Developing a national programme of flood risk management measures: Moldova

Pluvial floods are frequent phenomena in Romania occurring during torrential rainfall, causing significant damage. Pluvial floods occur due to extreme rainfall when the natural infiltration of excess water into the ground is artificially reduced and when runoff into urban areas exceeds the capacity of existing drainage systems. In urban areas, pluvial flooding is more frequent due to extended impermeable areas, buildings, and undersized drainage systems. Tulcea municipality is characterized by periodic rainfall flooding events with consequences on properties and communities, infrastructure, and on the economic activities. In the second cycle of implementation of the Floods Directive 2007/60/EC, 17 Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk (APFSR) pluvial source areas were identified, covering 19 municipalities and towns, for which pluvial hydraulic models were carried out. Tulcea municipality was one of the cities designated as having areas of potential significant pluvial flood risk. Hydraulic modelling results have been used for the construction of pluvial flood hazard and risk maps, these being the first pluvial maps reported by Romania to the European Commission. Based on these maps, critical drainage areas have been identified at the level of Tulcea Municipality and some potential flood risk reduction measures have been recommended.

For the purposes of preparing the national Disaster Risk Assessment, risk assessments are performed for twelve hazards. One of the hazards contained in the document is flood. For the flood hazard, it is necessary to collect data related to hydrography, historical floods, assumed areas of floods in the future, areas of potential flood risk assessment and others. Also, it is necessary to identify protected values in areas of potential flood risk assessment areas. In the process of flood risk management, data collection is performed in order to make a preliminary assessment of flood risks and flood hazard and flood risk maps. The aim of this paper is to propose a model for integrating data from the flood risk management into the disaster risk assessment, in order to increase the efficiency of flood prevention. The paper analyzes the type of data collected for the purpose of developing a documentation basis for flood risk management, which can be integrated into the national Disaster Risk Assessment in case of flood.

The socioeconomic impacts of flooding are huge. Between 1980 and 2013, flood losses exceeded $1 trillion globally, and resulted in approximately 220,000 fatalities. To reduce these negative impacts of floods, effective flood risk management is required. Reducing risk globally is at the heart of two recent international agreements: the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage Associated with Climate Change Impacts. Prerequisites for effective risk reduction are accurate methods to assess hazard and risk, based on a thorough understanding of underlying processes. Due to the paucity of local scale hazard and risk data in many regions, several global flood hazard and flood risk models have been developed in recent years. More and more, these global models are being used in practice by an ever‐increasing range of users and practitioners. In this chapter, we provide an overview of recent advances in global flood hazard and risk modeling. We then discuss applications of the models in high‐level advocacy in disaster risk management activities, international development organizations, the reinsurance industry, and flood forecasting and early warning. The chapter concludes with several remarks on limitations in global flood risk models and the way forward for the future.

With regard to minimizing flood damage, there are measures of different character each of which has its justification and plays an important role in flood protection. Implementation of traditional flood protection measures is still very important; however, an increasing role should be played particularly by flood prevention and flood risk management. The paper presents a case study on flood hazard and flood risk assessment at the local spatial scale using geographic information systems, remote sensing, and hydraulic modelling. As for determining flood hazard in the model area, which has 3.23 km2, the estimation of maximum flood discharges and hydraulic modelling were important steps. The results of one-dimensional hydraulic modelling, which are water depth and flow velocity rasters, were the basis for determining flood hazard and flood risk. In order to define flood risk, the following steps were applied: determining flood intensity on the basis of water depth and flow velocity rasters, determining flood hazard using three categories (low, medium, and high) based on flood intensity, defining vulnerability for the classes of functional areas using three categories of acceptable risk (low, medium, and high), and lastly determination of flood risk which represents a synthesis of flood hazard and vulnerability of the model area.

