Engaging stakeholders in the assessment of NBS effectiveness in flood risk reduction: A participatory System Dynamics Model for benefits and co-benefits evaluation

Pagano, Alessandro; Pluchinotta, Irene; Pengal, Polona; Cokan, Blaž; Giordano, R.

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.059

Cited by 100 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The FEV is the area indicated between the discharge at the threshold Q T (indicated by the horizontal dotted line) and discharge rates (the solid curve). Using (2), the FEV integrates to V e ≈ (9.34 ± 1.50) Mm 3 ≈ (2161 × 2161 × 2) m 3 (9) or, equivalently, the capacity of a square lake with sides of length 2161 m and depth 2 m; this figure is approximately 1.5 and 1.2 times the crude, quick estimates in (7) and 8, respectively. Note that the estimates (7) and (8) are first-order approximations because the relationship between river level and discharge rate as encoded in the rating curve is nonlinear, in contrast to the linear rating-curve assumption used in (4).…”

Section: Data: Fev Revisited For the River Aire Boxing Day 2015 Floodmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Using (2), the FEV integrates to V e ≈ (9.34 ± 1.50) Mm 3 ≈ (2161 × 2161 × 2) m 3 (9) or, equivalently, the capacity of a square lake with sides of length 2161 m and depth 2 m; this figure is approximately 1.5 and 1.2 times the crude, quick estimates in (7) and 8, respectively. Note that the estimates (7) and (8) are first-order approximations because the relationship between river level and discharge rate as encoded in the rating curve is nonlinear, in contrast to the linear rating-curve assumption used in (4). Note also that, considering that most rating curves are concave upward when plotted (as in Figure 4), the deviation from the linear estimate used in (7) and (8) would result in an underestimation of FEV when using these equations.…”

Section: Data: Fev Revisited For the River Aire Boxing Day 2015 Floodmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Stakeholder involvement at several implementation phases of flood-mitigation plans is becoming increasingly common, but the technical complexity of some strategies, often involving multiple and disparate measures, hampers enlightened decision-making [6,7]. There is therefore a need for educational tools that facilitate understanding and communication of the efficacy of complex flood-mitigation strategies, additionally because ".…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Cost-Effectiveness Protocol for Flood-Mitigation Plans Based on Leeds’ Boxing Day 2015 Floods

Bokhove

Kelmanson

Kent

et al. 2020

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inspired by the Boxing Day 2015 flood of the River Aire in Leeds, UK, and subsequent attempts to mitigate adverse consequences of flooding, the goals considered are: (i) to revisit the concept of flood-excess volume (FEV) as a complementary diagnostic for classifying flood events; (ii) to establish a new roadmap/protocol for assessing flood-mitigation schemes using FEV; and, (iii) to provide a clear, graphical cost-effectiveness analysis of flood mitigation, exemplified for a hypothetical scheme partially based on actual plans. We revisit the FEV concept and present it as a three-panel graph using thresholds and errors. By re-expressing FEV as a 2 m -deep square lake of equivalent capacity, one can visualise its dimensions in comparison with the river valley considered. Cost-effectiveness of flood-mitigation measures is expressed within the FEV square-lake; different scenarios of our hypothetical flood-mitigation scheme are then presented and assessed graphically, with each scenario involving a combination, near and further upstream of Leeds, of higher (than existing) flood-defence walls, enhanced flood-plain storage sites, giving-room-to-the-river bed-widening and natural flood management. Our cost-effectiveness analysis is intended as a protocol to compare and choose between flood-mitigation scenarios in a quantifiable and visual manner, thereby offering better prospects of being understood by a wide audience, including citizens and city-council planners. Using techniques of data analysis combined with general river hydraulics, common-sense and upper-bound estimation, we offer an accessible check of flood-mitigation plans.

show abstract

Section: Data: Fev Revisited For the River Aire Boxing Day 2015 Floodmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Data: Fev Revisited For the River Aire Boxing Day 2015 Floodmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Cost-Effectiveness Protocol for Flood-Mitigation Plans Based on Leeds’ Boxing Day 2015 Floods

