Coastal Areas at Risk Areas at Risk by Anne...1.2.1 The Wadden Sea region The Wadden Sea is neither...

School of Forest Science and Resource Management International M.Sc. ProgramSustainable Resource Management

Coastal Defence Strategies and Integrated Coastal Zone Management

Meeting the Challenges of Climate Change in the Wadden Sea region

Coastal Areas at Risk:An Analysis

Anne GydesenMarch 2006

Advisor: Dr. Klaus Wagner

Supervisors: Prof. Dr. Michael Suda and Prof. Dr. Egon Gundermann

Advisor: Dr. Klaus Wagner

Supervisors: Prof. Dr. Michael Suda and Prof. Dr. Egon Gundermann

Coastal Areas at Risk:An Analysis of Coastal Defence Strategies and

Integrated Coastal Zone Management to meet the Challenges of Climate Change in the

Wadden Sea region

March 2006

Technische Univers ität München

A thesis submitted to the School of Forest Science and Resource Management

Sustainable Resource Management Programin partial fulfilment of the requirements for a degree of Master of Science

Anne Gydesen

Copyright © 2006 by Anne GydesenEmail contact: [email protected]

Language Assistance: Daniel RossLayout Assistance: Christian Gydesen

�

Table of ContentsTable of Contents 5

List of tables and figures 6

Abbreviations 7

Acknowledgements 8

Abstract 9

1 Introduction 11 1.1 Problem statement and objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 1.2 Definitions and concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 1.4 Hazard coping theory and conceptual framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 1.5 Research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

2 Methodology 23

3 Results 26 3.1 General context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 3.2 The current flood defence solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 3.3 Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 3.4 Hurdles to implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 3.5 The future flood defence solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 3.6 Integrated Coastal Zone Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

4 Discussion 43 4.1 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 4.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

5 Summary 50 5.1 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53

References 54

A Appendix 56 A1 Habitats in the Wadden Sea area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 A2 Analytic coding scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 A3 Interview details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 A4 Interview guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59

B Photographs 63

Declaration of Originality 71

Table of Contents

�

List of tables and figuresList of tables Table1: Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Table2: Summary of difficulties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 Table3: Evaluated statements on the EU recommendation on ICZM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 Table4: Summary of comments on ICZM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 Table5: Overview of adjustments types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

List of figures Figure 1: Global average sea level rise from 1990-2100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Figure 2: Integrated coastal zone management boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Figure 3: Flood-prone areas in the Wadden Sea Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Figure 4: Purposeful adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Figure 5: Conceptual framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Figure 6: Context filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Figure 7: Habitats in the Wadden Sea Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 Figure 8: View over Ribe Marsh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 Figure 9: High tide. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 Figure 10: Sluice by Ribe seen from land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 Figure 11: Buildings near Ribe sluice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 Figure 12: Geese visiting the Wadden Sea area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 Figure 13: Low tide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 Figure 14: Recently strengthened dike near Ballum-Rejsby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 Figure 15: Street in Ribe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 Figure 16: State dike in Schleswig-Holstein and the general problem of coastal squeeze . . .66 Figure 17: Recreational use of the coastal zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 Figure 18: Public access prohibited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 Figure 19: Hotel in front of second dike line, Tönning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 Figure 20: Pioneer salt marsh vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 Figure 21: ‘Mud-walking’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 Figure 22: Birds on migration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 Figure 23: Dike grassed by sheep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 Figure 24: Ditch construction in the salt marsh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 Figure 25: Harlingen city. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 Figure 26: Recreational use of the coastal zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 Figure 27: Waves hitting against the foot of a concrete dike. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69

List of tables and figures

�

Abbreviations

Abbreviations

COMRISK Common Strategies to Reduce the Risk of Storm FloodsCPSL Trilateral Working Group on Coastal Protection and Sea Level Rise DEFRA Department of the Environment Food and Rural AffairsDGUK Department of Geography University of KielEEA European Environment AgencyEIA Environmental Impact AssessmentEU European UnionHDRU Human Dimensions Research UnitICZM Integrated Coastal Zone ManagementIPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeKDI Kystdirektoratet: Danish Coastal AuthorityNGO Non-Governmental OrganisationRIKZ National Institute for Coastal and Marine Management, the NetherlandsUSA United States of AmericaWSP Trilateral Wadden Sea PlanWWF World Wide Fund for Nature

�

AcknowledgementsThis master thesis would not have been possible without the help and support of a number of people. They provided me with valuable information, gave me guidance and technical, financial and moral support. I would like to thank everybody that has contributed to and helped with the creation of my thesis. I thank all the policy makers and institutions that participated in the interviews. Their knowledge, opinions, help and recommendations are an indispensable basis for my thesis. I thank my family for providing me with essential moral, financial, and technical resources. I thank my mentors in the master programme for their skilled guidance, recommendations and technical support. I also thank my friends for their opinions and moral support. In addition I thank the guides and information centres for sharing the wonders of the Wadden Sea with me. Finally I would like to thank the reader. It is ultimately my hope that my thesis would generate interest and inspire to action for sustainable development.

Anne GydesenMaster student of Sustainable Resource Management

Technische Universität München

Acknowledgements

�

Abstract

AbstractThe thesis examines the coastal defence strategies in the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark, and relates it to the emerging challenges of climate change, such as sea level rise and increased frequency and intensity of storms. The resulting loss of wetlands is also considered. The thesis investigates how the EU recommendation on integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) is perceived by managers and whether it is an adequate tool to modify the strategies against flooding. A combination of literature research and qualitative interviews with 11 representatives from the policy fields of coastal defence and spatial planning were conducted. An investigation of the general context for decision making was additionally carried out. Despite sharing the Wadden Sea coastline, the countries were found to have different flood defence strategies, and the societies also view climate change in different ways. In reaction to climate change, the Wadden Sega countries will probably continue to rely on their chosen adjustment types, but they also put different degrees of effort into strengthening their strategies. In contrast to the reaction regarding possible climate change impact on flood safety, loss of salt marshes through ‘coastal squeeze’ is not found to have any significant effect on the current strategies. The lack of action is probably because it would be too complicated or expensive to act upon, combined with a current low perception of the problem. The EU recommendation on ICZM is found to be based on logical thinking, but it is perceived by many of the interviewed decision makers as rather complex, non-operational and not particularly innovative. Besides addressing these perceptions, the main challenge of ICZM is found to be breaking traditional thinking. Opportunities to help the implementation of the EU recommendation and to increase flexibility in the coastal defence strategies were in particular found by enhancing integration of spatial planning decision makers, improving public participation procedures, and by promoting holistic thinking in general.

11

Introduction – Problem statement and objectives

to 3.5 m. The zone stretches from Ho Bay in Denmark to Den Helder in the Netherlands, a distance of nearly 500 km and a maximum width of 35 km, covering an area of 4,800 km2 (CPSL 2001). However, the Wadden Sea region is much wider from an ecological and sociological point of view: For several kilometres outwards on the sea-side there is an area heavily influenced by land activities, and on the land-side we find areas extending several kilometres inward influenced by the sea. These areas together form the “natural” boundaries of the Wadden Sea region. From a coastal defence point of view, the natural boundaries on the land-side are the underlying reason for coastal defence activities. Spatial planning and environmental management of the Wadden Sea region on the other hand usually follows the boundaries defined from the dike out to an offshore line positioned a bit further out from the Wadden Sea islands. See also the Wadden Sea map, Appendix A1.

The combination of flat coastal morphology and the tide pattern results in an ecosystem that is unique worldwide. The Danish-German-Dutch Wadden Sea is in fact the only place with such a combination found north of the equator. The tide brings algae and plankton to the wide intertidal flats, which are eaten by animals that are in turn eaten by other animals. The biological production measured in dry matter is between 0.5-4 kg per square metre - only the rainforest ecosystem has as high a production. The rich production supports many fish and every year about 10 million birds stop over on their migration route from north to south (Poulsen 1996). Humans also benefit from the high biological production. Historic towns which were founded in the Middle Ages would not have been possible without support from the environment. Today, fishing activities (shrimps and mussels in particular) are still important for the identity of people living there.

1.2.2 Thesaltmarshes

The pioneer salt marshes are intertidal flats where vegetation can set roots allowing sand and particles to accumulate. They are typically found where the ground is a bit elevated or sheltered. When the vegetation is flooded, fine particles

1 Introduction1.1 Problem statement and objectives

Global climate change is expected to accelerate, according to international research studies (IPCC 2001). Rising sea water levels and an increased frequency and intensity of storms are among the changes predicted. As a result, many coastal areas will experience increased and accelerated hazard impacts such as flooding, erosion and loss of wetlands. The challenges of climate change are obvious for coastal defence in particular: More than half of the European Union’s population now lives within 50 kilometres of the sea and coastal resources produce considerable economic wealth (COM 2000). Coastal defence activities also greatly influence the ecological system of the coast and hence pose a threat to nature and wildlife. The coastal zone has many other uses other than coastal defence: Tourism, recreation and energy production besides environmental protection are examples. The interests collide with each other making coastal zone management a true challenge. The European Union developed a recommendation on Integrated Coastal Zone Management in 2002 based on a study of problems experienced in the coastal zone. The recommendation lays down a voluntary framework for sustainable development for the member states of the European Union. Feedback on the implementation is due in Spring 2006.

The overall objectives of the thesis are as follows:

• To analyse coastal defence strategies in view of emerging threats posed by climate change

• To analyse how adequate the EU recommendation on ICZM is perceived by decision makers to modify the strategies against flooding

1.2 Definitions and concepts

1.2.1 TheWaddenSearegion

The Wadden Sea is neither land nor sea. At best it can be described as a wide coastal zone, where the ‘wadden’ itself is a belt between the high water mark and low water mark. This area is, due to the gravity of the moon and the sun, flooded twice a day with a tidal range from 1.4

12

of clay, faeces and dead organic material are deposited, resulting in the salt marsh growing up. The process depends on the sedimentation balance and on the coastal morphology, but it can be advanced where sedimentation is positive through land reclamation activities like digging of ditches and construction of groins. When the salt marsh has grown high enough and is no longer flooded by daily tides, the marsh can be used for grassing, agriculture or even settling where dikes are present. Most of the salt marshes along the mainland coastline today are artificial (CPSL 2001; Hvidtfeldt 1974).

From an ecological viewpoint, the salt marshes are rare habitats and contain specialised vegetation which again supports a specialised ecosystem. For the birds, the salt marshes are vital resting and breeding areas. From a coastal defence point of view, the salt marshes provide benefits (CPSL 2001). A salt marsh in front of a sea wall reduces the wave energy and supply material for dike reparation and maintenance (nowadays only taken in emergencies due to environmental protections).

1.2.3 Stormfloodsandcoastaldefenceinhistory

Dikes have been constructed since the Middle Ages as man settled along the coast and as the sea flooded the land. Major catastrophes happened along the Wadden Sea coast in 1362 and 1634, which have passed into history as the two ‘man drowns’. In 1634 many, if not all, dikes were destroyed, the island ‘Strand’ in Germany was divided into two and over 9000 people drowned.

In 1953 a storm flood in the Netherlands, in which 2000 people died, lead to a radical change in the policy on flood protection towards a national governed policy with safety standards and initiation of a larger scaled project to shorten the coastline (the delta project). In Germany, the catastrophe lead to the strengthening of almost every dike in Schleswig-Holstein. Germany experienced a major flood catastrophe in the region around Hamburg in 1962, where 1250 people were evacuated and 315 drowned. Plans to shorten the coastline for coastal defence followed shortly after (Naudiet 1995, Hvidtfeldt 1974).

Denmark reacted to the flood disasters of 1953 and 1962 in the Netherlands and in Germany and established their storm flood evacuation system. The country experienced a powerful storm in 1999, but the damage can not be compared with those experienced earlier by the two other Wadden sea countries.

1.2.4 Climatechange

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2001) assessed the average global sea level to have risen 10-20 cm over the last 100 years and predicts a further increase of between 9 and 88 cm by 2100. The most likely scenario estimates around 30-50 cm per century (Figure 1).

The reason for the rise is a combination of several factors. One important cause is that the average temperature on earth is increasing relatively quickly, and the water bound in glaciers is being released and is flowing into the oceans. But the perhaps most important reason is the expansion of the ocean due to warmer temperature. Estimates as to how much the sea level will rise in the future vary among scientists. Some speculate that increased water vapours and cloud formation due to higher temperatures will increase snow precipitation in the arctic; this would then theoretically compensate for the melting of glaciers elsewhere on earth. Another factor to consider in calculations is that the sea level rise since the ice age has slowed down due to a rising continental plate, i.e. the post-glacial rebound. The Wadden Sea in the Netherlands is subsiding at a rate of four to eight cm per century, less in Denmark. This subsiding is expected to continue in the 21st century as a “natural” sea level rise (CPSL 2001).

In addition, climate change theories also predict increased frequency and intensity of storms as well as increased precipitation and extreme rainfall events. But research results are uncertain about frequencies and how serious it will be (IPCC 2001). Storm surges data and predictions are of major importance when developing a flood protection strategy, even more than of sea level rise. If a storm hits the Wadden Sea coast during high tide it can develop into quite a serious threat, especially when adding the increased sea level rise.

Introduction – Definitions and concepts

13

1.2.5 Coastalsqueezeandotherclimatechangeconsequences

According to IPCC (2001), many coastal areas will experience increased levels of flooding, accelerated erosion, loss of wetlands, and sea water intrusion into freshwater sources as a result of climate change as mentioned in the problem statement. Climate change is imagined to have consequences for the Wadden Sea, but how severe the impact will be is still uncertain and speculative. According to CPSL (2001), effects are expected to be seen in several indicators such as a general decrease in biomass input, reduction of mussel beds due to more severe storms, flatfish hatchlings and birds will probably decrease in numbers due to change in flood patterns and salt marshes might possibly drown/erode due to sea level rise and increased wave impact.

Coastal squeeze is a theory related to the latter: As sea level rises, the intertidal flats and salt marsh zones would naturally “migrate” towards land as these become regularly flooded, but due to the presence of dikes such migration is hindered and the coast “is squeezed” (Figure 16). The consequence is drowning of the salt marsh and reduction of the intertidal zone. This theory has lead to ideas of managed realignment – moving or lowering the dikes where possible (DEFRA 2002). Counter theories of coastal squeeze are based on calculations of which

processes dominate the sedimentation speed. With increasing sea levels, the time of tidal inundation and subsequently accumulation is expected to increase. It would mean that the salt marsh vertical accretion might be able to balance an accelerated sea level rise, but at a certain breaking point the salt marshes would start to drown (CPSL 2005). Another suggested solution to overcome the problem of demising salt marshes is regular dropping of sand to help accretion of wetlands. It would not prevent coastal squeeze of the intertidal flats though, which is expected to diminish by up to 15%, or 720 km2, under the 50 cm scenario. Changes in one way or another will without doubt have negative impacts on wildlife. Under the “worst case” scenarios, the Wadden Sea might start to change from an ecosystem characterized by large intertidal areas, towards a more open water environment (CPSL 2001).

The effects on socioeconomic values are for example the need for an increased effort to maintain safety in coastal defence works. Increased storminess is a serious issue for coastal defence works as mentioned above, and securing increased freshwater run-off from the hinterland due to increased precipitation is as important to prevent flooding on the local scale as preventing sea water breaking through the dikes (CPSL 2001). Storminess and an increased salinity via salt water intrusion behind the dikes will additionally lead to damage to crops. Tourism

Figure 1: Global average sea level rise from 1990-2100, (Source: IPCC 2001).


14

is also likely to be affected, for example if the climate change results in a negative impression of the Wadden Sea as an unsafe holiday region or in decreased opportunities for tourist activities such as “mud-walking” (Figure 21).

1.2.6 IntegratedCoastalZoneManagement

ICZM is the acronym for “Integrated Coastal Zone Management”. Integrated management is based on the idea of sustainable development, here applied to the coastal areas. The term ‘sustainable development’ was first adopted by the Agenda 21 program revealed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit) held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. In short, the concept of sustainable development aims to balance social, economic and environmental interests. On the basis of the communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Integrated Coastal Zone Management “A Strategy for Europe” (COM 2002), ICZM can further be defined as:

“[A] dynamic, multidisciplinary and iterative process to promote sustainable management of coastal zones. It covers the full cycle of information collection, planning (in its broadest sense), decision making, management and monitoring of implementation. ICZM uses the informed participation and cooperation of all stakeholders to assess the societal goals in a given coastal area, and to take actions towards meeting these objectives. ICZM seeks, over the long-term, to balance environmental, economic, social, cultural and recreational objectives, all within the limits set by natural dynamics. ‘Integrated’ in ICZM refers to the integration of objectives and also to the integration of the many instruments needed to meet these objectives. It means integration of all relevant policy areas, sectors, and levels of administration. It means integration of the terrestrial and marine components of the target territory, in both time and space.” (EEA glossary on ICZM, February 2006).

Integrated coastal zone management is in practice management that integrates interests in the coastal zone across four kinds of borders: Legislative, horizontal, vertical and temporal (see Figure 2). Borders are found in legislation. Different decision makers administrating different laws in for example spatial planning, environmental protection, maritime regulations

and coastal defence policy fields fragment the coastal zone in inappropriate ways. Management of the salt marshes is one example. The result is a scattering of coastal expertise among the decision makers and an unclear or impractical definition of responsibilities. Horizontal borders are found between sectorial interests. Many different sectorial interests meet in the coastal zone: Tourism, recreation, coastal protection, urban development, energy production, nature protection, shipping, fishing, and so on. They are all sectorial interests with aims to fulfil their own goals. The result is mutually contradicting interests, if not harmful activities and conflicts. Public participation is another horizontal management challenge in this sense. Vertical borders are those between lower and higher levels of administration and temporal borders are those between the present and the future interests. They need to be crossed for long term policies to be successful and for ecosystems and traditional values to be preserved for the future. Integrating long term perspectives such as climate change and sustainability principles is a challenge of present day management.

Realizing problems in the coastal zone, the European Commission carried out the EU Demonstration Programme for ICZM in 1997-99, and the results have provided a good basis for the formulation of the Commission’s ICZM strategy. In 2000, the Commission approved the COM/00/547 of 17 Sept. 2000, and in May 2002 the Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the implementation of ICZM in Europe was finally accepted. The latter is to be implemented by the member states and submission on experiences on the general implementation of ICZM is due in Spring 2006.

1.2.7 TheEUrecommendationonICZM

The ICZM recommendation is formulated on a rather abstract level, leaving it up to lower levels of administration and actors to formulate specific issues of interests, tasks to be undertaken and how to do it. The local level could for example collect information about local conditions; involve local stakeholders and the citizens - enhancing a bottom up approach. The regional level could provide a strategic outlook, co-ordinate local municipalities and counter-balance short-term


1�

interests. The national level could provide legal and statutory framework and promote a national vision, etc.

