Science of the Total Environment 538 (2015) 445–457

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

Flood risk and adaptation strategies under climate change and urban
expansion: A probabilistic analysis using global data
Sanne Muis a,⁎, Burak Güneralp b, Brenden Jongman a, Jeroen C.J.H. Aerts a, Philip J. Ward a
a
Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands
b
Department of Geography, Texas A&M University, College Station, USA

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• We develop a probabilistic method to

assess future flood risk on a country-
scale.
• Urban expansion will drive large in-
creases in flood risk in Indonesia.
• Climate change amplifies coastal risk by
19–37%, its impact on river risk is un-
certain.
• Adaptation is effective and increasingly
urgent, regardless of climate uncer-
tainties.
• Global data is used successfully for a
probabilistic risk analysis, including ad-
aptation.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: An accurate understanding of flood risk and its drivers is crucial for effective risk management. Detailed risk pro-
Received 15 May 2015 jections, including uncertainties, are however rarely available, particularly in developing countries. This paper
Received in revised form 12 August 2015 presents a method that integrates recent advances in global-scale modeling of flood hazard and land change,
Accepted 12 August 2015
which enables the probabilistic analysis of future trends in national-scale flood risk. We demonstrate its applica-
Available online 28 August 2015
tion to Indonesia. We develop 1000 spatially-explicit projections of urban expansion from 2000 to 2030 that
Editor: D. Barcelo account for uncertainty associated with population and economic growth projections, as well as uncertainty in
where urban land change may occur. The projections show that the urban extent increases by 215%–357%
Keywords: (5th and 95th percentiles). Urban expansion is particularly rapid on Java, which accounts for 79% of the national
Flood risk increase. From 2000 to 2030, increases in exposure will elevate flood risk by, on average, 76% and 120% for river
Adaptation and coastal floods. While sea level rise will further increase the exposure-induced trend by 19%–37%, the re-
Global modeling sponse of river floods to climate change is highly uncertain. However, as urban expansion is the main driver of
Urbanization future risk, the implementation of adaptation measures is increasingly urgent, regardless of the wide uncertainty
Climate change impacts
in climate projections. Using probabilistic urban projections, we show that spatial planning can be a very effective
Indonesia
adaptation strategy. Our study emphasizes that global data can be used successfully for probabilistic risk assess-
ment in data-scarce countries.
© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

⁎ Corresponding author at: Institute for Environmental Studies — Instituut voor Milieuvraagstukken (IVM), VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1087, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The
Netherlands.
E-mail address: sanne.muis@vu.nl (S. Muis).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.08.068
0048-9697/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
446 S. Muis et al. / Science of the Total Environment 538 (2015) 445–457
1. Introduction
Over the past decades, urban areas around the world have expanded
rapidly (Seto et al., 2011; Angel et al., 2011). According to the latest
global projections, the urban population will increase from 2.8 billion
in 2000 to 5 billion in 2030 (UN, 2013); and urban land cover will
triple from 2000 to 2030 (Seto et al., 2012). Nearly half of the urban ex-
pansion is projected to take place in Asia, where some of the world's
highest concentrations of people and assets are located in low-lying
areas and are highly prone to flooding from rivers and coastal surge
(Hallegatte et al., 2013; Jongman et al., 2012; Nicholls and Cazenave,
2010). Major floods can be a key threat to these cities and can cause cat-
astrophic losses with large impacts on national economies.
Global flood risk has been increasing during the last few decades
(Bouwer et al., 2007). Hereby, flood risk is defined as the combination
of hazard (i.e. the frequency and intensity of floods), exposure (i.e. the
population and assets located in flood-prone areas) and vulnerability
(i.e. the susceptibility of the exposed elements to the hazard) (IPCC,
2012; UNISDR, 2011). Several studies show that increasing exposure is
the main driver of increasing risk (e.g. Bouwer, 2011; Visser et al.,
2014); although recent studies show that reductions in vulnerability
in the past decades may have reduced the overall risk, which could
mask potential signals of climate change (Jongman et al., 2015;
Mechler and Bouwer, 2014). Over the coming decades, flood risk is ex-
pected to continue increasing due to socio-economic development and
climate change (Visser et al., 2014; IPCC, 2012; UNISDR, 2011). By 2030,
40% (195,000 km2) of the global urban land is projected to be located in
high-frequency flood zones, compared to 30% in 2000 (Güneralp et al.,
2015). According to IPCC (2013), global sea levels are likely to rise
between 0.26 m and 0.82 m by 2100 relative to 1986–2005, resulting
in more severe coastal floods. Studies of global-scale river flood risk
project large climate-induced increases over the coming century
(Arnell and Lloyd-Hughes, 2014; Hirabayashi et al., 2013).
Increasing global losses demand effective and efficient risk-reducing
strategies (Aerts et al., 2014; Brown et al., 2014), whose implementation
should be based on an accurate understanding of the drivers of risk (e.g.
Jha et al., 2012; Jongman et al., 2014a; Mechler and Bouwer, 2014). This
means it is of key importance to integrate both climate and anthropo-
genic drivers (Kim and Chung, 2014). Future risk projections are charac-
terized by high uncertainty, which is most frequently addressed by
using different scenarios. While a scenario-based approach is useful to
explore the potential impact of climate change, unlike a probabilistic ap-
proach, they provide any quantitative information on the uncertainty to
assess the relative risk of particular adaptation actions. In response to
the debate on the need for probabilistic climate change scenarios
(Pittock et al., 2001; Schneider, 2001, 2002), various studies have
focused on quantifying the probabilities of (the impacts of) climate
change (e.g. Ward et al., 2013a; Webster et al., 2012; Purvis et al.,
2008; New et al., 2007). The uncertainties related to projected
socio-economic development have received less attention in the flood
risk community, and the few studies that integrate future climate
and socio-economic projections are based on discrete scenarios (e.g.
Hinkel et al., 2014; Hallegatte et al., 2013; Penning-Rowsell et al.,
2013; te Linde et al., 2011).
Probabilistic estimates of current and future risk that include the
dynamics of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability are therefore rare
(e.g. Aerts et al., 2014). This is especially true for developing countries,
where the data needed to conduct such analyses are scarce. With the in-
creasing availability of hydrological datasets with continental to global-
coverage and new generations of flood models, several models for
assessing flood hazard at the global-scale have been developed in recent
years (e.g. Hinkel et al., 2014; Hirabayashi et al., 2013; Winsemius et al.,
2013). Although there are constraints due to the relatively low spatial
resolution of the data, particularly related to the global elevation
datasets available, a major benefit of this development is that it enables
large-scale analysis of floods, even in countries where data are scarce. In
addition, the increasing availability of land-use and land-cover data at
continental- to global-scales (Klein Goldewijk et al., 2011; Schneider
et al., 2009) has opened the way for large-scale forecasting of land-
change dynamics (Güneralp et al., 2015; Nelson et al., 2010), that in-
clude the uncertainties of the underlying drivers (Güneralp and Seto,
2013).
These developments allow for a large-scale assessment of flood risk
that integrates future dynamics of hazard and exposure, and includes a
quantification of uncertainties. Here, we present a first of its kind
country-scale flood risk assessment that integrates these methodologi-
cal advances, using Indonesia as a case-study. We use probabilistic and
spatially-explicit projections of new urban land to 2030, which include
the uncertainties in the changes in the population and economy, the
two major drivers of urban land change, as well as the uncertainty in
where urban land change may occur. These projections are combined
with future climate projections of both river and coastal flood hazards.
We evaluate the effect of two adaptation strategies: spatial planning
in flood-prone areas and enhanced flood protection. This is the first
large-scale flood risk analysis that assesses the effectiveness of spatial
planning based on probabilistic urban projections. The main aims of
this paper are to:
• Develop a methodology based on global data to assess national-scale
flood risk under current and future scenarios;
• Develop spatially-explicit and probabilistic projections of urban
expansion and river and coastal flood hazard projections from
2000–2030;
• Combine the exposure and hazard projections to assess how projected
changes in drivers contribute to future changes in flood risk;
• Assess to what extent spatial planning of new urban areas and en-
hanced flood protection can offset projected increases in flood risk.
Our case-study is Indonesia, a country that already faces high flood
risk, and is undergoing rapid urbanization. While in 2000 about one
third of the total population lived in urban areas, by 2010 this had in-
creased to one half (UN, 2014). In addition, catastrophic events occur
frequently, for example, wide-spread floods in 2014 resulted in estimat-
ed direct damages of ca. USD 400 million (EM-DAT, 2013).
2. Materials and methods
Here, we provide a brief overview of the applied modeling frame-
work (Fig. 1). Details of each step are given in the following paragraphs.
In short, a damage model combines the three risk elements (i.e. hazard,
exposure, and vulnerability) to compute the Expected Annual Damage
(EAD) expressed in million USD/year (e.g. Ward et al., 2011). Unless
stated otherwise, all values in this paper are expressed in values of the
year 2000 using GDP deflators of the World Bank (2014). By simulating
the flood damages associated with certain exceedance probabilities, we
can calculate the EAD by estimating the area under an exceedance prob-
ability loss curve (i.e. risk curve). The EADs are aggregated on a provin-
cial level.
