Practical indicators for road infrastructure resilience to flood risks in France, case study of Nantes Ring Road network

Abstract

After the adoption of the European Floods Directive in 2007, Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (EPRI) was carried out in 2011 in France. It highlighted the protection of road infrastructures from flood hazards as an important part of the flood risks management. Assessing infrastructures' resilience by indicators helps urban stakeholders to better understand infrastructures facing flood risks. In order to achieve that, many French public and private institutions discuss relevant assessment indicators in wide varieties of documents, which can be defined as operational indicators. Some of these operational indicators are applied in practical local management, which we call practical indicators. This paper will present an approach to identify French practical and operational indicators of road infrastructures resilience to flood risks. We will also demonstrate how operational indictors can usefully serve as practical indicators in using Nantes Ring Road (NRR) network as the case study. Moreover, French multi-scales involved institutions (like national, regional, departmental and local) will be discussed to describe the national management structure.

Resilience Indicator of Urban Transport Infrastructure: A Review on Current Approaches

“…Furthermore, from the narrower interpretation, the value of resilience can be described through the capabilities, such as robustness, fragility, redundancy, reliability, vulnerability, recovery, persistence, transformability, etc. [4,[24][25][26][27][28][29][30]. In particular, Ouyang et al [31] and Francis and Bekera [30] described CIs resilience as involving three capacities according to temporal stages (see Figure 1):…”

“…Furthermore, from the narrower interpretation, the value of resilience can be described through the capabilities, such as robustness, fragility, redundancy, reliability, vulnerability, recovery, robustness, persistence, transformability, etc. [4,[24][25][26][27][28][29][30]. In particular, Ouyang et al [31] and Francis and Bekera [30] described CIs resilience as involving three capacities according to temporal stages (see Figure 1): -Stage 1 refers to the disaster prevention stage, from normal operation to the onset of initial failure of an infrastructure component, that requires critical infrastructures to have the resistant capacity, to prevent potential hazards and reduce the initial damage level if a hazard occurs; -Stage 2 refers to the damage propagation process after these initial failures.…”

“…Resilience indicator represents as a challenge to monitor and control systemic network, especially through the observation of the behavioral patterns under disruption scenarios or shocks Yang et al [27] Resilience indicator assesses the abilities (resist, absorb, accommodate, adapt to, transform and recover from the effects of a hazard) of a system exposed to hazards through two aspects: the consequence of hazards on road transport network; the efficacy of reactions (in whole resilience scenario) took to improve system's resilience.…”

“…For adapting to different perspectives of concept, as well as variously better methods to improve resilience, resilien have been defined and redefined [40]. Yang et al believed that resilience ind the abilities (resist, absorb, accommodate, adapt to, transform and recover fro of a hazard) of a system exposed to hazards through two aspects, consequen tion [27]. Lhomme et al used a resilience indicator studying the functionali during disruption, and the capacity of these networks to recovery service [43 Over the last decade, the resilience indicator has been a practice tool measure the resilience of CIs.…”

“…In the context of management and evaluation, an indicator provides information to measure characteristics, assess performance and evaluate capacities. An indicator, understood as a description of how to measure an issue, is the chosen information associated with a criterion, intended to observe its evolution at defined intervals [27,39].…”