Adaptation of water management to regional climate change in a coastal.pdf

7/29/2019 Adaptation of water management to regional climate change in a coastal.pdf

1/12

Adaptation of water management to regional climate change in a coastal

region Hydrological change vs. community perception and strategies

Helge Bormann a,, Frank Ahlhorn b, Thomas Klenke b

a Civil Engineering Department, University of Siegen, Paul-Bonatz-Strasse 9-11, D-57068 Siegen, Germanyb Centre for Environmental and Sustainability Research (COAST), Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, D-26111 Oldenburg, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 28 February 2012

Received in revised form 8 May 2012

Accepted 25 May 2012

Available online 7 June 2012This manuscript was handled by Geoff

Syme, Editor-in-Chief

Keywords:

Climate change

Regional hydrological change

Coastal region

Adaptation of water management

Participatory process

s u m m a r y

The climate scenarios of the IPCC suggest that adaptation to future climate change will be required. TheNorth Sea Region, a marginal sea of the Atlantic Ocean between Great Britain, Scandinavia, Germany, the

Netherlands and Belgium, is particularly affected due to rising sea level and a changing water balance.Water management plays a key role in sustainable management of natural and societal resources. Thispaper presents a participatory study of community approaches to regional adaptation to climate change.

Water management adaptation options to regional climate induced changes until 2050 were developedtogether with stakeholders for the Wesermarsch County (Northern Germany). Available information on

expected regional climate change and a modelling study on hydrological change suggested that adapta-tion of water management will be required until 2050. A regional stakeholder forum formulated a vision

on how the Wesermarsch should look like in 2050. Following the holistic approach of collaborative plan-ning, two stakeholder groups developed an adaptation portfolio on how urban and rural areas could

adapt their water management to cope with the expected changes. Since most of the stakeholders donot want the county to undergo significant changes in terms of landscape and land use, they proposedtechnical measures to enforce flood protection and enhance the performance of the existing water man-

agement system. Adaptation in terms of land usechange was not proposed although information on com-

parable examples from similar regions was available. To justify the proposed adaptation options,available information on expected climate change impacts was used selectively. Uncertainty in modelprojections was partly ignored to legitimate suggesting inflexible (technical) adaptation measures. How-

ever, collaborative planning proved to be helpful for a joint adaptation to climate change at the regionalscale. Stakeholders as well as scientists took active part in the participatory learning process as required

by EU directives. 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Climate change is one of the key issues in recent environmentalresearch and studies on sustainable development. The Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated that global

warming has accelerated significantly in the second half of the20th century, and that humans have caused the dominant part ofglobal warming (IPCC, 2007a).

Based on these commonly accepted facts, science and societyare debating on how to react to climate change. Two main comple-

mentary strategies are recently suggested: (1) to mitigate a futureclimate change (e.g., by reducing the emission of greenhousegases) and (2) to adapt to those changes which cannot be miti-gated. While mitigation needs to be evaluated on a global scale,

adaptation to climate change is a local to regional scale issue

(Fssel, 2007). According to van den Hurk and Jacob (2009), globalmean temperature will continue to rise by approximately 0.1 C

per decade during the 21st century due to the delayed responseof the slow components in the climate system even when green-house gas concentrations will not increase from the level reached

in 2000. Therefore, independent of the efficiency of future mitiga-tion, an adaptation to continuing climate change is necessary ifsuch climate change exceeds current climate variability. Adapta-tion to climate change, therefore, has raised public interest in thepast years, mainly driven by climate related disasters (Fssel,

2007; Krysanova et al., 2010). As a consequence, preliminarynational concepts have been setup towards the development ofnational adaptation strategies (e.g., for Germany: Bundesregierung,2008).

Due to the increasing relevance of adaptation to climate change,the scientific community has paid more attention to this topic inrecent years. Publications introduced general concepts and ap-proaches for adaptive planning (e.g., Fssel, 2007) and analysed

0022-1694/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.05.063

Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 271 7402162; fax: +49 271 7402921.

E-mail address: [email protected] (H. Bormann).

Journal of Hydrology 454455 (2012) 6475

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Hydrology

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / j h y d r o l
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.05.063mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.05.063http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00221694http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrolhttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrolhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00221694http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.05.063mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.05.063


2/12

regional possibilities for and limitations of climate change adapta-tion (e.g., Kabat et al., 2005; de Bruin et al., 2009). Adaptation strat-

egies were compared among different regions and river basins(e.g., Krysanova et al., 2010) as well as their recent status in adap-tation planning (e.g., Huntjens et al., 2010). Most authors agreedthat adaptation needs to be on regional scale (e.g., Wesselinket al., 2009) and consider different issues (de Bruin et al., 2009;

Veraart et al., 2010) such as natural systems, agriculture, economyand water management.

Planning the adaptation to climate change requires the use ofinformation on present and future climate conditions. Therefore,

most developments of adaptation strategies or concepts are basedon future climate projections. According to Fssel (2007), the effec-tiveness of proactive adaptation to climate change is expected todepend on the accuracy of regional climate and impact projections

when following a top-down approach. The uncertainty in futureclimate can be one of the most important barriers for climatechange adaptation (Krysanova et al., 2010). Consequently, thequestion that arises is how to incorporate uncertain scenarios into

the process of adaptation planning (Cohen et al., 2006). Someauthors argue that additional information provided by climatemodel ensembles and scenarios is valuable for understanding the

possible ranges of future conditions. Such information might en-able decision-makers to compare the (dis-)advantages of differentadaptation options and their timing (e.g., Lopez et al., 2009). Otherstudies object that policy makers prefer to stick to one singleclimate change scenario (Veraart et al., 2010). Nevertheless, accep-

tance of uncertainty and dealing flexibility with variable projec-tions should be one quintessence of adaptive planning. Blschland Montanari (2010) emphasised the uncertainty in the assess-ment of climate change effects. They argue that there should not

be too much confidence in any simulation of rainfallrunoff drivenfloods in a changed climate which are mostly used as basis for thedevelopment of water management concepts. While Blschl andMontanari (2010) do not provide alternatives, they pronounce

the need for better uncertainty estimation and promote to effec-

tively communicate any uncertainty to the end users of their sim-ulation products (e.g., peak flows, water balance terms).

One sector which is mostly considered within climate adapta-

tion studies is the water sector (e.g., Woltjer and Al, 2007; de Bruinet al., 2009; Lopez et al., 2009; Wesselink et al., 2009; Huntjenset al., 2010; Krysanova et al., 2010; Veraart et al., 2010). Someauthors argue that climate change will only transform boundary

conditions for water managers only (e.g., van Beek, 2009). On theone hand, many stakeholders as well as experts perceive water re-lated risks (e.g., floods, droughts) as most serious impact of climatechange (Veraart et al., 2010). Correspondingly, many studies con-

clude that a closer cooperation between water management andspatial planning is required (Woltjer and Al, 2007; Aerts andDroogers, 2009; Veraart et al., 2010). Furthermore, fresh water

plays a particular role in coastal regions (Bormann et al., 2009;Veraart et al., 2010). In low lying coastal areas such as The Nether-lands and Northwest Germany, water management is crucial dueto the interactions between fresh water and salt water, storm tides

and river floods as well as seasonal variations in fresh water avail-ability. In terms of climate change, these regions will further befaced with rising sea levels and a likely hydrological change char-acterised by increasing frequencies and intensities of floods and

droughts (e.g., Ludwig and Moench, 2009; Bormann et al., 2009).Based on such expectations, an adaptation of coastal water man-agement in accordance with the European Water FrameworkDirective (EC, 2000), an Integrated Coastal Zone Management

(EC, 2002) and Flood Risk Management Directive (EC, 2007) isurgently required. These EC documents emphasise an intense

involvement of stakeholders in terms of participation and collabo-rative planning of management plans.

