Search

Flood risk consists of complex and dynamic problems, whose management calls for innovative ways of engaging with a wide range of local stakeholders, many of whom lack the technical expertise to engage with traditional flood risk management practices. Participatory approaches offer potential for involving these stakeholders in decision?making, yet limited advice is available to users in choosing which techniques to employ and what they might expect them to deliver. Assessing the effectiveness of participatory approaches in local flood risk management is a critical step towards better understanding how community resilience is built. This article presents a framework for evaluating participatory approaches to flood risk management that covers four evaluation elements (context, process, substantive, and social outcomes). Practical success criteria are provided for evaluation, with references indicating where further advice and guidance can be sought. Criteria are tailored to the requirements of flood risk management, and aim to be sufficiently flexible for the framework to be easily transferable.

Editorial to a special edition of the journal. Consequences of extreme hydrological events, such as those recently experienced in United States (e.g. Hurricane Harvey or Irma in 2017), floods in South Asia in 2017, or the Central European floods in 2013 and 2016, have again focused the attention of society, policy makers and academic scholars on questions of how to reduce vulnerability to such events, especially when faced with the dual challenges of climate and societal change. Not only is the likelihood of floods increasing (e.g. IPCC 2014), but, due to continuing development in hazard-prone zones, the so called bullseye effect which argues that increasing disaster frequency is largely due to increasing exposure, and the resulting higher degree of vulnerability in floodplains, it becomes more and more challenging to protect all properties to the same standard (see discussion around residual risk, Ashley et al. 2014; Jongman et al. 2015; Fuchs et al. 2017a). Hence, the outcome of current flood risk management strategies in many situations are necessitating changes to the current social contract between state and society, requiring a re-design of the role of central government and individual citizens and communities in terms of sharing responsibilities (Adger et al. 2013; Doorn 2016). In particular, government often encourages society to take the lead in the responsibility for flood risk management, but apparently with conflicts and misunderstandings arising (Harris 2012; Kuhlicke et al. 2016; Fuchs et al. 2017b) as well as potentially introducing inequalities in flood risk management outcomes. In Europe, we can already observe these aspects in recent developments, which have led to a re-arrangement of roles and responsibilities for flood risk management, such as introduction of Partnership Funding in England and Wales or Canada ‘risk-based’ stormwater charge (Thaler and Priest 2014; Geaves and Penning-Rowsell 2016; Thaler and Levin-Keitel 2016; Henstra and Thistlethwaite 2017). However, discussion and research concerning the implications of social justice and injustice in these new flood risk management debates is scarce (Johnson et al. 2007; Doorn 2015; Thaler and Hartmann 2016).

The paper examines the new flood risk policy discussion in England and Wales. The summer floods in England in 2007 caused large damages to the environment, economy and humanity. Following this key flood event, the Government has started to redefine the national flood and coastal risk management policy in England and Wales. The key issue in the new policy agenda is to encourage the responsibilities of local authorities and reduce the central role of flood risk management. This decentralisation in flood risk management has a series of consequences in the development of new governance structures. The main reason for this shift from central to local level is the belief that local authorities deal with public administration tasks in a more efficient way. Nevertheless, the main problem is the gap between the delegated tasks and the lack of transfer of resources, especially the issue concerning funding is still unclear and unresolved. This constraint will go with fiscal and administration cuts. The consequences will be (1) ‘hollowing out’ of the Government with the downscaling of the responsibility towards local actors and (2) without proportional transfer of resources to local authorities they will not be able to deal with new tasks. Therefore, in practice there are many limitations, barriers and concerns with the new policy direction.

Flood risk management and policy in Europe are changing, so the role of local and catchment-wide flood risk management plans are now key contemporary issues in flood policy. A new policy agenda is to enhance inter-local solutions instead of local flood alleviation schemes. This paper analyses the new role of those local authorities and stakeholders in flood risk management as well as how the nature of the partnerships are established and operate, focusing especially on the main barriers and challenges. This paper examines catchment-based flood risk management in Austria. Catchment-based flood risk management was analysed in three different Austrian regions (Aist in Upper Austria, Triesting-Tal in Lower Austria and Ill-Walgau in Vorarlberg). The current functions of a partnership approach in flood risk prevention lie within the selection of sites for conservation of regionally important retention areas, harmonising spatial planning instruments and awareness-raising for protective measures on an inter-local level. The empirical results are currently characterized by a lack of sufficient co-operation between the members as well as with the regional authorities. The three case studies show different backgrounds and developments. The results show that the inter-local co-operation process is in no cases fully achieved. Some of the case studies show a higher integration in one field than others.