The Integrated Coastal Zone Management recommendation generally calls for action and cooperation from and among institutions and administrations at all levels and all other actors that influence or participate in the planning or management of the coastal zone. The precise role of the administration and other actors at each level will vary between countries, but a European framework is given in the recommendation and integration is the key word here. There is a list of ICZM principles and approaches in the recommendation. Participation, sustainability and holistic thinking are the summarizing keywords. The precautionary principle and the ecosystem approach are examples. As a document from the European Union to the Member States, the national levels are on an abstract level basically recommended to take into account the sustainable principles and to take a strategic approach when managing their coastal zones. Other actors should be involved at a very early stage so that the formulation of political objectives, the development and maintenance of plans, education and research programs and public participation tools are harmonized.

The member states (the national level) are recommended to develop a national strategy for their coastal zone using the ICZM principles. The first concrete recommended step in the ICZM process is for the member states to conduct or

update an overall stocktaking of interests in the coastal zone; the people to be involved should be defined (Janssen 2004). Definition of the issues of interest, opportunities and problems with participation is another initial step. Other tools of ICZM include a system of impact assessment, indicators and response, to ensure a continuous process.

Since the ICZM process is a recommendation, it is not a binding document for the member states to implement. No sanctions against the member states will be carried out if they do not implement the recommendation and all actions are hence based on a voluntary approach. It is possible the recommendation will become a binding directive in future, but this is not yet certain. It is intended however by the commission that the framework approach outlined in the strategy could also serve as a model for including sustainable development in other parts of the European countryside, not just for the coastal zone (COM 2000).

1.2.8 Publicparticipation

One of the recommendations of ICZM is public participation. Many different ways to organise public participation exist, based on considerations like ‘why, who, when, where and how’. Lauber and Knuth (2000) mention several benefits of public participation, like avoiding worst-case confrontation, better quality, better management climate, increased ease of implementation etc. Managers can hold two views: A pragmatic view (‘we got to do it’) and an idealistic view (‘we will get better decisions’). When it comes to considerations of who to involve, the public can be divided into groups: ‘The general public’, ‘the affected public’, and ‘stakeholders’. The outcome of public participation strongly depends on when it is organised. It can be done at different stages in the decision-making: At the normative stage (what ‘ought’ to be done’), at the strategic stage (what ‘could’ be done) or at the operational stage (what ‘will’ be done). Where to involve the public is mostly a question of convenience, but it can be advantageous in ordinary community settings. Decisions regarding how to involve the public greatly affect the outcome. Arnstein (1969) identified different levels of citizen participation, with increasing power given to the citizens. The highest level is the situation where the citizen is given complete control and responsibility. It is where the group of people, not the management agencies, comes up with

Legislation

Temporal

Horizontal

Vertical

Figure 2: Integrated coastal zone management boundaries. The circles illustrate the three main considerations to integrate in sustainable development: The sociological, economical and environmental considerations.


1�

answers. Instruments of public participation with increasing involvement include for example local newspapers and public notices (information), surveys and interviews (information feedback), open house and workshops (consultation), advisory groups and ‘think tanks’ (extended involvement) and collaboration and problem solving (joint planning). Criteria for judging public involvement are suggested by Lauber and Knuth (2000) as: The amount of information to the public, the adequacy of opportunities for citizens to participate, the level of agency receptivity to citizen input and citizen’s influence over the final decision, and finally the level of acceptance of decision. Lauber and Knuth (2000) more or less take the viewpoint of the agencies and argue that different approaches are suitable in different cases, whereas Arnstein (1969) has more the viewpoint of the liberal citizen: The more power delegated to the citizens, the better.

1.3 General context

1.3.1 Physicalcontext

natural flood protection for more or less all three countries. Very little of the coastal area lies below sea level in Denmark, whereas the areas in the Netherlands and in Schleswig-Holstein have more land below the 0 contour line.

1.3.2 Functionalcontext

Land use history and the pressure for development in the flood-prone area

The most important functions of coastal areas include agriculture, ecology, settlements, harbours, infrastructure and tourism (RIKZ 2004). The main land use in the research areas is agriculture. History has many records of often severe land reclamation projects in the name of agriculture and/or coastal defence.

In the case of the Netherlands, especially large areas of the Wadden Sea were enclosed by dikes to shorten the coastline, and harbours were cut off from the sea. More wetlands were due to be included, but at a certain point it came to a halt. It became less necessary from a coastal defence point of view, and people realised it was not good for the ecology of the Wadden Sea. In Schleswig-Holstein and Denmark, old dikes which used to defend people from the sea were replaced with new dikes as land and salt marshes artificially or naturally accumulated. Ditch construction and draining activities were standard along the whole Wadden sea coastline. Historically, people also constructed small hills, called wafts, on which they built their houses, but it became unnecessary when the front dikes became strong enough. Today, wafts are still in use on the Wadden Sea islands in areas where property is not protected by dikes. In Denmark, the old pattern of villages on the mainland is still apparent: The villages were positioned on the edge between dry land and the marsh, often following a contour line of, for example, five meters. The marsh was then used to feed the livestock and the dry land to grow crops. Later, in the beginning of the 20th Century, dikes became stronger and more development took place, but never much in the marsh due to the risk of severe storms breaking the dikes. This is different from the Netherlands and Schleswig-Holstein, where development and agriculture expanded into the lowlands as soon as the dikes were “safe”.

Figure 3: Flood-prone areas in the Wadden Sea Region (Source: DGUK 2004)

A flood-prone area is land that lies between below sea level and the 5 m contour line (RIKZ 2004). With this definition, a total of 19,000 km2 are flood-prone in the Netherlands, 2,500 km2 in Schleswig-Holstein and 1,500 km2 in Denmark (the coastal strip only). Figure 3 shows the coastal flood-prone areas in the southern North Sea region (dark areas). The Wadden Sea islands, dunes and the salt marshes form


1�

Agriculture is still important for occupying land all along the Wadden sea coast, but it is no longer necessarily the main function from an economic or social point of view. Tourism, recreational and ecological usage have been, and continue to be, developed in all three areas; in the case of Schleswig-Holstein tourism, with its related services, is today the main source of income, as it is for many other parts of the Wadden Sea. In the past 50-60 years, development related to tourism has increased; more campsites, hotels and bathing areas but generally also more residential houses and buildings. Today, development has slowed, due to competition from other areas.

Large areas for summer cottages were established in the 1960s and 70s in Denmark. This trend has come to a halt since the spatial planning zone for summer cottages is today nearly all developed. The harbours in Denmark are currently losing their functions as harbours and are becoming residential areas which generally are allowed to develop, but compared to the Netherlands and Schleswig-Holstein, development in Denmark is still limited. There might be some pressure from the tourism industry in future, especially if the Wadden Sea is designated as a national park – under current evaluation by the national government. In the Netherlands, there is currently pressure for development in form of tourism establishments, but seen on a national scale, Fryslân is still mainly agricultural and the main pressure is near larger coastal towns in the west of the Netherlands.

Almost the entire Wadden Sea in all the countries is designated as EU Habitat and Bird Directive Area. Such regulations restrict development for ecological reasons, but the borders of the protected area do not include much of the dry mainland. The largest proportions of natural protections in flood-prone areas on the mainland are found in Denmark; the smallest in the Netherlands (see also a map of the protection boundaries in the Wadden Sea area, Appendix A1). Grassing of the salt marshes to keep succession down has long been considered necessary to maintain optimal protection. It is still common practice along the Wadden Sea coastline despite the environmental protection regulations which favour natural succession.

1.3.3 Institutionalcontext

Administrative structure in spatial planning

Germany is a federal state with framework legislation. For spatial planning and nature conservation, each of the states has its own legislative structure and administration within the framework of the federal state. There are spatial plans at state level developed by the Ministry of Interior of the state Schleswig-Holstein, and at local levels developed by the municipalities. They outline strategies for development and lower levels have to follow higher levels, but local decision makers have much power via participation in planning at higher levels of administration.

In Denmark, spatial planning is carried out at three levels of administration according to the Planning Act: At the national level the Ministry of Environment is responsible for spatial planning, at the regional level it is the counties (Amt), and at the municipal level it is undertaken by municipal councils. From 2006 there will be a change in the structure of the administrative system in Denmark. The responsibilities of the current regional level will be those of enlarged municipalities. Instead of two regional authorities at the Wadden Sea in Denmark, there will in the future be four municipalities. Responsibilities in spatial planning are strongly decentralized, however higher levels have the power to veto decisions by lower levels of administration based on an overall planning framework. It is currently the regional level that establishes guidelines for urban growth, summer cottage areas and planning in the coastal zone. In future it will be the communities.

In the Netherlands, there are spatial plans on three levels: National, provincial and municipal. Lower levels have to stay within the limits of higher level plans, but the responsibilities are decentralized. The Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment is responsible for implementing the Spatial Planning Act at the national level. The ministry also provides guidelines for municipal and provincial plans for the Wadden Sea in a specific directive (the PKB-Waddenzee directive). The Dutch Wadden Sea (part of three provinces) has a special status as a separate planning area with a special council, the Waddenadviesraad, for horizontal and vertical integration (DGUK 2004). Today the

Introduction – General context

1�

provinces as an intermediate layer of authority are becoming more important, taking over the tasks of the national level. In spatial planning, power is already strongly decentralized.

Responsibility of coastal defence works and policy

In the Netherlands, the Act on Water Defences states certain levels of safety standards have to be maintained. Coastal defence policy is the responsibility of the national level, namely the Ministry for Transport, Public Works and Water Management. Construction, maintenance and management are the responsibilities of water boards supervised by the provincial and national levels. Every five years, the water boards undertake a technical check on defence works and report to the Water Management department in the provinces. The provinces are also responsible for the overall coordination and integration of other areas of policy (Provincial Consultative Body for the Coast). There is a national coordination in coastal defence and the role of the national level is usually very strong. They set the safety standards and they also provide detailed technical guidance.

There is a fear at the national level that the provinces will focus too much on short term gains as responsibility is moved from national level to the provinces. Decentralisation of power in spatial planning is not perceived with the same kind of risk as for the coastal defence policy field.

In Schleswig-Holstein, coastal defence provisions laid down in the State Water Act states that coastal defence is an obligation of the beneficiary and that the state dikes shall be able to withstand all storm floods, an obligation of the state. Coastal defence policy is the responsibility of the Schleswig-Holstein State Ministry of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Areas and they also design, build and maintain the state dikes. Secondary dikes are the responsibility of water boards. Their work is approved and supervised by the state. The national level plays a limited role as a co-financer.

The coastal defence authority work is undertaken according to a master plan developed in 2001 in cooperation with an integrated coastal defence board (BIK) (Generalplan Küstenschutz 2001). The integrated coastal defence board include NGOs,

municipalities, water boards and environmental administration, besides the coastal defence authorities themselves. The master plan lays down the coastal defence principles and safety standards for dikes. It is a self commitment, not a legislatively binding document (Hofstede, J. 2004). The regional level within the ministry is implementing the master plan; for the west coast of Schleswig-Holstein it is the office in Husum.

In Denmark, the Coastal Protection Act empowers the regions (here Ribe Amt) to undertake initiatives; there is no legislative duty to act. When and if requests for coastal defence work come in from citizens or on their own initiative, the regions have the legislative responsibility to investigate the need and measure interest along the coast. They are also responsible for the economic administration. Coastal defence is more a side occupation of the people responsible at regional level. In future (from 2006), their task will be taken over by the municipalities and there is a fear that competences will be lost. The primary policy role is held by the Danish Coastal Authority within the Ministry of Transport and Energy at national level. They play an important role in coastal defence in Denmark by guiding, supervising, co-financing and designing flood defence works besides investigating alternative management solutions based on trends in society.

Coastal land-side zones in coastal defence, spatial planning and environmental legislation

There is regulation in the Netherlands on development near the dikes for flood safety (125 m landward), but otherwise are there no spatial planning regulations along the coast except where nature conversation laws and EU directives restrict development for ecological purposes.

In Schleswig-Holstein, there are restrictions defined by the Nature Conservation Act on development in the first 100 metres inland along the coast, and certain activities require the permission of the nature protection authority. Spatial planning regulations for flood safety are limited to restricting buildings in front of and very close to dikes (20-50 meters). In the coastal defence master plan, a planning area for coastal defence based on elevation is defined as areas below +5 m, but it does not regulate development in practice.

Introduction – General context

1�

The Planning Act for spatial planning in Denmark defines three administrative zones: The rural, urban and summer cottage zones. Also defined in the Planning Act is a specific coastal planning zone within the rural zone, extending three km inland from the low water line. In this strip, development and installations that do not functionally need to be near the coast are restricted; the aim is to keep Denmark’s coastal areas as open as possible for landscape conservation reasons, not for flood protection reasons (Witt, H. 2002). The Nature Protection Act lays down a strict protection of the coastal zone set at 300 meters starting from where vegetation is continuous. Erection of new buildings, fencing, camping places and similar facilities is prohibited, securing public access to all Danish beaches. The three kilometre and 300 metre zones are not valid or shorter in urban and summer cottage areas. All natural coastal habitats of a certain size are protected against change by the Nature Protection Act and/or EU-regulation – the natural habitats of the Wadden Sea hereby included.

Public participation procedure in legislation

In Denmark, the Coastal Defence Act ensures that the Amt organise a meeting with landowners that are affected by coastal defence works before a decision is made, but nobody else is required to be asked. Complaints by those who are presumed to have a major interest in the case are possible. The Spatial Planning Act, however, lays down procedures for public information and hearings. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures implemented in the Planning Act ensure that the public is informed when a plan to construct coastal defence works is under way. Public participation procedures give the public the possibility to express their opinions during requests for comments and hearing periods. The responsible authority for EIAs for coastal defence constructions on the sea-side is the Danish Coastal Authority.

In Schleswig-Holstein, public participation can be found in Plan Approval Procedures (Planfeststellungsverfahren) according to the Federal Administrative Procedures Act. It is required for any major projects or plans. The basic steps include submission of plan, requests for comments, hearing periods and public consultation meetings, where submitted objections will be discussed. Anybody concerned about the proposed project can raise objections

against the plan (Ministry of the Interior, 2003). Similar procedures can be found in regulations pertaining to EIAs.

In the Netherlands, there are extensive public participation procedures related to building and spatial planning processes (RIKZ 2004). The procedure of the draft plan preparation is laid down in the General Administrative Law Act, which among other things ensures access to information. Drafts of plans shall furthermore be open for public inspection, and views regarding the draft may be expressed by any person. Request for comments from advisory councils is compulsory. An appeal against the decision made by the government may be brought by any person (Spatial Planning Act, Part II and III). Decisions on major plans and projects have to follow this or a similar procedure. The provinces are responsible for carrying out EIAs when required.

1.4 Hazard coping theory and conceptual framework

The General Hazard Coping theory developed by Burton, Kates and White (1978) describes how societies, communities or individuals respond to threats posed by natural hazards in a rational, ordered way, increasing their response as the hazard warrants and as their resources (social and economic) permit. The type of natural hazards relevant for defence in the coastal zone is first of all flooding. Though the theory covers hazards as a general phenomenon, flooding is the hazard of main relevance of this research and the theory is applied with a terminology that is adequate for flood-mitigating behaviour. See also the conceptual framework, Figure 5.

A natural hazard is an interaction of man and nature, governed by the coexistent state of adjustment in the human use system and the state of nature in the natural system (Kates 1971). In other words, flooding is a hazard when the sea and human land use of the coastal zone interact. The severity of impact caused by flooding is governed by adjustments such as a seawall and by the strengths and frequencies of storms. See also a description of other possible types of adjustment in the system below. Flooding becomes harmful when the natural system exceeds the adjustments incorporated into the system.

Introduction – Hazard coping theory and conceptual framework

20

When societies are victim to natural hazard events, their response can be grouped into two types according to the Burton, Kates and White adaptation model (1978): Adaptation (biological and cultural) and adjustments (incidental and purposeful). Purposeful adjustments, whose intentions are to mitigate the effects of a hazard, are believed to be the most appropriate types of response to describe flood victim behaviour (Laska 1990). These purposive adjustments fall into three major areas of activity, each divided into two categories (see Figure 4).

The first level of activity is acceptance. A society can choose to merely accept the effects of flooding or share the costs, through disaster aid for example. The second level of activity is trying to reduce the impact. A society can try to modify the natural hazard event with technical solutions (by intervening in the natural system), e.g. by building sea walls, or they can try reducing the hazard’s effect by building disaster-proof buildings or through a warning system for example (intervening in the human system). The third level requires considerable effort, cost and social upheaval, leading to their unpopularity. It deals with change of land use or location. It can be done for example by changing the land use from residential to recreational or simply by moving from the area – giving land to the sea.

Movement from one type of response to another happens in an ordered way. Movement to the first level involves an awareness threshold; the society has to be aware of a flood threat before any action can be taken to mitigate potential impacts. The second level involves an action threshold: The

Change location

Change land use

Preventing effects

Modifying events

Loss sharing

Bearing loss

3. Change

2. Reduction

1. Acceptance

Intolerance Threshold

Action Threshold

Awareness Threshold

Purposeful adjustments

Figure 4: Purposeful adjustments and increasing response to hazard impact according to the natural hazard coping theory. Based on Burton, Kates and White (1978).

society is convinced something must be done to reduce the impact. The third level involves an intolerance threshold; the society realizes more complex solutions are needed.

The action requiring the least effort is expected to be undertaken as a solution to the initial incident before the next level of action is prompted by an action threshold. According to the theory, there are several threshold factors that can prompt action: Recency and severity of the hazard, wealth of society and intensive human use of the area are some examples. The response increases as the hazard develops and as far as social and economic resources of society permits.

The combination of natural and societal factors is illustrated as a “context filter” in the conceptual framework of this study. The context filter includes policy steps influenced by physical setting and social and economic resources (see Figure 6). It starts with perceptions of hazard threat but follows a general policy procedure: Developing strategy, implementation of strategy, and monitoring and evaluation of strategy. The general context is ordered according to the COMRISK project methodology (RIKZ 2004): Physical (e.g. size of flood-prone area), functional (e.g. land use), sociological (e.g. perceptions, values, beliefs) and institutional (e.g. administrative structure, public participation procedures). The general context does not contain a complete set of possible influencing factors, as these are too numerous and too complex to be included in this study (see the ‘Analytic coding scheme’ Appendix A2 for all aspects of focus). In the conceptual framework, decision makers’ perceptions of hazard impact are expected to be influenced not only by evaluation of previous defence strategy, but also by the mixture of factors within the general context. The higher the perceived hazard occurrence and severity of impact are, the stronger the trigger towards action. Development and implementation of a strategy are also expected to be influenced by factors within the general context and thus modify the final strategy. Level of sector integration, communication networks, and public participation are examples of such aspects. Finally, monitoring and evaluation of the strategy is the link to the perception of hazard impact. This step is not considered in this study, but is also influenced by factors within the general context, for example through tradition and economic capacity.


21

Natural System Interact Human System

Hazard Impact

ClimateChange

Perceptions

Developing strategy

Implementation of strategy

Evaluation of strategy

Context �lter

Society action,policy making

Strategy solution- Adjustment

types

Figure 5: Conceptual framework.