Bokhove

Kelmanson

Kent

et al. 2020

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is no straightforward strategy to elicit, collect, and structure citizen knowledge, experience, and perception, nor to improve their awareness of a problematic situation. Several approaches and methodologies is still being explored, although growing debates exist toward promoting stakeholders' engagement, with mixed results [27]. These suggestions are increasing effectively today addressed within the field of participatory modelling techniques (PMT) (see a brief review in the Section 4).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge Models for Spatial Planning: Ecosystem Services Awareness in the New Plan of Bari (Italy)

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of ecosystem services (ES) arises as a formal outcome of historical processes of understanding and interpreting settlements as complex ecological systems. Because of a straightforward, bottom-up demand for environment enhancement, this concept increasingly occurs in discourses, in narratives, in the demands of common people, triggering a new urban environmental awareness. This is now often arising spontaneously in the protocols of participatory plan processes, especially when planning for the future of complex environments such as city areas. The present study tries to elicit reflections around the significance of ES issues awareness in the case study of Bari (Italy), which is experiencing an inclusive and participatory process of construction of shared knowledge for the new master plan. Starting from an initial campaign of civic walks (CWs) along the urban neighborhoods and a subsequent semi-structured interview to the community, the paper carries out comparative analyses using problem-structuring methods (PMs), in order to evaluate and reflect on community behaviors and expectations about ES. Then the paper ends by emphasizing the role of structured knowledge-raising approaches, as critical activities to enhance ecosystem awareness in planning settlements as complex ecological systems.

show abstract

“…Bouzid et al (2013) noted the absence of systematic reviews of the effectiveness of interventions to reduce health impacts from climate change especially regarding floods. Some models of benefits from flood control have also omitted health (Pagano et al 2019). The study by Houghton and Castillo-Salgado (2017) on health benefits of green building design and community resilience to flooding constitutes one of the few cases where these aspects have been systematically evaluated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human health in systemic adaptation to climate change: insights from flood risk management in a river basin

Assmuth

Lyytimäki

2019

Environ Syst Decis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human health risks in dealing with floods in a river basin in SouthWestern Finland are analysed as an example of scientific and practical challenges in systemic adaptation to climate change and in integrated governance of water resources. The analysis is based on case reports and plans, on literature studies and on conceptual models of risks and risk management. Flood risks in the Northern European study area are aggravated by melt-and storm-water runoff, ice jams and coastal flooding. Flood risk assessment is linked with management plans based on EU directives as applied in the case area. National risk management policies and procedures of increasing scope and depth have been devised for climate change, water resources and overall safety, but an integrated approach to health risks is still largely missing. The same is true of surveys of perceived flood risks, and participatory deliberation and collaborative planning procedures for flood risk management in the case area, specifically for adaptive lake regulation. Health impacts, risks and benefits, socioeconomic and systemic risks, and overarching prevention, adaptation and compensation measures are not fully included. We propose a systematic framework for these extensions. Particular attention needs to be given to health risks due to flooding, e.g. from water contamination, moist buildings, mental stress and infrastructure damage and also from management actions. Uncertainties and ambiguities about risks present continuing challenges. It is concluded that health aspects of flooding are complex and need to be better included in assessment and control, to develop more integrated and adaptive systemic risk governance.

show abstract

Engaging stakeholders in the assessment of NBS effectiveness in flood risk reduction: A participatory System Dynamics Model for benefits and co-benefits evaluation

Cited by 100 publications

References 49 publications

A Cost-Effectiveness Protocol for Flood-Mitigation Plans Based on Leeds’ Boxing Day 2015 Floods

A Cost-Effectiveness Protocol for Flood-Mitigation Plans Based on Leeds’ Boxing Day 2015 Floods

Knowledge Models for Spatial Planning: Ecosystem Services Awareness in the New Plan of Bari (Italy)

Human health in systemic adaptation to climate change: insights from flood risk management in a river basin

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About