To improve cost-effectiveness multifunctional unbreachable dykes must be implemented, in the first place, at locations where group risk is high. Also, because only a limited budget is needed to make a dyke unbreachable once a dyke must be reinforced, recommended is for the projects that are now included in the FRPP-2 and the coming FRPPs, multifunctional unbreachable dykes will automatically be one of the reinforcement alternatives. In addition, all the actors involved at administrative level (e.g. municipality, Water Board, province) should be informed and involved in the decision making process for choosing the reinforcement design to prevent that one or more actors are involved in a too late phase and therefore do not want to cooperate. A societal cost benefit analysis must then show whether implementation of a multifunctional unbreachable dyke is feasible. Special attention should be given to the effects of multifunctionality and its ability for cost recovery. The cost benefit
analysis should at least be based on a period of 100 years to include the need for second reinforcement of a conventional dyke.
At the same time it is necessary to take measures to prevent the three challenges to cause problem for implementation of a multifunctional unbreachable dyke. Most attention should be on reforming the assessment tools because these turned out to form the main barrier. Deltares is commissioned with writing the new assessment tools for the next assessment round. The new assessment tools are still in progress, but for what it seems now is that more flexibility will be implemented concerning assessment of innovative dyke designs (e.g. multifunctional unbreachable dykes). Guidelines to help the Water Manager deal with these non-water-retaining objects must be provided instead of prohibiting them. When an unbreachable dyke is built, the design of the dyke is based on the assessment tools. The assessment tools should allow the manager of the dyke to motivate why the dyke is strong enough in cases where assessment rules do not exist. When is proved that the dyke is unbreachable, assessment in its current form is not necessary anymore. Assessment on administrative level, where is monitored that the actors who use the dyke for their additional user functions do not misuse the dyke, can replace the national assessment round (Joosten, 2013). For example when a wall of a building is part of the dyke, the owner of the building will become responsible for maintaining the wall. The Water Board only need to inspect that the owner does not misuse the wall, for example by making holes in it.
To overcome the problem that funds only become available when a dyke is assessed inadequate, Water Boards can finance 100% of the construction and reinforcement costs of the dykes. This was also the result of the committee which advised on financing primary dykes (Adviescommissie Financiering Primaire Waterkeringen, 2006). This will give the Water Boards the incentive to aim for multifunctional dykes because this can lead to cost recovery of the construction costs, and thus makes it possible for them to replenish their own budget. This change in funding is not too difficult because the Water Boards already have their own tax system. Raising these taxes can only be justified to the public when the taxes they pay to the national government will decrease. People may even be more willing to pay the tax to the Water Board because they can see more specific for what the money is used. It could also make people more aware that roughly half of the Netherlands is below sea level, and that it is necessary to invest in protecting ourselves against the water.
For the institutional organization the only recommendation that can be given in this stage is that all the responsibilities should be legally recorded to prevent ambiguities at later stages. The method Scheveningen used, to write with both the municipality and the Water Boards together a risk report and one document to apply for the needed permits, can be used as an example to make this easier.
Chapter 7: Conclusion
The current protection norms are not met by 33% of the primary dykes, the protection norms themselves are outdated and group risk in the Netherlands is high. A devastating flood that causes high societal disruption should be prevented at all times. Therefore reinforcement of the dykes is necessary. But, only limited budget is available to do so. This has lead to the research question of this thesis:
In what way can the cost-effectiveness of flood protection in the Netherlands be improved?
The Delta committee recommended unbreachable dykes at places where higher protection is preferred. An unbreachable dyke is an over-dimensioned, robust dyke which is high, wide or strong enough that the risk of total failure and subsequent total inundation is virtually zero, even at moments where the flood level is temporarily higher than the dyke itself (Vellinga et al., 2009). Klijn et al. (2010) and Ligtvoet et al. (2011) showed in their research that flood protection strategies with unbreachable dykes provide a much higher reduction of fatality and damage risk without being much more expensive. Including additional user functions, making the unbreachable dyke multifunctional, enables cost recovery and therefore can contribute to replenishing budgets for flood protection. Implementation of multifunctional unbreachable dykes at places where the dyke already need to become reinforced because it failed the assessment would lead to cost reduction of between 60 and 80 percent relative to the costs when the dyke meets the protection norm. Thus, implementation of multifunctional unbreachable dykes help improving the cost-effectiveness of Dutch flood protection.
