The benefits of flood mitigation strategies: effectiveness of integrated protection measures

Elisabetta Genovese; Thomas Thaler; Elisabetta Genovese; Thomas Thaler

doi:10.3934/geosci.2020025

AIMS Geosciences

2020, Volume 6, Issue 4: 459-472. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2020025

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

The benefits of flood mitigation strategies: effectiveness of integrated protection measures

Elisabetta Genovese ^{1
,
,},
Thomas Thaler ²

1.
Department of Economics and Business Studies (DISEI), University of Piemonte Orientale, Novara, Italy
2.
Institute of Mountain Risk Engineering, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria

Received: 28 September 2020 Accepted: 28 October 2020 Published: 02 November 2020

Given the investments that local, regional, and national governments have already made in mitigation and may consider in the future, it is crucial to assess mitigation effectiveness across all scales and determine which strategies are the most appropriate. This is particularly relevant as mitigation is viewed increasingly as a vital action for which investments and the resulting benefits must be evaluated and justified. It is fundamental to determine which measures are the most effective in optimising the response to floods in local communities. The study analyses the current state of knowledge on flood mitigation and reviews what methodologies have been applied in order to assess mitigation effectiveness and positive cost-benefit ratio (CBR). The growing body of literature has shown that losses from natural hazards can be significantly reduced when one or more mitigation techniques are put into practice. Moreover, an effective response to floods requires the contribution of flood-prone households and their local community, known as the bottom-up approach, in order to apply risk management strategies to increase community resilience. The results demonstrate that effectiveness increases when integrated approaches are implemented. In particular, the combination of top-down and bottom-up solutions can provide the best results in terms of socio-economic assessments. The study found that the commitment of both public and private stakeholders was of vital importance in achieving good flood mitigation levels, thus, mitigation must be seen as a joint effort between these actors. The paper also provides key findings from literature and recommendations for further research.
- flood mitigation strategies,
- mitigation benefits,
- integrated mitigation measures,
- private mitigation,
- risk perception
Citation: Elisabetta Genovese, Thomas Thaler. The benefits of flood mitigation strategies: effectiveness of integrated protection measures[J]. AIMS Geosciences, 2020, 6(4): 459-472. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2020025

Related Papers:

Abstract

Given the investments that local, regional, and national governments have already made in mitigation and may consider in the future, it is crucial to assess mitigation effectiveness across all scales and determine which strategies are the most appropriate. This is particularly relevant as mitigation is viewed increasingly as a vital action for which investments and the resulting benefits must be evaluated and justified. It is fundamental to determine which measures are the most effective in optimising the response to floods in local communities. The study analyses the current state of knowledge on flood mitigation and reviews what methodologies have been applied in order to assess mitigation effectiveness and positive cost-benefit ratio (CBR). The growing body of literature has shown that losses from natural hazards can be significantly reduced when one or more mitigation techniques are put into practice. Moreover, an effective response to floods requires the contribution of flood-prone households and their local community, known as the bottom-up approach, in order to apply risk management strategies to increase community resilience. The results demonstrate that effectiveness increases when integrated approaches are implemented. In particular, the combination of top-down and bottom-up solutions can provide the best results in terms of socio-economic assessments. The study found that the commitment of both public and private stakeholders was of vital importance in achieving good flood mitigation levels, thus, mitigation must be seen as a joint effort between these actors. The paper also provides key findings from literature and recommendations for further research.

