New Approaches to Adaptive Water Management under Uncertainty Fläche f. Logo 1 Exploring future flood management: a comparison of scenarios from literature

1

New Approaches to Adaptive Water Management under Uncertainty

Fläche f. Logo

Exploring future flood management:a comparison of scenarios from literature

and stakeholder perspectives

Tom Raadgever, Gert Becker

Paper submitted for presentation at the International Symposium on Flood Defence, 6-8 May 2008, Toronto

Water Research Centre Delft

2


Fläche f. Logo

Why use scenarios?


20502008

Prediction

Exploration

Strategic planning

By whom?

For whom?

Introduction – Scenarios from literature – Perspectives – Comparison - Discussion

Administrator

Plausible and consistent pictures of how the future might unfold.

Administrator

In the case study we explore possible futures and flood management strategies to cope with different futures, in order to find out which strategies perform well under multiple possible futures.We aim at social learning between the partiipants to workshops.

3


Fläche f. Logo

How to develop scenarios?


Using ‘archetypes’ from literature

Based on stakeholder perspectives

Do it yourself

Do it in collaboration


Administrator

Advantages and disadvantages

4


Fläche f. Logo

Flood management Rhine


5


Fläche f. Logo

Scenarios from literature


Governance

Globalization

Values

Self-interest, Efficiency

IPCC-SRES: A1

WLO: Global economy

Foresight: World Markets

Market (MA)

IPCC-SRES: B1

WLO: Strong Europe

Foresight: Global Sustainability

EU Solidarity, Equity

IPCC-SRES: A2

WLO: Transatlantic Market

Foresight: National Enterprise

National Identity (NI)

IPCC-SRES: B2

WLO: Regional communities

Foresight: Local Stewardship

Regional Sustainability (RS)

Regionalization


Administrator

Two critical dimensions / axes of uncertainty:‘Values’, political and social priorities, distribution of public and private responsibilities (self-interest, efficiency vs. solidarity, equity) ‘Governance’, political and economic power relations, spatial and structural orientation of decision-making (globalization vs regionalization)

6


Fläche f. Logo


Market (MA) EU NationaI Identity (NI) Regional Sustainab. (RS)

Developments in flood prone areas

Weak authorities, little regulation

EU Directives and funds

Long-term strategies

Agricultural goals

Little regulation

Ad hoc reactions

Social and ecological goals

Public participation

Dike heightening (urban area)

Flood warning

Insurance

Holding back water

Flood warning

General insurance

Dike heightening Compartments

No new dikes

Education

Compensation funds


Autonomous developments and strategies

Administrator

Not complete list, some important examples

7


Fläche f. Logo

Elicitation stakeholder perspectives


Interviews, literature 46 statements

Online Q sorting questionnaire

47 respondents

Factor analysis shared perspectives

Detailed information: HESS-D paper (Raadgever et al 2008)


Administrator

Statements about: Current situationExpected autonomous developmentsDesired future (vision 2050) Appropriate strategiesRespondents mix of government, science, society

8


Fläche f. Logo

Shared perspectives (factors)

A. ‘Anticipation and institutions’

– Increasing risk fast action

– Institutional measures

B. ‘Space for flooding’

– Spatial pressure fast action

– Damage reduction: controlled flooding

C. ‘Knowledge and engineering’

– Technological improvements

– Dikes & damage reduction: norm differentiation



Administrator

Anticipation and institutions:- many changes: climate and damage- need for active anticipation- mainly institutional measures, e.g. basin commission, harmonisation, integrationSpace for controlled flooding:- Spatial pressure --> fast action- Measures to mitigate damage: controlled flooding / compartmentalisation, mitigating developmentsKnowledge and engineering:- Expert knowledge- Technological improvements, better insights- Measures: Dikes, maintenance, Differentiation of safety norms & mitigating developmentsKnowledge and engineering:-

9


Fläche f. Logo

Comparison: methodology

19 common indicators

4 score categories, qualitatively described

Scoring based on storylines/data & Q statement scores

Identify ‘best matches’

– Minimising quadratic differences

– Minimising differences on 2 dimensions

– Autonomous developments and strategies seperately



Administrator

Scoring required interpretation by authorsMany discussions to improve scoringMany versions indicate robustness of conclusions

10


Fläche f. Logo

Scores for indicators: examples


Indicators (selection) Scenarios from literature

Perspectives

MA EU NI RS A B C

Developments in flood prone areas 4 2 3 1 3.7 3.7 3

Active anticipation in management 2 4 2 2 4 3 2

Dikes, dams 4 1.5 3 1.5 1 1 4

Legal restrictions (spatial/building) 1.5 4 1.5 3 2 4 3


11


Fläche f. Logo

Best matches: autonomous developments

Quadratic differences:

– A, B and C match best with EU

– 2nd best: NI, RS, MA

2 axes:

