• Non ci sono risultati.

Flood risk management in Flanders: from flood risk objectives to appropriate measures through state assessment Sven Verbeke

N/A
N/A
Info
Scarica
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Condividi "Flood risk management in Flanders: from flood risk objectives to appropriate measures through state assessment Sven Verbeke"

Copied!
6
0
0

Caricamento.... (Visualizza il testo completo ora)

Scarica adesso ( 6 pagine )

Testo completo

(1)E3S Web of Conferences 7, 23007 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management. DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/2016 0723007. Flood risk management in Flanders: from flood risk objectives to appropriate measures through state assessment Sven Verbeke. 1,a. and Neel Devroede. 2. 1. Flanders Environment Agency, Zandvoordestraat 375, 8400 Ostend, Belgium Flanders Environment Agency, Koning Albert-II laan 20 bus 16, 1000 Brussels, Belgium. 2. Abstract. In compliance with the EU Flood Directive to reduce flood risk, flood risk management objectives are indispensable for the delineation of necessary measures. In Flanders, flood risk management objectives are part of the environmental objectives which are judicially integrated by the Decree on Integrated Water Policy. Appropriate objectives were derived by supporting studies and extensive consultation on a local, regional and policy level. Under a general flood risk objective sub-objectives are formulated for different aspects: water management and safety, shipping, ecology, and water supply. By developing a risk matrix, it is possible to assess the current state of flood risk and to judge where action is needed to decrease the risk. Three different states of flood risk are distinguished: a) acceptable risk, where no action is needed, b) intermediate risk where the risk should be reduced by cost efficient actions, and c) unacceptable risk, where action is necessary. For each particular aspect, the severity of the consequences of flooding is assessed by quantifiable indicators, such as economic risk, people at risk and ecological flood tolerance. The framework also allows evaluating the effects of the implemented measures and the autonomous development such as climate change and land use change. This approach gives a quantifiable assessment of state, and enables a prioritization of flood risk measures for the reduction of flood risk in a cost efficient and sustainable way.. 1 Introduction    

(2)  

(3)                                 !!"   !!# $  !%!     !%"           &            '           

(4)                     (        &)

(5)  * +%,           -           '             . / . 0 + ,     

(6)  

(7)   1                2     %       1                        / .  0                  1               '            a.   -      3       . Figure 1. Process from flood risk objectives tot necessary measures. 2 Flood risk objectives 2.1 Implementation process 2.1.1 Competent authority   4    4     0 5  64(07 +8,          . Sven Verbeke: s.verbeke@vmm.be. © The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)..

(8) E3S Web of Conferences 7, 23007 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management. DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/2016 0723007.   2        1                     6  7            1      +=,        1  9/5   

(9) 9/5 (    !%; 

(10)  >    1       1  

(11)  !%;             2        1  9/5?   * !%"   / !%; 

(12) 9/5    &                     -    1         

(13)  .                (     .           

(14)  9 (                   6

(15) 9/57   1         69/57* ( 0/   +:", 2.1.2 Implementation process 

(16)       3                 1  

(17)    

(18)   &    2     *   /     5  0         +;,          1                                        6      7  -  2         '          1                                    8   2        

(19)   &    2              +#,                    -     6  5  29  5<97                 '                       9                 1                       1                                               (  * !%8     1 4(0  . 2.2 Flood risk management objectives        1           -   

(20)                    @ .               A . 9   1  A . 2                  A . 2         

(21)         1           1   . 1          1                                                        +#,                          5  6         7                                      

(22)   2                               0                         )     1 . 1       @ . 0    A .  A . & A . 0                     &    . Figure 2. Implementation process leading to the flood risk objectives and its judicial integration and the integration in the river catchment plans with the integrated flood risk management plans. 2.

(23) E3S Web of Conferences 7, 23007 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management.            . 1    @ . 0       @                    A .  @                          A . & @                               0

(24)   *+B, . 0  @                                                               6.7 1      

(25)                   1  -  

(26)    1         .     &)

(27)  *   ?C  C C C  3      1             1                -             DC ?C C C  C   C C      *           +#,           !"!   

