Approach


The scope of FLOOD-ERA objectives requires a combined research design integrating different approaches. According to the major areas of interest three principal approaches may be distinguished:



Systematisation of SM and NSM

Definition and distinction of structural (SM) and non-structural measures (NSM) are a baseline for the entire FLOOD-ERA project. Both kinds of measures are the subject of developing the evaluation methodology and analysing the choice of decision makers with respect to the influence of context conditions. The categorisation evolved from civil engineering where it indicates structural measures in a "positive" way and summarises all remaining activities as "not structural". Criterion for this distinction is the mechanism of intervening in the flood risk system by controlling the flood hazard referring to discharge and water level. Applying the SPRC model SM are restricted to the pathways. Beyond there may be a number of other ways of clustering measures which will be briefly discussed but is not the focus of this project.

To support a consistent evaluation of SM and NSM the aimed typology needs to be descriptive referring to the mechanisms of measure. A classification based also on assumptions about effects of measures would hinder a comparison of different measures with similar effects. Thus, systematisation of measures is clearly distinguished from evaluating the effects of measures in accordance with criteria like "effectiveness", "efficiency".

Research work is based on a literature survey on existing typologies and criteria for the adoption or further development of these concepts. Since various typologies are already known the project will not claim to derive an exclusive valid typology. However, results should be generic to ensure harmonisation within the project and to contribute to the external discussion particularly in the CRUE research community. Moreover, they should be applicable for European Member States or at least for the countries involved in FLOOD-ERA.


Descriptive approach to analyse the context conditions of decision makers

Context conditions of decision making are one dimension of FRM strategies. To understand their influence on the choice of SM and NSM (i) a framework of relations between context and contents of strategy development and (ii) an analysis of relevant context factors for the evaluation of and decision on certain measures are required. The framework provides the principal background and propositions for empirical analysis. In turn, empirical work provides concrete findings on how context factors serve as barriers or enablers for the consideration of SM and NSM and, based on this, specify the initial propositions. Both theoretical and empirical work is descriptive and explanative.

Within the scope of context conditions, FLOOD-ERA focuses on internal and external context factors reflecting the capabilities and cultural conditions of decision makers. With regard to the internal context, emphasis is put on (i) the capability of decisions makers to make consistent of decisions, (ii) response repertoire of decision makers, (iii) risk perception, and (iv) beliefs about general properties of SM and NSM. Consistency of decisions refers to the capabilities of decision makers to assess the performance of measures which depend on appropriate data, methods and so forth. This capability, therefore, has an obvious link to normative research which aims at improving the availability of methods to consistently evaluate both SM and NSM (see below). As external conditions (v) the legal context and (vi) the site-specific economic, social and ecological conditions are treated with.


Normative approach of evaluating structural and non-structural measures

In contrast to analysing context conditions, evaluation of SM and NSM is addressed in a normative manner. The question here is how decision maker should evaluate different measures in a consistent, comparative and comprehensive way. As one outcome of the context analysis it is assumed that decision makers do not possess adequate methods to evaluate especially NSM. Investigations in FLOOD-ERA therefore aim at a framework for a consistent evaluation of SM and NSM and its specification based on site-specific testing. The framework covers the identification of criteria, indicators and methods to evaluate SM and NSM.

From a scientific viewpoint consistent with the purpose of improving FRM, the criteria effectiveness and efficiency are expected to play a major role regarding the consistency of evaluation across a wide range of measures. Hereby determining effectiveness of NSM and efficiency for both kinds of measures could be seen as major challenges. This especially counts for attempts to compare effectiveness and efficiency for selected SM and NSM. Additional criteria like sustainability, robustness, flexibility and others are introduced to show further aspects of a comprehensive evaluation. However, FLOOD-ERA will not be able to cover all these criteria. It predominately aims at a generic framework for evaluating all kinds of measures dedicated to the reduction of flood risks. Hereby, it will expand current evaluation capabilities with respect to (i) the effectiveness of selected NSM, (ii) a comparison of exemplary measures with analogue effects, (iii) the evaluation of portfolios of measures, and (iv) first steps towards an inclusion of transactions costs in the determination of efficiency.

The draft framework will be tested in site-specific investigations. Its final elaboration should serve as a basic methodology which therefore will additional be presented as guideline for FRM practice. This product follows scientific paradigms and will reflect, to some extent, context conditions for an application of the methodology.


Combination of the individual approaches

While individual approaches focus on different aspects of SM and NSM, there is a strong relation between them within the combined research design of FLOOD-ERA. The systematisation first of all provides a definition of the types of measures under consideration. The classification in SM and NSM furthermore leads to a differentiation which confronts traditional flood control measures with others and probably alternative interventions in the flood risk system, like the mitigation of vulnerability. Since SM are well established, systematisation finally contributes to the indication of the range of NSM based on the basic assumption that current FRM practice probably does not makes use of all potential benefits of non-structural measures.

Exactly here comes the context analysis into play. It should describe how context factors influence the choice of SM and NSM. A comprehensive view of these decisions as part of strategy development allows for a top-down approach for narrowing down the analysis to the most relevant context factors for the choice of NSM.

Experience from FRM practise suggests the capability of actors to consistently, comparatively and comprehensively evaluate measures and particularly NSM as one of the crucial factors. Hence beside the analysis of its relevance, investigations on criteria, indicators and methods to evaluate SM and NSM are reasoned. Therefore the normative approach should formulate a framework for such evaluation with concrete suggestions for the assessment of selected NSM and comparison of SM and NSM. The resulting methodology should partly improve capabilities of decision makers to include NSM.

Outcomes of the normative research thus are closely linked to the context analysis. The latter will allow for interpretations on the effects of improved evaluation capabilities for a further consideration of NSM. Against this background, subsequent research and first recommendations for FRM practise may be derived. Figure 1 presents the relation of the individual approaches.

diagram


Explanation: (1) Existing risk reduction programmes and projects serve as a basis for developing a systematisation of measures regarding structural and non-structural measures in contact with the "real world". (2) The results of systemizing structural and non-structural measures feeds into selecting, elucidating and applying criteria, indicators and methods. (3) Synthesizing the application of criteria, indicators, methods and data to different structural and non-structural measures leads to the methodology for consistent, comparative and comprehensive evaluation of measures. In a way, a methodology is a means to come to coherent justifications to deploy a range of structural and non-structural measures. (4) The methodology changes the external context of decision-makers. The methodology provides a rationale, a set of criteria, indicators, methods and procedures to facilitate evaluation in practice. (5) In turn, we consider that context conditions are relevant for developing the methodology from a "pure" scientific viewpoint (e.g. the availability of data, given objectives). However, the influence of context on methodology is difficult to define precisely in advance. So this causal relationship will be considered after having an outline of the methodology. For the time being, this relationship is treated as a weak influence on developing the methodology (hence, the dotted line). (6) Context conditions, internal as well as external, influence flood risk management concepts and strategies. The application of document analysis and conducting interviews are here used to elicit the major context factors and further to analyse the influence on the decision.