Integrating Flood Risk Management into Development Projects: A Conceptual Framework for Resilient Urban Planning

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.

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.

Risk governance is a widely used framework in natural and societal risk management research. Risks from natural hazards in urban areas call for the establishment of rigorous and participatory urban risk governance. In this study, we examined participatory risk governance (PRG) of flood risk management (FRM) in Seoul, South Korea. We conducted key informant interviews and implemented a survey with citizens, to explore perceptions of flood risks and risk management, and to examine prospects for improving PRG in Seoul. We found a gap between the perceptions of key informants and citizens. Key informants believed that citizens’ low awareness of flood risks hinders PRG. Yet our research found that citizens’ risk awareness was not low, and risk awareness may not be the main barrier to participation in PRG. Instead, we found that citizens lacked knowledge of FRM actions, and they assigned government bodies a high level of responsibility for FRM, compared to the level of responsibility that citizens assigned to themselves. Moreover, the actors involved in FRM tended not to trust each other, which implies a lack of mutual understanding. To increase the effectiveness of PRG, we suggest a polycentric governance structure anchored by a leading actor group, and active promotion of the participation of actors at multiple levels of governance. Communication between government and citizen participants, designed to foster improved understanding and recognition of one another’s roles and contributions to FRM, will enhance trust and improve the implementation of PRG in Seoul.

Human activities have a profound impact on climate and hydrological processes, contributing to changes in the frequency and severity of hydrological extremes and, consequently, growing socioeconomic vulnerability [1]. Rising sea levels, continuous urban development in low-lying coastal areas, and corresponding changes in flood risk have resulted in devastating flood impacts. Different Flood Risk Management (FRM) strategies have been adopted in various socioeconomic contexts and spatiotemporal scales, the most prevalent being structural protection. In recent years, numerous scholars have raised concerns about this approach, as studies have shown that increasing protection levels can increase socioeconomic vulnerabilities e.g., [2]. FRM strategies alter the dynamics of risk manifested in sociohydrological systems, which must be disentangled to avoid unintended consequences.In the “Cities and rising sea levels” project, scientists from different research disciplines, including hydrology, architecture, landscape architecture, and urban planning, collaborate to tackle these challenges. Combining multidisciplinary knowledge has been central to exploring the cross-sectoral processes involved in FRM. In the present study, we focused on (1) uncovering the cascading effects, including unintended consequences of FRM, as well as (2) highlighting the potentials for holistic assessments of FRM strategies.Our methods include the development of a Causal Loop Diagram (CLD) model describing critical sociohydrological processes of coastal cities operating at different spatial and temporal scales. We identified dynamic feedbacks between (1) flood risk, urban development and economic wealth, (2) flood risk, urban development and social equity, and (3) flood risk, trust in authorities, and institutional capacity, among others. . Based on the CLD, we analyzed key feedback mechanisms and their manifestation in theory and practice. Further, we explored the impacts of different FRM strategies on these feedback mechanisms to uncover differences in impacts on socioeconomic vulnerabilities and wider cross-sectoral impacts. The presentation will present and explore the conceptual model through semiquantitative analyses (Fuzzy Cognitive Maps (FCMs)) and spatiotemporal assessments using a specific case study. We aim at (1) getting case-specific insights into the dynamics produced by the local interplay of flooding events and socioeconomic processes influencing vulnerabilities, and (2) suggesting pathways for new integrated ways of FRM.

