A framework for comparing permanent and forecast-based flood risk-reduction strategies.

And early action Early warning Flood prevention Flood risk management Forecast quality Forecast-based financing

Journal

The Science of the total environment
ISSN: 1879-1026
Titre abrégé: Sci Total Environ
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 0330500

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
10 Jun 2020
Historique:
received: 17 11 2019
revised: 21 02 2020
accepted: 24 02 2020
pubmed: 9 3 2020
medline: 9 3 2020
entrez: 9 3 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Flood risk can be reduced at various stages of the disaster management cycle. Traditionally, permanent infrastructure is used for flood prevention, while residual risk is managed with emergency measures that are triggered by forecasts. Advances in flood forecasting hold promise for a more prominent role to forecast-based measures. In this study, we present a methodology that compares permanent with forecast-based flood-prevention measures. On the basis of this methodology, we demonstrate how operational decision-makers can select between acting against frequent low-impact, and rare high-impact events. Through a hypothetical example, we describe a number of decision scenarios using flood risk indicators for Chikwawa, Malawi, and modelled and forecasted discharge data from 1997 to 2018. The results indicate that the choice between permanent and temporary measures is affected by the cost of measures, climatological flood risk, and forecast ability to produce accurate flood warnings. Temporary measures are likely to be more cost-effective than permanent measures when the probability of flooding is low. Furthermore, a combination of the two types of measures can be the most cost-effective solution, particularly when the forecast is more skillful in capturing low-frequency events. Finally, we show that action against frequent low-impact events could more cost-effective than action against rare high-impact ones. We conclude that forecast-based measures could be used as an alternative to some of the permanent measures rather than being used only to cover the residual risk, and thus, should be taken into consideration when identifying the optimal flood risk strategy.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32146396
pii: S0048-9697(20)31083-4
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137572
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

137572

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Auteurs

Konstantinos Bischiniotis (K)

Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit (VU), Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: kbischiniotis@gmail.com.

Hans de Moel (H)

Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit (VU), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Marc van den Homberg (M)

510 An Initiative of The Netherlands Red Cross, The Hague, the Netherlands.

Anaïs Couasnon (A)

Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit (VU), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Jeroen Aerts (J)

Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit (VU), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Gabriela Guimarães Nobre (G)

Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit (VU), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Ervin Zsoter (E)

European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), Reading, UK.

Bart van den Hurk (B)

Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit (VU), Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Deltares, Delft, the Netherlands.

Classifications MeSH