We use two model cascades to simulate flood hazard; river floods
are based on GLOFRIS (Winsemius et al., 2013; Ward et al., 2013b),
and coastal floods are based on the DIVA database (Vafeidis et al.,
2008). Probabilistic urban projections based on Güneralp and Seto
(2013) and Seto et al. (2012) are combined with estimates of economic
value per surface area to express economic exposure. Vulnerability is
represented by a depth-damage curve taken from Budiyono et al.
(2014). We do not include flood protection. There are few empirical
data available to estimate protection standards in Indonesia, but gener-
ally protection standards can be considered to be low (e.g. Hallegatte
et al., 2013; Ward et al., 2010) since damaging floods occur frequently
(EM-DAT, 2013; Marfai and King, 2007). Although absolute flood risk
estimates are associated with large uncertainties (Apel et al., 2008;
 S. Muis et al. / Science of the Total Environment 538 (2015) 445–457
Fig. 1. Flowchart showing the general methodological approach where the three risk components (hazard, exposure, and vulnerability) are combined in a damage model.
Merz et al., 2010), our main interest is in relative changes, which are
more robust than absolute estimates (e.g. Bubeck et al., 2011).
2.1. Hazard
2.1.1. Coastal floods
We calculate coastal inundation using a GIS-based planar approach,
which uses extreme sea levels and a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) as
inputs. We define inundated areas as areas that have an elevation
lower than the extreme sea level and a direct connection to the sea,
following Hanson et al. (2010). We derive extreme water levels
corresponding to return periods of 10, 100 and 1000 years from the
DIVA (Dynamic Interactive Vulnerability Assessment) tool (Hinkel and
Klein, 2009; Vafeidis et al., 2008). The water levels vary spatially across
the 426 coastal segments in Indonesia, and are linked to the occurrence
of high tides and storm surges. Coastal inundation due to tropical
cyclones, tsunamis and waves are not included. The DIVA segments
are linked to the DEM using the Euclidean Allocation tool from ArcGIS.
The DEM is derived from the HydroSHEDS database and is based on
high-resolution elevation data (30″ × 30″, approximately 1 km × 1 km
at the equator) obtained during NASA's Shuttle Radar Topography Mis-
sion and corrected for hydrological applications (Lehner et al., 2008).
Since regional sea level rise (SLR) projections are not available for
Indonesia, we use the most recent global projections from IPCC (2013)
for four different Relative Concentration Pathways (RCP2.6, RCP4.5,
RCP6.0, and RCP8.5; see Moss et al., 2010). By 2100, these pathways cor-
respond to increases of global mean sea level with 0.44 m, 0.53 m,
0.55 m, and 0.74 m, respectively. For 2030, the SLR projections do not
deviate much for the different RCPs, we therefore apply the median
and likely ranges of SLR, which correspond to low, mean, and high SLR
estimates of 0.09 m, 0.12 m, and 0.17 m respectively (Table AII7.7 in
IPCC, 2013). Following Menéndez and Woodworth (2010), we assume
no changes in storminess and the frequency of extreme events and
therefore SLR is added to the extreme water levels under current cli-
mate (Nicholls et al., 2011).
2.1.2. River floods
We generate inundation maps for river flooding using the hydrolog-
ical and hydraulic components of GLOFRIS (Winsemius et al., 2013;
447
Ward et al., 2013b). This results in hazard maps showing inundation
extent and depth (30″ × 30″) for nine return periods: 2, 5, 10, 25,
50, 100, 250, 500, and 1000 years. Flood volumes are simulated
with PCR-GLOBWB-dynRout, a global distributed hydrological
model with a resolution of 0.5° × 0.5° (approximately
50 km × 50 km at the equator) (Bierkens and van Beek, 2009; van
Beek and Bierkens, 2008). To simulate floods under historical climate
conditions (1960–2000), we force the PCR-GLOBWB model with the
climate reanalysis dataset EU-WATCH (Weedon et al., 2011). For
each grid cell, the different return periods of flood volumes are ex-
tracted based on a Gumbel extreme value distribution, as described
in Ward et al. (2013b). Subsequently, these flood volumes and the
HydroSHEDS DEM are used as input to the GLOFRIS downscaling rou-
tine (Winsemius et al., 2013). River flooding is considered to play a
role only in streams characterized by a Strahler order of 5 or larger
and only flood levels corresponding to a return period of two years
or higher are assumed to lead to overbank flooding (e.g. Dunne and
Leopold, 1978).
To simulate the impact of climate change on river floods, we use the
bias-corrected future climate projections from the Inter-Sectoral Impact
Model Intercomparison Project (ISI-MIP; Hempel et al., 2013) which
contains projections from five global climate models (GCMs), each
driven by the four different RCPs from the IPCC. Next, we force
PCR-GLOBWB with each of these 20 different simulations, providing
time-series of flood volumes for the period 2010–2049 (referring to
the climate in 2030). We then use the same model cascade as for the
historical projections, resulting in inundation maps for each return peri-
od and GCM-RCP combination. Because the bias-correction method
used in ISI-MIP cannot remove bias in the distribution of rainfall days
across the month, as well as interannual variability, we carried out a fur-
ther bias correction on the EAD values, using the delta-method:
EAD
¼ a EADEU−WATCH
where EAD⁎ is the bias corrected risk and a the delta change factor a,
which is equal to EADggcm,rcp/EADgcm,hist. In Supplementary Material A
we show the effect of applying a bias correction on our results.
448 S. Muis et al. / Science of the Total Environment 538 (2015) 445–457
2.2. Exposure
We represent flood exposure by a map of economic exposure per
urban grid cell (30″ × 30″). Such a map requires two inputs: (1) a
map indicating urban extent, i.e. a map of urban grid-cells; and (2) the
economic value of these urban grid-cells. These two inputs are de-
scribed below.
2.2.1. Urban extent
The initial land cover map for ca. 2000, is derived from the Moderate
Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) v5 land cover product,
which has a horizontal resolution of 500 m × 500 m (Friedl et al., 2010),
resampled to 1 km × 1 km resolution.
We develop probabilistic and spatially-explicit projections of
urban expansion in Indonesia for the years 2015, 2020, 2025, and
2030. The two major drivers of urban expansion are population and
economic growth (Angel et al., 2011). Individual projections of
both drivers are associated with large uncertainties and are prone
to error (Alho, 1997; Cohen, 2004; Pritchett, 2000), which are
reflected in urban forecasts (Güneralp and Seto, 2013; Seto et al.,
2012). To account for the uncertainties in drivers, we generate
1000 simulations of new urban land area, based on probabilistic pro-
jections of urban population and gross domestic product (GDP). To
obtain probabilistic projections of total population, we combine the
UN World Population Projections 2012 Revision (UN, 2013) with un-
certainty estimates published by U.S. National Research Council
(NRC, 2000) and use this information to fit a probability density
function (PDF) (Supplementary Material B). To get the urban popu-
lation, we then draw 1000 values from the PDF using Latin Hyper-
cube (LHC) sampling and multiply them by 0.63, which is the
projected urban population proportion (UN, 2012). For GDP, we as-
sume a uniform distribution using the minimum and maximum esti-
mate from country-level GDP projections from the four IPCC SRES
scenarios (Nakicenovic et al., 2000). The SRES scenarios have explic-
itly not been appointed any likelihood; however, they cover a wide
range of plausible economic futures and hence we argue that they
can be used as a basis for exploring a realistic set of future projec-
tions. The minimum and maximum estimates range from ca. 600 bil-
lion USD for the A2 scenario and 1.4 trillion USD for the A1 scenario
(1990 values). We again employ LHC sampling to draw 1000 values
from the resulting uniform GDP distribution for 2030 and divide
them by the urban population projections for the same year, which
provides us with 1000 projections of GDP per capita. To calculate
urban land expansion due to the urban population increase only,
we first overlay the urban extent map and the population density
map and calculate the country's average urban population density
ca. 2000, which was 272.9 m2/person. We divide each value in the
set of 1000 urban population estimates by the urban population den-
sity. Then, we derive 1000 projections of per capita GDP in 2030
using the probabilistic projections of the country's GDP and popula-
tion. We incorporate the increase in per capita urban land due to the
increase in per capita GDP using the observed relationship between
the two at country level (Supplementary Material C). This enables
us to estimate the total area of new urban land.
The new urban land is spatially allocated using a grid-based land
change model based on GEOMOD (Pontius et al., 2008), and described
in Seto et al. (2012) and Güneralp and Seto (2013). The required inputs
are summarized in Supplementary Material D. Through statistical
analysis of the empirical patterns created by the overlay of the initial
land cover map with the driver maps (roads, slopes etc.), the model
estimates overall suitability of each grid cell for change. Based on
these inputs, the model spatially allocates new urban areas. For each
new urban cell to be allocated, there may be more than one equally suit-
able locations and the model randomly picks one of these. Thus, the spa-
tial configuration of urban expansion may be different between any two
realizations with the same amount of projected increase in urban land.
2.2.2. Economic exposure
To represent economic exposure for one uniform urban land-use
class, we use the (spatially) weighted average of the exposure estimates
for 12 different urban land-use classes in Jakarta reported by Budiyono
et al. (2014). The economic exposure in Jakarta is 6.7 million USD/
km2. For the other Indonesian provinces, we assume that regional dif-
ferences in economic exposure are proportional to regional differences
in GDP per capita in 2010 (BPS, 2013), similar to Jongman et al.