1.4.1 Theconceptualframework

Perceptions of hazard impact

Developing strategy

Implementationof strategy

Monitoring and Evaluation of strategy

ICZM

InstitutionalSociologicalFunctionalPhysical

General context:

Figure 6: Context filter - part of the conceptual framework. The ICZM approach can be applied to monitoring and evaluation of the strategy as well, but the step is not considered by this study.


22

1.5 Research questions

The research questions are derived from the two main objectives of this study (Section 1.1) and the conceptual framework (Section 1.4.1). The purpose of the research questions is to state more specifically what this thesis investigates. They are formulated as follows:

• What are the current coastal defence solutions and adjustment types focused on?

• Why is that strategy chosen? • What is the future solution going to be? • What are the main difficulties in

implementing the strategy?• How are the difficulties solved at the

moment?• Has existing cooperation modified the

strategy into a better solution or helped implementation?

• Is ICZM perceived to be an adequate tool to modify the strategy to a better solution or to help implementation?

A fundamental starting point for analysis of the current strategy for flood defence in the Wadden Sea countries under emergent threats posed by climate change is to know what the current strategy for flood defence actually is. When formulating the research questions, the answer to this key question, including where the focus lies within possible adjustment types according to the general hazard coping theory, was not clear and hence it was set as the very first research question. A logical question in order to analyse the flood strategy is next, to search for a reason for the choice of adjustment types. This research question emphasizes the need for the investigation of the general context as well. The future strategy is another key question to investigate. It follows from the predicted acceleration in climate change in the future, as mentioned in the problem statement. Policy makers are hence challenged to rethink the defence strategy. The second main theme of the thesis is the integrated coastal zone management concept with focus on the EU recommendation. To investigate how the strategy is developed and implemented as well as the difficulties experienced by the decision makers in the process is therefore not only of interest in the analysis of the strategy itself, but also of significant interest when analysing the ICZM concept. The final question about how the ICZM tool is perceived

by the decision makers was formulated to make the investigation more specific. It is interesting because the EU recommendation of ICZM has to be implemented by people working in the field and the strengths and weaknesses of ICZM perceived by the decision makers is expected to be of major importance for its success.

Introduction – Research questions

23

2 Methodology2.1.1 InformationsourcesIn order to obtain the necessary data, a combination of field and literature research was carried out. The field research involved interviews with decision makers. The literature research involved studies and analyses of previously research, relevant documents and legislation.

2.1.2 Theareacovered

The geographic boundaries of the research areas are Ribe Amt in Denmark, Nordfriesland in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany, and the Fryslân province in the Netherlands. These three areas were chosen for the research due to their similar physical features of the Wadden Sea coastline and their similar exposure to climate change. The policy makers are more or less faced with the same natural conditions, although the anthropological differences vary within the area. Differences in the human systems (e.g. institutional system, historical background and sociological context among others) are expected to result in different defence strategy solutions.

2.1.3 Whomtointerview

In the field research, decision makers responsible for coastal zone management in two policy fields were interviewed: The first policy field is the one responsible for protecting and securing the coastal shore against erosion and flooding. The second policy field deals with town and country planning and land use of the coastal zone. While many more policy fields are involved in coastal zone management and would be influenced by flooding, such as nature protection and tourism development, the two fields of focus was chosen due to their responsibilities in developing coastal defence planning and general spatial

planning. The decision makers of these fields are challenged to think of possible solutions to mitigate potential impacts of climate change, which in turn would greatly influence other policy fields. A more detailed description of how the responsibilities for coastal defences and spatial planning are distributed within each of the three countries is given in Section 1.3.3.

For each of the two policy fields, decision makers at two different levels were interviewed: At the state/national level, and at the regional level. The national level was chosen because it is responsible for overall guidelines, instructions and/or binding directives to guide lower levels of administration. The degree of power and responsibility differs between the countries, but decision makers at the national level all hold a broad perspective in integrated coastal defence management. At the regional level, decision makers also hold a broad perspective while at the same time working more directly with the implementation of the strategy. Water boards and community administration were not interviewed. From their perspective, the challenges of climate change are expected to be of an indirect character, and so these groups were not a priority for interview. Table 1 shows an overview of the interviews. A list of participating institutions, and time and place for interviews can be seen in Appendix A3 , but the interviewed decision makers are kept anonymous because permission to publish their comments by quoting (used to support the findings) was not explicit asked for. The regional level of spatial planning in the Netherlands was not represented because the policy makers from the province decided one representative (coastal defence) would be enough. See also discussion of methodology (Section 4.1).

Table 1: Interviews labelled with a representative code. D, G and N denotes the country (Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands); N and R denote the administrative level (National (state level) and Regional); C and S denote the policy field (Coastal defence and Spatial planning).

Denmark Germany NetherlandsPolicy field National Regional State Regional National RegionalSpatial planing

DNS DRS GNS GRS NNSNot

representedCoastal defence

DNC DRC GNC GRC NNC NRC

Methodology

24

2.1.4 Interviewtechniqueandguidelines

Semi-structured interviews (Partington 2001) were adopted as the interview technique, which enables the interviewer to gain explanations and information on material that is not directly accessible: Perceptions, attitudes and values; matters which are difficult to obtain by alternative methods. The semi-structured interview allows the interviewer to ask ad hoc questions during the interview, but discussion is focused on certain topics in order to control the process of obtaining information from the interviewee. The interview was thus structured beforehand in three topics, with main questions each supported by sub-questions. The three topics were: The flood protection strategy with consideration of climate change, the developing and implementation of strategy, and Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM).

Two different guidelines were created: One for interviewing coastal defence decision makers and another for spatial planning decision makers. The topics were similar; only formulation differed, making the questions more relevant for the respective policy fields. The main questions were supported by sub-questions, which ensured that the topics were explained further in case the interviewee did not answer in detail under his own initiative. See ‘Interview guidelines’ (Appendix A4).

The main purpose of Question 1 (for the spatial planning policy field it is Question 2) was to collect information on what kinds of defence solutions are focused on by the interviewee. The sub-question 1c examined if natural areas were considered endangered by the interviewees, relevant to the theory of coastal squeeze (see also Section 1.2.5). Question 2 (1) was to collect information on the general context. This information is well described in literature, but was asked to get an idea of what the interviewees focus on or consider the most important to explain the reason for the current strategy. For spatial planning decision makers, these questions were explicitly asked in the context of a change in land use, in order to connect the relevance for spatial planning in a strategy to mitigate impacts from flooding. Questions 3 and 4 were asked to gain information about the impact of climate change and consideration of the future strategy. The next major topic was developing and implementation approaches. In this topic, focus was on current

implementation experiences (Question 5) and evaluation of cooperation (Question 6). The final topic about integrated coastal zone management (Questions 7 and 8) focused on the knowledge, experiences and evaluation of the EU recommendation on ICZM. See also the ‘Analytic coding scheme’ (Appendix A2) for an overview of the rationale behind the interview questions.

Some of the interviewees requested the interview questions in advance, so to ensure similar conditions for all the interviews, the guidelines were send out to everybody.

Before beginning the interview, the interviewee was informed about the research topic, the research area, who else participated in the interviews, and why they were interviewed. A map of habitats in the Wadden Sea area was used as reference point (see Appendix A1). In nearly all cases it was stressed that there were no right or wrong answers.

2.1.5 Recordingandtranscription

The interviews were recorded with digital recorder and/or on audiotapes. The interview was then transcribed, creating a text to work with. The method of transcription excluded non verbal aspects and off topic discussions. For interviews with the Danish decision makers, the interview was first transcribed, analysed and then translated into English; all other interviews were conducted in English from the beginning.

2.1.6 Qualitativeanalysisandevaluation

Qualitative analysis defined by Miles & Huberman (1994) consists of three concurrent flows of activity: Data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing/verification.

The first step of analysing the text (data reduction) involved developing an analytic coding scheme (see Appendix A2) based on the research questions (Section 1.5) and the conceptual framework (Section 1.4). The transcripts were reduced by excluding remaining ‘off topic’ discussions and the text was coded, summarized and packed. The text was clustered in predetermined categories (the topics) following the analytic coding scheme. Relevant text found in literature research studies followed the same coding scheme. In the next step (display), the findings from interviews and literature research

Methodology

2�

as well as other relevant observations were analysed and the result of this went into display. In the section of the current coastal defence strategy, the data display included a part with summarised text of what the interviewees said as well as the analysed findings. There can likewise be found a summarized text of what the interviewees guess for the future in the section regarding the future strategy.

For conclusion drawing/verification, the displayed data were integrated into one explanatory framework and related to the research questions. For verification of the results they were compared with original transcripts to ensure meanings were not drawn from context. Quotes from the interviewees were added during the process to support the findings.

Methodology

2�

3 Results3.1 General context

3.1.1 Institutionalcontext

Integration of spatial planning in coastal defence

Integration of spatial planning and coastal defence is still in its infancy in all countries. Most interviewees believe spatial planning will be more integrated in coastal defence in future, especially if dangerous situations develop with climate change (see also Section 4.2.2), but today the approach is still very much based on sectorial thinking.

In Schleswig-Holstein, coastal defence is not a topic in spatial planning. In the next regional plan it will be a point though. Whenever the spatial planning department updates a plan, there is a procedure for getting agreements among the ministries and include goals across plans. This is the main formal opportunity for coastal defence and spatial planning to consider mutual interests, but spatial planning is oddly enough not represented in the integrated coastal defence board (see also Section 1.3.3). The coastal defence interviewees evaluate the cooperation to work well, but from a spatial planning point of view, communication with coastal defence decision makers does not happen as often as with other policy fields. Coastal defence on the regional level is evaluated as a policy field with a very strong position and they are not so easy to discuss with, but it is getting easier due to the introduction of integrated thinking though. The interviewee representing spatial planning at the regional level says: “Cooperation with coastal defence is not always so easy, because the coastal defence has its own very strong position. My position is more between many aims. Coastal defence do their job, but they often forget there are also other aims in this area. […] It changes; 10 years ago it was much more difficult.”

In Denmark, a new regional plan has to be approved by the coastal defence policy makers as well. They check if development close to the coast will have any effect on safety. Recommendations are also given from coastal defence to spatial planning on how they should plan development; it is working well, though there are examples of

development which could only just be accepted from a coastal defence point of view. From a spatial planning point of view, coastal defence decision makers cooperate when there is an issue, but sectorial thinking is still strong. The interviewee representing spatial planning at the national level says: “We have competences on land; they have competences on the sea. The traffic ministry is not very open to modify on competences in relation to integrating planning between sea and land. Maybe with flooding it is possible, I do not know, but right now it is not.” When the interviewees from spatial planning compare cooperation with those of other policy fields, coastal defence decision makers are generally less integrated. The interviewee representing spatial planning at the regional level says: “The department for [coastal defence] are more on their own. Cooperation with them is more formal. They generally come with input from the side.”

In the Netherlands, spatial planning at national and regional level today plays an important role around the dikes, but not any further. In practice, the spatial planning policy field is represented in coastal defence solutions via the Provincial Consultative Body for the Coast, and every spatial plan has to pass through a water consequence check by the water management department. At the national level, working groups and formal meetings between four different departments, including ministry for spatial planning and ministry for water management, ensure exchange of information and opinions. Cooperation is considered to be very good on both sides, but with different approaches.

The interviewee representing the spatial planning ministry states that spatial planning policy makers to a higher degree aims for an integral approach than the coastal defence policy makers and sometimes it leads to conflicts, but generally cooperation is very good.

Results – General context

2�

3.1.2 Sociologicalcontext

Values, beliefs, attitudes and the perception of the flood risk

All Dutch interviewees mentioned the 1953 storm flood disaster (see Section 1.2.3) as a major turning point in coastal defence strategies. In Denmark, the catastrophes of 1953 and 1963 are also still in the awareness of the coastal defence interviewees. Flood awareness in Germany is likewise an issue. A lack of awareness of the flood risk among the public it is a concern expressed by the German interviewees, and this is supported by research studies (Hofstede, J., et al 2005). Especially young people and “newcomers” to a flood-prone area overlook the risk.

Recent flooding abroad, like the New Orleans flood in the USA, river floods in Europe and the tsunami in Asia, also affects the mind of people. The Dutch interviewees in particular mentioned catastrophes abroad without being asked about them, but they also state conditions are different in the Netherlands. They seem to have no motivation to change the current strategy because of the catastrophes. What it might do, according to the interviewees, is to increase awareness in the public and generate more political support for coastal defence. Feeling safe is generally of great importance in the Netherlands. The public on the mainland in the Netherlands has much confidence in the government though; they do not worry about flooding and are used to the government keeping them safe. Inhabitants of the Wadden Sea islands are more aware of the flood risk and they are also more resistant to changing practices in coastal defence.

In Denmark, overspill of a dike is not considered a problem by any of the interviewees in contrast to the Dutch attitude, except for example if the ground cannot be used for agriculture for several years afterwards. High water situations, occasional breakthrough of dikes, and the flood events abroad are the main reminding factors to influence the risk perception. Spatial planning interviewees at both levels see the danger of flooding as quite limited: It is a general belief that current legislation for natural protection restricts development in flood-prone areas as well. The aesthetic quality of the landscape in Denmark is very important and there is generally great emphasis on recreation values. People today enjoy nature and a trip to the coast is

one of the most important tourist attractions in Denmark. Public access, even to dunes, is hence of major importance. The interests of nature and environment are also valued highly. In the 2005 strategy paper of the Danish Coastal Authority, it is stressed that these interests should be given special attention when compared to the need for coastal protection and other sociological functions (KDI 2005).

On the west coast in Schleswig-Holstein, the traditional perception of coastal defence as necessary when living close to the sea is still strong and so the people do not complain much when dikes are maintained or strengthened. A change in attitude, mentioned by the German interviewees though, is that when dikes needed to be strengthened in the 1950s and 60s, it was just done. But since the 1970s, people have wanted to be involved and they want to know where their tax money is spent. With the rise of the environmental movement in the 1980s, ecological considerations also had to be taken into account.

Perception of climate change and coastal squeeze

In Denmark, the scenarios of climate change are not perceived as so threatening, either by the coastal defence interviewees or by the spatial planning interviewees. They keep an eye on the official IPCC scenarios and best guesses are being made about the possible impact, but the concerns of the interviewees are not yet so great. From a national spatial planning point of view, climate change is barely perceived as important for flood safety; other issues in this context are more important. The interviewee representing spatial planning at the national level in Denmark says: “If you ask 99 out of 100 people occupied in spatial planning they would think climate change is of great concern, or from of ordinary concern to of great concern. There are very few that would say we should just act according to Lomborg1. Of course the Danish policy is serious in this field, but

1 Note: Bjørn Lomborg is a Danish political scientist. He is author of the controversial book ‘The Sceptical Environmentalist’ (2001), wherein he states that many environmental concerns, including climate change, are not so threatening after all. In addition, Lomborg criticizes the way many environmental organizations make selective and misleading use of scientific data to influence decisions about the allocation of resources. He himself has been criticized for scientific dishonesty.


2�

that is not the same as it already now has some consequences for the national politics in spatial planning for example.”

Spatial planning interviewees in Schleswig-Holstein are not sure of how good the current defence strategy is to meet a change in climate, but generally they think that it is not a problem at present. The general perception is that future generations will probably find a solution. If widespread floods become a reality it would not only be an issue for specialised people like coastal defence decision makers, but for the whole of society, including the spatial planning policy field.

From a coastal defence perspective, the severity of climate change is not really expressed. However the interviewees think the current strategy of strengthening the dikes is able to withstand climate change at least some decades ahead (see also the next section). The interviewee representing the coastal defence division at the regional level says: “We argue that what is laid down in this master plan is foundation for our work. Maybe other people have other opinions. I do not know what is right, or what is wrong. I think that what we do and the safety we build in our dikes is OK. What it will be in 100 years or in 50 years I do not know.”

In the Netherlands, the risk perception of the coastal defence policy makers changed recently from “we are OK and safe” to “we have to make more effort”. This was a result of new scientific insight, but otherwise, at least within short term thinking, the Netherlands is considered to be a very flood proof country. In the (very) long term the sustainability of the Netherlands is a more serious topic. The interviewee representing the Ministry for Transport, Public Works and Water Management states: “The Netherlands itself is not sustainable. It will ultimately flood, will drown. Sea level rise continues, it could be 100 years, it could be 500 years, it could be 1000 years. If you look at the Netherlands in the long run it is not sustainable. It could be very far away so why worry about it now? It does not mean we have to move, we can stay here for a while.”

From a spatial planning point of view, climate change is perceived as a challenge, perhaps not a very urgent one, but important enough to foster creative thinking. The interviewee representing spatial planning at the national level says: “In

the project I did at the national institute of spatial research, we developed some ideas of how you could handle a change in climate.” Some visions of the more extreme kind included construction of new islands and floating airports.

The concern for diminishing salt marshes due to climate change is naturally closely related to the perceived severity of climate change. If the interviewee expressed a concern for drowning by the Wadden Sea habitats in the future, it was generally not a problem yet. Many had not heard of the coastal squeeze theory at all and usually only coastal defence interviewees found it of relevance to their work, if not from the perspective of protecting ecological values than from the perspective of using the salt marshes as having a wave energy diminishing function in coastal defence. Section 3.2.3 deals with the topic in more detail.

3.2 The current flood defence solution

3.2.1 Whatisthecurrentdefencesolution?The results of the current defence solution are based on the general hazard coping theory (see Section 1.4). After a description of the general findings, the findings on adjustments types chosen and where the focus lies for each country are described. At the end of the chapter, the impact of climate change on the strategy for each country is presented as well.

The societies of the Netherlands and Schleswig-Holstein are found to be on the second level of the hazard coping. By far the most important adjustment type focused on by both countries is the reduction of hazard impact by intervening in the natural system with sea barriers (dikes or sand nourishments). Denmark is also found to be on the second level of the hazard coping theory. Here the strategy is also making active efforts to reduce the impact, but the strategy includes a wide variety of flood defence measures. The focus includes an incidental adjustment type as well: Recreational land use of flood-prone areas. The society of Denmark seems, compared to the ones in Schleswig-Holstein and the Netherlands, to be on a lower level of the general hazard coping theory when it comes to action thresholds, but is socially competent and equally rich enough to allow and implement a wide variety of measures. See also Section 4.2 for discussion.


2�

The countries all have in common the fact that they work with safety standards of the dikes. The main differences lie in the safety levels and how they calculate them. Managers in the Netherlands and in Denmark include economic optimisation, whereas managers in Schleswig-Holstein maintain one safety standard only. For the Wadden Sea coast, though, it is worth mentioning that the Netherlands also only have one safety standard. Schleswig-Holstein has priorities of which dikes to strengthen first, based on the values they protect. This approach suggests a sort of economical optimisation. Different temporal perspectives in the strategies of the three countries have impacts on to what extent climate change is allowed to affect the strategy. Policy makers in Schleswig-Holstein and the Netherlands already (or have plans to) invest money in strengthening the dikes because of climate change, whereas policy makers in Denmark prefer to wait. See also Section 3.4, for further analysis of how the countries deal with the uncertainty of climate change.

