CASE STUDY. Timmerdorfer Strand / Scharbeutz: Public participation in integrated flood risk management

Transcription

1 CASE STUDY Timmerdorfer Strand / Scharbeutz: Public participation in integrated flood risk management ABSTRACT: Timmendorfer Strand and Scharbeutz are two German seaside resorts. Located in lowlands along the Baltic Sea, they are facing an increasing flood risk, due to Climate change and sea-level rise. The need of coastal protection is well accepted, but there is a demand to minimize the effects of measures (dyke) on tourism. Considering that a coastal dyke could have bad effects on tourism, the local population and the decision-makers used to minimize the importance of the risk. In a participative procedure, a flood protection strategy was successfully developed in 2000 by local stakeholders, municipalities and coastal defense authorities. This case study shows the possibilities and the limits of public participation in local plans of Integrated Coastal Zone Management. LOCATION: Germany, Land of Schleswig-Holstein, Baltic Sea coast, Timmendorfer Strand - Scharbeutz KEYWORDS: Stakeholder and public participation Climate change Natural Hazard Management AUTHOR and CONTACT: Author: Aude Körfer Organization: EUCC- The Coastal Union Germany address: koerfer@eucc-d.de Contact: Jacobus Hofstede Organization: Ministry of the Interior Schleswig-Holstein, Germany / EUCC-The Coastal Union Germany address: jacobus.hofstede@mlur.landsh.de 1 of 9

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Baltic Sea resorts of Timmendorfer Strand and Scharbeutz represent a case study about public participation in flood risk management. Lowlands, urbanisation and unadapted coastal flood protection participate to the high vulnerability of the area in case of hazard. During more than 30 years (since the 1963), the municipalities and the local population refused the building of a new dyke, suggested by the federal state authority. This reaction can be explained by the low awarness of the population associated to the old date of the last event (1872). Nowdays the climate change and sea level rise knwoledges demand the federal state to engage new strategies and new discussions on this topic. The participative process carried out in 2000 showed that public participation has lot of importance in coastal management and more particularly in coastal risk management. The Vester method (sensitive method) used showed its efficacity. Population and decision makers come to a common agreement for the building of a coastal dyke. But the importance of the potential flooded areas in the federal State doesn t allow to give Timmendorfer Strand and Scharbeutz credits to strenghten their coastal protection. The commun scenario choised in 2000 still until now without implementation. 2 of 9

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1. Vulnerability of the area Seaside resorts in lowlands Economic stakes Climate change and sea-level rise The low awarness of the population. 2. The Development of a participative strategy Method of public participation Organisation of the dialog Possibilities and limits of the public participation. Conclusion References 3 of 9

4 Introduction Timmerdorfer Strand and Scharbeutz are two municipalities concerned by flood risk. In 1999, the both began a reflexion about risk management taking in account the climate change. The initiative gave a special place to the participation of local population. 1. Vulnerability of the area. Fig. 1. Localisation of the case study (Source: A.Körfer, 2006) The vulnerability of the area is characterized by physical factors (lowlands, sea-level rise) but also by human activities (intensive building, few conscious of the risk, predominance of economic objectives). Climate change and sea-level rise demand nowdays the development of new strategies in order to reduce the vulnerability of the area and to assure the inhabitants safety. Fig. 2. Scharbeutz beach Source: Wolf Wichmann Fig. 3. Timmendorfer Strand beach Source: Wolf Wichmann 1.1. Seaside resorts in lowlands: Timmendorfer Strand and Scharbeutz are two seaside resorts, situated on the Baltic coast in the Lübeck Bight (Germany - Federal State Schleswig-Holstein). Located in lowlands, they are threaten by flood risk in case of storm surge. 24 % of the territory of the Schleswig-Holstein Federal State is concerned by similar natural hazards. In the case of Timmendorfer Strand, about 18% of the municipal area is situated less than 3 m abose MSL. 4 of 9