Availability and applications of open-source data for disaster risk reductions are increasing. Flood hazards are a constant threat to local communities and infrastructures (e.g., built-up environment and agricultural areas) in Nepal. Due to its negative consequences on societies and economic aspects, it is critical to monitor and map those risks. This study presents the open access earth observation (EO) data, geospatial products, and different analytical models available for flood risk assessment (FRA) and monitoring in Nepal. The status of flood risk knowledge and open-source data was reviewed through a systematic literature review. Multispectral optical data are widely used, but use of microwave data is extremely low. With the recent developments in this field, especially optical and microwave data, the monitoring, mapping, and modeling of flood hazards and risk have been more rapid and precise and are published in several scientific articles. This study shows that the choice of appropriate measurements and data for a flood risk assessment and management involves an understanding of the flood risk mechanism, flood plain dynamics, and primary parameter that should be addressed in order to minimize the risk. At the catchments, floodplains, and basin level, a variety of open data sources and models may be used under different socioeconomic and environmental limitations. If combined and analyzed further, multi-source data from different models and platforms could produce a new result to better understand the risks and mitigation measures related to various disasters. The finding of this study helps to select and apply appropriate data and models for flood risk assessment and management in the countries like Nepal where the proprietary data and models are not easily accessible.

In previous assessments of UK flood risk, flood hazard has often been poorly represented by low skill models. Meanwhile, assessments of future flood risk have lacked a detailed representation of future flood exposure. This study represents a significant step forward in both flood hazard and future exposure representation. Using a state-of-the-art climate-conditioned hydrodynamic model for fluvial, pluvial and coastal flooding paired with the latest UK shared socioeconomic projections of population (UK-SSP), we explore how climate-induced changes in flood hazard interact with increasing exposure due to population changes. Using a detailed exposure dataset, we are also able to explore discrepancies in current and future flood risk between residential property types.Our model values current yearly residential economic floods losses at £894 million, with fluvial flooding accounting for approximately 75% of these. This flood risk is not borne equally between the devolved British nations, however. In Scotland and Wales approximately 30% of local authorities have over £100 of annual flood losses per property, whereas only 4% of local authorities in England experience such levels. There are also significant discrepancies in flood risk by property type. Flats and terraced housing experience almost twice the rate of yearly inundations than detached and semi-detached housing. Under a high emissions climate scenario (RCP 8.5), by 2070 we estimate flood risk will increase by 29% whilst under a low emissions scenario (RCP 4.5) flood risk will increase by 10%. Similarly to current flood risk, these increases too are not borne equally across regions and property types.Whilst climate change is set to drive an increase in flood risk over the next 50 years, our study suggests that population dynamics may have potential for offsetting relative flood risk rises. In all SSP projections studied here (SSP1, SSP2 and SSP5), an increase in population drives an increase in the yearly rate of property inundations. As such, the highest increases in flood risk due to population change are seen in SSP5 (+50%). However, due to population growth predominantly occurring in low flood risk areas, relative flood risk decreases most in SSP5 (-10%). Similar changes, although smaller in magnitude, are seen under SSP1 and SSP2. Despite these decreases in relative flood risk due to population change, when paired to climate change, we still see significant increase in flood risk over the next 50 years. Consequently, low emissions scenarios, such as SSP1/RCP2.6, see the lowest increases in flood risk by 2070 (+5%). These results show a clear need for climate change mitigation actions in order to limit flood risk increases. However, this study presents a promising signal where population growth may limit the burden of increased flood risk, due to climate change.

Flood can be assessed through flood vulnerability, risk, and susceptibility analysis using remote sensing, geographic information system, and hydrological modelling. In this chapter, different stages, complexities, and processes of flood vulnerability, risk, and susceptibility assessment were discussed. The study reveals that flood vulnerability should be assessed based on four aspects: physical, social, economic, and environmental. Flood risk should be assessed by three stages: risk analysis, disaster relief, and preparedness, whereas flood susceptibility assessment involves three processes. Overall, it was found that the responsible factors vary as per the local conditions, which need to be carefully analyzed and selected. Furthermore, the role of remote sensing and geographic information system in flood risk management were found important especially in flood risk mapping and in the selection of responsible flooding factors.

Understanding urbanization and its impact on flooding and flood risk is crucial to better manage flood risk in the future. This study analyzed land use/land cover changes and how urbanization would impact flooding and flood risk in Kathmandu Valley of Nepal, and assessed flood risk by integrating flood hazards based on hydrologic–hydraulic modeling with the Analytic Hierarchy Process-based Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (AHP-MCDA) approach. Land cover maps for past years were generated using Landsat satellite images, and land use/land cover maps for future years were projected based on machine learning techniques. Flood simulations were conducted using a rainfall runoff inundation model with land cover maps for different flood scales to analyze the impact of urbanization and land cover changes on flood runoff, flood inundation extent, and flood inundation volume. Then, we comprehensively assessed flood risk by integrating hazard conditions simulated under different land cover conditions using a hydrologic–hydraulic model and the AHP-MCDA approach. The results showed that the flood inundation extent and the peak inundation volume for a 200-year flood may increase in the future by 10.66% and 15.04%, respectively, as a result of urbanization. The results also highlighted that urbanization may lead to an expansion of high-risk and very-high-risk areas in the future by 3.2% and 9.4%, respectively, indicating an increase in the valley’s flood vulnerability and greater severity of flood hazards.

