synthesis report - risc-kit · synthesis report iv table of contents 1 introduction 1 1.1 project...

Synthesis Report

i

Resilience-Increasing Strategiesfor Coasts – Toolkit

www.risckit.eu

Synthesis Report

Deliverable No: D.4.4 – Synthesis Report

Ref.: WP4 - Task 4.4

Date: 12 April 2017

Synthesis Report

ii

DeliverableTitle D.4.4–SynthesisReportFilename RISCKIT_D.4.4_Synthesis_Report.3Authors

KatrionaMcGlade(EcologicInstitute)KarinaBarquet(StockholmEnvironmentInstitute)TomBogaard(StichtingDeltares)PaoloCiavola(ConsorzioFuturoinRicerca)ApvanDongeren(StichtingDeltares)OscarFerreira(UniverisityofAlgarve)RuthHiggins(FundaçãoEurOcean)GritMartinez(EcologicInstitute)RobertMcCall(StichtingDeltares)NicoStelljes(EcologicInstitute)ChristopheViavattene(FloodHazardResearchCentre,MiddlesexUniversity)

Contributors GalinaRudik(EcologicInstitute)AnneliesBolle(IMDC)

Date April2017PreparedundercontractfromtheEuropeanCommission

GrantAgreementNo.603458Directorate-GeneralforResearch&Innovation(DGResearch),Collaborativeproject,FP7-ENV-2013-two-stageStartoftheproject: 01/11/2013Duration: 42monthsProjectcoordinator: StichtingDeltares,NL

Disseminationlevel

X PU Public

PP Restrictedtootherprogrammeparticipants(includingtheCommissionServices)

RE Restrictedtoagroupspecifiedbytheconsortium(includingtheCommissionServices)

CO Confidential,onlyformembersoftheconsortium(includingtheCommissionServices)

Synthesis Report

iii

Deliverablestatusversioncontrol

Version Date Author Review1.0

10/03/2017

Katriona,McGlade(Ecologic)

KarinaBarquet(SEI)PaoloCiavola(CFR)ApvanDongeren(Deltares)OscarFerreira(UniAlgarve)RuthHiggins(Eurocean)GritMartinez(Ecologic)RobertMcCall(Deltares)ChristopheViavatenne(FHRC)

2.0 20/03/2017 Katriona,McGlade(Ecologic)

KarinaBarquet(SEI)PaoloCiavola(CFR)ApvanDongeren(Deltares)OscarFerreira(UniAlgarve)RuthHiggins(Eurocean)GritMartinez(Ecologic)RobertMcCall(Deltares)ChristopheViavatenne(FHRC)

3.0 27/03/2017 Katriona,McGlade(Ecologic)

ApvanDongeren(Deltares)GritMartinez(Ecologic)OscarFerreira(UniAlgarve)RuthHiggins(Eurocean)RobertMcCall(Deltares)ChristopheViavatenne(FHRC)PaoloCiavola(CFR)

Synthesis Report

iv

Table of Contents

1 Introduction 11.1 Projectobjectives 11.2 Projectstructure 21.3 Deliverablecontextandobjective 41.4 Approach 51.5 Outlineofthereport 6

2 Toolkit 72.1 StormImpactDatabase 82.2 CoastalRiskAssessmentFramework(CRAF) 112.3 Web-basedManagementGuide 142.4 Hotspottool(EarlyWarningSystem/DecisionSupportSystem) 182.5 Multi-CriteriaAnalysisTool 20

3 Projectachievements 273.1 Impact-orienteddatabaseofcasestudysiteandhistoriceventdata(WP1) 273.2 Improvedmethodsforregional-scalecoastalvulnerabilityandriskassessment(WP2) 293.3 Enhancedquantitativeearlywarningandscenarioevaluationcapabilities(WP3) 323.4 Integratedriskreductionandresilienceplans(WP4) 343.5 Dissemination,knowledgetransferandexploitation(WP6) 37

4 OngoingpolicyprocessesatEUandinternationallevel 404.1 EUlevel 404.2 Internationallevel 44

5 Lessonslearnedandrecommendations 465.1 Lessonslearnedon:Hazardandimpactassessmentsanddata 465.2 Lessonslearnedon:Tooldevelopmentandtheneedforvalidationofdata 485.3 Lessonslearnedon:Coastalriskgovernance 495.4 Lessonslearnedon:Multi-disciplinarity 515.5 Lessonslearnedon:DRRmeasures 515.6 Lessonslearnedon:Stakeholderinvolvement 535.7 Lessonslearnedon:Dissemination 55

6 Furtherinformation 567 References 58

Synthesis Report

v

List of FiguresFigure1.1:ConceptualdrawingoftheCRAF(toppanel),theEWS(middlepanel)andtheDSS(bottompanel)..........................................................................................................................................3

Figure1.2:Casestudysites(stars),RISC-KITcasestudysitepartners(bluesoliddots)andnon-casestudysitepartners(redopencircles)...............................................................................4

Figure2.1:RISC-KITtoolsandtheiralignmentwiththeDisasterManagementcycle(byVanDongerenetal.(2017forthcoming)andadaptedfromanoriginalbyandcourtesyofC.vandeGuchte,Deltares)...................................................................................................................................7

Figure2.2:OverviewoftheRISC-KITtoolsandtheirinterdependencies...................................8

Figure2.3:SchematicoverviewoftheinteractionbetweentheStormImpactDatabase(bluebox)andtheOpenEarthbackbone(greenbox)includinguserinteraction................10

Figure2.4:SchematicoverviewoftheCoastalRiskAssessmentFramework(CRAF).....11

Figure2.5:CoastalRiskAssessmentFramework(CRAF)applicationsequence................12

Figure2.6:ScreenshotoftheWeb-basedManagementGuide.......................................................15

Figure2.7:CorecomponentsoftheRISC-KITweb-basedmanagementguide......................16

Figure2.8:ExamplesofinteractivecardsinthreeRISC-KITcasestudysites......................21

Figure2.9:StepstocompleteanMCA.........................................................................................................22

List of TablesTable2.1:LessonslearnedfromthedevelopmentoftheStormImpactDatabase............11

Table2.2:LessonslearnedfromtheapplicationoftheCoastalRiskAssessmentFramework(CRAF)................................................................................................................................................14

Table2.3:LessonslearnedfromthedevelopmentoftheWeb-basedManagementGuide..........................................................................................................................................................................................17

Table2.4:LessonslearnedfromtheapplicationoftheHotspotTool........................................19

Table2.5:LessonslearnedfromtheapplicationoftheMulti-criteriaAnalysisTool(MCA)............................................................................................................................................................................23

Table2.6:DescriptionofTechnologyReadinessLevels(TRLs)....................................................25

Table2.7TechnologyReadinessLevelsoftheRISC-KITtools.......................................................25

Table4.1:RISC-KITsupporttochallengesidentifiedbyMemberStatesinthefirstimplementationcycleoftheFloodsDirective.........................................................................................41

Synthesis Report

VI

Executive Publishable SummaryRecent and historic low-frequency, high-impact events such as Xynthia (impacting France in2010), the 2011 Liguria (Italy) Flash Floods and the 1953 North Sea storm surge whichinundatedpartsoftheNetherlands,BelgiumandtheUKhavedemonstratedthefloodrisksfacedby exposed coastal areas in Europe. Typhoons in Asia (such as Typhoon Haiyan in thePhilippinesinNovember2013),hurricanesintheCaribbeanandGulfofMexico,andSuperstormSandy,impactingthenorth-easternU.S.A.inOctober2012,havedemonstratedhowevenlargerflooding events pose a significant risk and can devastate and immobilise large cities andcountries.

These coastal zone risks are likely to increase in the future (IPPC,AR5)which requires a re-evaluationofcoastaldisasterriskreduction(DRR)strategiesandanewmixofprevention(e.g.dikeprotection),mitigation (e.g. limiting construction in flood-prone areas; eco-systembasedsolutions)andpreparedness(e.g.EarlyWarningSystems,EWS)(PMP)measures.

In response to these challenges, theRISC-KITprojecthasdelivered a set ofopen-source andopen-accessmethods,toolsandmanagementapproachestoreduceriskandincreaseresilienceto low-frequency, high-impact hydro-meteorological events in the coastal zone (the “RISC-toolKIT”). These products enhance forecasting, prediction and early warning capabilities,improvetheassessmentoflong-termcoastalriskandoptimisethemixofPMP-measures.

ThisSynthesisReportprovidesanoverviewoftheachievements,lessonslearnedandchallengesidentifiedthroughtheRISC-KITprojectactivities,includingthedevelopmentandapplicationofthetoolsattencasestudysitesinarangeofcoastalregionsacrossEurope.Thelessonslearnedare then fed intoaseriesofrecommendations for improvedDRR forEuropeandbeyond.Theresultinginsightsandaccompanyingrecommendationshavebeenconsideredinrelationtotheirrelevance toEU and internationalprocesses thatbothdirectly and indirectly address coastalDRR. Inparticular the insights are considered for their relevance to theEU FloodsDirective(2007/60 EC) (FD) and the UNISDR Sendai Framework 2015-2020. In this way, the reportaddressesthemulti-levelgovernanceofrisk,aligning insightsandneedsexpressedatthe locallevelwithmacro-levelpolicygoalsandhighlightingsynergieswithotherpolicyprocesses.

Synthesis Report

1

1 Introduction

Recent and historic low-frequency, high-impact events such as Xynthia (impacting France in2010), the 2011 Liguria (Italy) Flash Floods and the 1953 North Sea storm surge whichinundatedpartsoftheNetherlands,BelgiumandtheUKhavedemonstratedthefloodrisksfacedby exposed coastal areas in Europe. Typhoons in Asia (such as Typhoon Haiyan in thePhilippinesinNovember2013),hurricanesintheCaribbeanandGulfofMexico,andSuperstormSandy,impactingthenorth-easternU.S.A.inOctober2012,havedemonstratedhowevenlargerflooding events pose a significant risk and can devastate and immobilise large cities andcountries.

These coastal zone risks are likely to increase in the future (IPPC,AR5)which requires a re-evaluationofcoastaldisasterriskreduction(DRR)strategiesandanewmixofprevention(e.g.dikeprotection),mitigation (e.g. limiting construction in flood-prone areas; eco-systembasedsolutions)andpreparedness(e.g.EarlyWarningSystems,EWS)(PMP)measures.Evenwithoutachange inriskdue toclimateorsocio-economicchanges,are-evaluation isnecessary in thelightofagrowingappreciationofecologicalandnaturalvalueswhichdriveecosystem-basedorNature-based flooddefenceapproaches. Inaddition,as freespace isbecomingsparse,coastalDRRplansneedtobespatiallyefficient,allowingformulti-functionality.

1.1 Project objectives

Inresponseto thesechallenges, theRISC-KITprojectaims todeliverasetofopen-sourceandopen-accessmethods,toolsandmanagementapproachestoreduceriskandincreaseresiliencetolow-frequency,high-impacthydro-meteorologicaleventsinthecoastalzone.Theseproductswillenhance forecasting,predictionandearlywarningcapabilities, improve theassessmentoflong-termcoastalriskandoptimisethemixofPMP-measures.Specificobjectivesare:

1. Reviewandanalysisofcurrent-practicecoastalriskmanagementplansandlessons-learnedofhistoricallarge-scaleevents;

2. Collectionoflocalsocio-cultural-economicandphysicaldataatcasestudysitesthroughend-userandstakeholderconsultationtobestoredinanimpact-orientedcoastalriskdatabase;

3. Developmentofaregional-scalecoastalriskassessmentframework(CRAF)toassesspresentandfutureriskduetomulti-hazards(Figure1.1,toppanel);

4. Developmentofanimpact-orientedEarlyWarningandDecisionSupportSystem(EWS/DSS)forhotspotareasconsistingof:i)afree-waresystemtopredicthazardintensitiesusingcoupledhydro-meteoandmorphologicalmodelsandii)aBayesian-basedDecisionSupportSystemwhichintegrateshazardsandsocio-economic,culturalandenvironmentalconsequences(Figure1.1,centrepanel);

5. DevelopmentofpotentialDRRmeasuresandthedesignofecosystem-basedandcost-effective,(non-)technologicalDRRplansinclosecooperationwithend-usersforadiversesetofcasestudysitesonallEuropeanregionalseasandononetropicalcoast(Figure1.1;bottompanel);

6. ApplicationofCRAFandEWS/DSStoolsatthecasestudysitestotesttheDRRplansforacombinationofscenariosofclimate-relatedhazardandsocio-economicvulnerabilitychangeanddemonstrationoftheoperationalmode;

Synthesis Report

2

7. Developmentofaweb-basedmanagementguidefordevelopingintegratedDRRplansalongEurope’scoastsandbeyondandprovideasynthesisoflessonslearnedinRISC-KITintheformofpolicyguidanceandrecommendationsatthenationalandEUlevel.

ThetoolsaretobedemonstratedoncasestudysitesonarangeofEUcoastsintheNorth-andBalticSeaRegion,AtlanticOcean,BlackSeaandMediterraneanSea,andonesiteinBangladesh,seeFigure1.2.Thesesitesconstitutediversegeomorphicsettings,landuse,forcing,hazardtypesand socio-economic, cultural and environmental characteristics.All selected regions aremostfrequentlyaffectedbystormsurgesandcoastalerosion.AmanagementguideofPMPmeasuresandmanagement approacheswill be developed.The toolkitwill benefit forecasting and civilprotection agencies, coastal managers, local government, community members, NGOs, thegeneralpublicandscientists.

1.2 Project structure

TheprojectisstructuredintosevenWorkPackages(WP)startingwithWP1on‘Datacollection,review and historical analysis’; WP2–4 will create the components of the RISC-toolKITcontaining an ‘Improvedmethod for regional scalevulnerability and risk assessment’ (WP2),‘Enhanced earlywarning and scenario evaluation capabilities forhot spots’ (WP3) aswell as‘Newmanagementandpolicyapproachestoincreasecoastalresilience’(WP4).Thetoolkitwillbe tested through ‘Application at case study sites’ (WP5). WP6 will be responsible for‘Dissemination,knowledge transfer and exploitation’ and ‘Coordination andManagement’ arehandledinWP7.

Synthesis Report

3

Figure1.1:ConceptualdrawingoftheCRAF(toppanel),theEWS(middlepanel)andtheDSS(bottompanel)

Synthesis Report

4

Figure1.2:Casestudysites(stars),RISC-KITcasestudysitepartners(bluesoliddots)andnon-casestudysitepartners(redopencircles).

1.3 Deliverable context and objective

Thecurrentdeliverable4.4ispartofWP4.TheobjectivesofWP4areto:

· developpotentialDRRmeasures;

· designsite-specificDRRstrategicalternativesandevaluatetheireffectivenessandfeasibilityaftertheirapplicationandscenariotestingatcasestudysitesinWP5;

· createaweb-basedmanagementguidefordevelopingintegratedrisk-reductionplansinotherlocations;and

· synthesisefindingsandproviderecommendationsformanagementandpolicyguidance.

This deliverable 4.4 reports on the last bullet. The scope of this report is defined in theDescriptionofWork(DoW),Task4.4:

Synthesis Report

5

“Task4.4will involve allRTDWP leaders (WP1-5) inorder to synthesise the findingsof theproject.Thissynthesiswilltaketheformofareport(D4.4)whichwillbepubliclyavailablefordownload on the RISC-KIT website. The report will showcase the findings of the RISC-KITprojectanddeliverinsightsandrecommendationsforthedevelopmentofstrategiesandpoliciesfor improveddisasterriskreductionboth inEuropeandelsewhere.Thereportwillprovide auser-friendly overview of the components of the RISC-KIT toolkit (Storm Impact Data Base,CRAF,EWS/DSS,Web-basedManagementGuideandMCAGuide)usingaccessiblelanguageandgraphicalillustrations.ThereportwillfurthermoreproviderecommendationsinalignmentwithexistingnationalandEUpolicies tomanagecoastal risksundershiftingenvironmental,socio-economic and cultural conditions. To this end, the report will address multi-level riskgovernanceapproaches thatalign localneedswithmacro-levelpolicygoals,orsynergieswithother policy areas (e.g. climate change adaptation, sustainability, resource efficiency) forincreased impact and greater cost-effectiveness. In this way, project findings will provideinsights for the planning and development of national and EU strategies and policies forincreased disaster risk reduction, as well as support for the formulation of internationalstrategies.Thisreportwillbesubmitted inabridgedformtoa leading international journalonenvironmentalpolicyresearch.”

Thisdeliverable isa finalsynthesisreport thatshowcases thekeyoutputsand findingsof theRISC-KIT project. It also delivers insights and recommendations for the development ofstrategies and policies for improveddisaster risk reduction both inEurope and beyond.TheresultswillbemadepublicallyavailablethroughtheprojectwebsiteandwillfeedthefinalRISC-KITpolicybriefaswellasbesubmittedasajournalarticle.

1.4 Approach

InaccordancewiththeDoW,allWP leaderswere involved inthecompilationofthisreport inorder toensurethat theSynthesisReport isbased,notonlyon thedeliverablesproduced,butalsoonthequalitative insightsthattheconsortiumgainedoverthe42monthsofresearchanddevelopmentactivities.To thisend,WP leaderswere invited to awritingworkshop inBerlinfrom21-23February2017.Discussionswerefocusedonfindingsfrom i)thedevelopmentandapplicationoftheRISC-toolKITat the localcase-study level(summarised inChapter2)and ii)the achievement of the goals as stated in the DoW’s “Progress beyond the state-of-the-art”(summarised inChapter3).Feedback from theRISC-KIT InternationalExpertBoardwasalsotaken into account for the workshop. The resulting insights from the group concerned theplanninganddevelopmentofnationalandEUstrategiesandpoliciesforimprovedDRR,aswellashowtoprovidesupporttointernationalstrategiesandtheirfuturedevelopment.