(2012). To estimate future economic exposure, we assume that these
will increase proportionally to the national projections of growth in
GDP per capita. Using the mean of the probabilistic projections of GDP
and population derived for the urban simulations, we calculate the
mean increase in GDP per capita relative to 2000, resulting in a factor in-
crease of 2.2, 2.9, 3.6 and 4.3 for the years 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030,
respectively. Since there are no regionally disaggregated GDP projec-
tions for Indonesia, we assume that the relative distribution of GDP
per capita across regions remains constant during the study period.
2.3. Vulnerability
Vulnerability is represented by a depth-damage function (or vulner-
ability curve) that estimates the damage for a given inundation depth.
Based on expert meetings and a workshop, Budiyono et al. (2014)
developed curves for 12 different land-use classes in Jakarta. To convert
these into one curve for the urban land-use class, we take the area-
weighted average based on the spatial distribution of the different
land-use classes within Jakarta (Fig. 2), similar to Huizinga (2007). By
using this area-weighted curve, we assume that the land-use distribu-
tion in Jakarta is representative of the distribution in other urban areas
in Indonesia, and that these urban areas have an equal vulnerability to
floods. While vulnerability may change in time (Bouwer, 2013; Visser
et al., 2014), there is no quantitative information available on how this
may affect urban damages. Hence, we assume the vulnerability curve
does not change in time. Other flood characteristics than inundation
depth, such as flow velocity, duration, water quality, and precautionary
measures play on important role in the amount of flood damage (e.g.
Merz et al., 2010). Although with large uncertainties (e.g. De Moel
et al., 2014; Merz and Thieken, 2009), research shows that flood damage
to residential buildings is strongly dependent on the water depth of a
flood, and depth-damage curves are the standard approach to assess
urban flood losses (Smith, 1994). The curves developed by Budiyono
et al. (2014) based on river floods, are the only curves developed for
Indonesia. Damages for river and coastal flood may differ; however, as
the curves are based on water depth only, we assume the same vulner-
ability is applicable to coastal floods as well.
2.4. Adaptation strategies
We evaluate two adaptation strategies: (1) spatial planning of new
urban areas; and (2) enhancing flood protection. The first adaptation
strategy aims to limit the amount of new urban land in flood-prone
areas by enforcing building restrictions. We carry out urban simulations
in which urban expansion into flood-prone areas is either restricted or
limited. In these simulations, we define flood-prone areas as areas ex-
posed to either coastal or river flood with a return period of 100 years.
For grid-cells in these areas, we reduce the suitability value (thus lower-
ing the chance of these locations to urbanize) to 0, 1/2, and 1/3 of their
baseline suitability values to reflect full, medium, and weak enforce-
ment of the building restrictions, respectively. Subsequently, we calcu-
late the EAD for these three levels of enforcement. The second
adaptation strategy is the enhancement of flood protection. Flood de-
fences are designed to resist water levels that correspond to a given re-
turn period. We assess the effectiveness of three different protection
standards, corresponding to floods with return periods of 10, 50 and
100 years. We incorporate flood protection in the model framework
by truncating the risk curve at the exceedance probability assumed by
 S. Muis et al. / Science of the Total Environment 538 (2015) 445–457
Fig. 2. Vulnerability curves for various urban land classes in Jakarta from a series of expert meetings and a workshop described in Budiyono et al. (2014) and the weighted average curve
(black line) used in this study.
the protection standard (Feyen et al., 2012), and estimating the EAD as
the area of the remaining part of the risk curve. We do not include dike
failures at return periods shorter than the design standard.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Validation of discharge and surge levels
3.1.1. River floods
The (extreme) discharges from the PCR-GLOBWB/GLOFRIS
modeling cascade have been validated in previous studies (Van
Beek et al., 2009; Ward et al., 2013a, 2013b). Globally there is a rea-
sonable agreement with observed discharge (within 25% relative
error for the majority of locations), although there are large regional
differences. Validating the model in Indonesia is complicated, due to
the existence of many small rivers combined with the relatively
coarse resolution of the discharge data (0.5°). Moreover, observed
daily discharge data are not readily available. We verify whether
the modeling cascade is applicable in Indonesia by comparing the
observed mean maximum discharge with the simulated mean annu-
al maxima discharge (1960–1999) of the nearest PCR-GLOBWB cell
(Supplementary Material E1). This data is only available near Jakarta,
where there are two main rivers: the Ciliwung River, which has a
specific discharge of around 100 m 3/s/100 km 2 (Tachikawa et al.,
2004) and the Citarum, which has as specific discharge in the order
of 3 m3/s/100 km2 (Takeuchi et al., 1995). This totals to a specific dis-
charge of approximately 250 m3/s/0.5°, which is in the same order as
the PCRGLOW-WB cell that has a value of 263 m3/s/0.5°.
3.1.2. Coastal floods
To assess whether the extreme surge levels in DIVA are applicable
in Indonesia, we compare the dataset against sea level observations
from the University of Hawaii (http://uhslc.soest.hawaii.edu/). For
all 13 stations that have more than 5 years of observations, we
estimate the extreme values based on the annual maxima method
(Gumbel, 1941). Supplementary Material E2 provides detailed
information per station. On average, DIVA overestimates the 10-yr
return period with 0.8 m. Over all stations the differences range
from − 0.4 to 2.0 m. Unfortunately none of the stations has an obser-
vation record long enough for validating the more extreme sea levels
449
with a return period of 100 years or higher. We further discuss im-
proving the global data needed to assess coastal flood hazard in
Section 3.6.
3.2. Current flood risk
For 2000, the simulated EAD is 31 million USD for coastal floods,
and 75 million USD for river floods; this corresponds to 0.01% and
0.02% of Indonesia's GDP, respectively. Reported data on historical
flood losses are scarce in Indonesia, particularly for coastal floods.
While this is the reason for conducting this analysis, it makes verifi-
cation of our results difficult. For river floods, the disaster database
EM-DAT (2013) reports total damages of 5.5 billion USD from 1990
to 2013. The majority of this total results from a single 3 billion
USD event in January 2013 in Jakarta. The huge damages are mainly
due to the collapse of a 30 m long section of the Western Flood
Canal, which led to major flooding in Jakarta's main business district.
Such dike collapses are not included in our modeling framework. The
return period of this flood event is estimated to be much lower than
several previous events that caused much less damage (Sagala et al.,
2013). In addition, our estimates are based on average urban dam-
ages, which will underestimate damage in the capital's main busi-
ness district. If we exclude this event, the annual average of
reported losses over 1990–2013 are 121 million USD. This is higher
than our EAD estimate of 75 million USD, but is of the same order
of magnitude. The lower estimate could be because we only model
urban damages, while reported damages from EM-DAT also include
rural losses. Furthermore, most floods in Indonesia's lowlands are as-
sociated with rivers that do not freely drain to the sea because of high
coastal water levels. These interactions between river runoff and sea
levels are not included in our model framework.
While river flood risk is almost 2.5 times higher than coastal flood
risk, the EAD for river floods is more equally divided between the differ-
ent regions (Fig. 3A–C). The largest share of the national risk is located
on Java, which accounts for 40% of river flood risk and 56% of coastal
flood risk. With a share of 42%, Sumatra has the second largest share
of coastal flood risk. Although there are no land-locked provinces,
there are a number of provinces for which our simulations result in no
coastal flood risk.
450 S. Muis et al. / Science of the Total Environment 538 (2015) 445–457
Fig. 3. EAD for the different Indonesian provinces and the regional share of the national risk for 2000 and 2030. For river floods, we show risk for the baseline scenario (A) and the risk
projection under the mean ensemble of all GCMs and RCP6.0 (B). For coastal floods, we show risk for the baseline projection (C) and the risk projections for mean SLR (D). The colors
of the seven main regions in Indonesia correspond to the colors in the pie charts.
3.3. Future trends in risk drivers
3.3.1. Urban expansion by 2030
In 2000, the extent of urban area in Indonesia was about 11,000 km2
(0.6% of total land), of which 67% was located on Java (5.3% of total land
area of the island). Our urban projections suggest a rapid increase in
urban extent by 2030 (Fig. 4) that ranges from 215% to 357% (5th and
95th percentiles) with a mean of 277%. Java accounts on average for
79% of the urban expansion; implying that by 2030 approximately
75% of total urban land in the country could be located on that island
alone. Other parts of Indonesia are also expected to experience rapid
urban expansion, albeit with lower rates than Java (Supplementary
Material F). In Sumatra, Kalimantan, and Sulawesi, urban extent in-
creases on average by 195%, 144% and 147%, respectively. Maluku and
Western New Guinea are expected to experience relatively low rates
of urban expansion.
3.3.2. Changing flood hazard due to climate change
3.3.2.1. Impact of climate change on river floods. There are large spatial
differences in the projected changes in river flood hazard. Fig. 5A
shows the mean magnitude of changes in flood volumes with a
100-year return period across the 20 different GCM-RCP combinations.
Floods are projected to become more severe in parts of Sumatra,
Kalimantan, Sulawesi, Maluku Island, and Papua, while for Java the
mean signal shows a decrease in flood volume. However, there is wide
uncertainty across the projections. This is illustrated by the number of
projections that agree on the sign of change (Fig. 5B).