Reducing consequences of floods by interfering in the human system is not ignored, but is not as developed as adjustment types to interfere in the natural system. Denmark was the only country found to have a strategy that works with a contour line in the landscape to regulate development specifically to reduce flood consequences. Decision makers in Schleswig-Holstein do not focus on regulating development, but plan to increase public awareness of coastal defence issues. In the Netherlands, decision makers plan to do studies on the issue of flood consequences, which unavoidably would include measures that interfere in the human system. All countries have ecological regulations that more or less “accidentally” aid reduction of flood consequence.

3.2.2 Thecountriesandtheirstrategies

The Netherlands today focuses on reducing the flood impact with dikes of very high safety standards. The Netherlands is, like the other Wadden sea countries, on the second level of the general hazard coping theory, but is taking the topic of flood safety somewhat more seriously and making great efforts in keeping the Netherlands totally dry. The Fryslân province, together with the Groningen province, is closed in a ring with one safety standard requirement which is stated in law. The breakthrough probability of the dikes

is as high as once in 2000 years; in other areas they are 1 in 4000 and 1 in 10,000 years. These legislative safety standards are based on economical values and property present in the circle and the highest requirement is found for dikes which protect major cities. Old polder dikes are present in Fryslân, adding to the strategy by reducing consequences, but the focus is not so much on these. Regulation of development for flood safety happens near the dikes only. There exists a planning zone which controls constructions, but permits are sometimes given to temporary demountable structures in front of dikes and where development is not considered to endanger safety. Environmental regulations control constructions in ecologically sensible areas, adding to the safety of coastal defence. Change of land use and/or managed realignment is not done much at all today. The acceptance of flood impact is very low. Sharing costs through a compensation system is for example something which insurance companies do not willingly engage themselves in, and certainly not if the property is not protected by a dike. As the interviewee representing coastal defence in Fryslân province says: “Insurance is hard, we spoke about it recently, about buildings which are not landward of the dikes. Insurance companies won’t burn their fingers on that. Now they say ‘being safe from the flood’ is for the government, and we are not going to interfere with that. They will probably give you some money if the sewage breaks and you get water in the house, but not if the dike breaks”. Safety standards for property in front of the dike, as a governmental obligation to maintain, are not yet in legislation, but are forthcoming. Finally, a warning system is present. Water boards are informed about high water levels and if necessary local authorities are informed and evacuation is carried out, but again this defence measure is not one that the Dutch focus on.

The current strategy of Schleswig-Holstein is to hold the existing defence line either by maintaining the dikes and/or by sand nourishment. Focus is on the one safety standard for state dikes, based on historic extremes combined with a 200 year breakthrough probability. A second dike line is also in focus and maintained, so if a state dike breaks, only one section is flooded. A warning, evacuation and repairing system is operating in case of high storm tides. Behind the dikes there is no regulation regarding settlements, but there is a policy of avoiding development within 100

Results – The current flood defence solution

30

m of a coastline; in addition, development that endangers the dikes is not allowed. Change of land use and/or managed realignment is not done much at all. In the new spatial regional plans there is a map of flood-prone areas, where the interest of coastal defence should be duly considered when developing the area. In practice, this means increased awareness, but it does not mean regulation of development. Environmental regulations in Schleswig-Holstein control constructions in ecologically sensitive areas as in the Netherlands, adding to the safety of coastal defence. Land reclamations were undertaken in the beginning of the 1980s for coastal defence purposes; these areas are today under ecological protection as a form of compensation. On the islands of Sylt, sand nourishments are done onshore to create a broader beach, to try to meet the interests of tourism.

Denmark has dikes along the Wadden Sea, but with different safety standards. The minimum standard is a breakthrough probability of 50 years. Coastal protection from flood impact in Denmark is mainly based on an evacuation system, except for the towns which have a higher dike safety standard of 200 years. The dikes along the whole Wadden Sea coast protect the citizens behind, but in winter seawater can and does overspill over now and then in the rural areas. There is some acceptance of flood impact and compensation is possible if the storm is classified as “severe”. In more extreme situations, people are evacuated. There is one example of letting nature take complete control in the northern part of the Wadden Sea coast (Skallingen). This area is a dune and salt marsh system without dikes or other forms of technical measures. Public access to part of this area is allowed. Strengthening of a dike protecting smaller villages is being finished at the moment near Ballum and Rejsby (Figure 14). The strengthening is not done because of climate change projections, but because the dike was destroyed during a storm in 1999. In Denmark there is also a focus on hidden coastal defence, which means natural materials is preferred above concrete, as well as sand nourishment which is placed offshore instead of onshore. Regulation of development exists in many forms in Denmark: Perhaps the most important legislation is the three kilometre spatial planning zone which controls development for coastal areas. Building houses with a minimum plinth height is part of the flood defence strategy. An agreement

between people from the spatial planning and the coastal defence policy in the late 1980s prevents development in the marsh around Ribe. Permission is only given if constructions are built above the 4.5 m contour line (Ribe Amt 2003). In practice, it means very limited development since the marsh itself lies between 0 and +2 m. Development restriction also depends on environmental protection provisions and whether buildings endanger the flood safety. There is one example of a conferences centre being prohibited behind the dike because it would complicate a potential evacuation procedure (Figure 11), but otherwise depreciation time is important in the Danish strategy. Permission can be given for development in areas that might be affected by climate change in the future. Land reclamation was done in Denmark as well in the beginning of the 1980s for coastal defence purposes, but today much attention generally seems to be given to ecological values when coastal defence projects are carried out.

3.2.3 Theimpactofclimatechangeandthecoastalsqueezetheoryonthecurrentstrategy

The Wadden Sea countries are dealing with the issue of climate change in different ways.

In Denmark, climate change is incorporated in the current strengthening of a dike with an extra height of 50 centimetres, but the coastal defence decision makers do not want to invest money in re-strengthening other dikes at the moment. The interviewee from the Danish Coastal Authority explains: “The current protection is good enough for many years to come. That will not be a problem, so big is climate change not going to be anyway. We have lots of time and we do not see a reason to rush out like our neighbours in the south and spend a lot of money to rise against something that might not come. We would rather invest our money elsewhere.” The spatial planning decision makers have not acted on climate change scenarios in the context of flood safety.

In the Netherlands, climate change is kept in mind when planning for how to strengthen dikes in the future. They prefer using flexible sand supplements (strengthening the defence little by little), but do implement a planning zone at the coast for future strengthening of the dikes (with hard engineering methods). It is a zone which extends 125 meters landward and 175 meters seaward of the dike. The planning zone is based

Results – The current flood defence solution

31

on a 200 year vision and they calculate a sea level rise of 85 cm per century and a 10% increase in wind speed. Spatial planning is involved in plans around the dikes and they also take climate change into consideration on a visionary level, as mentioned in Section 3.1.2).

In Schleswig-Holstein, the coastal defence master plan assumes a sea level rise of about 60 centimetres over the next 100 years, and this means that about 50 centimetres is added to the dike profile after the technical calculations. Every 10-15 years there is a check on the safety standards of the dikes in order to keep up with climate change. Spatial planning decision makers do not currently think about solutions to climate change.

Salt marshes in the Wadden Sea are generally maintained in all countries for the purpose of coastal defence and protection of ecological values, but the theory of coastal squeeze has not been found to have any effect on the current strategy in any of the countries. What is being done is a monitoring of the potential problem: The coastal defence decision makers in the Netherlands think the sea level rise is going sufficiently slowly for the Wadden Sea to grow up with the level of rise (see also Section 1.2.5). As mentioned by the interviewee for coastal defence at the national level, the scientists also here disagree among each other, and even if something like coastal squeeze does happen, the national level might not be able to do anything about it. The interviewee says: “Unless you have seals which are dying in the Wadden Sea, the theory of coastal squeeze is not going to be a problem to a point where it would influence national policies.” At the regional level, the interviewee representing the water management department had not heard of the term coastal squeeze, but thinks it will be a problem; the Wadden Sea will eventually drown. It is not going to happen until a long time in the future though, and the interviewee also suggests that ongoing artificial sand nourishment, which is meant to keep the 1999 coastline in place, will help the marshes to grow up with the sea level rise.

At the state level in Schleswig-Holstein, coastal squeeze of tidal flats is not perceived as a major problem because the Wadden Sea is so broad. Spatial planning decision makers did not really have any comment on the topic since the salt marshes is more a topic of another ministry, but

there is a general understanding of salt marshes as very sensitive areas. On the regional level in coastal defence, the fate of the salt marshes is expressed with more uncertainty, but again sediment transport is referred to as the critical point: As long there is enough sediment, the salt marshes will remain in place. The main problem of lost foreland is from a coastal protection point of view not critical; the interviewee representing coastal defence at the regional level says: “I know what you mean, you mean if it is necessary to keep foreland in shape in the future? Not from the coastal protection side. Maybe from the environmental side. Where we have foreland we use it for our coastal protection problems, but mostly they are just for nature. If foreland is disturbed when we build, we chose other technical solutions, like stone.”

Coastal squeeze and the general movement of the salt marshes is monitored in Denmark. Decision makers follow the development, but cannot yet say if it will be a problem. Spatial planning interviewees had not heard about coastal squeeze at all. It is not something that is discussed or will be discussed in future unless the political system reacts to it.

3.3 Cooperation

3.3.1 Hasexistingcooperationmodifiedthestrategyintoabettersolutionorhelpedimplementation?

Cooperation across horizontal and vertical borders has been analysed. In the interviews, the decision makers were asked to evaluate existing cooperation and the influence. The results are mainly based on these answers. In literature dealing with administrative cooperation or cooperation via ICZM (where present), similar results were found.

Whether a better or worse solution has been reached through cooperation varied depending on the interviewee asked, but generally the interviewees think cooperation is of great value, and even if a better solution was not reached, then a greater insight was gained. In this context, one interviewee spoke for example of a win-win approach instead of win-win solutions. Overall, in particular the type of cooperation laid down in legislation seems to work well and this is the backbone of a well functioning strategy.

Results – Cooperation

32

Cooperation across national borders and with the public is a bit behind, as is cooperation with spatial planning policy makers, but, according to the interviewees, where agreements were reached it generally resulted in better solutions.

3.3.2 Verticalcooperation

Influence of the two administrative levels

The cooperation between the two administrative levels is working well according to all interviewees. They influence each other according to the provisions laid down in legislation.

In Denmark, the national levels in coastal defence influence the defence strategy at the regional level by providing guidance and recommendations, but the different levels very seldom disagree about the purpose of coastal defence. In spatial planning, the coastal defence authority may veto a regional decision regarding development, and the storm flood emergency service is also a result of cooperation between the two administrative levels (among others). The administrative levels in Schleswig-Holstein work closely together, with the same goals to implement. Cooperation between the two does not modify the strategy much as they are in fact under the same ministry. In the Netherlands, vertical cooperation is important for the strategy when it comes to integrating a wide temporal perspective. A strong obligation of the national level for flood defence since 1953 has resulted in the current strategy, which takes very long-term considerations into account compared to former strategies.

Influence of the political level

Cooperation with the political level does influence the strategy a great deal, because it is the way the system works in all countries. The political level basically decides how much money is allocated to coastal defence and hence the limits of coastal defence works. In cooperation with the coastal defence policy makers, which provide knowledge and recommendations on the subject, the politicians also influence which instruments to be used. They modify the strategy according to their own interests, and often think about the next election. The German coastal defence interviewees in particular fear a lack of political support for coastal defence in the future (se also Section 3.1.2).

3.3.3 Horizontalcooperation

Influence of coastal defence and spatial planning

Influence between the two policy fields of spatial planning and coastal defence is mostly one way in all the countries: From the coastal defence policy field to the spatial planning policy field. However, the representatives of spatial planning authorities try to influence the coastal defence policy with integrated thinking. Cooperation with the coastal defence policy field is a bit behind at the moment from the viewpoint of spatial planning representatives (see also Section 3.1.1). From the viewpoint of coastal defence interviewees, spatial plans challenge the flood safety with requests for development around dikes. However, development that endangers the flood safety is prevented due to a well functioning administrative approval system.

Influence of stakeholders

Other interest groups have influenced the strategy in various ways. Public participation procedures when a major plan or project is under way ensure the involvement of stakeholders in all countries. Cooperation at the horizontal level happens because it is required in legislation and more rarely, but not ignored, because the decision makers invest time to look for alternative ways of cooperation. The interviewee representing spatial planning at the regional level in Denmark says: “Our work is closely tied to legislation, we are strained by the tasks we have. We do not really have time to search for other cooperation, so we just do what we have to do.” At the national level, cooperation with other interests groups, environmental policy fields and scientific institutions generally seems more possible, but even here there is still room for improvement.

Environmental impact assessment procedures in all countries generally ensure the possibility of environmental considerations to modify the implementation when a plan to construct a dike is considered. Environmental considerations have recently become a great influencing factor in the implementation of the coastal defence strategy. The influence is mainly found in the implementation of methods to minimise impacts on nature and in installing compensation measures. Environmental considerations are also included more on the strategic level in the


33

strategy papers. In the master plan for coastal defence in Schleswig-Holstein, ecological interests are also mentioned (but at the same time it is clearly stated that saving lives or keeping the safety standards prevails). Safety standards are also the main focus in the Netherlands, but in the strategy paper of the Danish Coastal Authority it is written that when decisions for coastal defence are being made, environmental considerations should be the main consideration (see also Section 3.1.2).

In the Netherlands, cooperation with economic and agricultural stakeholders is a strong influencing factor on the strategy. The basic purpose of the dikes is, besides saving lives, to protect agricultural values and economical interests. Today, the influence of stakeholders is mainly on the issue of development permits near dikes, and economic interests challenge the necessity of strengthening the dike. Advisory group participation ensures involvement of the most important stakeholders, but the interviewee at the regional level in coastal defence thinks that cooperation with other interests sometimes could be better in order to make the dike profile more attractive.

In the master plan for coastal defence in Schleswig-Holstein, safety standards, as mentioned above, have first priority. Discussion related to coastal defence is mainly about the way to undertake it, not about priorities of interests. The first priority of coastal defence is accepted by members of the integrated coastal defence board. The representatives of municipality interests modify the strategy so it becomes more attractive to, for example, tourism. On the issue of salt marshes, coastal defence interviewees also cooperate with the environmental protection representatives and with NGOs via an integrated salt marsh board. Such cooperation has lead to a common salt marsh management concept since 1995 (Hofstede, J., 2003). The sectorial approach between coastal defence and environmental protection is still apparent though, as illustrated by signposts nearly side by side along the coastline. The message of the signposts is, besides prohibiting access of the public (the common intention), to explain why the area is closed: One sign states coastal defence, another states salt marsh protection.

In Danish municipalities, a lot of organisations and interest groups automatically become active

when coastal defence projects or spatial plans are under way. Their influence is mainly to make them more attractive to recreation, tourism and nature. Nature protection in particular seems to have some influence on the defence works as also supported by the strategy paper of the Danish Coastal Authority mentioned above. In Denmark, cooperation between the two administrative regions along the Wadden Sea coast leads to harmonised defence works, but also allows room for more specific coastal defence solutions.

Influence of the general and the affected public

Public participation, as in the involvement of the general public, sometimes modifies the strategy and sometimes not – it varies from case to case, even within the same country. However, public participation by those affected is the rule rather than the exception.

In Schleswig-Holstein, participation of the affected public regarding coastal defence installations modifies strategy at the operational stage of the decision making process, as possible by law (Section 1.2.8 and 1.3.3). People object to the plan, so the coastal defence decision makers sometimes, for example, have to offer compensation, or have to change the plan so it becomes more attractive. At the strategic level, the integrated coastal defence board organised public hearings when developing the master plan and evaluated the input afterwards, resulting in amendments to the plan.

Based on public participation studies in flood-prone areas (DGUK 2004), raising awareness is concluded to be the best way to involve the general public at the national level: The interviewee representing the Schleswig-Holstein State Ministry of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Areas, Coastal Defence Division, says: “It is always so modern to talk about involving everybody, but you have to think about efforts. We have been working hard to involve the public and to raise awareness. One of the results from COMRISK was the involvement of the public; people want to be involved when they are affected directly. The other part of the population, the less affected, wants to be informed, they want to know what is going on. If you talk about involvement of the people you have to be aware what you actually want to achieve and what they actually want from you”


34

The Netherlands also struggles with participation of the general public. At the national level, experiences are that people want things to be the same as they are now, and that is exactly more or less what the current coastal defence strategy is about. On the regional level, experiences are that much better solutions were reached by trying to involve the general public as well. In an example from Harlingen, the general public was involved through organised participation at the strategic stage. The interviewee representing the water management department in Fryslân province says: “Well we begin with a sketch of the problem that we send to people; this is the problem – the dike is not high enough. Then we organise a group of interested people and later more join in. Meetings are organised and announced. In the case of Harlingen, we thought that not that many people will be there, but we had more than 60 people who were very interested.” The interviewee states that one problem of public participation is that the risk of flooding is hard to communicate to people, and the people who live further away from a dike, the not so obviously affected public, do not show up. However, the interviewee adds, since flooding is such a rare event, it is worth asking if you want people to be aware all the time.

At the national level of coastal defence in Denmark, the decision makers have been collecting information about how the people feel and think about coastal defence. Modification of the strategy based on organised public participation above the operational stage is still very limited though. Giving the affected public the opportunity to express their opinion when a project is under way might modify the solution, so that compensation is made and EIA procedures ensure that the general public has an opportunity to be heard as well. In addition, it should be mentioned that initiatives to construct or strengthen coastal defence works, for example, can be undertaken by citizens according to the Coastal Defence Act, indicating a sort of unorganised involvement of the public at the normative stage. The interviewee at the regional level in coastal defence mentions some of the general disadvantages of public participation: “It makes things more difficult when the public can complain and a lot of planning resources and time are needed today to get everybody’s opinion, […] although in the end it should result in better projects”. At the national level, there is an awareness that people might not think the

same as the electives on the topic of coastal defence, and public participation is something that will be improved in the future, according to the interviewee representing coastal defence.

Influence of scientific institutions

Cooperation with universities and/or research institutes is mainly through exchange of information. In some cases, the agencies are more integrated and they have research programmes with the universities. The most obvious influence scientific knowledge has had on the strategy within the context of this thesis is with the scenarios of climate change and the theories of coastal squeeze. It has lead to actual action in the form of strengthening the dikes and monitoring of the salt marshes. New scientific insight is taken into account when revising the current strategy in all countries. The theory of coastal squeeze has lead to thinking of managed retreat (see Section 1.2.5), but it is not implemented in practice in the Wadden Sea countries. For the storm flood evacuation services, cooperation with meteorologists is vital. This form of horizontal cooperation is essential to the strategy in Denmark in particular.

