Applsci 10 08752 v3
Applsci 10 08752 v3
Applsci 10 08752 v3
sciences
Review
A Critical Review of Flood Risk Management and the
Selection of Suitable Measures
Muhammad Atiq Ur Rehman Tariq 1, * , Rashid Farooq 2,3 and Nick van de Giesen 4, *
1 College of Engineering & Science, Victoria University, Melbourne, VIC 8001, Australia
2 Department of Civil Engineering, International Islamic University, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan;
[email protected]
3 Department of Civil Engineering, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, ON P7B 5E1, Canada
4 Water Resources Management Section, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences,
Delft University of Technology, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands
* Correspondence: [email protected] (M.A.U.R.T.); [email protected] (N.v.d.G.)
Received: 23 November 2020; Accepted: 5 December 2020; Published: 7 December 2020
Abstract: Modern-day flood management has evolved into a variety of flood management alternatives.
The selection of appropriate flood measures is crucial under a variety of flood management practices,
approaches, and assessment criteria. Many leading countries appraise the significance of risk-based
flood management, but the fixed return period is still the de facto standard of flood management
practices. Several measures, approaches, and design criteria have been developed over time.
Understanding their role, significance, and correlation toward risk-based flood management is
crucial for integrating them into a plan for a floodplain. The direct impacts of a flood are caused
by direct contact with the flood, while indirect impacts occur as a result of the interruptions and
disruptions of the socio-economical aspects. To proceed with a risk-based flood management
approach, the fundamental requirement is to understand the risk dynamics of a floodplain and to
identify the principal parameter that should primarily be addressed so as to reduce the risk. Risk is
a potential loss that may arise from a hazard. On the one hand, exposure and susceptibility of the
vulnerable system, and on the other, the intensity and probability of the hazard, are the parameters
that can be used to quantitatively determine risk. The selection of suitable measures for a flood
management scheme requires a firm apprehension of the risk mechanism. Under socio-economic
and environmental constraints, several measures can be employed at the catchments, channels,
and floodplains. The effectiveness of flood measures depends on the floodplain characteristics and
supporting measures.
Keywords: flood risk management; measures; approaches; design criteria; plans; schemes; hazard;
vulnerability; risk; expected annual damages; direct and indirect flood losses
1. Introduction
Floods can be devastating, and they are frequently compared to all other natural disasters
worldwide, because they have the highest number of casualties and the highest economic losses.
The worldwide average direct annual cost of natural disasters between 2000 and 2012 was roughly
$100 billion [1]. The following facts are presented based on flood-associated studies [2]. One-third of
natural catastrophes can be considered to be floods, one of every ten fatalities due to natural disasters
are flood-related, and flooding is responsible for one-third of overall economic loss ($250 billion
worldwide over the last fifteen years alone). A stark 95–97% of fatalities from natural disasters are
caused by floods in developing countries. At the same time, 90% of natural disasters include flooding,
causing a $6 billion annual loss in the world economy. The impact of floods can vary throughout the
world due to geographical, agricultural, and economic reasons. The Nile, the Mekong, and the lower
Indus flood plains are used for regular agricultural needs, while the risk of floods is largely overlooked
by the growing population and industrial activities of both developed and developing countries [3,4].
However, some research studies support the severity of floods, and in recent years, the frequency
of floods has increased [5]. Flood situations tend to worsen with climate change, land subsidence,
urbanization, and population growth.
The problem and its solutions are nothing new, but the demand for further efficient and effective
flood management is quite obvious with the ever-growing environmental awareness, higher living
standards, and technological expertise. Moreover, management of floods is an obtuse, complex
phenomena that should be periodically revised roughly every 30–50 years [6]. A variety of new
strategies, concepts, and initiatives have consequently been proposed, namely: flood protection,
evacuation, environmentally-friendly solutions, the denaturalization of rivers, foolproof structural
measures, non-structural measures, soft measures, hard measures, room for the river, flood fighting,
resilient approach, sustainable flood management, integrated approach, risk-based flood management,
living with floods, nature-based solutions, economical solutions, spatial planning modifications,
flood risk zoning, coping with floods, floodplain restoration, non-adverse impact approaches,
catchment management, community cooperation, compensation, dykes, floodwalls, warning system,
encroachment control, flood insurance, floodproofing, flow diversion, groundwater recharge, public
awareness, relief efforts, river improvement, storage and retention, and sustainable drainage systems,
just to name a few.