Despite an increasing number of people exposed to flood risks in Europe, flood risk perception remains low and effective flood risk management policies are rarely implemented. It becomes increasingly important to understand how local governments can design effective flood risk management policies to address flood risks. In this article, we study whether high flood exposure and flood risk perception correlate with the demand for a specific design of flood risk management policies. We take the ideal case of Switzerland and analyze flood risk management portfolios in 18 flood-prone municipalities along the Aare River. We introduce a novel combination of risk analysis and public policy data: we analyze correlations between recorded flood exposure data and survey data on flood risk perception and policy preferences for selected flood risk management measures. Our results indicate that local governments with high flood risk perception tend to prefer non-structural measures, such as spatial planning and ecological river restoration, to infrastructure measures. In contrast, flood exposure is neither linked to flood risk perception nor to policy preferences. We conclude that flood risk perception is key: it can decisively affect local governments’ preferences to implement specific diversified policy portfolios including more preventive or integrated flood risk management measures. These findings imply that local governments in flood-prone areas should invest in raising their population’s awareness capacity of flood risks and keep it high during periods without flooding.

Validation of flood risk models: Current practice and possible improvements

Abstract. Pakistan is prone to natural hazards including floods, in particular, affecting millions of people each year across the country. Patterns from recent years suggest the intensity of flooding are increasing and may continue more aggressively during the coming years because of increased magnitude of the monsoon rains and identified climatic changes in the region. Mapping of flood hazard is essential for planning and mitigation purpose. However, only flood hazard mapping is not sufficient to assess the magnitude of risk to lives and property. Risk mapping is an integral part of pre and post disaster management. Furthermore, the Earth Observation (EO) data could be helpful to update flood risk maps time to time by covering many aspects e.g. population concentration areas, critical infrastructure and commercial areas, to enhance the preparedness planning and mitigation measure against risk of flood. Pakistan has experienced the devastating flood in 2010 due to unexpected heavy rainfall in the monsoon season with enormous losses to property lives and infrastructure in several districts. The Union council Agra, District Charsadda was among the affected most districts by riverine and flash floods. Additionally, growing population in flood plains is another threat to the district. However, to cope with this situation there is immense need to detect risk index to prevent further damages caused by such floods. This study aims to prepare the hazard, vulnerability and risk index for River Kabul and Swat catchment area of union council Agra, Charsadda. the flood risk was identified, and risk index maps were prepared by executing a methodology for assessing risk, based on the physical exposure of the flood hazard, vulnerability of people, and the exposure of critical assets to flood water. Explicitly, spatial flood risk index maps were produced with the help of analytical spatial modeling by considering the areas exposed to flood hazard, morphological characteristics and socio-economic indicators. The produced flood risk maps were verified through visual examination through 3D city flood maps. Results illustrate that the areas of higher flood risk overlapped with the areas of high flood hazard along with high population density and socio-economic exposure to vulnerability.

Flood risk mapping and analysis have gained much attention globally due to the increasing rate of flood disasters in most coastal and riverine areas. As a key element of flood risk study, mapping and delineation of flood hazard areas are very important for risk management and disaster reduction. We analysed potential flood hazards zones in Ogunpa river basin using integrated hydraulic modelling, the height above nearest drainage (HAND) model and multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA). An event-based flood simulation using FLO-2D model was done for the 28 h of the flooding event, while HAND model was employed in modelling the terrain to delineate inundation extent in the basin. In addition, seven flood causative factors were integrated using the Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) to delineate potential hazard zones in the study area. Flood inundation model result from FLO-2D revealed inundation depths between 0 and 5.24 m, an indication of intense flood hazards capable of causing lots of damages. MCDA results were classified into least, low, moderate, high and extreme flood hazard zones, while the classified HAND model include none, very low, low, moderate and high flood hazard zones. The MCDA results revealed that the downstream portions of the basin are mostly susceptible to moderate flood hazard compared to low vulnerability observed majorly in the upriver parts of the catchment. The comparison between the estimated flood depths ranges of 0.3–5.2 m by the FLO-2D model and the HAND model value range of 0–5 m (high flood hazard zone) revealed a strong similarity. In all, areas closed to the river course are highly vulnerable to flooding. The output of this study can serve as policy and decision-making tools for future flood hazard analysis, prevention and reduction plans at the research location.

