Search

Item does not contain fulltext

To prevent floods from becoming disasters, social vulnerability must be integrated into flood risk management. We advocate that the welfare of different societal groups should be included by adding recovery capacity, impacts of beyond-design events, and distributional impacts.

In the face of increasing threats from flooding, there are growing calls to strengthen and improve arrangements of flood risk governance (FRG). This endeavour requires an appreciation of the multitude of factors stabilising and driving governance dynamics. So-called catalyst flood events, policy champions and advocacy coalitions have tended to dominate this study to date, whilst the potential role played by Science Policy Interfaces (SPIs) has been somewhat neglected and often approached in a reductionist and fragmented way. This paper addresses this gap by drawing from in-depth policy analysis and stakeholder interviews conducted within England, France and the Netherlands under the auspices of the EU-FP7 STAR-FLOOD project. The analysis reveals four prominent ways in which SPIs shape FRG, by i) facilitating the diversification of Flood Risk Management (FRM) strategies; ii) increasing their connectivity, iii) facilitating a decentralisation of FRM and iv) fostering inter-country learning. It identifies different roles of specific interfaces (structures) and interfacing mechanisms (processes) in shaping governance dynamics. This way, the analysis reveals various ‘entry points’ through which SPIs can steer FRG, either along existing pathways, or towards new and potentially transformative change. The study shows that SPIs are a hitherto underexposed factor explaining dynamics in flood risk governance which merits additional systematic empirical study.

Managing coastal risk at the regional scale requires a prioritization of resources along the shoreline. A transparent and rigorous risk assessment should inform managers and stakeholders in their choices. This requires advances in modelling assessment (e.g., consideration of source and pathway conditions to define the probability of occurrence, nonlinear dynamics of the physical processes, better recognition of systemic impacts and non-economic losses) and open-source tools facilitating stakeholders' engagement in the process.This paper discusses how the Coastal Risk Assessment Framework (CRAF) has been developed as part of the Resilience Increasing Strategies for Coasts Toolkit (RISC-KIT). The framework provides two levels of analysis. A coastal index approach is first recommended to narrow down the risk analysis to a reduced number of sectors which are subsequently geographically grouped into potential hotspots. For the second level of analysis an integrated modelling approach improves the regional risk assessment of the identified hotspots by increasing the spatial resolution of the hazard modelling by using innovative process-based multi-hazard models, by including generic vulnerability indicators in the impact assessment, and by calculating regional systemic impact indicators. A multi-criteria analysis of these indicators is performed to rank the hotspots and support the stakeholders in their selection.The CRAF has been applied and validated on ten European case studies with only small deviation to areas already recognised as high risk. The flexibility of the framework is essential to adapt the assessment to the specific region characteristics. The involvement of stakeholders is crucial not only to select the hotpots and validate the results, but also to support the collection of information and the valuation of assets at risk. As such, the CRAF permits a comprehensive and systemic risk analysis of the regional coast in order to identify and to select higher ri, Peer Reviewed, Postprint (author's final draft)

Contains fulltext : 162768pub.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), European countries face increasing flood risks because of urbanization, increase of exposure and damage potential, and the effects of climate change. In literature and in practice, it is argued that a diversification of strategies for flood risk management (FRM), including flood risk prevention (through proactive spatial planning), flood defense, flood risk mitigation, flood preparation, and flood recovery, makes countries more flood resilient. Although this thesis is plausible, it should still be empirically scrutinized. We aim to do this. Drawing on existing literature we operationalize the notion of “flood resilience” into three capacities: capacity to resist; capacity to absorb and recover; and capacity to transform and adapt. Based on findings from the EU FP7 project STAR-FLOOD, we explore the degree of diversification of FRM strategies and related flood risk governance arrangements at the national level in Belgium, England, France, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden, as well as these countries’ achievement in terms of the three capacities. We found that the Netherlands and to a lesser extent Belgium have a strong capacity to resist, France a strong capacity to absorb and recover, and especially England a high capacity to transform and adapt. Having a diverse portfolio of FRM strategies in place may be conducive to high achievements related to the capacities to absorb/recover and to transform and adapt. Hence, we conclude that diversification of FRM strategies contributes to resilience. However, the diversification thesis should be nuanced in the sense that there are different ways to be resilient. First, the three capacities imply different rationales and normative starting points for flood risk governance, the choice between which is inherently political. Second, we found trade-offs between the three capacities, e.g., being resistant seems to lower the possibility to be absorbent. Third, to explain countries’ achievements in terms of resilience, th

Contains fulltext : 162768pub.pdf (publisher's version) (Open Access), European countries face increasing flood risks because of urbanization, increase of exposure and damage potential, and the effects of climate change. In literature and in practice, it is argued that a diversification of strategies for flood risk management (FRM), including flood risk prevention (through proactive spatial planning), flood defense, flood risk mitigation, flood preparation, and flood recovery, makes countries more flood resilient. Although this thesis is plausible, it should still be empirically scrutinized. We aim to do this. Drawing on existing literature we operationalize the notion of "flood resilience" into three capacities: capacity to resist; capacity to absorb and recover; and capacity to transform and adapt. Based on findings from the EU FP7 project STAR-FLOOD, we explore the degree of diversification of FRM strategies and related flood risk governance arrangements at the national level in Belgium, England, France, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden, as well as these countries' achievement in terms of the three capacities. We found that the Netherlands and to a lesser extent Belgium have a strong capacity to resist, France a strong capacity to absorb and recover, and especially England a high capacity to transform and adapt. Having a diverse portfolio of FRM strategies in place may be conducive to high achievements related to the capacities to absorb/recover and to transform and adapt. Hence, we conclude that diversification of FRM strategies contributes to resilience. However, the diversification thesis should be nuanced in the sense that there are different ways to be resilient. First, the three capacities imply different rationales and normative starting points for flood risk governance, the choice between which is inherently political. Second, we found trade-offs between the three capacities, e.g., being resistant seems to lower the possibility to be absorbent. Third, to explain countries' achievements in terms of resilience, th, 19 p.