References

[1]	Hallegatte S (2012) A cost effective solution to reduce disaster losses in developing countries hydro-meteorological services, early warning, and evacuation. Policy Research Working Paper, 6058, World Bank, Washington, DC.
[2]	Osberghaus D (2014) The Determinants of Private Flood Mitigation Measures in Germany—Evidence from a Nationwide Survey. Ecol Econ 110: 36-50.
[3]	Aerts JCJH, Botzen WWJ, de Moel H, et al. (2013) Cost estimates for flood resilience and protection strategies in New York City. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1294: 1-104. doi: 10.1111/nyas.12200
[4]	Genovese E, Green C (2015) Assessment of storm surge damage to coastal settlements in Southeast Florida. J Risk Res 18: 407-427. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2014.896400
[5]	Lugeri N, Kundzewicz ZW, Genovese E, et al. (2010) River flood risk and adaptation in Europe—assessment of the present status. Mitigation Adapt Strategies Global Change 15: 621-639. doi: 10.1007/s11027-009-9211-8
[6]	IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014. Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. In Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, USA.
[7]	IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014. Mitigation of Climate Change. In Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, USA.
[8]	Muis S, Güneralp B, Jongman B, et al. (2015) Flood risk and adaptation strategies under climate change and urban expansion: A probabilistic analysis using global data. Sci Total Environ 538: 445-457. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.08.068
[9]	Jongman B (2018) Effective adaptation to rising flood risk. Nat Commun 9: 1-3. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-02088-w
[10]	FEMA (1997) Report on Costs and Benefits of Natural Hazard Mitigation, Hazard Mitigation Technical Assistance Program.
[11]	Newman JP, Maier HR, van Delden H, et al. (2014) Literature review on decision support systems for optimising long-term natural hazard mitigation policy and project portfolios. The University of Adelaide, Report N. 2014.009.
[12]	Ganderton PT (2005) Benefit-cost analysis' of disaster mitigation: application as a policy and decision-making tool. Mitigation Adapt Strategies Global Change 10: 445-465. doi: 10.1007/s11027-005-0055-6
[13]	Lindell MK, Prater CS (2003) Assessing Community Impacts of Natural Disasters. Nat Hazards Rev 4: 176-185. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2003)4:4(176)
[14]	Penning-Rowsell E, Wilson T (2006) Gauging the impact of natural hazards: The pattern and cost of emergency response during flood events. Trans Inst Brit Geogr 31: 99-115. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-5661.2006.00200.x
[15]	Santato S, Bender S, Schaller M (2013) The European Floods Directive and Opportunities offered by Land Use Planning. CSC Report 12, Climate Service Centre, Germany.
[16]	Nones M (2017) Flood hazard maps in the European context. Water Int 42: 324-332. doi: 10.1080/02508060.2016.1269282
[17]	Denton F, Wilbanks TJ, Abeysinghe AC, et al. (2014) Climate-resilient pathways: adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, 1101-1131.
[18]	CIS Floods Working Group (2012) Flood Risk Management, Economics and Decision Making Support. Working Group F of the Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive.
[19]	Shreve CM, Kelman I (2014) Does Mitigation Save? Reviewing cost-benefit analyses of disaster risk reduction. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 10: 213-235. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.08.004
[20]	Vorhies F (2012) The economics of public sector investment in disaster risk reduction. A working paper based on a review of the current literature prepared for the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR).
[21]	Benson C, Twigg J (2004) Measuring mitigation methodologies for assessing natural hazard risks and the net benefits of mitigation—a scoping study. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies/the ProVention Consortium, Geneva.
[22]	Meyer V, Becker N, Markantonis V, et al. (2013) Assessing the Costs of Natural Hazards - State-of-the-art and Knowledge Gaps. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 13: 1351-1373. doi: 10.5194/nhess-13-1351-2013
[23]	Kreibich H, Bubeck P, Van Vliet M, et al. (2015) A review of damage-reducing measures to manage fluvial flood risks in a changing climate. Mitigation Adapt Strategies Global Change 20: 967-989. doi: 10.1007/s11027-014-9629-5
[24]	Bamberg S, Masson T, Brewitt K, et al. (2017) Threat, coping and flood prevention—A meta-analysis. J Environ Psychol 54: 116-126. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.08.001
[25]	Paton D (2018) Disaster risk reduction: Psychological perspectives on preparedness. Aust J Psychol 71: 327-341.
[26]	van Valkengoed AM, Steg L (2019) Meta-analyses of factors motivating climate change adaptation behaviour. Nat Clim Change 9: 158-163. doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0371-y
