CHAPTER 4 Case Studies

Chapter 4

Case Studies

Based on the second chapter, the current key sea level rise effects in Jakarta like flood hazard are always become a threat to the community’s life and decrease the quality of urban environment. Thus, climate change is expected to exacerbate these risks through some government public policies which can control and mitigate that problem. Therefore, in this chapter, the author will determine some of case studies in accordance with literature review. It must be the places and policies where similar problems have been addressed and resolved with a degree of success. It means where the intervention has been inclusive and sustained in time. The purpose of the case studies is to show how precise issues or overall strategies have been addressed elsewhere, that can expand author’s knowledge.

According to previous chapter, flood is one of the costliest common perils in terms of financial misfortunes (Najibi and Devineni, 2018; Wallemacq et al., 2018). Specifically, flood disaster in coastal cities like Jakarta is anticipated to enhance because of different factors. For instance, the acceleration of rising sea level, intensity of storm deluges, and an expansion of river water volume in peak (Lin et al., 2016; Wahl et al., 2017). This kind of perils influenced the largest extent of the worldwide population (45%) contrasted with other catastrophic events and caused 5,424 death case from 2000 until 2017 (CRED, 2018). Based on geography observer point of view, the greatest increment in future flood hazard was found in Asia, America, and Europe. Many Asian (e.g. Bangkok and Shanghai) and European (e.g. Hamburg and Rotterdam) cities already took mitigation action towards erosion and flood (IPCC, 2012). Moreover, the factor of rapid urbanization in numerous cities especially those in Asia will predict the improvement of flood hazard (Ehrlich et al., 2018; Du et al., 2019). Even worse, UN-Habitat said that in the Southeast Asian urbanization, 31% of citizen occupies in slums settlement which is illegal inhabitant (Dahiya, 2012). Therefore, the case studies that author selected is one of the Southeast Asian (Bangkok in Thailand) and European (Hamburg in Germany) cities which has investigated on how the prevention actions can cause

transformations in flood perils.

Case Study 1: Bangkok, Thailand

Bangkok which situated in Thailand becomes the first selection for the case studies because it is one of the top 10 coastal cities in worldwide that encountered flood disaster more frequently (Hanson et al., 2010). This city is one of the South East Asian cities with the most

rapid urbanization with approximately 11 million people that experiencing the flood threats every year and will be jeopardized to coastal flood by the year of 2070 (Hanson et al., 2010).This low-income country is the most vulnerable against the flood disaster and have the least assets for adapting to the rising of flood risk (Parnell et al., 2007; Lebel et al., 2009; Berquist et al., 2014). Apart from the factor of rapid urbanization, the topography condition and physical environment infrastructure are the other aspect that make Bangkok has high vulnerability toward flooding (Sintusingha, 2006; Nair et al., 2014; Marome et al., 2017). Moreover, Bangkok located in the low-lying topography just like Jakarta and Chao Phraya River become the main river that cause flood hazard (Nair et al., 2014) (see Figure 16).

Bangkok, Thailand

Chao Phraya River

Figure 16. Geographic Case Studies Area Location (Bangkok, Thailand) (Author, 2020)

Correspondingly, the agriculture and retention land use zones replacement to business and housing improvement, the capability of water drainage, waste, flood protection treatment

are in its restrictions point in

Bangkok (Sintusingha, 2006; Roachanakanan, 2013). Consequently, Bangkok is affected by minor and major flood hazards frequently. In the last 10 years which is in 2011, the most devastating flood disaster happened in Thailand with over 800 death reported and costing around US$ 46.5 billion loss overall (World Bank, 2012). Due to that huge economic and infrastructure damage, Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) intervene these flood issues in the following year. The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration has a specific department which is the Department of Drainage and Sewerage (DDS) to be in charge for flood and water drainage treatment. The purpose is to maintain and increase the quality of flood mitigation infrastructure such as drainage tunnels, dikes, sluices, and water pump station (BMA, 2015a; BMA, 2015b). The BMA strategies had been detailed inside the Bangkok resilience scenario below the 100