How can an effective and efficient flood management practice be developed under the prevailing
conditions of a floodplain?
The following sub-questions are formulated to build the investigation structure of the main
research question:
a. Among so many understandings and definitions of risk, which one is best, and why should it
be considered for flood management?
b. How can different flood management measures and approaches be compared while they have
different targets and different outcomes?
c. Is a detailed assessment of all possible combinations of measures required in order to design
a more effective scheme for a floodplain?
The research presented through this manuscript addresses the basic questions that decision-makers
have while choosing flood management measures. Furthermore, fundamental principles of flood
management have also been identified in order to clarify essential theories, techniques, and solutions for
flood prevention. Herein, specific guidelines are discussed for an optimal flood management approach.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8752 3 of 18
between the different measures, plans/projects, design criteria, and approaches are depicted in Figure 1.
This section discusses the role of these components and illustrates the significance of implementing
practices related to risk-based management of floods.
2.2.1. Measures
Understanding the role of numerous measures is a requirement for designing an efficient approach.
Flood measures can broadly be divided into three classes, namely: thwarting flood peak formation
(flood abatement), regulating the inundation (flood control), and reducing adverse effects (flood
alleviation) [15]. When selecting a flood management measure, it is important to consider what
the targeted risk parameter is. Table 1 describes the various flood management options/measures
related to target risk factors. Understanding the role of a selected flood management measure in
reducing risk by reducing one or more components of risk helps facilitate choosing an appropriate flood
management option under site constraints. The constraints could be economic, social, topographical,
or environmental.
Often, it is crucial to verify that measures include some structural activity that may alter a river’s
flow. Non-structural measures to control floods involve practices to mitigate or alleviate damage caused
by floods without constructing a flow-changing infrastructure [16]. Although non-structural measures
were initially suggested as part of an integrated floodplain management plan [17], the non-structural
possibilities were also presented as an alternative to conventional engineering solutions.
Some practices limit risk by decreasing the chance and/or magnitude, although other measures
aim to decrease susceptibility and/or damage by reducing vulnerability. Focusing on the mechanism
of risk, measures are being divided into two main categories—direct and indirect measures. It is
necessary to remember which criteria a flood control measure aims at during the selection of a measure.
The adoption of structural measures and risk mechanics together with the target risk parameters is
critical for achieving desired outcomes in the consideration of flood management solutions based
on classification. Considering flood management options based on classification, the involvement of
structural measures and risk mechanics, along with the target risk parameters, is important in order to
obtain desirable results.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8752 5 of 18
Some measures strive to improve society’s ability to rebuild after floods. Examples include
flood insurance, rehabilitation, reimbursement, and voluntary assistance, which can be categorized as
recovery/indirect intervention, as they do not explicitly mitigate losses [18]. Relief efforts do less to
mitigate potential casualties in floods [19], and likewise, the damage can also be raised by compensating.
2.2.2. Approaches
An approach or strategy is comprised of motivations and primacies that aim to select the most
suitable measures. Depending on the specific economic, environmental, social, hydrological, and
geological conditions, the most appropriate approach will vary accordingly [19].
The risk-based strategy not only enables analyzing and designing a measure, but also identifies
the most suitable strategy in terms of the effectiveness of flood management according to the local
demands. Flood management approaches, based on flooding risk mechanics, may be classified into
two groups. Direct approaches strive to reduce the losses, while indirect approaches tend to recover
from these losses rapidly. Direct approaches can be further distinguished in relation to those measures
that minimize the vulnerability of floodplain inhabitants with those that minimize hazards [20].
• Direct approaches
# Hazard-focused
# Vulnerability-focused
• Indirect approaches
# Resilience-based
The approaches for hazard management are based on theory “to keep floods away from people”.
Important examples are flood management and flood mitigation. The approach itself seeks to minimize
floods by adopting structural measures. These strategic measures must be comprehensive and manage
to reduce the flood occurrence events’ probability if installed at upper catchments. Such measures may
otherwise be locally applied to minimize the magnitude with which a flood affects an area [21].