[27]	Attems MS, Thaler T, Genovese E, et al. (2020) Implementation of property level flood risk adaptation (PLFRA) measures: choices and decisions. WIREs Water 7: e1404.
[28]	United Nations (1994) Yokohama strategy and plan of action for a safer world: Guidelines for natural disaster prevention, preparedness, and mitigation. In World Conf. on Natural Disaster Reduction, UN Dept. for Humanitarian Affairs, Geneva, Switzerland.
[29]	United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) (2009) Global Assessment Rep. on Disaster Risk Reduction. United Nations Inter-Agency Secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR), Geneva, Switzerland.
[30]	Bouwer LM, Papyrakis E, Poussin J, et al. (2014) The Costing of Measures for Natural Hazard Mitigation in Europe. Nat Hazards Rev 15: 04014010. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000133
[31]	Jeuken A, Kind J, Slootjes N, et al. (2013) Cost-benefit analysis of flood risk management strategies for the Rhine-Meuse delta. In Klijn F, Schweckendiek T (eds), Comprehensive Flood Risk Management, Taylor & Francis Group.
[32]	Kind JM (2014) Economically efficient flood protection standards for the Netherlands. J Flood Risk Manage 7: 103-117. doi: 10.1111/jfr3.12026
[33]	Kousky C, Walls M (2014) Floodplain conservation as a flood mitigation strategy: Examining costs and benefits. Ecol Econ 104: 119-128. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.05.001
[34]	Koks EE, Bočkarjova M, de Moel H, et al. (2015) Integrated Direct and Indirect Flood Risk Modeling: Development and Sensitivity Analysis. Risk Anal 35: 882-900. doi: 10.1111/risa.12300
[35]	Brouwer R, Schaafsma M (2013) The economics of flood disaster management in the Netherlands. In Guha Sapir D, Santos I, Borde A, (Eds.), The economic impacts of natural disasters, Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.
[36]	Haer T, Wouter Botzen WJW, Aerts JCJH (2016) The effectiveness of flood risk communication strategies and the influence of social networks—Insights from an agent-based model. Environ Sci Policy 60: 44-52. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.03.006
[37]	Boyd WJ (2001) Measuring the effectiveness of disaster preparedness training for the city of Bellingham, Washington. National Fire Academy.
[38]	European Commission (2008) Assessing the potential for a comprehensive community strategy for the prevention of natural and manmade disasters. Final Report.
[39]	Carsell KM, Pingel ND, Ford DT (2004) Quantifying the benefit of a flood warning system. Nat Hazard Rev 5: 131-140. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2004)5:3(131)
[40]	Barredo JI (2009) Normalised flood losses in Europe: 1970-2006. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9: 97-104. doi: 10.5194/nhess-9-97-2009
[41]	Strobl E (2011) The Economic Growth Impact of Hurricanes: Evidence from U.S. Coastal Counties. Rev Econ Stat 93: 575-589.
[42]	Pappenberger F, Cloke HL, Parker DJ, et al. (2015) The monetary benefit of early flood warnings in Europe. Environ Sci Policy 51: 278-291. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.016
[43]	Molinari D, Ballio F, Menoni S (2013) Modelling the benefits of flood emergency management measures in reducing damages: a case study on Sondrio, Italy. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 13: 1913-1927. doi: 10.5194/nhess-13-1913-2013
[44]	Balbi S, Villa F, Mojtahed V, et al. (2015) A spatial Bayesian network model to assess the benefits of early warning for urban flood risk to people. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci Discuss 3: 6615-6649. doi: 10.5194/nhessd-3-6615-2015
[45]	Penning-Rowsell E, Johnson C, Tunstall S, et al. (2005) The benefits of flood and coastal risk management: A manual of assessment techniques. Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University Press, London, U.K.
[46]	De Jong M, Helsloot I (2010) The effects of information and evacuation plans on civilian response during the Dutch national flooding exercise 'Waterproef'. Procedia Eng 3: 153-162. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2010.07.015
[47]	Pfurtscheller C, Thieken AH (2013) The price of safety: costs for mitigating and coping with Alpine hazards. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 13: 2619-2637. doi: 10.5194/nhess-13-2619-2013
[48]	Bachner G, Seebauer S, Pfurtscheller C, et al. (2016) Assessing the benefits of organized voluntary emergency services. Disaster Prev Manage 25: 298-313. doi: 10.1108/DPM-09-2015-0203
[49]	Warner K, Ranger N, Surminski S, et al. (2009) Adaptation to climate change: Linking disaster risk reduction and insurance. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Geneva, Switzerland.
[50]	Burby RJ (1998) Natural Hazards and Land Use: An Introduction. In Burby RJ, Cooperating with Nature: Confronting Natural Hazards with Land Use Planning for Sustainable Communities. Joseph Henry Press: Washington, D.C.
