scholarly journals Assessment of the Netherlands’ Flood Risk Management Policy Under Global Change

AMBIO ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 180-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frans Klijn ◽  
Karin M. de Bruijn ◽  
Joost Knoop ◽  
Jaap Kwadijk
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (01) ◽  
pp. 69-80
Author(s):  
Douglas S. Noonan ◽  
Lilliard E. Richardson ◽  
Abdul-Akeem Sadiq ◽  
Jenna Tyler

2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. 2321-2333 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. M. Lumbroso ◽  
F. Vinet

Abstract. This paper provides a comparison of the causes, effects and aftermaths of the coastal flooding that occurred on the east coast of England in 1953 and the west coast of France in 2010 that resulted in 307 and 47 deaths respectively. The causes of both events are strikingly similar. Both were caused by a combination of high tides, low atmospheric pressure, high winds and the failure of poorly maintained flood defences. In both cases the number of deaths was related to the vulnerability of the buildings and people. Buildings in the flood zones were often single storey bungalows and the people who died were mostly over 60 yr of age. Both tragedies were national disasters. The 1953 flood in England acted as a catalyst for an acceleration in flood risk management policy and practice. It resulted in: the development of a Storm Tide Warning System for the east coast of England; the setting of new design standards for coastal flood defences; increased investment in improving coastal defences; and a substantial new research effort into coastal processes, protection and forecasting. In France there has also been an episodic shift in flood risk management policy with the focus falling on: control of urban developments in areas at risk of flooding; improved coastal forecasting and warning; strengthening of flood defences; and developing a "culture of risk awareness". This paper outlines the lessons that can be learnt from the two events and provides recommendations concerning how future loss of life as a result of coastal flooding can be reduced.


Author(s):  
Malcolm Newson ◽  
John Lewin ◽  
Paul Raven

We review the role of science in shaping river flood risk management policy in England, highlighting the relatively recent influence of fluvial geomorphology, river ecology, climate change and ecosystem services in evidence-based decision-making. These disciplines, together with an historical perspective, catchment-scale delivery, integrated land and water management planning, and adaptive management are crucial in managing future flood risk. A central tenet of previous land drainage policy was a professional (and public) mindset about flood ‘prevention’ solutions for river flooding. As a direct consequence, more than 8,500 km of rivers were ‘improved’ by mechanical dredging during the 1930s to 1980s; habitats were destroyed, but flooding continued. A more enlightened, long-term approach has since evolved in response to environmental imperatives and lessons learnt from several major floods during the last two ‘flood-rich’ decades. River science, local knowledge and land management incentives allow more natural processes to be restored in river catchments. The natural capital and ecosystem service benefits of river systems are now better understood and quantified, whereas the importance of sediment transport is fully recognised, with sources and sinks treated more holistically than in the past. Evaluating the outcomes of innovative runoff and river management techniques from both physical and socioeconomic perspectives will determine the success of a catchment-based approach. We highlight some of the uncertainties, nuances and assumptions associated with recent initiatives such as Natural Flood Management, Citizen Science and Flood Action Groups. Further integration between policy, strategic planning and local delivery is needed to anticipate and respond to climate and catchment land use changes. River science will play a crucial part in identifying the most effective way of improving flood management and in a way that helps to deliver the recovery of nature. It will inform adaptive management to cope with climate change.


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.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole Archer

<div> <p>What is your relationship with river? This was the central question posed by a series of creative practice workshops with scientists and local authorities who worked with complex flood risk management issues. Many of the flood mitigating solutions offered to managers are based on scientific methods to control and reduce river flooding. Scientific methods not only provide a sense of control towards river dynamics, but also develop a sense of security for people to feel safe from water. Because of climate change, flood events are increasing globally and some countries, like Scotland, are seeking to expand the possibilities of coping with extreme weather through broader, more holistic ways to mitigate flooding.</p> </div><div> <p>The aim of this study was to bridge rational knowledge often associated with scientific methods and the tacit knowledge that might emerge through participative art. The creative potential of art and participation in art practice was employed in collaboration with scientists and policy makers to inform future solutions towards flood mitigation.</p> </div><div> <p>The research used the theoretical premises described in what Irwin (2013) describes as a/r/tography: “drawing upon the professional practices of educators, artists, and researchers, it entangles and performs what Deleuze and Guattari (1987) refer to as a rhizome, an assemblage of objects, ideas, and structures that move in dynamic motion performing waves of intensities that create new understandings.” (p.199). Unlike the outcome and target driven aims of scientific methodology, these “waves of intensities” are crucial to understanding the form of intersubjective work which is crucial for art and creativity in art practice, because this is where affective transformation of meaning and understanding happens, through sensing, feeling and perceiving.</p> </div><div> <p>In the case of these creative practice workshops, the transformation that was explored was a shift from anthropocentric thinking about water to non-anthropocentric thought, achieved through sensing, feeling and perceiving. The creative practice workshops at the Scotland flood management conference 2020 were part of a larger process, where the intent was to initiate a transformative process that would work towards developing different ways of thinking in terms of Flood Risk Management. The process began with an artistic engagement with the river and the development of underwater film of rivers. This was followed by two participatory workshops. The next step consisted of an artistic response to the creative process undertaken by the participants. The last step was an engagement with water management policy makers. This will be further discussed in terms of a transformative process between artist and scientist.</p> </div>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document