Climate change, urbanization, and inadequate infrastructure exacerbate urban flood risks, yet one critical factor remains largely overlooked: hazardous debris such as cars, construction materials, wood, plastic containers among others. In the Valencia 2024 flood alone, the Spanish Insurance Compensation Consortium reported about 144,000 vehicles damaged or destroyed, many of them mobilized by the flow, which demonstrates the scale of large-debris impacts during floods. Debris alters and intensifies flooding impacts by clogging drainage systems and streets, decreasing flow conveyance, and causing direct damage to infrastructure, lives, and ecosystems. Nevertheless, debris dynamics are largely absent from flood risk assessments and management strategies. This Commentary highlights the urgent need to integrate debris considerations into urban flood planning and emergency response. Using case studies from recent catastrophic floods, we illustrate how debris amplifies hazard. We explore emerging scientific insights into the influence of debris in different flood types (flash, fluvial, coastal, tsunamis), and discuss why current management strategies fail to incorporate this factor. A solution-oriented roadmap is possible and we propose an actionable strategy toward the integration of debris into flood risk management, contributing to adapting cities toward higher levels of safety and resilience.

Water related natural hazards and climate change issues such as flood has become a serious threat to the lives, livelihoods and sustainable development of Bangladesh. Chilmari Upazila of Kurigram district which is one of the most seriously flood affected areas of Bangladesh has been taken as the study area. Bangladesh is already known as a role model for flood risk management around the world. But, the situation of flood management is not the same all around the country. The objectives of this study are to find out the main problems of the flood control and risk management system of Chilmari Upazila, and to develop a planning intervention guideline for its flood control and risk management. The interactive approach of the study involves participation of the stakeholders to develop local solutions to the flood problems. The empirical part of this study is conducted by household questionnaire survey and semi-structured in-depth interviews with questions regarding flood control and risk management. Main findings of the study state that the floods in Chilmari are managed in ad hoc manner. A coordinated and comprehensive management approach along with strong institutional framework is very important for sustainable flood control and risk management at Chilmari. Journal of Bangladesh Institute of Planners, Vol. 8, Dec 2015, pp. 111-121

Flood risk management in the context of Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) is becoming widely accepted as an approach to improving resilience in light of increasing flood risks due to climate change and other factors. This paper contributes to a better understanding of the governance arrangements needed for effectively implement integrated approaches to managing flood risk. We compare how IWRM and flood risk management have been operationalized within “top-down” and “bottom-up” governance arrangements in the European Union and the United States. We focus in particular on two case study regions, the Catalan coastal region in Spain and the San Francisco Bay Area in California, which have strong similarities in economy, climate, and environmental values, but different institutional settings. Our findings contribute empirical evidence of the need for a balance between “top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches. While the San Francisco Bay Area’s strongly collaborative and participatory approach has generated new connections among flood managers and other stakeholders, the lack of a central entity with the capacity and mandate for on-going coordination and region-wide risk assessments appears to constrain its ability to support integrated and adaptive management. The European Union’s top-down approach and the presence of a central authority at the river basin scale have led to a consolidated regional plan in Catalonia encompassing all phases of flood risk management, but the degree of engagement and opportunities for knowledge-sharing among participants may be more limited.

Flood and coastal erosion risk management has always faced the challenge of decision making in the face of multiple uncertainties relating to the climate, the economy and society. Traditionally, this has been addressed by adopting a precautionary approach that seeks to protect against a reasonable worst case. However, a managed adaptive approach can offer advantages. The benefits include improved resilience to negative changes, enabling opportunities from positive changes and greater cost effectiveness. The absence of clear methods and tools to value adaptive approaches has been recognised as an obstacle to wider adoption. This paper proposes a staged approach to building in adaptive capacity, which systematically analyses uncertainties, identifies opportunities to incorporate adaptability and appraises benefits through the analysis of decision trees. A case study is presented. The methodology is set in the context of appraisal processes used in England by the Environment Agency, based on cost–benefit analysis guidance issued by HM Treasury. The approach is transferable to other situations worldwide, where decision making is based on quantified assessment of costs and benefits. The work should help decision makers fully appraise the benefits of building in adaptive capacity and make the economic and technical case for adaptive flood risk management in an uncertain environment.