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8752 6 of 18
The “lives with floods” theory has been adopted as an adapted indicator of risk management [22].
The components of preparedness (event-based response) and adaptation (societal adjustment) [22]
minimize susceptibility. Annual flood events are anticipated and expected in highly adapted
societies, while such severe events may still lead to losses and destruction [20]. Flood zoning
restricts vulnerability by minimizing both susceptibility (flood proofing) and exposure (encroachment
control) [23]. Encroachment control is another option based on the concept of “restraining people from
the flood” by limiting exposure within a floodplain.
Examples of indirect measures include rehabilitation, compensation, flood insurance, and relief.
In general, resilience-based flood management is related to indirect approaches. The persisting
philosophy is “accept floods and recover afterward”, while K.M. de Bruijn and Beek [24] define
resilience as “the ability of a system to return to its equilibrium after a reaction to a disturbance”. In
order to support swift rescue after a flood subsides, a resilient mechanism needs to be developed.
Indirect approaches substantially decrease indirect losses and impact direct damage indirectly.
Other concepts exist in addition to the above-stated approaches, like “integrated flood
management”, “no adverse impact approach”, “floodplain restoration”, “sustainable flood
management”, and so on. These options are exclusive in nature and may be selected along with
other methods. Integrated flood management, for instance, avoids discrete perspectives for flood
control measures [25] and does not exclude or limit a particular measure. In general, the integration of
approaches and methods will bring about the most appropriate management strategy [20], and also
involves complementary options [26].
aim at the amelioration of the overall activities in a floodplain. Risk-based flood management provides
a rationale to spend resources on flood management options. Resources can be spent proportional to
the risk involved. Risk arises because of the combined environmental, social, and economic impacts of
flooding. As stated in the preceding section, these impacts can be positive or negative. Thus, risk-based
flood management facilitates the effective selection of different options.
Human society must adopt a risk management strategy in order to coexist harmoniously with
flood events. In fact, it will never be possible to eliminate the risk of floods. Nevertheless, appropriate
actions and behaviors can mitigate the consequences of flooding [29]. Complete abandonment of
floodplains or full flood control could be extreme reactions to flooding, but these reactions could
either be practically impossible or emphatically uneconomical. The basic principle of flood risk
management should be “adjusting from both ends to achieve moderation” [30]. Vulnerability and/or
hazard parameters can be adjusted to improve the floodplains’ functions. A proposed framework is
explained in Figure 2 to explore all available options in a systematic way to reduce the flood risk.
The advantage of a risk-based strategy is that it trades outcomes, which separates it from other
design or decision-making methods [31]. Risk-based land-use planning in a floodplain is capable
of providing a non-structural means of lowering flood losses and harmonizing floodplain activities.
There is a strong need for more comprehensive studies on flood vulnerability [11]. Therefore, recent
research indicates a risk-based approach to flood management [10,32–34]. Risk-based management
counts every aspect of risk (flood impacts) and also considers all options to manage it the most
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8752 8 of 18
efficiently [35]. In this way, risk-based assessment not only leads to an optimum flood management
plan, but also creates an understanding of the mechanism generating the risk.
a. Direct: Whether there was a physical connection with the flood? [36,37]
b. Indirect: In case the damage occurs spatially and temporally out of a flood event [36,38]
Tangible Intangible
Positive Negative Positive Negative
High nutrient
Capital loss (houses,
Direct
water to crops
crops, cars, factory Increased
reducing water and Victims, ecosystems,
buildings), biodiversity,
fertilizer costs, pollution, monuments,
deposition of archaeological
flushing of salt culture loss
pollution and debris discoveries
from the land’s
or salts
surface
Production losses,
Primary
Replenishing lakes
income loss, theft, Groundwater Social disruption,
and ponds for
and robbery during recharge emotional damage
fishing production
an evacuation
Indirect
Occlusion of
Increase in Production losses for
Secondary
“risk” in general, and flood risk in particular. The research also discusses how flood risk evolves,
what the causes of this development are, how they can be affected so as to mitigate the risks (by what
points of attack and by what measures), and how these can be combined. A detailed explanation of
risk-based management is carried out in order for a better understanding of the approach. In addition,
for clear comprehension and to avoid ambiguity and misconceiving, the basic terms involved have
been defined here. Although there is a general agreement on most of the definitions, some terms are
used for different meanings by some scientists.
