Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (19)
Similar to Flood Resilient Building EU Perspective
Similar to Flood Resilient Building EU Perspective (20)
More from Stevie Swenne
More from Stevie Swenne (18)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Flood Resilient Building EU Perspective
- 1. Flood Resilient Building EU perspec)ve Chris Zevenbergen UNESCO-‐IHE Environmental Challenges & Climate Change Opportuni)es CAMINO End Conference Antwerp, 24 March 2015
- 2. ShiFs needed: -‐ from stand alone to embedded/integrated -‐ from climate risk reduc)on to resilience upgrading -‐ from top down to collabora)ve decision making -‐ from addi)onal to mainstream But: -‐ 90% of the ci5es insufficient capacity to take (long-‐las)ng) adapta)on decisions -‐ 77% of the ci5es insufficient capacity to exploit (short-‐term) autonomous development for adapta)on SeRng the scene (CAMINO, 2014; RICARDO-‐AEA, 2013)
- 3. European Environment Agency, 2012 Floods in Europe
- 5. Flood Resilient Building Two dimensions: – It is a technical approach – requiring Flood Resilient Technology (FRe) e.g. building design and construc)on, flood defences, sustainable approaches to drainage, etc – It is a non-‐technical approach – policy, regula)on, decision making and engagement, etc Resilience in a ‘soM’ sense can only be developed by creaOng the condiOons within which resilience will emerge (Stephen Garvin, SmarTest 2014)
- 6. Flood Resilient building: technical approach (defini)ons (BRE, 2014)) – Flood resilience – a characteris)c of a building material, component or whole building that describes its ability to recover from flooding – Flood resistance – a characteris)c of a building material, component or whole building that enables it to remain undamaged and unaffected by flood water Both can be enhanced by deployment of “Flood Resilient Technology (FRe)”
- 7. Flood Resilience Technology Testing a Flood Door and Flood Demonstration of Tilt-‐Dam® Example non-‐return valve Guard at HR Wallingford Image courtesy of Tilt Dam http://www.tiltdam.co.uk/ Source: Gabalda et al 2012
- 14. Constraints in raising the 3As Technology: need for standardisa)on Regulatory: appe)te for greater regula)on to raise trust in the technologies Ins5tu5onal: Over-‐reliance on insurance compensa)on can dis-‐incen)vise Fre Cultural: Property owners and communi)es reluctant to take responsibility for managing risk Economic: Need to develop cost-‐benefit analyses for Fre Poli5cal: Fragmented responsibility for FRM (unclear who or what should be responsible). Findings uptake Fre in EU (SmarTest, 2014)
- 15. Technical approaches: two op)ons (Flood ResilientTechnologies (Fre)) (Chris Zevenbergen, FloodProbe, 2014)
- 16. -‐ Low hanging fruit: restore ‘obvious’ mistakes -‐ small interven)on (low cost) with large impact -‐ focus on extreme events -‐ Mainstream adapta)on (con)nuous & long-‐term) -‐ synchronizing adapta)on )pping points & adapta)on opportuni)es -‐ focus on gradual changes -‐ requires a climate ‘sensi)ve’ culture & private partnership -‐ new business models (CAMINO, 2014) Towards a two )ered approach?
- 17. Mainstream adapta)on: process scheme SebasOaan van Herk (2013) modified from Berry Gersonius, 2013)
- 18. 22-03-15 Presentation Title 18
- 26. -‐ Uptake of FRe is low in EU, poten)als are huge -‐ From dedicated (special purpose) to integrated -‐ At present there is insufficient capacity (to exploit autonomous development for adapta)on) i -‐ Need for private partnership and new business models -‐ Cultural heritage is area of par)cular concern in EU (and beyond) (as opportunis)c adapta)on will be of limited help) Conclusions