Assessment of Flood Control & Manageemnt Options WCD

WCD Thematic Reviews
Options Assessment: IV.4
Assessment of Flood Control and

Management Options
Final Draft: 19 June 2000
Prepared for the WCD by:
C.H. Green, D.J. Parker, S.M. Tunstall

Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University
With contributions from:
Luis Berga
World Commission on Dams Secretariat

P.O. Box 16002, Vlaeberg, Cape Town 8018, South Africa
Phone: 27 21 426 4000 Fax: 27 21 426 0036.
Website: http://www.dams.org E-mail: info@dams.org
This is a working paper prepared for the World Commission on Dams as part of its information gathering
activities. The views, conclusions, and recommendations contained in the working paper are not to be taken to
represent the views of the Commission
World Commission on Dams
Assessment of Flood Control and Management Options i
Disclaimer
This is a working paper of the World Commission on Dams - the report published herein was
prepared for the Commission as part of its information gathering activity. The views, conclusions,
and recommendations are not intended to represent the views of the Commission. The Commission's
views, conclusions, and recommendations will be set forth in the Commission's own report.

5th Floor, Hycastle House
58 Loop Street
PO Box 16002
Vlaeberg, Cape Town
8018, SOUTH AFRICA
Telephone: +27 21 426 4000
Fax: +27 21 426 0036
Email: info@dams.org
http://www.dams.org
Executive Summary
This is a working paper prepared for the World Commission on Dams as part of its information gathering activities. The
views, conclusions, and recommendations contained in the working paper are not to be taken to represent the views of the Commission
Assessment of Flood Control and Management Options ii
General principles
This report is about managing floods and how to identify the appropriate flood management strategy
for local conditions. It is not analysis of the flood management role of dams in isolation but on how
to choose the most appropriate flood management strategy in the particular local conditions. What is
the most appropriate strategy will vary according to the nature of the flood and other local conditions.
The recommended approach is necessarily comparative: the only way to identify the potential role of
dams in flood management is in the context of the appropriate role of all other flood management
options. Moreover, the most appropriate local flood management strategy will often consist of a
combination of measures one of which may or may not be a dam. The most appropriate management
strategy will frequently involve a mix of measures.
The required logical approach is to begin by analysing the nature of the flood problem in the area,
identify the available options, compare these in terms of their contribution to the society’s objectives,
and finally to select the best available option. A second key principle in this report is the need for an
appropriate strategy for the local problem; floods differ very widely in their nature and so do the
characteristics of the floodplains affected. What is an appropriate flood management strategy in the
context of one catchment will not be so in another catchment. In particular, a problem for the
developing countries has been the parochialism of the approaches proposed as the solution of those
countries’ problems. There has been a tendency to propose that the approaches adopted for the
Rhine, Mississippi or the Thames should be applied to the Yangtze or Bramaputra although
conditions are quite different in the five countries.
Consequently, it is not possible to argue for or against dams in principle but it is possible to argue
that there is a better option in a particular local context. What a society means by ‘better’ is then a
critical question, and one that has often been addressed too narrowly in the past. It is also one that
can be only answered comparatively in terms of the available options. However, in the appropriate
circumstances, dams have proved to be highly effective means of reducing flood losses: whether they
are the most appropriate solution in local conditions then depends on the available alternatives.
Thirdly, a significant proportion of the failures of the past fifty years in water management have been
institutional, and the physical solutions adopted have frequently required institutional systems to
support them that have not been sustainable. Thus, the failure of those physical systems has
frequently been a consequence of the failure of the supporting institutional system. At present, we
would seem to be somewhat, but only somewhat, better at designing physical systems than
institutional ones.
Catchment management
A catchment based perspective must be taken that includes flood hazard management along with the
other aspects of water and land management. Such an approach takes account of the
interdependencies between functions, across geographical areas and between the use of both land and
water. In most aspects of water management, runoff is the resource; in the case of floods, runoff is
the problem. Thus, floods are to a greater or lesser extent an externality of land use where the area
generating the runoff can be hundreds of kilometers away from the area being flooded, and frequently
is in another country. In addition, the pattern of variation in the availability of runoff is often
inconsistent with the pattern of human use; for water resources, the problem is then of concentrating
runoff in time and space in order to satisfy the pattern of human use. Conversely, flooding is the
obverse problem: runoff is too concentrated in time and space. Some parts of the world therefore
suffer both problems: both flooding and an insufficiency of water at other times of the year.
Assessment of Flood Control and Management Options iii
In the case of flooding, the appropriate economic objective is to maximise the efficiency of use of the
catchment and not to minimise flood losses. Trends in national flood losses need not provide any
guide to the success or failure of the national flood hazard management strategy adopted: it can be
readily shown that efficient flood hazard management policy can be accompanied by a rise in both
flood losses and the costs of flood management. Taking such a catchment based approach means that
terms such as ‘floodplain encroachment’ are very misleading. The two questions that should be
asked are: should the intensification of development on this particular area of floodplain be
encouraged? and, if so, what form of flood management strategy should be adopted in this area? The
environmental damage caused by developing other parts of the catchment instead of the floodplain
may be greater.
Floodplains
Floodplains have competitive advantages over other areas of land and therefore have always been
centres for human settlements. At the same time, the wetlands that develop in floodplains are
amongst the most valuable ecological resources on the planet. Ecosystems always develop on the
basis of the prevailing water regime; modifying that water regime, which is the purpose of physical
flood mitigation measures, will necessarily cause damage the existing ecosystems. In many parts of
the world the floodplains have been heavily modified by past human intervention and here the
dominant ecosystems will depend upon the water regime that has resulted from that intervention.
Consequently, abandoning or changing those past patterns of human intervention will cause
environmental damage.
Rivers are dynamic, adaptive systems whose form varies as runoff and sediment loads vary over time.
Rivers are systems for transporting, depositing and eroding sediment as much as they are systems for
concentrating and transporting water. Interventions must recognise that rivers have these
characteristics. Trying to fix rivers to a stable form often fails and is usually expensive but in some
circumstances is necessary.
National differences
There are no universally appropriate solutions; the locally appropriate solution depends upon both the
nature of the country and of the flood problem. The appropriate local flood hazard management
option is dependent upon:
• the nature of the local flood problem;
• whether there is already an alleviation scheme in place;
• the intensity of use of the floodplain; and
• the state of development of the country.
Therefore, there are no ‘off the shelf’ management strategies which invariably more appropriate than
others; the strategy that is appropriate for one catchment can be totally inappropriate for another
catchment. The nature of the flood problem can differ widely, particularly between those in ‘flashy’,
small and steep catchments, and those on mature river floodplains.
Important variables in differentiating between countries (and between provinces within a country)
include: the availability of arable land per capita; the degree of urbanisation; population density; and
the intensity of economic activity per unit area. Countries or regions will have more flood
management options when: they have more than about 0.15 hectare of arable land per capita; they are
highly urbanised (e.g. 70% of the population live in urban areas and have low population densities on
average (e.g. less than 100 people per km2); and they have low intensities of economic activity for
Assessment of Flood Control and Management Options iv
their stage of development. Flood management in North Dakota with a population density of 2
people/km2 is trivially easy compared to flood management in countries such as Bangladesh and
China where population densities may exceed 600 people/km2.
Rather than simply transposing the approach to flood hazard management that is appropriate for one
country to another, the learning that we need to transfer is the learning about what made that
approach appropriate. Simply proposing to adopt the approach that is appropriate in one area to
another area is parochial at best and neo-colonialist at worst.
Both rivers and floods are cultural constructs; in highly adapted societies, the annual floods are
expected and welcomed although the extreme floods cause death and destruction. In different
cultures, rivers may be sacred spaces, valued for the environmental and resources they support, or
regarded as a waste of valuable land. These differences colour the way in which floods are managed.
Traditional/indigenous societies have developed adaptations to cope with flooding that offer useful
lessons; however, those adaptations are not usually capable of coping with extreme floods.
In general, in highly urbanised countries with industrial scale farming, once all direct and indirect
agricultural subsidies have been removed, it is unlikely that flood protection will be economically
justified in rural areas although land drainage may be.
Appraisal led design
Appraisal led design means starting with identifying the objectives and then continuing to assess the
identified options against these objectives throughout the iterative project cycle, rather than designing
the project first and then assessing the economic, environmental and distributional impacts of that
project afterwards.
It is necessary to both start with the questions of ‘what is the problem? What are our objectives’ and
keep asking these questions throughout the project life cycle. After fifteen years or so, the primary
objective has often been transmuted into ‘completing the project’ and, when the project is operating,
into meeting some bureaucratic criteria.
Decisions concerning flood management should always be appraisal led: a preliminary assessment of
the likely benefits and costs of identified options should always be made before detailed engineering
and hydrological studies are made. These assessments should be progressively refined as the design
process develops. The purpose of appraisal is to gain understanding as to what the decision involves
and to communicate this understanding to all those who have an interest in the decision. Therefore,
the appraisal process must be transparent and open to public involvement. It is the gain in
understanding that is important rather than any numbers that emerge from the analysis.
The principles of flood hazard management
Flooding should not be assumed to be the problem; the impact of the flood may be only a symptom of
a wider problem, that of the vulnerability of the population to a wide variety of threats. In these
cases, rather than simply introducing a flood alleviation strategy, it will be more useful to look at
ways of reducing the vulnerability of that population and to promote sustainable livelihoods. This
might, for example, include introducing soft credit and empowering the members of that society.
In developing a flood hazard management policy, it is essential to consider how all floods will be
managed and not just some (e.g. those up to some design standard of protection). This means that it
is necessary to design for failure: to consider both the flood conditions under which a particular
strategy will fail and the mode of failure, including how to respond to extreme events. Because all
strategies will fail under some conditions, it is more appropriate to talk in term of ‘flood alleviation’
Assessment of Flood Control and Management Options v
or ‘flood mitigation’ than of ‘flood protection’ or ‘flood control’. One consequence of this approach
is that a flood management strategy will typically involve a combination of different approaches
rather than reliance on a single one.
The ideal flood to manage is slow rising, with a long time to peak, as well as a low peak level.
Consequently, it is desirable to slow the rates at which, and proportions of, precipitation is converted
into runoff and then runoff is turned into river flow downstream. Storage, whether this storage be in
the soil or surface water storage, has a central role in controlling both conversions. Desynchronising
the peak flows from different tributaries is often an important part of flood management in order to
reduce the peak flow level on the main stem of the river; again, storage is an important means of
desynchronising peak tributary flows. With storage, control of the rate at which it is taken up and
then the rate at which the stored volume is released are important as well as the amount that is stored.
In all forms of storage, the antecedent conditions are important: if the soil has been saturated by
previous precipitation or surface water storage, natural or artificial, has been taken by the runoff by
earlier event precipitation events or the start of the individual event then it will have little effect in
mitigating the current flood.
It is also desirable to avoid discontinuities in the appropriate form of adaptation by those at risk e.g.
points at which a particular strategy of coping with flooding suddenly becomes a counter-productive
form of adaptation for a more extreme flood.
Slowing the time to peak is particularly important when flood warning lead times are short and the
risk to life is significant; both are problems on small, flashy, steep catchments. Compared to other
hazards, floods have a high probability of occurrence. In general, however, the conditional
probability of death should a flood occur is low as compared to other hazards. But, there are contexts
in which this conditional probability is high and it is essential in developing any flood hazard
management strategy to identify those conditions where there will be a high risk to life, and then to
identify a strategy to manage the risk in those areas affected.
For agriculture, it is more appropriate to think in terms of water level management than of flood
management: to maximise production, the moisture in the root zone must be within certain limits.
This may involve land drainage and/or irrigation, and often both at different times of the year. For
dryland farming, losses from floods are typically much less important than the losses from inadequate
land drainage and floods can, but do not always, provide benefits in the form of replenishing soil
fertility. Consequently, controlling soil water levels through drainage will normally be a high priority
than protecting against out of bank flows from watercourses.
The appraisal process
In making societal decisions, including whether a floodplain should be developed and the form of the
flood management policy to do adopt, we seek to try to take the ‘right’ decision. By ‘right’ decision,
we mean simultaneously both the correct and the just decision; we also mean both achieving the right
outcome and doing so by the right decision process. Different societies however differ in what they
take to be the overall goal of societal decision making. Thus, in Continental Europe it is common to
speak of ‘social’ or ‘national’ solidarity and Islamic societies take account of the duties owed to other
people and to other species. In the UK, it was usual to speak of identifying some over-arching
‘public’ or ‘national’ interest whilst in other countries the choice may be defined solely in terms of a
conflict of private interests. There is no ‘right’ answer but the ideological power of economics can
result in the neglect of the reality that there is more to life than economic efficiency.
The definition of sustainable development agreed at the Rio Conference specifies that two defining
conditions of the right process are the involvement of the public at all levels of decision making and
the recognition of the role of women. Some societies also characterise the aim of the decision
Assessment of Flood Control and Management Options vi
process to be to achieve a consensus whilst others define societal choices in a much more adversial
way.
In any event, decisions as to the flood hazard management policy to be adopted should be appraisal
led: the different available strategies should be compared against the societal objectives brought to
the choice, or, equivalently, in terms of their consequences.
The strategy identified through the appraisal process can be no better than the best of the options
compared. Therefore, it is critical that an adequate range of options be considered if the best option
is to be found amongst them. Whilst some rules have been proposed so as to increase the likelihood
that the best option is included amongst those considered, the most useful approach is to involve the
public early on in the identification of both important issues and possible options.
Choices are made between alternatives and appraisals are therefore necessarily comparative.
Consequently, the advantages and disadvantages of one option exist only relative to those of another
option. In turn, identifying the potential role of dams in flood hazard management requires
simultaneously identifying the potential roles of all other flood hazard management options. In
urbanised countries, where farming is industrialised, managed retreat and resettlement of those
currently living on the floodplain should normally be amongst the options considered.
Choice is also inherently about conflict; a choice only exists if the available options are mutually
exclusive and we can choose only one or another option. The reasons why the alternatives are
mutually exclusive vary and an important aspect of the appraisal process is to identify the nature of
the conflict that is involved.
Choices are also necessarily be made under uncertainty; because they lie in the future, the
consequences of all the options are shrouded in uncertainty. Uncertainty is the lack of differentiation
and can exist either or both between outcomes and/or the probabilities of each outcome. Decisions
under risk are those where we can differentiate between the probabilities and the outcomes associated
with each option; when we cannot differentiate between the probabilities attached to each option but
only between the outcomes, then we are making a decision under uncertainty. Other combinations
are possible and we are seldom so lucky as to be making a decision under risk.
However, the form of uncertainty that is important is decision uncertainty: uncertainty about what to
do. The state of being uncertain can then be defined as a state of rational doubt as to what to do. In a
real sense, there is therefore no decision to be made if we are certain what option is the best option:
we are uncertain either because of the complexity of the choice or because there is an inherent
conflict between the options. Outcome uncertainties must not be allowed to obscure decision
uncertainty and the latter can be easier to manage; it is only necessary to decide what is the best of
the options available, and not what precisely the future will be. It is dangerous to treat a decision
under uncertainty as simply being one under risk and it has been argued then when confronted with
uncertainty, or even less differentiated expectations about the future, an adaptive management
approach should be adopted. Rather than pretending that we can know the future, we should instead
approach all decisions as being part of a learning process, knowing that we will make mistakes and
must seek to learn from them. The adaptive management approach implies that we should have a
preference for options that involve resilient natural systems, forgiving artificial systems or enhance
the coping capacity of individuals and communities.
A number of different techniques exist to aid in the appraisal process (e.g. benefit-cost analysis,
multi-criteria analysis). The reason for using these approaches is to inform the decision process, to
clarify the nature of the choice that must be made. It is this understanding that is important,
particularly as to the nature of the conflicts involved in the choice. In order to promote this
understanding, the appraisal method needs to be transparent and all assumptions should be explicit.
None of the available techniques is without drawbacks and limitations.
Assessment of Flood Control and Management Options vii
Consideration should be given to incorporating environmental impacts into the decision process by
introducing the concepts of critical natural capital and constant natural assets as constraints. Critical
natural capital covers those environmental assets that are too important to be sacrificed except in the
most extreme circumstances. Constant natural assets are those where individual sites may be lost
provide that the total stock remains constant; an example of this approach is the ‘no net loss’ and
‘wetland banking’ policy adopted in the USA.
All physical interventions will have consequences both for the water and sediment regimes, and
therefore for the environment, because this is what they are intended to do. A by-product of
institutional changes may be, but not necessarily will be, environmental changes. All interventions
should be expected to have some impact on existing settlement patterns and result in some
resettlement.
Flood management options
Before a choice can be made, the nature of the flood hazard must be modelled. The simplest form of
model is a flood hazard map. On such maps should be indicated the critical characteristics of the
flood hazard, such as the depth and velocity of flooding, floodways and storage areas. Very
vulnerable areas of population should also be shown. Shading should be used throughout; lines
should never be used both because there will be major uncertainties and because a line implies a
significant difference between conditions on the two sides of the line. In particular, the map should
not be limited to the outline of the 100 year return period because to do so violates the principle that
all floods must be managed and not just some.
The flood management options available can be characterised as those that reduce the challenge and
those that enhance the capacity of individuals and society to cope with the flood. Usually, the most
appropriate management strategy will involve a combination of approaches. In modifying the
challenge presented by the flood, we are seeking to modify the flood so that it is the easiest type with
which to cope: slow rising, with a long time to peak, and with a low peak level.
The form of intervention can also be categorised into those that involve a physical intervention versus
those that involve an institutional change. In both cases, it is essential to consider how that
intervention will be maintained and how the necessary funds for maintenance will be generated. A
common cause of failure of both physical and institutional interventions is a lack of maintenance,
frequently as a result of lack of funds. In the case of physical interventions, the designer should
provide a maintenance schedule setting out the maintenance actions required, their frequency and
cost in the same way that a bill of quantities will be part of the contract documents. A similar
approach is also necessary for institutional strategies.
For physical interventions, there are major economies of scale for collective flood alleviation over
individual flood mitigation. Thus, for example, the costs of a dike to protect an area are a function of
the length of bank involved whilst the costs of flood proofing individual properties in that area are a
function of the number of properties in that area. Therefore, at some intensity of development a dike,
for example, will be more efficient than flood proofing. Similarly, there tend to be economies of
scale in the provision of physical structures: a large area of storage being lower in cost than a number
of small areas having the same total capacity.
Source control should normally be considered, particularly in urban areas. When considering
afforestation, its affects on water availability in general and not just on flood runoffs should be
considered. Native species should normally be used. In assessing the likely effectiveness of source
controls, pre-flood conditions (e.g. frozen or saturated ground) must be considered. Source control
can be considered as a form of storage in the soil or via the soil.
Assessment of Flood Control and Management Options viii
Surface water storage, by way of dams and detention basins, is most likely to be appropriate on
small, flashy catchments and in complex river systems where it is necessary to avoid the flood crests
from different tributaries coinciding. Control of both the rates of inflow to the storage and of the
outflow has significant advantages in that this avoids storage capacity being taken up by the rising
arm of the flood; storage is most usefully applied to remove the peak of the flood. Dams, in the
appropriate circumstances, can be a highly effective way of reducing downstream flood losses, and
particularly of capping the peak flows of the more extreme floods. Check dams have the added
advantage in some areas of enabling the recharge of groundwater although their primary role is
generally for erosion control. Detention basins can be similarly useful in lowland areas to cap the
peak of flow floods, as may be engineered wetlands.
Dikes are most likely to be appropriate for floodplains that are already intensely used, such as urban
areas and rural areas in countries that are not urbanised, and have a history of interventions to
promote flood alleviation. Storage and dikes can be a particularly useful combination of approaches,
with the storage being designed to control the more extreme flood flows.
Land use control: if intensified development on a particular floodplain is undesirable, then

providing incentives for development to be undertaken elsewhere will probably work better than
simply trying to stop development on the floodplain which may merely result in corruption. Where
land is under development pressure, especially from informal development, planning constraints are
unlikely to work.
Flood proofing or house raising are most likely to be appropriate where development intensities are
low and properties are scattered. The population should generally evacuate or be evacuated prior to
the flood and not attempt to sit out the flood in their dwelling.
Warning and evacuation depend for their success on prior emergency planning. An ‘all hazards’
emergency plan should be prepared and the emergency plan should treated as the development of a
network of individuals and organisations rather than as a document. Emergency planning is about
co-ordination and co-operation between institutions rather than a schedule of actions. Institutional
maintenance is essential if the management of a flood is to be effective; continuing rehearsals and co-
operation between the parties involved is a requirement of successful emergency planning.
Emergency plans are essential for areas lying behind dikes and below dams. It is necessary that the
information contained in them be disseminated to the public at risk and they should be based on
realistic expectations of how the public will behave in a flood.
Flood warnings are always necessary but dissemination takes time; in very flashy catchments in
particular it is unwise to rely upon the reliability of a formal flood warning system. There is a
necessary trade-off between warning lead time and forecast reliability; a reliable and effective
warning system is consequently difficult to achieve when warnings must be based on predicted
rainfall because the time between the rainfall and the flood is otherwise too short to disseminate a
warning. Unfortunately, these flash floods are amongst those that present the greatest risks to life.
Typically, investment is focused on improving the technologies required to improve flood forecasts;
however, the weakness of flood warning systems is usually found in the process of converting that
forecast into a warning and getting that warning to those who need it in time for it to be useful for
them. It is essential to start by finding out the user needs of those at risk and also of the different
organisations who will be involved in translating the forecast into a warning and then in
disseminating the warning.
Assessment of Flood Control and Management Options ix
Evacuation is essential where the buildings or other features do not provide a safe place of refuge
during a flood. Depending upon circumstances, evacuation may be upward (e.g. into a flood refuge)
or outward. Outward evacuation will generally be necessary where the depths of water are
significant (e.g. > 2 metres, flood velocities are high (> 2 metres/sec), or buildings are flimsy (e.g. not
masonry or concrete framed). For outward evacuation to be successful, it must be planned in advance
and the population concerned must know what to do in a flood emergency.
Different countries construe the nature of society in different ways. In most countries, it is usual for
government to provide some level of compensation to victims of disasters. Where this is done then
can be advantages to sub-contracting the assessment and distribution of compensation to the
insurance industry because of its expertise in this area.
Except in partnership with government, the insurance industry has treated floods as an uninsurable
risk. There are different possible forms of such a partnership and these can have the effect of
transferring some or all of the burden of compensation on to those who buy insurance. In general,
however, the government will always be the reinsurer of last resort and for that reason it is advisable
that the nature of this public-private partnership be formalised. In general, flood insurance is an
adjunct to a flood hazard management policy rather than being a tool for implementing such a policy.
The principle of managing the catchment as a whole means that multi-functional options are
becoming increasingly important. An artificial wetland can, for example, provide flood storage,
increase biodiversity and remove pollutants from the water.
Reducing the barriers to achieving sustainable flood management
Sustainable flood management strategies are those appropriate to local conditions, as determined
through public involvement, and ones that can be maintained. There are a number of barriers to be
overcome to achievement of this objective.
Since decisions are made and implemented by institutions, institutional design is critical to the
success of a flood hazard management policy. All institutions necessarily have geographical and
functional boundaries, not least to promote accountability. Because the scope for redefining
institutional boundaries is typically limited for historical, cultural or other reasons, it is essential to
establish ways of co-ordinating across boundaries.
There is an apparent tension between promoting public involvement which tends to imply the
devolution of decision making to the lowest possible level and holistic management of the catchment
which pulls towards a multi-functional institution that covers the entire catchment. To minimise
these problems, catchment management authorities should be responsible downwards rather than
upwards; they should have a board of directors made up of representatives from the organisations,
authorities and others living and using the catchment rather than being responsible solely to higher
levels of government.
Holistic management of the catchment will increasingly result in multi-functional options being
adopted. One boundary that can prove a major hindrance to achieving such holistic solutions is single
functional funding. Different institutions have funding restrictions that reflect their functional and
geographical boundaries; agreeing the funding of a multi-functional approach on a case by case basis
with the different institutions can be time consuming where it is possible at all. A general funding
protocol should be negotiated instead.
The different disciplines are one aspect of institutions. The nature of the discipline defines what it
does and equally what is expected of that discipline. Thus, when a specialist is appointed to examine
Assessment of Flood Control and Management Options x
a problem, society, by deeming that specialist’s discipline to be appropriate to the problem, has
implied the expected solution, or approach, to the problem. If engineers became engineers in order to
build things, society expects engineers to build things. In practice, engineers are more problem
orientated than most disciplines and this is an aspect of engineering training that should be
encouraged. Similarly, engineering organisations are increasingly becoming multi-disciplinary and
they have arguably progressed further in this direction than organisations deriving from other
disciplines. Indeed, engineers are the bridge between decision makers and pure scientists between
whom otherwise there is frequently a major gap: decisions makers have to do something, pure
scientists want to study it.
Water engineers have had a long history of public service. But societies are changing rapidly to be
more pluralistic and the nature of public service is changing with it. In earlier generations, engineers
sought to determine what the public needed and then provided it. Now, engineers play an enabling
role; engineers have to listen to the different publics and then assist those publics in achieving their
goals. Engineering training needs to be orientated towards this wider role.
In the long run, better flood management will only emerge from better research. But the institutional
boundary in Universities is between different disciplines and here again the problem is to determine
how to build co-operation across these boundaries. Here, the problem is that the disciplinary focus
tends orientate academics towards developing the discipline in the eyes of their peers, and to studying
flooding from a disciplinary orientation, rather than developing inter-disciplinary perspectives that
speak to the needs of the decision makers.
When giving aid, governments have been known to put the interests of their national companies
ahead of those of the recipients; and similarly NGOs to put he interests of their members ahead of the
sustainable livelihoods of those who live with floods. Both are forms of neocolonialism. Conversely,
alternative viewpoints can enrich the problem space, increasing the likelihood that the most
appropriate strategy will be identified.
Developing countries should seek to learn from the mistakes made by the more developed countries
rather than to replicate them; the objective should be to skip the generation of mistakes made by the
developed countries so as to leapfrog them. Study tours of the developed world should, therefore, be
concerned more with identifying what went wrong in the developed countries rather than looking for
solutions that can be imported. We learn at least as much from our mistakes as our successes.
The understanding of the nature of the choices that must be made in flood management is enriched
and widened by involvement of all interested parties. At the same time, all those who seek
involvement have to answer for their legitimacy: what right are they entitled for their voice to be
heard in a decision? One claim for legitimacy is that their concern is with the sustainable livelihood
of those who will be affected by the decision to be made. Public involvement does not mean
allowing the system to be captured by those with the most power, influence or social competency.
The interests of others must be protected and integrated into the decision process.
Democraticising information is a prerequisite of effective public involvement. This means more than
making data available; it also means providing the public with the means to convert raw data into
useful information. The start is to ask the public what are the questions they want answered. Local
ownership of flood alleviation strategies, and the options involved, is necessary for long run success.
For equity reasons, it will often be appropriate for the central government to contribute towards the
capital costs of the strategy adopted, the extent of its contribution varying according to the relative
wealth of the area in question. However, The population who benefit should normally bear the costs
of operating and maintaining the strategy. Hypothecated taxes for this purpose are more transparent
Assessment of Flood Control and Management Options xi
than paying these costs out of general revenue and a locally accountable organisation is more
appropriate than a more centralised body.
The role of dams in flood management
In the appropriate circumstances, the storage provided behind dams can result in a substantial
reduction in flood losses. The California Flood Emergency Action Team (1999) report on the 1997
floods claimed that on a number of major river systems, flood control dams reduced flood flows by
half; the US Army Corps of Engineers annual reports to the US Congress routinely claim very
substantial reductions in flood losses as a result of the storage provided in dams. Storage in soil or in
surface waters will reduce total flood flows and controlled storage reduces the peak flood flow, the
latter being particularly helpful in flood management. The forms of storage of storage that are
possible, if any, are determined by local conditions. Positioning the storage in relation to the areas at
risk and the timing of storage uptake and release are both important to the choice of the form of
storage to adopt and the impact of the storage on the flood.
But, to reiterate, the choice of flood management strategy must be made on a comparative basis, the
advantages and disadvantages of each available option being compared.
A dam is most likely to form part of the appropriate management strategy when:
• the major part of the runoff comes from a small, steep catchment immediately above the area at
risk;
• the time to concentration is short;
• multiple tributaries contribute to the local flood problem and it is important to prevent the flood
crests from the different tributaries being synchronised;
• the ratio of flow in an extreme flood to the flow of the annual flood is high; and
• the floodplain is heavily developed.
Where the reservoir created can also be used for other purposes, such as irrigation or power
generation, the case for a dam is strengthened.
• Small scale ‘warping’ and ‘catch dams’ can frequently form a useful component of a strategy to
control soil erosion and sediment movement in areas where the sediment loads generated would
otherwise be considerable.
Assessment of Flood Control and Management Options xii
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1
1.1 The Nature Of Flood Problems................................................................................................1

1.1.1 Measures of the global flood problem ................................................................................3
1.2 The Four Generations of Flood Hazard Management ..........................................................5

1.2.1 Indigenous Flood Adaptations ............................................................................................5
1.2.2 Flood Control and Defence, and ‘Efficient’ Rivers ............................................................7
1.2.3 Non-Structural Approaches.................................................................................................7
1.2.4 Holistic Approaches ............................................................................................................8
1.3 The Cultural Construction of Floods and Flood Hazard ......................................................9
Management ..........................................................................................................................................9
1.4 The Evolution of Dams in Flood Hazard Management.......................................................11
2. THE NATURE OF FLOODS, FLOOD GENERATION AND FLOODPLAIN ......18
2.1 Flood Production.....................................................................................................................18
2.2 The Use Of Floodplains ..........................................................................................................21
3. THE BENEFITS AND COSTS OF FLOODS .............................................................27
3.1 Risks to Life and Health .........................................................................................................30
3.2 Agricultural Benefits and Costs.............................................................................................33

3.2.1 Flood Losses......................................................................................................................34
3.2.2 Land Drainage ...................................................................................................................35
3.2.3 Livestock Benefits and Losses ..........................................................................................36
3.3 Urban impacts .........................................................................................................................37
3.4 Environmental consequences of flooding..............................................................................39

3.4.1 Unregulated Rivers............................................................................................................39
3.4.2 Managed and Regulated Rivers.........................................................................................40
3.4.3 Offshore Impacts of Flooding ...........................................................................................40
3.4.4 Integrated catchment management and the environment ..................................................40
4. FLOOD MANAGEMENT OPTIONS ..........................................................................42
4.1 Managing all Floods and Not Just Some...............................................................................43
4.2 What is Vulnerability and Who is Vulnerable ? ..................................................................45

4.2.1 Alternative definitions of vulnerability.............................................................................46
4.3 Identifying the threat ..............................................................................................................48

Assessment of Flood Control and Management Options xiii
4.4 Reducing the Challenge ..........................................................................................................50

4.4.1 Controlling runoff .............................................................................................................58
4.4.2 Storage...............................................................................................................................60
4.4.3 Slowing the flood wave.....................................................................................................62
4.4.4 Carrying the flow ..............................................................................................................63
4.4.5 Separating the people and the threat .................................................................................63
4.4.6 Economies of scale in flood alleviation ............................................................................70
4.4.7 The environmental effects of the different options...........................................................72
4.5 Enhancing coping capacity.....................................................................................................75

4.5.1 Emergency Planning and management .............................................................................76
4.5.2 Flood Forecasting and Warning ........................................................................................77
4.5.3 Evacuation.........................................................................................................................82
4.5.4 Compensation....................................................................................................................83
4.5.5 Flood Insurance .................................................................................................................84
4.5.6 Help and Counselling........................................................................................................88
4.6 Matching the Solution to the Problem ..................................................................................88
5. THE ROLE OF DAMS IN FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT ............................97
6. MAKING THE ‘RIGHT’ DECISION? ......................................................................102
7. BARRIERS TO SUSTAINABLE FLOOD MANAGEMENT .................................113
7.1 Institutional barriers.............................................................................................................114
7.2 Professional roles...................................................................................................................117
7.3 Exporting/importing failure.................................................................................................117
7.4 Financing................................................................................................................................117
7.5 Maintenance...........................................................................................................................119
7.6 Research .................................................................................................................................119
7.7 Corruption .............................................................................................................................120
7.8 Public involvement ................................................................................................................120
7.9 Legitimising voices ................................................................................................................121
8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................122
9. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................124
Assessment of Flood Control and Management Options 1
1. Introduction
Floodplains are areas where either there are ecologically important wetlands, or were such areas in
the past, and are also areas that have competitive advantages for human settlement. Resolving the
potential conflict between ecological value and human use is consequently a major issue in
determining the most appropriate flood hazard management strategy. At the same time, the strategy
adopted must consider how all floods are to be managed and not just some. The likely outcome is
then that the strategy adopted will consist of a mix of options.
1.1 The Nature Of Flood Problems
An economically-worded but broad definition of a flood is offered by Ward (1978):
‘A flood is a body of water which rises to overflow land which is not normally submerged’.
These definitions suggest many different types of floods based initially upon the prime causal agent
(Table 1).
Table 1 Types of flood
AGENT DETAILS AND EXAMPLES

Rainfall Riverine or non-riverine
Slow-onset or flash flood
Convectional/frontal/orographic
Torrential rainfall floods
Snowmelt Riverine
Overland flow
Icemelt Glacial meltwater (rise in air

temperature)
Glacial meltwater (geothermal heat
source) - e.g. Jokulhlaup Spate floods
Flooding during freeze-up Riverine
Flooding by ice breakup Riverine (also called ice-jam floods)
Mudfloods Floods with high sediment content

Induced by volcanic activity
Coastal/sea/tidal floods Storm surge (tropical or temperate

induced)
Ocean swell floods
Tsunamis (induced by geological
process)
Dam Dam-break flood

Dam overtopping
Failure of natural dams e.g. morrains
Sewer/urban drain flood Storm discharge to sewers and

drains exceeds capacity
Water distribution failure Burst water mains

Breaches in canals
Rising water tables (high groundwater tables) Land subsidence, rising sea levels,
reductions in abstractions from aquifers
Note: Flood types are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For example: convectional rainfall may
generate flash floods; and frontal rainfall may be influenced by topography to generate orographic
rainfall floods.
_____________________________________________________________________
Floods are part of the dynamic variation of the hydrological cycle, the basic causes of which are
climatological. To this must be coupled the nature of the terrain which generates the runoff (e.g.
geology, soil type and vegetation cover), and the antecedent conditions as well as the characteristics
of the stream networks characteristics (e.g. storage capacity, channel length); and channel
characteristics (e.g. channel roughness and shape) (Ward 1978). The latter tend to be related to
characteristics of the terrain so that steep catchments are associated with narrow rivers with low
storage capacity. Many of the most catastrophic floods are then associated with the intense rainfalls
that result from with hurricanes, cyclones and typhoons, particularly when this rainfall occurs on a
steep catchment.
Floods have a number of measurable characteristics, including flood depth or ‘stage’, discharge (i.e.
volume) or magnitude, frequency (usually estimated as a return period or recurrence interval),
duration, velocity, extent and seasonality.
A ‘flood hazard’ is the threat to life, property and other valued resources presented by a body of
water which might rise and flow over land that is not normally submerged. Central to the concept of
a ‘flood hazard’ is the notion that hazards are an ever-present conditions which periodically lead to
harm. This ever-present condition is likely to vary in intensity since many types of floods are
characterised by seasonality – during the flood season the hazard is more intense. A crucial part of
the concept of a flood hazard is that the interface between floods and people. A flood is not
hazardous unless humans are somehow affected. This is taken further by Hewitt (1983) when he
states that a hazard refers to the potential for damage that exists only in the presence of a vulnerable
human population. The concept of ‘vulnerability’ is central to an understanding of flood hazards and
to the definition of the appropriate management response and is explored further below.
1.1.1 Measures of the global flood problem
Measuring the world’s flood problem presents many difficulties because of deficiencies in the quality
of statistics, increased reporting of events over time and many other factors. Neatly presented data
sets may appear to be consistent and precise but the underlying data collection processes may be
unreliable. Data on flood effects is also prone to political manipulation in order to secure aid. The
following data and the conclusions drawn from them should therefore be treated with caution.
Flood disasters are among the world’s most frequent and damaging types of disaster (IFRCRS:
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies) 1998: 147). During the latter half
of the twentieth century floods were the most common type of geophysical disaster, generating over
thirty per cent of all disasters between 1945 and 1986 (Table 2) (Glickman et. al. 1992). These
estimates are corroborated by more recent data from Munich Reinsurance for the period 1986-1995
(United Nations, Department of Humanitarian Affairs (UNDHA) b1997: 6). Glickman et. al. (1992)
indicate that globally, flood disasters are about the third most harmful form of geophysical disaster in
terms of loss of life. Earthquakes and tropical cyclones kill more people than any other geophysical
disaster type, but in the 1986-1995 period floods appear to have caused more deaths than any other
geophysical disaster type according to Munich Reinsurance (UNDHA 1997:6). For this period,
Munich Reinsurance (1997) report that fifty-five per cent of deaths (367,000 people) were caused by
flooding. Swiss Re (2000) give an estimate of 55,360 as the number of deaths caused by flooding in
1999, some 20,000 having died in the mudfloods and landslides in Venezuela alone.
Floods are ranked slightly lower when the definition of disaster is broadened to include civil strife,
drought and famine (which are all excluded from data of Glickman et. al. 1992). Data from IFCRCS
(1998: 142-45) reveal that between 1972 and 1996, earthquake, drought, famine and high winds
killed more people than floods. However, the same data reveal that floods affect the lives of more
people (an average of 65.87 million per annum between 1972 and 1996) over the same period than
any other disaster type, including drought and famine. The average annual number of people made
homeless by floods between 1972 and 1996 was also the highest for any disaster type (3.36 million).
In addition, the annual average number of people injured by floods (21,874) was the second highest
for any type of disaster. All available estimates of the regional distribution of loss of life by disaster
type reveal that (a) all disasters and (b) flood disasters, are ubiquitous, and that both have a markedly
skewed distribution with by far the highest reported deaths occurring in Asia. Because of economic
growth in parts of Asia, recent estimates of average annual flood damage for the 1987-1996 period
reveal that the entire region’s flood damage losses now exceed those of the Americas and Europe
(IFCRCS 1998: 147). In North America the number of flood-related deaths is comparatively low,
averaging 89 per year over the period 1988-97 (US Army Corps of Engineers 1998a) but the per
capita and total economic losses appear very high because of high standards of living and high values
at risk.
Table 2 Global loss of life by geophysical event, 1945-1986
Deaths (in
Type of disaster Number of disasters thousands) Deaths per disaster
Meteorological
Flood 395 244 618
Tropical cyclone 272 (271) 791 (291) 2,907 (1,072)
Other storm 212 28 131
Heat wave 23 5 223
Cold wave 15 4 275
Geological
Earthquake 191 (189) 1,198 (388) 6,272 (2.053)
Volcanic eruption 27 40 1,494
Tsunami 7 3 271
Other
Landslide 85 25 295
Fire 40 6 157
Total 1,267 (1,264) 2,343 (1,033) 1,849 (837)
Note: numbers in parenthesis exclude the three worst disasters. Data source: Glickman et. al., (1992).
It is difficult to identify trends in the frequency and impacts of disasters such as floods. The United
States is probably the country where the most thorough analyses have been performed. Two trends
appear in the reported flood loss data for the United States: loss of life has been reduced significantly
during the twentieth century and appears to have been constant for a number of years; and the
monetary value of property losses and other economic losses has been steadily increasing. However,
the escalation of flood losses in the United States, as possibly elsewhere, may not be particularly
significant because, relative to the Gross National Product of that country, economic losses from
floods appear to have held constant over the past fifty years (Wooley 1986).
Another way of scaling the world’s flood problem is to examine estimates of the number of people
and properties located (or exposed) in flood-prone areas. Unfortunately, there is no comprehensive
global or even national data bank to draw upon for such data. However, some estimates (Parker
1996) have been produced for a small number of countries revealing widely varying proportions of
total country populations which are flood-prone. These are 3.5 per cent in France, 4.8 per cent in the
United Kingdom, 9.8 per cent in the United States, over 50 per cent in the Netherlands and 80 per
cent in Bangladesh.
Individual floods can cause significant losses to the economic capacity of a country; the costs of
replacing damaged or destroyed infrastructure may absorb the resources that would otherwise be
available for economic or social development. Governments and individual may alternatively have to
borrow heavily to fund these replacements and repairs. The extent of these losses is difficult to
measure, not least because the standard national accounting model, Gross Domestic Product (GDP),
is subject to a number of well-known defects (Mishan 1967). The basis of the GDP measure is
equivalent to a form of double entry book-keeping; for every credit, there is an equal and opposite
debit and vice versa. The effect is to minimise the apparent effect of a flood on the national economy
in most instances; the construction of 500 schools will appear in the same way whether these are to
extend educational provision or to replace schools destroyed in a flood.
1.2 The Four Generations of Flood Hazard Management

