Locarno – flooding 2000 Andrea Castelletti Politecnico di Milano Integrated and participatory planning: a procedural approach NRMLec02

Locarno – flooding 2000

Andrea CastellettiPolitecnico di Milano

Integrated and participatory

planning: a procedural approach

NRMNRMLec02Lec02

2

3

Milan

Miorina dam

river Ticino

Lake Maggiore

4

Inhabitants: 1.500.000

Irrigated area: 500.000 ha

50% of Italy’s rice production

30% of EU’s rice production

5

Regulated lake

Why is Lake Maggiore regulated

flood stage

water demand

tin

flow

t

leve

l

J D t

rele

ase

Natural lake

6

The regulation range

-1

-0,5

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

1-g

en

25

-ge

n

18

-fe

b

13

-ma

r

6-a

pr

30

-ap

r

24

-ma

g

17

-giu

11

-lu

g

4-a

go

28

-ag

o

21

-se

t

15

-ott

8-n

ov

2-d

ic

26

-dic

La

ke

le

ve

l [m

]

Regulation range

7

Historical performance

natural lake

regulated historyflood

deficit

8

9

Historical performance

natural lake

regulated historyflood

deficit

To reduce lake flooding Switzerland proposes the excavation of lake outlet to Italy.

10

Problem definition

Excavation design (with a model)

Political decision

Proposal

Sta

keh

old

ers

Public consultation

How was the excavation designed?

The classical planning

approachThe classical planning

approach

The proposal was

rejected!The proposal was

rejected!

11

Why?

1. Only lakeside population will take advantage of the excavation.

What about the others:

- riverside population

12

13

Why?

1. Only the lake side population will take advantage of the excavation?

What about the others:

- riverside population: fears that increasing the release rate will cause larger floods;

- farmers: fear that increasing the release rate will cause more severe droughts.

14

Why?

1. Only the lake side population will take advantage of the excavation?

2. The proposal (and the design) comes from one of the two parties involved, the other one (Italy) does not trust it

15

Problem definition

Dredging design (with a model)

Political decision

Proposal

Sta

keh

old

ers

Public consultation

How was the excavation designed?

The classical planning

approachThe classical planning

approachThe proposal was

rejected!The proposal was

rejected!The approach is wrong!!!

The approach is wrong!!!

What to do?

Get more interests involved:

swap excavation for reservoir capacity

Make participatory decisions

What to do?

Get more interests involved:

swap excavation for reservoir capacity

Make participatory decisions

16

Problem definition


Political decision

Proposal

Sta

keh

old

ers

Public consultation

Negotiate on positionsNegotiate on interests

Positions:I want to excavate

I want a larger reservoir

Positions:I want to excavate

I want a larger reservoirInterests: Avoid floods

Reduce droughts

Interests: Avoid floods

Reduce droughts

17

Let’s experiencing a real negotiation

Try to reach an agreement between Italy and

Switzerland.

Italy

Switzerland

Downstream

Upstream

Italy

Switzerland

Downstream

Upstream

18

Problem definition


Political decision

Proposal

Sta

keh

old

ers

Public consultation


Positions:I want to dredge





Reduce droughts


Reduce droughts

To negotiate one needs to know the effects of the alternatives!

To negotiate one needs to know the effects of the alternatives!

19

Write your final agreement on a piece of paper

e.g. SatisfactionUpstream 43Downstream 22

or

No Agreement

20

Problem definition


Political decision

Proposal

Sta

keh

old

ers

Public consultation







Reduce droughts


Reduce droughts

To negotiate one needs to know the effects of the alternatives

1) Use models to evaluate in a “participatory” process the impacts of each alternative;

2) start a “social learning process”;

3) by means of which an “acceptable compromise” can be found.

To negotiate one needs to know the effects of the alternatives

1) Use models to evaluate in a “participatory” process the impacts of each alternative;

2) start a “social learning process”;

3) by means of which an “acceptable compromise” can be found.

Integrated Water Resources ManagementIWRM

Integrated Water Resources ManagementIWRM

21

IWRM paradigm is adopted by EU

Water Framework Directive (WFD)

establishes a framework for the protection of all waters

requires within 2009 the production of River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) to be prepared following the IWRM paradigm

WFD Art. 13

22

Integration

of environmental objectives; of all water uses, functions and values into a common

policy frameworkwater for health and human consumption, water for

economic sectors, transport, leisure, etc.

of all significant management and ecological aspects … including those which are beyond the scope of WFD, such as flood protection;

of stakeholders and civil society in decision making

[WFD CIS GD11]

23

The WFD guidelines states:

“planning is a process”

and requires

“to provide procedural guidance on the production and development of River Basin Management Plans”

supported by appropriate toolboxes, that “should help to identify the possible trade-offs among quantifiable objectives so that further debates and analysis can be more informed”.

