6.1 Integrated Water Management for Quality and Quantity
137
Non-technical measures have to be considered such as contingency planning and public information. At the moment, the concept of coastal protection at the German North Sea
coast, that is, the design of a single line, leads to the strengthening and heightening of this
line. This is caused by items (a) to (d) of the technical concept. Item (e) has been acknowledged by the State Law on Dikes (§29), but in practice this is not enforced (see Sect. 5.2).
The expectations of the inhabitants and the politician in the flood-prone are that the agreed
safety standard will be guaranteed, which under changing circumstances lead to the necessary adjustment and improvement of the embankments, that is, mainly heightening of
dikes. If this reactive management strategy is not be enhanced by additional measurements
in the hinterland, additional problems might occur (Kunz, 2004, p. 268):
• The reactive strategy will cause an increase of vulnerability, because of increasing high
water levels and the failure of a main dike can not be eliminated. Further development in the
flood-prone area will also increase the vulnerability.
• The concentration on the limited budget caused the heightening of the main dike and the
disregard of the second dike lines.
• The strategy to continuously improve the existing line of defense to increasing sea levels
will tie up almost all the available budget.
• The current strategy implicates the impression that additional measurements like selfpreparedness in case of failure are unnecessary.
• The tight governmental budget will give rise to the argumentation that no alternative to the
current strategy is available.
• According to international agreements the reorientation to integrative management needs to
consider the protection of the people, the development and the conservation of values and the
principle of sustainability. For coastal protection a shift of paradigms from “defense” (single
line of defense) to risk management (spatial protection concepts) will be necessary. The
consequence will be that the safety standard has to be adjusted to the required sustainable
development of a certain area.
Although the risk approach has not been applied in Germany, for example, to the determination of the design water level yet, due to many uncertainties, these approaches are already
the subject of basic scientific research – see, for example, Oumeraci and Kortenhaus
(2002); Kortenhaus (2003); Elsner et al. (2004); Mai (2004) and Kortenhaus et al. (2007).
According to the current implementation of the FRMD an integrated risk management
approach is required. Within the KRIM project an integrated risk management approach
was applied to the Lower Weser region, that is, improving cooperation and collaboration
between different agencies responsible for risk reduction in the coastal zone, especially
for coastal protection. Markau (2003) suggests a risk concept to deal adequately with
natural hazards in coastal regions: (a) scientific risk analysis (investigation of states), (b)
socio-political risk evaluation (assessment of social effects) and c) economic-political risk
management (optimization of risk situation) – similar to (Schanze, 2006). The main issue
is that these different approaches do overlap in respect of information and applied methods.
Cooperation and communication is limited because these fields stick to their traditional
scope of responsibilities. The disadvantages of the sectoral approach are the divergent aims
137
Non-technical measures have to be considered such as contingency planning and public information. At the moment, the concept of coastal protection at the German North Sea
coast, that is, the design of a single line, leads to the strengthening and heightening of this
line. This is caused by items (a) to (d) of the technical concept. Item (e) has been acknowledged by the State Law on Dikes (§29), but in practice this is not enforced (see Sect. 5.2).
The expectations of the inhabitants and the politician in the flood-prone are that the agreed
safety standard will be guaranteed, which under changing circumstances lead to the necessary adjustment and improvement of the embankments, that is, mainly heightening of
dikes. If this reactive management strategy is not be enhanced by additional measurements
in the hinterland, additional problems might occur (Kunz, 2004, p. 268):
• The reactive strategy will cause an increase of vulnerability, because of increasing high
water levels and the failure of a main dike can not be eliminated. Further development in the
flood-prone area will also increase the vulnerability.
• The concentration on the limited budget caused the heightening of the main dike and the
disregard of the second dike lines.
• The strategy to continuously improve the existing line of defense to increasing sea levels
will tie up almost all the available budget.
• The current strategy implicates the impression that additional measurements like selfpreparedness in case of failure are unnecessary.
• The tight governmental budget will give rise to the argumentation that no alternative to the
current strategy is available.
• According to international agreements the reorientation to integrative management needs to
consider the protection of the people, the development and the conservation of values and the
principle of sustainability. For coastal protection a shift of paradigms from “defense” (single
line of defense) to risk management (spatial protection concepts) will be necessary. The
consequence will be that the safety standard has to be adjusted to the required sustainable
development of a certain area.
Although the risk approach has not been applied in Germany, for example, to the determination of the design water level yet, due to many uncertainties, these approaches are already
the subject of basic scientific research – see, for example, Oumeraci and Kortenhaus
(2002); Kortenhaus (2003); Elsner et al. (2004); Mai (2004) and Kortenhaus et al. (2007).
According to the current implementation of the FRMD an integrated risk management
approach is required. Within the KRIM project an integrated risk management approach
was applied to the Lower Weser region, that is, improving cooperation and collaboration
between different agencies responsible for risk reduction in the coastal zone, especially
for coastal protection. Markau (2003) suggests a risk concept to deal adequately with
natural hazards in coastal regions: (a) scientific risk analysis (investigation of states), (b)
socio-political risk evaluation (assessment of social effects) and c) economic-political risk
management (optimization of risk situation) – similar to (Schanze, 2006). The main issue
is that these different approaches do overlap in respect of information and applied methods.
Cooperation and communication is limited because these fields stick to their traditional
scope of responsibilities. The disadvantages of the sectoral approach are the divergent aims