Over time, we have gained technical understanding about the nature of floods and the means of
managing whilst at the same time our perceptions of floods and rivers have changed. Thus,
approaches to flood risk management have changed over time. We need also to constantly re-assess
the management approaches adopted and to transfer knowledge from one country to another. Too
often however rather than knowledge transfer taking place, the approach developed in the context of
one country has simply been transposed to another country. At best, this is a form of parochialism; at
worse, it is a form of neo-colonialism. The knowledge that we need to transfer is the understanding
which resulted in that approach being identified as being appropriate and not necessarily the approach
itself. Historically, four different approaches to flood hazard management have succeeded each
other.
1.2.1 Indigenous Flood Adaptations
Communities which have occupied flood-prone areas for many generations have typically developed
usually small-scale, local adaptations to make them more resilient to flood hazards and disasters. For
example, in the floodplain kampungs (i.e. traditional villages) of Malaysia, houses are constructed on
stilts to raise them above anticipated flood levels and the use of small boats is common. Similar
adaptations to floods may be found throughout South-East Asia along rivers, in river estuaries and
along coastlines. The Cajun or Acadian population that joined the native American communities in
the coastal swamps and marshes of Louisiana in the eighteenth century also adapted their dwellings
to floods. The base floor of the dwelling construction typical of this area was set upon cypress
pilings (or stilts) sunk into the silt deposited by spring and summer flooding (Laska and Wetmore
2000). In Bangladesh not only are some dwellings deliberately constructed on higher ground, but
some are dismantled in times flood and moved to the top of earthen flood embankments. In addition,
the agricultural economy is adapted to flooding through, for example, the use of flood-tolerant rice
crops and the use of boat-craft instead of roads since these and bridges may be washed away. These
are just a few examples of the numerous indigenous adaptations to flood problems which are used by
those who have lived and worked for generations in flood-prone areas.
In the early stages of the evolution of flood management strategies these local adaptations may be the
only, or the dominant, form of flood management. These indigenous approaches are often relatively
effective in rural areas as long as exceptional floods are not encountered when numerous lives,
dwellings and possessions may be lost. Experience suggests that as modernisation takes place (i.e.
through urbanisation and economic growth) indigenous approaches are eroded (Chan and Parker
1996).
Flood embankments were part of these indigenous approaches; communities banding together to
construct dike systems, partly in order to convert wetlands to arable land. Such actions started quite
early and were widespread over Western Europe (Wagret 1967), these systems being constructed and
maintained through a system of Common Property Resource management (Ostrom 1990).
Conversely, it has been argued (Wittfogel 1957) that the large scale works of the Middle East and
Asia were the consequence of strong central governments.
The 1997 Flood in Poland
The July flood of 1997 was one of the largest that has been recorded in Poland. Water
swelling was mainly caused by both several-day periods of intensive precipitation, (5 - 9
July and 18 - 22 July) in the south-western parts of Poland and northern parts of the
Czech Republic. The most intensive rainfall occurred in the upper parts of the Oder
(Odra) River basin. The rain gauges, in these regions, registered precipitation at the level
of 300 – 600 mm during several days, i.e. 2 to 3 times more than the total average
monthly amount of precipitation in July within those gages (the largest precipitation took
place in the Czech Republic). Unit runoffs reached 500 l/s per square kilometre. As a
result, flood levels reached in the upper Oder were estimated as millennium flood-waves:
they were up to 2-3 m higher than the absolute maximum ever recorded. In the Vistula
basin the flood had a more restricted character, the precipitation was more limited and
the swelling of the waters less violent.
The existing flood defence infrastructure turned out to be inadequate. Due to the
limited number of flood surcharge reservoirs, it was impossible to effectively reduce the
flood wave. The inadequate technical condition of the flood levees, most of which were
constructed back in the 19th century, resulted in numerous dike failures. The flood also
revealed shortages in the technical equipment of the civil defence and emergency
services and the inadequacy of the flood prevention action, especially as far as
communications, flood result forecasting and disseminating warnings are concerned.
The flood’s most tragic effects were 54 fatalities. Damage due to flooding was
reported in ca 20 percent of the communities (gminas). Some 152,000 companies were
located in the flooded or partially flooded area of which 9,000 employed over 5 persons.
Also affected were 4,000 budget units and gminas with 680,000 household (according to
the poll conducted by the main statistic office (GUS) in early 1988). Particularly large
losses occurred in urbanised areas due partially to uncontrolled construction in
potentially flood-prone areas in the recent years. The estimates performed immediately
after the flooding based on the reports of local flood prevention committees specified the
global damages and losses countrywide at c $US 2.3 billion (in 1997 prices). The report
mostly focused on direct losses and did not consider the value of facility equipment.
Slightly later estimates performed by GUS based on surveys set global losses at c $US
3.5 billion or 2.5 – 2.6 percent of GDP. The breakdown of losses is as follows:
• Losses in assets of budget units and gminas (communities) destruction of streets and
public roads and water systems – c $US 1.5 billion
• Losses incurred by companies and firms excl. agriculture and forest industry – c
$US 0.85 billion
• Agriculture and forest industry – $US 0.7 – 0.8 billion
• Losses n household equipment – c $US 0.4 billion
The long-term influence of flood damages caused to the economy is quite difficult to
estimate. Comparisons with the 1934 flooding indicate a changing pattern of flood
damages. While the area flooded then was twice as large in 1997, the number of
flooded buildings was 3.2 times larger, the number of damages bridges 38 times larger,
and the length of damaged roads 134 times larger in 1997.
The flood was an impulse for upgrading to a broadly defined flood prevention system for the
country. A Flood Recovery Project based on the World Bank loan was initiated in 1998 aiming
at eliminating damage from the 1998 flood, on the one hand, and preparing for future floods, on
the other. It provides for the creation of a modern national monitoring and forecasting system,
development of a flood prevention strategy for the two main drainage basins in southern Poland
and activating local communities for flood preparations with particular focus on non-structural
measures.
Madej Pawe
Roman Konieczny
Institute of Meteorology and Water Management
Krakow, Poland
1.2.2 Flood Control and Defence, and ‘Efficient’ Rivers
The second generation approach, characteristic of the late nineteenth and most the twentieth century,
was the ‘engineering’, scientifically rational approach to river management. It was often marked by
state promotion of structural (i.e. large-scale engineering) measures but many of the works of this
time where undertaken by Provincial or Local government, or, as in Hungary, by associations of local
land owners (Vituki 1998). The philosophy was strongly rational: rivers being ‘trained’ or
‘improved’ to become efficient and to stop floods interfering with human activity. There was a
strong emphasis on building flood embankments designed and constructed to engineering standards,
constructing flood relief channels and sometimes constructing a series of flood control dams. The
emphasis in this approach was to control the river and to prevent floodwater entering communities
located in flood-prone areas. The language used reflects this struggle to make rivers efficient servants
of human purposes: floods were to be ‘controlled’ and ‘defences’ to be prepared against floods.
Much of the history of flood mitigation in the United States during the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries (until the late-1960s) was based upon this strategy as the US Corps of Engineers struggled
to control great rivers such as the Mississippi. The benefits of such strategies have been large during
particular periods. For example, the modernisation of the lagging economies of the Tennessee river
basin during the middle part of the twentieth century was driven by a strategy to control river
flooding and soil erosion by building a series of large dams which had other benefits such as
generating electricity for rural electrification programmes.
Unfortunately, structural approaches have a number of disadvantages, including that flood control
structures may encourage further floodplain development; flood embankments may be only partly
effective in exceptional floods (i.e. they may be overtopped or breached); structural approaches may
have adverse or damaging environmental consequences (Brookes 1988; Purseglove 1988); perverse
impacts on downstream areas (making their flood problems worse); and flood control may only
address a part of the problems which cause flood disasters (i.e. flood control does not address
people’s vulnerability to flood hazards).
1.2.3 Non-Structural Approaches
The third phase was the advocacy of ‘non-structural’ approaches. Although these were originally
proposed as part of an integrated strategy for the good management of floodplains (White 1945,
1964), the ‘non-structural’ options frequently came to be offered as an alternative to the traditional
engineering solutions. Whereas the second phase defined the problem as the rivers, and the solution
being to keep the rivers away from the public, non-structural approaches were argued on the basis
that the public should be kept away from the rivers. Rather than engineering the rivers so as to be
efficient, the approach centred upon making people behave. Not uncommonly non-structural
analyses implied that people should not be on the floodplain in the first place; and, if they insisted
upon occupying the floodplain, they should bear the consequences of their choice.
Non-structural approaches include small-scale ‘structural’ modifications of individual buildings

(designed-in or retrofitted adaptations) and measures designed to move people away from floods.
The vision is one of deliberately designing and planning communities that are adapted to floods in a
variety of ways. Thus, planning controls may be proposed to prevent the spread of communities on to
the floodplains. Planning controls that to seek to ensure that new buildings are flood proofed against
some design standard flood are also typical of the non-structuralist approach. Flood-proofing (which
is a planned approach to modifying buildings to make them more resilient to flooding) builds upon
indigenous flood adaptation approaches (see 1.2.1 above) and this may be promoted, as may
improved flood forecasting and warning schemes to allow people and property to be evacuated from a
flood-prone area in advance of a flood. There may also be an effort to encourage purchase of flood
insurance. In extreme cases entire communities or parts of communities have been moved from
flood-prone to flood-free land.
This third wave was characterised by the same optimism as the second wave of approaches.
Non-structural approaches were generally assumed to offer an alternative, and to be a replacement
for, traditional engineering approaches and there was insufficient recognition of the difficulties of
making the approaches actually work, or of the preconditions necessary for them to work. Thus, for
example, in the early part of this century, only engineering options were available: land use planning,
for example, being a concept that only started to be applied in the middle of this century and until a
land use planning system has been effectively established, it cannot be extended to cover the control
of development on flood plains.
1.2.4 Holistic Approaches
The original idea behind the non-structural approach was expressed in the terms of ‘coping with
floods’ or ‘living with floods’; holistic approaches may be seen as a return to this original idea.
Critical evaluation of the successes and failures of the non-structural strategies, and the recurrence of
exceptional and highly damaging floods, has led to a variety of strategies (and not a single strategy)
that is based upon a more holistic approach to addressing the basic causes of floods and flood
disasters. This emerging approach talks in terms of ‘flood alleviation’, and ‘flood mitigation’, rather
than in terms of flood control, and of ‘flood hazard management’ or ‘flood risk management’. The
concept of sustainable development (ACC/ISGWR 1992; United Nations 1992) is one of the drivers
of this emergent approach. In particular, the requirement to think about the catchment as a whole, not
just in terms of the geographical and functional interdependencies involved, but also the inter-
relationships between land and water. Secondly, the development involves not just economic
development but also human development, including increasing public involvement in decision
making. It also includes the emphasis on intra-generational, as well inter-generational, equity often
missed when the Brundtland definition of sustainable development (World Commission on
Environment and Development 1987) is quoted.
It is also more critical and less optimistic than either of the previous two waves. It is now becoming
clear that in the United States, although some past investments in flood control structures proved to
be wise, many structural and non-structural strategies have failed to be sufficiently effective, and that
the ‘non-structural’ model of flood management, so strongly advocated in the United States, requires
rethinking (Changnon 1996; Mileti 1999; Myers and Passerini 2000). It requires rethinking because
of its inadequacies in the United States and because of its poor applicability to many other world
regions.
Two examples illustrate the emerging holistic analysis. The first is the advocacy of source control
approaches to flood management (Gardiner 1994). In rapidly urbanising catchments in particular, the
driving force behind growing flood discharges and worsening flood hazards, is development – not
just in the floodplain but everywhere that it is occurring in the catchment. Urban development results
in permeable natural surfaces being replaced by artificial impermeable ones so that runoff
accumulates more completely and rapidly in stream and river channels rather than infiltrating into the
soil and percolating into groundwater. Sources of flood flows are thus everywhere where
development is occurring and it is here that runoff retarding and flood storage measures are required.
A whole-catchment planning approach is required. The second example stems from analysis of the
causes of floods particularly in the less-developed regions of the world where lack of access to
resources, to education and to decision-makers; and poverty generate a vulnerability amongst people
which makes them particularly vulnerable to floods, exacerbating the lasting effects of these events
(Blaikie et.al. 1994). This analysis leads to the view that floods and other hazards need to be
addressed systemically through stimulating social and economic development rather than only
through flood alleviation schemes: a ‘sustainable livelihoods’ approach. Thus, developing a
mechanism for extending low-cost loans to those of low economic status may be the kind of strategy
which holds the best promise for the future in terms of making people more resilient to the effects of
floods. The approach adopted should be stakeholder driven.
This emergent approach leads to an emphasis:

• on holistic catchment and coastal zone management;
• on the wise use of floodplains and coastal zones (not necessarily moving out of them);
• on empowering local communities to make choices about land development and flood
alleviation);
• of reducing the impacts of humans on the environment, promoting flood disaster resilience
(Handmer and Dovers 1996);
• on valuing and preserving the best of indigenous adaptations;
• on improving local capacities to respond; and
• on addressing problems of intra and inter-generational equity (e.g. dealing with poverty and lack
of access to resources as a means of addressing flood vulnerability).
1.3 The Cultural Construction of Floods and Flood Hazard

Management
Both floods and flood hazard management are culturally constructed phenomena: people’s
understanding of them derives from their unique environmental and cultural conditions. Failure to
grasp the importance of these variations when designing flood management strategies is likely to lead
to adverse consequences, inappropriateness and failure.
‘Flood’ is a relative concept and varies amongst cultures and individuals in its perception and
understanding. In Bangladesh, for example, a division is drawn between the ‘flood’ that is the
normal seasonal inundation of a floodplain to which traditional settlement and land use is well
adapted, and ‘floods’ which represent abnormal or unwanted flooding that causes loss (Paul 1984,
1987). The latter might be referred to as an ‘extreme event’, although technically an extreme event is
simply a phenomenon which differs substantially from the mean. Approximately 80 per cent of the
land area of Bangladesh comprises river floodplain. Here, in contrast to many parts of the world,
‘flooding’ is a normal environmental condition to which people have become adapted and which
provides much needed soil moisture for crop growth on which people depend. ‘Normal’ flooding is
therefore a resource for Bangladeshi cultivators and one to which they look forward, whereas ‘floods’
are threatening, damaging and entirely unwanted. What would be called a flood in Britain or
Germany is not perceived of as a flood in Bangladesh. But Gateley (1973) points out that, even in
Britain, a flood is a relative concept because individuals living in various parts of a floodplain have
different understandings of what constitutes a flood to them. Rivers are also cultural constructs
because people’s perceptions of them, and the values they associate with them, vary enormously from
culture to culture and within the same culture. Some may perceive of rivers as places to dispose of
waste, whilst others perceive them as sacred places or places to be reserved for wilderness and the
preservation of ecosystems in which human intervention should be limited.
As the discussion in 1.2.1. illustrates, flood hazard management is also a function of cultural and
environmental factors (Green, Tunstall and Fordham 1991). Although there are strong commonalties
in the cases cited of dwelling design generated by the nature of floods, those living in floodplains for
generations develop indigenous adaptations which are their own cultural adaptations to floods. The
roles of the individual and state in flood hazard reduction represents a further example of cultural
construction of flood hazard management. For example, an ancient principle underlying English
flood legislation is that responsibility for drainage of land and avoidance of flooding rests first and
foremost with the individual riparian owner, and a complex history of case law has accumulated to
help settle disputes between riparian owners. Only in the lowest-lying areas did there emerge historic
organisations to address flood problems (Darby 1983). In the Netherlands where flooding is a
strategic threat to the nation, the Constitution stating that ‘the inhabitability of the country and the
protection of the protection and improvement of the environment are public tasks’ (Huisman et al
1998), there is more of a collective and consensual approach.
These examples illustrate the varying bases for governmental intervention in flood hazard
management which are found around the globe. In some cases, as is partly the case in England and
Wales, the basis for government decision-making is seeking a balance between the actions of various
stakeholders in floods and floodplains (e.g. developers, building contractors, residents of flood-prone
homes, commerce, planning authorities, environmental protection groups) and the public and/or
national interest. In other cases, as in the cases of the Netherlands and China, governmental
intervention is more of a strategic affair, and in the case of China it is about organising national
solidarity against a threat to the nation.
Public perceptions about the causes of floods and flood disasters vary enormously around the world.
In some cases floods may be perceived of as ‘an act of god’ or ‘the will of Allah’, although this is
relatively uncommon (Islam 1997). More generally, floods are blamed on someone or some
organisation not doing their job. Blame follows from rationality; people seek causes, and whilst both
the causes of floods and the reasons why a flood has not occurred recently are frequently mis-
perceived (Green et al 1991), a belief as to the cause of a flood typically then leads on to blaming
someone or some organisation for failure to act. Thus, people in Bangladesh frequently blame floods
on the actions of those in India, China and Nepal where they see the floods as having originated. To
go from cause to blame does require two additional stages: there must first be a belief that the flood
could have been controlled, prevented or at least mitigated. To be controllable, a hazard must be
foreseeable and it must also be possible to do something. Unlike earthquakes, floods are generally
regarded as foreseeable, but like earthquakes, there is generally a belief, probably an over-optimistic
belief, that it is possible to control floods or their consequences. Secondly, some organisation or
individual must be seen as having had the responsibility to do some thing but have failed to take such
action for one or another reason. An increasing expectation that some thing will be done is also a
corollary of increasing public involvement; public authorities will increasingly be held to account for
their actions or inactions and judged against the public’s expectations of how they ought to behave.
Table 3 The comparative evolution of flood management: determinants of flood

management policies
USA The Netherlands China

• Very low population • Very high population • Very high population
density density density
• Very low intensity of • Very high intensity of • Quite high intensity of
economic activity economic activity economic activity
• Very large amount of • Relatively small amount • Very low amount of
arable land per capita of arable land per capita arable land per capita
• Large areas of country • Landscapes and • Landscapes and
are essentially untouched ecosystems are largely ecosystems are largely
by human activity except the consequence of past the consequences of past
by large scale changes human activity human activity
(e.g. acid rain, climate • Whilst politically the • Central government can
change) Dutch approach is one of require land and building
• Constitution reserves consensus decision controls but has
power to set land and making, central difficulties in enforcing
building controls to government can require such requirements
individual States; some land and building • Floodplains settled in
State constitutions controls C9-C13th or earlier
reserve that power to • Settled in medieval • High proportion of
local government period onward usable land is at risk of
• Settled only in the C19th • Most of the country is flooding
• Low proportion of land reclaimed from sea and • Over last two thousand
is at risk of flooding floodplains years, a wide mix of
• Historic reliance on • Historic reliance on strategies, including the
dikes as engineering dikes as engineering earliest known example
approach to flood approach to flood of flood warning, have
alleviation alleviation been adopted
• Historically, flood • Historically, flood • Works are undertaken by
alleviation funded alleviation funded all levels of government
through Federal through local Common but predominantly by
government Property approach local government
The strategy of flood management adopted in a country therefore reflects the culture of that country
and local flood conditions; this strategy is thus shaped by history. Table 3 summarises the
geographical and cultural factors that have shaped flood management practices in three countries.
1.4 The Evolution of Dams in Flood Hazard Management

It is useful to separate the issues of what a dam does, regulating variations in river flow through
storage, from that of how it is done. Lakes and wetlands both regulate flow through storage; lakes by
having a naturally formed channel which to a greater or lesser extent limits the discharge capacity.
Unlike reservoirs, the outflow channel is not dimensioned so as in principle to be able to discharge
the extreme flood. Thus, in an extreme flood, either the lake level will go on rising or the natural
throttle on the discharge will fail catastrophically, as is the case with ‘yokulhlaup’, the failure of a
glacier releasing the stored up flood water behind it. Balancing lakes are artificial lakes connected
in-line with the watercourse. Weirs in stream also create some storage capacity although usually
primarily created for other purposes such maintaining navigations. In a sense, therefore, a weir is a
low head dam. The purpose of detention basins is also to regulate flows through storage but these are
typically off-line: many being dry or semi-dry until flow is diverted into them. A reservoir is then an
in-line form of storage which creates a significantly greater head than a weir. For flood alleviation,
the important feature of a dam is the quantity of storage provided; unlike dams whose primary
purpose is hydropower where the head achieved is also important.
As a structure, the means of creating a reservoir, the distinguishing feature of a dam being that is
perpendicular to the flow of the river whereas a dike, or levee or flood embankment, is parallel to that
flow. Otherwise they have much in common in terms of the nature of the construction and the
consequences of failure. Some dikes even exceed the simpler definition of a ‘large dam’ being more
than 15 metres high, although the formal definition of large dams specifically excludes dikes.
The available data on the use of dams for flood alleviation purposes is not wholly consistent and is
also partial. Thus, Table 4 summarises the use of dams for flood control purposes in Japan as at
March 1985; this gives 11 more single purpose flood alleviation dams as either completed or under
construction than are given in the ICOLD tabulation where Japan only registers dams over 30 metres
high (ICOLD 1999). Similarly, China has declared 24,671 large dams to be in operation, of which
details of 1,855 are given in World Register of Dams 1988 (ICOLD 1999). In the United States,
6,375 dams are included as large dams in the World Register of Dams out of a total of 75,187 dams in
the United States. The Environment Defence Fund (1999) estimates that there are around 800,000
small dams world-wide. Thus, the ‘average’ dam is not a large dam.
Table 4 Number of dams constructed at least in part for flood alleviation

purposes in Japan
(Source: River Bureau 1985)
completed under construction Total

National/Public 73 89 162
corporation
Prefectural 189 205 394
Government
multi-purpose 143 147 290
flood control 46 58 104
262 294 556
Table 5 Dams and flood management in China

(Source: Tong and Xiaogan 1997)
River characteristics Song

Liao he Hai he Huang Huai Yangtze Zhu Total
hua
River River he he River jiang
jiang River River River
River (Yello
w
River)
Large reservoirs 126 85 140 165 187 113 345 2,061
Reservoir capacity (million 26,900 13,000 25,500 54,400 37,000 100,400 38,700 295,900
m3
The proportion of dams which are declared to ICOLD as having some flood alleviation function
varies from 0% (Sweden, India and Norway) through to over 40% in the cases of Argentina,
Romania, Japan and the Czech Republic. The highest proportion is in Germany which declares
nearly 56% of all dams as including flood alleviation as one of the functions of a dam. Globally, 8%
of dams are reported as having flood alleviation as one of their purposes (Lecornu 1998). There is no
obvious pattern to be observed in terms of the proportions of dams that are declared as having a flood
alleviation function between different countries and it is likely that a significant proportion of the
differences are no more than the result of national differences in the manner of recording the
purposes of multi-functional dams in particular. Alternatively, the explanation may lie in a difference
in engineering cultures in different countries. In any event the consequence is to make international
comparisons unreliable. Nor is data necessarily consistent within countries : in India, SANDRP
(2000) cite 13 dams as having been declared by the Central Board of Irrigation and Power as having
flood control as one their purposes, as opposed to the zero reported to ICOLD.
Most dams which have flood alleviation as a purpose are declared as multi-purpose dams although
there are national differences. Nearly 50% of dams in the USA which have a flood alleviation
function are declared as having that as their single function and nearly 80% in Brazil. Conversely,
China reports only 5% have flood alleviation as their sole function and Turkey 3%. Again, reporting
differences is likely to be the main explanation for these national differences and it makes
international comparisons unreliable
It is not surprising that a low proportion of dams globally are reported as having flood alleviation as
their sole role: once a reservoir is in existence, then there is a fairly natural tendency to ask whether it
cannot be put to some other use whilst waiting for the 100 year return period flood to occur. Equally,
priorities change over time: dams which were constructed to reflect one set of needs have their
operating rules changed, and may be enlarged, when a different priority emerges. Thus, dams on the
tributaries of the Yangtze built primarily for hydropower are now being examined to see to what
extent they can be used for flood alleviation purposes as well (Daoxi and Siping 1999). In addition,
any dam will have some advantageous, or disadvantageous, impact on downstream flooding;
generally, this will be beneficial (Bergstrom and Lindstrom 1999). Thus, USCOLD, amongst other
summaries of the reductions in losses from individual floods as a result of the operation of dams,
cites the Lexington Dam, a water conservation dam, as having reduced flood losses in 1952-53 by
more than $US 3 million (UCOLD 1999). Mirstkhoullava (1994) described how the settlements
along the River Dnieper are protected by Dnieper cascade of dams: flood peaks are reduced by 20-
50% and the dams have a capacity to store 25 km2 of flood waters. Saad (1999) has demonstrated the
impact of the Aswan High Dam on flooding in the Nile valley and Berga (1999) provides a general
summary of the role of dams in flood mitigation. During Hurricane Mitch, the flood inflow to the
Francisco Morazon (El-Cajon) dam was estimated as 9,800m3/sec; this was some 70% of the PMF
and had an estimated return period of 500 years. The reservoir stored some 1500 million m3 and the
maximum discharge was 1,200 m3/sec. Downstream of the dam, the river passes through a narrow
gorge with limited flow capacity; above that gorge is an intensely populated alluvial plain. Upstream
of the dam, flood damages were considerable; if the flow downstream had not be attenuated by the
reservoir, then the losses downstream would have been catastrophic (Palmieri, review comment).
The Committee on Dams and Floods of ICOLD (2000) detail the effectiveness of a number of dams
in reducing flood flows. They include the Tone catchment in Japan; this has already been noted as
having a very high ratio of flood flow to average annual flow. Tokyo is on the floodplain of the River
Tone and flood alleviation works were first undertaken in C16th. Severe damages were experienced
in the flood of 1947 and one element of the revised flood management strategy adopted in 1949 for
the catchment was the construction of the Shimokubo dam. During typhoon #10 in 1982, rainfall
over three days on the catchment reached 319 mm, and the peak inflow to the dam reached 1309
m3/second but peak discharge from the dam was limited to 715 m3/second. The hydrographs for the
inflow and discharge volumes also illustrate the very rapid rate of rise of the river; in a period of
about six hours, the flood flow more than quadruples and rises by a factor of approximately sixty over
little more than sixteen hours, with the response to the second wave of rainfall appearing to be almost
instantaneous. In terms of issuing flood warnings, the flood occurred at probably the worst possible
time: the early morning when most people are asleep and consequently the likely effectiveness of
most forms of warning is very low.
Put figure from ICOLD report here
Figure 1
___________________________________________________________________________
Similarly, on the Chikugo river system, during a seasonal rainfront in 1982, peak rainfall reached 60
mm/hour and the peak inflow to the Matsubara dam reached 2911 m3/sec, nearly 90 times annual
mean flow. The peak discharge from the dam was limited to 1044 m3/sec. Similarly, when the
inflow to the Chungju dam in Korea reached 22,164 m3/sec during the flood of 1990, considered to
have a return period of around 1,000 years, the peak outflow was less than 12,000 m3/sec which is
somewhat less than the flow of 14,000 m3/sec estimated for the 100 year return period event.
Both examples are typical of Japan in that both topographical and social reasons, it is difficult to
construct a single large dam and instead a cascade of dams is used to control the peak flow at critical
points downstream. In addition, the dams are part of a comprehensive flood management strategy
with both dikes and channel improvements, including bypass channels, having been progressively
enlarged over several centuries. However, the very high ratios of flood flows to mean annual flow
make sole reliance on the later approaches extremely difficult since either very high dikes or a very
wide floodplain are required. Thus, in the case of the Tone, the series of dams including the
Shimokubo, are intended to the limit peak flows from the 200 year return period flood to the
equivalent of those from the 50 year return period flood, so reducing the height of the dikes or width
of the floodplain required to safely pass the flood flow.
The ratio of the 1,000 year flood flow to the 100 year flood flow in the case of the Chungju dam is
also, in world terms, unusually high. The very low amount of arable land available in Japan (Table
7), with one hectare of arable land having to provide food for eight times the global average number
of people, and the high population density, means that leaving open wide floodplains both to carry
floods and provide some natural storage is not an option. Equally, high dikes are wide dikes and both
the cost and land take increase rapidly with height, although Japan in now constructing some super
dikes, dikes wide enough for buildings to be constructed on the crest and rear berm (Rivers Bureau
2000). Limiting peak flows through both dams and the retention basins that are also used is
consequently a logical option.
In general, the Committee does not provide estimates of the reduction in flood losses yielded by the
dams discussed, and there are a number of stages necessary before a calculated flood flow can be
converted into flood losses. Few if any of these works were constructed after a formal benefit-cost
analysis and detailed estimates of the reductions in flood losses are not generally available. In
addition, it was noted earlier (Section 2.2) that in economic terms, the objective is not to reduce flood
losses but to increase the efficiency of use of the catchment.
However, the estimates of the US Army Corps of Engineers of the reductions in flood losses resulting
from the flood storage reservoirs and basins, and the dike system, in 1993 Mississippi and Missouri
floods are cited (US Army Corps of Engineers 1995):
Dams levees All (billion US$)

Mississippi 3.6 3.9 8
Missouri 7.4 4.1 11.5
11.0 8.0 19.1
The 1993 flood was an extreme event, with an estimated return period of 500 years in some areas and
at least the 100 year return period event in 88 out of the 154 streamflow gauging stations (US Army
Corps of Engineers 1995).
The Committee on Dams and Floods also points out that the US Army Corps of Engineers estimates
that the combination of upstream storage and other works reduced the flood peak at St Louis by two
metres, with the result that flood crest was one metre below the top of the floodwall that protected the
business district.
Throughout this report, the necessity of comparing options has been stressed. Thus, one of the more
interesting figures on the effectiveness of dams is given in the US Army Corps of Engineers
assessment of flood management options for the Mississippi system. Table 6 summarises the
calculated impacts on flood levels of a number of management options which would either decrease
runoff or increase storage. The figures are for the Omaha District (chosen here because the figures
are most complete and generally show the greatest effects).
This particular example shows that the reservoirs had a significantly greater effect than the
alternatives tested, one advantage of reservoirs or detention basins being that the use of the storage
can be timed to have the greatest effect upon the flood peak.
Table 6 Flood management options for the Upper Mississippi and Lower Missouri Rivers
Omaha district
Remove existing agricultural levees (and -3 to –4.5 ft
continued agricultural usage)
Remove existing agricultural levees (and -0.7 to –2.3 ft
reversion to natural vegetation)
Set back levees -0.4 to –1.4 ft
Remove existing reservoirs +3 to +9 ft

flood duration increased
from 0 to 60 at Sioux
City,
1 to 67 days at Omaha,
25 to 80 days at Nebraska
City
Runoff reduction by 10% -0.8 to –1.4 ft
(Note: St Paul District estimated that would
require conversion of 2.5 million acres to
wetland to provide storage equivalent to 10%
reduction in runoff)
(Source: US Army Corps of Engineers 1995)
Following a catastrophic flood in 1913, which resulted in the loss of 360 lives, local residents in the
Miami Valley in Ohio pressed for improved flood alleviation measures. New legislation permitted
the creation of a Conservancy with the power to raise taxes to undertake flood alleviation works.
Prior to constructing a series of detention dams and other works, the Conservancy District assessed
the benefits and costs of the plan for some 77,000 individual tracts of land along some 195 kilometers
of river. One purpose of this exercise was to set equitable taxes but a second requirement was that
the benefit-cost ratio should exceed three. Following completion in 1929, the dams have been used
over 1,000 times. This is a particularly interesting case because the works were funded by the local
community.
More detailed data is available for the Cerrillos Dam in Puerto Rico. This is a 98 metre high dam that
protects the city of Ponce at the mouth of the Bucana River (Committee on Dams and Floods 2000).
The Bucana is a classic flashy river with a long narrow catchment with an area of 81 km2, mainly of
tropical vegetation, and an average slope of 55 meters per kilometer. Consequently, flood velocities
in Ponce have been measured as up to 2.4 metres/second, and thus pose a significant risk to life
(Section 3.1). The Cerrillos Dam is designed to provide adequate flood storage for flood with a peak
inflow of 1342 m3/sec, resulting from 440 mm of runoff over the catchment, and a inflow hydrograph
volume of 29x106m3, for which it provides storage for 20x106m3 – rather greater than the 100 year
return period flood volume. The value of the property at risk of flooding in Ponce was estimated as
US$600 million. The Committee on Dams and Floods reports that when Hurricane Hortense struck
Puerto Rico in 1996, the partially complete works reduced flood losses by US$130 million.
Hurricane Georges resulted in daily rainfall amounts of 550mm and 450 mm on the 21st and 22nd
September, with a peak inflow to the Cerrillos Dam of 1506 m3/sec, estimated to be the 170-year
runoff event (US Army Corps of Engineers 1999). The Corps estimates that the reduction in flood
losses was approximately US$320 million, and that otherwise the depth of flood water in the centre
of Ponce would have been 1.4 metres. As in the Japanese examples, the introduction of storage was
coupled with channel improvements and other control works in Ponce.
The US Army Corps of Engineering reports annually (US Army Corps of Engineers 1998, 1999) to
the US Congress on both the estimated flood losses and the reductions in flood losses that resulted
from existing flood alleviation works. Since the emphasis in flood alleviation is on catchment
management, the reductions in losses are not generally attributed to dams versus levees. In addition,
as in the Mississippi flood of 1993, the operation rules for the dams were often varied to take account
of the conditions experienced so as to aid flood fighting in the areas downstream. But, the reports do
ascribe significant reductions in flood losses to the operation of dams; for example, the main stem
reservoirs on the Missouri reducing losses by $US 5.2 billion during the early spring flood in 1997
(US Army Corps of Engineers 1998).
A useful statistic to have would have been the relative importance of dams within the flood
management strategies of different countries and the extent to which there are systematic differences
between countries in the use of dams, although such differences would probably largely reflect
differences in topography.
It is not possible to break down the ICOLD figures to see whether there have been changing patterns
of construction of dams for flood alleviation purposes over time. The caveats made above about
probable differences in national reporting patterns would also make using anything except a single
nation’s figures of dubious reliability. Figure 2 illustrates the variation over the years in the number
of all types of dams built in different countries. How these plots should be interpreted can be argued;
one possible interpretation is as a wave of development which must decline as sites for dams are
exhausted. Why any such wave exists is also a phenomena whose meaning could be contested; one
interpretation being that dams have been regarded as a symbol of modernisation and independence –
an argument that has been proposed in the case of Spain.
Figure 2 Reported trends over time in the number of dams built
% of all dams by decade built
60
50 USA
40 UK
%
30 Spain
20 Japan
10 India
0 Turkey
<1900
1910-
1930-
1950-
1970-
1990-
1919
1939
1959
1979
1999
Italy
France
decade Korea
2. The Nature Of Floods, Flood Generation And Floodplain

Development
2.1 Flood Production
In water resource management, runoff is the resource: rivers simply concentrate and convey the
water. For human purposes, the ideal pattern of runoff is one that shows little variation from year to
year and is concentrated in the growing seasons. In general terms, the pattern of human demand for
water is generally subject to less variation in time over the year than the variation in climate.
Particularly in arid zones, variations not only within years but also between years can be substantial
(Smith 1999). The standard water availability indices (Falkenmark and Widstrand 1992) of runoff
per capita can therefore be seriously misleading as indicators of the availability of water as a
resource. The Yellow River basin in northern China is simultaneously an area of enormous flood risk
and of water shortage (World Bank 1997), partly because rainfall is both highly variable and
concentrated in the summer months.
In floods the problem is the runoff and the rate at which it is concentrated both over space but more
especially in time. Both the intensity of precipitation and the areal extent of the precipitation event
are important. Because tropical storms typically resulting in intense rainfall over a large area, they
pose particularly severe problems. In arid areas, rainfall can also be intense and North Africa, for
example, has experienced very severe flash flooding. The form and nature of the catchment
determines how much of the precipitation is concentrated into the river and how quickly. How much
precipitation is converted to runoff and how quickly depends on the form of the impermeability of the
catchment and how quickly the water is conveyed off the surface. In naturally impermeable surfaces
such as rocks and clays, a high proportion of precipitation is converted to runoff. Urban areas are
largely impermeable and cities can be seen as mechanisms for harvesting rainfall; not infrequently the
additional runoff generated exceeds the potable water required to sustain them. Runoff also depends
upon the capacity of the surface either to retain moisture or to allow it to enter groundwater. Sandy
soils thus retain little moisture but highly organic soils can absorb large quantities of precipitation
and thus reduce runoff. Runoff also depends upon previous conditions: when the soil is already
saturated, is frozen or is baked hard by the sun, a high proportion of precipitation is converted to
runoff. Many of the most catastrophic floods that have occurred have been the result of rain falling
on land whose capacity to absorb water has already been taken up by earlier falls of rain.
Afforestation reduces all runoff and not just the runoff from the events that cause flooding. In Shanxi
Province of China, terracing and afforestation to control soil erosion (Dixon et al 1994) have also
increased water scarcity (World Bank 1997). Similarly, in the Crocodile river basin in South Africa,
the capacity of an industrial forest to capture rainfall is reducing the availability of water not only to
the demand areas downstream but also to the Krueger National Park. It is rarely possible to manage a
catchment with only a single purpose, such as flood alleviation, in mind. On the other hand,
afforestation has other benefits, notably carbon fixing and in terms of biodiversity, if carried out
using native species.
Human activity can change not only the proportion of precipitation that is converted to runoff but
also the rate at which that runoff reaches the water courses. Surface water drainage systems in urban
areas are usually designed to get ride of runoff as quickly by discharging it to the nearest water
course. Land drainage systems in agricultural and forest areas can have the same effect with the
result that the flood peak is both higher and occurs more rapidly than under natural conditions.
Topography is also critical; in small, steep rocky catchments, flash floods can be produced within a
few minutes of the rainfall event with water velocities of up to 15 metres a second so that such flood
events are quite capable of moving large boulders as well as uprooting trees. Such flash floods
present major risks to life.
Two obvious approaches to flood mitigation are therefore to limit runoff and slow drainage.
However, a large river is fed by a multiplicity of tributaries draining sub-catchments. The time taken
for runoff to reach a point on the main stem depends upon which tributary generated the runoff and
from what event. It is unlikely that a rainstorm will simultaneously effect the entire catchment; rather
there is likely to be a succession of runoff events as the rain front, for example, moves across the
catchment. Thus, in 1998, there were 8 flood crests as the rain front moved west up the Yangtze
(Daoxi and Siping 1999). Part of the management strategy for the Yangtze therefore is to seek to
prevent the flood peaks generated by the different tributaries and the main stem coinciding in time at
any point on the main river.
In addition to runoff, rivers also concentrate and transport sediment; this they also deposit, their
capacity to carry the sediment load depending on their flow. Some rivers, such as the Yellow River
in China, are almost a mudflow rather than a river. Therefore, it is necessary to consider controlling
erosion and the patterns of sediment transport and deposition at the same time as flood mitigation. In
areas subject to high levels of soil erosion, both ‘check’ and ‘warping’ dams can have a role to play
in capturing sediment before it enters the main river as well as in creating fertile areas on valley
bottoms (Development Alternatives 1999; Leung 1999; New South Wales 1999).
Because flooding is the result of runoff, it can be seen as an externality of land use in an area perhaps
hundreds of kilometres from the area affected by flooding. At the same time, flooding is only a
symptom of a problem rather than being a diagnosis of the problem. Thus, one reason why flooding
is increasing in Bangkok is because of excessive groundwater abstraction has lead to falls in ground
level.
The consequences of afforestation and deforestation
Afforestation normally results in increased evapotranspirational losses, but it does not necessarily
reduce flood risk; indeed, it may increase it if drainage ditches are used.
Afforestation may increase evapotranspiration by 50-100% and trees with high
evapotranspiration rates may be planted specifically to reduce flood risk and lower annual runoff,
e.g. -2%/10% increase in forest cover (Nisbet, 1990). Experimental evidence from the Institute of
Hydrology Plynlimon catchments shows 14% lower annual runoff in the forested basin (Blackie
and Newson, 1986).
The effect seems to reduce as the forest matures, perhaps because of reduced interception rates
through loss of branches or acid rain damage, or lower growth rates (Hudson and Gilman 1993).
This reduction in flood protection may be offset by degradation of ditches dug during planting.
Ditches increase drainage density and can halve time to peak, produce peakier response, higher
flood frequencies and volumes, and higher annual runoff (Robinson 1990). Increased sediment
yields may aggravate flooding downstream.
Deforestation tends to reduce evapotranspiration and runoff concentration times and thus
increase annual runoff, flood peaks and the peakedness of stormflow (Trimble and Weirich 1987;
Bosch and Hewlett 1982). However, the combination of climate, basin characteristics, tree
species and husbandry cause wide differences in response. Some catchments show no effect,
others only on some peak flows (Wright et al.1990), and larger peaks may not be affected,
perhaps because very intense storms in saturated basins generate substantial flows whatever the
landcover (Bruijnzeel and Bremmer 1989). Jones and Grant (1996) found a 100% increase in
peak discharges in large basins, but only 50% in small basins. Peaks increased by 7% in North
Carolina (Hewlett and Helvey 1970), 13% (in winter) in British Columbia (Henderson and
Golding 1987) and 38% in Malaysia (Bruijnzeel 1990).
Changes in evapotranspirational losses vary with species of tree. Removal of pine/eucalyptus
forest can increase runoff by 40mm/10% change in forest cover compared with 10mm/10% for
scrub (Dunne and Leopold 1978). However, if natural regeneration is allowed, the effects may
only have a ‘half-life’ of 2-7 years in high rainfall areas (Hibbert 1967). Sometimes flow can be
reduced by rapid grass growth.
Infiltration capacities tend to reduce, through compaction by logging vehicles and new roads,
or through changes in soil processes, especially root density. This will enhance infiltration-excess
overland flow, but in basins where saturation overland flow is a dominant source of floodwaters
effects may be less.
Climatic effects include: 1) less impact where torrential rains are common, 2) reduced
snowmelt flooding where snow accumulation under the forest has been significant, and 3)
reduced capture of ‘occult precipitation’ where forests were above the condensation level.
Flooding may be enhanced by accelerated soil erosion, landslides, deposition and reduced
channel capacities (Chan and Parker 1996). However, Hofer (1998) suggests this is not such an
important factor in increased flooding in Bangladesh, which is commonly blamed on
deforestation in the Himalayas.
Finally, forestry practices can be extremely important and effects can be reduced by careful
management (Collins and Pess 1997; Forestry Commission 1993).
J A A Jones,
University of Aberystwyth
2.2 The Use Of Floodplains
Floodplains were amongst the areas first developed for human settlements: the soils are often rich,
alluvial deposits; the land is flat; rivers were the best routes for transport; water was plentiful; and the
local wetlands provided good sources of material for building and domestic uses such as baskets.
Thus, floodplains have major competitive advantages for human settlement and people from early
history chose the advantages of arable farming on the floodplains over a poorer life hunting-gathering
in the hills above the floods. Whilst settling on the floodplains exposed them to the risk of flooding,
the quality of life that could be achieved was greater; that greater prosperity also reduced their
vulnerability to other hazards. Maddison (1998) reports that in C8th China, 3/4s of the population
lived in north China from dryland farming; by the end of the C13th, 3/4s of the population lived south
of the Yangtze from rice farming. This shift allowed an immediate doubling of the population
together with a 30 per cent rise in per capita income.
This competitive advantage has continued to the present day. The Wentlooge Levels are a coastal
polder in South Wales; since the offshore mudflats are a Ramsar site, it looked like an ideal candidate
for managed retreat. Closer examination revealed that the reason why large new investments are
being attracted to the area are exactly the same as the reasons why the area was first reclaimed in
Romano-British times and was a centre for industrial activity in the C19th: the only alternative land is
either steep hillside or narrow river floodplain (Chatterton et al 1993).
From an economic perspective, the objective is to make the best use of the catchment as a whole: it is
not to minimise flood losses. Indeed, a rise in average flood losses can be quite consistent with an
increase in economic efficiency (Green et al 1993; Green 1999). From the catchment perspective,
there are two different questions to be answered:
• should further intensification in the development of the floodplain be encouraged? and
• should flood alleviation be undertaken for that development?
In most of the world, the floodplains are already part of the web of the socio-economic system; few
are untouched by human activity. From this catchment perspective, the term ‘floodplain
encroachment’ is highly misleading and also carries an essentially ideological message: the real
decision is whether it is better to develop on the floodplain than elsewhere. The answer may be yes
for one of two reasons: it is better to develop on the floodplain than anywhere else or there is
nowhere else to develop. Once other planning constraints are taken into account, such as
designations as areas of landscape value, of archaeological significance or ‘Green Belt’, the
floodplain may be the least damaging place for intensified development. For instance, the municipal
government decided to undertake flood alleviation works on the Black Brook near Loughborough and
then to develop the area because the alternative was intrusion into Charnwood Forest (Parker 1995).
In relative terms, the costs of flood alleviation are often much lower than the infrastructure and other
costs of intensifying development elsewhere. For example, in the Wentlooge Levels, the cost of
renovating the existing dike system was around £4,000 per property if the costs were only shared
across households. By contrast, the cost of providing infrastructure to a greenfield site amounted to
some £10,000 per property (Green and Warner 1999).
The constraints on flood management and the use of floodplains vary significantly between different
countries. Consequently, what is an appropriate policy in one country may be quite inappropriate in
another. Three measures of the pressures and constraints under which an appropriate flood
management policy must be developed are:
• Gross Domestic Product (GDP)/km2;
• population density; and
• arable land per capita.
The first is a joint measure of the availability of natural resources and the intensity with which they
are already being used; the second is a measure of the intensity of demand for those resources; and
the third a measure of the availability of a key resource (Tables 7 and 8). Thus, the lower are the
values on the first two measures and the higher value on the third, the less are the likely constraints in
developing a flood management strategy.
In particular, where arable land is scarce, and in food terms arable land is much more productive than
grazing land, it is less likely to be possible to consider abandoning some of that arable land or
converting it to grazing. Similarly, resettling people who live on the floodplain is a more practical
option in those countries, particularly those of C19th settlement, where population densities are, in
global terms, very low. To bring the population density of the USA to that of France, a not
particularly densely populated country, the population of the USA would have to increase the
equivalent of the 3/4’s of the population of China. Conversely, 100 million people inhabit the
floodplain of the Yellow River in China (World Bank 1997).
Table 7 Gross Domestic Product and population density per square kilometre
Country or State GDP/km2 Population/km2

New Jersey 10,010,810 371
Connecticut 6,685,702 228
The Netherlands 6,423,100 443
Japan 5,644,387 331
The United Kingdom 3,552,713 238
Germany 3,310,826 228
Illinois 1,859,901 78
France 1,600,902 104
United States 596,186 28
Missouri 587,108 29
Bangladesh 152,341 871
South Dakota 70,090 4
China 46,535 120
Montana 36,760 2
Australia 33,095 2
Nepal 21,930 143
Mali 1,639 7
Table 8 Arable land availability per capita
Country Arable land (hectares) per capita

