Constructing risks – Internalisation of flood risks in the flood risk management plan

Traditional flood protection methods have focused efforts on different measures to keep water out of floodplains. However, the European Flood Directive challenges this paradigm (Hartmann and Driessen, 2013). Accordingly, flood risk management plans should incorporate measures brought about by collaboration with local governments to develop and implement these measures (Johann and Leismann, 2014). One of the challenges of these plans is getting and keeping stakeholders involved in the processes related to flood risk management. This research shows that that this challenge revolves around how flood risks are socially constructed.Therefore it is essential to understand and explain the risk perception of stakeholders. System Theory by Luhmann provides the analytical distinction between ‘internal risk’ and ‘external danger’ as key concepts to understand whether or not stakeholders will take action (Luhmann, 1993). While perceptions of ‘external danger’ will not lead to action, perceptions of ‘internal risk’ urge stakeholders to take action.The cases of the rivers Lippe and Emscher in the dense populated region between Duisburg and Dortmund in Germany illustrate how these theoretical concepts materialise in practice. This contribution shows how flood risks are socially constructed and how this construction is influenced by the European flood risk management plan. While clearing up some of the difficulties from the Flood Directive, the research shows a gap between the Flood Directive and the current theory and planning practice, which needs to be addressed in further research.     

A framework for evaluating flood risk governance

Calls to strengthen flood risk governance are echoed across Europe amidst a growing consensus that floods will increase in the future. Accompanying the pursuit of societal resilience, other normative agendas relating legitimacy (e.g. accountability and public participation), and resource efficiency, have become attached to discussions concerning flood risk governance. Whilst these represent goals against which ‘success’ is socially and politically judged, lacking from the literature is a coherent framework to operationalise these concepts and evaluate the degree to which these are achieved. Drawing from cross-disciplinary and cross-country research conducted within the EU project STAR-FLOOD, this paper presents a framework for evaluating the extent to which flood risk governance arrangements support societal resilience, and demonstrate efficiency and legitimacy. Through empirical research in England, this paper critically reflects on the value of this approach in terms of identifying entry points to strengthen governance in the pursuit of these goals.     

Improving flood risk analysis for effectively supporting the implementation of flood risk management plans: The case study of “Serio” Valley

The EU Flood Directive 2007/60 requires the assessment and delineation of flood risk maps. The latter should provide the required knowledge for the development of flood risk management plans (FRMPs), that should deal with all features of risk management: e.g. preparation, protection and prevention, comprising also the phase of the flood forecasting and warning systems, in addition to the emergency management. The risk maps, delineated through the expert-drive qualitative (EDQ) approach currently adopted in several European countries, such as Italy, fail to represent the information base that needed by stakeholders for selecting the suitable objectives and designing the appropriate mitigation actions for flood risk management. In the EDQ approach, the flood hazard and the potential damage degree maps are combined by means of a matrix to obtain a qualitative flood risk map. However, the performance of the risk matrix is not usually rigorous validated and, therefore, presents limits, such as subjective and not careful explained interpretation of rating and poor resolution, (due to range compression), that can produce errors in comparative ranking of risk areas. In this context, this paper proposes the FloodRisk approach that aims to improve the efficacy of flood risk map overcoming the limits of EDQ approach in supplying the knowledge base that allow to analyze costs and benefits of potential mitigation measures. However, the proposed approach is also able to involve the citizens in the flood management process, enhancing their awareness. An application of FloodRisk procedure is showed on a pilot case in “Serio” Valley, (North Italy), and its strengths and limits, in terms of additional efforts required in its application compared with EDQ procedure, have been discussed focusing on the efficacy of the outcomes provided for the fulfillment of FRMPs. The results have demonstrated the ability of FloodRisk, respect to EDQ approach, to distinguish successfully different levels of vulnerability of exposure elements, thanks to the use of asset value and depth-damage curves, that allows a suitably evaluation of the effectiveness of risk mitigation strategies. In this light, a successfully application of a cost-benefit analysis of FloodRisk approach on a portfolio of alternative mitigation actions, (i.e. structural and non-structural measurements), has been demonstrated on the proposed study case. However, FloodRisk requires additional information, e.g. water depths assessment and assets values, and it needs a proper analysis and communication of the uncertainty in its results. Although they still exist limitations that impede, at present, the FloodRisk application without an adequate understanding and a critical consideration of the hazard, exposure and vulnerability characteristics of the study area, considerations are supplied on how the utilization of this approach can be maximized in the light of the next flood risk maps revision due by December 2019.     