(28)             .        3      1     !"!. DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/2016 0723007. Figure 3. Flood risk matrix relating the frequency of flooding to the severity of the consequence (aspect water management and safety, and ecology).               

(29)   (                     1                     (        '               .   

(30) '   -        - 6 7. 3.2 Indicators 2     '          -      3        %                          2                   5            -                 

(31)        3     6      '  %! 76 '%!!7  6 ' %!!! 7          C FGHIJC C C  C C 3C C  C 

(32)   *      K2(. +%!, . 3 Assessment of state  3.1. Risk matrix  9            

(33)                 6

(34)  87  -              -  6E    '  - 7            

(35)               '   6

(36)  :7@     -                    $ '         8 @ .  2@            A .  @              A .  4@            . 3.

(37) E3S Web of Conferences 7, 23007 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management. DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/2016 0723007. 7       6  ' %!!! 7

(38)                         6 7 6  3 7                             6   7                              -                 . 3               C - CFNOPOOOC  CCJC  ?C                 -               6 3 7                       5<9      -  . 

(39)  L              . 

(40)                                 

(41)          C?C CCC.                                           4(0                '         1            

(42)   ?C  C 'DCC CC 3C                                       .    

(43) 9/5        

(44)          '                                 6 .     7  ' @       6  7      6 7          6  7         6 7 (              ?C.   3 . Probability economic damage High Medium Low. Negligible <0.1. Probability people at risk High Medium Low. Negligible <5. Marginal >0.1. Severe >2. Critical >50. Catastrophic >10000. 5 2 5 29 295 733 7 73 Marginal >5. Severe >100. Critical >2500. Catastrophic >25000. 185 85 85 26551 2 2655 655 55 51 60179 601 60 6017 6 017 179. .  &      6  GHIJC6  7   6   7    5  .          $6

(45) ;7    -  Q   %              (             63 27       (     63  7                  Frequency. High Medium Low. 3.3 Results 3.3.1 Some examples of risk matrices

(46)  "   #           

(47)     '           5  6

(48)  "7                - 6 ' %!7    6"     M7       ' 8!! #!!   M    6 '%!!. . Seriousness: score flood tolerance [11] 2.4-3 2.4-1.8 1.2-1.8 0.6-1.2 Tolerant Intermediary 193. 524 24. 5. 357 57. 0-0.6 Very sensitive 1 12.  &              $. (       * 

(49)  #                   R   .  .   63 27    . 4.

(50) E3S Web of Conferences 7, 23007 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management. DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/2016 0723007. 4 Prioritization measures (        &)

(51)  * +%,   3      2  .                   2 3                 1    3   

(52)  B 3            3         0

(53) * +B,        3     0

(54) *                    3                    9/5@ . 4  %             '  !%;  ! %A .4    '  '9/5  676 ! %.UJ 

(55)         3                  3                       %!

(56)        

(57)       T      .                            @            "!                   "!             6  7    6%  7        3                    4  %                              . Figure 7. Evaluation of shortage rough water due to flooding in the catchments of the Dender. 3.3.2 Evaluation of state in Flanders        

(58)            =              *        6S 5    K   7             6    72    '                      Q       5                         

(59)  " 2             4    5   +% ,                       

(60)                      .     4               T  .      ' (    $67               .  . Figure 8. Contribution of catchment in terms of percentage in Flanders due to flooding with a low, medium and high probability. Figure 9. Scheme for the prioritization of flood risk measures..             '   $                                       3    . 5.