5 1.2. Climate change and sea-level rise. The storm tide risk has to be taken in account, but also the knowledges about climate change and sea-level rise, which contribute to increase the vulnerabilty of the area. Mean sea level rise in the region amounted to about 0,15 cm per year over the time period 1900 to The existing flood protection doesn t allow to ensure the safety of the population in case of important flood. The main flood defence is the natural beach-ridge with a height of about 2,5 to 4,0 m above German ordnance level (GOL). It is not certain that this flood defence could withstand a once in a hundred year storm surge with water levels of 2,1m above GOL. When sea level rises 50 cm (as predicted for 2100), this water level could be reached every 10 years. Fig.4. South of Timmendorfer Strand Niendorf Source : J.Hofstede 1.3. Economic assets. Tourism concentrates activities on this area, where 6000 personnes are living. The importance of the tourism can be reflected by the number of over-nights, evaluated to 1,3 millions per year. The importance of built areas and the concentration of material goods estimated to 1,7 Billion euros signify that economic and human damages could be very important in case of flood. For those reasons, the current risk of flood is not comparable with the event of Fig. 5. Urbanised areas Urbanised areas are represented in red color Source: J. Hofstede, (2004) 5 of 9 The year 1872 corresponds to the last storm surge, which happened in this area. In reason of the low rate of urbanisation (only two houses), the human and economic damages (less than 10 persons in 1872) are not comparable with what could happen today.

6 1.4. The low awarness of the population. The memory of the last event of 1872 is few developed and the predominance of tourism gives more importance to the development of recreation activities than to the risk management. The local population is consequently rather sceptical towards coastal defence. The historic background of the flood management in the area testify it. More than 30 years ago, in 1961 the coastal defense authorities (region) suggested the both township the erection of a dyke. The proposals made after were always in the same way. But until now, this solution of flood defence was not accepted. Local stakeholders are affraid of bad effects on tourism frequentation. The unsightly aspect of a dyke was critized. Such reactions show the importance of the risk s awarness, in particularly to get the approbation of the population in the framework of a flood risk management. 2. The Development of a participative strategy. In Germany, local authorities are responsible for coastal defense as no sea wall exists in the area. An integrated Coastal protection Program is developped since 1999 by the municipalities of Scharbeutz and Timmendorfer Strand with the Schleswig-Holstein State Ministry for the Rural Areas, regional Planing, Agriculture and Tourism, the regional authority of coastal protection and the planing authority of Kiel Method of public participation. Local stakeholders, municipalities and coastal defence authorities developped a strategy in a participative way. The applied method was the Sensitivity Model of Prof.Vester, developed to cybernetically evaluate complex systems. The basic idea is that each system (country, region, company, etc.) is composed of a number of interacting elements and should be viewed upon in a holistic way. Further, it is recognised that the affected persons (citizens of a regions, employees, etc.) have a profound knowledge of their system, and should be actively involved in the analysis Organisation of the dialog. During the first semester of 2000, nine meetings of working group and two public meetings were organised. Every project group meeting was attended by about 20 to 25 persons (in all, about 50 persons participated). The consultant moderated the meetings, established the model with the data delivered by the working group, performed the simulations, and wrote the reports. To avoid prejudice under the local participants, the consultant (who normally is financed by the initiator) had to moderate the analysis neutrally and independently. 6 of 9

7 In the first project meeting a general brainstorming on possible system variables took place. In all, 47 variables were listed and roughly related to each other. During the next meetings, the number of variables was systematically reduced to 17 to achieve a workable systems representation. Further, the interrelations between the variables were described and quantified. List of the 17 variables 1. economic power 2. tourist services (quality of) 3. employment (degree of) 4.inhabitants (Nr. of) 5. tourists (Nr. of) 6. beach (quality of) 7. coastal protection (quality of) 8. living (quality of) 9. people (security of) 10. recreational activities (quality of) 11. landscape (ecological quality of) 12. Baltic sea (ecological quality of) 13. infrastructure (effectiveness of) 14. municipal budget (height of) 15. future oriented politics (quality of) 16. image (quality of) 17. traffic (development of) The second phase of the sensitivity analysis concentrated on the possible effects of different coastal defence strategies on the system. Five possible strategies had been defined in the fifth meeting: Zero option, where no coastal defence is executed Maximal option, where a primary state dyke is built on the beach Coastal protection option, where measures to protect the coastline against erosion are implemented Flood defence option, where measures to reduce the risk of flooding are implemented Mixed option, where coastal protection and flood defence measures are combined. In order to reduce the complexity, the 17 original variables were summarised into 7 key variables (relevant to coastal defence) in a coastal defence model, presented, discussed and later made operational. Further, one external variable (risk of flooding) was defined. This variable is not influenced by the variables of the system, but has direct impacts on the system. Based upon the operational model, the consultants simulated the effects of an increasing risk of flooding on the system in 15 rounds of five years for each of the coastal defence scenarios. During the last meeting, the results of the simulations were presented and discussed with the working group Possibilities and limits of the public participation. The sensitivity analysis permitted to increase the awarness of the population. The participants (as representatives of the local population) have not only recognised the long-term risk for their lowland, 7 of 9