Flash flood forecasting, warning and risk management: the HYDRATE project

The management of flash flood hazards and risks is a critical component of public safety and quality of life. Flash-floods develop at space and time scales that conventional observation systems are not able to monitor for rainfall and river discharge. Consequently, the atmospheric and hydrological generating mechanisms of flash-floods are poorly understood, leading to highly uncertain forecasts of these events. The objective of the HYDRATE project has been to improve the scientific basis of flash flood forecasting by advancing and harmonising a European-wide innovative flash flood observation strategy and developing a coherent set of technologies and tools for effective early warning systems. To this end, the project included actions on the organization of the existing flash flood data patrimony across Europe. The final aim of HYDRATE was to enhance the capability of flash flood forecasting in ungauged basins by exploiting the extended availability of flash flood data and the improved process understanding. This paper provides a review of the work conducted in HYDRATE with a special emphasis on how this body of research can contribute to guide the policy-life cycle concerning flash flood risk management.     

Individual preferences for reducing flood risk to near zero through elevation

Climate change is expected to increase the frequency and intensity of natural disasters. Adaptation investments are required in order to limit the projected increase in natural disaster risks. Adaptation measures can reduce risk partially or completely eliminate risk. The literature on behavioural economics suggests that individuals rarely undertake measures that limit risk partially, while they may place a considerable value on measures that reduce risk to zero. This is studied for a case of adaptation to climate change and its effects on flood risk in the Netherlands. In particular, we examine whether households are willing to invest in elevating newly built structures when this is framed as eliminating flood risk. The results indicate that a majority of homeowners (52%) is willing to make a substantial investment of €10,000 to elevate a new house to a level that is safe to flooding. Differences between willingness to pay (WTP) for flood insurance and WTP for risk elimination through elevation indicate that individuals place a considerable value on the latter adaptation option. This study estimates that the “safety premium” which individuals place on risk elimination is approximately between €35 and €45 per month. The existence of a safety premium has important implications for the design of climate change adaptation policies. The decision to invest in elevating homes is significantly correlated with the expected negative effects of climate change, perceptions of flood risks, individual risk attitudes, and living close to a main river.     

Analyzing flood risk and related impacts to urban communities in central Vietnam

This study aims at understanding flood risks and their impact on a community, in order to enhance communities’ resilience and adaptive capacity to these threats. It also investigates the possibility of looking at and handling risk from a resilience point of view. Therefore, while a conventional risk management process is employed in this study, social, physical, economic, and institutional dimensions of resilience are also included in order to grasp the extent of risks and the ways in which communities face, cope with, and recover from flooding. Findings showed that there was no significant difference in the perception of flood risk among household heads educated up to secondary school level, suggesting that they believe floods are purely natural events. Those with a higher level of education (high school and above) (82.7 % of respondents) were aware that flood disasters are the result of hazard and vulnerability combined. In addition, social dynamics were apparently strengthened by such disasters, which resulted in cohesion and mutual help following floods in some wards. Also, households with more sources of income and more savings appear to recover faster than others after a flooding event. With regard to governance and networks, greater efforts have to be made by local institutions to ensure basic functioning during and after disaster events and to invest more into risk reduction activities. However, further studies need to be conducted to clarify the understanding of the impact flood disasters have on the environment and community lives and livelihoods in general, as traditional coping strategies, although still practical, no longer suffice in the face of changes in climate and environment.     

Modeling residual flood risk behind levees,Upper Mississippi River,USA

Flood protection from levees is a mixed blessing, excluding water from the floodplain but creating higher flood levels (“surcharges”) and promoting “residual risk” of flood damages. This study completed 2D hydrodynamic modeling and flood-damage analyses for the 459 km² Sny Island levee system on the Upper Mississippi River. These levees provide large economic benefits, at least $51.1 million per year in prevented damages, the large majority provided to the agricultural sector and a small subset of low-elevation properties. However these benefits simultaneously translate into a large residual risk of flood damage should levees fail or be overtopped; this risk is not recognized either locally in the study area nor in national policy. In addition, the studied levees caused surcharges averaging 1.2–1.5 m and locally as high as 2.4 m, consistent with other sites and studies. The combined hydraulic and economic modeling here documented that levee-related surcharge + the residual risk of levee overtopping or failure can lead to negative benefits, meaning added long-term flood risk. Up to 31% of residential structures in the study area, 8% of agricultural structures, and 22% of commercial structures received negative benefits, totaling $562,500 per year. Although counterintuitive, structures at the margin of a leveed floodplain can incur negative benefits due to greater flood levels resulting from levees purportedly built to protect them. National levee policies and plans for local projects are unbalanced, crediting levee benefits but rarely fully planning for adverse impacts or considering alternatives.     

