ADAPTABLE FLOOD DEFENCES

Bianca Stalenberg
Delft University of Delft; Section of Hydraulic Engineering
P.O. Box 5048
NL-2600 GA Delft
b.stalenberg@tudelft.nl
Han Vrijling
Delft University of Delft; Section of Hydraulic Engineering
P.O. Box 5048
NL-2600 GA Delft
j.k.vrijling@tudelft.nl

Abstract

Four large rivers have their estuary in the Netherlands. Protection against floods
as well as the usage of water characterizes the Netherlands and its residents
(Hooimeijer, Meyer et al. 2005). The current safety policy implies the division of
the Dutch Delta into dike ring areas with different exceeding frequencies for
normative water levels. However, the flood risk alters due to changes in physical
circumstances, in economic value and in the population figure (Kors, Van der
Most et al. 2000). Anticipating, the Dutch policy makers planned to give more
room to the rivers. Furthermore they introduced no-regret measures (Project
organisation: Room for the River 2005). Spatial measures can have sufficient
effect when enough space is available. However, in urban areas this is most of
the time not the case. Furthermore the safety policy does not make a distinction
between rural and urban areas within one dike ring. A tension remains between
flood protection and urbanisation. Both claim the same space. The objective is
therefore to find a solution for future flood defence improvement in urban areas.
The concept of adaptable flood defences can bring relief in this matter. It
combines several functions which results in one multifunctional structure. The
aspect of multi-functionality creates the opportunity to adapt in time. Through
combining several functions extra height and strength can be reserved for flood
protection in the starting phase. The multifunctional structure can also grow in
time which reckons with future flood protection requirements. These features
show that the concept of an adaptable flood defence leads to durable
multifunctional designs in a balanced urban waterfront. The concept is a durable
supplement to spatial measures.

1
Introduction

The Netherlands is one of the many lowlands in the world. Lowlands are defined
as lands affected by fluctuating surface water level, such as tides or floods, in
which human activities, such as agriculture, industry and living are pursued or
proposed (Madhav and Miura 1994). Four large rivers have their estuary in the
Netherlands: Ems, Scheldt, Meuse and Rhine (see Figure 1) (Brinke ten 2005).
Protection against floods as well as the usage of water characterizes the
Netherlands and its residents (Hooimeijer, Meyer et al. 2005). During normal
circumstances about 25 percent of the Netherlands is below mean sea level
(MSL). Furthermore the Netherlands would be flooded with approximately 65
percent if no flood protection was present (Ven van de 1993). Therefore the
Dutch delta is protected with different types of flood defences. Along the coast
line dunes and sea defences are used. In the river landscape dikes are used in
combination with fixed structures.

Current Dutch safety policy

Until the beginning of the twentieth
century dike improvements were made
after each breach. Improvements were
made according to the previous occurred
flood level which resulted in dike designs
for the worst-known-scenario with 0,5 m
freeboard (Brinke ten and Bannink 2004).
The severe floods of 1926 and 1953
showed however that these
improvements were not sufficient enough
to prevent flooding from happening. After
the flood of 1926 the government already
got doubts about her flood policy but after
the flood of 1953 it became clear that a
different approach was needed. The
Delta Commission advised to implement
a new system of protection that was
based on probabilities.
Figure 1: The Dutch lowlands

This system included a division of the Dutch Delta into dike ring areas. Different
safety levels are used per dike ring, depending on the population density and the
economic value. This implies that an area can be protected for a flooding event
which has a probability of exceeding of normative flood levels of 1/XXX per year
in the current situation. In the central coastal areas a safety level of 1/10.000 is
used. This area is the most densely populated area of the Dutch delta and
accommodates the largest economic activities. Other coastal areas
accommodate less economic activities which led to a lower safety level of
1/4.000. In the river landscape a safety level of 1/1.250 is used (Ministry of
Transport and Public Works and Water Management 2001). This safety level
gives sufficient protection because extreme river discharges have a relatively

2
large warning time. Furthermore less economic activities are taking place than in
the central part of the Netherlands. Also fresh water leads to a smaller impact of
a dike breach.

