The Extremes of the Extremes: Exlraordinaiy Floods (Proceedings of a symposium held at Reykjavik. Iceland.

July 2000). IAHS Publ. no. 2 7 1 . 2002.

361

Flood protection in the context of sustainable

development

ZBIGNIEW W. K U N D Z E W I C Z
Research Centre of Agricultural and Forest Environment, Polish Academy of Sciences,
Bttkowska 19, 60-809 Poznan, Poland
e-mail: zkundze@.man.poznan.pl

Abstract There has been much recent emphasis on sustainable development

of water resources, so that the requirements of the present generation are
fulfilled without compromizing the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs. Destructive floods undermine sustainable development. Systems
of flood protection and management are being criticized in the context of
sustainable development because they close options for future generations and
introduce unacceptable disturbances in ecosystems. A change of paradigm is
needed. As a flood protection system guaranteeing complete safety is an
illusion, the attitude "living with floods" seems more sustainable than a
hopeless striving to "combat floods".
K e y w o r d s flood p r o t e c t i o n ; s u s t a i n a b l e d e v e l o p m e n t ; s u s t a i n a b i l i t y c r i t e r i a a n d i n d i c e s ;
adaptation

INTRODUCTION

Since the dawn of civilization, destructive floods have jeopardized settlements located
near rivers. Despite developments in technology and extensive investments in flood
control works, neither flood occurrences nor material damage are decreasing. In the
last decade of the twentieth century, there were worldwide two dozens flood disasters
in each of which either the material losses exceeded one billion US dollars or the
number of fatalities was greater than one thousand, or both. In the most disastrous
storm surge flood in Bangladesh, during two days in April 1991, 140 000 people lost
their life. The highest material losses, of the order of 30 and 26.5 billion US dollars,
were recorded in China in the 1996 and 1998 floods, respectively (Kundzewicz &
Takeuchi, 1999). Recent floods have also exceeded absolute maximum stages recorded
during the period of instrumental observations. A possible consequence of climate
change is an increased frequency of extreme meteorological events that cause floods.
Devastating floods destroy cultural landscapes and undermine sustainable develop­
ment by breaking continuity. Moreover, several options for flood defence are being
criticized in the context of sustainable development. This is so, even if the notion of
"sustainable development" m a y still mean different things to different people. Some
definitions lend themselves well to applications in the flood problem context:
(a) Assuring that the development meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to fulfil their own needs (best
known definition; after W C E D , 1987).
(b) Living on the "interest" from the Earth's "capital" without depleting the "capital
itself, i.e. the possessions inherited from former generations (Kundzewicz et ai,
1987).
362 Zbigniew W. Kundzewicz

(c) Improving the quality of human life (attaining non-decreasing human welfare over
time) within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems (IUCN, 1991).
Sustainable development should have an in-built mechanism of maintenance of
resilience against surprises and shock, such as a violent abundance of destructive
water. A common interpretation of sustainable development is that civilization, wealth
(human and natural capital) and environment (built and natural) should be relayed to
future generations in a non-depleted form. Another aspect of the definition is that,
while flood protection is necessary for the present generation to attain a fair degree of
freedom from disastrous events, it must be done in such a way that future generations
are not adversely affected. According to the UK Environment Agency (1998, p.9),
sustainable flood defence schemes should "avoid as far as possible committing future
generations to inappropriate options for defence".

H O W IS SUSTAIN ABILITY ASSESSED?

In order to measure the progress towards sustainable development a set of suitable

