If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination, volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections.

Policy must address drivers, not just symptoms, of subsidence

Conventional flood control has emphasized structural measures such as levees, reservoirs, and engineered channels—measures that typically simplify river channels and cut them off from their floodplain, both with adverse environmental consequences. Structural measures tend to be rigid and not easily adapted to increased flooding regimes resulting from environmental change. Such actions also limit the natural hydrologic benefits of floodplains such as storing floodwaters, improving water quality, providing habitat for invertebrates and fish during periods of inundation, and supporting a multitude of cultural services. As these benefits are more widely recognized, policies are being adopted to encourage projects that reduce flood risks and restore floodplain ecosystems, while acknowledging the social-ecological context. The number of such projects, however, remains small. We assessed four multi-benefit floodplain projects (two in California, United States, and two in Germany) and characterized their drivers, history, and measures implemented. In both United States cases, the dominant driver behind the project was flood risk reduction, and ecosystem restoration followed, in one case inadvertently, in the other as a requirement to receive a subsidy for a flood risk reduction project. One German case was motivated by ecosystem restoration, but it was more widely accepted because it also offered flood management benefits. The fourth case was conceived in terms of balanced goals of flood risk reduction, ecosystem restoration, and recreation. We conclude that projects that both reduce flood risk and restore ecosystems are clearly possible and often cost-effective, and that they could be more widely implemented. The principal barriers are often institutional and regulatory, rather than technical.

New types of sanitation services are emerging to tackle the sanitation crisis in informal settlements. These services link toilet facilities to semi-decentralized treatment plants via frequent, road-based transport of excreta. However, information for the planning of such sanitation services is scarce, and their future operating conditions are highly uncertain. The key questions of this paper are therefore: a) what are the drivers behind success or failure of a service-based sanitation system in informal settlements and b) on what scales and under which conditions can such a system operate successfully? To answer these questions, already at an early stage of the planning process, we introduce a stochastic model to analyze a wide range of system designs under varying technical designs, socio-economic factors, and spatial condition. Based on these initial results, we design a sanitation service and use the numeric model to study its reliability and costs over a wide range of scales, i.e., system capacities, from very few to many hundred users per semi-decentralized treatment unit. Key findings are that such a system can only operate within a narrow, but realistic range of conditions. Key requirements are toilet facilities, which can be serviced rapidly, and a flexible workforce. A high density of facilities will also lower the costs. Under these premises, we develop a road-based sanitation service and model its functionality in different settings and under many scenarios. Results show that the developed sanitation system using a single vehicle is scalable (100-700 users), can provide reliable service, and can be cheap (<1.5 c/p/day). Hence, this paper demonstrates opportunities for road-based sanitation in informal settlements and presents a quantitative framework for designing such systems.