Adapting to flood risk under climate change

Abstract

Flooding is the most common natural hazard and third most damaging globally after storms and earthquakes. Anthropogenic climate change is expected to increase flood risk through more frequent heavy precipitation, increased catchment wetness and sea level rise. This paper reviews steps being taken by actors at international, national, regional and community levels to adapt to flood risk from tidal, fluvial, surface and groundwater sources. We refer to existing inventories, national and sectoral adaptation plans, flood inquiries, building and planning codes, city plans, research literature and international policy reviews. We distinguish between the enabling environment for adaptation and specific implementing measures to manage flood risk. Enabling includes routine monitoring, flood forecasting, data exchange, institutional reform, bridging organizations, contingency planning for disasters, insurance and legal incentives to reduce vulnerability. All such activities are ‘low regret’ in that they yield benefits regardless of the climate scenario but are not cost-free. Implementing includes climate safety factors for new build, upgrading resistance and resilience of existing infrastructure, modifying operating rules, development control, flood forecasting, temporary and permanent retreat from hazardous areas, periodic review and adaptive management. We identify evidence of both types of adaptation following the catastrophic 2010/11 flooding in Victoria, Australia. However, significant challenges remain for managing transboundary flood risk (at all scales), protecting existing property at risk from flooding, and ensuring equitable outcomes in terms of risk reduction for all. Adaptive management also raises questions about the wider preparedness of society to systematically monitor and respond to evolving flood risks and vulnerabilities.

Planning for future sea-level rise in Swedish municipalities

“…Consequently, adaptation to SLR varies significantly between different countries and regions de la Vega-Leinert 2008, Wilby andKeenan 2012) and empirical knowledge on how adaptation to SLR works in reality is lacking (Tol et al 2008).…”

“Sometimes Climate Adaptation is Politically Correct”: A Case Study of Planners and Politicians Negotiating Climate Adaptation in Waterfront Spatial Planning

“…Mickwitz et al (2009, p. 60) claim that the capacities of spatial planning are shrinking due to "the rigidity of administrative and political borders, the stability of departmentalism and the strength of sectional interests and preferences for small-scale solutions". Such fragmentation in the form of "silo mentalities" and cross-sectoral mismatches in integrating critical concerns has been problematized in both planning studies (Blanco & Alberti, 2009;Healey, 2007;Isaksson & Storbjörk, 2012;Nilsson, 2007;Vigar, 2009) and adaptation studies (Glaas et al, 2010;Lidskog & Uggla, 2009;Mickwitz et al, 2009;Naess et al, 2005;Romero-Lankao, 2012;Storbjörk, 2010;Wilby & Keenan, 2012;Wilson, 2006). Fragmentation is also evident in the interplay between planning instruments, such as municipal comprehensive and local development plans (Hilding-Rydevik & Åkerskog, 2011;Measham et al, 2011;Vigar, 2009).…”

“…Accordingly, spatial planning faces a particular challenge in managing waterfront settlements in coastal zones or near inland lakes and watercourses in a changing climate, as this involves "safety versus scenery" conflicts. Previous studies clearly state that current trends in waterfront spatial planning are problematic for local climate adaptation due to these conflicting intentions and priorities (Bulkeley, 2006;Romero-Lankao, 2012;Storbjörk, 2007;Uggla, 2009;Wilby & Keenan, 2012). Yet still, we lack knowledge of the intricacies involved in the practice of waterfront spatial planning.…”

Understanding and Mitigating the Impacts of Massive Relocations Due to Disasters

“…By contrast, Wilby and Keenan (2012) note that BSome governments are pursuing policies of strategic retreat from floodplains and the coastal zone,^and Hayat and Moore (2015) suggest that national flood insurance could be made contingent on an agreement to relocate Bfollowing floods that cause substantial damage.Î t might also be possible to encourage relocation prior to a disaster, through mechanisms such as zoning, buyouts, and tax incentives (Meyer and Kunreuther 2017), or location of desired services and amenities farther inland. However, Wilby and Keenan note that Bstatesponsored resettlement and re-zoning as an adaptation response to flooding is highly contentious.^Among other problems, many possible actions are under the control of local governments.…”