criteria and indicators are needed, assisting one to steer action, to make decisions and
to increase the focus on sustainable development.
One can take recourse to a general proposal of four conceptual criteria for eval­
uation of sustainability; they are: fairness, reversibility, risk and consensus, recomm­
ended by Simonovic (Takeuchi et al, 1998), all of which are relevant in the context of
flood defences.
Fairness or equity means that flood protection should be extended to all members
of the society. Yet, difference in vulnerability to floods even between neighbouring
households can be enormous, especially in less developed countries. Wealthy house­
holds receive flood warning on the radio and can escape by their vehicle, whereas poor
families, deprived of the warning, may remain on the site and suffer death and total
destruction of their houses and belongings.
Reversibility is not a strong feature of large structural flood defences. Yet, there
have been several examples of decommissioning of dams and of intentional removal of
dikes (renaturalization of rivers). The cost of transformation of an engineered system
to the original unengineered state can be predicted.
Risk is typically understood here as a product of low exposure (probability of
failure) and high consequences. The concept of risk can be illustrated in the context of
structural flood defences—dikes. Dikes may provide excellent protection against more
frequent small to medium floods, yet their existence creates a false feeling of absolute
safety and may trigger intensive development of low-lying areas. If a dike breaks, this
defence does not act as a protection, but rather as an amplifier of destruction; flood
losses without a dike would be lower.
Consensus means that involved and affected parties should agree as to the
programme of flood protection and management. Yet, striving for absolute consensus
can suffocate decision making as is clearly seen in newly democratized countries.
One could add to these criteria also a measure of efficiency and synergism; a
multipurpose reservoir may have a number of functions related to sustainability: flood
protection, water supply, water power, navigation, etc.
 Flood protection in the context of sustainable development 363

Gardiner (1995) suggested using four groups of criteria to compare options of

flood defence and assessed their performance from the viewpoint of sustainable develop­
ment. These criteria related to global environment (resilience to climate change, energy
efficiency, biodiversity), intergenerational equity (retention of strategic adaptability/
future options), natural resources (quantity and quality of surface water and groundwater,
wildlife habitat) and local environment quality (morphological stability, landscape and
open land, recreation, and amenity and enhancement of the river environment).
Takeuchi et al. (1998) devised a sustainability checklist for reservoirs evaluating
four aspects: the efficiency in use of existing reservoirs; the magnitude of marginal
environmental impact; the degree of democratic decision making; and the mitigation
measures (to minimize the negative environmental effects and to ensure the quickest
recovery of the damaged ecological system). The checklist refers to five broad areas:
conservation of nature; inter-; and intragenerational equity; efficiency; and integrated
water resources management. A checklist, similar to that proposed by Takeuchi et al.
(1998) in the reservoir context, can be used to examine other structural means of flood
protection. A least marginal environmental impact rule, as advocated in Takeuchi et al.
(1998), dictates that the option selected should have minimum adverse environmental
effect as compared to alternative options yielding the same level of improvement.
Criteria, indicators and checklists could be used to compare options for flood
protection. Usually, there exist a spectrum of means to achieve a development target of
concern, with differing values of quality criteria. Each alternative may have its
advantages and disadvantages. One has to evaluate the alternative means for flood
protection, both structural and non-structural, weighting their pros and cons (not only
short-term benefits but also long-term impacts and side effects) in an objective way
(Kundzewicz, 1998). The viable alternatives should be revealed, made transparent to
the public and subjected to public discussion and, finally, the decision as to how to
solve the problem should be accepted by society.
Examples of quality indices which could be used when comparing alternative
flood preparedness systems may relate to socio-economic and financial feasibility,
related investment and operational costs, degree of intervention in the natural regime,
stress to ecosystems and humans, use of energy and raw materials, and safety, risk and
reliability issues, and opportunities for reversibility (flexibility) and rehabilitation
(Kundzewicz, 1999).

F L O O D P R O T E C T I O N IN T H E C O N T E X T O F S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y

There exist a roster of strategies for reducing flood losses by flood protection and
management. They may modify:
(a) Susceptibility to flood damage.
(b) Flood waters.
(c) Impact of flooding (during and after a flood).
Flood protection measures can be structural ("hard") or non-structural ("soft"). Dams
and flood control reservoirs, diversions, etc. belong to the category of structural flood
mitigation measures. Constructing reservoirs where the excess water can be stored
allows a regulated temporal distribution of streamflow and helps alleviate the flood
problem by flattening destructive flood peaks.
364 Zbigniew W. Kundzewicz

A sample of possible non-structural (soft) means include:

