F. Klijn

A hierarchical approach to ecosystems and its implications for ecological land classification

A hierarchical paradigm may help to better understand patterns of ecosystems. In this article we present and argue a framework for hierarchical ecosystem classification and mapping. It is based on a hierarchical model of an ecosystem fully incorporating abiotic components. We propose a nomenclature for hierarchical ecosystem classification based on common practice in ecological land classification and considerations on comprehensiveness which is inspired on and closely follows the Canadian terminology, but incorporating some frequently used European concepts. The relation between classification characteristics and the spatial and temporal hierarchy of ecosystem components is discussed. We exemplify that the approach is particularly valuable as a comprehensive tool for scientific analyses on behalf of environmental policy.

Resilience strategies for flood risk management in the Netherlands

Abstract A comparison is made between the current flood risk management policy in the Netherlands, which is a resistance strategy aimed at the prevention of flooding along the lower Rhine River by raising the dikes, and two alternative resilience strategies that aim at minimising the consequences of these floods, but at the same time allow some flooding. The alternative strategies rely on detention in compartments and on discharge via “green rivers”. These strategies were evaluated on their financial impacts (costs and flood damage) and on their impacts on economy, ecology and landscape, as well as on flexibility. The tangible effects, such as costs and damage were calculated using mathematical models; experts awarded scores to the intangibles, such as landscape quality and ecology. It is concluded that the initial costs of the resilience strategies are high whereas the gains, a reduction of the flood risk, will only be perceivable in the long term. On the other hand, the resilience strategies are more flexible and offer more opportunities for nature and landscape development

Flood risk perception and implications for flood risk management in the Netherlands

Abstract A society well@aware of risks must not only give attention to the prevention of flood risks but must also consider disaster management, i.e. minimising casualties and flood damages, and enhancing recovery. The Netherlands has a solid network of levees along the rivers that protect the many low‐lying polders from flooding. But nature is unpredictable, extreme events may happen, and absolute protection against flooding cannot be offered. It is common practice to perform technical and economic analyses to determine the feasibility of flood protection plans. And usually also institutional and administrative aspects are addressed. But how the people that live in the polders feel about flood risk and protection plans seldom gets due attention. This paper primarily looks into the attitude of the people. How do people live with (flood) risks and how do they feel about that? What can be learned from that for communication on flood risks and flood risk management? Finally, we give some recommendations about what elements to consider when developing a flood risk management strategy.

Towards flood risk management in the EU: State of affairs with examples from various European countries

Abstract On 27 June 2006 the Council of the European Union reached political agreement on a draft directive on the assessment and management of flood risks. This directive prescribes approaches and procedures which should be met by the member states. The website of the EU on this directive links to another EU‐initiative, the Integrated Project FLOODsite, which aims at providing methodologies for flood risk analysis and management. Obviously, the directive and the IP emerged in a common but much larger context of public and scientific debate on a more integrated and coordinated approach to dealing with flood risks. In this paper we briefly discuss this context and examine a few national cases in order to find out whether flood risk management is already common practice or is still in its infancy, or whether it involves merely good intentions. We base this examination primarily on our experiences within FLOODsite and on presentations held within the special session on River Flood Risk Management which was organised by The Netherlands Centre for River Studies (NCR) during the ISDF3 conference in May 2005. This paper goes into the similarities and differences between some national approaches and tries to place them in a cultural context. It appears that the seemingly most sophisticated management policies do not automatically imply the most comprehensive flood risk management approach. But the intention to evolve from flood management into flood risk management is evident and promising.

Adaptive flood risk management planning based on a comprehensive flood risk conceptualisation