Flood Protection Act

It took several years before nearly every recommendation of the Delta
Commission was used to formulate the Flood Protection Act. This legislation was
adopted in 1996. Every flood defence has to answer the going hydraulic
boundary conditions. The hydraulic boundary conditions are those water levels
and waves that have to be blocked safely by the flood defence. These conditions
change due to alterations in climate and morphology, and therefore have to be
set every five years (Ministry of Transport and Public Works and Water
Management 2001).
Until now the safety policy was only based on the probability of exceeding of the
normative conditions and was only focusing on the physical circumstances
(Brinke ten and Bannink 2004). This approach was seen as insufficient because
it did not take the economic growth and population growth into account. Since the
beginning of this year however an updated version of the Flood Protection Act is
operational. The added paragraph (paragraph 5, article 3) states that the
efficiency and effects of the imposed safety levels have to be reported every ten
years (Staatsblad 1996). With these periodical checks every five and ten years
both physical changes and economical changes are incorporated in the Dutch
safety policy.

Environmental and economic aspects

The probability approach of the Dutch government is subjected to changes. The

flood risk (product of probability and consequence) alters due to changes in
physical circumstances, in economic value and in the population figure (Kors,
Van der Most et al. 2000). In this paragraph these aspects will be discussed
more thoroughly.

Climate changes
In the mid nineties the IPCC published a study about climate changes in which
they predicted that worldwide at the end of this century the average temperature
would increase with 1 to 3.5 °C (Kors, Van der Most et al. 2000). This
development has consequences for several natural processes. Due to for
instance the increase of the temperature the ice of the North Pole and the
glaciers will melt that. This will cause an increase of the discharge of the rivers. It
is also one of the causes of the rising sea level. Apart from that more severe
storms with heavy rainfall are predicted. This development will also lead to an
increase of the discharge. One of the phenomena that leads to subsidence is
subjected to climate changes as well. Subsidence due to oxidation and
settlement depends on drainage, soil type and temperature. An increase in
temperature will increase the activity of the micro organisms that will increase the
speed of oxidation (Kors, Van der Most et al. 2000).

3
Economic development and population figure
An increase of the flood risk can also be caused by economic development and
growth of the population figure. The Dutch population has rapidly grown from 10
million to 16 million since 1953. In the same period the net national product has
increased from 10 billion to 345 billion. The former safety approach incorporated
an economic growth of circa 2 percent per year. However in the period 1953 -
2000 the economic growth has been significantly higher with averagely 3.8
percent per year (Brinke ten and Bannink 2004). Therefore paragraph 5 was
added recently to article 3 of the Flood Protection Act which reckons with
economic development as well.

Bottleneck flood protection - urbanisation

The current Dutch safety policy does not distinguishes between rural and urban
areas of the Dutch delta. It is however important to make this distinction.
Maintenance and improvement of the flood protection system is hardly a problem
in rural areas. The system of a summer dike in combination with floodplains and
main dikes is preserved on a large scale. Thus the hinterland is mostly protected
by dikes that can be improved with minor compensating measures. The
sedimentation of clay and silt by rivers created a fertile environment. This led to
strong agricultural and horticultural activities. In these areas mainly villages can
be found which were built on higher grounds, mostly on natural sand dunes.
These sand dunes are nowadays transformed into dikes and incorporated in the
flood protection system of the
river landscape. The villages in
this region are partly built along
those dikes. At these locations
heightening and broadening of
the dike is often not possible
without compensating measures.
In some cases entire dwellings
have to be removed but
alteration of the dwelling can be
sufficient in most cases.
Compensation for the owners is
needed in either way.

Figure 2: The city Dordrecht (NL)

In urban areas it is more difficult to improve the flood defence (see

Figure 2). Most cities were founded on natural sand dunes as well but had a
different agenda than the current villages. They used the rivers as transportation
lines and developed itself as trading centres. Due to the increased commercial
activities in the High Middle Ages several cities grew. As a result protection was
needed against local bandits and enemies from other counties. Therefore many
cities have built or have improved their fortifications in order to protect the city
centre and expansions. Due to these activities and further city expansions many
flood plains were lost. Furthermore bottlenecks were created in the river system.

4
Dikes were replaced by quays and other fixed structures. In the current city
layout it is therefore difficult to improve the flood defences. A tension is present
between flood protection and urbanisation. Urban developments affect the
possibility of flood defence improvement. The other functions within the city
demand too much space in order to develop properly. Cities on the other hand
have to be protected against floods. These structures need space as well.