There is a high potential for recovery mechanisms to be used to incentivise the uptake of flood mitigation and loss reduction measures, undertake adaptation and promote community resilience. Indeed, creating a resilient response to flooding requires flood risk management approaches to be aligned and it needs to be ensured that recovery mechanisms to not provide disincentives for individuals and business to take proactive action to reduce risk. However, the degree to which it is desirable and effective for insurers and governments providing compensation to promote resilience and risk reduction depends upon how the cover or compensation is organised and the premiums which are charged. A review of international flood recovery mechanisms has been undertaken to identify firstly the types of schemes that exist and their characteristics. Analysis of existing instruments highlights that there are various potential approaches to encourage or require the uptake of flood mitigation and also discourage the construction of new development in high flood risk. However despite the presence of these instruments, those organising recovery mechanisms could be doing much more to incentivise increased resilience.

Many countries are exploring alternative strategies to counter rising flood risk as there is concern at the extra burden that such increasing risk will bring. The aim of this paper is to explore the nature of these burdens, and outline responses in the United Kingdom where both the government and the private flood insurers have new policies and proposals. Our method is to collate the extensive existing authoritative data and information - from government and the insurance industry - about the risks that are being experienced and the related policy responses. The results show that these seek to concentrate somewhat more the financial burden of, respectively, flood risk management costs and insurance provisions on to those who are at risk and away from the general taxpayer and those who pay insurance premiums. Other countries may well learn from these developments. The pre-existing cross-subsidies are being reduced and, in this way, it is hoped that extra resources for risk management investment will be forthcoming (from local contributions from at-risk communities) and flood insurance will remain affordable, available and commercially viable. A key conclusion here is that it appears that any increase in flood frequency and severity in the UK appears likely to affect the financially deprived communities to a greater extent than others, not least because they are less likely to insure. Government arrangements to prioritise their contribution to risk reducing towards these financially deprived communities is a sign that this regressive effect of floods is real and serious, and those arrangements are to be welcomed.

The new flood risk policy discussion in England has started to redefine national policy regarding flood and coastal risk management. The key issue in the new policy agenda is to encourage the responsibilities of local authorities in flood risk management, which involve defining local strategies to manage local risks. This downscaling process in flood risk management has a series of consequences in the development of new governance structures and institutions as well as new working relations and intervention strategies. Nevertheless, the main problem is the gap between the downscaling of responsibility and the transfer of resources; in particular the question concerning funding and social capacity. In this way, the focus of policy discussion refers to two main aspects: (a) the equitable sharing of risk-burdens between public authorities, private companies and individuals and (b) how to encourage government agencies and nongovernment agents to take over responsibility for certain tasks from central government. The aim of this paper is to discuss the new funding regime for English flood risk management policy under the new policy paradigm.

Widely available insurance within a well-functioning and solvent market has the potential to not only assist the recovery from hazard events; but also positively influence mitigation behaviour. However, the characteristics of current flood insurance models and their effectiveness vary considerably between countries. How flood insurance provision is structured, what losses are covered and excluded and how it is purchased all impact upon the effectiveness of the scheme for recovering from flood losses and ultimately how burden sharing is split between the at-risk individual and society. This study reviews international insurance provision (and compensation schemes) for adverse natural events. The key findings from this work are provided in this research summary which accompanies the full review document.

Widely available insurance within a well-functioning and solvent market has the potential to not only assist the recovery from hazard events; but also positively influence mitigation behaviour. However, the characteristics of current flood insurance models and their effectiveness vary considerably between countries. How flood insurance provision is structured, what losses are covered and excluded and how it is purchased all impact upon the effectiveness of the scheme for recovering from flood losses and ultimately how burden sharing is split between the at-risk individual and society.\ud \ud This study reviews international insurance provision (and compensation schemes) for adverse natural events. Each insurance model is described and its performance for aiding recovery as well as modifying risk behaviour examined. A number of criteria are used to evaluate these models including; degree of insurance penetration, coverage, insurability, equity, incentives for mitigation and impact on market solvency. The review also examines the role of insurance within a broader portfolio of flood and storm management. Recognising the balance between a focus on proactive management and recovery as well as public and private investment is critical to understanding the overall role of insurance within a country and wider lessons that can be drawn. This cultural and flood management context is fundamental to assessing the impact that flood insurance may have on community resilience. Where possible, the review draws on information about insurance trends and other data for the provision of cover for older people; although the availability of data specifically for this group is limited.