Influence of transboundary cooperation

Cooperation across the national borders could be better, according to some interviewees, while for others it is sufficient. The major influence transboundary cooperation has had is an increasing awareness of other ways to approach a coastal defence issue. On the technical side, they learn from each other, but every country develops its own flood defence strategy. Safety standards, for example, are rarely negotiated, except perhaps if activities in one country affect the flood safety in another. Cooperation between Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein in the beginning of the 1980s for example influenced the strategy of land reclamation and dike construction to support each other’s defences. One contemporary and successful transboundary coastal defence project mentioned by nearly all interviewees is the ‘Kring van Zeewerende Ingenieurs’ initiative, where coastal defence engineers and decision makers at both administrative levels meet every year. The COMRISK Interreg project is another initiative for transboundary sharing of information and knowledge. It was undertaken by the coastal defence authorities around the North Sea.


3�

3.4 Hurdles to implementation

3.4.1 Whatarethemaindifficultiesinimplementingthestrategy?

In general, no major barriers to implementation of the strategy were found, only difficulties experienced by the interviewees. These are summarised in Table 2.

The problem with climate change and the current strategy is that the interviewees still do not know much. They have only guesses about sea level rise, and projections of increased storminess are even more uncertain. Schleswig-Holstein has chosen to follow the most likely scenario from IPCC and strengthen the dikes one by one. Adding height to the dikes is technically not a problem in Nordfriesland, however further south in the region around the river Elbe they have begun to experience some difficulties with the current strategy: The ground underneath is too weak to carry the extra weight in one go, so instead they have to build up the dike in intervals of 10 years. It fosters some speculation about whether the

current strategy will be able to meet the safety standards in the future, but as yet it is not a problem. The interviewee representing the state level of coastal defence also believes the strategy could be more flexible in anticipating climate change. With the 10-15 year cycle of check-up on the dikes and gradual sand nourishment some flexibility is introduced, but more is desirable.

On the whole, there are no major problems with implementation of the current strategy in Schleswig-Holstein up to now. A lack of awareness of flood risk among the general public, as mentioned in Section 3.1.2, is perceived as a longer-term problem that might influence the strategy in an unfortunate direction in future. It is a problem mentioned by both administrative levels. The people, especially people who live in cities, tend to forget quite quickly that Schleswig-Holstein has flood-prone areas, and it is a concern that decreasing awareness, as time goes by after a major catastrophe, might become so low that coastal defence is neglected politically. The policy makers will try to solve this problem by increasing awareness through public information campaigns. See also Section 3.5.

Both administrative levels of coastal defence also agree that it is difficult to convince people representing environmental protection of the reason to do coastal defence works in a particular way. The awareness of protecting ecological values is still very high in the society; regulations for environmental protection are coming from Brussels and national nature reserve regulations also complicate implementation of the strategy over time and space. Overall integration of all the different interests is not an easy task. The interviewee representing the coastal defence department in at the regional level says that people do not understand and complain, for example when material for strengthening the dikes is taken from behind the dikes. It leaves a hole for generations and people do not want to sell the field, but nowadays environmental laws forbid coastal defence decision makers from looking for clay and sand from the Wadden Sea foreland as they did before. The interviewee mentions other difficulties in implementing the strategy: “We have some restaurants on the dikes, let us say. In former times even some houses stood on the dike. Today only a few places have this situation and usually we do not allow any use of the dikes. We manage them with sheep and so on, but that is a problem too. The sheep... the tourists want to have

Climate change uncertainty

Difficulty

Pressure to use the coastfor many functions

One dominating interesthinders alternative thinking

Political constellation

Budget

Lack of �ood awareness

Environmentel considerations

Integrated management ofother interests

In�exible strategy

Public participation de�cits

Development around dikes

DK NL D

Table 2: Summary of difficulties. A shaded field indicates the difficulty was mentioned by one or by both of the coastal defence representatives. A white field does not mean there is no difficulties present in this area, but only that it was not mentioned. DK: Denmark; NL: The Netherlands; D: Germany.

Results – Hurdles to Implementation

3�

a clean dike. The sheep are not clean... therefore the communities sometimes come to us and say: ‘Let us rent the dike and we mow it, do not let sheep on this part.’ People think in another way. Tourism, sports, natural aspects are sometimes as important as a coastal protection.”

Budget is a problem and the coastal defence interviewees have to follow a priority list of which dikes need to be strengthened first, as mentioned in Section 3.2; it is not possible to fix them all at once. Still quite a lot of money is spent on coastal defence, so it is not an issue ignored by the politicians, but with the current budget it will take 15 to 20 years to strengthen the dikes. There is a fear that the budget will be a larger problem in future if they continue successfully keeping Schleswig-Holstein safe from floods. Financial means is also a problem when implementing the salt marsh management plans. At the moment, the maintenance of salt marshes is only being undertaken where they have coastal defence significance.

In the Netherlands, the interviewees still rely on existing dikes and on sand supplement when it comes to anticipating climate change, but do act upon the climate change scenario by making it possible to heighten the dikes in future, as mentioned in Section 3.2.3. According to the interviewees, such a strategy leads to increased difficulties in an area already perceived as a problem. There is a already a lot of existing development and pressure to use the coast for a lot of different functions, and according to the interviewee from the water department in Fryslân province, the strategy to cope with climate change is rather strict and difficult to implement. The interviewee from the national level mentions the same problem:

“It is a very difficult message to tell to a local politician that a hotel is not allowed to expand because we need this space in 100 years’ time for a sea level rise that may happen in 200 years’ time. They look and say: ‘But I want the extension of the hotel now and you can have it back in 50 years’. It is a difficult discussion.” The difficulties are solved by negotiations and relying as much as possible on sand supplements, which is easier. As a consequence of the difficulties, though, some development is accepted and buildings are possible even in front of a dike unless there is a belief that it could harm the safety behind the dike.

From a spatial planning point of view, the interviewee representing the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment sees opportunities for coastal defence to deal with conflicting problems. The interviewee says: “It is not necessary to have conflict with other functions. We can very well have a nature area, which at the same time is coastal defence – it is already the case. You can also imagine having a big parking lot in the dunes, which is built from concrete. It is on the one hand a parking lot, on the other hand when a flood appears it will be used as flooding defence. These kinds of ideas are not implemented in the Netherlands as yet. Belgium is much more flexible.”

Other difficulties experienced by the interviewee representing coastal defence at the provincial level are the political constellation and a dominating economical interest. They are barriers in realizing alternative thinking. Budget is sometimes a problem; coastal defence competes with other risks such as traffic, crime and terrorism, and many dikes still need to be strengthened. The interviewee does not think getting the money will be such a serious problem though. Political attention has increased due to the New Orleans flood in 2005 and the Netherlands can afford to spend more money on safety due to increased export of gas at the moment. Another difficult message to get across besides the one about climate change is that people who build in front of the dikes in the Netherlands are not covered by the legislative safety standard, but all in all there are no serious problems with the current strategy. So far, safety standards behind the dikes are still being lived up to and the interviewees think it won’t be possible to see for another fifty years if serious problems begin and if more space around the dikes was needed.

As in Schleswig-Holstein, coastal defence authorities in Denmark have chosen to follow the most likely IPCC scenario. They added extra height to dikes that were being repaired anyway, but in contrast to the coastal defence decision makers in Schleswig-Holstein, the Danes do not yet have plans for making other dikes stronger due to the climate change predictions (see also Section 3.2.2). Instead they rely on getting people away in time in case a dike should breach and so far no problems have been experienced with this.

Results – Hurdles to Implementation

3�

Flood safety in Denmark is more a regional issue than a national issue. It means that the Danish Coastal Authority more or less aims to help what local authorities want to implement, and difficulties experienced in implementation are secondary – the current strategy is, according to the interviewee representing the national level in coastal defence, based on what the locals want. At moment there is discussion on what kind of grassing to use when maintaining the foreland and if hunting should be allowed. People feel there is already a lot of restriction on the use and it creates some difficulties. This follows according to the interviewee that the Wadden Sea and the salt marshes are such unique areas. Finding the material to strengthen the dikes was difficult because the compensation for nature would include restrictions on hunting afterwards and the locals did not want that. Both coastal defence interviewees agree that there is a lot of restriction on activities due to environmental considerations and that it complicates implementation of the strategy, both in front of and behind the dikes. Budget is not a problem. Money comes from many different directions: Dike taxes, the municipalities, national level and the amt, and it functions well when there is a need for coastal defence works.

Public participation by involvement of the general public is something nearly all interviewees struggle with and/or have not really developed (see also Section 3.3.3). It is a problem on which the decision makers have not found a solution. However it is interesting to note that it is more the lack of public participation in itself that is mentioned as a problem, rather than actual conflicts rising from a lack of participation. None of the interviewees representing coastal defence experience major problems coming from the general public. On the contrary, some interviewees say it does not make things easier to involve everybody and they ask if it is worth doing so.

3.5 The future flood defence solution

The future flood defence solution is speculative due to the nature of the topic. The statements by the interviewed decision makers on the topic have been summarised below. On the whole, the countries will continue with their current strategies. There is a widespread agreement among the interviewees when it comes to

guesses for the future and the summary does not distinguish much between the different policy fields and administrative levels. The possible future solution is discussed with opinions of the author in Section 4.2.2, relating it to the general hazard coping theory and the general context.

Unless something dramatic happens in the Netherlands, the policy planned for the next 200 years is going to be strengthening and widen the dikes, according to the interviewees and as mentioned in Section 3.2.3. Sand nourishment will continue to play an important part at least for the next 20-40 years. The plan to keep a zone free for development near the dike might be shortened on the land side due to agricultural interests, but probably not on the sea side, where the main interest is natural lands. Recreation is an additional interest which is becoming more and more important in designing the defence solution according to the decision makers. In 2006, a study on the consequences in the event of a dike breaking is planned. Smaller flood compartments (secondary dike line), building on higher places, elevating new buildings with sand, and an increased involvement of spatial planning in flood defence are mentioned by coastal defence interviewees as examples of how to reduce flood consequences. From a spatial planning point of view, a strategy against flooding is more important in the western part of the Netherlands, where the main metropolitan area lies and is more focused on river floods. Developing alternative housing methods, such as floating houses, is happening already, but is still very premature. Managed realignment of the dike, changing of land use from agricultural use to recreational use in the future is unlikely according to the Dutch interviewees; from a spatial planning point of view is it possible but it won’t be easy: A tradition of fighting the sea has to be broken, agricultural/economical interests still dominate over other interests, land has to be compensated, infrastructure renewed and towns have to be moved.

In future, coastal defence decision makers in Schleswig-Holstein will work on how to be more flexible in anticipating climate change and they will work on increasing the awareness of coastal flooding among the general public, following the recommendations from the COMRISK research projects. At the regional level there is awareness it might not be possible to continue raising the dikes any higher and considerations for putting

Results – The future flood defence solution

3�

the second dike line into use are emerging. However, this is still perceived as impossible because the politicians do not dare debating it, and the safety of the present dikes is still acceptable. Maintaining the line is the official current strategy of Schleswig-Holstein (see also Section 3.2) and the line is likely to be fixed in future as well. In Schleswig-Holstein, some core criteria exist which have to be fulfilled before giving up land of economical value is considered, according to the interviewee at the national level for coastal defence. One of the strongest arguments is that the costs should not be higher than strengthening the front dike. In practice, this means that the state dikes are fixed where they are as extra costs for resettling development and for strengthening second-line dikes will be too high. Another argument which makes managed realignment unlikely is the right of people to live: ‘When safety standards can be maintained by strengthening the state dikes, why then leave voluntarily?’ Today the dike line is very much fixed, but what will be in 100 years’ time is uncertain. The decision makers calculate with 50 years of notice and if things develop for the worse, they, or their successors, will react. Neither does the interviewed spatial planning decision maker at the state level believe forcing people to leave an area is possible. Phasing out activities might be, but it is unsure if this is actually going to happen. Interviewees representing spatial planning believe flood defence will be more important in their policy field in future, due to an increasing awareness of climate change, but at the moment it is just starting. Returning to construct wafts on the mainland might happen, but it is an expensive solution and as long as the dikes are safe it is not considered necessary.

Danish coastal defence decision makers will continue as they do today, but cost-benefit calculations might be more important in the future, according to the interviewees. A change in land use is not going to happen much, and for sure not where there are towns. Where less valuable soil exists behind the dikes, ideas of giving it up could be considered; however it also very depends on the landowner and the types of EU subsidies available. The interviewee representing coastal defence at the national level says: “Whether to give up land or not is very much controlled by the farmer who owns it. It is obvious if you can get a lot of subsidies by setting the land aside then it is more attractive than just giving it back to the nature. There might

be some possibilities to buy up land. Sometimes there are EU subsidies to go out and buy up land and then give it back to nature”. Moving the dikes back 100 metres to prevent coastal squeeze is possible from a technical point of view according to the interviewee, even also mentally, but it would be very expensive due to compensation to landowners and the construction work itself. The environment is harmed by the work as well, but if the money and the political will are present it is possible, since no villages would be affected. However, in the end, the interviewee thinks more focus on the Wadden Sea area as an important European ecological habitat is needed before any action can be taken.

The interviewee at the regional level also believes the moving of people is not possible, and even if a catastrophe happened, the interviewee believes demands would come for stronger dikes, not considerations of leaving the area. The same opinion comes from the spatial planning field. It will require a mentality change. Spatial planning decision makers will continue with the current strategy of enforcing the law, but in future the 4.5 m contour line for regulation development might be raised. However, this is only speculation.

3.6 Integrated Coastal Zone Management

3.6.1 Interviewees’knowledgeofandexperienceswithICZM

When interviewing decision makers, it soon became clear that ICZM, as a very broadly defined concept, fostered many types of experiences and knowledge related to the implementation. The section distinguishes between knowledge of the EU recommendation on ICZM, practical experiences in implementing the recommendation, and practical experiences in implementing the principles of ICZM across the four borders (see Section 1.2.6) without calling it ICZM.

The knowledge of the ICZM concept differed between the interviewees, but not by much. The EU recommendation on ICZM as such was familiar to the interviewee in most cases, as were many of its principles. Across the three countries, the national levels are general well informed and at the regional levels of administration they have at least briefly heard of ICZM. Only in one case was the ICZM concept unknown.

Results – The future flood defence solution

3�

The EU recommendation on ICZM calls for actions from a lot of people, but it is first of all the national level in the member states that initiates its implementation. One or both of the interviewed decision makers at the national level in all countries is directly involved in implementation of ICZM. It is the coastal defence policy fields in the Netherlands, the spatial planning policy field in Denmark, and both policy fields in Schleswig-Holstein.

In Schleswig-Holstein the initiative to implement the ICZM recommendation was taken by the Ministry of Interior and a coordination unit for ICZM activities has been established in the spatial planning department. Here, experiences of ICZM are primarily of a networking character. The interviewee representing spatial planning at the state level experiences difficulties in creating a flow of information between the ICZM projects and in activating the local levels of administrations. Vertical cooperation with ICZM activities is hence evaluated as not working as well as vertical cooperation. The interviewee explains: “We do not have much experience. That is one of our problems when we are trying to tell the counties that ICZM is a good thing. We do not have much practice, projects. Those we have are not good to show them the value of ICZM, they are not old enough. That is one of the problems. You cannot see the value yet. I think especially in ICZM you can only see the value in longer terms.”

A working group, in which the interviewee does not personally participate, is involving the coastal states in Germany in developing the national strategy according to the recommendation. Otherwise, according to the interviewee representing coastal defence division at the state level, Schleswig-Holstein already reacted to results from the EU Demonstration Programme for ICZM in 1997-1999 by creating the integrated coastal defence board (BIK).

In the Netherlands, the implementation of the EU recommendation on ICZM is coordinated by the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, in close collaboration with the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture and Nature and the Ministry of Economic Affairs. Experiences are so far based on activities in the spirit of ICZM, and not explicitly on ICZM projects. Meetings and workshops on the condition and future of the Dutch coastal zone have been

held, but generally the strategy for ICZM in the Netherlands builds upon existing strategies for spatial planning and coastal policies. Few changes have been implemented, but it is thought that activities corresponding to the principles of the recommendation will increase in the future.

In Denmark, implementation of the EU recommendation on ICZM is rooted in the spatial planning department. It is the Danish Ministry of the Environment that has taken the initiative. The interviewee representing spatial planning at the national level is working on the implementation of the ICZM recommendation besides administrating the coastal zone as defined in the Planning Act. Meetings and projects on the basis and in the spirit of ICZM are organised, but otherwise the Planning Act already sets out a strategy for the coastal zone. The interviewee says: “We already have a planning strategy. We already have a list of principles of what you are allowed to do and not in the coastal zone.”

Knowledge and experiences in implementation of the ICZM principles without calling it ICZM exists across all the administrative levels, nationalities and policy fields. Present legislation ensures implementation of some of the ICZM principles, but experiences of the interviewees varied according to the focus. Above all, cooperation at the horizontal level with different stakeholders was particular associated with ICZM, as well as the involvement of the general public. Sometimes the two were not separated when discussed in the interviews, as the interviewee saw integration of the general public through integration of other sectors or interest groups. Experiences of “crossing” the temporal, legislative (and/or procedural) borders were sometimes discussed and related to environmental impact assessment procedures, but this was not the main focus of the interview.

3.6.2 EvaluationofICZMbytheintervieweddecisionmakers

The general opinion of the interviewed policy makers is that the ICZM can help to overcome difficulties experienced when implementing the current flood defence strategies (as well as in spatial planning and other policy fields) and hence modify it in this way. The recommendation itself, however, is not really an adequate instrument to change anything drastically when compared to what is already being attempted under existing

Results – Integrated Coastal Zone Management

40

legislation. All in all, according to the interviewees the recommendation can help reduce deficits in public participation and generally strengthen existing efforts towards integrated management. A summary of comments on ICZM is shown in Table 4.

The ICZM concept is not uniformly defined by the interviewees. For some it was organisation and implementation of projects, for others ICZM is a general way of thinking, while other interviewed policy makers expressed ICZM as a public participation tool only. Some interviewees saw and evaluated ICZM beyond what is already in practice – where the EU recommendation can create future advantages, whereas others saw the advantages of the ICZM principles already in practice. It resulted in opinions related to different aspects of ICZM. When general statements on the EU recommendation on ICZM were not expressed directly, the perception of the interviewees was based indirectly through patterns in opinions (see Table 3).

There is a widespread sceptical attitude of the EU recommendation on ICZM as a tool among the interviewees. It was found that four (of eleven) interviewees were slightly to very critical, all on the national level – half of them were directly involved in the implementation. On the regional level, the interviewees (three) expressed a sort of acceptance more than criticism or approval. Four interviewees were slightly to very positive, with equal distribution between the administrative levels and policy fields.

Many of the interviewed policy makers can not see what is new in the ICZM recommendation, even though they see that there is a need for

more integrated thinking. Many have the feeling that they are already trying to implement the principles and recommended approach of ICZM via other legislation. The interviewee representing coastal defence at state level in Schleswig-Holstein says: “ICZM? Well, first thing is from a procedural point of view, we already have it. It is state regional planning, that is it. If you look here: The first paragraph of our Spatial Planning Act. […] The only thing missing is ‘coastal zone’. But integrated coastal zone management is not something special to the coast. You have integrated mountain, city and ‘blabla’ management. It is something I feel a bit sceptical about. We are already trying to do it.”

