scholarly journals Systemic Flood Risk Management: The Challenge of Accounting for Hydraulic Interactions

Water ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 2530 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessio Ciullo ◽  
Karin M. De Bruijn ◽  
Jan H. Kwakkel ◽  
Frans Klijn
Keyword(s):  
Risk Management ◽  
Protected Areas ◽  
Risk Reduction ◽  
Flood Risk ◽  
Decision Criterion ◽  
Current Approach ◽  
Flood Risk Management ◽  
Risk Distribution ◽  
False Sense ◽  
Risk Reduction Measures

Rivers typically flow through multiple flood-protected areas which are clearly interconnected, as risk reduction measures taken at one area, e.g., heightening dikes or building flood storage areas, affect risk elsewhere. We call these interconnections ‘hydraulic interactions’. The current approach to flood risk management, however, neglects hydraulic interactions for two reasons: They are uncertain and, furthermore, considering them would require the design of policies not only striving for risk reduction, but also accounting for risk transfers across flood-protected areas. In the present paper, we compare the performance of policies identified according to the current approach with those of two alternative formulations: One acknowledging hydraulic interactions and the other also including an additional decision criterion to account for equity in risk distribution across flood-protected areas. Optimal policies are first identified under deterministic hydraulic interactions, and, next, they are stress-tested under uncertainty. We found that the current approach leads to a false sense of equal risk distribution. It does, however, perform efficiently when a risk-averse approach towards uncertain hydraulic interactions is taken. Accounting for hydraulic interactions in the design of policies, instead, increases efficiency and both efficiency and equity when hydraulic interactions are considered deterministically and as uncertain, respectively.

scholarly journals The added value of system robustness analysis for flood risk management illustrated by a case on the IJssel River

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 213-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. J. P. Mens ◽  
F. Klijn
Keyword(s):  
Risk Management ◽  
Flood Risk ◽  
Robustness Analysis ◽  
Decision Criterion ◽  
Flood Damage ◽  
Flood Risk Management ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Common Basis ◽  
System Robustness ◽  
System Configurations

Abstract. Decision makers in fluvial flood risk management increasingly acknowledge that they have to prepare for extreme events. Flood risk is the most common basis on which to compare flood risk-reducing strategies. To take uncertainties into account the criteria of robustness and flexibility are advocated as well. This paper discusses the added value of robustness as an additional decision criterion compared to single-value flood risk only. We do so by quantifying flood risk and system robustness for alternative system configurations of the IJssel River valley in the Netherlands. We found that robustness analysis has added value in three respects: (1) it does not require assumptions on current and future flood probabilities, since flood consequences are shown as a function of discharge; (2) it shows the sensitivity of the system to varying discharges; and (3) it supports a discussion on the acceptability of flood damage. We conclude that robustness analysis is a valuable addition to flood risk analysis in support of long-term decision-making on flood risk management.

From co-production of knowledge to a participatory governance concept: a research design focusing on knowledge practices in flood risk management and disaster risk reduction

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ida Wallin
Keyword(s):  
Risk Management ◽  
Risk Reduction ◽  
Research Design ◽  
Flood Risk ◽  
Disaster Risk Reduction ◽  
Disaster Risk ◽  
Flood Risk Management ◽  
Participatory Governance ◽  
Production Of Knowledge ◽  
Knowledge Practices

<p>Knowledge has been shown to be more effectively implemented in practice when produced in collaboration between researchers and other stakeholders as the co-produced knowledge is more likely to be accepted and found relevant. Knowledge co-production processes have however been found guilty of depoliticizing and hiding political struggles to the end of reinforcing existing unequal power relations and prevent broad societal transformation from taking place. From this perspective, knowledge co-production can come into conflict with participatory governance that focuses on the empowerment and capacity building of actors, social justice and advocacy. In this presentation I take a closer look at this conflictual perspective and propose a research focus on knowledge practices for exploring and analyzing participatory governance options for flood risk management (FRM) and disaster risk reduction (DRR). I do this by exemplifying and presenting a research design developed within the newly started PARADeS-project.</p><p>The PARADeS-project is a research project led by German research institutions in close collaboration with partners in Ghana and with the overall aim to contribute to enhancing Ghana’s national flood risk and disaster management strategy. Co-production of knowledge is foreseen to take place in several workshops including collaborative modelling, scenario- and policy back-casting exercises. One of the planned project outputs is a concept of participatory governance in FRM and DRR based on the findings from a stakeholder analysis, a policy network analysis and a participatory assessment of different policy options.</p><p>In this project context a research focus on stakeholders’ knowledge practices can be used to inform and improve the participatory governance concept and facilitate its implementation process. Knowledge is used by stakeholders as a powerful resource in suggesting certain policy options and convincing others of their necessity. Knowledge practices entail how actors use knowledge to argue, convince and make decisions. Through knowledge practices, stakeholders decide what knowledge to base decisions on and how to convince others of their position using that knowledge. What knowledge becomes accepted as legitimate in such interactions - often deliberative settings - can be decisive for the acceptability of any policy option. It is therefore important to study not only the different types of stakeholders and technical options for FRM and DRR, but the interaction between stakeholders and how they use information and co-create knowledge - the knowledge practices.</p><p>Within the presentation I discuss the proposed research design for how to study knowledge practices and how to make use of these findings when going from research project and co-production of knowledge to a concept of participatory governance in flood risk management and disaster risk reduction in Ghana.</p>

scholarly journals The added value of system robustness analysis for flood risk management

