in Berlin.
UFM requests the LMW programme 325k Euro to cover 40% of the Dutch pilot and
research activities. Additionally some international knowledge exchange is co-funded out of the
LMW contribution, whereas the German RIMAX project also co-funds parts of our Dutch research
and knowledge exchange.
Total effort estimation (in days per WP, per partner)
The table below presents the envisaged effort per partner, per workpackage in days. The exact
equivalent budgets will be calculated based on the LMW / BSIK tariffs.
Proposed and estimated budgets in days
days
participant nr
workpackageCoD
WSHD
RWS
1
2
34
15
WP1
5
30
WP2
0
0
WP3
280
50
WP4
10
20
WP5
30
30
WP6
15
10
WP7
100
WP8
Total
474
155
PZH
3
DVBD
4
0
5
18
0
40
10
30
5
30
50
WL
10
50
10
10
80
5
10
85
Progez
7
0
6
2
50
0
50
5
112
TUHH
8
0
10
10
15
10
10
113
IHE
45
TOT
10
10
10
10
15
10
10
15
10
25
30
EA
9
10
0
45
55
89
105
55
530
50
120
115
130
1194
The project will be financed, apart from the LMW contribution through ín kind´ contributions of the
partners -as opposed to ‘out-of-pocket’ contributions- to ensure knowledge development within
the partner organisations. For the Dutch partners an investment of 1194 days is required,
equivalent to approximately €812k of estimated budget (based on an average daily LMW tariff of
8*€85= €680). The 2 other parts of the project are mainly financed through in-kind contributions
and other foreign co-funding sources partly already granted (BMBF-RIMAX). The total project
budget has increased with respect to our estimations of September 2005 due to the extension of
scope, e.g.: WP5 on communication and WP6 on policy and governance were added as
suggested by LMW.
Each national project finances its own pilot and partly the required building blocks as WP2, WP3,
WP5, and WP6 in this proposal. Although slightly different in focus, the coordination of the 3
national projects leads to efficiency gains on top of the added value of knowledge exchange. The
building blocks are developed in cooperation with the foreign partners and are financed through
the different programmes. Hence the 3 national programmes get more for less through synergies.
The TUHH for example conducts intensive research on flood maps and its applicability for spatial
planners. WL Delft Hydraulics uses this in WP2 with help from TUHH to be applied to
Stadswerven. Additionally, the 3 programmes all co-fund a part of the exchange of knowledge
and experiences through international workshops and seminars. For example, all participants
found the workshop in London on February 28th 2006 as part of WP1 very useful.
Page 29 of 37
19/4/06
A.9 quality and process assurance
A clear management, coordination and communication structure and strategy have been defined
during the first phase, Definition and Feasibility study. The UFM consortium is currently defining a
consortium agreement to formalise the cooperation and assure quality, progress, openness and
protection of partners’ key interests. In the figure below the proposed project organisation is
presented, also clearly indicating that the non-Dutch parts of the project are mostly financed and
coordinated in parallel through other (national funding) programmes.
An experienced project steering committee is envisaged with representatives of all 3 cities, with
public, private and academic backgrounds: Ellen Kelder, Hans Waals, Erik Pasche, Peter
Borrows and Chris Zevenbergen. The LMW project coordinator, Corné Nijburg, can be invited to
steering committee meetings and the daily communication goes through the project coordinator,
Sebastiaan van Herk. Each local project has its own project lead. The academic quality is
assured through the participation of prof. Pasche, a worldwide renown expert on Urban Flood
Management. Other members of the project team also have a significant academic track record.
Additionally the project is narrowly linked to the COST C22 programme, acting as International
expert panel. As C22 gathers over 80 scientists from 15 European Member States with different
backgrounds and different nationalities, societal relevance and academic quality are assured at a
European level. Moreover the societal relevance is assured through the focus of research
activities on real sites in the 3 participating cities.
Page 30 of 37
19/4/06
Part B: Added Value for ´Leven met Water´ programme
Types of Areas
Knowledge issues
Coastal
Areas
&
Sea
Rivers
Netherlands
low
Netherlands
high
Urban
area
Communication
X
XX
Valuation
X
XX
Management
X
XX
Water System
X
XX
B.1 Deepening or integration of knowledge
See paragraph C.2
B.2 Added Value of UFM regarding the LMW research agenda
The added value to the LMW-programme arises from the following issues which are fully
appreciated in the project:
• Strong link between theory and practice
• International (comparative) orientation
• Long term focus
• Flood management considered as an integral part of urban planning (3 regeneration sites)
• Emphasis on risk awareness / risk assessment / risk acceptance
• Communication with end-users and stakeholders (part of UFM plan)