Two main counter arguments to ICZM are that most problems experienced in the coastal zone can be solved with existing instruments, and also managing a fully integrated approach seems impossible due to its complexity. Besides evaluating ICZM as an overly-complex concept to manage, a general Dutch impression is also that the recommendation is too vague to translate into law: The interviewee representing coastal defence at the national level in the Netherlands says: “It is a good concept, it is a logical concept, but it is a vague concept to translate into any guideline or legislation because what do you really want to achieve with it? I am not opposed to it, it is good the European Union did it and we try to implement it as best as possible in the Netherlands. While doing that we are finding out that by accident we do not do things very badly here.” The broad formulation of ICZM is perceived both as a disadvantage and as an advantage, though. In Denmark, the broad definition of ICZM was also mentioned, but as something positive, ensuring a great deal of liberty in translation.

Table 3: Evaluated statements on the EU recommendation on ICZM. Note: the regional level in spatial planning in the Netherlands is not represented.

General attitude:Coastal defence/ Spatial planning

National / Regional Total (out of 11)

Positive 2 / 2 2 / 2 4Acceptance 2 / 1 0 / 3 3Critical 2 / 2 4 / 0 4

Perceived relevance:Coastal defence/ Spatial planning

National / Regional Total (out of 11)

Considerable 2 / 3 2 / 3 5Slight 3 / 1 3 / 1 4Very little 1 / 1 1 / 1 2


41

Being an initiative from the European Union seems to lead to some resistance or fear of difficulties in implementing the recommendation. The interviewee representing coastal defence at the regional level in the Netherlands says: “I think there is a need, but I think it is good it is a recommendation. I think it wouldn’t change much in Dutch practices at the moment. To make it a real guideline is a bit heavier, and people at the Wadden Sea are always a bit worried about new rules. A bit allergic to new rules, they already have the bird and habitat guidelines. I think when you think about ICZM you have to have the participation and a positive ground attitude to make sure everyone is working to make the best solutions. It is a way of thinking, not something that would have to be an obligation or put downwards from Europe.”

Some interviewees perceive the EU recommendation on ICZM as another top-down approach, as highlighted by the interviewee quoted above. It is not a common resistance or concern though. There is also faith in that the recommendation is based on sound investigation of real problems. If it does not target problems directly, at least it is able to cast a spotlight on areas to improve in the current policymaking procedure. The interviewee representing coastal defence at the regional level in Denmark says: “We are allowed to be critical, but we always know when something is on the way. There are a lot of lobbyists down in the EU and the member states also have people there. The EU does not create something themselves as such. When things like

ICZM appear then we know there are people which have an interest in it. It means the Danes, Germans, Belgians, Dutch and the English. Who else would raise such issues? It is all connected.”

Because the general opinion of the interviewees is that they are already implementing or trying to implement ICZM principles via other legislation and initiatives, the EU recommendation on ICZM is not perceived as something new or as something too relevant in this sense. This is especially the case in Denmark, where the interviewees see the least relevance of ICZM. Especially the interviewees at national level have the impression the system is working with few complaints as it is today. The interviewee representing the Danish Coastal Authority says: “We are so regulated in Denmark that we manage cooperation informally. We do not have it collected because the system is so controlled as it is. It is clear who does what and who the stakeholders are. When you look at our coastal protection it is working just fine. I think so.”

Nearly all interviewed policy makers think the recommendations have slight to some relevance, even those otherwise rather critical. The interviewees agree that the EU recommendation on ICZM, or more precisely its principles, are relevant in areas of policy making and they can help modify the existing strategy for coastal defence as well as other strategies.

For Schleswig-Holstein the main opportunities for modification of the strategy mentioned are

Advantages and opportunities for modification of the strategy

Disadvantages, risks and challenges of ICZM

• Reducing deficits in public participation• Avoid future problems and managing

conflicting interests• Educate people in an integrated way• Change away from the sector approach• Flexible use• Better integration of land and sea

administrative zones and/or plans around the dikes

• Activate more people leading to better projects and/or to create a sense of ownership

• Good excuse to discuss things

• Already (trying to) do it/ Not relevant / “Old wine”

• Not realistic to make everybody happy• (Once) too much focus on the

environmental aspect • Too much focus on the economic aspect• More discussions/conflicts• Difficult or impossible to manage• Unclear and too complex tool; too vague

to translate into law• Takes longer time• Top-down approach• Cannot make people participate by law (if

it becomes a directive)

Table 4: Summary of comments on ICZM


42

a higher integration of the public and different sectorial interests. Also a general education of people in an integrated way so they will communicate with each other is mentioned.

The interviewees representing coastal defence at the state level says: “People are integrated because they talk to each other, because they cooperate and consider each other. That is something that might be achievable. They have to be aware of each other, that is something this recommendation wants to achieve.” Avoiding future problems arising from conflicting interests is another major advantage perceived by the German interviewees.

In Denmark, advantages such as opportunities for similar administrative procedures across sea and land as well as activating more people and making better descriptions of consequences of activities were mentioned. The interviewee representing spatial planning at the national level for example says: “It is always good to introduce methods that activate people more.”

In the Netherlands, public participation on a permanent basis was desired, as well as a better managing of conflicting interests around the dikes and in general. The interviewee representing coastal defence at the regional level says: “I think ICZM can help in thinking, especially this zone around the dike, which is a rather hard line, there it would help.”


43

4 Discussion4.1 Methodology

Getting interviews with decision makers very much depended on the willingness or capability of people in the institutions to participate and some needed more convincing than others. Some decision makers did not respond to the interview request and thus a few key interviewees were asked to recommend other potential interviewees. This method, however, did not produce results. One interviewee states in an email: “I suppose they have the same problem as we have, too many obligations to talk to every student who wants to write a thesis (you should be aware that you are not the only one, perhaps you could be a bit less ambitious about whom you talk to).”

In the end, 11 decision makers out of 12 agreed to participate. Spatial planning at the regional level in the Netherlands is not represented, and in the case of spatial planning and coastal defence at the national level also in the Netherlands, the institutions are represented by a person who no longer works with policies regarding the coastal zone. However, the interviewees were chosen as being capable of contributing valuable knowledge and opinions based on closely related or former tasks. Being asked for an interview on the basis on the thesis topic created confusion in many spatial planning institutions – perhaps illustrating how little importance is still placed on flood defence in the minds of spatial planning decision makers. Interestingly, the people agreeing to represent spatial planning knew a lot about integrated coastal zone management and made great contributions to this part of the thesis. They also provided valuable information about land use and how they see cooperation with coastal defence decision makers. It could have been interesting to interview people representing the nature protection policy field, insurance companies and the water boards as well, but such expanded field work required more resources than available in this study.

The interview questions were asked for by some of the interviewees in advance, and to ensure similar conditions for all, the interview guideline was sent out to everybody as mentioned in Chapter 2. This had the effect that some interviewees were more prepared than others for the interview, and that they sometimes answered another question from the questionnaire than the one that was actually

asked. It helped to create a more comfortable atmosphere though, as the interviewee, if he/she wanted, could prepare the answers in advance and it eased understanding of the questions. In most cases the interview quite quickly turned into a conversation rather than following the guideline question by question. It produced a lot of extra material, but the advantage of this approach was that the differences between those who were prepared and those who were not were minimized.

A lot of time was spent on collecting, processing and analysing the interview data – time which could have been used for studying literature. Doing face to face interviews is a time-consuming and, in this case, expensive method of gathering data. The greatest value of this approach is that it generated a higher quality of answers than phone interviews and/or a simple questionnaire would have given. Study of literature alone would likewise not have provided the information of how decision makers actually think. Visiting the sites for coastal defence works during fieldwork contributed to the understanding of the actual conditions in the Wadden Sea region and also provided the interviewer with valuable ad hoc questions to ask during the interviews.

4.2 Results

In this section the flood defence strategies of the countries are discussed; the focus of discussion lies on the reasons for the current strategy. An overview of adjustment types is given in Table 5. Then the likely future strategy based on a combination of the general hazard coping theory/conceptual framework and what the interviewees guess for their countries (see Section 1.4 and 3.5) is discussed. The differences between the Wadden Sea countries in reaction to climate change and coastal squeeze is considered. The discussion also focuses on how the countries are more or less fixed in their strategies, and it is discussed how they can overcome the problem. The final step is a discussion of integrated coastal zone management and the EU recommendation: What are the opportunities of ICZM and the obstacles to implementation?

Discussion – Results

44

4.2.1 Whyisthecurrentcoastaldefencestrategychosen?

When searching for an answer to why the current strategy is chosen and what causes the differences between the countries, it is worth taking a look at the general hazard coping theory again. It is first considered how the strategy chosen can be explained by the theory in general terms and then the factors in the general context as influences to the policy making process are looked at more carefully. The COMRISK study (RIKZ 2004) concluded that there is a strong overall relationship between the general context and the coastal defence policies, and that it is hard to quantify the relationship. The findings

of this study support this. Minor differences between the COMRISK study and this study are found, e.g. in focus of selected measures by point of intervention and by hurdles to implementation. For example, in this study it was found that Denmark focuses more on avoiding building works in flood-prone areas than suggested by the COMRISK study. In this study it was also found that budget is not really perceived as a problem by policy makers, except in Schleswig-Holstein (Section 3.4), in contrast what the COMRISK study found (a problem in all countries). However the overall differences are minor.

The general hazard coping theory states that societies respond to threats posed by hazards in


Bear losses

Share losses

Modify events

Observing

Compensation1

Land reclamation2

Dikes

Sand nourishment

Warning, evacuationPrevents effects

Regulated planning zones

Building guidelines

Awareness raising

Flood compartments

Other3

Less �ood-prone land use4Change use

Give land to seaChange location

NL D DK NL

?

?

? ?

??

?

D DK NL D DK NL D DK

Currentstrategy

Future strategy, because of:Adjustment typs

Climatechange

Coastalsqueeze

Otherreasons

Table 5: Overview of: (1) adjustment types chosen in the current strategy and (2) adjustment types to prioritise in the future strategy because of climate change, coastal squeeze or other reasons. Dark shading indicates a main adjustment type, light shading indicates an adjustment type of less importance. A question mark indicates a speculative possible reaction, a slash indicates a considered impossible reaction. NL: the Netherlands, D: Germany, DK: Denmark.

1) Compensation is here grouped below the action threshold as ‘share losses’ according to the general hazard coping theory (Burton, Kates and White 1978), though it can be questioned if not this adjustment type belongs above the threshold, since the compensation/insurance system, like in Denmark, involves actions before a potential hazard impact.

2) Land reclamation activities are today only done to keep the foreland in place where they have significance for coastal defence.

3) Other adjustment types overlapping with implementing less flood-prone land use are for example: Establishing buffer zones, relocating threatened buildings, extended building guidelines, phase out or no development in areas at risk, rules of depreciation, etc.

4) This adjustment type is in the current strategy in Denmark mainly incidental - it has not involved a motivated search for more complex solutions or an intolerance threshold.

4�

a rational, ordered way, increasing their response as the hazards warrant and as their resources (social and economic) permit. It was found that the Netherlands and Schleswig-Holstein is on the second level of the hazard coping theory (Section 3.2), actively reducing impact of flooding mainly via intervening in the natural system. It can be explained by the fact that they both have economic and social resources to do this; the land is heavily developed (the Netherlands more than Schleswig-Holstein) and they have both experienced severe floods (Section 1.2.3). Denmark also has social and economical resources, but because flood-prone areas are limited, development scarce and because recent disasters were relatively minor, the action prompt is weaker and more focus lies on evacuation and compensation. That Denmark, with extended zone regulations, in a higher degree focuses on reducing the flood impact via the human system might be explained by the rich social and economic resources of the country. To intervene in the human system is not only possible when seen from a sociological viewpoint, but from an economic standpoint as well. The important sociological factors are here the aesthetical and recreational values: Existing environmental and coastal zone regulations for these reasons strengthen the coastal defence (Section 3.1.1). That Denmark intervenes in the human system could also be explained by the fact that the focus of actions simply requires the least effort under the current circumstances: The flood-prone areas are already spared of buildings due to historical development.

When a strategy is being formulated, the people responsible ask themselves a lot of questions; what is the threat, what risk are we willing to accept, what are the values we want to protect, what is the temporal perspective, what is expected from us, what is feasible or optimal in a technological, economical, sociological and ecological sense, what are the possible instruments etc. Many of the decision makers focused during the interview on the following general context factors for having the greatest influence on the solution chosen: Tradition in coastal defence, catastrophes, property/lives present in the flood-prone areas and changing attitude and values in society.

It is true that there is a concurrence between a tradition in coastal defence based on “fighting the sea” and land reclamation projects, and the current strategy of maintaining the defence

line. It is also true is that there is an obvious difference between the three countries in how seriously they react to climate change and that this difference can be related to differences seen in the experiences of catastrophes and in the values present in flood-prone areas. The more severe a catastrophe experienced in history and the higher values present in the flood-prone areas, the more the countries invest in their current strategy. Under the future strategy it will be discussed if climate change scenarios or sociological trends can substitute actual catastrophes as action prompts and make the societies implement alternative solutions.

Changing values and attitudes in society explains detailed differences in strategy rather than explaining the strategy in general terms.

For example recreational values are important in Denmark; besides regulating development zones as already mentioned, the values also means that the public is ensured access to the dunes despite the extra effort needed in maintaining them for coastal defence. The values also explain why coastal defence works are hidden or harmonised (Section 3.2).

In Schleswig-Holstein, safety, the right to live, and tourism are today important values in the current strategy. It can explain why sand nourishment on the island of Sylt happens onshore (to create a broader beach for tourism), in contrast to the Danish approach. There is no difference in the safety standards based on how many people are at risk behind the dikes. In literature it is suggested that the Germans do not want to adopt a risk-based approach because it can negatively affect equal opportunities (Hofstede et al. 2005).

That economical values are of major importance in coastal defence in the Netherlands can explain why development permits are granted close to dikes. This sociological aspect can also explain the economical optimisation approach. Another important value (feeling safe) can explain why this approach is only carried out on a theoretical basis: The Wadden Sea coastline (Fryslân and Groningen provinces) has only one safety standard, as mentioned in Section 3.2. The theoretical approach could also be explained by the strong influence of the national level in the Netherlands: This level tends to focus more on safety than on economics (see Section 3.3.2).


4�

The approach contrasts to the one in Denmark, where the decisions about safety standards are more closely related to regional needs and hence allows the risk based approach in practice.

All countries also focus on implementing ecological values, either via compensation and mitigation of impacts, or when maintaining the salt marshes realising the significance of the habitats for coastal defence as well. Context elements like the values in society and economic resources can explain a lot about why a certain strategy is chosen, but they do not mean other factors have not influenced the strategy. Competences, cooperation and distribution of responsibility in decision making and possibly a lot more also influence what solutions are sought. The scope of this study has not been to investigate all possible context elements that can explain why the strategy is chosen, although the influence of the institutional context to explain details in the strategy is described in Section 3.3.

4.2.2 Thefutureflooddefencesolution

On the whole, the countries will continue with their current strategy of reducing the risk of flooding mainly with technical solutions and no drastic changes are expected, except if another catastrophe hits (Section 3.5). The main focus will remain on modifying the flood event, but adjustment types of how to prevent effects are getting more attention for various reasons. Climate change scenarios are a potential motivating factor among others, as well as the theory of coastal squeeze.

When a strategy for flood defence is developed and implemented, uncertainty exists when it comes to the question of climate change: “How serious it will be and how shall we react?”

Reactions to the climate change scenarios can be grouped into four main categories: (1) to ignore climate change (below awareness threshold), (2) to observe how climate change will develop (below action threshold), (3) to strengthen current strategy or increasing flexibility (below intolerance threshold), and (4) to move the dike line to a defendable area (above intolerance threshold).

Decision makers in Schleswig-Holstein and Denmark have chosen to calculate with the same climate change scenario (see also Section

3.2.3). Theoretically they could have the same reaction, but instead decision makers in Denmark have chosen to wait and observe whereas the Germans have chosen to increase the height of the dikes. In Schleswig-Holstein it is perceived more important to begin anticipating climate change and hence they have already reacted. One possible reason to why the Germans think it is important to react is their historical flood experiences and their stronger tradition in fighting the sea, but also because they rely more on technical solutions (modifying events) than Denmark does. Assuming that flexibility increases with variety of adjustment types used in the solution, Denmark is more flexible and hence for this country it is not necessary to react to climate change yet.

The Netherlands also relies mostly on modifying the hazard events and, like Germany, put great effort into strengthening their existing strategy, but in addition they have increased their response and initiated a study of how to become more flexible by intervening in the human system. As such, Germany holds a position between Denmark and the Netherlands when it comes to reliance on adjustment types and reaction to climate change.

Germany and the Netherlands are both in a technical-solution dilemma over the emergent threat of climate change. The coastal defence authorities have been so successful in prohibiting floods that people start to worry less about flood impacts; such mentality means that changes in the human system are very difficult. Decision makers can only react to the future threat by remaining on the old strategy and/or by trying to be flexible by using, for example, sand nourishments. In short, they can make the dikes stronger and stronger until they have no more money, or wait for a disaster to happen. In the Netherlands in particular, no politician wants to be accused that they neglected coastal defence totally, probably because the historical disasters are still strong in the Dutch mentality, and so the budget for coastal defence is not a problem as yet. In Germany, on the other hand, budget is beginning to be a problem, and for this reason (and because of meeting trends in society) the policy makers try to raise awareness in the population. They hope that they will be successful enough so that they won’t experience the serious problem of lacking political support in the future and so that the state dikes can withstand all storms


4�

– this strategy is even required in law, which makes it more fixed. The dilemma is not solved yet. It is not clear how serious climate change will become, nor is it clear how long one can continue strengthening the dikes. If the natural system exceeds adjustment types chosen by the society, a catastrophe happens and only then is permission ‘granted’ for a change in strategy. Catastrophes have proven to be effective, as history has shown with the floods in 1953 and 1962 (Section 1.2.3). It is possible that if dikes break and a catastrophe does happen, there will be a demand for better technical solutions only though and so the dilemma reoccurs. Maybe a faster search for how to prevent effects is initiated and the findings from such search implemented, but a catastrophe is in the end not yet likely to change much from a tolerance point of view. The societies are unlikely to give land to the sea or to change land use because it is not considered necessary yet and it would require too many resources, an issue discussed below in relation to the problem of coastal squeeze.

That the decision makers in all three countries do not let the theory of coastal squeeze influence the current strategy can be explained by the general limited perception of the problem, or because it would be too complicated to act upon even if perception would change (see also Section 3.2.3). The coastal squeeze theory lead to ideas of managed realignment (see Section 1.2.5), but such a solution does require considerable effort, costs and social upheaval and since the current situation is acceptable in all countries there is no need to use more complex solutions to prevent potential coastal squeeze (or to feel safe from floods). The tradition of fighting the sea and the right to settle where you want to live is difficult to overcome, a fact mentioned by the interviewees themselves. The value of salt marshes is not high enough from a coastal defence point of view either, and alternative technical solutions to salt marshes exist in case they diminish in size or disappear.

