2004
DOI: 10.1080/13669870210166185
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Thinking the unthinkable – the end of the Dutch river dike system? Exploring a new safety concept for the river management

Abstract: Since 1100 the Dutch relied on their continuously expanding extensive dike system for keeping dry feet and dry goods. But how durable and safe is this traditional dike concept, now the sea-level is rising and rainfall patterns seem to change? Can they continue to raise their dikes in the future or should they give more room to the river? In the Dutch mind higher dikes are saver. In practice, however, higher dikes may lead to higher risks as the consequences of failure rise. What is wrong with the risk percepti… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Indeed, apparently adequate structural devices can fail under the pressure of disturbance factors and 'the flooding experience is damaging and dangerous particularly where defence systems are in place' (Bye and Horner, 1998, p. 57). Several authors have recognised already the relation between the protection capacity of the structural devices and the induced collateral effect of lower risk awareness and increased damage potential (see Dynes, 1974;Burby and French, 1981;Alexander, 1993;Bye and Horner, 1998;Handmer, 2001;Enserink, 2004).…”
Section: Structural Devices and Feeling Of Safetymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Indeed, apparently adequate structural devices can fail under the pressure of disturbance factors and 'the flooding experience is damaging and dangerous particularly where defence systems are in place' (Bye and Horner, 1998, p. 57). Several authors have recognised already the relation between the protection capacity of the structural devices and the induced collateral effect of lower risk awareness and increased damage potential (see Dynes, 1974;Burby and French, 1981;Alexander, 1993;Bye and Horner, 1998;Handmer, 2001;Enserink, 2004).…”
Section: Structural Devices and Feeling Of Safetymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another finding regards the relation between the existence of flood protection structures and the induced collateral effect of lower risk awareness among the local people (Dynes 1974;Burby and French 1981;Bye and Horner 1998;Handmer 2000;Enserink 2004;Morris and Sinclair 2005).…”
Section: Flood Risk As a Social Constructmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This section discusses the important stages in flood risk management policy, of which the cases discussed below are representative. Until the mid-1990s, dike construction as primary flood defence was the dominant approach in the Netherlands (Enserink 2004). The age-old narrative of 'battling against water' meant separating water and land through dikes (Wiering and Immink 2006).…”
Section: Dike Reinforcement: 'Battle Against Water'mentioning
confidence: 99%