In this study, the importance of hydrological projections as wellas their conceptualisation is analysed with respect to their percep-tion by a community of stakeholders from water related sectors in

the Wesermarsch County, Northwest Germany. Projections of aregional climate model are used to quantify possible future hydro-logical change in the region which might necessitate an adaptationof the regional water management. In the last century, the Wes-

ermarsch County has continuously been affected by river engineer-ing. Therefore, adaptation of water management to changinghydrological conditions has a long history since first rectificationof the Weser River around the 1890s. Previous research shows thatstakeholders are an indispensable part for the process of develop-

ing regional adaptation strategies (Cohen, 1997; Cohen et al., 2006;Fssel, 2007; de Bruin et al., 2009; Huntjens et al., 2010; Krysanovaet al., 2010). They are already an explicit part of the implementa-

tion process of the European Water Framework Directive (EC,2000) and recommended to be involved in the implementation ofan Integrated Coastal Zone Management plan (EC, 2002) and forthe implementation, review and updating of flood risk maps and

plans according to the Flood Risk Management Directive (EC,2007). Social learning processes in stakeholder networks have beenproposed to be powerful in coastal issues such as water manage-

ment (Walker et al., 2002; Berkhout et al., 2006; Pahl-Wostlet al., 2007) and coastal protection (Ahlhorn, 2009).

Within such a participation process, an adaptation strategy forregional scale water management has been developed by a groupof stakeholders, experts and scientists in the framework of the

Climate Proof Areas (CPA) project (EU Interreg IVB North SeaRegion). Based on a description of the process and the resultsgained from the CPA project, we try to elaborate the impact ofthe available information on expected hydrological change on the

result of the participation process in terms of adaptation options.We analyse the way how the information provided during the pro-cess was used, and we end up with conclusions on the informationmanagement within such a participation process to develop a re-

gional climate change adaptation strategy (Fig. 1). This is the first

study which analyses this context in the field of water manage-ment in Germany while Ahlhorn (2009) performed similar analy-ses for the coastal protection sector.

2. Materials and method

2.1. Climate Proof Areas project

The Climate Proof Areas project (CPA; 20082011) was fundedby the European Community in the framework of the Interreg

IVB North Sea Region programme. CPA aimed to develop regionalclimate change adaptation strategies in the North Sea Region. Itunited partners of five European countries (Belgium, Germany,

Great Britain, The Netherlands, Sweden). According to Kabat et al.(2005), climate proofing is understood by CPA as a means to reducerisks to a quantified level which is accepted by society and/or econ-omy. The project brought together a variety of partners with differ-

ent viewpoints on how to deal with climate change impacts. Thepartners were in different stages in terms of development andimplementation of adaptation strategies (Fig. 2). The Belgian part-ner (Gent University) was in the stage of analysis and identifying

the climate change impact issue. Partners of Sweden (SGI, SMHI,Municipality of Arvika, County of Vrmland), Germany (Universityof Oldenburg) and The Netherlands (Province of Zeeland, Munici-pality of Schouwen-Duiveland, Deltares, Rijkswaterstaat) were in

the process of developing adaptation policies to climate changeand translating this towards implementation. The UK partners (Na-

tional Trust, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, WildlifeBCNP) have formulated various policies in this field and were in

H. Bormann et al./ Journal of Hydrology 454455 (2012) 6475 65


3/12

the stage of implementation. The above mentioned activities ofdifferent project partners were located at specific project areas

where pilot studies were carried out (Fig. 3; for details seewww.climateproofareas.eu ). The focus of this study was set onthe German pilot region Wesermarsch County.

The CPA project is suitable to tackle the question of climate

change adaptation since different stages of the adaptation processcan be analysed at the same time which usually is not possible inone single region. In addition, CPA reflects different (national)

attitudes how to deal with participation which formally is requiredin all countries in the same way due to the implementation of

different EC directives such as the Water Framework Directive(EC, 2000).

2.2. Study area: Wesermarsch County

The Wesermarsch County was selected as German pilot areawithin the CPA project. The county serves as an example for many

regions along the North Sea coast and in estuaries, lying below oraround sea level. The Wesermarsch County has continuously been

affected by river engineering activities in the last century in orderto enable an economic development along the Weser River. Thus,

Fig. 1. Structure of the presented study; rectangles: stakeholder based development of adaptation options to climate change; circles: information management analysed in

this study.

Fig. 2. Different stages of the pilot locations within the process of developing andimplementing adaptation measures within the CPA project; BE: Belgium, DE:

Germany, GB: Great Britain, NL: The Netherlands, SE: Sweden.

Fig. 3. Pilot areas within the Climate Proof Areasproject. 14: Schouwen Duiveland

and Oosterschelde (The Netherlands); 5 and 6: Wesermarsch (rural, urban;Germany); 79: Great Fen, Wicken Fen, Titchwell Marsh (Great Britain); 10: Arvika(Sweden).

66 H. Bormann et al./ Journal of Hydrology 454455 (2012) 6475
http://www.climateproofareas.eu/http://www.climateproofareas.eu/


4/12

adaptation to hydrological change has been an important topic inthe region at least since the first Weser River rectification in the

1890s. Furthermore, the stakeholders of the region were willingto actively participate in such a participatory process since watermanagement plays a central role in further regional development.

The WesermarschCounty (822 km2 in size,called Wesermarsch

henceforth)is located in Northwest Germany. Thecounty hasa pop-ulation of about 92,000 people (year 2009) and, except the Weserports Brake andNordenham, is primary rural.95% of thearea is usedfor agriculture (fromwhich90%is grassland, mainly for dairy cattle).The Wesermarsch, also referring to the landscape of the County, is

located between Jade Bay in the west, North Sea in the north andWeser River in the east. As a result, the topographic situation issimilar to a peninsula (Fig. 4). The topography is predominantly flat(elevations between 2 m and 5 m above sea level), and soils are

generally either fine textured (marsh soils) or organic (peat). Inorder to safeguard the region against storm tides, dikes have beenconstructed for centuries and continuously heightened to reducethe risk of flooding. The climate is humid and temperate all over

the year (approximately 700 mm annual precipitation; HAD,2003), showing a precipitation maximum in summer and a meanannual temperature of about 9.0 C.

