2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.12.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Development of flood exposure in the Netherlands during the 20th and 21st century

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
85
0
4

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 169 publications
(92 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
3
85
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…With regard to future changes in flood hazard exposure, this study did not resort to regionalized land-use models, as used in comparable studies (cf. Bouwer et al 2010;Maaskant et al 2009;de Moel et al 2011), but applied a detailed plot-level assessment, thus addressing the need to ''take into account the exact location of landuse change in flood-prone areas'' (Bouwer et al 2010). By applying the same climate change allowance in all case studies we were able to identify two significant contextual conditions, which influence the sensitivity of future flood risk to climate change-related increases in peak discharge.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…With regard to future changes in flood hazard exposure, this study did not resort to regionalized land-use models, as used in comparable studies (cf. Bouwer et al 2010;Maaskant et al 2009;de Moel et al 2011), but applied a detailed plot-level assessment, thus addressing the need to ''take into account the exact location of landuse change in flood-prone areas'' (Bouwer et al 2010). By applying the same climate change allowance in all case studies we were able to identify two significant contextual conditions, which influence the sensitivity of future flood risk to climate change-related increases in peak discharge.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A German study of a Mulde sub-catchment, for instance, showed that land-use change in the form of urban sprawl is a key driver of flood risk (Elmer et al 2012). Similarly, a study on the development of flood exposure in the Netherlands found that socio-economic change and the increase in urban area in flood-prone zones have led to an exponential increase in potential flood damage during the twentieth century (de Moel et al 2011). More specifically, in a prospective analysis of future socio-economic change in a Dutch dike ring Bouwer et al (2010) calculated a 35-172 % increase in expected damage by 2040 compared to the year 2000.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An example is the case of New Orleans, where the process of building and raising levees has led to a shift from frequent, small flooding to rare, but catastrophic disasters [Kates et al, 2006]. More examples of levee effect have been described by the literature [Kates et al, 2006;de Moel et al, 2011;Ludy and Kondolf, 2012;IPCC 2012;Bohensky and Leitch, 2014;Di Baldassarre et al, 2013a] and are summarized in Figure 1.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The current safety standards in the Netherlands have been under discussion because of an increase in properties exposed to floods during the past several decades, which substantially increased potential flood damage (de Moel et al 2011). Moreover, the projected increase in flood risk as a result of climate change could justify higher safety standards in some areas, or additional measures that limit potential flood damage (Kind, 2013).…”
Section: The Netherlandsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This independence should allow the body to alter the nature of its tools fast enough to adapt to changing circumstances. Moreover, it may require a degree of authority over planning issues to control exposure growth since planning is an important source of changing risk (see de Moel et al, 2011;Rojas et al 2013). Furthermore, the European Parliament's preferred role of the EU as a facilitator for information dissemination could also be useful by sharing information regarding best practice on how to bring together stakeholders and to prevent discussions from stagnating or by providing a neutral arbitrator.…”
Section: Reflections From the Munich Workhopmentioning
confidence: 99%