Higher education in Australia is in a phase of rapid change due to significant regulatory changes, with new standards currently being implemented for registration of institutions and accreditation of degrees. Over the past five years the Australian chemistry community has come to a consensus on common Chemistry Threshold Learning Outcomes (CTLOs) that every Bachelor level chemistry graduate from an Australian university will have attained. The CTLOs will inform the standards used to accredit institutions and degrees. Building upon this, the Royal Australian Chemical Institute (RACI), the professional body for chemists in Australia, has changed its accreditation process for chemistry degree programs and now uses these CTLOs as the basis for accreditation. Therefore, it is paramount to ensure that assessment items used allow students to demonstrate attainment of the CTLOs for a chemistry major. The “Assessing the Assessments” project has used an iterative process to develop an evaluation framework to assist academic staff at tertiary institutions to determine the alignment of their assessment items with the CTLOs. In conjunction with professional development workshops in which colleagues explore the alignment of assessment items with the CTLOs, a sophisticated tool has been developed which can be used to evaluate assessment items. The tool yields ratings for both engagement with and assessment of each CTLO within the assessment task evaluated, highlighting areas of potential improvement in current assessment practices. Comparison of self-evaluations of tasks submitted to the project by academic staff with evaluations conducted by the project team shows that in the majority of cases, faculty over-estimate the ability of their assessment items to confirm achievement of CTLOs. Recommendations to increase the coverage of CTLOs through changes to assessment procedures are presented. Through the development of the framework, difficulties with interpretation and application

Contains fulltext : 162498.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), We compared the governance of flood risk in England and the Netherlands, focusing on the general policies, instruments used and underlying principles. Both physical and political environments are important in explaining how countries evolved towards very different rationales of resilience. Answering questions as ‘who decides’, ‘who should act’ and ‘who is responsible and liable for flood damage’ systematically, results in a quite fundamental difference in what resilience means, and how this affects the governance regime. In the Netherlands, there is nationwide collective regime with a technocracy based on the merit of water expertise, legitimated by a social contract of government being responsible and the general public accepting and supporting this. In England there also is a technocracy, but this is part of a general-political and economic-rational decision-making process, with responsibilities spread over state, insurance companies, individuals and communities. The rationales are connected to specific conceptions of the public interest, leading to specific governance principles. In both countries, flood risk strategies are discussed in the light of climate change effects, but resilience strategies show more persistence, although combined with gradual adaptation of practices on lower scales, than great transformations.

The European Union Floods Directive requires the establishment of flood maps for high risk areas in all European member states by 2013. However, the current practice of flood mapping in Europe still shows some deficits. Firstly, flood maps are frequently seen as an information tool rather than a communication tool. This means that, for example, local stocks of knowledge are not incorporated. Secondly, the contents of flood maps often do not match the requirements of the end-users. Finally, flood maps are often designed and visualised in a way that cannot be easily understood by residents at risk and/or that is not suitable for the respective needs of public authorities in risk and event management. The RISK MAP project examined how end-user participation in the mapping process may be used to overcome these barriers and enhance the communicative power of flood maps, fundamentally increasing their effectiveness. Based on empirical findings from a participatory approach that incorporated interviews, workshops and eye-tracking tests, conducted in five European case studies, this paper outlines recommendations for user-specific enhancements of flood maps. More specific, recommendations are given with regard to (1) appropriate stakeholder participation processes, which allow incorporating local knowledge and preferences, (2) the improvement of the contents of flood maps by considering user-specific needs and (3) the improvement of the visualisation of risk maps in order to produce user-friendly and understandable risk maps for the user groups concerned. Furthermore, "idealised" maps for different user groups are presented: for strategic planning, emergency management and the public.

The concept of flood risk management, promoted by the EU Floods Directive, tries to mitigate flood risks not only by structural, hydraulic engineering measures, but also by non-structural measures, like, e.g., land-use planning, warning and evacuation systems. However, few methods currently exist for the economic evaluation of such non-structural measures and, hence, their comparison with structural measures. The objective of this paper is to demonstrate the potential benefits of employing a wider range of economic appraisal methods for flood projects, in particular, it provides examples and applications of methodologies which may be employed to evaluate non-structural measures and their transaction costs. In two case studies at the Mulde River, Germany, two non-structural measures, a resettlement option and a warning system, are evaluated and compared with structural alternatives with regard to their effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and efficiency. Furthermore, a simple approach is tested in order to show the transaction costs of these measures. Case study results show that the choice of evaluation criteria can have a major impact on the assessment results. In this regard, efficiency as an evaluation criterion can be considered as superior to cost-effectiveness and effectiveness as it is also able to consider sufficiently the impacts of non-structural measures. Furthermore, case study results indicate that transaction costs could play an important role, especially with non-structural measures associated with land-use changes. This could explain why currently these kinds of measures are rarely selected by decision makers.

A methodology has been developed to estimate loss of life from flood events. In order to reduce the risk to life it is necessary to understand the causes of loss of life in floods and what kind of intervention and flood risk management measures may be effective in eliminating or reducing these losses. Data on flood events were gathered from 25 locations across six European countries as well as data from an additional case study in the UK. The new model combines hazard and exposure thresholds as well as mitigating factors to assess risk to life from flooding in a wider European context., Floodsite