B.3 Innovative elements
The project addresses several innovative elements, which have been elaborated extensively in
the previous paragraphs A.1-A.3. These elements are summarized in the following list:
• Recognition of the relevance of residual flood risk as a shared interest and responsibility;
• First real UFM plan and thus first practical application of draft EU flood directive: flood risk
assessment and integrate flood risk management plan
• Process/approach to identify, develop, assess and implement UFM alternatives
• Integrated long term UFM plan: linking spatial planning, flood risk, communication, combining
technical & economical possibilities and factors
Page 31 of 37
19/4/06
B.4 Relations and possible links with other LMW projects & activities
This project addresses several cutting-edge LMW themes and covers a wide-range of disciplines.
It is therefore to be expected that this project could benefit from other ongoing LMW-projects (and
vice versa). The following projects and initiatives (not limitative) are linked to this project (the
cooperation with these projects is presented more concretely in A5, the workpackage
descriptions) :
• Building with water, p1019: on integrated planning and resilient building
• Van hoogwater tot evacuatie: on communication and emergency response: insight in
procedures and roles during and after floods for Dordrecht
• Omgaan met overstromingsrisico’s, p3062: suggestions for communication of flood risk
• Guidelines for building in wet areas, p3076: customisation of guidelines for Stadswerven.
Additionally UFM is linked to several international projects such as Floodscape and Flows.
Page 32 of 37
19/4/06
Part C Legitimacy
C.1 Societal relevance
Given the expected increase in flood problems new approaches have to be developed to
maximise the social and economic benefits accrued from the advantageous position of these
urban areas, while minimising the risk created by their geographic location in flood-prone areas.
In this respect the three partners in the consortium, London, Hamburg and Dordrecht represent
example cases. All three are situated near the mouth of a major river in densely populated and
economically highly active regions, and within the influence of the sea. Simple lack of space
further necessitates the search for combinations of flood accommodation with urban
development. London is regenerating it's low lying Thames gateway area, Hamburg intends to
'leap over' the Elbe river and develop floodplain area, and the historical inner city of Dordrecht is
confronted with the question how to deal with increasing flood probability
The chosen integrated approach aims at combining technical means with participatory
approaches and carefully designed communication strategies. The aim of taking these
stakeholders 'on board' in the process is to develop risk-awareness in the urban society, where
people are aware of the potential risks and are well informed on the measures they can take
themselves in case of a flood event and what measures public authorities have taken. Social
psychological research has shown that people are less worried about potential risk if they know
what can happen, if they have room to act themselves, and if authorities have shown their
reliability by provided maximal transparency in planning. Transparency, participation and good
quality information are of key importance.
The proposed activities will result in urban flood management strategies aimed at creating a
physical ánd social urban environment where the potential occurrence of a flood, even in case of
an exceptional flood above design level, will result in minimal physical and social damage.
Planning, design and preparedness (institutional and societal) are important elements in the
process.
In this respect the proposed urban flood management strategies will provide a totally new
approach to urban planning. Present day city development plans do not take into account longterm changes in flood conditions, nor do they reflect the bio-physical properties of the
environment in which they are built – on other words, water and floods is not a design parameter.
From institutional perspective the proposed UFM strategies will require more coordinated action
by public authorities. The project will provide the much needed practical guidance on how to
organise such coordination mechanism.
From financial point of view, the partners intend to apply new approaches to insurance of flood
risk and a different division of responsibilities between public and private parties. The project will
provide practical examples on an issue which is hotly debated in Europe, but with little factual
information.
Page 33 of 37
19/4/06
C.2 Reinforcement knowledge infrastructure
It is important to keep in mind that all three partners feel a sense of urgency to come to practical
solutions for the area under their responsibility. Knowledge development has to be geared
towards practical application. It is obvious that the proposed project will make significant steps