CLIM-SEG: A generalizable segmentation model for heat and flood risk mapping

Flood resilience is increasingly discussed in academia and practice as a complement to existing flood risk management approaches (Fekete, Hartmann, & Jüpner 2020). It is seen as a promising concept to deal with increasingly severe consequences of climate change in general, and with increasing flood risk in particular. The debate on flood resilience is linked to the paradigm shift from flood protection to risk management, which started in Europe after the major river flood events in 1993 and 1995 along the river Rhine (Hartmann, 2012), and has developed over the past decades—pushed by further major fluvial and pluvial flood events (Begum, Stive, & Hall, 2007; Hartmann & Juepner, 2014; Klijn, Samuels, & van Os, 2008; Patt & Jüpner, 2020). However, in flood risk management, the academic debate on resilience is only in its infancy (Jüpner et al., 2018; Vis, Klijn, Bruijn, & Buuren, 2003). Many different definitions exist (Disse, Johnson, Leandro, & Hartmann, 2020). Especially when it comes to specific implementation of resilience, the vagueness of the concept—which is sometimes described as one of its strengths (Baggio, Brown, & Hellebrandt, 2015; Brand & Jax, 2007)—can present a problem. How to design a resilient hydraulic infrastructure? This question has not only technical but also concerned with financial and legal aspects. This becomes more complicated when individual protection measures are put in a context of a larger system, such as a city or a region. When and how is a system such as a city or a region resilient, and how does one measure resilience? These questions are important, not only for construction but also for legal (such as liabilities), financial (budgetary), and political reasons. In other words, resilience is not (yet) a ready-to-use concept in flood risk management. Resilience challenges presumptions of traditional flood risk management in many ways. Resilience implies that more and different stakeholders and actors will be involved in flood risk management than before, such as landowners or spatial planners. Hitherto, flood risk management has been and still is mainly the domain of water management (Hartmann & Driessen, 2017), although the prevalence of the traditional civil engineering approach has been questioned before (van den Brink, 2009). This change is not positive for all actors—affected homeowners, but also city planners or mayors now must deal with questions that were previously outside of their realm of competence and responsibility. From a flood risk management perspective, many questions arise, such as: How does resilience add to and change the existing flood risk management system? How can resilience contribute to a more effective and efficient flood risk management approach? What are the specific advantages of integrating resilience in flood risk management? How can resilience be measured and quantified? Which parameters are most relevant? This special collection brings together contributions from different disciplines that address the specific challenges of implementing resilience in flood risk management. The special collection takes the European debate as a starting point. The European Floods Directive from 2007 (2007/EC/60) pushed the debate on flood risk management and resilience in Europe. This Directive established a legal frame on how countries in the European Union have to deal with flood risk for the first time (Hartmann & Jüpner, 2014). At the same time, the shift toward a risk-based approach raised questions such as "what can happen?" "what must not happen?" and "which security level can be realized at which costs?" Ultimately, flood risk management replaces the paradigm of complete protection against floods with the idea of managing the risk (Grünewald, 2005). This makes approaches to resilience and the reduction of damage potential (vulnerabilities)—not only for river floods but also for pluvial rainfall—important. The first three papers in this collection highlight the necessity and consequences of defining the concept of resilience. In their opinion paper, Fekete, Hartmann, and Jüpner (2020) point out that resilience is indeed a trend that neither can nor should be ignored in flood risk management, rather than it should be embraced—with a caveat: the concept is still not exactly defined and cannot be understood as a panacea for all shortcomings and challenges of flood risk management. So, is resilience merely a new buzzword? Dewulf et al. (2019) discuss the power and impact of defining resilience and therewith unravel the political-normative notion of flood resilience as a concept. This illustrates that, with flood resilience, flood risk management turns much more strongly towards social and political science than ever before. Discussing resilience and its definition is thus a crucial step toward successfully implementing it in flood risk management. In her advanced review, Rodina (2019) reveals different notions of resilience in different disciplines when taking on a broader view of the concept (i.e., not solely focusing on flood risks). She concludes that participation and stakeholder involvement are important components of resilience—a theme that is picked up in the next section of this special collection as well. So, though this article had not been part of the original set-up of the special collection, the conclusions are