The core output of the project is the “RISC-KIT toolkit” to support strategies for increasedresilienceofcoastalareas.OneofthemainaimsoftheSynthesisReportisthereforetoprovideauser-friendlyoverviewofthetoolkitproducedandlessonslearnedfromtheirapplicationatthecasestudysites(Chapter2).ThisReporthasmadeextensiveuseofgraphical illustrationandtables to increase its readability and accessibility. In addition to the toolkit, the projectundertookanumberofotherresearchandcommunicationactivities. Inorder toensure thesewerealsocaptured,theadvancesmadebeyondthestate-of-the-artforeachWParealsolaidoutin this Synthesis Report (Chapter 3). The achievements, lessons learned and challengesidentifiedthroughtheworkatthelocallevelintencasestudysiteswereconsideredinrelationtotheirrelevancetoEUandinternationalprocessesforcoastalDRRandotherpolicyareassuch

Synthesis Report

6

asclimatechangeadaptationandsustainabledevelopment(Chapters4and5).InparticulartheinsightswereconsideredfortheirrelevancetotheEUFloodsDirective(2007/60EC)(FD)andtheUNISDR SendaiFramework 2015-2020. In thisway, the report addresses themulti-levelgovernanceofrisk,aligninglocalneedswithmacro-levelpolicygoalsandhighlightingsynergieswithotherpolicyprocessesattheEUandinternationallevel.ByhighlightingsomeoftheotherpolicyareasofrelevancetocoastalDRR,actorsfromdifferentlevelsandsectorsaremadeawareofopportunitiesforintegratedactionswithgreatercost-effectivenessandincreasedimpact.Thelessons learnedandaccompanyingrecommendationsaredivided intoseven thematicsectionsandcanbefoundinChapter5.ThefinalSynthesisReportwillbemadepubliclyavailableattheRISC-KIT finalend-userday inAprilandon theprojectwebsite.The resultshave fed into thefinalRISC-KITpolicybriefanditisplannedtosubmitthisReportinabridgedformasajournalarticle.

1.5 Outline of the report

Chapter2providesanoverviewofthetoolsandreflectsonlessonslearned.Chapter3discusseswhethereachelementoftheproject(WorkPackage)hasaccomplisheditsobjectivesandhow–where relevant – ithas gonebeyond the state-of-the-art asdescribed in theDoW.Chapter 4considersthemacro-levelpolicygoalsatEUandinternationallevelfordifferentpolicyarease.g.biodiversityandsustainabledevelopmentbutinparticulartheUNISDRSendaiFrameworkandtheFloodsDirective.InChapter5,wesummariselessonsfromthedevelopmentandapplicationof tools and interviews conducted at the local level case study sites. The broader contextestablishedinChapter4providesthebasisforaligningtheseinsightswithEUandinternationalprocesses.ThelessonslearnedarethenfedintoaseriesofrecommendationsforimprovedDRRforEuropeandbeyond.

Synthesis Report

7

2 Toolkit

From2013–2017,RISC-KITworkedtoproduceasetofopen-sourceandopen-accessmethods,toolsandmanagementapproaches(“RISC-KITtoolkit”)toreduceriskandincreaseresiliencetolow-frequency, high-impact hydro-meteorological events in the coastal zone (seeFigure2.2).ThetoolkitcontributestodifferentaspectsoftheDRRmanagementcycle(seeFigure2.1:RISC-KITtoolsandtheiralignmentwiththeDisasterManagementcycle(byVanDongerenetal.(2017forthcoming)andadaptedfromanoriginalbyandcourtesyofC.vandeGuchte,Deltares).

Figure2.1:RISC-KITtoolsandtheiralignmentwiththeDisasterManagementcycle(byVanDongerenetal.(2017forthcoming)andadaptedfromanoriginalbyandcourtesyofC.vandeGuchte,Deltares).

Thetoolkitprovidesontheonehand,toolsforinformation(StormImpactDatabase,Web-basedmanagement guide) and on the other hand, tools for assessment (Coastal Risk AssessmentFramework (CRAF), the Hotspot Tool Early Warning System and Decision Support System(EWS/DSS)andMulti-CriteriaAnalysis(MCA))(Figure2.2)whichwereutilisedattheproject’s10casestudysites(seeFigure1.2).

DisasterManagementCycleandRISC-KIT-Tools

Synthesis Report

8

Figure2.2:OverviewoftheRISC-KITtoolsandtheirinterdependencies

Producingtoolsthatcanbeuniformlyappliedischallengingduetothediversityofcoastaltypesandexposedelements.TheRISC-KITtoolshavethereforebeendesignedwithabroadscopesoastobewidelyapplicable,acknowledgingtheneedforthetoolstobeadaptedforlocaluse.Thischapter provides an overview of theRISC-KIT “toolkit” and the lessons learned during theirdevelopment,applicationanddissemination.

2.1 Storm Impact Database

2.1.1 OverviewTheStormImpactDatabase(WEB-GISimpact-orienteddatabase)isarepositoryofinformationoftheimpactofhistoricalstorms(surges,winds,flashfloods)inthecasestudyareas.Thebasicdescriptionof thedatabase canbe foundbelow, furtherdetails canbe found inCiavola et al.(forthcoming).

TheStormImpactDatabasehasfourmainfunctions:

ASSESSMENTOLSINFORMATIVETOOLS

Storm ImpactDatabase

Coastal RiskAssessmentFramework

Web-basedmanagement guide

Hotspot toolEWS/DSS

Multi-CriteriaAnalysis

TOOLKIT

Synthesis Report

9

1. Uploadingofstormeventdata

2. Viewingofstormeventdataandmetadata

3. Webservicesforreuseofthestormevendataandmetadata

4. xmlexporttoEUimpactsdatabase

Thedatabase includesnotonlyphysicalbut also socio-economic, cultural and environmentalinformation.The tool aims to strengthen the efforts of local communities and nationalgovernments toapply theFloodsDirective raisinghistoricalawarenessofwhathasoccurred,and leadtoabetterunderstandingofthestakesandvulnerabilitiesofthecasestudysites inalong-term perspective.Within the project, the database acts as a source of information onhistorical events and is a source of validation data for models and results used in DRRactivities.

Inthedesign,akeyprioritywastheintegrationofRISC-KITdatawithexistingdataandanalysistoolscollected frompreviousandongoingprojects, including theMICOREdatabaseofmarinestorms.

Thetoolconsistsofthefollowingcomponents(Figure2.3):

1. Acentraldatabase(PostgreSQLwithPostGISextension)

2. Awebapplication

3. AGeoServerinstallation

Datauploadiscarriedoutbyregistereddatamanagersonanevent-by-eventbasisforeachsitebyfilling inanumberofstandardiseddatafieldsrelatedtotheevent.Theuseofstandardisedfields ensures the data is stored in a uniformway and facilitates intersite comparisons anddatabasequeries.Aminimum levelofmandatory information isrequired foreachevent tobestored in the database, namely the country and region of the storm event (as defined usingEurostatsNUTSnomenclature),theeventstartdate,aswellasabriefdescriptionoftheevent(e.g.synoptictypeoftheevent,thenameofthestorm,uniquecharacteristicsrelatedtotheeventetc.).Eventdata for thedatabasearedivided into threemaindata types:1)PhysicalData;2)ImpactData;and3)SupplementaryData.

Following access to the website the user is first directed to the overview map, where it ispossibletovisualisethenumberofeventscontained inthedatabasebygeographicregion(forexample, by zooming in on Europe). Cartography and satellite imagery are based on GoogleMapsandGoogleEarth.AsofFebruary2017,thedatabasecontained298reportedstormevents,withthehighestcoverage in Italy(70reportedevents), followedbyGermany(66events)andtheUK(29events).

TheStormImpactDatabaseispublishedintheformofanopen-accesswebpageavailableat:http://risckit.cloudapp.net/risckit/#/

Synthesis Report

10

Figure2.3:SchematicoverviewoftheinteractionbetweentheStormImpactDatabase(bluebox)andtheOpenEarthbackbone(greenbox)includinguserinteraction

2.1.2 Lessons learned from development of the toolA fundamental goal of the database is to provide a framework for the reporting of extremehydro-meteorologicalevents in the future, inorder to improve theway inwhichphysicalandimpactdatainparticulararecollected.Acommonobservationmadebycasestudysitemanagersduringthecollectionofdataforthe(currently298)uploadedeventsisthatimpactdataisbestobtained immediately following theeventand that,when left too long, isoften too reliantonless-accuratenewspaperreportsratherthanmoreprimarysources(suchasthosecollectedbyexperiencedpractitioners).Byalreadyprovidingthedatafieldsandimpactcategoriesrequiredforeventreporting,sitemanagersarebetterpreparedfordatacollectionshouldaneventoccur.Nocooperationwassoughtwith insurancecompaniesas itwasconsideredmostunlikely thatthey would have more detailed information that that collated by the RISC-KIT project.Furthermore,thisavoidedissuesconcerningtheconfidentialityoftheinformationbeingshared.Theuseofimpactdatausedforreimbursementofdamagesorrequestsforfree loansfromthegovernmentwouldimplythereleaseofsensitivepersonalinformation,whichclearlycannotbeputintothepublicdomain.

Intermsoffuturedevelopment,theoptionofcrowdsourcingdatafromthegeneralcommunityiscompelling.Thishoweverwouldrequireacarefulqualitycontrolofincomingdatainordertoavoidtheinsertionofspuriousinformationthatcouldde-valuethedatabaseasawhole.Itcouldbe conceivable however, to permit authorised users,with aminimum of training indisasterresponsefromboththephysicalandsocio-economicaspectstoreporttheevents.Localcoastalmanagersforexample,wouldbe idealcandidatesastheycouldreporttoacentraloffice inthegovernment administration, where database managers could validate the information. ThelessonslearnedfromthedevelopmentofthedatabasearesummarisedinTable2.1.

Synthesis Report

11

Table2.1:LessonslearnedfromthedevelopmentoftheStormImpactDatabase

2.2 Coastal Risk Assessment Framework (CRAF)

2.2.1 Overview

TheCRAFhasbeendevelopedasacomprehensive,systematictool,genericenoughtobeusedacross Europe and for multi-hazard assessment. The aim was to produce a framework thatalthoughuniform,doesnottakeaone-size-fits-allapproachandhastheflexibilitytobeadjustedtolocalrealities.

Atwo-phaseapproachisadoptedforselectingthehotspotstofacilitatetheregionalassessmentprocess (See Figure 2.4). Firstly, a screening process for the “identification of hotspots”(Phase1)andthe“selectionofhotspot”viaamorecomplexmodellingprocessapproach(Phase2)thatcombineshazardandimpactassessmentmodels.

Figure2.4:SchematicoverviewoftheCoastalRiskAssessmentFramework(CRAF)

Phase1:Identificationofpotentialhotspots

Along thecoast,potentialhotspots, i.e.sectorswithahighpotentialexposure,aredeterminedfor different hazard indicators (e.g.wave overtopping, flooding and coastal erosion) and fordifferentexposure indicators (landuse,social, transport,utilitiesandeconomicactivities;seeFigure2.5,upperpanel).Resultsarepresentedintheformofacoastalexposureindex,usingtheCoastalVulnerabilityIndicatorLibraryandtheaccompanyingguidancedocument.TheresultsoftheCRAFPhase1arevisualisedintheweb-basedviewer.

Tool Benefits Challenges Futuredevelopment

StormImpactDatabase

-Combinesphysical,socio-economic,culturalandenvironmentalinformation.-Long-termperspective-ProvidesvalidationdatafortestingofDRRscenariosandtools-Providesframeworkfordatacollectionandreporting

-Ensuringdataiscollectedsoonafterevent

-Cooperationwithinsurancecompanies

-Crowdsourcingdatafromgeneralpublic

Synthesis Report

12

Phase2:Hotspotsriskanalysisandselection

The potential hotspots are further analysed to identify the most critical hotspots based oncurrent and future climate scenarios using more advanced hazard and impact assessmentmodels(SeeFigure2.5,lowerpanel)Themodelsusedare:

· XBeach(1D)amorphodynamicmodeltocomputehazardsofovertoppinganderosionforselectedreturn-periodstorms

· LISFLOOD: an inundation model to compute the hazards flood depth and velocitiesbasedonthecomputedovertopping.

· INDRA (IntegratedDisRuptionAssessment) to compute the impacts including risk-to-life,displacement,disruptionandrecoveryofvariouscategoriesandscorethehotspotsusingaMulti-CriteriaAnalysis.

Figure2.5:CoastalRiskAssessmentFramework(CRAF)applicationsequence

2.2.2 Lessons learned from application of tool at case study sites

Phase1oftheCRAF,althoughstillrequiringextensivedatabasesandinformation,wasrelativelysimple and quick to apply at the regional scale. The methodology permitted the correctidentificationofthevastmajorityofhotspotsforalmostallstudysites,andapositivevalidation(viacomparisonwithhistoricalstormsandfieldrecords)wasachievedforthehazardsassessed.TheCRAFuses acoastal index - ameasure for thecombinedhazardandexposure in agivensector–whichcanberecalculatedbyincorporatingnewdataorregionalDRRactivities,defininghow thehotspotswillbeaffected.Thismeans thatnotonly thestate,but theevolutionof the

Synthesis Report

13

hotspotcanbeassessed,bothasaresultofphysicalprocesses,aswellascoastalmanagementinterventions.

TheCRAF1has inherent limitations,since itusessimpleapproaches, formulations,databases,and indicators.Forsomecases,e.g. forextensive interconnected low-lyingareasorextremelycomplexalongshoremorphologies,themethodistoosimple.Theassumptionsusedthroughoutcan therefore result in over- or underestimation of risk. In these more complex cases, theselectionofagreaternumberofhotspotsforanalysisinPhase2oftheCRAFisrecommended,asthissecondphasemakesuseofmorecomplexandrobustmodels.

PriortotheapplicationoftheCRAF,projectend-userswereconsultedinordertoidentifylikelyhotspots.Thehotspots that rankedmosthighly after applicationof theCRAFPhase 2mostlycorrespondedwiththeseend-userestimations.Thedifferencesthatdidemergehighlightedthelimitationsinherenttoselectingahotspotwithoutdetailedanalysisorbyusingexpertjudgmentalone,andthusdisplayedthebenefitsofusingtheCRAF.Concernsaboutdataavailabilityexistedinmostcasestudies,butwasaddressedinallofthem,intheworstcasebyusinggenericvaluesor assumptions. The indicators with lower degree of confidence were “regional businessdisruption”and“householddisplacement”.Asaresult,theconfidenceintheimpactassessmentvaried and it became difficult to perform an integrated regional assessment on businessdisruptionincludingpotentialcascadeeffects.

Differences in stakeholder perspectives may lead to different results during the final CRAFassessment. In such cases, it is possible that agreement on the selected hotspotmay not bereached.Wheresimilar impactsareanalysedatallhotspotswithin thesamecasestudy, thenlimitationsindataquality,anddifferencesintheindicatorassessmentandweightingaresimilaracross the hotspots and therefore have less influence in the comparative assessmentwherehotspotsareranked.Inothercasestudiesthehotspotsanalyseddifferedfromeachothermoresubstantially. For such cases only significant differences in exposure between the comparedhotspots avoid any doubt relating to the ranking of the hotspots. Overall, and taking intoconsiderationthelimitationsexpressedabove,theCRAFmethodprovedtoberobustinawiderangeofapplications,andcancontributetooptimizingresourcesforcoastalriskreduction.

The application of the CRAFwas conducted in all case study siteswhere datawas, at leastpartially, available. However, this kind of data is often not available all over Europe anddifferences on data quality are high. Inputs from existing European datasets could beconsolidatedandfedintotheCRAFsothatiscanberunasagenerictoolfordifferentEuropeancoastaltypesinthefuture.ThisisinagreementwiththeSendaiFrameworkwhichhighlightstheneedforcomprehensivesurveys,investmentandlong-termresearchanddevelopmentonmulti-hazardforecastingandearly-warningsystems(§25(b)(i);§33(b);§34(c)).TheCRAFprovidesconcretesupport to thisapproachas it isable toassesspresentand future riskdue tomulti-hazards. It also provides guidance on gathering relevant information to make a robustassessment.

Improvements on the CRAF development and application aremainly relatedwith the use ofincreased,detailed,standardisedandbetterquality(oftennotyetavailable)datasetsregardingphysical,social,economic,environmentalandculturalinformationasamaintooltoreducethedegreeofuncertainty.ThefuturedevelopmentoftheCRAFcouldalsoincludeexploringsimplewaystoincludesocio-economicandclimatechangescenarios.Methodologiesforcertainimpactcategories (e.g. health impacts, public services, heritage, cascading effects) could also beexpanded and integrated into the CRAF’s response-based approach. Improvements can alsointegrate the development of a user friendly interface that reduces thework of the user on

Synthesis Report

14

inputtingdataandguidesitalongthedifferentsteps,resultingintoanorganisedITbasedtool,foreaseofuse.

ApplicationoftheCRAFshouldbeperformedbyamulti-disciplinaryteamcomposedofexpertsfrom different backgrounds (e.g., physical and social sciences) in order to be sure that allcomponentsarewellcapturedandproperly integrated in the finalresult.The lessons learnedfromthedevelopmentandapplicationoftheCRAFaresummarisedinTable2.1.

Table2.2:LessonslearnedfromtheapplicationoftheCoastalRiskAssessmentFramework(CRAF)

2.3 Web-based Management Guide

2.3.1 OverviewTheRISC-KITweb-basedmanagement guide (FigureFigure 2.6)was created to facilitateEU-widelearningandexchangeforthedevelopmentofcoastalriskreductionplansandprovidesabasis for the selectionofmeasures tobe evaluatedwith theHotspotTool (Chapter2.4) anddiscussedusingtheMulti-CriteriaAnalysisTool(Chapter2.5).Theguide istargetedatcoastalmanagers aswell as other groups concernedwith coastalmanagement (i.e. coastal resourceusers, technical and scientific experts andpolicymakers) inEurope and those facing similarchallengesbeyondtheregion.


CRAFPhase1 Simpletouse,quicktoapply,canassesscurrentstateandevolutionofcoastalriskandistobeusedasafirstscreeningtool

Simplicitycanleadtoover-orunderestimationofrisk

-IntegrateexistingEuropeandatasets

-Integratesocio-economicandclimate-changescenarios

-Expandmethodologiesforimpactcategories(e.g.healthimpacts,publicservices,heritage,cascadingeffects)

-Transformintosoftwarewithuserinterface

CRAFPhase2 Robust,uniformframeworkthatisadaptabletolocalrealities,superiortoexpertjudgementalone

Insufficientdatae.g.onpopulationdisplacementandbusinessdisruption;limitedapplicabilitytodeterminecascadeeffectsduetolackofavailablequalitydata

Synthesis Report

15

Figure2.6:ScreenshotoftheWeb-basedManagementGuide

A consultationwas heldwithRISC-KIT end-users to establish needs and preferences for theweb-basedmanagementguide.At theconsultation,existingguideswere tested,discussedandranked.Thearchitectureandappearanceoftheguidewasthenshapedaccordingtothefeatureshighlighted as being ofmost interest and usefulness (e.g. use of case studies, a step-by-stepguide,descriptionofDRRmeasuresandplans).

Coastalzonescanbeviewedthroughvariouslenses(e.g.bio-physical,socio-economic,political,cultural, historical etc.)which can be used to examine awide range of subjects (e.g. coastalmorphology, heritage, perceptions of risk, legal and administrative traditions, local economyetc.).TheRISC-KITweb-basedmanagementguideprovidesarichsourceofinformationonthesesubjects,andacknowledgesthediversityandcomplexityofcoastalzonesbyprovidingmultipleentrypointsfortheusertoviewcoastalmanagementanddisasterriskreduction(FigureFigure2.7).

