Klijn Frans, Kreibich Heidi, de Moel Hans, Penning-Rowsell Edmund
Deltares, PO Box 177, 2600 MH Delft, The Netherlands.
GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Potsdam, Germany.
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang. 2015;20(6):845-864. doi: 10.1007/s11027-015-9638-z. Epub 2015 Mar 12.
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 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.
人口密集的三角洲极易受到海平面上升和气候变化的影响,以至于它们不能坐等全球减缓措施生效。因此,荷兰在适应研究和未来规划方面投入了巨大努力,例如通过国家气候知识研究计划和二十一世纪三角洲计划。洪水风险是这两个计划所涉及的关键问题之一。适应性管理规划应依赖于合理的政策分析,该分析包括对未来的展望、确定是否需要政策转变、评估替代洪水风险管理策略以及提前进行规划,而不会有做得太少太晚或做得太多太早而后悔的风险。这项被称为适应性三角洲管理的工作需要新的方法,特别是由于长期未来发展存在不确定性。对于洪水风险管理而言,这还需要重新考虑基本原则以及技术措施组合与空间规划及其他政策工具的应用。为此,我们首先对洪水风险进行了概念化,调和了防洪管理实践和空间规划实践的不同方法,以弥合这些以前相互分离的领域之间的差距。其次,我们放眼国外,以便能够更好地批判性反思可能存在的荷兰偏见,这种偏见可能源于几个世纪成功应对不断增加的洪水风险的经验,但未来可能不再可持续。在本文中,我们解释了洪水风险的多重概念化,并认为明确将暴露决定因素作为一个新概念区分开来可能有助于弥合工程师和空间规划师之间的差距,因此我们展示了他们不同的概念化如何影响适应挑战的框架构建。此外,我们确定了荷兰可以从对未来洪水风险挑战有不同框架构建的邻国中学到什么。