Floods are major water-related disasters that affect millions of people resulting in thousands of mortalities and billiondollar losses globally every year. Flood Early Warning Systems (FEWS) - one of the floods risk management measures - are currently operational in many countries. The UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction recognises their importance and strongly advocates for an increase in their availability under the targets of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, despite widespread recognition of the importance of FEWS for disaster risk reduction (DRR), there’s a lack of information on their availability and status around the world, their benefits and costs, challenges and trends associated with their development. This report contributes to bridging these gaps by analyzing the responses to a comprehensive online survey with over 80 questions on various components of FEWS (risk knowledge, monitoring and forecasting, warning dissemination and communication, and response capabilities), investments into FEWS, their operational effectiveness, benefits, and challenges. FEWS were classified as technologically “basic”, “intermediate” and “advanced” depending on the existence and sophistication of FEWS` components such as hydrological data = collection systems, data transfer systems, flood forecasting methods, and early warning communication methods. The survey questionnaire was distributed to flood forecasting and warning centers around the globe; the primary focus was developing and least-developed countries (LDCs). The questionnaire is available here: https://inweh.unu.edu/questionnaireevaluation-of-flood-early-warning-systems/ and can be useful in its own right for similar studies at national or regional scales, in its current form or with case-specific modifications. Survey responses were received from 47 developing (including LDCs) and six developed countries. Additional information for some countries was extracted from available literature. Analysis of these data suggests the existence of an equal number of “intermediate” and “advanced” FEWS in surveyed river basins. While developing countries overall appear to progress well in FEWS implementation, LDCs are still lagging behind since most of them have “basic” FEWS. The difference between types of operational systems in developing and developed countries appear to be insignificant; presence of basic, intermediate or advanced FEWS depends on available investments for system developments and continuous financing for their operations, and there is evidence of more financial support — on the order of USD 100 million — to FEWS in developing countries thanks to international aid. However, training the staff and maintaining the FEWS for long-term operations are challenging. About 75% of responses indicate that river basins have inadequate hydrological network coverage and back-up equipment. Almost half of the responders indicated that their models are not advanced and accurate enough to produce reliable forecasts. Lack of technical expertise and limited skilled manpower to perform forecasts was cited by 50% of respondents. The primary reason for establishing FEWS, based on the survey, is to avoid property damage; minimizing causalities and agricultural losses appear to be secondary reasons. The range of the community benefited by FEWS varies, but 55% of FEWS operate in the range between 100,000 to 1 million of population. The number of flood disasters and their causalities has declined since the year 2000, while 50% of currently operating FEWS were established over the same period. This decline may be attributed to the combined DRR efforts, of which FEWS are an integral part. In lower-middle-income and low-income countries, economic losses due to flood disasters may be smaller in absolute terms, but they represent a higher percentage of such countries’ GDP. In high-income countries, higher flood-related losses accounted for a small percentage of their GDP. To improve global knowledge on FEWS status and implementation in the context of Sendai Framework and SDGs, the report’s recommendations include: i) coordinate global investments in FEWS development and standardise investment reporting; ii) establish an international hub to monitor the status of FEWS in collaboration with the national responsible agencies. This will support the sharing of FEWS-related information for accelerated global progress in DRR; iii) develop a comprehensive, index-based ranking system for FEWS according to their effectiveness in flood disaster mitigation. This will provide clear standards and a roadmap for improving FEWS’ effectiveness, and iv) improve coordination between institutions responsible for flood forecasting and those responsible for communicating warnings and community preparedness and awareness.