But implementation of multifunctional unbreachable dykes is difficult. Three challenges which either prevent implementation of multifunctional unbreachable dykes or result in ineffective implementation are identified based on research from Ellen et al. (2011) and Tromp et al. (2012). These challenges are: the assessment tools (Wettelijk Toetsinstrumentarium), funding and the institutional organization.
Both the assessment tools and funding can lead to failure in implementation of multifunctional unbreachable dykes. The problem with assessment tools is that it officially does not allow for non- water-retaining objects at the dyke. This gives the Water Board the opportunity to prevent implementation if they do not want to deviate from the assessment tools. For funding, budget only becomes available when a dyke is assessed inadequate. Without a budget for reinforcement implementation of a multifunctional unbreachable dyke is not possible.
When is decided that a multifunctional unbreachable dyke is implemented the challenges can still cause ineffectiveness. Assessment tools lead to ineffectivities due to overinvestment because it leads to building too strong dykes. This is caused due to three trends: (i) separated multifunctionality is easier to assess than merged functionality. Therefore separated multifunctionality is easier to implement, but that needs appliance of an extra top soil on top of the dyke. Also, (ii) not all the objects that provide protection are always included in calculating the protection level of the dyke. And, (iii) different norms within one dyke ring are not possible. Therefore, sometimes inadequate
dykes are reinforced even though implementation of a multifunctional unbreachable dyke at one part of the dyke would make this unnecessary. But dykes that fail the assessment must become reinforced. Funding also contribute to ineffective implementation because budgets only become available when dykes are assessed inadequate. This leads to perverse prioritizing of the reinforcement works. Ineffectivities due to the institutional organization are at risk when ambiguity of the responsibilities can occur when they are not recorded by law.
To overcome these challenges some changes in flood protection need to be made. Water Boards need to become 100% responsible for the construction and maintenance costs of dykes to motivate them to implement multifunctional dykes for cost recovery opportunities. A multifunctional unbreachable dyke design should always be one of the designs investigated for reinforcement. Also, a societal cost benefit analysis, including the cost and benefits for additional user functions, for a period of 100 years must be conducted to show what dyke design is most cost-effective. All actors at administrative level should be involved in the decision making process to decide what dyke design will be implemented. The assessment tools needs to be revised as well. Non-water-retaining objects should not be prohibited. Guidelines to help the Water Manager deal with these objects must be provided. Also, the manager of the dyke should have the liberty to motivate that the dyke is adequate without the use of the assessment rules. And at last, all responsibilities, for every dyke, should be legally recorded to prevent ambiguity.
Biblography
MER Advies Comissie (2011). Kustversterking en Bestemmingsplan Katwijk. Advies over reikwijdte en detailniveau van he milieueffectrapport. Utrecht
Adviescommissie Financiering Primaire Waterkeringen (2006). Tussensprint naar 2015. Amsterdam: Klimaatcentrum Vrije Universiteit.
ARCADIS & Alkyon (2005). Startdocument Versterking Zeewering Scheveningen. Arnhem: Hoogheemraadschap van Delfland.
Baan, P. & Klijn, F. (2004). Flood risk perception and implications for flood risk management in the Netherlands. International Journal of River Basin Management , Vol. 2, No. 2 pp 113-122.
Bank, W. (2012). Turn Down the Heat. Washington: the World Bank.
Beishuizen, E. (2008). Startnotitie M.E.R. Dijkversterking Eiland van Dordrecht Oost. Arnhem: ARCADIS.
Bel, D., Blom, G., Boom, L., Siedsma, J. & Vogel, R. (2012). Toetsingsadvies over het
milieueffectrapport Dijkversterking Steurgat/Bergsche Maas Dijkring 24: Werkendam-Hank. Utrecht: Commissie MER.