– A, B and EU

– C and NI / MA



MA

EU

NI

RS

AB

C

Individual - Collective

Lo

cal -

Glo

ba

l

Administrator

A, B and C match best with EU- high awareness / preparedness- moderately high interplay sectors, informal transboundary cooperation, public participation and multi-functionalitySecond best matches- A and NI, more developments, less technology - B and RS, more developments , less long-term view- C and MA, less anticipation, more expert knowledge, more differentiationLiterature covers broader spectrum than perspectives- orientation towards axes- distance from middle

12


Fläche f. Logo

Best matches: strategies

Quadratic differences:

– A and EU

– B / C and RS

– Second best matches: RS, EU, NI

2 axes problematic



Administrator

A and EUstorage in the basin, retention and disaster managementB / C and RSlimited investment in storage and retentionSecond best matchesA and RS, little dike heighteningB and EU, strong legal restrictions, little dike heighteningC and NI, strong focus on dikes

13


Fläche f. Logo

Discussion


Inconsistency among perspectives– different expected feed-back mechanisms

– different local interpretations of global effects

– different values and interests influencing expectations

Link autonomous developments and strategies ambiguous


Administrator

Scoring required interpretation by authorsMany discussions to improve scoringMany versions indicate robustness of conclusions

Administrator

Climate change effects as expected by the stakeholders are not directly comparable to the effects as defined in the scenarios from literature. The main reason is that stakeholders, when performing a Q sort, express their personal perspective without considering a direct coupling with other perspectives concerning cause-effect relations. For example, respondents with perspective C expect a large growth of technology and productivity, but relatively little climate change effects, despite the obviously high emissions of such a scenario. There may be a number of reasons for the distinct logic applied in the different perspectives. These include different expectations concerning feed-back mechanisms, such as the influence of mitigation measures, different values and interests that influence expectations, such as a desire for economic growth or for ecological precautionary, and different local interpretations of global effects. AD: a,b,c, and EUStrategies: b,c and RSAmbigutiy relation, interpretation

14


Fläche f. Logo

Strenghts of scenario development methods



Scenarios from literature Stakeholder perspectives

- Consistent set

- Strong variety of futures

- Grounded in social and institutional science

- Covers many developments

- Availability models, quantitative data, maps

- (Perceived) relevance

- Stakeholder ownership

- Better understanding

- Easier to relate

- Social learning

Administrator

Scientific rigourvsSoial learningSO how to develop scenarios?Depends on situationAlso other approaches à introductionCombine strenghts of multiple approachesAdditional research needed

Administrator

Climate change effects as expected by the stakeholders are not directly comparable to the effects as defined in the scenarios from literature. The main reason is that stakeholders, when performing a Q sort, express their personal perspective without considering a direct coupling with other perspectives concerning cause-effect relations. For example, respondents with perspective C expect a large growth of technology and productivity, but relatively little climate change effects, despite the obviously high emissions of such a scenario. There may be a number of reasons for the distinct logic applied in the different perspectives. These include different expectations concerning feed-back mechanisms, such as the influence of mitigation measures, different values and interests that influence expectations, such as a desire for economic growth or for ecological precautionary, and different local interpretations of global effects. AD: a,b,c, and EUStrategies: b,c and RSAmbigutiy relation, interpretation

15


Fläche f. Logo

Shared perspectives

A. ‘Anticipation and institutions’

B. ‘Space for flooding’

C. ‘Knowledge and engineering’


Factor NGOV NSCI NSOC NDE NNL NTOTAL

Determining factor A 9 6 3 9 9 18

Determining factor B 10 1 9 2 11

Determining factor C 2 4 1 7 7

Total 21 10 5 18 18 36

Administrator

Anticipation and institutions:- many changes: climate and damage- need for active anticipation- mainly institutional measures, e.g. basin commission, harmonisation, integrationSpace for controlled flooding:- Spatial pressure --> fast action- Measures to mitigate damage: controlled flooding / compartmentalisation, mitigating developmentsKnowledge and engineering:- Expert knowledge- Technological improvements, better insights- Measures: Dikes, maintenance, Differentiation of safety norms & mitigating developmentsKnowledge and engineering:-

16


Fläche f. Logo

Groups of respondents


Period of Q sorting

Addressed Responses

German-Dutch Working Group on Flood Management

Sep ’06 17 7

Other interviewees & water management scientists

Sep ‘06 – Feb ‘07 30 13

Union of Dutch River Municipalities (VNR)

Sep ‘06 – Feb ‘07 45 6

Hochwassernotgemeinschaft Rhein (Local governments, citizens and businesses)

Sep ‘06 – Feb ‘07 81 10

Participants 2nd workshop, including upstream Bundesländer

Apr ’07 10 6

International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR), Working Group on Flood Management + Observers

Sep ’07 – Oct ‘07 30 5

Documents

New Approaches to Adaptive Water Management under Uncertainty Fläche f. Logo 1 Exploring future flood management: a comparison of scenarios from literature