Making Space for the River: Governance Experiences with Multifunctional River Flood Management in the US and Europe

Warner, Jeroen

doi:10.2166/9781780401133

Cited by 63 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 107 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The subsequent Room for the River programme includes these changes towards 'soft' FRM. In this programme the river channel and floodplains are widened where necessary and possible, and floodplains are re-connected to river channels in order to 'renaturalise' the river and increase storage capacity (Van Staveren, Warner, Van Tatenhove, & Wester, 2014;Warner, Van Buuren, & Edelenbos, 2013). These floodplain modifications also have a spatial planning element.…”

Section: Rhine/meuse/scheldt Delta (The Netherlands)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Trends in flood risk management in deltas around the world: Are we going ‘soft’?

Wesselink¹,

Warner

Syed³

et al. 2016

IJWG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A. Wesselink et al. / Trends in flood risk management in deltasFlood-risk management (FRM) is shaped by context: a society's cultural background; physical possibilities and constraints; and the historical development of that society's economy, political system, education, etc. These provide different drivers for change, in interaction with more global developments. We compare historical and current FRM in six delta areas and their contexts: Rhine/Meuse/Scheldt (The Netherlands), Pearl River (China), Mekong (Vietnam), Ganges/ Brahmaputra/Meghna (Bangladesh) Zambezi/Limpopo (Mozambique), and Mississippi (USA). We show that in many countries the emphasis is shifting from 'hard' engineering, such as dikes, towards non-structural 'soft' measures, such as planning restrictions or early warning systems, while the 'hard' responses are softened in some by a 'building with nature' approach. However, this is by no means a universal development. One consistent feature of the application of 'hard' FRM technology to deltas is that it pushes them towards a technological 'lock-in' in which fewer and fewer 'soft' FRM alternatives are feasible due to increased flood risks. By contrast, 'soft' FRM is typically flexible, allowing a range of future options, including future hard elements if needed and appropriate. These experiences should lead to serious reflection on whether 'hard' FRM should be recommended when 'soft' FRM options are still open.

show abstract

Section: Rhine/meuse/scheldt Delta (The Netherlands)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Trends in flood risk management in deltas around the world: Are we going ‘soft’?

Wesselink¹,

Warner

Syed³

et al. 2016

IJWG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly policies of disconnecting downspouts from the drainage network and reducing CSO spills can impact on flow levels being maintained in receiving waters, and attenuation through surface storage can have similar effects. These interdependencies further affect the dynamics between the drivers for flood safety, which often dominate the immediate post-flood responses, and the multifunctionality of stormwater management (Warner et al, 2012). Those recently flooded often lobby for visible, hard defences in their immediate local neighbourhood which may be the wrong long term solution when considered at the wider catchment scale.…”

Section: Interactions and Interdependenciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

System interactions of stormwater management using sustainable urban drainage systems and green infrastructure

Hoang

Fenner

2015

Urban Water Journal

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explores system interactions of stormwater management solutions using Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SuDS) and Green Infrastructure (GI) within the wider urban landscape. A series of interdependencies between urban components relating to stormwater management are identified. These include physical interdependency, geographical interdependency, cyber interdependency and logical interdependency, as defined by Peerenboom (2001). Stormwater management using SuDS/GI are viewed according to their Hydrological, Ecological and the Built Environment functions during events up to the design rain (non-flood condition) and during controlled exceedance and uncontrolled inundation (flood condition). The inclusion of SuDS/GI into the urban fabric is shown to modify urban functional and relational interdependencies under both these conditions. Within the context of the UK, there are fragmented responsibilities across planning scales created by SuDS/GI solutions which have not addressed the relational complexities that exist between agencies and competent authorities. The paper identifies the key barriers towards effective adoption of SuDS/GI within the context of the UK as physical barriers, perception/information barriers and organisational barriers.

show abstract

“…To conclude, it will be important to ensure that the design and management of these structures are integrated, taking into consideration not only flood risks but also erosion, morphological evolution, and environmental objectives [12].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Levees, Diversion Canals or Flood Expansion Areas?

Tourment¹,

Beullac²,

Degoutte³

et al. 2016

E3S Web Conf.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Risk Flood protection involves works which reduce the hydraulic hazard in protected areas in terms of frequency, duration, water level, water velocity or flood arrival time. These works are parts of protection systems. In this paper, we discuss and compare three structure-based solutions that contribute to flood protection but seem to oppose one another in the mind of general opinion: levees based protection systems, whose purpose is to prevent water from spreading in protected areas; diversion channels that aim to decrease the flow at their downstream; flood expansion areas, whose purpose is to temporary store water, reduce flood peak and spread flow duration. The article also deals with weirs which can be found in addition to dikes in the three types of solutions on which the paper focuses. For each type of these flood protection solutions, the paper describes their functions and limits, details how these solutions are similar, opposite or complementary, and in the end shows that they are globally complementary and not mutually exclusive. It also demonstrates the interest of a multi-scale analysis and of an integrated design and management of these arrangements, taking into account flood risk, morphological changes and associated environmental objectives.

show abstract

Making Space for the River: Governance Experiences with Multifunctional River Flood Management in the US and Europe

Cited by 63 publications

References 107 publications

Trends in flood risk management in deltas around the world: Are we going ‘soft’?

Trends in flood risk management in deltas around the world: Are we going ‘soft’?

System interactions of stormwater management using sustainable urban drainage systems and green infrastructure

Levees, Diversion Canals or Flood Expansion Areas?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About