Berg, F. v. & Knoeff, J. (2010). Deltadijken, bestuurlijke kansen en belemmeringen. Rotterdam: Erasmus Universiteit.
Berg, v. d. F. (2013, May 2). Sr. advisor Geo Engeneering Deltares. (M. Tettero, Interviewer)
de Bruijn, K. & van Doef, M. (2011). Gevolgen van overstromingen - Informatie ten behoeve van het project Waterveiligheid in de 21e eeuw. Deltares.
van Buuren, M., Gils, M. v. & Smaal, P. (2013). FluviaTiel Voorlopig Ontwerp. Tiel. ComCoast. (2006). Water Assets XXX.
Crusio, W. (2009). Pilot Waterfronten Walcheren. Arcadis.
CUR-rapport 237 (2011). Multikeringen Katwijk, verkenning naar de optimale balans tussen waterveiligheid en ruimtelijke ordening. Gouda: Stichting CURNET.
de Vries, P. (2013, May 13). Policy employee development department municipality Texel. (M. Tettero, Interviewer)
Deltaprogramma (2013). Deltaprogramma bestuurlijk, juridisch en financieel. Retrieved June 11, 2013, from Rijksoverheid:
http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/deltaprogramma/deltaprogramma-bestuurlijk-juridisch- en-financieel
Deltares (2013, Februari 1). Case - Wave reducing Eco Dike. Opgeroepen op June 19, 2013, van publicwiki deltares: http://publicwiki.deltares.nl/display/BWN/Case+-+Wave+reducing+Eco+Dike# Deltares Magazine 6 (2012). Schadevrij bouwen aan de Scheveningense boulevard. pp. 12-13. Deltawerken Online (2004). The Delta Works. Retrieved May 12, 2013, from Deltawerken Online: http://www.deltawerken.com/23
DSO & Gemeente Den Haag (2007). Overall Vision Scheveningen Boulevard. Den Haag: gemeente Den Haag.
van Eem, W. (2010, June 15). Grebbedijk Deltadijk. Utrecht, the Netherlands.
van Eem, W. (2010, June 15). Visie toekomstige Grebbedijk. Doel project Toekomstige Grebbedijk. Dijkontwerp met optimale veiligheid en ruimtelijke meerwaarde. Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Ellen, G., Boers, M., Knoeff, H., Schelfhout, H., Tromp, E. & van der Berg, F. (2011). Multifunctioneel medegebruik van de waterkering. beantwoording signaleringsvaar #5 van de Deltacommissaris. Utrecht/Delft: Deltares.
Ellen, G., Schelfhout, H. & van Vliet, L (2011). Factsheet Deltadijk. Stowa Deltaproof.
Gemeente Den Haag (2013, April 1). Bewoners - Nieuws. Retrieved May 3, 2013, from Den Haag.nl: http://www.denhaag.nl/home/bewoners/to/Minister-Schultz-van-Haegen-opent-nieuwe-boulevard- Scheveningen.htm
Gemeente Den Haag (2010, October 15). Feiten en Cijfers. Retrieved May 03, 2013, from Nieuwe Boulevard Scheveningen: http://www.denhaag.nl/Nieuwe-Boulevard-
Scheveningen/project/to/Feiten-en-cijfers-2.htm
Gemeente Dordrecht (2013, March 20). Bestemmingsplan Dijkversterking Dordt-oost. Retrieved May 7, 2013, from Bestuursinformatiesysteem Gemeente Dordrecht Dossier - 1021938:
http://www.dordrecht.nl/pls/idad/!mozEgemMbScherm1.toonDossier?F_DOS_VOLGNR=1021938&F _TAB=DOC&F_NOCACHE=71199290&F_TERUGKEERNAAM=&F_TERUGKEERURL=
Gemeente Tiel (2013). FluviaTiel Voorlopig Ontwerp. Tiel: DLG.