3.3.2.2. Effect of sea level rise on coastal floods. The effect of SLR will be an
increase in the inundation extent and depth for each return period. For a
flood with a 100-year return period, the low, mean, and high SLR
scenarios lead to an increase in inundated area by 2%, 4%, and 7%, re-
spectively. Under the high SLR scenario of + 0.19 m, the majority of
the increase in inundation extent takes place in four provinces: East
Java, Banten, and West and East Kalimantan, which account for respec-
tively 17%, 20%, 28% and 13% of the increase.
3.4. Future changes in flood risk
3.4.1. River floods
River flood risk is projected to increase rapidly from 2000 to 2030
(Fig. 6A), although there is wide uncertainty in the results. Assuming
changes in exposure only (red line in Fig. 6A), the mean increase in
EAD due to urban expansion is 638% (523% and 772% for the 5th and
95th percentiles, respectively).1 When separating the drivers responsi-
ble for this increase, on average 165% is due to urban expansion and
179% is due to an increase in economic exposure in existing urban
areas. The increase in economic exposure in future urban areas accounts
for the remaining 293% of the increase. We project the EAD to increase
most rapidly on Java, whose share of national risk increases from 40%
to 46% from 2000 to 2030 (Fig. 3A–B).
When comparing national flood losses over time it is also useful to
normalize risk for future changes in GDP, which is shown in Fig. 6B. In
this case, the EAD increases from 0.02% GDP in 2000 to 0.03% GDP in
2030 (0.03% and 0.04% for the 5th and 95th percentiles). If we include
climate change projections, the normalized risk projections for 2030
range from −6% to +238% compared to 2000 (−6% is the 5th percen-
tile of the climate projection resulting in the lowest EAD, and +238% is
the 95th percentile of the climate projection resulting in the highest
EAD). Assuming a change in hazard only (i.e. keeping future exposure
constant), risk changes between − 37% and + 91% over the period
1
The reported results in terms of percentiles are calculated based on the set of 1000
projections for urban expansion combined with the different climate projections.
 S. Muis et al. / Science of the Total Environment 538 (2015) 445–457
Fig. 4. The probabilities of urban expansion by 2030 derived by stacking all 1000 urban expansion projections.
2000–2030 (Table 1). The mean ensemble of all climate projections re-
sults in a change of 1%. However, the rapid increases in exposure mean
that there is a large certainty that future risk will increase, irrespective
of climate change. Only 3 out of the 20 climate projections indicate a
small decrease in normalized risk from 2000 to 2030, and only when
combined with the urban projections in the lowest 20th percentile.
This highlights that the implementation of risk-reducing measures
remains urgent, regardless of the uncertainty in climate change
projections.
3.4.2. Coastal floods
For coastal floods, all risk projections show strong increases
(Fig. 6C&D). Considering changes in exposure only (red line in
Fig. 6C), absolute risk more than doubles from 2000 to 2015 with a
mean increase of 238%. By 2030, the mean increase is equal to 841%
(673% and 1029% are the 5th and 95th percentiles, respectively).
Assuming changes in economic exposure and flood hazard, risk
increases between 751 and 1269% (5th and 95th percentiles). On a
national scale, urban expansion accounts for almost half of the total
risk increase (Table 1), while increasing exposure accounts for approx-
imately one-fifth. SLR has a minor contribution (ranging from 0.8% to
1.8%), however, the three risk drivers reinforce each other, for example
when urban expansion takes place in areas that becomes prone to
flooding with SLR. The EAD increases most rapidly on Java, whose re-
gional share of national risk increases from 56% in 2000 to 72% in
2030 (Fig. 3C–D). Coastal risk is also projected to increase in provinces
for which we simulate no coastal flood risk under current climate,
such as South Sulawesi and West Papua.
Once risk is normalized for GDP (to account for economic growth),
the increasing trend over 2000–2030 is less steep, though still strongly
451
positive, which implies that flood risk will become increasingly costly
relative to GDP. Assuming changes in exposure only (red line in
Fig. 6D), we project an increase of between 80% and 183% (5th and
95th percentiles). The mean increase in coastal EAD is equal to 120%.
This is 1.6 times higher than the increase in river EAD, indicating that
urban expansion preferentially takes place along the coastline. This is
consistent with earlier findings (e.g. Jha et al., 2012; Jongman et al.,
2012). From 2000 to 2030, SLR amplifies the exposure-induced risk in-
crease (normalized) by, on average, 19%, 25%, and 37% based on the low,
mean, and high SLR projections, respectively. The impact of SLR be-
comes more apparent over time, as demonstrated by the divergence
of projections with and without SLR (Fig. 6D). Hence, beyond 2030,
SLR may become a more dominant driver. Our results are consistent
with other studies (e.g. Thieken et al., 2014; Storch and Downes,
2011) that also conclude that the impact of climate change in the near
future will most likely be relatively minor compared to that of rapid ur-
banization and economic growth.
3.5. Effectiveness of adaptation strategies
We evaluate the potential of two adaptation strategies: spatial plan-
ning of new urban land; and enhanced flood protection. The effective-
ness of the adaptation measures is defined as the reduction in EAD
compared to projections without adaptation.
3.5.1. Spatial planning
The increase in EAD can be offset by limiting the amount of new
urban land in flood-prone areas, which can be achieved by enforcing
building restrictions. For full enforcement of the restrictions, there is a
risk reduction of 50%–57% (5th and 95th percentiles) for river floods
452 S. Muis et al. / Science of the Total Environment 538 (2015) 445–457
Fig. 5. Changes in flood volume with a 100-year return period under climate change based on 20 different combinations of 5 GCMs and 4 RCPs. We show the mean magnitude of change
over the simulation ensemble (A) and the number of projections (out of 20) that agree on the sign of change (B).
(mean climate ensemble for RCP6.0; Table 1; Fig. 7A). For weak enforce-
ment, the risk reduction ranges from 42% to 58% (5th and 95th percen-
tiles). For coastal risk, full enforcement result in a reduction of 76% to
84% (5th and 95th percentiles; Fig. 7B). Even for weak enforcement,
the reduction is still 73% (95th percentile). Spatial planning is most ef-
fective in provinces where urban expansion is the prime driver of in-
creases in flood risk (Supplementary Material G; Figs A&C).
The uncertainty in the EAD projections increases with lower levels of
enforcement (Fig. 7). This is because, with lower levels of enforcement,
urban expansion is still allowed to take place in flood prone areas, and
thus the risk reduction depends on the particular urban expansion pat-
terns that emerge in each individual urban projection. Spatial planning
is more effective for coastal flood risk than river flood risk due to more
rapid urban expansion in coastal areas. While we demonstrate that
spatial planning can potentially be very effective, we did not assess
the feasibility of its actual implementation. A full restriction on urban
development may not be feasible; we however argue that the land
may be utilized in a way that is compatible with flooding. This means re-
ducing the vulnerability of new urban land in flood-prone areas, which
could be achieved by enforcing building codes, such as wet- or dry
proofing of building (Kreibich et al., 2009; Poussin et al., 2012), zoning
of land-use functions (Koks et al., 2013), or elevating an area of individ-
ual buildings (e.g. De Moel et al., 2013; Lasage et al., 2014).
3.5.2. Enhanced flood protection
If we assume a relatively low flood protection standard of a 10-year
return period uniformly throughout all urban areas in Indonesia, river
flood risk is reduced by 53% on average (Table 1). This emphasizes
that floods with a relatively low return period are responsible for the
majority of the EAD. A protection level corresponding to a 100-year
return period could reduce the EAD by 93%. Raising the protection
standards also greatly reduces coastal risk. A protection standard of
10-year return period reduces flood risk, on average, by 63%, while a
protection standard of 100-year reduces risk by 95%. Compared to spa-
tial planning, the effectiveness of flood protection has less regional var-
iation (Supplementary Material G; Figs. E&D). This is because whereas
spatial planning reduces the projected increase in flood exposure
(with no impact on current risk), flood protection reduces current risk.
With this analysis, we show that enhanced flood protection can be a
highly effective strategy. This is in agreement with local studies in Ho
Chi Minh City (Lasage et al., 2014) and Rotterdam (De Moel et al.,
2014) that also demonstrate that the implementation of flood protec-
tion may offset the increase in risk. More research is however required
to assess the costs of the construction and maintenance of such mea-
sures (e.g. Aerts et al., 2014; Jongman et al., 2014a). It is likely that
flood protection is financially feasible only in high-risk areas; and
even then, the implementation may exceed the institutional and finan-
cial capabilities of many countries that face high flood risk. Furthermore,
here we analyze the two adaptation strategies separately, while the
most effective way is likely a combination of different strategies.
3.6. Implications for flood risk assessment and management
This is the first flood risk analysis that assesses future trends in risk
drivers and explicitly quantifies the uncertainties in socio-economic
projections, other than using discrete scenarios (e.g. Hinkel et al.,
2014; Hallegatte et al., 2013; Penning-Rowsell et al., 2013; te Linde
et al., 2011). Probabilistic urban projections quantify the uncertainty as-
sociated with future projection, and as such they can provide more de-
tailed information. This may result in a better understanding of the
dynamics of future risk, and thus better-informed decision-making.