Flood forecasting and warning systems have a significant role to play within integrated flood risk management, either in combination with mobile structural flood defences or as part of an approach which combines a number of non-structural measures. In theory the benefits of flood warnings, in terms of community security, protection of life and flood damage reduction, should be large. The theoretical benefit potential is being driven upwards by important advances in the predictive sciences, and in the application of information and communication technologies to rapid flood warning communication. However, in practice the full benefit potential of flood warnings is rarely maximised, and currently in some circumstances it falls well below the theoretical potential. Often this happens because warning response strategies are inadequately conceptualised, developed and implemented. The objectives of Activity 2 of Task 10 were therefore to:\ud \ud 1. To collect new information and available data on the damage-reducing effects of flood warnings and on those factors affecting people’s propensity to act upon receipt of a warning and to refine the existing UK FHRC model of the economic benefits of warnings.\ud \ud 2. To calibrate a simple model developed by MU/FHRC for a range of flood circumstances so that this model can become a standard method for evaluating flood damages and the effect that warnings can have on these values.\ud \ud 3. To produce a modified FHRC model and data on: \ud a) how people respond to flood warnings;\ud b) what actions people take to protect people and property;\ud c) what features of flood warning systems would be best to enable people to do more; \ud d) some insights into what factors encourage, limit or inhibit the ability of households and others to respond to flood warnings; and\ud e) some estimates of the actual damages saved according to key variables (e.g. type of warning and warning lead time).\ud \ud 4. To apply the flood loss reduction model to some FLOODsite case studies to demonstrate the viability of warnings as a major non-structural flood mitigation option.\ud \ud 5. To review and refine methods for collecting data on the damage reducing actions taken by households upon receipt of a warning.\ud \ud The research presents three approaches for estimating the benefits of flood warnings in terms of flood loss savings. The first approach, a refinement of the MU/FHRC model for use within continental Europe, focuses in detail on household flood warning response and benefit. Quantitative data are presented for the case studies in the UK, the River Elbe in the Czech Republic and the River Mulde in Germany.\ud \ud A second model reconceptualises flood warning response strategies within a portfolio approach, and develops a comprehensive model of flood warning response which may be applied to a wide range of flooding conditions and socio-economic circumstances. This broader approach considers eight flood response and benefit pathways and moves beyond merely considering householder-level responses by adding the savings that can be accrued through; business contingency planning; the operationalisation of flood defences; contingent flood-proofing; search and rescue, evacuation, the deployment of community-based options and through effective watercourse maintenance. The benefits of flood warning are, therefore, not only assessed for householders, but for all sectors of the economy. The model has been applied to data from a number of case studies; for a synthetic simulation of flood warning response and benefit in three urban areas; for England and Wales; and for Grimma on the River Mulde, Germany. These demonstrate the potential of the reconceptualised flood warning response strategies, and the comparative scale of monetary benefits associated with each. The factors which have been found in the research to encourage improved flood warning response, and thus warning benefits, are also presented and discussed. \ud \ud A third method is applied to the example of Grenoble in France. This case study presents an approach to the estimation of damage savings attributable to flood warnings when few data are available. \ud \ud The models, data and findings from this research are now ready to be applied throughout Europe, and are capable of significantly increasing the value of flood forecasting and warning systems. Despite progress some significant data gaps still remain and provide an agenda for future research in this area.

The research carried out for Activity 1 of Task 10 focuses on developing a methodology to estimate loss of life from flood events. In order to reduce the risk to life it is necessary to understand the causes of loss of life in floods in order to pinpoint where, when and how loss of life is more likely to occur and what kind of intervention and flood risk management measures may be effective in eliminating or reducing serious injuries and fatalities. The objectives of this research were therefore to (a) further develop a model, or models, to provide insight into, and estimates of, the potential loss of life in floods, based on work already undertaken in the UK and new data collected on flood events in Continental Europe; (b) to map, through the use of GIS and building partly on existing work, the outputs of the risk to life model(s) providing estimates of the potential loss of life in floods. The research took as a starting point the Risk to People model developed in the UK (HR Wallingford, 2003; 2005) and assessed the applicability of this model for flood events in Continental Europe, which tend to be more severe and life threatening. Data on flood events were gathered from 25 locations across six European countries as well as data from an additional case study in the UK. A number of problems were identified with the current model when applied to the flood data collected from Continental Europe. In particular the model was not designed for the major rivers and mountainous catchments compared with the UK and thus resulted in dramatic over-predictions of injuries and fatalities. Moreover, the model was found to contain several structural weaknesses. Research conducted into the factors surrounding European flood fatalities also highlighted the importance of institutional arrangements and mitigating factors such as evacuation and rescue operations. Finally, the UK model was seen to be hugely sensitive to people vulnerability, which in much of the wider European flooding is arguably of less importance in than it is in the UK. Thus a new semi-qualitative ‘threshold’ model which combines hazard and exposure thresholds and mitigating factors has been developed to assess risk to life from flooding in a wider European context. The model has been designed to be flexible enough to be used and applied at a range of scales, from a broad assessment at a regional or national scale, to a more detailed local scale. This flexibility is essential as not all European countries have detailed flood data that is readily available. It is envisaged that the model should be used as a tool to allow flood managers to make general and comparative assessments of risk to life and to consider the targeting of resources before, during and after flooding. The new model also permits simple mapping of risk to life which again can be applied at various scales

