Disclaimer:
The authors are solely responsible for the content of this report. Material included herein does not represent the opinion of the European Community, and the European Community is not responsible for any use that might be made of it.
Back to overview measures
However, a possible conflict is related to the high sedimentation at Lippenbroek. On the one hand this is positive from an ecological point of view (diverse morphological topography) but on the other hand this could be negative for the water storage capacity of the area. Monitoring showed a net sedimentation on the site and hence a loss of the safety function. Measures are taken to try to minimise sedimentation to an acceptable level for safety. How this will work on the long term is still uncertain at Lippenbroek.
The public acceptance during implementation was medium because there are no neighbours and little was known about the project. Only few conflicts were observed. After implementation, a lot of positive reactions followed. For example, some municipalities included Lippenbroek in touristic brochures. However, also negative reactions were given by people that fear that such a FCA-CRT will be installed in their backyard (but often with people that have not visited the site yet).
Back to top
Lippenbroek: Flood Control Area with Controlled Reduced Tide (FCA-CRT)
Table of content
- 1. Description of measure
- 1a. Measure description
- 1b. Monitoring
- 1c. Monitoring results
- 2. Execution of main effectiveness criteria
- 2a. Effectiveness according to development targets of measure
- 2b. Impact on ecosystem services
- 2c. Degree of synergistic effects and conflicts according to uses
- 3. Additional evaluation criteria in view of EU environmental law
- 3a. Degree of synergistic effects and conflicts according to WFD aims
- 3b. Degree of synergistic effects and conflicts according to Natura 2000 aims
- 4. Crux of the matter
- 5. References
Additional information
for this measure:
No further information available.
for this measure:
No further information available.
Degree of synergistic effects and conflicts according to uses
Throughout the world, tidal marshes are being restored to obtain natural protection against recurring storm surges and sea level rise and to preserve the resources these habitats provide [6]. Furthermore, this technique enhances opportunities to combine different societal functions (safety, agriculture, ecology, inhabitation…) in coastal defence schemes and will increase the public acceptability and political willingness to implement coastal defence schemes (French 2006, Weinstein 2007) [6].However, a possible conflict is related to the high sedimentation at Lippenbroek. On the one hand this is positive from an ecological point of view (diverse morphological topography) but on the other hand this could be negative for the water storage capacity of the area. Monitoring showed a net sedimentation on the site and hence a loss of the safety function. Measures are taken to try to minimise sedimentation to an acceptable level for safety. How this will work on the long term is still uncertain at Lippenbroek.
The public acceptance during implementation was medium because there are no neighbours and little was known about the project. Only few conflicts were observed. After implementation, a lot of positive reactions followed. For example, some municipalities included Lippenbroek in touristic brochures. However, also negative reactions were given by people that fear that such a FCA-CRT will be installed in their backyard (but often with people that have not visited the site yet).