Gersonius, B., Zevenbergen, C., Schelfhout, H., Jonkman, B. & Horst, W. t. (2012). Memo: Quick scan Deltadijk Kop van 't Land Dordrecht (concept).
Hartog, M., Loon-Steensma, J., Schelfhout, H. v., Slim, P. & Zantinge, A. (2011). Een delta in bewegin: Bouwstenen voor een klimaatestenidge ontwikkeling van Nederland. Planbureau voor de
leefomgeving.
Hartog, M., Loon-Steensma, J., Schelfhout, J. v., Slim, P. & Zantinge, A. (2009). Klimaatdijk - Een verkenning. Kennis voor Klimaat.
Helder, A. (2011). Planstudie dijkversterking Waddenzee Texel. Deventer: Witteveen+Bos. Hemel, R. & Rijnsoever, F. (2013). Experimenteren in de delta. Utrecht: NWP & UU.
Hoogheemraadschap Hollands Noorderkwartier (2008). Startnotitie dijkversterking zwakke schakel Hondsbossche en Pettemer Zeewering. Hollands Noorderkwartier.
HWB -2 (2011). Basisrapportage Hoogwaterbeschermingsprogramma 2. Rijksoverheid. Intentieovereenkomst. (2007). Versterking prioritaire Zwakke Schakel DG 3 Nolle-Westduin. Vlissingen.
IVW (2011). Derde toets primaire waterkeringen - Landelijke toets 2006 - 2011. Inspectie Verkeer en Waterstaat.
Jongmans, H. & Bleker, R. (2013). Routingvoorstel. Waterschap Rivierenland.
Karman, P., Mijnders, I., Verbeek, I. & Argiolu, R. (2013). Milieueffectrapport kustversterking hondsbossche en etteer zeewering. Hoorn: ARCADIS.
Kelder, E., Gersonius, B. & Hulsebosch, M. (2013). Concept Gebiedsrapportage Eiland van Dordrecht. Deltaprogramma Rijnmond-Drechtsteden.
Kind, J. (2008). Kengetallen Kostenbatenanalyse Waterveiligheid 21e eeuw. Lelystad: RWS- Waterdienst.
Kind, J. (2011). Maatschappelijke kosten-batenanayse Waterveiligheid 21e eeuw. Delft: Deltares. Klijn, F. & Bos, M. (2010). Deltadijken: Ruimtelijke implicaties - Effecten en kansen van het doorbraakvrij maken van primaire waterkeringen. Deltares.
Klijn, F., Baan, P., Bruijn, K. d. & Kwadijk, J. (2007). Overstromingsrisico's in Nederland in een
veranderend klimaat; verwachtingen, schattingen en berekeningen voor het project Nederland Later. Delft: WL-rapport Q4290.
Klijn, F., Knoop, J. & Mens, M. (2012). In search for robust flood risk management alternatives for the Netherlands. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 12; , 1469-1479.
Klijn, F., Kwadijk, J., de Bruijn, K. & Hunink, J. (2010). Overstromingsrisico's en droogterisico's in een veranderd klimaat. Deltares.
Knoeff, J. (2008). Doorbraakvrije dijken, maatregelen voor binnenwaartse macrostabiliteit en piping. Delft: Deltares.
Knoeff, J. & Ellen, G. (2011). Verkenning deltadijken. Deltares - rapport 125259-000.
Kolen, B. & Geerts, R. (2006). Als het toch misgaat: Overstromingsscenario's voor rampenplannen. RIZA.
Koopal, A. (2013). Projectplan Kustversterking Katwijk. Amersfoort: ARCADIS.
KOV. (2012, May 30). Nieuws en actualiteiten. Retrieved July 17, 2013, from Katwijkse
Ondernemersvereniging: http://www.kovkatwijk.nl/asp/nieuwsitem.asp?id=%7B958A8C55-33EF- 4291-875C-A379305669D0%7D
Kust op Kracht. (2009). Projectrapport Hondsbossche en Pettemer Zeewering: Zand en natuur. HHNK & Provincie Noord-Holland.