Risk Communications: Flood-prone Communities of Kuala Lumpur

Globally, cities are rethinking their approaches to urban flood risk and water management in response to the changing hydro-climate, accelerating urbanisation, reductions in public green spaces, and growing recognition of the advantages of multifunctional solutions over piped-drainage systems in tackling social, economic and environmental challenges. In this context, blue–green infrastructure, which comprises a wide range of assets including green and blue roofs, bioswales, rain gardens, restored watercourses and reconnected floodplains, is becoming established as a key component of urban flood resilience and water security planning and design. A Blue–Green City moves beyond the implementation of integrated treatment trains of blue–green and grey assets, towards the goal of creating a more natural urban hydro-cycle capable of generating multiple benefits that are valued by citizens and communities. In Blue–Green Cities these benefits are distributed in ways that are socially equitable, and blue–green+grey systems are maintainable in ways that are economically and environmentally sustainable. This chapter introduces the Blue–Green Cities concept and presents an overview of research undertaken by the Blue–Green Cities research project. The Blue–Green Cities research consortium envisaged and investigated novel flood risk management strategies that could be delivered as part of wider, integrated planning, designed to achieve urban renewal and environmental enhancement, and identify and rigorously evaluate the multiple benefits of blue–green infrastructure. The consortium was centred on ‘stakeholder and community communications’, and employed cutting-edge research methods in the engineering, environmental and social sciences to advance knowledge and understanding, while ensuring that the outcomes of the consortium (in terms of deliverables) exceeded the sum of its parts.

The occurrence of flood disasters has become a vicious problem in many urban regions. Operationalization of flood resilience has become a significant concern with the increase of urban development and climate change. The objective of this paper is at first to analyze how flood resilience has been framed over the past period of time. Second, this paper has focused to identify the practical difficulties related to the available flood risk assessment and management frameworks for operationalization of flood resilience. The results show that the flood risk and resilience has been framed differently throughout the time, in diverse perspectives but still remains as contested concepts. Evolutionary resilience has been reframed the flood risk management system as an integrated and adaptive system with the recognition of the uncertainties due to the dynamics of socio-spatial interdependencies of flood risk. Therefore, the integration and the adaptive capacity of spatial planning has become a crucial aspect for operationalizing flood resilience which is governed through the knowledge base of the dominant discourses of stakeholders and the way of power and the resource exercised in the context.

Contents It is always necessary to make decisions in the absence of perfect information. In the past, uncertainty has been implicitly accounted for in flood risk management decisions through safety factors and allowances rather than via explicit analysis. Recognising uncertainty does not, however, prevent decisions being made. In fact, recognising uncertainty is a key requirement for appropriately designing adaptive capacity and resilience into flood risk management choices. Only by quantifying and acknowledging uncertainty are we better placed to decide how best to manage it. Perhaps the largest of these uncertainties is associated with future conditions. Climate and demographic change can have a profound influence on flood risk management and the management choices made. Infrastructure choices made today will persist for several decades if not centuries, so taking a longer term, strategic view when planning infrastructure investment is critical to making the right choice. This chapter explores various methods and approaches that have been applied in practice, as well as those emerging from research, to support good decision-making under uncertainty, including scenario development, robust decision-making and adaptive management (based on multi-stage interventions), and in particular how adaptive capacity can be appropriately embedded within infrastructure design and management using real option approaches.