Forsuccessfulcoastalriskreduction,itisnecessarytoestablishanapproach(‘strategies’)thatissuitedtothebiophysicalconditionsofthecoastalzone(‘coastalfeatures’)andisinformedbyan awareness of human behaviour (‘people and stories’) and an understanding of theinstitutionalarrangements(‘governance”)inplace.Fromthewebsitelandingpage,theusercanchoosethroughwhichoftheselensestheywishtoexplorethemanagementofcoastalrisks.

Synthesis Report

16

Figure2.7:CorecomponentsoftheRISC-KITweb-basedmanagementguide

The guide highlights key principles for the design and implementation of DRR plans andstrategies in various socio-economic, cultural and environmental settings. Different ‘coastalfeatures’canbeselected fromagraphicalmap(seeFigureFigure2.6:Screenshotof theWeb-basedManagementGuidewhichthenproducealistofprevention,mitigationandpreparednessmeasuresappropriate for thatbiophysicalcontext.Technicaldescriptionsof themeasuresareaccompaniedbyinformationoncost-effectivenessandpracticalillustrationsoftheirapplication.Under the governance componentof the guide, theRISC-KIT case studies are situatedwithintheirwidercontextandstakeholderperceptionsofgovernanceapproachesareillustratedwithinterview quotations. Additional research was conducted to provide further contextualbackgroundpageson thegovernancesetting foreachcountry.PagesonEUand internationalinitiativesforcoastalDRR(e.g.EUFloodsDirectiveandSendaiFramework)werealsoaddedtothisend.

TheRISC-KITweb-basedmanagementguideaimstoprovidenewinsightsforallmembersofitstargetaudience.Forexample,althoughcoastalengineersmighthaveaverygoodunderstandingof the technicalaspectsofcoastaldefencemeasures, theycanobtain informationonhow thefeasibilityoracceptabilityofthesemeasurescanbeaffectedbygovernancesystemsandpublicperceptions.Atthesame time,policymakerscangain insightson therangeofDRRmeasuresavailableandreviewexamplesoftheirapplicationthroughexamplesandcasestudies.

2.3.2 Lessons learned from development of the toolTheweb-basedmanagementguidewascreatedtoprovidecoastalstakeholderswithaholisticviewofcoastaldisasterriskreduction.Indesigningtheguide,itwasclearfromtheoutsetthatalargeamountof information,especiallyonDRRmeasures,wasalreadyavailableonline.Ratherthanproducingsimilar information toexistingwebsites, itwasdecided tobuildon thiswork.

Synthesis Report

17

Collaborationwas soughtwith the creators of otherweb portals and proved a positive andfruitfulexchangeoncoastalprotectionandDRRmeasures.Existingsources(e.g.Climate-ADAPTandCoastalWiki)wereusedasinputintotheguideandprovideanexcellentaccompanimenttotheoutputsoftheRISC-KITproject.

Furthermore, while descriptions of DRR measures provide a useful information base, theconsultations with end-users indicated that including examples of practical implementationsubstantially increased the relevance of, and interest in, the guide. Additional research wascarriedoutso thatwhereverpossibleeach typeofmeasurehadanexampleorcasestudy forillustrativepurposes.These examples alsodrawon the150 interviews carriedout aspartofRISC-KIT’sempiricalresearch(seeChapter3.3.3 fordetails)whichcontextualiseandprovidefurtherinformationonperceptionsandexperienceswiththemeasure.

TheguideprovidesinformationaboutgovernanceatthelocalleveloftheRISC-KITcasestudiesaswellasintheircorrespondingcountries.Thegovernancecomponentoftheguidebeginswithadescriptionofpoliciesandstakeholdersinvolvedincoastalprotection,floodriskmanagementand civil protection/DRR.However, the strongdiversity in approachesmeant that it becamenecessary to expand the description to includemore general information on governance e.g.involvementofnon-stateactors,particularchallengesorhistorical reasons foradministrativedivisions.Thisadditionalinformationenablesthereadertosituatethe-verydifferent-policiesandapproachestocoastalDRRinEuropewithintheirbroadercontext.

Theguidewasdevelopedtoprovideenoughdetailforuseathigherlevelsofpolicyandplanning,and to provide examples of implementation for technical experts to draw inspiration from.Further developments can include increased and detailed technical information on DRRmeasures including co-benefits for other policy areas e.g. climate adaptation as well as andaddingdescriptionsinotherlanguagestoincreasetheusefulnessofthetoolformorelocalusers.The site could also be opened up for users to upload their own measures, case studies orcomments.However, an interactive and continually ‘live’web-toolwould require a source offundingbeyondthelifespanofthecurrentproject.

The lessons learned from the development of the Web-based Management Guide aresummarisedinTable2.3.TheGuidecanbevisitedat:http://coastal-management.eu/

Table2.3:LessonslearnedfromthedevelopmentoftheWeb-basedManagementGuide


Web-basedmanagementguide

-Expansivesourceofinformationthatbuildsonbothexistingsourcesandnewknowledge.

-Integrationofperspectivesfromengineering,naturalscience,socialscienceandthehumanities.

-User-friendlyandexamplebasedapproach.

-Provideinformationthatisusefultoarangeofstakeholderswithdifferenttypesofknowledge

-EnsuringthattheGuideiswelldisseminated

-Integrate/coordinatewithfutureH2020projectsandotherinitiativesforcoastalDRR.

-Enableuserstocontribute

-Adddescriptionsinotherlanguages

-Highlightsynergiese.g.betweenclimateadaptationandDRR

Synthesis Report

18

2.4 Hotspot tool (Early Warning System/Decision SupportSystem)

2.4.1 Overview

Aquantitative,highresolutionHotspotToolwasdevelopedtoevaluatetheeffectivenessofDRRmeasuresinhotspotse.g.asidentifiedbytheCoastalRiskAssessmentFramework(CRAF)(seeChapter2.1).TheHotspotToolisafree-wareCoastalEarlyWarningSystem/DecisionSupportSystem(EWS/DSS)thatisdividedintotwophases:planningandeventphase.

Planningphase

Inthisphase,anevaluationoftheeffectivenessofDRRmeasuresinhotspotsiscarriedout.ThisisfirstlydonebycomputingtheeffectofselectedDRRmeasuresonstormimpactwithamodelsystem. For the planning phase, hundreds ofmodel simulations (both synthetic and historicstorms)canberun,describingarangeofstormconditions,physicalsettingandDRRmeasures.Thechoiceofmodelframeworkcanbetailoredtoeachsite.

Theresultsofallmodelsimulationsandmeasureddataarestored inaBayesianNetwork.TheBayesian Network identifies probabilistic relations between storm characteristics and DRRmeasures,andlocalhazardsandimpacts.Itcanhelpdesign,assessandoptimiseDRRmeasuresin the hotspot location (e.g., seawall versus flood-proofing). To set up a Bayesian networkdecisionsupportsystem(DSS),aBayesianNetworkadaptor(BNAdaptor)isneeded,inthiscase,makinguseoftheGeNiefreeware.

Eventphase

Intheproject,Delft-FEWS(FloodEarlyWarningSystem),originallydevelopedforriverfloodingapplication,wasextendedtobeusedoncoasts.Thissystemallowsforreal-timesurge,waveandcoastal erosion and flooding predictions to be made. Model adaptors were developed orimprovedinordertoworkwithmodelssuchasXBeach,Delft3D,TELEMAC,SELFEandSWAN.

TheresultsoftheHotspottoolarevisualisedinaweb-basedviewerathttp://al-ng017.xtr.deltares.nl/risckit/index.htm

Intheapplicationofthetool,theassessedDRRmeasuresweregroupedintohazardinfluencingmeasures andvulnerability and/or exposure influencingmeasures.Futurepredicted climatesscenariosincorporatedattheEWS/DSSsystemsincludedsealevelriseandextremestormsurgelevels,basedon availableprojections,projectedby2050 (orby2060dependingon availabledata).Incaseswherefuturepredictedclimateby2050wouldresultinlimitedincreaseinhazardintensityandimpact,climatechangescenariosprojectedby2100wereused.

Thedevelopedtoolwasabletotranslatetherelevanthydraulicboundaryconditionsintohazardintensitiesand impactsatspecificreceptors,whichprovidecoastalmanagers,decision-makersand policy makers with systematic information to detect, monitor and forecast potentiallyhazardousevents,andanalyse therisks involved.Thesystemcanbeadaptedandextendedtomore boundary conditions, receptors, local hazards and impacts, so to enhance disasterpreparednessforeffectiveriskreductionforfurthereventsormorphologicalconditions.Whenasite isexposed tomore thanone localhazard, thedevelopedEWS isable toassessandmakecomparisons about their relative importance in terms of hazard intensities and impacts.Thecomparisonof the effectivenessofDRRmeasures,orof acombinationofmeasures (strategicalternatives), was performed by changing the model set-up, re-simulating local hazards or

Synthesis Report

19

changingreceptorandvulnerabilityinformationintheusedBayesiannetwork,andbyincludingnewnodesandbinsinit.


ImprovementstotheEWS/DSScanbeachievedovertimebydevelopingspecificaspectsofthetool. In order to improve hazard simulation it is recommended to improve the quality andaccuracyoftheunderlyingnumericalmodeltrains.Thiscanbeachievedbyincreasingvalidationagainst fielddata.Although there areno technical limitations to the complexityof themodelframework, increasingcomplexitymayresult inhighdemands intermsofdata,computationaltimeandresources.HazardinformationderivedbythismodeltrainisinputtotheBayesianDSSwhere the impact of hazards on different receptors is studied. By increasing the number ofgeographical subdivisions of the hotspot and increasing the number of bins andmodel runsreceptorsandvulnerabilityrelationshipscanbestudied inmoredetail.Except formoredetailwithregardtocurrentlystudiedreceptors it isrecommendedtoextendtheDSSwith inclusionofregional-scalesystemicand indirectimpactsofstormeventsatthehotspot.AmongstotherstheDSS includes vulnerability and/or exposure influencingmeasures. It is recommended toassess theuptake/operation/effectivenessof thesemeasures. In linewith theneed forhazardsimulationverificationthiscanbeachievedbydeterminationofthesefactorsforeachcasestudysitebyofhistoricalanalysistoother(observed)hazards/events.InadditiontheeffectivenessofDRRmeasurescanbeanalysedbyincludingmoreaspectslinkedtotheprobabilityofoccurrenceofevents,economicvalue,andsocio-culturalcharacteristicsofthelocalstakeholders.Difficultiesweremainlyrelatedwiththeassumptionsneededfor the implementationofnon-primaryandlesstangible(e.g.,education,awareness)measures.

TheEWSisdevelopedusingtheDelft-FEWSsoftware.TheDelft-FEWSsoftwareisaflexibletoolthatallowsforintegrationofmanydifferentdatatypesandmodels.Thisintegratingprocessofdifferent datasets and models requires a certain level of expertise and is potentially a timeconsuming process. Since most end-users do not do configuration as a routine job itsrecommended tomake thisprocessmoreuser friendly.TheEWSClient isusedby forecastersanddecisionmakersatexpert level. Inaddition thewebviewercanbeusedwith limitedpriorknowledgeofunderlyingphysicalprocessesandtheEWSsoftware.Itwasausefultoolduringthe Multi-criteria Analysis workshops and it is recommended to further develop the webapplicationtomake itmoreuserfriendly.Developmentofthewebviewer(thinclient)andtheDelft-FEWS Client (thick client) can be a combined effort. Both applications can shareconfigurationsormayevenbefullyintegrated.Furtherintegrationwillimproveconsistencyandlimit implementationeffort.The lessons learned from thedevelopmentandapplicationof theHotspotToolaresummarisedinTable2.4Table2.1.

Table2.4:LessonslearnedfromtheapplicationoftheHotspotTool


Hotspottool(EWS/DSS)

-TheEWScanassessmultiplehazardsfortheirrelativeintensitiesandimpacts

-Thetoolcanbeusedbothasex-anteplanningtoolinadditiontoasan

-Highdemandsintermsofdata,timeandresourcesforhazardsimulations

-complexityof

-increasequalityandaccuracyofthenumericalmodeltrains

-improvevulnerabilityrelationshipsanddetailedreceptors

Synthesis Report

20

2.5 Multi-Criteria Analysis Tool

2.5.1 OverviewAMulti-CriteriaAnalysis tool(MCA)wasusedtoassess theproposedmeasures ineachof theRISC-KITcasestudieswithrespecttocriteriathatcapturethekeydimensionsofthedecision-makingprocess.Themethodologywas informedbytheparticipatoryapproachofSoftSystemsMethodology,whichaddressescomplex issues inasystematicwaybyengagingrelevantactorstoconstructivelydiscussdesirableandfeasibleoptionstosolve localproblems(ChecklandandPoulter 2006). In RISC-KIT, local actors involved in coastal management were invited toparticipate in a one-off workshop to discuss and rank, from their own perspective, the(previouslytested)DRRmeasures.

Theeffectivenessofmeasures -asdefinedby theBayesianNetwork– formed thebasisof theMCA. Key informationwas presented in non-technical language through a set of interactivecards (Figure 2.8) for stakeholders to understand the different possible measures andcombinationsofmeasures(‘strategicalternatives’).Stakeholdersthencompletedscoringsheetsforeachmeasureorstrategicalternativeonascalefrom-2(probablyno)to+2(probablyyes)accordingtothreecriteria:feasibility,acceptabilityandsustainability.

Ameasureorstrategicalternativethatwasdeemedfeasiblecouldatthesametimebedeemedunsustainableorunacceptable.Thus,thescoringsheetsystemhighlightsboththebenefitsanddrawbacksofeachmeasureaccordingtodifferentcriteria.Stakeholderswerethenhandedout8stickerstoweighcriteria.Weightsindicatedtheperceivedimportanceofcriteriaindependentofthemeasuresandrelativetotheobjectiveoftheprocess(e.g.whatcriterionismostimportanttoconsiderifsanddunesweretobeimplementedtoreducecoastalerosion?).Heavierweights(i.e.themorestickersacriterionreceived) indicatedhigher importance.Thescoredmeasuresandtheweightedcriteriaprovidedafinalresultontheoverallrankingofoptionsandrevealedtheleast and most preferred measures amongst stakeholders. Figure 2.9 indicates the stepsinvolvedintheMCAimplementedinRISC-KIT.

EWSintheevent-phase

-Thegenericconfigurationofthetoolallowsforextensiontoadditionalcasestudysites

softwareconfiguration

-jointdevelopmentofweb-applicationandDelft-FEWSsoftware.

-extendedanalysisoftheeffectivenessofDRRmeasures

-inclusionofregional-scalesystemicandindirectimpactsofstormeventsatthehotspot.

-FurtherextensionoftheDelft-FEWSsoftwaretowardsimpactforecasting.

Synthesis Report

21

Figure2.8:ExamplesofinteractivecardsinthreeRISC-KITcasestudysites

ThepurposeoftheMCAwastobridgethedisciplinarydividebetweenengineeringsciencesandsocialsciences,facilitatethecommunicationanddisseminationoflocalcoastalriskassessmentsandevaluationofDisasterRiskReduction(DRR)measurestoabroadrangeofstakeholders.Themethodologywasdesigned to integratescientificknowledgewithstakeholders’knowledge tounderstandandassessthepossiblesocial,politicalandeconomic implicationsofdifferentDRRmeasures,whichcouldfosterorhindersuccessfulimplementation.

Synthesis Report

22

Figure2.9:StepstocompleteanMCA

Synthesis Report

23


InRISC-KITtheMCAwasexpectedtogenerategreaterunderstandingontheextenttowhichoptionscreatevaluebyachievingobjectives, identifytheareasofgreaterandlesseropportunity,prioritisetheoptions,clarifythedifferencesbetweentheoptions,andhelpthekeyplayerstobetterunderstandthelocalsituation.Inpractice,theuseoftheMCA intheprojectallowedeachcasestudytotestassumptionsonthedynamicsbetweenDRRmeasuresandbetweenthesemeasuresandthespecificsocialcontexts,aswellastoobservethereactionandresponsesfromlocalactorstothesemeasures.

ThevalueoftheMCAmethodologyvariedfromcasetocase.ForthecaseswithricherexperienceofDRRwork likeNorthNorfolkorPortoGaribaldi,theMCAwasausefultooltocommunicateresultsandengageinaninteractiveexercise.ForthecaseswheredisastersoccurwithlessfrequencylikeinKristianstadorVarna,theMCAwasabletofurthergeneratediscussions,createaninitialenablingenvironmentforcross-sectoralcooperation,increaseawarenessofriskandmeasuresamongstcivilsociety,andhelpcommunicatepublicconcernsandexpectationstomanagingauthorities. Inallcases,theMCAwasausefultooltodisseminatetheprojectresultsandmethodologies,raiseawarenesson risksandpotentialmeasures,and improve localconnectionsbetweenstakeholders involved in coastalmanagement.Generally, theMCAworkshopwas agood forum for bringing people together, a good exercise for testing our researchassumptionsand forobtainingbetterunderstandingof thedividebetween researchprioritiesandcoastalmanagement.

Futuredevelopmentsofthistoolcouldbedonebyincludingdataoncostsandbenefitsin the short and medium terms. This would allow participants to make a moreinformed choice in the exercise but also increase awareness of the benefits anddrawbacksofdifferenttypesofmeasures.Thisisrelevantwhencomparingstructuralandnon-structuralmeasures; inparticular for contrasting the economic, social, andecologicalgainsofnatureandecosystem-basedsolutionswherethemediumandlong-termbenefitsmightbegreaterthantheshort-termones.ThelessonslearnedfromthedevelopmentofthedatabasearesummarisedinTable2.5.

Table2.5:LessonslearnedfromtheapplicationoftheMulti-criteriaAnalysisTool(MCA)


Multi-criteriaAnalysis

Communicationofresults,stakeholderengagement,andinteractionbetweencivilsocietyandgovernment,cross-sectoralcooperation,increasedawarenessofriskandmeasures.

Ensuringparticipationandmotivationofallrelevantparticipants;trainingnon-socialscientiststoconductparticipatoryMCAs.

Includecost-benefitassessment.

Synthesis Report

24

2.5.3 Conclusions on the toolkit

TheRISC-KITtoolkitcontainsbothinformativeandassessmenttoolsthatcanprovidesubstantial support to coastaldisaster risk reduction.The informative tools (StormImpact Database and Web-based Management Guide) combine information onphysicalandenvironmentalfeaturesofthecoastwithinformationonsociety,culture,history and governance. These tools demonstrate the relevance of RISC-KIT’sinterdisciplinary and holistic approach to understanding and reducingdisaster riskandprovidepracticalexamplesofhowthisintegrativeapproachcanbeapplied.