8 but they also accepted their responsibility. They evolved from sceptics to advocates of an integrated coastal defence management. SWOT Analysis Strengths Weakness - active involvement of the affected - systematic approach - transparency of the results Opportunities - recognition of the problems - awareness of the responsibilities - acceptance of possible solutions Source: Hofstede, low number of participants (compared to those affected) - tiresome and time-consuming procedure - depending upon volunteers Threats - results may not be conform to contractors expectations - loss of interest during humdrum meetings - not enough participants The entire approach was systematic and ensured comprehensible and transparent results. Problematic is the fairly low number of participants compared to those affected, the time-consuming and tiring procedure and the dependency on motivated volunteers. Finally, the results may not be corresponding to the initiators expectations. The relatively low number of participants (max. 25) conducting the analysis is a major weakness. In consequence, the results of the working group may be questioned afterwards by the gross of the affected. However, as these participants represent usually interest groups and active persons in a community, they may carry out the function of multipliers. The example Timmendorfer Strand - Scharbeutz was successful because it dealt with a concrete and well defined problem. The number of possible solutions was very limited. The sea-level rise problem will be increasing in the future and required a precocious solution. It was possible to make the problem and all major interactions transparent to the participants. However, a problem of this approach is that it is largely distinct and isolated from other decision processes in the region. The integrated aspect is only limited and the group is only temporarily active. After finishing the recommendations the group broke apart and a re-activation is not easy. The knowledge, the problem awareness as well as results and solutions are not permanently maintained. An umbrella structure, which harbours and maintains the outcome of this focus group is lacking. A regional Agenda 21 forum could possibly serve as an umbrella for different kind of focus groups and promote an integrated management as well as a sustainable development of the region. Conclusion. The following profil represents the scenario choised by the participants of the meetings. This solution of coastal protection still since 2000 on project state for lack of funding. 8 of 9

9 Fig. 6. Dyke profile: retained solution Source: Hofstede, In the best situation, the protection mesures should have been implement in short time limit. The good results of the sensitiv analysis are running the risk to still unutilised and the precognised solution is running the risk to be forgotten. Mesures mentionned years ago are again in discussion. Timmerdorfer Strand and Scharbeutz example show the necessity to have a time continuity once the process of integrated coastal zone management has started. References : HOFSCHEDE, J., Timmendorfer Strand und Scharbeutz : zwei Ostseegemeinden schützen sich vor Klimatänderungen, in GÖNNERT G., GRASSL H., KELLETAT D., KUNZ H., Klimaänderung und Küstenschutz, 2004, 10 p. HOFSCHEDE, J., SCHERNEWSKI G., Two coastal management and public participation case studies in Germany, International Conference on Coastal Conservation and Management in the Arlantic and the Mediterranean (ICCCM 2005), April 17 to 20, Tavira, Algarve, Portugal, 8 p. HOFSCHEDE, J, Participatory Planning in Coastal Defence : a Pilot Study from the Baltic Sea Coast of Germany, 6 p. KAUL & REINS GbR, 2001, Final report of the sensivity analysis in the scope of an integrated coastal defence concept of the coastal lowland Timmendorfer Strand / Scharbeutz. Report in order of the Schleswig-Holstein State Ministry for rural areas, State Regional Planning, Agriculture and Tourism, Kiel. (in german) VORLAUF Anke, Fallstudie Bürgerbeteiligung im Küstenschutz Timmendorfer Strand & Scharbeutz, (case study of public participation in coastal defence management Timmendorfer Strand & Scharbeutz) An english summary of the german presentation is available. IKZM-D Lernen is an internet platform of learning modules in relation with the sea and the coast in general and with ICZM in particular. Information about the Sensitivity Model of Prof.Vester available on 9 of 9