Algeria 0.27
Australia 2.68
China 0.10
Germany 0.14
India 0.17
Japan 0.03
Thailand 0.29
United Kingdom 0.10
USA 0.67
World average 0.24
source: World Bank Selected World Development Indicators 1999/2000
Precisely because they were settled early, floodplains are typically integrated into existing
agricultural and economic activities. Floodplains are used for flood recession farming and seasonal
livestock grazing; they also provide fish and materials for construction and everyday use (Acreman
and Hollis 1996; Drijver and Marchand 1985). At the same time, the occupiers of the floodplains
have adapted to the risk of flooding so as to cope with the flood hazard. These adaptations vary from
the raised earth mounds constructed in Zeeland as flood refuge areas, to raising housing on stilts in
Malaysia to the practice of taking refuge in roof areas in Bangladesh. In Setubal, in Portugal,
residents have adapted to frequent flooding by closing off their front door with either a steel door or a
concrete wall. In some cases, a similar wall has been constructed across the door between the living
area and the bathroom so that when the toilet overflows in a flood, the living area is protected
(Penning-Rowsell and Fordham 1994). The most extreme form of adaptation is perhaps that of the
char dwellers of Bangladesh. Here, the rivers are constantly changing their courses, creating and
eroding islands and the char dwellers retain title to land whether or not it is currently part of the river
channel (Schmuck-Widmann 1996).
Thus, many populations are highly adapted to the routine pattern of flooding. For example, Charles
Namafe (1989) contrasts the language of a traditional song to the militaristic language of Dutch
consultants studying a proposed polder scheme. The language of the consultants was of ‘flood
control’, ‘flood fighting’ and ‘flood defence’, defining floods as something to be fought against and
subdued as opposed to the celebratory and coping terms used in the local song. Nevertheless, as the
song itself says, some floods are so extreme that they overwhelm the traditional coping responses.
At the same time, lowland floodplains are frequently wetlands. These are amongst the richest
habitats in the world and the strongest argument against intensifying development of the floodplains
is usually the ecological value of the existing wetlands. When the functional values of wetlands (de
Groot 1987; Maltby 1986) are added to this equation, it can be more efficient to leave the wetlands
alone. The value of wetlands in terms of providing fisheries and other functional values have now
been extensively reported (Barbier et al 1997; Crowards and Turner 1997; Dixon et al 1994; Maltby
1986).
Whilst some floodplains may have been chosen as highly desirable places to live, others are inhabited
by the least advantaged groups. They typically have the least choice where to live and end up by
settling on the most marginal land. This is often on the steep slopes where, with development, the
slopes become even more unstable and there is a severe risk of a land- or mudslide. In other cases,
the marginal land may be on the floodplain, particularly where proximity to a river has no advantages
to offset the risks of flooding.
Floods in Bulozi (Western Zambia)

translated by Charles Namafe from
Sibetta O K (1983) Fa Munanga Wa Lyambai, Lusaka: Neczam
It is floodtime in Bulozi!
There is the floodplain clothed in the water garment
Everywhere there is water!
there is brightness!
there are some sparkles!
waves marry with the sun’s glory
Birds fly over the floods slowly,
they are drunken with cold air
they watch a scene which comes but once a year
floods are beautiful.
Bulozi is the floods’ place of abode

every year the floods pay us a visit
A Lozi does not beg for floods
We do not turn to herbs to have floods
We do not practice witchcraft whatsoever
They are floodwaters indeed!
The floods know their home area.
Floods are ours

the floods themselves
they know their own route
they know their home area
they know where they’re needed
And when we ourselves see them
we are inflated with happiness
our hearts become lighter
we do not fear floods.
Floods are a typical Lozi’s patelo

When floods are in, we prepare the royal boat
It is a happy occasion in Bulozi
Listen! the royal drums boom in the palace
the royal drums are calling paddlers
they are calling the youth paddlers and others.
Floods are a typical Lozi’s patelo

the royal drums are never bought
they cannot be priced
they cannot be given away.
We might give away cobs of maize or fishes
but royal drums are ours, and ours alone

their boom sound tickles our blood
we get mad of our cultural heritage
we then dress in animal skin loins.
Floods, Kuomboka Ceremony and the royal drums
are all ours, and ours alone.
Disadvantaged communities and their location in floodplains – a case study
The unplanned and unmanageable large-scale migration from rural to urban areas is a
feature of many developing countries of the world, especially in Africa. Often, the only
available areas close to employment opportunities, schools and hospitals, are on the
floodplains that were previously identified as being unsuitable for residential occupation.
The steadily increasing occupation of these flood prone areas by socially and economically
disadvantaged communities in developing countries, has resulted in an increasing proportion
of their populations becoming vulnerable to floods.
A hydrological factor that exacerbates the problem in the semiarid regions of Africa is that
the variability of river flow increases with aridity. In the semiarid regions a dry river bed can
become a raging torrent within a matter of hours. Flood levels and water velocities are very
much higher than those in otherwise equivalent rivers in moderate climates.
A good example is the township of Alexandra within the Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan
Area in South Africa. Alexandra has some 350,000 residents living within a four square
kilometre area. Most local authorities in South Africa prohibit residential occupation below
the 1:50-year floodline, yet in Alexandra there are more than 6,000 people living along the
banks of the Jukskei River in flimsy shacks below this floodline. Shacks have been built on
all available space right up to the edge of the almost vertical river banks. In some cases
shacks have been built on refuse dumps within the channel itself. Another 3,000 shacks are
located within the stormwater drainage system inside Alexandra.
The Jukskei River through Alexandra has a steep gradient, so the water velocity during
floods will be high and will cause severe damage to all structures in its path. Even a minor
flood that does not overtop the river banks will engulf the shacks within the river channel, and
undermine the river banks causing the shacks on the banks to collapse into the river.
Once the flood water level rises above the river banks the densely packed shacks further
from the river will start collapsing. The debris from the shacks, particularly floating timber
and submerged corrugated iron sheets caught in the fast flowing water, will seriously injure
escapees attempting to wade through the water even if this is less than knee-deep. This will
also hinder rescue attempts and increase the probability that people isolated in their shacks or
washed into the river will drown.
Floating debris, particularly large trees from the upstream catchment, may also block bridge
openings and deflect the flood to an adjacent area that would otherwise have been out of
danger. Lives may be lost when spectators gather on bridges or on the river banks and their
escape routes are cut off as the river rises, or the river banks collapse. It will be difficult and
dangerous to use rubber boats on the river to rescue people trapped in the debris. It may still
be raining heavily when floods occur, thereby preventing helicopter rescues. The high
velocity and large quantities of floating debris will prevent boat rescues. There will also be a
very short time for mobilising the rescue services. A major flood will rise rapidly, destroy all
shacks in its path and result in a large loss of life.
This leaves the implementation of a flood warning system as the only viable short term
solution. The Johannesburg Civil Protection Service and the Department of Civil
Engineering of the University of Pretoria developed a simple flood warning system for
Alexandra. This has the following components
Automatic rainfall telemetry equipment was installed at several sites in the Jukskei
River catchment. This information is relayed to the crisis control centre. Sirens within
Alexandra will be activated by radio from the crisis centre when the water level in the
river at an upstream road bridge reaches a level that is likely to pose a threat in
Alexandra. The advance warning will be very short - possibly less than 30 minutes - so
it is imperative that the communities at risk should know what to do when the sirens are
sounded.
The only viable long term solution is to provide incentives that will encourage the
threatened communities to move to less vulnerable areas. This can be achieved by the
provision of new houses in safe areas for those most at risk. However, there are difficult
political and economic decisions that have to be taken before this objective can be
achieved. Those most at risk are usually those who arrived last by which time no other
land was available. They therefore have the lowest priority for new houses. If they are
given high priority, this policy will become known and will encourage others to
deliberately occupy unsafe areas.
Areas that have been evacuated may subsequently be re-occupied if the local authority
does not have powers to prevent this happening. Forced removal is politically
unacceptable and occupants of shacks in unsafe areas may prefer to stay where they are,
rather than to move to better housing further from their places of employment, schools,
and other facilities. It must be appreciated that flood risks are not the only risks to life
and property that these communities have to face.
The unplanned occupation of flood prone urban areas by socially and economically
disadvantaged communities is a problem that is more likely to increase than decrease in
the years ahead.
W. J. R. Alexander, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Pretoria, South

Africa, and member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on
Natural Disasters.
3. The Benefits and Costs of Floods
The effects of floods are extraordinarily complex and include both beneficial (i.e. positive) and
adverse (i.e. negative) impacts on society and the environment. One of the problems of flood impact
assessments is that they often focus solely or mainly upon the adverse impacts and a truly balanced
flood impact assessment methodology has yet to emerge. There is no doubt that floods destroy
economic resources of value to society, but it is also true that floods can generate financial gains
which can offset financial losses (Parker 2000).
Some of the most beneficial social and environmental effects of floods are listed in Table 9. They
arise from the moisture and sediment content of floodwater, the positive impacts of floods on aquatic
systems, and the increases in economic and other activities which are generated by floods. These are
effects which may be hidden and forgotten. Flood impacts are ‘distributive’ in that losses in the
floodplain sometimes generate gains elsewhere outside of the floodplain. For example, the flooding
of a retail outlet will normally lead to customers temporarily transferring their business to a flood free
outlet which experiences a gain in business. Following damaging floods there is usually an increase
in business amongst building and repair firms who gain from the flooding. Similarly, regions heavily
affected by floods may lose trade to neighbouring regions which remain flood-free. The adverse
effects of floods are difficult to trace because of the multiple-order effects on society and economy,
but much is now known about these impacts (Parker et.al. 1987; Parker and Thompson 1991).
Table 9The beneficial impacts of floods
Among the beneficial effects of floods are that they may:
• replenish soils with alluvial silt which adds to soil fertility and
subsequent soil productivity;
• replenish soil moisture which may be a factor in subsequent increased crop
yields (this is particularly important in ‘recession’ agriculture);
• be beneficial to aquatic ecosystems and to human livelihoods (e.g. fishing)
associated with them;
• lead to medium to long term gains in industrial efficiency where plants based upon out-dated
layout and machinery or replaced by redesigned and updated ones; and
• lead to an increase in family and community spirit and bonding.
The impacts of floods may be divided in several ways. One common way is to categorise flood
losses as tangible or intangible. Tangible damages are usually taken as those which can be measured
in monetary terms, such as the dollar damage to the fabric of a factory, although such measurement is
hardly ever precise and relies heavily upon damage estimation procedures. Tangible flood losses can
be very large as in the 1988 river flood in Bangladesh which caused an estimated US$1,416 million
(Islam 1997). Intangible losses are those which either presently defy monetary measurement (e.g. the
loss of an archaeological complex by erosion caused by flooding), and/or those for which monetary
estimates are considered undesirable and inappropriate. Thus, at one time all flood impacts were
‘intangibles’; as the state of the art has developed, some have been converted into ‘tangibles’. At any
time, therefore, ‘intangibles’ are the bits left out of the analysis and because they are not quantified,
they may be the most or less important impacts of flooding. It has been found quite consistently
(Allee et al 1980; Green and Penning-Rowsell 1986, 1989; Penning-Rowsell et al 1992) that the
‘intangible’ impacts of flooding on households - the stress, disruption and loss of items of sentimental
value - are more important to the affected households than the damage to their home and its
replaceable contents. The results from more than 1300 interviews with flood victims are summarised
in Figure 3. The impacts are arranged from front to back in terms of increasing average severity and
the locations similarly ordered from left to right by decreasing average impact severity.
Figure 3 Subjective assessments by households of the relative severity of the

different impacts of flooding
(sources: FHRC data)
relative severity of flood impacts
10
6
severity
3 Disruption and recovery

Stress of the flood
2 Worry about future flooding
Having to leave home
1 Loss of memorabilia
0 Damage to house
Damage to replaceable items
Effects on health
area flooded
scales: 0 = minor impact

10 = very severe impact
A further way of dividing flood losses is to categorise them as direct or indirect. Direct flood losses
are those which arise through the physical contact of floodwater with people or property, as for
example in floodwater damaging the carpets and furniture of a home through immersion. Indirect
flood losses are those damages which are consequent upon direct flood damage. For example, when
a factory suffers direct flood damage its production processes may be interrupted leading to loss of
sales and other losses (such as increased cleaning costs). Finally, a third way of categorising losses is
through multiple-order effects so that primary, secondary and tertiary losses are identified.
Figure 4 The mechanisms of flood losses
depth
sediment
salt
duration
chemicals
flood sewage
loads
losses
debris
depth + velocity
battering by
velociity
debris
undermining of
foundations
Flood damage is produced by a number of ‘damage mechanisms’ (Figure 4). The depth of flooding
is a key determinant of flood damage (Penning-Rowsell and Chatterton 1977; Black and Evans 1999)
and depth-damage curves have been developed for a number of countries (Figure 5). Floodwater
velocity is also a determinant of flood damage, with damage values tending to increase as velocities
increase. Riverine flash floods and dam-break floods can generate high floodwater velocities which
are quite capable of sweeping away robustly constructed structures and buildings (Bureau of
Reclamation 1988; Emergency Management Australia 1999; New South Wales Government 1986;
Reiter 2000; Sangrey 1975). Whilst the interaction of depth and velocity is important in determining
the probability of structural collapse, timber and masonry buildings are likely to fail when flood
velocities exceed 2 metres/second. Since buildings obstruct flood flows, they can create locally
intense flood velocities that induce scour that can itself induce the structural failure of buildings (US
Army Corps of Engineers 1998a).
Flash floods often carry large loads of debris (derived from trees, eroded banks, damaged structures
and vehicles caught in the flooding) which are themselves mechanisms of further damage. For
example, Oi (1993) shows a 5,000 tonne boulder that was deposited by the Mandu Khola during the
1993 floods in Nepal.
Flood duration can lead to increased flood damage values, both direct and particularly indirect losses.
Indirect industrial flood losses are related to the length of plant outage, both as a result of closure
whilst flooded and recovery afterwards (Parker et al 1987). A number of other mechanisms may
contribute to overall damage values. The sediment or debris load of floodwaters is one example and
floodwater is also often contaminated. In residential areas floodwater is usually contaminated with
sewage because of the flooding of sewers and sewerage systems. In industrial areas floodwater may
be contaminated by any manner of chemicals derived from commercial processes and vehicles. This
can lead to fire or, for example, to the contamination of fresh water supplies.
Figure 5 Depth-damage curves for dwellings

(Source: Halcrow et al 1999)
Dwellings: structural losses
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
proportional loss
2.50
UK:FLAIR - all dwelling

2.00
USA - FIA 1985
1.50 (Appelbaum)
Japan %
1.00
Bangladesh : house type 4
0.50 Australia - SMEC 1975
0.00 Canada- IBI/ECOS 84m2

2storey* (1982 prices)
0.1
0.3
0.75
1.2
1.8
2.4
2.74
3.66
-0.3
depth
3.1 Risks to Life and Health

Floods are high probability events since protection is not usually provided to reduce the risk to less
than 1 in 200 per year and in most countries the standard of protection is considerably lower.
However, the risk of death should a flood occur is usually low compared to other hazards, although
this depends on the zone affected. Nevertheless, floods do kill and sometimes kill hundreds of people
(floods in Eastern Mexico in October 1999 resulted in at least 300 deaths (Independent, October 12,
1999)), and where very large areas of low lying land are affected, with very large populations, large
numbers of people may die, as in the Bangladesh floods of 1987 and 1988. Very often in major
events the number of lives lost may never be accurately known.
The flood conditions in which the risks of death are likely to be greatest are those where one or more
of the following conditions exist:
• flow velocities are high;
• flood onset is sudden as in flash floods, for example the Big Thompson flood, USA, in 1976
and flash floods in Southeast China in 1996 (Gruntfest, 1997);
• flood waters are deep;

• natural or artificial protective structures fail by overtopping or collapse. Flood alleviation
and other artificial structures themselves involve a risk to life because of the possibility of
failure, for example dam or dike failure; and
• where extensive low lying densely populated areas are affected, as in Bangladesh.
Deaths occur in flood events through a range of circumstances:
• Death rates in floods are high where buildings fail to provide a safe refuge (Table 10),
collapsing or being swept away (Green, Parker and Emery 1983). Timber framed buildings,
mobile homes, informal, temporary and fragile structures and tented dwellings may give rise
to significant loss of life or hazardous rescues. In many countries, floodplain land is the only
space available for settlement particularly by poor, or migrant, people who are likely to lack
the resources to build sound structures.
• People trapped in buildings or on the roofs of buildings may die from exposure as illustrated
by the Mozambique floods of February/March 2000.
• Deaths can also occur where people are trapped in single story buildings, ground floor
apartments, cellars or underground structures, such as railways or car parks which can pose a
particular threat to life in urban areas. The growing tendency to multi-levelled cities where
shopping centres and cinemas are below ground level, as for example in Hong Kong, is
increasing this risk. Metro systems present a particularly high risk, especially from flash
floods but also from burst water mains and surcharged sewers.
• Pedestrians unaware of the power of flood waters may be swept away. Abt et al. (1989), in
an experimental study, concluded that the safe limit would be a product of depth (metres)
times velocity (metres/sec) of 1.0. Australian data give similar results (Emergency
Management Australia 1998; New South Wales Government 1986), as does Finnish research
(Reiter 2000). Eighty percent of the estimated 200 deaths in Monterrey, Mexico in 1988
were attributed to attempts to ford the flooded river (Vazquez et al 1997).
• Many deaths in floods occur because people attempt to drive though or away from flood
waters and get swept away or trapped in their cars; their cars either then get swept away as a
result of positive buoyance (Bureau of Reclamation 1988; Emergency Management Australia
1998; New South Wales Government 1986; Reiter 2000) or stuck in the flood water. For
example, in the Big Thompson flood in USA many of those who died were drivers who
attempted to outrun the flash flood.
• In Bangladesh, a significant number of deaths during floods are from snake bite as both
people and reptiles take refuge in the same trees.
• In flooded urban areas, people attempting to move about, particularly where flood waters are
turbid or discoloured, may fall down blown manholes, into excavations or into ditches.
It should be stressed is that where there is a risk of flooding, it is commonly very high relative to that
from other hazards. Outside of the Netherlands and some other countries, it is unusual for a flood
alleviation project to be designed to protect against a flood more severe with than that with a return
period of 200 years. Consequently, the risk to life from flooding is likely to be higher than those
levels of risk which are deemed to be acceptable or tolerable in regard to such hazards as nuclear
power stations or chemical plants. For those other hazards, a general rule of thumb has been adopted
that an individual risk of death per year of one in one million is a threshold value. Thus, to be
consistent with this threshold value, the conditional risk of death should a flood occur cannot exceed
one in ten thousand: there is no doubt that in some contexts the conditional risk of death is
considerably greater than this. It is, therefore, essential to assess whether the risk of death is
particularly high in any area under study and to determine what are the most appropriate measures to
reduce it. These measures may include one or all of the following: emergency plans, flood warnings,
the provision of flood refuges or evacuation plans.
Some analyses have been undertaken of past floods (DeKay and McClelland 1993; Kraak 1994) in
order to try to estimate the risk of life from flooding but it is difficult in such studies to separate out
the small part of the population who were exposed to a high risk from those who were exposed to a
much lower risk. Graham’s (1999) analysis gives conditional probabilities of death that range from
0.0002 for low severity floods in areas where there is a good understanding of floods and more than
sixty minutes of warning to 0.75 in areas just downstream of a catastrophic dam failure occurring
without any effective warning.
Research literature on floods (Bennet, 1970; Drescher and Abueg 1995; Green et al, 1985; Handmer
and Smith 1983; Heurta and Horton, 1978; Penning-Rowsell et al 1992; Powell and Penick, 1983;
Tapsell et al 1999; Waelde, Koopman and Spiegel 1998) and on dam bursts (Baum, 1983) indicates
that these events can have significant health effects, ranging from premature death, higher than
expected cancer rates, although the evidence on this is inconclusive, and other clinical problems
requiring hospitalisation and medical consultations.
Depending on the circumstances and characteristics of the flood, events may pose a serious threat of
illness and death through gastro-intestinal illnesses, dysentery, cholera, and respiratory illness due to
exposure to poor and insanitary living conditions, sewage spread, the contamination of drinking water
supplies, and the disruption to transport, food and medical supplies and services (Gueri et al, 1986).
There may be an increase in the incidence of malaria, yellow fever and other insect and snail borne
diseases as these breed in standing water (Blaikie et al., 1994). Thus, illnesses and injuries may
result in raised death rates in the aftermath of flooding (Gueri et al., 1986, Blaikie et al, 1994). The
pervasiveness of morbidity and disablement problems after flooding is indicated by Sikander’s
(1983) finding that between 43% and 57% or rural households surveyed in Pakistan following flood
events fell ill after floods. Those most vulnerable to health effects of flooding are likely to be those
who are most vulnerable in normal conditions: the young, the old, the sick, the disabled and the poor
(Blaikie et al, 1994) although the evidence is mixed as to the differential vulnerability of the elderly.
However, a major cause of subsequent health damage seems to be the stress of the flood itself. There
is evidence that stress induces immunological changes. Recent qualitative research (Tapsell et al,
1999) suggests that the stress of the flood event itself, the stress and disruption to life during the
recovery period and worry about future flooding can have a serious effect on physical and
psychological health, as well as the well being, of flood victims. Pre-existing medical conditions
were perceived to be exacerbated and some new mental and physical conditions were attributed to the
flood event (Tapsell et al, 1999).
Table 10 Flood conditions and probability of structural failure of masonry

buildings
(Source: Penning-Rowsell et al 1992)
Depth x
Result Velocity
velocity
< 3.0 metres2/

inundation damages only <2 metres/second
second
> 3.0 metres2/

second
partial failure > 2 metres/second
<7.0 metres2//second
structural collapse > 2 metres/second >7.0 metres2/second
3.2 Agricultural Benefits and Costs
Clearly flooding can have highly positive effects in agricultural areas, and the ‘normal’ annual
flooding which takes place in many agricultural floodplains of the world is a vital source of moisture
for crop growth. This is particularly so in arid, semi-arid, tropical and sub-tropical climates where
drought is a major problem and irrigation is a regular requirement for crop growth; one such form of
irrigation is then recession planting (Marchand 1987). In Bangladesh the agricultural economy
depends upon regular flooding which moisturises soils. Alluvial silt from flooding is also generally a
rich source of additional fertility (Table 9), although floods may also deposit sand that decreases soil
fertility. In Bangladesh, the activity of blue-green nitrogen fixing algae during the floods are
considered to play an important role in increasing yields from the post-flood crop (Brammer 1990).
Thus, Rogers (Rogers et al 1990) argued that Bangladesh did not have a flooding problem but an
irrigation problem. In general, it is perhaps better to think of agricultural areas in terms of water level
management rather than of flooding; both too much and too little water being harmful to plant growth
and yields.
However, whilst in the long run, and on average flooding, may be beneficial, this is of little relevance
to the subsistence farmer who cannot fed their family in the coming year because the crop has been
destroyed as the result of an extreme flood. Nor is it to the farmer who, having borrowed against the
expected crop to buy seed and fertiliser, looses their land and is reduced to a agricultural labourer or
share cropper. But, arguably in these circumstances, the appropriate response is not to undertake a
flood alleviation scheme but, for example, to introduce systems of low cost credit and other ways of
reducing the risks of crop loss.
In temperate regions, an excess of soil moisture is a barrier to agricultural productivity and the
management problem becomes one of maintaining the water table at an appropriate height relative to
the root zone. Damage occurs when the water table rises and begins to damage crop roots;
frequently, the larger part of the value of the crops has been lost before ‘flooding’ occurs. In these
circumstances the soil becomes saturated and this gradually destroys crops. In addition, localised
flooding from local rainfall may cause flooding and crops losses in an area before that area has
flooded from the major river in the area. Thus, in areas protected by a dike, local flooding within the
protected area can destroy the crops notionally protected by the dike. If soil water levels are not
controlled then there is generally little advantage in controlling surface water levels.
While, irrigation may be needed in temperate climates during the drier seasons, in the wet season
land drainage will be required to lower the water table to acceptable levels for farming. Land
drainage comprises a range of techniques designed to keep water levels below the root zone such as
continuous pumping of land, the maintenance of efficient drainage networks and the installation of
under-soil drainage. For agriculture, the distinction between land drainage and irrigation is
somewhat artificial and it is better to think in terms of water level management: of managing soil
moisture levels within the optimal range.
3.2.1 Flood Losses
One of the difficulties about policies relating to agricultural areas is that they are only rarely
primarily about agricultural production. They may be driven by concerns about alleviating rural
poverty, ensuring national food security, avoiding migration to the cities, or simply securing votes,
but they are not generally about making the most efficient use of agricultural land. Therefore, simply
looking at flood mitigation for agricultural land in terms of crop losses can be to misunderstand the
reasons why the works were undertaken in the first place.
For these reasons, agricultural production is also typically directly or indirectly subsidised. Direct
subsidies include guaranteed prices, as found in the Common Agricultural Policy in Europe. There
are often also indirect subsidies such as subsidised prices for electricity, fertilisers, land
improvements, fuel and irrigation: it being rare that farmers pay all of the costs of irrigation (Garrido
1999).
From an economic perspective, the value of reducing the amount of crops lost through flooding can
then be rather low since increasing crop production will also increase the amounts that must be paid
in subsidies. In terms of loss per hectare, crop losses are typically much lower than those to be
expected in urban areas and it is correspondingly more difficult to justify providing flood mitigation
in rural areas or to provide a high standard of protection. The extent of the crop losses to be expected
depend upon where the flood occurs in the growing season and also on the duration of flooding
(Figures 6 and 7).
In areas where there are two or more crops each year, a flood may damage or destroy not only the
standing crop but also prevent or delay the planting of the next crop. In some cases it may be
possible for the farmer to plant an alternative second crop but this will generally give a lower valued
yield than the preferred crop.
However, in many cases, the crops that destroyed by a flood had already been severely damaged as a
result of water-logging before the land was eventually flooded (e.g. Hong and Zhang-Yu 1999).
Figure 6 Crop losses in a northern climate (Hungary)

(Source: Podmaniczky 1999)
% loss of yield - flood duration of 15 days
100
90
80 Cereals
70 Fodder crops
60
Maize
%
50
Sugar beet
40
30 Sunflow er
20 Grassland
10
0
Sept
March
May
Nov
July
Jan
m onth
Figure 7 Crop losses in a Southern climate (Australia)

(Source: Higgin 1981)
losses as % of gross margins
100
80 WHEAT
60 SORGHUM
%
40 BARLEY/OATS
20 SOYABEANS
0 MAIZE
SUNFLOWER
month RAPE SEED
3.2.2 Land Drainage
In agricultural areas it is typically land drainage rather than flood alleviation that offers the major
benefits. Controlling soil moisture levels increases yields and allows farmers to switch to higher
valued but more sensitive crops: the consequent gains can be substantial (Table 11). Historically,
the rationale for land drainage has been to allow a switch from rough pasture to arable uses. Farmers
will make this switch even though there continues to be a high risk of flooding, provided that they
have a way of bridging, through credit or other means, between good and bad years. Thus, in
Britain, agricultural areas were seldom protected against floods with a return period of more than 10
years. Similarly, in the Netherlands and Germany, ‘summer dikes’, which only provide protection
against the floods in the peak growing season have commonly been provided ahead of the main dike
line.
Indeed, in extreme floods, agricultural areas are commonly used for emergency flood storage. Land
drainage also requires considerable on-farm investment in the form of field drainage; it cannot be
expected that this will be undertaken by all farmers immediately that the land drainage scheme is
completed. Instead it will be some years before all farmers make that investment. Moreover, it will
be those farmers who have access to capital who undertake the works first. One consequence,
therefore, is that a land drainage scheme can have negative distributional consequences: small
farmers may be unable to finance the necessary works and may be forced to sell out their land to the
large landowners.
The dependency of arable production on soil moisture levels means that some agricultural flood
alleviation schemes have no, or negative, benefits because they are not accompanied by a land
drainage scheme for the protected area. Indeed, they may impede the drainage of the protected area.
Such problems have not been uncommon in Bangladesh.
Table 11 Economic benefits of land drainage in the UK

(Source: Dunderdale 1998)
drainage status economic net return (£/ha - 1997/98 prices)

land use type good bad very bad
1 extensive grass -73 -81 -103
2 intensive grass 320 245 131
3 grass/arable rotation 283 215 115
4 all cereal rotation 280 217 109
5 cereal/oil seed rotation 329 263 165
6 cereal/ root crop rotation 280 217 109
7 horticulture 1500 750 109 :change to LUT4
definitions of drainage
good water table depth from surface > 0.5m
bad water table depth from surface 0.3 to 0.5
very bad water table depth from surface <0.3m
3.2.3 Livestock Benefits and Losses
In many traditional farming systems, the floodplains are important areas of rough grazing for part of
the year (Marchand 1987). In such systems, the herds of livestock are grazed on different areas at
different times of the year; one consequence is that the conversion of the floodplain to arable land can
seriously impact on way of life of livestock farmers, promoting conflict between the arable and
livestock farmers.
Conversely, a large number of animals may be killed; both the likelihood that animals will die and the
number of animals who will be killed increases with industrial farming methods. Furthermore, the
loss of a draught animal by a small subsistence farmer will have a serious effect on that farmer’s
ability to plant and harvest the next crop.
Both in traditional agricultural systems and in new systems, aquaculture plays an important role. Fish
and shellfish may be caught in the natural water courses, introduced into paddy fields, or raised in
fish ponds. Fish in particular may contribute a significant proportion of protein in local diets as well
as being a major source of cash income.
3.3 Urban impacts

Some of the more important urban impacts of floods are categorised in Table 12. The impacts of
floods on urban areas are generally negative, although transfers are bound to take place between
flooded and flood-free sub-regional economies within metropolitan areas as a consequence of
flooding. Flood losses arise from the complex inter-dependencies which exist in urban economies in
which there will be a certain degree of redundancy (e.g. duplicated or alternative systems) which will
allow urban economies to overcome some of the effects of flooding. Effects on urban areas are likely
to be greater with region-wide or city–wide flooding as opposed to flooding in one part of the region
or city. Impacts will be greater for rapid-onset (flash) floods than for slow onset floods which may
take days to develop and which allow time for rescheduling and contingency plans to be put into
place.
Table 12 A categorisation of urban impacts of floods
Beneficial
• Financial gains in the manufacturing and service sectors arising from flood damages and losses
(for repair and replacement of damaged goods)
• Financial gains in flood-free commercial sector arising from flood losses in flooded commercial
sector (i.e. transfers)
• Stimulus to rethinking the design and layout of plant or urban areas to reduce flood exposure and
impacts (in extreme cases urban relocation from flood prone to flood-free sites)
• Increases in industrial and commercial efficiency arising from severe flood damage and
rebuilding to more efficient standards
Adverse (i.e. flood losses)
Direct Indirect
Physical damage to dwellings Disruption of household activities

Increased heating costs
Costs associated with evacuation
Physical damage to retail and related Disruption to trade and commerce;

businesses (e.g. leisure services, offices) re-routing of incoming tourists to
alternative flood-free destination
Physical damage to distribution depots Interruption of distribution systems;

and systems may lead to food and other shortages
in urban hinterlands (e.g. in countries
with limited alternative sources).
Physical damage to manufacturing plant Disruption to manufacturing; loss

and equipment of production; loss of sales; possible
loss of exports
Physical damage to public buildings Disruption of public services, and

and structures (e.g. schools, hospitals, disruption of communications; knock-on
medical services, bridges etc.) effects beyond the flooded area including
possibly on health care
Physical damage to public utilities Disruption of utility services leading

sewerage and sewage treatment to utility ‘outages’ – knock-on effects
gas distribution and storage facilities beyond the flooded area
electricity generation and transmission
water treatment, storage and distribution
telecommunication installations
Loss of utility and/or physical damage to Disruption to travel; congestion

communication systems and knock-on effects beyond the
vehicles flooded area
road systems
rail systems
waterway systems
airports
Costs of emergency services Additional costs of deploying

damage to police, fire, ambulance the emergency services generated
and other emergency service by a flood emergency
installations
Based on Parker et.al. (1997)
The effects of floods in urban areas can be expected to spread well beyond the area immediately
affected by floodwater because of spatial dependencies. For example, damaged electricity sub-
stations in a flooded area may well control the supply of electricity to areas beyond the flooded zone.
Similarly, a flooded road artery is likely to generate considerable congestion throughout a large part
of a city, and well beyond the area physically affected by floodwater. Flooding of large cities can
have impacts which spread out within the nation and globally, especially if financial markets or
tourist facilities are affected.
The exposure of urban areas to flooding is increasing rapidly over time. This is because catchment
urbanisation leads to the replacement of natural pervious surfaces with impermeable ones, reducing
soil infiltration and increasing runoff volumes. At the same time urban drainage systems often
operate in such a way as to reduce the times of concentration of runoff in streams and rivers. The
growth of urban areas is also sometimes associated with increased convectional storm activity and
increased convectional precipitation. In many cities land subsidence is a problem (e.g. Shanghai,
Bangkok) lowering land levels, and many of the world’s largest cities are developing in flood-prone
coastal zones in which sea level is rising relative to land level. All of these effects can exacerbate the
urban flood hazard and the impacts of flooding (Parker 1995). At the same time the values of
property at risk (i.e. in existing developed areas and newly-developing ones) are rising inexorably
within cities.
The susceptibility of urban systems to adverse flooding impacts is dynamic. The socio-economic
system may be considered as a network made up of nodes and links (Green 1995). Flooding may
then affect either, or both, nodes and links so that the overall vulnerability of the socio-economic
system is a function of the number of nodes and links affected, the susceptibility of the individual
nodes and links to damage or disruption, and the structure of the network. The introduction of new
technologies into urban life both reduce and increase susceptibility to flood loss – the picture is a
particularly complex one. For example, the increased ownership, use of, and dependence upon,
electronic appliances (e.g. computers) increases susceptibility to direct flood damage but increases
resilience to indirect flood loss. The introduction of ‘just-in-time’ concepts into the planning and
management of retail and other businesses means that these entities may be more susceptible than
previously to flood loss (Parker and Tapsell 1995).
At the same time, developed economies are characterised by lower degrees of redundancy than earlier
economies: individual industrial plants both produce a larger proportion of total production and
individual factories are more specialised. Therefore, if one plant is affected it can be difficult if not
impossible to source from alternative producers. In other respects, vulnerability is decreasing: the
switch to mobile phones is decreasing the vulnerability of telecommunications to flooding.
3.4 Environmental consequences of flooding

Ecosystems develop around the prevailing water regime. Therefore, it is necessary to differentiate
between floodplains that are currently unregulated and those where previous flood mitigation
strategies, land drainage or irrigation projects have created a particular water regime. In some cases,
the historical pattern of water level management has resulted in important ecological reserves
(Purseglove 1988).
3.4.1 Unregulated Rivers
Floodplain rivers that are unregulated are flanked by alluvial floodplains which are subject to
flooding during high flows and support biota adapted to floods. Floodplain rivers also have
associated aquatic systems such as standing water and flowing water in branches which contain at
least some species not found in the main channel. Floods, it can be argued, have a positive ecological
impact by sustaining flood adapted species and supporting the ecological well being of the river
ecosystem as a whole. During flooding, water is delivered to the floodplain and as flood waters
retreat, dissolved and suspended material is moved from the floodplain to the river channel supplying
nutrients, organic material to the riverine food web. The ‘Flood Pulse’ is argued to the major force
responsible for maintaining the complex physical and ecological structure of a floodplain (SAST
1994).
Diverse and specialised plant communities are maintained in mosaics by the spatial and temporal
patterns of flooding. This appears to be the case throughout the world (Hillman 2000). High
concentrations and diversity of terrestrial species are found in floodplain areas because of their plant
productivity. Mammals that live in the floodplain are usually amphibious spending time both feeding
in the water whilst raising their young on land which may then be susceptible to flooding.
Floodplain aquatic ecosystems systems depend on floods for their water supply. These systems are
diverse and specialised and also support rare flora and fauna not found in the parent river, thus
contributing to the biodiversity of the river system as a whole. Flooding stimulates the productivity
of these systems and also allows for an exchange of organisms such as fish and resources between the
river and associated wetlands.
Floods do cause specific damage as a result of ‘disturbance’ following flood events. For example: by
covering grassland in sand; washing fish fry away in floodwaters, or by isolating aquatic communities
isolated when a river changes course after a flood. However, floods are part of the natural
hydrological cycle and in natural floodplains, the effects of a flood are short term (Haeuber and
Michener 1998). Even some extreme events (for example, 1 in 100 year events) do not seem to cause
more much drastic changes than lesser events (Hillman 2000). Extreme events are further argued to
reset the dynamic functioning of rivers: whilst in the short term, some species are severely affected,
others gain (SAST 1994). There is reported to be some published evidence on the ecological impact
of a large dam collapse (SANDRP 2000) the high flows and long duration of flooding might be
expected to cause damage and habitat loss down stream. Where the rivers that flood are highly
polluted, for example the Rhine flooding of 1993, severe ecological damage can occur through
contamination of floodplain areas by flood waters, sediment containing harmful chemicals and other
substances (Dombrowsky and Ohlendiek 1998).
3.4.2 Managed and Regulated Rivers
Most floodplain rivers are managed to some degree for flood mitigation and flow regulation so that
the interaction between the river and floodplain ecosystems may be interrupted or broken completely.
The regulated release of flows from deep storage reservoirs may lower the temperature of rivers and
alter the velocity of flows affecting riverine ecosystems (Acreman et al 1999; Bergkamp et al 2000).
However, river management for flood mitigation or other purposes can have positive environmental
impact. Established drained and protected areas may support rare species and special habitats. Flood
retention ponds and reservoirs may also provide valuable habitats for example, for birds, and may
make possible releases of water for environmental purposes, for example, to provide water for low
flow rivers or drying wetlands.
Because the ecosystems behind existing flood embankments and around existing river regulation
projects have developed around the resultant water regime over, in some cases, hundreds of years,
abandoning those projects can have very damaging environmental consequences. Thus, when the
rehabilitation of the weirs on the River Nene was appraised, a large component of the benefits was
contributed by the costs of otherwise maintaining the existing water regime in the large number of
sites of local, regional and national environmental importance along the river (Balfour Maunsell
1995). Conflicts may further emerge between the proponents of the new ecosystem created by a new
water regime and those who argue for a restoration of the previous water regime. Walters (1996)
notes, for instance, that the maintenance of the new food chain in the Great Canyon resulting from the
new water regime created by the dams may be threatened by the restoration of seasonal flooding
targeted at the maintenance of the habitat requirements for endangered native fish species.
3.4.3 Offshore Impacts of Flooding
The sediment deposited by the freshwater plume of flood waters can have a deleterious impact on
coastal species. Thus, flash floods in Sinai result in sediment deposition on the coastal coral reefs
(Ras Gharib et al 1997); increased soil erosion and the loss of the coastal mangrove swamps causes
the same problem in Barbados; whilst in Spain the channelisation of the rivers, and hence their
greater capacity to carry sediment, has resulted in offshore ‘landslides’ and damage to sea grass beds.
3.4.4 Integrated catchment management and the environment
Holistic flood management is based on integrated catchment management across all functions and on
the co-ordination of land and water planning. As the shift towards holistic management occurs, we
have seen three waves of progressively bolder approaches to taking account of the environmental
consequences of projects.
1. Minimising the environmental harm done both by the works themselves and maintenance of those
works (Purseglove 1988);
2. Incorporating environmental enhancements into the project (Wasserwirtshaft in Bayern 1990),
restoration of some canalised rivers to a form nearer their natural one (Brookes 1990; Brookes
and Shields 1996; Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group 1998), and the use of
bio-engineering techniques for bank protection (ARSIA/GEOPLAN/CEHIDRO/WASSER
WIRTSCHAFT 1999);
3. The ‘Leitbilder’ concept (Bundesministerium fur Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und
Technology 1995): the development of comprehensive vision of the catchment as a whole in what
would be its natural condition. For example, the ‘Stork’ project (de Bruin et al 1987) and
landscape project in the Netherlands (Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water
Management 1996), and the “Loire Grandeur Nature” project in France (Gresent 1996))
The first two approaches are local in vision and limited to flood management whereas the third is a
view of the catchment; the first is limited to minimising harm whereas the latter two are concerned
with improving what is already there, where what is there has been degraded by past anthropogenic
actions. The approaches are progressively more difficult to implement in institutional terms because
no one institution has the authority to undertake or require all of the necessary actions.
4. Flood Management Options
Flood hazard management is about managing risks under conditions of uncertainty. There is a risk of
a flood of a particular magnitude and a risk that the management strategy will fail if that flood occurs.
Dams may fail, dikes breach, culverts block or warnings fail to be given. Climate change is likely to
change both rainfall patterns and intensities as well as runoff (Arnell et al 1994). Therefore, in
planning a flood management strategy it is important to consider how floods will be managed when
they are greater than the design standard of protection or the management strategy fails for other
reasons (Green et al 1993). It is thus necessary to consider how they may fail; to apply reliability
engineering approaches to the design of the management strategy. In managing the floods in one
area, it is not helpful to do so by simply moving them on to elsewhere; to alleviate the flood problem
in one area by making it worse somewhere else.
The risks, and their consequences, are the subject of uncertainties. These outcome uncertainties are
of two kinds: ‘parametric’ and ‘systemic’ uncertainty (Blockley 1980). The former has been called
‘what we know we don’t know’ and the latter ‘what we don’t know that we don’t know’ (Penning-
Rowsell et al 1992). Parametric uncertainty covers, for example, the confidence intervals around the
estimates from hydrological and hydraulic models as well the measurement error in the data used to
calibrate those models. Systemic uncertainty then refers to the possibility that our theories and the
models built on those theories are incomplete, false or inaccurate. Because choices are between
alternative futures, and the future is unknown, all decisions are inherently uncertain. The meaning of
uncertainty about outcomes is that it is not possible to completely differentiate between the outcomes;
the ESRC (1999) drew the important distinction between uncertainty about probabilities and
uncertainty about outcomes and they went on to categorise the different conditions under which
decisions must then be made (Table 13).
Table 13 Knowledge and probabilities
Knowledge about outcomes
Knowledge about Well-defined Ill-defined

probabilities
Differentiated probabilities Risk Ambiguity
Undifferentiated Uncertainty Ignorance

probabilities
(Source: after ESRC 1999)
Thus, when someone is thinking about playing roulette, then they are taking a decision under risk:
both the outcomes and the probabilities of each outcome are known. When that person is thinking
about which video to rent, they are making a choice under uncertainty. They know the possible
outcomes, whether or not they will enjoy the video, but do not know the probabilities associated with
those outcomes for each video on offer. As we learn more about climate change, we are moving
from ignorance to ambiguity; the probabilities of different changes in climatic variables are becoming
clearer, but the precise consequences in terms of species loss and water availability, for example, are
not yet clear.
Methods for exploring the implications of decisions under risk are well-established; we can propagate
probabilities in component systems through Monte Carlo modelling and similar techniques in order to
obtain probability functions for outcomes (Greeley-Polhemus Group 1992). Unfortunately, this
approach is not possible when decisions must be made under uncertainty, ambiguity or ignorance.
However, the important form of uncertainty is decision uncertainty so that being uncertain may be
defined as a ‘state of rational doubt as to what to do’ (Green et al 2000). Choices, or decisions, may
be argued to inherently involve decision uncertainty in that if one is certain as which option to adopt,
then only in the most trivial sense is there still a choice to be made.
The process of choosing is thus one of reducing decision uncertainty. One reason why we may be
uncertain what to do is because we are uncertain about the outcomes of the different available options
but we can be undecided for other reasons as well (Green et al 2000).
Conversely, it can be that we can be very uncertain about some of the outcomes of a decision without
being very uncertain about what to do. For instance, if there were only two options and we are very
uncertain about the outcomes but are certain that whatever the magnitude of the outcomes, they will
be worse under option A than option B, we have no decision uncertainty about preferring B to A.
Moreover, decision uncertainty does not exist as long as we are quite confident as to the rank order of
preference across the two best options: rank order is all that is important and we need not consider
further the remaining options once we are certain as which are the two best options.
That decisions are about the future and must be made under conditions of uncertainty must be
recognised and built into the management approach adopted. It is no use concentrating our
understanding upon refining our knowledge of the past, such as to past flood losses and past return
periods, if the future is likely to be different. Being precise when are we uncertain can be also be
dangerous: for example, drawing 100 year flood outlines on maps is both misleading and usually
inaccurate. Such outlines suggest that we are both certain as to the extent of the future 100 year flood
and that there is something qualitatively different about the flood risk within and outside of the 100
year flood contour.
Holling (1978) and Walters (1986, 1997) have proposed that given the inherent uncertainty of
decisions, the appropriate response is to take an adaptive management approach: to treat all actions as
learning experiments. Secondly, that with natural systems, the approach should be to look for
resilient systems (Holling 1973; Gunderson 1999). With artificial systems, which lack the same self-
organising capacity as natural systems, we should seek for ‘forgiving’ systems: those that fail
gracefully. Finally, when dealing with individuals and communities, the implication is that we
should seek to maximise the coping or adaptive capacity of those individuals or communities.
4.1 Managing all Floods and Not Just Some
The flood management strategy adopted must cover all floods and not just some floods; not just those
up to some design standard of protection. That it, it is necessary to plan how to respond before,
during and after all floods rather than simply construct an engineering solution that protects up to
some design standard flood. The flood management strategy must include management of more
extreme floods and also what to do when one or more elements of the adopted strategy fails.
The ideal flood to manage is one:

• which has a slow rise and in generally changes slowly over time, so allowing time to respond to
the changing risk; and
• where there are no sudden changes in the nature of the appropriate coping strategy.
Thus, flash floods generally present a much more intractable management problem than mature
rivers.
Time is a critical resource in managing a flood; all actions take time, including deciding what to do.
In general, the longer is the time available to take action, the more likely it is that that action will be
successful. The slower the rate of rise of a flood, the greater is the time available to mobilise
resources, communicate knowledge, plan future response and implement that response. Sudden
changes of state such as the breach of an embankment or the river taking a new course are difficult to
cope with. It is necessary to design for failure: in developing the strategy, explicit consideration
should be given to the mode and consequences of failure, and how those will be managed. Thus, dike
systems may be designed with weak points so that failure is likely to occur at the most manageable
point.
Ideally, the response which is successful for some floods would be successful for floods of all
magnitudes. This is seldom the case and those responses which are successful for the more frequent
floods are often very dangerous ones to adopt for more extreme floods. Thus, people may have learnt
to sit out a flood in their home or in another place of refuge. But for more extreme floods this may no
longer be a safe option and the appropriate option may be to evacuate to higher ground. Both
individuals and institutions learn from past experience and apply that learning to future events but
that learning is not always appropriate to all floods, not least because they tend to expect the future to
be like the past. Thus, discontinuities in the challenge presented by a flood are particular problems
(Table 14).
Table 14 Potential forms and causes of discontinuities in the challenge presented by a

flood
(Green 2000)
Permanent change in course of the river

Natural throttle points (e.g. gorge): when flood flow reaches the discharge capacity of the
gorge, an upstream reservoir is created with a significant depth of flooding
Artificial throttle points (e.g. bridge): when flood flow reaches discharge capacity or throttle
point is created by debris, creates upstream reservoir with a significant depth of flooding
Depressions that flood to a significant depth when the rim is overtopped
Natural ridge line or artificial embankment (e.g. road or railway): area behind floods when
ridge line is overtopped or breaches
Failure of artificial throttle points (e.g. of bridge, dam): causes flood wave to travel
downstream at high velocity
Breach or overtopping of dike
Velocity exceeds 2 metres/second: probability of building collapse is significantly higher
above this threshold
Depth exceeds 2 metres: probability of building collapse is significantly higher above this
threshold
It is therefore essential to plan how to manage all floods and not just some floods, including those
floods for which the primary management strategy will fail. Flood management should not be limited
to the assessment of the effectiveness of a proposed strategy up to some essentially arbitrary ‘design
standard’ flood but the impact of that option on the difficulties of managing all floods must be
considered. For example, a virtue of a channel improvement scheme is that it reduces the amount of
water out of bank in all floods and not just those up to the design standard flood (MAFF 1999).
Planning for, or designing to, a single design standard flood will engender a false sense of security.
Whilst the probability of a more extreme flood occurring in that area is indicated by the return period
of the design standard event, it says nothing about the probability of an extreme event occurring
somewhere in the country. If there are fifty catchments in a country and the probability of a flood in
one is independent of the probability of a flood occurring in other, then each year the chance of the
500 year return period flood occurring somewhere is 1 in 11. Such a risk should not just simply be
ignored. Conversely, a flood in a catchment arises from an event and that event may result in floods
across several catchments; thus, severe floods in Bangladesh are the result of the three great rivers
being in flood simultaneously. It can therefore be more useful to think in terms of the probability of
an event rather than the probability that a particular river will be in flood.
4.2 What is Vulnerability and Who is Vulnerable ?
The concept of ‘vulnerability’ is a central one in understanding the effects of floods and the means
required to alleviate these effects. The concept of vulnerability is, however, the subject of much
debate and there are a variety of definitions - partly reflecting different disciplinary and ideological
positions, and different purposes. There are three main definitions of vulnerability:
• as a characteristic of the population at risk;
• as a characteristic of the flood to which that population is exposed; or
• as the interaction between the nature of the flood and the characteristics of the population at risk.
Blaikie et. al. (1994) took the first approach, defining vulnerability as: ‘the characteristics of a person
or group in terms of their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover from the impact of a
natural hazard’. High vulnerability frequently promotes and exacerbates flood disasters and is often,
but not always, closely associated with under-development. Whilst this definition of vulnerability
includes recovery after a flood and capacity to recover, it includes adaptation to floods and response
during a flood.
Vulnerable people can be rural-urban migrants living in poverty in squatter settlements in Manila in
the Philippines, or the landless labourers and families living in flimsy shelters in low-lying areas of
Bangladesh. They can also include elderly, low-income pensioners who are un- or under-insured and
living in ignorance of the flood risk in one-storey retirement home or mobile homes within a
floodplain, or in a poorly protected coastal zone in an otherwise affluent European setting.
The causes of vulnerability lie in social, economic and political processes and differential access to,
and ability to mobilise, resources. Vulnerability is an on-going state or condition in which people
exist rather than a status that can be associated with any particular hazardous event. The components
of vulnerability have been analysed by Cannon (2000) and include (a) initial well-being (e.g.
nutritional status, physical and mental health, morale, capacity for self-reliance) (b) livelihood
resilience (e.g. income opportunities, livelihood type, qualifications, assets and savings (c) self-
protection (e.g. building quality, protection from hazards, location of home and livelihood) (d)
societal protection (e.g. as for (a) plus building regulations, technical interventions) and (e) social
capital (e.g. social cohesion, rivalries, number and strength of conflicting groups). Although
vulnerability and poverty are not synonymous, vulnerability to hazards such as floods is often made
worse by poverty and through related weak response and recovery capacity. Vulnerable people may
include the elderly, infirm and the immobile.
Vulnerability may then be reduced in a variety of ways. Chan (1995) demonstrates how the
vulnerability of poor, rural Malays to floods in eastern Peninsular Malaysia is reduced by close
kinship systems which exist in the floodplain villages. ‘Resilience’, which may be taken as the
opposite of vulnerability, may be enhanced by promoting access to knowledge and resources, through
poverty-reduction programmes and through processes of development as reflected, for example, in

better healthcare, housing and infrastructure. Development projects must however aim at improving
self-reliance, reducing dependence and increasing the success of the population in mobilising
resources. Conversely, ill-advised interventions to attack a perceived problem may increase the
vulnerability of some groups; in particular, Adams (1992) has argued that this has been the
consequence of a number of dam-based projects in Africa. In the longer run, Thomas and Adams
(1999) have shown in one case that adaptation to the changed conditions was more successful than in
the short-run but the success of this adaptation may have been due to exogenous factors which
counterbalanced in part the problems resulting from the original project.
4.2.1 Alternative definitions of vulnerability
The second definition of vulnerability to flooding is simply and solely interpreted as a function of the
characteristics of flooding (e.g. the floods magnitude, speed of onset etc.), and the characteristics of
the population and land use systems affected are either ignored or are only considered as peripheral
matters. Using this interpretation vulnerability can be determined by a hydrological analysis only.
This definition clearly only implies that there is a flood problem which should be ‘fixed’.
The third definition of vulnerability is akin to Lazarus’s (1966) definition of stress, as that which
results when coping resources are inadequate to meet the challenge posed by the flood. The
weakness of the first definition is that implies that a community will have a similar level of
vulnerability whatever the nature of the flood event. This third form of definition leads to a form of
‘vulnerability analysis’ which has become an all-encompassing means of assessing risk and social
and economic consequences associated with a hazard (Alexander 1993). In such studies, estimates of
flood probability, the risk of buildings being structurally unsound, and the effects of an event in terms
of estimated property loss and casualties are all measurable and combined to derive a technical
estimate of ‘vulnerability’. Vulnerability is viewed as a product of the interaction of the flood event
and some of the characteristics of the affected land uses and population. Penning-Rowsell (Green et
al 1994) proposed that the following equation be used to define vulnerability of households to
flooding:
Property and
Household Social/economic Flood Warning Response
= infrastructure
vulnerabiliilty variables characteristics variables variables
variables
= f A
, Sc, Sb, It
, De, Dt, Sd,St, W, V, Pj, R
, , Tr, Ra, Rq
H, S, I, C, F St, Ro W o , W t, W a
where:
A = Age profile of household De = Depth of flooding

H = Health status and/or mobility of Dt = Duration of flooding
household
S = Savings of household Sd = Sediment concentration
I = Household income St = Sediment size
C = Cohesiveness of community W = Wave/wind action (e.g. coastal or
not)
F = Flood knowledge V = Velocity
Pl = Pollution load of flood waters
Sc = Susceptibility of building R = Rate of water rise during flooding
contents to damage onset
Sb = Susceptibility of building fabric
It = Time taken to restore Wo = Whether a flood warning was
infrastructure received
St = Number of storeys Wt = Warning time provided
Ro = Robustness of building fabric Wa = Advice content of warning
T = Time taken for assistance to arrive

after or during event
Ra = Amount of response available
Rq = Response quality
Vulnerability in the forgoing discussion is implicitly defined at the level of the household or
community. However, ecosystems and national or regional economies may also be assessed in terms
of their vulnerability. Such assessments need to be made using different parameters; the result is that
vulnerability assessments yield a series of overlays, different elements or systems being vulnerable to
different extents to different characteristics of floods. Such vulnerability assessments have the
potential to be used to screen large areas of a country in terms of the priority that should be given to
undertaking more detailed flood management assessments (e.g. Green 2000).
4.2.1.1 Implications of Interpretations of Vulnerability for the Choice of Flood

Hazard Alleviation Projects
Under the first interpretation of the concept of vulnerability explained above, the choice of projects
might well involve strategies designed to reduce the population’s vulnerability rather than providing
some kind of direct flood alleviation. Indeed, flooding here is interpreted essentially only as a
symptom and not as a diagnosis. Such projects might involve decentralising decision-making and
integrating the flood knowledge and coping mechanisms of local people with those of flood agencies.
Alternatively, appropriate projects might seek to diversify and strengthen fragile local economies
which occupy flood-prone areas, or to train the members of vulnerable communities in how to
prepare for floods and to spread a preventive culture (Parker 2000). In some cases flood alleviation
projects might be combined with such measures.
Under the second narrow interpretation of flood vulnerability (see 4.2.1 above), which assumes that
flooding mechanisms are the principal problem to be addressed, projects are likely to be selected
which seek to reduce flood magnitude, retard flood generation and so on. But the problem with this
approach is that it may not address the fundamental socio-economic and political causes of flood
vulnerability. The third interpretation of vulnerability which stresses interaction between the flood
and the population leads logically towards projects which seek to reduce the challenge presented by
the flood and/or to enhance the resources available to people to cope with the event when it occurs.
4.3 Identifying the threat

The necessary first step to flood management is to identify the nature and extent of the threat. This
requires that the development of the flood waves be modelled. The simplest form of such a model is
a floodplain map. This may be based on an approximate interpretation of the records of the largest
floods of historic record, or may range up to maps showing in accurate detail the extent, velocity and
depth of flooding for defined return periods, produced from comprehensive mathematical or physical
models. These approaches give picture of differing levels of accuracy and detail of the flooding
hazard at a single moment in time of a historical or idealised “design” flood. Conventionally, such
models and maps therefore implicitly assume the second definition of vulnerability because they
exclude all of the characteristics of the populations exposed to the flood.
A second typical limitation of the simpler maps is that they simply draw a boundary around the flood
extent for some flood of historic record or the modelled extent for a flood of a particular return
period. Thus, they are static, they ignore the inherent uncertainties, and do not observe the principle
that it is necessary to manage all floods and not just some, since they contain no information about
the threat posed by more extreme floods. This is not so if the flood management specialist is
presented with a set of floods of different return periods, and perhaps of different durations or
seasonal characteristics, based on comprehensive mathematical models
To be useful for flood management, a different form of modelling and mapping is necessary. This
will show both critical flood features and population characteristics. On the flood side, the flood
ways should be identified, particularly out of bank flood routes; and areas of passive and active
storage. Although the length of record and other factors will limit the reliability with which the
forms of floods of different return periods can be modelled, focusing on a single event, such as the
100 year return period flood, should be avoided. The objective is to manage all floods and not just
some. For this reason, and because of the necessary uncertainties, banding or zoning is more
appropriate than lines; indeed, drawing a boundary to the flood extent is something that should be
avoided. For management purposes it is the major changes in flood routes in particular that should be
identified: for example, if the 500 year return period event will cut across a low area, perhaps an old
meander belt, now occupied by urban development. Although the information will necessarily
incomplete, because of all the uncertainties, an important datum for flood management is whether, for
example, the 500 year flood is going to be significantly different from the 100 year flood.
Those features of the floodplain which will limit flood flows and extent should also be identified.
Thus, both natural and artificial crestlines, such as road and railway embankments, as well as natural
depressions should be indicated. Constrictions on flows such as bridges should also be shown
(Figure 8). Even so, such maps will still contain little useful information about the threat posed by a
flood unless they indicate likely depths of flooding and areas where flood velocities will be high.
If the first definition of vulnerability is adopted, then it will simply be necessary to show where the
most vulnerability segments of the population are located. The third definition of vulnerability is
likely to be more useful in terms of management. In this case, it is necessary to indicate those areas
where the combination of flood characteristics, buildings and population result in a high degree of
vulnerability. Again, both depths and velocities are likely to be crucial, but the analysis should be
taken further to indicate areas where structures are likely to fail to provide protection to their
occupiers. Critical installations and those giving rise to potential secondary hazard, such as areas
where toxic or flammable chemicals are stored, may also be indicated.
7
Figure 8 Hypothetical flood hazard map
active flood
storage
depth < 1
metre factory storing 200
tonnes LPG
railway
bridge
railway
embankment:
geriatric level 16.2m
hospital
floodway bypass if flood level

exceeds 15.3m
velocity >4 m/sec
passive storage: depth <1 metre
depth < 1 metre
camp site: depth c 2

metres
The purpose of such a map in its simplest form, is to inform flood management. A “layer” on the
map then may be used to identify the appropriate management responses: those points such as bridges
and crest lines which need to be watched; points where emergency flood fighting works may protect
the areas behind them; those areas where warning is necessary; which areas should be evacuated in
the event of a flood; where buildings should be discouraged if possible because they lie in a flood
way; and where flood proofing of buildings may be satisfactory because they are only in a passive
flood storage area.
This is only one potential purpose for a flood hazard map. In France, for example, maps define areas
where no building is to be permitted and those where only flood proofed buildings are to be
permitted, or that is the theory. If flood insurance is available then a ratings map defining areas at
different levels of risk is also required. The latter in particular requires a range of flood events of
different return periods to be modelled.
4.4 Reducing the Challenge

Under the Lazarus model, flood management strategies can be categorised as either seeking to reduce
the challenge the individuals, households and communities must confront or to enhance their coping
capacity. Similarly, these interventions may be physical in form or involve institutional changes.
This differentiation is somewhat different from the usual split between ‘structural’, or standard river
engineering options, and ‘non-structural’ options which essentially cover everything else. As shown
in Figure 9, flood warning sits at the centre of the matrix of options, having both physical elements
in the form of raingauges, weather radar and streamflow gauging stations and an institutional element
which converts the flood forecasts derive through that system into useful flood warnings. At the
same time, flood warnings are necessary if such strategies as contingent flood proofing and
evacuation are to be successfully achieved. Indeed, the likely reliability and lead time that can
realistically be expected of a flood forecasting and warning system can significantly influence the
choice of options to be adopted.
Hydrological analysis will identify the flood flows or flood levels associated with particular return
periods, or probabilities, of occurrence. In more critical cases possible variations in precipitation and
runoff over time as a result of changes in climatic change and land use will increasingly have to be
taken into account, as well as changes in the relationship between flows and levels in vulnerable
areas. The different management options available (not all will be feasible in the local circumstances)
change the challenge presented by the flood flow in different ways, as shown by their impact on the
flood hydrograph (Figure 10). The chance of managing a flood through mobilising resources is
increased if it develops slowly, so increasing the forecast lead time. At the other end of the spectrum
the steep flashy river in mountainous or arid areas presents the greatest challenge in this respect.
Figure 11 is represents a simple case; effectively one where a single catchment or sub-catchment
generates the flood wave. Source control, essentially involving many small units of local storage at
source, may be possible in urban areas and has been much promoted. This reduces the runoff that
reaches the river but may be less effective at the height of the rainfall event, because the local storage
may become saturated, particularly if one storm event is closely followed by another. Strategic
storage, involving dams large or small, is usually operated to reduce the peak flows and water levels,
the water so stored being released later on during the falling flood or recession. Therefore, the flood
crest is both slowed and lowered but lasts longer. Such reservoirs operated for flood control are
usually kept at a low level to absorb incoming floodwater. A problem in operating such storage is that
effective operation requires reliable flood forecasts; if a forecast is unreliable then the storage may be
used to absorb to what is forecast to be the peak. If the flood then goes on rising, there is no storage
available to absorb that peak. Again, if a flood peak is followed by an unpredicted flood peak then
insufficient water may have been released to store the new peak. Finally, if the hydrological
modelling of the catchment was inadequate when the dam was built, the dam may have been
constructed with insufficient spillway capacity to safely pass an extreme flood and sluices may have
to be opened in order to protect the dam from failure.
In theory, the flood downstream of a dam should under all circumstances be no worse than if there
were no dam. In practice, this will be true provided that the original hydrological analysis and
subsequent flood forecasts are reliable. There are a large number of newspaper and other reports that
assert that flooding was made worse by releases from a dam, but these reports give insufficient detail
to assess where the problem lies. One explanation is that flood forecasts were erroneous resulting in
operational failure; a second is that with multi-purpose dams, the operators were not prepared to draw
down the reservoir in advance of the flood so as to allow sufficient storage for the flood wave. The
third explanation is then that the spillway design was based an underestimate of the magnitude of the
extreme flood and emergency releases of water took place. The fourth explanation of the reported
problems lies in human psychology: those living downstream have adapted their behaviour to the
reduced flood experience and are consequently more exposed to those floods that do occur. In
addition, as rational animals we all seek explanations for both the absence of floods and the
occurrence of floods; the absence of floods has been known to be attributed to the presence of dams
that have no intended flood alleviation role and equally it is to be expected that an unusually extreme
flood will be blamed on any upstream dam. A final potential explanation is that the release of water
resulted in a much faster rate of rise in flood levels than experience with ‘natural’ floods had lead
downstream residents to expect. But the detailed analyses required to distinguish between these
potential explanations do not appear to be available.
The effect of channel improvements, the building of embankments or flood diversion channels is
simply to raise the flood flow which can be passed without flooding resulting.
Figure 11 shows how the extent of the economic or financial losses are likely to vary according to
the extremity of the flood. For both channel improvements and house raising projects, the losses
from all floods will be less than under the current conditions. In the case of channel improvements
this is because there will always be less water out of bank with the project than there is now, although
in areas like the River Tone in Japan where maximum flows are hundreds of times greater than
minimum flows, this difference may be negligible. For house raising, the depth of flooding will
always be less with house raising than the depth of flooding now - unless flow velocities in some
floods are such as to demolish the building, losses will always be less than they are now.
Figure 9 Changes to flood hydrograph by management option
hydraulic impacts of management options
12
10
8
flow
4 base flow
source control
2 storage
slow
0 protect
1
11
13
15
17
19
21
time
With flood proofing, losses are reduced to zero until flood levels exceed the standard of protection
offered by flood proofing; as soon as this happens, losses will be identical to those which would be
experienced in the same flood if it occurred now. With dikes, losses are reduced to zero until the
dike overtops. Since overtopping can often lead to dike failure, the line is shown as vertical rather
than sloping: once a dike has failed, it makes little difference whether is the 100 or 200 year return
period flood that causes the flood. Difficulties in evacuating the flood water after the breach has
been closed may also add to flood losses. Dams protect against all floods up to a certain volume and
even larger floods will be attenuated and slowed. Thus there will be zero damage up to the design
flow, and much reduced damage above this as excess floodwater is spilled into the river downstream.
Dams are usually governed by strict national legislation covering their design and inspection, with
failure rates many orders of magnitude less than river embankments. Such failures are extremely rare
and fall outside the scope of flood protection – so that strictly the curve for dams should be well to
the left of the curve for dikes and in theory lie on the y axis.
Figure 10 Schematic differences in the loss-probability curve by management

option
Loss
losses
with dikes
or dams
losses with channel

improvement project if
drowned out
losses with channel

improvement or
house raising
project losses
without
project
losses
with flood
proofing
design standard
of protection
return period
Figure 12 then compares the likely risk to life under the current conditions and those prevailing if
different management options are adopted. For clarity, the scales are distorted, it being the shape of
the curves that is important. The locations of each curve are also determined by the particular design
standard of protection offered by the approach in the individual local circumstances. In each case,
the risk to life is formally defined as the risk to life conditional on the flood management option
adopted and excludes the possible reduction in risk that might be achieved by a flood warning and
evacuation.
Whilst the diagram is shown as a plot of the risk to life versus the exceedance probability of the flood
event, the diagram also shows how the risk to life changes as a particular flood develops. The change
of risk as a flood develops is given by the appropriate segment of the line for that management option
from its right hand extreme to the vertical line that indicates the return period of the peak of the flood.
At present, the without project condition, the risk to life increases slowly as the probability of the
flood decreases (and consequently its magnitude increases). At some flood magnitude, and thus that
of a particular return period, the depth of flooding and/or its velocity will exceed a critical threshold
(Section 3.1) and the risk of flooding will increase markedly, particularly when the velocity and/or
depth is sufficient to cause the collapse of buildings.
With house raising or flood proofing, the dwelling provides a safe place of refuge up to some severity
of flooding. However, when flood levels or velocities reach specific levels, this will no longer be the
case and some buildings will collapse or be swept away. At this point, the risk to life will be equal
to the risk under the without project conditions. In addition, by that time or earlier, the conditions
outside the dwelling will be such as to make it impossible to escape unaided.
With a dike, the risk to life is zero until the dike fails. In principle, the dike should only fail when it
is overtopped but in practice, there is a risk that the dike will fail by breaching because it has been
poorly constructed or maintained (Wolff 1997). When the dike fails either as a result of overtopping
or breaching, the risk to life rises nearly instantaneously. The velocity of flow through a breach in
particular is likely to be greater than the velocity that would exist under the without project condition
and consequently the risk to life under the with dike condition is shown as being higher than without
the project.
For the dam option, it assumed that above some rate of inflow to the dam an increasing proportion of
that inflow is discharged. Furthermore, that in extreme floods, the flood storage capacity of the dam
is exhausted; at this point, the discharge flow from the dam equals the inflow and the dam ceases to
have any affect in attentuating flooding. At this point, the severity of flooding with the dam is
identical to that prevailing under the without project condition. Depending upon the extent of
development downstream, dam spillways are designed to have capacity to discharge inflows of
greater or lesser return periods. Where there is a significant number of people living below the dam
then the spillway will generally be designed to be able to discharge the Probable Maximum Flood
(PMF); theoretically, the exceedance probability of the PMF is very close to zero. However, if the
dam fails as a result of an extreme flood, the resulting flood immediately downstream will be
catastrophic. Thus, Graham (1999) notes that the flood wave after catastrophic failure could, in some
cases, exceed 30 metres in height. The risk to life from a catastrophic dam failure attentuates with
distance downstream from the dam as the energy of the flood wave is lost and usually the risk to life
has fallen markedly at a distance 25 kilometres below the dam (and a lesser distance in the case of
smaller dams). However, within the area immediately downstream of the dam, Graham’s analysis of
past floods leads him to conclude that the probability of death will be in the range of 0.30 to 1.00,
with a suggested probability of 0.75. This probability is likely to be considerably higher than from
any natural occurring floods, with the possible exception of some flash floods in small catchments.
In addition, and unlike the other flood management options, there is a risk to life from dams under
other conditions as a result of so-called ‘dry weather’ failure, although that risk may be elevated
during flood conditions that are not in themselves sufficient to cause failure through overtopping.
Finally, if the capacity of the river channel is increased, then there will always be less water out of
bank than under current conditions whatever is the return period of the flood. Consequently, the risk
curve is below and to the left of the curve under the without project conditions.
Because these curves are defined in terms of the risk to an individual, they do not change as a result
of any development that is attracted to the area after the adoption of one or another flood
management option.
Figure 11 Risk to life by management strategy and exceedance probability

risk to life
risk with
dams
risk with
dikes
risk with
house
raising/
flood
proofing
risk
without
project
risk with channel

improvement project
return period
A more realistic situation is shown in Figure 13 where a river is fed by a number of tributaries. In
this instance, the flood flow at B depends in part on the flood flow from the river on which A is
located, as well on the flood on the main stem. A flood from the tributary may arrive at B before the
flood crest from the main tributary (Figure 14), with the flood being somewhat attenuated on its
passage down river. This pattern would result if, for example, floods are typically the result of rain
front moving east to west. Alternatively, the flood crest from the tributary might reach B after that of
the main stem (Figure 15). The flood crest at A shows the characteristics of a flood on a rather
flashy catchment, with a short time to concentration and a short flood duration. Conversely, the flood
on the main stem is characteristic of a mature river system with a slow rate of increase and long, flat
flood crest; whilst the peak flow on the tributary is higher than on the mainstem at B, the total
discharge from the mainstem is much greater than from the tributary.
In the worst case, the two flood crests would coincide in their arrival time at B and this is a situation
which it is obviously highly dangerous. In the case where the first flood crest that arrives is that from
the tributary, we might seek either to reduce or to delay either crest. We might delay the crest from
the main stem by controlled storage on the floodplain in the form of a detention basin. Alternatively,
we might construct a flood reservoir on the tributary to store the flood crest and discharge it after the
flood crest from the main stem has passed B. Figure 16 illustrates the first approach and Figure 17
the latter approach; in both cases, an approach has been adopted which results in the same maximum
flood flow at B. In this hypothetical instance, increasing storage on the main stem is quite
problematic: to allow for the passage of the flood crest from the tributary, a large proportion of the
flow on the main stem must be diverted to storage. Diverting the flow in this way uses the fact that
the water level in the river channel is usually higher than that in the detention basin. Pumping will
usually be both unnecessary and uneconomic. In the alternative approach, a flood storage dam on the
tributary (Figure 16), the flood crest on the tributary is stored and released only after the crest on the
main stem has passed.
This example is intended only as an illustration of the problems of managing flood flows in complex
river systems and it is not claimed that there is any universal applicability of the conclusions.
Figure 12 Flood management in a hypothetical catchment
Figure 13 Tributary floods first: flood hydrograph at points A and B
flood hydrograph
30
25
tributary A
20
tributary B
flow
15
mainstem B
10
total B
5
0
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
1
time
Figure 14 Main stem floods first: flood hydrograph at points A and B
flood hydrograph
25
20
tributary A
15 tributary B
flow
10 mainstem B
total B
5
0
13
17
21
1
tim e
Figure 15 Flood hydrograph at points A and B with flood storage on the main stem
flood hydrograph
25
20
tributary A
15 tributary B
flow
10 mainstem B
total B
5
0
time
Figure 16 Flood hydrograph at points A and B with flood storage on the tributary
flood hydrograph
25
20
tributary A
15
tributary B
flow
mainstem B
10
total B
0
10
13
16
19
22
1
tim e
4.4.1 Controlling runoff
Urbanisation, agricultural land drainage, deforestation and other changes in land use higher up a
catchment may reduce the ability of rain water to drain into the soil and increase the speed and
volume of surface water run off into existing water courses. This can lead to flood problems lower
down the catchment as well as increasing the flow of pollutants into rivers. Source control aims to
mitigate such problems by recovering the ‘natural hydrological cycle’ to the greatest extent
practicable so that water is retained close to its source and allowed to infiltrate into the soil restoring
ground water and through the soil into watercourses gradually, thus restoring base flows. These
processes reduce or eliminate sudden surges in the volume of surface water run off and the quantity
of pollutants carried into rivers.
4.4.1.1 Urbanisation
On undeveloped sites, only 15-20% of the volume of rainfall becomes direct surface runoff that
drains slowly into watercourses. With development with buildings and paved impermeable surfaces,
and the use of conventional piped drainage systems which were aimed to collect surface water from
roofs, car parks etc. and carry it off site to the nearest watercourse as quickly as possible, direct run
off can increase to over 80% of the volume of rainfall (CIRIA, 1999a). Impermeable surfaces such as
roads, car parks and industrial sites may be covered with pollutants which can be washed off. In the
UK, amongst other countries, a series of publications on sustainable urban drainage systems or
urban source control are in preparation for government departments and other agencies by the
Construction Industries Research and Information Association (CIRIA). These include a design
manual for Scotland and Northern Ireland (CIRIA, 1999b), a companion design manual for England
and Wales and a review of UK, demonstration sites and best practice in source control
(CIRIA1999c).
Source control in urban developments aims to control the quantity and quality of surface water runoff
and may also enhance the amenity and wildlife value of a site. The types of techniques recommended
include:
• infiltration trenches and soakaways;
• permeable or porous pavements for roads and car parks, as used in some UK and French
motorway service areas and supermarkets :
• swales or grassed surface conveyance, infiltration and treatment systems which can also serve as
landscape features;
• wide filter or buffer strips of any natural vegetated form: grass or woodland, usually located
between paved areas and the watercourse to slow flows and remove pollutants;
• small extended detention basins: grassy and vegetated depressions to hold and treat excess
surface water for slow release;
• infiltration basins which hold surface water allowing it to infiltrate the soil gradually;
• retention ponds or permanently wet ponds which retain surface run off and provide biological
treatment through wetland and aquatic vegetation such as reeds.
The use of infiltration techniques is only feasible where this would not pose a threat to ground water
supplies and where there is no question of land contamination.
In the USA, recharge of regional groundwater supplies from downspout diversion programmes (i.e.
allowing domestic downspouts to discharge to lawns or paved areas instead of being connected to the
sewers) has helped to maintain a consistent flow of higher water quality into urban streams. US
studies have shown that downspout diversion programmes can reduce mean flow volumes in the
sanitary sewer network by over 25% with flow reductions ranging from 25% to 62% for rainfall
depths of between 6mm and 25mm (Kaufman and Wurtz, 1997).
Bordeaux with a considerable problem of flooding due to urban surface water which could not drain
naturally into its river, adopted a strategy involving carriageway reservoirs and percolation wells and
drainage pits (Balades, et al., 1992),
4.4.1.2 Agricultural land drainage
Where cultivated land adjacent to rivers has been drained to permit more intensive cultivation of
higher valued crops to take place, this has usually increased the volume and speed with which rain
falling on cultivated land has reached watercourses with the potential to raise the risk of flooding
downstream and the possibility of pollution of watercourses by herbicides, pesticides and agricultural
waste products. Possible methods for mitigating these risks are to adopt less intensive agricultural
practices and to control water levels to ensure that water is retained on the land; vegetated buffer
strips between cultivated land and watercourses can be used to slow surface water runoff and treat the
water to remove pollutants (Delaney 1995); infiltration ponds, retention ponds and wetland areas are
other ways in which agricultural run off can be retained and treated. These may also provide features
for wildlife.
4.4.1.3 Deforestation, reforestation and afforestation
Deforestation and the removal of natural vegetation in the upper parts of rivers has been held
responsible for flooding problems lower down the catchments in many parts of the world. This
process has been the subject of intensive study with mixed results. Bosch and Hewlett (1992) on the
basis of world-wide experimental results concluded that deforestation tends to increase run off and
peak floods at least in the short term. However, the difficulty of providing transferable predictive
models on the basis of these results indicates that individual catchment characteristics matter and
that many experiments have been poorly designed (Jones, forthcoming). Chan and Parker (1996)
suggest that increased soil erosion, channel siltation and landslides caused by inappropriate
clearfelling and logging techniques exacerbate the flood problems.
Programmes to mitigate possible impacts of deforestation through reforestation, careful management

practices and riparian buffer zones are possible. Nepal has a national programme of reforestation.
The UK Forest Enterprise and Washington State in the US have policies designed to counter the ill-
effects of forestry. There is evidence, however, that afforestation normally results in increased
evapotranspiration but does not necessarily reduce the flood risk.
4.4.2 Storage
Source control can itself be considered a form of storage but the storage of the flow in rivers can take
place either in the uplands, where the high dam and associated reservoir is the traditional form, or in
the lowlands as a detention basin which is normally largely dry except when required for flood
storage. In some cases, the lakes associated with a river can be used for detention; an important
example being the Dongting Lake in Hunan Province, China. Finally, natural wetlands are important
assets for flood storage (Maltby 1986) and artificial wetlands are being created for this purpose.
Dams can be of several kinds; principally, semi-permeable or wholly impermeable. For example, in
Trinidad wire mesh dams have been used in the highlands: during flash floods, the flood borne debris
is trapped in the wire mesh and blocks much of the flood flow. Outside of the flood period, waters
flow normally through the wire mesh if the debris has been removed. Similarly, in California,
boulders have been used to create artificial rock pools which capture and store the rising crest of a
flood. In pre-Roman North Africa, semi-permeable dams were used to capture flash floods to provide
irrigation water for the subsequent growing season. Inflatable dams have also been used.
However, dams may fail if the flood is extreme and some forms of dam can fail very rapidly. The
consequence can be a catastrophic flood with a wall of water metres high moving at high speed. Such
floods sweep the ground clear in their path until attenuated. Unplanned dams are a particular threat
in this regard: bridges may be blocked by debris and then fail as the water level rises on the upstream
side of the ‘dam’. Dams may also fail for reasons other than extreme flood flows (‘dry weather’
failure).
There are a number of problems in operating dams for flood storage purposes. The first is that dams
are rarely used for flood storage alone and the optimum strategy for flood storage and these other
purposes can conflict. For instance, for hydroelectric generation, the ideal is to keep the reservoir full
but to provide the maximum protection against flooding, the reservoir should be in a drawn down
state. The second is that even with sophisticated flood forecasting systems it is impossible to know
the future with any certainty. Thus, if the reservoir is filled completely on the rising crest, the peak of
which will in any case not be predictable with certainty, there will be no capacity left to store part of
a second and perhaps larger crest. Finally, the water stored must be released at some point. In
general, the rate of discharge from the reservoir will not be greater than if there was no reservoir in
the first place. But, the people living downstream will have become accustomed to the new flood
regime produced by the dam and will be unaware of the remaining risk.
Detention basins are usually quite shallow and hence a large area is required in order to provide flood
storage. However, because they are normally dry and in most years will not be required, they can be
put to use in the meantime. Thus, the detention basins of the Lincoln flood alleviation scheme are
farmed (Parker et al 1987), farmers being paid for the damage to their crops when the basins are used.
In urban areas, detention areas are often used for sports fields. Along the Yangtze, the large number
of detention basins are all occupied so that the detention basins can only be used after the population
is first evacuated.
Quite commonly the method of allowing flood waters into a detention basins is simply to blow a
breach in the protective dike: some dikes are constructed with demolition chambers in place. This
approach has the limitation that it is difficult to control the rate at which the detention basin fills.
Methods offering greater control are sluices which can be opened to allow varying rates of flow into
the detention basin or sections of dike designed to overtop without failure. Once water has been
allowed into a detention basin, it then has to be evacuated after the flood crest has passed.
Natural wetlands can be excellent forms of detention basins (Delaney 1995) and artificial wetlands
are also increasingly being constructed to store flood waters. Where wetlands were engineered away
in earlier times, we are increasingly re-introducing them artificially: those along the Rhine being an
example. Wetlands are also highly valuable resources for biodiversity as well as fulfilling other
functions (Maltby 1986). Thus, in the UK, where it is required that one of the options considered
when the renovation of an existing flood alleviation scheme is being appraised is the managed retreat
option, some farmland is likely to be of greater value if it is allowed to revert to its original wetland
condition than in agricultural use (MAFF 1999). Wetlands, as well as storing flood waters,
frequently also slow it down, attenuating the flood wave; in tropical zones, evaporative losses may
also be significant (Acreman and Hollis 1996).
Another option considered for the Red River catchment in Canada and the United States was that of
‘micro-storage’; using the agricultural fields between the raised roads as flood storage (International
Red River Basin Task Force 2000). In that instance, the option proved to be uneconomic, some 1,800
km2 of land being necessary at an estimated cost of nearly $US 100,000 per km2 in capital costs plus
an additional $US 5,000 - $US 20,000 km2 in annual compensation costs.
A number of factors are important in the choice between the different possible forms of storage. A
critical limiting factor is the availability of a site for the particular form of storage. Secondly, it is
generally held that storage has the greatest effect the nearer upstream it is to the area that it is sought
to protect. Thirdly, storage is most effective if it is controlled, not being utilised too early and
discharges also being controlled. The limitation of natural wetlands is then that they typically flood
early as the flood rises; if the flood continues to rise then there is no remaining storage capacity. In
consequence, natural wetlands are likely to have most effect in ameliorating high frequency floods
and to have much less effect on extreme floods (SAST 1994; Shultz 1999). A further limitation is
that the worst floods are frequently those that occur after an earlier event has saturated the ground
and left local storage full; again the ability to control inflows and outflows to storage are important to
making the best use of that storage capacity.
Fourthly, there are economies of scale; the Landerarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser (1995) estimated cost
DM10 per cubic metre of storage for large retention basins, rising to DM50
per cubic metre of storage for large retention basins and experience in France is similar. Shulz
(1999) reports that the cost of wetland restoration or creation falls from $US 300 per acre for small
wetlands to $US 100 per acre for wetlands over 5 acres (12.3 hectares) in size.
Control of the discharge so as to lop the peak of the flood flow are critical points downstream is also
generally more difficult with a number of small storage areas (International Red River Basin Task
Force 2000).
4.4.3 Slowing the flood wave
In the past it was quite common to shorten the river by cutting off meanders and shortening the length
of the river; the Danube and the Mississippi being well known examples. In part this was undertaken
in order to improve the river for navigation. Now, the trend is in the other direction, restoring
meanders in some cases and avoiding shortening the length of a river. Areas within a meander may
be protected by dikes in order to prevent the river cutting a short route during a flood. The argument
against making artificial shortcuts or allowing the river to take a shortcut in a flood is three-fold.
Firstly, if the river length is reduced, the gradient will be steepened and so flow velocity and flood
flows are increased. In addition, the storage capacity of the live stream is also reduced. For example,
there is a 50 kilometre meander on the Yangtze in which the live storage is approximately 2 billion
cubic metres. The second argument is environmental; in general, areas of shallow and low moving
flows are more valuable than areas of deep and fast moving flows. Thirdly, the loss of instream
storage speeds the passage of the flood peak downstream; the time taken for the flood peak to travel
from Basle to Karlsruhe on the Rhine having halved between 1955 and 1977: in consequence, the risk
that the flood peak from the Rhine will coincide with that from the Neckar, Nahe and Moselle has
increased (Landerarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser 1995).
Thus, on parts of the Rhine, the meanders are being restored, although in most cases where the river
is being restored to a more natural form (Brookes and Shields 1996) this is for environmental rather
than primarily for hydraulic reasons (Brookes 1990).
4.4.4 Carrying the flow
A widely adopted approach has been to increase the capacity of the river channel by widening,
deepening, straightening, or reducing the resistance of the channel. In the 1970s, the term ‘river
improvement’ was generally used to describe such approaches which generally resulted in the river
becoming little more than a canal and environmentally dead (Purseglove 1988 ). In particular, for
small watercourses, it may be possible to reconstruct the channel so that the frictional resistance of
the banks and bed are reduced; this was often achieved by building a trapezoidal concrete channel. In
other cases, the banks were stripped of trees, bushes and other plants that create resistance and plant
growth in the channel is regularly removed. In other instances, the bed has been dredged: again this
can cause significant environmental damage.
Bypass channels have been constructed to increase the discharge capacity of the river during floods.
In the past, these were frequently no more than canals: a concrete lined box designed to carry flows
with the least frictional resistance, one example being the River Lea to the east of London. An early
example is the diversion channel built in 1621for the river Tone to reduce the flood risk to Tokyo; the
Red River Floodway bypassing Winnepeg is another example. An even more extreme example has
been the habit of covering over the river and converting it to an underground culvert (Barton 1984).
In environmental terms, these options are immensely destructive. More recently, multi-stage
channels which mimic a natural river in their form have begun to be used; for example, the flood
alleviation option eventually chosen for the Maidenhead to Windsor area west of London involves a
bypass channel equal in capacity to the natural channel for the River Thames (Gardiner 1994). In
normal times, the bypass channel carries only a sweetening flow and is effectively an artificial
wetland. This option was largely adopted because changes to the main river channel were
unacceptable on environmental, amenity and recreational grounds. Some rivers are being restored to
a more natural form (ARSIA/GEOPLAN/CEHIDRO/WASSER WIRTSCHAFT 1999), bio-
engineering are being used for bank protection (Gray and Leiser 1982), and increasingly
environmentally friendly methods of maintenance are being adopted (Purseglove 1988).
4.4.5 Separating the people and the threat
A common strategy employed to reduce the flood threat is to construct barriers of various types
between damageable property and people in flood prone areas and the source of flooding, whether
this is rivers, lakes or the sea. Such barriers are usually designed to reduce the likelihood of
floodwater spreading laterally across floodplains, but are sometimes in the form of increasing the
vertical distance between the ground floors of properties and the floodplain thereby creating a space
barrier. Whatever the method the strategy is to reduce flood risk by changing the probability of
property being flooded and to reduce the exposure of property and people to floods.
Earthen flood embankments (alternatively termed levees, dikes or bunds) have been widely used for
many years to reduce flood risks in most world regions. For example, by 1812 New Orleans was
protected from floods on the Mississippi river by 150 kilometres of levees, and by 155 levees
extended along 1,600 kilometres of the Lower Mississippi River which is the most flood-prone part
of the Mississippi River basin. The Mississippi ‘Delta Survey report’ published in 1861
recommended a ‘levee-only’ approach to floods – a strategy pursued well into the twentieth century
leading to more and more levees (Barry 1997). This policy was reinforced by successive floods and
the perceived need to control them with levees. The US Army Corps of Engineers (1995) claimed that
the flood protection works (which include levees) on the Upper Mississippi prevented an additional
US$19 billion flood losses in the 1993 floods, but environmentalists argued that if the floodplains had
been left in their natural state, then the floods would have been of lesser magnitude and the losses due
to occupation of the floodplains would have been low (Changnon 2000).
A similar controversy of the long-term effectiveness of embankments exists in Bangladesh where

