No abstract

Green-blue infrastructures in urban spaces offer several co-benefits besides flood risk reduction, such as water savings, energy savings due to less cooling usage, air quality improvement and carbon sequestration. Traditionally, these co-benefits were not included in decision making processes for flood risk management. In this work we present a method to introduce the monetary analysis of these co-benefits into a cost-benefits analysis of flood risk mitigation measures. This approach was applied to a case study, comparing costs and benefits with and without co-benefits. Different intervention strategies were considered, using green, blue and grey measures and combinations of them. The results obtained illustrate the importance of assessing co-benefits when identifying best adaptation strategies to improve urban flood risk management. Otherwise green infrastructure is likely to appear inferior than more conventional grey infrastructure. Moreover, a mix of green, blue and grey infrastructures is likely to result in the best adaptation strategy as these three alternatives tend to complement each other. Grey infrastructure has good performance at reducing the risk of flooding, whilst green infrastructure brings in multiple additional benefits that grey infrastructure cannot offer.

Urban floods cannot be managed in isolation at the city scale and responses to potential flood impacts are complicated by interlinked political, socio‐economic and environmental changes. To understand the unique features of urban flood management, a framework should be developed in which spatio‐temporal relations are further defined and investigated. This should provide clarity regarding both the feedback loops that cause vulnerability as well as those that build resilience, and how they interact across differing spatial scales. Various insights and methods from system and complexity theory could provide hands‐on methods to create such a framework. Yet the transition towards system‐based approaches is still surrounded by many unknown factors; more effort should be put into developing a roadmap towards this transition. It is argued that local‐scale pioneering and experimentation are essential in this process to encourage the cultivation of resilience through bottom‐up initiatives that can shape strategy and policy development.

No abstract

Following a flood the functioning of critical infrastructure (CI), such as power and transportation networks, plays an important role in recovery and the resilience of the city. Previous research investigated resilience indicators, however, there is no method in the literature to quantify the resilience of CI to flooding specifically or to quantify the effect of measures. This new method to quantify CI resilience to flooding proposes an expected annual disruption (EADIS) metric and curve of disruption versus likelihood. The units used for the EADIS metric for disruption are in terms of people affected over time (person × days). Using flood modelling outputs, spatial infrastructure, and population data as inputs, this metric is used to benchmark CI resilience to flooding and test the improvement with resilience enhancing measures. These measures are focused on the resilience aspects robustness, redundancy and flexibility. Relative improvements in resilience were quantified for a case study area in Toronto, Canada and it was found that redundancy, flexibility, and robustness measures resulted in 44, 30, and 48% reductions in EADIS respectively. While there are limitations, results suggest that this method can effectively quantify CI resilience to flooding and quantify relative improvements with resilience enhancing measures for cities.