The Coastal Risk Assessment Framework (CRAF), Hotspot Tool and Multi-criteriaAnalysis(MCA)constituteasuiteofassessmenttoolswhichallowareasofcoastalrisktobeidentified,theeffectivenessofexistingandfutureDRRmeasurestobeassessedandforthesetoberankedandagreeduponwithstakeholders.TheapplicationoftheCRAF andHotspot tool at ten case study siteswithdifferent forcing,morphologicalandexposure/vulnerabilityconditionsreinforces therobustnessof themethodsandtheirwidepotentialofapplication.Theyarethereforevaluableinstrumentsforcoastalmanagementandriskreduction.WithregardstotheapplicationoftheMCAtool,theworkshopsprovided an excellentopportunity forstakeholders to come together; inmanycasestriggeringconnectionsbetweenactorswhowerepreviouslyunknowntoone another. The MCA workshops were able to raise awareness of local risk andmeasuresforprevention,protectionandmitigation.

Before the toolswereused,casestudypartnerswere trained toensurecorrectandeffectiveapplication.Thetoolshavebeenappliedandvalidated(forthecasesofCRAFandEWS/DSS)atallcasestudysites.Thevalidationwasperformedbycomparingthefindings(e.g.,identifiedhotspots,erosionorfloodinglevels)againsthistoricalstormsand field records. Depending on their personal background, case study owners(consortium members responsible for particular case study sites), and projectpartnersfoundthisprocessmoreor lesschallenging.TheCRAFandtheHotspottoolwere effective in selecting and ranking hotspots and in impact assessment at thehotspots,includingtestingandevaluationofDRRmeasures.Theyshouldneverthelessbe further tested,validated, and applied atother coastal areas inorder to increasetheirrobustnessandtotesttheirlimitations.Inaddition,thelackofhigh-qualityandhigh-resolutionsocio-economicandimpactdatawasobservedataEuropeanlevelandistheprimarylimitationtofurtherdevelopmentofsuchmethods.

WithregardstotheMCA,theprimarychallengeswerepresentedbythefactthatmanyof those using the approach did not have backgrounds in the social sciences or inapplying participatory approaches. Although the project team was trained beforeleadingtheworkshops,somehadconcernsaboutconductingresearchwithamethodthat was away from their own personal routine. Yet after the work had beenconducted, the response from case study owners and the research team wasoverwhelminglypositive.Inthisinstance,aswiththeinformativetools(StormImpactDatabaseandWeb-basedmanagementguide),theRISC-KITprojecthasdemonstratedthebenefitsandnecessityof takingan interdisciplinaryapproach tocoastalDRRaswellaspracticalwaysinwhichthiscanbeachieved.

The Technology Readiness Level (TRL) is a commonly used measure to estimatetechnologymaturityofagivenproduct.Table2.6outlinesTRLsasdefinedwithinthe

Synthesis Report

25

European Commission’sHorizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (COM,2014).

Table2.6:DescriptionofTechnologyReadinessLevels(TRLs)

TechnologyReadinessLevel(TRL)

Description

TRL1 Basicprinciplesobserved

TRL2 Technologyconceptformulated

TRL3 Experimentalproofofconcept

TRL4 Technologyvalidatedinlab

TRL5

Technologyvalidatedinrelevantenvironment(industriallyrelevantenvironmentinthecaseofkeyenablingtechnologies)

TRL6 Technologydemonstratedinrelevantenvironment(industriallyrelevantenvironmentinthecaseofkeyenablingtechnologies)

TRL7 Systemprototypedemonstrationinoperationalenvironment

TRL8 Systemcompleteandqualified

TRL9 Actualsystemproveninoperationalenvironment(competitivemanufacturinginthecaseofkeyenablingtechnologies;orinspace)

Although it isnotanexplicitgoalof theRISC-KITproject todefine theTRL level foreachdevelopedtool,Table2.7indicatesthedegreeofdevelopmentofthetools.Thisisparticularlychallengingfortoolsthatintegratephysical,engineering,natural,social,economicandculturalaspectsasisthecaseformostoftheRISC-KITtools.

Table2.7TechnologyReadinessLevelsoftheRISC-KITtools

Tool TRL

StormImpactDatabase

TRL6:Technologydemonstratedinrelevantenvironment.Thesystemwasdevelopedandalreadyassessedandusedbyexternalusers.Externalusershaverequestedtoaddtheirowndata.

CRAF(Phase1) TRL7:Systemprototypedemonstrationinoperationalenvironment.Phase1oftheCRAFwassuccessfullydemonstratedin10differentcasestudylocationsandhasbeenappliedbypartnersinotherareasaswell(Denmark,WestAfrica,PacificIslands).

CRAF(Phase2) TRL6:Technologydemonstratedinrelevantenvironment.Phase2oftheCRAFwassuccessfullydemonstratedin10

Synthesis Report

26

differentcasestudylocations,demonstratingthetool’svalueforcoastalmanagement.ComparedtoCRAFPhase1however,Phase2hasnotyetbeenimplementedinotherpilotprojectsandisnotyetatthedevelopmentleveltobeappliedoperationally

Web-basedManagementGuide

TRL8:systemcompleteandqualified.TheWeb-basedManagementGuideisfullydevelopedandoperational.Itwasalsovalidatedbycasestudyownersandend-users.

Hotspot(EWS/DSS)tool

TRL6:technologydemonstratedinrelevantenvironment.TheHotspotToolwassuccessfullydemonstratedat10differentenvironments.

MCA TRL6:Technologydemonstratedinrelevantenvironment.TheMCAisfullydevelopedandreadytobeapplied.Itwasalsovalidatedbycasestudyownersandend-users.

Synthesis Report

27

3 Project achievements

Fromtheoutset,theRISC-KITprojecthadaclearunderstandingofthestate-of-the-artonwhichitwouldbuildandhadavisiononhowtousethebuildingblocksdevelopedthusfartomakeprogress.Thischapterdescribesthestate-of-the-art(baseline)attheproject’soutset, theoutlinedways inwhich theprojectplanned toprogressbeyondthestate-of-the-art,bothofwhicharetaken“verbatim”fromtheDescriptionofWork,and the project’s actual advances. The information is organised according to theproject’sWorkPackagesassetout intheagreedoutline(DescriptionofWork).Thisallowsforanassessmentalongfourkeyquestions:i)howdidweaccomplishwhatwepromised? ii)whatdidwenotdoandwhy? iii)wheredidwegobeyondwhatwaspromised?andiv)futuredirections.

3.1 Impact-oriented database of case study site andhistoric event data (WP1)

3.1.1 BaselineAttheoutsetoftheproject,Europelackedacomprehensivedatabaseofmarinestormoccurrence and their impact on all European coastlines. In some cases nationaldatabasescombininghazardsandimpactsexist,butoftenonlycontaindatacollectedafter World War II. However, recent work had highlighted the value of matchinghistoricalsourceswiththecollectionofgeomorphologicalevidence.

Anumberofdatabase effortson thehazards alonewere supportedby theEU:FP4CODECS, provided a database of instrumental records for the last 300 years, andqualitative information for the last 1000 years, butwas restricted to theEuropeanAtlantic coast; FP6Hydrate provided a database for flash floods, and FP7MICOREprovidedahistoricalstormdatabasewithdata fromninesitesacrossEurope.Thesedatabaseswere geographically rather than event-driven andwere focused only onhazards.

IntheUnitedStates,NOAAhasclassifiedallobservedstormeventsandassessedtheireffectsonpropertyandinfrastructure.Asaresultofthisinitiative,theNCDC(NationalClimaticData Centre) is now able to compile data soon after the occurrence of anevent.With this inmind, theRISC-KITconsortiumconsidered there tobeanurgentneedtoexpandtheexistingdatabasesavailableforEuropetoencompassthediversecoastlinesoftheEU,andtodevelopappropriateprotocolsforassessingcoastalstormimpactsthatreflectEurope’slittoraldiversity.

3.1.2 Planned progress beyond the state-of-the-art

The firstadvancementbeyondtheknowledgebasewillbe theexpansionofthedatasetwithhistoricalsources.Thecollaborationbetweenreinsurersandhistorianswillstrengthen the efforts of local communities and national governments to apply theFloodsDirective.Thereconstructionof thehumanand financialcosts in thecurrentcoastal setting causedby events comparable to those in thehistorical analysis,willleadtobetterunderstandingofthestakesandvulnerabilitiesofthecasestudysitesina long-term perspective (>200 years) and will strengthen prevention and the

Synthesis Report

28

preparation strategies for extreme events. In addition, the knowledge gained willsupply examples regarding memory of risks, which will constitute useful tools formediationwithelectedrepresentativesandlocalcommunities.

The second advancement is the inclusion of socio-economic, cultural andenvironmental information (where possible from interviews of contemporarywitnesses)tocharacterisetheimpactoftheevents.Thesocialandeconomicaspectsofpostdisasterappraisalwillalsobeexamined,aswell asculturalandhealth relatedaspectssuchasthenumberandtypeofcasualtiesexperiencedbothduringandafteranevent.ThisapproachwillbuildontheFP7KULTURISK.Initscoastalcasestudies,thatprojectfocusedonlyonsea-levelrise,flashfloodsandmarinefloodinganddidnotconsiderothercoastalthreatslikedamagetocoastalinfrastructuresortheoccurrenceof extreme coastal erosion leading to failure of the first line of defence (dykes ordunes).

The third advancement is that the database compiled in the RISC-KIT Projectwillintegrate data from different hazards will be multi-hazard (storms, surges, winds,flashfloods)inasystematicway,contributingtotheworkalreadystartedbytheCREDDatabasewhichcontainsessentialdataontheoccurrenceandeffectsofover18,000massdisasters in theworld from1900 topresentand is thusnotonly restricted tocoastalevents.

Summarizing, amore complete and impact-oriented databasewill be created. Thistypeofdatabase isnotpublicly-available asofnow,despiteeffortsat theEuropean(DG-ECHO,EEA,JRC)andGlobal(UNISDR)level.

3.1.3 Project advances

In answer to the first advancement theprojectwas able toproduce aEurope-widedatabase of storm impacts including historical information (Garnier et al., 2017forthcoming). Unlike previous efforts which have only had regional coverage thisdatabase provides coverage of all regionals seas. We did not include datasets ofinsurersas theseentitiesarevery reluctant toshareandmakepublicdatasets.Theinformationentered in thedatabase isso far limited to thecountrieswhereprojectpartners are located, the case study sites and adjacent coastlines. For Italy, weincludedmore informationthan justthetwocasestudysitesasstorm impactscouldbetrackedacrossseveralneighbouringregions.Thisprovedthatassumingavailabilityofoperatorswillingtoformatandinputthedata,thedatabaseiscapableofanalysinginformationatEuropeanscale.Moreover,asuccessfulattempttoextendthedatabasetoanon-Europeansite, i.e.Bangladesh,proved that thisapproach isalsoable to logmuchwiderimpacteventslikehurricanesorcyclones.

For the second advancement, one limitationwas the availability of socio-economichistorical impact data, for example in the Ria Formosa case study site,whichwassettledlessthan200yearsago.Ontheotherhand,othersiteslikeNorthNorfolkwereable to provide information dating back over several centuries. Interviews withwitnessesof20thand21stcenturydisastersweregenerallylimitedforseveralreasons.Firstly, if the disaster occurred before WWII, only few survivors are still alive.Secondly for recent extreme events like Xynthia, the situationwas too sensitive tointerveneduetolocaltensionsamongthepopulationandwithinstitutions.Forthesereasons,itwasnotpossibletoobtainastatisticalsamplestakeholdersandthenumber

Synthesis Report

29

of interviews conductedwas focused instead on speaking to key informantswherepossible.

Forthethirdadvancement,onlydataonmarinehazardsisgenerallycontainedinthedatabase as combined flash flood-marine inundation hazards existed only in theLiguria and Emilia-Romagna site. Also, although the possibility of exchanging datawiththeCREDdatabasewasexplored,we found that thatsystem’sarchitecturewasvery different and missing the level of detail required by the RISC-KIT project. Intermsoffuturedevelopment,afirststepwouldbetoensurethecasestudysitesareupdated (these are current up to thewinter season of 2014/15whenWP1 of theproject was completed). The database could then be expanded to include moreinformationandcreate linkstoothersitese.g.fromUNISDRandEEA,although inasyet,theseothersystemsdonotgatherasdetailed informationaswasdonebyRISC-KIT.Thedatabase could also be fully rolledout to theEuropean levelby includingnation-widedatafromallMemberStates.Thedesignisalreadyfullycompatiblewiththe INSPIREDirective (2007/2/EC) and the guidelines produced forMember StatereportingontheFloodsDirective(EuropeanCommission,2013).AEuropeanroll-outwould require identifying national authorities with the resources to be able tocontributetothiseffort,butwoulddevelopthis intoacomprehensiveandextremelyuseful open-access resource. The database could be used to link storm impacts indifferentregionsacrossEuropeandthus informtrans-boundarydecisionmakingonDRR,inlinewiththeaimsofEUcivilprotection.1

3.2 Improved methods for regional-scale coastalvulnerability and risk assessment (WP2)

3.2.1 Baseline

Attheoutsetoftheproject,therewerenotoolsgenericenoughtobeuseduniformlyacrossEuropetoassesscoastalrisks,particularlythoserisksresultingfrommultiple,synergistichazardssuchasovertopping,breaching,anderosion.

Firstly,manymethodstoassessextremeevents-inducedhazards(i.e.notrisks)attheregional scale (~100 km) use external variables that solely describe the boundaryconditions(e.g.waveheight,waterlevelandsea levelrise)ofthehazardandnotthehazard itself. In most cases this characterisation of the hazard is based on anadaptationoftheCoastalVulnerabilityIndex(CVI).

Secondly, on coasts, existing river flood risk assessmentmethods (GIS-based floodmapping)misrepresenttheriskbecausethenon-stationarityofsurgeandflashfloodevents. Also, themorphodynamic response of the coast has a strong effect on thefloodingofthehinterland.

1i.e.‘tosupportandcoordinatethecivilprotectionsofMemberStates’(TreatyofLisbon,Art.196)and‘encouragingcooperationbetweenMemberStatesinordertoimprovetheeffectivenessofsystemsforpreventingandprotectingagainstnaturalorman-madedisasters’.(CouncilRegulation(EU)2016/369of15March2016ontheprovisionofemergencysupportwithintheUnion,Recital7).

Synthesis Report

30

Finally,riskassessment isatpresentrestrictedtodirectly-exposedelements.This isinsufficient for understanding the impacts on the entire system and the systemresponse.

However, the established concept of two components of hazards and vulnerabilitycontributingtoriskcanbeusedandimproveduponforcoastalapplications.

3.2.2 Planned progress beyond the state-of-the-artThefirstadvancementwillbetoderivethehazarditself(e.g.erosion,waverun-upandovertopping) from the external boundary conditions using physics-based modelswhich properly consider the nonlinear dynamics of the processes involved. Inparticular,weshalldevelopanefficient1D(transect)versionoftheXBeachmodeltobeusedatregionalscaleacrossmostcoastaltypologies.Thus,thismethodologywillallowassociatingprobabilitiesofoccurrencenot justtotheforcingelements(waves,surges) but also to the hazards (erosion, inundation).This is especially relevant asmostoftheconsideredhazardsdependuponmorethanoneortwovariables.

The second advancement is to consider various forcing terms and their associatedprobabilitiesandtoincludealltheseintheprobabilityofthehazarditself.Todothisforallpotentialcoastalhazards, themethodologypreviouslydevelopedbyRISC-KITpartners,willbeextended.

The thirdadvancement is in theassessmentof thevulnerabilityofexposedentities,where we will better recognise the variation in the sensitivity value of groups inresponsetoexternalfactors,suchasthecharacteristicsofthehazard,thenatureofthesurroundingenvironment,and theexistenceofDRRmeasures.Thiswillbedonebydeveloping aconsistentandexhaustive librarywhichwillenhance thevulnerabilityassessmentof theexposedentitiesandwillmakevulnerabilitycomparableonapanEuropeanscale.

Fourthly,wewillevaluatethelong-termriskbasedontheresilienceofthesystem,i.e.theabilityofasystemorasub-systemtoreturntothepriorstateafteradisturbance,andthusstimulatesustainablecoastaldevelopment.Akeychallengeistoincorporateadditionalnon-monetarysocialindicatorssuchastheHumanDevelopmentIndexandtheWellbeingindex.

Finally, rather than focussing on directly-exposed elements, RISC-KIT will advanceknowledge by considering potential ripple effects within and between the socio-economic systems inside and outside the immediate disaster area, and developspecific indicators to reveal the vulnerability of the system as a whole. Since theconsequencesofashockonasystemaredependentuponthestructureofthesystem,itisakeychallengetoexploreagent-basedmodellingandgeneralsystemsmodellingtogive agreaterunderstandingofwhat thecriticaldeterminants in theeffectsof ashockare.

3.2.3 Project advancesOn the basis of simple models and the bathtub approach (a given area becomesinundatedifitselevationislessthanthewaterlevel),Phase1wasabletoconsiderarangeofhazards(e.g.,erosion,overwash,overtoppingetc).Theseprovidedtheflexibleand efficient levelsnecessary for the screeningprocess.The first advancementwasachievedwithCRAFPhase2inwhichtheXBeach1Dmodelwasselectedandupdated

Synthesis Report

31

to optimise its usability per sector (between 5 or 10 transects per km, given thecomputationalconstraints).

For the second advancement we have adapted the response-based approach. TheCRAF has been based on the definition and quantification of the storm-inducedhazards inprobabilistictermsoveraperiod longenough toberepresentativeof thestorm climate for the area. The final result is a set of probability distributions fordifferent hazards along the coast, in such a way that, for a given probability themagnitudeoftheconsideredhazardcanbeconsistentlycomparedalongthecoast.

The thirdadvancement is theCoastalLibrary. Ithasbeenproduced in the formofauser-friendlyExcel file andprovides a comprehensive and generic setof indicatorsandmethods tobeusedacrossEurope to input intoanycoastal impactassessmentapproach for ecosystems, the built environment, the human population, transport,utilities and business. Pre-existing information available in the grey and peer-reviewed literaturehasbeen integratedwhereappropriate.Otherdataandmethods(e.g.step-wiseapproachfornetworkvulnerabilityassessment,methodsforincludingDRRmeasures invulnerability assessment)have alsobeendeveloped for assessingindirectimpactsandimpactreductionusingDRRmeasures.