Overall, the term “risk” is somehow is related with the vulnerability, hazard, impacts values, elements
at risk, preparedness of the people, results or the consequences, and the chances of all of these happening
(these factors have also been differently defined). Risk may be generally envisioned as “an estimate of
potential consequences associated with a hazard”. The following section provides further understanding of
risk, and proves how various definitions of risk are representing the same concept, just in different terms.
Also, the risk is a function of how vulnerability interacts with hazard or vice versa.
The above-stated term indicates that the hazard itself is not the only cause for risk induction.
Everyday vulnerability and hazards shape trends of rising risk, which can end in a catastrophe arising
from an exceptionally natural incident [54]. Therefore, two independent variables are considered
for risk analysis—hazard and vulnerability. In flood management, the term “hazard” indicates the
occurrence of a high-water-level event with a given probability of exceedance [55]. Thus, the hazard
may be classified by its intensity and probability.
Probability can be defined as the chance of a hazard to occur that can be defined annually for a
flood event. While some negative intensity features (depth, velocity, etc.) of hazards cause damage,
vulnerability is the outcome of susceptibility and exposure.
where people and value currently exist in an under-threat region is known as exposure. Susceptibility
is generally defined as the relative loss function [56,57]. The ability to recognize the losses from the
hazard is susceptibility. The extent of loss is based on the susceptibility of vulnerable items and
life, and indeed the magnitude of hazard. In order to comprehend the role of both sides, risk in
terms of vulnerability and hazard needs to be articulated, as illustrated in Equation (2). Thus, we get
Equation (5) by substituting vulnerability and hazard by their components in Equation (2). Likewise,
expressing probability alone will result in Equation (6).
If the chance of the mutual interaction of vulnerability and hazard is considered separately,
the consequences are definitely as a result of a hazard’s intensity, and the total exposures of assets and how
much they accept the damage from the hazard (the susceptibility). It can be observed that Equation (6) is an
elaborated expression of Equation (2). A graphical demonstration is shown in Figure 3 below.
Figure 3. Graphical explanation of risk into its components and demonstration equivalency of different
definitions of risk (source [18]).
among those considered, the most effective method is to include the public in defining both important
problems and potential solutions early on.
Figure 4 provides a rule-of-thumb guideline example in order to shortlist the measures under
the predominant conditions of the floodplain. The data are compiled based on extensive literature
review [2,5,16,19,29,33,59–64] and field experts’ opinions. Plenty of case studies were observed and
their preferred approaches were noted. Figure 4 is developed after detailed brainstorming sessions
with field experts. This guidance is tentative and is based on a range of typical benefits, including
reduced costs
Materialsand
2020, additional socio-environmental benefits.
13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 19
Figure 4. A practical example of flood management option priorities about different characteristics of
the floodplain.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8752 12 of 18
option. For a single location to be protected from flooding, reservoirs are not an option, unless the
project can be economically justified by considering additional uses, such as hydropower generation,
water supply, recreation, etc. Most essential of all, a suitable place should be available for building a
reservoir [58]. Farmers’ willingness to allow flooding to their land is very necessary for the option
of the retention basin. Water-logging (high groundwater levels) in the region should not be serious.
There should be no historical site of significance, or it should be possible to protect the site from the
damage caused by managed flooding by building a dyke around it or by any other steps [58].
Table 3. Popular software tools, their compatibility to geographic information systems (GIS), and their
country of origin.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.A.U.R.T. and N.v.d.G.; Data curation, M.A.U.R.T.; Formal analysis,
M.A.U.R.T. and R.F.; Investigation, M.A.U.R.T. and R.F.; Methodology, M.A.U.R.T. and R.F.; Software, M.A.U.R.T.
and R.F.; Supervision, M.A.U.R.T. and N.v.d.G.; Validation, M.A.U.R.T.; Visualization, M.A.U.R.T. and R.F.;
Writing—original draft, M.A.U.R.T. and R.F.; Writing—review & editing, M.A.U.R.T. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Kousky, C. Who holds on to their flood insurance. Common Resour. 2015.
2. Loster, T. Flood trends and Global Change. In Proceedings of the EuroConference on Global Change and
Catastrophe Risk Management: Flood Risks in Europe, Laxenburg, Austria, 6–9 June 1999.