Due to the physiographic characteristics, tidal dynamics (3 mmean tidal range), the intense agricultural use and, locally, habita-tion and industry, the Wesermarsch County is faced with severalhydrological challenges. In winter time, water needs to be drainedfrom the area in order to avoid flooding. In order to minimise the

energy amount required for pumping, the region is drained duringlow tide as fare as possible. Contrarily, in summer time, the regionsuffers from a water deficit which needs to be compensated, toavoid drying out of marsh water bodies. For this purpose, during

high tide, fresh water from the Weser River is conveyedinto the ca-nal system of the Wesermarsch, regulated by the water boards.Due to the peninsula-like situation, deepening of the Weser Riverfor shipping and the intense drainage of low-lying areas, salinisa-

tion of surface and groundwater bodies are increasing problems.

In order to regulate water surplus and deficits, a traditionalwater management system has been developed in the last centu-ries. A dense network of ditches, channels, barriers, sluices and

pumping stations has been established in order to regulate ground-and surface water levels in the region. Water management playedand still plays an important role to guarantee the usability of theland for agricultural and industrial purposes as well as for habita-

tion. Currently, six water boards are responsible for water manage-ment in the Wesermarsch: Braker Sielacht, EntwsserungsverbandStedingen, Entwsserungsverband Jade, EntwsserungsverbandButjadingen, Stadlander Sielacht, and Moorriem-Ohmsteder

Sielacht. Together with two dike boards (I and II OldenburgischerDeichband), they are organised within one umbrella organisation(Kreisverband Wesermarsch der Wasser- und Bodenverbnde:

www.wabo-brake.de) but generally decide individually on howto regulate water levels and flows within their respective areas.All land owners in the Wesermarsch are compulsory members ofthe boards. And executives of the water boards are elected by the

members.

2.3. Participatory approach

According to the IPCC (2007b), adaptation is the adjustment innatural or human systems in response to actual or expected cli-mate stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploitsbeneficial opportunities. The adaptive capacity can be increased,

e.g., by including adaptation measures in land use planning andinfrastructure design. Since regional scale adaptation planning

must integrate stakeholders (e.g., Dresdner and Gilbert, 1999; EC,2003; Feindt and Newig, 2005; Kloprogge and van der Sluijs,

2006; Gezelius and Refsgaard, 2007; Patel et al., 2007), an integra-tive and participatory process was organised in this study to devel-op a regional scale adaptation options for the Wesermarsch. Onereason is that adaptation can amplify existing conflicts between ac-

tors (Adger et al., 2005).

2.3.1. Determination of the focus issue and selection of stakeholders

In the early beginning, representatives of regional scale organi-

sations (GOs, NGOs) were contacted by the authors and asked forparticipation in a first meeting. This meeting was held to identifya common focus issue for adaptation planning and to identify fur-ther relevant stakeholders for the process of developing regional

scale adaptation options. This study aimed at a bottom-up ap-proach in terms of participation in order to make use of the avail-able knowledge on the region, on its specific issues and possible

solutions. In accordance with Aerts and Droogers (2009), the stake-holders agreed that climate change in terms of sea level rise, heavyrainfall and droughts would have implications on the hydrologicalprocesses of coastal regions. Therefore, the regional stakeholders

came to the conclusion to set the focus on water management(flood control, drainage and watering) while developing a regionaladaptation strategy to climate change for the Wesermarsch. With-

out an adequate adaptation of water management, the impact ofclimate change on socio-economic sectors could be expected tobe significantly more severe.

2.3.2. Regional forum

Based on the suggestions of the stakeholder group, in a firststep, a regional stakeholder forum was established consisting ofwater managers, farmers, urban and regional planners, civilservants from different administrative levels, conservationists,

and scientists (for a detailed list of member organisations seeTable 1). The regional forum aimed at the development of aninventory of recent water related problems, possible solutionsand the identification of actors to be further integrated in this pro-

cess. By mutual agreement, all stakeholders agreed upon a time

horizon of adaptation planning for the year 2050. In a second step,expert interviews were carried out individually with all stakehold-ers in order to ensure the consideration of their institutional and

personal point of views on recent and future problems, solutionsand visions without being confronted to other stakeholders withdifferent interests. The results in terms of water related problems(see Table 2), solutions and drawbacks were then presented to

the entire regional forum and jointly evaluated by the participants.In a third step, the authors of this study presented the current

knowledge on regional climate change (see Section 3.2) and itsimplications on regional hydrological processes (see Section 3.3)

to the regional forum to provide basic information for this collab-orative planning process. In order to consider the different sectorspecific views on the future of the county, all members of the re-

gional forum were invited to contribute to a joint Wesermarschvision 2050. During one of the workshops, all participants wereasked to describe their individual ideas on a future developmentof the Wesermarsch until year 2050.

Subsequently, the regional forum was divided into two focusgroups in order to separately develop complementary adaptationstrategies for urban and rural areas. Afterwards, both groups werere-joined to the regional forum to inform each other on the pro-

gress, to merge the findings of the rural and urban focus groupsand, finally, to agree on a joint regional strategy on how to copewith possible future changes.

Such stakeholder engagement from the first steps in a climate

adaptation process is unique within the sector water managementin low lying coastal areas. Traditionally, the attitude of water man-

agement is the provision of services for different types of land use,e.g. efficient drainage of surface water to support the agricultural

http://www.wabo-brake.de/http://www.wabo-brake.de/


5/12

use of the area. Within this participatory approach, the water

managers have elaborated on and communicated about theirspecific interests, needs and challenges. On the one hand, the infra-structure of the water boards, e.g. sluices, locks, pumping stations,has been installed in the middle of the last century and needs to be

improved. On the other hand, the financial support of the federal

state government and responsible authorities decreased continu-ously. As self-organised associations, water boards have to relyon the fee paid by their members. The CPA approach on watermanagement facilitates a communication process for an integrated

Fig. 4. Topography of and cities within the Wesermarsch County. Source: Regierungsvertretung Oldenburg (regional representation of the state government); translated.



6/12

way of thinking and working on solutions for future developments,such as climate change and its likely impacts on the hydrologicalconditions.

2.4. Climate scenarios

In order to think about adaptation to future hydrological condi-tions such as extreme flows as well as the hydrological regime,projections are required which compare current conditions (aver-

age, variability) with possible future conditions. Even a look backto available past observations is often helpful as changes also oc-curred in the last century (Ludwig and Moench, 2009; IPCC,

2007a,b). For example for the Weser River, Petrow and Merz(2009), Bormann (2010) and Bormann et al. (2011) concluded thatboth, extreme flows as well as the hydrological regime showed anenormous variability since observations started. Recent changes,

observed since 1950, did not exceed the variability in historicalobservations since the early 19th century.

In order to assess a possible future climate change, regionalclimate projections of the WETTREG model (Weather Type Based

Regional Climate Model; Spekat et al., 2007) were used, whichgenerates station based time series. WETTREG is a stochasticdownscaling approach which determines the frequency of specificweather types from global climate models (ECHAM5 in this case).