Toanswer the fourthand fifthadvancement theCRAFhasbeencreated toconsiderbothdirectandindirectimpactsintegratingthehazardandvulnerabilitycomponentspreviouslymentioned, i.e. the potential risk to the population during an event, thehousehold displacement, the household and the business financial impact, thebusiness disruption, the impact on ecosystem, the transport disruption and thepotentiallossofcriticalservices(e.g.,water,electricity).However,itwasnotpossibleto consider all type of indirect and cascading impacts (e.g. ripple effects betweensystems)intheanalysis.SuchconsiderationwillhaveaddedsuchcomplexityandsuchlevelofdatarequirementtotheCRAFthatitwillhavelimiteditspotentialapplicationtothecasestudies.

Indices such as theHumanDevelopment Index and theWellbeing indexwere notappropriate for the purpose of the CRAF. Therefore specific uniform impactsindicators (scaled from 0 to 1)were designed to score the hotspots using amulti-criteriaanalysisapproach.TheINtegratedDisRuptionAssessmentmodel(henceforthINDRA)wasspecificallydevelopedtoassesstheseimpactsandscorethehotspots.Tomeet research and practical needs three techniqueswere considered in themodeldependingonavailableknowledge,dataandresourcesandassuchpreferredtomorecomplex modelling techniques: a susceptibility-based approach, a matrix-basedapproachandanetworkanalysisapproach.

OneaddedvalueoftheCRAFanditsapproachwasthesustainedefforttohaveahighlevelofstakeholder input in thedevelopmentof the framework.Theirrole includedsupporting the collectionof information for evaluatingpotentialdirect and indirectimpacts, inputting in themulti-criteriaanalysisprocess,validatingandselecting thehotspots. The CRAF also informs stakeholders on the data quality used for theassessmenttosupporttheirdecision,aswellasanevaluationofnecessaryefforts infuturedatacollection.

Synthesis Report

32

3.3 Enhanced quantitative early warning and scenarioevaluation capabilities (WP3)

3.3.1 Baseline

Attheoutsetoftheproject,onlyafewmemberstateshadacoastalEWSinuseforcivilprotectionandmoststatesdidnotincludecoastalfloodingasariskincivilprotectionschemes. The systems in placewere typically hazard-oriented in nature, providinginsightintotheintensityofanevent(i.e.exceedanceofawaterlevel)butnotintoitsimpacts and resilience to these impacts.Also,EWSwere implementedoncomputerserversbecauseofcomputationaldemand.Thisrequireswarningsandinformationonevents tobedistributed todecisionmakers inthe field through ICTnetworkswhichhavehighvulnerabilityduringextremeevents.Also,becauseof theprocessing timerequiredforcomputations,itisachallengetoincludelocalobservationsandrapidly-changinginformationthatbecomesavailabletowardsthepeakofanevent.

The FP7 project MICORE showed the feasibility of including two-dimensionalmorphodynamic models into coastal EWS. However, MICORE focused on hazardintensity maps and did not include impacts. Also, that project showed that therobustness and flexibility of the coupling of hydro- and morphodynamical modelsremained amajor challenge. Furthermore, existing coastal zone or flash floodEWSonlyconcernone typeofhazard(wind,water level, flash flood)anddidnot includemulti-hazardsimpactingonesystem.

Atthebeginningoftheproject,robustfloodEWSforrivernetworkswereoperational(e.g.EuropeanFloodAlertSystem).TheDelft-FEWS(FloodEarlyWarningSystem)forriver basins was the most robust system available with implementation acrossEurope.Delft-FEWSprescribesagenericsystem,whileallowingtheuseoflocalusers’preferredmodelsoftware.

3.3.2 Planned progress beyond the state-of-the-art

Giventhisbaseline,forecastingdisastrouseventsincoastalareaswillgreatlyimproveifvarioushazardswhichaffect thecoastalzonesuchassurge-driven floods,coastalerosion,breaching,overtopping and rain-driven flash floods canbe incorporated inEWS/DSSsystems.

ThefirstadvancementoftheprojectwillbetoexpandthefunctionalityofDelft-FEWSto coastal environments. In RISC-KIT wewill develop a robust and flexible modelcoupling system for the computation of multi-hazard intensities in coastalenvironments. Inapilotproject,Delft-FEWSwasmodifiedforadedicatedNorthSeaapplicationusingDeltareswaveandsurgemodels.Thiswillbeexpandedtoallowforanywave/surgemodelsystem.

Thesecondadvancement is to includemorphodynamicaland flash floodmodels.Tothe first aspect, the storm-response model XBeach will be incorporated in a 2Defficientmode and expanded in functionality. Inorder to compute rain-driven flashfloods,themodulesdevelopedinDRIHMandIMPRINTSwillbeincorporated.

ThethirdadvancementisthedistributionofEWSinformationtothefield.Thegoalisto develop ameans to supply decision-makerswith a stand-aloneEWS/DSSwhichusesinformationfromex-antescenariocomputationsandwhichcanbeupdatedwiththe latestavailable information.Wewilldevelop aBayesian-basedDecisionSupport

Synthesis Report

33

Systemwhichwillconnecthazard intensityandsocio-economic, environmentalandcultural distributions and thus allow the transition from hazards to impacts. ABayesian-basednetworkisagraphicalmodelthatdescribescomplexsystemrelationsinprobabilistic terms,andwhichcanbe runon a localPCorsmartphone.Ex-ante,Bayesian networks allow the exploration of “what-if” scenarios in which theintensities of physical hazards can be varied and proposed DRR plans can beevaluated, stimulatingdialoguebetween scientists, end-users andstakeholders.Thekeychallenges indeveloping theDSSare i)properly implementingspatial relationsbetweenvariabledistributions(i.e.rippleeffects), ii) Integratingquantitativehazardvariablesandqualitativesocialandculturalattributes,iii)optimizingthenetworkfortherequired inputdata,and iv)developingamethodologyto incorporateDRRplansdevelopedinWP4.


ApplicationofDelft-FEWStocoastalenvironments

In answer to the first advancement a free-ware Coastal Early WarningSystem/DecisionSupportSystem(EWS/DSS)wasdeveloped.TheDelft-FEWS(FloodEarlyWarningSystem)software,mainlyused tosupport fluvial forecastingsystems,was further developed for specific use in coastal applications. The followingextensionsweremadetothesoftware(Bogaardetal.2017forthcoming):

1. Import routines have been developed for CS3xTidalSurgeTime andMetOfficeWW3.

2. TheDelft-FEWSClienthasbeenimprovedrelatedtocoastaldatavisualization.

3. Model adapters have been developed specifically for the coastal modelsSelfeWWMII,Telemac,Xbeach,andContinuum.

4. ThemodeladaptersforDelft-3DandWaveWatchIIIhavebeenextended.

5. Inorder tomove towards impactbased forecasting and to supportdecisionmakinganadapterfortheBNreasoningengineSMILENeticaasdescribed intheprevioussectionhasbeendevelopedaswell.Assuch,thismodelcannowbeincludedintheEarlyWarningframework.

Alldevelopedadaptersareavailableaspartof theDelft-FEWSsoftware. Inadditiondocumentation has been made available on how to code a model adapter for anyarbitrarymodel.

Morphodynamicalandflashfloodmodels

Inanswertothesecondadvancementthestorm-responsemodelXBeachaswellastheflashfloodmodeldevelopedintheFP7projectIMPRINTShavebeenincorporatedintotheDelft-FEWSplatform.Inadditiontotheseplannedactivities,supplementaryworkwascarriedouttoimprovephysicalprocessesinXbeach(1),SWAN(2)andtheflashfloodmodel(3).

1. XBeachhasbeenfurtherdevelopedtoimprovethecomputationalspeedofthemodel as well as the physical descriptions to enhance the accuracy andreliability.Thedevelopmentsarevalidatedandtestedforfieldsituationsandengineeringapplications.

Synthesis Report

34

2. Anewformulationforestimatingthewaveenergydissipationovervegetationincoastalareas is implemented inSWANmodelandvalidatedagainst flumetestsandfieldmeasurements.

3. TheflashfloodmodeldevelopedintheFP7projectIMPRINTSisimprovedbyincreasing the resolution and better estimation of the hazard level. Theimprovedmodel isappliedsuccessfullyaround theTorderaDeltaCaseStudyinSpainandanimplementationprocedureismadeavailable.

In answer to the third advancement aBayesian-basedDecision Support System(DSS)was developed to allow for the prediction of impacts resulting from coastalmulti-hazardsforvarioushotspotareas.TheBayesianNetworkDSS isadatadrivenmodel that describes system relations in probabilistic terms. Generally, BayesianNetworksarepre-fedwithdatafromwhichthey“learn”relationshipsandcanthenbeused to predict or diagnose events. TheDSS is based on data from hydrodynamicstormsimulations, informationon landuseandso-calledvulnerabilityrelationships.Theapproachcaneasilybeappliedtoanyhotspotarea.Inaninnovation,theBayesianNetwork has been extended to include qualitative social and cultural attributes(Cumiskey et. al. 2017 forthcoming) and non-quantitative measures such as“education.Integratingquantitativehazardvariablesand

WebapplicationconnectedtoEWS/DSS

TheDelft-FEWSbasedEWS includingDSS isdeveloped for forecastersanddecisionmakersatexpertlevel.Properuseofthesystemrequiresbothexpertiseinunderlyingphysical processes as well as basic knowledge of the EWS software. For localauthorities,stakeholdersandthegeneralpublic,forecastandwarningservicesneedtobedisseminatedusingproductsthatareeasytointerpretandaccess.Forthisreason,theadditionaleffortwasmadetodevelopawebapplication.

ThisapplicationcanbeassessedwithoutconnectiontoorexperiencewiththeDelft-FEWS software offering information in a way limited prior knowledge about theunderlyingphysicalprocesses isrequired(Bogaard,2017).Thewebviewercontainsthreedifferent typesof information for each case study site: (1)Outcomeof a riskassessment study (CRAF 1), (2) Onshore hazard information for a hot spot areaidentified in the risk assessment, (3) Coastal Impact based on Bayesian networkresults.Boththestand-aloneEWS/DSSandthewebapplicationuseinformationfromex-ante scenario computations and can be updated with the latest availableinformation.

Theimprovedphysics-basedmodelsandnewdevelopments(source-codes)deliveredinthistaskaremadeavailablethroughtheopensourceandfreesoftwarecommunitywebportal(www.oss.deltares.nl),with links from theRISC-KITprojectwebsite.Thewebapplicationcanbeaccessedat:http://al-ng017.xtr.deltares.nl/risckit/index.htm

3.4 Integrated risk reduction and resilience plans(WP4)

3.4.1 Baseline

The EU has outlined approaches for adapting to the impacts of climate change onEurope’scoastsandRISC-KITpartnershavebeen engaged inEUMemberStateandregionaleffortstoaddressthese(perceivedlongerterm)challenges.However,(short

Synthesis Report

35

term) DRR strategies to manage hydro-meteo impacts such as storm surges andcoastal flooding from sea and landhad seldombeendeveloped in conjunctionwithclimateadaptationplans.Given theirsharedaimsof increasing resilience, there is agrowing awareness of the need for integration between these two policy areas.Moreover, effective DRR measures need to be integrated with a range of existingpoliciese.g. forenvironmentalandsocialprotectionandsustainabledevelopmentaswellaswithlocalandnationalinfrastructure.

3.4.2 Planned progress beyond the state-of-the-artRISC-KIT will address this need by developing combinations of DRR measures(‘strategic alternatives’) for the case study sites by linking to existing policy anddecision-makingprocessesandstrengtheningpartnershipsbetweenrelevantsectorsandgroupsinlocalandregionalcommunities.

Inafirstadvancement,RISC-KITwilldemonstratepracticalways inwhichthemulti-hazards from theseaand the landcanbe integrated intoDRRapproaches.Thus,wewill show how Integrated Coastal ZoneManagement (ICZM) and IntegratedWaterResourcesManagement(IWRM)canbelinkedwithDRRstrategieswhichgooverandbeyond thescopeof theFloodDirective.Through this integration,RISC-KITaims toencourage greater policy effectiveness and to increase coherence with existingsystems, policies approaches and goals to ensure their sustainability and cost-effectiveness.

Inasecondadvancement,riskreductionandresilienceplansdeveloped inRISC-KITwill constitute a tailor-mademixofDRR strategic alternatives,whichwill explicitlyinclude adaptive management measures that move away from a worldview ofpreventingoravoidingrisk,towardsacceptingrisks.Therefore,apartfromtraditionalhard-infrastructuretechnologicalsolutions,theprojectwillconsiderecosystem-basedsolutionsandwaysof‘livingwithhazards’.

In a third advancement, as resilience to natural events is deeply rooted in socialsystems, local and community-level understandings of risk are acknowledged aslegitimate descriptions of system dynamics. Thus, for effective DRR at an EU andinternational level, it is essential that lessons learned and user knowledge of localsocio-economic,historic and cultural factors are sharedbetween actors.To accountfor this, RISC-KITwill make use of participatorymethods (live-polling, moderateddiscussiongroupsor roundtablediscussions) thathavebeensuccessfully applied inpreviousprojects,butthat–asprogressbeyondthestateoftheart-willbeadaptedtosuitthestudysite-specificrequirements.Thisapproachwillalsohelpbuildownershipamongstcoastalend-usersandstakeholdersandcontribute to improvedmulti-levelgovernanceandinstitutionalaccountability.

Fourthly, acceptability of the planswill be improved by evaluating them against arangeofclimatescenariosatthecasestudysites,usinganintegratedassessmentthatasaprogress-beyond-the-state-of-the-artcombinesamulti-criteriaanalysisandasoftsystemsmethodology.Thefirstwillassessthetechnicalandeconomicfeasibilityandthe capacity to reduce disaster risk. The soft systemsmethodology takes differentviewpointsofend-usersandstakeholdersintoconsideration.

Synthesis Report

36


Inanswertothefirstadvancementpotentialprevention,mitigationandpreparednessmeasuresweredevelopedfollowinganintegratedapproachthattooksocio-economic,cultural and environmental issues and existing policies into account. The processbeganwithareviewofcurrentlocalriskmanagementandcivilprotectionstrategiesatthecasestudysites fromofficialdocuments. Inaddition,allcasestudysitepartnersgeneratedknowledgeanddatathroughstakeholderconsultations involvingkeyend-userswithexperienceofmanagingdisastereventsorpost-disasterassessment.Thesemanagementexperienceswerecomplementedandcontrastedwith informationfromlocalcitizenswhowitnessed thesedisasters first-hand. In thisway, themain issuesandpossiblyconflictingperceptionsbetweengroupswerecaptured.Asmanyoftheseapproaches naturally link to issues of integrated coastal zone management andintegratedwater resources these topicswereentangled in thepotentialprevention,mitigationandpreparednessmeasuresinoneortheotherform.

Forthesecondadvancement,itwasexpectedthatapartfromhard-infrastructureandtechnological solutions, the project would find ways to integrate ecosystem-basedsolutions and ways of ‘living with hazards’. Nevertheless, the measures (strategicalternatives) identified by stakeholders rarely included non-technical, ecosystembasedapproachesorwaysof‘livingwithhazards’toDRR.Amainhinderingfactorwasthe lackofpractical evidence for the effectivenessof ecosystembasedmeasures tomeetsafetyrequirements.Nevertheless,onthebasisofsecondarysourcesandreportsfrom case study sites, but also by including knowledge and experience of coastalcommunities, coastal manager and other end-user such as daily experiences,observationsandbestpractises,theteamwereabletoidentifysomeecosystembasedmeasureswhichwerethenpublishedintheweb-basedmanagementguide.Alsosomeexampleofdealingwithhazardswere included intheweb-basedmanagementguideInadditionandasnewachievementwhichwasnotspecifiedintheRISC-KITprojectatitsoutset,acost-effectivenessanalysisonecosystembasedmeasureswascarriedoutfor the case study site in Portugal and disseminated through the web-basedmanagement guide. In a further andmore detailed development of the guide cost-benefitanalysiscouldbeincludedonacasebycasebasis.

In answer to the third advancement a combination of interactivemethods such asqualitative interviews, moderated group and roundtables discussions wereundertaken in order to investigate resilience in different social systems andcommunities. These methods were chosen and applied according to the specificsituation in each case study site focusing on its socio-cultural appropriateness andeffectivenessofthemethods ingeneral.Priortotheconsultationsessions,aprotocoland internal training session was carried out specifically for each case study siteexplaining to case study site partners the methods and procedures to be used. Inaddition, and where appropriate, archival material and personal stories e.g. fromearlierhistoricaleventswereincludedintheresearch.Basedontheseactivitiesasetoflocallytailoredmeasuresorcombinationsofmeasures(strategicalternatives)wereidentified foreachcasestudysite throughclose interactionwithstudysitepartnersand local end-users.The strategic alternatives focused on site-specific hazards andmeasureswhichtooktechnicalandnon-technicalmeasuresandsocietalperspectivesand needs into account. The information was gathered alongside the interview

Synthesis Report

37

processesandattheend-userday.Theidentifiedmeasuresandstrategicalternativesweretestedagainstarangeofclimatescenariosatthecasestudysites.

In answer to the fourth advancement and based on the results of these scenariosimulations the proposed measures and strategic alternatives for each case studywere thenevaluatedusingaMulti-criteriaAnalysis tool(Chapter2.5).Through thisprocess,thetechnicalandeconomicfeasibilityandthecapacitytoreducedisasterriskwereassessed.TheMulti-criteriaAnalysistookdifferentviewpointsofend-usersandstakeholders intoconsiderationandevaluatedsocial,culturalandpoliticalfeasibilityof proposed measures (strategic alternatives) through moderated consultationsessions. All in all, the process had a much more inclusive and interdisciplinaryprocess thanwas foreseen,withpositiveoutcomes forcommunicationand rapport-building.

AWeb-basedManagementGuide (Chapter2.3)wasproduced to facilitateEU-widelearning and exchange for the development of risk reduction measures (strategicalternatives).Priortoitsdevelopmentotherwebguideswereanalyzedanddiscussedwithend-usersat theRISC-KITenduserday inBrussels inOctober2015 regardingtheirpreferencesandnecessities.