Flood forecasting and warning systems have a significant role to play within integrated flood risk management, either in combination with mobile structural flood defences or as part of an approach which combines a number of non-structural measures. In theory the benefits of flood warnings, in terms of community security, protection of life and flood damage reduction, should be large. The theoretical benefit potential is being driven upwards by important advances in the predictive sciences, and in the application of information and communication technologies to rapid flood warning communication. However, in practice the full benefit potential of flood warnings is rarely maximised, and currently in some circumstances it falls well below the theoretical potential. Often this happens because warning response strategies are inadequately conceptualised, developed and implemented. The objectives of Activity 2 of Task 10 were therefore to:\ud \ud 1. To collect new information and available data on the damage-reducing effects of flood warnings and on those factors affecting people’s propensity to act upon receipt of a warning and to refine the existing UK FHRC model of the economic benefits of warnings.\ud \ud 2. To calibrate a simple model developed by MU/FHRC for a range of flood circumstances so that this model can become a standard method for evaluating flood damages and the effect that warnings can have on these values.\ud \ud 3. To produce a modified FHRC model and data on: \ud a) how people respond to flood warnings;\ud b) what actions people take to protect people and property;\ud c) what features of flood warning systems would be best to enable people to do more; \ud d) some insights into what factors encourage, limit or inhibit the ability of households and others to respond to flood warnings; and\ud e) some estimates of the actual damages saved according to key variables (e.g. type of warning and warning lead time).\ud \ud 4. To apply the flood loss reduction model to some FLOODsite case studies to demonstrate the viability of warnings as a major non-structural flood mitigation option.\ud \ud 5. To review and refine methods for collecting data on the damage reducing actions taken by households upon receipt of a warning.\ud \ud The research presents three approaches for estimating the benefits of flood warnings in terms of flood loss savings. The first approach, a refinement of the MU/FHRC model for use within continental Europe, focuses in detail on household flood warning response and benefit. Quantitative data are presented for the case studies in the UK, the River Elbe in the Czech Republic and the River Mulde in Germany.\ud \ud A second model reconceptualises flood warning response strategies within a portfolio approach, and develops a comprehensive model of flood warning response which may be applied to a wide range of flooding conditions and socio-economic circumstances. This broader approach considers eight flood response and benefit pathways and moves beyond merely considering householder-level responses by adding the savings that can be accrued through; business contingency planning; the operationalisation of flood defences; contingent flood-proofing; search and rescue, evacuation, the deployment of community-based options and through effective watercourse maintenance. The benefits of flood warning are, therefore, not only assessed for householders, but for all sectors of the economy. The model has been applied to data from a number of case studies; for a synthetic simulation of flood warning response and benefit in three urban areas; for England and Wales; and for Grimma on the River Mulde, Germany. These demonstrate the potential of the reconceptualised flood warning response strategies, and the comparative scale of monetary benefits associated with each. The factors which have been found in the research to encourage improved flood warning response, and thus warning benefits, are also presented and discussed. \ud \ud A third method is applied to the example of Grenoble in France. This case study presents an approach to the estimation of damage savings attributable to flood warnings when few data are available. \ud \ud The models, data and findings from this research are now ready to be applied throughout Europe, and are capable of significantly increasing the value of flood forecasting and warning systems. Despite progress some significant data gaps still remain and provide an agenda for future research in this area.

