Three different conceptual frameworks of resilience, including engineering, ecological and social–ecological have been presented and framed within the context of flood risk management. Engineering resilience has demonstrated its value in the design and operation of technological systems in general and in flood resilient technologies in particular. Although limited to the technical domain, it has broadened the objectives of flood resilient technologies and provided guidance in improving their effectiveness. Socio-ecological resilience is conceived as a broader system characteristic that involves the interaction between human and natural systems. It acknowledges that these systems change over time and that these interactions are of complex nature and associated with uncertainties. Building (socio-ecological) resilience in flood risk management strategies calls for an adaptive approach with short-term measures and a set of monitoring criteria for keeping track of developments that might require adaptation in the long-term (adaptation pathways) and thus built-in adaptive capacity as opposed to building engineering resilience which involves a static approach with a fixed time horizon a set of robust measures designed for specific future conditions or scenarios. The two case studies, from a developing and a developed country, indicate that the concepts of ecological and socio-ecological resilience provide guidance for building more resilient flood risk management systems resulting in an approach that embraces flood protection, prevention and preparedness. The case studies also reveal that the translation of resilience concepts into practice remains a challenge. One plausible explanation for this is our inability to arrive at a quantification of socio-ecological resilience taking into account the various attributes of the concept.
This article is part of the theme issue ‘Urban flood resilience’.
Case Studies on Flash Flood Risk Management in the Himalayas; In support of specific flash flood policies