The guide is published in the form of an open-accesswebpage and highlights keyprinciples recommended for thedesign and implementationof localDRRmeasures(strategicalternatives)usingexamplesfromtheRISC-KITcasestudiesandelsewheretoprovidepractical illustrations to coastalmanagers inEurope.The guide includesprevention,mitigation andpreparednessmeasureswith recommendations for theiruse in various socio-economic, cultural and environmental settings.TheGuidewasintendedtomakerecommendationsaboutcost-effectiveness,andthedevelopmentoftimelinesfordecision-making.However,overthecourseofend-userconsultations, itbecameclearthatrecommendationsneededtobe localandcontextspecific.Forthisreason,theguidefocusedonprovidinggeneralinformationaboutDRRmeasuresandspecific examples from which users could draw inspiration for their local context,ratherthanpresentingone-size-fits-allrecommendations.TheMulti-criteriaAnalysistool is detailed in the Guide and is recommended as an effectivemethod for localstakeholderinvolvementthroughwhichtodistinguishrealisticandeffectivestrategiesovertheshortand long-term.Thesepointsareelaborateswithinthesinglestrategicalternatives and can vary to certain degrees as knowledge and information is notequally available across all points. Theweb-guidewas developed in amuchmoreparticipatoryway thanplanned, and end-users and case studyowners (consortiummembersresponsibleforparticularcasestudysites)wereconsultedwithensuretheusefulnessanduptakeoftheweb-basedguide.Furthermore,althoughtheweb-basedmanagement guide is embedded in themainRISC-KITwebsite, the team created astandaloneproduct.Theresultingwebsitehasagraphicalanduser-friendlyinterfacewithanexpansiveunderlyinginformationbase.

3.5 Dissemination, knowledge transfer andexploitation (WP6)

Thispartof theprojectwasdedicated toengaging thirdparties.At theoutsetoftheprojectweaimed to identify391keyend-usersandstakeholders for thecasestudyareas to be engaged in interactive dialogues. These groups covered the countries

Synthesis Report

38

involved in the RISC-KIT project (either as partners or case study sites) andwereprimarilyfromthenationalandlocallevel(102and89,respectively).

Adisseminationstrategylaidouttheuseofdifferentcommunicationtoolstobeusedtoengagethesethirdpartiesintheproject.DifferenttoolsusedincludedtheRISC-KITwebsite, socialmedia (Facebook,LinkedIn andTwitter) and throughperiodicRISC-KITnewsletters(totalsubscriptionsasofFebruary2017:900).Theprojectbrochurewasalsodistributedatdifferent internationalmeetingsbyallpartners.Thewebsitewasthemainhuboftheprojectwherenewvisitorswereencouragedtosignuptotheprojectnewsletter.

TheRISC-KITwebsiteservesasahubforallproject-relatesinformationandresourcesincludingproject resultsandoutputs. Akeycomponentof this is theRISC-KIT toolsthemselves.Fivetoolsintotalweredevelopedduringthecourseoftheprojectandallof these tools arepublicallyavailable and free todownloadvia theprojectwebsite:www.risckit.eu.

Two promotional films were also developed within the scope of the RISC-KITDissemination strategy. The first of these, an animated movie, was developed bypartners at Ecologic Institute. The animated movie described the tools and theirapplications for anon-specialist audience.The second filmwas a testimonial to thetools themselves and featured contributions by end-users and the tool developersoutliningthepracticalimportanceoftheRISC-KITtools.Thesefilms,aswellasmanyothers including presentations, interviews with the RISC-KIT International ExpertBoard and participants in end-user days, are available on the RISC-KIT YouTubechannel.

Three dedicated end-user days were organised to maximise end-user engagementtoolsthroughtheirinvolvementindifferentstagesoftooldevelopment:

1. End-user Day 1: Bologna, IT (November 2014): feedback on preliminaryversions of the tools, focus on type of data available, sharing personalexperiencesofextremeweathereventsatthecasestudysites.

2. End-user Day 2: Brussels, BE (October 2015): feedback on latest tooldevelopments, web-based management guide, graphical user interfaces,presentations by end-users, theory and practice sessions to encouragedialogueandcontributionsfromparticipants.

3. End-userDay3:Delft,NL(April2017):sharingofexperiencesfromend-userperspectives, presentations from case studies and demonstrations of finalRISC-KITtoolkit.

TheFeedbackfromeachoftheseeventswasverypositiveandparticipantsgenerallyremained engaged with the project afterwards, maintaining contact with the casestudyowners (consortiummembers responsible forparticularcasestudysites)andattendingotherworkshopsand/orevents.While the totalnumberofparticipants intheRISC-KITend-userdayswasnotextensive,usuallyoneenduserpercasestudy,keypractitionersfromalmostallcasestudysiteswerepresentonmostoccasions.

TwoRISC-KITSummerSchools,oneheld inFerrara, Italy in2016, theotherheld inFaro, Portugal in 2017, invited students from all overEurope and beyond to cometogetherandlearnabouttheRISC-KITtools.Thecoursesweredisseminatedthroughawide rangeof topicalmailing listsandviaRISC-KITsocialmediaandonlineoutlets,

Synthesis Report

39

attracting132applicantsintotal.Placeswereofferedto20studentsoneachcourse:with 19 participants and 18 participants attending the first and second SummerSchools,respectively.ThefirstSummerSchoolfocusedontheStormImpactDatabase,theCRAFtoolandtheWeb-basedManagementGuide,inthecontextofthecasestudysitePortoGaribaldi/Bellocchio.ThesecondSummerSchoolcoveredtheset-upoftheHotspot Tool, incorporating the Early Warning System and Bayesian Network forDecisionSupport, in thecontextof thecasestudysitePraiadeFaro.Feedback fromthe studentswasverypositive in termsof the content andqualityofboth summerschools. As an additional benefit to the coastal DRR community of practice, thematerialcovered intheSummerSchoolswasconverted intotwoe-learningmodules.The modules include tutorials, selected reading materials and a self-assessmentexercise toencourage independent learningabout theRISC-KIT tools.AllE-learningmodulesarepublicallyavailableviatheRISC-KITwebsite.

Buildinggender-balancedcapacityoncoastalzone resiliencewasanexplicitgoaloftheprojectandwasprioritisedduringtheworkshopsandsummerschools.Theratios(female:male)ofeachof theoutreacheventswasas follows:EndUserDay 1 (3:4),EndUserDay2(6:7),EndUserDay3(5:7,expectedattimeofwritinginMarch2017),SummerSchool1(10:9),andSummerSchool2(8:10).

AparticularlyimportantelementoftheRISC-KITDisseminationstrategyinvolvedthepublicationofaseriesofpeer-reviewedscientificcontributionsinaspecialeditionofthe international journalCoastalEngineeringdueforpublication inOctober2017.Intotal,23papers,coveringtechnicalaspectsofthetools,theirapplicationtocasestudysitesandotherresearchoutcomesoftheprojectwereselectedforthisspecial issue.All members of the consortium contributed to dissemination and communicationactivities through participation in scientific conferences, publication of papers ininternationalpeer-reviewed journals (inaddition to theCoastalEngineeringSpecialIssue), giving presentations to different audiences of citizens, decisionmakers andthrough radio and television interviews, through articles in the popularmedia. Formoreinformationonthedifferentdisseminationproducts,seeprojectDeliverable6.4.

Synthesis Report

40

4 Ongoing policy processes at EU andinternational level

The insights from Chapters 2 and 3 demonstrate that efforts to increase coastalresiliencemustbeembedded in the localcontext.Atthesame time, it isessential toaddressriskgovernancefromamulti-levelperspectivefromlocaltoregional,nationaland supra-national levels. In the following chapter we thus turn our attention tomacro-levelpolicyprocessesatEUandinternationallevel.Weexaminenotonlyhowfloodpolicies(e.g.EUFloodsDirective)anddisasterriskreductionframeworks(e.g.UNISDRSendaiFramework2015-2020)supportcoastalDRRandresilience;wealsohighlight the cross-cutting relevance of other initiatives e.g. for climate adaptation,biodiversity and sustainable development. The aim of this chapter is to provide abroader context for our lessons learned and recommendations inChapter 5 and toensurethattheyarealignedwiththerelevantprocesses.

4.1 EU level

This chapter provides background to ongoing macro-level initiatives at EU andinternationallevelthatareofrelevancetocoastalDRR.

TheFloodsDirective(FD)2007/60/ECistheEuropeanlegislationformanagingfloodrisk from floodsof all flood types (fluvial,pluvial, seawater, groundwater, artificialwater bearing infrastructure). From 2007 – 2015, Member States were asked toproducePreliminary FloodRiskAssessments,Hazard andRiskMapsandFloodRiskManagementPlans.

Atthetimeofwriting(March2017)adraftreporton“FloodRiskManagementintheEU and theFloodsDirective's1stCycleof Implementation (2009-15)” isunderway,basedonMemberStates’ responses toquestionnaires.2Although this isstill indraftform,thereportalreadyhighlightsobstaclesandchallengesfoundbyMemberStatesintheimplementationoftheFDthatarecorroboratedbythefindingsoftheRISC-KITproject. This includes, in particular, the need to produce high quality, consistentnational receptor datasets for the assessment of flood impacts on infrastructuralassets and especially social and cultural assets. In addition, the observation madeduringtheprojectthatlowuptakeofecosystembasedapproachestocoastalDRRmaybe due to a lack of evidence base is reflected in the questionnaire;Member Statesexpressed theneed for guidance on the assessment of the effects of non-structuralmeasuresandnaturalwaterretentionmeasuresonfloodrisk.

Someofthechallenges identifiedbyMemberStates inthefirst implementationcycleoftheFDcanbedirectlyaddressedbythetoolsdevelopedintheRISC-KITproject.InTable4.1welistsomeoftheneedshighlightedbyMemberStatestowhichRISC-KITcanmakeausefulcontribution.

2 https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/8768cbc2-85f3-428f-b859-f9aee7a27e56/FD%201st%20cycle%20questionnaire%20report_formatted_07%20March%202017.pdf

Synthesis Report

41

Table4.1:RISC-KITsupporttochallengesidentifiedbyMemberStatesinthefirstimplementationcycleoftheFloodsDirective

NeedexpressedbyMemberState(s) HowRISC-KITsupportsthisneed:

· Improvedinformationonsignificanthistoricalfloodsandtheimpactthattheyhavehad(e.g.intermsofdamage)fromlocalsources.Acentraliseddatabaseforregistrationoffloodeventsandthedamagethattheyhavecaused.3

RISC-KITproducedaStormImpactDatabase(Chapter1.2)thatcollatesphysical,socio-economic,culturalandenvironmentalinformationonhistoriccoastalfloodevents.Itprovidesacentralisedframeworkfordatacollectionandreportingandisopensource.Thetoolisnotonlytheonlydatabasetoproviderichdetailofhistoricalcoastalfloods,italsoimprovesonthefactthatthemajorityofexistinghistoricaldatabases(onfloodsingeneral)arenotpubliclyavailable.

· Developnewtoolsfortheanalysisoffloodrisksandfacilitatemorecomprehensiveassessmentofriskstobeabletodevelophigher-precisionmodelingbasedfloodhazardandfloodriskmapsforthe2ndimplementationphase.4

TheCoastalRiskAssessmentFramework(CRAF)(Chapter2.2)enablesanalysisofcoastalfloodriskattwolevels:firstlythroughaninitialframeworkthatissimpletouse,quicktoapply,withhighaccuracyandcanassesscurrentstateandevolutionofcoastalrisk;andsecondlythroughanadditionalframeworkthatisrobust,uniform,adaptabletolocalrealities,andsuperiortoexpertjudgementalone.

· Productionofacatalogueofmeasures5

TheWeb-basedManagementguide(Chapter2.3)providesinformationaboutarangeofmeasures(includingprevention,mitigationandpreparedness,structuralandnon-structural,grey,greenandcombinedapproaches)thatcanbeimplementedforcoastalfloodDRR.

· Improveinformationoncoastal TheHotspot(EarlyWarning

3 Thisneedwasexpressedin3.27,pg.80ofFloodRiskManagementintheEUandtheFloodsDirective's1stCycleofImplementation(2009-15):Aquestionnairebasedreport4 Theseneedswereexpressedin4.1,“Mainchallengesthataffectedfloodhazardandriskmapping“,pg.92ofFloodRiskManagementintheEUandtheFloodsDirective's1stCycleofImplementation(2009-15):Aquestionnairebasedreport.5 Thisneedwasexpressedin1.7,“Theneedforfurtherguidance”,pg.22ofFloodRiskManagementintheEUandtheFloodsDirective's1stCycleofImplementation(2009-15):Aquestionnairebasedreport.

Synthesis Report

42

floods

· Increaselocalgovernmentinvolvementinfloodforecastingandearlywarningsystemandself-monitoring6

System/DecisionSupportSystem(EWS/DSS))(Chapter2.4)extendsfloodEWStoincludecoastalfloodsandisabletoassessmultiplehazardsfortheirrelativeintensitiesandimpactsanditsgenericconfigurationmeansthatitcanbeadaptedforusewithexistinglocalsystemsandsoftware.

· Moreemphasisonactiveinvolvementofvariousstakeholdersinfloodriskmanagement,andtoincreasepublicinvolvementandacceptance7

· Prioritisationofmeasures8

TheMulti-criteriaAnalysistool(Chapter2.5)providesamethodforstakeholderengagementandinteractionbetweencivilsocietyandgovernment,cross-sectoralcooperation,andraisesawarenessofriskandallowsforpossiblemeasuresandplanstobediscussedandprioritised.

OtherprocessesatEUlevelthatarerelevanttocoastalDRRinclude:

· The2013EUClimateChangeAdaptationStrategy (COM/2013/216) setsoutaframeworkforincreasingEuropeanresilienceinresponsetocurrentandfuture climate impacts. The Strategy stresses that coastal zones areparticularlyvulnerable regions given the risksof sea-level rise and extremeweatherevents.TheStrategyalso recommends thatMemberStatesdevelop,review and implement adaptation plans to be in synergy with existingdisasterriskmanagementpolicies.

· Policies such as theMarine Strategy FrameworkDirective (2008/56/EC)andtheEUBiodiversityStrategy(COM/2011/244)alsocontributeindirectlyto coastalDRR, as they aim to support healthy ecosystemswhich in turnassistprevention,protectionandmitigationstrategies.

· The European Commission’s Research and Innovation policy agenda forNature-BasedSolutionsandRe-NaturingCities9whoseaim istoprovideasupportive framework forbuilding theevidenceandknowledgebase fornature-based solutions. The agenda is implemented, inter alia, through theHorizon2020FrameworkProgrammeforResearchandInnovation.

6 Theseneedswereexpressedin1.3,“ImprovementstotheimplementationoftheFloodsDirective”,pg.14ofFloodRiskManagementintheEUandtheFloodsDirective's1stCycleofImplementation(2009-15):Aquestionnairebasedreport.7 Thisneedwasexpressedin1.3,“ImprovementstotheimplementationoftheFloodsDirective”,pg.13ofFloodRiskManagementintheEUandtheFloodsDirective's1stCycleofImplementation(2009-15):Aquestionnairebasedreport.8 Theneedwasexpressedin1.2,“ObstaclestoimplementingtheFloodsDirective“,pg.12ofFloodRiskManagementintheEUandtheFloodsDirective's1stCycleofImplementation(2009-15):Aquestionnairebasedreport.

9Moreinformation:https://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/index.cfm?pg=nbs

Synthesis Report

43

· The EU Recommendation on Integrated Coastal Zone Management(2002/413/EC) and the Directive on Maritime Spatial Planning(2014/89/EU)bothtargettheoptimaldistributionofthecoastalandmaritimespace among various stakeholders and uses. This includes, for example theeffects of infrastructureworks toprotect coastlines against erosion orfloodingonactivities incoastalwaterssuchasaquacultureorprotectionofmarineecosystems.

· TheEUCivilProtectionMechanism(1313/2013/EU)setstheframeworkforaholistic,cross-sectoraldisasterriskmanagementpolicyfortheUnion.Thisisto be achieved by promoting a culture of preparedness, replacing ad-hocresponsewithapre-plannedapproach,andsupportingMemberStatesintheircapacities.Itdoessothroughtraining,learningandexchange(governance,planning,data,riskcommunicationandinformation,researchandtechnology)informationsharing(CommonEmergencyandInformationSystem(CECIS))andmechanisms forcoordinatedpreparednessandresponseatEU levelsuch as the European Emergency Response Capacity (EERC) established in2014.

· ThePost2015HyogoFramework forAction:Managingrisks toachieveresilience(SWD/2014/133)analysesEUprogressundertheUNISDRHyogoFramework for Action and addresses implementation gaps and emergingchallenges.SomeofthesefindingsareofparticularrelevancetotheRISC-KITproject.TheCommunicationnotesinteraliatheneedfor:

-particularattentiontobuildingresilienceincoastalareas;

-collectionandsharingofsoundandcomparabledataondisaster losses, hazardandvulnerabilityinanopendatapolicy;

- development of common and interoperable data and risk assessment protocolsandpublicriskregistersanddatabases;

-systematicactionstoraisepublicawarenessofrisk;

- build sustainable partnerships between different public authorities and relevant stakeholders (civil society, academia and research institutions, privatesector)andinvolvetheseactorsindecision-makingprocessesthrough inclusiveparticipatorymechanisms.

· TheEuropeanStructuralandInvestmentFunds(ESIF)directlycontributeto Sendai Framework Priority 3: Investing in disaster risk reduction forresilience.TheESIFhavehelpedpromotedisaster riskmanagement,climatechangeadaptation,ecosystemconservationandculturalheritage restorationin EU policy. The Funds include a thematic objective on “Climate changeadaptation and risk prevention andmanagement”, towhichMember Stateshaveallocatedover29billionEUR.Disasterresilienceandriskpreventionandmanagementarepromotedhorizontally inallotherpriorities,whichamounttomorethanEUR454billionofEUco-financing.Climateanddisasterproofing is built into the appraisal of major projects for cohesion policysupport,andisaprominenttopicinmacro-regionalstrategies,suchasfortheDanubeandBalticSeaRegions.

Synthesis Report

44

· The INSPIREDirectivecame into force in2007andwillbe implemented invariousstages,withfullimplementationrequiredby2021.ItaimstocreateaEuropean Union spatial data infrastructure for the purposes of EUenvironmentalpolicies.INSPIREmainlyrecommendrecordinginformationforthe direct impact assessment. RISC-KIT agrees with these efforts butrecommendsrecordingadditionalinformationasspecifiedinChapter5.2.

The RISC-KIT project contributed to these EU level processes through thedevelopment of tools and good case DDR measures and management practicescaptured in the web-based management guide. Both tools and measures wereinformedby aholistic approach embedding the abovedescribedpolicies andhencecontributetothereductionofrisksandincreaseofresilienceto low-frequency,high-impacthydro-meteorologicaleventsinthecoastalzones.

4.2 International level

TheRISC-KITprojectwas conceived in2013,during the finalphaseof theUNISDRHyogoFramework forAction (HFA) (2010-2015).Although theHFAhassincebeenreplaced by the SendaiFramework (2015-2020), the newFramework confirms therelevanceoftheRISC-KITapproachandmethodologyaswellastheproject’sfindings.Specifically, the project’s research approach is aligned with the following SendaiFramework‘GuidingPrinciples’(§19):

(d)Engagementfromallofsociety;

(g)Decision-makingtobeinclusiveandrisk-informedwhileusingamulti-hazardapproach;

(i) Accounting of local and specific characteristics of disaster risks whendeterminingmeasurestoreducerisk.