For example, in this case-study for Indonesia, we show that regardless
 S. Muis et al. / Science of the Total Environment 538 (2015) 445–457 453

Fig. 6. Projections of changes in flood risk (EAD; expected annual damage) between 2015 and 2030. River flood risk is shown under 20 different projections of climate change (5 GCMS and
4 RCPs) and for all projections of urban expansion. Absolute values are shown in (A), while values normalized to GDP are shown in (B). The light red shaded band shows the 5th–95th
percentiles for the projections with no climate change (i.e. urban expansion only). The light orange shaded band shows the 5th–95th percentiles over the lowest and highest risk projection
when the urban projections are combined with the 20 climate change projections. Coastal flood risk is shown under different scenarios of sea level rise (SLR) and for all projections of urban
expansion using absolute values (C) and normalized to GDP (D). The red shaded band shows the 5th–95th percentiles for the projections with no SLR (i.e. urban expansion only). The blue
shaded band shows the 95th percentile and 5th percentile when the urban projections are combined with high SLR.

of the wide uncertainty in river hazard projections, it is very likely that
flood risk will increase by 2030 as urban expansion is the main driver of
future risk. Assessing the likelihood of various levels of risk would have
been impossible to assess without the use probabilistic scenarios.
Jointly considering the future trends in river and coastal flood risk on
a country-scale demonstrates some key implications for flood risk
management, both in Indonesia and more widely. For example, due to
more rapid urban expansion in the coastal zone, coastal flood risk in-
creases more rapidly than river flood risk. SLR aggravates this trend,
whereas the climate change trends for river floods are highly uncertain,
and although unlikely, also a decrease in risk is possible. While climate
change may imply that a certain increase in flood hazard is inevitable
454 S. Muis et al. / Science of the Total Environment 538 (2015) 445–457

Table 1
The effect of drivers on flood risk from 2000 to 2030 and the effectiveness of adaptation
measures based on changes in EAD in absolute values. If based on probabilistic projections,
mean values are shown, with the 5th and 95th percentile values for the urban projections
shown in brackets. For river floods, the climate change projection shows the mean ensem-
ble of the 20 different combinations of GCMs and RCPs, while the minimum and maximum
projections are shown in brackets. For coastal floods, we show the mean SLR projection
with the values for the low and high SLR projections in brackets. The combined impact
of the drivers shows the 5th percentile of the lowest projection and the 95th percentile
of the highest projection. For the evaluation of adaptation strategies, the values are shown
for the mean GCM ensemble for RCP6.0 for river floods, and for mean SLR for coastal
floods.
River Coast
sources of uncertainty (Güneralp and Seto, 2013; Hall, 2007). The
assigned probabilities are subjective as it is impossible to estimate
how much uncertainty remains unquantified (e.g. Schneider, 2002;
Dessai and Hulme, 2004). Nevertheless, future projections involve
large uncertainties and although discrete scenarios can account for un-
certainty (for example by using a low, mean and high estimate) they
provide a limited representation of the underlying sources of uncertain-
ty. Thus, the use of probabilistic projections in flood risk analysis pro-
vides additional, quantitative information that is complementary to
the information provided by discrete scenarios.

Baseline risk projection EAD (million USD) 3.7. Limitations and future research directions
75.0 30.9
There are several limitations intrinsic to various parts of the analysis.
Change in risk due to single drivers Change in EAD (%) First, we emphasize that while the global modeling of river floods has
and their combined impact
advanced rapidly in recent years (e.g. Arnell and Lloyd-Hughes, 2014;
Economic growth 122 182 Ward et al., 2014; Hirabayashi et al., 2013), global-scale modeling of
Urban expansion 166 (125-215) 445 (348-554)
coastal flood hazard has received less attention. To the best of our
Climate change 1 (-37-91) 11 (8-17)
All 651 (305-1395) 971 (751-1269) knowledge, the DIVA database (e.g. Hinkel et al., 2014) is the only avail-
able global dataset of extreme water levels. While the DIVA database
Effectiveness of adaptation measures Reduction in EAD relative to no
adaptation (%)
contains extreme water levels, and has been instrumental in global-
scale coastal flood risk studies: the validation of the model has received
Spatial planning
Low enforcement 33 (22-43) 65 (56-73)
little attention. In addition, the limited number of return periods used to
Medium enforcement 50 (42-58) 76 (70-81) construct the risk curve may cause overestimation of risk (Ward et al.,
High enforcement 57 (50-64) 80 (76-84) 2011). Hence, there is a need for improved global datasets of coastal
Flood protection water-level extremes. This could be achieved by the application of glob-
Low protection level 53 63
al hydrodynamic models with high resolution meteorological data and
Medium protection level 86 91
High protection level 93 95 bathymetry in order to produce time-series and extract return periods
of storm surges worldwide (Lowe et al., 2010). While this has been car-
ried out regionally – for example by Haigh et al. (2013) for the
Australian coastline – an analysis on a global-scale has not yet been con-
over the coming decades, large increases in flood exposure can be con- ducted. This would be particularly beneficial for risk assessments in de-
trolled by effective local governance. This means that there is a clear role veloping countries, where most of the urbanization is expected to take
for local authorities to enforce land-use regulations and prevent urban place, yet, for which national data and observations of flood levels are
development in flood-prone areas. We demonstrate how probabilistic often non-existent.
urban projection can be used to explore the effectiveness of spatial plan- Second, our analysis applies a global DEM derived from the SRTM
ning for different levels of enforcement. Results show that spatial plan- mission. Over the entire world, the SRTM has a vertical error in the
ning can be a highly effective strategy, particularly in rapidly urbanizing range of ∼ 7 m (Rodríguez et al., 2006). Since the STRM is surface
areas. Furthermore, higher levels of enforcement reduce the uncertainty model, the elevation are often underestimation due to land cover
of where urban expansion is to take place by confining urban expansion (e.g., forest or built environment), which will lead to an underestima-
in a relatively smaller area. tion of flood extent (Baugh et al., 2013), particularly in a tropical region
We emphasize that while the probabilistic urban projections quanti- like Indonesia. Also the horizontal resolution of the used DEM
fy the uncertainty associated with economic and population growth, as (1 × 1 km2) is hampering an accurate modeling of floods as it is not of
well where urban expansion is to take place, we cannot account for all sufficient detail to resolve all terrain features that control flooding

Fig. 7. Cumulative probability density functions showing the effect of spatial planning for three different levels of enforcement for the year 2030. For the sake of clarity, we have chosen not
to show the results for all RCPs, but only for RCP6.0. (A) River flood risk for the mean ensemble of all GCMs for RCP6.0. Dashed lines show the individual curves for individual GCMs;
(B) Coastal floods under mean SLR.
 S. Muis et al. / Science of the Total Environment 538 (2015) 445–457
(Schumann et al., 2014). To conclude, the uncertainty of global elevation
data is large, which will have a large influence on both our river flood in-
undation modeling using GLOFRIS and particularly on the coastal flood
inundation modeling applying a planar approach.
Third, the analysis could be improved by the use of regional projec-
tions of climate change. Climate projections based on GCMs, as used in
this paper, involve large uncertainties. Developing regional climate pro-
jections could lead to a better understanding of future changes in cli-
mate, and hence runoff. The same applies for SLR projections: since
regional projections of SLR are not available for Indonesia, we applied
the global mean SLR projection from the IPCC (2013). However, SLR is
not uniform across the globe and according to Han et al. (2010)
Indonesia may experience significantly more SLR than the global mean.
Fourth, while land subsidence is a major driver of flood risk in many
parts of the world (Syvitski et al., 2009), including highly populated
coastal areas in Indonesia (Abidin et al., 2011; Chaussard et al., 2013),
we do not consider this process. Estimates for subsidence rates are avail-
able only for a few locations in Indonesia; moreover, the estimation of
future projections of subsidence on a national-scale is complex and in-
volves large uncertainties. We stress that global- to national-scale
flood risk assessments would benefit from the quantification of subsi-
dence rates for large regions, for example, based on satellite radar inter-
ferometry (e.g. Erban et al., 2014).
Fifth, there are limitations in the urban damage assessment. The as-
sumption that differences in economic exposure are proportional to dif-
ferences in GDP per capita does not fully capture regional differences in
damages (Jongman et al., 2012). It accounts for the fact that higher
values for economic exposure are more likely to be encountered in
areas with a higher GDP per capita; however, this results in high eco-
nomic exposure for provinces that have a low population density and
a high regional GDP due to oil production, such as East Kalimantan
(Fig. 3). In addition, the density of buildings within areas classified as
urban may differ greatly (Jongman et al., 2014b). The urban projections
are based on the two prime drivers, population and economic growth.
Note that the informal sector is not included in the official GDP esti-
mates, but could constitute a considerable share of the overall economic
growth in Indonesia. In addition, the forecasts of GDP growth differenti-
ated by economic sector may provide more accurate forecasts of urban
expansion. There are also several other factors that could significantly
influence urban expansion, such as agricultural productivity, land-use
policies, and changes in transportation infrastructure (Güneralp and
Seto, 2013; Seto et al., 2012).