Kennis voor Klimaat (2011). Case 18 Klimaatdijk beschermt historisch rivierdorpje in vele opzichten. Retrieved June 19, 2013, from Praktijkboek Ruimte voor Klimaat:
http://www.ruimtevoorklimaat.nl/cases/18-Brede-dijk-Streefkerk La4Sale (2010). Visie Grebbedijk doorbraakvrije Landschapsdijk.
van Lans, J. (1998, September 5). Trouw Archief. Retrieved April 5, 2013, from Trouw: http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/archief/article/detail/2542460/1998/09/05/Klein- woordenboek-van-de-Nederlandse-identiteit.dhtml
Ligtvoet, W., Franken, R., Pieterse, N., Gerwen, O. v., Vonk, M., Bree, L. v., et al. (2011). Climate Adaptation in the Dutch Delta. The Hague: Plan Bureach voor de Leefomgeving.
van Loon-Steensma, J. (2011). Robuuste Multifunctionele Rivierdijken. Wageningen: Alterra, onderdeel van Wageningen UR.
van der Meulen, J. & Merks, H. (2013, May 1). Water Board Rivierenland. (M. Tettero, Interviewer) Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu. (2012). Voorschrift Toetsen op Veiligheid, Algemeen Deel (CONCEPT). Den Haag: Rijkswaterstaat.
Ministerie van Verkeer & Waterstaat. (2003). BasisKustlijn 2001. The Hague: Rijksoverheid.
Mulder, M. (2012, December 11). Bevolkingsdichtheid per gemeente 2012. Retrieved March 5, 2013, from Nationale Atlas Volskgezondheid: http://www.zorgatlas.nl/beinvloedende-
van Nieuwenhuijzen, L. & Meer, M. v. (2010). Handreiking Innovaties voor waterkeren. Delft: Deltares. Nooijer, J. d. & Schaap, E. (2012). Dikversterking Steurgat/Bergsche Maas. Tiel: Oranjewoud.
Peters, N. & Oosterhoudt, L. v. (2011). Groen dijkontwerp bij Fort Steurgat. Delta: de groene driehoek tussen ontwerp, techniek en beheer , 10-11.
Pieterse, N., Knoop, J., Nabielek, K., Pols, L. & Tennees, L. (2009). Overstromingsrisicozonering in Nederand. Hoe in de ruimtelijke ordening met overstromingsrisico's kan worden omgegaan. Den Haag/Bilthoven: Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving.
Plan Bureau voor de Leefomgeving. (2011). Climate Adapation in the Dutch Delta. Strategi options for a climate-proof development of the Netherlands. The Hague, The Netherlands: Plan Bureau voro de Leefomgeving.
Plan Bureau voor de Leefomgeving (2011). Een delta in beweging. Bouwstenen voor een
klimaatbestendige ontwikkeling van Nederland. The Hague: Plan Bureau voor de Leefomgeving. Projectbureau Noordwaard (2010). Ontpoldering Noordwaard - Inhoudelijke verschillen alternatieven MER en RIP. Rotterdam: Projectorganisatie Ruimte voor de Rivier.
Ridderink, H. (2013, May 13). Deputy Director NIOZ. (M. Tettero, Interviewer)
Rijke Waddenzee (2011, September 2). Planstudie Dijkversterking Texel. Retrieved June 17, 2013, from Rijke Waddenzee:
http://www3.noorderkwartier.waterschapshuis.asp4all.nl/Dijkversterking_Texel/dijksectie_09.pdf Rijksoverheid (2013). HWBP 2. Retrieved April 29, 2013, from Helpdesk Water:
http://www.helpdeskwater.nl/onderwerpen/waterveiligheid-0/programma'-projecten/hwbp-2/ Rijksoverheid (2009, December 1). Nationaal Waterplan 2009 - 2015. Retrieved March 13, 2013, from Rijksoverheid: http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-
publicaties/rapporten/2009/12/01/nationaal-waterplan-2009-2015.html
Rijksoverheid (2008, June 20). Snellere aanpak Schevenigen Boulevard. Retrieved April 17, 2013, from Rijksoverheid Documenten en publicaties: www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-
publicaties/persberichten/2008/08/14/snellere-aanpak-scheveningen-boulevard.html RIVM (2004). Risico's in bedijkte termen. Bilthoven: PBL.