Moreover the toolboxes must support “planning as a systematic, integrative and iterative process”.

24

Problem definition

Excavation design (with a model)

Political decision

Sta

keh

old

ers

IWRM: the need for a procedure

Procedure

Procedure

25

ICT T

ools

yes

Final (political) decision

reasonable alternatives

2. Conceptualisation

3. Designing Alternatives

4. Estimating effectsS

takeh

old

ers

1. Reconnaissance

5. Evaluation

noMitigation,

and compensatio

n, Agreement

?

MO

DSS

PIP procedure

PParticipatory and IIntegrated PPlanning procedure

6. Comparison or negotiation

Problem formulationSetting the goal and identifying the

constraints

Designing alternatives/options

Selecting the best compromise alternative

26

Sta

keh

old

ers

1. Reconnaissance

• System understanding

• Stakeholders identification

• System definition in time and space

• Institutional and legal analysis

• Setting up the Objectives

among which environmental objectives, e.g. “good water status” and “sustainable uses”, as required by the WFD.

27

Regulated lake

Why is Lake Maggiore regulated

flood stage

water demand

tin

flow

t

leve

l

J D t

rele

ase

Natural lake

28

Upstream stakeholders

Coastline towns

29


Coastline towns

Natural reserve

30


Coastline towns

Navigation

Natural reserve

31

Downstream stakeholders

fiume Po

Pavia

sbarramento della Miorina

PARCO DEL

TICINO ENEL

CONSORZIO VILLORESI

CONSORZIO EST SESIA

fiume Ticino

Canale Industriale

Canale Regina Elena

Canale Villoresi

Bacino di ripartizione del

Panperduto

Lago Maggiore

IRRIGATION DISTRICTS:

Consorzio Est Sesia

RIVER NATURAL PARKS

Parchi Naturali della Valle del Ticino

HYDROPOWER COMPANY

Enel

Consorzio Villoresi

32

Sectors

Flooding

Tourism

Environment

Fisheries

Navigation

Mosquitos

Flooding

Tourism

Hydropower

Environment

Irrigation

Upstream Downstream

33

Problem objective

Find a way of managing the lake

that gathers a consent larger

than the present one and enhances environmental quality (WFD requirements).

34


Sta

keh

old

ers

1. Reconnaissance

Defining Actions

(measures)

35

Actions proposed by the stakeholders

excavate the lake outletSwisses:

change the regulation rangeFarmers:

Italians:

improve environmental qualityParks:

change the way the lake is presently regulated (regulation policy)

Lake manager:

36

More in general …

flood gatesflood gates

dykesdykeswater rightswater rights

capcap

regulation range

regulation range

fish laddersfish ladders

wastewater treatment

wastewater treatment

regulatio

n

regulatio

nIntegrataed m

anagement

Integrataed managem

ent

using minesusing mines

remeanderingremeandering

irrigation techniques

irrigation techniques

structuralstructuralstructuralstructural

Types of actionsTypes of actions

normativenormativenormativenormative

managementmanagementmanagementmanagement

mefmef

Actions are instantiated when they clearly state

“who is doing what and when”.

Actions are instantiated when they clearly state

“who is doing what and when”.

An alternative (program of measures) is

a coordinated mix of instantiated actionsAn alternative (program of measures) is

a coordinated mix of instantiated actions

The scope of planning is to identify the “best

compromise alternative”

The scope of planning is to identify the “best

compromise alternative”

37

Actions proposed by the stakeholders

excavate the lake outletSwisses:

change the regulation rangeFarmers:

Italians:

improve environmental qualityParks:

change the way the lake is presently regulated (regulation policy)

Lake manager:

planning actions (once for ever)

normative

structural

managementdecisions(daily)

regulation policy (design it once for ever)

Alternative

38


Sta

keh

old

ers

1. Reconnaissance

Defining Actions

(measures)

Defining Criteria and

Indicators

39

40

An example of hierarchy: Irrigation

Income

Distributioncost

Supplydeficit

Harvest

Crop stress€

Indicators are not necessarily

quantitativeIndicators are not necessarily

quantitative

41

I_esM_C03

Maximum number of consecutive days of traffic interruption.

[days]

where: Di = number of days of the i-th flooding event; I = set of flooding events in the planning horizon.

I_esM_C03

Maximum number of consecutive days of traffic interruption.

[days]

where: Di = number of days of the i-th flooding event; I = set of flooding events in the planning horizon.

