Figure 2.5 Comparison of Resilient Timeframe

Characteristics and traits of each stage of intervention need to be dissected to provide comprehension in determining the suitable response on respective stages. A detailed study by (Roslan, Abd Hamid, & Dul, 2015) compared different timeframe form 3 previous author that has defined and suggest an ideal timeframe for resilient management.

Figure 2.3 - Comparison of Resilient Timeframe author 2020, data adapted from (Roslan et al., 2015) As studied from the data above, different principles of the intervention are applied to each different timeframe. To further comprehend the actions and intervention needed for each different timeline, the author summarised each action into a synthesized timeframe stage: Stages Interventions and Actions Prevention and Mitigation (Risk Reduction) i. Understanding vulnerability and risk: - Cause of flooding - Flood mapping (river catchment, flood plain and assets identification) - Risk mapping (identification of vulnerable sites/business and critical infrastructure

- Flood Modelling ii. Communicate the risk

- Education and awareness of flood risk

(resilient community) iii. Risk Management - Structural measures and impact - Non-structural measures

- Land-use and zoning segregation Preparedness i. Allocation of capacity - Flood barriers

Adaptability and Respond - Impounding reservoir - Redundancy and allowance of designated flood impact variables (elevation, reservoir, catchment) ii. Operation: - Maintaining assets to ensure effectiveness iii. Flood Warning System - Establish warning codes and means of communication to the public - Organise flood distribution - Usage of multimedia to disseminate flood warning i. Anticipate disruptive events ii. Emergency response action plan: - Search and rescue

- Aid distribution

- Storm Water Channelling iii. Operating assets - Active flood defence mechanism

Recovery i. Repair and maintenance consideration ii. Prevention of pollution iii. Plan or system to encourage rapid restoration to return to reasonable condition

Table 2.5 - Timeframe of resiliency stages in flood management Author,2020 data adapted from (Roslan et al., 2015) From these derived timeframes, it can be concluded that in order to resolve flood vulnerabilities holistically, actions and intervention by a various party shall be executed according to different stages or phases of management. By defining the stages of resiliency, each action can be assigned to different stakeholder for intervention to be taken. Design consideration of waterfront scheme can be dev

eloped according to specific purpose and usage for each different stage. The identification of each action in different timeframe would also allow designers to allocate the flexibility of a design scheme to be prepared for anticipated different events and situation.

2.5 Context of Intervention – Coastal and Riverside Waterfront

Waterfront as the first transitional area of excess water from neighbouring water body, it shall be designated to reduce the risk of further flooding and thus lessen the impact that flood imposed towards the urban area. An urban area that is adjacent to a large body of water such as lake or harbour will be more likely prone to the effect of rising water levels that caused by strong wind and storms (Chbab as cited in Van Veelen 2016). Waterfront is defined as a part of an urban area that is adjacent waterbody such as lake, river or the sea. (Cambridge Dictionary, 2020). A specific definition of the waterfront is described by Guo as cited in (Md. Yasin et al., 2010), it is the intersecting point where land and water meet, that is approximately 200 to 300 meters from the waterline and 1 to 2 km reaching to the land site that takes 20 minutes of walking distance. (Al-Shams et al., 2013) stated that waterfront is not only an element that distinguishes water body and land but encompasses a building or public space that has virtual and physical linkage to a water body. While waterfront may be developed as the main flood defence mechanism, the usage of flood defence development can be an opportunity to address urban enhancement. (Timur, 2013) classified different typologies of waterfront development. Under one of the typologies, waterfront development is regarded as an effective flood defence mechanism. Through his study on (Morreti 2008) data, structural that has been established for river flood defence opens possibilities for city expansion and programmatic urban usage. A prominent example highlighted in the study is the Donauisel (Danuba Island) in Vienna as a created barrier where the island is used as the biggest open-air festival in Europe for over 20 years at the end of June. As a peninsular country, Malaysia is rich in the geographical land typologies that neighbouring water bodies. Many earliest urban cities and town in Malaysia has been developed along the bank of rivers as shown by Kuala Lumpur, Malacca, Terengganu and Pulau Pinang. (Md. Yasin et al., 2010)

Most of the city’s waterfront is continuously undergoing development project with Kuching waterfront being the benchmark of waterfront development in Malaysia when it was completed in 2003. (Md. Yasin et al., 2010)Malaysia, with a rich geographical context of a water body, shall induce a prominent opportunity for waterfront development. (Al-Shams et al., 2013) Various waterfront has been developed in the urban area such as River of Life Project that was initiated under the latest Economic Transformation Programme (ETP) as part of the Greater KL/Klang Valley National Key Economic Area (NKEA). These waterfront developments could become potential pioneer projects towards flood-resilient waterfront development in the future.

