A novel quantitative risk assessment for residential properties at risk of pluvial flooding in Eindhoven, The Netherlands, is presented. A hydraulic model belonging to Eindhoven was forced with low return period rainfall events (2, 5 and 10-year design rainfalls). Three scenarios were analysed for each event: a baseline and two risk-reduction scenarios. GIS analysis identified areas where risk-reduction measures had the greatest impact. Financial loss calculations were carried out using fixed-threshold and probabilistic approaches. Under fixed-threshold assessment, per-event Expected Annual Damage (EAD) reached €38.2m, with reductions of up to €454,000 resulting from risk-reduction measures. Present costs of flooding reach €1.43bn when calculated over a 50-year period. All net-present value figures for the 2 risk-reduction measures are negative. Probabilistic assessment yielded EAD values up to more than double those of the fixed-threshold analysis which suggested positive net-present value. To the best of our knowledge, the probabilistic method based on the distribution of doorstep heights has never before been introduced for pluvial flood risk assessment. Although this work suggests poor net-present value of risk-reduction measures, indirect impacts of flooding, damage to infrastructure and the potential impacts of climate change were omitted.This work represents a useful first step in helping Eindhoven prepare for future pluvial flooding. The analysis is based on software and tools already available at the municipality, eliminating the need for software upgrading or training. The approach is generally applicable to similar cities.
Urbanization leads to changes in the surface cover that alter the hydrological cycle of cities, particularly by increasing the impervious area and, thereby, reducing the interception, storage and infiltration capacity of rainwater. Nature-based solutions (NBS) can contribute to flood risk mitigation in urbanized areas by restoring hydrological functions. However, the effects of NBS on flood risk mitigation are complex and can differ substantially with the type of the NBS. Therefore, the effectiveness of NBS at the urban catchment scale is still subject to much debate, especially at the scale of urban catchments. In this study, the effects of different NBS on urban flood mitigation were evaluated for the city of Eindhoven in The Netherlands, as it has a history of urban flood events. To this end, various NBS scenarios were defined by municipal stakeholders and their impacts modelled with the numerical model Infoworks ICM. This was done for design storms with short, medium and long return periods (5, 10 and 100 years). Overall, the simulated NBS were effective in flood risk mitigation, reducing the flooded area as well as flood depth. The effectiveness of the individual NBS scenarios, however, depended strongly on the location and extension of the NBS, as well as on storm intensity. The effectiveness tended to increase with the increase in NBS surface area, while it tended to decrease with increasing storm intensity and, hence, return period. The NBS solution increasing street water storage was revealed to be more effective than those involving green car parks and green roofs. This study showed that numerical flooding models can be useful tools to assess the effects of NBS to reduce flood extent, water depth and/or velocity, providing insights that can support city planners to design and compare alternative strategies and plans for urban flood risk mitigation.
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.