flood embankments have been the cornerstone flood control plans. Between the 1950s and 1980s
there has been enormous government and donor expenditure on constructing embankments along the
country’s major and secondary rivers, but the country remains exposed to devastating floods as
demonstrated in 1987 and 1988. More than 45 million people were directly affected by the 1988
flood and 2,379 lives were lost. After this disaster the Government of Bangladesh accepted the offer
from major aid donors of technical assistance to find a lasting solution to the country’s chronic flood
hazard, and in 1989 the World Bank was invited to co-ordinate the efforts of the international
community to alleviate the effects of flooding in Bangladesh. Initially the Government of
Bangladesh insisted that the country’s rivers must be embanked but the Flood Action Plan which was
adopted was not based on the total-embankment proposal. This decision recognised the shortcomings
of that strategy and the Flood Master Plan incorporates non-structural and well as structural
measures, recognising that eliminating flooding would deprive Bangladesh of a major resource from
the agro-ecological point of view (Brammer 2000, Thompson and Sultana 2000).
However, dike systems remain a primary strategy for flood alleviation and with the aid of flood
fighting, many of the dikes on the Mississippi supported a flood exceeding their design capacity (US
General Accounting Office 1995).
Polders are then areas of land surrounded by dikes, a ‘ring’ dike. ‘Local protection’ then usually
consists of a dike ring protecting a small, high value area within a large floodplain; for example, an
urban area within a largely agricultural area. ‘Summer dikes’ are dikes designed to provide flood
protection only against frequent flooding and are usually set some distance in front of dikes which
provide a much higher standard of protection.
A significant problem with polders in particular and dike in general is that they interfere with the
natural drainage patterns within the area protected. In consequence, an area that is notionally
protected from flooding from the main river may still be flooded either from local precipitation or
from minor tributaries flowing through the area. This is variously called ‘local flooding’, ‘inland
flooding’ or ‘drainage congestion’. Unless the protected area is adequately drained, there will little
agricultural benefit from constructing the dike system. It is also difficult to separate out flood losses
as a result of the main river bursting its banks from the crop losses than will occur anyway because of
waterlogging.
A problem with embankments is that they may be destroyed by erosion as the river dynamically
adapts to changing flows. Therefore, bank protection and river training works frequently have to be
undertaken to protect the embanked section of river from erosion. A traditional method of protection
is the use of rip-rap, graded rocks: on one section of the Yangtze, an estimated 133m2 have been used
over the last 50 years per linear metre of embankment. Geo-textiles are increasingly being used
instead and on smaller watercourses, bio-engineering methods, the use of plants to stabilise the banks,
can be used (ARSIA/GEOPLAN/CEHIDRO/WASSER WIRTSCHAFT 1999; Gray and Leiser 1982).
In many countries, whenever a flood occurs a graded flood fighting response is activated, typically on
the basis of flood levels: the Netherlands, China, Japan and Hungary all have highly developed
systems of this kind. The first level response is to mobilise response and to carry out an inspection of
any dikes are other structures, in addition to the routine inspections that are undertaken. Flood
fighting materials are also stockpiled prior to the flood. If the flood goes on rising, then action will
be taken reinforce weak points and to deal with such problems as sand boils. The aim in this phase is
to reduce the risk of a breach occurring. Should the flood go on rising so that it threatens to overtop
the dike, then efforts will be made to raise the crest level of the dike through emergency sand-
bagging. In this phase, the military will be involved and mass-mobilisation of the population is also
common. In some countries, those living behind a dike know which are the sections of the dike for
which they are responsible. One consequence of flood fighting, an expensive and disruptive activity,
is that a dike system may pass a flood, as on the Mississippi in 1993, which exceeds its notional
design standard of protection.
There are other types of barrier to flooding. Flood barriers may comprise concrete floodwalls, and
these may be used to reduce the flood risk along rivers and at the coast (where they are called
seawalls).
Where an existing system of dikes, walls or barriers is being renovated then the probability of failure
of the present system must be compared to that with proposed project. The relevant probabilities of
failure include both those of breaching and of over-topping; overtopping simply being a probability
of failure equal to one. Wolff (1997) outlines a methodology for calculating the probability of a dike
breaching and SAST (1994) provides a qualitative assessment, based on the 1993 Mississippi flood,
of those locations where dikes are most likely to fail. In this comparison, the effects of flood fighting
measures must be included. Figure 19 illustrates this approach for a benefit-cost analysis of part of
the dike system on the River Yangtze.
Floodproofing is the act of modifying a structure to protect it from flood damage and to keep
floodwater separate from damageable property. In permanent flood proofing, the building is
constructed or re-constructed so as to reduce flood losses. Contingent flood proofing is action taken
shortly before a flood arrives: this can involve closing gates, shutters or barriers across all openings.
Figure 17 Comprehensive flood management strategy adopted on the middle and lower
Yangtze river: dams, detention basins, dikes as well as flood warnings and
resettlement
Figure 18 Dike failure probabilities for an existing dike system
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6 DIKES
0.5 DIKES + DETENTION
operational
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1000
10
20
50
100
200
500
1
Floodproofing is a physical engineering strategy to counter the physical force of floodwater (Sheaffer
1967, Laska and Wetmore 2000). Structures, such as dwellings, may be modified in a variety of
ways to reduce the risk of floodwater penetration, including by waterproofing walls; fitting openings
with permanent or temporary doors, gates or other closure devices; fitting one-way valves on sewer
lines; and by building boundary walls around the house structure. The internal design of buildings
may also be altered to reduce the effects of floodwater penetration. For example, electrical circuits
and sockets may be permanently routed and located at high rather than low levels. In extreme cases,
buildings may be raised on stilts and not infrequently buildings will built on raised mounds or with
important areas above likely flood levels: all three are typical of indigenous adaptations to flooding.
Further measures may include sump-pumps which begin operating in basements when water levels
rise, and contingency plans and facilities designed to be operated when a flood is anticipated.
Contingent flood proofing depend upon a reliable flood warning system. For example, for
warehouses contingency plans may exist to raise stored goods to a height above expected flood
levels. Floodproofing may be a designed-in feature of new buildings located on floodplains, or they
may be retrofitted.
Technical advice is required to undertake floodproofing because the hydrostatic pressures created by
floodwaters can be sufficient to collapse walls, especially when floods are relatively deep, or to
penetrate those walls. Equally, depending on the subsoil, flood waters may force their way through
the ground floor and enter the property that way. The science of floodproofing has been developed to
its greatest extent in the United States where various federal agencies provide technical floodproofing
manuals (e.g. Federal Emergency Management Agency 1986, 1997, 1998; US Army Corps of
Engineers 1984, 1996, 1998a). However, at flood velocities above 2 metres/second and where the
product of velocity and depth is greater than 7, buildings typically collapse – with masonry or framed
structures showing greater resistance than timber framed buildings (Black 1975). Flood proofing, as
opposed to raising buildings, thus has the greatest potential in shallow flooding across impermeable
soils.
‘Dry flood proofing’, sealing the walls of buildings so make them impermeable to flood water, is not
generally recommended for buildings with basements because of the problems of uplift
(Bundesministerium fur Ruamordung, Bauwesen and Stadtebau 1996; US Army Corps of Engineers
1998a). Nor should light masonry buildings be flood proofed above a height of 90 cms because of
the risk of structural failure as a result of the hydrostatic forces. Finally, buildings should be
evacuated prior to a flood because of the risk of becoming trapped in the building.
Buildings can be raised on extended foundations, stilts or on fill. Only the latter two options are
feasible where flood velocities are more than negligible and where flood velocities are significant,
precautions must be taken against local scouring around the foundations of columns and the design of
any columns must take account of the possible effects of debris deposited by floodwaters. The report
by the National Flood Proofing Committee (US Army Corps of Engineers 1998a) contains a table
setting out the conditions under which each flood proofing option is a viable option.
Recently a number of automatic devices have been developed for flood proofing individual properties
or closing gaps in the flood walls. These included floating doorsteps which rise upward as water
enters the property, pulling a water proof fabric upward between them. A second Dutch system is a
hollow glass-reinforced plastic gate which is normally recessed into the ground but also floats
upwards when required.
Resettlement; the relocation of property and/or property either from high risk to low risk floodplain
land, or from floodplain to flood-free land is a strategy which is used in extremis, normally when
frequent and severe flooding occurs. In Bangladesh some rural householders are used to dismantling
their homes as floods rise and moving them by boat to high ground, such as the top of flood
embankments. The homes may then be moved back to their original locations after flooding has
subsided. In the United States property relocation has become more common. The North American
cities of Rapid City, South Dakota, Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin and Soldiers Grove Wisconsin have
relocated some properties from the floodplain. Following the Mississippi floods of 1993, federal
policies encouraged flood-damaged property acquisition and demolition (so-called ‘buy-out’ policies)
(Godschalk et. al. 1999). In the Gujarat, India, thirty villages have been relocated to higher ground to
alleviate them flooding from the Narmadi and Tupti rivers (Tobin and Montz 1997), and similar
resettlement projects have been undertaken in eastern Peninsular Malaysia. The scope for such
resettlement policies clearly depends both upon the number of people and properties involved and the
availability of alternative areas to which they can relocate. The normal conditions governing
resettlement also apply.
A related strategy for separating people and property and floodwaters is to seek to regulate and
control floodplain land use. When combined with floodproofing, building standards and other
regulatory and planning mechanisms designed to ‘manage’ the use of floodplains, and flood warning
systems, the overall approach has been termed ‘floodplain management’. In France, there have
been attempts over many years to zone floodplains into ‘red’, ‘blue’ and ‘white’ zones (Torterotot
1993): all development is then prohibited in the ‘red’ zone; flood proofing is required for new
buildings and substantial modification of old ones in the ‘blue’ zone. Again, in the United States
there is an active Association of State Floodplain Managers, and a condition of the availability of
federal flood insurance is that the community adopt floodplain building codes requiring flood
proofing. Whilst in France, the attempt has been made to introduce land use development controls,
this has not been a feasible option in the USA for constitutional reasons.
Community involvement and participation in raising awareness of the concepts of flood risk and
exposure and in developing ways of reducing the risk is a key component of this approach.
Floodplain management involves defining and mapping the floodplain, assessing the flood risk, and
developing strategies to reduce (a) flood hazard potential for existing properties, (b) developments
which may be proposed for the floodplain and (c) the residual risks following implementation of
management measures. Building controls usually include setting minimum floor levels. Floodplain
management also involves recognising the natural values associated with floodplains (e.g. wetland
habitats, fertile soils and associated vegetation) and protecting these. Useful guidelines on floodplain
management have been published by Emergency Management Australia (1999).
There are many examples in the United States and elsewhere where floodplain management has
reduced the flood problem (see for example May et. al. 1996). There is also evidence of non-
compliance with floodplain regulations in the United States (Burby 1998, Godschalk et.al. 1999).
Floodplain management may be effective but it is by no means always so and much depends upon
effective policing to gain compliance with regulations. However, there has been inadequate research
to determine the conditions under which land use controls can be effective in controlling
development on floodplains. It is easier to pass a law than to enforce it and unless that law can be
enforced, there is little point in proposing such a law.
It would seem likely that land use control is most likely to be effective when it is least needed: it will
fail where the development pressures are great. There are two separate problems. The first is that
planning controls are defensive when floodplains are considered. Zoning that prohibited
development of a floodplain would be perfectly successful if there is no pressure for development;
where there is internal or external pressure then land use controls frequently do not work very well.
Either planning controls are ignored and impossible to enforce or they are corrupted. For example,
given that the majority of informal developments take place in violation of land ownership
entitlements, there is little reason to suppose that a zoning system will be more effective in preventing
the occupation of land. Thus, around Lisbon there was a massive invasion of river corridors in the
1960s and, in Italy, amnesties for illegal developments are fairly routine practice. Again, for instance,
after Hurricane Andrew hit Florida it was estimated that 30% of domestic properties were built in
violation of existing building codes (Rutrough 1997). It is not necessary to take too seriously the
novels of John Grisham or Carl Hiaasen to accept that some degree of corruption in zoning decisions
takes place as well. This corruption can be monetary or of influence. In France, where a ‘red zone’
where development is prohibited, was required under the PER plans, the draft zoning plan for
Montpellier showed the university to be within the red zone. Miraculously when the final plan was
published, the red zone skirts around the university area (Anon 1993). Again, following the recent
earthquake in Turkey, it has been estimated that 80% of the buildings in Istanbul were constructed
illegally. Overall, the outcome is likely to be as shown in Table 15.
Table 15 Hypothetical analysis of the likely effectiveness of land use planning

(Source: Green and Warner 1999)
External pressure for Internal desire for development

development
Positive Negative
Strong land use controls unlikely to land use controls effective if
be effective local population has power
Weak little development to be little development and
controlled: land use controls effective land use controls
very unlikely to be
maintained
Thus, land use controls are most likely to be effective when the majority of those already living in an
area do not see any personal advantage in further development and they can mobilise sufficient
political power to enforce their preferences. Land use controls appear to be somewhat more effective
than this rather pessimistic assessment implies. Pottier (1998) analysis suggests that in the areas she
studied, the effect of PER was to reduce the number of applications to develop in the designated
flood risk area by about 50% but not necessarily to reduce the likelihood that planning consent would
then be given. However, in France, getting agreement of the PER and the compromises involved in
drafting the PER, as in the case of Montpellier, have been a major problem (Anon 1993).
A second problem is one of scale. Where land use and building controls work, they work best with
large scale developments; they are much less likely to work with small scale modifications of existing
buildings. For example, in Britain, a significant cause of increased runoff is the conversion of the
front gardens of houses built around 100 years ago to hardstandings for off street car parking. Again,
the conversion of back garden lawns to paved patios is also a common practice. These works may
increase the impermeable area of a house plot by perhaps 100%. It is not practical to enforce controls
over such small scale developments.
A third problem is the arbitrary nature of floodplain designations. It is common (e.g. in France, the
USA) to take the 100 year return period flood as the design standard or for other purposes, such as
demarcating the floodplain for land use planning purposes. There is, however, no particular logic for
selecting the 100 year return period event for these purposes. Other risks that have the potential to
cause equal losses to the properties exposed typically involve a lower risk. Thus, for instance, in
Britain, the chance that a domestic property will experience a fire to which the fire service called out
is 1 in 250 per year. On the other hand, the 100 year return period is often more severe than the
magnitude of the flood which is likely to be possible to predict reliably. The reliability is a function
of the length of the streamflow gauging record: as a rule of thumb, it is considered that the return
period of the event which can be reliably predicted is about twice the length of record. In England
and Wales, the length of record seldom exceeds 25 years.
Land use control has most to contribute when development is undertaken by companies and then as a
way of internalising the costs of flood mitigation to the developer. Thus, it may be made a condition
of planning consent that the developer either provide localised flood protection or contribute towards
the cost of a project covering a wider area.
4.4.6 Economies of scale in flood alleviation
One reason why development is attracted to floodplains is that the costs of providing infrastructure
such as water supply, sewers and roads are lower for flat land as compared to sloping sites. The costs
of building too are generally lower than on hillsides. Structural flood mitigation measures can be
cheap compared to the additional costs of developing on sloping land especially where the floodplain
site already has development and infrastructure is in place (Chatterton et al 1993).
There are also potentially significant economies of scale through the provision of structural flood
alleviation compared to the adoption of individual flood alleviation measures such as house raising,
or flood proofing, as shown in Figure 20. The cost of channel improvement or embankments is
some function of the length of the structural scheme and unrelated to the number of properties
protected. Indeed, where a structural scheme permits the intensified development of the available
land behind the defences, the cost of the scheme per property of flood alleviation will fall in the
future. Conversely, the total cost of individual flood alleviation measures is a function of the number
of properties so protected. As Figure 20 shows, at a certain level of development, a structural
solution will become more efficient than for all property owners to undertake their own flood
alleviation measures, such as flood proofing. There may, of course be other reasons than economic
efficiency for preferring individual measures to a structural scheme, for example, the perceived
adverse impact of an embankment or channel improvement scheme upon the local landscape, ecology
and agriculture.
Figure 19 Economies of scale in collective versus individual flood response
total
cost
individual flood proofing
collective flood alleviation

scheme
number of properties
Landuse planning provisions and insurance schemes may require individual property flood
mitigation measures such as flood proofing or individual property raising as a condition of
development and participation in the insurance scheme in certain flood risk areas. The US Federal
Emergency Management Agency estimates that flood proofing adds an average of 5% to construction
costs. In France, up to 10% of the capital cost is required to be spent on flood proofing in the ‘blue’
zone (Torterotot 1993). This may be competitive with the costs of structural flood defence where
development densities are very low, as they are in the US compared with other parts of the world
such as most of Europe. For high density developments involving large numbers of properties, a
structural flood defence scheme is likely to be more efficient.
Penning-Rowsell et al (1987) examined some local protection options for Maidenhead in the Thames
valley. Updated to 1997 prices, the costs of flood proofing each individual property were calculated
as £15,843. Constructing bunds or walls around each neighbourhood was estimated as resulting in an
average cost per property of £2,986. Finally, the costs of providing bunds around each of the main
built up areas was estimated to cost £2,222 per property. The individual protection option requires
the construction of some 140 kilometres of walling; the neighbourhood option, some 42 kilometres of
bunding or wall; and the community option, the building of 26 kilometres of bunding. These figures
relate to post-development flood protection and the costs of building flood protection into the initial
construction of a development might be expected to be lower.
In Lismore, Australia, properties are quite routinely raised off the ground on stilts. Penning-Rowsell
and Smith (1987) reported that on a strict benefit-cost test in terms of flood losses averted, this
approach was uneconomic. To justify their investment, residents had to be taking account of some
of the non-monetary costs of flooding.
Both these two examples are for the costs of retro-fitting and incorporating flood proofing measures
into the original construction should be cheaper. Nevertheless, the economies of scale and low cost
as a proportion of building construction costs of structural flood alleviation schemes mean that flood
proofing is only likely to be a viable option when structural flood alleviation works are not
themselves economically justified.
4.4.7 The environmental effects of the different options
“The intention is therefore that this study should be holistic ..... on the practical grounds that soil and
water problems are so closely interwoven and so pervasive that any single-issue solution may cause
more harm than good by unforeseen interactions and impacts ...” (CIGAR 1997).
In assessing the effects on the environment, a number of principles should be applied:

• the catchment as a whole should be considered and not simply the local area where the option is
applied;
• the effects on the processes of soil erosion, sediment movement and deposition, as well as on
runoff and river flows, need to be considered;
• both the direct and indirect effects of each option should be assessed; and
• the assessment needs to be comparative, with the consequences of each available alternative
option being assessed.
In particular, the processes of soil erosion and runoff, river flow regimes and sediment movement are
both too tightly linked to be separated. In addition, groundwater and surface are to a greater or lesser
extent interlinked; thus, the term ‘check dam’ is sometimes applied to surface water reservoirs that
are intended to retain flood waters in order to recharge aquifers (Jagawat 1998; Singh 1998). At the
same time, ecosystems develop around the prevailing water regime. Consequently, changing either
sediment production or runoff production, or changing the flow regime will have effects on each
other, and also on the ecosystems. The impact across the catchment as a whole needs to be
considered, including the deltaic and near shore areas (Table 13).
The socio-economic system is also a system; changes at one point will have ramifications elsewhere,
changing the areas that are developed and the nature of that development. Development on a
floodplain may then reduce the likelihood of development on the uplands which may, in turn, both
increase soil erosion and runoff. Thus, whilst institutional changes, such as planning controls on the
floodplain, may have little apparent direct effects on the environment, if the effect is simply to decant
development onto upland areas, the environmental impacts may be significant (Barbier 1989).
Uplands are frequently ecologically fragile and so too are the slopes unstable. Settlement on slopes
that currently are held together only by vegetation, can have catastrophic consequences in terms of
mudflows and slope failure: the 1999 Caracas flood being an example.
Table 16 Catchment zones and the importance of flows of water and sediment
Water Sediment
Upland runoff generation sediment generation through
soil erosion
floodplain flow regime patterns of sediment
deposition, mobilisation and
erosion
deltaic area river and groundwater flows coast building versus
determine limits of salt water erosion; sediment deposition
intrusion into river and on sea floor
groundwater
Over much of the world, both the rates of soil erosion, and runoff production, have already been
heavily influenced by human activity, not always for the bad, rather than it to being possible to
consider some pristine wilderness. Climate change will affect even those rivers that are currently
little affected by human activity and will affect both the hydrological regime and sediment patterns in
those rivers. Climate change is likely to have very damaging impacts on the aquatic environment
because of the multiple impacts including changes not only in flow and sediment regimes but also on
water temperature. Even when greenhouse gas emissions are stabilised, the global climate will
continue to change until it reaches a new equilibrium state and preserving currently valued
ecosystems will pose a major challenge. Seeking to meet that challenge may involve attempting to
hold the current hydrological and sediment regimes within their current ranges through different
forms of intervention.
It is not therefore possible to apply the equivalent of George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ principle of
deeming all sediment reductions to be bad or to be good. In some cases, trapping sediment or
reducing sediment loads is desirable; in other cases, it is not. What is desirable now may well also
change as we struggle to contain the impacts of climate change on biodiversity.
Thus, whilst dams such as the Aswan High Dam trap sediment and in consequence the Nile delta is
no longer accreting, a primary purpose of some forms of dam is to trap sediment. ‘Warping’ dams
are small dams (usually 2-5 metres) high across gullies which trap silt so creating fertile new
agricultural areas in the form of terraces down the gully (Leung 1999). ‘Silt arresters’ are micro scale
versions of warping dams. ‘Check’ dams are small barriers which provide a local water resource for
decentralised irrigation, or to recharge groundwater, and also have the advantage of trapping
sediment (Development Alternatives 1999; New South Wales 1999). Such small scale dams also
reduce the velocity of the flood waters, reducing erosion of the gully walls downstream, and also
increasing the time to concentration. The area behind the check dams may also be used for farming
outside of the flood season but a flood storage reservoir is necessary for full use to be made of this
land. Thus, Leung (1999) describes the use of check and warping dams on the loess upland
watershed of the Yellow River. This area is some of the most difficult terrain in the world, the thick
loess layers being cut by gullies that may be 200-300 metres deep and annual soil erosion rates can
exceed 30,000 tons/km2; the deposition of this material further down the Yellow River causes major
problems.
Therefore, the answer to the question of the environmental desirability of the consequences of
particular flood management strategies is: it largely depends on local circumstances. Table 17 is
however an attempt to draw general conclusions as to the relative effects of the different flood
management strategies. In particular circumstances, these notes may be highly misleading and in no
way replace the need to make a good Environmental Assessment of the comparative impact of the
different options being considered.
Table 17 The environmental advantages and disadvantages of different flood

management options
Environment
Option Advantages Disadvantages
Runoff control Reduction in flood velocities Reduction in low flows.
and peak flows; reductions in
soil erosion and sediment
generation.
Reservoirs Potential capture of some Potential capture of
sediment; scale of the sediment; change in flood
reservoir is important in regime; see Acreman et al
terms of both advantages and (1999) for detail.
disadvantages (e.g. relatively
small water bodies may be
important for water birds; the
environmental benefit is not
proportional to the size of the
water body).
Detention basins Depends upon area adapted;
typically this will have to be
in the floodplain and so
disbenefits depend upon the
environmental value of that
site as it is.
Weirs Increased variety in channel Effects of reservoirs on a
form which may be small scale (see New South
advantageous in some Wales 1999).
conditions.
Artificial wetlands Ecologically very valuable. Sediment accumulation.
Slowing the flood wave Sediment deposition.

Widening the channel Depends on the form of the For all channel changes see
new channel; if a multi-stage Purseglove (1988) and
channel then potential Brookes (1988).
environmental benefits.
Deepening the channel Generally very damaging and
also unstable in new form so
requiring continuing
disturbance through
dredging.
Reducing channel resistance Generally very damaging;
destroying most ecological
value.
Bypass channel Depends on the form of the Depends upon the
bypass channel; multi-stage environmental value of the
channels offer scope for land through which the
environmental gain. channel is cut.
Embankments/levees In areas where there is a long Changes form of river bank
history of embankments and above and below water
drainage, very valuable particularly where requires
ecosystems may have been bank protection
created in the protected area.
Flood proofing None. May encourage settlement in
an ecologically valuable
area.
Resettlement off the May allow the re-creation of Resettlement area itself may
floodplain wetlands and re-creation of either involve environmental
natural river. loss or may result in changes
in water and sediment load to
river.
4.5 Enhancing coping capacity

The capacity of individuals, households, groups and communities to cope with flooding depends
upon their knowledge, the resources they command and their organisation and power:
• knowledge about: how to identify the signs that a flood threatens; how to fight floods; what
to do before, during and after a flood event; the causes of flooding; and appropriate
mitigation measures.
• organisation including organisation within households, within neighbourhood groups and
within whole communities as a way of pooling knowledge, skills and resources and planning
and co-ordinating activities to achieve their optimum use and power in relation to other
groups in society.
• resources, including their skills and the physical assets and human support that they can call
upon.
Coping capacity can be increased by enhancing any of these elements. Knowledge can be enhanced
through public information programmes provided by national or local agencies or NGOs. The UK’s
Environment Agency is mounting a publicity campaign involving radio and ‘advertising, posters and
leaflets. The campaign aims to raise the awareness of flooding and the agencies that deal with it
among the public and to enhance individual’s and communities capacity to help themselves in the
event of flooding. Flood hazard management and emergency response agencies can also enhance
local communities’ coping capacities by involving them in decision making on all matters relating to
flooding and thus enhancing local people’s understanding of the flood problem as perceived by the
managers and the managers’ understanding of how the problem as seen and experienced by local
people. However, in western democracies as well as elsewhere, those responsible for flood hazard
management may be reluctant to share information and decision making about local flood problems
and solutions with local people at all or until managers have selected a preferred option for action
despite local people’s preference for early, wide and continuing consultation on the local problem
(Tunstall et al. 1994). Local NGOs with technical expertise can help communities to understand local
flooding issues by providing technical assistance and by analysing and interpreting technical
information for them as happened in the RIMAC Valley Project (Maskrey, 1989). However,
individual local people and groups within communities often have local knowledge about local flood
problems and mitigating actions that can be taken and community knowledge can also be enhanced
by a process of sharing information.
Strengthening organisation is seen as the key to enhancing the capacity of vulnerable people to cope
with flooding by certain commentators (Maskrey, 1989). Some NGOs such as OXFAM and the Red
Cross are exploring the potential of Community Based Organisations (CBOs) for mitigating the
effects of flooding. (Maskrey, 1989; Allen, personal communication). Organisational, leadership and
other skills within communities can be enhanced over time by training, and experience focused on
the flood hazard and its mitigation. The experience of the RIMAC Valley project indicates that this
process is likely to be a gradual and incremental one which may require the support of an
independent NGO, indeed in the RIMAC Valley this was seen as crucial but that this confidence and
capacity building can change the relationship between community groups and the state enabling them
to negotiate effectively with national government agencies for the resources they needed (Maskrey,
1989).
4.5.1 Emergency Planning and management
A strategy for managing all floods is required; this strategy will cover flood warnings, flood fighting,
any necessary evacuation, and post-flood recovery. Current thinking is that floods should be included
as part of a generic ‘all hazards’ emergency planning system rather than hazard specific plans being
prepared. A clear commitment by national or federal governments to the emergency planning and
management process will enhance to its effectiveness. A major disaster will involve of a large
number of national or federal government departments and require their resources to be mobilised.
The commitment of national or federal governments will also encourage regional and local
government and other institutions to take emergency planning and management seriously.
Emergency planning and management has three phases: preparedness, response and recovery (Parker,
1992).
Preparedness involves foreseeing and preparing for potential harmful events by drawing up
contingency plans; training emergency planners and managers; rehearsing the emergency response;
raising public awareness, educating local people on what they can do to reduce their vulnerability;
informing people of the location of shelters and evacuation centres and means of evacuation. The
development of warning systems is also part of the preparedness phase. Emergency planning and
management inevitably involve a wide range of different agencies at regional and local level: local
authorities, police, medical and other emergency services, the armed forces, voluntary organisations
and the media. Establishing in the plan, clear cut roles and responsibilities, lines of command and
control, and communication and co-ordination among these agencies is an important element in
emergency planning since responses to emergencies by the responsible authorities have often proved
poorly co-ordinated as, for example, exemplified by criticism in the Bye Report on flooding in
England in 1998. However, as important as an emergency plan is building up understanding and
good co-operative relationships between the individuals and agencies that will be involved in the
emergency response so that the plan can be implemented in a flexible but co-ordinated way. This can
be achieved through regular meetings, joint training for emergency management staff, and rehearsals
of emergency planning procedures. An emergency plan is a prepared social network rather than a
document.
There may be a tendency for agencies to double count resources available for use in emergencies or
to be unaware of resources that could be mobilised. Therefore, careful drawing up of inventories of
resources: personnel, transport and supplies, should be a regular part of the preparedness phase.
Emergency planning should be grounded in an understanding of local people’s perceptions and needs
in an emergency situation. Local people are unlikely passively to wait for official advice but will act
on their own initiative. Planning needs to take account of this.
Examples of the kind of activities likely to be undertaken during the response phase include the
mobilisation of emergency personnel and resources, search and rescue activities, the provision of
emergency shelter and emergency feeding arrangements and /or evacuation (Drabek, 1986).
The recovery phase is likely to last the longest. Even in the relatively moderate and short lived flood
events that occur in the UK, it can take households more than six months to get back to normal. The
recovery phase will involve the clean up operations, and, where possible, the repair of flood damaged
and renewal of contents. Where houses have been destroyed or need long term repairs, the provision
of temporary accommodation in hostels, caravans, tents, or prefabs may be an important element in
the recovery. The restoration of services such as power, water supply and sanitary services, food
supplies, transport, communications and medical services will be other priority activities. Where
land is available and local people are willing to move, relocation out of the flood risk area may be
part of the recovery process.
On- and off-site emergency plans are essential for dams (Division of Disaster Emergency Services
1986; Federal Emergency Management Agency 1985). The public who are at risk must be made
aware of how they will be warned and what they should do if a warning is necessary. There is
frequently a fear by officialdom that the public will ‘panic’ if they are told that there is a risk. In
practice, the problem is usually the opposite one: of persuading the public that there is a potential
hazard.
4.5.2 Flood Forecasting and Warning
A ‘flood forecast’ is a prediction of future flooding; this only becomes a ‘flood warning’ when it is
received by those who need it in a form which they can use. The earliest reported system of flood
warning was a system of horse riders stationed along the Yellow River to ride downstream.
A flood warning system should be a viewed as ‘total system’ (Emergency Management Australia,
1995) which integrates:
• flood prediction and the assessment of likely flood effects;

• the dissemination of warning;
• the response of agencies and the public in the threatened area; and
• includes a process of review and improvement.
Until recently, greater emphasis has been placed in flood hazard management on the improvement of
the technical flood forecasting element, usually undertaken by a national weather forecasting body or
other national agency, rather than on the complex social processes involved in disseminating
warnings at regional and local level (CNS 1991; Handmer, 1997; Keys, 1997). However the
dissemination phase has frequently been found to be the weak link in the flood warning chain.
Flood warnings have to be disseminated both within organisations and between agencies with
different responsibilities in flood hazard management and response. In addition, flood warnings have
to be delivered, either directly or indirectly, to the floodplain occupants affected: businesses,
institutions, service providers and residents.
Flood warnings are issued with the overall objective of saving life and property losses, and avoiding
health and stress effects when flooding threatens. Specific objectives are to elicit appropriate
responses from the people and organisations involves. For example:
• to alert operational staff to undertake operational tasks such as opening weirs and operating
detention basins;
• to alert people at risk to the need to listen for and seek out further information and advice on
the emergency;
• to encourage organisations and individuals to alert others at risk to the danger;
• as the trigger for flood fighting activities by individuals and organisations such as dike
protection;
• to initiate flood proofing activities on individual properties;
• to trigger compulsory or advisory evacuation out of the flood risk area;
• to trigger removal to a safe shelter within the flood risk area, together with emergency
supplies such as food, water, clothing and essential medicines; and/or
• to stimulate property saving activities such as moving livestock, business stock and
household effects to a safe place.
An initial requirement for effective flood warning is that the areas and properties at risk should be
identified by the flood warning agencies through mapping, modelling and past records. A further
requirement for effective flood warning and response is that the roles and responsibilities of the flood
hazard management and emergency response organisations, including the local authorities, armed
forces, emergency services, should be planned for and each must understood their role.
For individuals and organisations to decide to act appropriately on receipt of a warning requires the
following assuming the flooding has been forecast successfully; people must:
• receive a warning message in time to act;

• understand the warning message; this requires the technical forecast to be interpreted in
language that can be understood by laypersons;
• believe the message and believe that there is a personal threat to their household, farm,
business or organisation; research evidence clearly shows that people normally do not panic
on receipt of a warning but denial, continuing as normal and seeking confirmation are more
common initial reactions. Dissemination systems need therefore to provide means of
confirmation; multiple but consistent warning messages, and messages from a credible source
which contain specific local information are more likely to be believed (Drabek, 1986);
• know what is the appropriate response in the circumstances, through previous experience or
public awareness raising campaigns; and
• be physically or mentally able to take the appropriate actions.
Flood warning systems are usually and most easily developed to cater for areas where flooding is
relatively frequent where it can be argued they are less needed because the frequently flooded will
know the signs of and what to do in a flood. It is less common for flood warning to be successfully
provided for more extreme events or for defended areas where the need for warning may be greater.
There is, however a need to have a warning strategy for such events.
CNS (1991) presented a simple linear model for estimating the likely benefits of flood warnings in
terms of likely damage reducing action taken:
Pf * Pd * Pi * Pa * Pc
where:
Pf is the probability that an accurate forecast is made;

Pd is the probability that the forecast is disseminated;
Pi is the probability that a member of the individual household will be available to be

warned;
Pa is the probability that the individual household is physically able to respond to the
warning; and
Pc is the probability that the individual knows how to respond effectively.
Household time budgets can be used to estimate the PRA coefficient (e.g. Anderson et al 1994); a
warning issued when there is no one there to receive it will be ineffective and it is difficult to give an
effective warning during the sleeping hours. The PHR coefficient can be approximated from national
statistics on disability and chronic ill health. For instance, some 1 in 6 people in the USA suffer from
arthritis or rheumatism (US Department of Health and Human Services 1999); in the UK, 18% of the
population have been assessed as having a moderate or serious disability, with 4% of men and 5% of
women having a serious disability (Department of Health 1997). Of those aged over 85, more than
70% of both men and women have a disability. In addition, the likelihood of a person suffering a
disability is related to their socio-economic conditions. Together, the PRA and PHR coefficients set
the upper limit on the potential effectiveness of a flood warning system but only the PHR coefficient
is fixed.
Figure 20 Probability of successful response as a function of warning lead time
Probability
Time
The CNS model has been calibrated for the UK on the basis of empirical research on flood events in
England and Wales affecting residential and commercial property although less evidence is available
on non-residential property and non-residential estimates must therefore be treated with caution.
In the UK availability of people to receive and respond to warnings, significant proportions of elderly
and incapacitated households resident in flood risk areas and failure to respond effectively severely
limit the damages avoided to 0.29 of the potential for residential properties (Parker 1999). The
reliability of the flood warning dissemination system has been shown to be low and variable in UK
research with very few cases in which an official warning reached a majority of those at risk
(Penning-Rowsell et al., 2000); the same result has been found in studies in France (Torterotot 1992).
Direct warning systems are likely to be more effective than indirect ones which pass through
intermediaries. Indirect systems are likely to take longer and links in the system may fail. Where
warning messages are passed indirectly to the public it may be necessary to build in redundancy
through multiple message passing channels both to reduce the likelihood of failure and reinforce the
message. Local and national broadcast media are an increasingly important and credible means of
flood warning dissemination. Therefore, the establishing a good understanding between forecasting
and warning agencies and the national ad local media is important.
The coefficients vary with the lead time available (Figure 21). Sorensen (1988) has estimated, for
example, the proportions of the population who had evacuated an area against the elapse of time, and
Smith and Handmer (1986) have estimated the likely effectiveness of flood warnings as function of
previous flood experience and warning lead time.
Damage reducing activity is likely to build up over time as householders confirm and begin to take
the warning seriously. However, it is unlikely that on average residential damage savings from flood
warnings will increase much by increasing warning lead times beyond four hours. This is because
householders are likely to have moved all the easily moveable items within four hours, and tiredness
and lack of secure storage space may put a limit on further damage reducing action except where
outside assistance is received (Parker, 1991).
Research reviewed by Parker and Handmer (1998) shows that unofficial warnings systems
incorporating locally relevant and appropriate knowledge and extensive personal communication
networks are widespread in many different physical and cultural settings as well as in the UK. Parker
and Handmer conclude that rather than working in competition, or serving as alternatives, the
evidence suggests that it is more fruitful to find ways of combining official and unofficial systems to
take advantage of the strengths of both. This requires a willingness on the art of warning authorities
to analyse and design flood warning systems within the local community context blending ‘top down’
with ‘bottom up’ method. Potential advantages of developing flood warning systems with the
involvement of local people are that this will ensure that warning messages are understandable and
appropriate and that dissemination methods meet the needs of local people.
The warning process has also to be understood as a two-way communication process rather than one
of simply disseminating a message telling the public what to do. It also needs to be based upon an
understanding of people’s beliefs about flooding and their expectations of the most appropriate action
to take in a flood. If their expectations are appropriate then the flood warning can simply reinforce
that expectation and stimulate action. Conversely, there can be circumstances where people’s beliefs
are wrong and their expectations are wrong: for example, in the Big Thompson flood (Gruntfest,
1977), people sought to outrun the flood rather than escape it by climbing the side of the valley.
Where beliefs and expectations are not appropriate then action will need to be taken before the flood
to change them. Two particular problems are when the public (and institutions) have experience of
floods and have adapted to that risk but then a flood occurs to which an entirely different form of
adaptation is required. For instance, people may have learnt that they can sit out a flood by retreating
upstairs or to the roof; a more extreme flood will require that they evacuate instead. A second
problem is where they have some level of flood mitigation but then a more extreme flood occurs; in
particular, when there is a risk of a dike breaching, it will often be necessary to either encourage
people to evacuate or to evacuate them. Both the public and the institutions may believe that the
dikes have reduced the risk of flooding to zero. Again, a major problem in 1998 Easter floods in
England was that these were extreme floods affecting areas for which no flood warning system had
been developed (Bye and Horner, 1998).
A pervasive institutional myth is that in a flood that nobody will do anything until they are told what
to do and then they will do what they are told. A flood warning system should not be based on this
illusion. People seek to cope with floods and will not follow official advice and instructions unless
these are regarded as credible. Floods also set off attempts by the public to both to communicate with
others, particularly relatives, and to get further information. A not unusual response to receipt of a
warning is therefore an attempt by the recipient to find what it means. It is easier to design a flood
warning system that disseminates a single message to many people, such as a siren or a radio
message, than a system that can deal with the requests from the many for more information. In the
future, digital television will enable CEEFAX to carry detailed information and the expansion of
access to the internet also offers a way to provide detailed information that can be accessed by the
public on demand.
Those disseminating warnings have to trade off the length of warning lead time given against the
certainty of flooding; increasing the lead time and hence increasing the potential effectiveness of the
warning can only be bought at the cost of increasing the uncertainty of the prediction. Figure 22
illustrates this process for rainfall initiated events; similar diagrams can be prepared for snowmelt
and forms of flooding. The available lead time between the earliest possible precursor event that can
be used to predict a flood and the arrival of that flood varies from catchment to catchment. Providing
flood warnings in one of the circumstances when they are most needed, in small, steep flashy
catchments, continues to be very difficult because there is so little time between rainfall and a flood
(Landerarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser 1995; Obled and Tourasse 1994). The success of flood warning
systems where there is less than four hours between the precursor event and the onset of flooding is
problematic. Thus, warnings are most likely to be effective on lowland rivers and they are most
problematic on: flashy rivers, in the case of dry weather failure of dams, and where other natural or
artificial structures fail. New technology and advances in knowledge are yielding some
improvements (Larson 1997, Summer 1997).
Figure 21 Data required in order to increase warning lead time
satellite data, weather telemetered rain telemetered stream

direct observation
radar gauges flow gauges
predicted rainfall
recorded rainfall
upstream flows
local flows
elapsed itime
increasing certainty
4.5.3 Evacuation
Evacuation can be upward or outward; individuals may shelter in a safe place within the hazard area:
a higher floor, a flood refuge mound, or a typhoon shelter in Bangladesh where they may be trapped
until the flood waters recede. Alternatively, they leave the area. Evacuation may be precautionary
executed prior to the onset of a life or property threatening event, or take place during the flood as
rescues, or as aftermath evacuations undertaken when living conditions in the affected area prove
intolerable, for example, through loss of power, drinking water and sewerage services, shelter and
transport mobility. Evacuations may be voluntary or compulsory as for example, in China where
large-scale evacuations are carried out by the army
Whether upwards evacuation is a safe alternative depends upon the nature of the flood and the form
of construction of the buildings. It has the great advantage that it takes much less time to execute
than outwards evacuation where evacuating several hundred thousand people may take several days.
In Zeeland, in the Netherlands, a traditional adaptation to the flood risk was the construction of earth
mounds; if the dikes were in danger of failing, the population could seek refuge in these areas. To-
day, cyclone shelters on the east coast of India and in Bangladesh serve the same purpose and are
provided in China as a place of refuge from river flooding. Flood embankments themselves are
similarly used in Bangladesh. Such shelters should be stocked with medicines, food and a safe source
of water supply.
Precautionary evacuation, although appropriate for life threatening events and for vulnerable groups
such as the elderly, disabled, pregnant and very young, residential and nursing homes and hospitals
may not be the most appropriate response in all flood events and for all those affected. Rescues
during a flood event may be dangerous in themselves and highly traumatic for those involved
(EUROFLOOD, 1996). Evacuation itself has a human cost depending upon its circumstances and
duration. Families frequently have to split up due to lack of emergency accommodation, or desire to
leave one member resident to protect the home or may become separated. This can cause
psychological and social disruption to family life (Fordham 1998, Drabek 2000). Evacuation,
particularly over a long period, can break up communities’ social networks and support systems and
thus reduce communities’ capacity to recover. Evacuation also disrupts people’s livelihoods
particularly in agricultural or fishing communities. The research shows that, by preference people,
evacuate to stay with family or friends (Drabek 1986; Schware, 1982). Evacuation centre
accommodation may be of poor quality, overcrowded, socially stressful and carry with it the
possibility of disease spreading (Fordham and Ketteridge, 1996). One problem is that people may
flee a flood without taking their medication with them.
Evacuation rates in flood events and other natural disasters vary greatly and multiple factors are
involved in explaining why people choose to evacuate or not. The literature shows clearly that the
higher the individual interprets the risk to be, the more likely that individual is to evacuate (Drabek,
1986). Drabek (1986) concluded that when warned adequately of approaching natural disasters,
approximately 50% will evacuate upon receipt of official advisories. Clear advisories from credible
agencies which can indicate voluntary or compulsory evacuation also appear to be factors (Drabek,
1986). The ability of the public to evacuate prior to an event is crucially dependent upon effective
and timely warning of the threat. Sorenson‘s studies of US evacuations show the evacuation rates
achieved to vary from over 90% to less than 30% within two hours. Bellamy and Harrison (1988)
have estimated on the basis of past evacuations, the rate at which evacuations can be executed
although such estimates must reflect the physical locations, site characteristics, access, transport
available and the nature of the threat investigated:
Evacuation rate = 14.12 * population requiring evacuation0.5
Past experience has been found to affect evacuation behaviour but not in a consistent way: those
threatened may fail to evacuate because of past experience of lesser floods. However, Rosenthal et
al (1998) concluded that householders’ and authorities’ experience of a serious flood in 1993
contributed to effective planning and the smooth, mainly self-evacuation of nearly 250,000 people
and many thousands of cattle when dike bursts and flooding threatened in 1995 in the Netherlands.
In that event, an initial evacuation decision in one area triggered a sequence of evacuations
throughout the affected province indicating that the propensity to evacuate is affected by group
interactions and the behaviour of others, neighbours and friends in the local area and wider
community communicated through the media (Drabek, 1986). When people evacuate they commonly
do so as group members, most typically as family units. This needs to be taken into account in
evacuation planning. The research literature shows that families may delay evacuation in order to
evacuate as family units or to account for missing members before leaving (Drabek, 1986)
Key barriers to evacuation are people’s reluctance to abandon their homes, their desire to protect
their property particularly livestock and other valuable possessions and fear of looting (Schware,
1982; Tapsell et al., 1999).
4.5.4 Compensation
In many countries, with the notable exceptions of Australia and the United Kingdom, it is expected
that governments will compensate or aid the victims of disasters. Thus, the simplest model of society
may be seen as a mutual protection society, whose members come to each other’s help in the event of
a disaster. To this aid may be added compensation in cash or kind via international organisations
such as UN agencies, international NGOs other national governments and NGOs, through national
disaster relief schemes which have been set up in many countries or through local disaster relief
schemes set up by local government agencies or voluntary relief funds. In many flood disasters in
both developing and developed countries, little or no compensation will be available to those
affected, not least because such compensation is generally only available when a ‘disaster’ is
officially declared.
An alternative to compensation through relief funds is provided by various forms of insurance