forward in a number of scientific fields which for several years already are mentioned as priority
areas for research. See for example the 2000 report ‘Over Stromen’ by NRLO, RMNO, ATW
giving top priority to 4 themes: the perception of water, the valuation of water, participatory
planning in water management, inter-administrative management of water and space.
On two levels the project will contribute to the knowledge infrastructure:
on the national level of knowledge via diffusion and links with LMW-projects and participating
governmental bodies;
on the European level through the COST C22 network.
Some of these themes are prominently represented in this project proposal. These fields of
knowledge will be explored and tested in three cases in practise:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Methodologies on risk assessment and calculation of predicted costs of flood events.
Development of integrated Urban Flood Management strategies
New building concepts for flood prone areas (considering damage profiles for insurability)
Communication and stakeholder participation in developing UFMs
Inventory of scientific knowledge of public risk perception and translation into concrete plans
for communication and emergency planning.
Institutional arrangements, aimed at coordination of authorities and definition of division of
task between public and private sectors.
The consortium represents knowledge providers (TUHH and WL), those in demand of knowledge
for from the perspective of public responsibility (Cities of Dordrecht and Hamburg, Waterboard
Hollandse Delta, Environmental Agency) and those in demand of knowledge to be able to actually
implement practical applications. (Dura Vermeer).
The consortium thus comprises the entire knowledge chain: from a sound scientific knowledge
base and the necessary scientific rigour to further develop scientific knowledge to the parties
actually demanding this knowledge and applying it in their work. Furthermore, the government
parties in the consortium will make sure the knowledge developed under the project will feed into
the planning process for new urban developments.
Page 34 of 37
19/4/06
Part D: Societal return/benefits
D1. Possibilities & opportunities to apply results in water management practice
The main component of the proposed project is work package 4, aimed at developing (resilient)
masterplans for cities from an integrated flood management perspective. The results from other
work packages will thus immediately be applied in water management practise of these three
project locations.
City planners will be provided with a new approach to define their strategies, develop alternatives
in an integrated and participatory manner. The project examples will provide inspiration for further
use of these ideas, within the project cities and beyond.
Existing tools and technologies adopted and customized under this project for the pilots will
become available for those responsible for city planning and those responsible of drafting urban
flood management plans. Tools include flood modelling and mapping tools; technologies include
flood proofing of existing buildings and innovation in construction of new buildings. During
implementation of the project these tools are available to the three participating cities; after
monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of these tools they will become available for a
broader audience through work package 7.
Work package 7 aims at dissemination of practical tools, but also aims at collecting lessons from
the three cities to create a set of best practises. Especially knowledge and acquired experience
on the institutional and social aspects of the programme will be of relevance. Multi-stakeholder
involvement, and mechanisms to coordinate between these is of great relevance in the complex
institutional environment of larger cities. Sharing of responsibilities between institutions and the
involvement of the private sector and audience at large is not a simple task. Yet, there is common
agreement this is the way to go and practical experience is therefore badly needed.
In the end, those who live in, or make a living in cities will benefit by having an optimised living
and working environment, providing safety from floods under normal conditions while being fully
prepared to deal with floods in extreme events. This setting is rather different from the present
situation where only flood safety is being guaranteed; inhabitants and institutions are not
prepared for extreme flood events and most cities in Europe (and beyond) have no coping
strategy. Consequently, loss of property and loss of lives is an unacceptably common feature of
urban floods.
The presented new approach to urban floods will have similarities to a ‘culture shock’. Preparing
people for the possibility their living environment can get flooded will require a very carefully
balanced communication strategy. Public participation in the development of plans will be a major