Densely populated deltas are so vulnerable to sea level rise and climate change that they cannot wait for global mitigation to become effective. The Netherlands therefore puts huge efforts in adaptation research and planning for the future, for example through the national research programme Knowledge for Climate and the Delta Programme for the Twenty-first century. Flood risk is one of the key issues addressed in both programmes. Adaptive management planning should rely on a sound ex-ante policy analysis which encompasses a future outlook, establishing whether a policy transition is required, an assessment of alternative flood risk management strategies, and their planning in anticipation without running the risk of regret of doing too little too late or too much too early. This endeavour, addressed as adaptive delta management, calls for new approaches, especially because of uncertainties about long-term future developments. For flood risk management, it also entails reconsideration of the underlying principles and of the application of portfolios of technical measures versus spatial planning and other policy instruments. To this end, we first developed a conceptualisation of flood risk which reconciles the different approaches of flood defence management practice and spatial planning practice in order to bridge the gap between these previously detached fields. Secondly, we looked abroad in order to be better able to reflect critically on a possible Dutch bias which could have resulted from many centuries of experience of successful adaptation to increasing flood risk, but which may no longer be sustainable into the future. In this paper, we explain the multiple conceptualisation of flood risk and argue that explicitly distinguishing exposure determinants as a new concept may help to bridge the gap between engineers and spatial planners, wherefore we show how their different conceptualisations influence the framing of the adaptation challenge. Also, we identify what the Netherlands may learn from neighbouring countries with a different framing of the future flood risk challenge.

Explaining differences in flood management approaches in Europe and in the USA – a comparative analysis

Flood risk management in Europe and worldwide is not static but constantly in a state of flux. There has been a trend towards more integrated flood risk management in many countries. However, the initial situation and the pace and direction of change is very different in the various countries. In this paper, we will present a conceptual framework that seeks to explain why countries opt for different flood risk management portfolios. The developed framework utilises insights from a range of policy science concepts in an integrated way and considers, among others, factors such as geographical characteristics, the experience with flood disasters, as well as human behavioural aspects.

Design quality of room-for-the-river measures in the Netherlands: role and assessment of the quality team (Q-team)

In the 1990s, the Netherlands government changed its policy on river flood management, away from recurrently raising embankments and towards, in contrast, making more room for the rivers. When the design discharge in the Rhine River was revised in 2001, this new policy necessitated the selection of a number of physical measures, which would lower the flood water levels in the Rhine River branches by about 0.3 m. In a so-called ‘Spatial Planning Key Decision’, 39 measures were decided on at the national level, but their implementation was decentralized to local or regional authorities or private parties. It was also decided that the measures should achieve a second goal, namely enhance the spatial quality. In order to ensure that this goal was met, a Quality Team (Q-team Room for the Rivers) was established, commissioned to coach the planners and designers, to peer review the designs and plans, and to report to the minister about the Spatial Quality achieved. Almost all plans have now been finalized and are being implemented until 2015. This allows an assessment of the final designs, as well as of the merits of working with a Q-team. In this paper, we report on our approach and experiences: the procedures we followed, the criteria we used, the interaction with the designers and the evolution of the plans. We argue that a Q-team can be an effective means to secure that designs result in enhanced spatial quality, provided that certain preconditions are being met for its functioning.

Environmental policy and ecosystem classification

Ecosystems can be defined in various ways, including or excluding man. For environmental policy, it is clarifying to restrict the ecosystem concept to the environment of human society, thus not including the society itself. The societal system then relates to the ecosystem in two ways. First, ecosystems are affected by man’s activities, and, second, they fulfill societal needs. To illustrate this, we shall introduce various applications of the ecosystem approach in policy analyses.

Enhancing flood risk system robustness in practice: insights from two river valleys

ABSTRACT Decisions about flood risk management are usually based on the reduction in flood risk compared to the cost of the strategy. It is common practice to express this flood risk (the combination of flood probabilities and potential flood damages) in a single number. The downside of this approach is that explicit information about how the system responds to the whole range of possible water levels or river discharges is lacking. This type of information is relevant when a robust system is desired. We consider robust (fluvial) flood risk systems to have the ability to remain functioning under a range of possible river discharges. This paper analyses system robustness for different system configurations of two embanked river valleys in the Netherlands: the IJssel River valley and the Meuse River valley. Comparing the results of these cases provides us with clues about how to enhance a flood risk systems robustness. The IJssel case shows that a system with embankments that will not breach when overflown scores best on overall system robustness. The Meuse case shows that systems with differentiation in protection levels along the river score best on overall robustness. Furthermore, we found that in systems with high protection standards, the most effective way to increase system robustness is by increasing the systems response proportionality. This means that the consequences of flooding increase proportionally to an increase in river discharge. These findings confirm that a system robustness perspective may help to develop strategies that reduce the flood risks without increasing the vulnerability to beyond-design floods.

Towards Sustainability: Indicators of Environmental Quality

In environmental policy the concept of sustainability refers to a sustainable relationship between society and environment (see Figure 1).