(a) Zoning, regulation for flood hazard areas development leaving flood plains with
low-value infrastructure, e.g. vegetation occasionally flooded.
(b) Flood mitigation system of forecasting, warning (issuing and dissemination), evac­
uation, relief and post-flood recovery.
(c) Flood insurance, that is division of risks and losses among a higher number of
people over a long time.
(d) Capacity building (improving flood awareness, understanding and preparedness),
enhancing participatory approaches.
An important flood protection measure is source control, i.e. watershed management
including land use and soil conservation to minimize surface runoff, erosion and
sediment transport. The idea of source control—catching water where it falls—is
implemented by such measures as enhancing infiltration (reduced impermeable area,
enhancing pervious pavements and parking lots), local storage (ponds, building), and
groundwater storage (Kundzewicz & Takeuchi, 1999). Enhancing retention counters
the adverse effects of urbanization (growth of flood peak, drop in time-to-peak of a
hydrograph, drop in roughness coefficient and in storage potential) and of
channelization (faster flood conveyance through shortened and straightened rivers).
Many objects of flood protection infrastructure have been criticized in the context
of sustainable development as solutions closing options for future generations and
introducing unacceptable disturbance to ecosystems (cf. Takeuchi et ai, 1998). Yet,
the strategy for major cities along large rivers in Japan, where absolutely no
embankment collapse is allowed, includes protection by "super levees" which are high
and 300-500 m wide (Kundzewicz & Takeuchi, 1999).
Soft measures that do not involve large structural components can be rated as more
sustainable than hard measures, yet the latter may be indispensable in particular
circumstances. A distributed small-scale structural approach, such as source control,
flood proofing, building codes, extending permeable areas etc, is also sustainable.
Gardiner (1995) compared flood defence options and assessed their performance
from the viewpoint of sustainable development by using the criteria mentioned earlier.
In his rating, source control received very good marks in all categories, while
channelized river was found to be bad to very bad according to all criteria. He also
noted that, among the many advantages of source control, it conserves resources,
buffers systems from possible climate change impacts, conserves energy through
increasing retention "at source", promotes biodiversity by retaining water, improves
self-sufficiency and recharges groundwater.
Table 1 shows a roster of components of pre-flood preparedness and the author's
rough assessment of their compliance with the spirit of sustainable development.

CONCLUSIONS—LIVING WITH FLOODS

Since a flood protection system guaranteeing absolute safety is an illusion, a change of

paradigm is needed: it is necessary to live with the awareness of the possibility of
floods. No matter how high the design flood of a structural defence, there is always the
possibility of a greater flood, causing losses.
 Flood protection in the context of sustainable development 365

Table 1 Components of pre-flood preparedness vs sustainability.

Flood preparedness measures Compliance with

sustainability
Construction of physical flood defence infrastructure LtoM
Zoning, development control within the flood plains M to H
Source control, land-use planning and management M to H
Developing flood forecasting and warning systems M to H
Building codes, flood proofing L to H
Disaster contingency planning and maintenance of preparedness of community H
self-protection activities
Installation of insurance schemes L to H
Capacity building, improving flood awareness, understanding and preparedness H
H - high, M - medium, L ~~ low.

The policy of fail-safe systems is now giving place to safe-fail. It is impossible to

design a system that never fails (fail-safe). What is needed is to design a system that
fails in a safe way (safe-fail). Rather than trying, in vain, to eradicate floods, one could
accommodate them in one's planning and learn to live with them. Kundzewicz &
Takeuchi (1999) give examples of the implementation of this notion.
In southeast Asia people have been virtually "living with floods". In the lower
Mekong River and the River Chao Phraya, floating rice was a common species in the
deep flood plain. It grew as water levels rose, and could grow to as tall as 10 m. People
used to harvest the rice from boats by cutting only the grain part above the water. Even
though productivity was quite low, such a lifestyle was maintained over a thousand
years, relying upon the regular occurrence of seasonal floods.
There was a rule in old Nagoya, Japan, whereby the eastern dike of the Kiso River
was kept 30 cm lower than that of the western side of the river protecting the western
district where a more powerful Daimyo (King) was ruling. People on the eastern side
then created many Waju's (circular dikes) around their villages. A boat was kept under
cover in every household ready to be used in emergency.
Which flood protection measures are definitely sustainable? There is no doubt that
source control and soft approaches belong to this category. Yet, this is not sufficient as
a remedy against extreme floods and, in particular, urban flooding. Despite the
criticism of structural flood protection measures, they are needed to safeguard existing
developments, in particular in urban areas. An effective flood protection system is
therefore a mix of structural and non-structural measures.
A statement from Smith & Ward (1998, p.5) lends itself well for the finale:
"(f)luvial channels can carry only a fraction of the flood flows so that the remainder
must spill on to the flood plain. In flood conditions, therefore, channels and their
adjacent flood plains are complementary and together form the proper conveyance for
the transmission of flood water. In many cases even major floods simply spill their
waters on to unoccupied flood plains or "washlands" where they do little damage and
may even be beneficial, as in arid zones, where irrigation and soil fertilization may
depend on the natural flooding of rivers. Floods constitute a "hazard" only when
human encroachment into flood-prone areas has occurred".
A recommendation of the US Interagency Floodplain Management Review
Committee after the great flood of 1993 is that federal, state and local governments and
366 Zbigniew W. Kundzewicz