Finally, despite a growing understanding that all risk components
dynamically interact through time (e.g. Meyer et al., 2013; Visser
et al., 2014), there is still limited knowledge on how to incorporate
this in risk modeling. The link between the different risk components
could be improved in several ways. For example, although vulnerability
may change over time (Jongman et al., 2015) we do not consider such
changes as no future projections of vulnerability exist. Also, the dynamic
link between land-use change and hydrological change should be in-
cluded as, for instance, the extension of urban areas may result in
more frequent river flooding due to higher runoff coefficients. In addi-
tion, there is rapid deforestation in Indonesia, which may amplify future
river flood risk (Bradshaw et al., 2007). Lastly, we consider coastal and
river floods independent of each other. Several recent studies have
pointed to the importance of including interactions between the two
(e.g. Klerk et al., 2015; Svensson and Jones, 2004).
4. Conclusions
We present an approach that utilizes the recent advances in the
global modeling of flood hazards and land change. The approach is
based on global data, combines climate change projections with proba-
bilistic projections of urban expansion, and includes adaptation strate-
gies. This makes it possible to assess future trends in national-scale
flood risk in data-scarce developing countries such as Indonesia,
455
which we used as our case study. Moreover, by using probabilistic pro-
jections, we are able quantify the uncertainties associated with the
drivers of future risk and adaptation. We find that, by 2030, urban ex-
pansion is the main driver of increasing flood risk (changes range
from +125 to +215% for river floods and from +348 and +554% for
coastal floods), particularly on Java and along the coasts. Whereas SLR
will exacerbate this upward risk trend (changes from SLR alone range
from +8 to +17%), the impact of climate change on river floods is high-
ly uncertain (changes from climate change alone range from − 37 to
+91%). However, the increases in exposure are so large that even if cli-
mate change were to reduce the severity of river floods, the overall im-
pact will still be an increase in flood risk. Hence, the implementation of
effective risk-reducing measures remains urgent, regardless of the un-
certainty in climate change projections. Under the scenarios used the
potential risk reduction ranges from 22–85% and 53–95%, which
shows that spatial planning and enhancing flood protection can be
highly effective strategies. Spatial planning is more effective for river
floods than for coastal floods (because urban expansion is more rapid
in the coastal zone) and uncertainties in flood risk reduce with stronger
levels of enforcement.
Acknowledgments
The research leading to these results has received funding from the
European research project RISES-AM (grant agreement no. 603396).
This research has also been partly funded by the Dutch research pro-
gram Knowledge for Climate and Delta Alliance research project
HSINT02a (Jakarta Climate Adaptation Tools). P.J.W. received
additional funding from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific
Research (NWO) in the form of a VENI grant (grant no. 863-11-011).
We thank Gil Pontius for providing the source code for the land
change model, GEOMOD, and the Texas A&M Supercomputing Facility
for providing computational resources that have been used for the
urban simulation.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.08.068.
References
Abidin, H.Z., Andreas, H., Gumilar, I., Fukuda, Y., Pohan, Y.E., Deguchi, T., 2011. Land sub-
sidence of Jakarta (Indonesia) and its relation with urban development. Nat. Hazards
59 (3), 1753–1771. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-9866-9.
Aerts, J.C.J.H., Botzen, W., Emanuel, K., Lin, N., de Moel, H., 2014. Evaluating flood resil-
ience strategies for coastal megacities. Science 344, 473–475. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1126/science.1248222.
Alho, J.M., 1997. Scenarios, uncertainty and conditional forecasts of the world population.
J. R. Stat. Soc. A Stat. Soc. 160 (1), 71–85 (Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pubmed/12292503).
Angel, S., Parent, J., Civco, D.L., Blei, A., Potere, D., 2011. The dimensions of global urban
expansion: estimates and projections for all countries, 2000–2050. Prog. Plan. 75
(2), 53–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2011.04.001.
Apel, H., Merz, B., Thieken, A.H., 2008. Quantification of uncertainties in flood risk assess-
ments. Int. J. River Basin Manag. 6 (2), 149–162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15715124.
2008.9635344.
Arnell, N.W., Lloyd-Hughes, B., 2014. The global-scale impacts of climate change on water
resources and flooding under new climate and socio-economic scenarios. Clim.
Chang. 122 (1–2), 127–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0948-4.
Baugh, C.A., Bates, P.D., Schumann, G., Trigg, M.A., 2013. SRTM Vegetation Removal and
Hydrodynamic Modeling Accuracy. Water Resour. Res. 49 (9), 5276–5289. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20412.
Bierkens, M.F.P., van Beek, R.L.P., 2009. Seasonal predictability of European discharge:
NAO and hydrological response time. J. Hydrometeorol. 10 (4), 953–968. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1175/2009JHM1034.1.
Bouwer, L.M., 2011. Have disaster losses increased due to anthropogenic climate change?
Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 92 (1), 39–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2010BAMS3092.1.
Bouwer, L.M., 2013. Projections of future extreme weather losses under changes in cli-
mate and exposure. Risk Anal. 33 (5), 915–930. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-
6924.2012.01880.x.
Bouwer, L.M., Crompton, R.P., Faust, E., Höppe, P., Pielke Jr., R.A., 2007. Confronting disas-
ter losses. Science 318 (5851), 753. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1149628.
456 S. Muis et al. / Science of the Total Environment 538 (2015) 445–457
BPS, 2013. Trends of selected socio-economic indicators of Indonesia. Baruna Surindo
Perkasa — National Statistical Agency, Jakarta (Retrieved from http://www.bps.go.
id/aboutus.php?booklet=1).
Bradshaw, C.J.A., Sodhi, N.S., Peh, K.S.-H., Brook, B.W., 2007. Global evidence that defores-
tation amplifies flood risk and severity in the developing world. Glob. Chang. Biol. 13
(11), 2379–2395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01446.x.
Brown, S., Nicholls, R.J., Hanson, S., Brundrit, G., Dearing, J.A., Dickson, M.E., ... Woodroffe,
C.D., 2014. Shifting perspectives on coastal impacts and adaptation. Nat. Clim. Chang.
4 (9), 752–755. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2344.
Bubeck, P., De Moel, H., Bouwer, L.M., Aerts, J.C.J.H., 2011. How reliable are projections of
future flood damage? Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 11 (12), 3293–3306. http://dx.doi.
org/10.5194/nhess-11-3293-2011.
Budiyono, Y., Aerts, J.C.J.H., Brinkman, J.J., Marfai, M.A., Philip, W., Ward, P.J., 2014. Flood
risk assessment for delta mega-cities: a case study of Jakarta. Nat. Hazards http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1327-9.
Chaussard, E., Amelung, F., Abidin, H.Z., Hong, S.-H., 2013. Sinking cities in Indonesia:
ALOS PALSAR detects rapid subsidence due to groundwater and gas extraction. Re-
mote Sens. Environ. 128 (2013), 150–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2012.10.
015.
Cohen, B., 2004. Urban growth in developing countries: a review of current trends and a
caution regarding existing forecasts. World Dev. 32 (1), 23–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.worlddev.2003.04.008.
De Moel, H., Vliet, M., Aerts, J.C.J.H., 2013. Evaluating the effect of flood damage-reducing
measures: a case study of the unembanked area of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Reg.
Environ. Chang. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0420-z.
de Moel, H., Bouwer, L.M., Aerts, J.C.J.H., 2014. Uncertainty and sensitivity of flood risk cal-
culations for a dike ring in the south of the Netherlands. Sci. Total Environ. 473–474,
224–234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.12.015.
Dessai, S., Hulme, M., 2004. Does climate adaptation policy need probabilities? Clim. Pol.
4, 107–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2004.9685515.
Dunne, T., Leopold, L.B., 1978. Water in environmental planning. W. H. Freeman, San
Fransico, CA, p. 818.
EM-DAT, 2013. The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database Retrieved from, http://
www.emdat.be/ (on 20 Augustus 2014).
Erban, L.E., Gorelick, S.M., Zebker, H.A., 2014. Groundwater extraction, land subsidence,
and sea-level rise in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Environ. Res. Lett. 9 (8), 084010.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/8/084010.
Feyen, L., Dankers, R., Bódis, K., Salamon, P., Barredo, J.I., 2012. Fluvial flood risk in Europe
in present and future climates. Clim. Chang. 112, 47–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10584-011-0339-7.
Friedl, M.A., Sulla-Menashe, D., Tan, B., Schneider, A., Ramankutty, N., Sibley, A., Huang, X.,
2010. MODIS collection 5 global land cover: algorithm refinements and characteriza-
tion of new datasets. Remote Sens. Environ. 114 (1), 168–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.rse.2009.08.016.
Gumbel, E.J., 1941. The Return Period of Flood Flows. The Annals of Mathematical Statis-
tics 12 (2), 163–190. http://www.jstor.org/stable/223.
Güneralp, B., Seto, K.C., 2013. Futures of global urban expansion: uncertainties and impli-
cations for biodiversity conservation. Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (1), 014025. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014025.
Güneralp, B., Güneralp, İ., Liu, Y., 2015. Changing global patterns of urban exposure to
flood and drought hazards. Glob. Environ. Chang. 31, 217–225. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.01.002.
Haigh, I.D., MacPherson, L.R., Mason, M.S., Wijeratne, E.M.S., Pattiaratchi, C.B., Crompton,
R.P., George, S., 2013. Estimating present day extreme water level exceedance prob-
abilities around the coastline of Australia: tropical cyclone-induced storm surges.