Assessing river flood risk and adaptation in Europe—review of projections for the future

Flood damages have exhibited a rapid upward trend, both globally and in Europe, faster than population and economic growth. Hence, vigorous attempts of attribution of changes have been made. Flood risk and vulnerability tend to change over many areas, due to a range of climatic and nonclimatic impacts whose relative importance is site-specific. Flooding is a complex phenomenon and there are several generating mechanisms, among others intense and/or long-lasting precipitation, snowmelt, ice jam. Projected climate-driven changes in future flood frequency are complex, depending on the generating mechanism, e.g., increasing flood magnitudes where floods result of heavy rainfall and possibly decreasing magnitudes where floods are generated by spring snowmelt. Climate change is likely to cause an increase of the risk of riverine flooding across much of Europe. Projections of flood hazard in Europe based on climatic and hydrological models, reviewed in this paper, illustrate possible changes of recurrence of a 100-year flood (with probability of exceedance being 1-in-100 years) in Europe. What used to be a 100-year flood in the control period is projected to become either more frequent or less frequent in the future time horizon of concern. For a large part of the continent, large flooding is projected to become more commonplace in future, warmer climate. Due to the large uncertainty of climate projections, it is currently not possible to devise a scientifically-sound procedure for redefining design floods (e.g. 100-year flood) in order to adjust flood defenses. For the time being, we recommend to adjust design floods using a “climate change factor” approach.     

Economic analysis of adaptive strategies for flood risk management under climate change

Climate change requires reconsideration of flood risk management strategies. Cost-benefit analysis (CBA), an economic decision-support tool, has been widely applied to assess these strategies. This paper aims to describe and discuss probabilistic extensions of CBA to identify welfare-maximising flood risk management strategies under climate change. First, uncertainty about the changes in return periods of hydro-meteorological extremes is introduced by probability-weighted climate scenarios. Second, the analysis is extended by learning about climate change impacts. Learning occurs upon the probabilistic arrival of information. We distinguish between learning from scientific progress, from statistical evidence and from flood disasters. These probabilistic extensions can be used to analyse and compare the economic efficiency and flexibility of flood risk management strategies under climate change. We offer a critical discussion of the scope of such extensions and options for increasing flexibility. We find that uncertainty reduction from scientific progress may reduce initial investments, while other types of learning may increase initial investments. This requires analysing effects of different types of learning. We also find that probabilistic information about climate change impacts and learning is imprecise. We conclude that risk-based CBA with learning improves the flexibility of flood risk management strategies under climate change. However, CBA provides subjective estimates of expected outcomes and reflects different decision-maker preferences than those captured in robustness analyses. We therefore advocate robustness analysis in addition to, or combined with, cost-benefit analysis to support local investment decisions on flood risk reduction and global strategies on allocation of adaptation funds for flood risk management.     

Policy implementation of catchment-scale flood risk management: Learning from Scotland and England

Recent years have seen a gradual adoption of a “catchment-scale” approach to flood risk management into European policy-making which, amongst other objectives, promotes rural land use change to reduce flood risk. While some exploratory studies of land managers’ attitudes exist, research is lacking on how public policies can be mobilised locally to implement these ideas. Two local initiatives were analysed in the transboundary River Tweed basin in Scotland and England during which public authorities negotiated with land managers. A combination of documents (N = 21) and interviews (N = 63) forms the basis of the data analysed. The results showed that implementation is highly dependent on the local policy framework, the activities of implementers, and land managers’ responses to (combination of) policy instruments. Several factors were identified influencing implementation such as devolution arrangements (i.e. from national to regional/local), the level of local interest on flood risk, local attitudes to compromise and collaboration, available policy instruments, and the existence of participatory catchment organisations. With limited scope for stand-alone regulatory action or funding in the short term, synergies and measures promoting co-benefits in flood risk management should be further sought in the Water Framework Directive River Basin Management Plans, as well as in cross-compliance and the new agri-environment-climate strategies of the common agricultural policy.     