The research carried out for Activity 1 of Task 10 focuses on developing a methodology to estimate loss of life from flood events. In order to reduce the risk to life it is necessary to understand the causes of loss of life in floods in order to pinpoint where, when and how loss of life is more likely to occur and what kind of intervention and flood risk management measures may be effective in eliminating or reducing serious injuries and fatalities. The objectives of this research were therefore to (a) further develop a model, or models, to provide insight into, and estimates of, the potential loss of life in floods, based on work already undertaken in the UK and new data collected on flood events in Continental Europe; (b) to map, through the use of GIS and building partly on existing work, the outputs of the risk to life model(s) providing estimates of the potential loss of life in floods.\ud \ud The research took as a starting point the Risk to People model developed in the UK (HR Wallingford, 2003; 2005) and assessed the applicability of this model for flood events in Continental Europe, which tend to be more severe and life threatening. Data on flood events were gathered from 25 locations across six European countries as well as data from an additional case study in the UK. A number of problems were identified with the current model when applied to the flood data collected from Continental Europe. In particular the model was not designed for the major rivers and mountainous catchments compared with the UK and thus resulted in dramatic over-predictions of injuries and fatalities. Moreover, the model was found to contain several structural weaknesses. Research conducted into the factors surrounding European flood fatalities also highlighted the importance of institutional arrangements and mitigating factors such as evacuation and rescue operations. Finally, the UK model was seen to be hugely sensitive to people vulnerability, which in much of the wider European flooding is arguably of less importance in than it is in the UK.\ud \ud Thus a new semi-qualitative ‘threshold’ model which combines hazard and exposure thresholds and mitigating factors has been developed to assess risk to life from flooding in a wider European context. The model has been designed to be flexible enough to be used and applied at a range of scales, from a broad assessment at a regional or national scale, to a more detailed local scale. This flexibility is essential as not all European countries have detailed flood data that is readily available. It is envisaged that the model should be used as a tool to allow flood managers to make general and comparative assessments of risk to life and to consider the targeting of resources before, during and after flooding. The new model also permits simple mapping of risk to life which again can be applied at various scales.

The Resilience-Increasing Strategies for Coasts – Toolkit (RISC-KIT) FP7 EU project (2013-2017) aims to produce a set of three innovative and EU-coherent open-source and open-access methods, tools and management approaches (the RISC-KIT) in support of coastal managers, decision-makers and policy makers to reduce risk and increase resilience to low-frequency, high impact hydro-meteorological events. Risk is defined within this project as the product of the probability of a hazard, the exposure of receptors and their vulnerability. Representing the vulnerability and the potential role of DRR in their reduction is crucial for supporting the decision. As such a specific task of the RISC-KIT project (Task 2.2) is dedicated to developing a Library of Vulnerability Indicators to input in the RISC-KIT Toolkit and to test the tools on 11 case studies. The deliverable “Coastal Vulnerability Indicator Library” is composed of a Microsoft Excel database and a guidance document. The deliverable introduces the necessary concepts and methods, provides a review and a collection of existing indicators and proposes methodologies for developing new indicators. The Library has been constructed around four categories: Built Environment, Population, Ecosystem and Systems. The Library also identifies Disaster Reduction Measures influencing vulnerability and proposes methods to include within the assessment of vulnerability.

The Resilience-Increasing Strategies for Coasts – Toolkit (RISC-KIT) FP7 EU project (2013-2017) aims to produce a set of three innovative and EU-coherent open-source and open-access methods, tools and management approaches (the RISC-KIT) in support of coastal managers, decision-makers and policy makers to reduce risk and increase resilience to low-frequency, high impact hydro-meteorological events. \ud \ud The Coastal Risk Assessment Framework (CRAF) is the first element of the risk assessment suite applied at a regional scale and permits a comprehensive and systematic approach to undertaking risk assessment at a variety of levels of detail. In particular, the approach reveals potential hotspots along the coasts. Hotspots are defined in the Toolkit as specific locations where high-resolution modelling and risk assessment are required to assess the coastal risk and to design and compare disaster risk reduction measures. As such, hotspots, or groups of hotspots, should be indicative of those areas where risk is highest.\ud \ud To do so the CRAF consists of a 2-phase approach, Phase 1 is a coastal-index approach to identifying potential hotspots, whereas Phase 2 utilises a suite of more complex modelling processes to rank these hotpots. The coastal INtegrated DisRuption Assessment model (INDRA) has specifically been developed as an open-source and open-access model for this purpose.\ud \ud This document provides guidance to CRAF users on both approaches, as well as explanations on the proposed methodologies. The CRAF is a prototype and will be trialled on the RISC-KIT case studies (WP5). Limitations in its application, the potential for a full application and the needs for further development will be discussed in Deliverable 5.1.