Subsequently, the model simulates station specific weather timeseries. A comparative investigation of different regional climate

models showed that WETTREG is applicable to project averageconditions as well as the seasonal variability adequately (Bronstert

et al., 2006). Based on WETTREG, projections for three differentSRES scenarios are available (A1B, A2, B1).

2.5. Simulation of hydrological change

Based on the climate projections, hydrological change can beprojected by applying a hydrological model. Physically based mod-

els are expected to be suited best to reproduce future hydrologicalconditions (Elfert and Bormann, 2010). The 1-D physically basedmodel SIMULAT (Diekkrger and Arning, 1995; Bormann, 2008)was applied to the available climate scenarios from the WETREG

model. SIMULAT is based on the Richards equation representingthe unsaturated flow and the Penman-Monteith equation for po-tential evapotranspiration. The model requires information on cli-mate (temperature, air humidity, radiation, and wind speed), soil

conditions (soil texture and bulk density), vegetation type/landuse and topography. SIMULAT has already been used in several cli-mate change impact studies (e.g., Bormann, 2009, 2011) and couldbe validated at different spatial scales and for different physio-

graphic regions without any model calibration (Diekkrger et al.,1995; Aden and Diekkrger, 2000; Giertz et al., 2006; Bormann,

2008). Model parameterisation was based on typical regional soilproperties (marsh soils) and land use characteristics (grassland).

3. Results

3.1. Climate change projections

The results from the regional scale climate model WETTREGshow that due to the selected time horizon (2050) the variations

among these scenarios are relatively small compared to the differ-ences between current conditions (=base line) and the three avail-able scenarios (Fig. 5). Accordingly, the results of analysing the A1Bscenario were selected as input for this study. The A1B scenario is a

rather pessimistic one and describes relatively well the develop-

ment of the change in global temperature since the year 2000(IPCC, 2007a). The investigation of time series for four climate sta-tions around the Wesermarsch and the nine rain gauges located in

the Wesermarsch revealed consistent climate trends. For the year2050, WETTREG projects an increase in temperature of$1 C andan increase in winter precipitation (+25% from December to Febru-ary) while summer precipitation is expected to decrease by 15%

(from June to August). Similarly, average wind speed is expectedto increase in winter anddecrease in summer while sunshine dura-tion is expected to increase in summer (Table 3).

3.2. Projected hydrological change

Driving SIMULAT model with WETTREG data resulted in

increasing runoff rates in winter and an increasing water deficitduring summer months (Fig. 6). Changes in the simulated waterbalance can be interpreted as changes in water volumes to be addi-tionally drained (winter) or watered (summer), respectively. While

in winter runoff generation increases by 10 mm per month untilyear 2050 (scenario A1B), water deficit during summer monthsincreases by approximately 10 mm per month (scenario A1B), aswell. Similar to the climate projections, for the selected time hori-

zon (year 2050), the differences among the three investigatedclimate scenarios were smaller than the differences between base-line and scenarios. In the second half of the 21st century, thehydrological projections based on the SIMULAT model significantly

diverge for the different scenarios as the climate projections do interms of seasonal precipitation (Bormann et al., 2009). While an

evaluation of maximum values of simulated runoff generation isnot recommended due to limited temporal resolution of the

Table 1

Stakeholder (respective organisations), integrated in the participatory process of

developing an adaptation strategy for the regional water management.

Sector Participating organisations

Administration County WesermarschMunicipality Butjadingen

Regional representation of the state government

Agriculture Chamber of agriculture

PeasantryCoastal protection Dike boards

NLWKN (State Agency)

Nature conservation NGO: BUND

National park authority


Planning City of Brake (urban planning)Wesermarsch County (spatial planning)

Regional economy Company for regional economic development

(Wirtschaftsfrderung Wesermarsch)

Water management OOWV drinking water supplier

OOWV sewage operator

Water boards


Table 2

Regional water related problems caused or worsened by climate change, suggested by

the regional stakeholder forum. Upper part: problems specific to sub-regional water

boards.

Water board 1 Water board 2 Water board 3

Impervious surfaces Water storage capacity Water storage capacity

Compensation Salinisation Salinisation

Retention of rainfall Rural sewage system Rural sewage system

Tourism Soil mineralisation (peat)

General problems (independent of water boards)

Drainage and watering (capacity, costs)

Organisational structures, civil protection

EC directives (WFD, FRMD, FFH)

Water quality, fishery

Coastal protectionInfrastructure, compensation



7/12

climate scenarios (LAWA, 2010), WETTREG scenarios are appropri-ate to be used for analysing long-term water deficits in terms ofrunoff generation (Bronstert et al., 2006). Analysing the simulation

results reveals an expected increase in maximum water deficitsduring summer time (Fig. 7) as well as in maximum duration of

periods with negative water balance (not shown). The average val-ues as well as standard deviations increase for all scenarios whileA1B and A2 scenarios show a stronger increase compared to the

B1 scenario. An overview on expected (possible) climatic andhydrological changes is given in Table 3.

Information on (possible) hydrological change was presented to

the stakeholder forum. It was further used to (1) raise awarenessthat the amounts of water to be drained and watered will probablychange in the coming decades and to (2) be able to estimate addi-tional volumes of water to be managed by a revised water manage-ment system.

3.3. Results of the participation process

The development of multifunctional land use options for theWesermarsch was taken into account due to the cross-sectoralcomposition of the regional forum. Although agriculture dominatesthe county, several other sectors such as nature protection, indus-

try and tourism have specific interests in the future development

0

4

8

12

16

20

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Meanmonthlyairtemperature[C]

control (1981-2000)

A1B (2041-2060)

A2 (2041-2060)

B1 (2041-2060)

30

40

50

60

70

80

Jan Feb Ma r Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Meanmo

nthlyprecipitation[mm]

control (1981-2000)

A1B (2041-2060)

A2 (2041-2060)

B1 (2041-2060)

Fig. 5. Climate projections for the climate station Bremerhaven (WETTREG) for the time period 20412060 compared to the base line (19812000); scenarios A1B, A2, B1.

Table 3

Expected regional climate change effects in the Wesermarsch County (time horizon

2050).

Expected changes based on the WETTREG scenarios (Spekat et al., 2007)

Average air temperature +1 CWinter precipitation +25%

Summer precipitation

15%Wind speed Increase in winterDecrease in summer

Sunshine duration +0.5 to 1 h/day

Annual evapotranspiration +5 to 7%

Runoff generation +25% in winter

Deficit in summer

Sea level +20 to 40 cm

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecMonthlywaterbalance:PET[mm]

control (1981-2000)

A1B (2041-2060)

A2 (2041-2060)

B1 (2041-2060)

Fig. 6. Water balance projections (precipitationevapotranspiration) of SIMULAT model based on Bremerhaven climate projections (WETTREG) for the time period 20412060 compared to the base line (19812000); scenarios A1B, A2, B1.



