Jochen Schanze

A methodology for dealing with regional change in integrated water resources management

The paper presents a methodology on how to consistently deal with the future change and management options in integrated water resources management (IWRM). It is based on a conceptual framework with a five step procedure for the formulation and analysis of a so-called ‘parameterised regional futures’. Developing and testing the approach for IWRM is realised for the upper part of the Western Bug River catchment (Ukraine). Special attention is paid to scenarios of change covering climate and land use. The future regional climate is downscaled with the model CCLM. Land cover is projected after retrospective change detection and the derivation of prospective algorithms. Parameters of the interrelations between land use and the water cycle are tackled through using the concept of the model PWF-LU. The methodology is currently being tested to analyse the impacts of mid-term regional change and management options on the water cycle of the catchment.

Cross-sectoral projections of future land-cover change for the Upper Western Bug River catchment, Ukraine

Projections of future land-cover (LC) change are challenging because of the multitude of spatial and dynamic drivers involved, such as politics, economics, demographics, and the environment. This paper presents a combined qualitative and quantitative scenario approach for giving consistent projections of urban and rural land-cover change (LCC), considering both the demands of certain LC types, and their allocation. The approach has been implemented in the Upper Western Bug River catchment in Ukraine in the context of integrated water resource management. Special attention is paid to the identification of spatial and dynamic drivers of LCC, the scenario formulation and projection of the identified drivers, and the projections of alternative plausible LCC. The identification of spatial and dynamic drivers is based on the detection of retrospective LCC, statistical analysis of interrelations between LCC and drivers, and expert validation of transition rules. The scenario formulation and projection of the drivers involve storylines with inputs from expert interviews. The creation of future LC change projections followed four steps: suitability maps from retrospective LCC detection, expert validation, the future development of drivers, and the allocation of LCC. Results indicate demographic change and GDP development as dynamic drivers mainly influencing the LCC, as other studies have implied. Furthermore, there are spatial drivers influencing the local allocation such as the regional capital of Lviv, and they are shaped by, for example, environmental laws, distances to roads and settlements, slope, and soil fertility.

Resilience in flood risk management – Exploring its added value for science and practice

The concept of resilience has become more prominent in the disaster risk sciences and policy documents on disaster risk reduction such as the United Nations Sendai Framework of Action 2015-2030. Originating from physics, psychology and ecology, it currently gains interest in a number of other fields. In line with that, it has been adopted in flood risk management from different disciplinary perspectives. Therefore, the question about the meaning of the resilience concept for flood risk management occurs. The paper derives a core concept of resilience for flood risk management from an extensive literature review. Hereby, it reflects the scope and characteristics of elements and (sub-)systems relevant to governing flood risks. It then integrates this concept in a comprehensive framework of risk management and differentiates it from similar concepts such as resistance, adaptability and transformability. Thereafter, the core concept is related to disciplinary views on resilience and particularly their operationalisation. The focus is on two examples of building constructions and risk management strategies. Interdependencies between application of resilience in these examples are discussed as well as similarities and distinctions of the disciplinary views are indicated. This leads to conclusions on the added value of the resilience concept for science and practice of flood risk management and to identification of questions for future research and implementation.