ET
E. Tromp
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
5 records found
1
For many years the Netherlands has protected itself against high river discharges and storms by means of a network of dikes, dams and (other) hydraulic structures. Traditionally, water safety has therefore mainly been the domain of engineers. In recent decades, the regulations on water safety have been further institutionalised. Knowledge in the field of flood risk management is strongly linked to policy; new knowledge can therefore have far-reaching consequences. Dutch flood risk management policy addresses new knowledge by jointly developing procedures for assessing safety and reliability, and weighing these values against affordability. Because flood defences often fulfil other functions as well, the flood protection domain requires a balance between many more values: regional water authorities, provinces and municipalities must take more account of spatial integration and coupling opportunities, climate (adaptation), and circular economy. Within the Dutch Flood Protection Programme (DFPP) these values are weighed up within the dike reinforcement projects. The DFPP stimulates the development of innovations, often involving the development of new knowledge, also with the aim of being able to carry out the national task better, faster and/or cheaper. Despite all efforts, the innovations do not yet enjoy sufficient confidence in relation to the existing dike reinforcement alternatives, which means that they are not yet fully considered. We also see that the projects involve participatory design processes in which the interests of citizens and businesses are more central. Within this process, visions and various types of knowledge are shared with each other. The need to share and use knowledge is clear. However, the use of knowledge in dike reinforcement projects is problematic along three dimensions. (1) The decision-making power is distributed over the stakeholders, and therefore requires commitment from those stakeholders. (2) Knowledge, where available, is also distributed over stakeholders. Content-related and/or strategic uncertainties give reason not to share this knowledge. (3) Because knowledge is situated, knowledge exchange between stakeholders is intrinsically difficult. This impedes the use of knowledge. Although the institutional framework within which projects are carried out in the Netherlands addresses some of these dimensions, the available knowledge is used only to a limited extent.
...
For many years the Netherlands has protected itself against high river discharges and storms by means of a network of dikes, dams and (other) hydraulic structures. Traditionally, water safety has therefore mainly been the domain of engineers. In recent decades, the regulations on water safety have been further institutionalised. Knowledge in the field of flood risk management is strongly linked to policy; new knowledge can therefore have far-reaching consequences. Dutch flood risk management policy addresses new knowledge by jointly developing procedures for assessing safety and reliability, and weighing these values against affordability. Because flood defences often fulfil other functions as well, the flood protection domain requires a balance between many more values: regional water authorities, provinces and municipalities must take more account of spatial integration and coupling opportunities, climate (adaptation), and circular economy. Within the Dutch Flood Protection Programme (DFPP) these values are weighed up within the dike reinforcement projects. The DFPP stimulates the development of innovations, often involving the development of new knowledge, also with the aim of being able to carry out the national task better, faster and/or cheaper. Despite all efforts, the innovations do not yet enjoy sufficient confidence in relation to the existing dike reinforcement alternatives, which means that they are not yet fully considered. We also see that the projects involve participatory design processes in which the interests of citizens and businesses are more central. Within this process, visions and various types of knowledge are shared with each other. The need to share and use knowledge is clear. However, the use of knowledge in dike reinforcement projects is problematic along three dimensions. (1) The decision-making power is distributed over the stakeholders, and therefore requires commitment from those stakeholders. (2) Knowledge, where available, is also distributed over stakeholders. Content-related and/or strategic uncertainties give reason not to share this knowledge. (3) Because knowledge is situated, knowledge exchange between stakeholders is intrinsically difficult. This impedes the use of knowledge. Although the institutional framework within which projects are carried out in the Netherlands addresses some of these dimensions, the available knowledge is used only to a limited extent.
Levees in a changing environment
Synchronizing and anticipating local challenges
In recent years, spatial planning and flood risk management (FRM) have been further coupled, thuscreating opportunities to incorporate water management measures in urban construction/reconstructionand landscaping. In addition, it is essential to find more than just technicalsolutions to potential flooding problems, and look for strategies that also addressgovernance, funding and more integrated design processes. Research in recent yearshas identified two dominant strategies - synchronization and anticipation -based on the question whether there is a flood risk issue and/or a spatialdevelopment plan and on the degree to which a flexible approach is available thatwill allow separate developments to be synchronized. These strategies can be usedin both urban and rural areas.
...
In recent years, spatial planning and flood risk management (FRM) have been further coupled, thuscreating opportunities to incorporate water management measures in urban construction/reconstructionand landscaping. In addition, it is essential to find more than just technicalsolutions to potential flooding problems, and look for strategies that also addressgovernance, funding and more integrated design processes. Research in recent yearshas identified two dominant strategies - synchronization and anticipation -based on the question whether there is a flood risk issue and/or a spatialdevelopment plan and on the degree to which a flexible approach is available thatwill allow separate developments to be synchronized. These strategies can be usedin both urban and rural areas.
In the Netherlands, technical innovations for dike strengthening rarely become mainstream. A case study of the redesign process of the dike between Kinderdijk and Schoonhovenseveer suggests that benefitting from the creative capacity of contractors requires organizational learning.
...
In the Netherlands, technical innovations for dike strengthening rarely become mainstream. A case study of the redesign process of the dike between Kinderdijk and Schoonhovenseveer suggests that benefitting from the creative capacity of contractors requires organizational learning.
Flood risk management (FRM) has become a complex sociotechnical issue, one that requires a wide range ofexpertise from science, engineering, and behavioral disciplines. Anyintervention in the flood defense system must meet the requirements of manydifferent stakeholders. Although all stakeholders have a clear and common interestin enhancing safety from flooding, individual and organizational interests can divergewidely.
...
Flood risk management (FRM) has become a complex sociotechnical issue, one that requires a wide range ofexpertise from science, engineering, and behavioral disciplines. Anyintervention in the flood defense system must meet the requirements of manydifferent stakeholders. Although all stakeholders have a clear and common interestin enhancing safety from flooding, individual and organizational interests can divergewidely.
Case Study: Kinderdijk - Schoonhovenseveer
Dike reinforcement lekdijk
The dike reinforcement project Kinderdijk – Schoonhovenseveer (KIS) is part of the Lekdijk, a primary flooddefense that directly protects two major polders in its hinterland fromflooding by the Rhine: the Alblasserwaard and the Vijfheerenlanden polders. Theinitial expansion of local villages (in the Middle Ages) was concentrated near thedike and around the churches, resulting in ribbon development along the dike (seeFigure 1). Beyond the dike, part of the floodplains is a nature conservationarea. The local population is aging, and village shops, businesses, and localactivities are slowly disappearing. There is a shortage of housing for youngpeople.
...
The dike reinforcement project Kinderdijk – Schoonhovenseveer (KIS) is part of the Lekdijk, a primary flooddefense that directly protects two major polders in its hinterland fromflooding by the Rhine: the Alblasserwaard and the Vijfheerenlanden polders. Theinitial expansion of local villages (in the Middle Ages) was concentrated near thedike and around the churches, resulting in ribbon development along the dike (seeFigure 1). Beyond the dike, part of the floodplains is a nature conservationarea. The local population is aging, and village shops, businesses, and localactivities are slowly disappearing. There is a shortage of housing for youngpeople.