Furthermore,theRISC-KITtoolsandactivitiescontributedirectlytotheachievementof Priority 1 “Understanding disaster risk” by offering information; Priority 2“Strengtheningdisasterriskgovernance”bypresentingmanagementstrategies ;andPriority4“Enhancingdisasterpreparednessforeffectiveresponse”byprovidingtoolsandmeasuresandmanagementstrategies .(DetailedevidenceofthesecontributionsisprovidedthroughoutChapter5).

However, the Sendai Framework is not the only international agenda towhich theRISC-KIT approach and project findings are able to support.Herewe outline someotherinternationalprocesseswhichareofrelevancetocoastalDRRandtowhichtheRISC-KITtoolsandoutputscanmakeapositivecontribution.

· Article8onlossanddamageintheUnitedNationsFrameworkConventiononClimateChange(UNFCCC)ParisAgreementoutlinesareasforcooperationbetweentheContractingParties,includingon:earlywarningsystems,emergencypreparedness,eventsthatinvolveirreversibledamage,comprehensiveriskassessmentandmanagement.

· SustainableDevelopmentGoal11(Makecitiesinclusive,safe,resilientandsustainable)includesTarget11Bwhichseeksto,by2020,substantiallyincreasethenumberofcitiesandhumansettlementsadoptingandimplementingintegratedpoliciesandplanstowardsinclusion,resource

Synthesis Report

45

efficiency,mitigationandadaptationtoclimatechange,resiliencetodisasters,anddevelopandimplement,inlinewiththeSendaiFrameworkforDisasterRiskReduction2015-2030,holisticdisasterriskmanagementatalllevelsaswellasSustainableDevelopmentGoal13(Takeurgentactiontocombatclimatechangeanditsimpacts).

· TheConventiononBiodiversityCOP12DecisionXII/20acknowledgesthesignificantrolethatconservationandsustainableuseofbiodiversityandtherestorationofecosystemscanplayindisasterriskreduction,andencouragesPartiestopromoteandimplementecosystem-basedapproachestodisasterriskreduction,inbothterrestrialandmarineenvironments,andtointegratetheseintotheirpoliciesandprogrammes,asappropriate,inthecontextoftheHyogoFrameworkforAction2005–2015.TheDecisionalsorequeststheExecutiveSecretarytocompileandanalyse,incooperationwithrelevantorganizations,includingtheUnitedNationsOfficeforDisasterRiskReduction,theWorldMeteorologicalOrganization,andtheInternationalUnionforConservationofNatureinformationonecosystem-basedapproachestodisasterriskreductionandtocompileexperienceswithecosystem-basedapproachestoclimatechangeadaptationanddisasterriskreductionandtosharethemthroughtheclearing-housemechanism.

Wenowmove toexamine the lessons learnedand recommendations resulting fromtheRISC-KITproject,withconsiderationofhowthesecanbealignedwiththepoliciesdescribedinChapter4.

Synthesis Report

46

5 Lessons learned andrecommendations

In the following chapter, we highlight the achievements, lessons learned andchallenges identified through thedevelopmentandapplicationof theRISC-KIT tools(Chapter 2) other project activities (Chapter 3).These lessons are drawn above allfromtheworkcarriedoutatthelocallevelintencasestudysites.However,whereverpossible, theseare considered in relation to theirrelevance toEUand internationalprocesses(asoutlined inChapter4),thusemphasisingthemulti-leveldimensionsofrisk governance. As the key international framework for DRR, the UNISDR SendaiFramework2015-2020ispaidparticularattention.ThelessonslearnedarefedintoaseriesofrecommendationsdevelopedbytheprojectconsortiumforimprovedDRRforEurope andbeyond. Some of these recommendations areof apracticalnature (e.g.relevant tothoseresponsible for theselectionofcoastalDRRmeasures);othersofabroadernature(relevanttothoseabletoaffectpoliciesfor improvedDRR).Carehasbeen taken to ensure that the recommendations are rooted in the evidence andexperiencesoftheproject.

One of the key lessons of the project is the need for flexibility e.g. by developinggenericratherthanspecifictoolsthatcanbeadaptedtolocalconditions.Furthermore,coastal risksmust be addressed on the understanding that each coastal area has auniquesetofenvironmental,socio-economic,andculturalcharacteristics,andthat inthefuture,theseconditionsmayshiftindifferentwaysaccordingtoclimaticandotherchangeswithinregionsandstatesaswellas in transboundarycontextsAlthoughaninitialgoaloftheSynthesisReportwastomakerecommendations inalignmentwithexisting national policies, our research shows that approaches to coastalDRR varysubstantiallyacrossEurope.For this reason, itwasseenasbothunfeasible tomakedifferentrecommendationsforeachMemberState,andalso inappropriatetomakeasetofglobal recommendationsequallyapplicable toallnationalEuropean contexts.Thuswhilewe indicate ‘who should act’, the recommendations are not tailored tospecific countries or groups with the expectation that this will shift according tocontext.

5.1 Lessons learned on: Hazard and impactassessments and data

TheRISC-KITprojectprogressed fromanalysingsinglehazards tomultiplehazards,and from assessing direct impacts to indirect impacts, systemic disruptions andrecovery,becauseanimpact-basedapproachiscrucialtoriskreductiondecision-making.Understandingwhereandhowthesemultiplehazardswilllikelyaffectsocialandeconomicsystemsand infrastructure incoastalareasenablesamore intelligentandcost-effectiveselectionofDRRmeasuresandemergencymanagement.TheSendaiFrameworklikewisereferstotheneedtoassessandanticipatethepotentialeconomicandsocialimpactsofdisasters(§31(d)).

InadditionandinlinewiththeINSPIREDirectiveRISC-KITfullysupportsEuropeaneffortsonspatialdatacollectionbut recommends inaddition recording information

Synthesis Report

47

on the indirect impacts and on therecoverytimeaswellashavingbothquantitative and descriptiveinformation.

However, our research shows thatEuropean Early Warning Systemsare thus far still focused on hazardforecasting.TheRISC-KITBayesian-based Decision Support System(DSS) is an effective tool forpredicting impacts resulting fromcoastalmulti-hazardsforvarioushotspot areas.Nevertheless, the ability of the project team to determine the potentialconsequences - and therefore adequate responses -was constrainedby the lackofadequate and standardised vulnerability and impact data in the EU MemberStates that were analysed. TheEuropean Commission alreadypointed to this issue in 2013 in itsPost 2015Hyogo Framework forAction:Managingriskstoachieveresilience(SWD/2014/133)whichsupports the collection and sharingofsoundandcomparabledataondisaster losses, hazard andvulnerability inanopendatapolicy.In addition protocols should beestablished for each member stateallowingpostsurveyingofstormsinaunifiedmatter.

All tool applications have shown a need for spatially-accurate and up-to-datetopographic,physical,and impactdata(e.g.onvulnerabilityorsocio-economicimpacts)usinguniformstandards.Priority1of theSendaiFrameworkalsopointstotheneedtosystematicallyevaluate,record, share, and publicly accountfordisasterlossesandunderstandtheeconomic, social, health, education,environmental and cultural heritageimpacts, as appropriate, in thecontext of event-specific hazard-exposure and vulnerabilityinformation (§24 (d)). One of theadvancesof theRISC-KITprojectwas thecollectionofsuchdata in aCoastalStormImpactDatabase (SeeChapter2.1).TheDatabase is the firstof itskind inEurope,providing an overview of events from the present day, stretching back to the year1304.However,thedatacollectionprocesspresentedsomechallenges.Whilesomeoftheolderstormswererecorded inparticularlyrichdetail(e.g.thestormshittingthecoastofEasternEngland, theAlgarvecoast in theearly20thcenturyetc), there is alackofpubliclyavailableinformation–inparticularforthemorerecent,20th–21st

RISC-KITrecommendationondata(i)

“BuildtheknowledgebaseoncoastalfloodimpactsinEuropethroughhistoricalresearchandstandardisedprotocolsforpost-eventrecordingwithawareness-raisingontheneedforsuchinformation.”

Whoshouldact?EUandEUMemberStatestoprovideframework;implementationbylocaladministrations.

RISC-KITrecommendationondata(ii)

“EstablishprotocolsandsystemstocompilestandardisedEUdatasetsthatallowforbetterunderstandingandpredictionofimpacts.”

Whoshouldact?EUMemberStates.

RISC-KITrecommendationonimpactbasedapproach

“Promotethedevelopmentanduseofimpact-basedassessmentsandearlywarningsystemsanddecisionsupportsystems”

Whoshouldact?EUmemberstates,nationalandregionaladministrations,coastalmanagers.

Synthesis Report

48

century - impactsof coastal storm events.On thebasisofour research threemainreasonscametolightforthislackofdata:1)alackofstandardiseddatacollectionproceduresandprotocolsforimmediatepost-eventrecordingofcoastalstormsurgeimpacts;2)dataexistsbutispubliclyunavailable;and3)lackofunderstandingofthepurposeand typeofdatacollection tobe carriedout.For themostpart, theRISC-KIT research team was able to overcome this lack of information throughpersonal contacts and direct requests for information. However, the process ofgathering this data was labour intensive – with additional effort, systems can beestablishedtofacilitatetheprocessofbuildinguptheStormImpactDatabasesothatitbecomes a content-rich resource fordisaster risk reduction efforts e.g. through theEUsCivilProtectionMechanism(1313/2013/EU).TheexperiencesoftheRISC-KITprojectonthispointarealsosupportedbytheEuropeanCommissioninitsPost2015Hyogo Framework for Action: Managing risks to achieve resilience (SWD/2014/133)whichnotestheneedfordevelopingcommonandinteroperabledataandriskassessmentprotocolsandpublicriskregistersanddatabases.

5.2 Lessons learned on: Tool development and theneed for validation of data

RISC-KIT has developed a generic suite of tools which make a significantcontributiontocoastalDRRinEuropeandbeyond.TheseprovidecontributionstotheSendaiFramework’sPriorities1,2and4butensuredthatthesewereflexibleenough tobe adapted to local circumstancesWithinRISC-KIT twomain tools typeshave been developed: informative (Storm Database and Web-based ManagementGuide) and assessment (CRAF, Hotspot Tool, Multi-Criteria Analysis) tools (seeChapter 2).The first two have been fully developed and are ready to use, needinghoweveracontinuityofinformationupload(seeTechnologyReadinessLevels,Table2.7).The lessons learnedwith the StormDatabase have been already discussed inChapter2.1whilefortheWeb-basedManagementGuidetheyhavebeendiscussedinChapter2.3.The lessonslearnedwiththeMCAapplicationhavealsobeendiscussedin Chapter 2.5. Here, the CRAF and the Hotspot tool (EWS/DSS) will be furtheranalysed.

Theapplicationof theabove tools in tendifferent case study sites demonstratedtheir robustness and wide applicability.Indeed, the CRAF (Chapter 2.2) hasalready been applied beyond the casestudy areas. This application is both inEurope (the Cadiz coastal area andDenmark) and beyond: the RISC-KITprojectpartner IMDCappliedPhase 1ofthe CRAF to identify and rank possiblehotspotsalong thecoastsof IvoryCoast,Ghana,Togo andBenin inWestAfrica.10

10Theapplicationhasbeenundertakenaspartofthestudy“CostofCoastalEnvironmentalDegradation,MultiHazardRiskAssessmentandCostBenefitAnalysis”withintheWorldBankWACATechnical

RISC-KITrecommendationontooldevelopment(i)

“Promotetheapplicationofcoastalriskinformationandassessmenttoolstooptimiseresourcestobespentoncoastalriskmanagement.”

Whoshouldact?EUmemberstates,nationalandregionaladministrations,coastalmanagers,academiccommunity,consultants.

Synthesis Report

49

Thefurtherapplicationofsuchtoolsonthescaleoflargecoastalareaswillpermittheidentificationandrankingofcoastalriskhotspotsandtheoptimisationofresourcesbyidentifyingprioritiesofactionforeachcoastalhazard.The implementationofsuchatoolcan,thus,provideaclearvisiononwhataretheexpectedrisksandtheirpotentialindirect effects at a regional scale, promoting a vision for needs on coastalmanagementforthenextdecadesaswellasanoptimisationofresourcestobespent.

The developed Hotspot Tool (Chapter2.4)consistsofanEarlyWarningSystemcoupledwithaDecisionSupportSystemthat allows the prediction of potentialrisks and onshore impacts associatedwith a storm, as well as an ex-anteassessmenttoolofmeasurestominimisethe identified risks. The SendaiFramework notes the need to assessand anticipate the potential economicandsocialimpactsofdisasters(§31(d)).However this focus on impacts, ratherthanthehazardsisnew.Theuseofsucha tool is currently still uncommon, notonly in Europe but also worldwide.Withoutdoubt,thistoolwillberequiredin the near future to minimise theexposure of coastal populations to thealready existing hazard, but also to itspotential increase in association to changes in storminess and sea level rise. It canthereforebeexpectedthattherewillbeapalpablenecessityforsuchtools,andtheirsystematicapplicationinriskmanagement,inthenearfuture.Toensurethisdemandis met, policies must be geared towards assisting further developments andimplementationofsuchtools,namelyinordertobringittothelevelofknowledgeofthe coastal managers, civil protection or any other stakeholders that will beresponsibleforitsday-to-dayuse.

5.3 Lessons learned on: Coastal risk governance

Through in-depth analysis of 10 European case study sites and their governancestructures, the RISC-KIT project has revealed a broad range of approaches toEuropeanDRRandcoastalmanagement.Despitethesedifferences,somecommonchallenges have become evident. These relate primarily to the need for clarity ingovernance structures and procedures; as well as the importance of citizenengagement,bothintermsofprovidinglocalknowledgeandintermsofawareness-raisingforeffectivecoastalDRRresponses.

Assistanceprogram.Moreinformationcanbefoundhere:http://www.imdc.be/news/cost-coastal-environmental-degradation-multi-hazard-risk-assessment-and-cost-benefit-analysis-%E2%80%93

RISC-KITrecommendationontooldevelopment(ii)

“Promotethedevelopmentanduseofimpact-orientedearlywarningsystemsanddecisionsupportsystems(e.g.RISC-KITEWS/DSStool)tofacilitateevidence-baseddecision-makinginemergencymanagementandcoastalDRRmanagement(e.g.throughbetterassessmentofprotection,mitigationandadaptationmeasures).

Whoshouldact?EUmemberstates,nationalandregionaladministrations,coastalmanagers,academiccommunity,consultants.

Synthesis Report

50

Insomecases,thereisacleardistributionofresponsibilityforcoastalprotectionanddisasterriskreduction(e.g.Varna,BG;KielerFjord,DE;Zeebrugge,BE;Kristianstad,SE).Despite this, corresponding levels of funding for local implementation are notalways forthcoming (e.g. Varna, BG; Kristianstad, SE) which can create a tensionbetweenresponsibilityandcapacity toact.Priority 3of theSendaiFramework(§30 (a)) also directly addresses this issue, pointing to the need to allocate thenecessary financialand logisticalresourcesatall levelsofadministration. Inthe twoItalian case study sites (PortoGaribaldiand Bocca di Magra, IT), overlappingcompetencese.g.betweennationalandlocal authorities or coastal protectionand flood risk management authoritieswereseentoposeachallenge.Examplessuch as England’s Coastal Concordat11and EU level initiatives (e.g. EURecommendation on IntegratedCoastal Zone Management(2002/413/EC) and the Directive onMaritime Spatial Planning(2014/89/EU))provide frameworks forthe use of spatial planning andintegrated management for an optimalcoordinationinthecoastalzone.

Inmanyofthecasestudies,lowlevelsofcivic engagement and limited publictrust in authorities were highlighted(e.g.RiaFormosa,PT;BoccadiMagra,IT;TorderaDelta,ES;LaFaute-sur-Mer,FR)whichcannegativelyaffectlocalcapacityto prepare for and respond to stormevents. The need for stakeholderengagement and an ‘all-of -society'approach has already been mentionedabove. The RISC-KIT project hasprovidedopensourcetoolswithpubliclyavailable information on risks andDRRstrategies and measures which can be used as a basis for open discussion.Furthermore,theMulti-criteriaAnalysistool(Chapter2.5)demonstratedaneffectivemethodforopeningupcommunicativeprocessesof informationexchangewhichcanfurtherbuildcivicengagementand trust. In thisway, theprojectcontributes to theimplementationof theFloodsDirective,bysupporting the involvementof interestedparties (§9) and by addressing Member State needs for the second cycle ofimplementation(seeChapter4.1).

11Seehttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-coastal-concordat-for-englandformoreinformation

RISC-KITrecommendationoncoastalriskgovernance(i)

“Findwaysinwhichauthoritiesand/orcompetencescanbestreamlinedtoreduceoverlap(e.g.England’sCoastalConcordat)andensurethatlocalauthoritieshaveadequatefinancialandlogisticalresourcestoact.”

Whoshouldact?National,regionalandmunicipaladministrations.

RISC-KITrecommendationoncoastalriskgovernance(ii)

“Engagecitizensinparticipatoryprocesses(e.g.throughRISC-KITMulti-criteriaAnalysistool)anduseopensourceinformationoncoastalrisksanddisasterreductionstrategiestoinformdiscussionsandbuildacultureofcommunicationandtrust”

Whoshouldact?Localadministrationandcoastalmanagers;academiccommunity,consultants.

Synthesis Report

51

RISC-KITrecommendationonmulti-disciplinarity

“Facilitatemulti-andinter-disciplinaryapproachesbyprovidingcolleagueswithdedicatedsupportandpracticalguidestoaccompanytheprocess,includingdedicatedtranslatorsanddataprocessingstaffwherenecessary.”

Whoshouldact?Nationalandinternationalresearchconsortiaandfundingbodies.

5.4 Lessons learned on: Multi-disciplinarity

TheSendaiFrameworkmadeaseriesofreflectionsontheimplementationoftheHFA.Oneconclusionwasontheneedforclosercollaborationbetweenpublicandprivatesectors and civil society organizations, as well as academia and scientific andresearchinstitutions.

RISC-KIT contributes to this through themake-up of its consortium and researchmethodsthathavesoughttoengagewithawiderangeofstakeholders.