Other options considered to prevent coastal squeeze could include land reclamation works and sand nourishments. Consequences should be examined first before initiating such activities though, and the sustainability of these solutions is questionable. Probably the best solution for the salt marshes (and intertidal flats) in the event of/before coastal squeeze becomes a fact would be to move or lower the dikes, but there is

room for alternative thinking.

It was mentioned above that Denmark is more flexible in their strategy against flooding than Germany and the Netherlands. However, Denmark risks reducing its current flexibility with climate change if business continues as usual. With the strengthening of the dikes, which is the most likely scenario (if climate change is considered to develop more seriously), Denmark will move away from an evacuation/compensation system into a more fixed situation as seen in Germany. It follows that the sea level rise and increased strength of storms will push the flood risk zone inward. Overspill of a dike will no longer be as accepted as it is today and so the evacuation system will be replaced by a fixed sea barrier system. Making forecasts, especially about the future is always difficult though. First of all it is unclear how far climate change will push the flood risk zone, and also if the cost-benefit calculation approach, like the one in Britain, is going to guide the coastal defence strategy in future in the Wadden Sea countries as suggested by COMRISK (RIKZ 2004) and by some of the interviewees, Denmark might secure their flexibility by changing land use or by implementing new adjustment types to prevent effects in (current and future) flood-prone areas. Simply because it would not be as difficult as it would in Germany or in the Netherlands. In all, Denmark does have the possibility to react to worst case scenarios of climate change today if a fixed situation is unwanted in future.

For all the Wadden sea countries it is interesting if climate change scenarios can substitute an actual flood impact as action prompt. According to the general hazard coping theory, it takes an action prompt to make society and policy makers search for alternative solutions and to implement them. Are scientific research, taking a strategic approach and using the precautionary principle etc possible substitutes for flood impact? Trends in society suggest it is possible; it is a slow development, but it is happening nonetheless. We can see that the Netherlands has initiated a study investigating alternative solutions, that Schleswig-Holstein is searching for ideas on how to become more flexible and that Denmark is considering making more use of cost-benefit calculations. These are tendencies, which suggest it is not necessary for nature to teach a lesson before changing the strategy.


4�

One limiting factor to implementing new adjustment types is the width of thinking. The more one has to choose between, the more flexible one can become. Besides the focus on technical solutions in the current strategy, it was found that few other possible options of how to mitigate impact from flooding were mentioned by the coastal defence interviewees themselves – despite the question being sent out in advance (see ‘Interview guideline for coastal defence’ Question 1a, Appendix A4). As mentioned in the discussion of methodology, some interviewees were more prepared than others, but in a few interviews there was also more focus on this question and in the end some suggestions did appear, for example on how to intervene in the human system. That the interviewees generally did not easily come up with suggestions themselves does not mean they are not aware of other options, but it does suggest opportunities for further discussions.

Other options to prevent flood effects that the countries can investigate further include: Increasing or establishing buffer zones, relocating threatened buildings, extended building guidelines, phased-out or no development in areas at risk, rules of depreciation, etc. Value, effort and feasibility of instruments to be discussed could include the use of contours, awareness, legislation, and economic incentives/disincentives.

It was also found that involvement of the spatial planning policy field in developing coastal defence strategies is not so advanced in any of the countries (see Section 3.1.1), which can explain why options that deal with preventing effects by interfering in the human system were not mentioned so often by the coastal defence decision makers. The lacking involvement of spatial planning is likely to be related to the observed sector approach toward the spatial planning policy field as discussed below.

4.2.3 IntegratedCoastalZoneManagement

Opportunities and obstacles to implementation of ICZM

Opportunities for meeting trends in society as well as for implementing the EU recommendation on ICZM were overall found in enhancing holistic thinking – in particular by overcoming a sectorial approach and in an increased involvement of the

public. These two main opportunities for coastal defence/spatial planning policy fields agree with general conclusions made on the basis of previous studies, which have lead to the concept of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (Section 1.2.6). Seven years after the demonstration programme was concluded and four years after the recommendation on ICZM was issued, barriers to sustainable development are still present in the Wadden Sea countries.

The results show that management of the coastal zone is getting more complex because of trends in society (i.e. agriculture loses its economic importance to the service industry, recreation is a growing interest and environmental considerations are gaining more influence) and that the coastal defence policy makers experience difficulties including all the different interests and at the same time ensuring their own responsibilities for safety standards of the dikes (Section 1.3.2 and 3.4). To meet these trends in society, to enhance sustainable development, to overcome the sectorial approach and to address public participation deficits, traditional thinking as the common obstacle has to be dealt with. What the EU recommendation on ICZM tries to enhance is basically a different way of thinking, but to think differently is more difficult to implement than specific tasks to be undertaken.

Participation through integrated thinking has generally a greater tradition in the USA (for example, research on public participation is mainly American), whereas the participation approach seems to meet some resistance in western continental Europe. The Wadden Sea countries are generally not entirely happy about having to change competence and powers in the institutional setting, whereas for Americans, participation is more a question of finding pragmatic solutions and adjusting to the ‘real’ distribution of power and competences (Stürzer, 2006 and Runkel, 1996; own synthesis). The main counter-argument to change is that the defence strategy is working fine today. The need for a change in thinking is more obvious when the policy maker holds a broader perspective/responsibility and hence it can also explain why the spatial planners seemed to be more open-minded (Section 3.1.1).

Deficits in public participation in the Wadden Sea countries were found in involvement of the general public (see Section 1.2.8 and 3.3.3),


4�

when to involve the public in the decision making process, and in the level of influence over the final decision. Deficits varied between the countries, but in the end a lack of acceptance of decisions made by the managers was generally not a major problem experienced by the interviewees (Section 3.4). The absence of major barriers to implementing the current strategy can, along with the general resistance, explain why some interviewees questioned the value of public participation and hence why these deficits exist. There is some experience in organising public participation above what is require by law, but it is limited (Section 1.3.3 and 3.3.3). It can of course also be discussed which methods are the most appropriate from case to case and between the countries, and hurdles like a disinterested public still have to be dealt with. It is suggested that if the public is given more influence over the final decision and participation is organised not only to attract people with strong opinions for example by organising open house events, the more likely people are to join in (Lauber & Knuth, 2000 and Dr. Alistair Bath, personal correspondence).

The sectorial approach shined through in one way or another in the Wadden Sea countries, e.g. by different signpost with mutual benefiting goals (Section 3.3.3) and geographical/mental distances between the different departments (Section 3.1.1). The observed approach was in this study mostly supported by statements from the spatial planning policy field. The lack of involvement of spatial planning has had the consequence of a more narrow thinking in coastal defence solutions, as discussed above under the future strategy.

In contrast to the observed sectorial approach, it should be mentioned that the coastal defence interviewees in all countries themselves seemed to make an effort to include environmental interests, hence meeting trends in society and thereby also thinking a bit more integrated. Here it could have been interesting to know what representatives from the environmental policy field think, but such interviews were not included in this study (see Section 2.1.3).

Besides overcoming traditional thinking, other obstacles to implementation of the EU recommendation on ICZM that can be mentioned are: (1) It is not yet clear in the mind of decision makers what ICZM is and where it can be applied. What is the definition? Does ICZM apply

to a strategic or to an action approach? To plans or to projects? Interpretation of ICZM comes in many variations, probably because ICZM is formulated on a rather abstract level (Section 1.2.7). (2) The perceived relevance of the ICZM recommendation was not greater than 50% (with reservation, the sample size in this study does not justify any statistical conclusion to be made and the evaluation of the decision makers were also often based on indirect statements). (3) The recommendation is perceived as non-operational, vague and too complex to transpose into national legislation. (4) The countries are not obligated to implement the recommendation.

There is no clear tendency among the interviewees in respect to policy field or administrative level of those who saw the recommendation as something positive and those who did not. However the results show that interviewees at the national level seem to be more critical than interviewees at the regional level (Section 3.6.2). An explanation for this could be that the interviewees at the regional level in particular were not really sure of what the ICZM recommendation wants them to implement. In addition, what they have heard about ICZM did not seem to be something new compared to what they are already trying to implement. As a consequence, the interviewees at the regional level expressed a sort of acceptance of integrated thinking and public participation instead of evaluating the recommendation itself. The perceptions of the regional managers were indeed very much based on indirect analysis through patterns in opinions instead of on direct statements.

The interviewees at the national level were more critical toward the ICZM recommendation. They evaluated the ICZM as having a relevance similar to the one evaluated by the regional managers, but the recommendation as such was evaluated with more precise statements and it was based on their experiences of direct implementation. They hold a very sceptical viewpoint. An explanation for this could be that the framework provided by the ICZM recommendation is different from other measures (e.g. directives) that they have experience in implementing.


�0

5 SummaryThis chapter summarises the results and discussion; please read the Abstract (p. 9) for a brief overview of the whole thesis. The research questions (Section 1.5) and the conceptual framework (Section 1.4.1) in particular might also be of interest to get a brief understanding of the rationale behind the thesis.

The current coastal defence solution in the Wadden sea countries is mainly to rely on adjustment types which reduce the hazard impact either by modifying the hazard events or by preventing the effects. The main chosen adjustment types include building and maintenance of dikes as well as sand nourishments. The Netherlands and Germany in particular rely on technical expertise to reduce flood impact and less on intervening in the human system, whereas Denmark is found to use a greater variety of adjustment types.

The Netherlands maintain dikes with very high safety standards, as required in law. The different standards are implemented for different areas based on an evaluation of values behind the dikes, but the Wadden Sea coastline has one common safety standard only. Regulation of development happens near the dikes only and permission is sometimes given for construction of buildings. Adjustment types like a compensation system and an evacuation plan are present, but focus is not on these. In Schleswig-Holstein, the one safety standard is calculated from statistics combined with historic extremes, and by law a dike should be able to withstand all storms. A second dike line is also maintained in order to reduce a potential impact. Adjustment types by intervening in the human system are limited in Schleswig-Holstein, but a warning, evacuation and repairing system is operating in case of high storm tides. There is some development regulation near the dikes, and a map of flood-prone areas to increase awareness is published. Denmark has dikes with different safety standards, and overspill of dikes that do not protect larger towns is tolerated. The current strategy relies, apart from the dikes themselves, on an evacuation/compensation system, and intervening in the human system happens mainly through extended regulation of development. National spatial planning laws prohibit development which does not need to be near the coast within a 3 km zone, and also regional spatial plans regulate development so very few constructions are built in flood-prone

areas (below the 4.5 m contour line). Guidelines for building houses with a minimum plinth height are present as well.

There may be many explanations as to why a certain strategy solution is chosen. Overall there is found to be a strong relationship between the general context for decision making and the coastal defence policies, like those concluded in previously studies as well (RIKZ 2004). Tradition in coastal defence, severity of disaster impact experienced, values present in flood-prone areas and societal trends are mentioned by the interviewed decision makers as the most important general contexts to explain why a solution is chosen. Germany and the Netherlands both have experiences in severe flood events in history, which could explain why they have a higher focus on the safety of dikes compared to Denmark. In addition, the development and the size of flood-prone areas are greater in the Netherlands and in Germany than in Denmark. That Denmark focuses to a greater degree on preventing effects via the human system can be explained by the fact that it is the action requiring the least effort under the current circumstances, since the flood-prone areas never developed much.

Climate change scenarios have already influenced the strategy but in different ways: The Netherlands have reacted by implementing a wider development regulation zone around the dikes for strengthening them in future and initiated a study on how to prevent flood effects; the Germans strengthen their dikes according to a priority plan; while coastal defence decision makers in Denmark prefer to wait and see how climate change will develop. Salt marshes are, from a coastal defence point of view, kept in shape to support the function of the dike, but the theory of coastal squeeze has not been found to have any major influence on the current strategy. What is being done is monitoring of the potential problem.

A possible explanation as to why the theory of coastal squeeze does not influence the decision maker’s current strategy is that the perception of the problem is still low. Another explanation is that such a theory would be too complicated to act upon even if the perception changes. Managed realignment, as one considered solution to the

Summary

�1

problem of diminishing habitats, does require considerable effort, costs and social upheaval, which is not currently present. Since alternative technical solutions to maintain the safety of dikes are possible in case the salt marshes should drown, the value of salt marshes is in the end not high enough from a traditional coastal defence point of view either.

Generally there are no major problems with implementation of the current strategy in any of the Wadden Sea countries. The Netherlands experiences some difficulties in administrating the development zone around the dikes. They try to solve these difficulties with negotiations and by using sand nourishment. In Schleswig-Holstein they experience difficulties with the budget. They have to follow a priority list of which dikes need strengthening first and maintenance of the salt marshes is only being done where they have coastal defence significance. They will try to solve this problem by increasing awareness in the general public to ensure political support in the future. Other difficulties are to integrate interests other than coastal defence; integration of the environmental considerations is mentioned as a particular challenge. In Denmark, problems experienced are also of minor character. Integrating other interests is, as in the other countries, one of the main challenges mentioned, and likewise they try to solve it with communication between the actors. All countries share the fact that they do not have any definite scientific data for climate change to react to. They have solved this challenge by relying on the likely or worst case scenarios, using flexible sand nourishment, implementing plans to strengthening the dikes and/or simply by waiting.

The future solution is likely to be a continuation of the current strategy. The observed differences/similarities between the countries in responses to climate change can be related to an emerging dilemma: The countries are challenged to rethink their current flood defence strategies because of climate change but they are, due to traditional thinking and historic success in prohibiting floods, limited in their choice of new adjustment types. The public forgets about the risk, worries less about flood impact and as a consequence changes in the human system are very difficult. The countries continue to rely on technical solutions, which is easier. Only Denmark is still flexible and hence for this country it is not necessary to react to climate change yet.

If Denmark chose to strengthen their dikes in future, the society will probably develop into a more fixed situation like in Germany though. The flood risk zone will be pushed inward and overspill of a dike will no longer be accepted. It is also possible that Denmark (and the Wadden Sea countries in general) will make more use of cost-benefit calculations in future, which probably would increase flexibility as well.

Another limit to implementation of new adjustment types besides the traditional expectation from society is the width of thinking. In general, the interviewees did not mention many other options of how to reduce flood impact than what is already practiced. Other options the countries can investigate further include: Increasing or establishing buffer zones, relocating threatened buildings, extended building guidelines, phased-out or no development in areas at risk, rules of depreciation. Value, effort and feasibility of the instruments to be discussed could include the use of contours in landscape, awareness, legislation, and economic incentives/disincentives.

Whether or not existing cooperation has modified the strategy into a better solution depends on the values one wishes to protect and what the decision makers wish to gain from cooperation. Generally it can be said that better solutions have been reached through cooperation because more competent people and/or stakeholders were involved. Even if a better solution was not reached, at least the policy makers gained a greater insight into how other people think. In this context, one interviewee spoke of a win-win approach instead of creating a win-win solution. When comparing the two policy fields of spatial planning and coastal defence, spatial planners seemed to be more enthusiastic about cooperation. The type of cooperation laid down in legislation and between administrative levels seems to work well for the coastal defence policy field and this is basically the fundament of a well functioning strategy. The strongest influence of other actors is coming from cooperation with the political level, stakeholders (agriculture, nature protection, tourism and recreation) and scientific institutions. Cooperation across the national borders, with the general public as well as cooperation with spatial planning policy makers, is, however, a bit behind.

Opportunities for meeting trends in society as well as for implementing the EU recommendation

Summary

�2

on ICZM were overall found in promoting holistic thinking. Traditional thinking as the common obstacle is still to be addressed seven years after the demonstration programme for ICZM was concluded and four years after the recommendation on ICZM was issued: There seems to be a general resistance of coastal defence policy makers to adjust to a pragmatic distribution of power and competences. The main counter argument to change is that the defence strategy is working fine today. The need for a change in thinking is more obvious when the policy maker holds a broader perspective/responsibility and hence it can also explain why the spatial planners seemed to be more open-minded. The deficits varied between the countries, but generally overcoming a sectorial approach and increasing involvement of the public are the main opportunities found.

Deficits in public participation in the Wadden Sea countries were generally found in involvement of the general public as a group, when to involve the public in the decision making process, and in the level of their influence over the final decision. The sectorial approach shined through when visiting the research sites (e.g. unnecessary signs exclusive for one or the other policy field were found as well as geographical/mental distances between the departments). The observations were mainly supported by statements from the spatial planning policy field. It should be mentioned though that the coastal defence interviewees in all countries themselves seemed to make an effort to include environmental interests today and hence meeting trends in society and thereby also thinking more integratedly. In contrast, the scarce communication between spatial planning and coastal defence policy fields can explain why other options of how to reduce flood impact (by intervening in the human system) were not easily suggested by the majority of the decision makers as mentioned above.

Other obstacles to implementation of the EU recommendation on ICZM besides breaking traditional thinking are that it is not yet clear in the mind of decision makers what ICZM is and where it can be applied. Interpretation of ICZM comes in many variations, possibly because the recommendation is in fact formulated on a rather abstract level. Also only half of the interviewees perceived the ICZM recommendation as relevant, although very few interviewees said that it has no relevance at all. Overall, the interviewees at the

national level seemed to be more critical than interviewees at the regional level, maybe because the interviewees at the regional level tended to evaluate tools within the ICZM recommendation, rather than evaluating the recommendation itself. The recommendation is generally not perceived to be adequate to significantly change anything. The interviewees critical of ICZM stated that it is non-operational, based on old ideas and too vague and complex to transpose into national legislation. The advantages of ICZM mentioned by other interviewees include avoiding future problems, better integration of land and sea administrative zones, activation of more people, and a change away from the sectorial approach in procedures – all advantages which lead back to the main challenge of ICZM: Promoting holistic thinking.

Summary

�3

5.1 Recommendations

5.1.1 Theoreticalandpracticalapplicationofthethesis

Recommendations of increased integrated thinking and approach are given on the basis of earlier research studies and this thesis can support this (Section 4.2.3). It applies in general and to all the recommendations given below.

• Integrating spatial planning more into coastal defence policy-making could possible help modify the future strategy for coastal defence to become more flexible as such integration foster new ideas of adjustment types to implement in the strategy (Section 4.2.2). Managed realignment was discussed with many of the interviewees as a solution to coastal squeeze and climate change, but uniformly concluded to be not particularly feasible or perhaps not even necessary (Section 3.5). Other possible options, such as extended building guidelines and increasing or establishing buffer zones, can be investigated further. The policy instruments, and their value, effort and feasibility for using them are recommended to be addressed as well (Section 4.2.2).

• At the moment, salt marshes may or may not drown as a consequence of ‘coastal squeeze’ (Section 3.2.3). It is recommended to formulate strategies of “who and how” to act and indicators for “when” to act. Using integrated participation when developing the strategy is naturally recommended.