Prescriptive conflict prevention analysis: An application to the 2021 update of the Austrian flood risk management plan

Flood events have become more frequent in Europe, and the adaptation to the increasing flood risks is needed. The Flood Directive set up a series of measures to increase European resilience, establishing Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) at the level of the river basin district as one relevant action. In order to efficiently fulfil this objective, the involvement of stakeholders as well as the analysis of their roles, responsibilities, and demands has been considered to be crucial to develop FRMPs. As a result, the hypothesis tested in this paper is that a consensus solution for the 2021 update Austrian Flood Risk Management Plan is feasible. To demonstrate this, both in-depth interviews and questionnaires to key Austrian stakeholders are implemented. The information collected in both participatory techniques are then used to run a conflict prevention analysis. The results show that (a) improving the coordination among regions and including better land-use planning approaches are preferable to a hypothetical business as usual scenario; and (b) a consensus solution for the 2021 update Austrian FRMP might be achievable on the basis of both a deep discussion on the state-of-the art and green infrastructure development.     

Combining hazard,exposure and social vulnerability to provide lessons for flood risk management

Flood risk assessments provide inputs for the evaluation of flood risk management (FRM) strategies. Traditionally, such risk assessments provide estimates of loss of life and economic damage. However, the effect of policy measures aimed at reducing risk also depends on the capacity of households to adapt and respond to floods, which in turn largely depends on their social vulnerability. This study shows how a joint assessment of hazard, exposure and social vulnerability provides valuable information for the evaluation of FRM strategies. The adopted methodology uses data on hazard and exposure combined with a social vulnerability index. The relevance of this state-of-the-art approach taken is exemplified in a case-study of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. The results show that not only a substantial share of the population can be defined as socially vulnerable, but also that the population is very heterogeneous, which is often ignored in traditional flood risk management studies. It is concluded that FRM measures, such as individual mitigation, evacuation or flood insurance coverage should not be applied homogenously across large areas, but instead should be tailored to local characteristics based on the socioeconomic characteristics of individual households and neighborhoods.     

A comparison of definitions of affordability for flood risk adaption measures: a case study of current and future risk-based flood insurance premiums in Europe

Risk-based insurance is a commonly proposed and discussed flood risk adaptation mechanism in policy debates across the world such as in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. However, both risk-based premiums and growing risk pose increasing difficulties for insurance to remain affordable. An empirical concept of affordability is required as the affordability of adaption strategies is an important concern for policymakers, yet such a concept is not often examined. Therefore, a robust metric with a commonly acceptable affordability threshold is required. A robust metric allows for a previously normative concept to be quantified in monetary terms, and in this way, the metric is rendered more suitable for integration into public policy debates. This paper investigates the degree to which risk-based flood insurance premiums are unaffordable in Europe. In addition, this paper compares the outcomes generated by three different definitions of unaffordability in order to investigate the most robust definition. In doing so, the residual income definition was found to be the least sensitive to changes in the threshold. While this paper focuses on Europe, the selected definition can be employed elsewhere in the world and across adaption measures in order to develop a common metric for indicating the potential unaffordability problem.     

The conception of public interest in Dutch flood risk management: Untouchable or transforming?

The governance of flood risks varies considerably in different parts of the world. Obviously this is due to the nature and characteristics of flood risks, but in part governance approaches vary because of political differences in the nature of governance itself. What is ‘appropriate’ in this respect depends partly on the prevailing conceptions of the public interest in a country. By applying Alexander’s (2002) categorization of public interest to flood risk management practices in The Netherlands, we show that the strongly unitary conception of the public interest (a historic ‘flood risk safety for all’), is intertwined with a state-based, sector-based, hydro-technical governance and expertise system. Although this conception is very strong it is no longer self-evident. Because of changing conceptions of governance in general and because of the felt necessity to adapt to climate change, Dutch flood risk management is gradually changing. Increasingly, the Dutch government has to deal with more dialogical and utilitarian approaches to public interest in the governance of flood risks. The Dutch approach is rooted in community-based interests in flood protection and was centralized and rationalized during the 19th and 20th century. The current flood risk standards are based upon a coarse utilitarian benefit-cost analysis, but evolved into mostly a unitary idea of national safety materialized in law by statutory flood risk standards. The findings show that this unitary concept and status of the public interest of flood risk safety has not diminished; it must, however, increasingly take into account the importance of both processes of decision making (dialogues, deliberations) and neighboring public interests. We conclude that the Dutch conception of the public interest on flood safety is still strong but nevertheless gradually changing, not the least because of a general availability of the information and technology to calculate and differentiate risks.     