Flood Early Warning Systems (FEWS) are implemented in many parts of the world, but early warnings do not always translate into an emergency response from all individuals at risk. This article examines challenges such as warning communication and community response capabilities. Literature review, global online survey results, and experiential knowledge helped identify cross-cutting issues such as failure to use participatory approaches involving communities and addressing their concerns in warning, insufficient preparedness and response levels of FEWS, inadequate translation of disaster risk reduction (DRR) policies into action at the community level, lack of DRR knowledge and practices among key stakeholders, insufficient gender and social inclusion in all stages of FEWS, gaps in institutional communication and collaboration, and, finally, technical and financial constraints. The paper also discusses the contribution of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) in addressing the identified challenges and eventually strengthening FEWS locally. CSOs were found to act positively at local level challenges and significantly contribute to addressing them through tailored solutions to community concerns. Such solutions include DRR awareness campaigns to educate the communities and key officials; enhanced communication between vulnerable communities and local authorities; transforming reactive community response that relied on government officials to a risk-informed and self-prepared community response; gender inclusion and diversity in various stages of FEWS; and advocacy campaigns to build resilience to disasters. Eventually, policy-based recommendations that can help to root out the challenges discussed in this study are presented.
Flood early warning systems (FEWSs)—one of the most common flood-impact mitigation measures—are currently in operation globally. The UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) strongly advocates for an increase in their availability to reach the targets of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Comprehensive FEWS consists of four components, which includes (1) risk knowledge, (2) monitoring and forecasting, (3) warning, dissemination, and communication, and (4) response capabilities. Operational FEWSs have varying levels of complexity, depending on available data, adopted technology, and know-how. There are apparent differences in sophistication between FEWSs in developed countries that have the financial capabilities, technological infrastructure, and human resources and developing countries where FEWSs tend to be less advanced. Fortunately, recent advances in remote sensing, artificial intelligence (AI), information technologies, and social media are leading to significant changes in the mechanisms of FEWSs and provide the opportunity for all FEWSs to gain additional capability. These technologies are an opportunity for developing countries to overcome the technical limitations that FEWSs have faced so far. This chapter aims to discuss the challenges in FEWSs in brief and exposes technological advances and their benefits in flood forecasting and disaster mitigation.
Frozen soil consists of permafrost and seasonally frozen ground (Cuo et al., 2015). Seasonally frozen ground refers to areas where soil is frozen for 15 days or more per year (Y. Zhang et al., 2003), whereas permafrost is defined as the ground that remains below subfreezing temperatures for two or more consecutive years. Permafrost and seasonally frozen ground account for about 58% (or 55 million km 2 ) of the land surface in the Northern Hemisphere (NSIDC, 2022;T. Zhang et al., 1999), exerting tremendous impacts on water infiltration; ecosystem biogeochemical processes; greenhouse gas emissions; and freshwater, carbon, and nutrient inputs into the Arctic oceans. The presence of ice in soil reduces soil permeability while increasing thermal conductivity, which affects partitioning of snowmelt water into infiltration and surface runoff. At least eight out of the 32 most significant
Water resources management and planning requires accurate and reliable spring flood forecasts. In cold and snowy countries, particularly in snow-dominated watersheds, enhanced flood prediction requires adequate snowmelt estimation techniques. Whereas the majority of the studies on snow modeling have focused on comparing the performance of empirical techniques and physically based methods, very few studies have investigated empirical models and conceptual models for improving spring peak flow prediction. The objective of this study is to investigate the potential of empirical degree-day method (DDM) to effectively and accurately predict peak flows compared to sophisticated and conceptual SNOW-17 model at two watersheds in Canada: the La-Grande River Basin (LGRB) and the Upper Assiniboine river at Shellmouth Reservoir (UASR). Additional insightful contributions include the evaluation of a seasonal model calibration approach, an annual model calibration method, and two hydrological models: McMaster University Hydrologiska Byrans Vattenbalansavdelning (MAC-HBV) and Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting model (SAC-SMA). A total of eight model scenarios were considered for each watershed. Results indicate that DDM was very competitive with SNOW-17 at both the study sites, whereas it showed significant improvement in prediction accuracy at UASR. Moreover, the seasonally calibrated model appears to be an effective alternative to an annual model calibration approach, while the SAC-SMA model outperformed the MAC-HBV model, no matter which snowmelt computation method, calibration approach, or study basin is used. Conclusively, the DDM and seasonal model calibration approach coupled with the SAC-SMA hydrologic model appears to be a robust model combination for spring peak flow estimation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.