[51]	Botzen WJW, Aerts JCJH, van den Bergh JCJM (2009) Willingness of homeowners to mitigate climate risk through insurance. Ecol Econ 68: 2265-2277. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.02.019
[52]	Hudson P, Botzen WJW, Feyen L, et al. (2016) Incentivising flood risk adaptation through risk based insurance premiums: Trade-offs between affordability and risk reduction. Ecol Econ 125: 1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.01.015
[53]	Holub M, Fuchs S (2008) Benefits of local structural protection to mitigate torrent-related hazards. In: Brebbia CA, Beritatos E, (Eds.), Risk Analysis VI: Simulation and Hazard Mitigation. WIT Press: Southampton, U.K., 401-411.
[54]	Brouwer R, van Ek R (2004) Integrated ecological, economic and social impact assessment of alternative flood control policies in the Netherlands. Ecol Econ 50: 1-21. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.01.020
[55]	Alfieri L, Feyen L, Di Baldassarre G (2016) Increasing flood risk under climate change: a pan-European assessment of the benefits of four adaptation strategies. Clim Change 136: 507-521. doi: 10.1007/s10584-016-1641-1
[56]	De Moel H, van Vliet M, Aerts JCJH (2014) Evaluating the effect of flood damage-reducing measures: a case study of the unembanked area of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Reg Environ Change 14: 895-908.
[57]	Lasage R, Veldkamp TIE, de Moel H, et al. (2014) Assessment of the effectiveness of flood adaption strategies for HCMC. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 14: 1441-1457. doi: 10.5194/nhess-14-1441-2014
[58]	Thieken AH, Petrow T, Kreibich H, et al. (2006) Insurability and mitigation of flood losses in private households in Germany. Risk Anal 26: 383-395. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00741.x
[59]	Thieken AH, Kreibich H, Müller M, et al. (2007) Coping with floods: Preparedness, response and recovery of flood-affected residents in Germany in 2002. Hydrol Sci J 52: 1016-1037. doi: 10.1623/hysj.52.5.1016
[60]	Kreibich H, Christenberger S, Schwarze R (2011) Economic motivation of households to undertake private precautionary measures against floods. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11: 309-321. doi: 10.5194/nhess-11-309-2011
[61]	Kreibich H, Thieken AH, Petrow T, et al. (2005) Flood loss reduction of private households due to building precautionary measures—lessons learned from the Elbe flood in August 2002. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5: 117-126. doi: 10.5194/nhess-5-117-2005
[62]	Sairam N, Schrö ter K, Lüdtke S, et al. (2019) Quantifying flood vulnerability reduction via private precaution. Earth's Future 7: 235-249. doi: 10.1029/2018EF000994
[63]	Holub M, Hübl J (2008) Local protection against mountain hazards—state of the art and future needs. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 8: 81-99. doi: 10.5194/nhess-8-81-2008
[64]	Thaler T, Seebauer S (2019) Bottom‑up citizen initiatives in natural hazard management: Why they appear and what they can do? Environ Sci Policy 94: 101-111.
[65]	Lindell MK, Perry RW (2012) The Protective Action Decision Model: theoretical modifications and additional evidence. Risk Anal 32: 616-632. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01647.x
[66]	Rogers RW (1975) A Protection Motivation Theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Psychol 91: 93-114. doi: 10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803
[67]	Rogers RW (1983) Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: a revised theory of protection motivation. In Cacioppo BL, Petty RE (Eds.), Social psychophysiology: a sourcebook, London: The Guilford Press, 153-176.
[68]	Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P (1988) The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Anal 8: 177-187. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x
[69]	Babcicky P, Seebauer S (2017) The two faces of social capital in private flood mitigation: opposing effects on risk perception, self-efficacy and coping capacity. J Risk Res 20: 1017-1037. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2016.1147489
[70]	Entorf H, Jensen A (2020) Willingness-to-pay for hazard safety—A case study on the valuation of flood risk reduction in Germany. Saf Sci 128: 104657. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104657
[71]	Kellens W, Zaalberg R, Neutens T, et al. (2011) An analysis of the public perception of flood risk on the Belgian coast. Risk Anal 31: 1055-1068. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01571.x
[72]	Farabollini P, Lugeri FR, Lugeri N (2018) Humankind and Risk: a difficult history. In Antronico L, Marincioni F (Eds.), Natural Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction Policies, 88-103.

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2020 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)