Earlier this month I was updating my understanding of potential climate change impacts on the conditions that lead to flooding – principally the likely changes to future rainfall intensities and duration. What is clear is that although our ability to predict future climate is improving, the basic messages remain the same. These are that in a world of climate warming, extreme events are likely to get more intense and more frequent, but that the scale and rate of change remain very uncertain. Other factors, such as population growth, expansion of megacities, poverty, energy and a general scarcity of key resources, of course, add to the challenge of climate change. When taken together, the scale of the task for future flood risk managers is indeed daunting. However, as our recent Journal papers demonstrate, there are common threads emerging on which to build that important future. The first of these is that flood risk measures based entirely on hard engineering features are unlikely to prove sustainable. There are a number of reasons for this. In an uncertain future, the measures taken now will need to adapt as that future unfolds. Measures that cannot adapt may prove redundant, even in the short term. Also, single solutions may not deliver the benefits that a suite of smaller but integrated solutions might deliver. And thirdly, structural measures will need to work in harmony with non-structural solutions, recognising the important part that active community engagement in flood risk management might play. When the Journal was first launched, some of these concepts were in their infancy. It would not be true today to describe all of them as having reached maturity. Indeed, we are still struggling to deliver some of the more radical concepts, for example, how to equitably deliver schemes that involve the managed retreat of communities from areas at high risk of flooding. We are pleased to have published the outcome of some ground breaking research and innovative demonstration projects in the pages of this Journal over the last few years. These open up many possibilities to meeting the future challenges outlined above. Yet there is still much to do. The concept of social equality in flood risk management has yet to be fully developed. We have not satisfactorily addressed how to deliver some flood risk management measures in the poorer communities of the world. And given the projected rate of population growth, largely concentrated around the poorer communities in the mega cities of the world, how do we avoid the explosive growth of shanty towns that are so vulnerable to flooding? We must harness the energy of all professionals working in flood risk management. Innovation will be needed, where traditional approaches are challenged and new ideas welcomed. Innovation does not come naturally. Even in the research world, working practices often do not incentivise innovation, whilst in professional practice it can be actively discouraged in favour of more “secure” solutions. The importance of publishing case studies and demonstration projects alongside more academic research papers, is that it demonstrates to all the benefits that can be delivered through innovation and the sharing of knowledge. Therefore if we, as flood risk managers, are to play our part in shaping the future of the world, we need to share our experience on the practical delivery of flood risk measures as well as reporting the outcome of scientific research. As Editor, I very much hope that in our coming issues we will learn more about how innovation might practically be implemented. After all, our goal is not just to improve scientific knowledge, but to make a real difference to the future of society.

Since the European Parliament adopted its ‘Directive on the Assessment and Management of Flood Risks’, river basin and flood risk management plans have been subject to Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). This paper presents the landscape planning methods that were applied to support a flood risk management plan with SEA. It includes proposals for multifunctional flood management measures and the design and assessment of ‘Strategic Alternatives’ (STA). Every STA consists of sets of different measures that help manage floods effectively up to 100-year rainfall events. A GIS-based method was developed to enable flexible production and assessment of STA. 3D visualisations were also produced with GIS, and were mainly applied to support communication during stakeholder involvement. Results are discussed with reference to technical aspects and the importance of providing appropriate information to support decision-making. Theoretical considerations include discussions on landscape planning models and on the role of landscape planning within the new European planning system. Integrative qualities of landscape planning are highlighted, for example in designing new landscapes in cooperation with managers of flood risk. Future research direction includes landscape monitoring, and communicative landscape planning that contributes to strengthening democratic decision making on a regional scale.

If the aim of flood risk management (FRM) is to increase society's resilience to floods, then a holistic treatment of flood risk is required that addresses flood prevention, defence, mitigation, preparation, and response and recovery. Progressing resilience-based management to flood risk requires both diversity and coordination of policy across multiple jurisdictions. Decision makers and the types of FRM policy decisions they make play a key role in implementing FRM policies and strategies that progress flood resilience. This paper explores how policy preferences held by FRM decision makers relate to the characteristics of resilient FRM policy. The research was conducted in three flood-prone provinces in western Canada using a multi-criteria analytical approach. The results show that while decision maker FRM priorities are similar across the Canadian Prairies, their preferred FRM policies differ. Further, preferred FRM policies were largely resistance-based and influenced at least as much by flood experiences and perceptions of flood risk as by more obvious administrative pressures such as cost, public acceptability, and environmental protection. Several observations emerge from these results for advancing a coordinated, diversified approach to FRM which is required for resilience, both for western Canada and for FRM more broadly.