those who live or have an interest in the flood plain should have responsibility for
development and fiscal support of flood-plain management activities (Galloway,
1999). The Committee recommended that the administration should fund the
acquisition of needed lands from willing sellers and the buyout of structures at risk in
the flood plain. The number of families voluntarily relocated from the vulnerable
flood-plain locations in the Mississippi basin and in other regions in the U S A is of the
order of 20 000 (Galloway, 1999).
The consequences of inherited non-sustainable development, such as elimination
of wetlands and replacing flood storage in flood plains by settlements and
infrastructure, can be overcome if humans move out of harm's way. When adequate
flood protection cannot be provided, permanent evacuation of flood plains is a viable
option that definitely belongs to sustainable development. This issue deserves the
development of global strategies and research activity to engender understanding and
execution of this option.

A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t Financial support from the Committee for Scientific Research

(KBN) o f t h e Republic of Poland through Grant no. 6P04G03814 (Water Resources
for Sustainable Development) provided to the author is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES

Environment A g e n c y ( U K ) ( 1998) An Action Plan for Flood Defence. Environment Agency, London.
G a l l o w a y , G. E. ( 1 9 9 9 ) T o w a r d s sustainable m a n a g e m e n t of river basins: challenges for the 21st century. In: Ribamod.
River Basin Modelling, Management and Flood Mitigation. Concerted Action (ed. by P. Balabanis, A. Bronstert,
R. C a s a l e & P. Samuels) (Proc. final w o r k s h o p , Wallingford, 2 6 - 2 7 February 1998), 2 3 5 - 2 5 0 . Office for Official
Publications o f t h e European C o m m u n i t i e s , L u x e m b o u r g .
Gardiner, J. ( 1 9 9 5 ) D e v e l o p i n g Hood defence as a sustainable hazard alleviation measure. Chapter 1.2 in: Defence from
Floods andFloodplain Management (ed. by .1. Gardiner et al.), 1 3 - 4 0 . Kluwer, Dordrecht, T h e Netherlands.
I U C N (International Union for Conservation of Nature) ( 1991 ) Caring for the Earth, a Strategy for Sustainable Living.
UJCN, U N E P & W W F , Earthscan, London.
K u n d z e w i c z , Z. W. (ed.) ( 1 9 9 8 ) C o m p a r a t i v e assessment of reservoirs with non-reservoir alternatives. In: Sustainable
Reservoir Development and Management (ed. by K. T a k e u c h i , M. Hamlin, Z. W. K u n d z e w i c z , D. Rosbjerg &
S. P. Simonovic), 6 3 - 8 0 . I A H S Publ. no. 2 5 1 .
K u n d z e w i c z , Z. W. ( 1 9 9 9 ) Flood protection—sustainability issues. Hydrol. Sci. J. 4 4 ( 4 ) , 5 5 9 - 5 7 1 .
K u n d z e w i c z , Z. W. & T a k e u c h i , K. ( 1 9 9 9 ) Flood protection and m a n a g e m e n t : q u o vadimus? Hvdrol. Sci. J. 4 4 ( 3 ) ,
417^132.
K u n d z e w i c z , Z. W., Gottschalk, L. & W e b b . B. (eds) ( 1987) Hydrology 2000. I A H S Publ. no. 1 7 1 .
Smith, K. & Ward, R. ( 1 9 9 8 ) Floods: Physical Processes and Human Impacts. Wiley, Chichester, UK.
T a k e u c h i , K., Hamlin, M., K u n d z e w i c z , Z. W., Rosbjerg, D. & Simonovic, S. P. (eds) ( 1 9 9 8 ) Sustainable Reservoir
Development and Management. I A H S Publ. no. 2 5 1 .
W C E D (World C o m m i s s i o n on Environment and D e v e l o p m e n t ) ( 1 9 8 7 ) Our Common Future (The Brundtland Report).
Oxford University Press, Oxford.