All-Risk investigated into a five-year program (2017-2021) the implementation of the new safety standards together with the Flood Protection Program (HWBP).The aim was to gain insights that enable dike reinforcement to be carried out more quickly and more cheaply, without losing sight of the legal aspects and collaboration. Between May and October 2021, we organised nine open access online meetings or webinars, each of 1.5 hours to properly discuss the results with participants from the about 30 partners including the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, the Regional Water Authorities, universities and research institutes, and various consultancies.
Webinar series participants
The nine webinars target participants groups from the dike reinforcement practice organisations in the Netherlands. Therefore, the official language of the webinar series was Dutch. The number of participants ranged between 17 and 73 participants, with the maximum number for the first and most interdisciplinary webinar 1) twice the protection with twice the responsibility. Although the participant’s groups were diverse, most of the participants were either researchers or advisors from consultancies. Besides the first webinar, the most attended by representatives from government authorities and other organisations were the webinars about risk-based inspections and interactions failure mechanisms, foreland management and macro stability. Last but not least, the most attended webinar by students was the one about wave overtopping resistance.
Did you missed any of the webinars?
The recordings of the presentations from all webinars are available on each link and the reflections with the conclusion for the first two webinars are available in English and Dutch for everyone interested to look at:
- Reflection available – Double Dikes, twice the protection with twice the responsibility? (Monday, 17 may)
- Reflection available – The biggest flood risk in the rivers – bifurcation points or piping? (Thursday, 27 may)
- De opbouw van de ondergrond beter in kaart (Woensdag, 2 juni)
- Naar een realistische inschatting van weerstand tegen golfoverslag (Donderdag, 10 juni)
- Macrostabiliteit: betere parameters, modellen of dijkversterking? (Maandag, juni 14)
- Voorlanden: nuttig voor beheersbare waterveiligheid of alleen mooie natuur? (Dinsdag, juni 29)
- Beter gronddata of beter gedragsdata? (Maandag, juli 5)
- Risicogebaseerde inspecties en interacties faalmechanismes (Maandag, 4 oktober)
- Verder kijken dan versterken (Woensdag, 13 oktober)
On each webinar, we asked participants to rate four statements to evaluate the webinar. Although not all participants answered the evaluation question, collected responses reflect the lively discussion given the thorough organisation and useful content which open follow-up questions and allowed researchers to draw recommendations to facilitate the applicability of the research (see available reflections).
Effects on the All-Risk communication
The webinars were not only an opportunity for discussion but also triggered traffic to our All-Risk website by gradually increasing the number of visitors and pageviews to the project summaries of researchers presenting. The right figure shows the cumulative effect of both the newsletters releases (NL1-N3) and webinar series (W1-W9) in maintaining the attention of partner organisations in All-Risk research.
Reflection: Double Dikes, twice the protection with twice the responsibility?
During the All-Risk webinar, the questions were discussed on how a double (twin) dike can contribute to flood risk protection, and what the division of water management responsibilities between goverments is regarding this concept. In the reflection below you will find what has emerged from the discussion between science and practice.
Reflection: The biggest flood risk in the rivers - bifurcation points or piping?
Flood risk along the Rhine branches: Flood risks along the major rivers continuously demand our attention. During this All-Risk webinar, we called attention to new research on the role of two of the mechanisms that influence flood risk: the two main bifurcations of the Rhine branches and the role of the failure mechanism piping. Can it be plausibly argued that one of the two causes are dominant?
Last modified: 17/10/2021