schemes, which were often set up as successors to such funds (5.2.2.1). The role that compensation
and flood insurance plays in flood hazard management varies from country to country depending
upon a number of interrelated factors:
• Whether or not the Government has a duty or a tradition of providing disaster relief.
• Ideologies which shape the conception of floodplain problems and the response, for example,
how floodplain development, flooding and flood defence are characterised and traditions of
‘communal’ or ‘national’ solidarity or private responsibility (Green, 1999).
• The level of flood risk and thence the degree to which the government becomes involved.
• The resources and capacity of national government in relation to the potential for losses.
• The extent to which government is decentralised and lacking powers over landuse planning
which may lead it to seek to link an insurance scheme to floodplain development control.
• The relationship between the government and insurance industry.
• The capacity of a country’s insurance industry in relation to potential, particularly
catastrophic losses and whether or not the country has access to global insurance markets.
The UK government unlike the governments of most other countries, has never accepted a
responsibility for compensating its citizens affected by disasters. In contrast, the Netherlands’
Constitutional Court has held that flood insurance is illegal because the State has a duty to protect its
citizens and to throw the burden of providing for compensation for losses onto the citizens would be
to attempt to avoid this duty and victims are compensated through a National Disaster Fund. Belgium
similarly has a National Disaster Compensation Fund to which victims can submit claims once a
disaster has been declared.
The slowness of compensation processes, organisational and financial problems, corruption charges
and equity issues concerning payments are common problem with relief funds (Fordham and
Ketteridge, 1996 ). Fund organisations do not necessarily have the expertise of insurance loss
adjusters in assessing and processing claims. Such problems lead the Belgian Government to
consider an insurance based scheme like the French scheme after floods in 1995 (van Hassel and van
Lindt 1998).
4.5.5 Flood Insurance
The insurance industry is in business to make profits and not to take risks unless doing so will be
profitable. In general, the insurance industry has considered flooding to be an uninsurable risk except
where the government controls the level of risk to which the industry would be exposed. There are a
number of reasons why the industry has generally not been prepared to insure against flood losses.
Firstly, with risks such as fire or burglary, the risk to the individual property is independent of that of
other properties and the individual loss is small relative to the total income from all insured
properties. Consequently, total annual losses are not subject to wide swings. In the case of large
single risks, such as oil rigs or satellites, the individual premium is sufficiently large that the costs of
undertaking a more detailed risk assessment and tailored policy can be justified. The risk accepted
can also be offset by reinsurance. For flood risks, the premium income from an individual property is
relatively small so a detailed risk assessment would not be justified. But because the risk to one
individual property is not independent of the risk to other properties, those in the same catchment,
one flood can therefore result in a large loss. Secondly, the information with which to make a
detailed risk assessment is generally not there anyway. Thirdly, if actuarially fair premiums were to
be set, then it is suspected that few people could afford to pay them: the risk of being flooded even on
a protected floodplain is generally several times higher than of experiencing a major fire.
Therefore, where flood insurance is available it is through some form of public-private partnership
and insurance premiums are generally subsidised either by the tax payer or across the wider premium
pool. Thus, floodplain mapping, necessary if the risk is to be identified, is a cost borne by
Government. Generally, as in France, Spain and the USA, the government bears some or all of the
risk and where the government is not formally the reinsurer, as it is not in the UK, in practice few
governments could leave claims unpaid because of the bankruptcy of the retail insurer. The US
programme is not strictly an insurance programme, although the US government now carries more
insurance exposure – one estimate being that its exposure now amounts to $US 520 billion (Wright
2000) - than the capacity of the global insurance industry, but a means by which the Federal
government could induce local governments to introduce building controls (but not land use controls)
in flood risk areas. Constitutionally, land use and building controls are reserved to the States and
therefore the Federal government could not require such controls to be introduced. Secondly, the
theory behind the insurance programme in the USA is that the Federal subsidies to the insurance
programme will be less than the resultant savings to the Federal government in disaster aid
(Czerwinski 1999).
In France, Spain and the UK, flood cover is subsidised by through an additional loading on all
purchasers of insurance. The US National Flood Insurance Program is best seen as a solution to a
particular and unique US problem; the French model is probably more generalisable to other
countries.
In other instances, the insurance industry is willing to provide cover against the residual risk. Thus,
in Hungary it has been possible to buy cover against the risk of being flooded as a result of a failure
of the dike system. In the Netherlands, such policies were offered for a period but the company
withdrew after the Meuse floods.
Where governments have accepted a duty to compensate their citizens for losses in disasters, there
are two advantages, as in Italy, in contracting out the distribution of compensation to the insurance
industry or to other financial institutions. Firstly, the insurance industry is specialised in processing
and paying out claims whilst governments are not. Secondly, any form of compensation causes
friction amongst the victims and politically it is preferable for a government to be able to blame
problems on another party.
Again, where governments have compensated disaster victims, it may be preferable to shift this cost
from the taxpayers on to the purchasers of insurance. The problem will remain about what to do
about those who are not insured; these are generally the poorer parts of society. It is not possible to
require everyone to purchase insurance, except to cover for the potential losses they impose on other
people (e.g. third party car insurance), since this is in effect a tax paid to a private company.
Recently, it was therefore proposed that Hungary should adopt a tiered approach. A basic level of
compensation would be paid by the government to all flood victims. A second layer of compensation
could be bought with standard household policies, the risk being borne by an additional charge on all
household premiums. Above this level, any further coverage would have to be brought on the
commercial market (Halcrow et al 1999).
Although generally flood insurance is essentially an ancillary to flood hazard management, there are
some circumstances where it can reinforce an existing policy. Thus, the Association of British
Insurers has indicated that in some circumstances it will refuse to provide cover (ABI 1998). In
particular, that it would be prepared to do where development is given planning permission against
the advice of the Environment Agency. However, the purpose of this threat is less to prevent
development of the floodplains than to ensure that in any development that does occur, the developers
internalise the cost of flood alleviation.
The financial management of flood disasters: Should governments insure?
Throughout the world, governments incur large expenses following floods and other catastrophes. Especially
in poor countries, the public authorities often experience difficulties in raising funds to repair damaged
infrastructure and to assist the recovery process. This problem is aggravated by the fact that international aid
for disaster recovery is generally only a small percentage of the costs, and there is little private insurance to
cover flood damages.
There are two principal mechanisms available to governments to fund the costs of recovery: financing
instruments and hedging instruments. Financing instruments are arrangements whereby the government either
sets aside funds prior to a disaster or taps its own funding sources after the event occurs. After a disaster,
governments can mobilize their own financing sources by imposing taxes, borrowing domestically or
internationally, or diverting from the public budget. The most common way for governments to raise funds
after a disaster is to borrow from their central bank reserves or to issue government bonds. Governments can
also divert funds from other public programs or impose special disaster taxes after a major flood. Finally, the
public authorities can borrow funds from international lending agencies.
These financing instruments lead to important issues of equity and efficiency. For instance, borrowing may
transfer costs to future generations, and taxes spread the losses beyond those who are at risk. There may also
be financial and political constraints on ex post, financing instruments. Developing and emerging-economy
countries are often constrained in raising their budget deficits or borrowing large sums, and taxes are
politically difficult to implement. In addition, international institutions like the World Bank are concerned
about the large amount of development-project loans that are diverted to finance disaster recovery.
Alternatively, a government can hedge its risk of incurring large post-disaster expenditures by purchasing
traditional insurance or issuing insurance-linked securities, such as catastrophe bonds. A catastrophe (CAT)
bond is an instrument for transferring catastrophic risk to investors. The investor receives an above-market
return when catastrophes do not occur, but shares the government’s losses by sacrificing interest or principal
when catastrophes do occur. These instruments are new, and have been made possible mainly because of new
scientific studies, engineering analyses and advances in information technology. Given the size of the global
capital market (over $US 70 trillion), the average annual, global damage from floods (around $US 23 billion)
could be easily absorbed using these new financial instruments as sources of funds.
Despite their potential, hedging instruments are costly for governments, and their use will depend on the
availability and comparative cost of traditional financing instruments. For this reason, their main role may be
financing disasters that comprise a large proportion of a country’s GDP since after such events the
government will have an extremely difficult time raising sufficient funds from its traditional sources. If a
government has insurance or has purchased CAT bonds in advance of the disaster, this will channel funds
from international capital markets to aiding the recovery effort. The attractiveness of these instruments will
increase if they encourage cost-effective measures for reducing the losses from floods and other disasters, and
one of the greatest challenges to financial risk management is linking hedging instruments with loss
prevention.
Another challenge is presented by the fact that developing and emerging-economy countries will have great
difficulties in paying the costs of ex ante transfers of risk. Since the World Bank and other lending
organizations are concerned about the losses on their investments in these countries by having funds diverted
to disaster relief, innovative financing mechanisms to aid these countries in hedging their disaster risks might
be considered.
Joanne Linnerooth-Bayer
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg
4.5.6 Help and Counselling
In the UK as in other parts of the world, flood victims are largely left to their own devices to
accomplish the clean up and repair and reconstruction of their property and livelihoods in the
recovery phase. The lack of practical help with clearing out damaged contents, lack of practical
advice on how to dry out and restore their property and to deal with insurance or compensation
claims are common criticisms voiced by UK flood victims (Tapsell et al. 1999). The US Federal
Emergency Management Agency and the American Red Cross (1998) produces a manual which
includes advice on what to do after a flood which might serve as a model for guidance for flood
victims in western countries.
Those who need most help and support in the aftermath of a flood are likely to be those most
vulnerable in normal circumstances: the elderly, the disabled and sick, those living alone or isolated
without relatives or friends in the local community to call on for support. Ethnic minority groups
may be disadvantaged during the recovery phase by their lack of knowledge of ‘the system’ and by
lack of command of the language (Tapsell et al, 1999). UK research has consistently shown that
flood victims attach importance to the support they receive from relatives and friends but it has not
demonstrated that this support has a significant impact on their overall seriousness of the impact of
flooding on their household (Green et al 1994).
Strong arguments can be made in favour of mobilising community based organisations to take action
in the emergency response and recovery phases of a flood event. Projects in Nicaragua and
Mozambique illustrate the potential of this approach in certain socio-political settings (Maskrey,
1989).
In the US, it has become well established practice to offer counselling to those involved in natural
disasters including flooding (National Institute of Mental Health 1979). However, take up has often
been low because of the perceived stigma associated with using mental health services (Drabek,
1986). In the UK, counselling was offered to flood victims in Towyn in 1990 and it is becoming
more common to provide such services. Flood victims may feel that others including officials whom
they have to deal with do not appreciate what they have been through and may feel isolated as a
result. This was found to be the case in research into the Easter flooding in the UK Midland, in which
some victims expressed a need for counselling to help them cope with their feelings (Tapsell et al,
1999). In flood events in developing countries, victims may be as or more traumatised, but may see
help with their most basic needs for food, shelter, and health care as priorities and counselling as less
relevant.
4.6 Matching the Solution to the Problem

The three primary principles which should underlie selecting a flood hazard management strategy
are:
• public involvement;
• appraisal led design; and
• taking a catchment based approach.
These principles mean that there are no universally applicable solutions. Instead, what is the
appropriate solution will be more or less unique to the catchment in question. What strategy is
appropriate depends upon a number of factors. The five key factors are:
• the nature of the catchment and climate, and consequently also the nature of the flood;
• whether or not a flood mitigation scheme is already in place;
• the nature and intensity of existing uses of the floodplain and of the river itself;
• the wider state of development of the country in question; and

• the (inter)national and other administrative functional and geographical boundaries.
The strategy adopted will generally involve a combination of options rather than, say, reliance on a
dam or flood warning system alone. The need to consider how to manage all floods, including the
most extreme, and not just increases the likelihood than a multi-option strategy will be adopted. An
emergency plan, flood warning and evacuation will almost inevitably be required to manage the
extreme floods.
Figure 13 illustrated a catchment where there are flooding problems in two areas: area A on a
tributary draining a steep mountainous area and area B on the lowland floodplain. Area A will be
affected by flashy floods characterised by very short lead times between forecasted floods and flood
onset, high flood velocities and significant debris loads including trees and boulders. If the area is
not developed then ideally this area should not be because floods pose both a significant risk to life
and mitigating that risk will be difficult. Flood proofing buildings in these conditions is unlikely to
work because of high flood velocities, and associated debris load, mean that partial or complete
structural failure of buildings is likely to be a real risk. If at all possible, development should be
encouraged to take place higher up the valley sides although doing so may simply expose the
development to the risk from avalanches or landslides instead.
Flood warnings will be essential but because of the very short lead time that is possible, the likely
reliability of the flood warning system must be expected to be poor. In this instance, evacuation up
the sides of the valley will be necessary and it is unlikely that there will be time to bring in outside
resources to help those at risk to leave the area.
If the catchment has little development then afforestation, the primary option for source control, will
mean changing the nature of the habitat. More probably, afforestation will not be an option:
normally, in the absence of human activity in the catchment, woods, forests or shrubs are likely to be
the natural habitat to develop. The absence of forests might imply that part of the catchment is above
the tree zone or that tree growth is inhibited by other factors. Where the catchment is already
developed then afforestation is one option; it will be less helpful if the cause of flooding is snow
melt. Nor may it be acceptable in landscape terms: for example, in pre-historic times, the uplands of
the Lake District in England were forested and it was the introduction of sheep farming that created
the present landscape of open moorland. Afforestation here has proved to be highly contentious and
in the Lake District it has been allowed primarily in the valley floors rather than on the open hillsides.
Detention basins will not be an option since these are essentially the lowland equivalent of flood
storage reservoirs. Bypass channels, channel deepening and widening are very unlikely to be options
because of the rocky nature of the substrate, the debris loads deposited by the river, and the
narrowness of the valley. In Hong Kong, essentially a fringe of reclaimed land backed by steep,
rocky slopes, channel improvements have in some cases proved to be the only viable options but the
cost is very high. In addition, in flashy catchments, the ratio of flood flows to base flows is also
typically very high. It is relatively easier to provide additional capacity equal to a few times the
annual flood flow than to provide capacity equal to tens of times the annual flood flow. The
narrowness of the valley will also mean that dikes will not be an option, only vertical flood walls
being possible.
In this instance, a flood retention reservoir is likely to be an option to be considered. Before a

reservoir can even be considered, there has to be a site where one could be situated and have a
significant effect on the flood hazard at A. This site must be geologically suitable and seismicity,
both existing and any induced by the reservoir, will also need to be considered. If the catchment is
undeveloped, then the number of people who have to be resettled is likely to be low, but may be from
indigenous or ethnic minorities. Conversely, because the catchment is undeveloped, the likelihood is
greater that areas of critical natural capital would be threatened by the reservoir. On the other hand,
if the catchment is developed, then more people will be affected by a reservoir but it is less likely that
are any remaining areas of critical natural capital.
Table 18 Appropriateness of alternative flood management options

options undeveloped floodplain developed floodplain
development consider whether development consider managed retreat
might be better attracted elsewhere;
recognise value of any existing
wetlands
vulnerability n/a consider whether vulnerability is
primarily due to flooding or
whether it is a wider problem to
tackle which other strategies might
be more appropriate i.e. farmers
may be ill-placed to survive crop
failure from floods, droughts, pests.
source control will have to take place higher up the will have to take place higher up the
catchment catchment
storage contains natural storage which will look at flood detention basins; more
probably be reduced by feasible in developed economies
development characterised by large farms and
low rural densities in than less
developed countries where the
opposite is generally true. Where
major effect from upstream areas or
tributaries, consider reservoirs
slow flood wave n/a may conflict with navigation and
other uses
embankments if it is appropriate to convert conventional solution
/walls wetlands to other uses
land use control attractors rather than constraints too late except at the margin
may be a more effective approach
resettlement n/a may be viable at the margin in
urban areas; in rural areas in
developing economies, the numbers
involved are likely to be large and
there is likely to be little other
arable land available on which to
relocate the displaced population
house raising, flood likely to be appropriate if consider localised protection
proofing development will be limited; around areas of high value (e.g.
development may be constructed on urbanised areas, major industry)
artificial mounds etc
flood warning essential complement to other
strategies
There are likely to be more feasible options in a lowland area than higher up the catchment, not least
because intervention is possible, in principle, anywhere higher up the catchment from the area under
study. There is also more time before the flood crest arrives which makes it more likely that flood
warning and evacuation may work. Table 18 summarises the options that may be possible in regard
to area B.
Because the appropriate option, or frequently a combination of options, should emerge from the
examination of the particular conditions, it is impossible to give a comprehensive breakdown of
conditions and the options that are likely to be appropriate. The basic rule is to make a preliminary
assessment of as many options as possible, and to be imaginative in developing new options; thus,
Gardiner (1994) reports that up to 400 options were identified before one option was selected for the
Maidenhead-Eton reach of the Thames. The following listing of the conditions when specific flood
management options are most likely to be appropriate should be understood in the light of this
general principle rather than being interpreted as being prescriptive or exclusionary. It must again be
stressed that decisions involve a comparison of available options and a choice between these options;
no option should ever be considered in isolation.
Source control may be appropriate when:

• the quantity and rate of runoff has been affected by human (or other) change over a significant
proportion of the catchment; or
• there are soil erosion problems (e.g. in steep, unprotected and unstable valleys); or
• there are also problems of agricultural or urban pollution; or
• where runoff is too valuable a resource to allow to be lost to the sea.
Dams may be appropriate when some of the following conditions are present:
• a major part of runoff comes from a steep catchment;
• the time to concentration is short;
• multiple tributaries contribute to the local flood problem and it is important to avoid the flood
crests from the different tributaries being synchronised;
• the ratio of flow in an extreme flood to the flow of the annual flood is high; and
• when the floodplain is heavily developed.
Detention basins may be appropriate when:

• a major part of runoff is generated in lowland area;
• there exist parts of the floodplain which are in a relatively low value use such as large scale
farming;
• other benefits, in terms of biodiversity or recreation, could be created through the construction of
an engineered wetland; or
• multiple tributaries contribute to the local flood problem.
Channel modifications may be appropriate when:

• the watercourse concerned is relatively small;
• when the river has already been heavily modified in the past; and
• when a bypass channel could be created; or
• where a multi-stage channel could be created, or the river otherwise ‘restored’.
A practical problem with channel modification is that administrative boundaries typically lie down
the centre of the channel and these will either need to be changed or a super-ordinate administration
introduced.
Dikes and flood embankments may be appropriate when:

• arable land is scarce (in which case the use of ‘summer dikes’ and a retreated main dike line
should be considered, as is the practice in Germany and the Netherlands);
• on lowland rivers;
• the floodplain is already heavily modified and intensely occupied for essentially urban uses; and
• on large rivers or rivers where, because of previous development, the river corridor is constricted;
In developed countries, the use of dikes primarily to protect agricultural land can seldom be justified
beyond the standard of protection offered by ‘summer dikes’ (e.g. 5-10 year design standard of
protection); land drainage of poldered areas is essential for this strategy to yield any significant
benefits.
Housing raising may be appropriate when:

• there are a few isolated and scattered properties on a lowland floodplain.
Flood proofing may be appropriate when:

• the properties at risk are historic buildings in urban areas, and where these are closely related to
the river; or
• there is a low density of development; and
• buildings are of masonry construction; and
• built on a suitable sub-soil; and
• flooding will be shallow; and
• flood velocities will be low.
Localised protection may be appropriate where there are:

• isolated high value communities scattered across a floodplain.
Managed retreat and possible resettlement may be appropriate where:

• the area is one of low population density, generally in rural areas (e.g. the country is highly
urbanised); or
• developments are temporary (e.g. camp sites, mobile home parks); or
• where buildings are scattered or of low value; or
• there is a very high risk to life (e.g. in small, flashy catchments), particularly where the likelihood
of successful flood warning is low; and
• managed retreat would allow the creation of an important environmental resource such as a
wetland; and
• it is possible and economically viable to provide localised protection to isolated high value
developments.
Flood warnings are appropriate in the following conditions:

• always.
They are essential to reduce the risk to life when:

• buildings, particularly dwellings, will not provide a safe place of refuge in the event of a flood;
• especially when existing properties are single storey (including tents and mobile homes) or of
non-masonry construction;
• flood velocities will be high and sufficient to cause the partial or complete structural failure of
some buildings;
• there are transport links across the flood risk area;
• on small flashy catchments (including arroyos and wadis in arid regions);
• in urban areas where significant activity takes place below grade (e.g. underground car parks;
metro systems, shopping centres etc);
• below dams;
• behind dike lines or in poldered areas; and

• in areas frequently flooded, for extreme floods outside those previously experienced.
Evacuation (either horizontally or to flood refuges) should be planned for where:

• all areas where buildings will not provide a safe place of refuge in the event of a flood; and
particularly,
• below artificial or natural dams; and
• behind dike lines or natural crest lines and in depressions; and
• around hazardous facilities.
Land use controls may be appropriate where:

• development is undertaken primarily by developers rather than by individuals (and it is pointless
to mandate land controls where development is primarily informal).
Where land use controls are considered then:

• their primary effect is likely to be transfer some of the costs of flood alleviation to the
developers;
• they should be based on a holistic planning process and not solely based upon a consideration of
the flood risk; and
• in areas of high development pressure, the use of growth attractors may be more effective than
applying planning constraints.
Flood insurance is:

• largely irrelevant to flood hazard management. However, in highly developed countries a public-
industry partnership may help transfer flood alleviation costs to developers since if the insurance
industry refuses insurance cover then mortgages or construction loans will not be available.
It has been stressed that the appropriate flood management strategy will be dependent on local
conditions. As an illustration of the resulting differences that are likely to be appropriate, Table 19
draws some general conclusions as to the strategic management responses that are likely to be
appropriate in four different floodplains.
Thematic Study of Flooding 94
Table 19 Comparative flood problems on the Mississippi, Tisza, Thames and Yangtze
Mississippi valley, USA* Upper Tisza valley, Thames valley, England*** Yangtze, China****
Hungary**
Flood problem Maximum recorded flood flow Maximum recorded flood flows: Maximum recorded flow = Maximum recorded flow =
70,000 m3/sec (1927). 3,360 m3/sec on entering 718m3/sec (1947). 110,000 m3/sec (1870).
2
2,900,000 km drainage area country; 4,700 m3/sec on Drainage area = 9,950 km2. Drainage area = 1,000,000 km2
Average fall 0.62ft/mile. leaving country.
Rainfall: intense thunderstorms Drainage area (at upstream Average fall 1.2m/km. Average fall 2cm/km (altitude at
July-August country border = 9,707 km2; at Greatest floods have generally Three Gorges 40 metres above
downstream country border = resulted from rainfall on ground sea level, 1600 km from sea)
138,579 km2). that was either frozen or already Subject to intense rainfall
Flooding ‘imported’ from the saturated, so resulting in high during cyclone season; very
Ukraine and dike on runoff. Lowland catchment wide valley and very low river
international boundary seeks to which is almost exclusively put gradient; tributaries
avoid flooding in Ukraine to arable or urban use; narrow significantly effect flood crest;
bypassing dike system on the river valley. long duration floods (e.g. 90-
river. Three separate flood Floods may last 6 weeks. 120 days).
seasons: snow melt in spring,
May and Autumn rains.
Flooding can last 50-120 days in
lower part of the Tisza. Ice
floods have been a major
problem in the past. Diked
since the end of the last century,
Emergency flood detention
basins have been constructed.
52% of Hungary is at risk of
flooding.
Local Urbanised country with very Poor rural area with dike system Densely populated (1000 Densely populated area in
This is a working paper prepared for the World Commission on Dams as part of its information gathering activities. The views, conclusions, and recommendations contained in the working paper are not
to be taken to represent the views of the Commission
conditions low population density providing a high standard of people/km2) and relatively densely populated but still
particularly in area at risk protection (100 year return wealthy area in a highly essential rural country (and
(varying from 3 people/km2 in period) but major land drainage urbanised country. Some hence fairly homogeneous
North Dakota to 78 in Illinois); problem. From perspective of 30,000 people at risk. The river distribution of both population
low economic intensity of use agricultural productivity it is important in both amenity and and industrial activity); national
(from $65,000/km2 in North would be more useful to tackle cultural terms, and heavily scarcity of arable land.
Dakota to $1.8 million in the land drainage problem than modified, both as an historic Population at risk in excess of
Illinois; high ratio of arable land to maintain the current standard navigation and as an integral 40 million. Existing dike
per capita and industrial of protection from the Tisza. part of the water resource system is hundreds of years old
farming. Currently, heavily However, expected accession to system. The floodplain is also in places but offers a very low
managed river with channel European Union will make heavily used with extensive standard of protection (e.g.
modifications and dike systems, current agriculture uneconomic. areas of past and present against 10-20 year return period
plus both flood storage Further investment in land aggregate quarries. Multiple flood).
reservoirs and detention basins. drainage or flood alleviation is planning constraints in the form Both a history and a potential
not likely to be a good way of of designations of areas as of for catastrophic loss of life
reducing the population’s outstanding natural beauty, as because of the depth of flooding
vulnerability. ‘Green Belt’ and for other (4-7 metres) to be expected if
reasons tended to direct dikes breach.
development on to the
floodplain
Probable Managed retreat; reversion of Managed retreat, localised Dike raising, or deepening or Managed retreat would either
solution much currently protected protection and shift to other widening the channel were all involve both massive
agricultural land to wetlands or forms of investment, which rejected for environmental, resettlement or localised flood
use of ‘summer dikes’ to allow might include development of archaeological, amenity or other dikes; the depth of flooding
continued arable use; localised ecotourism. grounds. Option adopted expected plus the flood velocity
protection of urban areas; small, involves construction of multi- would probably make localised
isolated urban communities may stage bypass channel capable of protection uneconomic, a
be resettled. carrying the same flow as the problem compounded by the
main channel around the town density of settlements. China’s
of Maidenhead. flood management policy
involves a combination of most
available options. Policy of
raising and strengthening the
existing dike line may be the

best way of buying time until
population pressures ease and
per capita income increases
substantially.
sources: Gardiner 1994; Framji K K and Garg B C 1976; Halcrows/FHRC 1996; Halcrow et al 1999; Marsh 1988; Shaw 1998; US Army Corps of Engineers
1995; Vituki 1998
5. The Role of Dams in Flood Hazard Management

The previous section identified two contexts in which the flood hazard management strategy might
include the use of dams:
• in upland catchments; or
• in complex rivers where it is necessary to avoid flood crests from several tributaries coinciding.
The likelihood of one or more dams forming part of the management strategy will be increased when:
• the floodplain is under pressure (e.g. there is a scarcity of arable land, an essentially rural
economy and a high population density); or
• there is a history of intensive activity on and extensive modification by people of the floodplain;
and/or
• the dam can be used for multiple purposes (when annual rainfall is concentrated over a short
period of the year, or there is high variability in annual rainfall, the case for storing available
runoff is strengthened, although other means of rainfall harvesting (Bruins et al 1986; Centre for
Science and Environment 1999; Desai and Ghose 1998; Ferroukhi and Chookalua 1996;
Gilbertson 1986; Jagawat 1998) need also to be considered.
In the case of dams having a flood alleviation role, there are four major potential drawbacks to be
considered:
• resettlement;
• the risk and consequences of failure;
• morphological impact and groundwater effects and
• environmental impacts.
Again, the comparative principle applies: are these drawbacks worse from the option involving dams
than from other available options? For example, if the floodplains of the upper and middle Yangtze
were to be permanently evacuated, some 40 million people would have to be resettled (Hong Qingyu
and Luo Zhang-Yu 1999); the proposed dike strengthening and raising programme will require
70,000 people to be resettled (the estimates for resettlement for the Three Gorges project range up to
1.2 million people).
Similarly, when considering the risks of failure, no option is likely to be free of risk: settlement
outside of the floodplains not infrequently involves a different form of risk. Thus, in Japan, debris
flows and landslides were killing 130 people and destroying 1,000 houses a year in 1985 (Rivers
Bureau, 1985) and, in general, the choice between settlement on steep hillsides and floodplains is a
debatable one. Figure 12 compared the risk to life resulting from the different intervention options;
the designed probability of failure of dams is generally considerably less than that of other options.
Dikes are seldom designed to protect against a more extreme flood than that with a return period of
100 years whilst dams are, where there is a significant population in the risk area below them,
typically designed to cope with the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) or Probable Maximum
Precipitation (PMP). These are the maximum theoretically conceivable amounts and have a
probability of occurrence very close to zero.
Depending upon the local conditions, the number of people who may die if a dam fails may or may
not be greater than the number who will die if a dike (or another solution) is adopted instead. Dams
and dikes have the common disadvantage of discontinuity: the transition time from ‘safe’ to ‘failure’
can be very short, and the time available to carry out warning and evacuation correspondingly limited
(Figure 22).
However, whilst a dam may be designed to safely pass the PMF, it is not unknown for the PMF to be
badly misestimated. A well-known example of such a misestimate was the Warragamba dam, which
retains the main water resource for Sydney (Sydney Water Board 1985). Recalculation of the PMF
showed that the spillways were drastically under-designed whilst a failure of the dam would result in
widespread flooding in Sydney as well as major water shortages. Again, the Macchu II dam in
Gujarat was built with a spillway capacity of 5,415 m3/sec; overtopping and dam failure caused a 8-
10 metre flood wave to sweep down the valley, killing at least 2,000 people. The dam was
redesigned on the basis of a PMF of 20,925 m3/sec but before it was rebuilt on this basis, a cyclonic
rainstorm produced 700mm of rainfall in the catchment in a single day. The PMF was re-assessed
upward to 26,420 m3/sec (Herschy 1998). Climate change, expected to affect both rainfall and runoff
(Arnell et al 1994), will mean that some PMFs have to be revised upwards. One countermeasure to
uncertainties about the PMF is then to incorporate fuse dikes as well as spillways in the design of a
dam; the general principle that it is necessary to design for failure is as true for dams as any other
flood management option.
Failure under extreme flood conditions is not the only or necessarily primary mode of failure of
dams. ‘Dry weather’ failure as a result of foundation or ground failure or of the dam wall itself is a
significant mode of failure.
Reliability engineering approaches to assessing the risk of failure of a dam are increasingly being
applied (Safety and Reliability Directorate 1985). Nuclear engineers have been keen to compare
unfavourable the risks and consequences of a dam failure with those from a nuclear power plant,
arguing that the probability of failure of some dams are greater than of the failure of a nuclear power
station. Conversely, in the case of the Three Gorges Project, one of the risks assessed was of a
nuclear attack and assessments of the potential implications of terrorist attacks on dams is fairly
common practice (the drawback of such studies is that they simultaneously identify the best ways of
attacking a dam; therefore sources are not cited). In general, the nature of dams is such that a
substantial quantity of explosive is required before much happens.
A second risk is the change in downstream flow regimes as a consequence of the operation of the
dam. In theory, for a dedicated flood storage reservoir, the flow for a given return period event
should be less with the dam than without the dam except for the PMF event when there will be no
difference in the flow. However, this only applies to the rising curve of the hydrograph; the water
stored in the reservoir also has to be discharged. Here there can be a number of problems. Firstly,
that the release is controlled can result in a sudden increase in discharge flows; for example, a gate
may be fully opened rather than being opened slowly in stages. The operations manual may prescribe
slow opening but the operations staff may either not know the procedures or ignore them. The effect
is to release a wave downstream. Secondly, as Figure 16 illustrated, the result of proper operation
may be a lower but longer flood than would otherwise exist. Thirdly, if a second flood crest is
predicted then in order to draw down the reservoir to provide the capacity to store the second flow
crest, some of the stored water will have to be released over a short period of time. Fourthly, if the
flood forecasting system fails to predict the pattern of flooding then the reservoir may be filled too
soon so that the flood crest is passed through unattenuated because the storage capacity is exhausted.
On average, however, the flooding downstream of the dam should be less than without the dam.
However, both the river and the downstream population will have adapted to the changed flow
regime. Both may then be poorly adapted to a flood when one does occur.
All physical interventions for flood hazard management have environmental consequences (Section
4.2.5.8), since all are intended to change the natural flow regime in the river and its floodplain in
some respect. In consequence of that change in the flow regime, the sediment regime is also changed.
The environmental consequences of the physical interventions are not limited to the point where the
intervention is made but are also felt up- and down-stream of that point; in some cases, out into the
near shore zone itself. The virtue of institutional interventions is the appearance and perhaps the
reality that they offer a free lunch in this respect. Although the main disadvantage of the institutional
interventions is that we do not yet know how to get them to work well, they should not be assumed
automatically to be environmentally benign; they may be but one lesson we should have learnt is that
our assumptions usually come back to hurt us.
Flood management in China

In China, most cultivable land, which is in any case scarce, lies in the floodplains of the great rivers and
these have been the centres of the development of civilisation. Therefore, there is a very long history of flood
management in China; many dike systems having been first constructed hundreds if not thousands of years
ago. The flood plains are now centres of population and economic activity; some 80 million people live on
the floodplain of the Yellow River. The Yellow River carries very heavy loads of sediment down from the
loess plateaus and the river is consequently very dynamic: over the last 2,500 years, it has undergone 26
major shifts in course and the dikes have been breached on 543 occasions. In places the river is perched 6-7
metres above the surrounding land; and in parts the height of the dikes is 20 metres.
A comprehensive strategy has therefore been developed involving both water and soil control. On the
Loess plateau of the Yellow River, soil and water conservation works have been undertaken over an area of
186,000 km2; a reduction of 11% in the sediment load entering the Sanmenxia reservoir has been achieved so
far, with a target of reducing this by 40-50% by 2030 and a programme completion target of the mid-century.
These works include the use of warping and check dams to trap sediment to create fields for cultivation.
A national compulsory tree planting campaign was started in 1981. In the Yangtze basin, in 1989 the
Yangtze Protective Forest Project was approved covering 13 Provinces and an area of 4.1 million km2 with
the target of providing forest cover to 45% of the area by 2050. By 1997, the forested and vegetated area had
increased by 5%. Overall, the target set for the whole of China was for forest cover of 15-16% of the country
by the end of 1999 with the most recent FAO figures giving a figure of 14% for 1995. A further 5 year $2
billion reforestation plan was introduced following the 1998 flood, together with a reinforced ban on illegal
logging which has been a continual problem.
The scarcity of arable land has promoted development of the unprotected areas of the floodplains and
urbanisation has resulted in expansion of the urban areas over agricultural areas. In 1997, land transfers were
frozen and the State Council called for land use plans to be prepared by local governments. As with
afforestation and deforestation, the practical problem has been that what central government may decree is
not necessarily actually what happens on the ground.
Since 1974, resettlement from the unprotected areas of the Yellow river has been under way; 100,000
people have been resettled since 1987, with resettlement of a further 200,000 planned over the next 7 years.
Along the main rivers, a complex system of flood management has developed directed through a flood
forecasting system. Dams on the tributaries of the Yangtze were operated in the 1998 to reduce the
coincidence of flood crests; in 1998, there were 8 separate flood crests. The Three Gorges Dam will provide
storage capacity of 22 billion m3 for the main stem of river, reducing the flood discharges on the upper
middle reaches of the river. Similarly, the Xiaolangdi dam will raise the flood protection standard from 1 in
100 to 1 in 1000 on the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River.
Traditionally the main storage has been provided by the natural lakes and the artifical detention basins
along the river itself. In 1988, 40 state approved basins were established on the Yangtze, covering a total
area of 12,000 km2. These include a number of detention basins, the earliest dating from 1954, with a total
storage capacity of 47 billion m3. However, the capacity of the lakes has been reduced by land reclamation
and sediment deposition, and the detention basins on both the Yangtze and Yellow rivers are themselves
heavily populated, with 6 million people living in those along the Yangtze. In 1998, as a precaution, several
hundred thousand people had to be evacuated from some of the detention basins as it was expected that it
would be necessary to operate them in order to prevent the main dikes from failing.
On the Yellow river, since 1974 a series of flood refuge areas have been constructed to provide places of
safety for 400,000 people, together with their livestock and possessions. In other areas, flood evacuation
routes have been established. Similarly, along the Yangtze, some 1072 flood refuges have been constructed
with a total area of 160,000 m2.
A major programme of dike raising and strengthening is now under way along the Yangtze; few of the
main river dikes provide protection against more than 10 year return period flood. The budget for the first
phase is over 10 billion RMB. In 1998, breaches in the main dike were limited to that at Jiu Jiang only by
mobilising almost the entire population to carry out emergency flood fighting.
Zuyu Chen, China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research, Beijing and
Colin Green, Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University
Rhine Action Plan on Flood Defence
The International Commission for the Protection of the River Rhine was formally established in 1963 by the
governments of France, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Luxembourg, and the European Commission
subsequently became a member. Its initial primary purpose was the restoration of the water quality of the Rhine
and its tributaries. However, following the floods on the Rhine in 1993 and 1995, and then those on the River
Oder in 1997, the 12th Conference on Rhine Ministers adopted the ‘Action Plan on Flood Defence in January
1998. This involves the spending of some $12 billion over a twenty year period to manage flooding in a basin
where there is an estimated $1500 billion of assets at risk. The plan is based on five principles:
• water and land must be managed holistically;
• water must be stored in the catchment and along the Rhine for as long as possible;
• the river corridor should opened out as far as possible to increase live storage in the river;
• it is necessary to learn to live with the risk of flooding; and
• integrated, concerned action across the entire catchment is necessary for success.
An additional implicit principle is that the river should be restored to something nearer its natural form in order
to promote ecological regeneration. The targets to be achieved are summarised below.
Dick de Bruin
Rijkswaterstaat and World Bank
Action by 2000 by 2005 by 2020