Objective

The current Dutch safety policy implies a check and possible improvement of the
flood defences every five years. Due to future climate changes the normative
discharge tend to increase thus the hydraulic boundary conditions will be
adjusted upwards. This results in an improvement of the flood defence every five
years. This is not desirable, especially not in urbanised areas. Here many
functions claim the same space. Improving the flood defence will almost
automatically lead to resistance from stakeholders of other urban functions. This
will slow down the process of improvement which has consequences for the
check-improvement-cycle of five years. The objective is therefore to find a
solution for future flood defence improvement in urban areas.

A different approach

Since the last centuries many floodplains have been used for human activities
and the economic value behind the dikes increased enormously the last decades
(Project organisation: Room for the River 2005). Policy makers declared that the
present reactive approach is not effective in the long run. In this section different
solutions will be discussed which were brought upon by the policy makers.

Room for river measures

Anticipating in the increasing economical development and increasing flood
discharges the Dutch policy makers planned to give more room to the rivers. With
these measures the discharge can increase without an increasing water level.
There will be a shift on emphasis from traditional dike improvement towards
spatial measures (Project organisation: Room for the River 2005). These
measures will ensure a sufficient safety level against flooding. At the same time it
will give a positive contribution to the spatial quality of the river landscape. One
can think of dike relocation, deepening of the flood plains, lowering of the groins
of by passes. Dike improvements will only be executed on spots where spatial
measures are not technically or financially applicable. The policy makers have
drawn up a policy document in which different spatial measures are combined in
order to meet the current safety levels, corresponding with a flood discharge of
16.000 m3/s, in the year 2015. This means that the check-improvement-cycle is
expanded for this Room for the River project from five to ten years. The concept
takes changes in the near future into account. This does however not imply that
designs are made which reckon with future changes.

5
No-regret measures
Policy makers realised that the proposed spatial measures were still part of a
mainly reactive approach and not effective in the long run. A measure could
result in more space for the river at this moment but could block a more effective
measure in the future. That is why they introduced the so called no-regret
measures (Project organisation: Room for the River 2005). These are short term
measures which will keep their effect in the long term and which will cause no
obstruction for measures which are necessary in the long term.

Adaptable flood defences

Spatial measures can have sufficient effect when enough space is available.
However, in urban areas the required space is often not available. Therefore
space has to be claimed elsewhere for the required spatial measures. If the
future developments have to be taken into account no-regret measures need to
be used as well. This implies space reservation for future spatial extensions;
space which is not always available in the river landscape. It is therefore
inevitable to use dike improvements as final measure. Furthermore, spatial
measures will not solve future maintenance of flood protection in river cities.
Structures have a limited lifespan an new ones are needed eventually.
Flood defence improvements are still difficult to achieve in urban areas. The
spatial claim of different functions will remain and the traditional structural
measures are not suitable to relieve the friction between the different functions in
densely populated areas. The concept of adaptable flood defences can bring
relief in this matter. This concept integrates several functions into one
multifunctional structure which can easily adapt in time. These two features will
be discussed in the following sections.

Integration of functions
The weakness of constant friction between different functions is converted into
the strength in the concept of adaptable flood defences. It combines several
functions into one multifunctional structure. In this way the available space is
used as optimal as possible. Living and working in such a multifunctional
structure makes the people more aware of the flood risk and the consequences
of a flood. At the same time they do not feel impeded in their activities by the
flood defence. This is due to the hidden and discrete appearance of the flood
structure. The flood defence is no longer seen as a degradation of the waterfront.
Additionally, urban planners do no longer have to cope with the forbidden zone
surrounding the flood defences. Furthermore, the Water Boards are not solely
focusing on the flood defence and its reservation zones but a shift is made
towards a broader view including urban activities.
The integration of functions leads to a robust design for flood protection. Other
functions may need more height than the flood protection requirements demands.
Through combining the requirements of several functions extra height and
strength can be reserved for flood protection in the starting phase. This leads to a
flood defence which can cope with a future increase of the flood level. It gives a
durable solution without an adjustment of the flood defence every five years.