Adapting to risk and perpetuating poverty: Household’s strategies for managing flood risk and water scarcity in Mexico City

Adaptation is typically conceived uniquely in positive terms, however for some populations, investments in risk management can entail significant tradeoffs. Here we discuss the burden for households of coping with, and adapting to, adverse water conditions in economically marginal areas of Mexico City. We argue that households’ efforts to adapt in conditions of marginality can come at the expense of households’ investment in other aspects of human welfare, reinforcing poverty traps. Both economic theory and social-ecological systems analysis point to the importance of cross-scalar investments and institutional support in breaking down persistent poverty traps. Using data from twelve focus groups conducted in Mexico City, we illustrate how such cross-scale connectivity is failing as a result of lack of trust and transparency, the difficulty of collective action, and the devolution of some responsibilities for risk management from the public sector to the household level. We conclude our analysis by arguing for greater attention to these tradeoffs in public policy to help ensure that adaptation does not come at the cost of more generic welfare gains among the most vulnerable populations.     

The effectiveness of flood risk communication strategies and the influence of social networks—Insights from an agent-based model

Flood risk management is becoming increasingly important, because more people are settling in flood-prone areas, and flood risk is increasing in many regions due to extreme weather events associated with climate change. It has been proposed that appropriately designed flood risk communication campaigns can stimulate floodplain inhabitants to prepare for flooding, and encourage adaptation to climate change. However, such campaigns do not always result in the desired action, and the effectiveness of communication in raising flood risk awareness and improving flood preparedness has hardly been studied. We evaluate different flood risk communication strategies, using an agent-based modelling approach, which is especially suitable for examining the effect of communication on each individual, and how flood risk communication can propagate through an individual’s social network. Our modelling results show that tailored, people-centred, flood risk communication can be significantly more effective than the common approach of top-down government communication, even when tailored communication reaches fewer individuals. Furthermore, communication on how to protect against floods, in addition to providing information about flood risk, is much more effective than the traditional strategy of communicating only about flood risk. Another main finding is that a person’s social network can have a significant effect on whether or not individuals take protective action. This leads to the recommendation that flood risk communication should aim at exploiting this natural amplifying effect of social networks, for instance, through the use of social media.     

Lessons learned from applying adaptation pathways in flood risk management and challenges for the further development of this approach

Worldwide, an increase in flood damage is observed. Governments are looking for effective ways to protect lives, buildings, and infrastructure. At the same time, a large investment gap seems to exist—a big difference between what should necessarily be done to curb the increase in damage and what is actually being done. Decision-makers involved in climate adaptation are facing fundamental (so-called deep) uncertainties. In the course of time, the scientific community has developed a wide range of different approaches for dealing with these uncertainties. One of these approaches, adaptation pathways, is gaining traction as a way of framing and informing climate adaptation. But research shows that “very little work has been done to evaluate the current use of adaptation pathways and its utility to practitioners and decision makers” (Lin et al. 2017, p. 387). With this paper, the authors, as action researchers and practitioners involved in two of the world’s largest real-life applications of this approach in flood risk management, aim to contribute to filling in that gap. Analysis of the experience in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands in long-term planning in flood risk management shows that the adaptation pathways approach is effective in keeping decision processes going forward, to the final approval of a long-term plan, and helps increase awareness about uncertainties. It contributes to political support for keeping long-term options open and motivates decision-makers to modify their plans to better accommodate future conditions. When it comes to implementing the plans, there are still some major challenges, yet to be addressed, amongst others: the timely detection of tipping points in situations with large natural variability, the inclusion of measures that prepare for a switch to transformational strategies, and the retention of commitment of regional and local authorities, non government organizations, and the private sector, to climate adaptation as national policies move from blueprint planning to adaptive plans. In delivering this feedback, the authors hope to motivate the scientific community to take on these challenges.