asset in obtaining the necessary public acceptance of the plans. In the end, the urban society will
realise it is much better prepared for extreme events, and will also realise it is better equipped to
face future changes resulting from climate change and changed river hydrology. Note that we can
learn from past experiences, when people used to be more aware of the risk of flooding.
Page 35 of 37
19/4/06
D2. Economical return/benefits of research results
The most obvious economic benefit of course will be the reduction of the impacts of a flood. By
having a prepared city where through well-informed planning the different sections of the city will
have the protection or adaptation level required for it’s functions, flood damage will be minimised
and the costs of cleanup and/or repair will be known in advance. This of course is the long term
benefit to which this project in collaboration with many others will contribute.
The direct project returns are more tangible:
• The project will definitely set an agenda for continued research and search for further
investment subsidies (i.e. EC);
• The construction industry will face an innovative field of investment in knowledge, design and
implementation. New design and construction methods will provide new initiative into a sector
commonly considered to be conservative in it’s approach.
• Public, private partnership for the implementation of integrated urban flood management
schemes could be developed.
• For the insurance industry a new field will develop: the project will provide a first and concrete
step towards the introduction of more individual responsibility in insurance against flood
events; there will definitely be a move away from public responsibility only. The final outcome
of this process is of course not known yet but it will definitely create an innovation ‘flow’ in the
insurance sector.
D3. Follow up after project
The UFM project aims at the creation of a strong network of experts in UFM related science and
practice to be further developed in future projects. The key consortium already investigates the
possibilities to submit a parallel or follow-up proposal to the successor programme of Interreg3,
programmes supported by the Regional Development Funds (ERDF), the European Social Fund
(ESF) and the Cohesion Fund (European Commission, COM(2005) 0299, 2005). It is said that
water will be one of the focus areas in these programmes and FP7 in general.
In parallel the Dutch UFM partners consider the possibility to submit a 'case project' to the Dutch
PSIB research programme on innovative contracting of integrated (and 'water related') spatial
development projects which will be linked to WP 4 and possibly to the LMW project Building with
water p1019 (Haarlemmermeer case). The UFM partners feel that the pilots of the UFM project
provide an ideal setting to explore new contracting approaches: i.e. how to organise the beneficial
cooperation between public and private stakeholders in early stages of the selection process
without frustrating tender procedures in later phases. The Dutch PSIB research programme is
being considered to supervise and co-fund this initiative.
This UFM project is an important opportunity for the Netherlands and the other partners to create
the basis for success to obtain emerging EC funding in this field. The high-quality consortium and
the increasing interest and relevance of the subject assure a good starting position.
Page 36 of 37
19/4/06
Part E Knowledge Dissemination
A detailed plan for knowledge dissemination will be developed in narrow collaboration with the
LMW programme. The existing networks of the project members, such as the COST C22 and
LMW networks, will be used intensively. The project team gathers profound dissemination
expertise and long term dissemination experience.
UFM envisages at least 3 international workshops to exchange experiences and coordinate
project activities between the project partners. These workshops will be planned to coincide with
other events such as COST C22 meetings, LMW and RIMAX (German research programme,
equivalent to LMW) events. Within C22 meetings time will be reserved to present and discuss
(preliminary) results of UFM.
Workpackage 2 on flood risk assessment foresees in the communication of the insight in flood
risk to the population in combination with WP5, as well as a professional publication on the
customization of existing models. WP3 on resilient planning and building will publish the Flood
Resilience Index and a catalogue of resilient measures (database).
An (inter-) national task force will be created for WP6 to finally formulate regional, national and
European recommendations on policy and governance (regulation, procedures, liabilities,
responsibilities: roles & tasks) based on the experiences in the 3 partner cities and beyond.
These recommendations will be published.
Page 37 of 37
19/4/06

UFM: Urban Flood Management

Transcription

Similar documents

What you have told us

Floodwatch®

p - Garden Commerical Properties

Are Risk MAP Products Really on Our Mind?

excess flood faq