River restoration (km) 1,290 3,460 11,060
Regulation of use of flood plains
Restore flood plains on tributaries (km2) 100 300 1,016
Restore flood plains on main stem (km2) 5 21.5 162
2
Increase infiltration on agricultural land (km ) 810 1,880 3,880
Afforestation of farm land (km2) 540 1,250 3,500
Increase infiltration in rural areas
Levies on impermeable areas/creation of compensation areas
Increase infiltration in built-up areas including roads (km2) 90 790 2,490
3
Increase flood storage on tributaries (million m ) 4.1 26 73
3
Increase flood storage on main stem (million m ) 33 67 344
Maintain critical flood dikes and adapt level of protection 530 815 1,115
(km)
Flood proofing
Prepare flood hazard maps
Prepare flood loss maps
Improve public awareness
Improve flood forecasting and warning service
Reduction of peak flood levels: 5 cms 25-30 cms 60-70cms
Reduce damages by: 10% 25%
6. Making the ‘right’ decision?
We only have to make a choice when there is a conflict: the available options being mutually
exclusive. Why the options are mutually exclusive and why, therefore, the conflict arises varies from
decision to decision (Green and Penning-Rowsell 1999). However, were one option to be so self-
evidently superior to all others, then we would have no real decision to make. It is because that no
one option is agreed to be superior to all others that we have to choose. Thus, the real question is:
• how to choose when there is a conflict between the options?
We want to make the ‘right’ decision where by ‘right’ we mean choosing and implementing the best
of the available options in terms both of the ‘correct’ choice being made and the decision being ‘just’.
Moreover, the process by which the decision is made must also be right, it has to be seen to be a just
or equitable process. In Agenda 21, public involvement in all levels of decision making was
determined to be a necessary condition for a just decision process, and a recognition of the role of
women as a condition of both the process and outcome being just. A practical condition of the
correct decision being made is that it must be capable of being implemented successfully.
It is generally accepted that pre-conditions for identifying the ‘right’ option to adopt require:
• an appraisal led process whereby the multiple societal objectives are used to identify that option
which best satisfies those objectives;
• a catchment based approach which takes account of the inter-relations between the proposed
project both geographically across the catchment and between the different functional aspects of
managing the catchment; and
• public involvement at all levels of decision making.
Since there remain major problems in techniques to comply with the second two pre-conditions,
discuss of these points is deferred to the next section.
Reasoning, is generally seen as the way to determine the right decision to take. Thus, rigorous,
logical argument is used to select the best of the available means by comparing their desirable and
undesirable consequences. Project appraisal techniques such benefit-cost analysis, multi-criteria
analysis and environmental assessment are simply different forms of logical argument by which to
compare the different available options.
Reasoning, and project appraisal techniques, particularly benefit-cost analysis (Penning-Rowsell and
Chatterton 1977; US Water Resources Council 1983), have been adopted for a number of other
reasons as well. Firstly, because of the level of complexity involved in many decisions so that two
primary requirements of a project appraisal technique are that it increases understanding of the nature
of the choice that must be made and simplifies that choice to a manageable level. Secondly, the use
of project appraisal techniques increases accountability both by establishing an audit trail and
promoting consistency between decisions. Economic and other forms of analysis are not then
primarily about numbers but about increasing understanding of what the decision involves. We need
to understand what the decision involves before we make it; it is this understanding that is important
and not any numbers that may be generated by the analysis. This requires, as a minimum, that the
techniques themselves be transparent and also that the analysis be published in sufficient detail that it
can be audited by all parties with an interest in the decision.
All of the appraisal techniques are comparative; the consequences of one or more ‘do something’
techniques are compared to those of some baseline option. Definition of the appropriate baseline
option is therefore critical and depends on the circumstances (MAFF 1999). Equally, project
appraisal techniques can only identify the best of the options compared; even the best appraisal of a
range of poor options will not identify a good solution. However, there are no rules which can ensure
that the best option is amongst those compared in a given decision. We have to rely upon the
creativity and experience of engineers to invent new and perhaps better options. But rules have been
proposed to ensure a reasonably wide range of options are considered (MAFF 1999; US Water
Resources Council 1983). The most useful of these is to ensure that decision process is as open as
possible and involves the widest possible consultation. However, where there is an existing flood
alleviation scheme, the option of managed retreat should normally be considered.
Because appraisal techniques are comparative, they involve comparing consequences which may vary
widely in terms of their nature, who is affected and when they occur. Any comparison therefore
involves reducing quite disparate impacts to some common framework of comparison. The way in
which this done varies between the different techniques of appraisal; in particular, they vary in terms
of what they can encompass and whether the basis for comparison is made explicit or is simply
implicit to the individual analysis. Essentially, the three key dimensions across which consequences
will vary are: what, who and when.
Thus, for example, the question of comparing consequences occurring at different times in the future
is handled in benefit-cost analysis through discounting. The same problem is also faced in Multi-
Criteria Analysis and Environmental Assessments; but there a rather more ad hoc approach is adopted
and assumptions being made are often invisible. One reason for discounting is to determine whether
the capital invested in the project would yield a higher return if invested elsewhere in the economy
and to this question discounting is an appropriate response. However, we may also have preferences
for the distribution of benefits and costs over time and this question is not adequately addressed
through discounting. If we plot the net annual benefits from the project over time (Figure 23), then
discounting gives us a weighted measure of the area under the curve, the Net Present Value. There
are an infinite number of such curves which, if a particular discount rate is used, will yield the same
Net Present Value. But if our preferences for the distribution of benefits and costs are determined by
the shape of the curve rather than the area under it, then discounting at best ignores this concern.
Therefore, recent guidance (MAFF 1999) requires this curve to be plotted; on the basis of this curve,
a reasoned argument may then be put forward for adopting an option which does not have the highest
Net Present Value.
Figure 22 The distribution of project net benefits over time
A weakness of economic analysis is that ignores the distribution consequences of projects; the ‘who’
dimension. Figure 24 shows a local community in which a flood alleviation project is proposed. If
the net benefits of that community and to the nation are considered then there are four possible
outcomes (Table 20). The ideal outcome is the ‘win-win’ option where both the community and the
nation gain on balance. An outcome where both the community and the nation are losers is obvious
undesirable but may occur when other interests have seized control of the decision process.
The first problematic area is that those where the community gains but the nation loses. A local
community may decide to undertake and maintain a flood alleviation strategy; however, the effect of
the strategy adopted may simply be to increase the flood problems downstream. Again, the small
dams being re-introduced as part as a form of sustainable development (Development Alternatives
1999) are typically multi-functional, with one purpose being to support small-scale community
irrigation. Irrigation schemes necessarily have a negative impact downstream by reducing water
availability. Here, a catchment agency is necessary so that a co-ordinated approach is adopted by the
different communities making up the catchment. In New South Wales, for example, farmers are
restricted to impounding 10% of the runoff as a ‘harvestable right’ (New South Wales 1999).
A different problem arises with so-called ‘pork barrel’ projects: those where national resources are
used to provide a project which yields net benefits to the community but these are not justified in
terms of the national resources expended. The justification, if any, for such projects lies in
redistributional considerations: alleviating poverty.
The final case is where there are national gains but local losses; for example, large numbers of people
have to be resettled to make way for the project. The logic here is to ensure that a sufficient
proportion of the national gains are redistributed to the local community to leave them also better-off
as a result of the project. It will often not be possible to leave them in an exactly equivalent situation
due to, for example, a scarcity of arable land. Where the community has religious or cultural
attachments to the land, no monetary or other form of compensation may be sufficient for the
community to accept this loss.
Figure 23 Distributional impacts of a project
B1
B2
area where project is to be built
C2
C1
National net benefits = (B1 + B2) - (C1 + C2)
Local net benefits = B1 - C1
Table 20 Possible distributional outcomes
Local net benefits
National net benefits positive negative

positive win-win situation transfer sufficient of national
gain to local area to make
local net benefits positive
negative find an alternative approach?
In relation to this form of analysis, large dams are typically, but not necessarily, to be found in upper
right quadrant whilst small scale dams, such as those being promoted by some of development
orientated NGOs (e.g. Development Alternatives 1999) are to be found in the upper left quadrant.
However, the critical feature of dam is not its physical size but the distribution of its benefits and
costs. An explicit assessment needs to be made of the distributional impact of a project and an
appropriate strategy developed in response.
One of the reason that choices have to be made is because no one option is superior in terms of its
performance against all of the objectives that one or more parties bring to the choice. Choices often
therefore involve conflicts between different parties as well as objectives. Different societies define
differently the overall objective that is to be achieved in societal decision making. The traditional
British model was to determine the public or national interest. This assumed that there is an interest
which is superordinate to individual or group interests and the problem is simply to find out the best
means of reaching that goal. In the USA, the use of the term ‘stakeholder’ hints that a more
conflictual approach is adopted. In much of Europe, the basis for decision making is often cited as
being ‘communal solidarity’ and China, the maintenance of social order is given as a primary
objective. Different societies also bring different approaches to the search for achieving the societal
objective; the approach in the Netherlands has been described as highly consensual whilst in the
USA, with its heavy reliance on the courts, a more adversial approach appears to be typical.
What is clear is both that there is more to life than economic efficiency and that there may be
importance differences in the importance attached to the different objectives by different individuals
or organisations. Over time, a progressively wider range of goals have been argued to be part of
decision making; or, equivalently, attention has been drawn to an increasing range of consequences
that ought to be considered when comparing alternatives. Again, the best strategy for ensuring that
all important objectives, and therefore consequences, are taken into account is to consult widely at
the beginning of the project and continue to do so throughout the project cycle.
A significant weakness of benefit-cost analysis therefore is that it is limited to consideration of a

single objective, economic efficiency. It is also based upon some strong ideological assumptions
which may limit its relevance to, for example, Islamic societies (Deen 1990; Nomani and Rahnema
1994). It quite explicitly excludes consideration of equity issues. The extent to which can handle
environmental issues is also somewhat problematic in that it based on a definition of value in terms of
individual wants. The extent to which it can encompass values given for moral reasons, or through a
concern for society, is a matter of some debate, not least amongst economists.
One way of then including environmental issues is as a set of constraints. One such approach is to
adopt the principles of ‘critical natural capital’ and ‘constant natural assets’ (Countryside
Commission et al 1993). In the case of environmental resources deemed to be ‘constant natural
assets’, an individual site can be lost provided that equivalent is created, preferably in advance. The
policy in the USA for wetlands of ‘no net loss’ (Heimlich 1991), coupled to wetland banking
(Heimlich et al 1999), exemplifies this approach. Where an environmental resource is considered to
be part of ‘critical natural capital’, no loss or damage can be accepted except in the most extreme
circumstances. Thus, European Habitats Directive will allow damage to sites designated under it
only when there are both no alternatives and overwhelming social and economic reasons. However,
neither approach offers a way of dealing with conflicts between environmental resources; when, for
example, if action is not taken one environmental resource will be lost or damaged but if action is
taken, another environmental resource will be lost or damaged.
An alternative project appraisal technique, Multi-Criteria Analysis (Nijkamp et al 1990), sets out to
allow comparison of the options across as wide a range of objectives as interested parties bring to the
choice. It is a good way of exploring and discussing preferences but a poor way of reaching any
conclusions because too many important parameters are left implicit. Consequently, it generally
suffers from a lack of rigour, typically involving mathematical operations that are not justified by the
level of measurement achieved (Bisset 1978).
These weaknesses do not reduce its utility as a means of exploring the trade-offs that a choice
involves. Various graphical and statistical techniques can be used to explore the implications of
making different choices. Figure 25 illustrates a hypothetical case where several options are being
compared against a number of objectives. Here it is possible to narrow down the options to two:
options B, C and D all perform better against all the objectives than does option A. So, option A can
be eliminated. Option C also performs better than option B against all the objectives and so the
choice is between options C and D. Weighting the two options scores against the importance weights
given to each objective implies that option C should be chosen; however, this option does not
perform very well against the most important objective (number 5). Conversely, option C is at least
as good as option D against all except the most important objective. A choice must therefore be
made as to which pattern is preferable; such decisions should never be made by simply looking at the
weighted mean scores of the different options.
Figure 24 Multi-criteria analysis: the analysis of alternative options
OVERALL OPTIONS SCORES
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
A
0.5
0 B
1 2 3 4 5 C
O BJECTIVE D
Thus, the different project appraisal techniques have different strengths and weaknesses, no one
technique being superior against all of the criteria that might be applied (Penning-Rowsell et al
1992). Therefore a mixture of techniques will often be appropriate.
The appraisal led approach means that the appraisal process must be matched to the stage in the
development of the design, with simple assessments being made at the pre-feasibility stage through to
detailed assessments to confirm the selection of the option finally adopted. It also requires matching
the appraisal to the problem, which may range from developing a flood management plan for an
entire catchment down to a project to manage floods within one small area. For example, an
assessment was made in the Netherlands (Peerbolte 1994) of the best programme for upgrading
coastal dikes in response to sea level rise. One of the questions at the pre-feasibility stage is whether
it is worth collecting the detailed data necessary before a detailed design can be developed, or
whether the project should be abandoned now. Across catchments it may also be necessary to
determine what areas should be given priority for more detailed study. Thus, a simple points system
was developed for use by the Government of Ireland in prioritising 76 river catchments for more
detailed study.
In such studies, a triage model can be adopted which identifies those areas where detailed studies are
definitely justified; those where they are definitely not; and those which need further consideration
before a decision can be made. For instance, the Government of Hungary recently sought to prioritise
151 flood basins for maintenance and rehabilitation (Halcrow et al 1999). In doing so, a number of
different criteria were to be considered important including the risk to life from dike breaching, the
economic losses from flooding, environmental or heritage areas at risk of floooding, and critical
strategic economic or transport links. The triage approach adopted is illustrated in Figure 26. The
individual basins’ ratings or other scores on each of the criteria were converted to rank order scores.
The mean rank of each basin and the standard deviation of its rank were then plotted against each
other. If the mean rank and rank standard deviation of each basin were both low then all the criteria
agreed that that basin should be given a high priority. Conversely, if the mean rank was high and the
rank standard deviation was low, then all of the criteria agreed that the flood basin should be given a
low priority. Finally, if the rank standard deviation is high, and necessarily the mean rank is then
towards the average rank, then the different criteria yield different conclusions and a more considered
assessment is necessary to determine what priority should be accorded to those basins.
Figure 25 Project prioritisation by multi-criteria analysis
mean rank and agreement between criteria
4.50
4.00
3.50
std deviation of rank
3.00
2.50
std dev of rank
2.00
definite
1.50 priority
1.00 basins definite low priority
basins
0.50
0.00
0 2 4 6 8
m ean rank
What this example also illustrates is that assessment can be defined as a process of converting data
into information where the formal definition of information is that which removes decision
uncertainty (Cherry 1966); uncertainty as to what option to adopt. When considered in these terms,
the benefit-cost ratio is a measure of our uncertainty as to whether the particular ‘do something’ is
preferable to the baseline option. Instead of a benefit-cost ratio of one being a hurdle which if
exceeded by a do something option demonstrates that that option should be adopted, it is the point of
maximum uncertainty as to whether the do something option is preferable to the baseline option.
Rather, if the benefit-cost ratio is 0.3 then we can be very confident that the baseline option is
preferable to the ‘do something’ option and if it is 5 then we can be very confident that the ‘do
something’ option is preferable to the baseline option (Figure 27). Finally, if the benefit-cost ratio is
greater than about 12, then this is usually a sign that a fundamental error has been made in the
analysis.
Figure 26 Confidence in the economic viability of a project as a function of the benefit-cost

ratio
confidence
that
cost ratio is
greater
1
forget marginal do
benefit-
ratio
0.3 1 5 15
A second form of uncertainty to be managed, and the formal definition of information (Cherry 1966)
is that which destroys uncertainty, is between the different available ‘do something’ options. Here,
an approach which can be useful is to identify the differences in the parameters to which the
individual ‘do something’ options are most sensitive (Figure 28). Whilst the nature of the
uncertainties affecting each parameter may be systemic, such a display may aid in determining which
parameters are of greatest concern and hence upon which it is least satisfactory to rely upon in
choosing the option.
Figure 27 Differentiation sensitivity of alternative ‘do something’ options to key

parameters
Options
A B C D E
return period of threshold • •
event
capital costs • •
maintenance costs • • •
effective scheme life • •
rate of increase in runoff •
Bangladesh – The Evolution of Planning For Flood Control
Bangladesh (area 144,000 km2) experiences flooding every year on up to two-thirds of its territory.
During the monsoon months (Jun-Sep), when 80% of annual rainfall occurs, the Ganges, Brahmaputra,
and Meghna Rivers bring about 1x1012 m3 of water plus 500 Mt to 1500 Mt of sediment into
Bangladesh from the upstream catchment area (area 1.74 million km2). Rainfall within Bangladesh
accounts for a further 0.12x1012 m3.
Normal annual flooding provides numerous benefits - common access to the large natural floodplain
fishery, deposition of fertile loam on agricultural fields, and flushing of stagnant water in low-lying
areas. But when the major river flood peaks coincide, unusually high floods can occur, causing
catastrophic losses. Adverse tidal conditions and heavy local rainfall, if also present, aggravate the
situation. Floods are then slow to recede due to the low average gradient (about 5 cm km-1), and
drainage system conveyance limitations caused by sediment deposition. In addition to and distinct
from the major river floods, flash floods affect smaller areas of the country that are located on hill
streams and in piedmont areas.
Population has increased from about 70 million in the early 1970s to about 130 million in 2000, with
172 million forecast for 2025, even though population growth has been significantly reduced in recent
years. Over 80% of the population live in rural areas, and over half still depend on agriculture for
livelihood. Increasing population density and agriculture dependence compels people to inhabit flood-
vulnerable areas, intensifying flood impacts and placing severe constraints on flood control options.
To cope with these challenges, over the past several decades water resources planning has evolved in
three phases: national water planning, the Flood Action Plan (FAP), and post-FAP.
In 1964, a national (at that time provincial) water planning approach was initiated with the 20-year
Water and Power Master Plan. Though this Plan did led the way to protecting most of the coastal zone
from tidally-induced flooding, overall it was too ambitious, overestimating public sector capabilities
and overemphasising large-scale surface water interventions. It largely overlooked the country’s
ground water resource, later the key to rapid irrigation expansion.
In 1986, Phase I of the National Water Management Plan (NWP) was completed. This was primarily
a food grain self-sufficiency sector strategy, lacking implementation details. This time around,
planners emphasised ground water development for irrigation, mindful of the weak performance of
existing flood control drainage infrastructure. The Government, concerned about possible over-
estimation of ground water, did not accept this plan. In 1991, NWP Phase II was completed, including
a detailed investment program. It was overtaken by events when severe flooding in 1988 led to the
formulation of the Flood Action Plan.
After the 1988 floods, a debate on how to address the flooding problem began to develop through
various preliminary studies. These proposed interventions ranging from an almost purely structural
“once-for-all” massive engineering solution, to a mainly non-structural “living with the floods”
approach. The debate was subsequently short-circuited by a set of eleven principles prepared to guide
future studies; directives from senior levels of Government to proceed despite the unresolved issues;
and also, in part, international commercial interests that favoured structural interventions. The
compromise five-year plan that emerged from this debate was called the Flood Action Plan (FAP).
FAP consisted of regional planning studies, project preparation studies, and pilot projects. FAP was
strongly opposed by local and international NGOs, organised around a coalition of environmental
NGOs that initially raised awareness through public meetings outside Bangladesh. The opposition to
FAP challenged a number of basic assumptions related to structural flood control, among these, that
flood control was desirable; that the major rivers could be embanked sustainably despite large
sediment loads and alluvial soils; that structural measures were affordable; and that planners could
work in isolation from the people for whom the interventions were intended.
The FAP process gradually produced a consensus on several issues, among them support
for a softer “controlled flooding” concept in place of the more hard-edged idea of “flood
control;” the need for greatly enhanced people's participation; and an emphasis on
improving drainage through dredging planned at the river system level. In the end, the
FAP did not recommend large-scale works; rather, it initiated guidelines on people’s
participation and environmental assessment.
It is clear now that FAP resulted in a new planning approach. It is now widely accepted
that planning must be participatory and that consultation at all levels is essential to
correctly identify development needs and interventions. Furthermore, greater emphasis on
participation has led to the recognition that as people’s lives are not compartmentalized by
sectors, so too must planning be multi-objective and multi-sectoral.
Other outcomes of FAP included much greater emphasis in the planning process on
environmental and institutional aspects, flood mitigation as an integral part of flood
management, acceptance that flood control should be addressed in a regional context, and
that cooperation among riparian countries is essential.
Herb Wiebe
7. Barriers to sustainable flood management

We can either look forward or look backward. In the developed world, the past is largely a history of
failure in water management and much of the current investment in those countries is devoted to
seeking to recover from the damage done to rivers and catchments over the last one hundred years.
Looking backward is only useful to the degree that we learn lessons for the future. The most useful
of those lessons of the past are often about attitudes rather than about the technologies adopted.
Past approaches were characterised by:

• Heroic solutions – a belief that the problem could be fixed, an assumption of greater
understanding as to the nature of the problem than existed, and an optimism about what the
adopted solution could achieve;
• Technologically driven – the latest innovation was always taken to be the best and alternatives
were frequently ignored;
• Simple objectives - the objectives considered were narrow;
• Static analysis – a static view of the problem and of rivers was adopted;
• A belief that resources were effectively infinite – as opposed to be scarce and requiring to be
conserved for the most important purposes;
• Representing the interests of those with power – decisions were taken by narrow elites which
included politicians, experts and those with money.
These are weaknesses that we can seek to avoid but the limitations of current knowledge will always
be a problem.
A sustainable flood management strategy is one that:

• is appropriate to local conditions, including its place within the catchment;
• has been arrived at through public involvement;
• is based upon adaptive management (Walters 1997);
• and one that can be maintained.
There are, however, a number of major obstacles to be overcome before sustainable flood
management can become a reality. These include:
• institutional limitations;
• professional roles;
• the pressures to export solutions from one country to another, and, equally, the desire to import
the most modern solution;
• the difficulties of maintaining both physical and equally institutional options;
• weaknesses in research;
• the difficulties of enabling effective public involvement early enough in the decision process for
this to be effective;
• corruption; and
• the problems of legitimising the involvement of different voices.
7.1 Institutional barriers

In order that they be accountable, all institutions must have rules since we require that institutions
perform predictably and consistently their designated role. For the same reason, all institutions must
have both geographical and functional boundaries: these define what they can do and within what
area. Thus boundaries are inevitable but at the same time they are the line along which major
problems occur.
If the area and functional responsibilities of an institution are enlarged then the result is simply to
convert the boundary problem into an internal problem; the institution having to determine how to
split itself up into areal and/or functional responsibilities. In consequence, it is necessary to determine
where to draw both geographical and functional boundaries.
Equally, different institutions will have different appropriate geographical boundaries and these are
commonly the result of historical, cultural, ethnic and other factors. It will rarely be possible to
redraw all administrative boundaries to reflect catchment boundaries. Therefore, the problem is
usually how to obtain co-operation across functional and geographical boundaries.
Figure 29 illustrates the different ways in which institutional boundaries have been drawn for
managing dike systems:
• across river;
• down river;
• constructor - operator;
• bank/dike; and
• foundations/dike.
The administrative and community boundaries frequently developed down the centre of rivers; if
there is to be local involvement and community funding, then the same boundaries will generally
have to be followed. However, the mid-river boundary is one of the most obvious contradictions to
holistic catchment management and there must be some way of ensuring co-ordination across such a
boundary. Similarly, administrative and community boundaries are unlikely to correspond, for
example, to natural hard points at the ends of a dike.
Other types of boundary are introduced by funding practices; quite often in water management, there
is difference between the institution made responsible for constructing the project and the
organisation who will be responsible for operating and maintaining it. Such a split is particularly
likely when a higher governmental level is providing the capital funding, but not Operations and
Maintenance costs (O & M), or where there is considered to be a lack of adequate expertise at local
level to successfully execute capital works. Designers may therefore pay little attention to whether
the system can be maintained, how it should be maintained, and whether it will be possible to
generate the funds necessary to provide the level of maintenance the project requires. A maintenance
schedule spelling out the actions, their frequency and expected cost should be as much a part of a
project design as the bill of quantities.
In some countries, splits of responsibility between either or both construction and maintenance of
bank protection and the dike have been introduced. In other cases, different institutions have been
allocated responsibility for above water/ground works and those below water/ground. Private
contracting of works also introduces another form of split, one which is formally controlled through
the contract document.
For rivers, such as the Mekong, that form an international boundary, the problem is even more
complicated because the international boundary may lie mid-river or along the Thalweg, and neither
are stationary.
Because there are no ideal boundaries between institutions and their responsibilities, it is essential to
devise ways of bridging the necessary boundaries. Two possible approaches are:
• establish a new super-ordinate institution, such as a catchment management agency; or
• establish a new co-operative institution largely or wholly ‘owned’ by the existing institutions.
The latter approach is generally more likely to be effective since lower order institutions frequently
spend a great deal of their time subverting the decisions of a super-ordinate institution and the super-
ordinate institution tends to become a scientific bureaucracy inventing paper plans unrelated to
conditions on the ground.
One of the key rule structures governing institutions is how they may raise and spend money; this rule
is typically set out in the legislation establishing an institution. One consequence of holistic
catchment management is that multi-functional projects will be increasingly common. However,
budgets are frequently single-functional and funding a multi-functional project will frequently require
putting together a coalition of institutions whilst at the same time getting them to agree how the costs
are to be shared. Multi-functional projects require multi-functional funding but increasing the
flexibility an institution has in spending money increases the risk that it will mis-use its budget. The
remedy is to switch away from rules to greater oversight by the legislatures.
Communication across boundaries is generally problematic; the failure of flood warning in the 1997
Red River Flood along the North Dakota/Minnesota border is an example of such breakdowns across
institutional boundaries (Pielke 1999). Nor was this failure atypical and flood warning systems are
particularly prone to failures in communication across institutional boundaries. However, co-
operation and communication between institutions are necessary if integrated water and land plans,
such as the Dutch ‘Stork’ plan (de Bruin et al 1987), are to achieved.
Figure 28 The different ways in which institutional boundaries have been drawn with
respect to dikes
administrative
boundaries are typically
down the centre of the end of dike
river section
foundations and
bank protection underwater works
versus dike versus dike structure
protection
constructor-
owner
An apparent contradictions at the heart of the criteria for sustainable development set out in both the
Dublin Declaration (ACC/ISGWR 1992) and the Rio Principles is that between holistic, or integrated
catchment management, and involving the public in all levels of decision making. Integration tends
to pull towards multi-functional organisations which cover the entire catchment; public involvement
towards geographically small, community based involvement. This should be resolved by catchment
agencies which are downwardly accountable and which act to promote agreement between these
smaller and more specialised groups as to the overall strategy to be adopted.
A reason for creating institutions and establishing rules is to increase accountability through
routinising decisions: if the rules are accepted and correctly applied so it follows that the decision is
appropriate. The staff of the institution know where they stand: doing the same thing that has been
done for the last ten years then becomes the safe solution in terms of accountability. The drawback
with routines and rules is then that the same solutions can become applied to all decisions and the
institutions do not adapt to changing conditions, knowledge and concerns. Requiring accountability
thus has the perverse result of stifling innovation and institutional adaptation: rules are necessary for
accountability, and the tighter the rules, the more easy it is for the institution to reply to any criticism
that we followed the rules. Where the rules are open to interpretation, the easier it is for the
institution to be criticised after the fact and the usual consequence is then a demand for the rules to be
tightened to reduce the scope for interpreting the rules.
Therefore, accountability by open review rather than over-restrictive rules is preferable and
institutions need to incorporate advisory groups who will bring in diverse perspectives. Both
institutions themselves and society also need to learn that it is acceptable for an institution to say
either that they made a mistake or that they don’t know the answer. Decision making is not risk free;
some mistakes will inevitably be found in hindsight. If an institution focuses entirely on avoiding
making mistakes, it will never innovate.
7.2 Professional roles

People train in the professions because they want to perform what they believe to be the role of that
profession. In particular, engineers become engineers to build things.
Equally, society has expectations, often quite defined ones, as to the role of particular professions.
These expectations extend on both sides to what the professions do. We would surprised, for
instance, if an ecologist were to propose a massive dam building programme on the grounds of
employment generation but less so if the same programme were to be proposed for this reason by an
engineer or an economist. Thus, when an organisation appoints a particular specialist to deal with a
problem, the organisation has already prescribed the type of solution that is expected. Thus, when a
problem is handed to an engineer there is at least an implicit expectation that the appropriate response
is to construct some thing rather than, say, to pass a new law or introduce a new tax. However,
engineers are probably amongst the most multi-skilled professions and they are increasing proposing
strategies which do not involve building things. This is a development that must be promoted with
engineering training being increasingly orientated to a wider problem solving approach into which
they draw the expertise of other specialists. Before that expertise can be drawn in, the need for that
expertise must first be recognised and engendering such a pluralistic approach is part of the necessary
training of engineers.
This is rather different from the usual call for multi- and inter-disciplinary working, although that will
result from this approach. Unlike many of the disciplines who will be drawn into such an approach,
engineers have the advantage of a problem-orientated approach: we will still want them to do some
thing, but not necessarily to build some thing. The weaknesses of the sciences tends to be that they
want to study some thing and are frequently more parochial in conceptual outlook than engineers.
Engineers, particularly water engineers, have also developed an ethos of public service. This is
expressed in the form of approach of determining what the public needed and then building it. Whilst
in this way they put their expertise towards the public good, they also believe that they knew best,
because of their expertise, what should be done to promote the public good. This approach clashes
directly with involving the public because, for public involvement to be meaningful, it involves
finding out what the public want. This may be quite different from what the engineer thinks they
need. Engineering training needs therefore to be orientated towards training engineers to listen to,
learn from and engage in a dialogue with the publics so as to assist the publics in achieving their
goals.
7.3 Exporting/importing failure

Logically, countries like Bangladesh, China, India and Japan should become the global centres of
expertise in flood management simply because they have bigger problems than anyone else. To
achieve this, they need to learn from the mistakes made by the countries of Europe and North
America rather than to replicate them. The aim should be skip an entire generation of mistakes. This
means that study tours to the developed countries should be concerned at least as much as learning
what were the mistakes than have been made there, and what lessons can be learnt, as upon
identifying examples of good practice.
However, when giving development aid, governments have tended not only to export the current
flood management practices of that country, irrespective of their relevance to the recipient, and also
to put the interests of national companies ahead of the recipients.
7.4 Financing
The debate as to who should pay for flood alleviation is a somewhat confusing mixture of
ideological, practical and efficiency concerns. The ‘user pays’ principle is as much a moral claim as
anything else and can conflict with concerns both with equity and economic efficiency. There are a
number of reasons why reliance wholly upon the ‘user pays’ principle to fund flood alleviation can
conflict with both the latter objectives. Firstly, flooding is to a greater or lesser extent an externality
of land use. In principle, therefore, any changes in land use which increase the flood risk elsewhere
should attract a charge. In some urban areas, such charges are applied. But it is less easy to charge
those who cause an increased risk of flooding through emissions of greenhouse gases. Secondly,
flood alleviation is technically a public good so that economic efficiency is not served by pricing
some possible users out of the area. Thirdly, occupancy of the floodplain is only one of the possible
externalities of development; the theory of ‘second best’ (Lipsey and Lancaster 1956-57) warns that
seeking to correct one form of market failure where there are many failures can make things worse.
Fourthly, where occupancy of the floodplain has been supported by a planning decision that this is
the best place for intensified development to take place, it makes little sense to then encourage it to
take place elsewhere through differential pricing. Fifthly, in many countries there is a doctrine of
communal solidarity and a belief that a government has a duty of care to the citizens of that country.
Thus, following the recent earthquake in Taiwan, President Lee Teng-hui said: “To take care of the
people is the responsibility of the government, so we will adopt an aggressive attitude and try our best
to respond to this situation” (President Lee Teng-hui of Taiwan, Guardian 22/9/99 p15). Finally,
there are equity concerns since sole reliance on the principle would result in the rich undertaking
flood alleviation measures and the poor remaining exposed to flooding.
Therefore in practice what has happened in the past, and largely continues, is that capital costs are at
least partly funded by the central government, the extent of this funding depending on the relative
wealth of the area where the alleviation project is to be undertaken.
There is little successful history of the use of private capital in promoting flood alleviation works.
One obvious problem is that these works have to be funded through what is essentially a tax and
taxation decisions are reserved as the responsibility of some accountable governmental body rather
than to a profit maximising private company. In the UK, two projects are being constructed and
maintained through private funding. This procedure, the Private Finance Initiative, is essentially an
equivalent of the French concession approach in water supply and sewerage (Rees 1998). The
Environment Agency will pay an annual sum rather than the works being funded through a specific
local tax on the beneficiaries.
7.5 Maintenance
There are at least three different reasons why projects fail as a result of a lack of maintenance:
• Inadequate consideration during the project design of the ability of the managing institution to
raise sufficient income to cover O & M costs;
• Inappropriate institutional design; and
• Inappropriate requirements in the way of required skills, equipment and materials.
More water related projects appear to fail from a lack of or insufficient maintenance than for any
other reason. This is equally true of the failures of institutional structures as it is of physical
structures. Emergency plans, for example, need to be rehearsed and the networks of organisations
which will execute them need to be maintained. It can further be argued the cause of insufficient
maintenance of physical structures is a consequence of a failed institutional system.
Too often there is a divorce between the designers of a project and those who then have to maintain
it; the designers failing to consider the O & M requirements of the project and whether they can be
sustained. Operational and Maintenance costs are generally the responsibility of the local
government in the area. The weakness of this approach is that local government may not then
adequately fund O & M activities so that a renovation scheme must be undertaken prematurely, again
largely at the cost of central government. One way of securing funding is designated local taxes on
local communities to pay the costs of O & M; the charges levied by the Waterschappen in the
Netherlands and similar charges in China being examples. Conversely, in most countries, the
Ministry of Finance will have a rooted objection to such an hypothecation of what is essentially tax
revenue. In both those countries, local residents also have a duty to turn out for emergency flood
fighting and/or to provide unpaid labour for maintenance activities. The potential advantage of this
split is that it provides local ownership of the project; where this does not occur, as in some parts of
Bangladesh, local residents may breach dikes because they blame the dikes for causing local flooding
and regard the dikes as being imposed upon them by an alien government.
Institution maintenance is an area for which only limited guidelines have yet emerged (Ostrom 1990).
Reviews of experience in rural water supply where there has been much more experience are not very
encouraging (Black 1998).
Systems whose O & M requirements are capital intensive, skill intensive and rely on imported parts
are inappropriate in countries where capital and skilled labour are scarce, overseas debts restrict
imports, and rates of pay are low in public organisations so that they have a problem retaining trained
staff. The high discount rates typically used in developing countries tend to result in the selection of
low first cost and high O & M costs options over those which require lower O & M costs at the
expense of higher capital costs. However, the critical scarcities are typically in terms of equipment
and skills.
A hypothesis, and it can be no more, is that the adoption in the past of structural engineering
solutions and dams in particular has been a reflection of doubts, justified or not, as to whether to
institutional approaches could be maintained.
7.6 Research
In the longer run, better decisions will only emerge from better research. However, in the short run,
there are a number of common problems. Firstly, scientists want to study things whereas decision-
makers have to do some thing. Thus, frequently when the decision-maker asks a scientist what
should be done, the response is that more research should be funded first. Secondly, universities
continue to be centred around disciplines whereas problems obey no such rules. The result is that the
decision-maker has to diagnose the problem to determine what is the appropriate discipline to call
upon. Thirdly, this discipline orientation can result in an inward orientation wherein only the
advancement of the discipline through the acclaim of peers is considered to be the appropriate role of
an academic. This militates both against multi- or inter-disciplinary working, against applied
research, and also the dissemination of research findings to decision-makers. Thus, academics may
feel that it is up to the end-user to find out what is the latest research that bears on the decision. Both
money and prestige have proved quite effective ways of convincing academics of the desirability of a
greater orientation towards the problems of society and the active dissemination of research results to
those who need them.
7.7 Corruption
Corruption continues to be a major problem and one that often influences the choice of strategy
adopted since that strategy tends to dictate both how much money can be creamed off and by whom.
Big engineering works arguably offer most scope for corruption by national or provincial politicians,
and in some countries this has provided a means of campaign financing. Institutional approaches
then have the disadvantage that the scope for corruption is at the local level rather than the national
level.
7.8 Public involvement

Public involvement is still in its infancy in most parts of the world; the Environment Agency in
England and Wales still, for example, talks in terms of ‘scheme promotion’; in effect, of selling its
preferred solution to other bodies. A number of handbooks have been prepared on how to increase
public involvement (Creighton et al nd; World Bank 1996). The ‘Landcare’ movement in Australia
perhaps may be the most successful effort of long term public involvement to date.
The two key areas remain institutional and information. If the institutions taking the decisions
remain as scientific bureaucracies, then public involvement is likely to be limited to consultation at
best. Instead, institutions should be accountable downwards rather than upwards; a better model for a
catchment management agency being one where the Board is made up of representatives of those who
live or use the river rather than one which is responsible to central government and appointed by
them. Whilst it is not clear that we yet know how to achieve real and effective public involvement,
the answer seems to lie in institutional structures and devolving decision power rather than simply
improving communications.
A second problem is that public involvement can only be effective where the public have access to
adequate information. A ‘Freedom of Information’ Act is not sufficient for this to occur since this
will liberate a large quantity of data and data only becomes information when it is structured. The
requirement is to allow the publics to be able to structure what are often large quantities of data in
their own way, since any way of structuring data imposes its own view of the world, its own
framework of discourse. Computing developments may offer a way whereby the different publics
can explore data, and impose their own structure upon it.
A danger that the process of public involvement will be captured by specific social groups,
particularly by the richer and more socially empowered members of society. In particular, in most
countries, women are to a greater or lesser extent excluded from such involvement. Future
generations are necessarily excluded from such involvement; so too are those who do not live in the
area are present but might do so under particular conditions, and gain by so doing. At different times,
concerns have been expressed that both Environmental Assessment and public participation can be
used by parts of the local population to maintain the status quo and to exclude others. Where the
public involved are an indigenous group, this may be morally acceptable; where it is the relatively
rich who use the system to exclude the poor, it is less so.
A further perceived problem with increased public involvement is that it is feared that the whole
decision process will be slowed down if not actually grind a halt in an interminable process of
consultation.
7.9 Legitimising voices

Involvement in decision making is also power; inclusion of an additional voice in the decision
process will almost certainly be seen by one or more of the existing decision makers as resulting in a
diminution of their power. In consequence, it will be resisted.
Secondly, all those seeking entry to the decision process have to answer for their legitimacy: by what
right are they entitled for their voice to be heard in a decision? At a minimum, they must be able to
demonstrate that they are concerned with the sustainable livelihood of those who will be affected by
the decision to be made.
8. Conclusions and Recommendations

Dams, or rather the storage that can be provided, can reduce flood losses and have an identifiable role
to play in some circumstances.
More generally, it is no use being against one option unless there is a better feasible option. Equally,
decisions are difficult precisely because there is no course of action that is better in all senses than all
other options. It is the nature of decisions that making a decision involves trade-offs between
important objectives or values. In the countries of nineteenth century settlement, the low population
densities, high availability of arable land and low intensity of economic activity usually mean that the
trade-offs are less intense and there are more options available than in the rest of the world. Flood
management in North America and Australasia should consequently be much easier than in the rest of
the world. Generally, however, there are painful trade-offs involved in choosing between flood
management options.
The overall objective must be sustainable development. The widely quoted Brundtland definition of
sustainable development recognises our duties to future generations; however, Brundtland went on to
assert that sustainable development requires the reductions in the present inequalities of wealth
between peoples. Both are necessary conditions for sustainable development. The Dublin meeting
and the Rio conference set out the guiding principles for making decisions so as to achieve
sustainable development as being:
• Maximising public involvement at all levels of decision making; and
• Adopting a catchment management approach.
When such approaches are implemented then outsiders must accept the decisions that result from the
approach even when we disagree with the decision itself.
Because decisions are complex, the use of decision aids and tools such as benefit-cost analysis and
multi-criteria analysis have an important role to play in clarifying the nature of the choice that must
be made and understanding the critical trade-offs involved. But they are useful only to the extent to
which they promote understanding and enable that understanding to be shared. They are not ways of
replacing deliberative decision making through public involvement; they are simply means of
informing that process.
What then emerges as the best option or the best combination of options for flood management then
will depend upon local conditions. There are no universal solutions, only generalisable principles.
However, in terms of the available flood management options, we appear to be much less capable of
developing sustainable institutions and thus of implementing institutional approaches to flood hazard
management than of implementing engineering works. That 30% of hand pumps in India are
estimated to be out of commission is largely down to the failure to devise or implement appropriate
institutional forms. The conditions under which land use and building controls on floodplain use can
be effective are still to be established but they are unlikely to effective in those areas where they are
most needed: in areas of rapid urbanisation, particularly where much of that development is via
informal settlements. Similarly, flood warnings work best where floods are frequent and where
arguably flood warnings are least needed. Flood warning systems are most likely to fail when
conditions are unusual; for instance, in those extreme floods where they are most needed.
In the long term, restoration of rivers to a more natural form and of their associated wetlands is a
widely held objective. In the short term, the developed countries can expect to make more progress
towards this goal than those countries where population densities are high, there is a shortage of
arable land and levels of poverty are unacceptable. Much flood management may then have to be
seen as a holding strategy until the country concerned achieves a level of development that is
comparable to those in countries that are currently considered to be developed.
Climate change will make appropriate water management more difficult in all countries and climate
change is probably the largest threat to biodiversity. If we do not cut greenhouse gas emissions then
in fifty years there will be no biodiversity left to be impacted by flood hazard management and, in
some cases, no country either. We are at present, for example, seeking to restore trout streams whilst
there is a significant probability that in fifty years time, flow and temperature conditions in those
streams will render them incapable of supporting trout. Decisions about the most appropriate flood
management strategy to adopt must consequently both take account of the effects of climate change
and the contribution of the flood management strategy to slowing climate change and then stabilising
the climate.
The specific recommendations were summarised in the Executive Summary.
9. References and bibliography