Clim. Dyn. 42 (1–2), 139–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00382-012-1653-0.
Hall, J.W., 2007. Probabilistic climate scenarios may misrepresent uncertainty and lead to
bad adaptation decisions. Hydrol. Process. 21, 1127–1129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
hyp.6573.
Hallegatte, S., Green, C., Nicholls, R.J., Corfee-Morlot, J., 2013. Future flood losses in
major coastal cities. Nat. Clim. Chang. 3 (9), 802–806. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1038/nclimate1979.
Han, W., Meehl, G.A., Rajagopalan, B., Fasullo, J.T., Hu, A., Lin, J., ... Yeager, S., 2010. Patterns
of Indian Ocean sea-level change in a warming climate. Nat. Geosci. 3 (8), 546–550.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo901.
Hanson, S., Nicholls, R.J., Ranger, N., Hallegatte, S., Corfee-Morlot, J., Herweijer, C., Chateau,
J., 2010. A global ranking of port cities with high exposure to climate extremes. Clim.
Chang. 104 (1), 89–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9977-4.
Hempel, S., Frieler, K., Warszawski, L., Schewe, J., Piontek, F., 2013. A trend-preserving bias
correction — the ISI-MIP approach. Earth Syst. Dyn. 4 (2), 219–236. http://dx.doi.org/
10.5194/esd-4-219-2013.
Hinkel, J., Klein, R.J.T., 2009. Integrating knowledge to assess coastal vulnerability to sea-
level rise: the development of the DIVA tool. Glob. Environ. Chang. 19 (3), 384–395.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.03.002.
Hinkel, J., Lincke, D., Vafeidis, A.T., Perrette, M., Nicholls, R.J., Tol, R.S.J., Marzeiong, B.,
Fettweish, X., Ionescus, C., Levermann, A., 2014. Coastal flood damage and adaptation
costs under 21st century sea-level rise. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1073/pnas.1222469111.
Hirabayashi, Y., Mahendran, R., Koirala, S., Konoshima, L., Yamazaki, D., Watanabe, S., ...
Kanae, S., 2013. Global flood risk under climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 3 (9),
816–821. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1911.
Huizinga, H.J., 2007. Flood damage functions for EU member states. Technical report by
HKV Consultants and Joint Research Centre of the European Commission.
IPCC, 2012. In: Field, C.B., Barros, V., Stocker, T.F., Dahe, Q., Qin, D., Dokken, D.J., …,
Midgley, P.M. (Eds.), Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance
Climate Change Adaptation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 582 http://dx.
doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139177245.
IPCC, 2013. Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. In: Stocker, T.F., Qin, D.,
Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.K., Boschung, J., …, Midgley, P.M. (Eds.), Contribu-
tion of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
and New York, NY, USA.
Jha, A.K., Bloch, R., Lamond, J., 2012. Cities and flooding: a guide to integrated urban flood
risk management for the 21st century. World Bank (URL: https://openknowledge.
worldbank.org/handle/10986/2241).
Jongman, B., Ward, P.J., Aerts, J.C.J.H., 2012. Global exposure to river and coastal flooding:
long term trends and changes. Glob. Environ. Chang. 22 (4), 823–835. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.004.
Jongman, B., Hochrainer-Stigler, S., Feyen, L., Aerts, J.C.J.H., Mechler, R., Botzen, W.,
Bouwer, L.M., Pflug, G., Rojas, R., Ward, P.J., 2014a. Increasing stress on disaster-risk
finance due to large floods. Nat. Clim. Chang. 1–5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
NCLIMATE2124.
Jongman, B., Koks, E.E., Husby, T.G., Ward, P.J., 2014b. Financing increasing flood risk: ev-
idence from millions of buildings. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2 (1), 137–165. http://
dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhessd-2-137-2014.
Jongman, B., Winsemius, H.C., Aerts, J.C.J.H., Coughlan de Perez, E., van Aalst, M., Kron, W.,
Ward, P.J., 2015. Declining vulnerability to river floods and the global benefits of ad-
aptation (PhD thesis), Jongman B. (2015). Unravelling the drivers of flood risk across
spatial scales. VU University Amsterdam (Chapter 6, 194 pp.).
Kreibich, H., Piroth, K., Seifert, I., Maiwald, H., Kunert, U., Schwarz, J., Merz, B.,
Thieken, a.H., 2009. Is flow velocity a significant parameter in flood damage
modelling? Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 9, 1679–1692. http://dx.doi.org/10.
5194/nhess-9-1679-2009.
Kim, Y., Chung, E.S., 2014. An index-based robust decision making framework for water-
shed management in a changing climate. Sci. Total Environ. 473–474, 88–102. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.12.002.
Klein Goldewijk, K., Beusen, A., Van Drecht, G., De Vos, M., 2011. The HYDE 3.1 spatially
explicit database of human-induced global land-use change over the past
12,000 years. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 20 (1), 73–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-
8238.2010.00587.x.
Klerk, W.J., Winsemius, H.C., van Verseveld, W.J., Bakker, A.M.R., Diermanse, F.L.M., 2015.
The co-incidence of storm surges and extreme discharges within the Rhine–Meuse
Delta. Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (3). http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/035005
(IOP Publishing: 035005).
Koks, E.E., De Moel, H., Aerts, J.C.J.H., Bouwer, L.M., 2013. Effect of spatial adaptation mea-
sures on flood risk: study of coastal floods in Belgium. Reg. Environ. Chang. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0514-7.
Lasage, R., Veldkamp, T.I.E., De Moel, H., Van, T.C., Phi, H.L., Vellinga, P., Aerts, J.C.J.H.,
2014. Assessment of the effectiveness of participatory developed adaptation
strategies for HCMC. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2 (1), 385–425. http://dx.doi.
org/10.5194/nhessd-2-385-2014.
Lehner, B., Verdin, K., Jarvis, A., 2008. New global hydrography derived from spaceborne
elevation data. Eos 89 (10), 93–104.
Lowe, J.A., Woodworth, P.L., Knutson, T., Mcdonald, R.E., McInnes, K.L., Von Storch, H., ...
Weisse, R., 2010. Past and future changes and waves. In: Church, J.A., Woodworth,
P.L., Aarup, T., Wilson, W.S. (Eds.), Understanding Sea-Level Rise and Variability, 1st
edition Blackwell Publishing Ltd., pp. 326–375.
Marfai, M.A., King, L., 2007. Potential vulnerability implications of coastal inundation due
to sea level rise for the coastal zone of Semarang city, Indonesia. Environ. Geol. 54 (6),
1235–1245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00254-007-0906-4.
Mechler, R., Bouwer, L.M., 2014. Understanding trends and projections of disaster losses
and climate change: is vulnerability the missing link? Clim. Chang. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s10584-014-1141-0.
Menéndez, M., Woodworth, P.L., 2010. Changes in extreme high water levels based on a
quasi-global tide-gauge data set. J. Geophys. Res. 115 (C10011). http://dx.doi.org/10.
1029/2009JC005997.
Merz, B., Thieken, A.H., 2009. Flood risk curves and uncertainty bounds. Nat. Hazards 51,
437–458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-009-9452-6.
Merz, B., Kreibich, H., Schwarze, R., Thieken, A.H., 2010. Review article “Assessment of
economic flood damage.”. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 10 (8), 1697–1724. http://
dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-10-1697-2010.
Meyer, V., Becker, N., Markantonis, V., Schwarze, R., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., Bouwer, L.M.,
... Viavattene, C., 2013. Review article: assessing the costs of natural hazards — state of
the art and knowledge gaps. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 13 (5), 1351–1373. http://
dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-13-1351-2013.
Moss, R.H., Edmonds, J.A., Hibbard, K.A., Manning, M.R., Rose, S.K., van Vuuren, D.P., ...
Wilbanks, T.J., 2010. The next generation of scenarios for climate change research
and assessment. Nature 463 (7282), 747–756. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
nature08823.
Nakicenovic, N., Alcamo, J., Davis, G., de Vries, B., Fenhann, J., Gaffin, S., Dadi, Z., 2000. spe-
cial report on emissions scenarios: a special report of the Working Group III of the In-
tergovernmental Panel on climate change. Cambirdge University Press, Cambridge,
p. 599 (Retrieved from http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/index.htm on 20
November 2013).
Nelson, E., Sander, H., Hawthorne, P., Conte, M., Ennaanay, D., Wolny, S., Manson, S.,
Polasky, S., 2010. Projecting global land-use change and its effect on ecosystem ser-
vice provision and biodiversity with simple models. PLoS One 5 (12), e14327.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014327.
New, M., Lopez, A., Dessai, S., Wilby, R.L., 2007. Challenges in using probabilistic climate
change information for impact assessments: an example from the water sector.
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 365 (1857), 2117–2131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2007.
2080.
 S. Muis et al. / Science of the Total Environment 538 (2015) 445–457
Nicholls, R.J., Cazenave, A., 2010. Sea-level rise and its impact on coastal zones. Science
328 (5985), 1517–1520. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1185782.
Nicholls, R.J., Marinova, N., Lowe, J.A., Brown, S., Vellinga, P., de Gusmão, D., ... Tol, R.S.J.,
2011. Sea-level rise and its possible impacts given a “beyond 4 °C world” in the
twenty-first century. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 369 (1934), 161–181. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1098/rsta.2010.0291.