Inorder tomeet theproject’sobjectives, itwas necessary to have a multidisciplinaryresearch team to collect and analysequalitativeandquantitativedata.Anopen-learningprocess that involvedstayingoverat the different case study sites, informalmeetings with stakeholders and open-ended agendas was coupled with trainingand support to apply unfamiliarmethodologiesfromdisciplinesotherthantheirown.Forexample,engineersandmodellerscollectedinformationonknowledge,values,behaviourandperceptionsofrisk,whilesocialscientistswereresponsiblefordemonstrating the Early Warning System and Decision Support System tool tostakeholders.This integrationofknowledgesystems furthermorecontributes to theSendai Framework (§24 (h))which highlights the need to promote and improvedialogue and cooperation among scientific and technological communities. Theopennessof the consortiummembers to experimentoutside their ‘comfort zone’was essential to building amore integrated and nuanced understanding of coastaldisasterriskreductionwithintheteam,and ledtointerdisciplinary initiativeswithintheprojecte.g.toincorporatequalitativeinterviewdataintotheBayesianModel.ThedevelopmentoftheRISC-KITtoolswasonlypossiblewithaprojectteamconsistingofengineers,modellers,economists,historians,anthropologists,andsocialscientists,allundertakingandapplyingmulti-disciplinaryresearchmethodsandlearningfromeachother. This important aspect was central in the two Summer Schools for YoungScientists.

5.5 Lessons learned on: DRR measures

InsomeRISC-KITcasestudyareas,single,standaloneDRRmeasuresdidnotprovideadequateriskreduction.IntheSwedishcasestudyforexample(Barquetetal.,2017forthcoming) thecombinationof twoDRRmeasures(in thiscasedunenourishmentand floodproofing of homes)was thepreferred solution. Similar experiencesweremadeevident inotherRISC-KITcasestudies(seeforexamplePlomaritis,etal.,2017forthcoming). In particular, the combination of prevention with mitigationmeasuresreceivedhighevaluationscores in theRISC-KITMulti-criteriaAnalysisworkshops (see Chapter 2.5.2).On this basis, the project adapted its approach toassessmentofmeasurestowhatweretermed‘StrategicAlternatives’(combinationsoftwo ormoreDRRmeasures). This practical information from the project provides

Synthesis Report

52

support to theSendaiFramework (§25(e)) aswell as theEUsCivilProtectionMechanism (1313/2013/EU) for theexchange of information on lessonslearned on measures for disaster riskreduction.

Ecosystem-based solutions (EBS), whichareinspiredandsupportedbynatureandbring nature and natural features andprocesses into land-andseascapes,werediscussedandpresentedtoRISC-KITend-users alongside other DRR measures.HoweveratthelocallevelintheRISC-KITcase studies, EBS were seldom selectedandtakenup,andonlyaddressedinafewsites.ThroughdiscussionswithRISC-KITend-users twomaincauses for thiswereidentified: 1) a lack of clear evidencethatEBScanbeaseffectiveastraditionalDRRmeasures; 2)EBS generally requiremore physical space than traditionalstructural DRR measures. For coastalcitiesinparticular,spaceisoftenalimitedresource (e.g. in the ItalianMediterranean) meaning that EBSapproaches might be difficult toimplement. One way to overcome thisbarrier can be to integrate EBSapproaches in planned or existingstructural prevention measures. TheConventiononBiodiversity(CBD)COP12DecisionXII/20supportsthisnotion,requesting the Executive Secretary tocompile and analyse information onecosystem-based approaches to disasterriskreductionandtocompileexperienceswith ecosystem-based approaches todisasterriskreductionand toshare themthrough the clearing-house mechanism.Building onDRR research under the FP7onResearchandInnovation,theEuropeanCommission isalsopursuinga“Researchand Innovation policy agenda forNature-Based Solutions”.12 The aim ofthisagendaistoprovidetheevidenceandknowledge base for nature-based12 Moreinformation:https://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/index.cfm?pg=nbs

RISC-KITrecommendationonDRRmeasures(ii)

“BuildanevidencebasewithpracticalexamplesofhowecosystembasedsolutionscanbeaneffectivealternativetotraditionalDRRmeasures.Further,demonstratehowtheseapproachescanbecombinedwith,orintegratedinto,existingstructuralpreventionmeasures(seerecommendation(i)onDRRmeasures).”

Whoshouldact?Coastalmanagersatlocallevel;academiccommunity,consultants.

RISC-KITrecommendationonDRRmeasures(i)

“WhenplanningDRR,considerthatcombinationsofmeasures,especiallypreventionandmitigation,canbepreferabletostandalonemeasuresandtrytoincludeecosystem-basedsolutions.(seerecommendation(ii)onDRRmeasures).”

Whoshouldact?Coastalmanagersatlocallevel;academiccommunity,consultants.

RISC-KITrecommendationonDRRmeasures(iii)

“DRRandclimateadaptationmeasuresoftenoverlap:toensuresynergiesratherthandoublingofeffort,makethesecross-oversexplicitandexploredifferencesthatchallengeintegrationofmeasures(e.g.scaleandtimehorizon).”

Whoshouldact?EUandEUMemberStates,coastalmanagersandclimateadaptationpractitioners.

Synthesis Report

53

solutions, including in their contribution to resilience and DRR. Priority 2 of theSendaiFramework(§28(d))pointstotheneedfortransboundarycooperationforthe implementation of ecosystem-based approaches EBS for DRR e.g. in sharedcoastlinesandriverbasins.

The Sendai Framework (§47(d)) recommends the incorporation of disaster riskreductionmeasuresintoarangeofsectorsandinitiatives,includingmeasurestoadaptto climate change. This is also echoed by the EU Climate Adaptation Strategy(COM/2013/ 216) that recommends that Member States’ adaptation plans are insynergy with existing disaster risk management policies. In the RISC-KIT project,although many DRR measures selected by end-users had an implicit adaptationcomponent,thisperspectivewasforthemostpartnotexplicit.Clearlyindicatingsuchcommonalities between CCA and DDR measures can ensure approaches aresynergistic rather thanantagonistic.Efforts towards integratingDRRmeasureswithadaptationactionsshouldhowevertakeintoaccountthatthereisafrequentmismatchoftemporalandspatialscalebetweenclimateadaptationandDRR(EFDRR,2013).Forexample, DRR measures may focus on addressing existing risks while adaptationstrategiesmusttakealong-termperspective.

5.6 Lessons learned on: Stakeholder involvement

The active engagement of stakeholders from eight different categories13 wascultivated by the RISC-KIT project team from the outset. These stakeholders, notonlyexpertsbutalsoordinarycitizens,playedacentralrolebothasprovidersandrecipientsof informationoncoastal riskandapproaches toDRR.The importanceofthistypeofengagementisalsoreflectedintheSendaiFrameworkguidingprinciples(§19(d)),whichnotethateffectivedisasterriskreductionrequiresan‘all-of-society’engagement and partnership. This is also an important component of theimplementationoftheFloodsDirective(§9)whichaimsforthe ‘active involvementofallinterestedparties’

13TheeightstakeholdergroupsidentifiedbytheRISC-KITprojectteamwere:Coastalmanager;Landuseplanner;Civilprotection/disastermanagementagency;Academic;Consultant;Localresident;Chairpersonoflocalgroups;Localauthority

RISC-KITrecommendationonstakeholderinvolvement(ii)

“EnsurethatlocalknowledgeisrecognisedandvaluedasacomplementtoscientificknowledgetodevelopanintegratedunderstandingofcoastalriskandtodeviselocallyappropriateDRRapproachesandmeasures.”

Whoshouldact?Policymakersatnationalandlocallevel;academiccommunity;consultantsandresearchfundingbodies.

RISC-KITrecommendationonstakeholderinvolvement(i)

“Cultivateinclusivestakeholderprocessestosupport‘all-of-society’approachesthatareinlinewiththeSendaiFrameworkandproducemoreeffectiveDRRoutcomes.”

Whoshouldact?Policymakersandcoastalmanagersatnational,regionalandmunicipallevels;academiccommunity;consultants;researchfundingbodies.

Synthesis Report

54

Stakeholderswereessential to theprocessofgatheringdata,particularly to the150in-depthinterviewsconductedintendifferentcasestudysites.However,thiswasnotonly with ‘experts’ but also with ordinary citizens. In the RISC-KIT project, localresidents are understood as gatekeepers of important historical and culturalknowledge,who often hold the key to understanding behaviours and attitudes inrelation to coastal risk and DRR approaches and measures. Furthermore, wherequantitativedatawasunavailableor inaccessible,stakeholdersassistedbyprovidinginformation that was not readily available in the public domain and/or expertknowledge.Ourapproachandfindingsarereflected intheSendaiFramework(§24(i)) which highlights the need to use local knowledge to complement scientificknowledgetounderstandlocalsystemsandproducelocally-appropriatestrategies.

The RISC-KIT project also carried out substantial activities to engage withstakeholders and disseminate knowledge about coastal flood risk and DRR (SeeChapter3.5). In addition, stakeholder contactwith theRISC-KIT toolshadpositiveimpactson learningandawareness - inparticularwheredisastersoccurwith lessfrequency,orwhereparticipatoryprocessesarelessdeveloped(SeeChapter2.5.2).

These findings are in line with the Sendai Framework’s notion that civil societyinvolvementsupportsgeneralpublicawareness togrowacultureofpreventionandeducation(SendaiFramework§36).TheSendaiFrameworkfurthermorenotesthatan all-of-society approach includes encouraging civil society to collaborate withpublicinstitutionstoprovidethemwithspecificknowledgeandpragmaticguidanceon DRR frameworks and plans (Sendai Framework §19 (g)). The Multi-criteriaAnalysis tool (SeeChapter2.5)proved tobeanexcellent tool forprovidingexactlythis kind of knowledge and guidance;with representatives of local groups able todirectlydiscusswithlocalgovernmentaboutthe‘realworld’implicationsofparticularDRRmeasures.

TakinganinclusiveapproachtoengageawiderangeofstakeholderswasofparticularimportancetotheRISC-KITprojectandspecialeffortsweremadetoattaingenderbalanceinoutreachactivities(SeeChapter3.5).Furthermore,thenatureoftheproblemswedealwithinDRRandthelong-termanalysesweworkwith,demandsinvolvementofdifferentgenerations.Thiswasclearlyreflectedinsomeofthestakeholders’perceptionsoflonger-termscenarios.Stakeholdersofanolderagefeltthat“somethingsneedtobeleftforthenextgenerationsbecausewecannotcare

RISC-KITrecommendationonstakeholderinvolvement(iv)

“Stakeholderengagementprocessesmustbefullyinclusiveshouldpromotewomenandyouthparticipationandleadership.”

Whoshouldact?Policymakersandcoastalmanagersatnational,regionalandmunicipallevels;academiccommunity,consultants;researchfundingbodies.

RISC-KITrecommendationonstakeholderinvolvement(iii)

“Makeuseofparticipatorytools(e.g.theRISC-KITMulti-criteriaAnalysistool)todisseminateinformationandengagewithcitizensandstakeholdergroupswhoprovideimportant‘realitychecks’toplannedDRRmeasures.”

Whoshouldact?Localpolicymakersandcoastalmanagers,consultants.

Synthesis Report

55

abouteverything”(BarquetandCumiskey,2017).Thus,achievinggreatergenderandagerepresentationatalllevelsiscrucialfordiversifyingtheissuesthatarebeingincludedinDRRagendasandwhichofthesegetprioritised.StakeholderswhoparticipatedinthelocalMulti-criteriaAnalysisworkshopswereprimarilyofanoldergeneration(84%)andtherewasagenderimbalance(68%male:32%female).ThesefiguresunderlinetherelevanceofpursuingthegoaloftheSendaiFramework(§19(d))topromotewomenandyouthparticipationandleadership.

5.7 Lessons learned on: Dissemination

RISC-KITtookamulti-avenueapproachtodissemination,whichworkedverywell inthecontextofthisproject.Theconsortiumtookadvantageofonlineandsocialmediatools; the popular media including newspapers, radio and television; public fora;dedicated scientific and technical conferences; academic journals; and otherinternationalnetworkingeventssuchasEuropeanMaritimeDay,toinformthepublic,stakeholdersandendusersabouttheprojectanditsproducts.

TheSendaiFrameworkrecognisestheneedtodisseminatedisasterriskinformation,not only to decision makers but to thegeneral public and communities at risk ofexposure to disaster in an appropriateformat (§24 (c)) towards empowermentand inclusive, accessible and nondiscriminatoryparticipation(§19(d)).

RISC-KIT has paid particular attention toadapt the language and format of themessage toeachof the targetaudiences inquestion.Attimes, thismeantusingsimplelanguageandappealing imagerysuchas intheRISC-KITanimatedfilm,atothertimesitinvolved using sophisticated and technicallanguage, such as presenting the projecttools at academic conferences. Broader communication methods, such as theperiodically produced RISC-KIT e-newsletterwere verywell received by a generalaudience,however, intermsofengagement,thepersonalconnectionsdevelopedandcultivatedbetweenteammembersresponsibleforthecasestudiesandregionalactorswereperhaps themostvaluable to thedevelopmentof theprojectandthepotentialupdateoftheprojectoutputs.

RISC-KITrecommendationondissemination

“Tailorresearchoutputstoyouraudience:createproductsthatareaccessibleandunderstandableforat-riskcommunitiesinthebroaderpublicaswellascreatingproductsthatprovidethenecessarydetailtodecision-makersandacademics.”

Whoshouldact?Academiccommunity;consultants.

Synthesis Report

56

6 Further information

CoastalVulnerabilityIndicatorLibrary

http://www.risckit.eu/np4/file/23/RISC_KIT_D.2.2_CVI_Library1.xlsx

XBeach http://xbeach.org

CRAF2setupscripts http://www.risckit.eu/np4/file/383/CRAF2_scripts_Delft.rar

LISFLOOD http://www.bristol.ac.uk/geography/research/hydrology/models/lisflood/

INDRAmodel http://www.risckit.eu/np4/file/23/INDRA.zip

DelftDashboard https://publicwiki.deltares.nl/display/OET/DelftDashboard

(https://publicwiki.deltares.nl/display/RISCKITPUBLIC/RISC-KIT+Coastal+Documentation).

GuidanceandexamplesforaMCAsession

http://www.risckit.eu/np4/file/386/RISCKIT_D.4.2_MCA_Guide_2016.pdf

Web-basedmanagementguide

http://coastal-management.eu

DemoBayesianDecisionSupportSystem

http://www.risckit.eu/np4/file/384/demonstration_DSS.zip

BayesianNetworkAdapterandInstructions

https://publicwiki.deltares.nl/display/FEWSDOC/Bayesian+Network+Adaptor

GeNie http://www.bayesfusion.com/

Delft-FEWSCoastal http://www.risckit.eu/np4/file/384/Coastal_FEWS_infrastructure___master_con.zip

ModeladaptersFEWS

https://publicwiki.deltares.nl/display/FEWSDOC/Models+linked+to+Delft-Fews

Web-basedViewer http://al-ng017.xtr.deltares.nl/risckit/index.htm

Synthesis Report

57

PRESENTATIONSANDDOCUMENTATION

Name Document

http://www.risckit.eu/np4/file/23/RISC_KIT_D.2.2_CVIL_Guidance_Document.pdf

http://www.risckit.eu/np4/file/23/RISC_KIT_D2.3_CRAF_Guidance.pdf

http://www.risckit.eu/np4/file/382/RISC_KIT_D1.3_Tools_webpage.pdf

http://www.risckit.eu/np4/file/383/step1_intro_CRAF2_Hazards_DDB.pdf

http://www.risckit.eu/np4/file/383/step2_CRAF2_modelling_steps.pdf

http://www.risckit.eu/np4/file/383/INDRA_WorshopFaro1904_vf.pdf

http://www.risckit.eu/np4/file/385/RISC_KIT_PPT_Mgmt_Guide_ECSA.pdf

http://www.risckit.eu/np4/file/384/RISC_KIT_EA_Day_hotspot_tool.pdf

http://www.risckit.eu/np4/file/384/AB_19_22_FINAL_PAPER_Development_of_Gene.pdf

http://www.risckit.eu/np4/file/384/Howto_Webviewer.pdf

http://www.risckit.eu/np4/file/384/Bayesian_workshop.pdf

http://www.risckit.eu/np4/file/386/MCA_Guide.pdf

Synthesis Report

58

7 References

Barquet,K.,Dickin,S.,Meijer,J.J,Dastgheib,A.(2017forthcoming).PilotingRISC-KIT’sintegratedapproachforassessingDisasterRiskReductionmeasuresinthecoastofKristianstad,Sweden.CoastalEngineering.

Barquet,K.,andCumiskey,L.,etal.(2017).EvaluationofDisasterRiskReductionplans.Resilience-IncreasingStrategiesforCoasts–toolKIT(RISC-KIT)

Bogaard,T.,DeKleermaeker,S.,Jäger,W.S.(2017forthcoming).DevelopmentofGenericToolsforCoastalForecastingandWarning.CoastalEngineering.

ChecklandP.andPoulterJ.(2006).LearningforAction:aShortDefinitiveAccountofSoftSystemsMethodologyanditsUseforPracticioners,TeachersandStudents.Chichester,Wiley.

Ciavola,P.,Harley,M.D.,denHeijer,C.(2017forthcoming).TheRISC-KITstormimpactdatabase:anewtoolinsupportofDRR.CoastalEngineering.

COM(2014)Technologyreadinesslevels(TRL).HORIZON2020–WORKPROGRAMME2014-2015,GeneralAnnexes,ExtractfromPart19-CommissionDecisionC(2014)4995.

EuropeanCommission.(2013).GuidanceforReportingundertheFloodsDirective(2007/60/EC).Brussels.

EuropeanForumforDisasterRiskReduction(EFDRR)(2013):HowdoesEuropelinkDRRandCCA-WorkingPaper.

Garnier,E.,Ciavola,P.,Spencer,T.,Ferreira,O.,Armaroli,C.,McIvor,A.(2017forthcoming).Historicalanalysisofstormevents:casestudiesinFrance,England,PortugalandItal.CoastalEngineering.

Martinez,G.,Armaroli,C.,Costas,S.,Harley,M.D.,Paolisso,M.(2017forthcoming).Experiencesandresultsfrominterdisciplinarycollaboration:Utilizingqualitativeinformationtoformulate3disasterriskreductionmeasuresforcoastalregions.CoastalEngineering.

ISDR-InternationalStrategyforDisasterReduction(2007)HYOGOFRAMEWORKFORACTION–(http://www.unisdr.org/files/1037_hyogoframeworkforactionenglish.pdf)

Plomaritis,T.,Costas,S.,Ferreira,O.(2017forthcoming).UseofaBayesianNetworkforcoastalhazards,impactanddisasterriskreductionassessmentatacoastalbarrier(RiaFormosa,Portugal).CoastalEngineering.VanDongeren,A.,Ciavola,P.,Martinez,G.,Viavatenne,C.,Bogaard,T.,Ferreira,O.,Higgins,R.,McCall,R.(2017forthcoming).IntroductiontoRISC-KIT:Resilience-increasingstrategiesforcoasts.CoastalEngineering.

synthesis report - risc-kit · synthesis report iv table of contents 1 introduction 1 1.1 project...

Documents