(61) E3S Web of Conferences 7, 23007 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management. DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/2016 0723007. 6 References  1.. Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks; http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32007L0060 2. Coordination Committee on Integrated Water Management, Flemish Government, Multi-layered Water Safety (2015): www.hoogwaterzonderkater.be 3. Coordination Committee on Integrated Water Management: www.integraalwaterbeleid.be 4. Decreet betreffende het Integraal Waterbeleid (18/07/2003); http://codex.vlaanderen.be/Zoeken/Document.aspx? DID=1011715&param=inhoud&ref=search 5. River basement management plans with the integrated flood risk management plans (2015): www.volvanwater.be 6. Antea , Department of Mobility and Public Works, Flanders Environment Agency (2013). Milieukwantiteitsdoelstellingen voor oppervlaktewater. 7. IMDC, Flanders Environment Agency (2013). Onderbouwing van het Overstromingsrisicobeheerplan van de onbevaarbare waterlopen. 8. Belgian Bulletin of Acts, Orders and Decrees (3 February 2016). Besluit van de Vlaamse Regering tot wijziging van het besluit van de Vlaamse Regering van 1 juni 1995 houdende algemene en sectorale bepalingen inzake milieuhygiëne, wat betreft criteria voor overstromingsrisicobeheerdoelstellingen en oppervlaktewatertekortbeheerdoelstellingen. http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/mopdf/2016/02/03_ 1.pdf#page=47 9. Directive 200/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060 10. Deckers P., Broidioi S., Verwaest T., De Maeyer P, Mostaert F. (2013). LATIS : van overstromingskaarten naar schadekaarten en risicokaarten.. Jaarboek De Aardrijkskunde 2013. 11. Debie (2009). Scores flood tolerance from INBO (Institute for nature ans forest investigation) model oversTol_kwantiteit 12. Agentschap voor Maritieme Dienstverlening en Kust. Geïntegreerd Kustveiligheidsplan. http://www.vlaamsebaaien.com/geintegreerdkustveiligheidsplan.  Figure 10. Spatial distribution of social risk (people at risk) in Flanders. 5 Conclusion

(62)                               3                                     1   . 1  . 1 -                                 1       1   . 1          

(63) 9/5        9/5                      

(64)    

(65)    

(66)                   8                              (              1            1            .               '        0

(67) *        3          6    7       3     '     1        1       1 -                                 '  0 

(68)                         . 6.

(69)

Riferimenti

Scarica adesso ( PDF - 6 pagine - 1.73 MB )

Documenti correlati

Socio-Economic Regional Risk Assessment (SERRA) application to flood risk in the Vipacco Basin (north-east Italy)

The physical environmental component of the risk is assessed through RRA (Regional Risk Assessment) (Marcomini et al., 2011) while the socio- economic factors

Improving statistical models for flood risk assessment Ross Towe

In conclusion, this paper has proposed a new more computationally efficient to deal with missing values in the residual distribution of the conditional extreme value model

From the risk culture to the local cultures of risk.
An ethnographic investigation of living with a constant flood risk in the South East of France

This case study has shown that even though the local political composition of the problem would not directly prevent the development of a sense of risk, it would still not be

A novel approach to flood risk assessment: the Exposure-Vulnerability matrices

1 Introduction The concept of risk implies a transition from the classical approach of defending a territory from flood hazard, through structural measures that modify

Promoting adaptive flood risk management: the role and potential of flood recovery mechanisms

5 The role of recovery mechanisms in encouraging risk reduction action There is a high potential for insurance cover to be used to incentivise the uptake of flood mitigation and

Partnership approaches in flood risk management: lessons from the Eastern Alps

The harmonisation of non-structural measures between the different communities is not fully integrated, specifically spatial and land use management or emergency management plans..

Reflecting Societal Values in Designing Flood Risk Management Strategies

The final set of objectives as used relate to a reduction in the risk, or providing benefits, to: Society risk to human life and health, risk to vulnerable properties, risk to

Centri demici minori e città in Sardegna: tra storia e modelli insediativi (secc. XII-XIV)

Ad ogni modo a questo ta- glio sono connesse altre problematicità: dall’impatto di queste entità nel quadro di organizzazione del territorio, alla verifica se il processo di