42

Upstream flooding: Floodings in Locarno (?)

43

Indicator: Flooded area

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

level [m]

floo

ded

area

[km

2 ]

flooding threshold

1,24 3,002,64

Historical max.(1993)

44

Flooded area1993 – 2005 events

45

parks

services

shopping a.

…

Upstream flooding: Land use

46

Lakeside, 2000

Matteotti Square(213 cm).

Cavour Square and promenade(124 cm).

Corner Rosselli-Veneto (273 cm).

Upstream flooding: Interruption in traffic

47

Raised walkways down town, 1997.

Walkways extension.

Upstream flooding: Walking

48

49

Another example: Upstream Environment

Quality of the protected area

WetlandMigration

BirdsFish

Nest Ciprinidi

reproductionNanociperetiWater

reeds

50

Sectors

Flooding

Tourism

Environment

Fisheries

Navigation

Mosquitos

Flooding

Tourism

Hydropower

Environment

Irrigation

7

3

4

2

5

4

4

4

3

2

4

Indicators

42 indicators

Upstream Downstream

51


Sta

keh

old

ers

1. Reconnaissance

Defining Actions

(measures)

Identifying the Model

Defining Criteria and

Indicators

52

Components

To take decisions we need to simulate the system behaviour

River ecosystem

Catchments

Lake

River Ticino

Irrigation districts

Distribution policy

Crops

53

The water system topological scheme

scheme

Villoresi

R. Elena

Industriale

Porto Torre

River Po

catchment

irr. district

junctiondiversion

power plant

54

Identifying the model

Villoresi

R. Elena

Industriale

Porto Torre

River Po

External drivers

precipitation

water demand

55


Sta

keh

old

ers

1. Reconnaissance

3. Designing Alternatives

56

Definition of scenarios

Precipitation (climate change) Water demand Crop prices Demographic changes Land use changes Tourist trends .....

Scenario: (time) trajectories of external drivers that are not controllable by the Decision Makers:

57

Irri

ga

tion

de

ficit

Floods

structural

normative

actionsindicators

flooded area

...

max flood

14 days deficit

...regulatory (policy)

alternatives

A1

...

A2

...

An

Designing alternatives

Experts

J1

J2

Pareto

Optimisation

A

C BIr

rig

atio

n d

efic

it

Floods

Dominated alternative

Dominating alternative Pareto frontier

58


3. Designing alternatives

Sta

keh

old

ers

1. Reconnaissance

4. Estimating effects

59

Estimation of the effectsSIMULATION

Impact matrix

Estimating effects

structural

normative

actionsindicators

flooded area

...

max flood

14 days deficit

...regulatory (policy)

alternatives

A1

...

A2

...

An

Experts

J1

J2

Pareto

Optimisation

60

Effects of the Alternatives

utopia

Irrigation deficit [Mm3/year]

Flo

od

ing

day

s [d

ay/y

ear]

100 200 300 400 500 600

1

2

3

4

5

history

6

61

Impact matrix

utopia

Irrigation deficit [Mm3/year]

Flo

od

ing

day

s [d

ay/y

ear]

100 200 300 400 500 600

1

2

3

4

5

history

6

1.69......4.514.22mean annual flooded

area3.31......7.17.1max flooded area

...................

..................

..................

......14 d. deficit

..................

A54......A1A0

alternatives

ind

icat

ors

The Matrix of effects is the base for the cost

effectiveness analysis required by WFD

The Matrix of effects is the base for the cost

effectiveness analysis required by WFD

62




Sta

keh

old

ers

1. Reconnaissance

5. Evaluation

63

Impact matrix

1.69......4.514.22mean annual flooded area

3.31......7.17.1max flooded area

..................

..................

..................

230......18020314 d. deficit

..................

A54......A1A0

Alternatives

Indi

cato

rs

1

0

Value

i-th indicator

Value functions = stakeholders satisfaction

Value functions

64

65

1.69......4.514.22mean annual flooded area

3.31......7.17.1max flooded area

..................

..................

..................

230......18020314 d. deficit

..................

A54......A1A0

Alternatives

Indi

cato

rs

1

0

Value

i-th indicator

......0.30.41

......0.50.5

............

............

............

......0.650.4

............

0.75

0.32

...

...

...

0

...

Value matrix

The indicators belonging tosame sector

are aggregated

0.82

0.18

Weights

Value functions

Value functions = stakeholders satisfaction

66

0.150.070.010.850.16downstr. envir.

hydropower

irrigation

upstr.envir.

lake flood

0.700.800.660.150.83

0.590.750.860.000.61

0.480.160.140.670.26

0.660.700.550.220.12

A54…A4A2A1A0

AlternativesIn

de

xes

Value matrix

e.g. this line is the Upstream satisfaction

table of the initial game.