3. Hassan, F.; Hamdan, M.A.; Flower, R.J.; Shallaly, N.; Ebrahem, E. Holocene alluvial history and archaeological
significance of the Nile floodplain in the Saqqara-Memphis region, Egypt. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2017, 176, 51–70.
[CrossRef]
4. Manning, J.G.; Ludlow, F.; Stine, A.R.; Boos, W.R.; Sigl, M.; Marlon, J.R. Volcanic suppression of Nile summer
flooding triggers revolt and constrains interstate conflict in ancient Egypt. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 900.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Aronica, G.T.; Candela, A.; Fabio, P.; Santoro, M. Estimation of flood inundation probabilities using global
hazard indexes based on hydrodynamic variables. Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C 2012, 42, 119–129. Available
online: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1474706511000568 (accessed on 15 June 2020).
[CrossRef]
6. Plate, E.J. Flood risk and flood management. J. Hydrol. 2002, 267, 2–11. Available online: http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V6C-46HBKF8-4/2/93f2763765cd0bad006fed4cfc6fa5c1 (accessed on
15 June 2020). [CrossRef]
7. FEMA. Flood Insurance Manual; FEMA: Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
8. Agency, E. Understanding Flood Risk Using Our Flood Map; Identifying and understanding Flood Risk in
England & Wales; Environment Agency: Bristol, UK, 2006. Available online: www.environment-agency.gov.
uk/floodmap (accessed on 15 June 2020).
9. De Moel, H.; Aerts, J.C.; Koomen, E. Development of flood exposure in the Netherlands during the 20th and
21st century. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2011, 21, 620–627. [CrossRef]
10. De Moel, H.; Van Alphen, J.; Aerts, J.C.J.H. Flood maps in Europe—Methods, availability and use. Nat. Hazards
Earth Syst. Sci. 2009, 9, 289–301. [CrossRef]
11. Merz, B.; Thieken, A.H.; Gocht, M. Flood risk mapping at the local scale: Concepts and challenges. In Flood
Risk Management in Europe; Begum, S., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 231–251.
12. Linde, A.H.T.; Bubeck, P.; Dekkers, J.E.C.; De Moel, H.; Aerts, J.C.J.H. Future flood risk estimates along the
river Rhine. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2011, 11, 459–473. [CrossRef]
13. Cabal, A.; Erlich, M. Flood risk management approaches and tools for mitigation strategies of coastal
submersions and preparedness of crisis management in France. Int. J. River Basin Manag. 2018, 16, 353–369.
[CrossRef]
14. Tariq, M.A.U.R.; Van De Giesen, N. Floods and flood management in Pakistan. Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C
2012, 47–48, 11–20. [CrossRef]
15. De Bruijn, K.; Green, C.; Johnson, C.; McFadden, L. Evolving concepts in flood risk management: Searching
for a common language. In Flood Risk Management in Europe; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007;
pp. 61–75.
16. Van Duivendijk, J. Assessment of Flood Control and Management Options; World Commission on Dams:
Cape Town, South Africa, 1999.
17. White, G.F. White, Natural Hazards, Local, National, Global; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1974.
18. Tariq, M.A.U.R.; Hoes, O.; Van De Giesen, N. Development of a risk-based framework to integrate flood
insurance. J. Flood Risk Manag. 2013, 7, 291–307. [CrossRef]
19. Andjelkovic, I. Guidelines on Non-Structural Measures in Urban Flood Management; UNESCO, International
Hydrological Programme: Paris, France, 2001.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8752 16 of 18
20. Green, C.; Nicholls, R.; Johnson, C. Climate Change Adaptation: A Framework for Analysis and Decision-Making
in the Face of Risks and Uncertainties; FHRC, Middlesex University: Middlesex, UK, 2000.
21. Tucci, C.E.M. Urban Flood Management; World Meteorological Organization: Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2007.
22. Genovese, E. A Methodological Approach to Land Use-Based Flood Damage Assessment in Urban Areas: Prague
Case Study; Institute for Environment and Sustainability: Ispra, Italy, 2006.