8/12

of the region and its landscape. In order to consider the differentsector specific views on the future, all members of the regional for-

um were invited to contribute to the joint Wesermarsch vision2050. During one of the workshops all participants were askedto describe their personal ideas on a future development of the

Wesermarsch until year 2050. Table 4 summarises the main ele-ments mentioned during that process. In agreement with Nassauerand Corry (2004), the members of the regional forum do not wantthe region to change significantly. They want continuity withrespect to landscape, land use (agriculture), coastal protection

and working conditions. Together with the information on theexpected regional climate change (Section 3.2) as well as its likely

effect on the hydrological cycle (Section 3.3) the landscape visionrepresented the main boundary condition for the adaptation plan-ning process.

Based on this Wesermarsch vision 2050, the climate scenariosand the likely impacts on the hydrological conditions, two focusgroups developed and discussed different adaptation options forthe water management. They focused on the needs of a rural andan urban pilot area. In both cases, the focus groups favoured to

compose an adaptation portfolio, consisting of a set of parallel, pos-sible adaptation measures, instead of developing a comprehensiveadaptation strategy (comparable to Cohen et al., 2006).

Since the stakeholders vision for the year 2050 did not aim for

changes in the landscape and the dominant agricultural land use,the recommended adaptation measures were based on technicalsolutions (Table 5) although adaptation examples from similar

environments were presented to the members of the regional for-um. These measures include changes in land use and spatial plan-ning and accepting or even retaining water on land (e.g., theDeltaplan (www.deltawerken.com), The Netherlands; the Room

for the river programme (www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl), The Neth-erlands; the Comcoast project: Combined Functions in Coastal De-fence Zones (www.comcoast.org)). The proposed adaptation

options, however, complied with the currently applied water man-agement guidelines of the water boards. Most of the stakeholdersdenied planning the development of stagnant water bodies in thelandscape in order to provide additional water storage due to ex-pected problems in water quality and waterborne diseases. In-

stead, they suggested to enhance the performance of existingpumping stations despite an expected increase in energy costs. Ingeneral, the problem of future drainage of rural area was rated tobe less important than the watering issue. The water board repre-

sentatives agreed that present water management is organised toomuch focusing on the individual water board areas. They assumedthat a better cooperation among neighboured water boards wouldincrease the flexibility of future water management and would re-

duce the system vulnerability. In order to extend the watering sys-

tem, technical measures were proposed, exclusively (Table 5), andused as basis for the common vision on future water managementin the county (Ahlhorn et al., 2011).

4. Discussion

After having conducted the participation process of developingan adaptation strategy with respect to climate change, four essen-

tial questions arose with respect to the use and the impact of theinformation provided during the participation process.

(1) How was information on climate change and its effects on

the regional hydrological cycle (sea level, hydrological pro-cesses), as provided by the scientists, adopted by the non-scientific sectors as represented in the group ofstakeholders?

A similar question was also asked by Cohen et al. (2006): howshould governments, communities, and the private sectorincorporate uncertain scenarios into their planning? Adaptation

to climate change in such a participation process requires attention

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Max.a

nnualwaterdeficit

[cmWC]

A1B

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Max.annualwaterdeficit

[cmWC]

A2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Max.annualwaterdeficit

[cmWC]

B1

Fig. 7. Projections on future regional water deficits based on SIMULAT model using

climate projections (WETTREG) for the station Bremerhaven (time period 2041

2060, compared to the base line (19812000)); scenarios A1B, A2, B1.

Table 4

Crucial sectors of the stakeholders vision of how the Wesermarsch County should look like in year 2050.

Sector Vision

Landscape Preservation of the current state of the landscape (open, grassland dominated, dairy cattle)

Agriculture Competitive agriculture should be possible as it is now

Job market Jobs should be safe in future; focus is set on agriculture, tourism and harbour related economy

Coastal protection Future life behind the dike should be at least as safe as it is now. Reduction of compensation requirements of coastal protection measures

http://www.deltawerken.com/http://www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl/http://www.comcoast.org/http://www.comcoast.org/http://www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl/http://www.deltawerken.com/


9/12

and action by people who have not explicitly considered climate intheir past decisions (Fssel, 2007). In agreement with Veraart et al.(2010), the Wesermarsch stakeholders preferred to consider only

one single climate change scenario. The joint agreement on the se-lected time horizon (year 2050) supported this tendency as scenar-

ios on climate and hydrology do not differ significantly for thattime horizon. Thus, stakeholders were implicitly involved in the

scenario selection process which is important in order to avoid sus-picion among stakeholders (Cohen, 1997). This decision excludedconsidering the uncertainty as an excuse for not taking (innova-tive) action (Huntjens et al., 2010). Wesselink et al. (2009) stated

that scenario estimates are uncertain while some best guess fig-ures need to be chosen as a working hypothesis. Although the pro-vided information on possible future changes is uncertain,

stakeholders were asking for specific information for their ownpurpose and their field of competence. Almost all attending stake-holders were well informed on the issue that climate is changing,but they expressed the need of information on the regional hydro-

logical implications of global scenarios and projections.

(2) Which information was relevant for the participatoryprocess?

According to Veraart et al. (2010), stakeholder perception isoften based on a rather undefined hypothetical problem sketch ofclimate change. Consequently, it was important to provide num-

bers describing regional climate change (precipitation, in particu-lar) and its regional hydrological impacts (runoff generation, sealevel rise).

However, stakeholders in many cases were not able to interpret

these numbers in respect to likely environmental processes and toimplications for intended uses. Stakeholders also tend to trust localknowledge and individual experience more than in science (Cohen,

1997). The dialogue between scientist and stakeholders includingthe combination of hydrological process knowledge and localknowledge was therefore very important as stressed by Cohenet al. (2006). Despite the different backgrounds, in agreement withVeraart et al. (2010), the stakeholders identified the same majorproblems compared to the authors of this study. Thus, the provided

scientific information on regional climate and hydrological changefor the Wesermarsch was actively adjusted to both the existinglocal and regional experiences and to hydrological knowledge ondifferent impacts such as sea level rise and wind speed.

(3) Is there any information which was ignored by thestakeholders?

The Wesermarsch stakeholders did not explicitly ignore infor-mation provided by the authors. However, regional water managers

refused to think about climate adaptation under consideration ofdifferent projections of sea level rise. Instead of thinking aboutmore flexible adaptation options the stakeholders debated on the

different numbers. This discussion was biased by the impressionon the personality of researchers some of the stakeholders got

whenparticipating in different national meetingson coastal protec-tion in the southern German Bight. The stakeholders tended to

judge the reliability of data on such impression rather than onscientific integrity. The identified most probable number in year2050 wasthen used to develop less flexible adaptationoptions lateron. Such procedure does not conform to the key indicators of adap-

tation actions according to Adger et al. (2005), namely robustnessand flexibility.

Another critical topic which emerged during the discussion was

the impact of stagnant water bodies on thepossibledevelopment ofwaterborne diseases and insects. For a long time, the inhabitants ofthe Wesermarschdefendedagainst the formation of stagnant waterbodies due to the socio-cultural memory that a century ago malaria

could be extinct in the region through closing water bodies. Hence,

people do not want to have lakes andreservoirs even if only presentfor days or some weeks although in neighboured counties lakes arepresent today, without the consequence of malaria.

