Climate Change Adaptation and Community Resilience in Flood Risk Management

Professor Jochen Schanze PhD1,2

1 Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development (IOER)

2 Chair of Environmental Development and Risk Managment, Technische Universität Dresden

WORKING GROUP F – SHORT WORKSHOP Flood Preparedness, Resilience and Adaptation

9th to 10th March 2015, Brussels

Contents

1. Climate change challenges for flood risk management

2. Anticipation and resilience

3. Scenario-based anticipation approaches

4. Resilience of constructions and organisations

5. Conclusions

Contents

1. Climate change challenges for flood risk management

2. Anticipation and resilience

3. Scenario-based anticipation approaches

4. Resilience of constructions and organisations

5. Conclusions

Environment Human

Climate change

Societal change

Adaptation options(Measures, instruments)

Risks

Opportunities

Climate-sensitive human-environment-system

Projectionsof change

Consequences withuncertainties

Flood hazard(likelihood ofmagnitude)

depending onclimate change

and societal change

Flood vulnerability(value/function,

susceptibility, coping capacity)

depending onsocietal change

Exposure

Climate sensitive flood risk system

Schanze & Sauer

(2011, modified)

Challenges of local climate change impact assessment

Complexity of cause-effect interrelations in a flood risk system involves

Multiple environmental compartments (e.g. soil),

Multiple societal utilisations (e.g. land use)

Uncertainty of future development of the system covering

Aleatory uncertainty due to lack of knowledge on the system’s behaviour and change

of boundary conditions such as climate and parallel societal change

Epistemic uncertainty due to quality of data and models for system analysis, future

projections and impact assessment

Contents

1. Climate change challenges for flood risk management

2. Anticipation and resilience

3. Scenario-based anticipation approaches

4. Resilience of constructions and organisations

5. Conclusions

Anticipation and resilience

According to Wildavski (1988) there are two complementary approaches on how

to deal with the future and uncertainties involved (cf. also e.g. Comfort 1994),

Wadekker et al. 2010):

Anticipation of known or possible future change of the systems as a prerequisite

of (conscious) adaptation (cf. Smit & Wandel 2006, de Bruijne et al. 2010)

Anticipation is based on e. g trends, prognosis, probabilities, scenarios

Adaptation refers to alteration of the system to changing boundary conditions

Resilience as capacity of the system to treat any known and unknown future

Resilience in a narrow sense regards to “bounce back” after disturbance

Resistance as invers concept of susceptibility as capacity to withstand stress

Resilience and resistance can be seen as two key components of vulnerability

Anticipation and adaptation

Anticipation as approach tries

to describe the system’s future development

to assess all impacts with their likelihood

Adaptation as approach envisages

to keep the system’s state constant and hence reduce negative impacts

to maximise efficiency (partly even sustainability) referring to the system’s impacts and

the respective efforts (cf. de Bruijne et al. 2010)

Background

Resilience has no universal meaning (e.g. Gallopin 2006)

Therefore resilience is understood just as “boundary object” (Brand & Jax 2007)

Key features

Systems ability to retain characteristic elements, structures and processes (and reorganise

while undergoing change; Walker et al. 2004) in case of change of (creeping) or disturbance

(sudden) from boundary conditions

Further system-specific features (e.g. for natural or social systems) may be derived

Resilience may be measurable to a certain extent (e.g. tipping points)

Normative dimension

Resilience is descriptive in the first instance; evaluation needs goals or targets / thresholds

Normative notion (e.g. Folke 2006, Ernstson et al. 2010) may narrow value

Resilience

Realms with relevance of adaptation and resilience

Individual system elements (subjects, object)

Human beings

Constructions (e.g. buildings, infrastructure assets)

Groups of system elements

Social groups, communities, organisations

Construction complexes and networks

Sub-systems

Natural sub-systems (e.g. natural components of landscapes)

Technological sub-systems

Social (e.g. organisation networks), economic and political sub-systems

Human-environment systems

e.g. flood risk systems

Management and governance

e.g. strategies (and cooperation) of stakeholders / actors

e.g. institutional setting

cf. de Bruijne et al. (2010)

Contents

1. Climate change challenges for flood risk management

2. Anticipation and resilience

3. Scenario-based anticipation approaches

4. Resilience of constructions and organisations

5. Conclusions

Storylines of scenario-based anticipation

Globalisation,low regulation,

interdependence

Market orientation,neoliberalism,

technocentrism

Storyline A:Globalised and market oriented region

Storyline B:Regional andmarket orientedregion

Storyline D:Regional, social and sustainable oriented region

Storyline C:Global, social and sustainable oriented region

Trend –conventional current development

SzB

SzA

SzD

SzC

Present (2005) Future (2050)