2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 2913-2945 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. J. P. Mens ◽  
F. Klijn
Keyword(s):  
Risk Management ◽  
Flood Risk ◽  
Robustness Analysis ◽  
Decision Criterion ◽  
Flood Damage ◽  
Flood Risk Management ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Common Basis ◽  
System Robustness ◽  
System Configurations

Abstract. Decision makers in fluvial flood risk management increasingly acknowledge that they have to prepare for extreme events. Flood risk is the most common basis on which to compare flood risk-reducing strategies. To take uncertainties into account the criteria of robustness and flexibility are advocated as well. This paper discusses the added value of robustness as additional decision criterion compared to single-value flood risk only. We do so by quantifying flood risk and system robustness for alternative system configurations of the Ijssel River valley in the Netherlands. We found that robustness analysis has added value in three respects: (1) it does not require assumptions on current and future flood probabilities, since flood consequences are shown as a function of discharge, (2) it shows the sensitivity of the system to varying discharges and (3) it supports a discussion on the acceptability of flood damage. We conclude that robustness analysis is a valuable addition to flood risk analysis in support of long-term decision-making on flood risk management.

scholarly journals Investigating flood impacts and adaptation measures for the City of Toronto

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan Ketchabaw
Keyword(s):  
Risk Management ◽  
Flood Risk ◽  
Flood Control ◽  
Current Approach ◽  
Flood Risk Management ◽  
Storm Event ◽  
Master Plan ◽  
Adaptation Measures ◽  
Wet Weather ◽  
The City

The City of Toronto has had a long history with, and relationship to flooding. The most severe flooding on record in Ontario occurred in October of 1954 when Hurricane Hazel struck the City of Toronto and surrounding areas. This storm event initiated and helped to shape flood risk management and policy planning in the region. Overtime the city`s approach to stormwater and wet weather flows evolved from flood control to management. The current approach is guided by the city`s Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan, an overarching plan to manage water flows in the city. With the expected impacts of climate change further increasing the need to effectively manage water in Toronto, it is important to look at and understand the measures the city is taking to plan for and relieve flood risk into the future. From analysis of existing literature and best practices in urban flood risk management, recommendations for improvements to the current master plan, policies, and management are made.

scholarly journals Investigating flood impacts and adaptation measures for the City of Toronto

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan Ketchabaw
Keyword(s):  
Risk Management ◽  
Flood Risk ◽  
Flood Control ◽  
Current Approach ◽  
Flood Risk Management ◽  
Storm Event ◽  
Master Plan ◽  
Adaptation Measures ◽  
Wet Weather ◽  
The City

The City of Toronto has had a long history with, and relationship to flooding. The most severe flooding on record in Ontario occurred in October of 1954 when Hurricane Hazel struck the City of Toronto and surrounding areas. This storm event initiated and helped to shape flood risk management and policy planning in the region. Overtime the city`s approach to stormwater and wet weather flows evolved from flood control to management. The current approach is guided by the city`s Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan, an overarching plan to manage water flows in the city. With the expected impacts of climate change further increasing the need to effectively manage water in Toronto, it is important to look at and understand the measures the city is taking to plan for and relieve flood risk into the future. From analysis of existing literature and best practices in urban flood risk management, recommendations for improvements to the current master plan, policies, and management are made.

Community responses to flood risk management – An empirical Investigation of the Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in Malaysia

Marine Policy ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 97 ◽  
pp. 119-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Mehedi Masud ◽  
Ahmad S. Sackor ◽  
A.S.A. Ferdous Alam ◽  
Abul Quasem Al-Amin ◽  
Ahmad Bashawir Abdul Ghani
Keyword(s):  
Risk Management ◽  
Protected Areas ◽  
Marine Protected Areas ◽  
Flood Risk ◽  
Empirical Investigation ◽  
Flood Risk Management ◽  
Community Responses

The Governance of Flood Risk Management

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Thistlethwaite ◽  
Daniel Henstra
Keyword(s):  
Risk Management ◽  
Risk Reduction ◽  
Natural Hazards ◽  
Flood Risk ◽  
Policy Instruments ◽  
Policy Coordination ◽  
Flood Risk Management ◽  
Risk Governance ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Course Of Action

Natural hazards are a complex governance problem. Managing the risks associated with natural hazards requires action at all scales—from household to national—but coordinating these nested responses to achieve a vertically cohesive course of action is challenging. Moreover, though governments have the legal authority and legitimacy to mandate or facilitate natural hazard risk reduction, non-governmental actors such as business firms, industry associations, research organizations and non-profit organizations hold much of the pertinent knowledge and resources. This interdependence demands horizontal collaboration, but coordinating risk reduction across organizational divides is fraught with challenges and requires skillful leadership. Flood risk management (FRM)—an integrated strategy to reduce the likelihood and impacts of flooding—demonstrates the governance challenge presented by natural hazards. By engaging stakeholders, coordinating public and private efforts, and employing a diversity of policy instruments, FRM can strengthen societal resilience, achieve greater efficiency, and enhance the legitimacy of decisions and actions to reduce flood risk. Implementing FRM, however, requires supportive flood risk governance arrangements that facilitate vertical and horizontal policy coordination by establishing strategic goals, negotiating roles and responsibilities, aligning policy instruments, and allocating resources.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document