67

6. Comparison or negotiations

reasonable alternative




Sta

keh

old

ers

1. Reconnaissance

5. Evaluation

68

0.150.070.010.850.16downstr. envir.

hydropower

irrigation

upstr.envir.

lake flood

0.700.800.660.150.83

0.590.750.860.000.61

0.480.160.140.670.26

0.660.700.550.220.12

A54…A4A2A1A0

AlternativesIn

de

xes

Value matrix

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

upstr.envir. downstr. envir. hydropower irrigation lake flood

uti

lity

A0 A0 A0

Pareto Race

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


uti

lity

A0 A0 A26

excessive loss in irrigation

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


uti

lity

A0 A36 A26

going on ...


A0 no actions0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


uti

lity

A0 A36 A34

69

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Lake-env River_env. Hydrop. Irrig. Lake fllooding

uti

lity

A0 A36 A34

Lake_flooding1993 flood

Irrigation1976 drought

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

15/03/76 22/03/76 29/03/76 05/04/76 12/04/76 19/04/76 26/04/76

flo

w [

m3 /s

] inflow

water demand

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

15/09/93 19/09/93 23/09/93 27/09/93 01/10/93 05/10/93 09/10/93 13/10/93 17/10/93 21/10/93 25/10/93 29/10/93

leve

l [m

]

Flooding level at Locarno

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Lake-env River_env. Hydrop. Irrig. Lake flooding

uti

lity

A0 A36 A34

Effects of A34

70

0.150.070.010.850.16downstr. envir.

hydropower

irrigation

upstr.envir.

lake flood

0.700.800.660.150.83

0.590.750.860.000.61

0.480.160.140.670.26

0.660.700.550.220.12

A54…A4A2A1A0

AlternativesIn

de

xes

Value matrix

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


uti

lity

A0 A0 A0

Pareto Race

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


uti

lity

A0 A0 A26


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


uti

lity

A0 A36 A26

going on ...


A0 no actions0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


uti

lity

A0 A36 A34

significant losses MITIGATE!

71






Sta

keh

old

ers

1. Reconnaissance

5. Evaluation

noMitigation and

compensation

Agreement?

72

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

uti

lity

0.5

Mitigation measures

A0

new area to acquired to mitigate A34

flooded area with A34

A34 A34 mitig.

flooded area with A0

73

0.150.070.010.850.16downstr. envir.

hydropower

irrigation

upstr.envir.

lake flood

0.700.800.660.150.83

0.590.750.860.000.61

0.480.160.140.670.26

0.660.700.550.220.12

A54…A4A2A1A0

AlternativesIn

de

xes

Value matrix

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


uti

lity

A0 A0 A0

Pareto Race

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


uti

lity

A0 A0 A26


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


uti

lity

A0 A36 A26

going on ...

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


uti

lity

A0 A36 A34


A0 no actions

significant losses MITIGATE!

A set of Reasonable Alternatives is

obtainedA set of Reasonable Alternatives is

obtained“By knowing the positions of stakeholders a competent authority can choose the best compromise solution”WFD CIS GD 11

“By knowing the positions of stakeholders a competent authority can choose the best compromise solution”WFD CIS GD 11

74

MO

DS

S






Sta

keh

old

ers

1. Reconnaissance

5. Evaluation

noMitigation and

compensation

Agreement? yes


Problem formulationSetting the goal and identifying the

constraints

Designing alternatives/options

Selecting the best compromise alternative

75

MO

DS

S






Sta

keh

old

ers

1. Reconnaissance

5. Evaluation

noMitigation and

compensation

Agreement? yes


Tw

oLe

Daily management

Planning

Management

Tw

oLe/P

TwoLe/M

76

planning

management

analyst DM

stakeholders

DMusers

operational control

models and policies

release decision

TwoLe/P

TwoLe/M

TwoLe: a 2 level MODSS

77

MO

DS

S






Sta

keh

old

ers

1. Reconnaissance

5. Evaluation

noMitigation and

compensation

Agreement? yes


Tw

oLe

on th

e W

eb

To sup

port t

rans

paren

cy, f

orum

, etc

but n

ot in

terv

iews an

d neg

otia

tions

78

Data Bases

Models Stakeholders

Decision-makers

Distributed participation

PIP procedure

TwoLe

toolboxes

79

Readings

IPWRM.Theory Ch. 1

IPWRM.Practice Ch. 3

Documents

Locarno – flooding 2000 Andrea Castelletti Politecnico di Milano Integrated and participatory planning: a procedural approach NRMLec02