The Vulnerability Assessment in Itä-Uusimaa was carried out by interviewing local and regional experts. The qualitative approach and theme interviews suited the meaning well since the topic is still quite new for many stakeholders. Also the development of the Vulnerability Assessment was easier because of the direct feedback.
Interviewed experts were chosen among those who can influence the region’s possibilities to adapt to sea level rise. For example, spatial planners from the cities of Porvoo and Loviisa, experts from the local water works, rescue department and environmental experts are connected to the subject professionally. In addition, one private person in a potential risk area from each city was interviewed.
Co-operation between actors happens mainly on local level and is usually about today’s flooding, not about future sea level rise. Co-operation partners change, depending on, whether the topic is preparation and mitigation for the future, or if the flood situation is already present. Preparation mainly takes place within the city organisation among planners, the Environmental Department and the Street- and Traffic Department. In addition to the city organisation, other important co-operation partners are local water works and the Rescue Department.
Concepts defining Coping Capacity helped to guide the conversation in interviews. The experts were also asked to fill in the Finnish translation of the impact matrix, i.e. to estimate the effects of sea level rise on different land use categories of the case study area. One good proof of the local stakeholders’ interest is that a great majority were eager to take part in the project and willing to participate in interviews. Since many experts from the city organisation were interviewed both in Porvoo and Loviisa, the awareness of the hazard has definitely increased at the local level. With the help of the Vulnerability Assessment, including the impact matrix and concepts defining Coping Capacity, the stakeholders in Itä-Uusimaa region had a chance to consider these matters through their own work and perspective. Although spatial planners in both cities were aware of the hazard and take it into account in planning new residential areas, they perhaps got additional information to further support mitigation. There is still some criticism against regulated minimum elevation limits, e.g. among landowners. A uniform minimum elevation limit does not yet exist in Finland. (Virkki, Kallio & Orenius 2005.)
Co-operation between actors happens mainly on local level and is usually about today’s flooding, not about future sea level rise. Co-operation partners change, depending on, whether the topic is preparation and mitigation for the future, or if the flood situation is already present. Preparation mainly takes place within the city organisation among planners, the Environmental Department and the Street- and Traffic Department. In addition to the city organisation, other important co-operation partners are local water works and the Rescue Department.
Concepts defining Coping Capacity helped to guide the conversation in interviews. The experts were also asked to fill in the Finnish translation of the impact matrix, i.e. to estimate the effects of sea level rise on different land use categories of the case study area. One good proof of the local stakeholders’ interest is that a great majority were eager to take part in the project and willing to participate in interviews. Since many experts from the city organisation were interviewed both in Porvoo and Loviisa, the awareness of the hazard has definitely increased at the local level. With the help of the Vulnerability Assessment, including the impact matrix and concepts defining Coping Capacity, the stakeholders in Itä-Uusimaa region had a chance to consider these matters through their own work and perspective. Although spatial planners in both cities were aware of the hazard and take it into account in planning new residential areas, they perhaps got additional information to further support mitigation. There is still some criticism against regulated minimum elevation limits, e.g. among landowners. A uniform minimum elevation limit does not yet exist in Finland. (Virkki, Kallio & Orenius 2005.)