Solidarity, equity, ecocentrism

Regionalisation,high regulation,

autonomy

Luther & Schanze

(2008, modified)

Modelling the flood risk system (example)

Climate change projections (STAR, REMO)

Coupled Extreme Value Statistics

WAVOS

LISFLOOD

SMS

Management river and floodplain

Change/Management land use

WAVOS SMS HOWAD

Modifiable Digital Terrain Model

Settlement

Dike/Flood polder

Multicriteria evaluation of retention potential and futures

Schanze (2007)

Neubert, Naumann & Deilmann (2008)

Simulation of flood risk for scenarios Scenarios ‘baseline‘ and ‘B‘ (STAR A2, 2050, 1:200yrs)

…0

5

10

15

20

25

A B C D

SE

W in

10

00

€/a

Entwicklungsrahmen

HA "Resilienz" II

HA "Kombination" III

RA "Aktuelle Praxis" 0

Scenarios

Dam

age

expecta

ncy

valu

ein

1000 €

/yr

Strategic alternatives

Luther (2009)

Robustness of strategic alternatives as criterion for climate change adaptation

Contents

1. Climate change challenges for flood risk management

2. Anticipation and resilience

3. Scenario-based anticipation approaches

4. Resilience of constructions and organisations

5. Conclusions

Resilience and resistance of buildings

(A) Flood resistance

Construction of the building to prevent flood water entering the building and damaging its fabric

(B) Flood resilience

Construction of the building in such a way that minimises water ingress and allows fast drying and easy cleaning without any permanent damage

Golz & Nikolowski (unpublished, modified)

Operationalisation of resilience for physical systems

Quantitative definition of resilience for a functional system in the case of

disruptive event and in the case of full recovery (Bruneau et al. 2003)

Resilience

Functionality [%]

Uncertainties(from classicalrisk analysis)

Event Time (ifistantaneous)

Recoverytime (in the case of 100% recovery)

Rapidity

Examples of resilience measures

Condensation dryer Adsorption dryer

Heating and ventilation Microwave dryer

Moisture damage

Testing of resilient construction

Golz & Nikolowski (unpublished)

Analysis of flood risk management stakeholders (example)

Sempijja (2013)

Aspects of resilience: General explanation:

1. Omnivorousness of

the FRM strategy

Diverse kinds of resources that can be used for management; the less

likely is the management to become unstable because of a supply failure of a single resource (Wildavsky, 1988: 113; Wardekker et al., 2010)

2. Agile and timely flow

of response rate ofthe FRM strategy

Conditions for quick distribution of resources. The higher the rate of

resource flux through the management system, the more resources areavailable per unit time to help deal with perturbations) (Wildavsky,1988: 113)

3. Homeostasis of the

FRM strategy

Awareness (knowledge) of flood risk & maintenance of FRM strategy

based on learning etc. (Wildavsky, 1988: 114; McManus et al. 2007)

4. Flatness of response

process and structure of the FRM strategy

Decentralised decision making and flatness of inter-organisational

pyramid of the management strategy (Wildavsky, 1988: 114)

5. Redundancy of

response resourcesfor FRM

Redundancy insures reliability. Resources reserved, lay slack, and

saved for possible use during crisis (Wildavsky, 1988: 115)

6. Buffer capacity of

the FRM strategy

Capacity far beyond designedperformance (Wildavsky,1988: 116)

Aspects for characterisation of organisational resilience

Atanga (in prep.)

Contents

1. Climate change challenges for flood risk management

2. Anticipation and resilience

3. Scenario-based anticipation approaches

4. Resilience of constructions and organisations

5. Conclusions

Conclusions

Climate change impacts on flood risk and flood risk management are not just complex but also highly uncertain

Anticipation and resilience are two approaches for dealing with the aleatory uncertainty

Both approaches could address the physical world as well as management strategies and hence should be based on common consistent concepts

However, requirements for treatment with the physical and organisational issues require specific views

While some advancements have been reached in anticipation and description of physical resilience, there is still a lot to do to also consider organisational resilience

Particular, combination of anticipation and resilience seems to be a pressing challenge of flood risk management

Climate Change Adaptation and Community Resilience in Flood Risk Management

Thank you very much for your attention.

Contact: J.Schanze@ioer.de

1 Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development (IOER)

2 Chair of Environmental Development and Risk Managment, Technische Universität Dresden

WORKING GROUP F – SHORT WORKSHOP Flood Preparedness, Resilience and Adaptation

9th to 10th March 2015, Brussels