23. Tariq, M.A.U.R. Risk-based flood zoning employing expected annual damages: The Chenab River case study.
Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2013, 27, 1957–1966. [CrossRef]
24. Door, K.; de Bruijn, M.; van Beek, E. Resilience and Flood Risk Management: A Systems Approach Applied to
Lowland Rivers; Technische Universiteit Delft: Delft, The Netherlands, 2005.
25. APFM. Integrated Flood Management Concept Paper; World Meteorological Organization: Geneva, Switzerland,
2009.
26. APFM. Economic Aspects of Integrated Flood Management; Associated Programme on Flood Management:
Geneva, Switzerland, 2007; ISBN 92-63-11010-7.
27. Pilon, P.J.; Davis, D.A.; Halliday, R.A.; Paulson, R. Guidelines for Reducing Flood Losses; Inter-Agency Secretariat
of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR): Geneva, Switzerland, 2003.
28. Hoes, O.; Schuurmans, W. Flood standards or risk analyses for polder management in the Netherlands.
Irrig. Drain. 2006, 55, S113–S119. [CrossRef]
29. Borrows, P.; De Bruin, D. The management of riverine flood risk. Irrig. Drain. 2006, 55, S151–S157. [CrossRef]
30. Cheng, X. Recent progress in flood management in China. Irrig. Drain. 2006, 55, S75–S82. [CrossRef]
31. Sayers, P.B.; Gouldby, B.P.; Simm, J.D.; Meadowcroft, I.; Hall, J. Risk, Performance and Uncertainty in Flood and
Coastal Defence: A Review; HR Wallingford Report SR 587; Environment Agency DEFRA/EA R&D Technical
Report FD2302/TR1; HR Wallingford: Wallingford, UK, 2002.
32. Hooijer, A.; Klijn, F.; Pedroli, G.B.M.; Van Os, A. Towards sustainable flood risk management in the Rhine
and Meuse river basins: Synopsis of the findings of IRMA-SPONGE. River Res. Appl. 2004, 20, 343–357.
[CrossRef]
33. Van Alphen, J.; Lodder, Q. Integrated flood management: Experiences of 13 countries with their
implementation and day-to-day management. Irrig. Drain. 2006, 55, S159–S171. [CrossRef]
34. Petrow, T.; Merz, B.; Lindenschmidt, K.-E.; Thieken, A.H. Aspects of seasonality and flood generating
circulation patterns in a mountainous catchment in south-eastern Germany. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2007,
11, 1455–1468. [CrossRef]
35. Hooijer, A.; Klijn, F.; Kwadijk, J. (Eds.) Towards Sustainable Flood Risk Management in the Rhine and Meuse River
Basins; Main Results IRMA Sponge Res. Proj. NCR-Publication 18-2002; NCR: Delft, The Netherlands, 2002.
36. Merz, B.; Kreibich, H.; Thieken, A.; Schmidtke, R. Estimation uncertainty of direct monetary flood damage to
buildings. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2004, 4, 153–163. [CrossRef]
37. Nascimento, N. Flood-damage curves: Methodological development for the Brazilian context.
Water Pract. Technol. 2006, 1. [CrossRef]
38. Oosterhaven, J.; Többen, J. Wider economic impacts of heavy flooding in Germany: A non-linear programming
approach. Spat. Econ. Anal. 2017, 12, 404–428. [CrossRef]
39. Smith, K.; Ward, R. Floods: Physical Processes and Human Impacts; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ,
USA, 1998.
40. Hudson, P.; Botzen, W.J.W.; Poussin, J.; Aerts, J.C.J.H. Impacts of Flooding and Flood Preparedness on
Subjective Well-Being: A Monetisation of the Tangible and Intangible Impacts. J. Happiness Stud. 2017,
20, 665–682. [CrossRef]
41. UNDHA. Internationally Agreed Glossary of Basic Terms Related to Disaster Management; United Nations
Department of Humanitarian Affairs: Geneva, Switzerland, 1992.
42. Blong, R. Volcanic hazards risk assessment. In Monitoring and Mitigation of Volcano Hazards; Scarpa, R.,
Tilling, R.I., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany; New York, NY, USA, 1996; p. 23.
