A State-of-the-Art Review of Flood Risk Assessment in Urban Area

Abstract

Flood risk management has become more significant in the face of rapid urban development and the climate change. Many governments and the decision makers have recognized the requirement of resilient flood management policies and strategies for sustainable urban development. During the recent decades, various conceptual framework of flood risk assessment and management emerged and they in turn questioned the characterization of resilience in flood risk management. More recently, research on flood risk management and spatial planning have demonstrated a common discussion platform appreciating the concept of flood resilience in policy and strategy making. However, assessment and operationalization of flood resilience is often questionable due to its conceptual vagueness. The present work is a review of the plurality views of flood resilience. Resilience thinking has moved the focus of flood risk assessment towards vulnerability. Flood resilience embeds the incorporation of spatially distributed land use policies and regulations which are a must for the management of flood vulnerability. Spatial planning reflecting flood resilience becomes vital when managing the uncertainty incorporated with flood risk management. However, the operationalization and legitimacy of the importance of the combined role of spatial planning and flood risk management with stakeholder acceptance still remains implicit and weak.

A systematic review of approaches for modelling current and future impacts of extreme rainfall events using green infrastructure

“…While the advances in hydrological models does allow a straightforward analysis of the spatial distribution of floods, GI, and their effects, which has potential to inform land-use plans and policies about the spatial distribution of risks, the impacts of the implementation of GI and even the spatial understanding of the effects of rainfall events primarily focus on a single catchment. This is probematic because even site-based land-use planning decisions are influenced by wider social and political dimensions and routinely address broader spatial and temporal scales, including climate change (Herath and Wijesekera, 2019;Lemes de Oliveira, 2019;Ran and Nedovic-Budic, 2016). A possible way to close this gap is the co-production of tools with end-users (practitioners such as planners and flood managers), which can not only better evaluate GI techniques at larger spatial scales, but also consider more aspirational future urbanisation trends and acknowledge key political trade-offs (such as between types of landuse) in order to provide more evidence to support where GI application can minimise impacts from those land-use changes.…”

In IWRM, Should Scientific Modeller Perspectives Receive Priority over the Benefit Recipients?

“…The common excuses for this situation are the recipient stakeholders' poor participation, that governance discourses are limited to stakeholders, and that decisions are mainly theoretical [9,10]. Apart from those, there are dozens of negative reasons for the practical incorporation of recipients' perspectives in administrative decision-making modelling or processes.…”

Flood assessment after Cempaka Cyclone 2019 in Imogiri District, Bantul Regency of Yogyakarta, Indonesia

“…Natural factors which may cause floods to include heavy rainfall, high tide, and high flood intensity, on the other hand, human factors that may cause include improper land use, heavy deforestation, and blocked or damaged drainage channels [5]. The flood can cause massive losses, such as property damage and disruption of the infraction and economic activities [6]. Flood has many negative impacts on human health because floods sometimes pose a high risk of injury to the victims, environment, and plants.…”