The Department of Irrigation and Drainage (DID) in their 2017 and 208 annual reports also highlighted that throughout Malaysia, including Sabah and Sarawak, there is a total of 189 river basins and 85 or 44.97% of the total river basins are prone to recurrent flooding. While the high percentage of the river basin that is prone to flooding might be a devastating fact, the high number would also mean the existing waterfront can be developed for flood-resilient and adaptation development.

2.6 Stakeholder Involvement in Flood Resilient Development

As stated in the previous subtopic of stages in flood-resilient mitigation, the different timeframe of designated intervention would allow different stakeholder roles’ to be recognised and contributed towards the flood-resilient development and management. While design intervention may serve as the primary goal of this study, stakeholder intervention is also being revised to determine the enabler factors and enduser as stakeholder engagement is one of the core aspects in integrating flood risk management. (Renn, 2008) As the goal of flood-resilient development is to achieving safe-built environment development, it is crucial to address the participation of different stakeholder from all prospect of involvement. Flood-resilient development shall integrate all stages of involvement in a wide range of roles from different sectors and community hierarchy. (Clemens, Pathirana, Rijke, & Nguyen, 2014) stated that the participation process of ensuring a balanced stakeholder composition is based on the balancing teams with different knowledge and skillsets. In the study, they highlighted three major components that would make up an ideal team of stakeholders:

i. Technical Experts: Experts that have scientific knowledge and technical expertise in the practice of flood-resilient management ii. Bureaucrats: Entity that has bureaucratic knowledge of political and administrative procedural management iii. Main Stakeholders: Community that have local and experience and insights

In Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 – 2030 (SDF), Thrust V, stated that the responsibility of reducing disaster risk is shared between government and responsible stakeholders as enablers according to national policies, laws and regulations and the implementation of the framework at local, regional and global levels. The framework also highlighted several general stakeholder roles, in public and private sectors to have roles in specified actions: i. Civil society/organized voluntary work/community-based organisation: to collaborate with a public institution to provide specific knowledge and guidance in resilient development, support public awareness and culture of prevention and disaster risk to produce resilient community ii. Academician/ scientific research entities: focus on disaster risk factors, increase research for regional, national and local application, support on action and intermediate between policy and science for decision making. iii. Corporate sectors/ private sector financial institution to integrate disaster risk management into business continuity, models and practise. Engage in support and innovation for technological development of disaster risk development

These components proposed in the previous study would establish a hierarchical order of participation in a community from various knowledge and expertise to execute the different level of involvement.

Being as administrative and enforcement body in regional and national level, the highest responsibility of developing on flood-resilient belongs to both national state government and local, regional authorities. (Thaler & Meike, 2015) studies how the relationship between national and local stakeholders characterises the design implementation of flood-risk management strategies. In the study, the researchers proposed that national agencies shall be responsible for three stages of involvement: i. Hierarchical: National Authorities shall serve as project initiator, leader and integrating partnership with potential private stakeholders

ii. Heterarchical: National Authorities shifts task and competencies towards local stakeholders and serve as project supporter and monitoring iii. Responsible Autonomy: Key task of national authorities focus on policy implementation and funding while the executive management goes to assigned stakeholders.

This stage of hierarchy suggests the ideal involvement of national agencies in floodresilient project management. On design intervention aspect, the national authorities are responsible for implementing policy enforcement and play a crucial role in the project decision making through policy enforcement, thus influences design decision making in the development process. While national and regional authorities may play a crucial role in enforcement and project initiator, other stakeholders in private sectors also hold an essential duty in initiating and envisioning flood-resilient development. A study by (Md. Yasin et al., 2010) compared different aspects of recent Malaysian waterfront development and recorded 4 of the latest waterfront developments were financed and initiated by private developer institution. This condition was hypothesised by the struggling condition of the nation’s wealth assets in recent decades to finance the redevelopment of the waterfront area and river upgrading. The consequences would allow private developers to take the opportunity in initiating waterfront development, especially for mixed development purposes. The actions taken by the local developer may benefit the development progress of local waterfront and bring more possibilities of incorporating flood-resilient elements.

As briefly discussed in the previous chapter, the primary responsibility of flood risk intervention in Malaysia have been monitored by the Department of Irrigation and Drainage (DID) that mainly consists of engineers. This study would seek the different possibilities of other experts that would contribute to creating a more humanistic intervention. Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA),2018 in one of the online notes suggests that government and construction industry shall work together to adopt a new approach to design decision making and regulation. The organisation recommended that this collaboration can be achieved through: i. Increase time spent in an initial stage to develop objectives and generate better options ii. Collaborations across department and discipline in early-stage to develop integrated strategies