43. Santos, P.P. A comprehensive approach to understanding flood risk drivers at the municipal level.
J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 260, 110127. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. La Cruz-Reyna, S.D. Long-term probabilistic analysis of future explosive Eruptions. In Monitoring and
Mitigation of Volcano Hazards; Scarpa, R., Tilling, R.I., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany; New York,
NY, USA, 1996.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8752 17 of 18
45. Kron, W.; Eichner, J.; Kundzewicz, Z. Reduction of flood risk in Europe—Reflections from a reinsurance
perspective. J. Hydrol. 2019, 576, 197–209. [CrossRef]
46. Crichton, D. The risk triangle. In Natural Disaster Management; Ingleton, J., Ed.; Tudor Rose: London, UK,
1999; p. 2.
47. Granger, K.; Jones, T.; Leiba, M.; Scott, G. Community Risk in Cairns: A Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment; AGSO
(Australian Geological Survey Organisation): Canberra, Australia, 1999.
48. Smith, K. Environmental Hazards: Assessing Risk and Reducing Disaster; Routledge: London, UK, 1996.
49. Helm, P. Integrated Risk Management for Natural and Technological Disasters. Tephra 1996, 9, 15.
50. Sayers, P.B.; Gouldby, B.P.; Simm, J.D.; Meadowcroft, I.; Hall, J. Risk, Performance and Uncertainty in Flood
and Coastal Defence—A Review R&D Technical Report FD2302/TR1. Defra/Environment Agency. 2003.
Available online: www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/research (accessed on 15 June 2020).
51. Kron, W. Flood Risk = Hazard X exposure X vulnerability. J. Lake Sci. 2003, 15, 185–204. [CrossRef]
52. Ciullo, A.; Viglione, A.; Castellarin, A.; Crisci, M.; Di Baldassarre, G. Socio-hydrological modelling of
flood-risk dynamics: Comparing the resilience of green and technological systems. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2017,
62, 880–891. [CrossRef]
53. Knighton, J.; Steinschneider, S.; Walter, T. A Vulnerability-Based, Bottom-up Assessment of Future Riverine
Flood Risk Using a Modified Peaks-Over-Threshold Approach and a Physically Based Hydrologic Model.
Water Resour. Res. 2017, 53, 10043–10064. [CrossRef]
54. Pelling, M.; Maskrey, A.; Ruiz, P.; Hall, L. Reducing Disaster Risk: A Challenge for Development. United Nations
Development Programme, Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery; John S. Swift Co., Inc.: New York, NY, USA,
2004.
55. Kron, A. Flood damage estimation and flood risk mapping. In Advances in Urban Flood Management;
Ashley, R., Garvin, S., Pasche, E., Vassilopoulos, A., Zevenbergen, C., Eds.; Taylor & Francis/Balkema: Leiden,
The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 213–235.
56. Merz, B.; Kreibich, H.; Schwarze, R.; Thieken, A. Review article “Assessment of economic flood damage”.
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2010, 10, 1697–1724. [CrossRef]
57. Messner, F.; Penning-Rowsell, E.; Green, C.; Meyer, V.; Tunstall, S.; van der Veen, A. Evaluating flood
damages: Guidance and recommendations on principles and methods. FLOODsite Consort. 2007, 189.
58. Ahmad, S.; Simonovic, S.P. Integration of heuristic knowledge with analytical tools for the selection of flood
damage reduction measures. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2001, 28, 208–221. [CrossRef]
59. Dixon, S.J.; Sear, D.A.; Odoni, N.A.; Sykes, T.; Lane, S.N. The effects of river restoration on catchment scale
flood risk and flood hydrology. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 2016, 41, 997–1008. [CrossRef]
60. Kourgialas, N.N.; Karatzas, G.P.; Nikolaidis, N.P. Development of a thresholds approach for real-time flash
flood prediction in complex geomorphological river basins. Hydrol. Process. 2011, 26, 1478–1494. [CrossRef]
61. Hsieh, L.-S.; Hsu, M.-H.; Li, M.-H. An Assessment of Structural Measures for Flood-prone Lowlands with
High Population Density along the Keelung River in Taiwan. Nat. Hazards 2006, 37, 133–152. [CrossRef]
62. Dawson, R.; Ball, T.; Werritty, J.; Werritty, A.; Hall, J.W.; Roche, N. Assessing the effectiveness of non-structural
flood management measures in the Thames Estuary under conditions of socio-economic and environmental
change. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2011, 21, 628–646. [CrossRef]
63. Van Duivendijk, J. The systematic approach to flooding problems. Irrig. Drain. 2006, 55, S55–S74. [CrossRef]
64. Rikz, R.W.S. Atlas of Flood Maps; Examples from 19 European Countries, USA and Japan; WL Delft Hydraulics:
Delft, The Netherlands, 2007.