RC program and participant associations and helped by the Rockefeller Foundation in 2017 (BMA, 2017). In addition, one of the well-known policy which is the annual Bangkok water management in 2016 and the other two national governance regulation are connected with the flood treatment in Thailand, namely the National Strategic Water Management Plan in 2015 and National Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Plan in 2015. These policies were also considered in this chapter. Bangkok’s flood hazard mitigation treatment and water drainage system were developed to protect the city from the Chao Phraya River’s tidal and pluvial floods. Consequently, this river water runoff heading to the northern part of Bangkok and cause more urban environment devastation (BMA, 2015a; BMA, 2015b; Marks, 2016; Veesakul, 2016). After the biggest floods happen in 2011, the present flood prevention strategies by heightening Chao Phraya River’s dikes. For instance, the capacity and quality of drainage and tunnels construction around the river are developing (see Figure 17). Despite this enormous venture, a few government policies debated that Bangkok should not depend on a basic physical submerge prevention only. Thus, the presence of 100RC program is to develop and expand the variety of flood risk mitigation. The improvement of urban retention capability areas and the flood-proof buildings development are the strategies of it. These methodologies reflect more integrated and comprehensive strategies to maintain diverse urban water systems, instead of exclusively relying upon flood protection through hard infrastructure (water drainage and tunnels) (BMA, 2017).

Figure 17. Flood Protection Strategies in Bangkok (BMA, 2015c)

Even though Bangkok’s flood hazard protection strategies recently concentrate on drainage systems, the Head of Bangkok Flood Control Centre also suggested a new action by including community participation which called “Chum Chon Ruk Klong” (Society Protects Canal). This initiative boosts every individual to look after the canals of the city and it has a workshop which created by the DDS from BMA. The aim of the workshop is to improve people consciousness and to involve the appearance of all citizens to manage the canals uncluttered (free from trash). However, this strategy still could not increase community interest and had been disregarded in Bangkok’s existing flood control policies itself. In fact, a comprehensive and incorporated manner to flood risk is familiar to Thai society. For instance, the traditional Thai house on stilts design and watersheds configuration had been evolved to adjust the outrageous of flood hazard (Dahiya and Thaitakoo, 2011; Dahiya and Thaitakoo, 2012). Therefore, community participation still needs to be considered in any policies in Bangkok especially in flood protection management.

Case Study 2: Hamburg, Germany

Hamburg population reach out 1.76 million and its city centre district has 4.3 million citizens. In 2030, the city of Hamburg is estimated to adjust individuals at least 103,300 more (Munich, 2010; Statistisches Amt für Hamburg und Schleswig-Holstein, 2015). Therefore, Hamburg is known as the second largest metropolitan in Germany with huge population and it is presented to flood warning which comes from the Elbe River and the North Sea (see Figure 18). In 1962, Hamburg had encountered a huge destructive cyclone which provoked 347 death reports, 61 dike failures and 370 km 2 area of flood (Munich, 2010). The vulnerability to storm and floods drove Hamburg to start flood prevention project and it already began in 1997. The strategies started in the urban development project such as providing more space for residential, industrial, and green open space areas. For instance, the program is called HafenCity, which aggresively means to accomplish great quality of urban’s life with high standard of sustainability aspects. As a result, in 2011, the city of Hamburg won the title ofEuropean Green Capital which dependent on incorporated plan of action for flood prevention and the efficiency of land use especially at the Hamburg’s harbour areas.

Hamburg, Germany

Elbe River

North

Figure 18. Geographic Case Studies 2 Location (Hamburg, Germany) (Author, 2020)

The Hamburg city’s government distinguished the flood mitigation as their primary climate change connected and dealt with the current development program in a top-down treatment formation and formal requirements. Since most of the program’s land belongs to the Hamburg’s government, the asset moved first to the centre and Harbour special property fund. In 1997, the government claimed the company who maintain this project which recognized as the HafenCity Hamburg GmbH in 2004. The obligations are expressed below public regulations such as sales of estate claimed by the city of Hamburg finance and the public infrastructures (i.e. bridges, parks, roads, etc) investor. In addition, the finance obligation also needs to set up the sites, plan, fabricate infrastructures, and make a contract with the residential developers (HafenCity Hamburg GmbH, 2015a; HafenCity Hamburg GmbH, 2015b). Hence, the authority has received a method to maintain the project accurately and refrain formal administration.

HafenCity Hamburg GmbH is an organization with constrained risk which representing the great public segment of Hamburg’s improvement project, engaging partners from specialists dealing with various perspectives. The most significant force from this company is

to produce the tender system and conduct an architectural contest. This alteration is

encouraging the government’s target to set the high standard of sustainability without indicating the techniques to accomplish them. Designing a building or infrastructure and creating a mix of land use which can support the flood mitigation action is the example of the strategies (see Table 2). The highest bidder and good design without the right concept were not necessarily chosen, but instead the candidate must give the best ideas which match the goal.