(4) Are the recommendations developed by the regional forumreasonable?

The recommendations of the regional forum aiming on a mini-

misation of change in the Wesermarsch are in accordance to obser-vations of Nassauer and Corry (2004). However, staying withtraditional landscapes is in contrast to many other (mostly scien-tific) studies on climate change adaptation in the water sector incomparable regions. For example, Kabat et al. (2005) highlighted

the opportunities of climate change for the agricultural sector,

stressing the possibility to diversify agricultural activities andmove away from traditional agriculture such as dairy farming onlow-lying peat land. Such examples were ignored by the Wes-

ermarsch stakeholders. In agreement with Veraart et al. (2010)the Wesermarsch stakeholders highlighted the necessity of future

fresh water availability for agriculture. Similarly, they supportedthe increase of the pumping capacity. However, their suggestionsare not conform to tendencies in Dutch water management, grad-ually shifting away from its emphasis on technical measures

(Woltjer and Al, 2007). In contrast to the Wesermarsch stakehold-ers, Dutch water management and local inhabitants, as well, acceptwater on land temporarily rather than blocking it out consequently(e.g., Deltaplan, Room for the river programme). According toWoltjer and Al (2007), technical measures like dams, canals,

ditches and pumping stations are no longer adequate solutions gi-ven impending problems related to climate change.

Table 5

Portfolio of possible water management adaptation measures.

Rural pilot area Urban pilot area

Increase in water storage

capacity

Heightening of inland dikes city as a sponge schemes (green roofs, multifunction use of

parking areas, lakes)Deepening inland channelsSediment removement Retention in the Hinterland: additional polders

Improved drainage capacity Heightening of inland dikes Establishment of flood ways

Additional sluice

Storm flood protection Heightening of dikes Storm barriers (Weser, Jade)Storm barriers (Weser, Jade)

Maintaining watering Installation of a freshwater polder Not necessary

Installation of an additional drinking water system for agricultural

water demand

Freshwater system Jade Bay

Extension of the historic watering channelGeneral Improved cooperation among water boards

Drainage and watering considering topography



10/12

This study highlights the strong need to explore and to use newways in water management and to modify the established water

management system in presence of climate change. Traditions inwater management have an emphasis on the reduction of com-plexity in general. They tend to externalise the human dimensionand to design technical systems that can be controlled. Suchapproaches result quite often in rigid and inflexible management

systems that do not perform well in times of uncertainty andchange (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007). This study also highlights thatan integrated and adaptive water management asks for profoundstructural changes with an inclusion of the comprehensive socio-

ecological sphere. The human dimension becomes more crucialin the performance of such an adaptive water management. Sociallearning, defined as learning in a social context (learning fromeach other, including observational learning, imitation and model-

ling), is one key factor to govern the management successfully(Walker et al., 2002; Berkhout et al., 2006).

Participatory methods can support social learning in actorgroups. Learning environments are perceived to be essential for

the adaptive governance (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007) and the collabo-rative planning of adaptation of socialecological systems (Aggerand Lfgren, 2008). However, this study revealed three phenomena

making such societal approaches on climate adaptive water man-agement challenging.

(i) Individual stakeholders differ in their knowledge on possibleclimate change impacts. Their involvement in a regional adapta-tion strategy requires information on possible climate change

impacts catered to the individuals. Although the various face toface meetings of scientists and the stakeholders were intended toidentify knowledge gaps and to provide tailored information, theinformation provided in terms of climate scenarios and hydrologi-

cal impacts was differently used, perceived and demanded by thestakeholders. Therefore, participation processes do not necessarilyensure an optimal use of such scientific information. This is inagreement with Krysanova et al. (2010) reporting on coexistent

strengths and weaknesses of available information on climate

change. While people in most cases do not think that they are re-strained by a lack of data, at the same time lack of informationseems to hamper moving ahead (Krysanova et al., 2010). Such

behaviour is also reflected by further studies emphasising that onthe one hand multiple climate projections provide auxiliary infor-mation on the possible range of future development (Lopez et al.,2009) while decision makers tend to stick to one scenario in order

to avoid such uncertainty (Veraart et al., 2010).(ii) Many studies stress the importance of including stakehold-

ers in the adaptation planning process (e.g., Cohen, 1997; Janssenet al., 2006; Kloprogge and van der Sluijs, 2006; Huntjens et al.,

2010). They also emphasise the importance of local knowledgefor the adaptation process (Cohen et al., 2006). This study confirmsthe importance to integrate local water managers into such a pro-

cess developing an adaptation strategy. In the Wesermarsch exam-ple, only the local water managers comprehend the current watermanagement practice which is not well documented in many cases(Ahlhorn et al., 2010). All other stakeholders rated them as essen-

tial members of the regional forum.(iii) Science is not in every case able to provide that kind of

information which is demanded by the stakeholders, independentof the real importance of such information for tackling the climate

change adaptation issue. Inconvenient information is often refusedby the stakeholders. They tend to trust local knowledge more thanscience (Cohen, 1997). Traditional thinking (and acting) is favoured(in order to avoid change). Nevertheless, there is an urgent need for

a better cooperation of water management and planning as alreadydone in the Netherlands (Woltjer and Al, 2007). An integrative and

participatory process as presented in this study by establishing theregional stakeholder forum for collaborative adaptation planning

may contribute to improve the cooperation. It can bridge the gapbetween top-down and bottom-up approaches to adaptation (deBruin et al., 2009). Only bottom-up processes can consider regionalscale knowledge in climate adaptation processes while top-down

approaches such as EC directives (e.g., Water Framework Directive;Flood Risk Management Directive) and EC recommendations (e.g.,ICZM) are required to set common boundary conditions to climateadaptation.

Climate adaptation management with an associated paradigmshift in regional water management is a long lasting societalendeavour. The multi-actor process within the study region has

only been started. This does not imply that a consensus is or mustbe achieved, but what is present is a minimum level of trust as abasis for transparent and efficient communication between themembers of the regional forum and the scientists. On the other

hand, the collaborative planning process of the regional forum pro-vided an added-value to the members which are relational rewardsas stated by Olsson (2009). He revealed that attendees of such pro-cesses can generate relational rewards which may provide a good

basis to reduce conflicts in future planning processes. Future learn-ing processes of the involved actors will deepen their mutualdependence. They demonstrate how their own frames of reference

influence and constrain their thinking and that other legitimateframes of reference exist (Pahl-Wostl, 2007).

5. Conclusion

In agreement with EC directives and recommendations such asthe Water Framework and Flood Risk Management Directives andthe recommendation on Integrated Coastal Zone Management in

Europe, this study has shown that a participation process to cli-mate change adaptation is a suitable approach to combine scien-tists (hydrologists) and stakeholders knowledge. It is furtherappropriate to initiate both a collaborative planning and a social

learning process. Based on information on expected future climate

change impacts, provided by scientists and previous stakeholderexperience, focus groups emerging from the group of stakeholdersdeveloped water management adaptation options for a coastal re-

gion. These options diverged from the IPCC recommendations.Stakeholders were aiming at keeping their area like it is nowadaysby adapting technical measures instead of adapting land use con-cepts. They preferred to discuss adaptation options for a time hori-

zon which exhibits small uncertainties in projected climate changeimpacts, although the region has a long tradition in adaptation tochanging hydrological conditions due to river engineering. As aconsequence, adaptation options focused on technical solutions in-

stead on flexible planning approaches. Such information was usedwhich fitted best to those technical adaptation options retainingtraditional ways of regional water management.