• General improvement of public participation procedures are mentioned by many of the interviewed decision makers as being necessary (Section 3.4 and 3.6.2). This recommendation is supported by the general findings of the thesis (Section 3.3.3 and 4.2.3). Research studies and allocation of time and finances to learn from each other are recommended, to improve method and/or to address problems experienced.

• Improvement of transboundary cooperation. Despite successful projects across the national borders, cooperation and/or exchange of information appears for many of the interviewees still to be a bit behind (Section 3.3.3).

• The EU recommendation on Integrated Coastal Zone Management is perceived by many decision makers to be rather complex, difficult to manage and as nothing new (Section 3.6.2). It is recommended that these problems are addressed in depth. In the spirit of promoting bottom-up initiatives, experiences of difficulties and recommendations to the European Union could be formulated in addition to the general feedback on the implementation.

Summary – Recommendations

�4

ReferencesArnstein, S.R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of American Institute of Planners, 35, 216-224. Burton, I., Kates, R. W., and White, G. F. (1978). The Environment as Hazard. Oxford University Press, New York.CPSL. (2001). Final Report of the Trilateral Working Group on Coastal Protection and Sea Level Rise. Wadden Sea Ecosystem No. 13. Common Wadden Sea Secretariat, Wilhelmshaven, Germany.CPSL. (2005). Coastal Protection and Sea level Rise - Solutions for sustainable coastal protection in the Wadden Sea region. Wadden Sea Ecosystem No. 21. Common Wadden Sea Secretariat, Wilhelmshaven, Germany.DEFRA. (2002). Managed Realignment Review - Project Report. Department of the Environment Food and Rural Affairs, London, UK.DGUK. (2004). COMRISK - Public perception of coastal flood defence and participation in coastal defence planning. Department of Geography University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany.Die Landesregierung Schleswig-Holstein. (2001). Generalplan Küstenschutz – Integriertes Küstenschutzmanagement in Schleswig-Holstein 2001. Ministerium für ländliche Räume, Landesplanung, Landwirtschaft und Tourismus des Landes Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany.EEA. (2006). Glossary on ICZM. Retrieved February 2006, from the European Environment Agency Website: http://www.eea.eu.int.Hofstede, J. (2003). Integrated management of artificially created salt marshes in the Wadden Sea of Schleswig-Holstein, Germany. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 11, 183-194. Hofstede, J. (2004). A new coastal defence master plan for Schleswig-Holstein. Coastline Reports, 1, 109-117.Hofstede. J., Blum, H., Fraikin, S., Hayman, S., Laustrup, C., von Bielen-Kiezebrik, M., Meadowcroft, I., Piontkowitz, T., Thorenz, F., Verwaest, T., Wolters, A. (2005). COMRISK: Common Strategies to Reduce the Risk of Storm Floods in Coastal Lowlands: a Synthesis. Die Küste, 70, 133- 140.Hvidtfeldt, J. (1974). Mellem Tønder og Ribe - Turistårbogen 1974. Samvirkende Danske Turistforeninger, Odense, Denmark.IPCC. (2001). Climate change 2001: The IPCC third assessment report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Janssen, G. (2004). Harmonization of management plans: Natura 2000, Water Framework Directive and EU Recommendation on ICZM. Coastline Reports, 2, 251-258.Kates, R. W. (1971). Natural Hazard in Human Ecological Perspective: Hypotheses and Models. Economic Geography, 47(3), 438-451.KDI. (2005). Strategipapir 2005. Kystdirektoratet, Transport- og Energiministeriet, Lemvig, Denmark (unpublished).Laska, S. B. (1990). Homeowner Adaptation to Flooding - An Application of the General Hazards Coping Theory. Environment and Behaviour, 22(3), 320-357.Lauber, T. B., Knuth, B. A. (2000). Citizen Participation in Natural Resource Management: A Synthesis of HDRU Research. Human Dimensions Research Unit (HDRU) Series No. 00-7.Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: an expanded sourcebook. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi.Ministry of the Interior. (2003). Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Schleswig-Holstein. Ministry of the Interior in Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany.Naudiet, R. (1995). Sturmflut. Die kleine landschaftskundliche Reihe Nr. 3. Verlag Hansen & Hansen, Münsterdorf, Germany.Partington, G. (2001). Qualitative research interviews: Identifying problems in technique. Issues in Educational Research, 11(2), 32-44. Poulsen, N. (1996). Europas frodigste ørken er våd og ligger i Danmark. WWF Verdensnaturfonden: Levende Natur, 1/96, 8-10.

References

��

RIKZ. (2004). COMRISK - Evaluation of policies and strategies for coastal risk management (Final Report). National institute for coastal and marine management, Amstelveen, The Netherlands.Ribe Amt. (2003). Regionalplan 2012 - Den offentlige debat. Ribe Amt, Ribe.Runkle, S. (1996). Umweltkonflikte sachgerecht lösen: Umweltmediation in Deutschland und in den USA. Möbilität und Normenwandel Band 19. Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer. Bochum.Stürzer, H. (2006). Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung in der Gewässerbewirtschaftungsplanung in den USA und Deutschland – ein Vergleich. Master thesis (Draft), unpublished.Witt, H. (2002). Spatial planning in Denmark. The Ministry of the Environment, Spatial Planning Department, Copenhagen, Denmark. WSP. (1997). Stade Declaration - Trilateral Wadden Sea Plan. Ministerial Declaration of the Eighth Trilateral Governmental Conference on the Protection of the Wadden Sea, Stade

DocumentsfromtheEuropeanUnion:

COM. (2000). Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on “Integrated Coastal Zone Management: A Strategy for Europe”, COM/00/547 of 17 Sept. 2000, Brussels.OJL. (2002). Recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 May 2002 concerning the implementation of integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe. OJL 2002/413/EC of 30 May 2002, Brussels.

References

��

A AppendixA1 Habitats in the Wadden Sea area

Habitats in the Wadden Sea Area

Wadden Sea Area

Offshore Area

Tidal Area

Salt Marshes

Beaches and Dunes

Rural Area

Estuaries

LegendDenmark

Germany

The Netherlands

Leeuwarden

Bremerhaven

Cuxhaven

Tønder

Ribe

Esbjerg

Husum

Tönning

Heide

Wilhelmshaven

Emden

Groningen

Delfzijl

Harlingen

Den Helder

Helgoland

Figure 7: Habitats in the Wadden Sea Area (Source: WSP 1997)

Appendix – Habitats in the Wadden Sea area

��

A2 Analytic coding scheme

1. The general context

a. Physical context

#1

#2b, #3 #1c, #2, #3

#Other #Other

#1b, #2 #1

#6 #6

#5 #5

#2a, #4 #1b, #4

#7 #7

#8 #8

#2

b. Functional context

2. Current defence strategy

c. Sociological context

d. Institutional context

Structure of the current defence strategy

a.

3. Cooperation when developing strategy

How existing cooperation has helped in modifying and implementing the strategy

a.

4. Difficulties in implementation of the strategy

Dif�culties and solutionsa.

5. Future defence strategy

Suggestions of the future defence strategy

a.

6. Integrated Coastal Zone Management

Knowledge and experi-ences of decision makers with ICZM

a.

Evaluation of ICZM by the interviewed decision makers

b.

Reasons to the current defence strategy (Disussion)

b.

• Size of �ood-prone area and physical vulnerability

• Current and historic land use • The pressure for development in �ood-prone area

• Values, beliefs, attitudes• Perception of the �ood risk• Perception of climate change• Perception of coastal squeeze

• Adjustment types focused on

• General evaluation of cooperation• In�uence of vertical cooperation• In�uence of horizontal cooperation

• Knowledge of the EU recommendation on ICZM

the recommendation• Practical experience in implementing

• Practical experiences in implementing the principles of ICZM

• Advantages and opportunities for modi�cation of the strategy• Disadvantages, risks and challenges of ICZM • Resistance

• Experiences of the interviewed policy makers of dif�culties• Solutions used today

• Guesses for the future defence strategy• Change of land use / managed realignment considerations

• Administrative structure in spatial planning• Responsibility of coastal defence works and policy• Coastal landward zones in coastal defence, Spatial planning and environmental legislation • Integration of spatial planning and coastal defence • Public participation procedures

• Adjustment types focused on according to the general hazard coping theory• Details in strategy• Climate change and coastal squeeze adaptations

TopicsInterview GuidelineSpatial

PlanningCoastalDefence

Focus / Coding Scheme

Appendix – Analytic coding scheme

��

A3 Interview details

Code: Represented Institution / Authority:Date for

interview:Location for interview:

DNCMinistry of Transport and Energy - Danish Coastal Authority

10.10.05LemvigDenmark

DNSMinistry of Environment- Spatial Planning Department

18.10.05KøbenhavnDenmark

DRCRibe Amt- Vejafdelingen

31.10.05RibeDenmark

DRSRibe Amt- Plankontoret

31.10.05RibeDenmark

GNCSchleswig-Holstein State Ministry of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Areas- Coastal Defence Division

13.10.05KielGermany

GNSMinistry of Interior of the state Schleswig-Holstein- Regional Planning Department

02.11.05 KielGermany

GRCAmt für Ländliche Räume, Husum- Küstenschutz, Häfen und Küstengewässerkunde

03.11.05HusumGermany

GRSAmt für Ländliche Räume, Husum- Integrierte Ländliche Entwicklung

04.11.05HusumGermany

NNCMinistry for Transport, Public Works and Water Management- Directorate-General for Water Affairs

24.10.05Den Haagthe Netherlands

NNSMinistry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment- National and International Policy Directorate

24.10.05Den Haagthe Netherlands

NRCProvince Fryslân- Water Management Department

26.10.05Leeuwardenthe Netherlands

Appendix – Interview details

��

A4 Interview guidelines

InterviewGuidelineforCoastalDefence

The flood protection strategy:1. What is the strategy today to prevent and mitigate impacts from flooding from your point of view? a. What other possible options do you see? b. Do you consider change of land use as a solution? c. Do you consider natural areas such as salt marshes to be included in the flooding protection

strategy?

2. Can you tell me how the strategy has changed over the last 50-60 years? a. Why do you think it has changed?

3. What do you think of climate change? a. How will you evaluate the current strategy to meet a change in climate?

4. How do you think the future strategy will develop in your field? a. Why?

Developing / Implementation of strategy:5. Can you implement the current strategy as you want? a. Do you experience any opportunities or difficulties in implementing the strategy?

6. Do you think existing cooperation has modified the strategy? a. Administrative; please evaluate the integration of administrative levels b. Sectors; please evaluate integration of other sectors: spatial planning, coastal defence, and

environmental protection c. Transboundary; please evaluate transboundary cooperation d. Public participation; please evaluate integration of the public

ICZM:7. Do you know ICZM? a. What is your knowledge and experience with ICZM?

8. Do you think ICZM is an adequate tool to modify the strategy? a. Do you think the principles and recommended approach of ICZM targets the problems? b. What risks/possibilities do you see in implementing ICZM?

Other:Name:Profession:Main Responsibility:

Appendix – Interview guidelines

�0

InterviewGuidelineforSpatialPlanning

Spatial planning and the flood defence strategy:1. Can you tell me how land use in the coastal zone has changed over the last 50-60 years? a. Why do you think it has changed? b. Has flooding had any impact on the change?

2. From your point of view what is the strategy today to prevent and mitigate impacts from flooding? a. Do you consider change of land use as a solution? b. Do you consider natural areas such as salt marshes to be protected by the flood defence

strategy?

3. What do you think of climate change? a. How will you evaluate the current flood defence strategy to meet a change in climate?

4. How do you think spatial planning will participate in development of a flood defence strategy in future?

a. Why?

Developing / Implementation of strategy:5. Can you implement the land use strategy (if there is one) to mitigate impacts from flooding in the

coastal zone as you want? a. Do you see any opportunities or difficulties in implementing a strategy?

6. Do you think existing cooperation has modified spatial planning in the coastal zone? a. Administrative; please evaluate the integration of administrative levels b. Sectors; please evaluate integration of other sectors: spatial planning, coastal defence, and

environmental protection c. Transboundary; please evaluate transboundary cooperation d. Public participation; please evaluate integration of the public

ICZM:7. Do you know ICZM? a. What is your knowledge and experience with ICZM?

8. Do you think ICZM is an adequate tool to modify the flood defence strategy? a. Do you think the principles and recommended approach of ICZM targets the problems? b. What risks/possibilities do you see in implementing ICZM?

Other:Name:Profession:Main Responsibility:


�1

InterviewGuidelineforKystsikring

Strategien for at modvirke skade ved oversvømmelse:1. Hvad er strategien i dag for at minimere risikoen for samt skaderne ved oversvømmelse efter din

mening? a. Hvilke andre muligheder ser du? b. Overvejes en ændring i fysisk planlægning som en løsning? c. Er de naturlige habitat-områder, såsom marsken ved vadehavet, beskyttet af strategien i

følge din mening?

2. Kan du fortælle mig hvordan strategien har ændret sig de sidste 50-60 år? a. Hvorfor tror du den har ændret sig?

3. Hvad er din holdning til global klimaforandring? a. Hvordan vil du evaluere den nuværende strategi med hensyn til at modstå global

klimaforandring?

4. Hvordan vil fremtidens strategi se ud i følge dit skøn? a. Hvorfor?

Udvikling og udførelse af en strategi mod skade ved oversvømmelse:5. Kan den nuværende strategi implementeres, som det ønskes? a. Oplever du nogen udfordringer eller fordele med udførelsen?

6. Har samarbejde påvirket udviklingen af strategien i følge din mening? a. Administrativt; hvordan vil du evaluere samarbejde med andre administrative niveauer? b. Sektor; hvordan vil du evaluere samarbejde med andre sektorer; fysisk planlægning,

kystsikring, naturbeskyttelse? c. Internationalt; hvordan vil du evaluere internationalt samarbejde? d. Borger inddragelse; hvordan vil du evaluere borger inddragelse?

ICZM:7. Har du hørt om integreret kystzone forvaltning? a. Hvilke erfaringer har du med integreret kystzone forvaltning?

8. Tror du at ICZM er egnet til at ændre strategien mod oversvømmelse i kystzonen? a. Er ICZM anbefalinger og metode relevant for de problemer, som findes i kystzonen? b. Hvilken risiko eller fordel ser du ved implementering af ICZM?

Øvrigt:Navn:Profession:Primære ansvarsområde:


�2

InterviewGuidelineforFysiskPlanlægning

Fysisk planlægning og strategien for at modvirke skade ved oversvømmelse:1. Kan du fortælle mig hvordan areal anvendelsen i kystzonen har ændret sig de sidste 50-60 år? a. Hvorfor tror du den har ændret sig? b. Har oversvømmelse haft nogen betydning for fysisk planlægning i kystzonen?

2. Hvad er strategien i dag for at minimere skaderne ved oversvømmelse – set ud fra et fysisk planlægnings perspektiv?

a. Overvejes en ændring i areal anvendelse som en løsning? b. Er de naturlige habitat-områder - såsom marsken ved vadehavet - beskyttet af strategien i

følge din mening?

3. Hvad er din holdning til global klimaforandring? a. Hvordan vil du evaluere den nuværende strategi med hensyn til at modstå global

klimaforandring?

4. Hvilken rolle tror du fysisk planlægning vil have i udvikling af en strategi i fremtiden? a. Hvorfor?

Udvikling og udførelse af en fysisk planlægnings strategi mod oversvømmelse:5. Kan den nuværende fysiske planlægnings strategi mod oversvømmelse (hvis der er en)

implementeres som det ønskes?a. Hvilke udfordringer eller fordele forstiller du dig i udførelsen af en sådan strategi?

6. Har samarbejde påvirket udviklingen af fysisk planlægning i kystzonen i følge din mening? a. Administrativt; hvordan vil du evaluere samarbejde med andre administrative niveauer? b. Sektor; hvordan vil du evaluere samarbejde med andre sektorer; fysisk planlægning,

kystsikring, naturbeskyttelse? c. Internationalt; hvordan vil du evaluere internationalt samarbejde? d. Borger inddragelse; hvordan vil du evaluere borger inddragelse?

ICZM:7. Har du hørt om integreret kystzone forvaltning? a. Hvilke erfaringer har du med integreret kystzone forvaltning?

8. Tror du at ICZM er egnet til udvikling/ændring af en fysisk planlægnings strategi for oversvømmelse i kystzonen?

a. Er ICZM anbefalinger og metode relevant for de problemer, som findes i kystzonen? b. Hvilken risiko eller fordel ser du ved implementering af ICZM?

Øvrigt:Navn:Profession:Primære ansvarsområde:


�3

B PhotographsThe pictures were taken by the author during the field trip in October/November 2005.

Figure 8: View over Ribe Marsh seen from dike. In the front there is a lake created when material was taken to strengthen the dike. The house is positioned on a waft from former times and in the far distance (about 6 km) Ribe church tower can be seen. (DK)

Figure 9: High tide. The intertidal flats and the pioneer salt marsh are flooded. (DK)

Photographs

�4

Figure 10: Sluice near Ribe seen from land. During high tides and storm events, the gates are closed. In extreme situations, water coming from land (precipitation and run-off) poses a flood risk because it can not escape. (DK)

Figure 11: Buildings near Ribe sluice not allowed to expand into a larger conference centre due to flood risk. Picture is taken from the dike. (DK)

Figure 12: Geese visiting the Wadden Sea area. (DK)

Photographs

��

Figure 13: Low tide. The groins are constructed to facilitate accumulation of land. (DK)

Figure 14: Recently strengthened dike near Ballum-Rejsby. (DK)

Figure 15: Street in Ribe. Ribe is considered to be the oldest town in Denmark. (DK)

Photographs

��

Figure 16: State dike in Schleswig-Holstein and the general problem of coastal squeeze. As the sea level rises, the salt marshes can not migrate toward land because of the dike. (D)

Figure 17: Recreational use of the coastal zone. (D)

Figure 18: Public access prohibited due to environmental protection of dunes and salt marshes. (D)

Photographs

��

Figure 19: Hotel in front of second dike line, Tönning. (D)

Figure 20: Pioneer salt marsh vegetation. (NL)

Figure 21: ‘Mud-walking’. Hiking across the intertidal flats during low tide is a popular tourist activity. (NL)

Photographs

��

Figure 22: Birds on migration. (NL)

Figure 23: Dike grassed by sheep. The marsh behind the dike is here used for intensive agriculture. (NL)

Figure 24: Ditch construction in the salt marsh (foreland) to help accumulation of land. (NL)

Photographs

��

Figure 25: Harlingen. (NL)

Figure 26: Recreational use of the coastal zone. (NL)

Figure 27: Waves hitting against the foot of a concrete dike. (NL)

Photographs

�1

Declaration of OriginalityI declare that this Master’s thesis is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge, it contains no material previously published or substantially overlapping with material submitted for the award of any other degree at any institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the text.

Anne Gydesen20th March 2005, Freising

Coastal Areas at Risk Areas at Risk by Anne...1.2.1 The Wadden Sea region The Wadden Sea is neither...

Documents

Transcript of Coastal Areas at Risk Areas at Risk by Anne...1.2.1 The Wadden Sea region The Wadden Sea is neither...