65. Evans, R.; Boardman, J. Curtailment of muddy floods in the Sompting catchment, South Downs, West Sussex,
southern England. Soil Use Manag. 2003, 19, 223–231. [CrossRef]
66. Kourgialas, N.N.; Karatzas, G.P. Flood management and a GIS modelling method to assess flood-hazard
areas—A case study. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2011, 56, 212–225. [CrossRef]
67. Orr, H.G.; Carling, P.A. Hydro-climatic and land use changes in the River Lune catchment, North West
England, implications for catchment management. River Res. Appl. 2006, 22, 239–255. [CrossRef]
68. Holman, I.P.; Hollis, J.M.; Bramley, M.E.; Thompson, T.R.E. The contribution of soil structural degradation to
catchment flooding: A preliminary investigation of the 2000 floods in England and Wales. Hydrol. Earth
Syst. Sci. 2003, 7, 755–766. [CrossRef]
69. Marc, V.; Robinson, M. The long-term water balance (1972–2004) of upland forestry and grassland at
Plynlimon, mid-Wales. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2007, 11, 44–60. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8752 18 of 18
70. Yazdi, J.; Neyshabouri, S.A.A.S.; Niksokhan, M.H.; Sheshangosht, S.; Elmi, M. Optimal prioritisation of
watershed management measures for flood risk mitigation on a watershed scale. J. Flood Risk Manag. 2013, 6,
372–384. [CrossRef]
71. Dixon, S.J.; Sear, D.A.; Nislow, K.H. A conceptual model of riparian forest restoration for natural flood
management. Water Environ. J. 2018, 33, 329–341. [CrossRef]
72. Tariq, M.A.U.R.; Hoes, O.; Ashraf, M.T. Risk-Based Design of Dike Elevation Employing Alternative
Enumeration. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2014, 140, 05014002. [CrossRef]
73. Klijn, F.; Kreibich, H.; De Moel, H.; Penning-Rowsell, E.C. Adaptive flood risk management planning based
on a comprehensive flood risk conceptualisation. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Chang. 2015, 20, 845–864.
[CrossRef]
74. Huang, J. Numerical Study on the Impact of Revising the Rainstorm Intensity Formula on the Storm Flood
Disaster Prediction in Huinan, Pudong District. J. Civ. Eng. Constr. 2018, 7, 19. [CrossRef]
75. Macchione, F.; Costabile, P.; Costanzo, C.; De Lorenzo, G.; Razdar, B. Dam breach modelling: Influence
on downstream water levels and a proposal of a physically based module for flood propagation software.
J. Hydroinform. 2015, 18, 615–633. [CrossRef]
76. Albano, R.; Mancusi, L.; Sole, A.; Adamowski, J. FloodRisk: A collaborative, free and open-source software
for flood risk analysis. Geomat. Nat. Hazards Risk 2017, 8, 1812–1832. [CrossRef]
77. Jukrkorn, N.; Sachdev, H.; Panya, O. Community-based flood risk management: Lessons learned from the
2011 flood in central Thailand. Flood Recovery Innov. Response IV 2014, 184, 75–86. [CrossRef]
78. Abebe, Y.A.; Ghorbani, A.; Nikolic, I.; Vojinovic, Z.; Sanchez, A. Flood risk management in Sint
Maarten—A coupled agent-based and flood modelling method. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 248, 109317.
[CrossRef]
79. Rogger, M.; Agnoletti, M.; Alaoui, A.; Bathurst, J.C.; Bodner, G.; Borga, M.; Chaplot, V.; Gallart, F.; Glatzel, G.;
Hall, J.; et al. Land use change impacts on floods at the catchment scale: Challenges and opportunities for
future research. Water Resour. Res. 2017, 53, 5209–5219. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
80. Serre, D.; Barroca, B.; Diab, Y. Urban flood mitigation: Sustainable options. Sustain. City 2010, 129, 299–309.
[CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).