Experience-Based Expertise with Flood-Risk Management and Flood Preparedness in the Netherlands

Drowning ◽  
2013 ◽  
pp. 1039-1045
Author(s):  
Matthijs Kok ◽  
Corsmas Goemans
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Faith Ka Shun Chan ◽  
Liang Emlyn Yang ◽  
Gordon Mitchell ◽  
Nigel Wright ◽  
Mingfu Guan ◽  
...  

Abstract. Sustainable flood risk management (SFRM) has become popular since the 1980s. Many governmental and non-governmental organisations have been keen on implementing the SFRM strategies by integrating social, ecological and economic themes into their flood risk management (FRM) practices. However, justifications for SFRM are still embryonic and it is not yet clear whether this concept is influencing the current policies in different countries. This paper reviews the past and present flood management approaches and experiences from flood defence to FRM in four developed countries with the aim of highlighting lessons for developing mega deltas. The paper explored recent strategies such as “Making Space for Water, PPS 25, and NPPF” in the UK; “Room for Rivers” in the Netherlands which was promoted to cope with flooding, integrate FRM with ideas on sustainability, and deliver good FRM practice for next generations. The United States has also established a sound National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and Japan has developed an advanced flood warning and evacuation contingency system to prepare for climatic extremes. These case studies showed some good lessons to achieve long term SFRM direction to deliver flood management practices with social-economic and environmental concerns. Most of developing coastal megacities especially in Asia are still heavily reliant on traditional hard-engineering approach, that may not be enough to mitigate substantial risks due to human (exist huge populations, rapid socio-economic growth, subsidence) and natural (climate change) factors. We understand different countries and cities have their own interpretation on SFRM, but recommend policy makers to adopt “mixed options” towards thinking about long term and sustainability that with social, economic and environmental considerations. 


Water ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (21) ◽  
pp. 2972
Author(s):  
Donald Houston ◽  
Tom Ball ◽  
Alan Werritty ◽  
Andrew R. Black

This paper aims to analyse evidence, based on one of the largest and most representative samples of households previously flooded or living with flood risk to date, of social patterns in a range of flood resilience traits relating to preparedness prior to a flood (e.g., property adaptations, contents insurance, etc.) and mitigations enacted during and immediately following a flood (e.g., receiving a warning, evacuation into temporary accommodation, etc.). The data were collected from a 2006 survey of 1223 households from a variety of locations across Scotland between one and twelve years after major local floods. Our analysis identifies remarkably few social differences in flood preparedness and mitigation measures, although some aspects of demography, housing and length of residence in an area, as well as personal flood history, are important. In light of this finding, we argue that social differences in vulnerability and resilience to flooding arise from deep-seated socio-economic and socio-spatial inequalities that affect exposure to flood risk and ability to recover from flood impacts. The engrained, but well-meaning, assumption in flood risk management that impoverished households and communities are lacking or deficient in flood preparedness or mitigation knowledge and capabilities is somewhat pejorative and misses fundamental, yet sometimes invisible, social stratifications play out in subtle but powerful ways to affect households’ and communities’ ability to avoid and recover from floods. We argue that general poverty and inequality alleviation measures, such as tax and welfare policy and urban and community regeneration schemes, are likely to be as, if not more, important in alleviating social inequalities in the long-term impacts of floods than social targeting of flood risk management policy.


AMBIO ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 180-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frans Klijn ◽  
Karin M. de Bruijn ◽  
Joost Knoop ◽  
Jaap Kwadijk

2013 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 100-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastiaan van Herk ◽  
Chris Zevenbergen ◽  
Berry Gersonius ◽  
Hans Waals ◽  
Ellen Kelder

New flood risk management policies account for climate and socio-economic change by embracing a more integrated approach. Their implementation processes require: collaboration between a group of stakeholders; combining objectives and funding from various policy domains; consideration of a range of possible options at all spatial scale levels and for various time horizons. Literature provides limited guidance on how to organise a collaborative planning process to devise integrated flood risk management (IFRM) plans. This paper presents a case study where a recently developed framework for process design and management has been used and evaluates whether or not the collaborative planning process led to an IFRM plan. The case study is Dordrecht (NL) where the new multi-layer-safety (MLS) approach has been applied in the context of the Delta Programme. The Delta Programme investigates how the Netherlands can adapt to the effects of climate change. MLS comprises three flood safety layers to reduce flood risk: flood protection, spatial planning, and emergency response. The framework has been shown to be effective in the delivery of an IFRM plan, it has been enriched by defining the interfaces between and phasing of planning activities, and can be further improved to better guide implementation and governance activities.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document