ABI/CGU Insurance, 1999. Flood Appraisal Groups, NPPG 7, - and Insurance, 2nd Edition, Perth:
Association of British Insurers/CGU Insurance.
Abt, S.R., Wittler, R.J., Taylor, A. and Love, D.J. 1989. “Human stability in a high flood zone”,
Water Resources Bulletin 25(4), 881-890.
ACC/ISGWR 1992. The Dublin Statement and the Report of the Conference, Geneva: World
Meteorological Organization
Acreman, M. C., 1996. “Environmental Effects of Hydro-Electric Power Generation in Africa and the
Potential for Artificial Floods”, J.CIWEM 10, December, 429-435
Acreman, M. C. and Hollis, G. E. (eds.) 1996. Water Management and Wetlands in Sub-Saharan
Africa, Gland: IUCN
Acreman, M., Barbier, E., Birley, M. et. al. 1999. Managed flood releases from reservoirs - a review
of current problems of current problems and future prospects, Project R7344, report to DFID,
Wallingford: Institute of Hydrology
Adams, W. M. 1992. Wasting the Rain: Rivers, People and Planning in Africa, London: Earthscan
Alexander, D. 1993. Natural Disasters London: UCL Press Limited.
Allee, D. J., Osgood, B. T., Antle, L. G., Simpkins, C. E., Motz, A. B., Van der Slice, A. and
Westbrook, W. F. 1980 Human Costs of Flooding and Implementability of Non-Structural
Damage Reduction in the Tug Fork Valley of West U.S., Fort Belvoir, VA.: U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Institute for Water Resources
Anderson, M., and Bechhofer, F., and Gershuny, J., (eds.) 1994. The Political Economy of the
Household, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Anon, 1993. “Montpellier met a l’eau sa future universite”, 50 Millions de Consommateurs No 265,
October, 22-26
Appelbaum, S. J. 1985. “Determination of Urban Flood Damages”, Journal of the ASCE, Water
Resources Division 111(3), 269-282
Arnell, N. W., Jenkins, A., and George, D. O. 1994. The Implications of Climate Change for the
National Rivers Authority, R & D Report 12, London: HMSO
ARSIA/GEOPLAN/CEHIDRO/WASSER WIRTSCHAFT, 1999. PREMO 98 Prevention in the
mountains for protection of the valleys Pisa: ARSIA
Balades, J.D. Chateau, P. and Madiec, H. 1992. “A Means of Fighting Urban Storm Water
Overflow: Compensating Techniques, the Experience in Bordeaux (France)” Paper presented at
the CONFLO 92: Integrated Catchment Planning and Source Control, Oxford University, Oxford
UK, 1 June 1992.
Balfour Maunsell, 1995. River Nene Structures - benefit assessment, report to Anglian Region,
National Rivers Authority
Barraque, B., Berland, J-M. and Cambon, S. 1994. EUROWATER: Vertical report on France, Paris:
LATTS-ENPC
Barry, J.M. 1997. Rising Tide, NewYork, N.Y: Simon and Schuster.
Baum, A., Gatchel, R.J. and Schaefer, M.A. 1983. “ Emotional , Behavioral and Physiological Effects
of Chronic Stress at Buffalo Creek”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61(4) 565-
572.
Bellamy, L.J. and Harrison, P.I. 1988. “ An evacuation model for major accidents”, paper presented
at the Conference , Disasters and Emergencies: the Need for Planning, London
Bennet, G. 1979. “Bristol floods 1968: controlled survey of effects on health of local community
disaster”, British Medical Journal, August 21, 454-458.
Berga, L. (ed.) 2000. Dams and Floods, Paris: ICOLD
Berga, L. 1999. “Benefits of Dams in Flood Control”, paper given at the Workshop on Benefits of
and Concerns about Dams, Anatalya
Bergkamp, G., Dugan, P. and McNeely, J. (eds.) 2000. Dams, ecosystems functions and
environmental restoration, Cape Town: World Commission on Dams (http://www.dams.org)
Bergstrom, S. and Lindstrom, G. 1999. “Floods in Regulated Rivers and Physical Planning in
Sweden”, paper given at the Workshop on Benefits of and Concerns about Dams, Anatalya
Binder, W. R. D., Bunza, G., Engelhardt, W., Jurging, P., Schulter, U. and Wagner, D. I. I. 1994.
Schutz der Binnergewasser, Bonn: Economica Verlag
Bisset, R. 1978. “Quantification, decision-making and environmental impact assessment in the United
Kingdom”, Journal of Environmental Management 7, 43-58
Black, M. 1998. 1978-1998 Learning What Works: A 20 Year Retrospective View on the
International Water and Sanitation Cooperation, Washington DC: UNDP-World Bank Water and
Sanitation Program.
Black, A. and Evans, S. 1999. Flood damage in the UK: new insights for the insurance industry,
Dundee: University of Dundee.
Black, R. D. 1975. Flood proofing rural residences, report to the US Department of Commerce,
Economic Development Administration
Blackie, J.R. and Newsom, M.D. 1986. “The effect of forestry on the quantity and quality of runoff in
upland Britain” in de L.G.Solbe, J.F. (ed) Effects of land use on Freshwaters. Chichester: Ellis
Horwood, 389-412.
Blaikie, P., Canon, T. Davis, I., Wisner, B. 1994. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability,
and Disasters. London: Routledge.
Blockley, D. 1980. The Nature of Structural Design and Safety, Chichester: Ellis Horwood
Bosch , J.M. and Hewlett, J.D. 1992. “ A Review of Catchment Experiments to Determine the Effect
Of Vegetation Changes on Water Yield and Evapotranspiration” Journal of Hydrology 55, 3-23.
Brammer, H 1990. “Floods in Bangladesh 2, flood mitigation and environmental aspects”, Geographical
Journal 156, 158-165
Brammer, H. 2000. “ Flood Vulnerability and Flood Disasters in Bangladesh”, in Parker, D. (ed)
Floods London: Routledge.
Brookes, A. 1988. Channelised Rivers: Perspectives for Environmental Management, Chichester:
John Wiley.
Brookes A 1990. “Restoration and enhancement of engineered river channels: some european
experiences”, Regulated Rivers 5, 45-56
Brookes, A. and Shields, S. F. 1996. River Channel Restoration: Guiding Principles for Sustainable
Projects, Chichester: John Wiley
Bruijnzeel, L.A. and Bremmer, C.N. 1989. Highland-lowland interactions in the Ganges
Brahmaputra River Basin: a review of published literature, ICIMOD Occasional Paper No 11,
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Bruijnzeel, L.A. 1990. Hydrology of the Moist Tropical Forest and Effects of Conversion: a State of
Knowledge Review, UNESCO IHP Humid Tropics Programme, Netherlands.
Bruins, H. J., Evenari, M. and Nessler, U. 1986. “Rainwater-harvesting agriculture for food
production in arid zones: the challenge of the African famine”, Applied Geography 6, 13-32
Bundesministerium fur Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technology 1995. Research
Conception: Ecological Research in the Elbe Catchment Area, Bonn: Bundesministerium fur
Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technology
Bundesministerium fur Ruamordung, Bauwesen and Stadtebau 1996. Planen and Bauen von
Gebauden in hochwassergefahrdeten Gebieten: Hochwasserschutzfibel, Bonn: Bundesministerium
fur Ruamordung, Bauwesen and Stadtebau
Burby, R.J. (ed) 1998. Cooperating with Nature: Confronting Natural Hazards with Land-Use
Planning for Sustainable Communities, Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press.
Bureau of Reclamation 1988. Downstream hazard classification guidelines, ACER Technical
Memorandum No 11, Denver, CO: Bureau of Reclamation, US Department of the Interior
Bye, P. and Horner, M. 1998. Easter 1998 Floods. Vol.I & II. Report by the Independent Review
Team to the Board of the Environment Agency, Bristol: the Environment Agency
Calow, P. and Petts, G. E. (eds.) 1994. The Rivers Handbook: hydrological and ecological principles,
volume 2, Oxford: Blackwell
Cannon, T. 2000. “Vulnerability Analysis and Disasters”, in Parker, D. (ed) Floods London:
Routledge.
Caponera, D. A. 1992 Principles of Water Law and Administration, Rotterdam: Balkema
Chan, N. W. 1995. A contextual analysis of flood hazard management in Peninsula Malaysia,
unpublished PhD, Enfield: Middlesex University
Chan, N.W. and Parker, D.J. 1996. “Response to Dynamic Flood Hazard Factors in Peninsular
Malaysia”, Geographical Journal, 162, 3: 313-325.
Changnon, S.A. (ed). 1996. The Great Flood of 1993: Causes, Impacts and Responses, Boulder, Co:
Westview Press.
Changnon, S.A. 2000. “ The Record 1993 Missippi River Flood: a Defining Event for Flood
Mitigation Policy in the United States”, in Parker, D. (ed) Floods London: Routledge.
Chatteron, J., and Green, C. 1999. Strategic Land Use Planning in Europe and USA: Review of the
Best Practice for the Environment Agency, Technical Report W62, Swindon: Water Research
Centre
Chatterton, J. B., Green, C. H. and Penning-Rowsell, E. C. 1993. Wentlooge Levels Benefit-Cost
Analysis, report to National Rivers Authority Welsh Region, Enfield: Flood Hazard Research
Centre
Cherry, C. 1966. On Human Communication, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Chow, V.T. 1956. “Hydrologic studies of floods in the United States”, International Association of
Scientific Hydrology 42, 134-70.
CIRIA 1999a. Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems Design Manual for England and Wales. C522,
London: CIRIA.
CIRIA 1999b. Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems Design Manual for Scotland and Northern
Ireland. C521, London: CIRIA.
CIRIA 1999bc Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems - Best Practice. C523, London: CIRIA.
CNS Scientific and Engineering Services 1991. Benefit-cost analysis of Hydrometric Data - river
flow gauging, for the Department of the Environment, Marlow: Foundation for Water Research
Collins, B.D. and Pess, G.R. 1997. “Evaluation of forest practices prescriptions from
Washington’swatershed analysis program”, Journal of American Water Resources Association,
Vol.35 (5), 969-96.
Committee to Review the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies 1987. River and Dam Management: A
Review of the Bureau of Reclamation’s Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, Washington DC:
National Academy Press
Countryside Commission/English Heritage/English Nature, 1993. Conservation Issues in Strategic
Plans, Northampton: Countryside Commission.
Creighton, J. L., Dunning, C. M., Priscoli, J. D. and Ayres, D. B. 1991. Public involvement and
dispute resolution: A Reader on the Second Decade of Experience at the Institute for Water
Resources, Alexandria VA: Institute for Water Resources, US Army Corps of Engineers
Czerwinski, S. J. 1999. Flood Insurance: Information on Financial Aspects of the National Flood
Insurance Program, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity,
House of Representatives, Washington DC: United States General Accounting Office
Daoxi, W. and Siping. H. 1999. “Role of Reservoirs in 1998 Heavy Flood Fighting on the Yangtze
River”, paper given at the Workshop on Benefits of and Concerns about Dams, Anatalya
Darby, H. C. 1983. The changing Fenland, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
De Bruin,D., Hamhuis, D., van Nieuwnhuijze, L., Overmars, W., Sijmons, D. and Vera, F. 1987.
Ooievaar. De toekomst van het rivierengebied, Arnhem: Stichting Gelderse Milieufederatie
de Groot, R. S. 1987. “Environmental function as a unifying concept for ecology and economics”,
Environmentalist 7(2), 105-109
Deen, M. Y. I. 1990. “Islamic environmental ethics, law, and society” in Engel J R and Engel J B
(eds.) Ethics of Environment and Development, London: Belhaven
Delaney, T. A. 1995. “Benefits to Downstream Flood Attenuation and Water Quality As a Result of
Constructed Wetlands in Agricultural Landscapes”, American Farmland Trust, Center for
Agriculture in the Environment (http://www.farmlandinfo.org/cae)
Demuth, N. 1999. “Integrated Flood Management - The River Nahe Catchment”, in Balabanis P,
Bronstert A, Casale R and Samuels P (eds.) Ribamod: Proceedings of the final workshop, EUR
18287, Luxembourg: Office for Offical Publications of the European Communities
Department of Health 1997. Health survey for England 1995, London: The Stationery Office
Division of Disaster Emergency Services 1986. Dam Safety: An Owner’s Guidance Manual, Camp
George West Golden CO: Colorado Department of Public Safety
Dixon, J. A., Scura, L. F., Carpenter, R. A. and Sherman, P. B. 1994. Economic Analysis of
Environmental Impacts, London: Earthscan
Drabek, T.E. 1986. Human System Responses to Disaster: An Inventory of Sociological Findings,
New York: Springer Verlag.
Drabek, T.E. 1987. The Professional Emergency Manager, Boulder, Colorado: Institute of
Behavioural Science.
Drabek, T.E.2000. “Social Factors that Constrain Human Responses to Flood Warnings. in Parker, D.
J. (ed) Floods London: Routledge
Drescher, K. D. and Abueg, F. R. 1995. Psychophysiological indicators of PTSD following Hurricane
Iniki: the Multi-sensory Interview, Quick Response Report #77, Boulder CO: Natural Hazards
Center (http://www.colorado.edu/hazards)
Drijver, A. and Marchand, M. 1985. Taming the Floods: environmental aspects of floodplain
development in Africa, Leiden: Centre for Environmental Studies, University of Leiden
Duel, H., Glas, P. C. G., Ivens, E. A. M. and Pedroli, G. B. M. 1999. “Flood control and ecological
rehabilitation of the Meuse River in the Netherlands”, in Balabanis P, Bronstert A, Casale R and
Samuels P (eds.) Ribamod: Proceedings of the final workshop, EUR 18287, Luxembourg: Office
for Offical Publications of the European Communities
Dunderdale, J. A. L. 1998. Evaluation of FDMM and Guidelines for the Justification of River
Maintenance, unpublished MPhil thesis, Silsoe: Silsoe College, Cranfield University
Dunne, T. and Leopold,L.B. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning, San Francisco: Freeman.
Emergency Management Australia 1999. Managing the Floodplain, Guide 3, Emergency
Management Practice, Australian Emergency Manuals Series, Canberra ACT: EMA.
Emergency Management Australia. 1995. Flood Warning: an Australian Guide, Mount Macedon,
Australia: Australian Emergency Management Institute
Environment Agency nd. Condition Assessment Manual: A Guide to the Visual Condition
Assessment of Sea and River Defence, Bristol: Environment Agency
Eriksen, N. J. 1986. Creating flood disasters, Water and Soil Miscellaneous Publications 77,
Wellington: National Water and Soil Conservation Authority
ESRC Global Environmental Change Programme 1999. The Politics of GM Food: Risk, Science and
Public Trust, Special Briefing No. 5: University of Sussex.
EUROflood 1996. EUROFLOOD:Evacuation, Technical Annex14 for the Evacuation Module.
Enfield: Flood Hazard Research Centre.
Falkenmark, M. and Widstrand, C. 1992. “Population and Water Resources: A Delicate Balance”,
Population Bulletin, Washington DC: Population Reference Bureau
Federal Emergency Management Agency 1985. Emergency Action Planning Guidelines for Dams,
FEMA 64
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1986. Flood-proofing Nonresidential Structures,
Washington, D.C.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1997. Report on the Costs and Benefits of Natural Hazard
Mitigation, Washington, D.C.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1998. Homeowner’s Guide to Retrofitting, Washington
D.C.
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration:
principles, processes and practices, published jointly by the USDA, EPA, TVA, FEMA and US
Army Corps
Flood Emergency Action Team 1998. Final Report of the Flood Emergency Action Team
(http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/FEATReport120.fdr)
Fordham, M. and Ketteridge, A.M. 1998. “ Men must work and women must weep” in Enarson, E.
and Morrow, B. (eds.) Through Women’s Eyes: the Gendered Terrain of Disasters. Westport, Ct:
Praeger.
Fordham, M. 1998. “Making women visible in Disasters: Problematising the Private Domain”,
Disasters 22(2):126-143.
Forestry Commission 1993. Forest and Water Guidelines, Edinburgh: Forestry Commission.
Framji, K. K. and Garg, B. C. 1976. Flood Control in the World: A Global Review, New Delhi: ICID
Gardiner, J. 1994. “Flood control measures in the River Thames catchment” in Rossi G,
Harmancioglu N and Yevjevich V (eds.) Coping with Floods, Dordrecht: Kluwer
Gardiner, J.L. 1994. “Sustainable development for river catchments”, Journal of Institution of
Environmental and Water Managers, (vol 8): 3: pp 308-320.
Garrido, A. 1999. Agricultural Water Pricing in OECD Countries, ENV/EPOC/GEEI(98)11/Final,
Paris: OECD
Gaschen. S., Hausmann, P., Menzinger, I., Schaad, W. 1998. Floods - an insurable risk? A market
survey, Zurich: Swiss Re (http://swissre.com)
Gaschen, S., Hausmann, P., Menzinger, I., Schaad, W. 1998. Floods - an insurable risk, Zurich: Swiss
Re (http://www.swissre.com)
Gateley. 1973. The idea of a flood, Flood Hazard Research Project, Special Publication No. 1,
Enfield: Middlesex University.
Gilbertson, D. D. 1986. “Runoff (floodwater) farming and rural water supply in arid lands”, Applied
Geography 6, 5-11
Glickman, T.S., Golding, D., and Silverman, E .D. 1992. Acts of God and acts of man: Recent
trends in natural disasters and major industrial accidents, Center for Risk Management, Discussion
Paper 92-02, Washington, D C: Resources for the Future
Godschalk, D. R., Beatley, T., Berke, P, Brower, D, J., and Kaiser, E. J.1999. Natural Hazard
Mitigation: Recasting Disaster Policy and Planning, Washington DC: Island Press
Graham, W. J. 199.9 A Procedure for Estimating Loss of Life Caused by Dam Failure, DSO-99-06,
Denver CO: Bureau of Reclamation, Dam Safety Office
Gray, D. H. and Leiser, A. T. 1982. Biotechnical slope protection and erosion control, New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold
Greeley-Polhemus Group 1992. Guidelines for Risk and Uncertainty Analysis in Water Resources
Planning, IWR Report 92-R-1, Fort Belvoir VA: US Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water
Resources
Green, C, H, 1995, Vulnerability analysis for flooding: nodes and networks, UK IDNHR meeting,
London.
Green, C. H. 1996. “Inondations: gestion des zones inondables et perspectives pour l’assurance”, in
SCOR Are natural hazards insurable?, Paris: SCOR
Green, C. H. 1998. “Flood hazard management” in Herschy R W and Fairbridge R W (eds.)
Encyclopedia of Hydrology and Water Resources, Dordrecht: Kluwer
Green, C. H. 1999. “The economics of floodplain use”, Himganga 1(3), 4-5
Green, C. H. 1999. The financial and institutional arrangements for flood defence in England and
Wales, report for the Hungary Flood Study, Enfield: Flood Hazard Research Centre
Green, C. H. 2000. Assessing vulnerability to flooding, report to Habitat/United Nations
Environmental Programme, Enfield: Flood Hazard Research Centre
Green, C. H. and Penning-Rowsell, E. C. 1986. "Evaluating the intangible benefits and costs of a
flood alleviation proposal", Journal of the Institution of Water Engineers and Scientists 40 (3),
229-248
Green, C. H. and Penning-Rowsell, E. C. 1989. "Flooding and the Quantification of 'intangibles'",

Journal of the Institution of Water and Environmental Management 3 (1), 27-30
Green, C. H. and Warner, J. F. 1999. “Flood Hazard Management: an emergent systems perspective”,
paper given at the Stockholm Water Symposium
Green, C. H., Nicholls, R. and Johnson, C. 2000. A framework for analysis and decision-making in
the face of risks and uncertainties, report to the Environment Agency, Enfield: Flood Hazard
Research Centre
Green, C. H., Parker, D. J. and Penning-Rowsell, E. C. 1993. “Designing for Failure” in Merriman P
A and Browitt C W A (eds.) Natural Disasters: Protecting Vulnerable Communities, London:
Thomas Telford
Green, C. H., Tunstall, S. M. and Fordham, M. 1991. “The risks from flooding: which risk and whose
perception”, Disasters 15(3), 227-236
Green, C. H., van den Veen, A., Wierstra, E. and Penning-Rowsell, E. C. 1994. “Vulnerability
Refined: Analysing Full Flood Impacts” in Penning-Rowsell, E. C. and Fordham, M. (eds.) Floods
Across Europe, London: Middlesex University Press
Green, C.H., Emery, P.J., Penning-Rowsell, E.C. and Parker, D.J. 1985. Health effects of Flooding:
A Survey at Uphill, Avon.. Enfield: Middlesex Polytechnic
Green, C.H., Parker, D.J. and Emery, P.J. 1983. The real cost of flooding to households: intangible
costs. Enfield: Middlesex Polytechnic.
Gresent, P. 1996. Essai d’evaluation de la politique publique de prevention du risque inondation: les
cas des Vals d’Orleans et de Tours, unpublished DEA thesis, Paris: Universite Paris
XII/ENGREF/ENPC
Gruntfest, E. 1977. What People did during the Big Thompson Flood, Natural Hazards Research and
Applications Information Center, Working Paper No.32, Boulder, Colorado: University of
Colorado.
Gueri, M., Gonzales, C. and Morin, V. 1986. “The Effects of the Floods Caused by El Nino on
Health”, Disasters, 10 (2), 118-24
Gunderson, L., 1999. ‘Resilience, Flexibility and Adaptive Management - - Antidotes for Spurious
Certitude?’ Conservation Ecology 3 (1) (http://www.consecol.org)
Halcrow/FHRC 1996. River Thames Development Since 1800, Report to the Japan Institute of
Construction Engineering, Swindon: Halcrow
Halcrow/VITUKI/FHRC/EXTERNAL/FOMI/MTA/Koros Valley District Water Authority 1999.
Hungary flood control development and rehabilitation project, Final report
Handmer, J. W. and Dovers, S. R. 1996. “A Typology of Resilience: Rethinking Institutions for
Sustainable Development”, Industrial & Environmental Crisis Quarterly 9(4), 482-511
Handmer, J. W. and Smith, D. I. 1983. “Health Hazards of Floods: Hospital Admissions for
Lismore”, Australian Geographical Studies 21, 221-230
Handmer, J. (ed.) 1997. Flood Warning: Issues and Practice in the Total System Design, Enfield:
Flood Hazard Research Centre.
Hausman, P. 1998. Floods - an insurable risk?, Zurich: Swiss Re (http://www.swissre.com)
Heimlich, R. E. 1991. National Policy of ‘No Net Loss’ of Wetlands: What Do Agricultural
Economists Have to Contribute?, Washington DC: Resources and Technology Division, US
Department of Agriculture
Henderson, G.S. and Golding, D.L. 1987. “The effect of slash and burning on water repellency of
forest soils at Vancouver, British Columbia”. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, Vol.13 (2),
353-355
Herschy, R. W. 1998. “Dams: Failure” in Herschy, R. W. and Fairbridge, R. W. (eds.) Encyclopedia
of Hydrology and Water Resources, Dordrecht: Kluwer
Heurta, F. and Horton, R. 1978 “ Coping behaviour of elderly flood victims”, Gerontologist, 18(6),
541-546.
Hewlett, J.D. and Helvey, J.D. 1970. “ Effects of forest clear-felling on storm hydrographs” Water
Resources Research, Vol.6, 768-82.
Hibbert, A.R. 1967. “Forest treatment effects on water yield”, In Sopper, W.E. and Lull, H.W. (eds.)
Forest Hydrology, Oxford: Pergamon, 527-43.
Higgin, R. J. 1981. An Economic Comparison of Different Flood Mitigation Strategies in Australia,
unpublished PhD Thesis, School of Civil Engineering, University of New South Wales
Hillman, T. 2000. “The Ecological role and Impact of floods”, in Parker, D. J. (ed) Floods London:
Routledge.
Hofer, T. 1998. “Do land use changes in the Himalayas affect downstream flooding? Traditional
understanding and new evidence”, Memoir Geological Society of India, No.41 , 119-141.
Holling, C. S. 1978, Adaptive environmental assessment and management, Chichester: John Wiley
Holling, C.S. 1973. ‘ Resilience and stability of ecological systems’ Annual review of ecology and
systematics 4, 1-23.
Hong Qingyu and Luo Zhang-Yu (eds.) 1999. Flood Control and 1998 Flood of the Yangtze River (in
Chinese)
Hudson, J.A. and Gilman, K. 1993. “Long-term variability in the water balances of the Plynlimon
catchments”, Journal of Hydrology, Vol.143,355-80.
Hughes, F.M.R. 1997. “Floodplain biogeomorphology”, Progress in Physical Geography, Vol21(4)
501-29.
Huisman, P., Cramer, W., van Ee, G. and Hooghart, J. C.1998. Water in the Netherlands, Delft:
Netherlands Hydrological Society
ICID 1999. Manual on Non-Structural Approaches to Flood Management, Delhi: International
Commission on Irrigation and Drainage
ICOLD 1999. World Register of Dams 98, Paris: ICOLD
IFRCRCS (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies) 1998. World Disasters
Report 1998, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Ijjas, I. and Szlavik, L. (eds.) nd. Institutional framework for water management in Hungary:
EUROWATER-CEC vertical report, Budapest: National Water Authority of Hungary
International Red River Basin Task Force 2000. Final Report – The Next Flood: Getting Prepared,
International Joint Commission (http://www.ijc.org/boards/rrb)
Islam, K. M. N. 1997. The impacts of flooding and methods of assessment in urban areas of
Bangladesh, unpublished PhD, Enfield: Middlesex University
Jones, J.A.and Grant, G.E. 1996. “Peak flow response to clearcutting and roads in large and small
basins, Western Cascades, Oregon”, Water Resources, Research, Vol.32(4), 959-74.
Jones, J.A.A. 1987. “The initiation of natural drainage networks” Progress in Physical Geography,
11(2): 207-45.
Jones, J.A.A. 2000. “Human Modification of Flood-Producing Processes: the Evidence from
Catchment Studies, In Parker, D.J. (ed.) Floods, London: Routledge.
Juliano, K. and Simonivic, S. 1999. The impact of wetlands on flood control in the Red River valley
of Manitoba, Winnepeg: University of Manitoba (http://www.ijc.org/boards/rrb)
Keys, C. 1997. The total Flood Warning System: Concept and Practice”, in Handmer, J. (ed.) Flood
Warning: Issues and Practice in the Total System Design, Enfield: Flood Hazard Research Centre..
Landerarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser 1995. Guidelines for Forward-Looking Flood Protection, Berlin:
Geschaftsstelle der Landerarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser
Larson, L.W. 1997. “National Weather Service Advanced Capabilities in Flash Flood Forecasting”,
in Gruntfest, E. (ed.) 1997. Twenty Years Later: What We Have Learnt Since the Big Thompson
Flood, Special Publication No.13, Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information
Center, Boulder, Colorado: University of Colorado.
Laska, S. and Wetmore, F. 2000. “Reducing Flood Loss Potential by Flood proofing in the USA”, in
Parker, D.J. (ed.) Floods London: Routledge.
Lazarus, R. S. 1966. Psychological stress and the coping process, New York: Academic Press
Leach, M., Mearns, R. and Sconnes, I. 1997. “Editorial: Community-Based Sustainable Development
Consensus or Conflict?” IDS Bulletin 28(4), 1-3
Linnerooth-Bayer, J. and Amendola, A. 2000. “Global Change, Natural Disasters and Loss-sharing:
Issues of Efficiency and Equity”, The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance 25(2), 203-219
Lipsey, R. G. and Lancaster, K. 1956-57. “The general theory of second best”, Review of Economic
Studies 24., 11-32
Ludwig, H. F., Gunaratnam, D. and Yuming, S. 1995. “Environmental impact assessment for
Xiaolangdi Yellow River multi-purpose economic-cum-enviromental improvement project”, The
Environmentalist 15, 45-57
Maddison, A. 1998. Chinese Economic Performance in the Long Run, Paris: OECD
MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) 1993. Flood and Coastal Defence: Project
Appraisal Guidance Notes, London: HMSO
MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) 1999. Project Appraisal Guidance: 3 Economic
Appraisal, London: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Maltby, E. 1986. Waterlogged Wealth, London: Earthscan
Marsh 1988 “Thames, River” in Herschy R W and Fairbridge R W (eds.) Encyclopedia of Hydrology
and Water Resources, Dordrecht: Kluwer
Maskrey, A. 1989. Disaster Mitigation- a community based approach, Oxford: Oxfam
May, P. J., Burby, R. J., Ericksen, N. J., Handmer, J .W., Dixon, J. E., Michaels, S. . Smith, D. 1.
1996. Environmental Management and Governance: Intergovernmental Approaches to Hazards
and Sustainability, London: Routiedge
McMahon, T. A., Finlayson, B. L., Haines, A. T. and Srikanthan, R. 1992. Global Runoff -
Continental Comparisons of Annual Flows and Peak Discharges, Cremlingen-Destedt: Catena
Mileti, D.S. 1999. Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States,
Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press
Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management 1996. Landscape Planning of the river
Rhine in the Netherlands, Lelystad: RIZA
Mirtskhoulava, T. E. 1994. “Flood control in the former USSR” in Rossi, G., Harmancioglu, N. and
Yevjevich, V. (eds.) Coping with Floods, Dordrecht: Kluwer
Morris, J. 1994. Les couts entraines par les inondations des terres agricoles en Ile de France
estimation approximative, Silsoe: Silsoe College
Munich Re 1997. Flooding and insurance, Munich: Munich Re
Myers, M-F and Passerini, E. 2000. “Floodplain management: historic trends and options for the
future”, in Parker, D. J. (ed.) Floods, Chapter 14; London: Routledge
Namafe, C. and Slater, F. 1995. “Floods: Friends or Enemies?”, London: Institute of Education
Namafe, C. M. 1989. “The Dutch Hydro-Agricultural Rice Project in Western Zambia: An
Assessment”, paper given at The People’s Role in Wetland Management Conference, Leiden
Nature Conservancy Council 1983. Nature conservation and river engineering, Peterborough: NCC
New South Wales Government 1986. Floodplain Development Manual, PWD 86010, Government of
New South Wales
Newson, M. 1997. Land, Water and Development, 2nd edition, London: Routledge
Nicholls, R. 1995. “Coastal Megacities and Climate Change”, Geojournal, 37, 3, 369379.
Nisbet, T.R. 1990. Forest and surface water acidification, London:HMSO, Forestry Commission
Bulletin86.
Nomani, F. and Rahnema, A. 1990. Islamic Economic Systems, London: Zed Books
Obled, C. and Tourasse, P. 1994. “Uncertainty in flood forecasting: A French case study” in Rossi,
G., Harmancioglu, N. and Yevjevich, V. (eds.) Coping with Floods, Dordrecht: Kluwer
Office of State Flood Control and Drought Relief Headquarters. 1994. A Survey of city's flood
control in China, Beijing City: National Flood Control and Anti-Drought Headquarters, Ministry
of Water Conservancy.
Oi, H. 1993. “Nepal flood disaster, July 1993”, INCEDE Newsletter 2(2) (http://incede.iis.u-
tokyo.ac.jp/Newsletters/2.2/2-2-3.html)
Owen, J. O. 1980. Flood Emergency Plans: Guidelines for Corps Dams, Research Document No. 13,
Davis CA: The Hydrologic Engineering Center, US Army Corps of Engineers
Parker, D. J., Green, C. H. and Thompson, P. M. 1987. Urban Flood Protection Benefits: a project
appraisal guide, Aldershot: Gower
Parker, D. J. and Thompson, P. M. 1991. “Floods and tropical storms”, In The Challenge of African
Disasters, 38-59, Addis Abbaba: World Health Organisation PanAfrican Centre for Emergency
Preparedness and Response.
Parker, D. J. 1995. “Floods in cities: increasing exposure and rising impact potential”, Built
Environment, Vol.21, No2/3, 114-25.
Parker, D. J. 1996. “International Experiences with Flood Hazard Management: Key trends and
General Lessons”, paper presented at 6th BRAND 96 European Congress, 25 April, Amsterdam
Parker, D.J. and Tapsell, S.M. 1995. “Hazard transformation and hazard management issues in the
London Megacity”, Geojournal, (37) 3: pp 313-28.
Parker, D.J. 1991. The Damage-Reducing Effects of Flood Warnings Report prepared for National
Rivers Authority (Anglian Region) Regional Telemetry Scheme Appraisal, Enfield: Flood Hazard
Research Centre.
Parker, D.J. 1995. “Floods in cities: increasing exposure and rising impact potential”, Built
Environment 21(2/3), 114-25.
Parker, D.J. 1999. “Flood Warning Dissemination and Response: Lessons from International
Research” in Proceedings of the 34th MAFF Conference of River and Coastal Engineers, Keele
University, 30 June - 2 July, 1999.
Parker, D.J. 2000. “Managing Flood Hazards and Disasters: International Lessons, Directions and
Future Challenges”, in Parker, D.J. (ed.) Floods London: Routledge.
Parker, D.J. and Handmer, J. 1998. “The role of Unofficial Flood Warning Systems”, in Journal of
Contingencies and Crisis Management, 6(1): 45-60.
Paul, B. M. 1984. "Perception of and agricultural adjustment to floods in Jamuna Floodplain,
Bangladesh", Human Ecology 12(1), 3-19
Peerbolte, E. B. 1994. Sea-level Rise and Safety, Enschede: Unniversiteit Twente
Penning-Rowsell, E. C. and Fordham, M. (eds.) 1994. Floods Across Europe, London: Middlesex
University Press
Penning-Rowsell, E. C., Green, C. H., Thompson, P. M., Coker, A. C., Tunstall, S. M., Richards, C. and
Parker, D. J. 1992 The economics of coastal management: A manual of assessment techniques,
London: Belhaven
Penning-Rowsell, E. C., Winchester, P. and Gardiner, J. L. 1998. “New Approaches to Sustainable
Hazard Management for Venice”, The Geographical Journal 164(1), 1-18
Penning-Rowsell, E.C., Winchester, P, and Bossman-Agrey, P. 1987. Flood Alleviation for
Maidenhead: an evaluation of three levels of non-structural approach. Centre Internal Publication.
Enfield: Middlesex Polytechnic.
Penning-Rowsell, E. C. and Chatterton, J. B. 1977. The benefits of flood alleviation, Aldershot UK:
Gower Technical Press.
Penning-Rowsell, E.C. and Smith, D.I. 1987. Self-help flood hazard mitigation: the economics of
house raising in Lismore, N.S.W., Australia. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie,
Vol.78 (3), 176-189.
Penning-Rowsell, E.C., Tunstall, S.M., Tapsell, S.M. and Parker, D.J. 2000. “ The Benefits of Flood
Warnings: Real but Elusive, and Politically Significant”, Journal of the Institution of Water and
Environmental Management, Vol.14, 7-14.
Petts, G.E. 1984. Impounded rivers: perspectives for ecological management, Chichester: Wiley.
Pielke, R. A. 1999. “Who Decides? Forecasts and Responsibilities in the 1997 Red River Flood”,
Applied Behavioral Science Review (in press).
Pottier, N. 1998. L’utilisation des outils juridiques de prevention des risques d’inondation: evaluation
des effets sur l’homme et l’occupation des sols dans les plaines alluviales (application a la Saone
et a la Marne), unpublished PhD thesis, Paris: Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chausees
Powell, B. and Penick, E. 1983. “Psychological Distress following a Natural Disaster: a one-year
follow up of 98 flood vistims”, Journal of Community Psychology, II, 267-276.
Purseglove, J. 1988. Taming the Flood, Oxford: OUP

Ras Gharib, Hurghada, Safaga, Quseir, Marsa Alam, Shalatein, Abu Ramad and Halaib 1997. Hazard
Assessment and Mitigative Measures of Flash Flooding on the Red Sea Towns, Egypt, NARSS
Special Publication No. 1, Cairo: National Authority for Remote Sensing and Space Sciences (in
Arabic)
Rees, J. A. 1998. Regulation and Private Participation in the Water and Sanitation Sector, TAC
Background Papers No. 1, Stockholm: Global Water Partnership
Reiter, P. 2000. International methods of Risk Analysis, Damage Evaluation and Social Impact
Studies concerning Dam-Break Accidents, Helsinki: PR Water Consulting
Reppert, R. 1992. National Wetland Mitigation Banking Study, IWR Report 92-WMB-1, Alexandria
VA: Institute for Water Resources, US Army Corps of Engineers
Resolve Inc 2000. Participation, Negotiation and Conflict Management in Large Dams Projects,
Thematic Review V.5, Cape Town: World Commission on Dams (http://www.dams.org)
Rivers Bureau 1985. Rivers in Japan, Tokyo: Ministry of Construction
Rivers Bureau 2000. Rivers in Japan, Tokyo: Rivers Bureau, Ministry of Construction
(http://www.moc.go.jp/river/english/bureau/p16.html)
Robinson, M. 1990. Impact of improved land drainage on river flows, Wallingford, Institute of
Hydrology Report 113.
Rogers, P., Lydon, P. and Seckler, D. 1989. Eastern Waters Study: Strategies to manage flood and
drought in the Ganges-Brahmaputra Basin, Washington DC: USAID
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds 1994. The new rivers and wildlife handbook, Sandy: RSPB
Rutrough, J. E. 1997. “ Funding major disasters with traditional insurance” in Britton, N. R. and
Oliver, J. (eds.) Financial Risk Management for Natural Catastrophes, Proceedings of a
conference sponsored by Aon Group Australia Ltd, Brisbane: Griffith University
Saad, M. B. A. 1999. “The Role of High Aswan Dam towards Nile Flood Control”, paper given at the
Workshop on Benefits of and Concerns about Dams, Anatalya
SANDRP (South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People) 2000. Comments received on the draft
of this report
SAST (Scientific Assessment and Strategy Team) 1994. Science for Floodplain Management,
Washington DC: SAST (http://edcwww2.cr.usgs.gov/www/sast_aut.htm)
Schmuck-Widmann, H. 1996. Living with the flood: survival strategies of Char-Dwellers in
Bangladesh, Berlin: ASA
Schware, R. 1982. “ Official and Folk Flood Warning Systems: an Assessment”, Environmental
Management 6, 209-216.
Sckade, D. A. and Feather, T. D. 1996. Environmental Valuation: the role of stakeholder
communication and collaborative planning, IWR Report 96-R-17, Alexandria VA: Water
Resources Support Center, US Army Corps of Engineers
Shaw, 1998. “Floods: Largest in the USA, China and the World” in Herschy, R. W. and Fairbridge,
R. W. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Hydrology and Water Resources, Dordrecht: Kluwer
Shaw, B. D. 1984. “Water and society in the ancient Maghrib: technology, property and
development”, Antiquites africaines 20, 121-173
Sheaffer, J.R. 1967. Introduction to Flood-proofing, Washington, D.C: US Army Corps of Engineers.
Shultz, S. D. 1999. The Feasibility of Wetland Restoration to Reduce Flooding in the Red River
Valley: A case Study of the Maple (ND) and Wild Rice (MN) Watersheds, Agricultural
Economics Report No 432,, Fargo ND: North Dakota State University
(http://www.ijc.org/boards/rrb)
Sikander, A.S. 1983. “Floods and families in Pakistan - a Survey”, Disasters, 7 (2), 101-106.
Smith D I 1990 “The worthwhileness of dam failure mitigation: an Australian example”, Applied
Geography 10, 5-19
Smith, D. I. 1998. Water in Australia, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Smith, D. I. and Handmer, J. W. (eds.) 1986. Flood Warning in Australia: Policies, Institutions and
Technologies, Canberra: CRES, Australian National University
Sorensen, J. H. and Rogers, G. O. 1989. Protective Actions for Extremely Toxic Chemical Accidents,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Sorensen, J.H. 1987. “ Evacuation due to off-site releases from chemical accidents: experience from
1980-1984”, Journal of Hazardous Materials 14, 247-257.
Sorensen, J.H. 1988. Evaluation of Warning and Protective Action Implementation Times for
Chemical Weapons Accidents. ORNL/TM-10437, Oak Ridge: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Southworth, F. and Chin, S-M. 1987. “Network evacuation modelling for flooding as a result of dam
failure”, Environment and Planning A 19, 1543-1558
Summer, S.G. 1997. “Comparison of Deficiencies Associated with the Big Thompson Flash Flood
Event and Recent Flood Events in the Eastern United States”, in Gruntfest, E. (ed.) Twenty Years
Later: What We Have Learnt Since the Big Thompson Flood, Special Publication No.13, Natural
Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, Boulder, Colorado: University of
Colorado.
Swiss Re 1996. Insurance derivatives and securitization: New hedging perspectives for the US
catastrophe insurance market?, sigma no. 5/1996, Zurich: Swiss Re
Swiss Re 2000. Sigma 2/200 Natural Catastrophes and Man-Made Disasters in 1999
(http://www.swissre.com)
Sydney Water Board 1985. Warragamba Dam Flood Protection Program, Sydney: Sydney Water Board
Tapsell, S.M., Tunstall, S.M., Penning-Rowsell, E.C. and Handmer, J.W. 1999. The Health Effects of
the Easter 1998 Flooding in Banbury and Kidlington, Report to the Environment Agency, Thames
Region, Enfield: Middlesex University Flood Hazard Research Centre.
Thomas, D. H. and Adams, W. M.1999. “Adapting to Dams: Agrarian Change Downstream of the
Tiga Dam, Northern Nigeria”, World Development 27(6), 919-935
Thompson, P.M. and Sultana, P. 2000. “Shortcomings of Flood Embankment Strategies in
Bangladesh” in Parker, D. J.(ed.) Floods, London: Routledge.
Tobin, G.A. and Montz, B.E. 1997 Natural Hazards: Explanation and Integration, New York, N.Y:
The Guilford Press.
Torterotot, J-P. 1992. Analyse des reponse a l’annonce de crue et impact sur les dommages dus aux
inondations dans plusieurs region de France, Noisy-le-Grand: CERGRENE
Torterotot, J-P. 1993. Review of best practise in European strategic land use planning: French
contribution, NRA R and D Project 426, Noisy-le-Grand: CERGRENE
Trimble, S.W. Weirich, F.H. and Hoag, B.L. 1987. “ Reafforestation and the Reduction of Water
Yield on the Southern Piedmont since Circa 1940” , Water Resources Research, 23:425-37.
Tunstall, S.M., Tapsell, S.M. and Fordham, M. 1994. Public Perception of Rivers and Flood defence:
Final Report, Enfield: Flood Hazard Research Centre.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1984. Flood Proofing Systems and Techniques, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1996. Flood Proofing Techniques, Programs and References,
Washington, D.C.
United Nations, Department of Humanitarian Affairs 1997. Floods: People at risk,strategies for
prevention, Geneva: UN.,
United Nations 1992. Agenda 2 1, New York: UN
United States Army Corps of Engineering 1995. Floodplain Management Assessment of the Upper
Mississippi River and Lower Missouri Rivers and Tributaries
United States Army Corps of Engineers 1998a. Flood Proofing Performance – Successes & Failures,
National Flood Proofing Committee
(http://www/usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwp/nfpc.htm)
United States Army Corps of Engineers 1999. US Army Corps of Engineers Annual Flood Damage
Report to Congress for fiscal year 1998
(http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwe/flood98/)
United States Army Corps of Engineers nd. The Great Flood of 1993 Post-flood Report
(http://www.mvr.usace.army.mil/PublicAff..e/HistoricArchives/Floodof1993/fl-l.htm)
United States Army Corps of Engineers 1984. Flood Proofing Systems and Techniques, Washington
DC: USACE.
United States Army Corps of Engineers 1996. Flood Proofing Techniques, Programs and References,
Washington DC: USACE.
United States Committee on Large Dams 2000. (http://www.privatei.com/~uscold.html)
United States Federal Emergency Management Agency 1986. Flood-proofing nonresidential
structures, Washington DC: FEMA.
United States Federal Emergency Management Agency 1997. Project Impact Guidebook: Building a
Disaster Resistant Community, Washington DC: FEMA.
United States Federal Emergency Management Agency 1998. Homeowner's Guide to Retrofitting,
Washington DC: FEMA
United States General Accounting Office 1995. Midwest Flood: Information on the Performance,
Effects, and Control of Levees, GAO/RCED-95-125, Washington DC: United States General
Accounting Office
US Army Corps of Engineers 1998b. US Army Corps of Engineers Annual Flood Damage Report to
Congress for fiscal year 1997 (http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwe/flood.htm)
US Department of Health and Human Services 1999. Targeting Arthritis: The Nation’s Leading
Cause of Disability, Atlanta GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp)
Vazquez, M., Dominguez, R. Fuentes, O. and Maza, J.A. 1997. “Flash Floods in Mexico”, in
Gruntfest, E. (ed.) . Twenty Years Later: What We Have Learnt Since the Big Thompson Flood,
Special Publication No.13, Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center,
Boulder, Colorado: University of Colorado.
Vituki 1998. Water Management in Hungary at the turn of the Millennium, Budapest: Ministry for
Transport, Communication and Water Management, National Water Authority
Waelde, L. C., Koopman, C. and Spiegel, D. 1998. Dissociative and posttraumatic reactions to the
Northern California flooding of 1997, Quick Response Report #104, Boulder CO: Natural Hazards
Center (http://www.colorado.edu/hazards)
Wagret, P. 1967. Polderlands, London: Methuen
Walters, C. J. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources, New York: McGraw-Hill
Walters, C. 1997. “Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and coastal ecosystems”
Conservation Ecology 1 (2) (http://www.consecol.org).
Ward, R . 1978. Floods: A Geographical Perspective, London: MacMillan
Water Resources Department 1996. Water Resources in Japan, Tokyo: Minister’s Secretariat,
National Land Agency
White, G. F. 1945. Human Adjustment to Floods, Research Paper No. 29, Chicago: University of
Chicago, Department of Geography
White, G. F. 1964. Choice of Adjustments to Floods, Research Paper No. 93, Chicago: University of
Chicago, Department of Geography
White, G.F., Calef, W.C., Hudson, J.W., Mayer, H.M., Shaeffer, J.R. and Volk, D.J. 1958. Changes
in urban occupance of floodplains in the United States, Research Paper No. 57, Chicago:
Department of Geography, University of Chicago
Wind, H. G., de Blois, C., Kok, M., Peerbolte, B. and Green, C. H. 1997. Uncertainty in flood
damage assessment: when does it matter? in Casale, R., Pedroli, G. B. and Samuels, P. (eds.)
Ribamod: River basin modelling, management and flood mitigation, Luxembourg: Office for
Official Publications of the European Communities
Wittfogel, K. 1957. Oriental despotism, New York: Pergamon
Wolff, T. F. 1997. “Geotechnical Reliability of Levees” in Burnham, M. W. and Davis, D. W. (eds.)
Hydrology & Hydraulics Workshop on Risk-Based Analysis for Flood Damage Reduction Studies,
SP-28, Davis CA: US Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center
Wolman, M. G. and Leopold, L. B. 1957. River flood plains: some observations on their formation,
Geological Survey Paper 282-C, US Geological Survey, Washington DC: US Government
Printing House
Wooley, D. 1986. “An economic and historical perspective of flood damage: the viability of
structural solutions”. Special Publication No. 15, Procs. of the 10th Annual Conference of the
State Floodplain Managers, Strengthening Local Flood Protection Programs, June 17-19,
Pittsburg, Boulder, Co: Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center
World Bank 1996. The World Bank Participation Sourcebook (www.worldbank.org
//html/edi/sourcebook/sbhome.htm)
World Bank 1997. Project Appraisal Document for the Xiaolangdi Multipurpose Project Stage II,
Report No. 16274-CHA
Wright, J. M. (ed.) 2000. The Nation’s Responses to Flood Disasters: A Historical Account,
Knoxville: Association of State Floodplain Managers
Wright,K., Sendek, K.H., Rice, R.H. and Thomas, R.B. 1990. “Logging effects on streamflow at
Caspar Creek in northwest California”, Water Resources Research, Vol.26, 1657-67
Yevyevich, V. 1992. “Floods and society”, In Rossi, G., Harmancioglu, N. and Yevyevich, V. (eds.)
Coping with floods, NATO ASI Series, 3-9, Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Assessment of Flood Control &amp; Manageemnt Options WCD

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Assessment of Flood Control &amp; Manageemnt Options WCD

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

WCD Thematic Reviews

Options Assessment: IV.4

Assessment of Flood Control and

Final Draft: 19 June 2000

Prepared for the WCD by:

C.H. Green, D.J. Parker, S.M. Tunstall

With contributions from:

World Commission on Dams Secretariat

World Commission on Dams

Appraisal led design

The principles of flood hazard management

The appraisal process

Flood management options

Land use control: if intensified development on a particular floodplain is undesirable, then

Reducing the barriers to achieving sustainable flood management

The role of dams in flood management

1.1 The Nature Of Flood Problems................................................................................................1

1.2 The Four Generations of Flood Hazard Management ..........................................................5

1.3 The Cultural Construction of Floods and Flood Hazard ......................................................9

1.4 The Evolution of Dams in Flood Hazard Management.......................................................11

2. THE NATURE OF FLOODS, FLOOD GENERATION AND FLOODPLAIN ......18

2.1 Flood Production.....................................................................................................................18

2.2 The Use Of Floodplains ..........................................................................................................21

3. THE BENEFITS AND COSTS OF FLOODS .............................................................27

3.1 Risks to Life and Health .........................................................................................................30

3.2 Agricultural Benefits and Costs.............................................................................................33

3.3 Urban impacts .........................................................................................................................37

3.4 Environmental consequences of flooding..............................................................................39

4. FLOOD MANAGEMENT OPTIONS ..........................................................................42

4.1 Managing all Floods and Not Just Some...............................................................................43

4.2 What is Vulnerability and Who is Vulnerable ? ..................................................................45

4.3 Identifying the threat ..............................................................................................................48

4.4 Reducing the Challenge ..........................................................................................................50

4.5 Enhancing coping capacity.....................................................................................................75

4.6 Matching the Solution to the Problem ..................................................................................88

5. THE ROLE OF DAMS IN FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT ............................97

6. MAKING THE ‘RIGHT’ DECISION? ......................................................................102

7. BARRIERS TO SUSTAINABLE FLOOD MANAGEMENT .................................113

7.1 Institutional barriers.............................................................................................................114

7.2 Professional roles...................................................................................................................117

7.3 Exporting/importing failure.................................................................................................117

7.6 Research .................................................................................................................................119

7.7 Corruption .............................................................................................................................120

7.8 Public involvement ................................................................................................................120

7.9 Legitimising voices ................................................................................................................121

8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................122

9. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................124

1.1 The Nature Of Flood Problems

An economically-worded but broad definition of a flood is offered by Ward (1978):

Table 1 Types of flood

AGENT DETAILS AND EXAMPLES

Icemelt Glacial meltwater (rise in air

Flooding during freeze-up Riverine

Flooding by ice breakup Riverine (also called ice-jam floods)

Mudfloods Floods with high sediment content

Coastal/sea/tidal floods Storm surge (tropical or temperate

Dam Dam-break flood

Sewer/urban drain flood Storm discharge to sewers and

Water distribution failure Burst water mains

1.1.1 Measures of the global flood problem

Table 2 Global loss of life by geophysical event, 1945-1986

Total 1,267 (1,264) 2,343 (1,033) 1,849 (837)

1.2 The Four Generations of Flood Hazard Management

Assessment of Flood Control & Manageemnt Options WCD

Assessment of Flood Control & Manageemnt Options WCD