NRC, 2000. Beyond six billion: forecasting the world's population. National Research
Council, Washington D.C., United Sates of America, p. 236.
Penning-Rowsell, E.C., Yanyan, W., Watkinson, A.R., Jiang, J., Thorne, C.R., 2013. Socioeco-
nomic scenarios and flood damage assessment methodologies for the Taihu Basin,
China. J. Flood Risk Manag. 6 (1), 23–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-318X.
2012.01168.x.
Pittock, A.B., Jones, R.N., Mitchell, C.D., 2001. Probabilities will help us plan for climate
change. Nature 413, 249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35095196.
Pontius, R.G., Boersma, W., Castella, J.-C., Clarke, K., Nijs, T., Dietzel, C., ... Verburg, P.H.,
2008. Comparing the input, output, and validation maps for several models of land
change. Ann. Reg. Sci. 42 (1), 11–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00168-007-0138-2.
Poussin, J.K., Bubeck, P., Aerts, J.C.J.H., Ward, P.J., 2012. Potential of semi-structural and non-
structural adaptation strategies to reduce future flood risk: case study for the Meuse.
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 12 (11), 3455–3471. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-12-
3455-2012.
Pritchett, L., 2000. Understanding patterns of economic growth: searching for hills among
plateaus, mountains, and plains. World Bank Econ. Rev. 14 (2), 221–250. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1093/wber/14.2.221.
Purvis, M.J., Bates, P.D., Hayes, C.M., 2008. A probabilistic methodology to estimate future
coastal flood risk due to sea level rise. Coast. Eng. 55 (12), 1062–1073. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2008.04.008.
Rodríguez, E., Morris, C.S., Belz, J.E., 2006. A Global Assessment of the SRTM Performance.
Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 3 (12), 249–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.14358/PERS.
72.3.249.
Sagala, S., Lassa, J., Yasaditama, H., Hudalah, D., 2013. The evolution of risk and vulnerabil-
ity in Greater Jakarta: contesting government policy in dealing with a megacity's ex-
posure to flooding. An academic response to Jakarta Floods in January 2013 (No. 2).
IRGSC Working Paper No. 2, Kupang, Indonesia, p. 18 (Retrieved from http://irgsc.
org/pubs/wp/IRGSCWP002jakartaflood.pdf on 10 September 2014).
Schneider, S.H., 2001. What is “dangerous” climate change? Nature 411, 17–19. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1038/35075167.
Schneider, S.H., 2002. Can we estimate the likelihood of climatic changes at 2100? An Ed-
itorial Comment. Clim. Chang. 52, 423–425.
Schneider, A., Friedl, M.A., Potere, D., 2009. A new map of global urban extent from MODIS
satellite data. Environ. Res. Lett. 4 (4). http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/
044003.
Schumann, G.J.P., Bates, P.D., Neal, J., Andreadis, K.M., 2014. Fight Floods on a Global Scale.
Nature 507 (7491), 169.
Seto, K.C., Fragkias, M., Güneralp, B., Reilly, M.K., 2011. A meta-analysis of global urban
land expansion. PLoS One 6 (8), e23777. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
0023777.
Seto, K.C., Güneralp, B., Hutyra, L.R., 2012. Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and
direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 109 (40),
16083–16088. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211658109.
Smith, D.I., 1994. Flood damage estimation — a review of urban stage-damage curves and
loss functions. Water SA 20, 2310238.
Storch, H., Downes, N.K., 2011. A scenario-based approach to assess Ho Chi Minh City's
urban development strategies against the impact of climate change. Cities 28 (6),
517–526. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2011.07.002.
Svensson, C., Jones, D.A., 2004. Dependence between sea surge, river flow and precipita-
tion in south and west Britain. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 8 (5), 973–992.
Syvitski, J.P.M., Kettner, A.J., Overeem, I., Hutton, E.W.H., Hannon, M.T., Brakenridge, G.R.,
... Nicholls, R.J., 2009. Sinking deltas due to human activities. Nat. Geosci. 2 (10),
681–686. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo629.
Tachikawa, Y., James, R., Abdullah, K., Mohd., N., Desa, bin Mohd, 2004. Catalogue for riv-
ers in South East Asia and the Pacific – Volume 1. Acquired via http://
flood.dpri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ihp_rsc/riverCatalogue/Vol_05/. (Accessed on July, 24 2015).
Takeuchi, K., Jayawardena, A.W., Takahasi, W., 1995. Catalogue for rivers in South East
Asia and the Pacific – Volume 1. Acquired via http://flood.dpri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ihp_
rsc/riverCatalogue/Vol_01/ (Accessed on July, 24 2015).
457
Te Linde, A.H., Bubeck, P., Dekkers, J.E.C., de Moel, H., Aerts, J.C.J.H., 2011. Future flood risk
estimates along the river Rhine. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 11 (2), 459–473. http://
dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-11-459-2011.
Thieken, A.H., Cammerer, H., Dobler, C., Lammel, J., Schöberl, F., 2014. Estimating changes
in flood risks and benefits of non-structural adaptation strategies — a case study from
Tyrol, Austria. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11027-
014-9602-3.
UN, 2012. World urbanization prospects: the 2011 revision. Population Division of the
Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, New
York.
UN, 2013. World population prospects: the 2012 revision. Population Division of the De-
partment of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, New York.
UN, 2014. World urbanization prospects: the 2013 revision. Population Division of the
Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, New
York.
UNISDR, 2011. Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction. Revealing Risk,
Redefining Development (Geneva).
Vafeidis, A.T., Nicholls, R.J., McFadden, L., Tol, R.S.J., Hinkel, J., Spencer, T., ... Klein, R.J.T.,
2008. A new global coastal database for impact and vulnerability analysis to sea-
level rise. J. Coast. Res. 244, 917–924. http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/06-0725.1.
Van Beek, R.L.P., Bierkens, M.F.P., 2008. The global hydrological model PCR-GLOBWB: con-
ceptualization, parameterization and verification. Department of Physical Geography,
Faculty of Earth Sciences, Utrecht University, p. 53 (Utrecht, The Netherlands. Re-
trieved from http://vanbeek.geo.uu.nl/suppinfo/vanbeekbierkens2009.pdf on 13 No-
vember 2013).
Van Beek, L.P.H., Bierkens, M.F.P., 2009. The Global Hydrological Model PCR-GLOBWB:
Conceptualization. Parameterization and Verification (Utrecht: Utrecht University)
available online at http://vanbeek.geo.uu.nl/suppinfo/vanbeekbierkens2009.pdf.
Visser, H., Petersen, A.C., Ligtvoet, W., 2014. On the relation between weather-related di-
saster impacts, vulnerability and climate change. Clim. Chang. 125, 461–477. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1179-z.
Ward, P.J., Marfai, M.A., Yulianto, E., Hizbaron, D.R., Aerts, J.C.J.H., 2010. Coastal inundation
and damage exposure estimation: a case study for Jakarta. Nat. Hazards 56 (3),
899–916. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-010-9599-1.
Ward, P.J., De Moel, H., Aerts, J.C.J.H., 2011. How are flood risk estimates affected by the
choice of return-periods? Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 11 (12), 3181–3195. http://
dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-11-3181-2011.
Ward, P.J., van Pelt, S.C., de Keizer, O., Aerts, J.C.J.H., Beersma, J.J., van den Hurk, B.J.J.M., te
Linde, A.H., 2013a. Including climate change projections in probabilistic flood risk as-
sessment. J. Flood Risk Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12029 (2006, n/a–n/a).
Ward, P.J., Jongman, B., Sperna Weiland, F.C., Bouwman, A., van Beek, R.L.P., Bierkens,
M.F.P., ... Winsemius, H.C., 2013b. Assessing flood risk at the global scale: model
setup, results, and sensitivity. Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (4), 044019. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1088/1748-9326/8/4/044019.
Ward, P.J., Jongman, B., Kummu, M., Dettinger, M.D., Sperna Weiland, F.C., Winsemius,
H.C., 2014. Strong influence of El Niño Southern Oscillation on flood risk around the
world. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. Early Ed. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.
1409822111.
Webster, M., Sokolov, A.P., Reilly, J.M., Forest, C.E., Paltsev, S., Schlosser, A., Wang, C.,
Kickligher, D., Sarofim, M., Melillo, J., Prinn, R.G., Jacoby, H.D., 2012. Analysis of cli-
mate policy targets under uncertainty. Clim. Chang. 112, 569–583. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s10584-011-0260-0.
Weedon, G.P., Gomes, S., Viterbo, P., Shuttleworth, W.J., Blyth, E., Österle, H., ... Best, M.,
2011. Creation of the WATCH forcing data and its use to assess global and regional
reference crop evaporation over land during the twentieth century.
J. Hydrometeorol. 12 (5), 823–848. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2011JHM1369.1.
Winsemius, H.C., van Beek, R.L.P., Jongman, B., Ward, P.J., Bouwman, A., 2013. A frame-
work for global river flood risk assessments. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 17 (5),
1871–1892. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-1871-2013.
World Bank, 2014. World development indicators Retrieved January 15, 2014, from
http://databank.worldbank.org/.