highly relevant for implementing flood resilience in flood risk management. Resilience requires more action by homeowners and citizens. All papers in this section of this special collection leave no doubt about that. Snel, Witte, Hartmann, and Geertman (2020), however, start with a very critical point of departure, namely that many publications on homeowner and citizen involvement do not seem to question if this involvement is necessary. The paper unravels the arguments that are prevalent in the academic debate for more involvement of homeowners in flood resilience, which supposedly comes along with a shift towards flood governance. Four types of main arguments are identified and discussed in the paper. Kuhlicke and the multidisciplinary team of authors writing on the behavioral turn in flood risk management (Kuhlicke et al., 2020) discuss in detail three underlying assumptions of increased involvement of citizens in flood risk management: the motivations of citizens, the effectiveness of measures, and capacities of citizens. In this vein, Rufat et al. (2020) discuss in their opinion paper need for a more nuanced debate on the link between flood risk perception and risk-mitigating behavior. Attems, Thaler, Genovese, and Fuchs (2020) then provide an overview of the measures that homeowners can take to enhance resilience by using property-level flood risk adaptation (PLFRA) measures. The paper confirms that such measures can indeed be an appropriate addition or complement to flood risk management. The third group of papers in this special collection addresses the issue of measuring and communicating resilience. The need for this comes not only from hydraulic engineering but also from the need to communicate about flood risk with homeowners and citizens, as they have to become more involved (as the earlier papers in this special collection clearly show). Pohl (2020) views resilience from a hydrological as well as a hydraulic engineering perspective and outlines what it means to include the concept in flood risk management. In particular, the contribution points out the difficulties of embedding resilience as a design criterion in hydraulic structures. Pohl concludes that—though the fuzziness of resilience is appreciated by some social scientists as a "boundary concept" (Baggio et al., 2015)—hydraulic engineering and hydrology inevitably require some quantifiable measurement of resilience. Fekete (2019) elaborates in his paper how cascading effects and critical infrastructure matter for flood resilience. It thereby shows how flood resilience with this perspective extends existing flood risk management approaches. Cascading effects of critical infrastructure can substantially affect the measurement of flood resilience. Schmitt and Scheid (2020) discuss the need for better risk communication and discuss approaches by focusing on pluvial floods. In particular, they show how a rainstorm severity index may supersede the communicative capacity of statistical rainfall parameters in the communication with nonexperts especially. In conclusion, the contributions in this special collection show how the concept of resilience is advancing flood risk management but also point out some crucial changes and challenges that flood resilience as a concept brings to the practical implementation of flood risk management. It seems inevitable that homeowners especially will play a much more fundamental role in flood resilience, which raises needs for measuring and communication of flood resilience. Along with this shift in flood risk management, the papers illustrate that flood resilience puts flood risk management in a hitherto unknown domain for many water managers, as flood resilience means embracing social and political science. Embedding flood resilience into flood risk management becomes a balancing act—on the one hand, resilience is a political and normative concept, but on the other hand, it needs to be implemented with concrete steps designed via civil engineering and hydrology. This tension is still unsolved and remains a dilemma in implementing flood resilience.

This research aimed to evaluate flood hazards and risk areas in the Gidabo Watershed using remote sensing (RS), Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Six main factors were considered to identify flooding hazard zones: drainage density (DD), soil, elevation, rainfall, slope, and land use land cover (LULC). Population density, flood hazard zone, and LULC were considered for mapping the flood risk zone in the Gidabo watershed. A weighted overlay analysis tool has been utilized to integrate the thematic layers to identify both flood hazard and flood risk zones. The findings indicated that about 41.6% (337 km2) of the watershed falls within the high and very high flooding hazard zones. Conversely, 31.11% (252 km2) of the watershed is categorized under very-low and low flooding hazards. Moreover, the study identified five flood risk zones in the area viz; very high, high, moderate, low, and very low. The result of the flood risk map revealed that 199.5 km2 (24.5%) of the watershed has a higher and very higher risk of flooding. These zones were validated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, showing a correlation coefficient of 0.943. These results emphasize the need to implement prediction of floods, early warning systems, and effective management practices on a regular and sustainable basis.