One important limitation of this study is the use of the projec-tions of only one regional climate model. Thus, the uncertainty inthe climate inputs to this process of developing adaptation optionswas not fully represented in an explicit way. However, as concluded

by all European partners of the CPA project, reliable regional scaleclimate projections of independent atmospheric models are scarcein many regions even in Europe (www.climateproofareas.com).

We conclude that the use of available information on (hydrolog-

ical) climate change impacts is very selective with respect to theindividual and subjective vision on how the future should look likein a region. Nevertheless, most of the participants took part in theparticipatory social learning process and accepted some compro-

mise as a result of constructive discussion. For example, all waterboard representatives agreed to intensify the regional cooperation

for an improved and more flexible future water management. Theyare aware that water management can be a suitable driver for inte-

http://www.climateproofareas.com/http://www.climateproofareas.com/


11/12

grating future economic and environmental development. In theend, the stakeholders agreed on a common vision on a future water

management in the Wesermarsch County serving different eco-nomic and ecological sectors. Therefore, similar processes per-formed in other (coastal) regions can stimulate a pro-activeadaptation to change, based on a common vision of future (land-scape) development.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge co-funding of the Climate Proof

Areas project provided by the EU Interreg IVB North Sea Pro-gramme. We thank all the Wesermarsch stakeholders for activelytaking part in focus group meetings and the regional forum.

References

Aden, K., Diekkrger, B., 2000. Modeling pesticide dynamics of four different sitesusing the model system SIMULAT. Agric. Water Manage. 44, 337355.

Adger, W.N., Arnell, N.W., Tompkins, E.L., 2005. Successful adaptation to climatechange across scales. Global Environ. Change 15, 7786.

Aerts, J., Droogers, P., 2009. Adapting to climate change in the water sector. In:Ludwig, F., Kabat, P., van Schaik, H., van der Falk, M. (Eds.), Climate Change

Adaptation in the Water Sector. Earthscan, London, pp. 87107.Agger, A., Lfgren, K., 2008. Democratic assessment of collaborative planning

processes. Plann. Theory 7 (2), 145164.Ahlhorn, F., 2009. Long-term Perspective in Coastal Zone Development.

Multifunctional Coastal Protection Zones. Springer, 228 p.Ahlhorn, F., Meyerdirks, J., Umlauf, I., 2010. Speichern Statt Pumpen. Technical

Report.Ahlhorn, F., Bormann, H., Giani, L., Klaassen, K., Klenke, T., Malsy, M., Restemeyer, B.,

2011. Klimasichere Region Wesermarsch Die Zukunft der Wasserwirtschaft.Erste Schritte auf dem Weg zu einer Klimaanpassungsstrategie fr denLandkreis Wesermarsch. (accessed 01.05.12).

Berkhout, F., Hertin, J., Gann, D.M., 2006. Learning to adapt: organisationaladaptation to climate change impacts. Clim. Change 78, 135156.

Blschl, G., Montanari, A., 2010. Climate change impacts throwing the dice?Hydrol. Process. 24, 374381.

Bormann, H., 2008. Sensitivity of a regionally applied soil vegetation atmospherescheme to input data resolution and data classification. J. Hydrol. 351, 154169.

Bormann, H., 2009. Analysis of possible impacts of climate change on thehydrological regimes of different regions in Germany. Adv. Geosci. 21, 311.

Bormann, H., 2010. Runoff regime changes in German rivers due to climate change.Erdkunde 64 (3), 257279.

Bormann, H., 2011. Sensitivity analysis of 18 different potential evapotranspirationmodels to observed climatic change at German climate stations. Clim. Change104, 729753.

Bormann, H., Ahlhorn, F., Giani, L., Klenke, T., 2009. Climate proof areas Konzeption von an den Klimawandel angepasstenWassermanagementstrategien im Norddeutschen Kstenraum. KorrespondenzWasserwirtschaft 2 (7), 363369.

Bormann, H., Pinter, N., Elfert, S., 2011. Hydrological signatures of flood trends onGerman rivers: flood frequencies, flood heights and specific stages. J. Hydrol.404, 5066.

Bronstert, A., Kolokotronis, V., Schwandt, D., Straub, H., 2006. Vergleich undhydrologische Wertung regionaler Klimaszenarien fr Sddeutschland. Hydrol.Wasserbewirts 50 (6), 270287.

Bundesregierung, 2008. Deutsche Anpassungsstrategie an den Klimawandel, vomBundeskabinett am 17. Dezember 2008 beschlossen. Berlin.

Cohen, S.J., 1997. Scientist-stakeholder collaboration in integrated assessment ofclimate change: lessons from a case study of Northwest Canada. Environ.Model. Assess. 2, 281293.

Cohen, S., Neilsen, D., Smith, S., Neale, T., Taylor, B., Barton, M., Werritt, W., Alila, Y.,Shepherd, P., McNeill, R., Tansey, J., Carmichael, J., Langsdale, S., 2006. Learningwith local help: expanding the dialogue on climate change and watermanagement in the Okanagan region, British Columbia, Canada. Clim. Change75, 331358.

de Bruin,K., Dellink, R.B., Ruijs, A.,Bolwidt, L., vanBuuren, A., Graveland, J., de Groot,R.S., Kuikman, P.J., Reinhard, S., Roetter, R.P., Tassone, V.C., Verhagen, A., vanIerland, E.C., 2009. Adaptingto climate change in The Netherlands: an inventoryof climate adaptation options and ranking of alternatives. Clim. Change 95, 2345.

Diekkrger, B., Arning, M., 1995. Simulation of water fluxes using different methodsfor estimating soil parameters. Ecol. Model. 81 (13), 8395.

Diekkrger, B., Sndgerath, D., Kersebaum, K.C., McVoy, C.W., 1995. Validity ofagroecosystem models a comparison of results of different models applied tothe same data set. Ecol. Model. 81 (13), 329.

Dresdner, S., Gilbert, N., 1999. Decision-making process for projects requiring

environmental impact assessment: case studies in six European countries. J.Environ. Assess. Policy Manage. 1 (1), 105130.

EC (European Commission), 2003. Common Implementation Strategy for the WaterFramework Directive (2000/60/EC). Guidance Document No. 8. PublicParticipation in Relation to the Water Framework Directive.

EC (European Commission), 2007. Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliamentand of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the Assessment and Management ofFlood Risks.

EC (European Community), 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliamentand the Council of 23 October 2000 Establishing a Framework for CommunityAction in the Field of Water Policy.