Schelfhout, H. (2013, May 17). Expert advisor Geo Engeneering Deltares. (M. Tettero, Interviewer) Schelfhout, H., Duijvenbode, J. v., Siemerink, T. & Bosch, R. (2010). Klimaatdijk 100 keer zo veilig en 10 keer zo mooi. Land+Water , 4: 20-21.
Schultz van Haegen, M. (2013). Koersbepaling waterbeleid 26 April . Den Haag: Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu.
Silva, W. & van Velzen, E. (2008). De dijk van de toekomst? Quick-scan doorbraakvrije dijken. Deltares- rapport Q4558.32.
Smit, C., Duin, W. v., Henkens, R. & Slim, P. (2005). Casus Hondsbossche Zeewering. Wageningen: Altera onderdeel van Wageningen UR.
Stellingwerff, R., Vrolijk, J. & Toussaint, M. (2010). Grebbedijk Deltadijk. Provincie Utrecht en Watterschap Vallei & Eem.
Stijnen, J. (2008). Resultaten waterbezwaar. Lelystad: HKV lijn in water.
Strijker, J. (2013, April 24). Municipality Tiel, Project leader FluviaTiel . (M. Tettero, Interviewer) Takeuchi, K. (2002). Flood Management in Japan - From Rivers to Basins. Water International , Volume 27, Issue 1, p. 20-26.
Toekomst Schevenigen Bad. (2010, March 5). Nieuws. Retrieved June 19, 2013, from Een toekomst in Schevenignen-Bad: http://www.toekomstscheveningenbad.com/index.html
Tromp Meesters, M. (2013). Study Manual Research Project ERM 2012-2013. Amsterdam: VU University.
Tromp, E. (2012, May 15). Advisor spatial development and embankments Deltares. (M. Tettero, Interviewer)
Tromp, E., Berg, H. v., Rengers, J. & Pelders, E. (2012). Multifunctionele Waterkeringen. Onderzoek naar de mogelijkheden voor flexibel gebruik van de waterkeringen. Delft: Deltares.
Vellinga, P. (2008). Hoogtij in de Delta, inaugurele Rede. Wageningen: Wageningen UR.
Vellinga, P. (2003). Klimaatverandering en de veiligheid van Nederland. Den Haag: Erasmus Lezing. Vellinga, P., Marinova, N. & Loon-Steensma, J. v. (2009). Climate-proofing the flood protection of the Netherlands. Netherlands Journal of Geosciences , 88 - 1: 3 - 12.
Vigonali, C. & Zundel, M. (2003). The marketing management process and heuristic devices: an action research investigation. Emerald Group Publishing , 205-219.
Visser, M. (2012). Ontwerp projectplan dijkversterking Eiland van Dordrecht Oost. Waterschap Hollandse Delta.
Waterschap Veluwe. (2013, April 19). Openingspagina Waterschap Veluwe. Retrieved April 19, 2013, from Waterschap Veluwe: http://www.veluwe.nl/
Willemsen, H., Kanselaar, M. & Velp, S. v. (2010). Ontwerprapport dijkring 23 - Traject Steurgatdijk. Arnhem: Grontmij Nederland B.V.
Wit, S. d., Wessels, J., Houweling, W., Schweckendiek, T. & Koopman, J. (2010). Katwijk wil parkeergarage in dijk-in-duin. Land+Water nr.3.
Witteveen+Bos. (2012). Dijkversterking Kinderdijk-Schoonhovensemeer - ontwerp projectplan. Deventer: Witteveen+Bos.
World Bank. (2012). Turn Down the Heat. World Bank.
Annex A
Annex B
Expected land subsidence in the Netherlands in 2050 relative to situation of 1997.