6
Adaptable approach
The concept of adaptable flood defences creates a structure which can be
adjusted in time. It is a durable solution which can grow and is flexible in usage.
The flood defence is designed according to the near future safety requirements
and can be combined with other functions. In time more functions can be added
to the adaptable structure. Furthermore the existing functions can be expanded.
This does not automatically imply an improvement of the flood defence. However,
by adjusting the structure, the flood defence can be improved implicitly. Every
expansion of the multifunctional structure has to answer the total requirements
package and extra attention is needed towards the flood protection requirements.
This option has similarities with the proposed no-regret measures of the policy
makers. The concept of adaptable flood defence implies short term flood
protection which will keep its effect in the long term and which will not cause
obstruction for future measures concerning flood protection. However no-regret
measures are used for spatial solutions and the adaptable flood defence is used
for improvement of flood protection structures in urban areas.

Example: adaptable building

An example of an adaptable flood defence is an adaptable building (Figure 3). It

combines the function of flood protection with several other functions within one
building. This building can be adjusted according to the future wishes of the
Water Board or Municipality. In this particular example flood protection is
combined with a traffic function, a recreational function and the possibility to
expand or add functions. The flood defence consists of the tunnel wall and the
housing front closest to the riverbank. The outer housing front contains special
windows. They are strong enough to block river water during flooding. The entire
building is therefore protected against floods. Other functions inside the building
are not hindered by future floods. Due to the height of the building it is not
necessary to improve the flood defence whenever the hydraulic boundary
conditions are adjusted upwards. This durable solution brings calmness among
the local residents. If the flood level increases excessively more floors can be
added to the building. The additional housing fronts will become part of the
existing flood defence. In the meantime the Municipality can also decide to
construct the extra floors earlier. The extra floors could for instance be used for
apartments or restaurants. These extra floors were already taken into account in
the design phase and construction phase.

Figure 3: Adaptable building: present and future

7
Conclusions

Improving the flood defence will almost automatically lead to resistance from
stakeholders of several urban functions. Urban developments affect the
possibility of flood defence improvement. Furthermore due to future climate
changes the normative discharge tend to increase. Anticipating, the Dutch policy
makers want to give more room to the rivers. However, in urban areas not much
space is available for spatial measures. This paper shows that the concept of
adaptable flood defences can bring relief. With this concept flood defences can
be designed according to the current safety level which also reckons with future
changes. It leads to durable designs. Through combining the requirements for
several functions extra height and strength can be reserved for flood protection in
the starting phase. Another feature is the flexibility of the concept. In time more
functions can be added to this adaptable structure. Furthermore the existing
functions can be expanded. This does not automatically imply an improvement of
the flood defence, but by adjusting the structure with an additional function, such
as a leisure corner, the flood defence can be improved implicitly. These features
show that the concept of an adaptable flood defence leads to durable
multifunctional designs in a balanced urban waterfront. The concept is a durable
supplement to spatial measures.

References

1. Brinke ten, W. (2005). The Dutch Rhine, a Restrained River. Diemen, The
Netherlands, Veen Magazines.
2. Brinke ten, W. and B. Bannink (2004). Risico's in bedijkte termen; an
evaluation of te policy concerning the safety against flooding. Amersfoort,
RIVM.
3. Hooimeijer, F., H. Meyer, et al. (2005). Atlas Dutch Water Cities. Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, SUN.
4. Kors, A. G., H. Van der Most, et al. (2000). WB21: coherence of
watersystems; final report them 1 & 2, RIZA, Alterra, WL | Delft Hydraulics.
5. Madhav, M. R. and N. Miura (1994). General description and geotechnical
characteristics. Lowlands; development and management. M. M. R. Miura N.,
Koga K. Rotterdam, A.A. Balkema: 9-39.
6. Ministry of Transport and Public Works and Water Management (2001).
Hydraulic Boundary Conditions 2001; for testing the primary flood defences.
Dordrecht.
7. Project organisation: Room for the River (2005). PKB part 1: Room for the
River.
8. Staatsblad (1996). Wet van 21 december 1995,
9. Wet op de waterkering.
10. Ven van de, G. P. (1993). Man-made lowlands; history of water management
and land reclamation in the Netherlands. Utrecht, The Netherlands, Matrijs.