EC (European Community), 2002. Recommendation of the European Parliament and

the Council of 30 May 2002 Concerning the Implementation of IntegratedCoastal Zone Management in Europe (2002/413/EC).

Elfert, S., Bormann, H., 2010. Simulated impact of past and possible future land usechanges on the hydrological response of the northern German lowland Huntecatchment. J. Hydrol. 383, 245255.

Feindt, P.H., Newig, J., 2005. Partizipation, ffentlichkeitsbeteiligung undNachhaltigkeit. kologie und Wirtschaftsforschung 62.

Fssel, H.M., 2007. Adaptation planning for climate change: concepts, assessmentapproaches, and key lessons. Sustain. Sci. 2, 265275.

Gezelius, S.S., Refsgaard, K., 2007. Barriers to rational decision-making inenvironmental planning. Land Use Policy 24 (2), 338348.

Giertz, S., Diekkrger, B., Steup, G., 2006. Physically-based modelling of hydrologicalprocesses in a tropical headwater catchment (West Africa) processrepresentation and multi-criteria validation. Hydro. Earth Syst. Sci. 10 (6),829847.

HAD, 2003. Hydrologischer Atlas von Deutschland. Bundesministerium fr Umwelt,Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit. Bonn/Berlin.

Huntjens, P., Pahl-Wostl, C., Grin, J., 2010. Climate change adaptation in Europeanriver basins. Reg. Environ. Change 10 (4), 263284.

IPCC, 2007a. Climate Change 2007 The Physical Science Basis. Contribution ofWorking Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. CambridgeUniversity Press.

IPCC, 2007b. Climate Change 2007 Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of theIPCC. Cambridge University Press.

Janssen, M.A., Goosen, H., Omtzigt, N., 2006. A simple mediation and negotiationsupport toolfor water management in the Netherlands. Urban Landscape Plann.78 (12), 7184.

Kabat, P., van Vierssen, W., Veraart, J., Vellinga, P., Aerts, J., 2005. Climate proofingthe Netherlands. Nature 438, 283284.

Kloprogge, P., van der Sluijs, J.P., 2006. The inclusion of stakeholder knowledge andperspectives in integrated assessment of climate change. Clim. Change 75, 359389.

Krysanova, V., Dickens, C., Timmerman, J., Varela-Ortega, C., Schlter, M., Roest, K.,Huntjens, P., Jaspers, F., Buiteveld, H., Moreno, E., de Pedraza Carrera, J.,Slmov, R., Martnkov, M., Blanco, I., Esteve, P., Pringle, K., Pahl-Wostl, C.,Kabat, P., 2010. Cross-comparison of climate change adaptation strategies

across large river basins in Europe, Africa and Asia. Water Resour. Manage. 24(14), 41214160.

LAWA, 2010. Strategiepapier Auswirkungen des Klimawandels auf dieWasserwirtschaft Bestandsaufnahme und Handlungsempfehlungen. Bund/Lnderarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser, Germany, Dresden, 2010. (accessed 06.05.12).

Lopez, A., Fung, F., New, M., Watts, G., Weston, A., Wilby, R.L., 2009. From climatemodel ensemble to climate change impacts and adaptation: a case study ofwater resources management in the southeast of England. Water Res. Res. 45,W08419.

Ludwig, F., Moench, M., 2009. The impacts of climate change on water. In: Ludwig,F.,Kabat, P.,van Schaik, H., vander Falk, M. (Eds.), Climate Change Adaptationinthe Water Sector. Earthscan, London, pp. 3550.

Nassauer, J.I., Corry, R.C., 2004. Using normative scenarios in landscape ecology.Landscape Ecol. 19, 343356.

Olsson, A.M., 2009. Relational rewards and communicative planning:understanding actor motivation. Plann. Theory 8 (3), 263281.

Pahl-Wostl, C., Sendzimir, J., Jeffrey, P., Aerts, J., Berkamp, G., Cross, K., 2007.

Managing change toward adaptive water management through social learning.Ecol. Soc. 12 (2), 30.

Patel, M., Kok, K., Rothman, D.S., 2007. Participatory scenario construction in landuse analysis: an insight into the experiences created by stakeholderinvolvement in the Northern Mediterranean. Land Use Policy 24 (3), 546561.

Petrow, T., Merz, B., 2009. Trends in flood magnitude, frequency and seasonality inGermany in the period 19512002. J. Hydrol. 371, 129141.

Spekat, A., Enke, W., Kreienkamp, F., 2007. Neuentwicklung von regional hochaufgelsten Wetterlagen fr Deutschland und Bereitstellung regionalerKlimaszenarios auf der Basis von globalen Klimasimulationen mit demRegionalisierungsmodell WETTREG auf der Basis von globalenKlimasimulationen mit ECHAM5/MPI-OM T63L31 2010 bis 2100 fr die SRES-Szenarios B1, A1B und A2. Forschungsprojekt im Auftrag desUmweltbundesamtes, FuE-Vorhaben, Frderkennzeichen 204 (41), 138.

van Beek, E., 2009. Managing water under climate variability. In: Ludwig, F., Kabat,P., van Schaik, H., van der Falk, M. (Eds.), Climate Change Adaptation in theWater Sector. Earthscan, London, pp. 5178.

van den Hurk, B., Jacob, D., 2009. The art of predicting climate variability and

change. In: Ludwig, F., Kabat, P., van Schaik, H., van der Falk, M. (Eds.), ClimateChange Adaptation in the Water Sector. Earthscan, London, pp. 921.

http://www.newsletter.climateproofareas.com/http://www.lawa.de/documents/LAWA_Strategiepapier25_26032010_6fe.pdfhttp://www.lawa.de/documents/LAWA_Strategiepapier25_26032010_6fe.pdfhttp://www.lawa.de/documents/LAWA_Strategiepapier25_26032010_6fe.pdfhttp://www.lawa.de/documents/LAWA_Strategiepapier25_26032010_6fe.pdfhttp://www.newsletter.climateproofareas.com/


12/12

Veraart, J.A., van Ierland, E.C., Werners, S.E., Verhagen, A., de Groot, R.S., Kuikman,P.J., Kabat, P., 2010. Climate change impacts on water management andadaptation strategies in The Netherlands: stakeholder and scientific expertjudgements. J. Environ. Plann. Policy Manage. 12 (2), 179200.

Walker, B., Carpenter, S., Anderies, J., Abel, N., Cumming, G., Janssen, M., Lebel, L.,Norberg, J., Peterson, G.D., Pritchard, R., 2002. Resilience management in socio-ecological systems: a working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conserv.Ecol. 6 (1), 14.

Wesselink, A., de Vriend, H., Barneveld, H., Krol, M., Bijker, W., 2009. Hydrology andhydraulics expertise in participatory processes for climate change adaptation inthe Dutch Meuse. Water Sci. Technol. 60 (3), 583595.

Woltjer, J., Al, N., 2007. Integrating water management and spatial planning strategies based on the Dutch experience. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 73 (2), 211222.


Adaptation of water management to regional climate change in a coastal.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Adaptation of water management to regional climate change in a coastal.pdf